Page 110 - Collecting and Displaying China's Summer Palace in the West

“Chinese Gordon” and the Royal Engineers Museum 95
Mess of the Royal Engineers Headquarters. On top of this, there is the fact that the
museum is ultimately owned by the Corps of Royal Engineers. Part of its duty is to
highlight the achievements of the Corps for purposes of establishing an esprit de corps
and encouraging recruitment. By interpreting the objects from the Summer Palace in
a critical way, the museum would be highlighting the involvement of the Corps and
one of its heroes in an infamous act of cultural destruction.
It is arguable that the Corps views the objects in a different way from the museum.
From their point of view, these things are a visible representation of the prestige of
the Royal Engineers and also the service of one of its paragons. Any attempt to remove
or display them in a negative way would only serve to diminish this prestige.
Provenance presents another issue for the museum when displaying these objects.
As mentioned above, there are many objects that we can only guess came from the
Summer Palace. Gordon and Harrison are the two main sources of the objects, and
both were involved in the destruction. It is because of this association it has been
assumed that all the objects they brought back from China were from the Summer
Palace. However, it is conceivable that they could have been acquired before or after
this event. Gordon was known to be in China from September 1860 until 1864.
Harrison arrived in China in November 1859, taking part in several engagements
that included the storming of the Taku Forts. He left China in January 1861, but
spent time in Tientsin and Hong Kong before leaving. 25
There are several items that at some point in history have been attributed to being
from the Summer Palace, but if one looks for evidence of this provenance, either it
does not exist or it points to the contrary. One such object is the green glazed roof
tile featuring a “Qilin,” which was said to be from the Summer Palace. However,
the museum’s old accession register says it came from a “Tartar city.” 26 Further
credence was given to the theory that it is not from the Summer Palace in 1991,
when Gary Dickinson, a specialist at the V&A, identified it as being more likely from
a building not associated with the palace. 27 The reason for its attribution to the
Summer Palace has been discussed above; being associated with this prominent and
famous event has, in the past, added value to Chinese objects brought back in the
1860s.
There are many people, particularly in China, who would suggest that the museum
should repatriate the objects so that they can be displayed in their culture of origin.
Every few years there seems to be a request of this sort, which will then spark interest
29
in the national press (examples are Foster in 2009 28 and Bowlby in 2015 ). This
usually comes with some pressure and the question: “why don’t you give them
back?” Several reasons have already been highlighted here. During these periods of
peaked interest, the Royal Engineers Museum usually has to correct the media and
visitors in their view of the Chinese collection. Only one of the three cases of Chinese
objects is attributed to the Opium Wars. The other two relate to the Taiping Rebellion,
where most of the objects were gifted to Gordon by the Tongzhi emperor in 1864,
not taken.
One response that has previously been given is that the museum generally follows
the guidelines of Britain’s national museums and the Museums Association with
regards to such issues. If the British Museum started to repatriate high value objects,
such as the Elgin Marbles, then this would certainly put the spotlight back on the
Summer Palace collection. Another restriction when discussing the repatriation of
objects is the relationship the museum has with its governing body and the Corps of