Investigative Report
Antiquities: Between Legal Challenges and the Noble Mission of Cultural Exchange
By Alice Boustany Djermakian
The topic of antiquities often stirs wide debate—especially when it comes to the question of their legal ownership. Is the issue rooted in differing interpretations of the 1970 UNESCO Convention? Or in the weak, vague, and ineffective laws in countries of origin? Or perhaps in the lack of legal coordination in transit and market countries? What is certain is that deception is widespread in the cultural landscape.
Yet antiquities play a vital role in understanding human history. Their circulation is essential for cultural exchange and scientific advancement. Museums, exhibitions, and auction houses help disseminate heritage by “encouraging the exchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes,” as stated in UNESCO’s General Conference.
Nonetheless, a wave of concern has swept the art sector, affecting institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the Getty Museum in Malibu, the British Museum, and auction houses like Christie’s and Sotheby’s. With growing investigations, suspicions, and allegations, the market is under mounting pressure, and the reputations of many professionals, experts, and collectors have come under strain. One of the most high-profile cases is that of Phoenix Ancient Art, whose co-founder in Switzerland is dubbed “the king of antiquities.” The case reflects rising tensions around the trade in ancient objects.
“Phoenix Ancient Art, an exclusive antiquities gallery… among the world’s most powerful antiquities dealers”
— The New York Times, Business Section, Sunday Edition
Phoenix Ancient Art Under Pressure in a Market Undergoing Major Change
Phoenix Ancient Art, with locations in both Geneva and New York, houses an exceptional collection of antiquities spanning more than 7,000 years of history—from the Neolithic period (6th millennium BCE) to the 14th century CE. Its holdings include pieces from ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Near East, Mesopotamia, the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, Eurasia, and the Steppes. Through this collection, Phoenix seeks to preserve the past, support the art market, and promote cultural knowledge.
Today, every piece offered for sale must be accompanied by a meticulously documented provenance—a requirement that makes the work of galleries, auction houses, and museums significantly harder, especially amid a climate of suspicion fueled by regulatory bodies. This marks a sharp contrast with the era of the late Suleiman Aboutaam, father of Ali and Hicham, who in 1968 exhibited his pieces in a Beirut salon, when provenance was not a major concern. The market then operated on trust between dealers, collectors, and authorities—free from today’s tensions and accusations burdening art professionals.
Legislation is becoming increasingly strict around the world, and Europe—especially Switzerland—is no exception. Swiss authorities have prosecuted certain collectors, often without sufficient evidence, creating an overall atmosphere of doubt and mistrust.
Caught in the midst of this storm, Phoenix Ancient Art has found itself in the spotlight. The well-known and influential gallery is now under intense scrutiny.
In a March 2007 interview with The New York Times, Hicham Aboutaam said: “We cannot control the rumors and slander spoken about us.”
For art dealers, the constant need to prove good intentions has become a heavy burden.
“Phoenix is among the world’s leading antiquities dealers”
— Antiquities Magazine
Lebanese Antiquities Dealers Abroad: Ambassadors of Culture Worldwide
For decades, antiquities dealers of Lebanese descent have played a pivotal role in showcasing global artistic heritage. They have enriched the collections of international museums with rare and valuable objects, significantly contributing to the dissemination of culture on a wide scale.
Among the most prominent figures is Maroun Salloum, an avid enthusiast of the arts from the period spanning 1890 to 1925. Salloum runs two galleries in Paris, one of which is housed in the former studio of renowned painter Ingres. He travels the world in search of unique artworks, his eclectic style attracting the attention of The New York Times. Rather than limiting himself to a narrow specialty, Salloum favors mixing disparate elements to create distinctive visual scenes—blending Ottoman glass, Syrian textiles, and rare pieces from that era.
This artistic diversity traces back to his upbringing in Beirut, a true crossroads of civilizations, where he developed a refined taste for cultural variety from an early age—clearly reflected in his current exhibitions.
The late Khalil Rizk, an antiquities dealer and art collector based in New York, stood out for his remarkable collection of 18th-century Chinese porcelain specifically produced for the European market. The Chinese Porcelain Company gallery showcased a number of these rare pieces, which testify to a longstanding artistic dialogue between East and West.
