i. PRE-ISLAMIC NAMES: GENERAL

The system of the formation of personal names (anthroponyms), as it is attested in the Iranian languages from ancient times, to a great extent agrees with that known from most of the other Indo-European languages, so that the Indo-European character of the Iranian languages is plainly reflected also in anthroponymy. Those correspondences relate to both morphology and vocabulary, insofar as the morphological principles of the formation of names (see below) are the same and a common stock of lexemes can be discovered that are used in personal names. Such similarities and common features become particularly apparent when a comparison is made with the Old Indo-Aryan and especially the Vedic facts, because the much richer tradition of texts and the singular archaism of the Vedic language make it possible to recognize the characteristic traits of this system more clearly and make them more easily comprehensible than is the case for Iran. The main reason for this is the fact that authentic direct evidence of personal names in Iranian-language sources of the Old Iranian period is confined to the names attested in the Avesta (see below, ii) and in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions in the Old Persian language (OPers.; see below, iii).

Indo–European onomastic tradition. Among personal names, as inherited from Proto-Indo-European, there are to be distinguished with regard to their form and morphology primarily (A) full names and (B) names derived from them by shortening. Full names of type A are all those names that were formed neither by the shortening of originally longer forms nor by the expanding of shorter forms by means of suffixes. Depending on whether the full name contains one or two lexemes, there is a further distinction to be made: (A.i) single-stem (full) names and, as an especially characteristic and archaic type, (A.ii) two-stem compound names. The single-stem names of type A.i that are not the result of a shortening process are single-stem forms from the very beginning and often, as derisive nicknames, ridicule some negatively salient physical or personal characteristic. The formations of type A.ii are usually nominal compounds of the same kind and of all the different sorts that are found among common nouns too, i.e., possessive compounds (bahuvrīhis), determinative compounds, governing compounds, etc. In addition to these normal compounds there are, as a special type, names (type A.ii.4) that are characterized by an inversion of the elements of the basic compound form. Here the two elements of the underlying basic name, i.e., the name of the onomastic model, are taken over simply in a mechanical way and are transposed intentionally in order to avoid confusion with that model. The name OIr. *Dāta-miΘra-, for instance, has been chosen for the reason that the elements *MiΘra– (theonym) and *dāta– ‘given’ of the model OIr. *MiΘra-dāta– ‘given by Mithra’ should indeed be preserved, but at the same time should be slightly altered, too. Pace Boccali (p. 19), we need not reckon with Aramaic influence here, since the same phenomenon is not infrequently found in other Indo-European languages (mainly in Greek and in the Old Germanic languages), and on the other hand Semitic influence is not unambiguously visible elsewhere in Old Iranian anthroponomastics.

Among the names shortened from two-stem (compound) full names of type A.ii, we have to distinguish between mere short names (B.i) and the hypocoristic names (B.ii); the later are characterized by the fact that a hypocoristic suffix is added to the remaining part of the initial basic name after its shortening. This shortening process itself has not necessarily to follow the original morpheme boundaries, but can occur at any place and can show further formal changes (e.g., simplification of consonantal groups or an optional expressive gemination of the last consonant); therefore it is nothing but an arbitrary mutilation of the body of the basic compound name. The only effective restriction is that one of the two lexemes of the original form must be preserved in full and without any shortening. Depending on the extent to which the first and the second element of the original compound are preserved, whether completely or only in part or not at all, a further distinction is made here, too, between single-stem and two-stem short names or hypocoristics: There are single-stem (B.i.1) and two-stem short names (B.i.2) as well as single-stem (B.ii.1) and two-stem hypocoristics (B.ii.2).

Typology of Iranian anthroponyms. All these different types of personal names inherited from Proto-Indo-European may be illustrated here for the Old Iranian languages by some appropriate examples (for a fuller documentation see below, sections ii and iii):

A.i. (single-stem full names): OPers. uxra– “Mr. Red”;

A.ii. (two-stem full names):

A.ii. 1 (possessive compounds): OPers. Vištāspa– (from *višta– + *aspa-) “Possessing horses untied (for racing)”;

A.ii.2 (determinative compounds): YAv. Pairi-štūra– (from *pari– + *stūra-) “Being strong all around,” OIr. *MiΘra-dāta– (attested in Gk. Mithradátēs, Aram. mtrdt, etc.) “Given by Mithra (as genius of the 16th day)”;

A.ii.3 (governing compounds): OPers. Dāraya-vauš “Holding firm the good”;

A.ii.4 (inverted forms): OIr. *Dāta-miΘra– (attested in El. Da-ad-da-mi-ut-ra, Aram. dtmtr, etc.), which can be explained only as described above by assuming an inversion of OIr. *MiΘra-dāta– (see above, A.ii.2);

B.i.1 (single-stem short names): YAv. Uštra– (seemingly meaning “Mr. Camel”) shortened from some compound name with second element –uštra– such as OAv., YAv. ZaraΘ-uštra– “Possessing old (better: aging) camels”;

B.i.2 (two-stem short names): OIr. *Dāta-m-a– (attested in El. Da-(ad/ud-)da–ma, Gk. Datámēs, etc.) shortened from some compound name like OIr. *Dāta-miΘra– (see above, A.ii.4) with initial m– of the second element preserved;

B.ii.1 (single-stem hypocoristics): OPers. Āç-ina– shortened from some compound name with first element OPers. āç– (from Ir. *āΘr-) “fire” and suffixed with –ina-;

B.ii.2 (two-stem hypocoristics): OIr. *Ṛta-x-aya– (attested in El. Ir-da-ka-ya, Gk. Artachaíēs, etc.) shortened from some compound name like OIr. *Ṛta-xratu- or OPers. Ṛta-xšaça- “Whose rule is through the Truth” (Artaxerxes) with initial x– of the second element being preserved.

The differentiation between the various types of anthroponyms is often in dispute, especially in names containing one lexeme only. In particular it is not always easy to distinguish precisely between single-stem full names (type A.i) and single-stem short names (type B.i.1), since there are no reliable criteria for deciding whether some form has been shortened from an originally longer one, although in itself it can clearly be interpreted without difficulty and therefore is easily understood.

Full lists of personal names arranged according to such a typological classification are not available for Iranian onomastics in general, nor for any particular corpus, except for the Parthian names attested in the Nisa ostraca (see Schmitt, 1998). Of some help are, however, the morphological lists of the second elements of compound names and of the hypocoristic or other derivational suffixes compiled by Justi, Namenbuch (pp. 483–520 and 521–26 respectively; cf. Schmitt, Writings, pp. 115–34). Ferdinand Justi’s Namenbuch itself, however, which served many generations of scholars, in the meantime has become rather outdated. But the Iranisches Personennamenbuch initiated by Manfred Mayrhofer and realized by the Austrian Academy of Sciences, which some day should replace Justi’s work, has not yet progressed far, apart from a few volumes and fascicles.

Indo-Iranian onomastic tradition. The hereditary character of Iranian anthroponymy is manifested most strikingly by equations with Old Indo-Aryan names, which show that the names in question obviously are inherited at least from the Indo-Iranian proto-language. Such examples of formally corresponding names are fairly common, and with names of all the various types listed above, so that the common Indo-Iranian anthroponymical system and even common Indo-Iranian customs of name-giving can be reconstructed with some certainty. The following equations of this kind may be quoted: type A.i: OPers. uxra– “Mr. Red” = OInd. śukra– (cf. Av. suxra-, Ved. śukrá-, śuklá-); OPers. Kuru– = OInd. Kuru- probably “Humiliating (the enemy in verbal contest)”; Av. Yima– = Ved. Yamá- (cf. OAv. yəˊma– = Ved. yamá– “twin”); several theriophoric names like YAv. Saēna- = OInd. Śyena– “Mr. Eagle, Hawk” (cf. Av. saēna– = Ved. śyená- some bird of prey); YAv. Varāza– = OInd. Varāha– “Mr. Boar” (cf. Av. varāza– = Ved. varāhá– “boar”); YAv. Varšni– “Mr. Ram” = OInd. Vṛṣṇi– (cf. Av. varšni– = Ved. vṛṣṇí- “male, ram”); — type A.ii.1: YAv. Ǝrəzrāspa– = Ved. Rjrāˊśva– “Possessing fleet horses” (cf. Ved. rjrá– + áśva-); YAv. Kərəsāspa– = OInd. Kṛśāśva– “Possessing slender horses”; Av. *Siiāuuāspa– (as basis of patronymic Siiāuuāspi-) = Ved. Śyāvāˊśva– “Possessing dark horses” (with patronymic Śyāvāśvi-, too); YAv. Vohu-raocah– “Possessing good brilliance (or: possessing brilliance by his goods)” almost = Ved. Vásu-rociṣ-; YAv. Tauruuaēti– “With a victorious way of walking” = Ved. *Turvéti-, which by analogy was changed to Turvīˊti-; OIr. *Hu-sravah– “Possessing good reputation” (in YAv. Hao-srauuah-) and OPers. *U-çavah– (in El. Uˊ-iš-šu-ma) = Ved. Su-śrávas– (cf. also Gk. Eu-kléēs); — type A.ii.2: YAv. Dūraē-srūta– “Far-famed” = OInd. Dūre-śruta-; YAv. Vī-srūta– “Far-famed” = OInd. Vi-śruta– (cf. Ved. ví-śruta-); — type B.i.1: YAv. Zairita– = OInd. Harita– (from Av. zairita– = Ved. hárita- “yellow, dun-colored”; cf. OInd. Haritāśva– “Possessing dun horses”). — As shown already by Av. Siiāuuāspi– = OInd. Śyāvāśvi-, correspondences of this kind are found also with patronymics. Thus original patronymic formations, which have lost their primary meaning (as must have occurred quite early), are present in the individual name YAv. Māiiauua– = Ved. Māyavá– and, according to Schmitt (1985) even in Mid. Pers. Zariyān = Ved. Hárayāṇa– derived from a short name OIr. *Zari-, which for its part is based on Av. zairi– = Ved. hári– “yellow, dun-colored; dun horse.”

