If you say that tomb raiders primarily want money and archeologists primarily want knowledge, then I would say that the manual laborers that work for the archeologist primarily want money.
If you say that an expedition made up of only volunteers would not be tomb raiders, then I would say that gaining knowledge is a form of making a profit in the sense that knowledge is a good that can be traded with others.
If you say that the buried people would consent to an archeological exposition and not consent to a raid, then I would give a slightly sly comment along the lines of 'Citation Needed'.
If you say, "Because modern society allows for archeological expositions and human nature does not change with time, then ancient societies would allow archeological expositions," then I would say that human nature does not change in the individual level, but it does on the social level e.g. different society have different views on pedophilia*. I would also preface this with a statement informing you that your second premise is debatable, but I will accept it as true, because we cannot debate about it without becoming sidetracked.
*To make sure that I did not say anything stupid, I read this paper on pedophilia in ancient Greece. It has one of the best sentences ever published in an academic setting: "The invalidity of their argument is due to the fact that they are going about everything in the wrong way.
So, what do you guys think?