Through such unique paths, these Lebanese dealers continue to preserve vital aspects of the world’s cultural heritage—reviving it through their passion and refined artistic sensibilities.
A Legal Dilemma in the Art Market
For galleries, collectors, and museums, matters are growing increasingly complex, to the point where it’s sometimes hard to determine which pieces can be sold or acquired. The situation is especially uncertain for objects that were circulating before new laws took effect, such as Switzerland’s June 1, 2005 implementation of the Law on the Transfer of Cultural Property (LTBC).
Even archaeologists themselves don’t always have clear answers. Yet one prominent voice in the field, archaeologist and professor Jacques Chamay, agreed to share his analysis of the ongoing controversy shaking the antiquities market.
Interview with Jacques Chamay, Former Curator of the Museum of Art and History in Geneva – February 7, 2025
Archaeologist, former curator at the Museum of Art and History in Geneva, professor of classical archaeology at the University of Geneva, author of several books, and founder of the Hellas and Rome association for the study and promotion of Greek and Roman art—Jacques Chamay offers his personal perspective.
Why is the trade in antiquities such a controversial topic?
Because everyone talks about it without really knowing what it is. It’s become, quite literally, an ideological issue. We can no longer discuss it calmly. All the current stances are discouraging—not just for collectors, who are the backbone of museums as donors, but also for all professionals in the art field.
In 2018, you gave an interview to Le Temps in which you spoke of a campaign targeting art professionals.
Yes, it’s a ruthless campaign, because tracing the origin of certain antiquities is extremely difficult. In the past—up through the 1960s and 1970s—no one cared about provenance as long as an object was purchased through official channels, meaning galleries and reputable dealers. All museum curators, myself included, believed we were doing our job properly—and that was enough. If certain countries had objections, they should have voiced them back then. For example, there was an annual art fair in Basel. Why didn’t they raise any issues at the time? Now it’s become a witch hunt.
What has caused serious damage is the irresponsible behavior of some experts, galleries, and auction houses. A backlash was bound to happen. But punishing everyone for that is wrong. This overzealous campaign is harmful because it encourages people to invent fake provenances, making it difficult to know whom to trust.
And what about museums?
Museums now spend their time investigating provenance. Nothing matters anymore except the origin. We’re expected to trace timelines that are practically impossible. Collectors are becoming extremely cautious. Yes, we are given provenance information, but it’s become very difficult across Europe. Today, museums don’t even dare accept donations because everyone is afraid. We need to trust curators and the people who work with them.
Is there a specific date used to determine legal ownership?
No consensus exists. Americans say one thing, Europeans another, and the Swiss yet another. We should have agreed on a clear date. Switzerland signed an agreement with Italy specifying a date—April 17, 2008—and yet no one respects it.
UNESCO estimates the illicit antiquities market at $10 billion per year. What do you think?
That’s completely unrealistic. Antiquities don’t fetch the same prices as contemporary art. If someone wanted to launder money, they wouldn’t use antiquities—they’d use modern art, and that’s what we should be monitoring. Saying the black market is worth billions is absurd. A magnificent Greek vase might go for CHF 300,000 at most. A large statue might fetch two or three million dollars, but that’s the ceiling. And how many of those sell in a year? We’re talking about a few dozen million dollars a year, at most. Anything beyond that is fabrication. Some have claimed that antiquities come second only to drugs in laundering money—that’s an insult to our intelligence. Just look at sales figures from Christie’s and Sotheby’s and you’ll see how modest the numbers are, especially for classical antiquities.
Some antiquities dealers have been accused of financing ISIS.
That’s laughable. Imagine trying to buy a rocket launcher that costs around CHF 100,000—do you really think that could be financed by selling two or three vases, a few jars, and a small statue? The war in Ukraine costs about $100 million a day. Even if exceptional statues exist, they wouldn’t fund ISIS. It’s nonsense, and I no longer want to be part of that conversation.
How can illicit trade be combated?
