Abstract
Aleshtar plain is central part of Selseleh county and located in North Loristan province. This plain is region lush and with pleasant weather and rich soil. This area has been from prehistoric period so far always settlements folks and different groups human. Location of Aleshtar plain and proximity with Northern areas Zagros, Central Plateau, Southwest Iran, and Mesopotamia, for a long time to this area has particular importance of communication. Authors, after explaining the climate and ancient roads Aleshtar, have analyzed dispersion form of ancient and historical settlements this area. In this regard, using with ArcGIS software (version 10.3) location of each site is specified in Aleshtar. Output of ArcGIS software, is four maps in Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron, Historic, and Islamic periods. After studies is specified approximate route of ancient road in Aleshtar plain (north-south road in central Zagros). Therefore, combining the two points, included, ancient road north-south and also distribution of ancient and historic sites in Aleshtar plain, in before and after Islamic periods, this question was raised: what role has this ancient road in Aleshtar plain in the formation ancient settlements? For this question, authors with preliminary survey in Aleshtar plain they had this hypothesis: basically, this ancient road from Islamic periods has played a pivotal role in the formation of sites. Analysis distance of each site from this ancient road has showed, most archaeological sites has been formation in Aleshtar plain from the Islamic period along this route; In the Pre-Islamic periods, hasn’t been focus center of settlements around this ancient road with distance of about two kilometers. Data of this study is based on archaeological research Ali Sajjadi in 1998 and Davood Davoodi in 2006 and 2007. Also, authors have done again surveyes in this area.
Keywords: Aleshtar plain, Settlement, Ancient roads, and GIS Analysis.

Introduction
Selseleh County is located in north of Lorestan and in South of Hamedan Province. From Aleshtar city is mentioned in various sources. This point has been indicative importance this region in Pre-Islamic and Islamic periods. Archaeological survey that so far has been done in Aleshtar plain, confirms importance of this area. In Aleshtar before all, by Oral Stin has been done archaeological survey (Stin, 1940). Colar Goff in during archaeological surveys in North Lorestan; She has also surveyed Aleshtar (Goff, 1968). In 1998, Ali Sajjadi was surveyed Aleshtar from administration of Cultural Heritage of Lorestan province. Now, report her work is in archives administration of Cultural Heritage of Lorestan province (Sajjadi, 1998). Furthermore, in 2006 and 2007, Davood Davoodi was surveyed historic and ancient monuments Aleshtar in during two seasons (Davoodi, 2006 and 2007). Authors, in order to explain process settlement in Aleshtar plain, and measurement influence of climatic conditions area, and importance of ancient and historical roads of this region, have done draw a map ancient settlements of Aleshtar plane in Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron, Historic, and Islamic periods. For this purpose, has been used from report of survey Ali Sajjadi (Sajjadi, 1998), and reports of surveys Davood Davoodi (Davoodi, 2006 and 2007), and also, again surveyes authors in this area. In this research, has been used for register ancient sites on the map from ArcGIS software (version 10.3). So, authors in this research try to analyze the following issues:
What role has this ancient road in Aleshtar plain in the formation ancient settlements? And essentially, role of road north-south in Aleshtar plain at what period is seen? The main hypothesis of this research, it is: Around of ancient road in Aleshtar plain in Islamic period has been settlement. In the Pre-Islamic period, hasn’t been focus center of settlements around this ancient road with distance of about two kilometers.

Settlements of Aleshtar plain from prehistoric to Islamic periods
The Communication route that has been connected West to Southwest of Iran (Hamedan and Kermanshah to Khozestan plain), one of the most important route of communication in Pre-Islamic periods, and this road has been connected West and Northwest to regions of Southwest Iran. Continue this road has been crossed from Aleshtar plain. Study location of sites from prehistory to Islamic periods has points, has been effective in description of problem, settlement patterns and also role of ancient roads in this area in formation of settlement patterns. In study area, were identified in total 96 settlements sites. The sites were divided into four groups, that including Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron, Historic, and Islamic periods. According to, in Aleshtar plain were identified 27 sites related to Chalcolithic period. It seems, in this period entire Aleshtar plain has been inhabited. Most of settlements are seen in around rivers of Kahman and Zaz. However, in the eastern part of Aleshtar, is seen number large sites settlements related whit this period. Also, in this area were identified 28 sites related to Bronze and Iron periods. Checking the distribution map of sites in these periods, interpretations related whit Chalcolithic period is show. In this period entire Aleshtar plain has been inhabited. In Historic periods (especially Parthian period), we see increasing number of sites in Aleshtar. In this area were identified 82 sites related to Historic periods. Furthermore, in Aleshtar were identified 52 sites related to Islamic period. In this period number of sites has dropped relative to previous period. In this period, aggregation of sites is in central area of Aleshtar.

