CHINESE RESEARCH ARTEFACTS LOOTED IN ANGLO-FRENCH
ATTACK ON SUMMER PALACE IN 1860: DO ÒGREAT MUSEUMSÓ NOT KEEP RECORDS?
"Two robbers breaking into a
museum, devastating, looting and burning, leaving laughing hand-in-hand with
their bags full of treasures; one of the robbers is called France and the other
Britain." Victor Hugo. (1)

Looting of the Old Summer Palace, Gardens of Perfect
Brightness, Beijing, (Yuan Ming Yuan) by Anglo-French forces in 1860.
China has
announced its intention of sending groups of researchers to various museums in
the West, especially France, Britain and United States, such as the British
Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum to draw a list of the artefacts that
were looted in 1860 during the Anglo-French invasion of Beijing, (then Peking).(2)
Victor Hugo had expressed the wish and the hope that one day France and Britain
would return the looted objects taken from an Asian country, thousands of miles
away from France and Britain, that had been attacked because of its resistance
to European imperialism. (3)
What I found
interesting in the reports on the announcement of Chinese intentions was that
many did not find it necessary to raise the obvious and most elementary
question: How come that China now has
to send teams of researchers to prepare such a catalogue? Do the great
Òuniversal museumsÓ
not already have
lists of items looted from Beijing? Nobody expects wild and marauding
Anglo-French troops to make a list of the objects they looted even though such
expeditions, as we know, were usually carefully prepared and included
archaeologists and other experts who advised the marauding armies on what to
take. But what have the Western museums been doing in the hundred and fifty years
since the aggressive attack? Do they not have catalogues or inventories of what
they hold?
What is known
though is that the so-called Òuniversal museumÓ are very reluctant to inform
the public about the exact number of looted objects they have. We have often
remarked that in the case of the Benin Bronzes which were looted by the British
in the so-called Punitive Expedition of 1897, the museums have not been very
enthusiastic to tell us how many
of the bronzes are in their possession even though the British Museum has been
know to be selling the Bronzes for profit.(4) So how are the museums to inform and educate the public about
other cultures if they are not even in a position or willing to inform about
the number of objects they have from a particular culture? Can a museum really
educate the public when its officials do not know what they have? But is this
state of affairs accidental?
Many of these
museums have their own priorities and do not consider the preparation of
inventories of looted foreign objects as important enough to merit a catalogue,
even though this might be a way of educating the public about foreign cultures.
We would have thought that those museums pretending to serve all mankind would
do this as a matter of course. We do not have anywhere, not even from the
British Museum or from the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin, a complete catalogue
of the Benin Bronzes in their possession. There is of course the permanent
worry about restitution demands and hence the tendency not to reveal too much
about such foreign objects. The morality here is sometimes very close to that
of highway robbers. The objects are of course shown from time to time in
spectacular exhibitions but no complete view is ever presented to the public.
Cuno, Montebello
and their supporters complain that restrictions by foreign States are making it
difficult, if not impossible, for the Western museums to acquire more
artefacts. (5) Yet it has become
clear that these museums have far too many objects and are experiencing
problems of space.
We have heard a
lot about digitalization which should make it possible to view what the museums
are holding from Beijing or Bolgatanga. But does anyone believe this fairy tale
when the museums do not even know the number of objects in their possession? We
have not been able to see at their homepages
all the looted Benin objects these
museums hold.
All the above
should lead to serious questions about the management and management style of
the museums. At a time when Parliaments are being asked to account for every
penny spent and bank managers are under close scrutiny about their funds, nobody
seems to worry that some museums do not even know what they have or at any rate
are not prepared to inform the public about the exact number of objects under
their control and how they acquired them. The question of provenance is
considered a rather sensitive question by many Western museums. Is this the
kind of management that we would accept from serious organizations?
The Chinese
researchers are no doubt aware that they might not be able to see all the looted
Chinese objects these museums are holding for the simple reason that the
museums have not organized these objects in a systematic way but above all,
that there is a great fear of possible subsequent restitution claims when the
existence and location of looted objects are firmly established.
The director of
the British Museum recently stated, with respect to the Parthenon/Elgin
Marbles, that the location of objects is no longer important in this digital
age but we are sure that he did not mean he is indifferent as to whether the
Chinese objects looted in 1860 are in Beijing or in London.
Recent discussions
surrounding the sale of the looted Chinese bronze rat head and the rabbit head
which were sold in Paris give a good indication of the attitudes still
prevailing in the West about the looted Chinese cultural artefacts.

These sculptures of a rat head and a rabbit head were
among the objects looted in 1860 when French and British soldiers under the
command of Lord Elgin sacked the imperial palace. The eighth Lord Elgin was the
son of the seventh Lord Elgin, who removed the Parthenon Marbles from Athens.
With China, Egypt,
Greece, Italy, Nigeria and other States knocking loudly at the doors of the
so-called Òuniversal museumsÓ for the recovery of some of their looted cultural
artefacts, some solution will have to be found to remove this persistent
irritation and block to harmonious international relations.
True development
of mankind must surely mean that cultural objects looted in an age of unbridled
imperialism and violence must be returned in a period when such forcible
actions in foreign lands are no longer accepted as marks of civilization but
are deplored as violations of International Law and United Nations resolutions.
