The Impact of Looting according to the Aspect of Archeology

Introduction

The recent studies show that there is an approach shown amongst people to loot the materials from the archaeological sites for the sake of monetary benefits. Sir John Boardman, Roger Atwood, Colin Renfrew, and Kwame Appiah agreed to this fact and condemn this approach. However, this practice is not supposed to be desirable as it takes away the essence of the material by relocating it away from the ancient site and gather profits on them. Moreover, Renfrew highlights this practice as “an unmitigated and continuing catastrophe for the world's archaeological heritage”. Whereas, Boardman condemn it to a greater extent and highlights it as a criminal act; thus, the people who are practicing this should be placed behind the bars, or fined accordingly (Boardman, 114). The definite problem associated with this practice is that the absolute essence is taken away once the artifacts move away from its natural surroundings.

Discussion

One of the crucial element attach with the field of archeology is the extrapolation of cultural and anthropological interpretation gather by these artifacts which highlights the different cultural and hereditary values of the human race. However, it communicates the social and cultural values of the past, also inform us about the making of it; moreover, context assists us a look into the history. On the contrary, the looting demolishes the proof of the heritage. Furthermore, literary writings serve as an informative material for the people related to this problem. Similarly, Colin Renfrew, Roger Atwood, Kwame Appiah, and Sir John Boardman have also highlighted in this issue. However, each author marks diverse viewpoints in contrast of success of international laws for the looting of artifacts. Some of the historical pieces have a higher importance and concern to be of greater value than other pieces. When we read the academic material written by Renfrew and Boardman it clearly shows the concern in their minds for the looting of artifacts. It is beneficial to inform this valuable information to the audience, who reads educational material, but there is other diverse group of people who got involved in looting, also the one who get affected by this criminal activity of looting artifacts. On the contrary, Atwood and Appiah present a broader perspective which assists in understanding the arguments suggested by Boardman and Renfrew. They provided a decent argument to maintain the understanding of their suggestion. “Most significant cause of the destruction of the archaeological heritage today” (Renfrew 15) this statement by Renfrew clearly highlights looting as the main reason behind this issue. On the other hand, Boardman does not clearly agree with Renfrew that collecting the artifacts in crime. Boardman highlights the legislation to be the problem for not considering the looting of heritage as crime and providing freedom to such people. We can clearly see the whole time in the papers that the authors provide satisfactory arguments along with proofs to sustain their opinion.

Both of them, Boardman and Renfrew, are undoubtedly worried for the academic detection of ...