Abstract
The Upper Gotvand Dam, with a 90-kilometer-long lake, is one of the largest dams in the country, and its impoundment caused the flooding of a large number of ancient sites, ancient and modern migration routes, villages, and nomadic settlements in the northeastern region of Khuzestan. Before the dam was completed, a team of archaeologists surveyed its basin in 2007. After that, in 2008, a team of archaeologists from ICHTO of Khuzestan Province excavated the Kalantar site and the Kalantar cemetery, and then in April and May 2010, salvage excavations were carried out at Kalantar 4 & 5 sites to obtain as much information as possible, which yielded significant results. Following the excavation of the Kalantar 5 site, traces of residential stone architecture, plain buff and red pottery, and turquoise blue and green glazed pottery, as well as some ground stones such as grinding stones, mortars, and pounding stones, were found. According to typological comparisons on the potteries, it was determined that they belonged to the Middle Islamic period (fifth and sixth centuries AH), and the site was inhabited during the Seljuk period. In addition, it was determined that there is a great similarity between the stone architecture of the Kalantar 4 (a Neo-Elamite site), and the Kalantar 5, and with the local architecture of the region in the present time, both in villages and in nomadic settlements. In other words, the continuity of cultural traditions over several millennia is observed in this area.
Keywords: Kalantar 5, Gotvand Dam Basin, Middle Islamic Period, Stone Architecture, Islamic Glazed Pottery.

Introduction
The Upper Gotvand Dam was built on the Karun River near the small town of Gotvand to generate electricity and irrigate downstream agricultural lands, and a wide range of intermountain valleys, numerous ancient sites, ancient and modern migration routes, villages, and nomadic settlements were submerged in the 90-kilometer-long lake behind the dam. Before the dam was impounded, two teams led by Shahram Zare and Hossein Azizi Kharanghi, respectively, surveyed the area (Azizi Kharanghi et al., 2007). Salvage excavations were conducted by Hamidreza Valipour on two sites, Kalantar 4 and 5, which were found during the surveys in the spring of 2010 (Valipour, 2010a & b). The preliminary results of the excavation of Kalantar 5 will be presented here.
The first goal of the excavation, like all salvage excavations, was to access as much information as possible. Due to the proximity of Kalantar 5 to Kalantar 4 and the similarity of its surface architectural structure with the architecture of Kalantar 4, the excavation team was faced with some questions, the most important of which were: 1- Is Kalantar 5 an extension of the Kalantar 4 settlement and can we consider them as one site? 2- Was the settlement in Kalantar 5 established after the abandonment of Kalantar 4 and as a result of the displacement of its residents? 3- Does Kalantar 5 belong to a different time than Kalantar 4? Of course, given the presence of Islamic pottery on the surface of Kalantar 5, it was assumed that this area, in addition to the Elamite period, would also contain evidence of settlement from this period. 4- Function and type of settlement in Kalantar5.

Kalantar 5
Kalantar 5 is located on a natural hill south of Kalantar village (Ab Zālu Arab) in Lali County, at N: 32˚ 13΄ 42/6˝ latitude and E: 049˚ 04΄ 55/4˝ longitude, 160 meters north of Kalantar 4 and 13 kilometers east of the Gotvand Dam. The highest point of the site is 278 meters above sea level. The Karun River, the closest major water source to the site, flows 4.5 kilometers northeast of the site; a water stream also passes through the valley to the northwest.
During the excavation, one trench was opened at the highest part of the site, measuring 10×10 meters, where the regular stone pieces and traces of walls indicated the existence of architectural spaces in this part of the site. Given the depth of the natural bedrock, it was clear before the excavation began that not much height of the walls remained.

