The British Museum is to be asked to open up its archives to allow teams of Chinese investigators to document “lost” Imperial treasures which China claims were taken from Beijing’s Old Summer Palace when it was burned and looted by British troops almost 150 years ago.
　　 The teams will form part of an international mission to demand the inspection of 1.5 million artefacts mostly held by museums in Britain and France. China has moved to reassure countries that the intention of the scheme is to merely document archives. However it will raise fears that Britain could be asked to return some treasures.
　　 The mission will send researchers to museums, libraries and private collections—including the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum in London—in an attempt to build up a comprehensive catalogue of artefacts China says were stolen in 1860, following the Second Opium War.
　　 The sacking of the Old Summer Palace—or ‘Yuanmingyuan’—as punishment for the torture and execution of 18 emissaries sent by western powers to Beijing, remains an emotive subject in China, where it is still viewed as one of the nation’s great humiliations.
　　 The decision to try and document the millions of items now scattered round the world comes as China takes an increasing interest in retrieving artefacts that were removed from China during the colonial period and in the early 20th century.
　　 “We don’t really know how many relics have been plundered since the catalogue of the treasures stored in the garden was burned during the catastrophe,” the palace’s current director Chen Mingjie told the state-run China Daily newspaper.
　　 “But based on our rough calculations, about 1.5 million relics are housed in more than 2,000 museums in 47 countries.” China’s sensitivity towards such looted treasures was demonstrated in March when a Chinese collector sabotaged the auctioning of two bronze heads taken from the Old Summer Palace, bidding ￡13.9m for each, but later refusing to pay.
　　 The auctioning of the bronzes belonging to the late fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent—a rabbit and a rat that were among 12 animal heads that adorned an elaborate fountain—had been condemned by the Chinese government who called for the sale to be cancelled. However Mr Chen said that the primary intention of the cataloguing exercise was not to seek return of the relics, but to establish exactly what had been taken during the chaos.
　　 “We have clarified that this is an attempt to document rather than to seek a return of those relics even though we do hope some previously unknown relics might surface and some might be returned to our country during our tracing effort.” Among the institutions expected to receive a visit are the British Museum and the Fontainebleau Art Museum in France, however such collections represent only a fraction of the lost Summer Palace relics, including richly embroidered robes, sculptures, furniture, paintings, porcelain and carvings.
　　 “I hope they know what they’re letting themselves in for,” said James Hevia, Professor of International History at the University of Chicago and one of the world’s leading authorities on artefacts looted in 1860 and 1900, “they will need massive resources to undertake this project.” Although some relics are in clearly labelled collections, Prof Hevia added, many thousands more are in private collections having passed through countless hands—either by sale or bequest—obscuring their Summer Palace origin.
　　 I remember doing research in the regimental museum of the Royal Engineers in Chatham (Kent) in the late 1980s and, as I was about to leave after documenting other items, being asked if I wanted to see the throne in the officer’s mess.
　　 “They called it the ‘Gordon Throne’ since it was bought back by General Charles Chinese Gordon, although in fact was a large imperial couch, not a throne, carved with wonderful dragons. It sat behind the main speaker’s podium in the mess.” On the issue of whether the research could lead to renewed calls for the artefacts to be returned, Professor Hevia said the Chinese expectations were realistic.
　　 “I think they are probably under no illusions about getting much of this stuff back, as these kinds of claims touch not just Chinese items, but items in museums taken from many other countries,” he added.
　　 However, despite the size of the task, research has already begun with a professor from Beijing’s Tsinghua University, Guo Daiheng, being sent to The Washington Library of Congress and the Harvard University Library to study more than 100 old photographs taken after the looting.
　　
　　 大英博物馆将被要求打开自己的档案室,让来自中国的调查组编录“丢失”皇室宝物。中国称,150年前英国军队放火烧毁了北京的颐和园,并从中掳走大量物品。
　　 该调查组也是一个国际调查团的组成部分,这个团体将要调查多半由英法博物馆收藏的150万件文物。中国已向这些国家保证,此计划的目的只是建立文档资料,但这一行动仍会引发英国担忧:中国可能会要求归还某些宝藏。
　　 调查团将派研究人员到博物馆、图书馆和私人收藏室——包括伦敦的大英博物馆和维多利亚与阿尔伯特博物馆——目的是建立完整的文物目录。据中国方面称,这些文物在1860年第二次鸦片战争后失窃。
　　 洗劫颐和园——或称圆明园,是西方大国对派往北京的18名特使在中国遭受酷刑并被处决的报复,在中国,该事件至今仍是敏感话题,仍被视为民族的奇耻大辱。
　　 中国对收回殖民时期以及二十世纪初被掠走的文物越来越感兴趣,因此决定尝试为散落世界各地的数百万件文物建立档案。
　　 “我们真的不知道被掠走的文物有多少,因为保存在圆明园的宝藏目录在那场大灾难中被烧毁了。”圆明园现任主任陈明杰对中国国家报纸《中国日报》说。
　　 “但据粗略计算,约有150万件文物存储在47个国家2000多家博物馆中。”一位华人收藏家在一次拍卖会上分别为两个出自圆明园的铜兽首出价1390万英镑,之后拒付,破坏了此次拍卖,这充分证明了中国对这类“被掳”宝藏的敏感。
　　 这两个铜兽首属于已故时装设计师伊夫·圣·洛朗——一个兔头和一个鼠头,它们包括在12个装饰精美喷泉的兽首铸器中——中国政府对此次拍卖活动进行了谴责,并要求取消拍卖。不过,陈明杰说,编目工作的主要目的不是寻求归还文物,而是准确地编纂在大劫难中被掠走文物的目录。
　　 “我们已阐明这只是建立文档工作的一次尝试,而不是寻求归还那些文物,不过我们确实希望某些以前不知道的文物能够露面,也希望有些文物能在追踪过程中回归祖国。”预计将接受查访的机构有大英博物馆和法国枫丹白露艺术博物馆,然而,这些收藏只是遗失的圆明园文物中的一小部分,其中包括刺绣华丽的长袍、雕塑品、家具、绘画作品、瓷器和雕刻品。
　　 “我希望他们明白,他们会给自己招致多大的麻烦,”芝加哥大学国际史教授詹姆斯·何伟亚说,他同时也是研究1860到1900年遭掳文物的世界权威之一,“完成这个项目需要巨额财力。”虽然有些文物有明确的馆藏标签,何伟亚补充说,但还有成千上万的私人收藏品经过了无数双手——经过出售或者遗赠——使人难以辨认它们是否来自圆明园。
　　 “我记得上世纪80年代,我去查塔姆(肯特郡)的皇家工兵军团博物馆做研究工作,当我完成了其它项目的建档工作后正要离开,有人问我是否想看看军官食堂的‘王座’。
　　 “事实上那只是一个巨大的皇室沙发,上面雕刻着绝妙的龙案,并不是皇帝的宝座,但他们称其为‘戈登的王座’,因为它是由查尔斯‘中国的’戈登将军带回来的。它摆放在食堂主讲台后面。”在谈到该调查是否会导致中国再次发出归还文物的呼吁时,何伟亚教授说中国的期望是现实的。
　　 “我认为他们可能对收回那些文物不抱幻想,因为这种要求不仅触及中国的文物,而且触及了博物馆中从其它国家得来的文物。”他补充说。
　　 尽管工程浩大,但北京清华大学的教授郭黛姮已被派往华盛顿国会图书馆和哈佛大学图书馆,开始研究圆明园洗劫发生后拍摄的一百多张老照片。