Abstract
One of the controversial architectural monuments in Iran historical era is a building that today, is known to Anahita temple. In summary, three expeditions excavated in Kangavar terrace that all of them conducted by Iranian experts. The first expedition conducted by Seifollah Kambakhshfard, from 1968 to 1975. He concluded that kangavar terrace was Anahita temple, and it is Where that Isidore of Charax so called Artmis temple. He reported that it had constructed in from fourth and fifth century B.C and it used until end of the Sassanids era. The second expedition conducted by M.Azarnoush, from 1976 to 1977. He believed that the historical monument of kangavar is Ghasr-e lesus, which has been reported in resources of Islamic historian. He supposed Kangavar terrace is a palace from second Khosro era. Azarnoush published a design that it be on basis of design of Alexander verika, but he added some crenation’s to the covering upside of columns.
The third expedition conducted by Mohammad Mehryar and have begun their excavations and repair operation from 1988 until 2000. He reported that the columns which were on the perimeter terrace wall, had been uncovered. Mehryar have presented a design which have shown three uncovered terraces and have shown uncovered columns of external façade wall of perimeter terrace against of other group opinions.
At present, the reasons which proved that Kangavar terrace is a cult that had been belonged to Second Khosro era are as follow: 
A-The form of building plan which had been composed of three uncovered terrace and it is obvious that no royal palace or residential building had been constructed uncovered.
B-The form of Sassanid places which had been composed of a Ivan which led to the yard. On the other hand, Sassanid palaces usually contained numerous decorations of stucco; however, it is not found any small slice in excavations.
C-It found some engraved capital in Taq-e Bostan that it belongs to the Second Khosro probably, also historical resources reported that some monuments of Khosro consist of: palace, kitchen and so on in Kermanshah district.
Keywords: Anahita Temple, Kangavar, Khosrow Parviz, Dadi Vank.

Conclusion
This paper concluded that Historical monument of Kangavar had been a cult which had been belonged to Sassanid Second Khosro. In fact, this holy place had been a place that the second Khosro had wanted to construct near of his palace and symbolic grave (Taq-e Bostan). This monument had been three uncovered terraces and there had been one two sided stairway which had been in southern edge that had been composed the basic entrance of the building. The author believes that if we suppose Kangavar building as three uncovered terraces, with compared to the ceremonies and rites which had been seen in Armenian monasteries, especially in Dadivank and it had been the reflex of ceremonies of antique Mazdisnan. We can imagine that such ceremonies had been implemented in Kangavar building, but the style of shaving stones, thickness and short columns had been comparable with the lithic building of Zvartons temple which had been belonged to seventh century A.D in Armenia. This building had been constructed by Armenian architectures in according to the Christian column structure accompanying with trinity belief of Holy Gregory. This belief has been shown precisely in construction of this temple. In another place in Dadivank monastery which had been belonged to the middle ages (12-20), prayers and prayers walk through the mountains routes and enter to the collection as pilgrim in order to implementing the religious ceremonies and rites. When they enter to the collections, they understand that there is a chapel in middle part which is called Khachkars. There are holy trees and water fountain in this place. When they enter the temple, the believes should pass among the holy spaces. This first holy place is western entrances which has been constructed skillfully and have rich decorations. The second holy place is chapel hall and the third and the last holy place and also the most sacred place is altar that is called Khoran. At here there is altar situated against a window and is a place which God should appear in it and the prayers communicate with him and hold the ceremonies of cult and prayer. It seems, in Kangavar’ terrace, the king and praises after climbing of southern step to top of the first terrace, that had been called perimeter terrace, had been reached to the place which it’s uncovered columns like the circuit wall of holy trees had been shown the frontage and border of the cult. A Number of people should had stood or waited in this terrace. Then, a number of other people had been gone to the middle terrace which had been probably a chapel. The praises of two aforesaid terraces had been the witnesses of implementing the fire ceremonies in third terrace which in fact, had been a cult. According to the reports of historical resources, especial Zakariya Mahmod Ghazvini, after Khosrow parviz death, this building had been remained imperfect and never had been exploited completely.

- Abrahamian, L. & Sweezy, N. (2001). Armenian. Folk Arts, Culture and Identity, Indiana University Press.
- Dieulafoy, M. (1884). L’art antique de la Perse. Paris.
- Flandinet, C. (1840-1841). Voyage en Perse Pendant les annees 1840 –1841. Paris.
- Isidore-Charax. (1914). Parthian Staions" The Greek Text, with A Translation and Commentary. Ares Publishers, Chicago.
- Kerporter, R. (1821–1822). Traveles in Georgia Persia. Armenia and Ancient Babylonia. London.
- Kleiss, W. (1998). “Terrassenanlagen in der iranischen Architektur”. AMI 30: 239-243.
- Kröger, J. (1982). “Sasanidischer Stuckdekor: Ein Beitrag zum Reliefdektor aus Stuck in Sasanisischer und frühislamischer Zeit ...,”.  Baghdader Forschungen 5, Berlin. 
- Pickworth, D. (2005). “Excavations at Nineveh: The Halzi Gate”. IRAQ LXVII: 295-316.
- Pope, A. (1967). “A survey of Persian Art”. Volume 2. London: 203-260
- Siroux, M. (1965). Atesh-Gah presD’Ispahan. Leiden.
- Texier, C. (1842). Description De La’Rmenie. La Perse Et la Mesopotamie, Paris.
 

