In response to stagnated repatriation efforts in the 32 years since the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) became law, a proposed rule to revise implementation regulations was entered into the federal register in October 2022; 181 written comments on the proposed changes were submitted to regulations.gov, representing input from Native nations, the general public, universities, museums, and other individuals and entities engaged in NAGPRA work. Although the comments were publicly available, their quantity and format presented barriers to access. Interested parties could search for and read individual comments, but it was difficult to get an overall impression of demographic or feedback trends among respondents. I undertook a rigorous, independent analysis of the submitted written comments with the goals of (1) providing NAGPRA practitioners with a “snapshot” view of attitudes toward the proposed regulations; (2) considering more closely the responses of NAGPRA stakeholders, in particular Native nations; (3) summarizing the shared and specific concerns of Native respondents; and (4) highlighting the degree to which those concerns were addressed in the issuance of the Final Rule. I hope that this analysis helps focus the lens of NAGPRA praxis in the present moment more squarely on the needs and concerns of the descendant communities most affected by the Act.

Alisha Sijapati and Erin Thompson’s article “Making a market for ‘The Art of Nepal’: Tracing the flow of Nepali cultural property into the United States” makes a series of unsubstantiated claims about the nature and scope of the Nepali antiquities market in the 1950s and 1960s based on the authors’ research of a single 1964 exhibition of Nepali antiquities in the United States. This critical response will contest these claims by examining the broader Nepali antiquities market as it existed prior to 1970, particularly within Nepal and in South Asia, while also locating the authors and their claims in the context of the recent repatriation campaign by Nepali activists. Finally, the response will conclude that if there is to be an ethical turn in voluntary repatriation, there must be greater consideration of contexts beyond the West and a refocusing of provenance research beyond Western collectors and institutions.

Legacy collections frequently originate from Indigenous archaeological sites with extensive histories of investigation and removal by numerous institutions and individuals. These “split” collections complicate institutional compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; 25 U.S.C. § 3001-13) , in part by hindering the identification of cultural items, including associated and unassociated funerary objects. In aligning with the spirit of NAGPRA and following guidance received during consultation with Tribal Nations, institutional NAGPRA practitioners strive to repatriate the Ancestors removed from these locations whole, both in body and cultural items, facilitating a respectful return to living communities. Moreover, collaborating across institutions and in coordination with Tribal Nations has the potential both to lessen the burden on Tribal Nations and minimize repetitive trauma brought about by multiple repatriations of Ancestors and cultural items from the same site. Accomplishment of this repatriation goal often requires cross-institutional collaboration to reconcile these legacy “split collections.” In this article, we present the roadmap developed and used by the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh and the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee for repatriation with split collections, with some considerations for fruitful interinstitutional collaboration.

This article contributes to the debate on illicit antiquities and deterrence. First, I briefly examine what has been written about deterrence in the literature on illicit antiquities. Second, I review the criminological research literature on deterrence to define the concept and explain its mechanics; that is, how, according to the best state of current knowledge, deterrence “works” to persuade people not to commit crime. Third, I consider what this criminological knowledge base means for deterrence in the field of illicit antiquities. Deterrence remains a developing idea, rich with practical implications for crime prevention but also harboring some profound unresolved questions about precisely what drives human action in certain contexts. Nonetheless, we can aim to gain a more rounded understanding of the concept than has previously been applied to illicit antiquities studies.

“Sovereign Objects: International Dimensions of Indigenous Repatriation in Canada” explores the complexities of cultural repatriation in Canadian museums, advocating for its recognition as an international issue. By framing repatriation this way, the study acknowledges Indigenous sovereignty and aligns with international legal standards such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The international approach enhances political, social, and cultural outcomes for First Nations peoples, providing a robust legal framework and fostering greater recognition of Indigenous nations as sovereign entities. The manuscript highlights the importance of acknowledging the distinct cultural and political status of Indigenous communities, supported by historical treaties and contemporary legal recognition. It provides case studies, such as the repatriation of human remains from the Royal Ontario Museum to the Rainy River First Nations, to illustrate the practical application of these principles. The study also critically examines the challenges of adopting the discourse of “nations,” including the technical, political, social, and cultural expectations involved. By redefining repatriation as an international issue, this research promotes a deeper understanding of Indigenous sovereignty and facilitates more effective and culturally sensitive repatriation efforts. The manuscript argues that such an approach is essential for ensuring that repatriation processes are respectful, equitable, and aligned with the unique governance structures of Indigenous communities.

This article assesses the planning, management and repatriation of Japanese civilians in Shanghai between 1945 and 1948. It examines four interwoven dimensions of this history. The first is the removal of Japanese expatriates as the centerpiece of the Kuomintang and Allied Powers' project to end Japanese colonialism once and for all. The second is how the Japanese community continued to exert a degree of autonomy and agency under the extremely unfavorable postwar circumstances. The third is the nature of postwar attempts to match each person with a definitive ethnic-national category. The fourth is how postwar history was experienced at the individual level among Japanese of different social strata and experiences.

