I think the Trans Iranian Railway is wrong on so many levels. We are talking about a railway in 1938. In comparison, the Union Pacific railway was built in 1870 crossing the huge expanse that is Western America incl. the Rocky Mountains. The Transsib (crossing icey Siberia) was built at the turn of the century. I dont see what key engineering feat was accomplished here. Answer none.

It was not built by Iranians but Americans and Germans. So even a national heritage seems weird. The state of preservation looks poor. And inscribing it as a complete railway without singling out the bits that needs to be preserved, means that de facto they should be put in danger as of this minute. I think they will modernize and rebuild and ...

Regarding regional and national importance, I feel that the argument nowadays is, we are a nation, our nation's history is part of the history of humanity and deserves to be praised and protected as world heritage. By that logic each and every national symbol could be inscribed as it is part of the nation's history. Worst example I have seen of late was Hortobagy, Hungary; a review is coming.

To me, and that pains me to say, the world heritage label is losing fast its appeal. At a certain point having the designation will no longer be a sign of quality. It should not be nationalitistic and it becomes.

Some orga changes are due. E.g. the committee should not contain any nations that apply for the status this and next WHC. The experts should propose sites. The total number of new sites should be limited...

I meant OUV sarcastically and must say I am going to become much more selective in which sites I will be making an effort to view in the future. In that regard this community is much more valuable than any official unesco status of a site would automatically infer. It is sad that it has come to this point, but is inevitable from the way the system is set up. I still believe there are many quality and worthy sites sitting in the tentative lists that will hopefully make it forward sooner than later.

Trans-Iranian Railway (TIR)
Whilst researching more about the TIR I came across this c42 minute video (in English) from 2017 by the German broadcaster Deutche Welle.

I recommend the video to anyone wanting a better feel for this newly inscribed WHS. It reports a journey along the TIR from Khorramshahr all the way to Bandar Torkaman. The commentary is a bit pedestrian and there are a few unnecessary political observations but, IMO, it provides an excellent vignette of what the rail journey is like. It also gives a nice impression of travel in Iran more generally with a number of personal interactions (plus a few rather stilted interviews), visits to places a bit away from the railway and little depictions of Iranian life - it made me want to go back!!! It isn't quite clear under what sort of "rules" and official assistance it was made, but there are plenty of shots of the train taken from roadsides etc so there was probably some external help.

The video shows that the rail journey could be a nice part of an Iran tour and that some of the route is reasonably spectacular. The main "scenic" and "technical" sections are those crossing the Zagros mountains between Andimeshk and Dorud and the Elburz between Garmsar and Sari. The former area is notable since it is largely inaccessible by road. The movie isn't aimed at railway buffs with technical interests and doesn't dwell on the tunnels and spirals! The highest point of 2112 m at Gaduk is nothing special in height or to see. The crossing of Veresk bridge is shown... Yes it is quite spectacular with a deep canyon and a high bridge but nothing that travellers on other railways around the world won't have seen on non-inscribed lines. The other parts of the line are fairly standard semi-desert countryside and one doesn't mind the time spent talking to other travellers rather than showing the views! It was nice to be reminded just how amazingly lush the rice fields along the Caspian shore are after days of desert travel - but otherwise that part of the journey is nothing special either. The completely new station at Qom miles out of town built to take the "High speed" train (160 kms per hour!) also showed the changes that the line is undergoing. The only really "historic" railway heritage shown was of one of Iran's earliest railways - a loco from the short 1888 line from Tehran to Rey - which is not a part of this WHS.

My "researches" are giving me some causes to "re-evaluate" my assessment of this site - in particular in comparison with the Rhaetian WHS which was also evaluated as not having OUV related to "railway technology" but seems to have played the "ICOMOS game" better during formulation and evaluation via a not particularly logical definition of OUV and thus avoided having to rely on the "goodwill" of the WHC for inscription!! To be fair to ICOMOS - they did offer a similar approach to Iran but at the cost of a delay in inscription of course. I haven't yet decided whther to "up" my TIR rating or reduce that of the Rhaetian (or both)!!

Currently not possible. Borders closed.


I don't think both inscriptions are the same. The Swiss did not simply inscribe all Swiss (alpine) railways as Helvetian Railways. The Rhaetian railways is a limited site consisting of especially scenic and well preserved track including bridges and aqueducts. If I understand TIR right, it covers everything, including new train stations, downtrodden tracks, ...

