Abstract
Khozestan and Ilam, the two geographically important provinces have always been under consideration by all reigning powers of all history in Iran. The attention was not limited to one or two governments and the fortune was with them even written history due to the suitable geographical situation and the shared borders with Mesopotamia. Because of political, religious, ethnic, etc. reasons, the power epicenter stayed out of the southwestern part of Iran’s plateau in the time of Sassanid and Achaemenian for example. Sassanid, over four centuries of power in a vast area in west of Asia, had an especial interest toward the Persian territory. Significant cities of the time, such as Estakhr, Goor and Shaporkhoreh were established in this very region. The extra ordinary number of reliefs, common wealth buildings and fire temples (Chartaqi/ groin vaulted buildings) existing in the area is a witness to Persia’s distinct status. In this paper, based on historical and geographical documents and writings (inscribed between the 3rd to 9th centuries), groin vaulted buildings (Chartaqi) and many fire temples of this area, the mentioned attention has been taken under study. The research method is historical descriptive and through studying the literature and archeological documents (groin vaulted fire temples) and the study on the progress of groin vault buildings from south to north approaching the ancient Mesopotamian borders, and the references in most of historical documents to numerous fire temples of the area, it can be concluded that this piece of land had the equal value of the whole country to Sassanid and this field needs more excavation as far as the Sassanid are concerned.
Keywords: Sassanid, Groin Vaults, Fire Temples, Khozestan, Ilam, Peshtkooh in Lorestan.

Introduction
The biggest part of attention of the ruling perspective, spending huge budget of improvement, building magnificent cities, designing and building roads and buildings in Sassanid era, was devoted to the central territory, meaning Fars province. Founding big cities such as Goor (Firuz Abad), Shapurkhoreh (Bishapur next to Kazerun) and Estakhr signifies that the special attention being paid from the administrations to this area. Their predecessors, Achaemenian, had made their home and place to stay in Persepolis and Pasargadae. The area under study was taken to consideration with following Achaemenian but such causes such as keeping the throne away from western borders to maintain more safety, keeping more control over Persian Gulf and religious, racial and tribal motives were the main reasons of this attitude.
In the following study, the two sites of Khozestan and Ilam are scrutinized geographically and archeologically because of being situated in the same geographical crest. Although two zones of Islam Abad Qarb and Gilan Qarb, both located in Kermanshah province were forgone in order to establish a locale. Examination criterion has been set due to political divisions of the country. The study time expand is the Sassanid period and the population expand is the groin vaulted buildings (Chartaqi) as a practically religious structure. 

The Fire Temples and Groin Vaulted Buildings in Khozestan
Sim Band Chartaqi: situated in north east of Masjed Soleiman and on the road to Shahid Abbaspour dam.
Keikavus Chartaqi: located in North West of Behbahan within 20 kilometers distance in a village of the same name. The exterior and interior (dome) had been about 12 meters in height. The building’s height is about 10.5 meters and the walls’ thickness –being made of stone and mortar- is 2.40 meters. 
Kherabad Fire Temple: situated in east of Behbahan by 15 kilometers, it is overlooking the vast field of Behbahan. The bridge over the river is not visible from the distance.

