Ukraine: Fifth Century Disc Brooch Seized by Police

 

                                 State Prosecutor                                 

Prosecutors in Lviv Oblast have brought a case to court concerning the attempted sale of a 5th-century archaeological object of considerable significance: a silver fibula brooch with a gilded surface (Намагався продати фібулу-брошку V ст.: судитимуть мешканця Борислава 17.11.2025). The announcement, published on the website of the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, outlines yet another instance in which an important early medieval find was diverted toward the antiquities market rather than reported through proper heritage channels.

According to investigators, the object was discovered in March 2025 by a 45-year-old local resident near Boryslav, not far from the Tysmenytsia River. The artefact has been identified as a silver fibula dating to the second half of the 5th century. Under Ukrainian law, such a find is classified as treasure and is considered state property due to its special historical, scientific, artistic, and cultural value. Fibulae of this period are not merely decorative items; they are key chronological and cultural markers, often associated with elite dress and identity in the turbulent centuries that followed the decline of Roman authority in the region.

Rather than notifying the relevant cultural heritage authorities, the man allegedly offered the brooch for sale through an online auction platform. As in similar cases, the act of commercialization without reporting the find forms the basis of the criminal charge. He is accused under Part 1 of Article 193 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which addresses the illegal appropriation of discovered treasure possessing particular historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural significance.

The brooch has since been seized and transferred for safekeeping to the National Museum of the History of Ukraine, where it will be preserved and studied in a proper institutional context. The case has now been referred to court, and proceedings are ongoing in accordance with Ukrainian law.

The case underscores a familiar problem: even a single object, when removed from its archaeological context and placed on the market, represents not only a legal violation but also the loss of irreplaceable contextual information. The recovery of the fibula ensures its preservation, but the circumstances of its discovery—unrecorded and undocumented—inevitably leave gaps in the historical record that no subsequent legal action can fully repair.

To be honest though, I am a bit puzzled by this find, the titchy photo does not help. It is a small disc brooch ('button brooch'?) with a circumferentially-grooved rim and what looks like tow opposed pairs ofr relief spirals, a four-spiral disc brooch? It looks very similar to Anglo-Saxon ones that have five or six spirals generally, there are some merovingian ones... and....? I cannot really place it among the other stuff from eastern Europe in general. Is it an import? An 'out of place' artefact (displaced by the antiquities market or misreported findspot)? or a fake? What is it? Anybody?

Evacuating Ukraine's Ancient Stone Guardians

According to the Facebook page of the 25th Separate Airborne Sicheslav Brigade (18/2/2026), soldiers of the Sicheslav Brigade, together with museum workers, volunteers, and philanthropists, evacuated from Vasylivka in the Synelnykivskyi District of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast the Polovtsian Babas of the XI–XIII centuries – unique stone monuments of the steppe era.

Previously, as reported by the online media Suspilne, Ukrainian paratroopers and historians had also evacuated two ancient Polovtsian statues from Petropavlivka in the Dnipropetrovsk region, to the same museum to protect them from war damage (Ukrainian Paratroopers Evacuate Ancient Polovtsian Statues from Petropavlivka Mezha, 13 November 2025)

soldiers of the 25th Separate Airborne Brigade, together with historians, evacuated two Polovtsian baba statues as the front line approached: the distance from the settlement to the combat zone exceeded 45 kilometers.
Two statues were saved thanks to the efforts of volunteers and specialists. The artifacts were found on the community’s territory, previously stored under a concrete layer. Nina Sergienko noted that this is not a common practice for artifacts, but in this case such a step helped preserve them from destruction. [...] To move the sculptures to Dnipro, heavy machinery was employed – a truck and a crane. A representative of the 25th Separate Airborne Brigade, Valeriy Kasianenko, said that the soldiers had a clear view of how the Russian army was destroying historical monuments amid active hostilities, so they decided to help with the evacuation.
“We understand that Russia is waging war against Ukraine on different levels, including at the level of history. For us it is important to preserve the heritage of our nation and not let the Russians destroy, damage, or take it for themselves”.
The statues were delivered to the museum in Dnipro. According to the representative, the evacuation lasted almost seven hours, and the transport covered more than 120 kilometers. After the work is completed, the exhibits are planned to be kept at the Dnipro Historical Museum named after Dmytro Yavornytsky. Yuriy Fanihin, Deputy Director for Records and Preservation of Museum Valuables, said that since the start of the large-scale invasion, 27 stone statues have been evacuated. [...] The museum owner added that until the end of the war these exhibits will remain in the museum’s courtyard, after which they will be returned to Petropavlivka."

