I think the Stele of Hammurabi is interesting to consider through this lens. It was originally created in the 18th century BCE to glorify a Babylonian king in w

I think the Stele of Hammurabi is interesting to consider through this lens. It was originally created in the 18th century BCE to glorify a Babylonian king in what is now Iraq. In the 12th century BCE, an Elamite king conquered Babylon and took it back to the city of Susa (in modern day Iran). It's hypothesized that this king is responsible for erasure of a large portion of the cuneiform text, presumably to make room for a never-incised inscription attesting to the conquering king's glory. The stela was rediscovered in 1901 by French archeologists working with the permission of the local Qajar rulers, restored, and put on display in the Louvre. Should the stele go to the Iraqi government because they govern the area where it was originally created? Should it go to the Iranian government because archeologists discovered it at a site that's currently under the jurisdiction of Iran? Or should it remain with the French, who legitimately (at least, under the laws at the time) excavated it and took it to France? Arguments about the cultural heirs of the object are hard here. The stela depicts King Hammurabi being given the royal symbols of the rod and ring by the sun god Shamesh. The code is written in Akkadian, a language which was nearly dead by the time of Christ. It invokes Marduk, the god of Babylon who was part of a larger pantheon that was long ago forgotten. It's most potent, culturally, as a symbol of a glorious ancient past, albeit one that is utterly alien to the people who live in that region today. Assuming that the object belonged to the Iranian people, did the Qajar rulers have the authority to give it away to the French? At the time of the excavation, scholars in France were much better equipped to analyze and interpret the artifact than those in Iran and Iraq. Does that matter?