大英博物館失竊案應(yīng)當(dāng)向政客追責(zé)，而非館內(nèi)管理人員

這次事件使我不禁想起戴維·洛奇的小說(shuō)，《大英博物館在倒塌》。這座備受厚愛(ài)的博物館正在丑聞的侵蝕下?lián)u搖欲墜。其館長(zhǎng)被迫承認(rèn)在過(guò)去十年間，有高達(dá)2000件館藏丟失。公眾的注意已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)向了據(jù)說(shuō)去年被撤職的前館長(zhǎng)。（其子稱他沒(méi)有做錯(cuò)任何事）

博物館館長(zhǎng)哈特維格·費(fèi)舍爾立即引咎辭職。其副手喬納森·威廉姆斯也已辭職等待調(diào)查。一位棄暗投明的文物販子在采訪中表示，他對(duì)博物館方面的傲慢態(tài)度十分憤怒，前者曾警告過(guò)管理人員有人在易趣上上架了疑似來(lái)自大英博物館的文物。警方正在對(duì)此事進(jìn)行調(diào)查。

博物館內(nèi)的氣氛讓人感到絕望，即使在丑聞暴露前，館內(nèi)的氛圍就已經(jīng)足夠低沉。工作人員正費(fèi)盡心機(jī)地追蹤和回收在拍賣會(huì)上明目張膽出售的文物。

博物館外，則鬧得滿城風(fēng)雨。在如此混亂的狀態(tài)下，博物館還要面對(duì)多股政治勢(shì)力的怒火，既有本國(guó)的，也有國(guó)際上的。在中國(guó)，一家國(guó)有報(bào)紙正要求英國(guó)歸還文物。同樣，要求歸還文物的呼聲從希臘到北威爾士不絕于耳。

有輿論稱，既然大英博物館管理不好文物，那它就應(yīng)該什么都別管。更有甚者稱，大英博物館其實(shí)偷竊成性，因?yàn)樗^內(nèi)大部分的藏品都是在殖民時(shí)期掠奪過(guò)來(lái)的，它在當(dāng)代重操舊業(yè)又有什么好驚訝的呢？

然而從右翼勢(shì)力傳來(lái)了另一種呼聲：博物館只有一項(xiàng)工作，就是保證其藏品的安全，但是大英博物館失職了，因?yàn)樗χ鵀?/span>“黑命貴”和反省奴隸制操心。據(jù)每日郵報(bào)報(bào)道，那些有影響力的人物“痛恨和輕視我們的歷史”，這才在某種意義上直接導(dǎo)致了博物館失竊案的發(fā)生。

媒體和公眾是否真的關(guān)心丟失的文物？其實(shí)不然。雖然民眾氣憤于文物失竊，但我敢打賭，大部分人都被憤怒沖昏了頭，沒(méi)有對(duì)此次事件進(jìn)行深思，這既令人失望，也比較有趣。媒體也不是因文物失竊而憤怒。相反，由于不可否認(rèn)的制度缺陷，大英博物館將自己置于一個(gè)與其他大型文化機(jī)構(gòu)（比如BBC和國(guó)民信托）相似的境地，這實(shí)在是令人沮喪。大英博物館正在打一場(chǎng)文化戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，在這次丑聞平息之前，它可要遭老罪了。

但讓我們先思考一下“保管”這一概念?！?/span>Curator”即“館長(zhǎng)”這個(gè)單詞，源自于拉丁語(yǔ)，意思是負(fù)責(zé)或照看某物的人。但近年來(lái)其含義有很大的變化。在2023年，任何事都能被“curated”，從策劃音樂(lè)節(jié)和雜志（歡送，“程序員”和“編輯”），到策劃口紅系列和酒單。這個(gè)詞被無(wú)形中套上了一層高大上的光環(huán)，因此，在希思羅機(jī)場(chǎng)甚至有一家酒吧叫“館長(zhǎng)”（“The Curator”）。

