NextFin -- In late December, at least 20 museums across China announced temporary closures, citing reasons ranging from equipment upgrades and exhibition adjustments to security system improvements and preventive conservation work.
Some closures are short-term, but others are lengthy. The Jinsha Site Museum said it would close for 511 days, from Dec. 5, 2025 until April 30, 2027, for what it described as a “comprehensive system upgrade.”
The museums include the Jinsha Site Museum in Chengdu, the Shaanxi History Museum, the Qinghai Provincial Museum and the Fuling District Museum in Chongqing.
The nearly simultaneous announcements, coming just before the New Year holiday sightseeing peak, stirred heated discussions on Chinese social media, where users questioned whether the closures were connected to a recent controversy involving the alleged insider theft and sale of cultural relics at the state-run Nanjing Museum.
Several museums have said the closures are routine and necessary for maintenance and safety. However, the timing — coinciding with a national investigation into the Nanjing Museum — has fueled uproar about negligent oversight of cultural relics and the management of museum collections.
Chinese authorities have moved to investigate the alleged theft and clearance sale of cultural relics from the Nanjing Museum after media reports that staff may have secretly removed and sold donated artworks, raising public concern about the management of national treasures.
The National Cultural Heritage Administration (NCHA) said on Tuesday it had formed a special working group to examine how the museum handled its collection, while authorities in eastern China’s Jiangsu province said they had set up a cross-departmental investigation involving discipline inspection, supervisory, public security and cultural agencies.
The probe follows a scandal that surfaced earlier this year when a Ming dynasty painting long believed to be held by the museum appeared in the catalogue of a Beijing auction house, with an estimated price of 88 million yuan ($12.5 million).
The work, Spring in Jiangnan (which refers to the south of the Yangtze River) by Qiu Ying (1368–1644), had been donated to the museum in 1959 by the family of renowned collector Pang Laichen as part of a 137-piece gift. Its appearance on the market prompted Pang’s descendants to demand an explanation and report the matter to authorities.
The museum said last week that Spring in Jiangnan and four other works from the Pang donation had been identified as forgeries in the 1960s and formally removed from its collection in 1997. It said the paintings were transferred to a cultural relics store in the province and that the work eventually auctioned this year had been sold in 2001 for 6,800 yuan to an unidentified buyer.
The museum has not explained how the work resurfaced on the art market more than two decades later at a vastly higher price.
Pang’s great-granddaughter, Pang Shuling, has challenged the museum’s account, citing inconsistencies in its documentation and a lack of communication with the family. She told media outlet Caixin that the family had never been properly informed of the reclassification or removal of the works.
“What this reveals is a loophole in how museums supervise their collections,” Pang Shuling was quoted as saying. “Public collections belong to society as a whole and should be properly protected.”
She has asked for the return of the disputed works to her family and for a broader review of how the rest of their donated collection is being managed.
Accusations Against Former Museum Director
The controversy intensified over the weekend when a retired museum employee, Guo Lidian, publicly accused former museum director Xu Huping of orchestrating large-scale theft and smuggling of cultural relics.
In a video statement widely circulated online, Guo alleged that Xu had arranged for authentic artifacts to be falsely labelled as replicas, transferred them to a store in the province at much lower prices and then resold them domestically and overseas. He also claimed that Xu had illegally opened sealed boxes containing more than 100,000 artifacts evacuated from the Palace Museum during World War Two and stored in Nanjing.
Xu, 82, has denied involvement in the sale of the painting, saying he was unaware of the matter and was not an expert in authentication. He has not publicly responded to Guo’s latest accusations.
Guo said more than 40 employees had previously reported Xu’s alleged behavior to authorities after he stepped down in 2008, but that no action was taken.
Founded in 1933 as the National Central Museum, the Nanjing Museum is one of China’s oldest and most important museums. It played a key role during the invasion of Japan by safeguarding artifacts evacuated from Beijing, a history that helped establish its reputation as a custodian of national heritage.
The scandal surfaced at a time when China is investing heavily in museums and cultural institutions as part of a broader campaign to promote cultural confidence and national identity.
Social media users have compared the alleged scheme to high-profile art thefts abroad, with one widely shared post calling the episode “more sophisticated than the Louvre heist,” referring to a recent theft in Paris.
Both national and provincial authorities have pledged to conduct a thorough investigation and make the findings public.
“We will strictly investigate and deal with any violations of laws and regulations in accordance with the law,” Jiangsu officials said in a statement, adding that they would keep the public informed of progress.
The case has also drawn attention to China’s evolving legal framework for cultural heritage protection. A revised Cultural Relics Protection Law that took effect in March strengthened penalties for illegal trade and for the first time enshrined China’s permanent right to reclaim stolen or illegally exported artifacts from overseas.
Analysts say the Nanjing Museum case highlights the tension between rapid institutional expansion and the need for stronger internal controls.
Museums have become highly visible public institutions in China, and public trust in them is essential, said a cultural policy researcher at a Beijing university, who asked not to be named. “This case shows that management systems have not always kept pace with growth.”
Public trust at stake
While the investigation is focused on a specific set of artworks, observers say its implications are broader.
Public museums are legally responsible for protecting state-owned cultural relics and for respecting the terms and conditions attached to private donations. Any abuse of that trust could undermine public willingness to donate and weaken confidence in cultural institutions.
The NCHA said the investigation would not only determine responsibility but also examine whether systemic weaknesses exist in inventory management, authentication procedures and oversight mechanisms.
For Pang’s family, the issue is as much about principle as about property.
“These works were donated in good faith for the benefit of the public,” Pang said in a previous interview. “We just want to know what happened to them and to make sure this never happens again.”
As the probe unfolds, its outcome is expected to shape not only the fate of the disputed paintings, but also future standards for how China’s museums manage, document and protect their collections — and how transparently they are held to account.
(Note: 1 dollar equals about 7.1 yuan)