Conclusion
Climatic and environmental conditions also ancient roads, is two major factors in relation to settlement patterns in Aleshtar plain from prehistoric to Islamic periods. In Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron, and Historic periods is settlement of pattern absolutely scattered and dependent on water resources and land. In these periods aren’t interpretable of focus in sites Aleshtar. In Islamic period, aggregation of sites is in central area of Aleshtar. Two to three kilometers in North and West in Modern city of Aleshtar has largest number of sites from Islamic period. In Islamic period settlement of pattern is around ancient road (north-south) in Aleshtar plain.

Abstract
Tepe Betaki is one of the most known ancient area in Aleshtar and for the reason there were some studies about it from so yours ago. The primitive studies shows that there is cultural periods from prehistory periods to Islamic periods. In this connection to maintain of Tepe Betaki, the writer had mission to study to determine the limits of it. The surface analyzing was continued in this mound from 29 July to 11 August 2018. In the time, it was studied carefully and 17 trench 1/5×1/5 m were made in different directions during the surface analyzing. The purpose was to record the ancient cultural findings in different areas. For this purpose, the mound was divided to 5 zones North, West, South, east and central and each was studied carefully. The purpose was to separate different zones to record cultural findings and to recognize the different cultural material of the mound. Therefore, the analyzing of bronze era existence in Tepe Betaki and the mound studying to show the spreading cultural material of different zones are the samples of Bronze era were collected and studies typologically. These samples were selected from 330 samples. It means that only 22 tile samples were about Bronze era. Therefore, in spite of wide extent of Tape Betaki and enrichment of culture in the next period the Bronze era is not considerable. 
Keywords: Aleshtar, Tepe Betaki, Bronze Era, Ceramic, Typology.

Introdution
One of the main challenges of archaeology researchers always was to description of chronology study is chronology that exist during working in decades. Therefore, in fact the study which was done in this area was a part of a great archaeological project including trench in order to determine of limits. During the actions trench of the mound limitation 17 trench 1/5×1/5 m around the mound was performed. After studies and excavations, 330 tile samples were obtained which only 22 samples were about Bronze era. The collected tiles were categorized typologically. Therefore, the studying of Tepe Betaki in Bronze era in different phases of Godin III and spreading of Bronze era cultural material in different parts of the mound are the 3 km distance between Tepe Betaki and Tepe Gariran (the biggest mound in Aleshtar plain). The central position and surrounding theory is also studies.
In these areas, the archeological studies have been done in past decades. There were less archeological studies in Aleshtar in proportion to Nahavand and Kangavar. Orel Stine studies areas the first archaeological studies in this area (Stine, 1940). Davoud Davoudi had done survey and documentary is Aleshtar archaeological site in two periods in 2006 and 2007 (Davoudi, 2006, 2007). Clare Gaff archaeological excavations in Babajan Tepe are as the first in Norabad (Goff, 1969). He did some wide surveys in Lorestan in addition excavation in Babajan Tepe (Goff, 1971). Abbass Motarjem was excavation in autumn 2017 in Tepe Gariran. 

Geography and Topography of Tepe Betaki
Aleshtar is one of the 11 cities in Lorestan province which is located in North of Lorestan province. The central part includes wide plain called Aleshtar plain. Tepe Betaki is located in North – West of the plain and near a village by point is highest 1603 meter above sea level. The topography of the mound related to the mound high and around lands in North has more gradient and less in other sides. Tepe Betaki was recorded as national monument of Iran in 2 October 2011 (2011/10/2). 

Surface Studies Finding
Before, trenching group did a survey analyzing. It is important in some aspects:
- The study of cultural material dense in different parts of the mound.
- The study of cultural material in Tepe Betaki.
For this purpose, trenching group was divided into 5 groups. They began to study in 5 parts. The 5 parts were: South, East, North, West and center of this mound.

Bronze Era File Findings of Tepe Betaki
As said, 17 trench were done to determine the Tepe Betaki. From these trenches 16 trenches were about bronze era. The findings were obtained respectively one sample of T.T.A trench, one sample of T.T.D trench, two samples of T.T.F trench, five samples of T.T.G trench, five samples of T.T.G1, one sample of T.T.G2 and one sample of T.T.H. Besides tile findings of trench, six samples also were obtained in surface studying. Therefore, from excavated 17 trench and analyzing of 22 samples from survey were about Bronze era.