Polovtsian stone stelae, popularly known as "babas" (from the Turkic word baba, meaning "ancestor"), are unique anthropomorphic monuments created by nomadic Turkic peoples between the 9th and 13th centuries. These statues, carved from sandstone or limestone, were typically placed atop kurgans (burial mounds) as memorial markers to honor the deceased and serve as ritual sites for ancestor worship. Though they represent both male and female figures with intricate details of clothing and weaponry, their primary function was to act as spiritual guardians of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Today, they remain vital archaeological evidence of the medieval nomadic cultures that once dominated the vast plains of modern-day Ukraine and southern Russia.

My problem with this is that this is treated as a portable antiquities issue (by portableising the "art"). The baba however sits in a site in the context of other things deposited or present at that site - such as a burial, or ephemeral traces of offerings and commemorative rituals at various times. By digging them out roughly and loading them on a truck, any traces areound the base of the stone will have been losgt, the whole site disrupted. "Puttiung it back" is not going to undo that destruction of evidence.

More Accusations of Finds Going Missing When in Hands of the PAS

If reports coming in are true, things look pretty rotten in UK archaeology. Coming soon after the scandal where finds went missing from a museum storeroom while the PAS was processing some potential Treasure cases (which we're not supposed to talk about because again no charges were ever pressed - shhhhhh) we are told of yet another case. Artefact hunter "Stu" left a comment on my post 'More UK Detectorists Reporting Objects Missing When Curated by Portable Antiquities Scheme' (PACHI ):

I've just had some pieces returned. Lithics. There was a beautiful scraper in amongst them with gorgeous fossil inclusions. It's been taken and replaced with a broken shard of flint that i did not recover. It was not present when they were handed over. Someone has cherry picked the piece and switched it out with a piece that i definitely did not find. I know because everything was photographed before it was submitted. I won't be handing anything else in to Lancashire PAS in the future.

PAS has been approached for comment, but at the time of writing, no response has been received.
It is hard to say quite what the truth is here, whether the find was somehow nicked or mislaid, or simply bundled up with somebody else's finds and they ended up keeping it. The thing is there is clearly a need for PAS to look at its procedures. Will they? How many times does this in fact happen in a year? Where and how?

So, What IS Going on in the British Museum?

William Dalrymple @DalrympleWill (16/2/2026)

"I've just been chatting with Nick Cullinan, the excellent new director of the British Museum, and I'm very relieved to say that the story put by the Daily Telegraph about the BM cancelling the name Palestine is a complete misrepresentation of the facts:
"To reassure you we are not removing mention from Palestine from our labels," Nick told me. "Indeed, we have a display on at the moment about Palestine and Gaza.
"I know this is something our curators have thought long and hard about - as you can imagine. We amended two panels in our ancient Levant gallery last year during a regular gallery refresh, when some wording was amended to reflect historical terms.
"To be honest, the even more frustrating and concerning thing is that I knew nothing about this until yesterday and has only been explained to me this morning. I hadn’t even seen that [UK Lawyers for Israel] letter despite asking for it until this morning. I’m disgusted by the whole thing."
The question remains why the Daily Telegraph would put out such a mischief-making story without first fact checking it with the Directors office."

But it's not the Telegraph is it? The story appears to have originated with UK Lawyers for Israel 'British Museum Reviewing Palestine Terminology in Galleries after Audience Testing', February 14, 2026

"The British Museum has confirmed that it is reviewing and updating some gallery panels and labels after “Audience testing has shown that the historic use of the term Palestine … is in some circumstances no longer meaningful.” [...] In a letter to the British Museum, UKLFI explained ...[...].
UKLFI argued that ...[...]
UKLFI requested that the Museum review its collections and revise terminology ...[...]
Responding to the concerns, the British Museum’s spokesperson [unnamed] confirmed that the Museum was in the processes of reviewing and updating panels and labels on a case-by-case basis" [....] A UKLFI spokesperson said: “We welcome the British Museum’s willingness to review and amend terminology.

