Abstract
Archaeological excavations Tepe Gheshlagh have been helpful in understanding Chalcolithic sites in the high region separating the East Central Zagros and the Southern Lake Urmia Basin. Though cultural interface between the two regions was alluded to in the earlier publications, nothing was known of the existence of intermediate sites between them. Tepe Gheshlagh is a site at the center of Talvar valley that as a natural corridor serves to bring the concerned regions into closer contact, and its archaeological data will contribute to reconstruction of interactions of the regions in the Chalcolithic period. The Tepe Gheshlagh is one of the few settlements of the ancient villagers in the Talvar valley of the Bijar City, dating back to the fifth millennium BC (Ancient, Middle, and Late Chalcolithic period) which according to the Thermoluminescence tests it has been settlement form 5500 BC to 3600 BC without any interruption. Performing three seasons of archaeological excavations in this site provides us valuable information about the cultural and archaeological conditions of the region. This site have around one hectare, and during the settlement is formed ancient deposit more than 14 meters.
Keywords: Tepe Gheshlagh, Village Period, Architecture of Fifth Millennium BC, Native Material.

Introduction
Excavations Tepe Gheshlagh have over 14 meters of deposits from different phases of the Chalcolithic period at the site, which consists of a sequence of five periods that begins with the characteristic Dalma material at the lowermost and ends with the Godin VI/VII type material at the uppermost deposit that marks the later phase of the Late Chalcolithic period. After Bronze Age material and after a cultural gap is appeared Iron III. Thus, we deal here with an almost uninterrupted sequence in the Central Zagros spanning almost two millennia. Results from the three seasons of excavations have furnished a clear picture of the Chalcolithic architecture (settlement sequence and other cultural material extending from the Dalma period up to the end of Godin VI). Excavated data from Tepe Gheshlagh is show connections between the Northwest Iranian cultures (Dalma tradition) and Central ZagrosThis is certainly due to the strategic location of the region in a natural pass that has mediated interactions between the two regions. Through cultural studies of the archaeological site of Gheshlagh in Talvar in Kurdistan province, regarded as the regional key site and a major settlement from the Chalcolithic period with clear evidence of Dalma traditions, this study will attempts to illustrate origin and development of the Dalma culture in the region and study evolution in the eastern Central Zagros hinterlands. Also, the cultural developments that took place in these hinterlands will be elucidated and the role of Gheshlagh as a key settlement site in this regard will be determined and the trend of the economic, social and cultural changes of the site’s inhabitants over time will be explained in light of archaeological data. In this context, absolute dates of ceramics would greatly facilitate the precise identification of the strata through providing a chronology for the region. 

Goals of Tepe Gheshlagh
One of the major goals of the present work is define the nature of the cultural ties between the early village settlements of the eastern Central Zagros hinterlands and the neighboring regions. There are indications that clearly prove the interactions. We may consider two approaches to the problem. The first is in light of indirect interactions, which including: (1) the material that may have entered the region as raw material or finished products, which are certainly of nonlocal origin; (2) inspirations from Hasuna tradition in the form of Hasuna-like pottery types, ceramics decorated with applied scales characteristic of Umm Dabaghiya, and abstract motifs of the Halaf period such as sun motif. The second builds on direct interactions: there are indications that reveal direct interface of Tepe Gheshlagh with the Southern Mesopotamia and Susiana plain. One of the clay seals is with impression of a stamp seal, it was made from the local materials of area. Other one of the findings is discovery of at least two unique sherds that obviously belong to the Ubaid period. The intrusion of Ubaid period material to Iran is known from Gawra XIII contemporary to the Chalcolithic period, and T. Cuyler Young and Levine’s observations during their surveys of the Eastern Central Zagros indicate the strong presence of Ubaid material culture, represented for instance by Dalma-Ubaid ware. The third indication is a quasi-cylindrical seal attesting to the transition from stamp to cylindrical seals, though technically it is a cylindrical seal not a stamp one. Similar trend is as yet unreported from any other region. 

Conclusion
Tepe Gheshlagh is located in the highland region between northwest and central Zagros in the current boundary of Bijar City. In terms of biological sequences, 5 periods of the settlements and 7 architectural phases of the Chalcolithic period were identified in this site. The archaeological evidence of the ancient village of the Tepe Gheshlagh indicated that the architectural texture in terms of physically consists of small central chambers overlooking the central courtyard, which due to the movable findings; it is possible to identify their function, such as kitchen, warehouse, and living space. In terms of architectural form, the spaces are often right-angled, and entirely are made of native and local materials, including mold brick and stratum, whereas the thickness of the main walls in relation to the dividing walls are Maximum twice, and the thickness of most of them are between 40 and 55 cm, and often in the first ridge used a one row of stones as foundation of the building. But the small walls from the beginning have been made with stratum. The main entrances are mainly to the Southwest (sunshiny). The fastening method is used for connecting the walls in the corners, and in the remaining height of the buildings, there is no sign of tension and cracks caused by the difference in load occurrence in the corners.

