Abstract
The tombs or funerary monuments are one of the most important elements of Iranian-Islamic architecture that in different fields require careful investigation. This group of buildings is important among Iranians; for this reason, in each period of the Islamic era of Iran the most important and most used arts related to that period have been used in their construction. Generally, the decoration in buildings has a more effective role, because, if it is understandable in terms of form and structure for archaeologists and designers, it’s possible this isn’t understandable for the general public. So, decorations in the buildings at first sight are attracts the viewer. In this article epigraphy art as one of the most important decorative elements of Islamic buildings have been reviewed in the four Seljuk tombs of Northwest of Iran: Gonbad Sorkh, Borj Modavar in Maragheh, Seh Gonbad, and Gonbad Kabood. The research method in this study is interpretive – historical. In this study with analytical method have been studied decorations of these four tombs (especially in terms of architecture, motifs, inscriptions and their position on the buildings). Also, in addition to reviewing the articles, books, and evidences, with field survey from these tombs, plan and decorations, and then a comparison table of inscriptions has been provided. In this regard, the following questions are raised:
- How is architecture, motifs and decorations of the Seljuk tombs in northwest Iran? And, their inscriptions are divided into several categories in terms of content?
- What are the effects of concepts of the inscriptions on position them on the buildings?
Reviews show that inscriptions of Seljuk tombs in the Northwest are divided into four groups: The Quranic verses, inscription with the theme of the date of construction, inscription with the topic of prayer, and inscription with the theme of the architect and the builder. On the other hand, position these inscriptions in the buildings have been differed proportional in their content. Inscriptions of the Quranic verses in the highest section of building, inscription with topic of prayer in the lower, inscription with the theme of date of construction and architect and builder are placed on the lower levels and on the body of building.
Keywords: Islamic architecture, Seljuk tombs, Northwest of Iran, decorations, inscription.

Introduction
Generally, one way of cognition more about periods of Islamic architecture besides of decorative elements and motifs, is study of inscriptions and their texts. In the Seljuk period, one of their architectural features, are create inscriptions and decorative lines from shaved bricks, that in most of buildings this period (especially tombs) is seen. Furthermore, due to the difficulty of shaving the bricks and the formation of letters and words with it, during this period, the Naskh script was replaced by the Kofi script and inscription with style of stucco was used (Hatam, 1999: 162).
In this article, in addition to reviewing the historical background and the process of build tombs in the Seljuk period to study and compare four tombs in the Seljuk period in Northwest of Iran, first have been introduce architectural features and decorative motifs them. Then, in comparative tables have been specified types of inscriptions and their position on the tombs. In this regard, following questions are raised: How are architecture, motifs and decorations of the Seljuk tombs in northwest Iran? And, their inscriptions are divided into several categories in terms of content? And, what are the effects of concepts of the inscriptions on position them on the buildings?
This study shows, inscriptions of Seljuk tombs in the Northwest are divided into four groups: The Quranic verses, inscription with the theme of the date of construction, inscription with the topic of prayer, and inscription with the theme of the architect and the builder. On the other hand, position these inscriptions in the buildings have been differed proportional in their content. Inscriptions of the Quranic verses in the highest section of building, inscription with topic of prayer in the lower, inscription with the theme of date of construction and architect and builder are placed on the lower levels and on the body of building.

Buildings under study
Gonbad Sorkh: The Gonbad Sorkh is oldest tomb in the Maragheh that is located in the southern part of the city and west side of Hashtrod road. Generally, in the Gonbad Sorkhon and in different parts and also on all sides this tomb is inscription.
Borj Modavar: The Borj Modavar is second tomb built after the Gonbad Sorkh and inside the city of Maragheh. This tomb now is located in Khaje Nasir Street and behind the building of Bank Melli. The Borj Modavar has two inscriptions that both of them are located in the main direction of the building and facing the North. 
Seh Gonbad: The Seh Gonbad is third tomb that was built in the Seljuk period in Azerbaijan. This tomb is located in the southeastern of Urmia city. The three inscriptions with Kofi script and geometric motifs at the facades of this tomb have created beautiful view.
Gonbad Kabood: The Gonbad Kabood after the Gonbad Sorkh and the Borj Modavar is third of building that has been made in the Maragheh city. In this building 5 inscriptions are visible.