Four ugui portraits of kings of the Okinawan kingdom of Lūchū (Ryūkyū) were returned to Okinawa in March 2024 along with sixteen other artifacts stolen by American soldiers during the 1945 Battle of Okinawa. These are the first such royal portraits to be confirmed extant, and the first such royal treasures to be recovered since 1953. This essay describes the repatriated portraits, as well as the theft and search for the royal treasures looted in 1945 and their cultural and emotional significance for a people who lost a great volume of their tangible heritage in World War II.

This essay focuses on the historical memory of Korean repatriation in postwar Japan, by examining the commemoration of the Ukishima-maru incident in which thousands of forced laborers died when their ship sank after striking a mine. We show how local memory activists in Maizuru and Shimokita mobilised to present an alternative narrative to that on display at the Maizuru Repatriation Memorial Museum which overlooks Korean repatriation. It shows how despite limited means they were able to build a network of memory activists that transcends local and national borders.

This article reproduces documents related to an aborted SCAP war crime investigation into the Ukishima-maru incident conducted during the Allied occupation of Japan. The incident involved the sinking of a repatriation vessel (the Ukishima-maru) on 24 August 1945 after it apparently struck a mine in Maizuru Bay, causing hundreds if not thousands of deaths among the Korean forced laborers aboard the vessel. The documents include the testimonies of Korean survivors (submitted in Japanese and translated into English by SCAP officers) which supported the claim that the incident was planned by the Japanese authorities. Though the investigation was eventually terminated by SCAP which dismissed the testimonies as “hearsay account[s]”, the documents are a useful window into the tense situation faced by Koreans in Japan during the immediate postwar years and cast light on the nature and quality of SCAP efforts to pursue justice in its investigation.

On December 14, 1959, amidst much fanfare and tears, the first repatriation boat (provided by the Soviet Union) carried thousands of Koreans from Niigata, Japan, to Cheongjin, North Korea. Hailed as a humanitarian project under the intermediation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the repatriation of Koreans from Japan to North Korea continued until 1984, resulting in a total of more than 93,000 repatriates who relocated from Japan to North Korea amidst the Cold War division of the world with the majority never to return to Japan again. This article addresses multiple aspects of this project, looking into the media portrayal of North Korea at the time of the opening of the repatriation and the more recent academic discussion following the de-classification of the International Committee of the Red Cross papers. Based on these, the article frames the repatriation in a new light with the suggestion of possibly thinking about it as a form of human trafficking without reducing it into a one-dimensional political event or conspiracy by one government or another. Instead, the article emphasizes that the structure of power that sustained the repatriation was complex and so were the lives that repatriates experienced.

Repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects under NAGPRA and the increased use of culturally informed curation practices for sacred, religious, and ceremonial objects are important steps toward restoring control over cultural patrimony to Native Nations in the United States. Many museums holding Indigenous belongings have begun a collaborative care approach involving Indigenous community voices and improving access to collections. However, this framework has not been applied to many animal remains curated in American archaeology museums, which remain broadly beyond the care or administrative purview of Native people. Because many Indigenous worldviews do not hold a clear separation between the human and animal spheres, common practices applied to animal remains are not congruent with the idea of respectful or culturally informed care. Here we outline steps to shift the treatment of animals through the application of Indigenous knowledge to museum collections.

Deprivation of national citizenship is one of the strategies used to counter the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters, that is, individuals traveling abroad for the purpose of terrorism. This Article begins with a short overview of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the deprivation of citizenship. In these cases, the contestation of the deprivation of citizenship was based on the infringement of the rights to private and family life. We then turn to the limits imposed by EU law on decisions made by national authorities of Member States concerning citizenship deprivation of foreign terrorist fighters. Focusing on recent cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the European citizenship, we address the evolving role that EU law plays in the assessment of the proportionality of Member States’ decisions to strip individuals of national citizenship. We also consider the national practice, focusing on a recent decision in Denmark. In addition, we consider legal issues arising from the repatriation of Foreign Terrorist Fighters and their children. We argue that EU citizenship thus offers a further layer of protection against the deprivation of citizenship and that Member States are under a positive obligation to repatriate EU citizens who are the children of Foreign Terrorist Fighters on account of the case-law stemming from the Ruiz-Zambrano and X (Thai national) cases. For the moment, no common approach to repatriation of foreign fighters, or their children, is taken by EU member States in the context of the EU.

The so-called “Prakhon Chai Hoard” is one of Southeast Asia’s most infamous cases of looting. The story begins in 1964 when a cache of Buddhist bronzes from Northeast Thailand appeared on the international art market via the auction house Spink & Son, London. They quickly ended up in museums and private collections throughout the US and Europe. The exact findspot was unclear but soon became associated with an unidentified temple in Prakhon Chai district in Buriram province. The moniker “Prakhon Chai Hoard/bronzes” subsequently took hold, becoming commonplace in museum displays, dealer/auction house catalogs, and art historical discourse. However, in 2002, it was revealed the temple in question was Plai Bat II in Lahan Sai district.

This article untangles the many myths and misunderstandings surrounding this act of looting. It does so by reviewing the extant literature in light of information revealed by criminal investigations into the late Douglas Latchford from 2012 onwards, and presenting conclusions drawn from our decade-long documentation of villager testimonies at Plai Bat II (2014–2024).