Hasanlu and Lake Urmia Iron Age communities
Hasanlu Tepe
A fortified mound and surrounding settlements preserve architecture, households, craft, storage, burials, regional exchange, and a densely documented destruction horizon in the early first millennium BCE.
Éléments probants, chronologie, échelle communautaire, organisation politique et connexions
Redes montagneux, de plateaux, déserts, agua, empires et échange
Agricultural plains, pasture, lake routes, mountain passes, and interactions among Urartian, Assyrian, Anatolian, Caucasian, and plateau worlds shaped community life.
Organisation politique et échelle communautaire
Households, local elites, defenders, craftspeople, dependents, and neighboring settlements operated within changing fortified institutions; ancient political names remain debated.
Transformation impériale, patrimoine vivant et réception moderne
Iranian authorities steward the site and legacy collections are studied internationally. Human remains and destruction evidence require ethical treatment and cannot establish modern identity or descent.
An exceptional event cannot represent the site's entire history or population.
Material styles and external texts do not securely name every inhabitant.
They are excluded from imagery and cannot establish personal ancestry.
Uma cronologia breve e documentada
Ces repères servent d'orientation et ne constituent pas une histoire complète.
Foyers, eau, travail, langue, croyances, pouvoir, mobilité et échange
Langues mentionnées dans ce profil
- No locally deciphered archive identifying every resident
- Urartian, Assyrian, and other external records require attribution
Famille linguistique: Spoken languages remain unresolved from the site's material record
The destruction horizon freezes unequal and traumatic moments.
Fortifications did not isolate households from regional exchange.
Human remains must not be used as spectacle or ancestry proxies.
Palaces, temples, royal tombs, inscriptions, archives, and elite objects are more visible than households, women, children, farmers, herders, craftspeople, miners, irrigation workers, migrants, captives, enslaved or dependent people, and rural communities. Evidence gaps must not be filled with ethnic purity, Aryan-race, lost-civilization, single-origin, benevolent-empire, or simple population-replacement narratives.
Poser une question sur ce profil vérifié
Le guide peut expliquer et relier les faits déjà présents sur cette page. Il ne peut pas interroger le web ouvert, établir une identité ou une citoyenneté, ni évaluer une ascendance ou une information génétique.
AI-generated interpretation of genetic similarity, not proof of ancestry. Informational only, not professional advice.
Read full notice
Before you continue: the analysis you are about to generate is produced by an AI model. AI output can be incomplete, inaccurate, or simply wrong. It describes statistical genetic similarity to reference populations and is not proof of ancestry, ethnicity, identity, or descent. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only, and is not medical, diagnostic, genealogical, legal, or other professional advice. Do not rely on it to make health, financial, legal, or family decisions. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, DNA Genics, S.L. accepts no liability for any loss or decision arising from your use of this AI output.
Sources utilisées pour cette page
Prefer Iranian heritage authorities, accountable archaeological projects, peer-reviewed research, museum archives, and UNESCO records. Register royal inscriptions, administrative archives, classical histories, religious literature, and later traditions with date, language, genre, audience, institutional setting, and viewpoint. Do not register Wikipedia or add burial, artifact, rock-art, sacred-site, or human-remains imagery without per-file licensing, attribution, access-policy, community consideration, and ethical review.
-
C1
Prehistoric Sites of the Khorramabad Valley
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International prehistoric-landscape heritage record · 2025; current record
-
C2
The Central Zagros Archaeological Project
Central Zagros Archaeological Project · Accountable archaeological research project · Current project resource
-
C3
Tepe Sialk
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · State-submitted archaeological heritage record · 1997; current tentative-list record
-
C4
Shahr-i Sokhta
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International archaeological heritage record · 2014; current record
-
C5
Hegmataneh nomination decision
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International heritage decision and evidentiary record · 2024
-
C6
Pasargadae
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International dynastic-landscape heritage record · 2004; current record
-
C7
Bisotun
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International archaeological and inscriptional heritage record · 2006; current record
-
C8
Sassanid Archaeological Landscape of Fars Region
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International imperial-landscape heritage record · 2018; current record
-
C9
Takht-e Soleyman
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International religious and archaeological heritage record · 2003; current record
-
C10
Persepolis
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · International imperial and archaeological heritage record · 1979; current record
-
S1
Hasanlu Project
Penn Museum · Museum archaeological research archive · Current institutional project archive
-
S2
Ancient Iran, 1000 B.C.-1 A.D.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art · Museum scholarly overview · 2000; updated institutional essay
-
S3
Iran World Heritage and archaeological context
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · National heritage context · Current record
Revisión editorial: 6 août 2026