Conclusion
It’s certain, in Seljuk period and in the method architects and artists of this period, concepts of inscriptions have played an important role in location of inscriptions. According to this, inscriptions of Quranic verses and inscriptions of mystical concepts and prayers have usually been located at higher levels. Other inscriptions (such as inscriptions with historical or political themes) have usually been located in lower levels. The location of inscriptions in buildings from the down to up in four sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the table below is shown.

Abstract
Interventions related to the use of historic buildings, in addition of rehabilitation, are known in other different terms including revitalization, empowerment, adaptive reuse, etc. However, so far, ther is no research has been done on these terms of interventions by Iranian academics, and this multiplicity of intervention terms and, at the same time, lack of clarity in the concepts, differences between them and their international equivalent terms, has caused confusion among the researchers. The purpose of this paper is to analyze these concepts and other concepts related to reuse historic assets and to determine their relation to each other. In this regard, while studying prerequisites and requirements of functional interventions, different approaches to the subject at the international and national levels are surveyed and the different types of functional interventions in these buildings are analyzed and compared. In order to do the abovementioned, the analytical-descriptive method was used in the first part. In the next section of the article, a comparative study based on logical reasoning has been used to examine the relationship between different reuse interventions. From the findings of this study, it can be noted that the major differences between the various terms in the scope of reuse interventions are due to two major issues of “different word formation in translation” and “belonging to different time and place coordinates”, while they have common underlying concepts and all emphasize on the “role of existence a use in a building in its sustainable conservation”, “the necessity of adapting new uses with cultural significance, values and authenticity of the historic monuments” and “adequately meet to the needs of contemporary life in these buildings.
Keywords: Compatible, Resuscitation, Rehabilitation, Empowerment, Compatible Reuse.

Introduction
So far, few studies have been done on this topic in domestic research in Iran, so that there is no consensus in many of issues in this field especially on terms. Thus, we certainly need to do extensive and in-depth research in this regard, but its prerequisite is to study on the basic concepts of the subject; Knowing that what issues have been considered in the interventions in international literature?
The main purpose of this article is to explain the concepts of this field, in this regard, addressing the reasons and requirements of functional interventions by looking at international documents and charters is on the agenda; Then the different approaches in this field in international and domestic literature are explained and finally the main field of the article is to identify the types of functional interventions through comparative comparison.
Addressing this issue, in addition to the fact that the existence of function in a building ensures the survival and conservation of the building, is also important in terms of sustainable development and environmental issues. Also, considering that while functional interventions can provide protection for the historic building, it may also cause irreversible damage to them, it is vital to determine the necessities and sensitivities for the conservation of historic buildings in this process.
The present article specifically seeks to answer the questions about concepts of different types of functional interventions, their relationship between each other and their different uses. Also, it is going to clarify what is the relationship between the domestic terms of interventions and their international equivalents?
The present article is a basic research that seeks to expand the knowledge on the subject of “rehabilitation” by explaining and analyzing some of the concepts, resulting from library studies. In this regard, first the different aspects of functional interventions have been explained by “analytical-descriptive” method and then by using “comparative comparison” method, the different types of domestic and international definitions provided for functional interventions have been defined and compared.