恰巧，大約是在同一期間，博物館館長(zhǎng)真正的工作一直在保守黨政府的淫威下進(jìn)行，后者幾乎沒(méi)有受到來(lái)自社會(huì)上的抗議。博物館館長(zhǎng)和研究人員，還有默默無(wú)聞的登記員（主要負(fù)責(zé)組織和追蹤文物的流動(dòng)，尤其是出借藏品）忍受著政府無(wú)休止的資金削減。在大英博物館，來(lái)自保守黨的固定資金實(shí)際上在工黨執(zhí)政的2009-2010年到現(xiàn)在保守黨執(zhí)政，已經(jīng)削減了37%的財(cái)政補(bǔ)助。

由于削減資金，大英博物館里的人越來(lái)越少，但活越來(lái)越多。博物館曾被詬病其文物目錄不完整，這可能為犯罪者偷盜藏品提供了便利。但是研究數(shù)百年前的藏品，進(jìn)而創(chuàng)建一個(gè)現(xiàn)代化的博物館目錄和800萬(wàn)件藏品的數(shù)字?jǐn)?shù)據(jù)庫(kù)也絕非是件容易的事。這種工作必須要完成，也必須要投入大量的資源。公開(kāi)性和準(zhǔn)確性應(yīng)當(dāng)成為博物館公共責(zé)任的基礎(chǔ)。

這些話并不是為博物館在盜竊事件中的失職所開(kāi)脫，也不是為博物館沒(méi)有第一時(shí)間為失蹤文物展開(kāi)調(diào)查而體現(xiàn)的失策找借口。那些監(jiān)守自盜的行為辜負(fù)了其長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)建立起的信任，比如高級(jí)圖書管理員安德斯·布里烏斯從瑞典國(guó)家圖書館盜竊書籍的行為還歷歷在目。

這種自私自利的背叛行為十分少見(jiàn)。我在工作中所認(rèn)識(shí)的大英博物館的員工，不包括與盜竊案相關(guān)的那個(gè)人，都是我見(jiàn)過(guò)最勤奮，最盡職盡責(zé)的人民公仆?？紤]到在英國(guó)最知名的博物館工作所需的資格和技能，他們的薪水也驚人的少。（一份高度專業(yè)化的工作，比如說(shuō)管理和研究羅馬時(shí)期的埃及文物，目前招聘的薪水是3.2萬(wàn)英鎊）對(duì)于在博物館兢兢業(yè)業(yè)工作的員工來(lái)說(shuō)，這場(chǎng)盜竊案是一個(gè)噩耗，也引發(fā)了他們對(duì)博物館的憤怒與不信任。但是似乎沒(méi)有人在意這些員工，因?yàn)槊襟w逐漸癲狂，文化斗士們也準(zhǔn)備好開(kāi)戰(zhàn)。

最諷刺的是房間里的大象？大英博物館的主席是英國(guó)前財(cái)政大臣，現(xiàn)千萬(wàn)富翁基金經(jīng)理喬治·奧斯本。2017年，當(dāng)他在貝萊德就職時(shí)，他的日新是1.3萬(wàn)英鎊。其3天的收入比新任館長(zhǎng)一年的收入還要多。作為財(cái)政大臣，他支持2010年以來(lái)對(duì)公共服務(wù)和文化組織的“財(cái)政緊縮”。這并不能算是盜竊。這是極度的、不可原諒的漠視。

Original Article:

Politicians, not curators, are to blame for the British Museum’s woes

?I can’t help thinking of the title of that old David Lodge novel, The British Museum is Falling Down. The much-beloved institution is teetering beneath the weight of scandal. The museum’s chair has been forced to admit that as many as 2,000 objects have gone missing from the collection over the past decade. Public attention has turned towards an ex-curator allegedly removed from his post last year (his son has said he has done no wrong).

The director of the museum, Hartwig Fischer, has resigned with immediate effect. His deputy, Jonathan Williams, has stepped aside pending an independent review. An antiques dealer-turned-whistleblower has given angry interviews about the museum’s apparent complacency when he alerted managers to the fact that items he had seen listed on eBay seemed to have originated from the BM’s collection. A police investigation is under way.

Inside the museum, the mood is despairing, in an institution in which morale, even before this scandal, was often desperately low. Researchers have been turning their skills towards painstakingly tracking down and recovering missing objects apparently sold on the auction site.

