Exhibitions Art law Museums Netherlands

Ancient Crimean gold caught in legal limbo

Dutch museum faces dilemma whether to return artefacts to Ukraine or Russia

Objects on view in the exhibition “The Crimea—Gold and Secrets of the Black Sea”

Scythian gold and other rare artefacts from Crimea on loan to an Amsterdam museum are in legal limbo after Russia’s annexation of the peninsula. The archaeological museum of the University of Amsterdam has asked the Dutch ministry of foreign affairs for advice and is consulting lawyers about the artefacts, which were due to return to Ukraine when a touring exhibition now at the Allard Pierson Museum closes.

A spokesman for the university tells The Art Newspaper: “The Allard Pierson Museum considers it extremely important to exercise care in this situation.” The objects will remain in the Netherlands for at least the duration of the exhibition, he says, which had been extended from May to August. "Given the complexity of the issue, the manner in which the objects will be returned is currently being investigated by the legal advisers of the university,” he says.

The artefacts came to the Netherlands based on loan agreements that were concluded prior to the political upheaval in Ukraine and the recent change of power in Crimea. The show opened in Amsterdam in February, having travelled from Bonn in Germany.

Mikhail Piotrovsky, the director of the State Hermitage Museum, told journalists in St Petersburg on Tuesday that it is unclear what will happen to the works on display in the exhibition “The Crimea—Gold and Secrets of the Black Sea”. The show features ancient jewellery and armour on loan from five Ukrainian museums, including four in the Crimean peninsula. A controversial referendum in Crimea on 16 March saw a 96% vote in favour of joining the Russian Federation.

“The objects from the Kerch museum, which is in Crimea, have been exhibited in Holland and are supposed to return,” Piotrovsky told local media in St Petersburg. “A difficult problem arises. On the one hand, legally, everything is against the [Kerch] museum. On the other hand, these objects belong to the museum. We will work out an agreement on how the museum will get them back,” Piotrovsky said.

The Hermitage was not involved in the exhibition. The St Petersburg museum’s collection includes Scythian gold, however, and it has a branch in Amsterdam.

Valentina Mordvintseva, an archaeologist from the Crimean branch of the Institute of Archaeology of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, who helped organise the show, says it explores “the interaction and diversity of cultures on the Crimean peninsula in the period from the seventh century BC to the seventh century AD”. Highlights include a group of first century AD Chinese lacquer boxes found at a Crimean burial site along with bronze Roman vessels: “This is the westernmost find of Chinese lacquer in the world, which indicates the long-distance contact of various ancient peoples; for all practical purposes, it shows the ties between two great empires—China and Rome.”

Mordvtinseva told Russia’s NTV news channel that breaking up Crimea’s collections would be a fatal move. “This is murder, both for the objects and for the museum,” she said.

More from The Art Newspaper


31 Mar 14
0:50 CET


"Giving" the Russians this ancient treasure would make this Dutch museum complicit in the crime of theft. It seems quite clear that the artifacts were loaned by a Ukrainian Museum and.until they can securely be returned to the lender why put these treasures at risk? It would be best for these artifacts to be looked after by the Dutch. Why be bullied into handing them over to an invader?

31 Mar 14
0:50 CET


Unless the ownership of collections currently in all of the Crimean museums disputed, on what grounds could the items currently in Amsterdam not be returned to the lending institutions?

31 Mar 14
0:50 CET


This is an issue that has long plagued many museums and historians. Case in point, the Elgin marbles. Should the British Museum return them? The Crimean artifacts are a little different. However, on balance the articles belong to the region in which they were created and discovered. They should at the appropriate time be returned to the Crimea, without regard to whoever controls that region.

28 Mar 14
15:30 CET


When Britain was threatened with invasion (1930s - 1940s) many treasures were sent to Canada and the USA for safe keeping. It would be a good idea for the Ukraine to ask the Dutch to keep their treasure safe for them until security improves. No way Russia should win them through violence or coercion.

27 Mar 14
15:50 CET


The legally binding loan agreement was made with Ukraine, thus the artifacts must be returned to Ukraine. There is no ambiguity here. International loans of national treasures must be contracted with the lending institution - the museum which was and is a Ukrainian supported one - as well as approved by the Ministry of Culture, the authoritative government institution, which in this case was Ukraine's government. Handing these objects over to Russia would be enabling a theft, of the antiquities, and at the same time capitulating to Russia's theft of Ukrainian territory.

27 Mar 14
15:50 CET


Absolutely the same as many artefacts from Pereshchepina Tresure - Kubrat -founder of The Great Old Bulgaria - his capitol sity was Fanagoriya - Crimean Peninsula

27 Mar 14
15:51 CET


These are typical Bulgarian tresure

Submit a comment

All comments are moderated. If you would like your comment to be approved, please use your real name, not a pseudonym. We ask for your email address in case we wish to contact you - it will not be made public and we do not use it for any other purpose.


Want to write a longer comment to this article? Email letters@theartnewspaper.com


Share this