簡論盜墓文物的真偽和道德諸問題

A Brief Discussion of Questions Concerning the Authenticity and Morals of Using Looted Artifacts

自古以來，中國一直有廣泛的盜墓活動，最近三十年更為嚴重。盜墓活動帶來各種的破壞，對古墓本身的破壞最為顯著，對中國歷史學也有一定的影響。中國歷史並不是長久不變的遺產，而是不斷演變與發展的，有新資料就有新認識。中國古代歷史的新資料多來自考古發現，考古發現也多來自古墓的發掘。而古墓一旦被盜掘，就破壞它的考古環境，盜掘的文物也損失所有的考古資訊，引來其真偽等不少問題。本文針對四種來自盜掘的文物，討論盜掘文物的真偽問題：上海博物館藏晉侯穌編鐘、北京保利藝術博物館藏豳公盨、上海博物館藏戰國楚簡〈緇衣〉和清華大學藏戰國楚簡〈越公其事〉。儘管有人對這四種文物的真實性提出了質疑，但是通過各種鑑定方法，可以確認它們都是真實古物。雖然如此，這些盜掘的文物還有可能涉及更重要道德問題：中國文物和教育機構在香港古董市場上購買盜掘的文物，是將盜墓的文物「歸回祖國」？抑或是支持古董市場，引來更多的盜墓活動？本文根據1970 年的聯合國教育、科學及文化組織（UNESCO）在巴黎召開第16 屆大會上通過的《關於禁止和防止非法進出口文化財產和非法轉讓其所有權的方法的公約》，指出中國文物和教育機構的做法都是合法的。雖然，有引來更多盜墓活動的可能，但這些文物已經被盜掘，不但歷史知識的求索有其必要性，更有必要讓它們歸回祖國。

From ancient times, China has always been plagued by tomb-robbing, a problem that has become ever more severe over the last thirty years. Tomb-robbing causes many different types of damage: the most obvious is the damage to the ancient tombs themselves, but this also has a definite effect on the study of Chinese history. Chinese history is not at all an eternally unchanging heritage of the past, but rather is constantly evolving. As new resources appear, there comes new understanding. The new resources for ancient Chinese history mainly come from archaeological discoveries, and archaeological discoveries often come from the excavation of ancient tombs. Since tomb-robbers destroy the archaeological context of ancient tombs, they rob history of archaeological information and raise many questions about the authenticity of the robbed artifacts. This study examines four different robbed artifacts: the Jin Hou Su bells in the Shanghai Museum, the Bin Gong xu in the Poly Museum of Beijing, the Warring States Chu manuscript “Ziyi” in the Shanghai Museum, and the Warring States Chu manuscript in the collection of Tsinghua University. Although questions have been raised about the authenticity of all four of these artifacts. I show on the basis of various types of information that all four are certainly authentic. Nevertheless, I note that there is perhaps an even more serious ethical problem in using these robbed artifacts: to what extent are the Chinese cultural and educational institutions that buy these robbed artifacts on the Hong Kong antique market repatriating them to the mother country, or are they supporting the illicit antiquities market and encouraging even more tomb-robbing? Based on the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) treaty concerning the import and export of cultural artifacts, I argue that the actions of the Chinese institutions are legal, and that even though there is certainly the unhappy side-effect of further encouraging tomb-robbing, once the artifacts have been robbed there are both scholarly and ethical imperatives to return them to China.