Abstract
Today, architectural heritage management faces many challenges due to the extent of assets, limited financial resources, development threats and change in concepts and social values. Accordingly, comprehensive principles are essential for integrated management and conservation prioritization. Most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework for the classification of immovable cultural heritage as an instrument for management and conservation, But in Iran, an independent policy and approach in this field has not been presented yet. This study tries to develop theoretical concepts in the field of classification system by reviewing the constitutions, national guidelines and experiences of countries of the common cultural field of Iran in East and Central Asia. The main question is the types of approaches, Classification levels and how to evaluate the assets in the decision-making process in the countries of the region. Due to the subject, the research approach is qualitative and with the method of documentary study, first, policies and actions are reviewed and regulated and then the content analysis done by descriptive-interpretive and comparative. According to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification. Architectural heritage classification in case countries is done with a Managerial- Conservative approach in a specific system. In this process, after comprehensive identification and listing, based on criteria of Cultural Significance, Historical and Architecture importance, Outstanding Values, Uniqueness, Authenticity and Integrity, Aesthetic features and at risk, by the advisory committee in the presence of government officials, experts and stakeholders, level of assets is evaluated and determined. Finally, classification is considered as a tools to explain the management approach and level of conservation.
Keywords: Architectural Heritage, Classification, Heritage Management, Conservation, Asia.

Introduction
Architectural heritage, like biology, requires an integrated and centralized organization system and pattern for classification, given the wide and diverse range of assets. Iran has many cultural properties from prehistoric period to modern times that are difficult and intricate to manage and protect based on the current situation. Despite the passage of more than one hundred years of modern cultural thought in Iran, to date, no independent policy and approach for classification of immovable cultural heritage has been presented; while most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework in this regard.
One of the main challenges that led to the formation of this research is the lack of appropriate tools to create a unified procedure in decisions and conservative measures. This study tries to help develop knowledge in the field of management and conservation by review, survey and analyzing constitutions, guidelines, policies and experiences of countries with a common cultural sphere with Iran in East and Central Asia. Achieving the aims, approaches, evaluation process and criteria for classification of architectural heritage in other countries in the region is the main purpose of this study. The two main questions of this research are: 1-What policies and approaches have the countries of East and Central Asia used in the system of management of assets and classification of architectural heritage? 2-What is the level and process of decision-making in evaluating the classification of the architectural heritage of these countries? This research has a qualitative approach and the method used is descriptive-interpretive. Research data have been collected and organized through documentary studies and have been evaluated by interpreting and analyzing the content.

Identified Traces
Japan is a leader in the classification of heritage among the countries of the East Asian region, and the Republic of Korea has largely followed its policy. Tangible cultural in Japan are first divided into two categories, “national treasures” and “important cultural”, and then national treasures are divided into two groups: “architectural heritage” and “fine arts and crafts”; finally, architectural heritage is classified according to a “Designation System” at three levels: national, regional and local. South Korea first classifies its heritage into three levels: national, provincial, and local, and then categorizes each into different groups. Thus, South Korea’s cultural heritage is classified into five levels based on national, provincial, or local significance, period of construction, and location, with intangible, tangible, movable, and immovable heritage.
China lags behind other countries in the region in terms of classification due to many challenges such as the large number of assets, political conflicts, as well as rapid development. China’s architectural heritage is classified into three levels of protection, including national, provincial and local, and unclassified assets are listed and registered only to inform the Authorities of the location and type of the assets. Hong Kong, in a specific process and according to an administrative system, classifies architectural heritage into three levels, including: Grade 1: Buildings with outstanding features and competencies that must be maintained; Grade 2: Buildings with special qualifications that are protected selectively and on a priority basis; Grade 3: Buildings with relative competencies that will be desirable to protect and if conservation is not possible, other methods and tools can be substituted.
The policy of management and protection of architectural heritage in Turkey and Egypt emphasizes the implementation of laws with international standards and the promotion of world heritage sites as tourist destinations and the use of existing capacities such as local councils, endowments, municipalities and the private sector. In these countries, decisions on classification are made by interdisciplinary advisory committees at the regional and national levels. The Government of India considers classification to be a subset of the categories “economic”, “cultural” and “environmental” and considers this policy to be in the interest of society and the people. Indian architectural heritage is classified into three levels: One: Buildings of national or historical significance. Two: buildings of regional or local importance and Three: Important buildings for the urban landscape that evoke architectural, aesthetic or sociological features.

