Abstract
Despite obvious differences which we know on subjects, sights, methods and results of Development Projects and Archaeological Research, It appear that there are evident similarities among them: theoretical debates, field investigations, team-works, order and organization, planning, provisions, supporting, discussions and judgment, governmental beginnings, national rules, foreign patterns, management progresses, specialty approaches, expert obligations and public utilizations. Also, when we add “sustainable” to development our discourse will be extent and we however confront with cultural phenomena. It seems evaluating of distinctions and comparison of similarities between «Development» and «Archaeology» will be background for systemic survey their interactions especially in the counter together time. Establishment of laws and communication of circulars are solutions to problems and reach to coordination among development projects and archaeology. But satisfaction and persuasion are a supplement factors for taking decisions. In this article after a review on meaning, concept and implications of Development and explanation contents and aims of Archaeology we Assess importance and relations them in cultural and developmental realms from intertextually view.
Keywords: Comparative Survey, Archaeology, Sustainable Development, Material Culture, Reductionism, Intertextuality Approach, Hermeneutics.

Introduction
Despite the thematic, approach and strategic differences between “archeology” and “development”, it seems to have a similar basis in terms of the beginning of changing ideas and perspectives and changing methods and traits of “development” in the post-World War II. Also, we can find some temporal-spatial symmetries in the evolution of practices and norms and sometimes consistencies in the context of the dynamics and intellectual challenges of the “archeology” and “development”. 
This article discusses the importance of providing a comprehensive, concise, and effective scenario for arranging plans and directing common scenes between “development” and “archaeology” rather than turning scenes into the meaningful sequences. Thus, interactivity of coherent and effective narratives replaces broken, incoherent, tense, and failed examples.
Most of the views, the most visible scenes, the most controversial encounters, the most newsworthy intersections, the most difficult relations and the most acute conditions between “archeology” and “development” are usually in the “field” and with the beginning and continuation of the various small and large improvement projects. Therefore, to find a way to prevent such unintended events or to reduce the cultural and civilizational damage, one must “cure the incident before it occurs.” According to the author, the most important context, the most effective possibility and the most efficient approach in concluding evaluations of what we have said, is to pay attention to the “theoretical realm” - that is, the precondition of every rational action and the precondition of every thoughtful will - among “archeology” and “development”. In this way, common principles and perspectives can be raise in the framework of comprehensive intertextual and interpretation-oriented strategies.
Method: This article is based on both theoretical and practical experience contexts. Considering the constant confrontation of developmental projects with ancient sites and historical monuments, the author, based on his administrative and experimental backgrounds and his research responsibilities too,   Analytical and explain his analysis and inference from the two areas of “archeology” and “development”. The strategic theme of this paper is the reduction of “archeology” and “development” to their roots and foundations, in-text reviews, and out-of-text comparisons from an intertextual perspective.
Aim: What has been discussed so far from developmental approaches - both “ improvement” and “sustainable” - in the field of cultural heritage issues hadn’t have systematics relations or efficient interpretation between the two and the neglected theme was the processing of “plan” for “action”. Therefore, the present article can be considered as the first example in terms of intertextual and interpretive approaches in the area of “archeology and sustainable development” in Iran

Discussion
Antiquities and historical monuments are one of the challenging areas in development policies and research planning, organized or restoration interventions or orbital protection plans of the Iranian cultural heritage. Archeology in terms of research materials, the focus of topics, the source of discussions, the field of functions and the source of ideas based on static phenomena, in situ remains, in place evidence, closed contexts, suspended systems, elapsed periods and historical moments. Such a context is being elucidated in the light of field research, scientific exploration, technical documentation, comparative evaluations, laboratory research, repeated insights, and rational-empirical discoveries, and gradually the content, its dimensions and aspects become meaningful.
But “development” in content, in form and in its implementation or process is based on views that seek to reconstruct attitudes and approaches, to design actions and patterns, to prepare directions, to build institutions and to establish structures. “Development” is the hope of achieving desires beyond what is possessed, and the pursuit of desires is ahead of what is. “Development” is looking for unintentional intentions and asking for unfulfilled wishes. The output of such an arrangement of features in the field of development is “endeavor” and in a word “dynamic”.
Geographical diversity and ecological capabilities in the land of Iran make the identification and location of each of the natural phenomena and human phenomena in order to develop and provide the most optimal social life a priority in planning and goal setting. Such a basis is the clearest argument for gaining the necessary foresight - or what is called “inquiry” - from geographical areas.

Findings
In general, and in normal circumstances, the three “threat factors”, “danger sign” and “cause of destruction” of ancient sites and historical monuments can be found in the “design, implementation and operation of construction projects”. “Continuation of agricultural activities and increase of cultivated area” and “Illegal excavations and looting of cultural-historical property” were summarized.
Despite some inherent similarities and functional similarities, each of these phenomena in different territories and climates of administrative levels, social issues, legal regulations, legal rules and solutions. Expertise in the prevention, remediation, remediation of injuries, mitigation of damages, preservation and introduction of samples and the presentation of samples and their own reference and practical examples. But in a conceptual interpretation of the above-mentioned three, development projects should be considered the “most inevitable”, agriculture and farming the “most common and continuous”, and looting of historical sites and cultural property “the most unfortunate” phenomenon. - influences on archeological remains.

Conclusion
It seems that the reduction of the body, branch and fruit of the product of both phenomena (archeology and sustainable development) to the foundations and roots, if not from the organic links between them, at least reveals some origins or some similar relationships and transit routes. Visualizing, drawing, and explaining such similarities will show the causes and contexts of the distances, and will make it possible to return to the position or process the interactive scenes.
With such a view, it can be said that “development”, especially in its sustainable form, in the sense of a strategy for the comprehensive provision of human present and future affairs, and “archeology” in the sense of an approach to recognizing and preserving its past are essentially human phenomena. One of the needs, approaches and examples of sustainable development to be aware of the nature of man, to know his identity and to know what his needs is “archeology”. For this reason, actions must be overlapping and methods must be convergent, except by extending the “cognitive” aspect of archeology to issues beyond its body and structure, and including the “sustainability” of development into contexts. And more comprehensive components will not be possible than changing the status quo.