Conclusion
All the ceramic findings of surface analyzing and excavations were 330 samples which only 22 samples related to Bronze era. Bronze era ceramics of Tepe Betaki show that phases III:4 and III:2 are available. Meanwhile these two phases tiles are a few. In the period in Aleshtar plain, Tepe Gariran with 3 km distance from Tepe Betaki has 13 hectares and all kinds of Bronze era ceramics. Therefore, it seems that Tepe Betaki in Bronze era was surrounding settlement rather than Tepe Gariran. The surface monuments show cultural periods pre-history, history and Islamic periods. 41 samples of typology materials in surface analyzing in Tepe Betaki, 18 samples were related to pre-history period, 11 samples to Islamic and 6 samples to Bronze and 5 samples to Chalcolithic periods. Therefore, most of typology materials were related to history period and mostly Parthian period.

Abstract
Most of our knowledge on the Palaeolithic of the Iranian Plateau derives from a scientific focus on the area of the Zagros Mountains. In recent years, several Palaeolithic research projects have been conducted in different parts of Iran, including southern piedmonts of the Alborz Mountains and the Iranian Central Plateau. The present paper is an introduction to the archaeological pieces of evidence of a Palaeolithic occupation on the southern slopes of the Alborz Mountains. Sorheh Rockshelter is the first site among a cluster of 8 caves and rock shelters located around 80 km northwest of Tehran. The Palaeolithic artifacts have been recovered from at least three looters’ pits at the center of the rock shelter. Sorheh is significant at least for two aspects: firstly, since the southern slopes of the Alborz Mountains have not yet been identified for the Palaeolithic, the site provides unique data on the Iranian Plateau. Secondly, the site’s location and the physiogeographic and lithic analyses of Sorheh are invaluable for the reconstruction of hominin behavior and settlement patterns in this under-researched area. 
Keywords: Central Iranian Plateau, Alborz Mountains, West-Central Zagros, Middle Palaeolithic, Levallois.

Introduction
Compared to the wealth of Palaeolithic data from the Zagros region, the piedmonts of the Alborz Mountains have received little scientific attention. The focus has been on the northern slopes, although the intermountain valleys of the southern Alborz Mountains could have been biogeographically suitable for hunter-gatherers. Since the first systematic efforts of the Palaeolithic research in the Alborz Mountains by Carlton Coon in 1949 (1951, 1957), a few Palaeolithic sites have been discovered in the northern and southern slopes of the Alborz Mountains. Moving from the southern slopes of the Alborz Mountains towards the center of the Iranian Plateau, the number of Palaeolithic sites increases. Especially in recent years, many critical Palaeolithic localities have been identified on the interior plains of the Central Iranian Plateau (Biglari 2003, Masoumi et al. 2010, Eskandari et al. 2010, Vahdati Nasab and Feyz 2014, Vahdati Nasab et al. 2009, 2013, 2014, 2016, Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2011, Heydari-Guran et al. 2015, Kaboli 1999).
From the physio-geographical point of view, it seems that the sites located on the southern slopes of Alborz Mountain are related to the inner parts of the Central Iranian Plateau (Heydari-Guran et al., 2015). However, it has always been questioned whether the southern slopes of Alborz, like the northern slopes, were an area of human presence during the Palaeolithic. If so, was there a connection between the inhabitants of the southern and northern Alborz slopes? What about the connections to the inhabitants of the interior plains of the Iranian Plateau? Such questions led the authors to study the valleys located in the Southern Alborz Mountain foothills around 80 km crow flies to Tehran’s northwest. The survey in this region has led to the discovery of a complex of caves and rock shelters. The lithic artifacts from one site, Sorheh Rockshelter, presents new insights into the study of human settlement and behavior during the Late Pleistocene in the Iranian Plateau. 