The genetic connection of those two-stem compound names with phenomena of the poetic language, whether compound poetic epithets or formulas of poetical diction, is evident in various Indo-European languages and could even be proven for the Indo-European protolanguage. To the context of the Indo-Iranian poetical tradition belong, e.g., the following Iranian names agreeing with Old Indian common nouns: OPers. Dādrši– = Ved. dāˊdhṛṣi– “daring, brave”; YAv. Aṧāuuaŋhu– = Ved. šrtāvasu– “possessing truth as his good (or sim.)”; YAv. Xšuuiβrāspa– (with first element *xšuuiβra-) = Ved. kṣiprāśva– “possessing quick horses”; YAv. Yuxtāspa– (cf. yuxta.aspa-) = Ved. yuktāˊśva– “possessing harnessed horses”; YAv. Nərə-manah– [rather doubtful, however] = Ved. nṛ-máṇas– “possessing the courage of a man” (cf. Gk. Andro-ménēs). Likewise a poetical context is given for names agreeing with Old Indian expressions (without having been blended into one): OPers. Dāraya-vauš “Holding firm the good” ~ Ved. vásūni dhar; OPers. Vištāspa-, Av. Vīštāspa– “Possessing horses untied (for racing)” ~ Ved. víṣita– áśva-; YAv. Huuarə-čiΘra– (determinative compound with comparative meaning) ~ Ved. svàr ṇá citrám “splendid like the sun”; YAv. Paršaṱ.gu– ~ Ved. Pṛˊṣant-gáv– “spotted bullock”; YAv. Vohuu-asti– ~ Ved. átithi- vásu– “the good guest”; YAv. Aṧa.nəmah– “Showing reverence to the Truth” ~ ved. ṛtásyanámasā, etc., YAv. Aṧa-sarəδa– “Belonging to the company of Truth” ~ Ved. śárdha- ṛtásya; YAv. Aṧa-uuazdah– “Providing Truth with prosperity (or sim.)” ~ Ved. vedhāˊṛtásya, etc.; YAv. Vīdaṱ.gu– “Being blessed with cows” ~ Ved. go-víd-, gáv- ved (cf. Av. gąm vīd), etc.; YAv. Vīδi-srauuah– ~ Ved. śrávas– ved “to win fame”; YAv. Vīspa-taurušī-, Vīspa.tauruuarī– (both fem.) ~ Ved. Vŕśva-túr– “overcoming all,” etc., especially Ved. víśvā dvéṣāṃsi tari = Av. vīspå ṱbaēšå tauruuaiia– “to overcome all obstacles.”

The functioning of those processes is most clearly seen in cases like the following anthroponyms, for which all the constituents are attested: YAv. Auruuaṱ.aspa– derived from the compound Av. auruuaṱ.aspa– “possessing swift horses,” based on the phrase Av. auruuaṇt- aspa– “swift horse” (= Ved. áśva– árvant-, which testifies to the inherited character of this expression); YAv. Tižii-aršti– based on the compound Av. tiži.aršti– “possessing a sharp-edged spear,” which for its part combines in an entirely regular way the phrase tiγra- aršti– “sharp-edged spear.”

Motives of name-giving. The most concrete motive for choosing some particular name (primarily some two-stem full name) is without doubt to emphasize family ties. Most common is the custom of choosing a name that has already appeared in some previous generation of the father’s (or the mother’s) family. As a result, personal names become a distinguishing mark for the family concerned. There is a wide choice of various means of expressing those family ties and the family tradition: (i) by naming the grandson after the grandfather (cf. the sequence of Kuruš—Kambū/ŭjiya—Kuruš—Kambū/ŭjiya in the Achaemenid family); (ii) by passing on one of the two elements of the father’s full name to the next generation, i.e., by repeating it in the son’s name (or the sons’ names), thus causing a sound association by alliteration and/or rhyme (cf., e.g., YAv. Vaŋhu-δāta-, son of Xva-δāta-); or (iii) the same phenomenon on a synchronic level, so to speak—by repeating one of the two elements within the names of brothers (cf., e.g., YAv. Vohu.nəmah-, brother of Vohuuazdah-). Apart from the family tradition, another model for such replica name-giving is furnished by figures of history, mythology, fable, etc., bearing famous names, who meant something to the name-giving parents. An example from eastern Iran and probably the Achaemenid period is found in the remark of Chares of Mitylene (F 5), that many local dynasts had called their daughters by the name Odátis after the main character of the fairytale love story of Odátis and Zariádrēs.

Such traditional giving of names should advise us to be cautious about drawing any conclusions from names, e.g., conclusions regarding religion from theophoric names (see particularly Schmitt, Writings, 2000, pp. 135–49). For in general the principle is valid, that the choice of a certain name is motivated by its etymological meaning only in case where replica name-giving dependent on some kind of tradition can definitely be excluded or, to put it another way, where the primary use as a name or the new creation of the name can be proven.

As a result of these traditional motives of name-giving, onomastic formations are found which contain elements of diachronically or diatopically divergent origin, i.e., hybrid forms with archaic or dialectal features side by side with ordinary ones: e.g., the name Ciçan-taxma– “Excellent by his origin” (with OPers. ciça– “origin” and non-Pers. taxma– “excellent, brave, courageous”) shows this mixed form in the royal inscriptions, whereas both the genuine Median (*ČiΘran-taxma-) and Old Persian forms (*Ciçan-tahma-) are reflected in El. Zi-ut-ra-an-tak-ma and Tí-iš-ša-an-tam-ma respectively. Through examples like this it becomes abundantly clear that the vocabulary available for name-giving (which can be called the “onomastic vocabulary’) differs substantially from the normal vocabulary used in common nouns. Therefore one cannot necessarily infer the ethnic relationship of some people from the dialectological origin of their names, since the two may not accord with one another: In the name of Vištāspa, e.g., who as Darius’ father undoubtedly was of Persian origin, the word for “horse” is found in non-Persian form, as (Med.) aspa-; on the other hand the name of the rebel Āçina (who expressly is called “an Elamite” in DB IV 10) bears a hypocoristic name based on genuine OPers. āç– “fire.”

We may point in passing to personal names referring to the calendar (see Schmitt, 2000b), such as, e.g., YAv. Ātərə-dāta– “Given by the Fire-god (as the genius of the 9th day)” or YAv. Spəṇtō-δāta– “Given by redeeming [Ārmaiti] (as the genius of the 5th day).” A short remark of a more general character must suffice also for women’s names: According to the inherited system they were different from men’s names, not in content, but only in form, and only in a (secondary) change of the masculine form to feminine (e.g., by conversion of a stem in -a- to a feminine stem in –ā- or -ī-). The Avestan evidence includes, e.g., Hu-čiΘrā-, fem. from –čiΘra-, masc.; ritī-, fem. from rita-, masc.; Huuōuuī-, fem. from Huuōuua-, masc.; Zairič-ī-, fem. from Zairiiaṇč-, masc.; incidentally women’s names are attested for the Achaemenid period only in the collateral tradition.

The father’s name is given in Old Persian only periphrastically by puça– “son” and the genitive of the name added, as, e.g., in DB I 28 Kambū/ŭjiya, Kurauš puça “Cambyses, Cyrus’s son.” In the Avestan language, however, in addition to such periphrases other constructions are attested: either the mere genitive without a word for “son” or various patronymic adjectives in –i-, –åna-, –aiiana-, etc. (see below, section ii.). The only patronymic formation of the latter kind found in the Old Persian royal inscriptions is the propatronymic form Haxāmaniš-iya– “Achaemenid” based on the name of the eponymous founder of this dynasty, Haxāmaniš.

