Iran Archaeology is Awaiting a Sanctions Breakthrough

This article is the fourth in a five-part series.

• Read Part 1 here

• Read Part 2 here

• Read Part 3 here

Cooperation in the field of archaeology between Iranian and foreign researchers has a long history. In my academic research, I am currently combing the archives associated with all the major American archaeological expeditions to Iran, beginning in 1930 and continuing until 1978, focusing on the activities of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Oriental Institute, the Field Museum, the Boston Fine Arts Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University, among others. This record shows intensive contacts between heritage professionals of both nations over a sustained interval in contexts such as field research, museum exhibits, student exchanges, and UNESCO initiatives. As positive as these relations may have been for those who participated in them, heritage collaborations were marked by the same steep power imbalances that characterized the overall midcentury relationship between the United States and Iran. 

In the early days of international collaboration in archaeology, Iranian researchers often participated only as trainees. Iranian leadership in archaeological projects was largely on Iranian projects, in which few foreigners participated. In recent years, this has changed. Since around 2000, all foreign archaeological projects in Iran have been joint endeavors; under current regulations, all cooperative research must be staffed by workers and researchers that are at least at numerical parity. The past two decades have seen major restoration projects at the citadel of Bam (an Italian collaboration), surveys and excavations in the Tehran Plain (British) and in the Mamasani district of Fars Province (Australian, British, and American), continued work at Persepolis and Pasargadae (multi-national, but especially French, German, and Australian), as well as excavations at Konar Sandal (American), and at numerous sites in northeastern Iran (German and Chinese), to name just a few examples. Indeed, one of my sources commented that the period from 2003 to 2016 was a high point for foreign archaeology in Iran.

Since 2017, conditions for foreign involvement in archaeological research in Iran have been less than favorable. However, the work continues. To get a sense of the effect of American policy in shaping archaeological fieldwork in Iran, and specifically joint international collaborative projects, I consulted colleagues and experts from a range of professional and national backgrounds. Given the sensitivity of the topic, all interviews were conducted on background. Most of my sources had worked in Iran as recently as 2018, but several had not been able to travel to Iran since 2014, or even as long ago as 2011. The consensus among these individuals is that conditions have worsened considerably in recent years, taking a particularly bad turn with the Trump administration’s executive orders known as the “Travel Ban,” maximum pressure, and the reimposition of broad-spectrum sanctions in 2018 following the US exit from the JCPOA.

***

During the early years of the Rouhani administration, before and immediately after the JCPOA rapprochement, conditions for archaeological research were seen to be improving. Nevertheless, all of my sources recognized that even in the best of times, the internal political situation in Iran complicates the regular functioning of archaeological research. I heard again and again that while procedures and protocols sometimes move along in a smooth and timely fashion, as often as not, there can be long delays in receiving permits and visas with little warning or explanation. While a considerable contingent of Iranian heritage professionals actively seeks to promote international collaborations, the shifting winds of both global and Iranian domestic politics can have drastic effects on the possibilities for cooperative research. These conditions are understood to make the conduct of archaeology in Iran a highly risky endeavor for foreign missions.

For example, one researcher I spoke with worked in Iran as recently as January 2020. After a lengthy wait, their visas and permits finally came through in late autumn 2019. Due to the rising tensions and skirmishes in the Persian Gulf, the leader of this team felt obliged to devise an escape plan and carry extra cash, charting routes to the nearest international airport, or failing that, the nearest land border through which they could escape in the event of the outbreak of conflict. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani on the 3rd of January 2020, while they were actively excavating, ultimately did not force the research team to flee, but it did show just how necessary such contingency plans had become.

My sources told me that every year it is a struggle to know exactly when one will be able to go to the field, which makes it difficult to plan work and coordinate the participation of specialists. All of the experts I spoke with expressed concern about health, safety, and professional prospects. The consensus seems to be that junior scholars in the West ought not to try to work in Iran until they have a stable position from which they can ride out the ups and downs of intermittent and unstable conditions of access to the field. Several sources related to me that every time they leave Iran after a fieldwork season, they worry that it might be for the last time.

