Fossil repatriation is back on the agenda (#IrritatorBelongstoBR)

The case of “Ubirajara jubatus,” a small Brazilian dinosaur which had been unlawfully moved to Germany in 2006 and returned to its country of origin in 2023, shook palaeontology. It was the most visible fossil repatriation controversy in recent years, featuring strong opinions, overwhelming public engagement under the #UbirajaraBelongstoBR, and the involvement of diplomatic channels. Right after the return of “Ubirajara jubatus” to Brazil, another controversy broke. This one concerned the holotype of Irritator challengeri, another Brazilian dinosaur, housed in another German museum. Scientists and the general public pushed for its return under the #IrritatorBelongstoBR—but the fossil remains in Germany to this day. Now, a new campaign is trying to bring the fossil back to Brazil for good.

Discovering and debating Irritator

I've covered the cases of Ubirajara jubatus and Irritator challengeri in-depth in an article published in 2023; here's a TL;DR version of the background to the current repatriation controversy. The holotype specimen of Irritator challengeri left Brazil some time before 1990 and acquired by the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart (SMNS) in 1991. When describing the new genus and species in 1996, the authors disclosed that the fossil had been artificially altered---causing an irritation to them after which they named the genus. In May 2023, a study reassessing the fossil sparked outrage: its ethics statement claimed that the fossil had been lawfully exported and subsequently become property of the state of Baden-Württemberg. Under the #IrritatorBelongstoBR, scientists and the general public, predominantly from Brazil, advocated for the return of the holotype specimen to Brazil.

I’ve covered the cases of “Ubirajara jubatus” and Irritator challengeri in-depth in an article published in 2023; here’s a TL;DR version of the background to the current repatriation controversy. The holotype specimen of Irritator challengeri left Brazil some time before 1990 and acquired by the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart (SMNS) in 1991. When describing the new genus and species in 1996, the authors disclosed that the fossil had been artificially altered—causing an irritation to them after which they named the genus. In May 2023, a study reassessing the fossil sparked outrage: its ethics statement claimed that the fossil had been lawfully exported and subsequently become property of the state of Baden-Württemberg. Under the #IrritatorBelongstoBR, scientists and the general public, predominantly from Brazil, advocated for the return of the holotype specimen to Brazil.

An open letter to the Minister

When two authors of the reassessment study came out in support of returning the fossil, I proposed a joint initiative that brought together:

• Serjoscha Evers and Olof Moleman (two of the authors);
• Aline Ghilardi and Juan Cisneros (two Brazilian palaeontologists fighting for the decolonisation of science);
• Emma Dunne (the researcher behind trailblazing research about social justice in palaeontology);
• and myself.

Together, we drafted an open letter to Petra Olschowski, the State Minister of Science, Research, and Art of Baden-Württemberg. In it, we highlighted our legal and ethical concerns and recommended a systematic review of the provenance of the Brazilian fossils in state collections and their legal acquisition.

Within a few weeks, 263 professionals from the field of palaeontology and 1,657 members of the general public signed our letter. Brazilian media reported extensively about it. On 18 September 2023, we submitted the letter to the Ministry. A spokesperson replied on 18 October 2023, informing us that the Ministry was conducting a comprehensive legal assessment of the case (under consideration of our concerns).

#IrritatorBelongstoBR reloaded

I do not know whether anything has happened ever since; to my knowledge, there is no publicly available information that we’ve moved any closer to a return of the holotype. It seems like Aline Ghilardi has had enough of this inertia: on 6 April 2025, she launched a new social media campaign. Her posts are spreading awareness for the case of Irritator challengeri and the decolonisation of palaeontology and science in general. In addition, she’s calling people on Twitter, Instagram, and Bluesky to action and invites them to:

• Share her thread
• Use the hashtag #IrritatorBelongsToBR
• Create protest art and videos
• Talk about the case on social media
• Comment on the museum’s social media accounts

I very much resonate with the goals of the campaign and firmly support it. Moreover, I am glad that its focus has shifted slightly away from the SMNS, and more towards the Ministry and the government of Baden-Württemberg. The first person to suggest this (to my knowledge) was Skye McDavid, and I think targeting the Ministry instead of the SMNS holds a lot of potential for legal reasons.

The holotype of Irritator challengeri forms part of the collection of a public institution, which makes it national cultural property within the meaning of Section 6, paragraph 2 of Germany’s Cultural Property Protection Act. As a consequence, it cannot be exported without a license (Section 23, paragraph 2), and doing so nonetheless can be punished with a fine or up to five years’ imprisonment (Section 83, paragraph 1, no. 1). Admittedly, I don’t think that the museum actually owns the fossil (because it did not acquire good title to it)¹ so these provisions do not apply in my opinion. However, that doesn’t change how the SMNS and Ministry see things, and I assume they consider a license necessary for the permanent export of the fossil. Therefore, the Ministry is the place where a decision on the return of the fossil will have to be made. Here, the Ministry can also overrule the museum; it did so with respect to the fossil of “Ubirajara jubatus” which the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart had been reluctant to repatriate. This is not to put words in the mouth of the SMNS (which, to my knowledge, has not made public statements about the repatriation request) but to underline that the pressure should be put on the institution that is actually calling the shots.

Decolonisation and equity in science

I believe that the return of scientific specimens to their territories of origin, if so requested, is an essential component of decolonising science. Repatriation is tangible, material, and not just a metaphor. It promotes equity in the distribution of what I call secondary benefits derived from scientific materials. As opposed to the primary benefits, namely, scientific knowledge which, in principle, benefits everyone equally,² the secondary benefits relate to things like:

• the scientific reputation for an institution or scientist(s) that comes with the publication of their findings;
• the reputation and revenue for those museums that get to display the materials;
• the revenue from tourism associated with the natural heritage of a given region;
• the opportunity to engage a local public and train scientists using high-quality resources;
• etc.

Obtaining these benefits requires physical access to the scientific materials, which is, in principle, zero-sum: only one entity can have it at a time. Therefore, as a function of the highly uneven global distribution of, for example, the fossil record, these secondary benefits are just as unevenly distributed. Put differently, if charismatic Brazilian fossils are in Germany, it is only German institutions and locally-based researchers who benefit from them, and I do not think that this is just. That many of these fossils have made their way into collections abroad in violation of Brazilian law only adds a layer of illegality onto a deeply unethical status quo. This needs to change.