Abstract
Identification of resources and quarries used for extraction of raw materials in the ancient time is a very interesting subject matter for researchers and archaeologists. Results of analysis and study of ancient mines and quarries may lead to characterize the know- how of ancient technology of production of materials and tools in the old world and shows the techniques rendered by artists and craftsmen to apply raw materials for producing different artistic and ordinary objects. Moreover, identification of ancient mines and quarries (especially stone quarries) provide unaltered materials for conservators to reconstruct archaeological and historical stone monuments. In this paper, stone blocks used in Anahita Temple in Kangavar and ancient stone quarry of Chel Maran (Chehel Maran) were studied by analytical methods. The aim of this study is to determine chemical composition and microstructure of stones used in the Anahita Temple and their correlation with the stone mining evidences observed in the Chel Maran quarry. For this purpose, some samples from the temple and the quarry were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence and polarized optical microscopy methods. The results indicated that the stones used in the temple and those of the quarry are limestones and Si and Mg were identified in the analysed samples as minor constituents. Microscopic structure of samples presented calcite as the main phase including some dolomite crystals and clay minerals as impurities. Based on the results obtained, the Chel Maran ancient stone quarry was widely used for the construction of the Anahita Temple. 
Keywords: Ancient Mining, Anahita Temple of Kangavar, Chel Maran Quarry, Limestone, Calcite.

Introduction
Stone has been used widely during the ancient time to make different artefacts and monuments including small ritual and decorative objects, reliefs, decorative monuments and buildings. The studies on quarrying and manufacturing of stone objects as well as the provenance of raw materials are an interesting subject in geoarchaeological and archaeometric investigations (Goldberg et al, 2006), and this is a useful study when restoration interventions are required. 
The large archaeological complex of Anahita Temple is located in western Iran, in the city of Kangavar and based on the archaeological excavations and findings, it was dated from the Achaemenid to the Sasanian periods (Azarnoush, 1981; Kambakhsh Fard, 1994). It was constructed on a natural hill and it was erected by stone and gypsum mortars. The main building was built with large stone blocks including cubic blocks for walls and very large and thick circular columns. There are some evidences of stone quarrying in different areas near the Anahita Temple. The main and important stone quarry in this region is Chel Maran (Chehel Maran) stone quarry located in the west of the Temple in a mountain with the same name (Chel Maran mount) (Oudbashi, 2008). The aim of this paper is to analyse the stones from Anahita Temple and the Chel Maran quarry in order to compare their chemical and microstructural features and to find a possible relationship between the building and the quarry. 

Methods
Five fragments from the Anahita Temple and two big samples from the Chel Maran quarry were selected. Ten grams of each sample was powdered for chemical analysis. A thin section was prepared from each sample for microscopic studies. The chemical composition of samples was characterized by X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis by using a S4 Pioneer model X-ray fluorescence spectrometer manufactured by Bruker. Microscopic observation of fragments and stones were done on thin sections by using a Primotech model Zeiss polarized optical microscope. Thin sections were studied by alizarin-red method to identify presence of dolomite in the texture of stone samples (Flügel et al., 2010)

Findings and Argument
The results of XRF analysis of the stone samples are presented in Table 1. The results show that all samples are calcarous stones as can be deduced by the high amount of CaO and the loss on ignition (LOI). Furthermore, SiO2, MgO and Al2O3 were detected as minor constituents in the composition of the stone samples. Other elements were detected as minor/trace content in the compsoition of samples. Although, the stones shows variable amounts of some constituents such as Na2O or Al2O3 , it is visible that the chemical compsoiton of stone samples of the Temple and the quarry is quite similar. 
The pertographic study showed a layerad texture of micrite to sparite in all samples. There were many veins of secondary calcite in the texture of the samples. Alizarine-red test indicated the presence of sporadic dolomite crystals in the texture of the stone samples. Furthermore, some compact clay veins were visible with dark colors in the microstructure of the samples (Bausch, 1968). The compariosn of the petrographic micrographs of samples from the Anahita Temple and the Chel Maran quarry reveals that they are very similar from textural point of view, in particular, sample CM-2 that was taken from the western part of the Chel Maran mount, where many evidences of quarrying and stone extraction are visible in that area.

Conclusion
The results of chemical and petrographic analysis of the stone samples from the Anahita Temple of Kangavar and the Chel Maran stone quarry showed that the Chel Maran stone quarry was used as a main resource to provide stone blocks for the construction of the Anahita Temple. The analysis indicated that the stone samples can be classified as limestone with some impurities such as SiO2, Al2O3 and MgO that are due to presence of clay minerals and dolomite in the structure of both the stone of the Temple and the quarry. The petrographic studies also showed a micrite to sparite texture with evidences of clay veins and small amounts of dolomite spread in the texture of the stones. The results obtained proved the similarity of the chemistry and the texture of samples from Anahita Temple and the quarry which indicate that the ancient quarry of Chel Maran was one of the source of the stones used in the historic monument of Anahita Temple.