Abstract
The Bronze Age Greater Khorasan culture is one of the most important protohistoric cultures of the Western Asia. This culture is characterized with its architectural remains with a pre-designed plan, stamp seals, compartment seals, chlorite statues, combined figurines, precious jewelry of gold and silver and so on. For the first time, the remains of this cultural complex were obtained from the sites in the Bacteria and Margiana. For this reason, these lands were introduced as its origin and this cultural complex became known with this name. However, some researchers place the origin of this culture in Khorasan, Iran. However, due to the fact that until recently no site of this culture had been identified in Khorasan, it remains arguable. The primary purpose of this study is to study, summarize and classify the works on this culture in the Iranian Khorasan that have been published in the last two decades. The results of this study, along with other findings of this culture, will be taken in the wider area of West Asia until the cultural world of the Bronze Age of Greater Khorasan Culture became more widespread in the future. On this basis, it is necessary that the monographs and the small number of publications in this area be collected together and in the form of a collection and in this way, a new look will be taken at the issues related to this period. This research is based on the research of solid libraries. It has been assumed that the works obtained from the Bronze Age of Greater Khorasan Culture in Iranian Khorasan, have some deficiencies compared to other regions, such as: the south of Turkmenistan and the north of Afghanistan. 
Keywords: Greater Khorasan, Bronze Age, Bacteria and Margiana Archaeological Collection, Greater Khorasan Culture.

Introduction
The Bronze Age Greater Khorasan culture was first identified and introduced by Victor Sarianidi from the Dashli site in Bactria, northern Afghanistan (Sarianidi 1977). At about the same time, artifacts from this culture were found in the southern Turkmenistan from Margiana oasis (Hiebert 1994:165). The similarity of the material culture of these two regions has led some scholars of Bactria and Margiana to be considered as the nuclear of the formation of this culture. For this reason, the term Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex was given to this culture (Sarianidi 1990, Hiebert 1994). This culture is also known as the Oxus Civilization (Francfort 1989, Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994). Recently, artifacts of this culture have been obtained in Iranian Khorasan (Biscione & Vahdati 2020, Lunou 2018). Bactria, Margiana and Iranian Khorasan all are defined in the territory of a land that is close to two millennia known in historical sources as Greater Khorasan (Dana 2017). Cultural cohesion of Greater Khorasan is acknowledged by researchers (Yarshater 1997). Evidence of cultural integration in this land has been documented since pre-Achaemenid times (Vogelsang 1992); to the extent that D’yakonov believes in the existence of a kingdom in the eastern part of Iran, the center of bacteria in the pre-Achaemenid period (D’yakonov, 1954). 
Objectives and Necessity of Research: The objective is to study, summarize and classify the works done on the Bronze Age of Iranian Khorasan in the last two decades. On this basis, it is necessary to gather the monographs and the publications on this area and this period so we can have a better understanding of this specific period in this region.
Questions and Hypotheses: What image of this culture can be presented in Iranian Khorasan, compared to other regions of this culture? It has been assumed that the works obtained from the Bronze Age of Greater Khorasan Culture in Iranian Khorasan, have some shortcomings compared to other regions, such as: the south of Turkmenistan and the north of Afghanistan.

The Bronze Age of Greater Khorasan Culture in Iranian Khorasan
Many sites in Khorasan Iran have been identified and a small number have been excavated. The excavated sites include Karim Abad of Neyshabur (Labbaf Khaniki 1381), Yusef Abad of Firuze town (Nishapur P) (Hiebert & Dyson, 2002; Lunou, 2018), Tappe Yam of Faruj (Venco Ricciardi 1980: 57-58), Shahrak- Firuze of Neyshabur (Basafa & Rahmati 2011), Tappe Damghani of Sabzevar (Francfort et al. 2014, Garazhian 2014), Ferizi site of Sabzevar was surveyed (Sabori et al. 1393), Challow Site of Jajarm (Biscione & Vahdati 2011, Vahdati et al. 2018), Tappe Eshgh of Bojnord (Vahdati 2014), Raze site of Darmian (Sorush & Yusefi 2014), Gavand site of Ferdows (Farjami 2014), Bakanda site of Tabas (Farjami 1394, Annani 1398). Also, many sites from this period were identified during the regional surveys including 15 sites in Atrak Basin (Venco Ricciardi 1980), 15 sites in Darregaz Plain (Kohl & Heskel 1980, Yusefi Zoshk & Baghizade 2012), 2 sites in Kal-e Shur Basin in Esfaryen (Vahdati 2015), 9 sites in Kal-e Salar Basin (Rezaei et al. 2018).