Onomastic evidence from Pre-Achaemenid times. The earliest evidence of Iranian anthroponyms may be presented in short form; it is of limited extent and consists mainly of the names of several dozen Median city-lords (see Parpola, 1998 ff.) who ruled in the northern Zagros area and whose names are attested in Neo-Assyrian texts (annals, chronicles, reports on military campaigns, letters, etc.) from the time of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) and particularly from the reign of Shamshi-Adad V (823–811 BCE), Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BCE), and Sargon II (721–705 BCE). The etymological interpretation of those names is hindered by the imprecise cuneiform renderings and often does not go beyond mere supposition. Following the classification given above, these are the most probable cases to be listed: type A.i: Pa-ar-nu-u-a = OIr. *Farnahṷā (stem in *-ṷant-) ‘Rich in splendor’; Ra-zi-iš-tu = OIr. *Razišta– “Most righteous”; Up-pa-am-ma-a = OIr. *Upama– “Uppermost”; — type A.ii.1: Ag-nu-par–nu = OIr. *Agni-farnah– “Possessing the splendor of fire (or: through the Fire-god)”; Ba-ag/ga-par-na, etc. = OIr. *Baga-farnah– “Possessing the splendor of (or: through) the gods”; Šá-ta-áš-pa = OIr. *Satāspa– “Possessing hundreds of horses”; Ši-dir-pa-ar-na/ni = OIr. *ČiΘra-farnah– (q.v.) “Possessing shining splendor”; — type A.ii.2: Ar-ta-si-ra-ri = OIr. *Ṛta-srīra– “Marvellous by Truth”; Ba-ag-da-at-ti = OIr. *Baga-dāta– “Given by the gods”; Ir-ti-ṣa-ti = OIr. *Ṛta-zāta– “Born of Truth”; — type A.ii.3: Áš-pa-ba-ra/ri etc. = OIr. *Aspa–bāra– “Borne by a horse; rider, horseman”; Sa-tar-pa/ba-nu = OIr. *XšaΘra–pāna– “Protecting the rule”; — type B.i.1: A-ri-ia = OIr. *Arya-, based on Ir. *Arya– “Aryan, Iranian”; — type B.ii.1: Ar-ba-ku = OIr. *Arba-ka-, based on Ir. *arba– “little, young”; Bar-zi-i/Bar-zi-ia-a = OIr. *Brzi-ya-, based on OIr. *brzi– “high”; Da-a-a-uk-ki/ku = OIr. *Dahyu-ka-, based on Ir. *dahyu– “land”; Ka-ra-ak-ka, etc. = OIr. *Kāra-ka-, based on Ir. *kāra– “army, people”; Kaš/Ka-áš-ta–ri-ti = (Med.-)OPers. XšaΘr-ita-, based on Ir. *xšaΘra– “kingship, kingdom”; Ma-aš-dak-ku, etc. = OIr. *Mazdā/ă-ka-, based on the theonym (Ahura) Mazdā; Ma-aš-tuk-ku = OIr. *Mazd-uka-, formed in a similar way; Me-et-ra-ku = OIr. *MiΘra-ka-, based on the theonym MiΘra; Za-ar-duk-ka = OIr. *Zard-uka-, based on Ir. *zṛd– “heart”; — type B.ii.2: Ma-áš-da-a-a-uk-ku = OIr. *Mazdā-yuka-, two-stem form based on a compound like *Mazdā-yazna– “Worshiping (Ahura) Mazdā.”

ii. AVESTAN NAMES

In the Avesta at least 400 personal names are attested. The bulk of these names is found in the second part of the Fravardīn Yašt (Yt. 13.95–142) (q.v.) in a litany-like enumeration of the frauuaṧis (see FRAVAŠI) of Zarathustra’s first disciples and followers in the Iranian and non-Iranian countries or, in a sense, of the religious ‘heroes’ who had rendered outstanding services to the spread of Zoroastrianism. This list of partly historical persons and partly figures of legendary traditions is the most extensive catalogue of anthroponyms known to us from one of the early Indo-Iranian languages and in this respect is an important text for studying the actual use of personal names (see Schmitt, 2003).

More recently the Avestan anthroponyms have been brought together by Mayrhofer (1977b), who analyzed them systematically, taking into account the then state of Avestan philology and linguistics. Here belongs also his preliminary work (Namengut, 1977a) dealing mainly with several special problems of Avestan personal names.

Typology of Avestan names. The inherited types of personal names (as listed in section i above), to which belong more than the common two-stem compounds (as postulated inter alia, Wikander, 1941, p. 63), are more or less preserved in the Avesta; the following examples (to which has been added the relevant number in Mayrhofer, IranischesPersonennamenbuch) may illustrate this:

A.i. (single-stem full names): Arəǰaŋvhaṇt– (no. 20) “The estimable one” (from OIr. *arǰah-ṷant-); Dåŋha– (no. 101) “The Dāha” (based on the ethnonym OIr. *Dāha-); Kauui– (no. 210) “The wise man”; Saēna– (no. 274) “Mr. Eagle, Hawk” (see above); TąΘriiāuuaṇt– (no. 305) “Being full of darkness”; Tūra– (no. 309) “The Turanian” (based on the identical ethnonym); rita– (no. 315) “The third (man)”; Varāza– (no. 355) “Mr. Boar” (see above); Yima- (no. 406) “The twin”;

A.ii. (two-stem full names):

A.ii.1 (possessive compounds): Aiβi-xvarənah– (no. 6) “Possessing splendor lavishly”; Aṧa.nəmah– (no. 37) “Showing reverence to the Truth” (cf. above); Hao-srauuah– (no. 167) “Possessing good reputation” (cf. above); Kərəsāspa- (no. 216) “Possessing slender horses” (cf. above), Vīštāspa- (no. 379) “Possessing horses untied (for racing)” (based on an ancient technical term of Aryan horse-racing; cf. above) and a number of other names containing –aspa- “horse”; Paršaṱ.gu– (no. 248) “Possessing spotted bullocks”; PərəΘuu-aršti– (no. 255) “Possessing a far-reaching spear” and other forms with –aršti- “spear”; Pouru-čistā-, fem. (no. 263) “Possessing much insight” (from Av. čisti– = Ved. cítti– “insight”); Siiāuuaršan– (no. 282) “Possessing dark stallions”; Spəṇtō.xratu– (no. 289) “Having redeeming will-power at his disposal”; Spitāma– (no. 291) “Possessing brilliant attacking strength”; Srīraoxšan– (no. 295) “Possessing handsome bulls”; Srīrāuuaŋhu– (no. 296) “Possessing beautiful goods”; Vohuu-asti– (no. 391) “Having the good one (the Fire-god?) as his guest”; ZaraΘ-uštra- (no. 416) “Possessing aging camels” (thus according to Thieme, 1981) and other names containing –uštra– “camel”; as a special case (namely a dvandva-like bahuvrīhi) here must be added also Vīrāspa– (no. 370) “Possessing men and horses”;

A.ii.2 (determinative compounds): Ātərə-dāta– (no. 69) “Given by the Fire-god (as the genius of the 9th day)”; Dūraē-srūta– (no. 111) “Far-famed” (cf. above); Huuarə-čiΘra– (no. 181) “Splendid like the sun”; Pairi-štūra– (no. 240) “Being strong all around”; Spəṇtō-δāta– (no. 288) “Given by redeeming [Ārmaiti] (as the genius of the 5th day)”; Uštā-zaṇta– (no. 330) “Wanted child” (with an adverbial first element, Av. uštā/ă “as desired”); Vī-srūta– (no. 376) “Far-famed”;

A.ii.3 (governing compounds): Dāraiiaṱ.raΘa– (no. 102) “Stopping the (enemy“s) chariot”; Frādaṱ.vaŋhu– (no. 135) “Furthering the good(s)”; Frādaṱ.xvarənah– (no. 136) “Furthering the splendor”; Frāraiiaṱ-raΘa- (no. 141) “Starting up the chariot”; Isaṱ.vāstra– (no. 190) “Wishing for pasture land”; Uxšiiaṱ.ərəta– (no. 335) “He who makes Truth growing”; Uxšiiaṱ.nəmah– (no. 336) “He who makes reverence growing”; Vīdaṱ.gu– (no. 364) “Gaining cows, being blessed with cows”; Vīδaṱ.xvarənah– (no. 365) “Being blessed with splendor”; Vīspa-taurušī– fem. (no. 372) and Vīspa.tauruuarī– fem. (no. 373) “Overcoming all [obstacles]”;

A.ii.4 (inverted forms): probably Nəmō.vaŋhu– (no. 231), inverted from Vohu.nəmah– (no. 387) “Showing reverence to the good one”;