***

Geopolitically speaking, experts agree that archaeology and heritage constitute one of the last remaining channels of good relations between Iran and the West. This has naturally made the field a political football, with foreign specialists in Iranian heritage caught in the crossfire. American archaeologists of Iran have been the most affected. European researchers have had an easier time, but invitations and the processing and issuance of visas are frequently held up by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as retribution for unrelated international disputes. Moreover, Iran’s detainment of dual nationals on charges of espionage in recent years, including in some extreme cases lengthy prison sentences and the threat of the death penalty for field researchers, has caused considerable concern on the part of researchers who hold two passports, especially if their documents are American and/or Iranian.

More directly, American sanctions make funding archaeological research particularly difficult. Archaeology is an expensive and logistically complex endeavor everywhere in the world. Research teams typically involve anywhere from three to twenty scholars and students, and a pricey suite of digital recording instruments, including total stations, GPS devices, photography equipment, laser scanners, geophysical instruments, drones, which naturally arouse suspicion due to their perceived potential for dual use—in addition to the usual trowels, picks, shovels, dustpans, brushes, buckets, and wheelbarrows.

The particular complication in the case of foreign missions in Iran is that it is not possible to conduct bank transfers between international and Iranian banks and international credit cards cannot be used. Therefore, foreign researchers are obliged to carry cash —in some cases amounts approaching EUR 50,000—and exchange it for rials in order to conduct their business. This—in addition to general complications with bank-transfers due to secondary sanctions—is a logistical nightmare for the researchers on the ground, but also a significant concern for funding agencies and university finance departments.

American sanctions extend beyond purely financial matters as well, particularly with respect to the prohibition on the exchange of services. Several experts specifically highlighted issues with the export of scientific samples for analyses that cannot be performed in Iran. After negotiating the already challenging internal bureaucratic regulations governing the shipment of scientific samples within Iran, it is then extraordinarily difficult to transport them safely or predictably to Europe or North America. This can mean, in some cases, years-long delays, which cause particular problems for foreign researchers insofar as their employment or professional advancement may depend on the results of such analyses, not to mention the frustrations of Iranian specialists eager to participate in the international scientific community. American sanctions also prevent the use of basic and routinely-used software packages such as ArcGIS Online, which researchers may be obliged to run through university contracts with the provider of the software, ESRI. This service cannot be accessed in Iran, meaning that a crucial tool in archaeological research is unavailable for both foreign and Iranian researchers.

As it turns out, many of these complications are not due to the actual OFAC regulations themselves, which, strictly speaking, do authorize the use of software, the exchange of services, and even some limited transactions as part of routine academic research. But university lawyers are extraordinarily skittish about permitting and funding fieldwork in Iran, afraid of being sued by the US Treasury. In some cases, these concerns can be allayed through obtaining a specific license to authorize a circumscribed program of research. Due to the complicated, lengthy, and expensive process involved in obtaining such a license, however, in practice this means that it is almost impossible for American citizens to be involved in Iranian projects. This appears to be particularly true of the past five years, when licensing has been much more restricted, and the Trump administration has moved to take power out of the hands of the OFAC bureaucracy.

OFAC licensing was one of the major sticking points in the Persepolis Tablet Archive Return project, mentioned in the previous article. I learned that the process of obtaining the license took almost a year and required extensive documentation of every object being transferred and the particulars of the itinerary of the participants in Tehran. OI representatives felt the need to go so far as to print out English-language exhibit labels in Chicago, rather than run the risk of violating sanctions protocols by printing them in Tehran. Such are the absurdities of the situation. Moreover, the Oriental Institute was advised not to do a press junket in the US, to avoid drawing unwanted attention to the work from powerful Iran-hawks in the federal government that might complicate future OFAC licensing.