Abstract
Archaeological surveys have a long history, nearly seventy years, in the Upper Khuzestan plain. Despite the abundance of prehistoric sites, the number of identified Initial Village period settlements is very limited yet. Looking at the encountering history of Initial Village period settlements shows almost all of them were discovered accidentally. Besides the problem of alluvial accumulation, which is a considerable factor, there are several other reasons that affect the visibility of low and early settlements. First of all, villages in this period were obviously small and structures were built mainly using pisé and mud bricks; so buildings were less durable compared to later periods (Early, Middle, and Late Susiana). Secondly, later occupations almost covered up the whole area of early settlements. Hundreds of later sites established in the places that was favorable for earlier settlements. Consequently, at least two main reasons we infer affecting early sites in the Upper Khuzestan Plain not to be found easily are: little attention to the dynamic character of natural alluviation and deposition in the landscape of the region and incompetent field methods. These factors have prevented us to gain a full understanding of the quantity and quality of early settlements in this region. Here, by considering two factors of topography and older flood plains, an early assessment of the concentration of such early settlements in the area between the Shur and Ojirub Rivers is achieved. Boneh Rahimeh is a site that was previously merely recognized as a prehistoric site but not an Initial Village period settlement. In the present study the site is introduced as a potential pair for the Formative and Archaic Susiana site of Chogha Bonut. 
Keywords: Initial Village Period, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Dynamic natural landscape, Boneh Rahimeh.

Introduction
Archaeological surveys by the late R. Adams in the area between the Karkheh and Karun Rivers in the Upper Khuzestan Plain revealed patterns of prehistoric settlements for the first time (Adams 1962). Almost eight years later, Frank Hole conducted a survey in the same area to re-evaluate prehistoric settlements (Hole 1968). These two surveys were conducted when the existence of early phases of prehistory in the Upper Khuzestan plain was still unrecognized. In the meantime, however, in the small plain of Deh Luran, F. Hole and his collogues had introduced Ali Kosh as an early settlement in that area (Hole et.al. 1969). 
In the third season of excavations in Chogha Mish (KS0001), Archaic Susiana pottery was discovered for the first time in trenches 21 and 25 in the deepest gully of the eastern mound of the site. In addition to Archaic Susiana pottery, Trench 25 contained a new type of architecture in which long mud bricks were used (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 4-5), then Boneh Fazel Ali (KS0002) was identified as another Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period settlement. Discovery of these remains at the latter site was a total chance; rodents’ activities had caused Archaic Susiana/Initial Village potteries to become visible (Kantor 1976). 
During leveling activities of low mounds to the south of Andimeshk, H. Wright found prehistoric pottery in the debris removed by bulldozers. Subsequently, F. Hole started excavations in this leveled area, where became known as Tulai/Tuleii (KS0372) (Hole 1974).
Again, similar developmental activities to the south of Dezful led to the identification of the already damaged and rather small site of Chogha Bonut (KS0109) by Chogha Mish excavation team. On the basis of evidence similar to those revealed in Chogha Mish and Boneh Fazel Ali, Kantor conducted some excavations in the site. Hence, Chogha Bonut was the fourth Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period settlement in the Upper Khuzestan Plain (Alizadeh 2003: XXXi).
During his epidemiological studies in the Dez irrigation Pilot area, F. G. L. Gremliza (1959-1960/1) (Gremliza 1962) collected a large number of prehistoric painted potteries from archaeological sites. Thirty years later A. Alizadeh studied and published Gremliza’s collection (Alizadeh 1992). Alizadeh’s expertise in typology of Khuzestan prehistoric pottery and in particular Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period caused Gremliza’s collection to become a reliable source for comparative studies. There is some sporadic evidence among Gremliza’s survey material that points to early settlements in the area near the Shur and Ojirub Rivers (Alizadeh 1992: 93-95; 100-105, fig.36. V; fig.37. K; fig.38.I).
It is well known that a considerable amount of later cultural remains as well as sediments cover earlier prehistoric settlements in the alluvial plains such as Khuzestan. Hence naturally early small and low occupations are buried and invisible, which makes their recognition a challenging task for archaeologists. Based on geomorphic studies conducted in the Khuzestan plain, it is clear that the sedimentation regimes were not uniform in all areas at the Upper Khuzestan plain. The Ojirub River basin area in particular, where the density of prehistoric sites is higher, bears recorded traces of old alluvium while younger sediments are recorded in the surrounding areas (Map 3). 
Like Boneh Fazel Ali, rodents’ activities led the evidence of early occupations to become visible in Boneh Rahimeh (KS0040). To the southwest of the site and around rodents’ holes, a considerable number of Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period pottery was discovered (Fig. 4), while only Late Middle Susiana and Susa II pottery was visible on the surface. A bullet core – characteristic of Aceramic Neolithic in Khuzestan- was also found in the southwestern slope of the site (currently under cultivation) (Fig. 5).

