Theft of iconic Romanian ancient artifacts from Dutch museum prompts heated debate

The theft of archaeological masterpieces of major cultural importance for Romania, lent by the Romanian National History Museum (MNIR) to the Drents Museum in the Netherlands, prompted heated debates and controversies in Romania related to the procedures followed by MNIR, by other Romanian authorities involved in the process, and by Drents Museum.

On the one hand, it is questioned why originals of such value were sent to a relatively minor Dutch museum without proper insurance (EUR 30 million for the entire collection, out of which EUR 5.8 million for the stolen items), and on the other hand, the Dutch museum is suspected of insufficient security measures.

A famous ceremonial helmet dating 450 B.C., known as the Coțofenești helmet, and three Dacian bracelets dating around 50 B.C., all made of gold, were stolen on the night of January 24 to 25 from the Dacia - Empire of Gold and Silver exhibition hosted by Drents Museum in Assen, which included around 673 archaeological objects made of precious metals.

"Multiple individuals," according to the Dutch Police, after consulting the CCTV, used dynamite to enter the museum, took the artifacts, and left the place in three minutes. No human guard was assured by the Dutch museum, despite the immense value of the objects in the exhibition and, according to MNIR, despite the clauses of the contract signed between parties.

"I assure you that the insurer [of the exhibition] has done all the necessary research to ensure that the heritage is properly preserved during the exhibition," said the MNIR director Ernest Târnoveanu in a press conference on January 26 when asked about the security measures provided for the exhibition.

However, he also said that "there is no human guard at night," speaking of the security of the exhibition at the Assen Museum.

Moreover, he stated that MNIR would sue Drents Museum if the contractual obligations regarding 24/7 surveillance of the exhibition were not observed - and he implied this was the case.

"We will go to court for non-compliance with the contractual clauses. In other words, if clause 5 of the contract was not respected, that is, to ensure 24/7 surveillance, and the person ensuring this surveillance to also have rapid means of communication, because, at our express request, the museum had to connect to the Police and the Police to intervene urgently in the event of any incident."

In response, Drents Museum claims that the clauses do not require human guards at night – but 24/7 surveillance. In any case, it remains unclear who reported the explosion at the museum to the police – and the police itself is rather vague on this.

"At approximately 03:45 AM, the Dutch police received a report of an explosion at the Drents Museum on the Brink in Assen. Upon arrival, it became clear that access to the building had been gained by forcing a door with explosives," according to the Dutch Police.