Global Antiquities Conference

Cairo is hosting a two day International conference on the protection and repatriation of looted artifacts. The Global Antiquities conference had representatives from countries all over the globe, from countries who are typically the destination of these artifacts to origin countries.

The representatives where there discussing the issues and how they could improve security. While discussing the issue they sat in the presence of several artifacts that had recently been repatriated including a 3,000 year old wooden sarcophagus recently intercepted by U.S. customs.

The U.S. is one of the many western countries that have typically been recipients of the antiquities trade. This is clear when we compare the comments made by U.S. representative, James McAndrews, who said international communication is improving, and Syrian representative Ayman Slaiman, who is pushing for better International communication. This is not to say that McAndrews doesn't understand the situation and is undeservedly optimistic.

I'm sure he understands the situation, but his perspective is from that of law enforcement. They are seeing results, aka pieces are being confiscated and returned, while in Syrian thousands of objects are stolen when only a handful are being returned. It's a very different and disheartening perspective.

Second to improving communication between countries and law enforcement agencies, the conference is dedicated to trying to amend the 1970 UNESCO conference to include objects stolen prior to 1970. Up until now that conference had not been retroactive.

It is very unlikely that it will become retroactive now as many countries, including the U.S. and Great Britain, who has been in a long standing battle with Egypt over the Elgin Marbles, would have to return many objects in their museums. Nearly all of the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian collections held by foreign countries would have to be returned to their host countries.

Below is coverage of the conference by New Tang Dynasty Television.


Global Antiquities Conference: Illegal Trade Should Stop
Uploaded by NTDTV. - News videos hot off the press.

Here is an additional article about the conference with comments by Zahi Hawass.

Book Review: Museum of the Missing: A History of Art Theft

Museum of the Missing: A History of Art Theft by Simon Houpt addresses the art world’s worst nightmare and threat, art theft. Art theft has been on the rise since the 1950’s when art began to sell for over hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thieves and their buyers are part of an intricate underground network that is overlooked by the general public. Houpt emphasizes the cultural and moral importance of dissuading the buying and selling of stolen art by providing a general history of art theft.



The book’s publication in 2006 occurred at a relevant time in the history of art theft, as evidenced by the recovery of Edvard Munch’s Madonna and The Scream by Norwegian police shortly thereafter. The two pieces, stolen on August 22, 2004, were one of the various examples used by Houpt to convey the dramatic history of art theft.

Edvard Munch's Madonna

Houpt structured his book to address the history of art theft from various angles. He examines the subject from the point of view of the collector, the thief, the investigator, museum security, and the law. By covering these perspectives Houpt provides the reader with a general overview of who is concerned with art theft and why while maintaining a narrative voice. Houpt notes that the individual art thief did not play a large role in stealing art until the 1950’s when art started to sell at auctions for noteworthy prices. Although Houpt’s voice is clearly biased, his view is generally accepted by professionals in the art world. Before high prices caught the attention of the average thief, stealing art was typically the result of conquering kings and the looting of armies. Houpt reserves one chapter, about a third of the book, for the topic and explains how kings took art from conquered lands as proof of the victor’s strength and superiority. His primary example of such activity is Hitler’s treatment of cultural property in World War II. The chapter, “Theft in the Time of War,” dedicated to looting can appear out of place despite its length because the rest of the book is focused on the effect of the common thief in the art world. The chapter appears to be a side story that grows out of proportion as compared to the primary plot. The remainder of the book is dedicated to art theft conducted by an individual or small band of thieves.

The book continues to explore the history of common art thieves through pertinent examples. One of his examples was Adam Worth, a successful art thief based in London. Worth created a rich persona that allowed him to move through London society at ease, investigating potential thefts. His story and those of others reflect the romanticism Houpt believes the general public associates with art theft. In balance to Worth’s villain, Houpt introduces his readers to Charley Hill, a Scotland Yard investigator who worked undercover to recover stolen art, including Goya’s Portrait of Doña Antonia Zárate. Houpt uses Hill’s real life experience to show the public what art professionals already know, that art thieves are not romantic characters looking for expensive thrills, they are criminals and purveyors of corruption. These criminals take the world’s cultural heritage away from the public, the rightful heirs of these works.

Goya’s Portrait of Doña Antonia Zárate.

