I agree with the sentiment, but at a more abstract level it is almost as shaky that an Egyptian citizen today is entitled to art from the pharaonic times more than a British citizen today.
The stone was carved ~196 BC (Hellenistic period)
Circa 1470 AD the stone was taken (probably from the town of Sais) by slaves of Egyptian/Syrian Sultan Quaitbay for use as raw building material for a military Fort (Fort Jullien aka Fort of Qaitbey)
The French discovered it during Napoleon's Egypt/Syria campeign in 1799 AD
The British defeated the French and took the stone to London under the Capitulation of Alexandria in 1801 AD
> The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a larger stele. No additional fragments were found in later searches of the Rosetta site. Owing to its damaged state, none of the three texts is absolutely complete. The top register, composed of Egyptian hieroglyphs, suffered the most damage. Only the last 14 lines of the hieroglyphic text can be seen; all of them are broken on the right side, and 12 of them on the left. wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone
The point is that Britain has those artifacts now and Greece/Egypt/other countries want them back now.
Please do not pollute the conversation with strawmen. There are more options here than the two extremes. Take a look at the comment to which I was responding:
>...the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving
And take another look at my actual comment:
>This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time.
The comment to which I was responding presented an absurd and presumptive claim. Absurd claims should be called out for what they are, regardless of which 'side' you perceive to be strengthened or weakened by doing so.
My argument is that the comment to which I was responding was a non sequitur premised on a number of unstated assumptions. I threw in a few examples to invite the reader to think laterally, to investigate. You question my argument, so I wonder: Have you done so? Have you put the thought in to examine the claim made, and to see what other assumptions are being hidden?
Regarding the facts you emphasize, I don't agree that "only" is a good modifier to place before "100-200 years" in this context. The 2000-4000 years you mention is entirely irrelevant, given survivorship bias.
There are also indigenous australian remains and artefacts stolen and refused to be returned.
Stolen up into the mid 20th century.