Da‐ti‐ia and Ir‐taš‐du‐na gave unambiguous hints to OPers. *Dātiya‐ and *R◦ta‐stūnā‐ respectively. Similar relations may be observed also between Greek and Aramaic or Babylonian evidence, e.g. for ∑πιτάμᾱς, son of Πετήσᾱς (in Ctesias F 14 § 42), and Is‐pi‐ta‐ma‐’, son of Pa‐te‐e‐šú, in a document from the Murašû Archive dated 424/23 BCE (cf. Schmitt 2006: p. 193). And by equating the name Gk. Ἱεραμένης with Lyc. Eriyamãna (both being closely connected with Τισσαϕέρνης, Ὑδάρνης and Kizzaprñna, Widrñna respectively), even the Lycian Xanthus stele is a great help to make the Greek form understandable. It must be said, however, that something like a “Prosopographia Imperii Persici Achaemenidarum” is missing, as the study of Balcer (1993) is neither sufficient nor reliable.
Also more general points of view should be kept in mind, e.g. the fact that according to the Bīsutūn text, all of the generals loyal to the king were Iranians, either “Persians” (as Vaumisa, Dādr◦šiš, R◦tavardiya, Vivāna, and Vindafarnā are explicitly called) or “Median” (Taxmaspāda), or at least bore an Iranian name (as the so‐called “Armenian” Dādr◦šiš, who may have his ethnic name only in contrast to some namesake). Now, things are similar with Herodotus' list of the commanders of Xerxes' army (7.61–97): all of them and their fathers (as far as they are mentioned) bear anthroponyms of Iranian origin and therefore presumably were Iranians. A number of them are expressly called “Persians,” too, and some even especially “Achaemenids.” However, a warning against the information given by Herodotus (8.90.4): on the occasion of the battle at Salamis, he mentions that in case of some particular action, Xerxes had the name of a man written down together with his father's name and his home town. The patronymic may have been given indeed (as we see from the list of Darius' followers in DB IV 83–86), but to give also the native town seems to be a Greek way of thinking and has no Persian parallel.
Non‐Iranian Names
In the Achaemenid Empire there are attested not only Old Iranian names but also, just as was to be expected in such a multinational and multilingual state, those of other provenance. In the Old Persian royal inscriptions we find Babylonian (Nabukudracara, Nabunaita, Nadintabaira), Elamite (Aϑamaita, Imaniš), and even Urartian names (Araxa, Haldita). That the respective names abound in the particular linguistic corpora, viz. Semitic anthroponyms in the Babylonian and Aramaic inscriptions and documents, Elamite names in the Elamite Persepolis tablets, Egyptian ones in the Hieroglyphic and the Demotic texts of the period, is no surprise. The same is true also for the relevant Greek sources, where Babylonian (e.g. Ἀνδίᾱ, Λαβύνητος), Elamite (Ἀβουλίτης), Egyptian (e.g. Οὔσιρις, Πετησάκᾱς, Πετήσᾱς), etc. anthroponyms likewise are attested.
Of special interest is the onomasticon of the Persepolis tablets, where most of the non‐Iranian names are of Elamite origin. They can be made out especially where the same form is found already in pre‐Achaemenid Elamite texts or they contain without any doubt typical Elamite components. Zadok (1984) had attempted a formal analysis and reduction of Elamite names to their components and at the same time listed those onomastic componential stems. A more detailed interpretation is impeded, however, by the fact that the meaning of Elamite lexemes mostly is not exactly known; therefore Zadok's typological sketch of the names has a more provisional character. A particular group of names are the hypocoristics, which are collected and analyzed by Zadok (1983); the most striking and the main type of such hypocoristics are forms with a reduplicated final syllable like Ba‐(iz‐)zi‐zi, Ha‐pu‐pu, Mi‐te‐te, Ša‐at‐ru‐ru, etc. (cf. Mayrhofer 1973: pp. 306–309; Zadok 1983: pp. 96–107). Sometimes those formations seem to have been modified to Old Persian hypocoristics in *‐iča‐; in any case Koch (1990: pp. 171, 186, 213) drew this conclusion from couples like Zí‐ni‐ni vs. Zí‐ni‐iz‐za and Mi‐te‐te vs. Mi‐te‐iz‐za (cf. Hinz and Koch 1987: pp. 939, 1301), for which the prosopographical identity of the name‐bearers may be inferred from the closeness of the contexts in which the names actually occur.