As archaeologists, we’re against illegal excavations. I’ve led digs in Greece, and I strongly support heritage protection. But we can’t overcorrect in the opposite direction. If objects are leaving countries like Italy or Greece, then those governments need to clean up their own institutions instead of persecuting museums. Then there’s always this idea that antiquities should remain in their country of origin. Fine—but look what happened in Palmyra.
The Story of Sleiman Aboutaam: A Passion for Ancient Artifacts
After securing an exclusive contract to supply general goods to oil companies, Sleiman Aboutaam worked for several years in Kuwait before returning to Lebanon. His passion for history and antiquities drove him to obtain an official license from the Directorate General of Antiquities, authorizing him to conduct official transactions involving ancient artifacts with the approval of the Lebanese state. In 1967, he founded “Antiquités Aboutaam.”
His beginnings were marked by fierce competition. At the time, Beirut was home to 30 to 40 well-established antiquities dealers with deep ties to museums and collectors from around the world. Through patience and ambition, Suleiman learned the trade from the best experts. In the late 1980s, he acquired nearly the entire collection of the great collector Henri Pharaon, along with the inventory of Eli Boustros, which included glassware, Phoenician statuary, medieval Armenian wooden works, and rare Byzantine pieces. These acquisitions formed the foundation of a vast inventory he would later export to the United States and Switzerland.
Passing Down the Passion
But more than the commercial side, what mattered to Sleiman was the historical value of the artifacts and the civilizations they represented. He passed on this passion to his children from a young age—teaching them how to evaluate ancient coins and asking them about Greek and Roman emperors, which later shaped their future paths.
The Aboutaam children grew up in a country where history is literally written in the open air. Just an hour from Beirut, the city of Byblos bears witness to human presence as far back as 7000 BCE. To the west lies Baalbek, home to some of the world’s best-preserved Roman temples. Further south, Sidon and Tyre recall the maritime power of the Phoenicians.
Hicham Aboutaam recalls one amusing memory: “When I was 12, I began learning a lot about coins thanks to my brother—especially Roman coins. Back then, coins were like newspapers during the Roman Empire. When a new emperor came to power, artists and engravers would issue different coin series. My brother and I used to write songs to memorize the emperors’ names and reigns—and I still remember them today.”
Sleiman frequently traveled to West Germany, a hub for antiquities collectors, major institutions, and longstanding connections to ancient Mediterranean civilizations. Officials from the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums in Beirut would regularly visit his home to oversee the preparation of artifact shipments. These shipments were meticulously packed according to international standards and sent to collectors and museums he met on his travels. Export licenses were attached to the crates by the Directorate’s representatives, allowing them to leave the country without being opened at Beirut Airport.
War and the Family’s Exile
When civil war broke out in Lebanon in 1975, many families sought exile. The Aboutaams were among those who hoped the conflict would end quickly—but as the years passed, the situation only worsened. Ali Aboutaam enrolled at Université Saint-Joseph to study civil engineering, but in 1984, he was kidnapped by a Syrian officer during a period when Syrian forces controlled West Beirut. His father managed to secure his release by paying a hefty ransom of $500,000, an incident that left deep emotional scars.
As the war dragged on and to protect both his family and artifact collection, Sleiman emigrated in 1988—first to the United States, then to Switzerland. Ali stayed behind in Beirut to finish his studies, while his brother Hicham pursued an art history degree at the University of Michigan.
The family’s fate took a tragic turn in September 1998, when Suleiman and his wife died in the Swissair Flight 111 crash (New York–Geneva route) off the coast of Nova Scotia.
A Legacy Carried Forward
Sleiman Aboutaam’s legacy thrust his sons into the heart of the antiquities trade—an industry now marked by increasing tension between governments, museums, and collectors. As legal frameworks grow stricter, the challenges multiply.
One notable episode that illustrates this growing pressure is the dispute with the auction house Christie’s. In a 2007 interview with The New York Times, Hicham Aboutaam stated: “The British house refused to accept a Sumerian scepter head owned by Phoenix Ancient Art, even though my father had bought it in 1994 at a Christie’s auction.”
The Iraqi origins of the piece have since raised questions about its compliance with international regulations—particularly since the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1483 in 2003, which prohibits the trade of Iraqi cultural property.
