Abstract
Fakhr and Madin are the networks inside the fence and religious places that are repeated in the form of grids. Such walls are made with pieces of baked clay in geometric and non-geometric shapes, and because holes have appeared between them, they have tried to make their form beautiful as well. In the Islamic era of Iran, mausoleums and tombs after mosques are among the most important works of architecture and urban planning. The construction of this building began in the fourth century AH and continues with ups and downs until the Safavid era. According to the surviving works, the Ilkhanate period in Iran can be considered as the peak period of the popularity and prosperity of the construction of “Fakhr and Medin” in tomb buildings. In this article, a number of tomb buildings from the Ilkhanid, Timurid and Safavid eras are comparatively studied. The paper follows the main question of what evolution Fakhr and Madin have undergone in the Islamic period with emphasis on the three mentioned periods, and how its application can be explained and traced in comparison? This research is a combination of two types of qualitative and quantitative research methods and descriptive-analytical method based on logical reasoning. Data collection was done through library study and valid historical documents and review of images and documentation centers. In this regard, first, the historical background and theoretical foundations of the topic have been examined. Then, all the types of Fakhr and Madin in the tombs of the three Ilkhanid, Timurid and Safavid periods (a total of 25 case studies) have been analyzed according to the geometric patterns, location and materials used in their construction. The result of a comparative study shows that “Fakhr and Madin” has been compiled in the form of seven physical-semantic indicators. These characteristics include: spirituality, transparency, environmental comfort, security, visual interaction, privacy and beauty, and it was found that in the Ilkhanate period, the characteristics of “spirituality” and “visual interaction”, in the Timurid period, the characteristics of “environmental comfort” and “Visual interaction” and in the Safavid period, the characteristics of “spirituality” and “environmental comfort” have been emphasized.. 
Keywords: Fakhr and Madin, Tomb, Ilkhani, Teymouri, Safavid.
.
Introduction
Iranians have always revered their dead throughout history, but this reverence has never been for the deity of beings, either before Islam or after Islam. This attention and respect can be considered as a mixture of theology and fear of death and love and affection for parents and ancestors, which has never reached the stage of worshiping the dead.
In the Islamic era of Iran, the tomb, with the exception of the mosque, has received more public attention than any other type of architecture, so that in few cities there is no share of such buildings. On the other hand, assuming the obvious connection of many architectural and urban works of early Islamic Iran with pre-Islamic heritage, it is worth emphasizing that in pre-Islamic times, with the exception of the magnificent tomb of Cyrus, there are no important signs of tombs that were built independently. 
Tomb buildings from the fourth century AH, after both religious and non-religious in Islamic architecture and urban planning in Iran, have opened their place, with the difference that the buildings are part of the religious group and mostly Shiite tombs and holy shrines have been given special attention in terms of sanctity and have been renovated over the years. But the non-religious tombs, which include the tombs of the rulers, princes and elders of the country, have not been given much importance and most of them have suffered various injuries or changes over time or have changed their nature and have become religious tombs and buildings. In this article, in line with the above, it has been tried to study and explore the architectural-urban works of the Islamic period (tombs and mausoleum) with emphasis on the three periods of Ilkhanids, Timurids and Safavids, and in particular “Fakhr and Madin” in these tombs should be analyzed.

Comparative Study: The position of “Fakhr and Madin” in the Ilkhanid, Timurid and Safavid Periods
This type of bricklaying (Fakhr and Madin) with its lattice module which is composed of regular and sometimes irregular geometric shapes, in the case of gardens, in order to illuminate and clarify the building, play with light and shadow, pay attention to the issue of privacy and prevent the view of the object directly and from the inside, be safe and secure, was actually used. This porosity in the garden fence in addition to creating vision and perspective into the garden and visual interaction with the internal environment, with shadows and stylized space, with the weakening of the light intensity for pedestrians providing a favorable path, causing its lattice body. 
In this section, the tombs of the Islamic period are studied with emphasis on the status of Fakhr and Madin. As mentioned earlier, Fakhr and Madin has been one of the elements of Iranian indigenous architecture, which has a special place in various types of Iranian architecture. Architects have used this technique to create shadows and lights for visual beauty as well as to attract attention to the building. The selection of 25 case studies of the tomb in the three periods of the Ilkhanids, Timurids and Safavids is the basis of a comparative study of this part of the study. The use of Fakhr and Madin dates back to the pre-Ilkhanate period, but due to the small use of this element, their study has been abandoned. At the same time, for example, the Nain Grand Mosque in the Albuyeh period and the Ardestan Grand Mosque in the Seljuk period have benefited from its pride and use. In the first case, Fakhr and Madin have been used as skylights and connectors for air conditioning, as well as in Patio. In the second case, Fakhr and Madin on the ground floor and the first floor, with the aim of visual interaction and shading, air conditioning and light transmission, have been considered.
In order to summarize the discussion and the possibility of comparing the results, Fakhr and Madin indicators (7 indicators) in 25 samples were presented comparatively in the form of a table and separately for the three periods studied.