The Fire Temples and Groin Vaulted Buildings in Ilam
Dare Shahr Chartaqi: In Seimareh valley, west of the archeological site which the locals call Plaster hills which is the progressive form of ancient buildings. (Lakpour, 2005: 86-127)
Julian Chartaqi: The remains of the ancient city, known as Julian in the mountain sides of Abdanan, one of the southern cities in Ilam.
Siahgal Ivan Fire Temple: It is located with a distance of 25 kilometers away from Ivan in Zarfeh, near the river Gangir and among the farming fields of the local people.
Moshgab (Sarableh) Fire Temple: in the ancient city of Sirvan or Shirvan in Moshkan Sarableh within 3 kilometers distance of Sarableh city.
Molab Chartaqi: This building which has been registered recently, is located in the east of Molab viledge with 5 meters in height.
Qajar fire temple in Dare shahr: This is one of the ruined buildings of Ilam which Wandburg introduced for the first time in 1977 in an article called the Chartaqi in Poshtkoh Lorestan in Iranica Antiqua and covered some more groined vaulted buildings of the region as well.
Tablkhaneh Chartaqi or Naqarkhaneh or Posh Erisht: This is built in a manner that the angels are oriented to agree with the compass. In 20 meters distance of the north east, the remains of some platforms are visible which can be signs of fire temples and holy fire.
Mayee Mah Chartaqi: Pashtil, is what remains probably from a compliment to a chartaqi. The dome and ceiling are almost gone and very little of the columns are left.
Koshk Qanifar Chartaqi: This one, also called Chahar Kaleh or Chahar pa is located within the distance of 12 kilometers Imamzadeh peer. It is in the form of square with the upper side of the dome, completely destroyed is currently now with 3 meters of height. The total height is about 7 meters.
Mehr-Varpeel Fire Temple: This construction was analyzed and studied in 1969 by Wanderburg during the fifth archeological excavations. It is situated on top of a hill, in 8 kilometer distance to the south of Mehr village.  
Changineh Fire Temple: It is located in the center of a village in 22 kilometers of south east of Ilam, called Chahnjiha. It is not a complete square and each side has a dimension of its own.
Se-pa Fire Temple: Wonderburg studied Ivan from Sartang to Daruneh in his studies in 1970 and found a fire temple called Sepaa.

Conclusion
The present study has been conducted and compiled base on a rather lengthy report on historical data and the remained buildings with groin vaults from the Sassanid period known by many writings as fire temples. The aim and purpose was to change directions in Sassanid studies from Fars province to other directions. West of Iran, especially the southern parts as centers of gravity for the Sassanid with other reigning classes of the west and this area was constantly and seriously threatened by them. The Sassanid could not ignore nor neglect the destructions from the west and insult on its total authority. Thus, the use of religious buildings and related ones was taken into consideration as a serious measure. This is just but some of the existing monuments left in the area and the more western provinces such as Kermanshah are added, the more significance is added to the area during the Sassanid period.
But the west and south west, located in the western borders of the kingdom, also enjoyed an imperative and strategic state as well. The area that is today called the provinces of Khozestan and Ilam in south west and Kermanshah in the west witnessed a great deal of constant upheaval between Iran and West (Greece and Rome) in a manner that just with the two kingdoms of “ASHKANI” and Rome in this area the conflict lasted about 300 years. That is why they (the Sassanid) could not ignore this very area. Constructing the fire temple in Izeh which is mentioned in a lot of historical and geographical documents is one significant example of such. If from the southwest crest to northwest, one can be taken into consideration and study, the Chartaqi built in Poshtkoh in Lorestan to Iran and Dare Shahr, to south and Khozestan, denotes the geopolitical importance of the region for Sassanid.

Abstract
Lorestan bridges have been of particular importance in different eras due to being located on ancient roads. Bridges built for various purposes, including political, religious and economic, have acted as valley bridges in addition to linking different areas through crossing ravaged rivers of Lorestan at the time such as Kashkan and establishing road safety. Lack of awareness by the local people, the country and the international community of the value of these properties, the destruction of their properties and their associated environments by indigenous peoples and domestic tourists, the lack of a comprehensive and integrated conservation program and the lack of proper budget allocation for their restoration, Their natural context for conservation and restoration has all made these valuable and indigenous properties in the process of destruction. Accordingly, the purpose of the research is to identify the cultural landscape of historical bridges attributed to the Sassanid period of the Kashkan River and to establish a structuralist framework through the analysis of national and international laws, charters, conventions, and treaties to conserve their cultural landscape. In this research, library and field data were collected and four bridges: Kashan, Kelahor-e-Mamulan, pol-e-dokhtar, and Gavmishan were selected as study samples due to historical and architectural values. In the following, recommendations for the conservation of selected bridges’ cultural landscapes were categorized into two categories, generic and specific to the selected bridges themselves using qualitative research method, data analysis, and coding operations at three levels to reach the final results of the research. 
Keywords: Conservation of Cultural Landscape, Historic Bridges, Sassanid Period, Lorestan, Kashkan River.