Conclusion
The following results are obtained from reviewing and comparing the definitions provided for functional interventions and based on studies:
Despite the fact that in most translated literature, the term “Rehabilitation” is equated with “Tavanbakhshi” or “tavanmandsazi”, but considering the common use of the word “Ehya” in Iranian academic and professional circles for this type of intervention, it should be accepted that the term “Ehya” is the proper translation for this kind of intervention; but it seems that because “Ehya” has been used for the urban intervention of “revitalization” at the same time in many academic papers, it made some scholars to find out a new equivalent for the “rehabilitation”. Overall, it can be said that although in recent years translating the term “rehabilitation” into different equivalents has caused confusion and has produced different literature; but comparing the definitions reveals that all these terms are different equivalents for the term “rehabilitation”.
Regarding the relationship of “rehabilitation” and “adaptive reuse”, some such as “Deathridge” (2012: 5) argue that in “adaptive reuse” the use of the buildings definitely change to new uses, while a “building may be rehabilitated to its former purpose or adapted to a new use”, therefore “all adaptive reuse is rehabilitation, but not all rehabilitation is adaptive reuse.” However, not all researchers believe this, and a comparison of the definitions provided for these terms, which despite all their differences, all have the same concepts which emphasizes “adaptation of buildings to appropriate and compatible use”, shows that these measures are no different but they simply belong to different times and places.
Regarding other relevant interventions, it can be said that changing the term does not necessarily change the action; as “Douglas” (2006: 1) believed “There are many other different terms that are used to describe interventions to a building that go beyond maintenance. Words such as ‘refurbishment’ or ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘renovation’ or ‘restoration’ are occasionally taken as being synonymous with one another, even by some in the construction industry.” Also in this case “Markus” (1979) noted that “in the world of building the terms “rehabilitation”, “conversion”, “remodelling”, “restoration”, “reinstatement” and so forth are unhappily confused.” (ibid) In addition, Wilkinson (2014: 4) confirms this claim and adds terms such as ‘retrofitting’, ‘modernisation’, ‘re-lifing’, and ‘recycling’ to the abovementioned.
Some of these words in different places are considered equivalent to a specific concept due to their common use; “Refurbishment”, for example, has gained widespread use in the UK as the most popular term to describe a wide range of adaptation work; however in the USA “Remodelling” is commonly employed as an all-encompassing expression for these works. Also “occasionally some ‘building adaptation’ terms are used together. Certain construction companies, for example, advertise their services as ‘specializing in renovating and refurbishing old homes’. Other contractors use the expression ‘extensions and renovations’.” (Douglas, 2006: 1-2).
Overall, as mentioned, there is several terms for functional interventions in historic assets in Iran, which although the multiplicity of these terms has confused researchers, but further study of their meanings shows that the focus of all these measures is on adapting the buildings to the appropriate and compatible use regarding to cultural significance, authenticity and values of the building; and the formation of different terms has been more due to the two issues of “different word choice in translation” and “belonging to different spatial and temporal situations”. In this regard, it can be said that in domestic literature in Iran, “Ehya”, which is equivalent to “Rehabilitation”, is the main keyword on which the specialized literature is based, but “adaptive reuse” is also a newer term which originates from the USA and Canada and gradually has spread around the world and today is one of the main keywords in this field. “Adaptation” is also a term which includes all interventions related to the functional interventions of historic buildings. In general, it seems that the agreement of the scientific and executive community of the country on the term “Ehya” and the formation of institutions and documents on the basis of this term, requires that focusing on this concept, handle the disagreements to be able to expand its aspects and essentials in the future researches.

Abstract
Qal’eh Dokhtar, as one of the important historical sites on the eastern outskirts of Kerman, has been described in historical texts with different names such as Qal’eh Kooh and Qal’eh Kohan, as a place of political and social events. One of the important features of this castle is its special location in Kerman plain, as well as the extent of its architectural structures and type of materials. The purpose of this study is to analyze the nature, function, and chronology of Qal’eh Dokhtar. This study was done based on the results of an archaeological survey, sounding, and archaeological excavation in 2019 in this site. This study can explain the role and position of Qal’eh Dokhtar in the social and political developments of Kerman during the Islamic era. Data collection was done by documentary and field methods and the research method is descriptive-analytical. The questions are: When were the foundations and renovations of Qal’eh Dokhtar made and what were the functions of this complex? For this purpose, the data of previous archaeological research and recent field activities of the authors were studied and reviewed, and while studying the historical geography of the region, a correct idea of the nature, formation, and function of this building in relation to cultural developments, Political and social of this area in the different period were presented. The study of cultural materials along with the study of historical sources shows that this site is probably almost continuously inhabited from the pre-Islamic period and certainly from the first centuries of Islam to the tenth century AH. The results show that this structure has played a decisive role in the political and social developments in the region. It seems that Qal’eh Dokhtar was probably constructed and reconstructed from the pre-Islamic period and certainly from the first centuries of Islam to the Safavid era for establishing a military and defense base, as a place to hold political prisoners, a treasury, a safe haven for sit-ins and the rulers and their families.
Keywords: Qal’eh Dokhtar in Kerman, Qal’eh Kooh, Qal’eh Kohan, Historical Castles, Islamic Architecture.