B.i.1 (single-stem short names): Aršan– (no. 26) based on compounds with Av. aršan- “male, man, hero”; Friia– (no. 146) from Av. friia– “dear, own”; Kāta– (no. 211) from compounds with Av. –kāta- “desired”; Pəṧana– (no. 256) from Av. pəṧana– “battle, fight”; Spiti– (no. 292) perhaps shortened from *Spitii-aspa– “Possessing white horses” (since his brother is named Ǝrəzrāspa– “Possessing fleet horses”); Taxma– (no. 304) from compounds with Av. taxma- “brave, courageous”; Uštra– (no. 331) based on the compounds containing uštra– “camel” (cf. above); Uxšan– (no. 333) from Av. uxšan– “bull” (as, e. g., in Srīraoxšan-; see above); Vaŋhu– (no. 350) from Av. vaŋhu-, i. e. Ir. *vahu– “good”; Zairita– (no. 413) based on Av. zairita– “yellow, dun-colored” and perhaps on OIr. *Zaritāspa– = OInd. Haritāśva– “Possessing dun horses” in particular; Zaoša– (no. 415) from Av. zaoša– “pleasure, affection”; B.ii.1 (single-stem hypocoristics): Kauu-āta– (no. 209) based on kauui– “wise”; probably also Arš-iia– (no. 28), i. e. OIr. *Ṛš-iya– based on some compound with *ṛšan– “male, man,

hero” as in OPers. Ṛšāma- and Xšaya-ṛšan-;

B.ii.2 (two-stem hypocoristics): Frā-č-iia– (no. 132) based on Frā-čiΘra– (no. 133) “of an outstanding descent.”

There are also “meaning-less” or irrational formations that merely combine lexemes commonly used in anthroponyms with no regard to their semantic appropriateness. Such is Mązdrā uuaŋhu– (no. 225) with the elements mązdra– “wise, intelligent” and vaŋhu– “good; the good(s)”; since it is attested next to Srīrāuuaŋhu– (the two persons perhaps being brothers), it seems to be a secondary replica of this name.

Here we should also mention the widespread custom of renewing and modernizing the onomastic lexicon, not least by introducing synonyms or similar means of expression for a variety. Thus the striking rarity of Old Iranian anthroponyms with the element *sravah– (Av. srauuah-, OPers. *çavah-) “fame, reputation” may be explained by such a change, namely by the substitution of Av. xvarənah-, OPers. farnah-. This seems to be the case in, e.g., Av. Haomō.xvarənah– (no. 166) instead of *Haomō.srauuah-, the virtual equivalent to OInd. Soma-śravas-. In the same way one may also explain OIr. *Agžiti-farnah– (attested in El. Ha-ik-ši-ti-pir-na), which looks like a modernized variant of an anthroponym based on the primeval poetic formula living on in Ved. ákṣiti- śrávas– “unfading fame” (cf. Schmitt, 1972b, pp. 83–86). Similarly Av. Siiāuuaršan– (no. 282) “Possessing dark stallions” may be merely replacing the older *Siiāuuāspa– (as is required by the patronymic Siiāuuāspi– anyway) which is the inherited parallel of Ved. Śyāvāˊśva-. Likewise Av. spāda– “army” seems to be a substitute for older haēnā– (= Ved. sénā-) in the name Srūtō.spāda– (no. 298), since the equivalent of Śruta-sena– would be (the unattested) *Srutō.haēna-.

Original patronymics (or “propatronymics’ referring to a previous ancestor) became independent normal idionyms (or names of individuals), e.g., in Māiiauua– (no. 222) = Ved. Māyavá– seemingly based on IIr. *Māyu– (cf. Av. māiiu- “skillful”), and perhaps in Friiāna– (no. 147), too, which name in the context of Y. 46.12b is to be interpreted rather as an idionym than as a patronymic (based on the short name Friia-). For a woman’s name of this kind one may compare Huuōuu-ī– (no. 189) “The one from the Huuōuua family.”

A peculiarity of Avestan anthroponomastics is presented by those names that are formed from groups or mere sequences of words, and in fact are quotations from passages of some Avestan text. This type of name derived from a particular (even if loose) context has no closer parallels in other ancient Indo-European languages. The words quoted in such a name (partly in an Old Avestan form), which in the original passage follow one another, may even dispense with their syntactic relations. Thus, e.g., the name Aṧāhura– (no. 44) is based on the words OAv. aṧā ahurā, which are found next to each other, though without inner connection, in Y. 50.5a mazdå aṧā ahurā “O wise one through Truth, O Ahura.” Three such names are listed in Yt. 13.120: Aṧəm.yeŋˊhe.raočå, Aṧəm.yeŋˊhe.varəza, and Aṧəm.yahmāi.ušta (nos. 48–50); and since all three of them are indeclinable (notwithstanding their genitival function), the adverbial qualification nąma “by name” is added to them (in a way similar to that attested in the Old Persian texts). Aṧəm.yeŋˊhe.raočå is alluding to Y. 12.1 yeŋˊhe aṧəm, yeŋˊhe raočå where these words, however, are part of two different relative clauses (“to whom the Truth, to whom the light …”); in Aṧəm.yahmāi.ušta incoherent parts of a Gathic verse are quoted, aṧəm from Y. 43.1d, and yahmāi uštā from Y. 43.1a; the source of Aṧəm.yeŋˊhe.varəza is not traceable at all in the surviving books of the Avesta. A similar special case are also “phrasal” anthroponyms like Staotar- vahištahe aṧahe (no. 299) “He who prays the Aṧa vahišta prayer” and Hąm.barətar– vaŋhuuąm (no. 170) “He who gathers goods.”

Motives of name-giving; use of the names. The choice of a particular name often is motivated, not primarily by a desire to characterize the individual person specifically, but by reasons far from onomastics. The decisive factor may be the intention of the name-giving parents to emphasize the family ties (see section i., above). This can be done by repeating one of the two elements of the father’s full name in the son’s name (as in Vaŋhu-δāta-, son of Xva-δāta– in Yt. 13.119) or by choosing partly identical names for brothers. This custom can be demonstrated by a number of Avestan examples, where the names of brothers (or sisters) share either their first or their second element: in Yt. 13.108 three brothers Dāraiiaṱ.raΘa-, Frāraiiaṱ.raΘa-, and Skāraiiaṱ.raΘa– are named in such a way that their names are linked by both rhyme (cf. raΘa– “chariot”) and internal rhyme (with forms in °āraiiaṱ.-); in Yt. 13.112 the names Aiiō.asti-, Gaiiaδāsti-, and Vohuu-asti– of three brothers are attested; in Yt. 13.114 two sons of one Katu- by name Vohu.nəmah– and Vohuuazdah– are mentioned; in Yt. 13.97 we hear of three sons of one Frāniia– called Vohu.raočah-, Aṧō.raočah-, and Varəsmō.raočah-; similar cases are, in Yt. 13.127, the two brothers Paršaṱ.gu– and Dāzgrō.gu– as well as in Yt. 5.34, etc., the two sisters Arəna-uuāčī– and Saŋha-uuāčī-. In this last example the two names are connected still more closely by the dual form, which may show that we have to do here with twin sisters. In other places of the Fravardīn Yašt list, where such names sharing one common element are mentioned next to each other without explicit information on any relationship (e.g., in Yt. 13.128 Uxšiiaṱ.ərəta– and Uxšiiaṱ.nəmah-), we can only deduce and suspect such a family relationship, but we cannot definitely prove it.

Other factors may produce a more or less mechanical combination of lexemes commonly used in names, regardless of the syntactic and semantic relations between them. In principle the result is the same if a particular word for some reason was regarded as an essential component in some name. In Vd. 18.52 such a scenario is made explicit; it is stated that the man in question shall get “the name Ātrə.dāta– or Ātrə.čiΘra– or Ātrə.zaṇtu– or Ātrə.daḣiiu– or some other name related to the Fire-god.”

The custom of a replica name-giving after some famous (historical) model can be illustrated by the four different women by name Frəˊnī– mentioned in Yt. 13.140. It cannot be pure chance that this one name is of such importance (or at least such frequency) among the few women known by name from the Avestan texts. But, because in Yt. 13.139 it is said that one of ZaraΘuštra’s daughters was so named, we can be quite sure to have found the model for this favorite name.

In the Iranian languages it is a hereditary characteristic trait that one single name, the individual name or idionym, is sufficient for identifying any individual person and for distinguishing him or her from all other persons. However, to these obligatory idionyms optional additions may be added in all the ancient Indo-European languages, so that such multi-part onomastic formulas likewise may be regarded as a heritage from the proto-language. Notwithstanding their insoluble problems, Schmitt (2003) on the basis of the name list in Yt. 13, has shown that Avestan exhausted, too, all the possibilities existing in the cognate languages. The persons listed in this catalogue are cited either by their idionym alone or (i) with the father’s name added in the genitive (whether or not governed by the word for “son,” puΘra-) or (ii) with the father’s or an ancestor’s name given in (pro)patronymic form by an adjective derived from that name, or even (iii) with the family’s name added in the genitive plural.

