Abstract
This paper will focus on Lithic assemblages from three sites in the eastern part of Kurdistan province. The Chalcolithic period appears with different pottery tradi-tions than the earlier period in the Zagros, these changes appear mainly in the emergence of a variety of long blades and very regular and standard sickle blades. Due to the importance and lack of studies on the Chalcolithic Lithic, the main ques-tion in this article is what was the technology and function of the tools in the Chal-colithic period? The results show the technology of direct percussion with a hard hammer used to in the primary stages of Chalcolithic, and in the late phase, in addi-tion to the earlier method, the pressure technique has also been used to construction of long blades and sickle blade. Also, long blades and sickle blades, in terms of production technique, are continued in the Neolithic period in the Zagros, but in terms of dimensions as well as the ratio of blade length to width in a new class which is a new indicator for the Chalcolithic period. The results show that the con-struction of regular sickle blades begins in the late Chalcolithic phase. The skill of making tools is undoubtedly related to exist people who have special ability for these products, and they have distributed these tools in certain areas; because the least waste of high-quality flint of these blades has not been found in the sites. While most of the debris belong to raw material that are easily accessible in the riv-erbed.
Keywords: East of Kurdistan, Chalcolithic Period, Lithic Artifact.

Introduction
The stone artifacts in this study are the result of excavations in Tepe Gheshlagh (Motarjem & Sharifi, 2015; Sharifi & Motarjem, 2018), Tepe Kalanan (Saedmoucheshi, 1390), and Golali (Saedmoucheshi, 1398) in Kurdistan province (Figure 1). In this region, the chronology of Tepe Gheshlagh, one of the key site in the Chalcolithic period that shows the sequence of this period (Motarjem & Sharifi, 2014). On the other hand, all samples of artifacts obtained in intact layer and with absolute chronology (Table 1). The Chalcolithic period in the Central Zagros has been studied by many scholars (see Young & Levine, 1974; Abdi, 2002 & 2003; Henrickson, 1983 & 1985), and most studies have focused on pottery and other data. Various sites in this area such as Godin (Young, 1969), Sehgabi (Young & Levine, 1974) have been explored before the Islamic Revolution of Iran and there isn’t an independent report on the tech-nical classification of stone tools. Study of Lithic artifacts in the Cen-tral Zagros including superficial study of Tepe Ban-Asyab (Bernbek et al., 2011), superficial study of Hersin (Mortensen & Smith, 1977), Chogha-golan and Towe Khushkeh sites in Islamabad plain (Abdi, 2002). Also, the study of lithic tools tradition in the sixth and fifth millennium BC in the Zagros gets limited to (Kozlowski, 1999; Nishiaki, 2013, 2019) and west of Kurdistan (Hariryan et al., 2021). In this regard, the study of stylistic differences in terms of technology, typology, and access to sources of raw material, as well as trade of some stones such as obsidian is momentous. Therefore, research questions include the following: (1) what is the basis of the tool-making tradition in East Kurdistan? And (2) Due to socio-economic complexities that occurred during the Chalcolithic period, what changes have taken place in the Lithic artifacts? The hy-pothesis of this research is that the Post-Mlefaatian tradition of tool making has been prevalent in this region. In fact, the purpose of introducing and analyzing of Chalcolithic Lithic is paying attention to them as cultural data that an important role in cultural communication and interactions.