Antiquities and the Legal Gray Zones
Legal expert Patrick J. O’Keefe, a specialist in cultural heritage law and management, highlights the complexity of the legal frameworks governing antiquities trade. He explains: “Owning an ancient artifact may be completely legal in one country, while considered a criminal offense in another.”
According to him, whether the acquisition of an antiquity is deemed lawful or not often hinges on subjective moral judgments, rooted in the imperative to safeguard objects that help tell the story of human civilization.
This legal ambiguity places dealers, collectors, and museums in difficult positions—especially in countries that have ratified and enforced the 1970 UNESCO Convention, which aims to combat the illicit trade in cultural property. However, many antiquities were acquired prior to the adoption or enforcement of such regulations, which today fuels an intense debate over their legitimacy.
Some of the world’s most renowned museums house vast collections of Lebanese antiquities from the Phoenician and Roman eras. The Louvre Museum in Paris, the British Museum in London, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the Italian Archaeological Institute in Rome all display cultural treasures that now prompt questions regarding their provenance.
Were these artifacts looted? And if so, should they be returned to their countries of origin? This question—central to many international disputes—has recently been reignited by archaeologist and anthropologist Dan Hicks, who described such collections as “true imperial loot.”
Provenance and Rarity in the Age of Scrutiny
In a market facing increasing scrutiny, collectors now favor legitimate acquisitions to avoid reputational damage—especially as more countries have joined the 1970 UNESCO Convention. While this agreement marks a significant step toward curbing illicit trade, its implementation remained limited for many years.
Until the early 2000s, only a handful of states had ratified the Convention, creating a legal vacuum that the art market exploited for decades. Over 40–50 years, hundreds of thousands of objects were sold, traded, or entered private and public collections worldwide.
Many of these artifacts now exist in a legal grey zone: either they were acquired under laws that weren’t yet in place, or they are now the target of repatriation claims.
As a result, heritage objects that were once considered legally sound now face the risk of losing their legal status, becoming less visible—or even losing their right to “legal existence.”
If every country were to ban the export of excavated antiquities today—regardless of when they were discovered—the reduced supply would inevitably drive up prices for the best-documented pieces. That would favor figures like the Aboutaam brothers (and other owners), who believe the antiquities market is still undervalued.
To attain real value, any artifact must meet three key criteria:
1. Quality
2. Rarity
3. Provenance
The last has become indispensable—yet it’s also the most challenging, making the work of dealers much more difficult and, in many ways, harming the broader art world.
Detective Work to Trace the Life of Artworks
Today, documentation is crucial—not only to prove the origin of a piece, but also to increase its value. Yet few collectors have preserved archives over decades—or centuries. Antiquities dealers, much like real-life detectives, are now tasked with tracing the histories of objects that hail from all over the world.
Some of these artifacts have been passed down through generations and date back hundreds of years. Others, however, lack sufficient documentation under modern standards—either because the original owners have passed away, emigrated, or simply moved repeatedly, making tracking exceptionally difficult.
To meet these mounting demands, Phoenix Ancient Art has adopted a transparent and documentation-driven approach. The gallery publishes carefully researched catalogs featuring high-quality images and detailed descriptions of each piece’s artistic significance and provenance—making them accessible to a broad public audience.
The Two Phoenician Sarcophagi Stuck in Geneva: A Symbol of Legal Contradictions
The antiquities market is increasingly caught between conflicting laws, reflecting discrepancies between international treaties and domestic legislation. A striking example is the case of two Phoenician sarcophagi exported from Lebanon before the country had signed the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1992 or banned the export of cultural property in 1990.
In 2010, the two sarcophagi belonging to the Aboutaam brothers were seized by customs authorities in Geneva and held in storage.
One of them was quickly cleared, after Swiss judicial authorities confirmed the validity of its accompanying documentation. The second, however, became entangled in a bureaucratic limbo: although it was not listed in the official registry of Lebanon’s Directorate General of Antiquities, nor on any stolen antiquities list, the Swiss Federal Office of Culture (OFC) recommended in 2013 that the Lebanese government request its restitution on the grounds that no formal export documentation was available. Beirut never followed up on this suggestion.