Simultaneously, the American policy of maximum pressure is squeezing the Iranian economy as a whole. In practical terms, for Iranian archaeologists, this means that access to equipment and the international scientific community is made all the more difficult. Necessary electronics are far more expensive in Iran, visas and funding for participation in international conferences are difficult to obtain, many artifact conservation supplies are scarce and exorbitantly priced, and certain kinds of routine analysis cannot be performed in Iran. Additionally, as discussed previously, due to the funding structure of the MCHT, there is plenty of money for the conservation of monuments and the promotion of tourism, but very little funding for primary archaeological research. Most of the scientific excavation that occurs is salvage or rescue work, which must occur on an accelerated timeline in order to recover archaeological remains in advance of construction and infrastructure projects. Given these conditions, one of the only avenues to obtain funding for academic archaeological field research is to join with a foreign collaborator who might be able to bring with them funding from abroad.

***

Despite all of these difficulties, the expert consensus is that there is huge potential for international scientific collaboration between Iranian and foreign researchers. Those that I spoke to were unanimous in their recognition of the high degree of professionalism among archaeological researchers in Iran, and the quality of their fieldwork. Foreign archaeologists see their Iranian colleagues as partners on an equal footing scientifically, and indeed, many Iranian archaeologists in leadership positions within MCHT, the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, and in academic departments, have PhDs from the very same universities in France, Germany, the UK, the US, and Canada. Iranian archaeologists are perceived as particularly open to innovation, especially in the use of advanced technologies in archaeological fieldwork, and in archaeometric and laboratory analyses such as geophysics, petrography, metallography, paleoecology, photogrammetry, and radiography, among others. The general view is that the level of scientific work in Iranian archaeology is quite high by global standards, and all that I spoke to felt compelled to relate to me their great sense of privilege when given the opportunity to work in Iran.

The present political situation has forced many foreign archaeologists of Iran to continue their research and publishing collaborations remotely. For some, particularly American and British researchers, this was already the reality for some time. With all of the difficulties in obtaining visas and securing funding to continue cooperative fieldwork in Iran, many of my colleagues have had to come up with creative solutions to keep their work going. In some cases, this takes the form of an active social media presence and online exchanges. In others, it involves remote mentorship of students by virtual means, training them in research methods and guiding their work in data collection and analysis, ideally leading to joint publications and thereby visibility in the international scientific community for those who otherwise would not have access to it.

The question of access is central. To the extent that certain foreign nationals have difficulty accessing the field in Iran, so too do Iranian researchers have difficulty accessing collections of Iranian antiquities stored in Western museums. Several researchers I spoke to expressed strongly that—given the volume of materials stored in institutions such as the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the Oriental Institute, the Louvre, and others—Western researchers have a duty to work with these materials and to make them more accessible. Other ideas that were floated include joint projects conducted remotely, in which projects are designed and published collaboratively, with the fieldwork carried out by Iranians on the ground, and the data and analysis shared over the internet. This of course is not an unproblematic proposal, as global power imbalances would still be at play, and there is a legitimate question as to the extent to which this constitutes a sanctionable exchange of services. My reading of the terms of The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control General License G suggests that such work is authorized, but circumspection is strongly advised.

***

Regardless of all the difficulties, my sources pointed to several bright spots. To pick just one, the Persepolis Fortification Tablet Archive Return is seen as a model endeavor, and a prime example of how to both keep open and reinforce channels of communication between specialists and stakeholders, both Iranian and foreign. As one of my sources noted, the legal case that opened the door to the 2019 return—Rubin v. Islamic Republic—represents an odd confluence of forces, in which the United States government, the Islamic Republic, and an American institution were all on the same side. How often has this been the case in the general course of the relationship between our two countries over the past four decades? As I have documented in my historical research, despite the poor condition of our bilateral relations today, archaeology and cultural heritage were once seen by US State Department officials as among the best channels for establishing positive ties between the United States in Iran. My hope is that they may someday be so again.

 Click here to read Part 5 of this five-part series.

Photo: Wikicommons

American Policy Casts a Shadow Over Persepolis

This article is the first in a five-part series.

