Dr. Jones, Curator for the Museum of Western Archaeology, has been asked to review a collection of pottery being considered for acquisition. The potential donor, who understands that his entire collection will not be exhibited at any one time, has made it a condition that the entire collection be accepted and retained in the Museum collections as a unit. Dr. Jones has examined the collection and has made two significant observations: (1) the collection is of tremendous research importance and would complement and benefit the Museum's existing collections, and (2) there are certain pieces in the collection that are almost identical to pottery that has been repatriated to American Indian groups in the state under conditions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Dr. Jones has one week to make her recommendation to the museum Director.
A museum has long displayed a diorama of an Indigenous and First Nation gatherer-hunter encampment. The diorama is populated by body casts, made a century ago, by a meticulous scientist who even captured the variable suntan on his models (giving lie to the fact that, though clad in traditional gatherer-hunter garb, they were already at the time of casting wearing western clothes). The making of these casts required the subject be brought, sometimes forcibly, to the scientist, and covered in plaster for hours in a series of humiliating poses. The diorama is one of the museum's most famous and visited exhibitions. There are other displays of this particular gatherer-hunter group's history in the museum, including a rock painting that appears on the county's coat of arms. A decade or so ago the museum's archaeologists persuaded the museum's management to allow them to place a revisionist display flanking the diorama in which the pros and cons of the casting project are explained, including photographs showing how the gatherer-hunters really looked at the time of casting and how they look today. A change in museum management occurs and a new director, not native to the country and keen to curry favor with local and national politicians, decides the diorama should be closed so as not to cause offense to the gatherer-hunters displayed or their descendants. After much protest, the diorama is closed. Some of the most vociferous and pro-diorama protest comes from the majority of the descendants of the gatherer-hunters displayed. They argue that the diorama displays a major part of their history. If it is okay for modern Britons to dress as 16th-century Puritans in theme parks and museums, why can’t the gatherer-hunter part of their history be displayed? Their wishes are not listened to because the closure makes contemporary politicians happy, and this means more money will go to the museum for public outreach and other core functions. In this case, the initiative of a well-meaning, “progressive” museum is at odds with the more “conservative” stance of the people being displayed. What to do?
For his own aesthetic interests, Mark R had collected Pueblo Indian arts and crafts for many years before becoming an anthropologist. In spite of his interest in Southwestern ethnography, his main fieldwork was done in Latin America. Nevertheless, through some personal connections, he was invited by a non-profit environmental organization to conduct a brief ethnohistorical study in one of the Rio Grande pueblos. While he is working on this project, he learns that over a 30 to 50 year period, several regional museums had acquired a substantial number of religious items from many different Pueblo Indians. As his study progresses and he interviews various tribal members, he learns from José—a respected elder of the pueblo—that an important ritual item, used by one of the religious societies in the community, has been missing for about 30 years. According to José, the stolen item was taken from a sacred cave, where ritual items are stored when not in use. José noted that because of shifting reservation boundaries the cave might not be on tribal lands, but such ceremonial items are still the responsibility of the entire religious society and cannot be owned by any single person. Ceremonies have not been complete since the item disappeared, José said, and crop failures and other community problems are partially attributed to this loss. After obtaining a full description from José and checking this information with colleagues at a local museum, Mark realizes that there is a good chance that the item in question is similar, if not identical to one he had purchased 25 years previously from an art gallery in Santa Fe.
Structure | Rules & Procedures | Judges Guidelines | Preparation | Sample Cases | Scoring Sheets
Credits:
Materials for these Ethics Bowl pages have been adapted from several Ethics Bowl web sites. These include:
Association of
Professional and Practical Ethics
Center for
Applied and Professional Ethics
The Society for American Archaeology Ethics Bowl