Introduction
Based on historical evidence, Kerman city was founded due to an economic-military necessity. The necessity that required the important branch of the Khorasan arterial road, that is, the spice route of India and the coasts of the Oman Sea, passes through the deserts of Kerman and Baluchistan and connects to the Khorasan arterial road. The Kerman region was located in the center of the intersection of the mentioned roads (Zarei and Heydari, 2013: 202). Because of this special situation, Kerman was also subject to internal and external attacks since historical times (Bastani Parizi, 2016: 40). Therefore, large castles were built for military and defensive purposes to prevent damage and protect lives and property from enemy attacks. Qal’eh Dokhtar is one of the important castles that was founded in response to such needs. In its ups and downs history, this castle has been one of the most famous and eventful castles, especially during the Islamic era, compared to other historical castles in the southeast. Based on the historical sources, political events in the history of Kerman in different periods are connected with this castle (see: Afzal al-Din Kermani, 2016: 124; Vaziri, 2016: 102; Monshi Kermani, 2018: 62; Sykes, 2016: 80).
Despite this, none of the above studies gives a detailed understanding of the nature, function, and chronology of this monument in connection with the social and political developments of Kerman. Historical sources also show a number of contradictions about the date of construction and function of Qal’eh Dokhtar. Most of these contradictions have been caused by the lack of detailed and comprehensive investigation or the ignorance of historians. Considering that the previous researches related to Qal’eh Dokhtar were only descriptive, the importance of the research is that it studied the nature and use of this castle with an analytical approach.
Materials and Method: In this research, by studying historical texts and architectural structures and cultural data (including the remains of pottery from the archaeological excavation and survey in Qal’eh Dokhtar), an attempt was made to create a clear understanding of the history of construction, the process, and stages of renovations, its functions based on the developments. Data collection in this research has been done by field and documentary methods. Based on this, the study and analysis of the findings of the authors’ excavation and survey in Qal’eh Dokhtar has been done to explain the construction chronology, the process and stages of renovations, and the functions of the castle. Also, the historical texts related to this work have been analyzed in the “content analysis” method, and by matching the data from these documents with the archaeological findings, new analyzes have been tried to be presented about this work.

Data
Qal’eh Dokhtar is built on a high rock overlooking the landscape of Kerman plain. This high rock is stretched lengthwise from east to west and its length is more than 720 meters. The architecture of Qal’eh Dokhtar follows the topography of this rock. Some of the architectural spaces of Qal’eh Dokhtar were formed on large stone slabs, and in some others, space was provided for construction by carving the mountain rocks, and buildings were formed with mud-brick, crushed stone, Sarooj, plaster, and lime. In the eastern part of the complex, architectural evidence of two and three stories has been left. In the northernmost part of the middle section, the architectural structures of this section were probably the ruling buildings. In the northwest of the middle part of Qal’eh Dokhtar, there is a wide and half-ruined gate, a small pedestrian gate, and a high and solid tower. In the south of the middle part of Qal’eh Dokhtar, there are remains of a brick water basin.

Discussion
Analyzing the content of historical sources provides information about the functions of Qal’eh Dokhtar during the Islamic era. For example, the first function of Qal’eh Dokhtar as a “place for opponents of the government” can be mentioned (Monshi Kermani, 1328: 23; Hafez Abro, 1375: 53-52). The second function of Qal’eh Dokhtar was based on the analysis of the content of historical texts, “a place to store government treasures” (Katabi, 1985: 100; Hafez Abro, 1996: 157). The third function of Qal’eh Dokhtar can also be considered as “the residence of rulers and their families” in some periods (Afzal al-Din Kermani, 1977: 124). The last function of Qal’eh Dokhtar can be seen as a shelter for besiegers (Khabisi, 1994: 187). In addition to these, we can also mention the role of Qal’eh Dokhtar in keeping political prisoners, which is hidden in historical sources (Monshi Kermani, 1949: 15; Hafez Abro, 1996: 20). Based on this, Qal’eh Dokhtar has had different functions in different eras and as a part of the spatial organization of Kerman city, it has played a special role in the political and social developments of this city in the Islamic era.