Five years ago, I traveled to Iran to attend a conference in Tehran, The International Congress of Young Archaeologists (ICYA). It was my second time participating in this biannual event, which was and is the most important conference for students and early career researchers specializing in Iranian archaeology. On my first trip in 2013, I was one of only three Americans who made the journey; on the second, there were more than twenty. The difference was largely due to the atmosphere of openness in the immediate post-Nuclear Deal era. I, like many of my colleagues, was guardedly optimistic about the opportunity and the possibilities that this conference and the sideline meetings surrounding it represented. In a meeting with the then director of archaeological research at the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization, the message conveyed to those of us assembled was one of welcome and excitement. It seemed at the time that American archaeology in Iran, a field that had lain mostly dormant for four decades, was perhaps being reborn.

These two trips were marked by a pair of major diplomatic events. The first was the famous phone call between Hassan Rouhani and Barack Obama after the UN General Assembly in September 2013, which occurred, auspiciously, the same day that I received my visa invitation to attend the ICYA for the first time. The second trip coincided with “Adoption Day,” October 18, 2015, when the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, a.k.a. the “Nuclear Deal”) became binding, transforming the deal from an agreement on paper to a policy reality. With a sense of occasion, I rushed out to the nearest kiosk and purchased a copy of every paper they had for sale. Headlines that day announced, among other things, the first foreign capital investment permit issued after the JCPOA, for a German-Iranian joint venture in a chalk mine in Fars province. While Adoption Day was not celebrated in the streets the way the signing of the deal in July had been, that day in October was seen, at least by reformist-leaning newspaper editors, as the beginning of the end of sanctions.

For me personally, that day in October 2015 appeared to be the beginning of a career as an archaeologist working in Iran. I had just returned from a short excursion with a potential collaborator after the conference. The trip went well, resulting in an invitation for me to participate in his project, so long as I was able to pay my own way over the years that it would take to conduct my dissertation research and write it up. In the end, of course, this did not come to pass. I returned to the US and set to work designing a research proposal and preparing grant applications. The annual application deadline for the main funding source for archaeological field research in my discipline is the first of November. In 2016, a week after applications were due, Donald Trump was elected president. Among his first policies after inauguration was Executive Order 13769, officially titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” but popularly known as the “Muslim Ban.”

I have not been back to Iran since. I knew that specializing in Iranian archaeology was a risky career move, even at the best of times, but I had expected the majority of difficulties to come on the Iranian side, in the form of red tape around visa applications and permissions to access sites and collections. In the end, it turned out to be American policy that upended my carefully laid plans. Ultimately, Trump’s Iran policy forced me to completely reshape the trajectory of my academic research. While I continued to work on Iranian archaeology, I had to use different materials and methods, focusing instead on museum collections and satellite imagery to collect the data I had intended to pursue in the field. But more than this, the experience imparted to me a deep awareness of the impact of geopolitics on the field of archaeology. More broadly, these events have given me insight into the human toll of American policy toward Iran. This article, with the four that will follow, represent a moment of pause and reflection on the past five years, an attempt to make sense of the challenges and opportunities that the field of archaeology in Iran faces as a result of American foreign policy.

***

American sanctions and the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign have not only failed to achieve their stated objectives to choke off revenues to the so-called regime, but have also caused considerable collateral damage in Iran’s economy. While American policy-makers rail against Iran’s “malign activities” and regional footprint, Iranian officials have entrenched themselves in a defensive posture, promoting a “resistance” economy to overcome the imposed restrictions on the country’s participation in the global market. Ordinary Iranians are caught in the crossfire of this geopolitical stand-off. They face difficulties ranging from disruptions in accessing medicine and humanitarian aid to natural disaster relief. Partisans and detractors alike agree that American sanctions are strangling the Iranian economy and threatening the livelihoods of millions of civilians.