Conclusion 
Unfortunately, the sites related to the Bronze Age of Greater Khorasan Culture in Iranian Khorasan have been little explored. It is very difficult to get into the socio-political organization and the relationship between these sites, as the archeological excavations in this area have not been carried out on a large scale and only a few activities have been carried out. It is not even possible to answer the question whether the graves uncovered with the cultural materials of the Greater Khorasan civilization belong to nomads or to the sedentary societies. Some scholars consider the works related to this culture in Iranian Khorasan are rare. However, unlike Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky (1992), it should be emphasized that these sites are not rare and Khorasan of Iran should be included in the world of culture of the Greater Khorasan. The sites in the Greater Khorasan introduced in this article, are different from in eachother based on their function. These areas were cemeteries (Shahrak-e Firuze, Challow, Tappe Eshgh, Raze), residential (Shahrak-e Firuze, Challow, Tappe Damghani, Ferizi) and workshop (Shahrak-e Firuze and Challow) and of course, the use of some of these areas is also unknown (Karim Abad, Gavand and Bekanda).
With an overview of the 14 sites and areas introduced in this article, it is possible to imagine a core of the sites of the culture of Greater Khorasan within the modern city of Neyshabur. The core includes the areas of Karim Abad, Shahrak-e Firuze and Yousef Abad. If the boundaries of this border extend, the existing areas within the city of Sabzevar (Tappe Damghani and Ferizi) can also be added to this complex. In this view, Neyshabur is not considered as a city, but a geographical area and a land known as Neyshabur. With such a view, the remarkable point is the formation of an image that later in the Islamic era is known as the four divisions of Greater Khorasan. These four parts (quarters) are Marv, Neyshabur, Balkh and Herat. Each of these sections was the cultural and sometimes political center of the Greater Khorasan during the Islamic era and played a very important role in the cultural unity of Khorasan. Other sites discovered such as Raze, Bakanda, Gavand and Tappe Eshgh are more indicative of cemeteries and trade stations. As a result, the Bronze Age culture of Greater Khorasan in Khorasan Iran is a combination of one of the main cores of this civilization and trading stations with the western regions (Mesopotamia). The Desert marginal areas such as Bakanda and Gavand are located on the main trade route north-south and east-west which connected the main cores of the culture of Greater Khorasan to the western regions of the Zagros and Mesopotamia through areas such as Shahdad and Tappe Hesar.

Abstract
Cylinder seals usually were used on clay objects, especially tablets, as a symbol of individual’s identity and administrative centers of the ancient East. While, rare potteries sealed by cylinder seal are a new case for archaeologists. Based on the small number of sealed pottery fragments found, archaeologists are dealing with several main questions: Why cylinder seals used on pot-tery? What is the usage of sealed pottery? And whether it is possible to provide an exact chro-nology for these potteries? A sealed pottery fragment from the site of Qal’eh Asrār in South Khorāsān is an example which is also our subject matter in this present study. The area of Qal’eh Asrār is located 1800 meters southeast of Barandood village and 800 meters northwest of Zarbarandood village of Ghohestān section of Darmiān city. This area is currently located on top of a natural hill at a height of about 200 meters above ground level. Analysis of potteries found on the surface of site shows that the occupation of it belongs to Late Iron Age and Achaemenid period, although there are also small numbers of pottery belonging to the late Is-lamic centuries. In this paper we try to study a fragment of a sealed pottery found from surface of site. Firstly, we deal with the issue of sealed pottery with regard to the context and the prob-lems and challenges of its study, then we try to analyze sample pottery of the Qal’eh Asrār in terms of typology, style and its legend. This study shows that the sealed pottery of Qal’eh Asrār is locally produced and its legend is a local style with the common motifs of first half of the first millennium BC. As this site is probably a garrison, this container could be used for bearing commodities to the construction.
Keywords: Qal’eh Asrār, Sealed Pottery, Iron Age, Achaemenid period, Local Style.

