The sale of a 8.5 by 5.8 centimeter Qing dynasty (late 18th- early 19th century) gold box for £490,000 ($764,694.00) at London auction house Woolley and Wallis has provoked an international debate. The gold box, embellished with seed pearls, enamel glass panels, and floral motifs was inscribed in 1860 on the inside lid "Loot from Summer Palace, Perkin, October 1860,Captain James Gunter, King's Dragoon Guards." It is this inscription that has not only increased the box's value by 50 percent, but also sparked a passionate dialogue about war looting and plundering, the Chinese art market, and auction house responsibility.
Whether we regard items such as the Captain Gunter box as "stolen," "plundered," "contraband," "spoils of war," "ransacked," "pillaged," or as Gunter choose "looted," the taking of valuable goods from invaded areas during war is as old as war itself. Art Law: Cases and Materials perhaps says it best: "This historical sketch [referring to Roman activities] emphasizes the problem that can arise when the army of one nation occupies another. Historically, the world community did very little to protect national patrimony from plunder and destruction. Conquering armies believed they possessed the right to despoil a apparently defeated enemy. What about the interest of future generations in their nation's cultural property? Should they be deprived of their nationalartistic heritage merely because their country was defeated in battle? The protection of national patrimony from plunder has ramifications beyond the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations" (Leonard D. DuBoff, Sherri Burr, Michael D. Murray, Art Law: Cases and Materials, 2004, 32).
The trade in Chinese antiquities is big business. The sale of Chinese artifacts has now surpassed the purchase of Old Master paintings (Scott Rayburn, "China Antique Sales Raise Record Sums", China Daily, May 23, 2011). The annual revenue from Chinese works not exceeds US$10 billion. After the October 2011 sale of looted objects from the Summer Palace, Tom Flynn, author of the blog ArtKnows, stated: "recent auctions in the UK--even those held in the British Provinces--have demonstrated the lengths to which Chinese dealers and collectors will travel-- and indeed how high they are prepared to bid--to secure Imperial wares. Their buying power has now reached a level at which few Western dealers can compete (October 27, 2011). In recent years, major auctions houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's have opened locations in China and enjoyed enormous success. For example, a 2010 auction by Sotheby's Hong Kong specializing in Asian art totalled a record $447m (Giles Turner, "Buying Frenzy for Chinese Art," Financial News, May 12, 2011).
Furthermore, the United States has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with China on January 14th, 2009, "acting pursuant to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property, to which both countries are party; and desiring to reduce the incentives for pillage of irreplaceable archeological material representing the rich cultural heritage of China" (United States Department of State). For this reason, the trade in Chinese antiquities, particularly items that are newly discovered or have no established provenance, has shirted from the United States to the United Kingdom, Europe and Asia. For more information on the China MOU visit SafeCorner's coverage at "Bilateral Agreements at Work" and "Trying to put 'Humpty Dumpty back together again.'"
The Yumingyuan Museum, which houses remaining Summer Palace relics, has called upon foreign museums to return the "looted" relics. According to the United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph, the main target was the British Museum (Peter Foster, "China to Study British Museum for Looted Artefacts," The Daily Telegraph, October 19, 2009). Experts, however, are doubtful that items will even be returned from museums. Instead, they argue that the governments public camping is an attempt to encourage private collectors in China to return the items to the Yuanmingyuan Museum. John Wong of the University of Sydney states: "As Western institutions are individuals are unlikely to respond, this call obviously targets domestic consumption, which the Chinese leaders hope will galvanize the nation." In November 2011, the Yuanmingyuan Museum called for a boycott of auction selling looted relics. This along with the founding of several non-governmental organizations, such as the Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program, has lead to aggressive action to retrieve the 1.5 million relics "stolen" from the Summer Palace.
![]()
This brings us back to Captain Gunter's gold box. First, why would an auction house take on such a lot with huge risk involved for the auction house and buyer? Secondly, why was this gold box even auctioned off? Should not the engraving on the box, acknowledging its troubled provenance raised alarm bells? Why did the engraving add value, when such a statement should have devalued it in any other market? Granted, the Gunter family has possession, but who truly owns such "looted" items? Where should they go, what should happen to them? These are questions not only relevant to the Captain Gunter case, but to all sales of artifacts that were stolen or looted from the Summer Palace.