Will the present Western States set a better example or shamefacedly confirm
the rapacious violent behaviour of their predecessors which brought them
enormous wealth, profit and prestige? Will they finally hear Victor HugoÕs
plea?
ÒI
hope that a day will come when France, delivered and cleansed, will return this
booty to despoiled ChinaÓ. Victor
Hugo
Kwame Opoku, 22
October, 2009
NOTES
1. Victor Hugo,
see Annex.
2. Peter Foster, China
to study British Museum for looted artefacts, Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk Newstin China to study British
museum for looted artefacts, http://www.newstin.co.uk Timesonline, China in worldwide treasure hunt for
artefacts looted from Yuan Ming Yuan palace
3. Kwame Opoku, ÒIs
it not time to fulfil Victor HugoÕs Wish? Comments on Chinese Claim to Looted
Chinese Artefacts on Sale at ChristieÕsÓ. http://www.modernghana.com
4. Martin Bailey, ÒBritish Museum Sold Benin
BronzesÓ, http://www.forbes.com
5. James Cuno, Who Owns Antiquity? Princeton University
Press, 2008; Whose Culture? Princeton
University Press, 2009. Kwame Opoku, ÒDo Present-Day Egyptians eat the same
Food as Tuthankhamun? Review of James Cuno's Who Owns Antiquity?Óhttp://www.modernghana.com
ANNEX
The sack of the summer palace
The sack
of the Summer Palace
To Captain
Butler
Hauteville
House,
25
November, 1861
You ask my
opinion, Sir, about the China expedition. You consider this expedition to be
honourable and glorious, and you have the kindness to attach some consideration
to my feelings; according to you, the China expedition, carried out jointly
under the flags of Queen Victoria and the Emperor Napoleon, is a glory to be
shared between France and England, and you wish to know how much approval I
feel I can give to this English and French victory.
Since you
wish to know my opinion, here it is:
There was,
in a corner of the world, a wonder of the world; this wonder was called the
Summer Palace. Art has two principles, the Idea, which produces European art,
and the Chimera, which produces oriental art. The Summer Palace was to
chimerical art what the Parthenon is to ideal art. All that can be begotten of
the imagination of an almost extra-human people was there. It was not a single,
unique work like the Parthenon. It was a kind of enormous model of the chimera,
if the chimera can have a model. Imagine some inexpressible construction,
something like a lunar building, and you will have the Summer Palace. Build a
dream with marble, jade, bronze and porcelain, frame it with cedar wood, cover
it with precious stones, drape it with silk, make it here a sanctuary, there a
harem, elsewhere a citadel, put gods there, and monsters, varnish it, enamel
it, gild it, paint it, have architects who are poets build the thousand and one
dreams of the thousand and one nights, add gardens, basins, gushing water and
foam, swans, ibis, peacocks, suppose in a word a sort of dazzling cavern of
human fantasy with the face of a temple and palace, such was this building. The
slow work of generations had been necessary to create it. This edifice, as
enormous as a city, had been built by the centuries, for whom? For the peoples.
For the work of time belongs to man. Artists, poets and philosophers knew the
Summer Palace; Voltaire talks of it. People spoke of the Parthenon in Greece,
the pyramids in Egypt, the Coliseum in Rome, Notre-Dame in Paris, the Summer
Palace in the Orient. If people did not see it they imagined it. It was a kind
of tremendous unknown masterpiece, glimpsed from the distance in a kind of
twilight, like a silhouette of the civilization of Asia on the horizon of the
civilization of Europe.
This
wonder has disappeared.
One day
two bandits entered the Summer Palace. One plundered, the other burned. Victory
can be a thieving woman, or so it seems. The devastation of the Summer Palace
was accomplished by the two victors acting jointly. Mixed up in all this is the
name of Elgin, which inevitably calls to mind the Parthenon. What was done to
the Parthenon was done to the Summer Palace, more thoroughly and better, so
that nothing of it should be left. All the treasures of all our cathedrals put
together could not equal this formidable and splendid museum of the Orient. It
contained not only masterpieces of art, but masses of jewelry. What a great
exploit, what a windfall! One of the two victors filled his pockets; when the
other saw this he filled his coffers. And back they came to Europe, arm in arm,
laughing away. Such is the story of the two bandits.
We
Europeans are the civilized ones, and for us the Chinese are the barbarians.
This is what civilization has done to barbarism.
Before
history, one of the two bandits will be called France; the other will be called
England. But I protest, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity! the
crimes of those who lead are not the fault of those who are led; Governments
are sometimes bandits, peoples never.
The French
empire has pocketed half of this victory, and today with a kind of
proprietorial naivety it displays the splendid bric-a-brac of the Summer
Palace. I hope that a day will come when France, delivered and cleansed, will
return this booty to despoiled China.
Meanwhile,
there is a theft and two thieves.
I take
note.
This, Sir,
is how much approval I give to the China expedition.
Photo:
Occupation of the Yuanmingyuan or summer palace by British and French troops in
1860, before the palace was destroyed by fire. This imperial residence was
situated on Lake Kunming, northwest of Beijing.
COPYRIGHT 1985
UNESCO
COPYRIGHT 2008
Gale, Cengage Learning