Architecture
A total of six architectural spaces were revealed during the excavation in Trench I. Stone and mud mortar were used in all the architectural structures. The stones used in the construction of the different parts of the complex are soft limestone in small to large sizes. All the stones lack cutting polish but have an almost regular shape. Many of the stones used in the architectural structures are cubed. The walls are rectangular. The walls lack any covering, and even during the excavation in the rubble layers, no samples of mud, plaster, or lime were found. The six aforementioned spaces seem to belong to the same building because they all share walls. It is possible that the natural bedrock of the hill was used as a floor for the spaces. Stone supports were used in addition to all the main and internal load-bearing walls. The entrances were mainly created by not connecting two walls or by cutting off part of the length of a wall. Next to some walls, there are smaller annexed spaces as storage places, which were probably used to store daily necessities or food or fuel, and they lacked any entrance and were accessed from above. A pyrotechnical structure was found inside one of the spaces, about one-fifth of which remains. Since a very small part of it remains, it is difficult to distinguish its function as an oven or else. No evidence of a roof or debris was found during the excavation. Given the relatively small width of the spaces and the absence of columns, the roofs of the spaces were most likely created using parallel wooden poles and covered with mats or tree branches and mud. This reconstruction was carried out in comparison with the current situation in the village adjacent to the site. The reason for this comparison is the great similarity of the architecture obtained from the settlement spaces of the site with the architecture of the adjacent village.

Pottery
The 319 potsherds recovered from the excavation are divided into two major groups: plain and glazed. 265 sherds (83%) of the total are unglazed. Unglazed pottery can be divided into two groups: buff and red. The technology of pottery production is completely similar in terms of form, manufacturing technique, inclusion, firing, and decoration. Most of the sherds are wheel-made (96%). The inner and outer surfaces of the pottery are unpolished, and both sides of the vessels are smoothed by the wet hand method. Rarely, red wash was used to cover a handful of buff wares. The texture of buff ware is much more cohesive than that of red ware. Mineral materials such as fine to coarse sand were used as an inclusion in unglazed pottery; in one of the red potteries, the inclusion is a combination of organic and mineral materials. In general, the quality of buff-colored pottery is better than that of reds, and the number of buff sherds is much greater than that of reds. 236 sherds (74% of all pottery and 89% of unglazed pottery) are buff, and 29 sherds (9% of all pottery and 11% of unglazed pottery) are red. There are 10 sherds of pottery with incised decoration in the unglazed buff group.
54 pieces (17%) of the pottery are glazed. Except for two pieces with green glaze, the rest are turquoise blue. The pottery of this group is in the category of pottery with monochromatic glaze. Five pieces are also of the sgraffiato type with turquoise blue glaze. In terms of form, manufacturing technique, inclusion, firing, and color, these sherds are completely similar to the unglazed buff wares. The inclusion of all samples is mineral.
The reconstructed forms are the jar (44.5%), bowl (37%), and bowl (18.5%), respectively. The sherds date back to the 5th and 6th centuries AH and are dated to the Seljuk period (Karimi & Kiani, 1985; Towhidi, 2000; Kambakhshfard, 2001; Grube, 1994; Treptow, 2007).

Other Cultural Materials
In addition to pottery, other cultural materials recovered included animal remains, pounding stones, stone mortars, pivots, iron nails, iron knife, the bottom, rim, and body of transparent or opaque glass vessels in blue, yellow, and milky colors, as well as a few broken shells.

