Archaeological masterpieces of major cultural importance for Romania, lent by the Romanian National History Museum (MNIR) to the Drents Museum in the Netherlands, were stolen in the early hours of January 25. 

The theft prompted heated debates in Romania as accusations flew over the procedures followed (or not) by MNIR, other Romanian authorities involved in the process and by the Drents Museum. Nationalist politicians in particular have seized on the incident to criticise the Romanian government, slamming official incompetence. 

A famous ceremonial helmet dating back to 450 B.C., known as the Coțofenești helmet, and three bracelets dating back to 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.

After the theft, questions have been raised about why originals of such value were sent to a rather minor Dutch museum without proper insurance (€30mn for the entire collection, out of which €5.8mn was for the stolen items), and on the other hand the Dutch museum is suspected of insufficient security measures.

“Multiple individuals”, according to the Dutch police after consulting CCTV footage, used dynamite to enter the museum, took the artefacts and left the place in three minutes. No human guard was present, 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 at a press conference on January 26, when asked about the security measures provided for the exhibition.

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

He said MNIR would sue Drents Museum if the contractual obligations regarding 24/7 surveillance of the exhibition were not observed, and he implied that 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,” Târnoveanu said. 

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.

“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. 

From the words used in the police statement, it seems that the Drents Museum had not put in place proper surveillance that would have allowed it to provide the police with real-time information.

Amid high political tensions, the event was exploited by the nationalist opposition in Romania, which pointed to the visible discrepancy between the value of the exhibition sent to the Netherlands and the value of the insurance, the sloppy contracts and agreements, and the insufficient security secured by the Dutch museum.

The head of rightwing nationalist Alliance for the Union of Romanians' (AUR's) committee for culture, Mihail Neamtu, commented: "The theft of the Dacic treasury is a direct attack on the national identity and a proof of the incompetence of the Romanian authorities," according to a post on the party's Facebook page. 

Several politicians accused the Romanian authorities of negligence and criticised the fact that the gold heritage objects were taken out of the country and taken to a museum in the Netherlands, without adequate security measures.