Conclusion
The result of this comparative study shows that in the Ilkhanate period, Fakhr and Madin were used in different parts, including under the dome of the outer fence of the altar porch and the porch of the tombs. This course includes the most variety in the places used. Of course, the greatest benefit of Fakhr and Madin was identified under the dome and then in the walls around the compound. Therefore, it can be concluded that the most important subject of the Ilkhanate was “spirituality” and then “visual interaction”. This is while in the Timurid period, the most use of Fakhr and Madin was in the outer body and then in the porch, dome and lanai. So in this period, the most important topics are “environmental comfort” and “visual interaction”. In the Safavid period, Fakhr and Madin was used in the dome and the outer wall. In this period, “spirituality” and “environmental comfort” have been the most important characteristics used by Fakhr and Madin. On the other hand, according to the studies done, in the case of different types of tombs, the most use of Fakhr and Madin has been in individual tombs, although a mass tomb was also found during the Ilkhanid and Timurid periods (who used Fakhr and Madin). Also, the most varied form of Fakhr and Madin is under the domes and around the courtyards and fences, almost a fixed form of Fakhr and Madin has been used. As expected from the definitions of Fakhr and Madin, the most used materials were bricks. But other materials such as pottery and wood have also been used in its construction. Finally, the most important indicator used of pride and civility was “transparency” and then “environmental comfort” and in the next category “spirituality”, although it seems that in the collection of tombs, the indicator of “security” was considered and Special emphasis has been placed on it.

Abstract
The ancient city of Ghazni was one of the important cities of the Islamic period and served as the capital of the Ghaznavid dynasty. It is located six kilometers north of the modern city of Ghazni. The strategic significance of this city in the historical and civilizational developments of the Islamic era attracted the attention of archaeologists after World War II, leading to periodic excavations at its ancient sites. Most studies conducted on Ghazni during the Ghaznavid period have been based on historical sources, while archaeological investigations have primarily focused on the elite sections of the city and findings from the palaces of the Ghaznavid dynasty. In this context, the recent excavations by the Afghan team in the area between the two minarets—which form the basis of the present article—are particularly significant because they examine the commoner neighborhoods of the city. The main aim of this study is to illuminate aspects of everyday urban life in this part of the city during the Ghaznavid era, as the authors believe that understanding this area is crucial for a comprehensive knowledge of the city in that period. Despite the relative preservation of Ghazni’s historical fabric and architectural monuments, no comprehensive study has yet determined the city’s spatial structure. Therefore, a thorough research project was undertaken to answer the question of how Ghazni’s spatial development evolved and to reconstruct the form of the city’s spaces during its peak. To achieve this, investigations were carried out within the historical context of the city, and the results of field studies were compared with written sources. The study revealed that the underlying layers of the neighborhood around the Masʿud III Minaret date back to pre-Islamic periods.
Keywords: Ghazni City, Capital of Ghaznavids, Masoud III Palace, Bahram Shah Minaret, Lashkari Bazar.

