TEHRAN – What happens when one of the world's oldest civilizations is confronted with the realities of modern warfare? How do museums prepare for conflict, protect irreplaceable artifacts, and respond when cultural institutions come under threat? And what lessons have museum professionals learned from navigating these extraordinary challenges?

Across Iran, archaeological sites, museums and historic monuments preserve a cultural legacy that spans millennia. Yet during recent war involving Iran, and the combined forces of the United States and the Israeli regime, even these symbols of humanity's shared past were not safe. According to Iran's Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts, 149 historical buildings and structures across 18 provinces sustained damage.

In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Dr. Jebrael Nokandeh, Director-General of the National Museum of Iran and one of the country's leading archaeologists, discusses emergency museum operations, wartime conservation strategies, digital preservation, and why safeguarding cultural heritage, is ultimately a responsibility shared by all humanity.

According to official data, 149 historical buildings and archaeological sites across 18 provinces were damaged during the recent conflict. What does this scale of destruction tell you?

Before answering, I would like to express my appreciation to the Tehran Times for consistently paying attention and covering cultural heritage issues.

When damage occurs at 149 historical sites spread across 18 provinces, it goes far beyond coincidence or collateral damage. In my view, it represents a deliberate assault on Iran's historical memory.

Iran possesses more than ten thousand years of continuous cultural development. Many civilizations have disappeared from history, but Iran's cultural tradition has endured uninterrupted. Sites such as the Golestan Palace, the Saadabad Cultural Complex, museums and many other historic monuments represent not only Iranian history but an important part of human civilization.

I believe these attacks were deliberate and organized, and I strongly condemn them.

It is also important to remember that Iran's cultural heritage is not solely Iran's heritage--it belongs to humanity. Every nation shares responsibility for safeguarding this common inheritance. The international community has both a legal and moral obligation to protect it.

The world should recognize Iran as one of the cradles of civilization, and understand that preserving this legacy is a responsibility shared by all.

During both the 12-day war with the Israeli-regime and the more recent hostilities, museums were forced to take emergency measures rarely seen in recent decades. What lessons did these experiences teach you about museum management during wartime?

Although these recent conflicts presented extraordinary challenges, they were not entirely without precedent. During the Iran-Iraq War, particularly in 1988 when Tehran came under missile attacks, the National Museum was also evacuated as a protective measure.

International museum protocols require institutions to assess risk continuously. Depending on the level of threat, some collections are transferred to secure storage, while others remain in place under specialized protective measures.

The 12-day war came as a tremendous shock. At the time, much of Tehran had effectively been evacuated, and access to equipment and logistical support was extremely limited. Nevertheless, those difficult days became an invaluable practical exercise for museums across the country.

When later hostilities erupted, we were significantly better prepared.

Our staff had already experienced emergency operations. They had received additional training, practiced evacuation procedures and understood their responsibilities much more clearly. That previous experience allowed us to respond more efficiently and with greater confidence.

We held numerous professional meetings to review artifact transportation, emergency documentation procedures, storage logistics and wartime conservation methods.

Some protocols that had existed only in manuals and regulations proved highly effective in practice. Others, however, were no longer suitable under modern wartime conditions and clearly required revision.

These findings were documented and shared with Iran's National Committee of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), which subsequently reported the experience to UNESCO and the international museum community.

For the first time, many wartime museum protocols were tested under real operational conditions, allowing us to identify both their strengths and their weaknesses.

Some artifacts cannot simply be moved into storage. How do museums protect large monuments or objects that are impossible to relocate?

At the National Museum alone, we transferred approximately 3,508 movable artifacts into secure storage.

These included coins, sculptures, ceramics and numerous archaeological objects.But many collections simply cannot be moved.

Some stone monuments weigh two or three tons. Others are permanently integrated into the architecture of the museum itself, having been installed when the building was constructed.

International museum practice has developed specific protocols for protecting such immovable heritage.

The first step is usually applying fire-resistant protective materials. After that, temporary defensive structures are built around the objects.