It's this limitless approach that I object to. As requested by the advisory body, they could and should have redone the dossier and identified the key components. Now, it will be nearly impossible for a visitor to identify OUV standing at e.g. Teheran railway station and comparing it to Bombay. Or London. Or... It's one of the sites where the visiting experience will be down to luck: Did you pick a good spot or a bad one.

Hegmataneh Historical Landscape (Iran) and The Historical City of Masouleh (Iran) have been submitted in time for 2023 (apparently), though it remains unclear if either already complete (previously submitted) extensions take precedence.


So Iran might have 4 complete files ready for 2023 and beyond.

While looking for a glimpse of hope whether I have visited one of the Persian caravanserai, that are up for nomination this year, I noticed that there may be more included than we thought so far. We have 27 locations, the TWHS description talks about 25, but this news report from Feb 2021 says the file includes a selection of 56 caravanserais. My hopes are up!

Indeed - 56 it seems to be!! It would seem that Iran has considerably extended the scope of this nomination way beyond the description on the T List.
A Google search based on "Iran Caravanserai 56 UNESCO" returns a plethora of reports from around Iran mentioning the figure of 56 Caravanserai ("in 24 provinces") - they all seem to have received their information for the same central source!! However - none that I can find lists all 56.
There is a further set of reports dated around Oct/Nov 2021 from various provinces reporting the arrival of UNESCO inspectors to visit the nominated Caravanserai in their areas - and these privde references to some extra sites e.g (there are more) -
Yazd with 6
and
https://en.irna.ir/news/84508504/UNESCO-inspectors-visit-old-caravanserai-in-south-Iran - this (Oct 18) mentions that "Some 42 caravansarais proposed to UNESCO have already been visited by the organization's inspectors, he stated."

A particularly interesting one is this for Isfahan Province with 9 (The "T List 25" includes none from Isfahan province). I say "particularly" because of this from the article - "Abbasi Caravanserai with around 300 years of age is one of the largest hotels in Isfahan and Iran. Its architecture has its roots from Safavid era. Abbasi Hotel was designated as the most beautiful hotels in the Middle East in March 2017."
If correct ...and if inscribed..... that will give Isfahan yet another WHS! And most people visiting Isfahan are likely to at least go into this hotel even if they don't stay there - even we had a meal there last time we visited!!

I found this one from West Azerbaijan: https://irandaily.ir/News/302323.html

Will add some of the locations mentioned in the links you provided.

Another one for the Iranian queue: Taq-e Bostan. Maybe 2025, 2026?
The text is very confusing, will it be an extension of the current Sassanid WHS? And are they prepping a joint nomination with Iraq's Ctesiphon?
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/480307/Sassanid-landscape-one-step-closer-to-UNESCO-status
and
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/480266/Iran-eyes-UNESCO-tag-for-its-Sassanid-fortress (regards Qale Falak-ol-Aflak, in a different province, but also Sassanid)

It is interesting to compare the article above of Dec 2022 about Taq-e Bostan with an earlier one of Apr 2022 in the same journal
a. April 2022
"The tourism chief of Kermanshah province on Sunday said his directorate is preparing to apply to UNESCO for the listing of Taq-e Bostan on the World Heritage list. "We aim to pave the way for the inscription of Taq-e Bostan on the UNESCO World Heritage list within the next 18 months," Jabbar Gohari said. Taq-e Bostan consists of a series of properties from prehistoric to historical periods such as Morad-Hassel Tepe, an ancient village, a Parthian graveyard, and Sassanid hunting ground. However, the most significant property of the complex belongs to the Sassanid one which comprises two porticos (large and small Ivans) as well as outstanding bas-reliefs from the same period."
b. Dec 2022
"Iran is completing an all-inclusive dossier for a Sassanid archeological landscape in the western province of Kermanshah, to have it registered on the UNESCO World Heritage list, the provincial tourism chief has said. With a high concentration on Taq-e Bostan, which embraces a magnificent series of large bas-relief carvings in Kermanshah, the archeological landscape is sought to be extended to Ctesiphon, an ancient city located 32 km southeast of modern Baghdad that served as the winter capital of the Parthian empire and later of the Sassanid empire, Mohammadreza Soheili explained on Sunday. The Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts has decided to pursue a World Heritage listing for a Sassanid axis centered on Taq-e Bostan, the official added."

