Page 109 - Collecting and Displaying China's Summer Palace in the West

94 James Scott
executed criminal. The label mentions that it was used to offer beer to the gods, but
it doesn’t explain why and also omits the fact that this practice was not typical of
Chinese Buddhism (but was of Tibetan Buddhism). The object is very much framed
in terms of why it is unusual. Aside from the issue of displaying a looted object, there
is also the fact that it is an example of human remains and perhaps should be treated as
such rather than as an ornament. Further examples of Buddhist objects are the minia -
ture coffins. The object label tells the visitor that these are “possibly relating to ancestor
worship”; more research could be done here. The way that these religious objects
are juxtaposed with other more profane objects also has the effect of desacralization.
They no longer function as relics in the religious sense, but rather as symbols of a
past victory. 22
The case is also furnished with several objects that have no association with the
Summer Palace. These are other objects from the Second Opium War, including
several pieces of Chinese military equipment. An example is a priming horn picked
up at the storming of the Taku Forts in 1860. Further examples are a Chinese match -
lock musket (an inferior weapon during this period) and an imperial army coat. A
point worth making is that it is not easy for the uninitiated to discern between Summer
Palace objects and those with no association, this perhaps is a reason for the mistaken
view that all the objects within the case are from there.
The overall effect of the display of these objects is create an exotic display; a sort
of cabinet of curiosities. Hevia noted that while the lower ranks chose gold, jewels
and other obviously valuable treasures, the officers of the armies were those that also
saw value in these “curiosities.” 23 Without a doubt the collection of these provides
an aesthetically interesting display, but is this the most appropriate way to display
these objects?

Issues With the Display
As mentioned above, there are different people who hold a stake in the display of
these objects. There are those who would like to see the objects repatriated and there
are those that would maintain that they belong to the Corps of Royal Engineers and
that they should remain in Britain. It is for this reason that displaying these objects
has proven so problematic for the Royal Engineers Museum. This is why efforts have
been made on the part of the curator to keep the language used in the text as
unemotive as possible, to use the lightest possible turn of phrase to describe what
were shattering events. This approach is also observable in the lack of terminology;
the absence of the word “loot” is particularly noticeable. One of the reasons for this
was during a valuation of museum property for insurance purposes, a valuer com -
mented that if an item was labeled as being a piece of loot, he would refuse to value
it as looted property has no value. 24 Here exists a paradox, in that while some
individuals would hold the opinion that items like the throne would hold no value,
because they were taken from the Summer Palace, there are undoubtedly those who
would perceive them to have even greater value, because of this. The association of
a looted item with such a momentous event arguably increases its perceived value,
and this is augmented by the fact that they are rare examples, some of the last physical
remnants of the Summer Palace.
Ownership of the objects is a further issue in their display. As mentioned above,
some of the items are on loan from other institutions, most notably, the Officers