Introduction
Lorestan province, with its rich and important rivers such as Seymareh, Kashkan and Cesar, has one of the richest flowing water networks. In addition to communicating with the two capitals (Susa-Ekbatan), this province has always established the connection between the old Babylon, then Ctesiphon, and then Baghdad, to Isfahan, through Khorramabad. (Siroux, 1978: 32-33). From other roads, separated from Lorestan, we can refer to Susa to Bisotun and Susa to Masbazan road (Minorsky, 1937). The need for quick and easy access and constant communication between these areas, despite the rich rivers and deep valleys, has led to the construction of huge bridges that makes a man wonder7 (UNESCO, 2016). These bridges have been built to connect large civilizations and some extent of the realization of human rights, religious, ethnic, economic and cultural ties, as well as development, prosperity, security and comfort in difficult mountainous regions (UNESCO, 2016). The undiscovered identity and value of these works for the indigenous people of Lorestan and at higher levels, the country and the international community, the destruction of the works themselves and the natural environment, associated with, by indigenous people (intentionally interfering with the cultural landscape of the bridges), lack of comprehensive conservation and restoration plans and lack of necessary credit allocations from organizations, entrusted with these works, the non-formal and mere physical restoration of some properties, regardless of the context in which, they are formed, have all made these valuable properties of art and cultural landscape associated with, to increasing degradation. In Lorestan cultural domain, these properties have been constructed with the highest quality of locating and building, and study of these works and conservation challenges of their cultural landscapes, can certainly Conserve bridges, with addition follows:
• To illuminate and conserve various historical layers of the region;
• To preserve the natural environment (including river, valley, etc.) where the bridges are located;
• For legibility and conservation of the region’s indigenous culture and
• To achieve construction technologies of bridges, for future conservation and restoration of these properties.
This research seeks to identify the Cultural landscape of Historic Bridges on the River Kashkan and its conservation challenges, in order to provide a basis for helping, define a systematic model to conserve its cultural landscape. In this regard, the following question is defined as:
• What is the definition of the cultural landscape of historic Bridges on the River Kashkan?
• How can a systematic, structuralist model be achieved to conserve the cultural landscape of historic bridges over the Kashkan River?

Discussion
According to the epigraph left by the bridge, Badr-ibn-Hasanwayeh has introduced himself as a constructor to this bridges. The cultural landscape of these Bridges is an integrated collection, interacting with humans over time in the geographical domain of middle Zagros. Despite the vagueness of the “cultural landscape” meanings, today this word has become one of the most controversial words in the World Heritage Convention. Challenges are coming into place when modern science cannot face the challenges of different levels and disciplines (Zibalkalam, 2018). Conservation is also no exception to this and has undergone various changes over time to respond to problems, encountered in conservation. The analysis of this research is carried out through “codifying” at three levels: first cycle codifying, second cycle (middle) codifying, and third or final cycle codifying (post-coding). The codes were reviewed and stored to verify the qualitative data, in order to identify conservation principles of the cultural landscape of these Bridge (the core of the research), at the final stage (Afshar, 2014). In the following, by integrating, the results of code analysis are compatible with the dispersive components of the image (Giviyan, 2016). In the following, recommendations for the conservation of selected bridges’ cultural landscapes were categorized into two categories, generic and specific to the selected bridges themselves using qualitative research method, data analysis, and coding operations at three levels to reach the final results of the research.

