The scheme has also been criticized by some scholars as legalizing looting, promoting the removal of artifacts by amateurs. Proponents of the plan counter that the looting was happening already and that the scheme encourages those who have looted to at least document what was taken and from where, preserving minimal cultural context.So it looks like that in the eyes of critics and proponents of the PAS (at least in the eyes of the Milken Institute Report) that looting of archaeological sites takes place.
But is the report suggesting that looting is acceptable so long as the finds are documented? Does this miss the point about damaged and lost archaeological contexts?
But perhaps the Milken Institute's report was more about the "discovery" of archaeological finds than the recording and interpretation of them.