Should Archaeologists Remove Artifacts

Artifacts have been put into museums for many people, of different cultures and ethnicities, to see, uncover, and discover. Although, other artifacts have stayed in their original locations for people, of that culture, to learn what their society was and to learn about their great heritage. The issue to grapple with in this situation is: should archaeologists remove artifacts from their original historic sites and place them in museums, or should they leave the objects in their original locations? Looking at both sides of this controversy, it is clear that archaeologists should remove artifacts from their place of origin and place them into museums for everyone to see. This is bolstered by evidence from four reliable sources which include the fact that:

When the artifacts’ place of origin start to deteriorate, it will cause damage to the artifact. Lastly, relocating artifacts to museum allow the rest of the world to learn of different cultures, ways of life, and discover new things. In different museums, around the world, artifacts will be away from the threat that is war and dispute; the priceless artifacts won’t get caught in the crossfire. When the artifacts stay in their places of origin, it makes them more vulnerable to being destroyed beyond saving. For example, in Iraq extremists who sought out to, “eviscerate a culture and rewrite history in its own brutal image.” “ISIS Raises Fears. . .” (CBS) destroyed many historical sites along with their priceless artifacts. Such as, Nimrud, a city in the Assyrian kingdom, which flourished between 900 and 612 B.C.E.. It is significant because of the fact that, works and frescoes from Nimrud are celebrated around the world and their literature as well as sacred texts are revered. ISIS