Introduction
In ancient near East, the stamp and cylinder seals have been used on diverse clay objects such as bullae and tablets to sealed administrative documents, but use of seals on pottery is rare. Since 3rd millennium B.C Fragments of sealed pottery have been found in sites from north Iraq and Syria (Collon, 1987: 13; Oates, 2001), Levant (Amiet, 1975: 425-426), west and south western of Iran (Caldwell, 1976), Shahr-e Sukhta in south east of Iran (Baghestani, 1997: 34- 43; Hakemi & Sajjadi, 1989: 145) and central Asia (Sariandi, 1986; Heibert, 1994a). Several fragments back to the Iron Age I and II were found from Bahrain in Persian Gulf (Olijdam, 2008) and Central Plateau of Iran in Tepe Sialk (Malekshahmirzadi 1381: 25) and Gholi Dar-vish in Qom (Sarlak 1386: 193- 194). Most of these sealed potteries are small fragments that have been found mainly as single fragment on the surface of sites. A small number, such as the Gonur Depe fragment in Turkmenistan (Sariandi, 1986: fig.123) or the Tell Brak in Syria (Oates, 1985: 257), have been found from archaeological excavation. 
In archaeological survey of Qal’eh Asrār in South Khorasan, Iran, one fragment of sealed pot-tery with a cylinder seal impression was found in archaeological survey. There are several questions raised here. Is it possible to provide an accurate chronology for the sealed pottery of Qal’eh Asrār? Why the pottery sealed, specifically with cylinder seal? Are these sealed pottery have an administrative function and were used as a kind of administrative-economic object or tool? Or here seals just used as decoration? In this paper, which is a descriptive-comparative and analytical approach, firstly we examine the challenges related to chronology and recogniz-ing the function of sealed potteries in archaeological studies, then we focus on study Qal’eh Asrār fragment and its seal impression.

Chronology and Usage of Sealed Pottery
Archaeologists have two different approaches for chronology of sealed potteries. If these frag-ments are found from excavation, they propose site stratigraphy to date it. But, most of the sealed pottery has been found on surface of sites, so dating will be complicated. In fact, archae-ologists use two methods to date sealed potteries, such as Qal’eh Asrār case; they propose the chronology based on typology of pottery or the style and image of seal impression. 
Function of sealed pottery is under debate too; there is no consensus on why sealed potteries are made and how it has been used. In general, the proposed suggestions can be divided into three groups, although, there are many doubts about each of these three views. 
1- The image of seal on pottery was for decoration.
2- The seals are the sign or signature of the potters who identifies the ownership and identity of his handicrafts.
3- Sealed pottery has an administrative function and has been used for storing or moving com-modities.
The style and image of the cylinder seal impression of Qal’eh Asrār sealed pottery
The image of Qal’eh Asrār seal does not show a unified theme and its upper part is broken. In part of the image a human is standing, bending one hand from the elbow and holding a cane, his other hand is not clear, it had stretched body with broad shoulders and arms, the proportion be-tween the upper body and the legs is not observed and the upper body is taller than the legs. It seems he have a dagger in his waist. On both sides of the human image are two birds. On the left side is design of the quadruped (donkey?) and in front of it is a horse, both are upside down. Of course, the horse’s head is broken. Between the two images are a small bird at the top and probably a sitting human at the bottom. The style of Qal’eh Asrār seal is a local style which focusing on the outer lines, not paying attention to the details. 

