Abstract
The northeast Iran has been the context of some of the most important events of the Parthian Period, in a way that one can restrict the geography of the Parthians to Pathawa and Hyrcania until before gradual expansion of the territory during Mehrdad the First (138-171 BC).One of the least-known aspects of the Parthian in the northeast region is the potteries assemblages. Pottery is the most abundant of the archaeological finds and is the most important one to understand the cultural specifics of the historical periods. The Parthian pottery is not the same throughout the whole empire and it can be grouped into several categories based on geographic regions. The pottery assemblage under study in this paper, collected from two seasons of excavations at ShahrTappeh in Dargaz, represents part of the Parthian pottery corpus of the northeast region. In current research, the pottery aasemblage of ShahrTappeh has been studied from the typological perspective and it has been tried to put forward specifics of the pottery of Parthian period of the northeast region by comparative studies of the similar assemblages.The most frequent forms amongst the pottery assemblage of ShahrTappeh are jar, pithos, handled jar, pot, caldron, trough, bowl and cup. These forms, which are seen from the early to late phase of the Parthian period, are comparable with specimens from Marv, Nisa, Qumes, Chasada, Shamshir Ghar, Ai Khanom, HasaniMahale, Tol Espid, Tappeh Yahya, Bardsir cemetery, Gowri Kohneh, Nadali, south of Baluchestan, Khorheh, Sang-e Shir cemetery, QalehEzhdahak and Bisotun. In addition, finding of some kiln waste in the second season of excavation at ShahrTappeh suggest that this site was a center for pottery production in the northeast during the Parthian period. Lack of glazed ware, rarity of the painted ware and the prevalence of the plain ware are the most characteristics of the ShahrTappeh pottery assemblage. The latter was used as common ordinary ware during the Parthian period and based on comparative studies they were parts of the pottery tradition of the Parthians. 
Keywords: The Northeast Region of Iran, Dargaz, ShahrTappeh, Pottery, Parthian Period.

Introduction
The site of ShahrTappeh is located near the town of Chapeshlow in the northeast Iran. From several aspects this site has important in archaeology of the Parthian Period: with more than 70 ha, the site of ShahrTappeh is one of the largest sites of this period in the northeast Iran; 2. The site is just 100 km, as crow flies, from the first capital of the Parthians; 3. Archaeological data, including fortifications, acropolis, sharestan (lower town), industrial quarter and cultural materials recovered from the excavations comparable with those from Nisa, suggest that the site was a city in the Parthian period; 4. Based on materials recovered from the surface and excavations, ShahrTappeh was a single-period site of the Parthian period in the northeast region. These items suggest that ShahrTappeh was one of the most important Parthian centers of the northeast region. Regarding the importance of the site of ShahrTappeh in the northeast region we try in this paper to discuss the main pottery characteristics of the site to some extent. In this line, first we have studied the pottery forms of the site and then we have chosen 89 sherd fragments and whole vessels for in-depth studies. We have tried to choose the pottery sample so that it is the representative of the whole assemblage. In the following the pottery assemblage has been divided into two classes: open forms and closed forms, and then each class has been discussed. Finally, we tried to discuss, in a separate part, the common features of the Parthian pottery of the region from this study and at the end we propose a pattern for identification and characterization of the Parthian pottery in the northeast region. 

Typology and General Characteristics of the Study Sample
From the pottery collection recovered from two seasons of excavations at ShahrTappeh, 89 pottery fragments and whole vessels were chosen for study here. At the first stage, these potteries are divided into two classes: open forms and closed forms. The closed forms of the ShahrTappeh assemblage include necked jars and simple jars, pithoi, stoups, caldrons, troughs, a vessel type known as Misagh and base fragments of the vessels. The open forms include bowls and cups. Without considering the various types of forms, the ware has some general characteristics. The pottery collection under study is all plain. No glazed ware is found in ShahrTappeh yet. Some of the sherds have incised, applique or burnished decorations. The sherds usually have mean thickness, but both thick and thin variants are also seen. The color paste covers a spectrum: buff, light orange, orange, red and gray. The color of slip ranges from buff, light buff, dark buff, greenish buff, orange buff, reddish buff, buff orange, light orange, dark orange, reddish orange, red, greenish red, buff brown, gray to greenish gray. All samples are wheel made and the temper agent used is mineral, including sand, silt and white particles. The kiln temperature was enough and all sherds were exposed to proper heat. 