Sorheh in the Palaeolithic Context of the Iranian Plateau
The Sorheh complex consists of 6 caves, and rock shelters were firstly identified in 2018 by one of the authors (H.H.). The complex is formed in a deep drainage system within tuff, shale, and sandstone lithology along the Senj River. It is located around 19 km north of the modern city of Karaj, at a longitude of 50,957,183 and latitude of 35,992,211, and approximately 1900 m above sea level. The first site of this complex on the west side of the valley, Sorheh Rockshelter, revealed rich Palaeolithic depositions. Preliminary examining the exposed strata and accumulated soil confirmed that the site is rich in archaeological remains.
Five other shelters of the Sorheh complex are located between 20 and 70 m east of Sorheh Rockshelter. They mostly consist of a rocky surface with poor deposition; some were destroyed by the looters’ pits. The bedrock dip in two rock-shelters is towards the front slope caused no preservation of archaeological deposits. The last shelter of this complex is attached to the Senj River and is endangered by periodically river flooding, thus empty of archaeological deposits. The newly-constructed road between the villages of Baraghan at the west to Vamkouh at the east destroyed partly two rock shelters; however, it provided easier access to Sorheh Rockshelter.
In general, the lithic techno-typological characteristics of Sorheh presents significant Middle Palaeolithic elements. These lithic artifacts bear little resemblance to their counterparts from Zagros, such as Warwasi, Bisetun, and Kunji (Dibble and Holdaway 1993, Dibble 1984, Baumler and Speth, 1993). However, a comparison with Zagros sites is not plausible because of the considerable distance between these sites and the Alborz. The sites located in the interior regions of the Iranian Plateau, perhaps, provide more relevant information. Most of the Central Plateau open-air sites, including Chah-e Jam, Mirak, Zaviyeh, and Holabad, are flake-oriented, and Levallois technology has widely been used (Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2011, Heydari-Guran et al. 2015, Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013, Vahdati Nasab and Hashemi 2016). Levallois technology was observed abundantly among Sorheh collection, though heavily retouched tools, reminiscent of the Zagros Mousterian, are nearly absent.  
Sorheh’s collection reveals more similarities to two open-air sites of Moghanak and Otchounak. The lithic artifacts from these sites are mostly based on the production of blades and elongated flakes (Berillon et al. 2007). The Levallois technology was broadly practiced in Moghanak and Otchounak. The points from Moghanak are plain and unretouched, reminiscent of the Sorheh points. Due to the lack of characteristic retouched tools in Moghanak and Otchounak, no typological comparisons were possible.

Conclusion
The evidence from Sorheh, Zagros Mountains, and the Iranian Central Plateau indicate various subsistence strategies in different geographical regions. This issue put forward the idea of cultural variability among the Middle Palaeolithic populations (Heydari-Guran et al., 2015) in contrast to the notion of cultural homogeneity (Mousterian) throughout the Iranian Plateau (Rosenberg 1988, Biglari et al. 2009, Piperno 1972). 
Considering the high elevation of 1900 m asl., Sorheh Rockshelter, after Ghaleh Kurd with 2100 m asl., is one of the highest-elevated Palaeolithic sites on the Iranian Plateau. Ghaleh Kurd has revealed Middle Palaeolithic artifacts assigned to the Mousterian techno-complex (Soleimani and Alibeigi 2012). The study of the deposits from Sorheh will provide valuable information on the climatic changes during MIS 5 to 3 up to Holocene. It seems that the area, despite high altitude, periodically provided ideal settlement conditions. Climatic amelioration intervals made the region suitable for settlement. Therefore, the detailed physiogeographic study of the Sorheh complex may provide a wealth of information on late Pleistocene climate changes.
Due to the techno-typological similarities of Sorheh lithics to the sites in the Central Iranian Plateau (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013, Heydari-Guran et al., 2015), we hypothesize the cultural exchange between late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers of Alborz and the interior parts of the Central Plateau during climatic deterioration periods. 
The discovery of this complex with a particular geographical location in a valley with difficult access and, most importantly, the rich Palaeolithic depositions is an essential step towards answering questions related to the human dispersal at the edge of the Iranian Plateau during Marine Isotope Stages of 5 to 3 stages.
Systematic excavation and acquisition of more data in Sorheh will allow more accurate and detailed comparisons to other Middle Palaeolithic sites of the Iranian Plateau.

