I recently read an article about Mada'in Saleh, a pre-Islamic archaeological site in modern day Saudi Arabia.
Not much attention has been paid to the architectural marvel due to the fact that Saudi Arabia hold hostile views towards other religions, for example little to no Christian, Jewish, or pagan relics are on display at museums.

(Mada'in Saleh:http://www.iqrasense.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/madain-saleh3.gif)
Now there is a more open minded view towards these pre-Islamic sites. However, archaeolgists are told not to speak about pre-Islam outside of literary texts.
Now, lets do a simple comparison. The Bamyan Bhuddas of Afghanistan were destroyed because of religious differences. However, Saudi Arabia has not gone to such extremes. For example, a pre-Islamic church was fenced off from the public. While it was closed off from the public, it was not destroyed and thus it has been preserved (although letf to the elements and not studied).
While the Taliban destroyed the bhuddas because they went against Islam, Saudi Arabia has a different insight to non-Islamic sites and artefacts.
From article: "They should be left in the ground," said Sheikh Mohammed al-Nujaimi, a well-known cleric, reflecting the views of many religious leaders. "Any ruins belonging to non-Muslims should not be touched. Leave them in place, the way they have been for thousands of years."
Is it ethical to ignore the past? Moreover, is it better to leave artefacts where they are, buried and unstudied?
The artefacts are being preserved and they are not being destroyed, so are we are losing is the chance to study them.
However, things in Saudi Arabia are beginning to change mostly to encourage tourism. So, sites like Mada'in Saleh are now open to the public even though it is a pre-Islamic site. These sites are being opened not because of religious tolerance but because of money. Therefore, is it ethical to ignore a religions policy on other religions artefacts and relics just to make money?
However, not all Saudi's think the same. Others recognize that anything on Saudi Arabia' soil is part of the countries history, regardless of religious background and thus they need to be protected.
From article: "Dhaifallah Altalhi, head of the commission's research center at the governmental Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities, said there are 4,000 recorded sites of different periods and types, and most of the excavations are on pre-Islamic sites.
"We treat all our sites equally," said Altalhi. "This is part of the history and culture of the country and must be protected and developed." He said archaeologists are free to explore and discuss their findings in academic venues."
However, archaeologists are still being cautious about their findings, many of them only writing about pre-Islamic findings in scholarly publications only. So, is it ethical to hide the findings of a country's history from the residents of the said country?
Is it unethical for archaeologists to hide their findings from the public?
The article didn't specifiy, but are archaeologists prohibited from sharing their findings from the media outside of Saudi Arabia, or just in Saudi Arabia? If archaeologists are overall prohibited from sharing their findings from the international community, not only is that unethical but it is also a great injustice to the public who find history and antiquities interesting.
Source: http://www.nctimes.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/article_0656208d-782d-5c18-89f0-a3eddbf2de9d.html