Conclusion
As stated, almost all Initial Village period settlements in the Upper Khuzestan plain were discovered by chance. In addition to Chogha Mish, Boneh Fazel Ali, Chogha Bonut and Tepe Tulai/Tuleii, where archaeological excavations led to identification of Initial Village period in these sites, evidence from previous surveys and recent investigations have increased the number of Initial Village period settlements of the Upper Khuzestan plain from 5 to 11 sites.
The dynamic nature of geographical features is considered as one of the main factors in the invisibility of earlier occupations in the alluvial plain of Khuzestan. Shifts in the course of major rivers as well as their effluents have caused fluctuations in the nature and rate of sedimentation. This, in turn, has led to form different topographic features in the region. On the other hand, the environmental potential of the region has caused the growth of later occupations, which have hidden earlier phases of settlement. Hence, almost all Initial Village period occupations are buried beneath layers of sequential occupations of later periods. 
To sum up, it seems evaluating the number and character in regards early occupations in the Upper Khuzestan plain requires updated and practical field methods. If our present knowledge about the earliest phases of occupation in Khuzestan plain was so far based on accidental revealing of lower layers of settlements by bulldozers or rodents’ activities, it is now time for applying new methods such as remote sensing techniques, studying geographical landscapes and factors affecting geographical dynamics of the region as well as archaeological intensive surface surveys in order to yield impressive results about Initial Village period in the Upper Khuzestan plain.

Abstract
This paper presents a summary of a recently conducted geoarchaeological survey in the Susiana plains in southwest Iran. Here, the question of subsequent interaction of human settlements and their riverine landscape of the Greater Susiana region (roughly equivalent to modern Khuzestan) in the Later Village and the Early-historical periods (~ fifth to second millennium BCE) has been chosen as a case study. This study challenges the idea of the cultural expansion from South-Mesopotamia and its direct socio-political involvement in the spatial evolution patterns in Susiana in this timespan. It also offers an alternative interpretation: the riverine landscape and its spatial interaction with the settlement system. It has been suggested that the Later village settlements of Susiana were greatly influenced by the physical changes of the riverine landscape in their spatial development. This paper examines this hypothesis via geoarchaeological methods from the macro-level such as remote sensing to micro-level such as laboratory analysis of sediment logs to address this issue. The results of this study confirm three main points: (i) the westward migration of active watercourses in the mentioned time span; (ii) the direct correlation of this event with the spatial evolution of the studied settlements; and (iii) the overall differences between the neighboring plains of Susiana and south Mesopotamia in their geomorphological response to their fluvial evolution. 
Keywords: Geoarchaeology, Greater Susiana, Riverine Landscape, Later Village Period, Early History, Settlement Patterns.