Conclusion
Studies on sealed potteries in diverse sites, despite different time and cultural periods, shows the following common features can be observed:
1- All fragments of sealed pottery are locally produced.
2- The seals that are used on these potteries also have a local and indigenous style, and this in-dicates the locality of their production.
3- Sealed pottery fragments indicate they should mainly belong to medium and large jars.
 4- In most of fragments seal was mainly used at the area between the neck and body of the ware. 
Given the common features mentioned, it can be argued that these potteries had an administra-tive aspect. However, they used locally which both the pottery type and the seal originate from the local culture of the same region, and there are no examples that show their displacements or dispersion in a wider cultural context.
A comparative study of Qal’eh Asrār sealed pottery shows that this pottery is locally produced and cylinder seal used on it also has local style of the 1st millennium B.C. Due to pottery type and the presence of architectural remains, this area is suggested to be a garrison to protect the road in the late Iron Age - early Achaemenid period, and the style and image of the seal on the pottery also confirms the proposed chronology. 

Abstract
Considering the importance of the Late Chalcolithic Period, especially at the end of the period, we see the emergence of the first cities and early state formation; therefore identifying the types of sites and cultural materials of this period can add important information to our knowledge about it. Among the most noteworthy tendencies of this period are the population growth, the expansion of exchange, and growing craft specialization. Despite our knowledge of different types of cultural materials, especially the pottery traditions of the Late Chalcolithic Period of the Central Zagros region, our knowledge of “Coba” pottery in Iran is limited. which were mass-produced in the northern Mesopotamia, Syria and Turkey in different forms during the “Post-Ubaid” and from the LC1 period onwards. So far, there has been little discussion about the presence of this type of vessel in Iran. This study examines Coba bowls in western Iran, especially the Kermanshah plain, and tries to answer the questions by a descriptive andanalytical method, while discussing the technological characteristics and the time span of Coba bowls in the prehistoric site of Taq-e Bustan? Also, what view do these new findings give us in terms of the distribution of these wares? The abundance of these bowls in the excavation of Taq-e Bustan in 2015 and other discovered samples from Kermanshah province and western Iran provide new evidence that this pottery tradition covered a wide area in western Iran. These samples show that we are facing a significant abundance of type 3 and 4 of Coba bowls and the bold presence of these types indicates the spread of this ware to western parts of Iran such as the Central Zagros in the Early Uruk period.
Keywords: Kermanshah, Taq-e Bustan, Late Chalcolithic, Post-Ubaid, Coba Bowls.

Introduction
Given that the fourth millenium B.C coincides with major structural changes, including the emergence of social hierarchy, technological innovations and economic reorganization, and finally the emergence early states and cities, the presence and distribution of Coba bowls, also known as mass-produced, represents a wider range of communication and interaction in the early fourth mill B.C between Mesopotamia and the Central Zagros than previously thought. Here, we aim to answer the two following questions: What are the technological characteristics of the prehistoric Taq-e Bustan place bowls? Which time period does this type of ware cover? Also, what image do these new findings provide of the distributional pattern? Therefore, the authors in this article will try to evaluate the presence of these findings in relation to the origin of this pottery and the main area of its development.
The area of Taq-e Bustan West Park, which is also known as Parthian Cemetery, is located in the northeast of Kermanshah city and the foothills of the mountains and in the west of Taq-e Bustan historical place next to a spring full of water at an altitude of 1395 meters above sea level. During the excavations of this area in 1394, a new collection of finds associated with the fourth millennium BC (traces of the Late Chalcolithic Period settlement beneath the layers containing the Parthian Cemetery) was revealed. During the initial studies, this area was considered to be on the same horizon as the Godin IV3 period.