According to Ali Aboutaam: “My father bought the two sarcophagi from the collector Henri Pharaon in the 1980s, and we found the proof of purchase in his son’s files.”
After a long legal process, Swiss authorities lifted the seizure on the remaining sarcophagus in 2015.
This case illustrates the persistent contradictions and uncertainties in how antiquities laws are applied—particularly the tensions between international law and national sovereignty—with consequences borne by actors in the art market.
Interview with Attorney May Azouri at the Beirut Bar Association – February 18, 2025
Azouri has represented numerous collectors in antiquities-related cases.
Does Lebanese law allow individuals to own antiquities?
Yes. The Lebanese Antiquities Law of 1933 (Decision No. 166/LR of 1933) explicitly and unambiguously guarantees the right of individuals and collectors to possess movable antiquities that are not classified by the Directorate General of Antiquities. The Lebanese State Council (Conseil d’État) has repeatedly affirmed this legal principle.
Regarding the source of the object, the law clearly states that if an individual possesses an antiquity openly and without dispute for more than ten years, they legally acquire ownership of it under the principle of acquisitive prescription (Article 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure). This acquisition is considered irrefutable—it cannot be challenged or overturned.
In any case, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the possessor. In other words, the owner is not required to prove the piece’s provenance; rather, any entity that claims the ownership is unlawful—such as the Directorate of Antiquities or the Lebanese State—must provide evidence to that effect (Article 132 of the Lebanese Code of Civil Procedure).
This principle was reinforced in 2016 through Decree No. 3065, issued by the Lebanese government to regulate the national inventory of movable antiquities, when Raymond Arayji was Minister of Culture. It was also reaffirmed in later ministerial decisions—such as that of Minister Mohammad Mortada on April 6, 2022—which exempt the holder of an unclassified antiquity from proving its origin.
From my perspective, Lebanese law is very clear on this matter. But complications arise when foreign laws conflict with it. As for exports prior to 1990, they were entirely legal—although in practice, most documentation proving legal exportation was lost or destroyed during the civil war.
Are there time limits for the Lebanese State to claim ownership of unclassified movable antiquities?
Yes. Any civil claim brought by the Lebanese State to recover ownership of unclassified movable antiquities is subject to a 10-year statute of limitations, as per general civil law.
In criminal cases involving theft or possession of stolen property, prosecution becomes time-barred after three years (Article 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), starting from the date of the alleged theft—not the date it was discovered.
As for restitution claims for unclassified Lebanese antiquities located outside the country, these face a legal roadblock: the non-retroactive nature of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, which Lebanon ratified in 1992. According to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Lebanese government must provide clear evidence that it is the rightful legal owner of the piece. The holder of the artifact bears no such obligation.
In any case, exporting unclassified antiquities without a permit, even in violation of Ministerial Decision No. 8 of February 27, 1990, does not void private ownership of the object (according to rulings by the State Council).
Under criminal law, there is also the core legal principle of “no penalty without a specific law.” Penal codes must be interpreted strictly and narrowly, not expansively. Thus, the only penalty for unauthorized export of antiquities under the current Antiquities Law is a fine, and that penalty expires after three years.
In conclusion, Lebanese law firmly upholds the constitutional right to private ownership. Regardless of differing opinions, Lebanese legislation applies this right even to unclassified movable antiquities.
Interview with Former Lebanese Minister of Culture Raymond (Rony) Arayji
February 27, 2025 – On Decree No. 3065 (2016)
Why did you sponsor Decree No. 3065 in 2016?
For decades, the relationship between government authorities and private collectors of antiquities in Lebanon was fraught with ambiguity, distrust, and lack of clarity. Several factors contributed to this, including looting at archaeological sites, illicit trade, and collectors hiding their collections out of fear of confiscation.
Ironically, many of these collections were widely known, but the absence of a clear, systematic policy led authorities to resort to sporadic and often theatrical crackdowns on dealers and collectors—efforts that failed to produce any sustainable results.
When I became Minister of Culture in 2014, I faced this challenge head-on. The result was the passage of Decree No. 3065 by the Council of Ministers in 2016, following the approval of the State Council. The decree aimed to establish a clearer legal framework for private ownership, while also ensuring proper state oversight and protection of cultural heritage.