Conclusion
Qal’eh Dokhtar in the east of Kerman city was one of the important castles that was founded in the pre-Islamic and early Islamic period due to the need to deal with the threat of invading tribes on the south and southeast highway of the country, and it became the throne of the rulers of Kerman in different periods. For two reasons, Qal’eh Dokhtar played a role as a military and defense structure along with other castles in Kerman in providing security to the east of Kerman and the highways of the region. The First reason is “its location on top of the natural elevation and dominates the Kerman plain”, and the Second is “the important position of the city of Kerman from a military point of view during the Sassanid era”. However, the analysis of the content of Islamic written sources and the study of archaeological evidence, including pottery and architectural structures, show a basic reconstruction phase in the 4th century AH, a deliberate destruction phase in the late 6th century AH, two phases of reconstruction in the early and at the end of the 7th century A.H. and a stage of reconstruction took place in the second half of the 8th century A.H. in Qal’eh Dokhtar. Along with these developments and renovations, other functions were added to the security and defense functions of Qal’eh Dokhtar. As it has functioned as a place to keep political prisoners, in other times as a place to keep government treasures, sometimes as a safe haven for the opposition and in other periods as a residence of rulers and their families.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Dr. Asadullah Jodaki Azizi for his advice.

Abstract
Archaeological excavations in Yelsuie Germi Castle, very rich findings and valuable documents such as pottery, architecture and other handicrafts were identified and excavated from under a mound of soil that can play an important role in the detailed analysis of this area. One of these landmarks is an unknown structure with complex architecture and building elements located on the hills of the castle near the Sambur Chay River. This building has sections and spaces of four corners that the presence of water conduction paths into the building on the walls and water outlet channels in the floor, has increased the importance of the building and has made it more difficult to identify and evaluate the main function of the building. In this regard, the present research is descriptive-analytical and based on field studies and review of library documents, while identifying and introducing the mentioned building, seeks to find a logical answer to the following questions: What is the usage of the unknown building of Yelsuie Castle and how did it work? What era does the unknown building of Yelsuie Castle belong to? Studies were carried out show that the unknown building is due to the presence of ponds and inlets and outlets water conduction paths was in association with water usage, which is probably used for the preparation and processing of clay, and accordingly by the authors, The name of the building is called “clay processing building”. On the other hand, the study of pottery obtained from different spaces of this building and its comparison with other areas, confirms that this building belongs to the Islamic Middle Ages and the Seljuk period.
Keywords: Germi, Yelsuie Castle, Clay Processing Building, Pottery, Medieval Islam.

Introduction
The current research method is based on a descriptive-analytical and historical approach and its data collection is in the form of library and field studies and archaeological excavations in the area. According to this, at first, the whole building and its various spaces have been drawn, designed and three-dimensional with the help of various software; Also, in order to achieve the most accurate information and general analysis of the building, the obtained pottery from inside the brick building has been compared and matched with the pottery works of other areas of the Islamic era. The ancient place of Yelsuie Castle in the Ingot section of Germi city consists of a small castle on top of a high natural hill and a residential area located in its southwestern part. Yelsuie Castle is located in the watercourse of Sambur Chay River. Easy access to river water resources as well as the precipice situation in the southern and eastern part of the hill on which the castle was built, is one of the most important strategic features that has been influential in choosing this place to form such an area. In general, this area can be considered as one of the most key Islamic area in northwestern Iran. The brick building is located on the eastern side of the castle and on the watercourse of the Sambur Chay River. In this regard, in order to identify this brick building, a workshop called Workshop No. 4 was created in this part of the area by the excavation team. While continuing the excavation process, a brick building with special architecture and unknown usage was discovered. The mentioned building has an almost rectangular plan that includes several spaces inside. The main materials used in the structure of this building are bricks with gypsum and lime mortar, and in some parts, especially in the outer parts of the building, river rubble has been used. The walls of the brick building are completely smooth and flat and are made with an average width of 50 cm and the height of all of them is the same and is about 70 cm.