Conclusion 
The process of architectural heritage conservation includes inclusive activities that the provision of management tools can greatly help to prioritize and facilitate actions by responsible Authorities and the community. Therefore, it would be useful to develop logical principles for classification of architectural heritage by reviewing the experiences of other countries. According to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification. Architectural heritage classification in case countries is done with a Managerial- Conservative approach in a specific system. In this process, after comprehensive identification and listing, based on criteria of Cultural Significance, Historical and Architecture importance, Outstanding Values, Uniqueness, Authenticity and Integrity, Aesthetic features and at risk, by the advisory committee in the presence of government officials, experts and stakeholders, level of assets is evaluated and determined. According to the structure of laws and policies in East and Central Asia, architectural heritage works are classified into three levels: National, Provincial (state, city, and region) and Local (municipalities and councils).

Acknowledgment
The authors feel obliged to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers of the journal who graciously accepted the task and enriched the content of the article with their constructive suggestions.

Observation Contribution
Equally between authors.

Conflict of Interest
The authors, while adhering to publication ethics, explicitly declare the absence of any conflict of interest in this research.

Abstract
The third millennium BC marked a period of significant cultural, economic, and commercial exchanges between Iran and neighboring regions, including the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf, the Oman Sea, and Central Asia. This article aims to investigate the cultural semiotics and connections between the Bronze Age sites of Southeast Iran, with an emphasis on Shahr-e Sukhteh, Shahdad, and Tepe Yahya. In this research, the seals and seal impressions of sites in the southeast of Iran, including Shahdad and Shahr-e Sukhteh, will be studied and analyzed based on comparative studies with important sites in Central Asia, including Balkh, Merv, Mondigak, Altintepe, Gonor Tepe, Dashlitepe, Tughlaq, and Ordos region. Therefore, in the framework of the signs studied on seals and seal impressions, a suggestion is made that there have been cultural connections between these regions in the Bronze Age. Based on this, the research questions have been raised as follows: What are the similarities between the motifs of pottery and seals? What are the similarities between the cultural artifacts found in the southeastern region of Iran and the Central Asian region? Were the visible similarities connected and serving a common purpose? Knowing the cultural interactions of these societies requires the study of the material evidence left by them. According to the distances between the ancient sites of the third millennium BC, these signs can be the result of a specific and guided thought that appeared in the sites of the eastern half of the Iranian plateau. The transfer of ideas from one place to another has occurred due to extensive commercial connections between societies. This shows that the cultural interactions between Central Asia and the eastern and southeastern regions of Iran and part of the Indo-European culture in the Bronze Age could have originated from common beliefs and ideas.
Keywords: Bronze Age, Seal, Semiology, Southeastern Iran, Central Asia.

Introduction
Seals and seal impressions have been obtained from Bronze Age sites in the southeast of Iran, which are comparable to Central Asian seal samples. On many metal seals and the seals impressions, there are patterns that are similar to those created on the pottery of Shahdad, Shahr-e sukhteh and Tepe Yahya. Several theories have been presented about these signs on pottery samples, including their use as the owner’s mark, the potter’s signature or the trade mark of the pottery workshop, and some signs for measuring volume and numerical value. The use of these signs on the seal samples, potteries, containers and human and animal figures in the third millennium BC both individually and in combination as a part of human mentality along with numerous concepts, originated and were drawn.  It seems that some of these signs are same on the pottery that are repeated in the seals, and some of them are similar to the signs from the Proto- Elamite period to the end of the Bronze Age. Markers have created marks with special purpose and thoughts on seals and potteries and have tried to transfer them. The signs could be ownership concepts, rituals and beliefs of the societies of that period. Out of the total number of 400 seals and seal impressions from the studied areas, 206 seals and seal impressions have signs.