One area of Iran’s economy and society which has been little discussed in conversations on the impact of maximum pressure sanctions is the cultural heritage sector. Cultural heritage is significant for any country’s national identity, and this is nowhere more true than in Iran, which has 24 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, a robust set of heritage institutions, and a public deeply invested in its history. The importance of Iran’s national patrimony is clearly reflected in Donald Trump’s January 2020 threat to strike 52 Iranian heritage sites if Iran were to target American troops, citizens, or assets in Iraq in retaliation for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. The specific number of targets is no accident—it was the number of Americans held in the embassy seizure of 1979—nor is the threat to strike Iranian heritage sites in particular a coincidence. Iran’s cultural heritage is viewed as among the nation’s greatest contributions to world civilization and its most effective ambassador in a time of international isolation.

Beyond matters of cultural identity and geopolitics, however, cultural heritage has become more important than ever in Iran over the past five years. This is in no small part due to the close relationship between Iranian cultural heritage management and the tourism industry. Tourism and heritage are linked explicitly in the public relations messaging of the newly formed Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism (MCHT). MCHT Minister Ali Asghar Mounesan recently stated that “tourism is the most important channel for the transmission of Iranian culture to the world.” Iran’s heritage is seen by policymakers not only as an important part of Iran’s foreign relations, but also as an indispensable resource for an industry viewed as a potential growth engine in an economy hamstrung by sanctions. Under the current regime of sanctions, the promotion of tourism—both domestic and foreign—has come to be seen as a key component of the Iranian resistance economy. This in turn calls for an analysis of the sector’s condition and current prospects under American sanctions and maximum pressure.

***

The articles in this series will therefore investigate the impact of American policy on cultural heritage management in Iran, in particular as it relates to the three domains of tourism, heritage diplomacy, and international scientific cooperation. Generally, American sanctions and maximum pressure have created extreme challenges for those working in these areas at every level, from government ministers and policymakers to museum directors, from archaeology professors to tour guides and hospitality workers.

Several trends have arisen in response to these policies. In the case of heritage and tourism, the industry was growing rapidly in Iran prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. As it turns out, most of this growth was from domestic tourists and religious pilgrims from neighboring countries. After the signing of the JCPOA, policymakers in MCHT had hoped to attract more European and Chinese tourists, who are perceived as bigger spenders than domestic and regional tourists. Between 2015 and 2017, there did seem to be growing numbers of these tourists, but they dwindled after the US backed out of the Nuclear Deal, and appear to have bottomed out after the reimposition of broad-spectrum sanctions in 2018.

With regard to intergovernmental and interinstitutional heritage diplomacy, Iran’s cultural heritage has historically played an important role in its foreign relations. From the Persepolis Celebration of 1971, to the Cyrus Cylinder’s tour of American and Iranian museums in 2013 (the cylinder is held by the British Museum), and more recent joint exhibitions at the Victoria & Albert and the Louvre, Iran’s heritage has been used to position the country as an important member of the world community. American policy toward Iran has created an extraordinarily unstable environment for such exchanges, complicating the delivery of objects and the travel of personnel. In a time when American policy seeks to isolate Iran on the global stage, heritage professionals and diplomats are at great pains to highlight Iran’s contributions to world history and to educate their audiences and stakeholders about Iran’s civilizational legacy. The current sanctions regime means that exchanges of objects are not only expensive and logistically complex, but also vulnerable to interruption due to rising tensions and fears about the potential for armed conflict. Nevertheless, despite many challenges and difficulties, heritage diplomacy is seen as a potential avenue for rapprochement and the improvement of ties. Such exhibitions have managed to continue for now, but at great expense and risk. It appears unlikely that an event such as the Cyrus Cylinder’s tour of the US will be possible in the near future, despite the fact that such exchanges are exactly what is needed in these times.