Conclusion
Kalantar 5 is a rural settlement site from the Middle Islamic period because considering the landscape of the region, the location of the site, the extent of the architectural remains, and the dispersion of cultural materials, it is unlikely that the settlement was urban. There is no connection between the sites of Kalantar 4 and 5 from a cultural and temporal perspective. An interesting point to note is the similarity of the architectural structures of this site with the architecture of Kalantar 4 and the modern village of Ab Zālū Arab and other nomadic villages and settlements in the region. With an ethnoarchaeological approach, this similarity can be considered a kind of cultural continuity in architecture. Perhaps the same environmental and subsistence conditions can be considered the reason for the construction of similar architecture over a long period.
The buildings were constructed using completely local materials, such as stone and mud. All the stones are limestone, ranging in size from small to large, and are uncut and unpolished but have a fairly regular shape, and many of the stones have been broken using chisels and hammers. It seems that the six identified spaces had both roofed and open sections. The three spaces 1, 3, and 4 were associated with activities that required separation from the residential areas; the three spaces 2, 5, and 6, which are part of the main residential complex, were probably places for resting and performing other daily activities. These three spaces are connected by some entrances.
All finds, from functional examples such as pottery, glass vessels, pounding stones, and mortars to decorative shells, indicate a normal settlement, and all of them are related to daily life activities.
The pottery of the Kalantar 5 bears no resemblance to the Kalantar 4 site. Many of them are Islamic glazed pottery, including monochrome green and turquoise blue glazes and some with incised patterns under the turquoise blue glaze. The pottery is not very diverse in terms of color, glaze, type, and theme of the patterns. These potteries date back to the fifth and sixth centuries AH and are dated to the Seljuk period. During this period, the glass industry in Iran was very prosperous (Shishehgar, 2003: 24), and glass fragments recovered from a rural settlement site confirm this.

Abstract
Throughout history, interactions between societies have led to the evolution of cultures, with political systems and ruling powers playing a significant and effective role in this process of cultural amalgamation. A key focus of this research is to examine the dominant culture of the Median and Achaemenid societies and the mutual influences between Iranian culture and the non-Iranian cultures present within these states’ territories. In other words, this study aims to explore the causes and factors behind cultural collisions from the seventh to the fourth centuries BCE, the policies pursued by governments regarding the cultures and nations under their control or neighboring them, and the outcomes of the interactions between various cultures and Iranian civilization for both Iranians and non-Iranian communities. Based on these ambiguities and through an examination of available sources and evidence, along with references to historical texts, the results indicate that, in addition to Iran’s geographic position, which welcomed various tribes with diverse cultures, the coexistence of these groups inevitably influenced Iranian society. What accelerated and enhanced the amalgamation and integration of cultures within Iranian society was the presence of a common enemy, particularly threatening powers in the region, which united these tribes. The capabilities and potential of the Median and Achaemenid political systems, which had trans-regional objectives, played a crucial role in the connection and amalgamation of the existing cultures within Achaemenid territory. The Achaemenids aimed to attract non-Iranian forces and establish political dependency through political marriages and social ties, facilitating the cultural integration of subordinate tribes. This policy aimed to prevent separation and regional turmoil while expanding the cultural domain of the Achaemenids by absorbing and assimilating effective elements from various cultures into Iranian culture.
Keywords: Cultural Fusion, Ancient Iran, Media, Achaemenid, Political Marriage.