Conclusion
The study of stone artifacts during the Chalcolithic period and beyond has never been seriously considered in Iranian archeology, this is due to the prevalence of evolutionary archeology. This approach goes back to the Serialization and connec-tion of cultural transformation circles to each other, without an explanatory and an-alytical approach to the lifestyle and cultural exchanges and human dynamism in the habitat. Discussions that were considered only after the spread of new archeol-ogy. The study of stone artifacts in this study shows that the insignificant quantity of tools in the early and middle phases of Chalcolithic, It shows the focus of the residents of this area on livestock. Because the Habitat around Tepe Gheshlagh and Kalanan are mainly steppe and less fertile. In the late phase, the production of Lith-ic tools increases, especially the examples related to grain harvesting, which indi-cates a kind of more attention to crop production. This leads to decline of livestock or the increase of population in the region and even familiarity with new cultivation methods. In the late Chalcolithic, this region has Cultural Horizon with the late Obeid, early Uruk and the Sabz period of Dehloran and Khuzestan. At this time, agriculture based on irrigation has been proposed on southern region such as Susa and Dehloran. In these periods, all the tools used in agriculture, focused on Lithic tools and implements including plowing tools, sickles, mortars and hand tools. In fact, the construction of practical tools, the use of different raw materials, and the interpretation of regular and long sickle blades represent an advanced and evolving technology. The produce of regular sickle blades from high quality stone, disap-pearance of small scrapers (trapezoidal and triangular) and the limitation of serrated tools are the most important changes in this period compared to the Neolithic peri-od. 
Lithic assemblages during the 6th and 5th millennia BCE in the Zagros is known as Post-Mlefaatian tradition (Kozlowski, 1999). The use of pressure Debitage tech-nique to produce long blades and sickle elements is one of the most significant fea-tures of this tradition. In the Post-Mlefaatian, the length of the blades increases. In East Kurdistan, we are faced with two technologies for making stone tools, (1) The use of direct percussion for primarily stage of removing, and (2) The use of pres-sure technology for construction of sickle blades. We have a limited number of long blades in Gheshlagh and Gelali sites, but the construction of these blades, like other regions of the Zagros, shows the use of the Post-Mlefaatian tradition in this region.
It is probable that after 3 to 4 thousand years of domestication of devolving of wheat stem compared to other species such as Emmer and Einkorn of the Neolithic period, In order to harvest, thicker and stronger blades need to create. The produc-tion of thicker blades in this period has been a technical adaptive response to this need. Hence, the discussion over the assumption about the prevalence of irrigation in the Chalcolithic period, even to a limited extent, has led to change in Lithic tools production related to agriculture, especially sickle blades. On the other hand, issues such as the formation of full-time or part-time expert groups, access to high-quality flint mines for proper production, distribution and exchange are raised. As men-tioned in the discussion, there is no evidence of regular sickle blades construction on the site, in the eastern Kurdistan. On the other hand, presence of obsidian in Gheshlagh and Kalanan sites show continuation of the old distribution network of the nearest neighbor to the far regions in eastern Kurdistan. The presence of obsidi-an and lack of evidence for making sickle blades from dark flint, indicate the pos-sibility of making blades produced from this species in specialized workshops out-side the site and their import to these areas.

Abstract
Abstract: In the last two decades, as a result of the significant increase in archaeological field activities in Iraqi Kurdistan, some important sites and artifacts from the Sassanid period have been discovered. Even though during the Sassanid period, the northern region of Mesopotamia was considered a part of the Sassanid Empire, many archaeological features of this region in the Sassanid period have remained unknown. In this research, which was carried out using a library method, we have studied 42 ancient sites or monuments in Iraqi Kurdistan belonging to the Sassanid period, which have mainly been identified in recent years. This research aims to find an answer to some questions about the location of the Sassanid settlements in the region and the geographical and environmental factors affecting their formation. The Sassanid remnants of Iraqi Kurdistan include settlements, monuments, government complexes, fortifications, water channels, cemeteries, and the local production centers of textiles and pottery. The results of this research show that Sassanid settlements in Iraqi Kurdistan have mainly concentrated in three areas: 1. Shahrizur plain and the area around Dukan Lake 2. Erbil plain, 3. Garmian region. These areas, which are in the form of open plains and vast inter-mountain valleys, had importance in the Sassanid period due to having characteristics such as suitable height, abundant water sources, fertile soil, and being located on the important communication routes and therefore they were as a place for the formation of the settlements in the mentioned period.
Keywords: Iraqi Kurdistan, Northern Mesopotamia, Sasanian Period, Archaeological Settlements.

Introduction
The four-hundred-year Sassanid period is considered one of the important periods in the history of Iran and the Middle East. The northern region of Iraq, which is today known as the Kurdistan region, was considered one of the main parts of the Sasanian Empire. On the other hand, it was important politically and geopolitically due to its proximity to the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon and its location between the Sassanid center and the Eastern Roman territory. Although historical sources provide a relatively clearer view of the northern region of Iraq in the Sassanid period, the archaeological evidence of the Sasanian period in Iraqi Kurdistan has not been significant until recent decades.
In the past two decades, a large number of historical and prehistoric sites in the mentioned region have been surveyed or excavated, among which a number are related to the Sassanid period. Identification of these sites and monuments can lead to better knowledge about the economic, political and social situation of the region during the Sassanid Empire.