The form of these patronymic adjectives is relieved by means of various suffixes, particularly Av. –i-, –aiiana-, -ā/ăna-, and –iia– (which suffix alone has an Old Persian parallel), as the following examples plainly show: with –i– Siiāuuāsp-i– (= Ved. Śyāvāśvi-) from *Siiāuuāspa– (= Ved. Śyāvāˊśva-), Dāzgrāsp-i– from *Dāzgrāspa– (parallel to the attested Dāzgrō.gu-), Haŋhauruš-i- from Haŋhauruš-, Maiδiiōi.måŋh-i– from Maiδiiōi.måŋha-, Auuāraoštr-i– from *Auuāraoštra-; with –aiiana– Frāšaoštr-aiiana– (showing vrddhi besides) from Frašaoštra-, Karsn-aiiana– from Karsna-, Vaŋhuδāt-aiiana- from Vaŋhuδāta-; with -ā/ăna– Frāiiazəṇt-ana– from Frāiiazəṇta-, Frii-āna– from Friia-, Haēčaṱ.asp-āna– from Haēčaṱ.aspa-, Jāmāsp-ana– from Jāmāspa-, Kahrk-ana– from *Kahrka-, Tūmāsp-ana– from *Tūmāspa-, Xšuu iβrāsp-ana– from Xšuuiβrāspa-, but also Gaiiaδāstaii-ana– from Gaiiaδāsti– and Gaoraii-ana– from Gaori-; with –iia– Naotair-iia– (with enlarged Naotairii-āna-) from Naotara-.

Moreover these patronymic formations have extended their range, if their reference was transferred improperly from the children’s generation to the grandchildren or still further. By becoming a hereditary name the patronymic will become a “propatronymic” according to the less ambiguous terminology propagated by Schmitt (1972a, pp. 337–39).

To illustrate those various expressions indicating descent a selection of examples may be given: (i) Genitive of father’s name with puΘra– “son”: Aṧauuazdå puΘrō Pouruδāxštōiš “Aṧauuazdah, the son of Pouruδāxšti” (Yt. 5.72); Ātrəm Ahurahe Mazdå puΘrəm “Ātar, the son of AhuraMazdā” (Y. 2.12, etc.); without explicitly using puΘra-: Vohuuastōiš Snaoiiehe “of Vohuuasti, (the son) of Snaoiia” (Yt. 13.96); Dåŋhahe Zairitahe “of Dåŋha, (the son) of Zairita” (Yt. 13.98); Daēuuō.ṱbōiš (grammatically wrong genitive form) Taxmahe “of Daēuuō.ṱbiš, (the son) of Taxma” (Yt. 13.98). (ii) Patronymic adjective: BuδraheDāzgrāspōiš “of Buδra, the Dāzgrāspi, i.e., the son (or descendant) of Dāzgrāspa” (Yt. 13.106); H uš́iiaoΘnahe Frāšaoštraiianahe “of Huš́iiaoΘna, the son (or descendant) of Frašaoštra” (Yt. 13.104); AṧauuazdaŋhōPouruδāxštaiianahe “of Aṧauuazdah, the son of Pouruδāxšti” (Yt. 13.112). (iii) Alternatively it is possible also to indicate affiliation with a particular family or ancestral line by naming this in the genitive plural of the patronymic: Yōištahe Friiānanąm “of Yōišta from the Friiāna family (i. e. from Friia“s descendants)” (Yt. 13.120).

“Gentilic names” of this kind (to use the Latin term) could easily become a sort of hereditary by-name or second name; in Avestan this is found in the Huuō.guua (YAv. Huuōuua) and Spitāma families (cf. Jāmāspa– Huuōuua- and ZaraΘuštra– Spitāma– respectively). But there are other family names, too (at least Saēna– and Sāma-), which are based on idionyms of the same form and for this reason probably are of the same origin.

iii. ACHAEMENID PERIOD

Evidence of personal names belonging to the Achaemenid period is considerable, but in authentic sources, i.e., in the Old Persian inscriptions of the Achaemenid kings themselves, fewer than fifty names are documented in their Old Persian form (see Mayrhofer, 1979). Among these are the names of kings (beginning with the eponymous Haxāmaniš, then Cišpiš, Ariyāramna, Ṛšāma, Kuruš, and Kambŭ/ūjiya from the period preceding Darius I), the throne-names of Darius and his successors, Dāraya-vauš “Holding firm (or: retaining) the good,” Xšaya-ṛšan– “He who is ruling over heroes,” and Ṛta-xšaça- “Whose rule is through the Truth” with their respective programmatic message (cf. Schmitt, “Throne-Names,” 1982), and names of other Achaemenids such as Vištāspa and Bṛdiya-. As regards throne-names, we know from Greek and Roman literary sources as well as from Late Babylonian chronicles and astronomical texts (i.e., from two traditions not related to each other) that the Achaemenid kings changed their (birth-)name upon accession to the throne and assumed a “royal name” expressing some religious-political program or motto.

There are also several names of members of the Median royal house (Uvaxšt[a]ra, XšaΘrita), of Darius I’s fellow-conspirators together with their fathers’ names (DB IV 83–86: Vindafarnah, son of Vahyasparuva [?]; Utāna, son of uxra; Gaub[a]ruva, son of Mṛduniya; Vidṛna, son of Bagābigna; Bagabuxša, son of Dātavahya [?]; and Ardumaniš, son of Vahuka), of members of the court (such as Aspacanah), and of Darius’ generals and satraps (like Ṛtavardiya, Dādṛšiš, Taxmaspāda, Vaumisa, and Vivāna). The remaining names are those of two “private individuals” (namely Ariya-ṛšan, on the top of a perfume-vessel, and Ṛšaka, son of AΘiyāb(a)uštā [or sim.], on a [non-royal] seal), and of the disloyal rebels mentioned in Darius’s Bisitun (see BISOTUN) inscriptions, too, partly together with the names of their fathers or of those who they pretended to be (Gaumāta; Āç-ina, son of Upad(a)rama; Mart-iya, son of Cincaxriš; Fravartiš; Ciçan-taxma; Frāda; Vahyaz-dāta, and Skunxa). But to that sort belong also a number of non-Iranian names: Bab. Nadintabaira (or sim.), son of Ainaira, and Nabukudracara, son of Nabunaita; El. AΘamaita and Imaniš, and lastly one Araxa, son of Haldita, coming from the Urarto-Armenian region.

Collateral tradition. Since the Achaemenid empire covered a vast area and actually was a multinational and multilingual state, personal names, and also Old Persian or, more generally, Old Iranian personal names are available in numerous sources written in the most varied languages and writing systems from within and outside the empire: in Elamite, Late Babylonian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Hieroglyphic and Demotic Egyptian, Lycian, Lydian, Greek, etc. From later times there is historical information about the Achaemenid period particularly in Greek and Roman authors. But essentially this so-called collateral tradition of Old Iranian anthroponyms centers on Elamite and Greek sources; and, as concerns the Elamite texts found in Susa, and even more those from Persepolis — the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (PFT; see Hallock) and the Persepolis Treasury Tablets (PTT; see Cameron) — it has been rightly emphasized that this rich corpus came from the center of the empire itself, right where those names were in use (cf. Benveniste, p. 76).

More than 2,000 personal names, the great majority being of Iranian origin, are attested alone on the Elamite administrative texts found in the Persepolis archives. The largest complex is that of the Fortification Tablets from the years 509–494 BCE or 13–28 of Darius I’s reign, to which must be added the much smaller corpora of the Persepolis Treasury Tablets (belonging to the years 492–458 BCE, namely the span from year 30 of Darius I’s reign to year 7 of Artaxerxes I’s reign) and of the tablets found at Susa, the date of which is still at issue. As a rule, the Iranian anthroponyms differ so clearly from the main types of Elamite personal names (for which see Zadok, 1984) that they can be found among the entire onomasticon and can be assigned to Iranian quite easily. The whole of the anthroponomastic evidence (and partly including that from unpublished tablets) is of course recorded in the all-embracing dictionary of Hinz and Koch (1987), and a first summary of an Iranianist analysis and evaluation is found in Mayrhofer (1973). The interpretation of this material from the Iranian scholar’s view is complicated by the fact that the graphic representation of the Iranian forms by the Elamite writing system does not follow rules as strictly as one would wish. Thus the varying spellings of the names alone have led already to different proposals in reconstructing the Old Persian (or Old Iranian) original forms, and it is always necessary to make full use of as much parallel onomastic evidence as possible.

