Lost and Found

by+Gong+Haiying

After sleeping underground for over 2，000 years， they were brought to light but immediately lost overseas more than 20 years ago. Today， they finally returned home.

In April and May 2015， China welcomed home 32 gold ornament relics that had been acquired by Musée national des Arts asiatiques-Guimet in France. On July 20， they were handed over to Gansu Provincial Museum in China， where they will be displayed for over three months.

Chinas recovery of so many looted relics is remarkable in the global history of“lost-and-found” for cultural relics.

Lost

The 32 relics were taken from ruins and tomb complex at Dabuzi Mountain in Lixian County， Gansu Province. The locale was part of the State of Qin during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods （770-221 B.C.）， home to the ancestors of Qin Shihuang， who founded the Qin Dynasty （221-206 B.C.）， the first Chinese feudal empire.

In the late 1980s， villagers from Lixian County happened upon the ruins and tombs at the foot of Mt. Dabuzi， and soon they were looted. In 1993， Qi Bo， a journalist from Gansu Daily， wrote a story titled Sad Tune of the Ancient Tombs， first publicizing the tomb robberies.

Qis story was reprinted in China Youth News， a state-run newspaper， and caught the attention of the vice governor of Gansu in charge of relic administration， who tasked related departments with launching a special investigation.

“The whole mountain slope was just a mess of pits and caves of all shapes and sizes，” recalls Dai Chunyang from Gansu Archaeological Institute （GAI）. “Horse bones stained with copper rust were scattered all over the place. The majority of the relics taken in late September 1993 were believed to be heavy copper and gold vessels， which had never been found before.”The relics eventually surfaced in the collection of a French museum.

In April 1994， GAI launched its first rescue excavation， which was followed by massive volume of supporting work by other relic departments in the country to grade and number burial objects as well as analyze textual inscriptions on the stolen articles. It was gradually confirmed that Mt. Dabuzi was home to the tomb complex and ruins of the royal palace of kings before Emperor Qin Shihuang united the six states.

According to specialists， the gold ornaments were likely meant to decorate horse helmets or coffins. “Copper and jade were revered during the Zhou Dynasty （C.1100-221 B.C.），” illustrates Wang Hui， director of the GAI. “Gold was not celebrated in China. It was more commonly seen in ornaments from central and western Asian countries. This evidences these countries were already interacting with the State of Qin in commerce， trade， and culture prior to the founding of the Qin Dynasty， demonstrating the inclusiveness of the early Qin time – one of the driving forces of the states prosperity.”

Action

In spring 1994， Han Wei， a well-known Chinese archaeologist and former GAI di- rector， first discovered the lost treasures in a private museum in France. How to get them back， however， remained a big question.

In 2005， Chinas State Administration of Cultural Heritage launched a program to investigate relics lost abroad， producing a report on items from Mt. Dabuzi. Later， both the Chinese and French performed technical analysis on the gold ornaments. They found identical cinnabar and mud on both sides， proving the items origin.

After confirming the source of the relics， the next step was lobbying for retrieval. “Its easy to win moral sympathy and publicity， but difficult to get action，”asserts Duan Yong， director of the Museum and Social Relics Department under the GAI. “Such a task is extremely difficult for China because the country suffered losses earlier and of a larger scale than other countries around the world. Today， China remains comparatively weak at tracing and archiving its poached relics. Also， China trails other countries in getting such relics returned， due to a lack of experience.”

In 2005， the Chinese authorities unleashed a wave of efforts ranging from writing letters and contacting relevant parties to communicating with NGOs. In 2014， they finally won support from the French government when China and France celebrated their 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.

However， according to French law， state-owned property is not negotiable for sale. Musée national des Arts asiatiquesGuimet could hardly return the relics directly to China. Eventually， Paris persuaded the collectors to agree to withdraw the donation to the museum and return the objects to China.

On April 13， 2015， Fran？ois Pinault， an eminent French collector， returned four gold ornaments that cost him 1 million Euros in 2000 through the French embassy to China. On May 13， Christian Deydier， another famous French collector， returned 28 other gold ornaments to China.

“The return of these relics was a great outcome of Chinas first attempt and set a good example for future efforts，” declares Duan.

As noted by Song Xinchao， deputy director of the GAI， 81 relics have been found with private collectors， in museums in other regions of China such as Hong Kong and Taiwan， and in other corners of the world such as the United States， Britain， Belgium， and Japan， according to a report on looted relics from Mt. Dabuzi.

“Weve kept in touch with them in hopes of keeping the relationship positive，”remarks Song.

Worldwide Issue

Many countries including Egypt， Italy， Greece， and Peru have long been plagued by similar problems. For instance， it took 166 years for the Egyptian government to retrieve the “beard” of the Sphinx from Britain. A common hitch on the issue revolves around the international communitys debate over “relic nationalism” vs.“relic internationalism.”

Just as the name implies， “relic nationalists” insist that cultural property is culturally iconic and directly linked to the heritage of a specific nation and state. Every nation or state enjoys an unalienable right to the cultural property it creates. “Relic internationalists” argue that cultural property belongs to all of mankind and should not be owned by a single nation. They believe that if certain relics are taken beyond national boundaries， return is arbitrary.

“Cultural property is parallel – both national and international，” opines Professor Huo Zhengxin from the School of Transnational Law under China University of Political Science and Law.“Emphasizing either of them is biased and does not serve the aims of international laws of cultural property. Generally speaking， each country is the best guard of the cultural property produced within its territory until a special law addresses special cases of safeguarding the common interests of all mankind.”

“The conceptual debate wont affect what we are doing，” declares Peng Lei， assistant researcher from the Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage. “One of our fundamentals is to establish a relic archive database and a dynamic management system as soon as possible. We want to prove to the world that not only can China protect its relics， but that it can better contribute to efforts that fully tap their artistic， historical， and cultural values so all people can experience historys weight after admiring this art created by our ancestors.”