Page 111 - Collecting and Displaying China's Summer Palace in the West

96 James Scott
Royal Engineers. The museum holds the collection on behalf of the Corps (which
still partially funds the museum) and ultimately has no ownership of it. The Institution
of the Corps of Royal Engineers technically owns the collection and the museum
displays and cares for it. The Trustees of the institution are the only body capable
30
of making decisions regarding repatriation : it is not a curatorial choice. Another
reason cited in the past is that, had the objects remained in China, they would in all
probability have been destroyed in the ravages of the Cultural Revolution (1966–
1976). This period saw the destruction of buildings and artifacts symbolizing the
imperial regime. Would the Summer Palace and its treasures have survived this period
of social turmoil? One can only speculate.
One of the major issues for the Royal Engineers Museum (and for many others)
is the floodgate problem; if it was agreed to repatriate particular objects, where would
it end? The collection reflects nearly every campaign the British Army has fought
in (from the seventeenth century to the present day) from around the world, and
ethno graphic material is often placed next to Royal Engineer equipment in the dis -
plays. One repatriation could potentially result in a tide of requests. Knowledge
surrounding the provenance of the rest of our collection is often mixed and determin -
ing where things came from and exactly how they were acquired would be similarly
problematic.

Conclusion

The representation of the Summer Palace is fraught with issues. The presence of
opposing points of view on how or where the objects should be displayed has meant
that curating the objects has been carried out with trepidation. The language used
in object labeling has been kept as unemotive as possible to avoid offending any par -
ticular viewpoint. Although some attempts have been made to place the objects in
their original culture, ultimately the objects have been displayed because of their ability
to create an aesthetic and interesting display.
More could be done with the display to help improve visitor’s understanding of
the objects and the circumstances of their acquisition. One obvious change relates to
the layout. Ideally, the throne should not be used as a plinth for objects. The case is
in fact unsuitable for the current display; its structure makes it difficult for the visitor
to view objects at the sides or high up. Space is the main issue here. Clearer inter -
pretation is also needed. The brief piece of text on the object label regarding the
Opium Wars is insufficient. A larger text panel could replace the panel that focuses
solely on Gordon. Its contents would provide greater context for the Opium Wars,
explain why the Summer Palace incident took place, and how that resulted in the
objects being at the museum. Greater transparency would be useful. The panel could
highlight the debates surrounding repatriation, but also offer reasons why it is
problematic. The objects themselves could be interpreted better. They deserve to be
treated with respect and part of this is not treating them like curiosities; instead the
museum needs to try and understand their meaning and value to the cultures that
they came from.
Where is Gordon’s place in this display? The other two China cases focus on his
achievements and the material he was awarded as a result of his role in putting down
the Taiping Rebellion. As mentioned above, the objects he took from the Summer
Palace are in the minority in the Opium War case. It should be explained what Gordon