Materials and Methods
One of the goals of this research is to investigate the Sassanid settlements of Iraqi Kurdistan based on the results of archaeological surveys and excavations. Some of the questions that this research seeks to answer are: 1. What are the most important settlements of the Sassanid period in Iraqi Kurdistan and how were they distributed?
2. Which areas in northern Iraq, had the greatest importance in terms of quantity and quality of Sassanid settlements? 3. What are the most important geographical and environmental factors involved in the formation of Sassanid settlements in Iraqi Kurdistan?

Data
Based on the distribution of Sassanid sites in Iraqi Kurdistan, this area has been divided into three parts including eastern, southern, and western parts:
Region 1: including the eastern part of Iraqi Kurdistan, which mainly includes the present-day Sulaymaniyah province, stretches from north to the Lake of Dukan and Darband Ranieh, from east to the border of Iran and Iraq, from west to the east bank of the little Zab river, and from the south to the end of the Shahrizur plain. The Sassanid sites of this region are:
Murad Rasu, Qalatga Darband, Usu Aska, Gerd-i Bazar, Merquly, Tell Sitak, Girdi Rostam, and the sites of Shahrizur plain including Gerd-i Kazhaw, Bestansur, SSP 4, Tell Begum, Gird-I Qalrakh, Sutik Tape, Bakr Awa
Region 2: Southern part of Iraqi Kurdistan (Garmian). The Sassanid sites of this region are:
Bazyan Palace, Girdi Qala, Paikuli, Sasanid palace of Paikuli, Qalai Gawri, SRP 9, SRP10, Irrigation canal of Kalar, Kani Masi/ Tell Majid, Gawr Tepe, Top Askar cemetery, Hawsh Kori
Region 3: Western part of Iraqi Kurdistan includes Erbil and Dohuk provinces. The Sassanid sites of this region are:
Tell Amiyan, Canal A of the village of Kawr Gosk, Erbil city, Qasr Shemamok, Tell Khazana/Khazna, site no. 31, Baqrta, Satu Qala, sites n.3, 8, 4, 22, 24, 25, 27&28 in Erbil plain

Discussion
The geographical and environmental factors affecting the distribution of Sasanian sites in Iraqi Kurdistan are:
1. Topography: The results of this research, which are reflected in Fig. 12, indicate that in total, about 76% of Sasanian sites of Iraqi Kurdistan are mainly located in the mountainous plains, and only a handful of the sites are located in the mountainous and high places outside of the plains.
2. Height above sea level: Most of the Sassanid settlements in Iraqi Kurdistan are located at an altitude of less than 600 m, and only a few sites are located at an altitude of more than 1000 m (Fig. 12). The lowest areas are located in the Garmian region, i.e. in the Sirvan river valley and the Kalar plain, which is mostly less than 300 m above sea level.
3. Access to water sources: All the Sasanian sites in the Kurdistan region are located near permanent water sources, the most important of which are Great Zab, Little Zab, and Sirvan. In addition to that, a significant number of sites are located next to permanent springs or smaller rivers, such as Shalar River in Penjwen, Wadi Shatwan and Tanjero in Shahrizur Plain, Tavuq cay in Chamchamal Plain and Shiwazor and Chai Siwasor in Erbil Plain. 

Access to Fertile Soil
The plains of Shahrizur, Erbil, and Garmian, where the largest number of Sasanian settlements are located, also have the most fertile soil in the region for agriculture (Yasin, 2014: 240).

Proximity to Communication Ways
Most of the Sassanid sites in Iraqi Kurdistan are located in the plains that were on the path of important commercial and political roads between southern Mesopotamia and the Sassanid capital on one hand with the land of Azerbaijan and the Iranian plateau in the east on other hand and the land of Eastern Rome, Asia Minor and Syria in the north and northwest on another hand. The existence of the Paikuli tower and some other important sites in the Sirvan river valley indicate the importance of this communication route.

The Extent of Sassanid Settlements
Most of the Sassanid sites in Iraqi Kurdistan are less than five hectares in size, which are considered small settlements. Therefore, we can see a significant difference between the extent of the Sasanian sites in the north and south of Mesopotamia. 