Introduction
In the evolutionary course of societies, and amidst the presence of significant trans regional powers with rich cultural heritage, one of the principal issues is to determine the nature of the cultural condition of Iranian society during the Median and, particularly, the Achaemenid eras. In this period, diverse cultures—from those along the Syr Darya (Sihun) to western Asia Minor and the shores of the Aegean Sea—were integrated into a unified political culture. The key question is whether this diversity and cultural plurality gave rise to a heterogeneous and unbalanced society in which no dominant role can be ascribed to Iranian culture, or whether we are confronted with a balanced synthesis of existing cultural elements, wherein a equilibrium was established—through cultural intermingling and fusion—between the distinctions and commonalities of Iranian and non-Iranian cultural facets.
Furthermore, an examination of the consequences of marital alliances that occurred between various ethnic groups and power holders both within and beyond the borders of Iran—as reflected in historical reports—and, more importantly, the occurrence of political marriages between Iranian governments and non-Iranian states, constitutes a highly significant topic. In this research, these issues will be discussed and analyzed in order to ascertain, independently of their varied political, economic, and security implications, the share and impact that such unions had on the culture of ancient Iranian society during the Median and Achaemenid periods. Additionally, the study will assess the extent to which the aforementioned governments succeeded in advancing their political objectives through recourse to this policy and what changes and transformations they effected in the cultural fabric of the region.
The research methodology employed in this article is based on a descriptive-analytical approach. The author has collected data through a critical examination of available sources and evidence, including primary historical texts (such as ancient historical accounts) and significant recent scholarship. This method relies on citation from library-based and primary sources, proceeding with a precise description of the data followed by their analysis to address the raised ambiguities. Specifically, the research focuses on investigating the causes and factors of cultural encounters, the policies of the Median and Achaemenid governments toward various ethnic groups and nations, and the outcomes of cultural interactions. This qualitative approach utilizes historical and cultural tools to analyze causal connections and cultural fusion, without reliance on quantitative or empirical methods.
This study holds considerable importance as it examines the role of cultural and political interactions in the evolution of ancient Iranian societies, particularly during the Median and Achaemenid eras (seventh to fourth centuries BCE). Its necessity arises from existing ambiguities in understanding the prevailing culture in Iranian society, where the cultural diversity of various ethnic groups (both Iranian and non-Iranian) within the vast Achaemenid realm may have produced a heterogeneous society. However, the research demonstrates that policies such as political marriages contributed to the creation of balance and cultural integration. The significance of this study lies in its exploration of the consequences of these connections on culture, politics, economy, and security, which not only aids in comprehending Iranian identity but also illustrates the role of ruling powers in synthesizing cultures to prevent unrest and extend cultural dominance. In the contemporary world, this research is essential as it offers models of cultural coexistence and diversity management that can serve as inspiration for modern societies, particularly in regions with high ethnic and cultural diversity. Moreover, given the geographical position of the Iranian Plateau as a crossroads of cultures, this study helps fill historical gaps concerning the influence of common adversaries and transregional objectives on cultural fusion.

Discussion
As ancient documents and evidence attest, in antiquity and on the Iranian Plateau, in most cases foreign inhabitants lived alongside the indigenous population. They established commercial relations with one another; marriages occurred between men and women of different nationalities; and at times individuals converted from one religion to another. There were even periods in which people worshipped both their own gods and those of foreigners simultaneously. It also happened that an individual would change his or her name and adopt one from another land, or, in addition to a personal name, take on the name of the people among whom he or she resided (Dandamayev, 1366 [1987]: 60). Through these developments—and particularly through the gradual penetration of the Iranian element into the western regions of Iran—it appears that a relatively new culture became prevalent in this area: a culture that was not purely Iranian, but rather a composite culture formed through the amalgamation of migrant and local elements.
In addition to inheriting the cultural legacy and achievements of the Medes, the Persians engaged in substantial borrowing from the indigenous cultures of the region, especially that of the Elamites, who possessed a state tradition spanning several millennia. More than the Medes, the Persians served as transmitters of the culture established in the southwestern Iranian Plateau—and even of Mesopotamian culture—into the heart of the plateau and the Achaemenid Empire. On the basis of personal names, prevailing religious beliefs, and even existing religious sites in various regions, one can trace the extent of Iranian culture in non-Iranian areas and among non-Iranian peoples. At the outset, however, it must be noted that on the Iranian Plateau, despite the formation of an empire, the custom of political marriages among families and tribes remained firmly in place; as observed, in certain regions—particularly in Fars and Elam—relations and exchanges date back to the period prior to Cyrus’s conquests. For example, in Babylon, from the first quarter of the sixth century BCE, Babylonians bore Iranian names.
The influence and predominance of Iranian culture—along with cultural syncretism resulting from relations between Iranian and non-Iranian peoples—led, during the Achaemenid period, to the adoption of Iranian names by non-Iranians, in addition to those who possessed such names due to mixed ancestry. With the expansion of Median influence, and subsequently that of the Achaemenids, into Asia Minor, these powers encountered an important and advanced civilization such as Lydia, which dominated the Ionian city-states and whose culture had profoundly influenced many Greek polities. Cultural confrontation between Iranians and Greeks, and the cultural impact of the Achaemenid state on the Ionian city-states, was evident from the very beginning of Persian presence in Asia Minor. This cultural intermixture intensified further with the Achaemenid domination of Asia Minor and the conquest of the Ionian islands and city-states. Indeed, one of the reasons for cultural—and even ethnic—convergence between Iranians and Greeks in certain regions was their coexistence. Among the primary causes of this coexistence were the relocation of Ionian populations to parts of Asia Minor and the settlement of Iranian populations in various areas of the same region.
By forging alliances and political marriages between Persians and other peoples and powers, the Achaemenids sought to “Achaemenidize” their domains through the integration of Iranian and non-Iranian cultures and the internalization of Persian culture among non-Iranians. They devoted considerable effort to aligning the interests of allies and affiliates with those of the Achaemenid state. Throughout the Achaemenid period, the expansion of imperial influence, the settlement of Iranians in non-Iranian regions (diaspora), and their presence in subject territories accelerated the process of acculturation.