So, surely some misunderstanding. You'd think lawyers would make sure they are speaking to a spokesperson who knows what's what.

Palestine for the Palestinians.

UK Treasure Hunting, Bottle-Digging History Prof Flogs off Protohistoric Hoard

                      .                     

A professor of medieval history, Tom Licence of the University of East Anglia, while out artefact hunting near Bury St Edmunds, suffolk with a metal detector, dug blindly down into the archaeological record and uncovered a hoard of 18 Iron Age gold coins  ( Rachael McMenemy, 'History professor finds huge Iron Age hoard' BBC 14.02.2026). The coins date to the reign of Dubnovellaunos, ruler of the Trinovantes tribe between 25 BC and AD 10. Now he and the landowner are flogging off this archaeological material, marketed as 'the Bury St Edmunds Hoard', and the find is expected to brinmg them in £25,000 at auction through Noonans. He first uncovered 17 full gold Iron Age coins and one quarter‑coin in autumn 2024, followed by one more full coin when he returned a few months later – bringing the total to 18. The hoard will be sold at auction by Noonans in London on Wednesday 4 March

PAS record ID: SF-03C894. Nota bene., the record was made in Feb 2025 and contains 17, not the 18 coins. The PAS record is a bit of a mess.

Interestingly, although mention is made in the University's report of the discovery of finding some "pieces of Viking hack silver" in the field on the day of the find of the first coins, the PAS does not seem to have a record of this, what is going on?

What is striking—and frankly disheartening—is not simply that this hoard was removed from its burial context and situational associtions (which was...?) in such a disruptive manner, but that it was done by someone (who bloody well should be) fully aware of the importance of historical context. In the case of this find, and all the others this guy has been hoiking out of the ground as he fancies, they have lost most of their context, apart from the contexts he grabbed these trophy collectable from having lost part of their content. Archaeology is not treasure hunting, the true value of such a hoard lies not in the gold content or auction estimate, but in its precise location, stratigraphy, and association with surrounding material evidence. Once objects are extracted without controlled excavation, irreplaceable contextual data is lost forever. The coins might have contributed to a deeper understanding of ritual deposition practices in late pre-Roman Britain, or the site where they were found. Yet instead of being investigated through a systematic archaeological dig, the site became a metal-detecting success story.

Even more uncomfortable is the romantic language used to frame the discovery. The suggestion that the coins might have belonged to one of his “ancestors” personalizes and sentimentalizes what should be treated as shared cultural heritage. This is not a family heirloom rediscovered in an attic; it is part of the collective archaeological record of Iron Age Britain.

Although the find was reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme and some funds may be donated to a public collection, this does not undo the damage done by removing the hoard outside a controlled research framework. Recording an object after extraction is not the same as documenting its full archaeological context before disturbance.

It is genuinely sad to see a history professor participating in (and publicly celebrating) activities that contribute to the erosion of archaeological evidence and thus the historical record in general. Scholars, above all, should understand that context is everything. These are the people that should be opinion-makers/informers. This one's got it all wrong.

Professor Tom Licence is shown on his university's website to be a Professor of Medieval History and Literature, School of Literature, Drama and Creative Writing Member, specialist in the Norman Conquest, the cult of the saints, ecclesiastical history and Latin literature (10th-12th centuries). He's written over thirty books, research papers and other texts, including one on dump-digging (2017) [incongruously refereing to Victorian dumps as a 'resource' but seemingly unconcerned about the hobby that is digging them up for profit and pleasure destroying that resource, making then unavailable for future research]. He also wrote a book: "What the Victorians Threw Away". Licence is also a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, because, of course he is.

The University of East Anglia's very proud of what he's done: "History professor strikes gold with remarkable Iron Age discovery" by: University of East Anglia Communications Thursday 12 February 2026.