To understand the issues and possible drivers for the differences it is worth remembering that the existing Sasanian WHS - "The Sassanid Archaeological Landscape of Fars region" was inscribed in 2018 despite the ICOMOS recommendation of deferral for the making of significant changes.
The ICOMOS "complaints" were that
a. The nomination tried to make a case for linking some very early Sasanian sites (at Firuzabad and Bishapur) with 1 very late one (At Sarvestan which is so late that there are even doubts as to whether it was really "Sasanian"!). Iran needed to "Refocus the justification of Outstanding Universal Value on the exceptional testimony the property provides in relation to the commencement and early expansion of the Sassanid empire under Ardashir I and Shapur I (224 – 273 CE)" and remove Sarvestan.
b. Despite claiming to be a "Landscape" there was no landscape provided - the locations at Firuzabad and Bushapur needed to be extended to present a landscape. Iran needed create "one site component boundary for each, encompassing the previously separated archaeological features and the topographic landscape features between them"
c. The entire nomination had far (!) too much of a "Fars Province/Region" aspect (look at that full title!) - "(It) does not consider adequately the other important Sassanid sites in and beyond the Fars region" and "ICOMOS considers that the focus on the Fars region is restrictive when aiming to represent an empire that stretched far beyond the boundaries of this central region"
With a few changes ICOMOS would have gone along with it as covering the "Earliest moments" of the Sassanids - "ICOMOS recognizes that the serial components of Firuzabad and Bishapur include the most significant remaining testimony of the earliest moments, that is the commencement under Ardashir and establishment of power under Ardashir and his successor Shapur I, of the Sassanid Empire"

So the "Tourism chief" of Kermanshah province gets landed with the task of trying to create a nomination dossier for one of "his" Province's T List sites consisting initially of
a. An undoubtedly (we have visited) fine pair of mid/late Sassanid bas-reliefs (showing events of c 380CE and another of c 620CE)
b. Plus "a series of properties from prehistoric to historical periods such as Morad-Hassel Tepe, an ancient village, a Parthian graveyard, and Sassanid hunting ground"!!
He knows also that an "early" Sasanian site has already been inscribed (but with problems of "lack of focus"!) "down the road" in Fars Province! What is he to do? Carry on with an "eclectic" mix of multi-period locations in and around Kermanshah also somewhat lacking focus; try to wing it using just the artistic and historic values solely of the Taq-e Bostan reliefs (is it really "strong" enough as a single monument in the 2020's?); or try to look outside Kermanshah for other Sassanian related sites beyond the "early" period (whilst still keeping provincial "ownership" of the nomination in Kermanshah!)? The April 2022 article states "we have consulted with the visiting UNESCO evaluators and experts in order to come up with a clear solution, the official added" - though it isn't entirely clear what "problem" he is referring to! Perhaps this revamp between Apr and Dec does indeed reflect input from UNESCO???

As of Dec 2022 it appears that he is currently looking at "a Sassanid axis centered on Taq-e Bostan" making "use" of Ctesiphon situated 400kms away in....Iraq (35kms south of Baghdad)!! Now, I hadn't ever really registered that the site of Ctesiphon isn't currently on Iraq's T List. Amazing - one of the World's iconic "arches" is in danger of collapsing and has been highlighted as such by e.g WMF. Iran is "active" in this respect and has offered the Shia dominated government of Iraq "help" to preserve the arch on several occasions - this is from Jan 2021.

Leaving aside the complexities of making a transnational nomination including a site not even on the T List, I personally couldn't see Ctesiphon as a mere "add on" to a "a Sassanid axis centered on Taq-e Bostan". There is no doubt that the Iranians "see" Ctesiphon as "culturally" theirs - the design of National Museum in Tehran makes use of that aspect of Iranian history - but even a Shia-dominated Iraq might not want to be subordinated by Iran; nor might ICOMOS see the respective merits of the 2 sites that way either! It would have to be very diplomatically presented and titled!!

