Starting in 1968, the first team of Iranian archaeologists, directed by Kambakhshfard, began their preliminary assessment of a site that was presumed to be the location of an Ancient Temple, marked by remains of some scattered pieces of stone carvings and broken column capitals.

The challenge was to uncover an ancient structure that was virtually buried beneath some 200 houses and shops that were owned by the village residents.

Over the course of nine year, the entire overburden infrastructure was acquired, demolished and removed while the site undergone various phases of excavation.
The team initially unearthed a Parthian Empire burial ground outside the walls of the building; fragments of Parthian, Sassanian, Islamic Pottery;a Mosque dating back to Mughul Ilkhanate Period (1256–1351);and a Shrine from the reign of Safavid dynasty (1501–1722).

Kambakhshfard wrote in his book "I excavated the site over ten seasons of six month each, and three seasons of reconstruction and restoration and managed to unearth and expose whatever that could be seen or touched of the ruins of Anahita Temple".
He worked relentlessly until 1975 and published more than 20 articles and reports in various Journals.
He also published a book called "The Anahita Temple Kangavar, Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: The reconstruction and Architectural Restoration of the Nahid Temple and Taq-e Gera", in 1995, and in 2007 in two volumes which remain invaluable sources for almost any articles that has been published about the subject ever since.

In 1989 and 1994 the discoveries of two column bases on top of the platform pointed the Achaemenid period as the date of the construction.
Based on Archaeological findings and thermoluminescence dating tests, the Temple of Anahita is associated with the Achaemenid, the Parthia, the Seleucid, the Sassanid, and the Islamic and even with the Medes periods.
In Kangavar, aside from two arch bases, similar to one in Taq-e Gara, dating around  first century AD which would normally be applicable in the construction of caravan towers at the silk road, no other arch type elements were discovered.
The structure is formed with vertical walls, flat roofs, and a blend of classical Greek and Persian architecture and perhaps served colonies along the Silk Road.

The site was further excavated by other archaeologists over a few short seasons, but it has been inactive since late 1980s.
In 1981, an Archaeologist published an article called “The Excavation at Kangavar”, in the AMI journal  and flagged the validity of so-called “Temple of Anahita” and proposed a “Castle” attributed to Khosro II Sassanid, instead.
 He argued that the idea of the “Temple of Anahita” was based on misinterpretation of a comment by the historian Isidore of Charax, in reference to the “Temple of Artemis”.
He compared the temple with the Taq-e Gara whose identity was still in doubts and associated the two with the Sassanid empire on account of the similarities of their column bases.
The article initially gained attention of the scholars, but it remained as a “Pure Theory” in a long run, as it was generally based on oral history and rationalization, rather than scientific measures.
The Iranian National Heritage still refers to the place as “Temple of Anahita” in all its publications.
  
The site, however is awaiting receipt of priority by Cultural Heritage Authorities to be considered on the UNESCO's World Heritage List.
Starting in 1968, the first team of Iranian archaeologists, directed by Kambakhshfard, began their preliminary assessment of a site that was presumed to be the location of an Ancient Temple, marked by remains of some scattered pieces of stone carvings and broken column capitals.
The challenge was to uncover an ancient structure that was virtually buried beneath some 200 houses and shops that were owned by the village residents. 
Over the course of nine year, the entire overburden infrastructure was acquired, demolished and removed while the site undergone various phases of excavation. The team initially unearthed a Parthian Empire burial ground outside the walls of the building; fragments of Parthian, Sassanian, Islamic Pottery;a Mosque dating back to Mughul Ilkhanate Period (1256–1351);and a Shrine from the reign of Safavid dynasty (1501–1722).
Kambakhshfard wrote in his book "I excavated the site over ten seasons of six month each, and three seasons of reconstruction and restoration and managed to unearth and expose whatever that could be seen or touched of the ruins of Anahita Temple". He worked relentlessly until 1975 and published more than 20 articles and reports in various Journals. He also published a book called "The Anahita Temple Kangavar, Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: The reconstruction and Architectural Restoration of the Nahid Temple and Taq-e Gera", in 1995, and in 2007 in two volumes which remain invaluable sources for almost any articles that has been published about the subject ever since. 
In 1989 and 1994 the discoveries of two column bases on top of the platform pointed the Achaemenid period as the date of the construction. Based on Archaeological findings and thermoluminescence dating tests, the Temple of Anahita is associated with the Achaemenid, the Parthia, the Seleucid, the Sassanid, and the Islamic and even with the Medes periods. In Kangavar, aside from two arch bases, similar to one in Taq-e Gara, dating around  first century AD which would normally be applicable in the construction of caravan towers at the silk road, no other arch type elements were discovered. The structure is formed with vertical walls, flat roofs, and a blend of classical Greek and Persian architecture and perhaps served colonies along the Silk Road.
The site was further excavated by other archaeologists over a few short seasons, but it has been inactive since late 1980s. In 1981, an Archaeologist published an article called “The Excavation at Kangavar”, in the AMI journal  and flagged the validity of so-called “Temple of Anahita” and proposed a “Castle” attributed to Khosro II Sassanid, instead.  He argued that the idea of the “Temple of Anahita” was based on misinterpretation of a comment by the historian Isidore of Charax, in reference to the “Temple of Artemis”. He compared the temple with the Taq-e Gara whose identity was still in doubts and associated the two with the Sassanid empire on account of the similarities of their column bases. The article initially gained attention of the scholars, but it remained as a “Pure Theory” in a long run, as it was generally based on oral history and rationalization, rather than scientific measures. The Iranian National Heritage still refers to the place as “Temple of Anahita” in all its publications.   
The site, however is awaiting receipt of priority by Cultural Heritage Authorities to be considered on the UNESCO's World Heritage List.
Seifollah Kambakhshfard