(ed.), Margins of Writings, Margins of Cultures. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, pp. 33–66 (Postscript December 2007, pp. 67–70).19 Sancisi‐Weerdenburg, H. (1999). The Persian king and history. In C. Shuttleworth‐Krauss (ed.), The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts. Leiden: Brill, pp. 91–112.
20 Schaeder, H.H. (1930). Iranische Beiträge I. Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, 6 (5), pp. 199–297.
21 Schmitt, R. (1993). Die Sprachverhältnisse im Achaimenidenreich. In R.B. Finazzi and P. Tornaghi (eds.), Lingue e culture in contatto nel mondo antico e altomedievale: atti dell’VIII Convegno Internazionale di linguisti tenuto a Milano nei giorni 10–12 settembre 1992. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, pp. 77–102.
22 Schmitt, R. (2003). Die Sprache der Meder: Eine grosse Unbekannte. In G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia (History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs 5). Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria, pp. 23–36.
23 Schmitt, R. (2007). Pseudo‐altpersische Inschriften. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
24 Shaked, S. (2003). Between Iranian and Aramaic: Iranian words concerning food in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, with some notes on the Aramaic heterograms in Iranian. In S. Shaked, A. Netzer (eds.), Irano‐Judaica 5. Jerusalem: Ben‐Zvi Institute, pp. 120–137.
25 Stolper, M.W., Tavernier, J. (2007). An Old Persian administrative tablet from the Persepolis fortification. ARTA 2007.001, pp. 1–28.
26 Tavernier, J. (2008). Multilingualism in the fortification and treasury archives. In P. Briant, W.F.M. Henkelman, and M.W. Stolper (eds.), L’archive des Fortifications de Persépolis: état des questions et perspectives de recherches (Persika 12). Paris: de Boccard, pp. 59–86.
27 Vallat, F. (1997) L’utilisation des sceaux‐cylindres dans l’archivage des lettres de Persépolis. Lettres orientales, 10, pp. 171–174.
28 Vallat, F. (2011). Darius, l’héritier légitime, et les premières Achéménides. In J. Álvarez‐Mon, M.B. Garrison (eds.), Elam and Persia. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, pp. 263–284.
29 Weissbach, F.H. (1911). Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich.
FURTHER READING
1 Basello, G.P. (2011). Elamite as administrative language: from Susa to Persepolis. In J. Álvarez‐Mon, M.B. Garrison (eds.), Elam and Persia. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, pp. 61–88. Explores areas of continuity that exist between the Elamite tablets from Susa and those from Persepolis through an examination of administrative formulae.
2 Henkelman, W.F.M. (2008). The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite‐Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts (Achaemenid History 14). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Presents four case studies in Elamite‐Iranian acculturation, specifically in the realm of religion, on the basis of the Persepolis Fortification Archive. A long introduction into the Persepolis Fortification Archive completes the volume.
3 Lecoq, P. (1974). Le problème de l’écriture cunéiforme vieux‐perse. Acta Iranica, 3, pp. 25–107. Exhaustive treatment of all problems of the OP script.
4 Malbran‐Labat, F. (1994). La version akkadienne de l’inscription trilingue de Darius à Behistun. Roma: Gruppo editoriale internazionale. The most recent overall analysis of the Babylonian version of Bisotun inscriptions.
5 Rossi, A.V. (2005). La scrittura antico‐persiana e la scrittura elamico‐achemenide. In M. Bernardini, N. Tornesello (eds.), Scritti in onore di Giovanni D’Erme: Saggi di colleghi e amici in occasione del suo compleanno. Napoli: Università L’Orientale, pp. 859–876. Reviews the technical affinities between the two graphical systems.
6 Rossi, A.V. (2008). Antico‐iranico ed elamico achemenide: 1979–2009. Annali dell’Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli, Dipartimento di studi del mondo classico e del Mediterraneo antico, 30, pp. 95–160. Bibliographical report on 30 years of scholarship on Old Persian and Achaemenid Elamite (to be completed with Rossi 2017a above).
7 Schmitt, R. (2008). Old Persian. In R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 76–100. The latest synthetic description of Old Persian by a major specialist.
8 Stolper, M.W. (2004). Elamite. In R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 60–94. An updated and problematical description of Elamite by a major specialist.
9 Tavernier, J. (2007). Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non‐Iranian Texts. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley: Peeters. The most updated repertoire of Iranian names as attested in any source of the Achaemenid period, with linguistic commentaries and indexes.
10 Tavernier, J. (2011). Elamite: analyse grammaticale et lecture de textes. Res antiquae, 8, pp. 315–350. The latest (very synthetic) description of Elamite.
CHAPTER 5 Onomastics
Rüdiger Schmitt
For the Achaemenid Empire evidence of personal names is much more extensive than that of geographical names (toponyms, names of countries [together with the ethnonyms derived from them], river names, and oronyms). As they have much greater importance for the historian looking at the empire, too, they are given priority in the present chapter.
Personal Names: Evidence
Evidence of personal names belonging to the Achaemenid period is considerable, even if in the Old Persian royal inscriptions themselves fewer than 50 names are attested (cf. Mayrhofer 1979). Among them a first large group are the names of the early kings (Haxāmaniš, Cišpiš, Ariyāramna, Kuruš, Kambjiya), some of which being rather unclear, then the etymologically transparent throne‐names (cf. below) of Darius and his successors (Dāraya‐vauš, Xšaya‐r◦šan‐, R◦ta‐xšaça‐) and names of other Achaemenids (R◦šāma, Vištāspa, Br◦diya). Other lots are the names of Darius' fellow conspirators and their fathers, of members of the court, of Darius' generals and satraps, and finally the names of the disloyal pretenders to the throne rebelling against Darius, part of them being non‐Iranian in origin.
Since the Achaemenids ruled a multinational and multilingual empire covering for a while almost the entire Near East from the Aegean Sea to the Indus river and including Egypt, Old Iranian personal names are attested in a lot of sources written in the numerous languages (and writing systems) of the various peoples of the empire and of those in connection with it. The most important, but not the only branches of this so‐called collateral tradition of Old Iranian anthroponyms, are the Elamite, Babylonian, Aramaic, and (Hieroglyphic and Demotic) Egyptian sources. From outside the empire it is in particular the Greek evidence that is found in the contemporary literature, even if the onomastic credibility of the individual authors may differ considerably (as we see, e.g., from the comparison of the names of the fellow conspirators as attested by Herodotus and Ctesias respectively with those found in Darius' Bīsutūn inscription DB). The most comprehensive collection for the period and the languages of the Achaemenid Empire is Tavernier (2007), with the Greek evidence excluded; not such a strong restriction is followed by Hinz (1975), who had