Introduction
Geoarchaeology has established itself as a decisive means to study the human-environment-interaction in recent years. The use of geo-sciences in archaeology has revived the archaeological discourse regarding entanglement and niche construction theory, especially in the Near Eastern Archaeology. Yet, the Iranian archaeology lags behind in this matter. This paper contributes to this issue and aims to demonstrate the huge potential of geoarchaeological investigations in the Iranian archaeology.
The Susiana plains are an archaeologically rich region and suitable to examine the human-environment interaction in pre- and early history. The author has carried out a geoarchaeological survey in 2014 in this region to address this issue. The analyzed results have been published in detail (Rashidian 2020) and are briefly presented here.
Archaeological evidence of this region indicates a spatial change in the settlement patterns in the mentioned periods, including the abandonment of central settlements in the eastern plains and foundation of new settlements in the western plains (Adams 1962; Johnson 1973; Moghaddam 2012a). The common interpretation of this phenomenon related this spatial change to a socio-cultural or even political force from the South-Mesopotamian center, especially during the end of Ubaid and the beginning of the Uruk periods (Algaze 2005; 2008). This hypothesis has been discussed within the framework of the world-systems and criticized for decades, especially due to recent archaeological projects from modern Syria and neighboring regions. By integrating geoarchaeological investigations, these studies have shown that the spatial evolution of the settlements in the so-called periphery regions has been endogenic and not imported from Mesopotamia (McMahon & Crawford 2010; Ur et al. 2007). They have also offered alternative hypotheses for this phenomenon. Yet, for the Susiana region, this has remained the common hypothesis, despite occasional critic and speculation (Alizadeh et al. 2004; Moghaddam 2012a).
This has been the main focus of the present study, which examines two aspects: (i) There are strong indications of a westwards-migration of palaeo-rivers in the Mid-Holocene period, as mentioned by others (Kouchoukos 1999; Lees & Falcon 1952). (ii) In addition to a shift in watercourses and riverbed, such a fluvial change would affect the entire landscape immensely, for example, by changes in the surface slope, sediment freight, and soil characteristics. This probable landscape shift shall be comprehended in focusing on ten archaeologically known settlements (Abu Fanduweh, Abu Chizan, Band-e Qir, Chogha Mish, Dar Khazineh, Dehno, Haft Tappeh, Samirat, Sanjar, Sharafabad) in respect to the watercourses Dez, Karkheh, Karun, and their tributaries. During the here presented  geoarchaeological survey, hundreds of soil profiles, as well as fifty-one subsurface cores, have been documented in the environ of these settlements in the riverine landscape. 

Discussion
The sedimentological laboratory analysis of the documented horizons (surface and sub-surface) confirmed the large-scale migration of the rivers towards the west of the plain, which correlates with the spatial shift in the studied settlements, both in macro- and micro-level (in the region and within the settlements themselves). 
Furthermore, it was shown that not the large rivers, but the smaller rivulets had been the source of water for these settlements, despite prior speculation. Following the westwards fluvial migration, these rivulets have been cut off the hydrologic regime of the region and largely covered by recent sediments in the third and second millennium BCE. A number of them have been revived and integrated into the new canal network in the Early historical and Late Antiquity. Relative and absolute dating, based on material culture in situ and optically stimulated luminescence of sand in bulk samples respectively, have provided a dating framework for the presented geodata.
In general terms, focusing on geomorphological elements of the landscape such as slope, soil characteristics, and sedimentary regime has proved beneficial to examine the spatial evolution of prehistoric settlements. Susiana as a dynamic landscape has changed considerably in response to the fluvial regime change and extensive human impact. This has been attested in the presented geodata in this period. An intensification of the mentioned event is also confirmed for the later period, where the human impact has largely escalated due to centralized and planned developments of well established political entities From the Neo-Elamite to the Sasanian period. 

Conclusion
This study provided a range of results concerning the hypothesis and the relevant settlements. Three main points are summarized here: 
(i) The westward migration of Susiana’s active watercourses during the fifth to second millennium BCE has been confirmed using a combination of remote sensing, sedimentary analysis of cores, laboratory analysis of sediment horizons, and methods of indirect and absolute dating.  
(ii) A correlation in spatial evolution of settlement patterns with this fluvial development has been confirmed, based on available archaeological record of the ten mentioned settlements. This spatial correlation is attested both in macro- and micro-level. In this regard, a general tendency of settlements towards the western parts of the plain can be confirmed for this timespan. Furthermore, this has been attested in the spatial evolution within the settlements and it seems that some were following their migrating watercourses, and others have been abandoned entirely.
(iii) The results of this analysis also show the stark difference between the flat landscape of South-Mesopotamia with its large riverbeds as primary geo-elements in the west, and the softly sloped landscape of Susiana with its numerous rivulets and narrow floodplains surrounded by ridges and anticlines in the east. It is safe to assume that these starkly different landscapes have brought about equally different settlement patterns. Therefore, the settlement evolution of Susiana must be considered endogenic and studied in the framework of its landscape.
A detailed account of the presented study has been recently published (Rashidian 2020). A few case studies are also subject of English papers (Rashidian 2017; 2018; in press). The author hopes that this summary in Persian can contribute to the present discourse and encourage active members of the Iranian Archaeology to integrate geoarchaeological investigations into their projects. This is the only way towards further establishing an internationally acclaimed place for the Iranian archaeology.