Discussion
In general, according to the general structure of the brick building, the most reasonable usage for this architecture is being a pottery workshop and processing and preparing clay in it. One of the most important steps before making pottery is to find the right clay or grinding clay, without clods and other materials. Therefore, for this purpose, it is necessary for the pottery clay to be well shaped, sifted, cleaned and prepared. It seems that small ponds that are embedded lengthwise in different parts of the brick building; Along with water inlet and outlet channels, they are made for just such a use.  In fact, in this building, water is directed into these ponds and collected in them through small canals that are embedded on the walls. After filling them, in the next stage, the clay, which was suitable for pottery, was mixed with water inside these basins and became a slurry. While mixing the clay with water, the water flow is redirected into these ponds again, and during this operation, the excess material inside of the soil as well as other additional materials are poured out of the ponds along with the excess water into large side spaces. And was led out  of the building by floor channels. Also, the grains of sand that may have been inside the clay, due to the weight of the bottom of the ponds and the parts that are embedded in the bottom of the floor, were deposited. After doing this, the water flow was cut off and the produced clay was deposited in the ponds for a few days and remained there until it was soft and smooth and so-called settled. After a few days, the prepared clay was collected and transferred to pottery workshops and then to pottery kilns. 

Conclusion
In fact, it should be added that the existence of various pottery in various forms, styles and techniques in Yelsuie Castle indicates the possible presence of pottery kilns in this site, which also confirms the fact that the brick building is a workshop for producing high quality clay. On the surface of Yelsuie Castle, there are limited traces of pottery balls that indicate the presence of pottery kilns in the area, so that with the help of these balls, the temperature of the kilns was regulated. In this article, 3 maps and 13 images including the castle itself, its geographical location, as well as the brick building and its various parts are given. Also, in two tables, the types of obtained pottery from the brick building are displayed, and in another table, similar samples of obtained pottery from other sites of the Islamic period in other parts of Iran have been compared and matched. According to potteries and other artifacts, the date and time of construction of this building should be belong to the Middle Ages of Islam and the Seljuk era.

Abstract
A series of field activities including two seasons of survey and excavation at the Shahneh Poshte cemetery of Babol on the northern slopes of the Alborz Mountains in central Mazandaran in 2018 and 2019 resulted in the discovery of a collection of human graves and burials scattered throughout this 11-hectare site. Due to the mass of destruction caused by unauthorized excavations in the cemetery, several disturbed graves were observed without any classifiable information. In contrast, by conducting scientific excavations in the 16 trenches, a total of 39 identifiable and Readable human burials were found and then the collection of information and archaeological findings related to each burial was recorded and classified. In this study, we attempt to answer questions about the existence of possible burial methods and patterns and the meaningful characteristics of these variables by studying a set of different aspects including burial practices such as the position and orientation of the body, position of face of hands, architectural structure of the graves, gender and age of skeletons, individual and group burials, and burials with and without objects. The results of absolute dating and comparative studies indicate that this cemetery belongs to a long time span from the 11th and 12th centuries BC (Iron I) to the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, i.e. the Achaemenid to the early Parthian period (Iron IV), and therefore cultural materials of this cemetery are comparable to intra-regional ancient sites in Mazandaran as well as trans-regional sites in the Gorgan Plain, the Central Plateau, and especially the Gilan region. Our research also shows that the Shahneh Poshte graves follow a specific pattern in some burial aspects including the supine position and the direction of the face to the south and therefore have long-term burial traditions. 
Keywords: Shahneh Poshte Cemetery, Burial Practices, Iron Age, Mazandaran, Cultural Communications.