Conclusion
One of the methods employed to integrate and bring together diverse peoples under a comprehensive culture was the creation of bonds and marital alliances among the people’s subject to the Median and Achaemenid states. Political marriage, as a socio-political phenomenon, was practiced throughout Iranian history with predetermined objectives aimed at consolidating social, political, military, economic, cultural, and religious relations among governments and groups. Rulers and governments consistently resorted to various strategies to ensure the continuation of their political existence, and one of the most effective means of achieving political—and even cultural—cohesion and unity was the establishment of bonds among different members of society through intra- and inter-dynastic marriages.
Accordingly, the Achaemenids’ objective in creating such ties and consenting to political marriages was to attract non-Iranian forces, draw them closer to the seat of power, bind them to the political system of the state, and, in other words, achieve the cultural integration of subject peoples and nations. Through cultural amalgamation and convergence—realized in religious beliefs and through marital alliances among peoples and individuals—the Achaemenids sought to ensure that non-Iranian groups would not regard them as outsiders. In addition to preventing separatism and regional unrest, the establishment of a dominant culture allowed the Achaemenid cultural sphere to extend far beyond its political borders, thereby facilitating the acceptance of imperial authority.
Drawing upon the inherent potential of Iranian culture, one of the Achaemenids’ notable initiatives was the selective adoption of significant, effective, and appealing elements from the cultures of subject peoples, their absorption and assimilation into Iranian culture, and their reticulation within a new cultural framework in which Iranian identity and elements held clear predominance.

Abstract
The Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods are the important periods of human life. The why and how of the transition process from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic in different regions is considered an important archaeological issue. Therefore, it is important to understand and study the sites related to this period to explain this process. Ghela Zeka Tape is located in Khorramabad, in the central Zagros region. Valuable information about the Neolithisation process, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic periods has been published from this area. Based on the results of the boundary determination, Ghela Zeka has an area of nearly three hectares. In this research, with the aim of introducing and explaining the data, the author has reviewed, studied, and compared the findings obtained from the Ghela Zeka, including stone tools, pottery sherds, and a sample of an animal figurine from the Neolithic and early Chalcolithic period. As a result of this research, was confirmed the possibility of the existence of layers from the Neolithisation period was raised and the presence of evidence from the pre-pottery and pottery Neolithic periods. These results were obtained from examining and comparing chipped stone materials such as various flake, mixed, pyramidal, and bullet-shaped cores, and tools such as notched, retouched blades/bladelets, and sickle blades, as well as pottery samples of the Roahel type. From the Chalcolithic period, evidence of pottery of the Bagh-e No and Giyan V types indicated a continuation of settlement from the Neolithic to the early Chalcolithic period. Based on radio carbon dating of the Bagh-e No culture and comparison with the Sialk I-III cultures on the Central Plateau, the Bagh-e No and Giyan V pottery cultures have been dated to the late 6th to late 5th millennium BC. As a result of this research, questions about the periods of the site and its role in the studies of this period are answered. The importance of this research is that by analyzing the materials of these important periods in Central Lorestan, it highlights the importance of future excavations to study the transition from Neolithic to Chalcolithic.
Keywords: Lorestan, Khorramabad, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Qela Zeka.