British Museum Admits to Mislabelling Heritage Objects since May 1948 (UPDATED)

They won't even consider repatriating multiple stolen items of other people's cultural property that they have, steadfastly resisting any calls to reconsider. Yet, they cave in the moment they are confronted by one group. In February 2026, the British Museum confirmed it had begun removing and updating references to "Palestine" in its ancient Middle East galleries following a formal complaint from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).

UKLFI argued that using "Palestine" as a geographical term was "historically inaccurate". The museum apparently agrees with them, admitting that it had mislabelled these items for so long  (another slipup by the beleagered institution). The BM is now busy altering information panels and maps. 

This decision has led to backlash from critics who view the change as an attack on Palestinian cultural identity and a result of political pressure.

Reportedly,

UKLFI identified a number of maps displayed in the British Museum’s Egypt galleries[...] [that] label the area of modern-day Israel as “Palestine”. [...] According to UKLFI, this wording wrongly applies a much later geographical term to an earlier historical context. [...] UKLFI argues that retroactively applying the name “Palestine” across thousands of years creates a false impression of historical continuity and erases the emergence and existence of Jewish kingdoms and Jewish national identity in the region.

Further concerns were raised about the placement of mid-20th-century dolls described as wearing “Palestinian traditional dress” within the Museum’s Ancient Levant gallery. UKLFI says that displaying modern artefacts in this context risks implying an uninterrupted cultural lineage that is not historically accurate [eh? PMB]. UKLFI pointed out that these curatorial choices are not only misleading for the general public but also deeply troubling for Jewish and Israeli visitors. UKLFI states that the terminology used may create a hostile or offensive environment and could amount to harassment under the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits harassment related to protected characteristics including race, religion and philosophical belief.

Map of Palestine and the Holy Land published in Florence around 1480
 in an edition of Ptolemy's Geographia. Israel is not on this map.

UK Lawyers for Israel issued a statement Saturday welcoming the museum's willingness to revise its displays. The group, founded in 2011 (pro bono legal director Natasha Hausdorff, voted in October 2024, Jerusalem Post's #2 "most influential young Zionist"), describes itself as an association of lawyers countering the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and "to contribute generally as lawyers to creating a supportive climate of opinion in the United Kingdom towards Israel". Now the same UKLFI is complaining that free speech talk of genocide is distressing for Israel’s supporters and if they have their way we'll no longer be able to talk about that either. And yet, I would say that there are far more important issues concerning Israel's relationship with Palestine (recognised - please note - British Museum, as a  non-member observer state) that we should be fretting about than the wording of a few museum labels. 

British Palestine, the land where Kathleen Kenyon
 dug and where the new state of Israel later was created

Presumably many objects IN the "British" Museum got there by means of the Brits occupying a bit of the former Ottoman Empire. During the Ottoman Empire (1517–1917), the general region of what we now call "the Holy Land" was generally referred to by locals and in literature as Filastin (Palestine) or Ard al-Muqaddas (The Holy Land), 17th-century Ottoman maps and documents, such as those by Kâtip Çelebi, referred to the region as Ard-i Filistin (Land of Palestine).

1732 The British Museum was established only in 1753.

Reportedly, the UKLFI ('British Museum under pressure to change historically inaccurate use of “Palestine”...', February 7, 2026 ) has called on the British Museum to conduct a comprehensive review of its labelling "and to amend them so that regions are referred to by the historically accurate names applicable to the specific period in question, such as Canaan, the Levant, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Judea, Samaria, or the Galilee". They forgot (accidentally I am sure) - appropriate to period - Coele-Syria, Syria Palaestina, in the Byzantine Period: Palaestina Prima/ Secunda, and Tertia. Then it became Jund Falastin (Palestine military district) when it came under Islamic rule. Let us see Jerusalem referred to properly under its historically accurate names in the same material as well (Rushalimum/Urusalim, Jebus, Yerushalayim, Hierosolyma, Aelia Capitolina, and Al-Quds/Īliyā). I hope the British Museum takes that into account (but also takes into account that the modern visitor - of which it has millions from all over the world and all sorts of backgrounds will need all those terms explaining).

