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?
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-...
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.
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.
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
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.
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'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.
There's a gradient between the two, and the line between them tends to be drawn rather arbitrarily - but it does exist.
What matters most to me is whether it was stolen or whether it was legally sold, legally abandoned, etc