One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
No. But two wrongs don't make a right.
> a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality?
When the thieves illegally steal a nation's artifacts and illegally sell them to a private buyer? Yes.
> One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
... he said, from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
you paint an unfair picture.
you fail to mention that, in the case of this argument at least, preserving the artifact by means of foreign intervention may very well result in the starvation of the would-be local thieves.
many would argue that the loss of any human life is greater than the loss of all the world's artifacts.
It isn't really that unfounded a concept.
A well studied and documented artifact has only a specific amount of practical importance, aside from some sort of cultural significance. A human life has an unknown future, be it good or evil -- and unlimited (human) possibility if given the opportunities.
It's a fairly simple value proposition when simplified unreasonably this way : "Do you let another human die for the sake of storing an already studied artifact in a location where the object is safer?"
Do you want to share the natural resources of your own nation with others for free? If not, how on earth is it OK to snatch that of others from them, just because they fit your historical curiosity? This is basically saying we are superior people, and we need to keep things away from the hand of barbarians.