I recently had a conversation where people argued that artifacts taken by European colonial powers shouldn’t be returned to their countries of origin. The reasoning was that these artifacts would be destroyed, not properly preserved, or that local cultures don’t care about their own history — and therefore don’t deserve to have them back. This argument is often used to justify keeping looted objects in European museums.

But this seems deeply contradictory to me, especially considering that many of these same colonial powers also destroyed or looted countless monuments, temples, codices, and other cultural artifacts during their rule. It feels disingenuous to claim preservation while erasing and exploiting entire cultures.

How accurate is the idea that Western museums have always been better at preserving artifacts? Is there any truth to the claim that source communities neglected their own heritage? And how does this hold up in light of the fact that many museums have engaged in illegal artifact trading, have damaged pieces in their care, or have locked them away in storage — unseen by the public for decades?