The author lays a blueprint for distinctions between legal and moral rules and socially accepted behavior, situations in which these distinctions set different standards of conduct, and the relationship among them. Several of the more common paradigms of cultural property disputes are then fit into the patterns of legal and moral rules and obligations, thus establishing a framework for the discussion of how to evaluate ethical or moral behaviors in varying circumstances. The author also considers the relevance of deontological and consequentialist arguments for the return of cultural property, as well as avoidance strategies by which a country of origin can make a claim for restitution while ignoring the long-term questions of the legitimacy, power, and responsibilities of national governments. The author concludes by emphasizing the difficulties in basing arguments concerning cultural property on moral evaluations and conclusions.

After briefly discussing ethics in general, stating the public interest in cultural property, and positing that collecting and dealing in cultural objects are not inherently unethical activities, the writer contrasts ethical attitudes toward legal controls over the international movement of people and of cultural objects. He then discusses the ethical bases of cultural property export controls and ethical questions raised by dealing in and collecting cultural objects, and identifies particular applications of export controls that are ethically unproblematic or ethically clouded. He discusses the difficult area of antiquities and questions whether anyone involved in it - from source nations, archaeologists, and ethnographers to museums, collectors, and the art trade - has clean hands. Finally, he states a hypothetical case of invited theft and asks readers to decide what the ethical response would be.

Many institutions and organizations of professionals have promulgated 'codes' of ethics in recent years in order both to establish accepted practices of professionals in various disciplines and to deal with problems raised by the unique aspects of cultural heritage issues. The author follows the processes of formulation, role, influence, interpretation, and effectiveness of such codes, as well as their relationship to the legal system. While acknowledging that it is often difficult to enforce these codes, the author suggests that they serve a valuable role both in educating the members of the various organizations and the public and in establishing goals for which these professionals aspire.

A consideration of the U.S. initiatives in response to the loss of cultural property in Latin America and Canada, as seen by a participant in their formulation and implementation from 1969 to 1994; cultural and aesthetic viewpoints are seen to divide the cultural property constituencies, although the former is prevailing. The significance of the U.S. UNESCO cultural property implementing legislation for five requesting countries and for Mexico is discussed, with a final recommendation for its emendation so as to allow the United States to respond immediately to the requests of all parties to the convention.

In the United States, consideration of archaeological ethics has been relatively recent and concerned primarily with defining professionalism. By declaring that the past is a public heritage, claiming that archaeologists should be its stewards, and moving toward a positivist scientific approach, American archaeology has alienated its public. Prompted by pressure from Native Americans on the reburial issue, the Society for American Archaeology has attempted to address the problems by proposing an ethics code, but outsiders are likely to see the contradictions between stated principles and practice. These issues are examined from the perspective of the reburial issues, offering the possibility that an ethnocritical archaeology might provide mechanisms that will allow archaeologists to be more truly accountable and, in the long term, better stewards of the past.

The author portrays the indigenous populations who engage in subsistence digging of sites in Latin America both as a means of supporting themselves economically and as a way of connecting themselves to their past and their ancestors who left the buried remains as a type of gift to their descendants. The article is also critical of the mainstream archaeologists, who, according to the author, hide behind the veil of scientific objectivity. Finally, the author juxtaposes the varying competing interests, particularly against the backdrop of denial of basic human and economic rights in these regions, and poses the question, to whom should these cultural remains belong?

This article examines the codes of ethics of the British, Canadian, Australian, and American professional conservation organizations and evaluates their success in meeting the needs of the discipline as it grows and matures. Specific issues that are currently of concern to conservators are examined, including the application of a single document to a diverse profession, reversibility of treatment, preventive conservation, cultural sensitivity, and the antiquities trade. The fact that none of these codes are enforceable is considered as well as the issue of accreditation and what it means. While these codes are reasonably successful in setting forth the principles that should guide conservation work for straightforward cases, they are less successful in providing guidance for complex issues such as those presented by cultural sensitivity and the antiquities trade.

The ethics of dealing in antiquities may be discussed in two parts: first, the ethical standards that govern the trade and its relation to clients, and second, the new legal standards that affect dealers and collectors arising from political ambitions in the international relations between source and market nations. Friction between these competing interests began with the ratification of the UNESCO Convention in 1972 and the passage of the Cultural Property Implementation Act in 1983. Unrealistic political approaches to the illicit trade in antiquities have exacerbated rather than solved the problem. A resolution of the conflicts, contradictions, and ambiguities of the present situation can be achieved by stressing the safety of objects and archaeological sites over partisan goals. A satisfactory denouement can be achieved through a partnership between source countries and the market, through an abandonment of retentionist export controls, and through the establishment of an open, free, and rational coalition. Any solution to present difficulties ought to acknowledge the value of continuing to collect and preserve antiquities in private and public collections.

This article presents the perspective of a long-time dealer in ancient art and antiquities on the many attacks on the antiquities trade. After a brief historical review of collecting and the different national approaches to control of export of archaeological materials, the author presents an analysis of why the more draconian of the legal systems defeat their intended purposes and are themselves unethical in that they promote the destruction of archaeological sites and the black market in antiquities.

The author questions the concepts underlying ethnological collections of art and artifacts in the context of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Alternatives to traditional Western anthropological and art historical methods of collection and display of sacred Native American material are found in traditional Native American philosophy and practice. The contemporary fashion among curators for contextualization of displayed objects from Indigenous cultures is critiqued in the light of broader ethical concerns regarding the appropriateness of collecting sacred objects from living Indigenous Peoples.

The International Council of Museums, with a broad-based membership of nearly one thousand museums throughout the world, adopted its Code of Professional Ethics in 1986. The Code addresses both institutional and professional ethics and sets standards for the development of internal policies dealing with acquisitions, cooperation, loans and exhibitions, authentication, valuation, documentation, and the special problems raised by human remains. Although described as a conservative document that could garner widespread support from museums located in both market and 'victim' nations, the Code nonetheless prohibits acquisition of material that was illegally exported from its country of origin or derives from unscientific excavation or destruction or damage to sites and monuments.

The treatment of movable and immovable heritage is markedly different. While movable objects are highly valued and carefully protected, their immovable equivalents are often under a serious cloud of threat. This peril is the result of global mismanagement, failure of governments to provide adequate funds for their maintenance, and lack of recognition by the public that these disappearing resources are assets of major value. Conservators of immovables face special ethical and practical concerns in their efforts to preserve cultural heritage within its context - depicted in this article as case histories from the World Monuments Watch list of endangered sites. The legal and procedural mechanisms that support this task are ineffectual in the face of rapid change. The field needs new methodologies that harness public appreciation of a site's 'sense of place' to guarantee its future.

In 1971, the Newark Museum purchased a Roman mosaic, which, it later learned, had been stolen from the Syrian site of Apamea. Upon formal request for return of the mosaic, the museum arranged for its return with the assistance of the U.S. State Department. The museum received compensation from the dealer from whom the mosaic was purchased. This restitution was undertaken in the hope that future cooperation, including long-term loans of duplicate material, would be fostered, but the author concludes that this hope was never realized.

The author recounts the process of acquiring a work of art, focusing on one object but encapsulating the thoughts and experience of many years. In so doing, she reflects on the value added to the appreciation of artistic works and her joy in sharing this with others through public display of her collection.