Abstract
Lowdaricheh is a neighborhood in the town of Burkhar 9 km north of Isfahan. This monument is adjacent to the ancient cemetery, which has become a receational spot today. The northwest-southeast direction of the momument and its plan is a quadrilateral that later interferes. Due to its location 4 kilometers east of the historic city of Gaz (with settlements from the Parthian and Sassanid periods), the study of this building is important in its historical-cultural context. In this regard, while taking advantage of the archaeological survey of the Lowdaricheh quadrangle, it provided a relative understanding of the history of its construction and it’s use and as a basis for future comparative and comparative studies in the area, as one of the first studies of archaeological activity in the city. The most important research questions are the time of construction and the use of the building since its construction. According to preliminary assumptions and with a description of the plan of the building, the Lowdaricheh building of the Sassanid Period and the early Islamic centuries was considered to be religious. This research has been done by examining the history of the building in historical texts, evaluating the materials and decorative elements of the building, analyzing the architectural plan and comparing it with other neighboring and simultaneous buildings. The results of the research indicate that the chartaqi-e- Lowdaricheh building of the Sassanid Period or Early Islamic centuries was used by the (Zarvan-Ardashir) Fire-Temple, which was built by Ardeshir Babakan after the capture of Isfahan at noon in (Khar) village. The entrance of the Islam into the area has changed it from a Fire-Temple to a Hoseiniyeh and to this day its inhabitants use it as a religious building. 
Keywords: Chartaghi, Sasanid, Early Islamic Centuries, Lowdaricheh, Burkhar County in Isfahan.

Introduction
Burkhart city is located in the central areas of Isfahan province. The Mountains Karkas of Height 3000 meters north and northeast and the rest of the area forms a relatively flat plain. The Lowdaricheh quadrangle was visited by the authors in the summer of 2014, during the enlargement of its adjacent bypass. Upon visiting the building, the four-story plan was built and immediately mapped by experts on the site and its contemporary adjacent spaces and with the permission of the Isfahan Province’s Cultural Heritage Office, some of the interior areas were peeled to identify the materials. The historical identity of the building remains unknown to this day.
Aims and Necessity of Research: To understand the identity of the building, it was attempted to provide a relative understanding of the history of construction and use of the building concerning historical texts and archaeological evidence. 
Questions and assumptions: The most important research questions are the time of construction of the building and if the evidence is found and discovered and the know- how of it’s restoration. One of the most important research questions regarding the use of the building since its construction. According to preliminary assumptions and with the outline of the building plan, the chartaqi building of the Lowdaricheh of the Sasanian period and the early Islamic centuries was considered religious. This hypothesis was confirmed by conducting research.
Method: Fortunately, with the permission of the officials of the Isfahan Cultural Heritage Bureau, supervised by the Cultural Heritage Representation of Burkhar, the plasterboard was exfoliated in some parts of the internal body. 3 phases of architecture with different techniques and materials were identified, the first phase having two different sub-phases. Finally, it is attempted to introduce the Chartaqi of Lowdaricheh with a descriptive-analytical approach, in its historical-cultural context and its spatial range, and then to perform comparative studies with a relative land-use approach and dating. 

Description and Introduction of the Building
The monument is Situated 60 meters west of the ruined aqueduct, which is one of the most important water resources in the area. The floor of the building is street well-nigh 122 cm high and all Building wall 466 cm high from level to below the dome. Is Dome height 333 cm. The dome of the Shengeh is 122 cm high. The sides of the building vary from 470 to 480 cm. The width of the current porch is 179 cm and the base of the base is 114 cm. According to the trustee of the building, the entrance to the southeast of the building was blocked by him in 1358 Hijri Shamsi, which shows the entrance to the exterior of the building. The date of blocking the northeast entrance was unclear during the layering and visibility of the materials was found to be of the second phase of the building’s architecture (mid-Islamic period - Seljuk period) and indicates that The rebuilding time is blocked due to the near and unnecessary passage, and only the opening and arch of this entrance can be seen in the interior of the building.
Exfoliation revealed that the building has three phases and several phases of architecture: 1- The first phase consists of a primary building with local materials that has a base of crushed mud and extensions of walls with 32 cm adobe and 8 Cm 2- The second period, which features with interior tile decoration, dome shingle, and shingle tile decoration. This architectural course was created due to the demolition of the original dome and with the aim of rebuilding it by a comparative study with other monuments in the Seljuk period. The materials used in this architectural, 23 × 23×5 cm mud brick, which were common materials during the renovation of the building and were used only in the dome to strengthen the mortar. In the second period of architecture, two rows of the niche have been built in the interior of the building 3- The third phase belongs to the contemporary era with materials of brick and cement to consolidate the main building created in 1358 by the trustee and other residents.

Conclusion
In this article, Lowdaricheh chartaqi is introduced with a descriptive-analytical approach in its historical-cultural context and spatial limits and then the function and history of this structure are explained using a comparative approach. Research results and evidences ranging from similarity of local building materials and plan of Lowdaricheh chartaqi with the pattern of Sasanian fire temples and Chartaqis throughout Iran as well as Marbin and Ardestān fire temples in Isfahan, orientation of Lowdaricheh Chartaqi opposite to Mecca, the absence of signs of Mihrab (the main element of religious buildings of the Islamic era), The use of local materials in construction, lack of tomb signs and the difference with rectangular vaulted tombs of Islamic period, limited interior space of chartaqi and its isolation similar to other chartaqis of Sassanid period, presence of porches and hallways around the structure before the changes made in 1358 Hijri Shamsi and its current religious use, proximity to water resource (a Qanāt is located 60 meters West of the structure), all suggest that Lowdaricheh Chartaghi was a construction from  Sassanid period or early Islamic centuries with religious usage. Upon the advent and spread of Islamic religion in this area, this structure has been preserved like many other monuments because of its religious importance and status as well as clairvoyance of Muslims relative Lowdaricheh to other religions and has changed application as a liturgical-religious structure for newly convert Muslims and is now a Hoseiniyeh. Muslims and is now a Hoseiniyeh.

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.