Introduction
The beginning of agriculture and domestication, the creation of architecture and building houses with simple and primitive materials, and the increase in population are some of the prominent features of the Neolithic period. Referring to these changes and developments, Bar-yosef refers to it as the most vital human revolution after 2.5 million years of cultural growth and evolution (Bar-Yosef, 2001: 117). The first studies on the Neolithic in western Iran were carried out by Robert Braidwood in Kermanshah (Braidwood et al., 1961). After a hiatus of about 30 years, research on this period resumed with the excavation of the Chogha Golan (Zeidi & Conard, 2013), Sheikhi Abad (Matthews et al., 2013), and Eastern Chia Sbez (Darabi et al., 2011), which continues to the present (Darabi et al., 2024). During this period, the formation and expansion of early villages took place, which reflects a multifaceted development in the societies of the region in various economic, social, and ritual fields, which is divided into the following sub-periods: Transitional Neolithic (9700-8000 BC), Pre-Pottery Neolithic (8000-7000 BC), and Pottery Neolithic (7000-6000 BC) (Darabi, 2024: 8). The Central Zagros Chalcolithic period covers a period of two thousand years from 5500 to 3300 (Henrickson, 1991: 278). Until the 1970s, the Central Zagros Chalcolithic period chronology of western Iran was based on the Giyan sequence, which both McCan and Dyson published based on the typology of Giyan V pottery (Henrickson, 1985: 63). This period has been divided by Elizabeth Henrickson into three phases: Lower, Middle, and Upper (Henrickson, 1985:66). This period in Lorestan had its own unique characteristics, so that its Lower period was different from other areas of the Central Zagros and had its own culture with local characteristics, which is known as the “Bagh-e No culture”. After the Bagh-e No, it was replaced by a pottery culture known as the Se-Gabi (SGP) and the Giyan Vc, which was related to the Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia and which Hole called the “Daurai phase” in the Khorram Abad valley (Hole, 2007:72). The Upper Chalcolithic, like the previous period, had its own characteristics, which were more closely related to and more strongly influenced by the growing Uruk culture in Mesopotamia and Susa II in the Suziana Plain, which in the Central Zagros is comparable and recognizable with the Godin VI period (Young, 1969). 
Since the Ghela Zeka Tape, with an area of nearly 3 hectares, has reliable and strong evidence of Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in Khorram Abad, analyzing its cultural findings with the aim of introducing and explaining the importance of this work is an undeniable necessity. The evidence studied in this research shows that Ghela Zeka can have a prominent position as one of the key Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites in the Central Zagros. Given the extensive settlement and diversity of material finds, questions about the periods of settlement of the Tape, cultural interactions with surrounding areas, and its importance in studies of the Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic arise, which are addressed in this study. It seems that Ghela Zeka had settlements from different stages of the Neolithic period, which played an important role in the transition to the Early Chalcolithic and the Bagh-e No in Central Lorestan.


