In principle, this is true, but in many cases the responsible party is very well-known and yet there is active resistance from the British Museum to repatriate the plundered items. For example, the Parthenon Marbles.
> For example, the Parthenon Marbles.
Can you clarify this?
There is a literal museum in Greece containing every part that wasn't stolen this way, in their exact original placement, waiting for the stolen pieces to be returned to complete it. And the British are still resistant.
Does this make it invalid?
For example the Koh-i-Noor diamond passed through many hands, often through conquest. And perhaps the ruler who originally owned it didn't obtain it through entirely fair means.
2. It’s not misdirection it’s a prioritization of claims. The British Museum’s claim is weaker than all regional inheritors. Therefore, picking one is a better solution than the British Museum keeping it.
Why? If one of the regional inheritors only possessed it in the first place because it stole it from somebody else (albeit a long time ago), what makes their claim more valid?
> 1. Most Mexicans or Peruvians have indigenous ancestry, they are not exclusively (or even mostly) descendants of the Spanish. It would be better to return those artifacts to the descendants of those from whom it was stolen.
This is an "easy to say, near-impossible to do" task that's been shoved with little effort from the proposer onto the museum staff. Short of comprehensive DNA analysis, finding the proper descendants for a particular artifact is not trivial. The response given does not take into account multiple competing claims towards the artifact, nor the possibility of all descendants that could properly claim it being dead, whether natural or not.
>> 2. Some items have complex histories, where multiple competing countries could all claim it as part of their history. Where the item was found is not the end of the story. Items from Greece, Turkey, Cyprus for example.
> 2. Who has an even weaker claim than all other claimants? The British Museum.
Calling misdirection on this response: It does not properly address the original question posed.
In an attempt to give a proper solution: Items with histories from multiple countries will have to put it into a round-robin-style sharing agreement, where the item/artifact will pass through the countries one by one before circling back.