The looting of the Summer Palace occurred, which took place October 18-19, 1860 is among the most humiliating events in China history. The Opium War, also known as the Anglo-Chinese War, occurred in two stages (1839-1842 and again 1856-1860) after trade relations broke down between the Qing Dynasty and the British Empire. During the war, many Chinese sites were razed, and looting of Chinese "souvenirs" by British soldiers was rampant. Interesting enough, the looting and burning occurred under the orders of the British High Commissioner to China, James Bruce, the Eighth Lord Elgin, son of Thomas Bruce, Seventh Earl of Elgin responsible for the "preservation" of the metopes, friezes, and pedimental sculptures of the Acropolis. The destruction of the Summer Palace, a brash act of pyromania which lead to the death of hundreds of eunuchs caught inside the compound and the pillaging of some 1.5 million relics, signaled the end of the Opium War. In October 2010, China lamented the 150 year anniversary of the end of the Opium War and the burning of the Summer Palace.
Captain Gunter's inscribed box is only one of the many items that he "looted" from the Summer Palace. On May 19th, 2011 at Duke's Auctioneers of Dorchester Captain Gunter's descendants sold eleven pieces from the Summer Palace, including a 18th Century Qianlong period (1736-1795) yellow jade pendant with a carved dragon for £478,000, which was estimated at £50,000. In the auction catalogue, the provenance identified the pieces as "acquired" from the Summer Palace. ![]()
The Gunter family still holds possession of an extensive collection of artifacts-- ivory chopsticks, jade boxes, jade chimes, bowls, and a jadeite belt hook estimated to be worth over £2 million. Guy Schwinge, an expert from Duke's, recounts his visit to the Gunter home in May 2011. He stated in The Daily Mail: "When I arrived at the house and was shown into the sitting room, I was not sure what I was going to see. We discussed the market for Chinese works of art over a cup of coffee and the results we had achieve at our recent Melplash Court sale, which included many Chinese works. The family then began to pull the most stunning pieces of jade from the back of a display cabinet in the corner of the room. I was stunned by the quality and number of pieces of jade that emerged from the cabinet. I felt the hairs at the back of my neck stand up" (Daily Mail, May 4, 2011). The future of these items is still not known.
The Gunter family still holds possession of an extensive collection of artifacts-- ivory chopsticks, jade boxes, jade chimes, bowls, and a jadeite belt hook estimated to be worth over £2 million. Guy Schwinge, an expert from Duke's, recounts his visit to the Gunter home in May 2011. He stated in The Daily Mail: "When I arrived at the house and was shown into the sitting room, I was not sure what I was going to see. We discussed the market for Chinese works of art over a cup of coffee and the results we had achieve at our recent Melplash Court sale, which included many Chinese works. The family then began to pull the most stunning pieces of jade from the back of a display cabinet in the corner of the room. I was stunned by the quality and number of pieces of jade that emerged from the cabinet. I felt the hairs at the back of my neck stand up" (Daily Mail, May 4, 2011). The future of these items is still not known.The "looting" that took place at the Summer Palace is not an isolated incident. In fact, the Chinese Cultural Relics Association predicts that over ten million cultural objects were "plundered" from China between 1840 and 1949, at the founding of the People's Republic of China. The 150th anniversary of the Summer Palace looting, coupled with China's growing wealth and status has ignited a strong and unified movement to returned Chinese antiquities to their homeland. Yet, instead of going to public museums, most Chinese antiquities are entering private collections and displayed in private homes as a sign of wealth and power, not patriotism. Andrew Jabobs, a reporter for The New York Times, wrote in December 2009: "At its core, such mixed signals [of the Chinese search for relics] are an outgrowth of China's evolving self-identity. Is it a developing country with fresh memories of its victimization of imperial powers? Or, is it the world's biggest exporter, eager to ensure good relations with the outside world to protect its trade dependent economy?" The China Daily, the most widely read newspaper in China, agreed that the motivations of China's wealth class purchasing Chinese antiquities has questionable motives. They wrote, "Although patriotism is playing a part in this hunting to recapture looted treasures, experts say that majority of buyers are in fact more interested in the investment potential of ancient works--and the glamour" (Cheng Yingqi, December 15, 2010).
The trade in Chinese antiquities is big business. The sale of Chinese artifacts has now surpassed the purchase of Old Master paintings (Scott Rayburn, "China Antique Sales Raise Record Sums", China Daily, May 23, 2011). The annual revenue from Chinese works not exceeds US$10 billion. After the October 2011 sale of looted objects from the Summer Palace, Tom Flynn, author of the blog ArtKnows, stated: "recent auctions in the UK--even those held in the British Provinces--have demonstrated the lengths to which Chinese dealers and collectors will travel-- and indeed how high they are prepared to bid--to secure Imperial wares. Their buying power has now reached a level at which few Western dealers can compete (October 27, 2011). In recent years, major auctions houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's have opened locations in China and enjoyed enormous success. For example, a 2010 auction by Sotheby's Hong Kong specializing in Asian art totalled a record $447m (Giles Turner, "Buying Frenzy for Chinese Art," Financial News, May 12, 2011).