In our case, we erected scaffold frameworks and reinforced them with large sandbags. These barriers help absorb the impact of flying debris, shattered glass and blast fragments.

We also constructed sloping protective roofs above vulnerable objects. If part of the museum's roof were to collapse during an attack, the angled structure would disperse falling debris rather than allowing its full weight to strike the artifact directly.

Eventually, the monuments are almost completely enclosed beneath layers of sandbags.

This method is relatively inexpensive, relies on materials that are readily available and can be implemented very quickly during an emergency.

Many of these methods were developed after the Second World War and continue to be used today. We have seen similar protective measures employed during the war in Ukraine, where museums safeguarded not only indoor collections but also public monuments in city squares.

National monuments often symbolize a country's identity, and protecting them becomes an important cultural responsibility during wartime.

You mentioned relocating thousands of artifacts. How did you determine which objects should be moved first?

Everything begins with risk assessment. Museum professionals evaluate the nature of the threat before making any decisions.

One of the first concerns during wartime is the possibility of theft or looting.

Therefore, objects made of gold or silver generally receive the highest priority. We also prioritize fragile materials such as manuscripts, paper documents and organic artifacts that could be rapidly destroyed by fire.

Each object is evaluated according to several factors: its vulnerability, its national significance, its historical value and the practical feasibility of moving it safely.

Many archaeological artifacts had already survived thousands of years underground before being excavated. Some had been recovered in fragments and painstakingly restored. Moving them again under wartime conditions required extraordinary precision.

Our colleagues performed this work with exceptional professionalism and dedication.

Thanks to their efforts, all 3,508 objects were safely relocated, while the remaining collections were protected in situ according to the latest international conservation standards established by ICOM.

As a result, the National Museum of Iran suffered no damage during either conflict.

However, other historic sites—including Golestan Palace, Chehel Sotoun Palace and the Saadabad Cultural Complex—did sustain damage.

In my opinion, one of the most important decisions made by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage was ordering the immediate evacuation of museum collections as soon as the outbreak of war became certain.

During the recent conflict, the National Museum of Iran was among the institutions that displayed the Blue Shield emblem. How effective do you believe that symbol is in protecting cultural heritage during war?

The Blue Shield is rooted in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Under that convention, museums, historic monuments, archives and libraries are recognized as protected cultural sites, and states are encouraged to identify them with the Blue Shield emblem.

The principle is straightforward: these places should never become military targets. Once they have been clearly identified, all parties to a conflict are expected to respect that protected status.

We installed the Blue Shield at the National Museum as soon as the conflict began, in accordance with international obligations.

Some people ask whether such a symbol has any practical value if the opposing side chooses not to respect international law. That is a fair question.

The emblem may not physically stop a missile, but it serves another essential purpose. It establishes that the institution fulfilled its legal responsibilities under international conventions. It creates documentary evidence that internationally recognized protective measures were taken.

For that reason, I view the Blue Shield not only as a protective symbol but also as a diplomatic, legal and documentary instrument.

Even if an aggressor ignores international humanitarian law, we still have a responsibility to uphold it.

The international community must be able to distinguish between those who respected international conventions and those who violated them.

I found it particularly encouraging that the US Committee of the Blue Shield publicly criticized attacks affecting Iranian cultural heritage. It demonstrated that professional cultural organizations continue to defend international principles regardless of political circumstances.

We have seen that modern warfare can pose significant indirect threats to cultural heritage sites, even when they are not directly targeted. How do you view these risks?

Yes. One of the important lessons from this conflict concerns the destructive effects of modern weapons. Even when a missile does not strike a historic monument directly, the blast wave can affect considerable distances.

The shockwave alone can damage historic buildings, weaken ancient structures, shatter windows and destabilize fragile architectural elements.

In our case, these secondary effects impacted sites such as the Golestan Palace, Chehel Sotoun Palace, Saadabad Palace and the Imam Mosque.

Some may argue that these monuments were not intentionally targeted. However, international responsibility does not end with avoiding a direct strike.