Identified Traces
Ghela Zeka is located in Dehpir district of the Khorram Abad county, 10 km northeast of Khorramabad city. This monument has a geographical location of 48° 46’ 67”, 33° 55’ 15” and 1475 masl (Fig. 1). The most important material findings from the Tape included chipped stones, pottery, and a clay figurine resembling boars. 
The stone tools belonging to the Neolithic period were obtained from the excavated layers of the boundary determination pits, which included; various amorphous cores, pyramidal blades and blade lets and bullet cores, various types of simple and retouched blades, blade lets, chisels, scrapers, ridges and sickle blades (Figs. 3,4). The Ghela Zeka community mainly used chart in different colors and sometimes flint and obsidian to make and produce tools. The conglomerate outcrop 7 km west and southwest could have been the main source of this stone, which is distributed up to 3 km from the Tape (Fig. 2). Small fragments of obsidian in the layers of Ghela Zeka are an indication of trans-regional relations of the people of the site. Based on experimental studies in various sites in western Iran, this stone was probably supplied from the sources of Nimrud Dagh in southeastern Anatolia (Renfrew, 1969: 430; Darabi & Glascock, 2013; Pullar, 1990: 12).
A total of 16 source samples were obtained from the exploration of boreholes located in the field, including 5 blade and blade let, 7 amorphous cores, and 5 mixed cores. During the excavation, 32 stone tool samples were obtained. The Neolithic pottery of Lorestan is known as the Roahol phase (Bahrami & Fazeli Nashli, 2016: 32). This pottery was first identified from the Neolithic Roahol site in the Khorramabad valley (Bahrami et al., 2012), which can be compared with the pottery of Mohammad Jafar in the Alikosh of Dehloran (Bahrami & Mohammadian, 2025: 61). Several pottery sherds similar to Roahol pottery were found from the Ghela Zeka, two of which were painted (Figs. 5-6: No: 5,6). Also, a clay figurine resembling a boar was found in the Neolithic layers of borehole number 10, measuring about 5 cm in length and 4 cm in height (Fig. 7).
As mentioned earlier, the Early Chalcolithic in Lorestan is known as the Bagh-e No culture. Most of the pottery from this period was found from the surface survey (Fig. 6), and only 3 samples were obtained from the determine the boundary (Fig. 8). The pottery of this period has straight and elongated edges and due to insufficient and incomplete firing has a gray paste and a mixture of straw. Their outer surface coating is buff or orange, decorated mainly with geometric and rarely human and possibly plant decorations in black and red (Figs. 5,6, Table. 1). Young has classified the pottery of this period into two groups IA and IB. Young’s type IA pottery is a type of pottery with a mixture of straw and buff, which usually has thick walls, which Young has introduced as early pottery with a mixture of straw, and group IB he considers with the same characteristics but of the embossed type (Young, 1966:230). Goff has mentioned these potteries as early pottery (Goff, 1971:134). This type of pottery has also been reported in Chia Siah and Chia Zargaran of Tarhan (Schmidt et al., 1989; Goff, 1971), the upper layers of Abdul Hussein Tepe (Pullar 1990), and many sites in different cities of Lorestan.

Conclusion
Based on what has been said above, Ghela Zeka Tape encompasses a long settlement from the pre-pottery Neolithic period before the 7th millennium BC to the end of the 5th millennium BC. The presence of amorphous, pyramidal and mixed cores in this complex, along with ridges and dentils, indicates the possibility of settlement in the transitional Neolithic period before the 8th millennium BC. The presence and abundance of tools made on blades and blade lets, including sickle blades and bullet cores, reflects the existence of a possible agricultural community at Ghela Zeka in the 8th millennium BC. Ghela Zeka, like many Neolithic sites in western Iran, entered into trans-regional interactions during this period and received and produced obsidian chipped stones Given the area of the site, which is more than 3 hectares, this agricultural community was probably a settlement. No settlement of this period has been identified in Lorestan so far, and Ghela Zeka may be considered one of the most extensive Neolithic sites in western Iran. The discovery of an animal figurine could be a sign of a society with ritual and symbolic dimensions. Another important feature of Ghela Zeka is the presence of the Pre-pottery Neolithic following the Pottery Neolithic, which could help explain the transition between these two periods in the 7th millennium BC in the region and the differences in tool industries and livelihoods of its people. The continuity of settlement from the Neolithic to the Lower Chalcolithic is important, as reliable pottery evidence from the Bagh-e No and possibly Giyan V has been found. Perhaps one of the most important questions in the archaeology of Lorestan and western Iran, namely when, why and how the transition from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic and its biological aspects, can be answered in scientific excavations. Based on available data, Ghela Zeka was inhabited until the late 5th millennium BC and then abandoned. Ultimately, an accurate understanding of the time and various aspects of life at Ghela Zeka requires scientific exploration and providing an absolute dating of it.