Similarly, New and chiefly Late Babylonian texts from Achaemenid times, in particular civil law documents (contracts, economic texts, and the like) also stand out for the wealth of onomastic material. They show a large number of individuals bearing Old Iranian names from all levels of Babylonian society, from members of the royal house to higher officials and agents of commercial firms to outright chattel slaves. To these must be added the anthroponyms attested in texts of astronomical content and, furthermore, those of the Babylonian versions of the royal inscriptions, which of course must be the basis for all research into the Babylonian onomastic evidence. The linguistic analysis of this material, too, is characterized by the fact that the graphic rendering of Old Iranian names in Babylonian writing exhibits numerous variants and inaccuracies that hinder the work of interpretation. These difficulties are compounded by the fact that the corpus is not uniform in space and time, since the texts are distributed over the whole of the Achaemenid period (and beyond) and over various places and regions of Mesopotamia (see Zadok, 1977; Dandamayev). A remarkable fact is that for Babylonia (in contrast with other parts of the empire, e.g., Asia Minor) the onomastic data testify to a stronger acculturation of the Iranians there, since many individuals bear a native Babylonian idionym, but an Iranian patronymic or an ethnic indicating Iranian descent (cf. Stolper, CAH ² VI, pp. 253 ff.).

Since Aramaic (q.v.) in the Achaemenid empire was used as the official language of imperial administration for interregional communication and correspondence (therefore being called Imperial Aramaic), sources written in this language are available in no small number. In these texts, which are dispersed widely over the empire (but come chiefly from Egypt, Asia Minor, and Persepolis), many Old Iranian anthroponyms are recorded in their Aramaic form. However, only for the hundreds of papyri uncovered in Egypt (among them the remnants of an Aramaic adaptation of Darius I’s great Bisitun inscription) is a recent compilation of the entire evidence at hand (see Porten and Yardeni). Some books of the Old Testament (written in Hebrew, such as Esther, or Aramaic, such as parts of Esra) contain dozens of Iranian names relating to the Achaemenid period.

In Achaemenid Asia Minor a number of Old Iranian personal names is found in Lycian and Lydian inscriptions, particularly in those from the Xanthos area (among them the great Xanthos stele) and from Sardis, respectively (see Schmitt, 1982a). In addition to these names Iranian anthroponyms are also attested not infrequently in Greek inscriptions, which, moreover, attest to the fact that names originating in Achaemenid times lived on for many centuries, at any rate in more strongly Persianized regions (see Zwanziger; Schmitt, 1979c).

Another focus of the anthroponomastic collateral tradition is in Greek sources, and this is valid already for the Achaemenid period (cf. GREECE i. and xiii.): The main sources of relevant information are the historians of the classical period before Alexander the Great (Herodotus, Thucydides, etc.). Most useful are those authors who dealt with the Achaemenid empire, with the Persian Wars or the Achaemenids’ rule over the Greeks living in Asia Minor, and also those who wrote from their own experience in the East, such as Xenophon (see ANABASIS) or Ctesias (q.v.), who lived for some years at the Persian court. A more systematic treatment of this material remains to be written, one which would include in the discussion the plethora of onomastic information from the other branches of the collateral tradition as well as the rich sources written in one of the Middle Iranian languages. For the time being, only individual studies exist dealing with Aeschylus (Schmitt, 1978b), Herodotus (Schmitt, 1967; Schmitt, 1979a), Thucydides (Schmitt, 1983), Ctesias (Schmitt, 1979b), Xenophon (Schmitt, 2002), Plato (Schmitt, 1996), or the historians reporting on Alexander’s campaigns (see Werba).

So far as they were known at that time, the whole of the personal names attested for the Achaemenid period were included in Justi, Namenbuch (cf. also the index in Schmitt, 2000, pp. 115–34). Justi also presented various relevant genealogical family trees, not only of the Achaemenid dynasty itself (pp. 398 f.), but also of other families and houses of that period, which show that his Namenbuch is a by-product originating in materials compiled for a history of Iran. In consequence of the many new discoveries made all through the 20th century, however, Justi’s book is long since outdated. At least for the anthroponyms of the Old Persian inscriptions themselves Mayrhofer (1979) has replaced it (see above). But a full collection of all the names attested in all of the many branches of the collateral tradition is not yet at hand; and the only work attempting such a collection (Hinz, 1975) should be used with caution, since it is not always a reliable guide in linguistic matters.

Typology of Achaemenid names. It is not possible to list here in full all the names attested for the Achaemenid period in those voluminous and varied sources. The following selection is chosen from Old Persian itself and the various branches of its collateral tradition; it comprises all the analyzable names occurring in the Old Persian royal inscriptions (with the relevant number in Mayrhofer, Iranisches Personennamenbuch indicated) and, instances chosen according to two criteria: On the one hand only personal names with a convincing etymological interpretation are quoted, and on the other, a balanced consideration of all the different branches of the tradition is intended, strictly limited to Achaemenid times. Altogether the formation of the anthroponyms used during this period closely agrees with the facts seen in earliest Vedic times. The various types are those inherited from the common Indo-European and Indo-Iranian anthroponymical system (cf. section ii., above):

A.i. (single-stem full names): OPers. Dādṛši– (no. 24) “The brave one” (cf. Ved. dā′dhṛṣi-); Kuru– (no. 39) “Humiliating (the enemy in verbal contest)”; uxra– (no. 48) = Med. *Suxra– “Mr. Red” (= OInd. Śukra-);

A.ii. (two-stem full names):

A.ii.1 (possessive compounds): OPers. Ariya-ṛšan– (no. 6) “With Aryan heroes”; Ṛšāma– (no. 7; from šršan– + ama-) “Possessing the strength of heroes”; Ṛta-xšaça– (no. 11) “Whose rule is through the Truth”; Aspa-canah– (no. 15) “Getting pleasure from horses”; Taxma-spāda– (no. 47; Median name) “Possessing a brave army”; Vahyaz-dāta– (no. 56) “The one with the better law(s)”; Vištāspa– (no. 59) “Possessing horses untied (for racing)”; OIr. *Ātṛ-farnah– (reflected in El. Ha-tur-par-na, Aram. ʾtrprn, Gk. Ata[r]-/At [r]a-phérnēs and corresponding to Av. Ātərə-xvarənah-) “Possessing the splendor of the fire (or: Fire-god)”; OIr. *Paru-šiyāti– (attested in El. Ba(r)-ru-ši-ya-ti-iš, Bab. Pu-ru-ʾ-šá-ti-iš, Gk. Parysatis) “Giving much enjoyment”;

A.ii.2 (determinative compounds): OIr. *Ṛta-pāta– (reflected in El. Ir-da-ba–(ud-)da, Bab. Ar-ta-pa-ti, etc., Gk. Artapátēs/-bátās, etc.) “Protected by Truth”; OIr. *Baga-pāta– (as required by El. Ba-ka-ba-(ad/ud-)da, Bab. Ba-ga-pa-a-ta, etc., Aram. bgpt, Gk. Bagapátēs, Megabátēs, etc.) “Protected by the gods”; OIr. *MiΘra-dāta– (attested in Gk. Mithradátēs, etc., Bab. Mit-/Mi-it-ra-da-a-tú/ti, Aram. mtrdt, etc.) “Given by Mithra (as genius of the 16th day)”;

A.ii.3 (governing compounds): OPers. Ṛta-vardiya– (no. 10) = Med. *Ṛta-varziya– “Acting by Truth”; Baga-buxša– (no. 19) “Pleasing/serving the gods”; Dāraya-vauš (no. 26) “Holding firm (or: retaining) the good”; Vinda-farnah– (no. 57) “Being blessed with splendor” (like Av. Vīδaṱ.xvarənah-); Vaum-isa– (no. 63) “Longing for the good (or: the good one)”; Xšaya-ṛšan– (no. 66) “He who rules over heroes”; OIr. *Mazdā–yazna– (reflected in El. Mas-/Maš-da-ya-aš-na, etc., Bab. Ma-az-da-is/z-na, Aram. mzdyzn) “Worshipping (Ahura) Mazdā”;

A.ii.4 (inverted forms): OIr. *Dāta-miΘra– (attested in El. Da-ad-da-mi-ut-ra, Aram. dtmtr, etc.) formed by inversion of OIr. *MiΘra-dāta– “Given by Mithra (as genius of the 16th day)”;

A.ii.5 (special cases with an exceptional nominative or accusative form of the first element, which is explained best by assuming a phrase having been joined together): OPers. Ciçan-taxma– (no. 22; actually a hybrid form) = Med. *ČiΘran-taxma– hypostasized from a phrase *čiΘram (acc.) taxma– “excellent regarding the descent”; Haxā-maniš– (no. 36) hypostasized from *haxā (nom.) maniš (acc.) “follower as to his mind”;