Abstract
The Kermanshah Province is one of the significant regions studied by archaeologists, where numerous studies have been conducted so far. This research focuses on the examination of megalithic graves in the towns of Gilan-e Gharb and Sarpol-e Zahab in Kermanshah Province. Megalithic graves are among the burials that possess unique structures and architecture, which have been less explored and researched in Iran, particularly in the studied region. By studying these graves, it is possible to gain some limited knowledge about the culture, beliefs, and way of life of the people who owned these graves. The most important questions of this research are: What have been the architectural features of these graves’ structures? How has the distribution of these graves been and what pattern can be defined for this distribution? The research method is considered to be applied-historical in terms of its objective. The categorization of the form and structure of graves has been carried out descriptively. In this regard, while conducting field research in the area, an initial comparison of the typological data and relative chronology of graves was performed. Subsequently, using GIS software, an analysis and identification of the burial distribution pattern in the region were carried out considering various geographical factors. Based on these, variables such as elevation, slope, and rivers were analyzed. In general, the identified graves in this study are divided into two main groups: Cist graves and Cromlech ones, the latter encompassing various subtypes. Finally, studies and excavations have been conducted on these graves in the Caucasus, Anatolia, and northwestern Iran, which demonstrate the migratory lifestyle of the tomb owners. In this article, a portion of the cultural materials collected from the 2015 archaeological survey in the western towns of Gilan-e-Gharb and Sarpol-e Zahab in Kermanshah province is presented.
Keywords: Megalithic, Cist Graves, Cromlech Graves, Distribution Pattern, Typology, GIS.چ

Introduction
The word ‘megalithic’ refers to large stones, derived from the Greek word ‘Mega’ meaning ‘large’ and ‘lithos’ meaning ‘stone’ (Midgely, 2008: 23). In Persian and Iranian archaeology, it is referred to as a ‘large stone’. Megalithic graves are large, uncut stones that are sometimes formed with wood, soil, and other small stones (Shaw, 1999: 390). Studying the structure of Megalithic graves can play an important role in identifying the tribes that constructed them and is effective in dating these tombs, given the scarcity of ancient evidence and data. By conducting typological studies of these graves, their structural patterns can be reconstructed, and by comparing the surrounding areas, it is possible to date these tombs. Extensive studies have been conducted on megalithic graves in the north and northwest of Iran, but independent and specialized research on these tombs has not been carried out in Kermanshah province. Since the tombs in this area have not been methodically excavated yet, it is difficult to present a precise structural design of the tomb architecture. In this study, the typology will be based on the surface structure, and the dating of the tombs will be conducted through comparative studies. Research questions include the following: What are the types of megalithic graves? What are the characteristics of the architectural structure of these tombs? What is the distribution area for these species, and what pattern can be identified in this distribution?
In order to achieve the desired goals in this study, a set of field activities was performed, including sketching, photography, documenting and recording findings, and design. The research method used for classifying the shape and structure of graves is descriptive and also relies on comparative and library studies. This includes the collection of maps, reports, articles, and all useful information available in the region. The preparation and collection of the locations where the graves are situated are recorded using a GPS device. In the analysis of the distribution pattern of registered graves, a geographic information system (GIS) has been employed. In the study of the factors influencing the distribution of graves, various factors such as topography, water resources, elevation, and slope have been examined.
By identifying these factors, analyzing the data distribution pattern, and ultimately visualizing them on a map, it is possible to gain a partial understanding of why and how the areas are distributed and concentrated in the region.

Discussion 
Research on the structure of cemeteries and graves can be conducted using two different approaches: Firstly, typological studies are conducted based on the shape, dimensions, and materials of the graves. Secondly, factors such as the orientation of the graves, their proximity to one another, and their relationship to water sources, roads, and expanses in the cemetery are examined (Orlet, 1392: 93). The important point to note is that the structure of graves exhibits a distinct relationship with the geographical environment. In mountainous areas, for instance, there is often an abundance of large stones and slates that can be utilized in constructing graves. Consequently, there are variations in the shape and material of these graves, primarily due to the differing types of stones found in each region (Ibid, 1392: 107). The graves identified in this study are categorized into two groups: Cist graves and Cromlech graves.
 In the construction of cist graves, a pit was excavated approximately one meter deep from the ground, and its walls were lined with layers of large and small stones. Subsequently, after interring the deceased, the grave was sealed by placing large and extremely heavy boulders on top (Yukmen, 2003).
Cromlech graves are classified into following types based on the shape of the stone rings:
Mounded Cromlech refers to a type of grave that consists of one or more stone rings encircling a large stone tomb (Smith, Badalyan, Avetisyan, 2009: 106).
Paved Cromlech is characterized by its very low height from the ground, and its distinguishing feature is the scattering of small rocks on its surface (Ibid, 2009: 107).
Stepped Cromlech is defined by stone rings that encompass the central structure, exhibiting a vertical upward movement (Ibid, 2009: 108).
The elevation study of Gilan Gharb and Sarpol-e Zahab towns indicates that Sarpol-e Zahab has the lowest elevation at 540 meters, while Gilan-e Gharb reaches the highest altitude of 1340 meters that suggests a higher prevalence of graves in colder areas.
Through the examination of the influence of rivers on the distribution of graves and by referencing the water network map, it becomes evident that the graves tend to be situated in proximity to water sources. This distribution pattern signifies the significance of close access to water and further highlights the correlation between the location and distribution of graves within the river basin. Considering that the megalithic graves belong to the nomadic tribes, this proximity may be indicative of the convenience of accessing water for the needs of them and their livestock.

