If diminished funding and smaller budgets aren’t enough to challenge the existence of many museums we were reminded of another glaring vulnerability. Smash-and-grab assaults occurred in two smaller French museums in the last several weeks. At the Cognacq-Jay Museum display cases were demolished by men wielding axes and baseball bats. Seven ornate snuff boxes valued at $1M were removed right in front of visitors. Two days later, in an apparently unconnected event, thieves walked into the Hieron Museum, fired shots and headed right for a display case housing a 10-ft tall figure of Christ encrusted with diamonds and rubies. Using a chain saw they easily dismantled the case and removed the jewels and some figurines worth an estimated $7M. In both cases the thieves left unchallenged.

There are a number of troublesome aspects to both of these thefts. Foremost is their seeming brazenness. How bold are thefts like this, though? Thieves are well aware that even large museums may be defenceless against this type of invasion during visiting hours. Armed guards can be an intimidation factor, but how willing are they to react with force when the public is present? Smaller museums have minimal personnel overseeing collections, to say nothing of an armed guard. The ease with which the thieves took specifically what they wanted in these two instances and escaped without pursuit can leave us breathless and wondering.

In both instances jewels were targeted, the least likely assets to ever be recovered. Once removed from whatever they adorn they can be sold, and precious metals melted down. Tim Carpenter, CEO of the consulting group, Argus Cultural Property Protection, says, “Considering the monetary value of some of the world’s most precious cultural heritage and the ease with which criminals can convert those commodities, it’s shocking at times to see how little effort is actually directed at protecting these irreplaceable works”.  There are no identifiers on jewels, unlike a painting or sculpture, whose images and data can be relayed to a knowledgeable and increasingly communicative art and auction market. The means of tagging gems with block chain identification is in the very nascent stages. Other strategies like using predictive technologies to scan crowds for likely suspects are worthless in the face of a sudden assault.

The hope, if not to prevent, is to slow the event to the point where a response may be timely. In both these instances the assets were soft targets in easily compromised cases. The technology for constructing vitrines has improved to the point where laminated glass for the hoods is not impossible to break, but very difficult. And the entry point to open the vitrine can be made hard to detect. Not to say that repeated hits with a sledge hammer won’t do the job, but if there is a glass break sensor inside it will surely trigger an alarm, as will object-specific sensors on the assets themselves to compound the immediacy of an alert. At that point the museum would be well advised to make it a loud alarm, in addition to an electronic notification to the police.

Reinforced vitrines and sensors can seem like a burden on small budgets, but if a thorough risk assessment and cost benefit analysis shows the value then these measures should be implemented, at the very least. After that the only recourse is investigation and forensics, if not the hope that one of the thieves will slip up and expose himself. Because the fewer cases solved the more encouragement there is for determined attacks, particularly by those criminals who are unafraid to use violence or force.