357 Introduction In this paper, we briely survey and reappraise some of the evidence for Neo-Assyrian contact at the Iron II (1050–800 bc) setlement of Hasanlu Tepe in the southern Lake Urmia Basin, located east of Assyria in the western Zagros Mountains of Iran. A complete survey of the recent revisions to our understanding of Hasanlu is beyond the scope of the present work, and up-to-date assessments are available in several sources (Muscarella 2006; Cifarelli 2013; Danti 2011, 2013a, 2013b; Danti and Cifarelli 2015). Our intention is to highlight a particular patern educed from the Hasanlu early Iron Age dataset: potential Assyrian imports and assyrianizing material culture, broadly construed herein for sake of argument, are concen- trated in Hasanlu’s monumental temples Burned Building II (BBII) and, to a lesser extent, Burned Building IV East (BBIVE) of Hasanlu’s Lower Court (Fig. 32.1). This patern is at odds with previous theo- ries that have viewed assyrica (i.e., Assyrian imports and assyrianizing emulations) as key mechanisms for the enhancement of the power and authority of Hasanlu’s elites. Almost immediately after Robert H. Dyson began the irst scientiic excavations at Hasanlu Tepe in 1956, scholars began to posit the mechanisms by which assyrica were transmited to northwestern Iran and recontextualized, as well as the meanings and impacts of assyrica among the autochthonous pop- ulations. Our ability to interpret this evidence has been somewhat hindered by several factors. First, during the span of the Hasanlu Project (1956–1977), knowledge of Urartian material culture and that of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia more generally was somewhat limited or the sources were diicult to access. Published comparanda from Assyria, Babylonia, and Elam were beter known, more widely disseminated, and easily accessible, Chapter 32 Assyrianizing contexts at Hasanlu IVb? Materiality and identity in Iron II northwest Iran Michael Danti and Megan Cifarelli particularly for western scholars trained and versed in the archaeology of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iran. The absence of indigenous writing in northwestern Iran and a lack of archaeology in the area between Assyria and the southern Lake Urmia Basin made Hasanlu a veritable protohistoric archipelago of archaeological understanding. Assyrian texts and material culture provided an important interpretative tool for tackling the recently discovered culture of Hasanlu, and hence select objects and object classes received preferential coverage in publication. These specialized analyses led to theorizing without the beneit of the full explication of the massive dataset – in particular, the full range of contexts and a diachronic perspective played but small roles in discussions of assyrica vis-à-vis local identity, agency, and materiality. Although this region is often referred to as lying at Assyria’s eastern periphery, poorly known bufer states in the naturally fortiied western Zagros, such as the kingdom of Mus ̣ as ̣ ir/Ardini, were Assyria’s immediate neighbours. The recent lurry of archaeo- logical activity in Iraqi Kurdistan will doubtless help to ill this gap in our knowledge and enhance our understanding of northwestern Iran. Nevertheless, Hasanlu is unique in terms of the wealth of evidence for contact with Assyria, Urartu, Babylonia, and Elam – other excavated sites around the lake such as Kord- lar, Geoy, and Haftavan were more closely tied to the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia. At Hasanlu, close contacts with both northern Mesopotamia and the southern Caucasus can be traced back to at least the earliest Bronze Age (Hasanlu Period VII) with heightened connections in the Middle Bronze Age (Hasanlu Period VI). The Late Bronze Age (Hasanlu Period V) is more enigmatic, but by the Iron I (Hasanlu Period IVc) ties to northern Mesopotamia are again atested. Hasanlu’s 800 bc destruction level – this date represents a chronological approximation tied to the pooled mean of short-lived radiocarbon samples from