Can you explain the purpose and impact of Decree No. 3065/2016 on individual ownership of movable antiquities?
The goal was to create a transparent framework that would encourage collectors to declare their artifacts. This would allow the state to build a national inventory, identify and recover illegally acquired pieces, facilitate the restitution of Lebanese antiquities abroad, and rebuild trust between collectors and the state.
It’s important to emphasize that this decree does not regulate the trade in antiquities. It only addresses the issue of private ownership.
The decree established two key conditions for legal recognition:
1. The antiquity must be owned publicly, peacefully, and unambiguously, for non-commercial purposes, by Lebanese individuals or legal entities, in accordance with Article 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the Lebanese judiciary uses in rulings on movable property.
2. The declared artifact must not be stolen from the Beirut National Museum, missing from it, or removed from illicit excavations at sites formally documented by the Directorate General of Antiquities. If any of these conditions are violated, the Minister of Culture has the legal authority to confiscate the object.
The idea was to ensure legal security. If a collector declares ownership in accordance with these conditions, they are recognized as the legal owner, and the official receipt issued serves as formal proof.
If the object is not declared, the owner remains subject to general rules of legal evidence, and the authorities may investigate the object’s provenance.
Unfortunately, the decree was not implemented as effectively as expected, largely due to the Directorate General of Antiquities’ caution toward collectors—stemming from past experiences with looting and illicit trade—as well as limited human and financial resources, which have hindered the decree’s full enforcement.
Lebanon Facing the Challenge of Antiquities Trafficking
Lebanon has made visible efforts to combat the trafficking of cultural property. In 2017, in partnership with UNESCO, it launched a campaign titled “Our Heritage is Not for Sale,” aiming to raise awareness about the importance of protecting national heritage.
Still, despite such initiatives, certain private collections remain the subject of ongoing criticism.
In 2018, the Nabu Museum was established in northern Lebanon, named after the Mesopotamian god of knowledge and writing. The museum showcases around 300 antiquities belonging to collector Jawad Adra. However, the museum quickly became the focus of controversy: it was suspected that some of the displayed objects may have been looted from archaeological sites or museums in Iraq and Syria, particularly during the civil wars and periods of conflict.
The Iraqi authorities demanded the return of Sumerian tablets, believed to have originated from the ancient city of Irisagrig, which were allegedly looted following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. This was reported by Le Quotidien de l’Art on January 27, 2022.
For his part, Jawad Adra defended himself by stating that the provenance of the artifacts was documented and authorized by the relevant authorities, and that he had conducted his own investigations through UNESCO and Interpol to ensure the pieces were not stolen. Despite his assertions, the Iraqi government persisted in its demand for restitution.
Adra could not invoke Lebanese Decree No. 3065, which allows for private ownership of antiquities, because that decree conflicts with international treaties to which Lebanon is a signatory—especially UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), which grants special protection to Iraqi cultural heritage.
Ultimately, on February 7, 2022, the Nabu Museum returned 331 cuneiform tablets and 6 clay tablets to Iraq.
This event highlights the complex nature of the antiquities market, which often sways between the imperatives of heritage protection, international law, and the interests of private collectors.
Antiquities Trafficking: A RAND Corporation Report Challenges Prevailing Narratives
On May 12, 2020, the U.S.-based think tank RAND Corporation published a report titled “Tracking and Disrupting the Illicit Antiquities Trade Using Open-Source Data,” which came as a shock to many stakeholders in the field. The report dismantled a number of commonly held beliefs about the illegal antiquities market and concluded that many widely accepted assumptions are inaccurate resulting in ineffective policies for combating this type of trafficking.
An Overestimated Market and Biased Data
The report asserts that the size of the antiquities market is grossly overestimated. It accuses certain journalists and bloggers of inflating the scale of the threat to attract media attention, funding, and influence public policy. According to RAND, the absence of reliable evidence has fueled an exaggerated narrative around the phenomenon, leading to a skewed perception of its true scope.
