The history of the famous treasures of Troy, discovered by Heinrich Schliemann and evacuated by Soviet troops from Germany after the war, has been a subject of intense international dispute since their appearance in Moscow. For decades, Germany has made successive diplomatic efforts to return the collection, insisting on its illegal transfer. However, these efforts have consistently hit a wall with Russia's position, which views the \"Troy gold\" as legitimate military compensation for the colossal damage inflicted by Nazi Germany.

Diplomatic Struggle and Legal Arguments

Immediately after the end of the Cold War and the recognition of the fact that the collection was in Moscow, Germany intensified its demands. The key argument of the German side was the bilateral agreements, in particular, the Treaty of Good Neighborliness of 1990, signed with the Soviet Union, and the agreement on cultural cooperation of 1992 with Russia. Both documents contained provisions on the mutual return of displaced cultural values.

However, in Russia, these obligations were interpreted differently. In April 1995, the State Duma adopted a moratorium, effectively freezing the return of trophy art until a special federal law was adopted. German experts and politicians, including Chancellor Helmut Kohl, tried to influence Moscow at the highest level, but their appeals, according to participants in the negotiations, did not lead to a breakthrough. The Yeltsin government, and then subsequent administrations, took a tough stance: the return of the artifacts is possible only in the context of a comprehensive solution to the entire issue of military trophies, within which Germany must compensate Russia for the damage, including the destruction of cultural monuments.

Russian Perspective: The Right of the Victor

The position of Russia, most vividly voiced by the long-standing director of the State Museum of Fine Arts named after A. S. Pushkin, Irina Antonova, is that the treasures of Troy are a legitimate military trophy. In response to Germany's claims, the counterargument about the fate of the Amber Room, evacuated by the Nazis from Russia, was often cited. The Soviet authorities and their successors viewed the displaced cultural heritage not as a \"trophy\" in the classical sense, but as an act of historical justice, a partial compensation for the destruction caused by the war. As a result, all negotiations reached an impasse, and no previously concluded diplomatic treaties were fulfilled in terms of the return of Schliemann's gold.

The Episode of Declassification and the Exhibition of 1996

The first step towards public recognition was taken in 1993, when Russia officially confirmed that the collection was in its possession. In October 1994, German experts were allowed to inspect the treasures, confirming their authenticity and good preservation. However, the key event was the exhibition \"Troy Treasures from the Excavations of Heinrich Schliemann,\" which opened at the State Museum of Fine Arts named after Pushkin in April 1996.

This exhibition was perceived by Germany as a provocation, intensifying diplomatic pressure. The German side claimed that the exhibition was organized unilaterally without consultation with the legitimate owner. Despite protests and diplomatic notes, Moscow demonstrated that it considered itself the rightful keeper of the collection, and its display was seen as a demonstration of this right.

Interest Collisions: The Role of Turkey

The situation is complicated by the presence of a third claimant — Turkey, which claims that the treasures were illegally removed from its territory by Schliemann. In 2012, inspired by the successful return of a number of other artifacts from the United States and Germany, Turkey also claimed its rights to the treasure of Priam. However, the Russian side consistently ignores Ankara's claims, considering the issue of the export by Schliemann as part of the history of the 19th century, not related to modern legal disputes between Russia and Germany.

Prospects for Return

Despite years of efforts by German diplomacy and periodic tensions in relations (including individual incidents when German politicians used cultural events to express protest), the \"Troy gold\" remains in Russia. The main part of the exhibits remains in the permanent exhibition of the State Museum of Fine Arts named after Pushkin, while a number of other finds from the same hoard are in the State Hermitage. The prospect of returning the collection to Germany remains extremely unlikely: Russia's position, supported by the majority of the museum community and politicians, remains unchanged.

Permanent link to this publication: