103 P.F. Biehl and C. Prescott, Heritage in the Context of Globalization: Europe and the Americas, SpringerBriefs in Archaeology 8, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6077-0_13, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 Introduction Both of the authors of this chapter have experienced the rise of projects describing what they do as “Virtual Repatriation.” Both of the authors have also been involved for some time in collaborative data sharing between collecting institutions and source communities, so we both have a strong commitment to projects that seek to improve data sharing and even direct engagement of source communities with their patrimony. However, we have also been very concerned with the association of the term Repatriation with these projects of data sharing. In this chapter we seek to explain why we feel that the association of “virtual” and, especially, “repatriation” with these programs of data sharing is both inappro- priate and even perilous. We begin by presenting a few examples of data sharing projects as exemplars, and also our own project which seeks a different model of data sharing (the Zuni Collaborative Catalog). We then go on to define repatriation as a process of restitution of autochthonous material objects and practices, and how the use of the terms “virtual” and “repatriation” cannot be used in these contexts without accepting the full impact of the commanding praxis of these terms and their historical legacies. R. Boast (*) Capaciteitsgroep Mediastudies, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Turfdraagsterpad 9, 1012 XT Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: robinboast@gmail.com J. Enote (*) Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage Center, P.O. Box 1009, Zuni, NM 87327, USA e-mail: jimenote@mac.com Chapter 13 Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation Robin Boast and Jim Enote