Why Is Looting Wrong

Looting has been a major issue in the art market since archeological discoveries have been uncovered in the 1800s, and has continued to be a problem to the modern day. It is widely disputed whether or not these looted artifacts should be valid documentation of the past which causes problems to arise in the archaeological world. When looted goods are found, there is a discussion amongst archaeologists about the validity of the artifacts and the next steps to be taken. Looting and the art market are problematic because it encourages forgery and the fact the artifacts are stripped of their cultural background however, even with new laws limiting the market, is unavoidable; but to discredit them as artifacts disregards the information that they

However often the looting of sites are perfectly legal, but it more often than not results in the destruction of the sight, which leads to sites being more closely guarded. These artifacts also are lead to an increasing amount of forgeries that make it more difficult for archaeologists to date and place pieces. It is a big issue due to the fact that there is such a high demand for artifacts to be sold. Looting not only destroys the stratigraphy of a site, but removes the context from the artifact, thus stripping it from its culture. As antiquities are the leading contributors to museum collections, it comes into another debate over whether the looting is a morally right thing to do. However much like the issue of forgery, it causes issues for archeologists as they lose the element of being an artifact when they become an antiquity in a museum, it loses their accessibility to archeologists. As an example, the Hope Dionysos from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as it is a famous statue that has been known through its antiquity status, rather than an artifact, but it is a well-known fact that it has been missing since

Many of these arguments place the responsibility of stopping looting by more closely watching archaeological sites while still facilitating the trade and sale of antiquities. However many of these arguments are still considered to be controversial as items lose their context once they leave their archaeological site. Miller again discusses how traders and dealers of antiquities believe in the aesthetic rather than the scientific and historical value, and believe that pieces, while pertinent to scientific discoveries, still deserve to be seen. This argument is flawed however, as it places archaeologists in a bad light, while it justifies Dealers and Traders in the Looting Market for showing pieces in museums that could still be seen on their site of origins. Another argument from an article on Internet Archaeology about the subject of Scottish Treasure Hunting: it examines how archaeologists are unwilling to place their discoveries in the public light, however their policies on looting reflects on the preservation and maintaining of portable antiquities while still allowing them to be seen. Which ultimately is a better argument, as it still looks to allow the archaeological perspective of maintaining the artifact