Discussion
During the classification, typology and comparison of the pottery collection, one of the special types of pottery forms called Coba bowl was revealed in this area. The Coba bowls are the hallmark of the Post-Ubaid ceramic horizon, which has been present in four different types from the LC1 to LC3, in a wide range, including northern Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Syria. Samples of bowls from the Taq-e Bustan site are found in large numbers, upside down on the bottom floor and inside the jar. The presence of these bowls along with spherical body bowls (also know as curved bowl) -with simple rim and grooved body-, beaded-rim bowls, bowls similar to Hammerhead bowl, painted pottery comparable to pottery from Godin Tapeh of the VI3 period and other forms of pottery, are important. Based on the comparisons made, and considering the samples with absolute chronology of the Central Plateau, Central Zagros and areas outside the borders of Iran, as well as according to the radiocarbon samples obtained from the Godin period VI1, a date of about 3800 or 3700 (LC2-3) can be suggested for the settlement of Late Chalcolithic period of the Taq-e Bustan and its pottery. Samples of bowls from the Taq-e-Bostan prehistoric place are comparable to Coba bowls, such as Wide-Flower pots, conical, or V-shaped bowls. These bowls, which are considered as a relatively unknown types of this period in Iran, have not been noticed so far, if in addition to the Taq-e Bustan site, they have been obtained from Ja-baq site in Doroud Faraman of Kermanshah, Tepe Kheibar of Rawansar, Tapeh Morad Weis 2 in Sar Pol-e Zahab, Godin Tapeh period VI3, Shahzade Abdollah site in Khorramabad, Garmesi Site in Deh Luran, Tepe Badamyar of Rabat and Qale Nane in Marivan. The presence of this type of pottery in areas far from its already known areas of distribution, especially in the Central Zagros, can provide a new perspective for transregional interactions and further our understanding of the nature of society in the early fourth millennium BC in the Zagros.

Conclusion
Among the cultural finds of this site, the Wide-Flower pots with a relatively rough and uneven surface, straw temper and generally with grey core have a strong presence in the studied assemblage. Its already known sphere of development includes the northern Mesopotamia, Syria and Anatolia. The Coba bowls are an important feature of the Post-Ubaid ceramic horizon which lasts until the LC3 period. According to the division that the researchers have considered for Coba bowls, the Coba bowls of the prehistoric site of Taq-e Bustan are comparable to the third and fourth types of this V-shaped bowl, which are mostly known in the eastern areas such as Keban, Habur and Iraqi Jezira. It is certain that with further excavations and surveys, there is a possibility of changing this zoning/sphere, because examples of these bowls (V shape) are also found in western areas such as Amuq, Cilicia and southern Anatolia. These bowls are generally referred to as mass-produced bowls due to the discovery of large quantities in archaeological contexts, and the function attributed to this type of bowl generally includes household activities. Excavation in the prehistoric site of Taq-e Bustan shows the expansion of the Coba bowl sphere to the western regions of Iran, such as the Kermanshah plain in the Central Zagros. Existence of these bowls along with other comparable pottery forms in different regions within the current borders of Iran and many comparable examples in the Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Syria and the use of the Flint-scrap Technique on the surface of vessels of these sites, especially the bowls which are one of the features of the Northern Mesopotamian pottery tradition (Chaff faced-ware or Post-Ubaid culture) during the late fifth and early fourth millennium BC, indicate the prevalence and continuity of the presence of Northern Mesopotamian pottery traditions, along with the early Uruk pottery culture in the Central Zagros. This reflects the extensive regional and trans-regional relations between these areas.

