一幅曾被鄭重捐贈給南京博物院的名畫，卻在多年後出現在公開藝術拍賣會上，這起事件不僅引發法律爭議，也動搖社會大眾對博物館典藏制度的信任。龐家後人直言，整件事情「徹底顛覆我對博物館的認知」，而圍繞著137件捐贈文物中有5件下落不明的疑雲，至今仍未完全釐清。

事件的源頭可以追溯到1959年。當時，著名收藏家龐增和將自己珍藏的137件（套）古代書畫無償捐贈給南京博物院，其中包括明代畫家仇英的《江南春》圖卷。這次捐贈在當年被視為重要的文化善舉，捐贈者本人也因此獲得政府表彰，相關作品理應成為國家公共文化資產，由博物院妥善保存、研究與展示。

時間來到數十年後，龐增和之子龐叔令在2024年提出希望查驗父親當年捐贈的文物實物，但多次溝通未能如願，最終選擇提起訴訟。經法院調解，南京博物院與龐家約定，需在2025年6月30日前完成對相關文物的查驗程式。然而，就在這個過程尚未完成之前，一個更具衝擊性的情況浮出水面。

2025年5月，仇英《江南春》圖卷突然現身北京春季藝術拍賣會，估價高達8,800萬元人民幣。龐家得知後隨即向相關單位舉報，拍賣行最終緊急撤拍。這一情節不僅讓龐家震驚，也讓外界開始質疑，這件理應收藏於國家博物館中的作品，為何會流入市場。

隨後在6月的查驗中，爭議進一步擴大。龐家發現，原本捐贈的137件文物中，竟有5件不翼而飛，其中就包括《江南春》圖卷。南京博物院方面則回應稱，這5件作品被認定為「偽作」，並已於過去依規進行「劃撥、調劑」處理，但對於具體流向、處置時間，以及鑑定的專業依據，並未提供完整、清楚的說明。

法律層面的攻防隨之展開。南京博物院向法院提交1961年與1964年的相關鑑定記錄，主張這5件作品在早年已被認定為偽作，並於1990年代按照當時規定進行處置。不過，龐家指出，這些鑑定檔關鍵資訊被遮蓋，鑑定程式是否合規、鑑定結論是否具法律效力，都存在重大疑問。他們認為，即便作品真為偽作，也應有完整可追溯的處理紀錄，更不應在多年後出現在商業拍賣市場，因而要求返還文物或至少給出清楚交代。

案件在2025年11月開庭審理，但未能達成實質結論。到12月16日，龐叔令正式向法院申請強制執行，要求南京博物院提供1959年捐贈中「消失」的5件文物完整的流轉材料與處置依據，試圖透過司法手段迫使相關資訊公開。

最新進展顯示，2025年12月17日，南京博物院對外回應表示，將配合相關部門進行核查，若發現任何違規行為，將依法依規嚴肅處理。然而，對於拍賣場上出現的《江南春》是否為當年捐贈的原件，館方仍未給出明確說法。

這起事件已不再只是單一家庭與博物館之間的糾紛，而是引發了更廣泛的社會討論。公眾開始重新審視博物館在捐贈文物管理、鑑定程式、內部調撥以及資訊公開方面是否存在制度性漏洞，也關切捐贈者及其後人的合法權益是否獲得充分尊重。對許多人而言，這起風波所帶來的最大衝擊，或許正是對「國家級博物館必然安全可靠」這一既定印象的動搖。

A celebrated painting that was once formally donated to the Nanjing Museum later appeared at a public art auction, triggering not only a legal dispute but also widespread public shock. Descendants of the donor stated that the incident had “completely overturned my understanding of museums.” At the center of the controversy is the unresolved question of five missing items among a total of 137 donated artworks, a mystery that remains unsatisfactorily explained to this day.

The origins of the case date back to 1959, when the renowned collector Pang Zenghe donated 137 sets of ancient paintings and calligraphy to the Nanjing Museum free of charge. Among them was Spring in Jiangnan, a handscroll by the Ming dynasty painter Qiu Ying. At the time, the donation was regarded as a major cultural contribution, and Pang Zenghe received official government commendation. These works were understood to have become part of the nation’s public cultural heritage, to be properly preserved, studied, and exhibited by the museum.

Decades later, in 2024, Pang Zenghe’s son, Pang Shuling, requested to inspect the artworks donated by his father. After repeated attempts failed, he filed a lawsuit. Following court mediation, the Nanjing Museum agreed to complete an inspection of the relevant artifacts by June 30, 2025. However, before this process was concluded, a far more startling development came to light.

In May 2025, Qiu Ying’s Spring in Jiangnan unexpectedly appeared at a Beijing spring art auction, with an estimated price of 88 million RMB. Upon learning of this, the Pang family promptly reported the matter to the authorities, and the auction house subsequently withdrew the work from sale. This revelation shocked the family and raised broader public questions about how an artwork supposedly housed in a national museum could have entered the commercial market.

The controversy deepened further during the inspection conducted in June. The Pang family discovered that five of the original 137 donated items were missing, including Spring in Jiangnan. The Nanjing Museum responded by stating that these five works had been identified as “forgeries” and had already been “reallocated or disposed of” in accordance with regulations. However, the museum did not provide clear information regarding their specific whereabouts, the timing of their disposal, or the professional basis for the authentication conclusions.

Legal confrontation soon followed. The Nanjing Museum submitted appraisal records from 1961 and 1964 to the court, asserting that the five works had been identified as forgeries decades ago and were handled in compliance with regulations during the 1990s. The Pang family challenged this claim, pointing out that key information in the appraisal documents had been redacted and questioning whether the authentication procedures were lawful and whether the conclusions carried legal validity. They argued that even if the works were indeed forgeries, there should still be complete and traceable disposal records, and that such items should not resurface in commercial auctions many years later. On this basis, they demanded either the return of the artworks or, at the very least, a full and transparent explanation.

The case was heard in court in November 2025, but no substantive resolution was reached. On December 16, 2025, Pang Shuling formally applied to the court for compulsory enforcement, requesting that the Nanjing Museum provide full documentation detailing the circulation and handling of the five “missing” artifacts from the 1959 donation, in an effort to compel the disclosure of relevant information through judicial means.

According to the latest developments, on December 17, 2025, the Nanjing Museum issued a public response stating that it would cooperate with further investigations and that any violations discovered would be dealt with seriously in accordance with the law. However, the museum has yet to clearly state whether the Spring in Jiangnan that appeared at the auction is the same original work that was donated in 1959.

This incident has evolved beyond a dispute between a single family and a museum, sparking broader public debate. It has prompted renewed scrutiny of transparency in the management of donated artifacts, authentication procedures, internal reallocations, and information disclosure within museums, as well as concerns over whether the legitimate rights of donors and their descendants are adequately protected. For many observers, the most profound impact of this case lies in how it has shaken the long-held assumption that national-level museums are inherently safe and fully trustworthy custodians of cultural heritage.