Argumentative Essay On Ancient Artifacts

I believe that ancient artifacts from many years ago should stay in their original location. Based on the four sources presented to me, I can draw proof and information to support my belief. First of all, digging up artifacts can begin conflicts between corporations and people, on who they belong to, who found them first, who should keep the objects, etc. This is all unnecessary, as simply leaving them where they were found is a better option. Since things get very fragile as they age, they can break easily as well. To add, people may steal artifacts if the location of some were released to the public. This will then brew even more issues, and can result in officials being brought into the situation. Therefore, I believe artifacts should be left where they belong, because that is where they were placed, and it is more respectful to people from long ago to do so.

This problem has been going on since the year 1920! Yale had originally agreed to borrow the valuable artifacts, such as vessels, statues, jewelry, and bones, for research, but then they had decided to keep them for longer. Peru wanted the objects belonging to them badly, because they held Peru’s heritage. Finally, in 2007, Yale gave in a bit. Both Yale and Peru agreed for Yale to select a few artifacts to be displayed in a museum. Fortunately, all of the items were returned years after that, and Peru now has its belongings, as mentioned in article three. I think that the 350 artifacts should not have been taken out of the ground in the first place, so none of the negotiating would have occured. This is one of the 4 reasons why artifacts should be left in their first place of resting. If they hadn’t, Peru’s sacred objects would not have been kept from them for over a