Conclusion
With more than 70 ha in area, ShahrTappeh is one the largest Parthian sites of the northeast region. The important point about this site is that it is a single-period site and discussing about its finds can be pursued from this perspective. One of the most important finds of ShahrTappeh is pottery. Except typological and technical grounds, the Parthian potteries of ShahrTappeh can be assessed from the viewpoints of chronology, comparable specimens, imported potteries and local production. The potteries assemblage of ShahrTappeh is datable to the early to late Parthian period. This conclusion is based on comparative grounds. On this basis, the ShahrTappeh specimens are comparable with those of eastern Parthian Empire. The early Parthian potteries of the site are comparable with those of Nisa, Marv and Qumes. Some of the specimens are comparable with pottery from Charseda, Shamshir Ghar and Ai Khanomwhich are categorized in the Seleucid-Parthian context. Although the site established in the early Parthian period, it lasted to the end of the era. Among the potteries assemblage of ShahrTappeh there are specimens that are comparable with those from Tol Spid, Tappeh Yahya, Bardsir cemetery, Gowri Kohneh, Nadali, south of Baluchestan, Khorheh, Sang-e Shir cemetery, QalehEzhdahak and Bisotun. The pottery types of ShahrTappeh can be assessed from the import and local production viewpoints. Amongst the potteries of ShahrTappeh a burnished vessel dated to the 1st to 3rd centuries AD has been found. Existence of this specimen indicates the importation of such vessels from the southeast region to the northeast region including ShahrTappeh. On the other hand, discovery of large amounts of kiln waste suggest that the site was a manufacturing center for pottery vessels. It should be noted that as no deformed specimens were found, we cannot make comments about the local variants. In general, potteries of ShahrTappeh which are comparable with assemblages from the eastern Iran can be dated from the early to the late Parthian period. These pottery types that in which imported specimens and local production can be seen, are representatives of some of the Parthian pottery types of the northeast region. 

Abstract
One of the burial methods in the Zoroastrian religion is the Xwaršēd Nigerišnand the placement of the corpse in the towers of silence. With reference to the classical sources and archeological findings, this burial tradition has been reported in the Zoroastrian religion from the beginning of the historical period until today. So far, few studies have been carried out on the tower of silence of Ray. These studies often focus on description of the site and its architectural features. It is not possible to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of this architectural structure and the construction history of the site by solely relying on these studies. This research tries to evaluate the evolution of the architecture of the tower of silence of Ray from the early to the late Islamic centuries. In addition, it seeks to obtain evidence regarding the relative construction dating of the site. As a result, this research tries to answer two questions: 1) how was the original architectural structure of the tower of silence of Ray and what architectural developments have taken place in it? 2) With reference to the literary sources and comparative studies, when was the tower of silence of Ray constructed? In order to find answers to the aforementioned questions, a descriptive-analytical method has been used. The library method, alongside with field and comparative studies were the most important information gathering means for this investigation. The results of this study indicates that the tower of silence of Ray belongs to the Early Islamic period and continued to be used up to the Late Islamic era. Furthermore, the comparative study of the architectural structure of the site, while confirming the proposed dating, places the tower of silence of Ray alongside with the tower of silence of the Yazd Mountain and the ancient Dakhma of Kerman in a particular generation of towers of silence. A generation that continued the tradition of the Pre-Islamic era towers of silence and represented the towers of silence of the early Islamic centuries.
Keywords: Tower of Silence, Ray, Early Islamic Centuries, Late Islamic Centuries, Architectural Structure.