There is another form of heritage diplomacy made complex by American policy: international cooperative research in the field of archaeology. While foreign scientists face a range of difficulties in conducting joint expeditions with their Iranian counterparts due to American policy, these pale in comparison to the obstacles faced by Iranian scholars. In addition to pressuring the Iranian economy in general, sanctions, travel bans, and related policies are squeezing the lifeblood out of this profession. My sources—both Iranian and foreign—tell me that while there is money available for investment in tourism infrastructure and heritage restoration, there is very little funding for basic archaeological research beyond rescue and salvage operations to recover materials that would otherwise be destroyed by development activities. Consequently, Iranian archaeologists have little choice other than to seek out international collaborators to gain access to the funding needed to conduct question-driven field research and perform laboratory analyses. Under present conditions, however, it is extraordinarily difficult to engage in the joint labor of performing the field research necessary to produce archaeological knowledge. This has serious downstream consequences. Without the work of archaeologists and related specialists—including conservators, curators, and other museum professionals—neither tourism initiatives nor high-level diplomatic exchanges would be possible.

Despite the present nadir in US-Iranian relations, there are signs of hope. There is great will among the invested stakeholders, professionals, and researchers to continue to cooperate across borders regardless of American policy. How are they faring and what are their prospects? Could Iran’s past be the key to its future? Heritage workers will be the first to tell you that international engagement with Iran’s heritage has previously been an important vector for establishing and improving ties, even under difficult circumstances. By maintaining relations in the face of maximum pressure, heritage professionals are doing what they can to keep open one of the last remaining channels of communication between Iranian civil society and the global community. Hopefully, these connections will survive current conditions and Iran’s cultural heritage could yet again be a well-traveled bridge between nations.

Click here to read Part 2 of this five-part series.

Photo: Wikicommons

A Wealth of Talent: Domestic and International Markets for Iranian Art

Throughout the last decade, the global market for contemporary Iranian art has witnessed an extraordinary surge in activity and sales. According to an analysis by Roman Kräussl of the Centre for Financial Studies at Goethe University, drawing on data from the Blouin Art Sales Index (BASI), between 2000 and 2012, there were 3,500 significant sales of paintings across 59 global auction houses. Of these, 650 – comprising roughly 20% of the total – were of paintings by Iranian artists. Buyers in hotspots for contemporary Middle Eastern art such as London, Dubai, and Doha have been snapping up works by Iranian masters and emerging artists alike, amid the sound of the pounding gavel and the sensation of sweaty palms. Christie’s in Dubai and Sotheby’s in London remain the dominant auction houses in the market.

It is not simply international sales, however, that characterize Iran’s art market; domestic auctions have seen record prices in recent years. The June 2015 Tehran Auction saw the sale of 126 pieces, and generated over USD 7 million in sales. As such, the average sale price for this year has been roughly USD 55,000, slightly higher than the average price enjoyed by paintings from the MENA outside Iran. Looking to the BASI dataset for the years 2000-2012, 70% of Middle Eastern paintings sold at auctions were at prices below USD 50,000.

According to collector and Salman Matinfar, Director of Tehran’s Ab Anbar (lit. “Waterhouse”) art space, works by contemporary Iranian artists are currently selling for more inside the country, than in international markets, as higher domestic demand has raised prices. Matinfar believes that this demand is a result of two phenomena: first, some buyers are treating art as an alternative investment. A young businessperson quoted in the Financial Times report on the Tehran Auction noted how, “over the past 15 years, the value of real estate has risen by 25 times and gold by 45 times but art has gone up by 250 times.” He added that while “Iran’s art market is still small and traditional investors do not yet consider it a triple A asset … there is big room for growth”.

Second, and perhaps more commonly, Matinfar identifies a clear phenomenon where many of Iran’s nouveaux-riche have been investing as a means to “buy” entry into cultural and artistic circles, and gain credibility for themselves beyond their reputations as savvy entrepreneurs and businesspeople. The Tehran Auction, which has seen sales grow tenfold in the past three years, has caused controversy as observers have been debating whether the buyers are true patrons of Iran’s art economy, or simply speculators in a marketplace.

The concerns over patronage may be premature, though, as the overall market remains relatively small. While the international market for Iranian art enjoys a higher level of diversification and distribution as a whole, there are still more “serious” collectors of Iranian art (i.e. those buying works valued above USD 50,000) inside Iran than worldwide; but the key movers are few. According to artists and collectors, there are approximately 10-15 well-known collectors in Iran who dominate the market. The small number of serious collectors contributes to volatility.

