2023-09-18 05:16:00
Not only English public opinion, but that of the entire world was surprised by the news that Peter John Higgs, an official at the British Museum with more than 30 years of experience in his position, was identified as responsible for the disappearance of hundreds of pieces from his collections, later sold by him through different online auction sites on the Internet. Among the missing objects are gold jewelry, precious stones and crystals, some of which date back to the 15th century and almost all of which belong to the Townley Collectiondonated to that museum during the 19th century.
Higgs held the rank of curator senior from the collection of classical Greek and Roman art. In 2021, he was in charge of organizing an art exhibition called The Ancient Greeks: Athletes, Warriors and Heroes, which, after being exhibited in London, is being exhibited in museums in Australia and China. Therefore, he was fully aware and had a clear notion of the value and importance of the stolen pieces.
Peter Higgs, accused of the robberyVideo Capture
Authorities have not yet determined when his criminal career began or how many pieces have disappeared. As usually happens in these cases, the objects did not disappear from the display cases where they were exhibited, but from the gigantic warehouses where they were stored, due to the physical impossibility of exhibiting the entire collection that, according to what the artist himself advertises British museum“covers two million years of history across five continents.”
The thefts were discovered thanks to an antiques dealer who identified the objects offered on the networks as belonging to the Museum and made a first complaint in 2020. Once Higgs was identified as responsible, he was fired. One of the main elements to incriminate him was that the seller of the pieces auctioned online and stolen from the museum used as a pseudonym “sultan1966″, the same one that Higgs adopted in his personal accounts on social networks.
The British Museum authorities said they have launched an investigation with police assistance, increased security and are analyzing measures to establish what happened and, more importantly, what could have been done to prevent it from happening or happening again, and how to recover the pieces. missing. When the thief was identified, the director of the Museum announced that he would leave his position at the end of this year. But events rushed forward and on the 28th of last month he resigned, along with the vice director.
Some of the valuable pieces stolen from the National Museum of Decorative Art in Buenos Aires, in 2022Archive
The British Museum was created under a law passed in 1753 and is governed by a later, more specific law passed in 1963. It is a public body that operates independently of the government and its authorities are responsible to Parliament. Its relations with the government are regulated by an administration contract that delineates government powers and those of Museum officials with absolute precision. But, more importantly, the Museum is subject to the same strict controls that apply to private charities in order to receive donations from the public.
The narrated events bring to mind what happened in the National Museum of Decorative Art in Buenos Aires, in February 2022, when 11 pieces disappeared that, unlike those missing in London, were on display. It was not the first case, of course: among other sad examples we can mention that of the Belgrano clock, which had already disappeared from the National historical museum.
The security shortcomings of the Museum of Decorative Art were notorious: it did not have closed or open circuit camera systems, alarms or motion detectors. Once the theft was discovered, in March of that year and in record time, the necessary equipment was tendered, awarded and purchased to place surveillance cameras in that and other museums that were in the same situation.
The director of the Buenos Aires museum did not resign. He was removed from his position after he filed a police report. In subsequent public statements he complained about the “disproportionate, unfair, prejudiced and unfounded” conduct of his superiors. Although he accepted responsibility from him, he extended it to “many other people below and above” his position. He added that both National Directorate of Museums (DNM) like the culture Ministry They knew of the weakness of the security mechanisms not only in that particular museum but “in all national museums.” He added that the DNM had not made “the necessary purchases and contracts to minimize risks and establish security protocols in the national museums under its control.”
In other words, there were so many officials responsible that in the end none of them were.
It should be noted that the reported “weakness of the security mechanisms”, caused by chronic budget shortfalls and bureaucratic slowness, did not prevent the authorities of these organizations from clumsily preventing the meritorious Association of Friends of the National Museum of Decorative Art could continue to provide the latter with what the state bureaucracy does not allow it to acquire.
What happened in London and Buenos Aires reveals the need to improve mechanisms for preserving cultural heritage. Our collective memory is protected in museums. It is essential that they be provided with the necessary operational means to fulfill their functions. But, in the Argentine case, with a museum collection much smaller than that of the British Museum, the leafy bureaucracy that dilutes responsibilities among dozens of officials and ties the hands of those responsible for operations should be pruned. Our museums are neither autonomous nor self-sufficient. Your purchases and contracts are made only through the DNM. Now, if any clothing store has alarms that prevent a garment from leaving the premises without the respective price having been paid, is it so difficult for something like this to happen in a museum?
THE NATION
Conocé The Trust Project
#Museum #robberies #NACION