Introduction
Today, the city of Ghazni is located approximately 135 kilometers southwest of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, along the Kabul–Kandahar highway. The ancient city of Ghazni, or Ghaznin, situated six kilometers north of the modern city of Ghazni (Fig. 1), lies at an elevation of 2,183 meters above sea level in an intermontane plain, with its water resources primarily supplied by the Gul Koh Mountain range to the north of the plain (Farahmand, 2020). According to the results of the joint Indo-Afghan archaeological mission in 1967, evidence indicates that humans inhabited this region as far back as the Paleolithic period (Alshin & Hammond, 2021: 88). The Avesta, the oldest sacred text of Zoroastrianism, is the earliest source to mention the Ghazni region, referring to it as “Kakhra.” In Ptolemy’s Geography of the 2nd century CE, Ghazni is referred to as “Gazos” (Yamin, 2001: 170). Archaeological evidence uncovered from excavations at the Tepe Sardar sanctuary suggests that the city dates back at least to the 2nd century CE, during the Kushan Empire (Tedi, 1983). Nevertheless, until the Ghaznavid period, Ghazni remained a small town governed by local rulers (Faizi, 2002).
In the 3rd century AH, the Saffarids, the first Muslim Iranian dynasty, launched campaigns into this region, and the local rulers (the Lawik dynasty) became their tributaries, turning Ghazni into a military base for their operations (Mojahed, 2003: 102–107). After the Saffarids’ defeat, the Lawik family became vassals of the Samanids until 351 AH, when Alp-Tegin, a Turkic slave of the Samanids who had risen to the rank of military commander, succeeded in defeating the last ruler of the Lawik dynasty (Habibi, 2011: 40–41). Following this, the city became the capital of the Ghaznavid state. Ghazni reached its peak prosperity during the Ghaznavid period but gradually declined due to internal conflicts and the Ghurid invasions in the 6th century AH. The city was ultimately destroyed by the Mongol invasions and never regained its former prominence (Mousavi-Haji et al., 2019).
Most studies conducted on the city of Ghazni during the Ghaznavid period have relied primarily on historical sources, while archaeological research has largely focused on the elite sections of the city and the findings from the palaces of the Ghaznavid dynasty. In this context, the recent excavations by the Afghan team in the area between the two minarets—which form the basis of the present article—are particularly significant because they examine the commoner neighborhoods of the city. The primary aim of this study is to shed light on aspects of everyday urban life in this part of Ghazni during the Ghaznavid period, as the authors believe that understanding this section is crucial for a comprehensive knowledge of the city in that era.
Research Questions: The present study seeks to answer fundamental questions regarding the urban fabric, especially the densely built central area of the city during the Ghaznavid period. Specifically, it addresses two major questions about the urban space and its development during this period: First, can the transition from the pre-Islamic to the Islamic era be identified in Ghazni based on archaeological evidence and in a stratified sequence? Second, when was the central part of Ghazni formed, and what types of urban transformations did this section undergo during the Ghaznavid period?
Research Methodology: The research presented in this article is fundamental in nature, aimed at addressing the above questions. It was conducted based on field studies, archaeological excavation reports, and documentary (library-based) research.

Spatial Structure of the City of Ghazni in the Ghaznavid Era
Archaeological evidence indicates that the main pre-Islamic part of the city was limited to the citadel (Fig. 2) and the sanctuary known as Tepe Sardar and its surrounding area (Sherato, 1959). Alp-Tegin, a Turkic emir in the Samanid army, was defeated in an internal succession struggle in Bukhara but managed in 351 AH to defeat the army sent by the new Samanid ruler near Balkh. He then captured the city of Ghazni, which was under the rule of Abubakr Lawik, a local vassal of the Samanids (Kargar, 2004: 5–6). Upon Alp-Tegin’s death in 352 AH, his son and successor, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim, could not withstand the army of Abubakr Lawik’s son and successor, Abu Ali Lawik, and fled to Bukhara. Only a year later, with the support of the forces of Amir Mansur Samanid, he reclaimed Ghazni, and he passed away shortly afterward in 355 AH (Heidari, 2011: 55–57). From this date onward, Ghazni became part of the Islamic territories.
After a decade of rule by Bilgatgin (355–365 AH), Ghazni witnessed further conflicts among Sebuktigin, Yirigtigin, and Abu Ali Lawik and his ally Hindushah of Kabul. As a result, Sebuktigin (365–387 AH) rose to power, marking the beginning of the city’s first major constructions in the Islamic period. It is reported that he built a palace called Sahlabad, which remained unfinished and whose location is now unknown. The only surviving monument from this period is the tomb of Sebuktigin, located in the Afghan Chāl neighborhood of Ghazni (Jalali, 1972: 1–7).

Conclusion
Field studies in the city of Ghazni have revealed that the core of the city was centered around the “Shiyar Qara-Bagh neighborhood” in the southern part of the city, near the Hind and Gardiz gates. Since the archaeological site known as “Tepe Sardar” dates back to the Kushan period, it can be confidently argued that the origins of Ghazni extend to the Kushan Empire (30–350 CE). Archaeological evidence indicates that during the Ghaznavid period, the city expanded toward the west and north, extending toward the Sefid Koh highlands.
Archaeological findings also show that significant transformations occurred in the neighborhood today known as “Afghan Chāl,” which likely existed even before the Ghaznavid period. This area became a royal and administrative district, as evidenced by key structures such as the Masʿud III Palace, the tomb of Sebuktigin, and the Bahram Shah and Masʿud III Minarets. Based on archaeological evidence, in the 5th century AH this part of the city, particularly the central area between the two minarets, experienced significant prosperity and likely hosted the jeweler’s market. With the establishment of the market in this neighborhood, residents of the city appear to have settled in surrounding districts such as Shuleh, contributing to the city’s westward expansion.
However, with the decline of Ghaznavid power, the city suffered extensive damage during the conflicts between the Ghaznavids and the Ghurids and was ultimately destroyed by the Mongol invasions. Nevertheless, the city was not entirely lost and, over the centuries, managed to sustain its existence.