As such, growth in secondary art sales, such as the growth seen in the Tehran Auction, is a step in the right direction towards the development of a larger secondary market for Iranian art, and, concomitantly, greater stability in terms of prices and demand. This year’s positive Tehran Auction gave many collectors, gallery owners, and artists cause for optimism.

While the growing secondary market may mean decreased volatility inside Iran, other developments have raised concerns. At the May 2015 Christie’s auction of modern and contemporary Iranian, Arab, and Turkish art in Dubai, works by Monir Farmanfarmaian and Rokni Haerizadeh set records. However, many noted that in comparison to previous years, and in relation to Arab artists, Iranian artists on the whole underperformed. Though some may take this “slump” at face value, others have pointed towards the rise in Arab nationalism among collectors and patrons in the Persian Gulf, and a preference on their part to invest in Arab artists, as opposed to Iranian ones. Perhaps the political forces that are contributing to optimism and growth in Iran’s domestic art market are also be causing shifts in how collectors treat Iranian artists in the context of Middle Eastern art.

Regardless of these shifts, one thing is certain: Iranian art is increasingly popular both at home and abroad; and, the recent nuclear deal reached between Iran and P5+1 countries will likely boost growth.

For example, according to Christie's Middle East Director Michael Jeha, Tehran will soon witness an influx of American buyers longing to lay their hands on hitherto inaccessible works of art. While this has yet to be witnessed, what one can expect to see in the States, for instance, is an increase in the availability of Iranian art, as well as an augmented presence of Iranian artists, who have long been unable to attend artist talks and conferences – and even their own exhibition openings – as a result of decades-long strained Iran-US relations.

Where prices for Iranian art are concerned, it would be natural to assume that they would surge worldwide as a result of increased demand. However, many dealers and gallery owners have been able to justify higher prices for works by domestic Iranian artists as a result of relative scarcity and the difficulty in sourcing pieces. Post-sanctions, a greater supply of art might actually temper rising prices. Opinions vary on the matter, and it is difficult to predict precisely what will happen in the international market for Iranian art. Yet, it is hard not to be optimistic. Given the wealth of talents on offer, Iranian artists will no doubt soon enjoy greater fortunes on—as the Persian idiom goes— “the other side of the water.”

Photo: Christie's

Culture and Tourism in Iran: Lessons from Italy

In this day and age, cultural tourism plays a crucial role in establishing relations between countries. Awareness is spreading about the amazing opportunities that a prudent enhancement of the cultural patrimony can deliver. The connections between diplomatic relations, commercial opportunity, and touristic exchanges are powerfully joined in the idea of cultural tourism.

Iran and Italy are two countries that are both heirs and custodians of a huge historic, artistic, and cultural heritage. In fact the preservation of such heritage has been recently been the basis for close collaboration. Italian archaeologists have worked on sites in Persepolis and Esfahan among others. The Citadel of Bam earned UNESCO World Heritage status shortly after the devastating 2003 earthquake, largely because of the reconstruction efforts of the Italian Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro.

But cultural exchange is much more than a commitment to history. Cultural exchange can be a useful means of supporting the dialogue among civilizations necessary to establish a model for development and growth informed by and linked to a national heritage.

I would summon, in this regard, two scenarios where the Iranian culture has recently been able to introduce itself globally as an absolute excellency, while still showing openness to interaction with other national cultures, starting with Italian culture itself.

The first scenario is exemplified by the film industry, in which Iranian directors have been acclaimed among the world cinematic masters. These master filmmakers include Abbas Kiarostami and Mohsen Makhmalbaf, whose works have been applauded and awarded by the most important international film festivals, including the Venice Film Festival. Jafar Panahi triumphed in 2000, winning the Leone D’Or for his film The Circle. In 2008, Abbas Kiaorastami won a special honor for his remarkable contribution to cinema.