Conclusion
In this research, we have studied 42 sites or monuments of the Sassanid period in Iraqi Kurdistan, which were mainly discovered in the last two decades as a result of archaeological excavations or surveys. Some of the mentioned sites, such as Gerd-i Bazar, Gerd-i Kazhaw, Gird-i Qalrakh, Girdi Qala, Paikuli, Top-Askar, and Hawsh Kori, can be considered important sites of the Sasanian period in Iraqi Kurdistan. These sites contain information about memorial buildings (Paikuli), government complexes (Hawsh Kori), fortifications (Merquly, Gerd-i Kazhaw, SRP 9), water canals (Kawr Gosk, Kalar), Burial methods (Gerd-i Bazar, Top Askar), beliefs, economy and local centers for production textile (Gird-i Qalrakh), pottery and other livelihood aspects in Iraqi Kurdistan during the Sassanid period.
The result of this research shows that most Sassanid settlements in Iraqi Kurdistan are located in low-altitude and mid-mountain plains such as Shahrizur plain, Sirvan river valley, and Erbil plain. Among the advantages of these plains, we can point out access to permanent water sources, fertile soil, and location on the important communication routes that connect the west of Iran to the south of Turkey and east of Syria. In general, although most of the Sassanid sites discussed in this article lost their importance and were abandoned in the following periods, the plains where these sites were located, due to having ideal conditions and Geographical and environmental factors are still the main centers for urban settlements in the Kurdistan region.

Ziwiye, as one of the key sites for Iran’s North West Iron Age (Median kingdom), has many masterpieces kept in different museums and a long list of publications. The main part of this list consists of monographs that are written based on one or more limited objects from an out of context collection. There are few articles that comprehensively include the findings “attributed Ziwiye” and “came from excavation”. However, many articles have been published about Zavieh’s findings, but parts of this collection still remain unknown and do not receive enough attention. The corpus of bone arrowheads is one of them, some of which were found during archaeological excavations while others came to museums from antiquities dealers. These include: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Musée du Louvre in Paris, the National Museum of Iran in Tehran, and the Sanandaj Archaeological Museum. This article aims to introduce and categorize 51 bone arrowheads. Some of these were registered as ivories, but our research concluded that all of these were made of bone. In few instances, the production manner prevented the proper identification of bone versus ivory. Another examined point in this research is whether such arrowheads were produced for actual warfare or for prestige and symbolic use in ceremonial events considering their bone material. The examined samples from other sites show that bone can be hard enough to penetrate game and human body even with light protection such as archery. Bone for making arrowheads was used for hunting big games and some tribes still use them.

Abstract
Predictive models are a component of GIS-based statistical approaches, which hold an important place in archaeological research due to advances in relevant theories and tools. Predictive models, developed through the statistical processing and analysis of environmental variables that influence site location, aid in understanding the cultural and natural landscape of the study area and contribute to the development of plans for improved cultural heritage management. This article, employing a statistical-analytical approach and data from archaeological surveys, aims to present a predictive model for a part of the eastern Kurdistan region where archaeological surveys have not yet been conducted. Prediction modelling was performed using the MaxEnt machine learning method, with eleven factors as natural variables and presence data (areas) required for modelling. The model area was divided into two experimental sections (Bijar and Dehgolan) and a prediction area (Qorveh), as the prediction model for Qorveh city was based on the natural variables and presence data from Bijar and Dehgolan cities. Finally, the prediction map was divided into four classes: very high, high, medium, and low suitability areas. The very high suitability area, which comprises 10% of the total model area, contains 59% of the Iron Age sites in eastern Kurdistan. It was found that vegetation cover, land use, and distance from rivers were among the most influential factors in the model. Also, the initial data in Qorveh indicate that 62% of the sites are located in an area comprising 8% with very high desirability, supporting the accuracy of the prediction. The AUC statistic is 0.836, and the finding value for the model has been calculated as 0.82, which indicates a prediction model with an approach value close to 1.
Keywords: Archaeological Prediction Model, GIS, MaxEnt, Eastern Kurdistan, Iron Age.