Houpt uses these examples to demonstrate that art is a part of our cultural heritage that illistrates the great potential and achievements of mankind. Great works of art should be preserved to inspire all aspects of life. A sacred relic inspires the religious to believe. A landscape painting inspires the preservation and enjoyment of nature. It is important to protect these inspirations for future generations. This leads Houpt to address one of the many difficulties that arise in defending art from thieves. Because of the influence and importance of art, Houpt and other art professionals believe it should be easily accessible to the public. This may sound simple in theory, but it proves to be difficult in practice. Making art accessible, yet safe and secure raises many security issues. Methods of security used by museums to secure artwork include motion and heat sensors, video surveillance, trained security, alarms, and protective glass cases, however, these methods can be expensive and are not foolproof. In addition to the expense these methods bring to a museum, they also decrease the accessibility of the objects to the public. Houpt used an example of how glass was used to protect artwork, but the glass made it difficult for visitors to view brushstrokes. These difficulties are elegantly presented by Houpt, but he never provides a solution or best practices that can guide museums.

Beyond traditional security measures, Houpt places responsibility for object security on museum registrars. The public rarely sees the museum registrar and may not recognize their role. By placing a spotlight on the registrar, Houpt introduced the public to their role and reminds the registrar of the importantance of their job, especially in respect to security. Museum registrars can defend their museum from theft by maintaining a current and accurate catalogue of all objects in their collection. This will aid in realizing a theft, identifying the missing piece, and orchastraiting the recovery. Incomplete catalogues are an issue that many museums face. Another practice that helps registrars protect museum collections from art theft is to research and demans proper provenance for all incoming objects. The collection and general reputation of a museum will be tarnished if it acquires an artwork that lacks proper provenance. The public trust holds museums to a high moral standard; the purchasing of stolen art work damages this trust. In addition to lowering the public’s trust in the institution, purchasing objects without proper provenance increases the demand for stolen pieces. Beyond these methods to deter theft, registrars should reference stolen art databases when acquiring artwork.

In the end, Houpt listed a few ways that museum professionals can help to minimize and fight art theft, but he did not present any new methods or ideas. While the book does address an important topic that is often overlooked by the general public, it does not present information that is useful for the museum professional. Houpt’s casual style and vocabulary are more appropriate for the layperson. The book is eloquently written and uses well chosen examples to convey important ideas. Anyone looking for an introduction of the world of art theft would be satisfied with this book, however, it is not for the museum professional who is looking for guidance on how to handle situations in their job related to art theft.

Houpt, Simon. Museum of the Missing: A History of Art Theft. Sterling Publishing Co.: New York, NY. 2006.

Museum of Cycladic Art

Located in Athens, Greece the Museum of Cycladic Art is one of, if not the largest single collection of Cycladic artifacts. When planning my trip to Athens it was the third place to see, falling behind the National History Museum and the Acropolis.

The museum was founded in 1968 to house ancient Greek and Cycladic art. During my visit a portion of the Greek exhibit was closed and on tour elsewhere, however the Cycladic exhibit was open. I did have a little scare that I would not be able to see the exhibit because the Museum was keeping odd hours the day I went. It opened at 6pm. This change of hours occurred because the Museum was giving away free books to registered archaeologists; a practice that I fully support. On a side note it was very interesting to see that the majority of the archaeologists were women.

The artifacts at the museum were in excellent condition. The exhibit was well organized and provided you with a very good sense of the values of the people being represented.



Marble Cycladic figurines come from 3,200 to 2,000 bc and are the main type of artifact preserved from this time. The height of these figures varies significantly. Some are a few centimeters high while others are 4 feet tall. The standard figurine would be lying down on their back with their knees bent and arms crossed over the stomach. The majority of figures did not have many individual features, such as eyes or mouth, but they all had a prominent nose and sometimes ears. Their style reminds me of modern sculpture.

Historical Artifacts: Who is the Rightful Owner?

Who owns historical artifacts???

It's a tough question to answer. Is it the person or organization who owns the land that it was found on? Perhaps the person who found it owns it? -- Finders Keepers?? Is it the national government's possession, because of the cultural heritage? Or perhaps the local community? If one of these groups should sell the artifact to an art dealer or museum, is then the property of the purchaser if they purchased it solely from the finder and did not compensate the land owner or community?

Depending on your point of view the answers to these questions can vary greatly. I personally believe that each case should be considered individually. An overarching policy would not represent everyone fairly.

Lately this question of ownership has come into the limelight. Countries across the world are requesting the return of artifacts that have been residing in foreign countries. Peru has been trying to get some artifacts found in Machu Picchu from Yale University. Greece wants to have the Parthenon Frieze returned from Britain. Egypt has been trying to collect pieces from around the world, especially the bust of Nefertiti in the Berlin Museum.



Ancient artifacts can be the source of great political tension. Recently Egypt has threatened to start a "scientific war" with Germany. Greece is doing this because Germany will not allow the bust of Nefertiti to go on a temporary tour to Egypt. Germany is saying that the piece is not in a condition to be safely transported to Egypt. Egypt believes that Germany is using this as a cover and that they are afraid Egypt won't return the bust when the tour is over.