What is the story of the stolen property of Saadabad Museum?

Mohsen Mir, the director of Saad Abad Historical Collection, has given explanations to Saad Abad about the registration and documentation of 150,000 objects of this collection, the incident of theft from the Museum of Royal Dishes.

The director of the Saadabad palace complex explained the rumors about the theft of the royal dishes museum, which were clarified during the arrangement of the property:

Correspondence had been made with the Court of Accounts or the inspection organization about the museum of royal dishes, but its reality was not clear. A recent reorganization dispelled all rumors and it was found that no artefacts were lost or stolen, but that all property had minutes. Some works were transferred from one museum to another museum or from one palace to another palace under the supervision of heritage, but were not recorded in the meeting minutes.

He continued:

In the recent arrangement, clarification was made, and the letter of the Court of Accounts, which was repeated for years, was no longer repeated, the property audit was carried out at the same time. Due to those rumors, there was always a sense of doubt and mistrust towards Saadabad, but with this incident, that feeling was removed. The advantage of this work was that Mr. Wazir (Salehi Amiri) and the General Directorate of Museums confirmed and announced that all the property and system problems in Saadabad have been solved.

The manager of Saad Abad complex said about the process of registering cultural and historical properties:

MPs had questions that we register these properties at all? The answer is that all the properties that have existed in the cultural heritage have been registered, where the cup system is not registered. They also raised an objection that one of the managers of the ministry wrote a letter that the property should only be registered in the Jam system and the offices should be left aside. This was also a wrong impression, because the goal was to register in the Jam system at the same time as registering the asset books. We proved in the parliament that there are asset registers and the aforementioned letter only recommended that electronic registration be done at the same time. Did we make a mistake by doing both? Now we have both physical offices and electronic information.

Stating that, if I am not mistaken, about 8,000 to 10,000 works were registered in the “Jam” system, he added:

In the first step, the information of these works was edited. On the other hand, during the war, because the museums were closed, it was the best opportunity to protect, examine and preserve the works. Therefore, from the beginning of the war, the complete registration of works in the Jam system began, and I think that from July to the end of September, in about three months, the entire property of Saad Abad Palace was organized and registered in the Jam system. There is no such example in the country.

Mir said about the necessity of electronic registration of works and property information:

For example, in the past, when we planned to set up an exhibition of coffeehouse works, we wrote to museums to present their works, but none of them introduced their works and the work did not progress, but now, by registering in the systems and offices, we can easily get information about these works in other museums and communicate directly with the same museum and hold a joint exhibition. Asset books were mostly colored and illegible. We borrowed offices from the Ministry of Economy and the General Directorate of Museums and modified our property offices.