Object Lessons: The Politics of Preservation and Museum Building in Western China in the Early Twentieth Century

Abstract

The preservation of cultural property is never a neutral activity; and the question of who is to possess, care for, and interpret artifacts is highly politically charged. This paper examines how preservation was used as a justification for the removal of pieces of immovable archaeological sites in the early twentieth century, and became a tool for building museum collections. This study focuses on a collection of 12 wall painting fragments from the site of Dunhuang, China, which were removed by art historian Langdon Warner in 1924 for the Fogg Art Museum. The removal process resulted in significant damage to some of the fragments as well as to the site itself, calling into question what is preserved: an intact ancient artifact or an ancient artifact scarred by and embedded with its modern collection history? Using the Harvard collection as an example,

In the Name of Conservation

“…Making matters worse, the reprehensible art trade smuggling Chinese artefacts and cultural relics reached its peak in the late 19 th century, in the epilogue of China's last feudal dynasty. For example, eunuchs took curios from the Qing palace to the art market, responding to the needs and interests of foreign purchasers (Balachandran 2007). In addition, resulting from the political chaos leading to the final destruction of the Qing Dynasty, many nobles had to sell their collections to survive.…”

Nationalist China's “Great Game”: Leveraging Foreign Explorers in Xinjiang, 1927–1935

“…Now enter the foreign explorers. Ever since the May Thirtieth Incident in 1925, men such as art historian Langdon Warner found they could no longer remove Chinese antiquities without facing the wrath of nationalist Beijing elites (Balachandran 2007;Jacobs 2010, 73-77). Yet without a strong central government to add teeth to their rhetoric, this newfound cultural capital could only accomplish so much.…”

“…More recently, an attempt has been made to balance these narratives with the voices of those Chinese officials and intellectuals whose business it was to track foreign archaeologists and comment upon their activities (Jacobs 2009(Jacobs , 2010(Jacobs , 2012. The legacy of such historical framing, however, leaves us with two relatively homogenous sides of a debate, with the result that a disproportionate amount of ink has been spilled over abstract moral concerns regarding issues of cultural sovereignty and foreign imperialism writ large (see, e.g., Balachandran 2007;Colla 2007;Cuno 2008;Danielsson 2012;Hevia 2007;Middleton 2007;Reid 2002). The legacy of such historical framing, however, leaves us with two relatively homogenous sides of a debate, with the result that a disproportionate amount of ink has been spilled over abstract moral concerns regarding issues of cultural sovereignty and foreign imperialism writ large (see, e.g., Balachandran 2007;Colla 2007;Cuno 2008;Danielsson 2012;Hevia 2007;Middleton 2007;Reid 2002).…”

“…Though both perspectives enrich our understanding of these expeditions, the end result still resembles a "he said, she said" type of narrative, in which the chauvinist words and deeds of foreign "imperialists" ultimately instigate an equally chauvinist backlash from native "nationalists," who, at least against the silhouette of foreign aggression, often appear united. The legacy of such historical framing, however, leaves us with two relatively homogenous sides of a debate, with the result that a disproportionate amount of ink has been spilled over abstract moral concerns regarding issues of cultural sovereignty and foreign imperialism writ large (see, e.g., Balachandran 2007;Colla 2007;Cuno 2008;Danielsson 2012;Hevia 2007;Middleton 2007;Reid 2002). For much of the Republican era in China, however, the notion of coherent "Chinese" and "Western" actors is grossly misleading.…”