Military planners also have an obligation to consider the surrounding protected area and to ensure that their operations do not endanger nearby cultural heritage. Today. they possess detailed geographic information systems and highly sophisticated targeting capabilities. They cannot reasonably claim ignorance regarding the location of internationally recognized cultural sites.

The National Museum has invested in digital documentation and three-dimensional recording of its collections. How important did those technologies become during the conflict?

Today, digital documentation is no longer optional for museums. It has become one of our fundamental professional responsibilities.

For nearly a decade, the National Museum has been working with three-dimensional documentation, laser scanning, photogrammetry and other advanced recording technologies.

Naturally, digitizing an entire national collection requires considerable time and resources, so earlier efforts focused on our most significant and vulnerable objects.

Manuscripts and archival documents have already been digitized, and many important artifacts have been recorded in three dimensions.

However, one of the most important lessons we learned from the recent conflicts is that we must accelerate this process dramatically.

Previously, we selected collections according to priority. Now our objective is much broader.

We intend to digitize every object in our collections systematically. We have established a major digital data center where these records are securely preserved.

These digital archives serve many purposes. They support scholarly research. They provide invaluable information for conservation and restoration if an artifact is ever damaged. They enable highly accurate reconstruction using three-dimensional data. They also expand public access.

Even when museums must close temporarily, visitors can continue exploring collections through virtual exhibitions, interactive models and online tours.

A museum today is no longer limited to its physical building. Someone living in a remote village—or anywhere else in the world—can visit our website, examine artifacts in three dimensions, rotate them, enlarge inscriptions and experience collections that would otherwise remain inaccessible.

Digital technology has fundamentally transformed the relationship between museums and the public.

Did the conflict influence how the museum engaged with audiences digitally?

During the [recent] war we wanted to ensure that our relationship with the public did not disappear simply because our physical galleries were closed.

One initiative was a virtual exhibition devoted to [the Strait of] Hormuz. The exhibition traces the region's history from the Paleolithic period to the present day, illustrating its long-standing importance as a maritime crossroads.

Visitors can move through the exhibition online, exploring different historical periods and archaeological discoveries. This experience reinforced an important lesson: museums must continue fulfilling their educational mission, even under extraordinary circumstances.

Beyond physical destruction, what happens to a society when its cultural heritage is damaged?

Damage to cultural heritage extends far beyond buildings or museum objects. Every historical artifact represents the lived experience of earlier generations.

Each object embodies the knowledge, technology, craftsmanship and cultural identity of its own time. When such an object is destroyed, we lose part of history itself.

We lose part of a nation's collective memory. And when collective memory is weakened, national identity also suffers.

That, in turn, affects social cohesion. The consequences are not only material. They are psychological and cultural.

For precisely this reason, international conventions describe attacks on cultural heritage as attacks against the heritage of humanity.

These objects do not belong exclusively to one nation or one people.

They belong to human history. That is why UNESCO and international cultural organizations respond so strongly when heritage is threatened.

Protecting cultural heritage ultimately means protecting humanity's shared memory.

Tell us about the National Museum's efforts to organize exhibitions abroad?

I would like to emphasize that organizing overseas exhibitions can also have a direct impact on attracting inbound tourism, and, as an example, our exhibition in China clearly demonstrated this. When you take an exhibition to another country, you are making a long-term investment there.

We held an exhibition in China, and by 11 a.m. on the opening day, all tickets for the following two weeks had already been sold out. Schoolchildren visited the exhibition, and that is particularly significant. When a primary school student experiences your exhibition, you are investing not only in that individual but also in the next 50, 70, or even 100 years. You are introducing several generations of people in that country to your culture and civilization. That is a fundamental and lasting investment.

Such exhibitions greatly enhance mutual understanding. They can also serve as an effective instrument of cultural diplomacy. Our experience has shown that museum exhibitions can help overcome many barriers, reshape perceptions, and enable people to recognize that Iran is an ancient land with deep historical and cultural roots.

Frankly, if people such as [the US President Donald] Trump had truly understood the depth of this country's history and culture, they would not have made such a grave mistake. Their understanding was extremely limited, and because they lacked that knowledge, they failed to appreciate who they were dealing with.

AM