Introduction
One of the oldest burial traditions in the ancient world is the XwaršēdNigerišn or the exposure of a corpse to open air. This burial tradition has been reported from the Epipaleolithic (McAuley, 2013: 8) and Neolithic periods (Hole & Flannery, 1963: 245-246; Lambert, 1980: 6) to the present day (Geiger, 1885: 88). There is still no accurate information regarding the entry of this burial tradition into Zoroastrianism and the quality of its spread in ancient Iran. Literary sources and archaeological data provide scattered information about this burial tradition in the Achaemenid (550-330 B.C.), Parthian (247-224 A.D.) and Sasanian (224-651 A.D.) periods. Herodotus mentions the prevalence of XwaršēdNigerišn among the Magians (Herodotus, Histories: I: 140; Godley, 1920: 179) and Strabo considers it a common tradition in the eastern regions of Iran during the Parthian period (Strabo, Geography: XXI. 3. 15; Sanatizadeh, 2003: 327).Although the XwaršēdNigerišn was mostly carried out in the mountains, without involving or creating architectural constructions, in some cases this tradition was performed in circular and enclosed spaces known as the towers of silence. The tower of silence of Chil’pyk in Khwarezm dates back to the 2nd - 4th centuries A.D. (Abdullaev, 2014: 309) and while confirming Strabo’s claim, represents the oldest instance of a Zoroastrian tower of silence in the eastern domains of the Parthian Empire. At the same time, the performance of XwaršēdNigerišn in the theater of Ai Khanom, after the departure of the Greeks, is another evidence of Dakhma burial in the Eastern Parthian lands (Frye, 1984: 190). So far, only the roofed tower of silence of Bandian has been reported from the Sasanian period (Rahbar, 2007: 455-473).This burial tradition later emerged in the Islamic period and became the most common burial method among Zoroastrian minorities.
An instance of Zoroastrian tower of silence burials can be seen at the slopes of Mount Tabarak in the city of Ray. On the one hand, this tower of silence follows the tradition of the tower of silence of Chil’pyk(Abdullaev, 2014: 309), and on the other, it is a reminiscent of the Dakhma of Yazd Mountain and the ancient Dakhma of Kerman(Huff, 2004:620-623). The lack of entrance space and the use of grave-like pāvis for the Xwaršēd Nigerišnare the architectural features of this burial structure that cannot be perceived in similar cases. The reports of the European travelers of the Qajar period (D’Allemagne, 1956: 803; Dieulafoy, 1992: 146-148; Orsolle, 2003: 303;Feuvrier, 2006: 190; Williams Jackson, 2008: 495), along with the monograph of Wolfram Kleiss (Kleiss, 1987: 369-382), and the brief description of GhadirAfround and KhosroPourbakhshandeh who surveyed the city of Ray (Afround&Pourbakhshandeh, 2002: 62), constitute the bulk of available information regarding the tower of silence in Ray. In this research, in the first place, an attempt has been made to identify the architectural structure of the tower of silence in Ray. In the next step, the architectural developments of the tower of silence will be evaluated, and finally, some hypothetical assumptions regarding the construction date of the site will be presented. In order to achieve the aforementioned goals, the study of literary sources and a comparative study of the tower of silence of Ray with similar structures is the approach of the present research.

Description of the site
The tower of silence of Ray is an isolated structure and does not have any extensions. It is situated on the northern slope of Bibi Shahrbanu Mountain, overlooking the seventh unit of Tehran Cement Factory in Ray County, at 39.217 ′51 ′ longitude and 15.388 ′36 ′ latitude and an elevation of 1203 meters above sea level. This burial structure is built with stone rubble and plaster mortar and has a diameter of 1780 cm, a height of 450 cm, and an average thickness of 100 cm (Figs. 1-2).