The situation is further complicated by China's export laws and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States. China's Ministry of Culture issued "Interim Provisions on the Administration of the Import and Export of Art" on July 17, 2009. Article 5 of the law states: "Art works are prohibited from being imported or exported if they contain content which: "(1) violates the basic principles of the Constitution of China; (2) endangers the unification of the country, national sovereignty or territorial integrity; (3) divulges state secrets, endangers state security, honor or interests; (4) incites ethnic hatred, discrimination, or harms ethnic unity or habits and customs; (5) propagates or publicizes cults or superstitions; (6) disrupts social order or stability; (7) advocates or publicizes obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, horror, or instigates crime; (8) libels, slanders or harms the legal interests of others; (9) deliberately tampers with history or severely distorts history; (10) harms public morals or ethnic cultural traditions; or (11) other content prohibited by laws, regulations and rules" (Nancy M. Murphy, "Provisions on the Managements of the Import and Export of Art," July 17, 2009). These provisions, in summary, give the government complete control over any and all works of art which enter or exit the country. The provisions make it almost impossible to export Chinese antiquities from the country.
Furthermore, the United States has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with China on January 14th, 2009, "acting pursuant to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property, to which both countries are party; and desiring to reduce the incentives for pillage of irreplaceable archeological material representing the rich cultural heritage of China" (United States Department of State). For this reason, the trade in Chinese antiquities, particularly items that are newly discovered or have no established provenance, has shirted from the United States to the United Kingdom, Europe and Asia. For more information on the China MOU visit SafeCorner's coverage at "Bilateral Agreements at Work" and "Trying to put 'Humpty Dumpty back together again.'"
The Yumingyuan Museum, which houses remaining Summer Palace relics, has called upon foreign museums to return the "looted" relics. According to the United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph, the main target was the British Museum (Peter Foster, "China to Study British Museum for Looted Artefacts," The Daily Telegraph, October 19, 2009). Experts, however, are doubtful that items will even be returned from museums. Instead, they argue that the governments public camping is an attempt to encourage private collectors in China to return the items to the Yuanmingyuan Museum. John Wong of the University of Sydney states: "As Western institutions are individuals are unlikely to respond, this call obviously targets domestic consumption, which the Chinese leaders hope will galvanize the nation." In November 2011, the Yuanmingyuan Museum called for a boycott of auction selling looted relics. This along with the founding of several non-governmental organizations, such as the Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program, has lead to aggressive action to retrieve the 1.5 million relics "stolen" from the Summer Palace.
The art world was stunned on March 7, 2009 by what is now being called the Yves Saint Laurent Fiasco. The Times' Richard Morris reported: "The fury of the reactions to an act of sabotage by an incensed Chinese bidder has rocked the art world" (The Times, March 7, 2009). At an Asian sale at Christie's Paris a pair of bronze animal heads, once of a set of twelve that made up a water clock at the Summer Palace before they were looted in 1860, achieved a hammer price of £28 million. The bidder, Cai Mingchao, a once trusted Christie's client, promptly refused to pay. In a statement he said his intentions were to "draw attention to this sale of looted treasure.... There is an indignation in China that Chinese bidders have to spend millions simply to retrieve artifacts that were looted from the country" (The Times, March 7, 2009). Christie's options included: (1) sue for the payment, drawing attention to the fact that they were selling known "stolen" goods; or (2) attempt to re-auction the heads to buyers aware of the questionable provenance and potential for a title claim. Neither were good options. The bronze animal heads were returned to the consignor, and based on recent reports, Christie's may have receive some form of payment, but this has not been verified. Cai Mingcaho was, therefore, successful in his statement about "looted" goods. This episode served as a wake-up call. As a result, auction houses in the United Kingdom now require pre-registration applications, financial references, guarantees, and deposits at least three days before Asian art sales. Such measures limit the auctioneer's economic risk. But can any measure limit the reputational risk associated with the public sale of looted or stolen property?
This brings us back to Captain Gunter's gold box. First, why would an auction house take on such a lot with huge risk involved for the auction house and buyer? Secondly, why was this gold box even auctioned off? Should not the engraving on the box, acknowledging its troubled provenance raised alarm bells? Why did the engraving add value, when such a statement should have devalued it in any other market? Granted, the Gunter family has possession, but who truly owns such "looted" items? Where should they go, what should happen to them? These are questions not only relevant to the Captain Gunter case, but to all sales of artifacts that were stolen or looted from the Summer Palace. Photos Courtesy of Woolley and Wallis and The Daily Mail