Outside, a storm rages. In a state of chaos, the museum has opened itself up to a barrage of fury from both sides of the political divide both in the UK, and internationally. In Beijing, a state-backed newspaper is demanding the return of Chinese artefacts; there have been calls from everywhere from Athens to north Wales to repatriate objects.

Since the museum can’t keep hold of its own collection, it shouldn’t be allowed to be a custodian of anything at all, runs the argument. Some would go further, and say that the museum is institutionally steeped in theft: since large parts of its collection were wrongfully obtained under colonial conditions, why should anyone be surprised if its modern keepers also turned out to be thieves?

From the right, though, comes another warcry: the museum had one job to do – keep its objects safe – and it failed to do it, because it was too busy worrying about Black Lives Matter and apologising for slavery. According to the Mail, the alleged thefts at the museum are – somehow – the direct result of the fact that those in positions of influence “hate and despise our past”.

Is much of the press and external reaction to do with passionate care for the missing artefacts? Resoundingly, no. It is depressing, and fascinating, to see such ire roused in the breasts of so many about objects to which, I am willing to bet, most of the fulminators have never given a second thought. The media outrage is barely about the objects at all. Rather, the British Museum has – through undeniable institutional failings – put itself in a position that will be depressingly familiar to other large cultural institutions, such as the BBC and the National Trust. It has become a stand-in for the culture wars, a proxy in a battlefield on which it will suffer many wounds before this scandal is resolved.

But let’s think about the idea of care for a moment. The word “curator” – from the Latin meaning a person who takes charge of or undertakes the care of something – has in recent years undergone a rapid shift in meaning. In 2023, everything is curated, from music festivals and magazines (farewell, “programmers” and “editors”) to lipstick ranges and wine lists. The word is understood as projecting an amorphous aura of cool – hence, for example, the bizarre fact that there is even a bar called The Curator at Heathrow airport.

As it happens, it is over more or less the same time period that the actual, real job of museum curator has been cheerfully ground beneath the stiletto heel of the Tory government, with little protest from wider society. Museum curators and researchers – along with registrars, the unsung museum workers responsible for organising and tracking the movement of objects, especially loans – have borne endless Tory cuts.??

As a result of these cuts, there are fewer and fewer curators in the British Museum, with more and more work to do. The institution has been much criticised for having an inadequate catalogue, which could have eased the way for a criminal discreetly to pilfer items from the collection. But the idea that it is somehow easy or quick to undertake the archival work of studying centuries-old acquisition inventories to create a fully modernised museum catalogue and digital database of 8m objects is pure fantasy. Such work requires huge resources – but it needs to be done. Transparency and accuracy should be the bedrock of the museum’s public accountability.

None of this is to excuse the alleged thefts from the museum, nor the apparent institutional blindness that seems to have delayed swift and vigorous investigation of missing objects. Those dark and disturbing occasions when curators steal from collections – consider the case of Anders Burius, a senior librarian who stole numerous volumes from his employer, the National Library of Sweden – constitute the ultimate betrayal of trust.

This kind of destructive, selfish betrayal is exceptionally rare. The British Museum curators I have encountered in the course of my work – who do not include the man who has been named in connection with the alleged thefts – have been among the most diligent, generous and committed public servants I have ever met. They are also paid shockingly little given the qualifications and skills required for the work at the country’s most celebrated museum. (A highly specialised job as a curator focused on Roman-period Egypt, for example, is currently advertised at ￡32,000.) The case of alleged thefts is a terrible blow for those working on the ground in the museum, and the cause of fury and disbelief. And yet, no one seems to care very much for the curators, as the media become ever more frenzied, and the culture warriors sharpen their swords.

The ultimate irony, the elephant in the room? The chair of this foundering museum is George Osborne, the ex-chancellor of the exchequer, now multimillionaire fund manager. When he took a job at BlackRock in 2017, he was paid a day-rate of ￡13,000 – yes, earning in three days more than that new British Museum curator will make in a year. As chancellor he was behind the “austerity” cuts to public services and cultural organisations of 2010 onwards. That was not a theft. What it was was a withholding – on a grand and unforgivable scale – of care.

?原網(wǎng)址：

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/01/british-museum-curators-thefts-funding