How much are the Israeli/Jewish lawyers contributing to the costs of all this relabelling?

In other news, the entire collection of finds from Sutton Hoo is now about to be relabelled under the Museum's new policy, rather than coming from any part of England, it is now assigned to the  Ēastengla Rīċe. 



References
Craig Simpson, 'British Museum removes ‘Palestine’ from ancient Middle East displays' The Telegraph 14 February 2026.
AA 'British Museum removes 'Palestine' from displays after pro-Israel pressure', en.yenisafak.com, 15/02/2026, Sunday AA

UPDATE
Somebody has pointed out that this is the same group of Karens: Harriet Sherwood, 'London hospital takes down artwork by Gaza schoolchildren after complaint' The Guardian Mon 27 Feb 2023 (" Pro-Israel group objected to display saying it made Jewish patients feel ‘vulnerable, harassed and victimised’ [...].") An exhibition of children's artwork. UK Lawyers must be great at parties.

.

Culture Crime Under Illegal Occupation by Russia

The names of 14 individuals allegedly involved in the removal to Russia of Ukrainian Cultural Heritage have been made public. In early February 2026, the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine (DIU) launched a "Stolen Heritage" register on the War & Sanctions portal to identify those responsible for what has been called the largest museum theft in Europe since World War II. Defence Intelligence of Ukraine has identified those who removed exhibits from museums in Kherson, Nova Kakhovka, and the “Kamiana Mohyla” reserve, transported them to Russia, and used them in propaganda exhibitions. 

Key Individuals Identified ... The DIU's investigation has focused on high-ranking collaborators and Russian military officials., they include:

• Artem Lahoyskyi: The Russian-appointed "Minister of Culture" of the Kherson region. He is identified as a primary organizer who personally participated in the removal of items from Kherson museums and the exhumation of Prince Grigory Potemkin's remains from St. Catherine's Cathedral.
• Dmytrii Lipovyi: A Russian Black Sea Fleet officer and former "commandant" of Kherson. He reportedly coordinated the transportation of stolen artefacts and personally sealed the trucks used for their removal.
• Volodymyr Bodelan: The "permanent representative" of the Kherson region to the Russian government, accused of organizing propaganda exhibitions in Moscow using stolen Ukrainian art.
• Nataliia Desiatova: The Russian-appointed director of the Kherson Art Museum during the occupation. She has already been sentenced in absentia by Ukrainian courts to 10 years in prison. 

The scale of the damage done to Ukrainian cultural heritage and destination of the looted items can be indicated by just a few examples

Kherson Museums: Over 28,000 artefacts were taken from the Regional History Museum alone, while the Kherson Regional Art Museum lost more than 10,000 exhibits, including works by Aivazovsky and Shovkunenko. 

Kamiana Mohyla: Approximately 37 unique petroglyphs and artefacts from this fragile archaeological reserve in Zaporizhzhia were moved to the "Tauric Chersonese" museum in occupied Crimea under the guise of a "temporary exhibition".

Nova Kakhovka: More than 16,000 pieces, including ancient Greek amphoras and Scythian gold, were looted from the city's history museum and art gallery. 

Propaganda Use: Many stolen items, specifically paintings by Albin Havdzynskyi, were displayed at the Transneft headquarters in Moscow for an exhibition titled "Always Nova Kakhovka" to legitimize the illegal Russian occupation.

Ukraine has launched a State Registry for Stolen Cultural Valuables to help international customs and law enforcement prevent the resale of these items on the global market.

The international conservation bodies, meanwhile are proving to be as useless as they generally tend to be when firm action is needed. A French non-governmental organization, “Pour l’Ukraine, pour leur liberté et la nôtre!”" [For Ukraine, for their freedom and ours!] has issued a petition demanding that Russia be stripped of its membership in the International Council of Museums (ICOM). The document emphasizes that the membership of institutions and individuals who destroy, plunder, and falsify cultural heritage violates ICOM’s principles. The French organization noted that many national committees have already called for Russia’s exclusion from ICOM, so far without result. 

• Of course, publishing names does not replace legal accountability. Much work still lies ahead.