Many historical artifacts were obtained under conditions we would not repeat today. You could argue that almost all artifacts of other cultures in western museums are stolen, but not everyone goes that far.

The British Museum is embroiled in many such controversies[1] and has put up statements around their Parthenon sculptures[2]. Large artifacts have been returned by nation states[3].

Generally, as I understand it, museums will keep artifacts they obtained under a framework that was legal at the time of its construction. Modern critics point out that these legal frameworks likely would not have been accepted by the population of the country giving up the artifact.

The Hobby Lobby artifacts do not even have a questionable legal framework as a fig leaf over their theft. They were taken in violation of international law as well as Iraqi and US law.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/british-museum...

[2] https://www.britishmuseum.org/parthenon-sculptures-trustees-...

[3] https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/116

The British Museum was disappointing to me. I don't know what they're doing with the space, but if someone had told me that the British Museum was the same size as the Art Institute of Chicago it would have turned into an argument.

Meanwhile the Louvre is so big (>2.5x the size) that you have to pace yourself.

But that's not what was really disappointing. I had a vague comprehension that the British Museum contained artifacts that other countries wanted repatriated, and then I walked in and I knew. I knew exactly what they were talking about.

It didn't feel like a museum. It felt like I had wandered into a pirates treasure cave. Other museums have works that were purchased through channels, or loaned out. They have cultural artifacts and archaeological pieces that are contemporary to the region, offering vignettes into history, how we got to be here today.

I was just looking at colonial plunder. In an era where sane people would be scrambling to define themselves any other way.

> The British Museum was disappointing to me. I don't know what they're doing with the space, but if someone had told me that the British Museum was the same size as the Art Institute of Chicago it would have turned into an argument. Meanwhile the Louvre is so big (>2.5x the size) that you have to pace yourself.

Whaat! I visited the British museum for the first time a couple years ago. I spent two whole days there and still didn't see everything I wanted to!

> But that's not what was really disappointing. I had a vague comprehension that the British Museum contained artifacts that other countries wanted repatriated, and then I walked in and I knew. I knew exactly what they were talking about. It didn't feel like a museum. It felt like I had wandered into a pirates treasure cave.

However this, I get. I can definitely see that point of view dampening your experience.

> How does this tablet differ from any other artifact in a museum? Couldn't it be argued that any ancient artifact from another culture is stolen?

Lots of the early archeology exported antiquities legally. At the time most of the Middle East, Greece included, was ruled by the Ottoman Empire that granted official permissions for western archeologists to take objects or even whole buildings and edifices. I'm not well enough versed in the topic to know what deals covered these actions, whether they were shady in some degree or if the Empire just didn't care that much.

One of the more famous and contentious examples is the Elgin Marbles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles

> Lots of the early archeology exported antiquities legally. At the time most of the Middle East, Greece included, was ruled by the Ottoman Empire that granted official permissions for western archeologists to take objects or even whole buildings and edifices.

But this answer can't satisfy anyone who cares about the issue, because there's no good argument that these exports were legitimate, just legal. Compare the Soviet Union's early efforts to sell off treasure and art belonging to the Czar -- they couldn't do it, because no one would buy their stolen goods. (Eventually, this broke down as the Soviets stayed in power.)

Saying it's fine for the British Museum to have Greek antiquities because the Ottoman Empire, the mortal enemies of the Greeks, gave them permission to take whatever they wanted... looks ridiculous. Imagine China freely granting permission to foreign archaeologists to dismantle and export Tibetan palaces and monasteries.

I think it's basically a function of when the artifact was taken. Older generations (I'm thinking pre 1900s) of historians, archeologists and explorers didn't think anything of it. And often in the colonial era, there wasn't a native government or state that could take possession of those artifacts. From reading history books, I think there was more of a finders-keepers mentality back then. EDIT: from reading another comment, it seems like 1970 is the cut-off.

The same actions today would be considered deeply uncool (which they are IMO), and also illegal in many jurisdictions. It's not right for a country's cultural treasures to be put on display permanently (loans are OK, I guess) in a museum thousands of miles away where most of the people of that country have no chance of admiring them.

It also breaks apart a potential comprehensive collection. The Mayan collection from the Guatemalan government is currently in a traveling tour. Saw it in Vancouver as a special exhibit and it was a truly great exhibit that would be impossible if all those pieces were in different collections around the world.

the problem is that local (to the archaeological context) museums lose a lot of potential support when the most salient artifacts connected to the history of the community they serve are held in (or more likely, outright belong to) a much more comprehensive collection in a far away city that many of their patrons will never visit.

It's a thorny problem. That local and often very impoverished communities will value their history enough to pay the costs of protecting it from being (legally or illegally) sold off in bits to the international market, is not a given. Local museums are often a cornerstone of establishing that value.

The same way that we generally speaking don't respect land rights of native people who were displaced by settlers hundreds of years ago, but we do respect your land rights, if I were to displace you, by 'settling' into your house.

There's a gradient between the two, and the line between them tends to be drawn rather arbitrarily - but it does exist.

At one point in time that tablet was owned by an individual. Who is to say some artifact can only be owned by the originating geography’s government, and not an individual, or other government?

What matters most to me is whether it was stolen or whether it was legally sold, legally abandoned, etc

Every few years, there's a story about people wanting the Mona Lisa returned to Italy.

Recency.