There is undoubtedly an "opening" for more Sassanid sites. As ICOMOS states in its Fars evaluation "ICOMOS considers that it is conceptually impossible to represent an ancient empire, which lasted over four centuries and spread over a few thousand kilometres through three areas, which are rather constrained in the timeframe and regional context they present." but what is the best way forward? It isn't clear where a Kermanshah nomination is going to find other sites for its "Sassanid axis". The Sasanians added to the Achaemenid reliefs at Nasqsh-e Rostam and Naqsh-e Rajab but these can hardly be presented as primarily "Sassanid". They could "raid" the Gamvishan Bridge from the Collection of Historical Bridges? And there are yet more Sassanid bas reliefs as well as fortresses as per the other article cited by Els above. Surely enough Sassanid remains to avoid going to Iraq for more?

This downloadable article might be of interest/use to anyone wanting to understand more about Sassanid archaeological locations.
(By the way, Merv could be added to our Sassanid Empire "Connection". It was at one time a Sasanian city and was where the last Sasanian monarch (Yazdegerd III) was murdered in 631CE after he had fled there from the Arab army (though that event apparently took place outside the city!)

Another article about Taq-e Bostan, in which they mention again its application for the World Heritage List, with an extension towards Ctesiphon.

Taq-e Bostan marks 91 years on national heritage list

The smoke from BBQ grills is a hindrance for global registration!

Update about Vank Church (Monastery of St. Amenaprkich).

Iran is not a fan of 1 nomination per year, indeed it's an injustice.

"Yazidi reminded: Just as we are pursuing the global registration of Isfahan's historical and cultural axis, the registration of Vank Church is one of our priorities in the UNESCO World Heritage List. But in recent years, according to its own words, this international body has assigned a low quota to Iran for expert reasons. Pointing out that quotas are more challenging for countries of historical significance like Iran, he added: Setting a quota for a country like Iran compared to 90% of other countries is a kind of injustice to countries with valuable works, but nothing can be done about it. And we have to move forward."

lol

waiting for this to be seconded by the DPRK

Further to this regarding Taq-e Bostan and Ctesiphon there arrives this article from 2 days ago "Qasr-e Shirin ruins prospective candidate for UNESCO status".

It gives a far better indication of the possible logic and scope of a "Sassanian" nomination than we had from the earlier information. I quote from it (I think they meant "modern Iraq" but I quote exactly - perhaps Iran plans on expanding!) - "Qasr-e Shirin's ensemble is a part of a Sassanid axis stretched from Iran's Kangavar to ancient Ctesiphon, now situated in Modern Iran, the official said. The two neighboring countries seek to introduce this cultural heritage axis by doing their best to have it registered in the UNESCO list of World Heritage, he added."
So,, we seem to have an answer - a transnational nomination of a number of Sassanian sites including potentially (among others?) from Iran's existing T List - Taq-e Bostan, Qasr-e Shrin and Kangavar.

I was surprised to discover that we have no coordinates registered for Qasr-e Shrin on its site page - but there is one on the country page which only covers the "Parsi Temple" (which is the Char Capi mentioned in the article) - is there an error? It would appear that there are likely to be several locations also including a Caravanserai which we already have from that T List site.

Suggest we start with taking only locations mentioned in the above article and the UNESCO description . I have been unable as yet to place the Ban Qal'eh tower or Fortress which is/are also mentioned. Also the UNESCO description refers to a single (?) "perimeter"- so there might only be a single location and individual items are only being identified for "interest"? on the other hand it is unable to put a size on that perimeter (simple stating "??") and such a Single site would seem rather large and likely to contain many areas of zero value!
Historic Ensemble of Qasr-e Shrin (Khosrow's Palace) 34.516076, 45.580001
Historic Ensemble of Qasr-e Shrin (Caravanserai) 34.512854, 45.579415
Historic Ensemble of Qasr-e Shrin (Char Capi Fire Temple) 34.522265, 45.578865

Note that it is in the far west of Iran close to the Iraqi border and Google maps states that the archaeological site is "currently closed". See Wiki for a few photos
It also lacks a "Category" - suggest "Archaeological site - Near Eastern"

PS. .This article Dec 12 2022 gives a bit more info on the possible nomination - "The axis, based on our plan, will be including Sassanid works and monuments from Kermanshah to Ctesiphon." Kangavar is in Kermanshah Province. Note that a nomination consisting of the 4 sites - Kangavar, Taq-e Bahi, Qasr-e Shrin and Ctesiphon would indeed constitute a (sort of) "axis" with them being in an approximate straight line (though why that should be imortant is another matter -it is being used quite a lot now for T List entries). The article also indicates a possible title for the ensemble - "Western Sassanid landscape"