Contrary to widespread estimates suggesting a multi-billion-dollar market, the report finds that the actual value of the antiquities trade—both legal and illegal—is likely only a few hundred million dollars annually. The study states:
"Our comprehensive data suggest that the antiquities market, licit and illicit combined, is at most worth a few hundred million dollars per year—not billions, as often claimed in other estimates. We believe that in the future, researchers who claim the illicit market is larger than what we report here must clearly specify the mechanisms through which such items are sold."
The report also notes: "Even this estimate may be inflated, as it includes forgeries, replicas, and other items that do not qualify as genuine antiquities."
A Dispersed Trade, Not an Organized One
The study further reveals that while organized crime networks do exist in certain parts of Europe, the global antiquities trafficking structure is largely ad hoc and opportunistic. It contrasts starkly with theories portraying it as a highly structured and organized commercial sector.
The report also downplays the often-cited link between antiquities trafficking and terrorist financing, noting that this connection is frequently repeated without solid evidence.
Another major “myth” debunked by the report is the notion that antiquities are commonly traded on the Dark Web. According to RAND, virtually no antiquities transactions occur on these hidden networks, contradicting a commonly held belief.
The report concludes that these findings call for a fundamental shift in how illegal antiquities trade is approached, advocating for evidence-based policies rather than media-driven speculation.
Media and the Mystery of Looted Antiquities
On August 6, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “The Men Who Trade in ISIS Loot,” citing estimates by archaeologist Michael Danti, academic director of the ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives. According to Danti, ISIS-organized antiquities trafficking was worth “tens of millions” of dollars annually—much lower than the $100 million figure suggested by a French security official.
Despite uncertainty surrounding the true size of the market, the fate of thousands of stolen museum artifacts remains even more obscure. Notably, the 136-kg statue of the Sumerian king Entemena, stolen from the Iraqi National Museum in 2003, was placed on the FBI’s most-wanted list for stolen artworks. It resurfaced years later in Syria after intermediaries showed it to Hicham Aboutaam, who immediately suspected its origin and notified U.S. authorities. The incident exemplifies the chaotic journey looted artifacts often undergo.
The Aboutaam Case: A Six-Year Investigation into 18 Disputed Artifacts
Between 2017 and 2023, Ali Aboutaam was subject to an investigation by Swiss customs authorities and the Geneva judiciary. The inquiry led to the seizure of over 12,687 antiquities and close scrutiny of documents for 15,000 items. Authorities alleged customs violations and gaps in provenance documentation for certain objects.
On January 10, 2023, Aboutaam was convicted of violating the Cultural Property Transfer Act (LTBC) concerning 18 artifacts deemed insufficiently documented. Nevertheless, Aboutaam and his lawyer insisted that no evidence showed an organized system or intent to conceal the artifacts' origins.
In a February 12, 2023 interview with RTS, his attorney, Didier Bottge, stated:
“Legally speaking, there is no clear evidence in this case that the objects were looted from illegal excavations. To prove that, one must show that a particular object was removed from a specific site at a specific time under specific circumstances. That was not proven.”
Though he protested the charges, Aboutaam received an 18-month suspended sentence. His lawyer clarified that this was the result of a negotiated settlement—similar to a plea bargain—and not an admission of guilt. After six years, no organized smuggling network was proven, and Aboutaam denounced what he described as a campaign of harassment.
In 2018, the Geneva public prosecutor’s office lifted the seizure order on around 5,000 items that had been confiscated 18 months earlier. All of them were included in court-ordered inventories initiated by their owners in 2002, 2003, and 2005—before the LTBC law took effect in June 2005.
Though approximately 40 artifacts were returned to Aboutaam, a troubling development followed: 23 invaluable items went missing while under court custody. After a lengthy investigation, police recovered some of the pieces, including a valuable mosaic of Christ, which was returned to the dealer.
Ali Aboutaam stated: “To this day, 10 pieces are still missing.”
In a January 26, 2023 Artnet News interview, Swiss lawyers Didier Bottge and Romain Stamfli pointed to the complexity of the legal framework governing the antiquities trade. They explained:
“Given the overlapping and often contradictory national laws, treaties, and international agreements, [Aboutaam] wasn’t always able to comply fully with existing regulations, which led Geneva authorities to open the investigation.”