Conclusion
The typology of graves and their classifications in the study area of Sarpol-e-Zahab and Gilan-e-Gharb in Kermanshah province is based on comparative and comparative studies with megalithic graves in the north and northwest regions of the country. These graves are categorized into Cist and Cromlech graves.
The Cromlech species exhibit various structural forms within each range. Commenting on the shape of the landscape of megalithic graves is a complex subject that requires specialized studies and extensive investigations covering a wide area. When considering the geographic distribution of these graves, it is important to take into account factors such as the natural environment, topography, and the number of areas containing this type of graves. Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge the limited availability of extensive and specialized studies on these graves. Based on general findings from studies conducted on the distribution of graves, it is possible to identify certain areas that are centrally occupied with burials, while other areas remain devoid of any kind of burial. For instance, in certain areas of Sarpol-e Zahab, the absence of megalithic graves can be attributed to the scarcity of stones. Certainly, this can be justified by one reason: landscape manipulations in later periods carried out by farmers to level the land for cultivation. This is prominently observed throughout Sarpol-e Zahab due to its geographical structure and favorable conditions for agriculture. In relation to the correlation between water resources and the distribution of megalithic graves in this area, it is worth noting that the information obtained from GIS maps concerning the water bodies in the region demonstrates the close proximity of these graves to water sources. This proximity can be attributed to the practical utilization of fresh water sources by the nomadic communities, particularly for the purpose of sustaining their livestock. Hence, the architectural structure of large stone graves exhibits a distinct relationship with the geographical environment. In mountainous areas, the abundance of large stones contributes to a higher concentration of these graves in such regions. Based on comparative studies and the analysis of architectural features and structures of these large stone tombs, in conjunction with similar tombs found in the northwestern and northern regions of Iran, as well as in Anatolia, Caucasus, Russia, and Georgia, the period ranging from the ancient Bronze Age to Iron Age III can be attributed to megalithic graves. This classification is further supported by the presence of metal and pottery artifacts discovered within these graves.

Abstract
The southeastern Caspian Sea, which archaeologists call the coastal zone, like many other areas of the Fertile Crescent, experienced significant changes in the structure of human societies on the cusp of the Neolithic Revolution in the early Holocene. Although archaeologists have been unable to establish a link between the end of the Mesolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic in the region, based on the current information, we now know that hunter-gatherers arrived in the area ca. 15,000 years ago. This marked one of the most important cultural events in human societies on the cusp of sedentism. One of the caves that has been studied as evidence of the presence of humans during the Mesolithic period is Kamarband (“Belt”) Cave. It is considered one of Iran’s most beautiful caves, attracting hunter-gatherer groups as settlers around 14,300 years ago. The cave was excavated by Carleton Coon between 1949 and 1951, and the description of his excavations during that time have fascinated readers for decades. Nevertheless, while Coon’s excavations at Kamarband Cave shed new light on the cultural epochs of the cave dwellers, they led to numerous ambiguities in understanding the chronological sequence of societies that existed in this cave for a variety of reasons. Over the past 70 years, archaeologists have not been able to accurately evaluate the cultural and social evolution of cave-dwelling human societies due to confusion in Coon’s excavation data. Therefore, a team of Iranian archaeologists re-excavated in limited and untouched parts of Kamarband Cave in 2021, managing to resolve some of the ambiguities in Coon’s chronology. Apart from the archaeological values of Kamarband Cave, recent excavations by the archaeological team have collected other valuable data, which will be addressed in other articles. This article primarily encompasses a chronological assessment of Kamarband Cave based on new data.
Keywords: Kamarband Cave, Mesolithic, Southeast of the Caspian Sea, Mazandaran Province, Hunters and Gatherers.