Conclusion
This research, in the form of fundamental-applied research, was able to identify the conservation of the cultural landscapes of the studied historical bridges and make them applicable to other similar historical bridges in Lorestan. This study was able to introduce recommendations in two general categories Generic and specific to the bridges themselves. In response to the first part of the research question, the concepts and constituent elements of the cultural landscape of historical bridges were identified through the library, field studies, and analysis of various concepts in the subject literature and in accordance with the native conditions of the cultural landscape under study. In answer to the second part of the research question, it can be said that by analyzing the collected literature and taking a look at field studies, by examining and analyzing the challenges of conserving cultural landscapes and the meanings and concepts of conservation in national charters, conventions and treaties, and International; Investigating and analyzing the meanings and concepts of cultural landscapes in national and international charters, conventions and treaties. These recommendations, since taken from the very context of the aforementioned research and context, have been categorized into a specific framework and have created a systematic model for the conservation of the cultural landscapes of the historical bridges studied. 

Abstract
Lorestan province has established the connection between the capitals and important cities of Iran during different eras. The need for quick and easy access and permanent communication between these areas has led to the construction of huge bridges despite the rivers full of water and deep valleys. Because these bridges are a natural interwoven complex and have interactions with humans, bridges over time in the geographical area of Middle Zagros of Lorestan connect with great civilizations and in a way realize human rights and religious, ethnic, and economic relations. and cultural as well as the development of welfare, security and comfort are used in difficult mountainous areas, they can well represent the concepts of the cultural landscape. Studying these properties and their cultural landscape can help to identify the components of cultural landscapes and their conservation in addition to conserving the bridges themselves. On the other hand, the first and most important step is to identify the challenges that have not been identified and classified so far. Based on this, the research aims to identify the challenges of conserving the cultural landscapes of Lorestan’s historical bridges through the review and analysis of documents related to this issue. In this research, library and field information was collected on the valuable historical bridges of the Kashkan River, and then the concepts of challenges and their subsets through analysis using the qualitative research method. Data analysis was done through coding operations at 3 levels and finally, the challenges and sub-challenges related to it were categorized into 6 general categories according to the characteristics and indicators of the study samples.
Keywords: Conservation Challenges, Historical Bridges of Lorestan, Cultural landscape, Kashkan River, Coding.

Introduction
Bridges have existed in the mountainous land of Iran as buildings with Iranian architecture since prehistoric times. These properties made the distances shorter and faster because they made it possible to pass easily and safely through the natural complications of rivers and valleys. The need for quick and easy access and permanent communication between these areas has led to the construction of huge bridges (Minorsky, 1937). So far, a significant number of bridges have been reported in the mountainous land of Zagros, which surrounds Khuzestan (Siroux, 1949). Most of these bridges are located in Lorestan. Lorestan is located between the two ancient capitals of Susa and Hamedan. Therefore, the existence of roads, highways and bridges has been necessary as a means of communication. The traces of 100 historical bridges have been observed in more than 25 ancient sites on the map of Lorestan, some of which were built in the Sassanid period in parallel with the expansion of cities and have made great progress in terms of engineering methods and understanding of hydrodynamics it has been observed. Lack of awareness and knowledge of the high value of these properties and related elements (cultural landscape) have caused them to be exposed to much damage. On the other hand, the custodians of conservation have never been able to achieve the necessary successes in the field of conservation of Lorestan historical bridges due to a lack of knowledge of the challenges of conserving these properties and the context in which they are located and the one-dimensional view of conservation on this issue.
The challenges faced in conserving cultural landscapes show the inefficiency of the current system of conserving cultural landscapes, which, if not identified and categorized and solutions are not considered, can lead to the following crises at different times:
• The emergence of a one-dimensional perspective (mere physical protection) and one-dimensional approaches such as a product-oriented approach to the issue of cultural conservation of historical bridges of Lorestan;
• Ignoring the important and key issues in planning the cultural landscape of Lorestan historical bridges;
• Inability to educate and attract the participation of the public to preserve these valuable properties;
• Failure to provide appropriate solutions and not identify internal and external threats in the field of policy and legislation to conserve the aforementioned properties;
• Making the problem of increasing the level of expertise of experts concerning the mentioned cultural landscapes.
Therefore, this research has tried to introduce and categorize the challenges as far as possible to understand. Considering the qualitative and objective of the research, to achieve the research objectives, the following questions are raised:
• What are the challenges of cultural conservation of Lorestan historical bridges? 
• How can we achieve a classified, classified structure of the challenges of conserving cultural landscapes of Lorestan historical bridges?

