PARIS: The Louvre Museum's stolen crown jewels have captured headlines and sparked a debate over their origins, leading experts to question the way Europe's great museums handle collections with questionable histories.

These treasures were French in craftsmanship but often had complex routes to Paris, which passed through colonial-era networks of trade and extraction, an uncomfortable aspect of Western museums' holdings that France, like many others, is only now beginning to confront.

The heist has drawn attention to the need for greater transparency regarding the provenance of artifacts.

Researchers have sketched a likely map of where some of these materials originated: sapphires from Sri Lanka, diamonds and emeralds with roots in India and Brazil, and pearls harvested from the Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

While this does not excuse theft, it complicates public understanding of what was lost.

"There is obviously no excuse for theft," said Emiline C.H. Smith, a criminologist at the University of Glasgow who studies heritage crime.

"But many of these objects are entangled with violent, exploitative, colonial histories".

She points out that even if there's no credible evidence the specific gems were stolen, what was legal in the imperial age could still be considered plunder today.

The Louvre provides limited information on how its crown jewels' raw materials were extracted.

The museum catalog describes the stolen diadem of Queen Marie-Amélie as set with "Ceylon sapphires" and bordered with diamonds in gold, but it does not address who mined these stones or under what terms they were taken.

Historian Pascal Blanchard explains that while the jewels were crafted by French artisans in Paris, many stones came from colonial circuits.

Critics argue that national outcry over stolen artifacts should be paired with an examination of how France acquired its imperial treasures.

India's fight to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond serves as a notable example of ongoing battles for restitutions.

The gem, likely originating in India's Golconda region like the Louvre's Regent diamond, passed through various courts before landing in British possession, where it is regarded differently depending on perspective.

France has moved incrementally towards restitution, passing laws enabling the return of treasures to Benin and Senegal, as well as Madagascar recovering the crown of Queen Ranavalona III.

However, critics argue that French law creates structural barriers to removals without parliamentary intervention, and museum practices can deter claims.

As the debate over colonial-era artifacts intensifies, experts like art-crime scholar Erin L.

Thompson advocate for more transparent labeling in museums, acknowledging origins, movements, and historical contexts.

Egyptian archaeologist Monica Hanna expects this heist to fuel broader discussions on restitution and transparency within Western institutions.