A Ming dynasty painting that resurfaced at auction last year has exposed decades of corruption and serious misconduct at one of China's most prominent state museums, the Nanjing Museum. The handscroll, titled 'Spring in Jiangnan' and attributed to 16th-century court artist Qiu Ying, had not been seen publicly since 1959, when it was donated to the museum by the family of industrialist and collector Pang Yuanji.
In May last year, the painting appeared in a preview catalogue for China Guardian Auctions with an estimated price of 88 million yuan (£9.3 million). Pang Yuanji's great-granddaughter, Pang Shuling, recognised the scroll from its distinctive seals and alerted the National Cultural Heritage Administration. The auction house withdrew the lot within days.
Pang filed a legal action seeking clarity over the 1959 donation. In June, a court ordered the Nanjing Museum to conduct an inventory of the Pang family's donated works. The review revealed that five paintings from the original 137-piece gift, including 'Spring in Jiangnan', were no longer in the museum's possession. The museum claimed that expert appraisals in 1961 and 1964 had deemed the works forgeries, leading to their removal from the collection and transfer in the 1990s.
However, an investigation by the National Cultural Heritage Administration and Jiangsu provincial authorities concluded that the five paintings were illegally transferred to the Jiangsu Provincial Cultural Relics general store and sold, resulting in the loss of state-owned cultural assets. The then executive deputy director of the Nanjing Museum unlawfully signed off on the transfers despite regulations prohibiting unauthorised sales. A store employee altered the listed price of 'Spring in Jiangnan' from 25,000 yuan to 2,500 yuan, allowing an accomplice to purchase it for 2,250 yuan. The accomplice later sold the scroll, along with two other paintings, to a private collector for 120,000 yuan.
Pang Shuling has filed a further lawsuit seeking the return of all five paintings. The museum maintains that ownership transferred to the state at the time of donation, but Pang argues that the museum's unilateral determination of forgery damaged her family's reputation and that they should have been notified to verify authenticity or reclaim the works.
