The matter of legitimate ownership over cultural artifacts has always been an area of great dispute as rediscovered treasures are claimed by actors of differing cultural backgrounds rather than the original proprietors, or appropriated over time through both force and miscommunication. Recently, there has been an influx of tension surrounding this topic as more actors begin to demand the repatriation or restitution of cultural artifacts directly linked to their historical identity or tradition. Unlike prior discourses on the matter however, new arguments are being crafted that utilize both moral reasoning and political analysis to support their claims. These arguments, both new and old, are now being joined with innovative responses that are attempting to resolve disputed matters concerning the ownership of cultural heritage objects. This paper details several frameworks that are established in either moral or political reasoning as the dispute over material culture continues. These frameworks examine the benefits of both preserving the objects within the cultures they currently reside or returning them to source cultures. The paper concludes with analysis of two of the most notorious material culture debates: the Parthenon Marbles and plundered Nazi war art. These two instances not only offer unique analysis on the current arguments being employed, but also review the validity of the claim of conservation over original ownership.