Audiostation - Wer war Dr. Carl Schellenberg? Wegmarken Jüdischer Geschichte
Small Silver Jug
M: And this silver jug? Is this also something given to the museum because someone felt it wasn’t theirs to rightfully keep, like the bowl?
F: Yes, actually: the two objects have that in common. But the story behind this object is even more complicated…
M: Can’t wait to hear how!
F: An aspect of the systematic expropriation of Jewish property was a decree, in 1939, which forced Jewish families to surrender jewellery and objects made of precious metals. They were only allowed to keep wedding rings, and one four-piece set of cutlery per person. This silver jug here is one of many things expropriated at that time.
M: And what happened to the things that were taken?
F: An estimated 135 tonnes of silver and 1.3 tonnes of gold were taken from Jewish ownership, melted down, and sold. The proceeds, around 54 million Reichsmarks, went directly into the war chest.
M: Wow. And why didn’t this silver jug get melted down?
F: Objects of art-historical value were preserved and made available to museums. In Hamburg, the art historian Carl Schellenberg was put in charge of selecting such objects. From 1942 to 1945, he was also the acting director of the Hamburger Kunsthalle.
M: But if these objects weren’t melted down and are particularly valuable – shouldn’t it have been possible to find out whom they belonged to, and to return them?
F: You would think. But guess who was put in charge of finding the rightful owners of the preserved objects in Hamburg after 1945?
M: Don’t tell me that is was the same guy, that Carl…
F: … Schellenberg. Yes, the exact same guy. And to put it mildly, he apparently didn’t put all that much energy into the task. He was probably more interested in adding these things to the holdings of Hamburg’s museums. But that’s not all…
M: … He didn’t pocket anything for himself, did he!?
F: Well, he did at least take this silver jug from the stocks and present it to an acquaintance as a “token of honour and respect”, as was said at the time.
M: And this acquaintance suspected that it may have been taken from Jewish family?
F: Well, she was the wife of the then director of the Altona Museum, Prof. Günther Grundmann, so she was certainly not unfamiliar with the debate regarding how to deal with so-called “looted property”. She left the jug to the museum — but only some 20 years later. We really don’t know whether the jug’s past as looted property played a decisive role in the donation.
M: If the silver jug is still here today, does that mean that the rightful owners could no longer be found?
F: Not yet – despite the research being conducted by the Altonaer Museum. Actually, as of 2026, at least 500 objects in the museum’s collection are suspected of possibly being “looted property”. As is the case with the holdings of many other museums and state institutions. That’s why the research into the ownership history of institutional holdings remains such a very important task for museums.