Abstract
The concentration of activities and sites Iron Age excavations carried out in Iran in the quarter-northwest Iran. It covers the west, northwest, north of the center, and the west bank of the Caspian Sea. The important point is that the chronological basis of the Iron Age in Iran is also based on the excavation of several sites in a small part of the northwest and its extension to the whole of Iran. Thus we see the Iron Age archaeological activities at the eastern part of Iran and especially North East is very unknown. Iran has long been the entry point for people without a nomadic component steppes of northeastern North Asia region is the Iranian plateau. According to written sources the oldest nations that have entered the Iranian plateau, known as the Indo-Iranian or Aryan tribes from the steppes of northern Asia to the south and in the land of the Pamir Mountains to Anatolia widely dispersed. Many scholars consider the gradual movement of these tribes to be from the second millennium. A period that is almost synonymous with the Iron Age in the region. But our knowledge of the Iron Age northeastern Iran today virtually all North Khorasan Province and the northern part of Khorasan Razavi province involved is negligible. This paper is based on the latest research picture of the Iron Age northeastern part of the country, with emphasis on the upper basin Atrak be provided. According to the study and identification carried out in this basin, the Iron Age of the upper Atrak basin is part of the Yaz 1 culture.
Keywords: Northeastern Iran, Iron age, Upper Atrak basin, Yaz 1 Culture, Archaic Dehistan, Settlement Patterns.

Introduction
It has been less than a decade that steps have been taken to understand the Iron Age in Northeastern Iran through surface explorations and excavations. Based on this, it seems that some parts of northeastern Iran are in the cultural area of Archaic Dehistan and another part is in the cultural area of Yaz I (Basafa 2017, Dana & Hejebri Nobari 2019, 2021, Vahdati 2016, 2018). The upper Atrak basin is an almost rectangular valley with a length of 90 km and an average width of 20 km. This region is one of the most important regions of northeastern Iran in terms of population movement because it connects the north of Kopet-Dagh to the interior regions of Iran and the center of the Iranian Plateau (Fig.2). Northeastern Iran has long been the place of entry of nomads from the northern steppes to the inner regions of the Iranian plateau. Due to the geological feature, Kopet-Dagh act as a barrier between the Karakum desert in the north and the fertile areas in the south, which cannot be crossed except through a few natural passages. 
More than 500 sites were identified in the archaeological surveys of the upper Atrak basin, among which 23 sites were dated to the Iron Age (Fig.3).

Iron Age Sites in the Upper Atrak Basin
The 23 Early Iron Age sites identified in the upper Atrak basin are listed in Table 1. In the surface survey of these sites, the only available data was pottery. In all Iron Age sites of this basin, the dominant pottery is Yaz 1 hand-made pottery. These pottery are poorly made, rough and in the range of buff and bright red, and the motifs are usually drawn geometrically with ocher and jujube red colors, and most of them are mixed with grog. 9 of the identified sites can generally be attributed to the Iron Age, and traces of Yaz I painted pottery were not found in the surface surveys. The pottery of these 9 sites are similar in form to the pottery of the Archaic Dehistan culture, but unlike them, they are in the buff and red spectrum.

Location based on ٍlevation Factor
The Iron Age sites of the region are located at an altitude between 1007 and 1718 meters above sea level. The size of the smallest site is 0.01 and the largest is 10 hectares. Examining the Pearson correlation coefficient regarding the area of the enclosures with the height factor shows -/299 (Table 2), which indicates a negative but moderate correlation. This means that as the height above sea level increases, it is expected that the size of the enclosures will decrease due to the limitations of natural factors.

Water Resource Factor
The distance of the Iron Age sites in the region from permanent water sources, including rivers and other running water sources, ranges from 0 to 6395 meters, and their average distance is 1441 meters. Pearson correlation coefficient/313. (Table 2) states that this figure shows the relationship between the direct and average level of significance between the size of the sites of the region with the factor of distance from permanent water sources. 

Land Use Factor
Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the size of the sites of the region with the soil type factor of the location of the sites shows -.054 (Table 2). This figure is weak and small. It is expected that there are large sites in the sedimentary plains and smaller sites on the edge of the plains and mountain slopes, and this is not the case in this area.