Iranian contemporary art has also made its way to Italy and the city of Ferrara, where, in 2010, six Iranian world-renowned women artists had exhibited their work as part of the Fourteenth Biennale Donna.

Reflecting on the origins of Iranian contemporary art, I also think about the exceptional importance of Iranian craftsmanship which constitutes a heritage of incredible artistic value by itself, and which should definitely be more acknowledged and appreciated worldwide, as it is one of the foundations of Iran’s national identity.

These are just a few examples of the relevance and the richness of the Iranian civilization, which could become the premise for a virtuous exchange between the civilizations of countries—even those seemingly different in regard to sensibilities and culture.  

On this point, I quote a passage from the memorable speech given by President Mohammed Khatami to the United Nations on September 5th, 2000, during a round table about dialogue among civilizations:

In order to provide natural unity and harmony in form and content for global culture and to prevent anarchy and chaos, all concerned parties should engage in a dialogue in which they can exchange knowledge, experience and understanding in diverse areas of culture and civilization. Today it is impossible to bar ideas from freely travelling between cultures and civilizations in disparate parts of the world. However, in the absence of dialogue among thinkers, scholars, intellectuals and artists from various cultures and civilizations, the danger of cultural homelessness seems imminent. Such a state of cultural homelessness would deprive people of solace both in their own culture and in the vast open horizon of global culture. 

While I was serving my country as Minister of Cultural Assets and Activities and of Tourism, I went on an official trip to Iran. On that occasion— and during a subsequent trip— I had the chance to recognize and appreciate the greatness of the Iranian cultural heritage. My experience made it clear that by leveraging strength of its cultural heritage Iran could stand to develop a valuable tourism model. As my former ministerial title demonstrates, the relationship between culture and tourism has been vital to Italy’s economy. The tourism sector contributes about 10% of the country’s overall GDP.  Iran ought to follow in the Italian model to protect its cultural heritage, even if the pursuit of economic interests is a primary aim.  

The bond between culture and tourism in Iran is clear and undeniable. Iranian artistic and environmental heritage represents one of the key resources for the creation of a sustainable tourism model, as it defines the country's identitarian traits as an attractive destination. If Iran’s heritage is properly utilized as one of the country’s fundamental touristic levers, inbound tourism would become an exceptional way to guarantee international awareness about its cultural assets, promoting efforts and providing funding to preserve and protect cultural heritage. The fruitful link between culture and tourism would emerge as a virtuous cycle, one that can enhance the potentialities of both areas, without undermining their complex and specific peculiarities.

I firmly believe that tourism related policies in Iran should follow the path of environmental, cultural and social sustainability in order to produce vital income and employment. Looking to successful practices in Italy would be my best possible advice. Future Iranian tourism policies must be correctly devised, so that development is truly respectful of the artistic and historical landscape.

In this way, Iranian tourism could represent both a means of economic growth and means to present a new image of Iran, which might overcome the prejudices towards the country to which Western nations are often induced. The point is to consider every cultural asset as a unique public good, deserving of protection and investment.

Such a commitment, by the way, is already written in the history of Iran, with its tradition of public endowments. Devising renewed commitment to public goods, and how they ought to be developed involves the analysis of the whole Iranian political, economical and social system. Cultural and environmental assets cannot be mere treasures, tightly owned and exploited. 

Tourists are becoming harder to please as consumer characteristics like income, tastes, and habits diversify. Such demand could be only satisfied by similarly diversifying the possible combinations of Iran’s cultural offerings, adjusting them to more and more complex requests. To do this work, private enterprise will need to bring its energy and expertise to the table, forging new public-private partnerships. It would be also advisable to enact specific tourism policies, which promote innovation through the application of new technologies.

The future of Iran's inbound tourism will be determined by the ability to build networks, which must reflect the true potential of a country both rich in history and eagerly awaiting the future. Government bodies, private businesses, community organizations, academic institutions, and other stakeholders must actively seek synergies in the spirit of cooperation. The project to preserve and promote Iranian cultural heritage is both crucial and thrilling. 

Photo Credit: Farzad Gavari