Introduction
The Shahneh Pashte cemetery is located adjacent to village of Kamikola and southwest of the Khoshrudpey city and 21 kilometers south of the Babol (Fig. 1) (Saedian, 2014: 321). This cemetery was excavated over two seasons in 2018 and 2019 by Hassan Fazeli Nashli. The result of these excavations was the identification of 39 human burials in situ (28 graves) (Fig. 2) which provide a set of valuable archaeological data such as absolute and relative dating, burial methods including the position and orientation of the bodies and faces, the position of the hands and the structure of graves. Based on the whole of archaeological data, the site can be dated to the late 2nd millennium B.C (late Iron I) to the mid-1st millennium B.C (Iron IV, 3rd - 4th centuries B.C / Achaemenid to early Parthian). More precisely, the absolute dating on 5 skeletons uphold this period. Based on archaeological studies between 39 burials, 29 burials belong to the late Iron I (late 2nd millennium BC) to Iron III (burials 1-11 and 22-39) are called “Iron age I - III Group” and the other 10 burials (burials 12-21) can be dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C (late Achaemenid to early Parthian) that are called “Iron age IV Group”, considering the absolute dates of the two burials and their spatial relationship.

Discussion
The study of the Shahneh Poshte burials shows that a set of methods were used to place the deceased in grave which are divided into two general categories: lying on the sides and supine. These two general modes include a total of 11 sub-modes. In general, in the entire Iron Age in this site (I-IV), the lying on the sides includes 13 burials (33.3%) including 4 burials on the right and 9 burials on the left, supine 15 burials (38.5%) and also 11 burials (28.2%) lack any recognizable signs. In more detail, during the Iron I-III period, there were 8 contracted burials (28% of total) of which 4 were on the right and 4 on the left. In addition, 12 burials (41% of total) were buried in supine. Also, 9 burials (31% of total) were of unknown status. In the Iron IV, there were 5 contracted burials (50% of total) all of which were on the left and no right-sided burials were found. Moreover, 3 burials (30% of total) were buried in supine. Finally, 2 burials (20% of period) were classified as undetermined burials due to extensive damages (Fig. 3-5). Regarding the position of the hands of the skeletons, during the Iron I-IV, a total of 16 positions were observed which can be classified into three general groups: lying on the sides, supine and unknown. In addition, the first group includes 6 subgroups (25% of all), the second group is divided into 9 subgroups (54% of all) and the third group is divided into 9 cases (21% of all) as unknown (Fig. 6-7). In Shahneh Poshte, three types of grave architecture have been identified. The first is a simple pit, second is a simple pit with a clay cover and the third is a pithos. Of the 28 graves in site, 26 graves (93% of all) are simple oval pits, of which 20 graves belong to the Iron I-III (71.6%) and 6 graves (21.4%) belong to the Iron IV. The second method, a simple pit covered with big clay fragments includes only 1 is from Iron Age I-III (3.5% of total). Also the pithos burial consists of only 1 grave (3.5% of total) from Iron Age IV (Fig. 8-10). In terms of gender and age of the deceased in this cemetery, total of 9 burials (23% of all) were identified as male, including 8 burials (27.6%) in Iron I-III and 1 burial (10%) in Iron IV. In addition, there were 14 burials (36% of total) as female including 12 burials (27.6%) in Iron I-III and 2 burials (20%) in Iron IV. Also, of the total burials, 16 burials (41% of total) were disturbed (Fig. 11-17). In addition, 7 different positions of the bodies were identified in relation to geographical directions including: south-north 5% of all, east-west 2.5%, west-east 23%, northeast-southwest 10.5% of all, southwest-northeast 10.5%, southeast-northwest 10.5%, northwest-southeast 15% and also an unknown direction 23% of all burials (Fig. 18-19). It is worth noting that for the orientation of face, during all periods, the dominant method was the south direction with a total of 23% of all burials, and especially 20.5% of all in Iron I-III, it was certainly the most common burial method. It seems that this method was not a priority in the Iron IV and was used less often. After that, the north direction was the most common method with 15.3% including 10.2% in Iron IV and 5.1% in Iron I-III (Fig. 20-21). Regarding other study characteristics, 67.8% of the total graves are individual and 32.2% are group graves. Among the first group, 53.5% of the total is related to Iron I-III and 14.6% are related to Iron IV. In addition, group graves comprise 32.2% of the total graves of which 621.5% are related to Iron I-III and 310.5% are related to Iron IV (Fig. 22-25). Finally, about the possession of objects, in total, 70% of all burials were buried with burial objects and 30% did not contain any goods (Fig. 26-27). Finally, regarding the amount of possession of objects, in total, 27 burials (70% of all) were buried with burial objects, and only 12 burials (30% of total) did not contain any burial objects or grave goods.

