Following the disclosure of archives in the former Soviet Union detailing art works taken from Germany at the end of World War II, it is now possible to reconstruct more accurately a history of those objects removed from Germany but never returned. Inconsistencies in the documentary evidence concerning both the location of objects sent West from Berlin and other repositories (particularly in the last few months of the war) and the number of objects returned to Germany indicate that the United States may have been involved in an unofficial policy of claiming as war booty art treasures form the conquered German nation. This article attempts to detail some of those inconsistencies by comparing what is known of the inventories of German museums before the war, the movements of art objects and repositories used during the war, and the inventories of the German museums today, in order to reconstruct some of this missing pact.

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.

Legal regulation of the archaeological record has played a subtle though instrumental role in the shaping of American anthropology. Most studies of connections between politics and archaeology in analogous contexts have, however, focused on nationalisms and the popular political orchestration of archaeology. This paper grounds an analysis of the American case in legal apparatuses, disciplinary changes in anthropology, and a shift in the expression of American nationalism between the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. The article argues that archaeology has attained broader social significance as archaeologists now consult native peoples in the practice of archaeology. Though archaeology remains a politicized science it has become a more broadly negotiated one and the historical and cultural issues it faces may yet find resolution through laws and responsive disciplinary practices that envision a society enhanced by cultural difference.

The law of cultural property is primarily based on the interests of the states concerned. If a cultural object is of high monetary or identificatory value, states will contest the ownership, and many of these cases are resolved by compromise. If a cultural object is of less monetary or identificatory value, states often neglect its preservation. Yet the law for protection of cultural property should not only be a method for the arbitration of national interests but should also take into account the interests of humankind in general, including preservation of the object in its original context, public accessibility, and the scientific, historic and aesthetic interests that can be associated with an object. While some states are unable to protect their cultural heritage, especially in times of war, public international law does not prevent a state from destroying its cultural heritage. Cultural heritage law is developing rapidly, and national laws and international conventions are in the process of creation. At this time, the author posits, it is therefore necessary to consider the reasons for the protection of cultural objects.

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.

This article argues that the question of whether the nation-state or the international community is the legitimate guardian of cultural property can only be answered with reference to what we expect measures of protection of our cultural heritage to accomplish. The very concept of 'protection' is at stake, and two different schools (object-centrism versus functionalism) are to be distinguished. Whereas object centrism focuses on the cultural object and its protection as a value in its own right, functionalism argues that the cultural heritage cannot even be identified as such without reference to society and its meaning for societal processes of acculturation and socialization. This article endorses functionalism and develops a perspective that includes identity and cross-cultural communication as the most important functions of all cultural heritage. These two criteria should guide our thinking about the legitimate guardian of cultural heritage in general.

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.

This article presents a summary of the Swedish law pertaining to the treatment of the cultural heritage. After a review of the property rights implicated through such a protective scheme, the article examines the national legislation as well as its implementation at both the national and local levels through administrative procedures that define and regulate the protection of ancient sites and monuments, historic buildings, archaeological finds, church-owned property, and movable objects of cultural value.

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 essay explores a number of issues concerning the relationship between works of art and cultural property. From the perspective of a museum director, it posits an ontological distinction between the idea of a work of art and the concept of cultural property. The essay concludes by arguing that to the extent that nations place restrictions on the export of their art, they inevitably affect the way their culture is understood and perceived abroad and so alter the larger metanarrative of culture.

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.