Introduction
Homo sapiens appeared on the planet about 300 thousand years ago, and except in the time range between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, the range of remarkable changes among hunter-gatherer societies was not so noticeable and effective that it could cause fundamental changes in the dimensions (Watkins 2024, Flannery and Marcus 2012). The important point is that the cognitive capacities of Homo sapiens occurred around 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, called a revolution of behavioral modernity (Henshilwood and Marean 2003, Powel et al., 2009). However, archaeologists consider the evidence of this behavioral change in humans to be related to a period 15 thousand years ago. Caves such as the Kamarband, Hotu, Komishan and Ali Tepe, and the Mesolithic period significantly differ significantly from their predecessors. The results of archeological studies show that in the north of Iran around 14300 years ago, in the period from which terms such as Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic, a different and transformed society emerged. Scattered research shows the presence of humans throughout Mazandaran province from the Middle Paleolithic period onwards (Ramazanpour and Moradian, 2022). However, the basic question here is that in the southeast of the Caspian Sea, what were the characteristics of the transformative changes on the verge of the Neolithic? Apart from their chronological values, we need to know to what extent northern Iran sites excavated in recent years effectively understand the range of human developments in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. Investigating the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods can help us understand each society’s ideological and ritual concepts in the transition from the period of hunting and food gathering to the period of agriculture.
The Mesolithic period in the southeast of the Caspian Sea has been well-known for a long time due to the excavation of Hotu and Kamarband caves in 1949-1951 by Carleton Coon (Coon, 1951; 1957). Coon’s investigations and excavations in the plateau and north of Iran became a turning point in the recognition of an important period of human societies living in caves. Following that, a new wave of research began throughout this area. Despite the great fame of these two caves, unfortunately, there was no reliable information about this period, and the only reliable information about the Mesolithic period in the southeast of the Caspian Sea was related to the excavation of Ali Tepe Cave by McBurney and Komishan Cave by Vahdati Nasab. However, these communities’ social and economic status needs to be clarified (McBurney 1968, Vahdati Nasab 2021).
However, these excavations could not answer the questions of this period in the region; for this reason, in the winter of 2021, to review the stratification of the cultural deposits of the Kamarband and to investigate the resilience of humans with the environment from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic period; It was excavated for 40 days by a team from University of Tehran. Before the revision excavation, it seems the Neolithic context of Kamarband was destroyed, and our team only recorded layers of the Mesolithic period. This article describes the results of the 2021 excavation of the Mesolithic stratigraphy of Kamarband.

Kamarband Cave
Kamarband cave is located about 8 km west of Behshahr city and 7 km south of the Caspian Sea at a height of 36.40 meters above sea level. This Cave was first excavated in 1949 and 1951 by Coon. Coon started three trenches in this Cave, including Trench A, B and C. He identified 31 layers in Trench A (Fig. 4). Coon divides the Kamarband sequence into four cultural horizons based on the 28 layers from Trench A from top to bottom: Horizon 1: This period includes layers 1 and 2, consisting of mixed accumulation of Neolithic remains along with the Iron Age, the Islamic period, and the remnants of contemporary periods. Horizon 2: This period, considered the true Neolithic horizon, includes layers 3-10 and is divided into two parts, 2a and 2b. Section 2a includes layers 3 to 7, including pottery and bone remains of domesticated animals. Horizon 3: Upper Mesolithic period includes layers 11-17. Horizon 4: Early Mesolithic includes layers 21 to 28, the oldest phase identified in this Cave.
Kamarband Cave was re-excavated in 2021, and the team opened two trenches (D-E). In Trench D (2.20×3 M), the team recorded 28 contexts. After we removed all the rubbished materials from the Carleton Coon excavation of 1940, very small parts of the southern wall were untouched, which was very significant for stratigraphy. Context 1 contains the surface layer of the cave, and Context 2 contains the remains of the Coon`s excavation. Contexts 11, 12, 13, 14, 27, and 28 contain fireplace structures. Among the cultural remains in this trench, the team found remarkable plant remains such as seeds (recorded from fireplace structure), fossils, shells, snails, and stone artifacts. Trench E (65×220 M) after cleaning the Coon’s excavation, we reached the rocky bed of the cave, which allowed us to have a very good view of Trench E to control the section and stratigraphy. This trench is 65 x 220 cm. Context 1 is the surface layer, and contexts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,12,15,16,22,23,24,25,26,27,34, and 35 are fireplaces structures. Among these contexts, one of the special findings is the existence of many plant seeds. Contexts 13, 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, and 30 are settlement layers. Contexts 14 and 33 are rubble layers. Context 36 starts from -190 cm to -352 cm on the bedrock of the Kamarband cave and has no cultural finds. Context 37 is the bedrock. The cultural materials of this trench include stone artifacts, chipped stones, plant remains, animal remains, shells, snails, and fossils. Among the special 2021 excavations, we found the Carnivora /wolf teeth in many southeastern Caspian Sea caves, indicating a common shared ideology of Mesolithic people. Due to the destruction of the Neolithic layers in the cave, no evidence of pottery was found during the excavation. Only from Context 2, Trench D, which contained the remains of the Coon`s excavation, were pottery pieces obtained. 
Regarding the chronology of Kamarband Cave, Libby from the University of Chicago conducted the first C14 tests of Kamarband Cave on eight charred bone samples from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. Elizabeth Ralph studied the C14 results of the second season of the Belt Survey (Libby 1951, 1955). However, these results were problematic, so Gregg and Thornton have calibrated past radiocarbon results in recent years (Gregg and Thornton 2012).
Seven charcoal samples from the Trench E 2021 excavation were tested for absolute dating. The first sample of Context 2 (the uppermost layer) is related to the 11810 ± 60 BC period (Fig. 21). The second sample from context 10 shows the date 12030 ± 60 BC. The third sample is from context 16, showing 12010 ± 60 BC. The fourth sample is from context 13 and shows the date of 12150 ± 60 BC. The fifth sample from context 23 shows the date 12210 ± 60 BC, and a sample from context 29 shows the date 12200 ± 60. The last sample is the lowest space of fire preparation from a depth of 180 cm and shows a date of 12270 ± 60. The results of our studies indicate only the Mesolithic occupation of the Cave, while there is a short gap between the two trenches are visible, and it seems the Cave covered by pale soil/Loss. However, Coon’s report and his section indicate such a short cultural gap as well. It seems the Cave was abandoned much earlier before Younger Dryas and after a long interval before the Pottery Neolithic period was occupied again. During the Mesolithic period, the Kamarband Cave was highly used for daily activities, specifically for the production of stone tools. During the excavation of 2021, around 6736 stone tools were found in the two small trenches, while in the Hotu excavation 2020, less than 2000 stone tools from 10meter cultural layers were recorded, which indicates the different functions of the two Caves (Jayez et al., in press). 