Identified Traces 
Since each qualitative research is unique and inimitable, the analytical approach used in this research is also unique, but as mentioned, coding was done in 3 Stages through searching in documents, and related charters and used in the form of first-round, second-round (middle) and third round (post-coding). The term “cultural landscape” itself has been a double essence in its nature since the early years of its creation in the field of scientific societies. The challenges posed in conserving cultural landscapes themselves demonstrate the inefficiency of the current system of cultural landscape conservation. Eventually, 137 codes to 68 codes and finally 18 common codes in the field of cultural landscape conservation challenges were achieved. This research has been conducted by continuing to analyze and adapt the common outcomes with the study samples, reaching 10 common categories and 6 main concepts that form the main framework and conclusion framework of the research.
“These concepts are the beginning of writing theories, reading the challenges of conserving the cultural landscape of Lorestan historical bridges, and the last stage of the journey from reality to abstraction.”
Therefore, as mentioned, the challenges that have been achieved from the researcher’s study in the literature of the research subject to conserve cultural landscapes have been used and adapted with the field studies of the researcher to achieve the challenges of cultural landscape conservation of historical bridges, were finally categorized into the following 6 categories:  
• Policy making and legislation;
• Conservation approaches;
• The level of expertise of cultural landscape experts in the areas of identification, evaluation, monitoring and management of cultural landscapes;
• Educating the community to conserve cultural landscapes
• Threats arising from internal and external factors of cultural landscapes; and
• The paradigm shift of Conserving Cultural Landscapes.

Conclusion
This research tried to identify the meanings and concepts of challenge, as qualitative and applied research, and to classify the challenges of cultural conservation of historical bridges of Kashkan River in Lorestan by analyzing the literature and theoretical foundations. Finally, these challenges were divided into 6 groups through coding in three stages and the path from reality to abstraction, with related sub-challenges of each category. The number of codes and percentage of each of the challenges were presented in the relevant tables to be able to familiarize readers with them, study the most important of these challenges and their impact on the studied properties in different dimensions if needed and be aware of them. 
In response to the first question of the research, all the challenges of conserving the cultural landscapes of the mentioned historical bridges were obtained through library and field studies and then by analyzing the literature and theoretical foundations of the subject in 6 general categories along with the sub-challenges. Challenges that each one needs to understand, plan and use different experts to meet them at different time intervals.
In response to the second question, the research attempted to achieve a structured, classified, and categorized framework by collecting, and analyzing the literature and theoretical foundations of the research, exploring the concepts and challenges of conserving cultural landscapes through the process of conservation in charters, conventions and treaties related to the subject, and localizing the mentioned challenges to be adaptable and using them as a conservation factor.
These achievements are certainly not complete and only part of the researcher’s achievements in this field are due to interest and dependence on valuable and unrepeatable properties of the historical bridges of Lorestan. properties that have embraced the identity and cultural values of a people from a long time ago and require the participation of all people, especially local communities whose main beneficiaries. In all stages from identifying challenges to conserving cultural landscapes of Lorestan historical bridges, the unmatched role of indigenous people and local communities should be considered the most important factor in conserving historical bridges, because they are the main owners of these monuments and the most important unclaimed conservationists.

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.