B.i.1 (single-stem short names): OPers. Frāda– (no. 30) shortened from some such compound name as *Frāda-farnah– = YAv. Frādaṱ.xvarənah– “Furthering the splendor”; Fravarti– (no. 31) based on some such compound name as OIr. *Fravarti-pāta– (attested in Aram. prwrtpt) “Protected by the Fravašis”; OIr. *Dāta- (attested in El. Da-ad/ud-da) shortened from some compound with *dāta– as its first or second element; OIr. *MiΘra– (attested in El. Mi-ut-ra), which must be shortened from one of the numerous theophoric names containing the theonym MiΘra– (see below);

B.i.2 (two-stem short names): OIr. *Dāta-m-a– (attested in El. Da-(ad/ud-)da–ma, Aram. dtm, Gk. Datámās) based on names like OIr. *Dāta-miΘra– (see A.ii.4);

B.ii.1 (single-stem hypocoristics): OPers. Āç-ina– (no. 1) = Med. *ĀΘr-ina– from some compound with āç– < Ir. *āΘr– “fire”; Ṛša-ka– (no. 9) based on OIr. *ṛšan– “male, man, hero”; Bṛd-iya– (no. 20) = Med. *Bṛz-iya– based on *bṛdi-/*bṛzi– “high, grand” and suffixed by –iya-; Mart-iya– (no. 41) based on OIr. *marta– = Ved. márta– “mortal, man” and suffixed by –iya-; XšaΘr-ita– (no. 65) based on some compound with Med. *xšaΘra– “kingship, kingdom” and; suffixed by –ita-; OIr. *Arba-ka– (reflected in El. Har–ba-ka, Bab. Ar-ba-ak-ka, Gk. Arbákēs) based on *arba– = Ved. árbha– “little, young”; OPers. *Çut-iča– (attested in El. Šu-(ut-)te-iz-za) seemingly based on *Çutāyauda– (from *çuta– < OIr. *sruta– plus *Hyauda-; attested in El. Šu-(ud-)da-ya-u-da) “Possessing famous warriors,” particularly since both the full name and the hypocoristic with some probability are used for one and the same person;

B.ii.2 (two-stem hypocoristics): OIr. *Ṛta-x-aya– (attested in El. Ir-da-ka-ya, Aram. ʾrtḥy, Gk. Artachaíēs) shortened from some compound name like OIr. *Ṛta-xratu– or OPers. Ṛta-xšaça (see A.ii.1) with initial x– of the second element being preserved; OIr. *Ṛta-xš-ara– (reflected in El. Ir-da–ak-šá-ra, Bab. Ar-taḫ-šá-ri, Gk. Artoxárēs) shortened from OPers. Ṛta–xšaça-; OIr. *Baga-p-aya– (in Gk. Bagapaîos, Aram. bgpy) based on some compound name like OIr. *Baga-pāta-, *Baga-pāna-, or similar.

Among the very first anthroponomastic type (A.i.), i.e. the single-stem full names, those personal names which originate from ethnic names form a special group. In the collateral tradition from the Achaemenid period there are attested, e.g., OIr. *Daha– (reflected in El. Da-ha) “The Daha” (cf. YAv. Dåŋha-); *Haraiva– (attested in El. Ha-ri-ma) “The Areian”; *Saka– (in El. Šá-ak-ka, Gk. Sákās) “The Scythian”; *Sugda– (in El. Šu-ug-da) “The Sogdian”; more remarkable is in a sense the actual use of *Pārsa– “The Persian,” too, as it is found in El. Ba-ir-iš-šá.

Use of the names. Because things are more or less as in Avestan, here a few remarks may suffice. The oft-recurring form Haxā-manišiya “Achaemenid” commonly added to the names of the Achaemenid kings is indisputably a deonomastic formation. In its function, however, it is not a ‘propatronymic,’ but a singularizing form to the plural family name Haxāmanišiyā “the Achaemenids”; with the meaning “one of the Achaemenids,” it does not belong to the onomastic parts of the self-predication of the kings (see Schmitt, 1987).

It is notable that among the theophoric anthroponyms of the Achaemenid period those containing the element OIr. *MiΘra– are very common, even long before this theonym appears in the royal inscriptions. Already in the list compiled by Schmitt (“Die theophoren Eigennamen,” 1978), to which several additions are necessary, more than eighty prosopographically distinct bearers of such MiΘra-phoric names are enumerated (pp. 418–29, nos. 1–85).

For the onomastic analysis of such theophoric names, the discovery of parallel formations with various theonyms has proved to be particularly useful, i.e., series of both compound names and those formed by suffixal derivation. The series, e.g., of OIr. *MiΘra-dāta-, *Mi Θra-farnah-, *MiΘra-čiΘra-, *MiΘra-ka-, and *MiΘr-aya– is fully parallel to that of *Mazdā-dāta-, *Mazdā-farnah-, *Mazdā-čiΘra-, *Mazdā/ă-ka, *Mazd-aya– and even to that of *Baga-dāta-, *Baga-farnah-, *Baga-čiΘra-, *Baga-ka-, *Bag-aya– based on the generic term for the gods. Because it is quite popular to draw conclusions regarding the religious conditions of a people or a period from theophoric names, the warning must be repeated here that such a conclusion is justified only where the name in question is used for the first time (Schmitt, 1991, pp. 121 ff.). Each person later reusing an already existing theophoric name may be induced to do so by some tradition, so that secondary use of the name for a quite different reason cannot be excluded. Consequently it is only the first creator of an anthroponym with religious content for whom religious motives were indubitably decisive in giving such a name. It may be otherwise in the case of names that are formally identical with an appellative of the normal language and in this respect are descriptive: e.g., OIr. *Mazdā-yazna– “Worshipping (Ahura) Mazdā” (see A.ii.3).

iv. PARTHIAN PERIOD

For the Parthian period there is no super-abundance of primary sources written in the official (Middle) Parthian administrative language. Such as do exist, however, are far more relevant to the anthroponymy of that time than the other sources for this language, which are of a Sasanian or even post-Sasanian date, namely, the Parthian versions of the Sasanian royal inscriptions and the Manichean Turfan texts. The primary source material in the Parthian language is without exception epigraphic: the coins issued by the Arsacid kings (their Greek legends being replaced by Parthian ones from the 1st century CE; see Alram, 1986, pp. 121 ff.) and a great number of (mostly very short) inscriptions from the reign of king Mithridates I (the captions of the rock-relief at Ḵong-e Nowruzi) to the end of the Parthian empire. Most numerous are ostraca, among them more than 2,750 pieces from Nisā (from the 1st century BCE), which contain hundreds of personal names; in continuation of earlier studies by Gignoux (1972, pp. 45–68) and MacKenzie (1986), these have been systematically analyzed for the first time by Schmitt (1998; but cf. also Schmitt, 1999, because the edition of the texts was completed only afterwards). Moreover several other rock-, stone-, and vase-inscriptions are to be mentioned and likewise the three Greek and Parthian Avromān documents (for the Iranian names in the Greek texts, see Mayrhofer, 1974).

In close, direct connection with Parthian onomastics, however, are the many Iranian names attested in Armenian (see EIr. II, pp. 456-59), the bulk of which has been appropriated in Parthian times. The historical background to this influence is the fact that Armenia was politically dependent on the Parthian empire for centuries and was ruled by a collateral branch of the Arsacid dynasty, which brought Iranian civilization and customs to Armenia (see ARMENIA AND IRAN). Such close contact between Armenians and Parthians during this period is reflected most clearly in those names that were adopted by Armenians and were bestowed even on ethnic Armenians (for a complete treatment of these names see Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, pp. 17–91; for a first typological analysis cf. Schmitt, 1984, but in general also Schmitt, 1996).

Seemingly both the Arsacids who ruled over Armenia from 53 (or 66) CE and the Parthian noblemen who came with them carried on using their inherited Parthian names such as Aršak, Trdat, Xosrov, Varazdowxt, and the like. Afterwards the Armenian aristocracy and perhaps also sections of the common people (though about this we have only scanty information) imitated this custom and became accustomed to using Parthian names, continuing to do so even after becoming Christians. In this way all the various types of Parthian names, including formations which arose only in Middle Iranian times, found their way into Armenia (cf. Schmitt, 1984). Those Parthian anthroponyms that became customary in Armenia even for Armenians by birth are, therefore, in the literal sense of the word, collateral evidence of Parthian personal names and of the onomastic situation in the Arsacid empire. To these must be added also the names of historical persons of the Parthian empire and of contemporary Armenia (of royalty, officials, military commanders, etc.) as attested in the Armenian sources from the 5th century CE onwards. All these names are taken into account in what follows.