Discussion 
Human skeletons in Shahneh Poshte cemetery are mostly buried in individual and group graves, including 28 graves which mostly include simple pits, one case of a simple pit with a clay cover and one pithos. In fact, the architectural of the graves was mostly in form of simple pits. A simple pit grave with a clay cover is quite unique in this site and a similar the grave has apparently been found only in one grave in the Lefork cemetery of Savadkuh which has been dated to Iron Age III (Abedini, 2017: 154). Third group of tombs is pithos type that has many similar older and contemporary examples in Mazandaran county. Among the numerous similar examples in the Iron Age of Mazandaran, can mention the children’s tombs in Gohar Tepe (Piller and Mahfroozi, 2009: 19) and cemetery Amirkola in Savadkuh (Abedini, 2017: 154), as well as Qaleh Kuti I cemetery (Fukai and Ikeda, 1971: Pl. XIX, Fig. 2) and Kaluraz in Gilan (Fahimi, 2002: 106-107), Tepe Gyan (Contenau and Girshman, 1935: 12), Maral Tepe of Uzbeki (Majidzadeh, 2008: 135-136) and Dinkhah Tepe (Muscaerella, 1974: 75). In addition, this method reached its peak of use during the Parthian period such as Taq bustan in Kermanshah (Kambakh Fard, 1998: 45), Liarsang-Ben cemetery in Gilan (Jahani et al., 2023: 38; Jahani et al., 2018: 114), and especially in the central Zagros basin (Mohammadi Far and Hojabari Nobari, 2004) such as Sanandaj (Khosravi et al., 2018: 317), Marivan (Mohammadi Far and Sarraf, 2006; Masoumian and Rahimi-Galugahi, 2012: 428) and several points in the city of Hamadan and its surrounding areas (Azarnoush, 1975: 56, vol. 7; Dailer et al., 2013). The graves of Shahneh Poshte are scattered in different parts of the cemetery and it does not seem that a specific space of the cemetery was dedicated to a specific group or class of people in this society. The group graves are in the form of two-burial and three-burial graves with a slight difference in depth and space compared to each other, although the attribution of some of these group burials to each other has been ambiguous. However, the spatial proximity of the skeletons and their burial objects and the difficulty in distinguishing them from each other led to the attribution of some of them to a single grave and it seems that even despite a slight difference in depth, there was a clear awareness in creating a single grave for multiple skeletons. Usually, the deceased were placed in the grave in various positions, either contracted (lying on their sides) or supine with different positions inclined to the right or left. The positions of the hands are usually in front of the chest and face and sometimes in line with the body and the legs are also bent in three different degrees: less than a 90-degree angle (high, inclined inward towards the abdomen and spine: grade 1), 90-degree angle (medium, perpendicular angle to the spine: grade 2), and more than 90-degree angle (low, open angle to the spine: grade 3). A few are also supine and extended in line with the body.

Conclusion
The study of the burials of the Shahneh Poshte cemetery shows that there were a group of methods and rituals related to the burial of the dead, some of which were used more than others and, in other words, became a burial tradition. Regarding the position of the dead during the Iron Age and during the use of this cemetery, all the conventional methods of placing the deceased in the grave were used in the Shahneh Poshte area and despite the slightly higher number of supine method, it does not have a significant advantage over the lying on sides method and both methods can be seen as burial methods and traditions in great abundance. Also, the supine method was the most common burial method among women with 71% and men did not have any dominant method. In the discussion of the architectural structure of the tomb, the common tradition and method, the usual method is a simple oval pit but there are two unique methods, one is a simple pit grave covered with pottery fragments and the other is a pithos burial, each of which was used in the form of a grave only as a specific method, not a burial tradition. Finally, based on the set of burial characteristics of the Shahneh Poshte cemetery, it can be seen that this site is comparable in many aspects to sites within the region in Mazandaran and adjacent the region especially Gilan and the Central Plateau. It can also be considered that the set of burial methods and traditions of the Shahneh Poshte cemetery is homogeneous and identical to other contemporary sites in Mazandaran and to some extent a continuation of some pre-Iron Age burial methods in this region.