Conclusion
According to the past and recent excavations of Hotu, Kamarband, and Komishani Tepe, we still see the chronological gap from the Mesolithic into the Early Neolithic period in the southeastern Caspian Sea shoreline. The emergence of the Modern Mind, the modern behavior revolution, and the formation of symbols and symbolic behavior are the main characteristics of the Mesolithic people of the Caspian Sea. The advances of warmer climate during the Bolling- Allerod period from 18,000 to 12,000 years ago caused the consumption of different resources and the subsistence strategy of the Caspian Sea cave people. From the 2021 excavation of Kamarband, we have recorded remarkable seed remains plus stone implements to support the theory of a new group evolving toward pre-agricultural management in one of Iran’s few regions of coastal societies.  

The archaeological sites of the Ardabil Plain provide essential evidence for understanding the cultural sequences of northwestern Iran and its interactions with the Iranian Plateau, the South Caucasus, and eastern Anatolia. Among these sites, the mound of Qaleh Yeri–Kuraim is of particular significance. This paper presents the results of the first season of stratigraphic excavations conducted in 2023, based on two test trenches. Test Trench I (TTI) was opened to establish a comprehensive cultural sequence at the site, while Test Trench II (TTII) targeted deposits associated with the Transcaucasian/Kura Araxes Early Bronze Age horizon. The excavations revealed substantial archaeological evidence, including dry stone and mudbrick architectural remains, industrial installations such as kilns, metallurgical evidence, and extensive ceramic assemblages. In TTI, a long and well defined stratigraphic sequence of approximately 14.6 meters was documented, containing successive and occasionally alternating layers with Islamic, historical, and Bronze Age pottery. This sequence represents one of the most continuous stratigraphic records in the eastern sector of northwestern Iran. TTII yielded significant evidence of metallurgical activities, including furnace remains, slag, copper ore fragments, ceramic molds, and crucibles, indicating metal smelting, refining, and production during the Early Bronze Age. Eco-factual evidence, including animal remains (primarily sheep and cattle) and plant remains (notably wheat and barley), reflects a subsistence economy based on mixed farming and animal husbandry. Special finds such as obsidian tools, spindle whorls, grinding stones, bone implements, and clay figurines demonstrate a range of domestic, economic, and symbolic activities from the Bronze Age through the historical and Islamic periods. In the absence of absolute dating, the site’s chronology currently relies on relative dating and ceramic typology. The results indicate long term occupation interrupted by two major hiatuses, likely linked to tectonic, environmental, and historical changes.