History of signs on pottery and seals in the study areas
In many seals of Shahr-e sukhteh and Shahdad, as well as in some study areas of Central Asia, various geometric, animal such as reptiles and birds, plants and human motifs have been found. In addition to motifs, signs can be seen on the seals that are very similar to the signs created on the pottery of Shahdad, Shahr-e sukhteh, Tepe Yahya and other sites, and in some cases, the seal itself is in the form of a sign. Some signs are similar to Proto- Elamite signs, and others are similar to the body parts of gods (hands, feet, and heads). Most of the signs in the Shahr-e Sukhteh are on sherds related to the bottom of dishes and pear-shaped glasses, which were obtained from the layers related to industrial and residential areas, as well as in the surface surveys of the mounds and cemeteries of the city. Most of the signs on the Shahdad pottery are on the intact vessels obtained from the burials. Incised Signs have been seen on the red pottery of Shahdad (Cemetery A)., these signs were created on pieces of hand-made and almost rough pottery in Tepe Yahya. Most of the signs of Tepe Yahya pottery are grooved on the outer body of the vessel and on the upper part of the bottom, and some on the bottom. From Balkh and Marv, signs are placed on the body or under the bottom of bowls and plates. In Altin Tepe, signs on the clay figurines have also been seen, which Mason considers to be comparable to the signs of the Proto- Elamite, Early Sumerian, and Harappan periods. Also, these signs have been seen in the eastern areas of Iranian plateau, Bampur, Baluchistan, Pakistan, and in sites such as Damb Sadat and Quetta, Amri, Balakot and Rahman Dehri in Mundigag in Afghanistan, and some sites of the Chalcolithic period in India. On the seals, in addition to the two key sites of Shahdad and Shahr-e Sukhteh, there are signs from the sites of the northern regions of the Iranian plateau, such as: Tepe Hesar, sites of Central Asia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, northern Afghanistan, many examples of Altin Tepe settlements, in the northern foothills of the Kopet Dagh mountain range and the abandoned oases of Tughlaq and Gonor related to the Margiana culture were found in the desert plains, in the north of Marv city. In addition, signs on the seals were obtained from the mounds related to the South bacteria culture in the vicinity of Balkh city in Afghanistan and Sapali Tepe and Jarkotan in Uzbekistan, related to the Northern Bacteria culture.  Also, many seals have been found from Ordos, with common signs with the main sites of Central Asia and three sites in the southeastern Iran.

The case studies
Out of the total number of 400 seals and seal impressions in Southeastern Iran and Central Asia, 206 seals and seal impressions contain signs. 11 seals and impressions from Shahr-e Sukhteh and 30 seals and impressions from Shahdad have common signs. Based on the study, it has been determined that there are 33 signs common among the seals and pottery of all three sites of Shahr-e Sukhteh, Shahdad and Tepe Yahya. The commonalities of seals sign and the impressions and potteries in the three sites mentioned in the southeastern Iran and also Central Asia sites have been identified. The studied seals belong to the second half of the third millennium BP. Some pottery samples with similar signs seem to belong to the researched time period. The common signs between seals and the impressions and potteries are divided into three groups, including conceptual, geometric and plant groups (rosette, wheat cluster). According to some beliefs, some signs are derived from the organs of the gods. For example, the picture of the great goddess is frequently seen in many prehistoric potteries from Eurasia. The relevance of these signs with the religious cult of the Great Goddess has been spread and proven in a vast land. In this way, some symbols of the cult of the Great Goddess later became proto-writing. According to the beliefs of the people of the region, these signs are symbols of fertility, vitality and security. It can be acknowledged that these signs as a tool have revealed concepts that cannot be expressed in any other way, in other words, it is a transcendent truth that has become in the form of the symbol. Some of the incised signs, with a qualitative connotation, have emerged over time and have adapted to the spirit of truth-seeking in human and have become symbols.

Conclusion
For better understanding, the signs of seals and the impressions are prepared and shown in tables. The studied signs are in the form of simple and broken crosses (right round and left round), concentric circles, spiral patterns, crossed lines, simple circle and signs in the form of T, S, Y, M, W, stepped shapes, Star and many signs that are unclear. Some signs, including plant patterns in the form of rosettes, wheat stalks, are easily recognizable. Sometimes several signs are seen together on the surface of a seal. Comparative and statistical studies have been done on the signs of seals and potteries. The information obtained from the study of seals and the impressions has led to a detailed investigation and analysis of their patterns. After that, it has been concluded that the signs of the study area are classified into three main types: conceptual, geometric, and plant. Part of the cases, according to their characteristics and importance, the seal is created by the artist in the same form as the sign (picture 7). Another part of the signs that have been grooved on the pottery, have been depicted on the seals in the form of one or more signs (picture 6). In some motifs, the symbols of the gods in human form, the form, and organ and body parts of the gods are reminiscent of the common signs on the pottery and seals of all the three sites of Shahdad, Shahr-e Sukhteh, Tepe Yahya and also the Central Asia sites. This can originate from the thought that some of the organs related to the gods have become a sign of the symbol. The way conceptual signs are placed and arranged can induce message transmission; it is suggested that there are probably early writing signs in the study period, which we have not managed to discover the documentation of them. The commonalities between the signs on the pottery and seals of South-eastern Iran with the seals of some regions of Central Asian are as if their creators had common thoughts and at this time, this tradition of marking on seals and pottery became common. In general, and with collective study of these signs, in any case, it can be said that whatever the use of these signs was, it indicates that the sign makers have used the signs as a message to the future generations and have created these signs on a seal and together and sometimes as a set of signs. The spread of the discussed signs on seals and also on pottery can be considered as an expression of cultural influences and interactions between the mentioned regions in the Bronze Age.