臺灣古物分級制度發展之反思（下）──國有文物暫行分級現況分析

Reflections on the Development of Classification System of Antiquities in Taiwan (Part II)

就古物分級國有文物的暫行分級工作而言，各博物館所面對挑戰不外乎是文物數量龐大、種類眾多、價值判斷不易、收藏脈絡不明。各博物館對於館內藏品分級如何對應到文化資產價值，其標準也常妾身未明。加上目前國有文物暫行分級「一般古物」須送地方古物主管機管審議，造成古物類業務量暴增而難以負荷。同時，國營事業中若一級單位未提出暫行分級統一標準而交由各區處自行判斷，不僅會造成相同物件暫行分級判斷級別不同的問題；交由各二、三級單位自己執行暫行分級與提送分級備查清冊，對未分配古物研究編制人員的各級文物保管單位而言，勢必造成其額外業務的負擔，形成其對於推動暫行分級工作的質疑與卻步。針於這樣的困境，除了可透過中央主管機關成立輔導機制協助推動，各單位也應正視其保管物賬中可能會有具文資價值之古物，而不只是以財產的角度處理；而在中央主管機關經費許可前提下，也應挹注各單位一定比例經費協助落實其暫行分級工作。另一方面對於現階段古物分級制度，本文舉出包括分級基準的曖昧性、對古物數量KPI的熱衷、古物指定應重新思考其「真實性」的比重、指定如何兼顧文化公民權以及文化資產專業、古物審議委員會成員的專業性、以及一般古物名稱上的再議等問題。總言之，古物分級僅是估算其文化儲量，其儲量要透過流量才能被看見，發揮其效用；也就是說，古物分級本身並非唯一目的，而是透過分級工作來提升生活素質，以其文化資本改善社群的精神生活，才是分級的主要目的。

Concerning the classification of antiquities in terms of state-owned object, every museums faces the challenges arising from a large quantity of artefacts to deal with, a variety of categories to clarify, numerous difficulties in judging their value and in assigning original context to objects. In addition, the museums lack clear ideas of how to refer their own collections classification systems to the criteria of cultural heritage value standards. Moreover, according to The Regulations Governing the Review of Classification, Designation and Revocation of Antiquities, objects preliminarily classified in the category of“general state-owned antiquities”shall submit to local competent authorities for further review. However, this process may cause a huge workload that the cities/counties responsible are not likely to bear. Also, with regards to antiquities belonging to state-owned enterprises, if the first-level administration did not propose a unified standard for preliminary classification, but rather left decisionmaking to the individual judgment of lower level of authorities such as sections or bureaus, it may cause problems with inconsistency such as different judgments on the same ancient object. Further, if these second- or third levels of administration conduct the preliminary classification on their own and are responsible for building up classification records for review by superiors, this certainly will bring an additional burden on those who do not have staff specialized in the study of antiquities and consequently they may feel discouraged and question how to implement the work. Such difficult situations can only be resolved by, on the one hand, creating a counseling mechanism established by the central competent authority to assist with the classification, and on the other hand, all administration units shall evaluate the antiquities in their ownership that may have cultural value, instead of regarding them from the perspective of property. Further, the central competent authority shall grant a certain proportion of funding to help each administrative unit to carry out classification work. Regarding the current antiquities classification system, this article cites the ambiguous classification standards, the enthusiasm for the number of antiquities KPIs and the designation of antiquities which shall include evaluating their“authenticity”, taking into account cultural citizenship and cultural assets professionalism, ensuring professional members in the antiquities review committee and reconsidering a discussion on denomination of general antiquities. The classification of antiquities is only an estimate of their cultural reserves, and these reserves can only be seen through the flow of circulation. In other words, the classification of antiquities is not the goal in itself, but rather it is to improve quality of life and promote the spiritual life of the community via its cultural resources.