They noted that out of thousands of items examined, only 18—representing just 0.01%—were found lacking adequate documentation.
Ali Aboutaam maintained that no evidence of illegal trafficking existed:
“Ultimately, documents can be interpreted one way or another after six years of investigation, but let’s be clear: unlike what we see elsewhere, not a single artifact was proven to be looted or unlawfully acquired. On the contrary, the investigation validated 99.9% of the Geneva collection.”
This conclusion underscores the gap between the original allegations, the substantial resources devoted to the case, and its final outcome. Despite efforts to prove trafficking from sensitive regions, only 18 items were deemed problematic, and none were definitively linked to illegal origins.
The 1970 Convention: More Symbolic than Legal
The 1970 UNESCO Convention is often cited as a shield against illicit cultural property trade. Yet, in practice, it struggles to function as a legally binding instrument. Rather than having the force of law, the convention is largely normative, and its application remains theoretical in many cases.
Contrary to common belief, the convention does not override bilateral agreements, which remain the primary legal reference in international dealings. Restitution and import of cultural objects primarily rely on national laws, which tend to have more practical influence than this global framework.
There is no concrete evidence that the 1970 Convention has served as the legal basis for any judicial ruling. Its role is closer to that of a shared ethical guideline than an enforceable regulation.
With increasingly strict regulations, especially in Europe, some art market professionals argue that the convention does not offer an effective or realistic solution to the complex challenges of art circulation. They advocate for harmonized national legislation and practical international cooperation instead of relying on largely symbolic international agreements.
Between Tight Regulation and Ongoing Controversy
In a July 5, 2023 interview with The Art Newspaper, Vincent Geerling, chairman of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA), criticized the lack of evidence behind some of UNESCO’s and Interpol’s claims regarding illicit antiquities trade.
“We wrote to UNESCO for two years before they admitted they had no evidence supporting the $10 billion figure,” he said. That estimate was subsequently removed from the organization’s website. A similar challenge to Interpol led to the removal of its claim that illegal antiquities trade is the third-largest global criminal activity.
Beyond these controversies, Geerling warned of the complications brought by new European import regulations. He said that EU Regulation (EU) 2019/880 creates a “dead end” due to its complexity, raising concerns that customs officers may over-cautiously seize cultural goods. He also lamented museums' growing reluctance to acquire artifacts under the new stringent documentation requirements.
Still, he expressed hope in the creation of an EU expert panel on the art market, aimed at improving lawmakers’ understanding of the sector.
A Regulatory Shift in Europe
Starting in June 2025, a significant regulatory shift looms for Europe’s art and antiquities market. According to a March 5, 2025 Financial Times article, EU Regulation (EU) 2019/880—intended to combat terrorist financing—will officially take effect, imposing unprecedented restrictions on cultural imports into the EU.
The regulation may have major implications for the market. Leading events like the TEFAF art fair in Maastricht are directly affected. Will Korner, TEFAF’s exhibitions director, warned that the regulation could hinder the cultural dialogue facilitated by artworks.
In anticipation of the regulation, many stakeholders are intensifying efforts to document the provenance of pieces for sale, to avoid potential legal and commercial consequences. Items lacking compliant records could become “orphans” that are difficult to sell—even if they were legally acquired in the past.
Conversely, artifacts with clear provenance may rise in value, while those of uncertain origin may see their prices fall or be excluded entirely from the legal market.
Toward Global Governance of the Art Market
Amid rising tensions around antiquities trade, a long-term solution could lie in harmonizing global legislation. A proposed step would be the creation of an international body composed of source countries, lawmakers, collectors, scholars, art market professionals, and museums. The aim would be to establish a balanced legal framework that protects source countries’ cultural heritage while ensuring fairness for collectors and institutions.
This body could eventually launch a global database—accessible to individuals, institutions, countries, and professionals—registering each artifact before a fixed deadline (e.g., end of 2028). This platform would act as a universal reference, giving each object a traceable identity and fostering a transparent, secure, and respectful antiquities market. Such an initiative could mark a decisive turning point toward ethical and accountable governance.