Evaluation
The evolution of the architectural structure and the dating of the site are the two research problems of the tower of silence in Ray.Abu Dulaf al-Khazraji’s reference and Nizam al-Mulk’s explanation are indicative of a Zoroastrian burial structure at the slopes of Tabarak Mountain in Ray. Probably, its positioning on the other side of Mount Tabarak and behind the city of Ray was due to the burial nature of the site and the performance of Xwaršēd Nigerišn in the open air. In addition, it can be assumed that the presence of Bibi Shahrbanu Shrine near Mount Tabarak was influential in the construction of the tower of silence on northern slope of the mountain. At any rate, although the word “sotōdān” had evolved from “astōdān” (i.e. bone-container), Nizam al-Mulk’s explanation is reminiscent of an architectural structure. The “sotōdān” of the Siyāsatnāmeh (i.e. Book of Politics) is mentioned in the same section where the tower of silence in Ray is located. At least until the Qajar era, this “sotōdān” was without an entrance door, and one had to use a ladder in order to get inside. The double-layers of the“sotōdān”may also indicate that the tower of silence was double-surfaced. These statements are repeated several centuries later in the reports of European travelers. The use of pāvi-like graves for the Xwaršēd Nigerišn, the absence of a central a stōdān and the deposition of bones in the corner of thetower of silence are other information that European travelers of the Qajar period have provided. Despite the emphasis on the lack of an entrance until the Qajar period, in the aerial photograph from 1335 (and onwards) and Kleiss’s visit in 1985, the tower of silence can be seen with one or two entrance doors. In addition, a podium has been built next to the site, which was probably created after its abandonment. During the surveys, no bones were found in the pit at the center of the tower of silence. This pit was made by unauthorized excavators, probably dug in the contemporary period. A comparative study of the tower of silence of Ray with other towers of silence of Iran indicates that the Ray’s example is comparable with the silent tower of the Yazd Mountain and the ancient Dakhma of Kerman from the following points of view: 1) the existence of an enclosure wall, 2) the lack of a central a stōdān, 3) the place where bones are collected in the corner of thetower of silence, and 4) the lack of extensions. At the same time, the absence of a roof, astōdān rooms, and central a stōdān shows that the main structure of the tower of silence in Ray should not have been built after the Seljuk period. The existence of the enclosure wall also implicitly testifies to the Islamic nature of the tower of silence. With reference to Abu Dulaf’smention and Nizam al-Mulk’s report, it can even be assumed that the tower of silencein Ray belongs to the Buyid period. Thanks to the works of Islamic era authors, there are available reports on the freedom of religious minorities, the tendency of the power holders to pre-Islamic cultural traditions, and the relative power of the Zoroastrian minority during the Buyid period.

Conclusion
One of the burial traditions in the ancient world was the exposure of a corpse to open air. This burial custom later entered the Zoroastrian religion and became one of the common burial methods of this religion. The practice of XwaršēdNigerišn in the towers of silence is one of the examples of this burial tradition in Zoroastrianism. An instance of this burial method has been reported at the Bibi Shahrbanu Mountain in Ray. In this research, the tower of silence in Ray was examined and studied from the perspectives of date of construction and architecture. The study of historical texts and evaluation of available evidence indicates that the tower of silence in Ray was constructed during the Early Islamic centuries and continued to be used up to the Late Islamic centuries. The recurrence of the Book of Politics’ statements regarding the architecture in the reports of Qajar era travelers, while confirming the dating of the site, provides a partial understanding of the original construct of the tower of silence in Ray. The second phase of the architectural evolution of the site goes back to the Qajar period. Despite Maneckji’s residence in Tehran during the Qajar era and his influence on the architectural structure of the towers of silence in Iran, his proposed model has never been implemented in the tower of silence in Ray. The application of grave-like pāvis is one of the few changes made in the architectural structure of this tower of silence in the Qajar period. The creation of the podium and the entrance, probably during the Pahlavi period, is the last phase of architectural changes in the tower of silence in Ray. Regarding the architectural model of the tower of silence in Ray, it can be stated that it is the continuation of the tower of silence of the Yazd Mountain and the ancient Dakhma of Kerman. These burial structures, all of which probably belong to the first centuries of Islam, are limited by an enclosure wall and the XwaršēdNigerišnwas performed inside its natural space. The absence of a central astōdān and the place where bones are collected in the corner of the tower of silence are the other common features of these burial tradition in the first centuries of Islam in Iran. Although the architectural structure of the towers silence changed as a result of socio-religious developments of Zoroastrianism in later periods, the Ray’s example continued to exist without being influenced by newer generations. As a result, based on the architectural and literary sources studies, the tower of silence in Ray shows the continuation of the tradition of the tower of silence of the Yazd Mountain and the ancient Dakhma of Kerman and hence related to the early Islamic centuries in Iran. The literary sources of the early Islamic centuries, while confirming this dating, provides relative statements about the architectural structure of the tower of silence. The Buyid period, one of the golden ages in the history of Ray, as Nizam al-Mulk has pointed out, can be considered as a hypothetical assumption for the construction of this Zoroastrian burial structure. A period in which, thanks to the literary sources of the Islamic period, there is information, albeit scant, regarding the position of this religious minority in its sociopolitical affairs.