Slope Factor
Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the sizes of the sites of the region with the slope factor of the location of the areas is 0.72. (Table 2). The figure shows a very weak relationship between the size of the sites and the degree of slope of their location. 

Slope Direction Factor
Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the size of the sites of the area with the slope direction factor of the location of the areas shows -240 (Table 2). This phenomenon shows that some of these sites have not been used for a long time or that the different slope directions were not so important for the residents of this site in different seasons.

Communication Routes Factor
The sites of the region are located at a distance between 0 and 15355 meters from the main communication routes today. The Pearson correlation coefficient shows -114 (Table 2), this figure shows a very weak and small and inverse relationship. In other words, as we move away from the main communication routes, we should expect the size of the enclosures to decrease and become smaller.

Distribution of Iron Age sites in the Upper Atrak Basin
In this research, in order to obtain the distribution pattern of settlements in the region and to better analyze and understand the distribution of archaeological sites in the region and to find a pattern that fits environmental variables, the statistical method of cluster analysis has been used. Based on statistical analysis and their clustering, three patterns were obtained (Table 3, Chart 1).
Settlement distribution pattern 1: Settlement distribution pattern 1 includes 6 enclosures (Chart 1, Table 3). Due to the location of these types of sites in the landscape of the region and according to the distribution of these settlements on the level of the plain and the highlands, their small size, which is less than half a hectare, the economic method of these habitats can be assumed as temporary and seasonal settlements.
Settlement distribution pattern 2: There are 14 enclosures in this pattern (Chart 1). Due to the location of these types of sites in the landscape of the region and according to the distribution of these settlements on the level of the plains and the highlands, their small size, which is less than two hectares, the economic method of these habitats can be assumed as agricultural and livestock settlements.
Settlement distribution pattern 3: There is only one site in this group, and the reason for their placement in a cluster or separate pattern is its very large area compared to other sites. The size of this site is 2.2 hectares. The characteristics of this site, especially being located at a high altitude and a long distance from water sources and communication routes, and other characteristics show that it is similar to model 1, and only because of the difference in the size of this site, it is placed in a separate group.

Conclusion
The largest sites in the upper Atrak basin (except the IUA03 site) are located almost in a vertical line and very close to each other, Tappe Yam with 10 hectares, Tappe Ja’far Abad with 2.8 hectares and Sofalgaran-e Zadak site with 3 hectares, for a total of about 16 hectares from the total 33 hectares, half of the size of the Iron Age sites cover this basin. Today, these sites are located around the city of Faruj and almost in the middle of the plain. This area can be considered as the crossroads center of important roads in the region.
The important point in the reconstruction of the roads is the mountainous conditions of the region, which does not allow passage anywhere. With these conditions, there is only one possible way in the south, and that is today’s Binalud-Shah Jahan road, which goes from Quchan to Sabzevar. Near this road, there is Tappe Golshan Abad, which is actually located in the entrance area of this mountain pass. 
However, it is a little difficult to determine the northern route to pass Kopet Dagh and go to its north due to the number of valleys and the connection of some valleys with each other. By carefully examining the existing routes in the area and their connection with the Iron Age sites, a route is suggested that includes the sites of Tappe Yam, Dalan Tappe Kukach, Dalan Tappe Bozorg and Unnamed Tappe of Milanlu.
The western road along Atrak River connects the upper basin to the middle Atrak basin.
The eastern road also continues to the Kashaf River basin and the Mashhad plain without any natural obstacles.
Today almost all researchers agree that the people had Yaz I culture, nomads. Since Yaz I remains in a wide area of Greater Khorasan and the southern parts of Transoxiana, the route of population migration will inevitably pass-through Greater Khorasan through the north-south routes that connect the steppe regions of North Asia to its inner regions in the Iranian plateau. In this view, the upper Atrak basin is located in the area of Yaz I pottery culture, and due to its strategic location, it plays a very important role in the arrival of people with Yaz I culture to the inner parts of the Iranian plateau.