Babylonian names are attested in a still larger number, but there is no full collection of that material available, since that of Tallqvist (1905) has become outdated for a long time. As to the formation of the names, a lot of different types can be observed, one‐stem, two‐stem, or multi‐stem names, shortened names, etc., in a way like the Indo‐European and Iranian types of names but in the particulars quite different from them. Characteristic of Semitic name formation are chiefly the so‐called sentence‐names, by which a normal statement as well as a demand, wish, or question may be expressed. In general, also the Late Babylonian anthroponymy is the same as it was in the two millennia before. A comprehensive treatment of name‐giving in Akkadian is found in Stamm (1939), a sketchy survey (with only a rudimentary typology) in Edzard (1998–2001).
Geographical Names
Our knowledge of geographical names of the Achaemenid period and the Achaemenid Empire is rather sketchy. From the royal inscriptions themselves the names of the countries (OPers. dahyāva) or satrapies of the empire and the ethnic names belonging to them are best known, in addition to a few toponyms, oronyms, and hydronyms. There are also large numbers of toponyms from the Elamite Persepolis tablets, which for the most part can neither be analyzed linguistically nor be localized exactly, however. Altogether those scanty onomastic relics do not allow any conclusions concerning the distribution, settlement, and spread of the various Iranian and non‐Iranian nations. Research on the geographical names of Iran, based primarily on the inexhaustible information found in the medieval Arabian geographers and the modern maps as well as on topographical studies on the spot, has been furthered especially by Wilhelm Eilers (cf. Eilers 1982, 1987, 1988). His publications made clear that such names were kept tenaciously for thousands of years over all political, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic changes. Eilers expounded also the thesis that we have always to reckon with the spread from one category of names to another (e.g. from the name of a country to its capital city, from a river's name to that of the country irrigated by it, and so on), so that in any case it must first be clarified what was named by the form in question at the outset.
From those later sources we cannot gain essential information, however, for the Achaemenid times. So we have only a few certain entries on a virtual map of the Achaemenid Empire (see Vallat 1993; Tavernier 2007). The names of countries attested in the appropriate lists in part are confirmed, as regards eastern Iran, by some passages in the corpus of the Avesta describing the countries settled by the “Aryans,” i.e. Iranians (esp. Yašt 10.13–15; Vīdēvdād 1.2–19). In the Old Persian inscriptions most of the names of eastern Iranian countries are attested not in the original dialect form but as transposed into the Old Persian equivalent (OPers. Harauvati‐ “Arachosia” vs. Avest. Haraxvaitī‐; OPers. Uvārazm‐ “Chorasmia” vs. Avest. Xvāirizǝm; OPers. Θatagu‐ “Sattagydia” vs. *Satagu‐), whereas the Babylonian, Aramaic, and in part also the Elamite collateral tradition normally has the original forms (e.g. Babyl. A‐ru‐a‐at‐ti, etc.; u‐ma‐ri‐iz‐mu, etc.; Sa‐at‐ta‐gu‐ú, etc.). Only the name of Bactria is attested in a non‐Persian, presumably the original, form as OPers. Bāxtri‐, whereas the Old Persian equivalent *Bāxçi‐ is reflected by Elam. Ba‐ak‐ši(‐iš). The ethnic names, which are derived from the names of the countries either without suffix (e.g. Pārsa‐ “Persia” → Pārsa‐ “Persian”) or with *‐iya‐ (e.g. Maka‐ “Mekrān” → Mac‐iya‐) and in one single case with lengthened grade (Margu‐ “Margiana” → Mārgav‐a‐), are listed by Schmitt (1999: p. 450).
Apart from the names of the royal capital
