Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 46

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).