Introduction
The use of GIS and statistical modelling to map possible locations of archaeological sites has increased over the past decades. (Stefan & Sîrbu, 2010; Niknami et al., 2007; Alirezaei et al., 2019). Currently, archaeological prediction models are a powerful tool for preventing natural and human damage to historical and cultural resources (Danese et al., 2014), and for increasing the efficiency of archaeological field activities and cultural heritage management (Howard et al., 2016; Balla et al., 2014). Statistical modelling, as a perspective for identifying suitable areas for selecting prehistoric settlements, has been widely used by geographers and archaeologists (Sharafi et al., 2016; Verhagen & Dragut, 2012; Kaimaris, 2018). This method can be effectively considered a form of archaeological exploration. This paper aims to develop a concept for creating a prediction model using the MaxEnt method in the Eastern part of Kurdistan, to evaluate similar studies in archaeology, and to determine settings and suggest ways to optimise such approaches. Simultaneously, using a statistical approach based on GIS, the prediction model, and archaeological survey data from the eastern part of Kurdistan, it identifies the most favourable locations for the formation of Iron Age settlements. Accordingly, using environmental and archaeological data from Bijar and Dehgolan counties, a prediction model for Qorveh county has been developed using the MaxEnt method. Due to the lack of access to archaeological data for Qorveh County, the study area has been divided into two sections: experimental and prediction. This approach allows for predictions in the Qorveh region based on data from the experimental area (Bijar and Dehgolan counties), despite the absence of the required data. This method can thus be proposed as a study approach, with related recommendations, for another similar research.
Research Method: This research employed field and library (descriptive-analytical) methods, utilising the Geographic Information System (GIS) for the preparation and interpretation of GIS maps to analyse the settlement habitats of 96 Iron Age sites in eastern Kurdistan (Bijar, Qorveh, Dehgolan). The MaxEnt model was used to predict the distribution of Iron Age sites in eastern Kurdistan.

Data
The present study used a digital elevation model with a spatial resolution of 28 metres. Any change in these data will result in changes in climate, livelihoods, and other factors (Khosrowzadeh & Habibi, 2015: 109). The digital elevation model is used to extract new information such as slope, slope direction, and land curvature. This information is relatively common and significant, and is generally used in predictive models in archaeology. Land curvature data have also been used, which are defined as the rate of slope change (Whitworth, 2011: 469). The prediction model in this paper will be implemented using the principle of maximum entropy (MaxEnt). Such predictive modelling in archaeology requires two types of input data: environmental data (environmental variables that have a direct or indirect effect on the location of historical sites based on archaeological studies) and data related to archaeological sites, also known as presence data. The study area covers the political geography of Bijar, Qorveh, and Dehgolan counties. This study aims to make the most accurate prediction of Iron Age archaeological sites in Qorveh county using presence data (sites) from surrounding areas such as Bijar and Dehgolan counties. Given the similar climate and landscape in the eastern part of Iranian Kurdistan, the prediction of site formation locations in Qorveh County will be presented based on the MaxEnt prediction model.

Discussion
The final result of the prediction model for the eastern part of Kurdistan was based on the frequency ratio (FR) of the land cover and land use variables, which were among the most influential factors in the model. Their impact coefficients were estimated to be 24.3 and 32.6, respectively. Based on the classification of the forecast map, the low-desirability region covers the largest area within the forecast range, comprising 72% of the total. In contrast, better results can be observed due to the reduction in the area of regions in the high-desirability group. These regions, categorised as very high and high-desirability groups, comprise 10.5 percent and 7.5 percent of the total area, respectively. In contrast, it includes the largest number of areas, accounting for 89 percent of the total. These areas comprise 57 and 29 areas, respectively. While the areas with the highest potential are highlighted, they significantly reduce the area available for archaeological investigation.

Conclusion
MaxEnt modelling requires the use of presence data (areas). For this purpose, the prediction model is defined to include two categories of areas. First, the experimental area contains presence data (areas) as well as environmental factors and variables to configure the prediction model. Second: Prediction area; this section and perspective include the city of Qorveh in the eastern part of Kurdistan. The experimental area for this modelling contains 96 presence data points (areas) with an Iron Age chronology. Of these, 25% were used as test data and 75% as training data. Modelling with the MaxEnt method identifies the most influential variables by examining each one. Factors such as vegetation cover, land use, distance from the village, and distance from water sources are among the most influential variables on the model results. In this case, MaxEnt statistical analysis of other variables is also presented. Examination of the altitude variable shows that it has the greatest impact on sites within the altitude range of 1378–1400. The greatest impact of rivers on the sites occurred at a distance of 1000 metres. From 1000 to 3000 metres, the impact was least, but from 3000 to 5000 metres, the influence on site location became significant again. It has been found that at a distance of 2000 metres from villages, the likelihood of site formation is greater than at greater distances. The prediction map is divided into four groups based on the specified threshold value mentioned earlier: very high, high, medium, and low suitability areas. According to this division, the very high suitability area covers 10.5% of the total model area, and 59% of the sites (occurrence data) are located within this area. The high, medium, and low suitability areas include 30%, 6.5%, and 4.5% of the sites within these areas, respectively. Given that the very high and low suitability prediction areas are small but contain the largest percentage of sites, the model can be considered predictive.