A Ming Dynasty masterpiece originally belonging to the public collection, flowing from the museum’s storage to the auction house, unexpectedly exposes the long-standing systemic loopholes and trust crises within China’s cultural and museum system. The controversy at Nanjing Museum is not just about a missing cultural relic but a collective interrogation of transparency, power, and public responsibility.
(Background recap: The other side of the US AI boom: Giving Chinese Bitcoin miners “jobs”)
(Additional context: China’s official stance on stablecoins marks the end of the era of gray fantasies around StableCoin)

Table of Contents

• From Auction House to Storage: A Reversed Cultural Asset Flow
• Allegation Escalation: Systemic Issues Surface
• “Collective Closure” Doubts: Spillover Effects of Trust Crisis
• Systemic Reflection: From Planned Economy to Modern Governance
• Technical Insights: Can Blockchain Become the Infrastructure of Trust?
• Conclusion

Recently, a major controversy over cultural relic management at Nanjing Museum (hereafter referred to as Nanbo) rapidly evolved from a missing ancient painting to a public issue affecting the entire national cultural and museum system. The core of the incident is not only about a Ming Dynasty painter Qu Ying’s scroll “Spring in Jiangnan” but points to deeper structural issues regarding system transparency, power oversight, and public trust.

From Auction House to Storage: A Reversed Cultural Asset Flow

The controversy began in May 2025. A scroll attributed to “Xuzi Collection” of Qu Ying’s “Spring in Jiangnan” appeared at a major Beijing auction house’s pre-sale exhibition, estimated at 88 million RMB. This piece originally belonged to one of 137 ancient books and paintings donated in 1959 by the descendants of the renowned collector Pang Laichen.

The donor’s great-granddaughter, Pang Shuling, discovered this and immediately reported it to relevant authorities. The auction house promptly withdrew the item. Subsequently, through court mediation, Pang Shuling entered Nanbo’s storage in June for verification, ultimately confirming that five paintings and calligraphy works, including “Spring in Jiangnan,” had unknown whereabouts.

Nanbo responded that the works had been identified as “forgeries” by experts as early as the 1960s and, in accordance with the then “Museum Collection Management Regulations,” were “reallocated and adjusted” in the 1990s. “Spring in Jiangnan” was sold in 2001 for 6,800 RMB, with the sales list marked as “Imitation of Qu Ying’s Landscape Scroll.”

However, the Pang family descendants firmly deny the presence of forgeries among the donated items and question whether the museum ever legally or contractually informed the donor during disposal, criticizing procedural irregularities.

Allegation Escalation: Systemic Issues Surface

The incident escalated again in December. A retired employee of Nanbo publicly accused the former director of large-scale improper disposal of “Relics from the Forbidden City relocation,” claiming that under the guise of identifying forgeries, high-quality collections were sold at low prices, involving far more than a single case.

On December 23, China’s National Cultural Heritage Administration and Jiangsu Provincial Government announced the formation of special investigation teams, promising a comprehensive investigation into the authenticity, disposal procedures, and potential corruption issues related to cultural relics, and will publish the results to the public. As of now, the investigation is ongoing.

“Collective Closure” Doubts: Spillover Effects of Trust Crisis

Another significant consequence of the Nanbo incident is the shaken public trust in cultural institutions overall. In late December 2025, nearly 30 museums across mainland China announced temporary closures or partial suspension of exhibitions, including the Jinsha Site Museum in Chengdu, the East Hall of Shanghai Museum, and parts of Shaanxi History Museum.

On social media, many netizens linked these closures to the Nanbo incident, speculating about nationwide relics audits or “self-inspection closures.” However, according to official announcements from these institutions, most closures are due to routine upgrades, equipment updates, preventive conservation, or maintenance. For example, the Jinsha Site Museum has been closed since December 5 until April 2027 for major comprehensive upgrades; the Shanghai Museum’s East Hall is undergoing artifact updates and adjustments.

Experts point out that there is no direct evidence that these closures are triggered by the Nanbo incident, but the “temporal overlap” alone reflects societal unease with the cultural and museum system.

Systemic Reflection: From Planned Economy to Modern Governance

In summary, the Nanbo incident exposes multiple systemic issues.

First, the authority over the disposal of donated relics is overly centralized. Under current regulations, museums have high unilateral discretion over donated relics deemed “unsuitable for collection,” but lack mandatory legal obligations to notify donors, leading to broken transfer records and opaque operations.

Second, relic authentication heavily relies on expert subjective judgment, limited by the technological and academic level of the times, posing long-term risks of “authenticity reversals.” If a work is classified as a “forgery” and sold cheaply, only to resurface years later at sky-high prices, suspicions of internal theft and collusion become unavoidable.

Third, internal oversight and checks and balances are insufficient. The whistleblower’s real-name report highlights weak internal supervision within the cultural relics system; relying solely on post-event self-inspection makes rebuilding public trust difficult.

A deeper impact is the erosion of confidence in charitable donations. Unpaid donations were an important force in promoting “cultural relics returning to the public,” but if the system lacks transparency, it will directly discourage private collections from entering the public domain.

Technical Insights: Can Blockchain Become the Infrastructure of Trust?

From an innovative technology perspective, the Nanbo incident also offers a reflection on relic governance. The spirit embodied by blockchain and cryptocurrencies—decentralization, immutability, transparent provenance, and smart contracts—may provide technical solutions outside the system for future relic management.

Through immutable on-chain records, a comprehensive traceability system covering donation, accession, authentication, transfer, and disposal can be established, preventing key nodes from only existing in internal files. NFT technology can generate unique digital certificates for each relic, fully recording authentication results, historical context, and rights changes. Even if the physical object is disposed of due to policy or authentication outcomes, the digital provenance remains traceable.

Furthermore, through multi-party participation via smart contracts, involving donors, authentication experts, and regulators to form consensus—rather than decisions made solely by internal units—can truly reduce the risk of power concentration.

Internationally, institutions like the British Museum have experimented with NFT projects to revitalize cultural assets and protect digital rights. These cases show that technology itself is not a panacea but can be an important tool for transparency.

Conclusion

The controversy at Nanbo is fundamentally a test of public trust. It reminds us that the value of cultural assets is not only in their age and market price but also in whether the system is trustworthy. As the cultural and museum sector transitions from a planned economy to modern governance, closing systemic gaps and introducing transparency mechanisms may be key to preventing the next “Spring in Jiangnan” from disappearing again.