It will emerge that the Parthian personal names are deeply rooted in the (inherited) Iranian anthroponomastic system, as can clearly be seen in their relations to other Iranian onomastic traditions of previous periods (cf. Schmitt, 1998, pp. 177 f.). In spite of the great changes from Old to Middle Iranian (and in particular Western Middle Iranian) in the phonological history, which obscure in many respects the original forms and make their analysis more difficult, the diversity of the anthroponyms and of their many different inherited types (see section i., above) is still plainly recognizable in the Parthian period. Those original types of anthroponyms may be illustrated by the following examples taken from both the Nisā ostraca (with the serial numbers from Schmitt, 1998) and the Armenian tradition (and occasionally from the Greek Avrōmān documents):

A.i. (single-stem full names): prḥt(k)Fra-hāt(ak) (no. A.3), Gk. Phraátēs from OIr. *Frahāta– “Gained, Earned”; prnḥw Farnaxw (no. A.4; with prnḥwntkFarnxwandak) from OIr. *Farnah-vant– “Being full of splendor”; Arm. Varaz from OIr. *Varāza– “Mr. Boar”;

A.ii. (two-stem full names):

A.ii.1 (possessive compounds): ʾrtpn Arta-pān (no. B.1) from OIr. *Ṛta-pāna– “With the protection of Truth”; hwmy(k) Hu-māy(ak) (no. B.5), Arm. Hmayeak from OIr. *Hu-māya- (ka-) “Gifted with good faculties”; mtrprnMihr-farn (no. B.7) from OIr. *MiΘra-farnah– (attested in Gk. Mitraphérnēs) “With Mithra’s splendor”; whwmny Wah-man (no. B.12) from OIr. *Vahu-manah– “Turning his mind to the good”; Arm. Aršam = OPers. Ṛšāma– “Possessing the strength of heroes”; Arm. Xosrov from OIr. *Hu-sravah– (cf. Av. Hao-srauuah-) “Possessing good reputation”; Arm. Vštasp = OPers. Vištāspa- “With horses untied (for racing)”;

A.ii.2 (determinative compounds): ʾtrwdt Ātar-dāt (no. C.5) = Av. Ātərə-dāta- “Given by the Fire-god (as the genius of the 9th day)”; bgdtBag-dāt (no. C.6), Arm. Bag(a)rat from OIr. *Baga-dāta– (as required by El. Ba-ka-da-(ud/ad-)da, Aram. bgdt, etc.) “Given by the gods”; kwp(y)ztKōf-zāt (no. C.11), Gk. Kōphasátēs from OIr. *Kaufa-zāta– “Born in the mountains”; mtrdtMihr-dāt (no. C.13), Arm. Mihrdat, Gk. Meiridátēs, Miradátēs (both in Avrōmān) from OIr. *MiΘra-dāta– (Gk. Mithradátes, etc.) “Given by Mithra”; spndt(k) Spand-dāt(ak) (no. C.19), Arm. Spandarat = Av. Spəṇtō–δāta– “Given by redeeming [Ārmaiti] (as the genius of the 5th day)”; Gk. Mira-bandákēs (Avrōmān) from Parth. *Mihr-bandak (= Arm. Mihrewandak) “Mithra“s servant”;

A.ii.3 (governing compounds): ʾrybrzn Arya-barzan (no. D.1) from OIr. *Arya–bṛz-ana– (as attested in Gk. Ariobarzánēs) “Making the Iranians great”; mtrbwzn Mihr-bōžan (no. D.5) from OIr. *MiΘra-bauǰ-ana– (reflected in Gk. Mithrobouzánēs) “Delighting Mithra”; prdrmn Frāda-ramn (no. D.11) from OIr. *Frāda-ramna– “Furthering peace”; wyndprn(k) Winda-farn(ak) (no. D.12) = OPers. Vinda-farnah– “Being blessed with splendor”; Arm. Dareh = OPers. Dāraya-vauš “Holding firm the good”;

A.ii.4 (inverted forms): bḥtssn Baxt-Sāsān (no. H.12) perhaps formed by inversion of ssnbḥt Sāsān-baxt (no. C.21) “Allotted by Sāsān”;

B.i.1 (single-stem short names): bwzn(y) Bōžan (no. E.1) from OIr. *Bauǰ-ana-, shortened from the many compound names like Mihr-bōžan (see A.ii.3 above); mtr(y) Mihr (no. E.4) from OIr. *MiΘra-, based on the compounds with this theonym; prwrty Fravart (no. E.6) = OPers. Fravarti-; wrtrgn(k)Varhragn(ak) (no. E.13), Arm. Vahagn, Vahan, based on the theonym OIr. *VɶrΘragna-;

B.ii.1 (single-stem hypocoristics): ʾršk Aršak (no. F.2), Arm. Aršak, Gk. Arsákēs (Avrōmān) = OPers. Ṛša-ka-; bwḥtk Buxt-ak (no. F.4) based on compounds in OIr. *-buxta- “saved by”; mtrk Mihr-ak (no. F.5), mtryn(y) Mihr-ēn (no. F.8) based on names containing OIr. *MiΘra-; ʾtryn(k) Āhr-in(ak) (no. F.25) from OIr. *ĀΘr-ina-, the counterpart of OPers. Āç-ina-; kryn Kār-in (no. F.30), Arm. Karin from OIr. *Kār-ina-, based on OPers. kāra– “army, people”; Arm. Aršên, in the end from OIr. *Ṛš-aina– based on *Ṛšan– “male, man, hero”; Arm. Vrkên, like MPers. Gurg-ēn based on OIr. *Vɶrk-aina– and *værka– “wolf”;

B.ii.2 (two-stem hypocoristics): Arm. Artašir, to be analyzed as OIr. *Ṛta-xš–ira– (with the hypocoristic suffix *-ira-), shortened from OIr. *Ṛta–xšaΘra- = OPers. Ṛta-xšaça- (cf. Schmitt, 1979, pp. 68 ff.).

The sizeable anthroponomastic evidence from Nisā has deepened our knowledge of Parthian personal names so much that also the differences with the Old Iranian period have become increasingly clear. Even if the inherited onomastic types of Indo-Iranian origin are still plainly evident in Parthian, new types and innovating forms of personal names have developed, which increasingly conceal the old heritage. If compared with the Old Iranian situation (as attested in Avestan or in the sources of the Achaemenid period), the personal names of Parthian times have changed through replacement of the component lexemes, and also as a result of the influence of modernizing trends on the development of the entire onomastic system.

Apart from the types of names inherited from Old Iranian, there are several other categories of names in Parthian (and Middle Persian) that are quite characteristic for these Western Middle Iranian languages. One of these innovations comprises three-stem formations based on secondary joining of previously existing names; likewise it would have been entirely out of place in Old Iranian times for a hypocoristic suffix to be added to a two-stem form not shortened already, as we find, e.g., in Parth. hwspyn(k) Huwasp-in(ak), which obviously is a derivation in –in from OIr. *Huv-aspa– “With good horses.” Still more striking is a type of new formations which may be described as ‘theophoric dummy dvandvas’ and which must be the result of secondary juxtaposition of two divine names: Parth. ʾtrwmtr(k) Ātar-Mihr(ak) (as MPers. ʾtwr(y)mtr(y) Ādur-Mihr), mtrssn(k)Mihr-Sāsān(ak), ršnwmtr Rašn-Mihr, wrtrgnssn Warhragn-Sāsān, etc., but also Arm. Atr-ormizd, Mihr-nerseh, Mihr–všnasp, Pʿaṟ-nerseh and the like. Whether these formations are simply mechanically invented out of elements common in personal names, or else take up the two divine names intentionally, is an open question. However, names that originally had the function of patronymics (or “propatronymics”) but, owing to a loss of their original meaning, have become ordinary idionyms (as, e.g., Av. Friiāna- or OIr. *Tigrāna-), are attested already in Old Iranian (see section ii., above).

Women’s names. In the Indo-European anthroponomastic system the women’s names were formed by a mere change of the masculine form into feminine (chiefly of a-stems into those in –ā– or –ī-). In consequence of the Middle Iranian phonological developments, such a differentiation between the genders is hardly possible any more. Relics of such formations can be seen anyhow in Arm. Anoyš (lit. “Charming one”) or Ašxên (lit. “Ms. Turquoise”), whereas the Avrōmān-Greek form Azátē (= Parth. ʾzʾt āzāt “noble”) is of course another matter. Overall, certain types of new formations that do allow a reliable characterisation of the feminine gender have become productive. In particular the type of determinative compound with duxt “daughter” as their second element is an unambiguous strategy of this kind. The type corresponds to Middle Persian names such as Narseh-duxt, Ohrmazd–duxt, Pērōz-duxt, Varāz-duxt “Daughter of Narseh,” etc.; for Parthian it is attested only indirectly by Armenian references to Xosrovi-dowxt “Daughter of Xosrov [i.e., Xosrov I, king of Armenia],” Varaz-dowxt, and others. Since there are cases, however, where other than the name of her actual father is contained in the first part of the woman“s name, one must be on guard against taking duxt literally.

v. SASANIAN PERIOD

In the examination of the anthroponomastic situation of Sasanian times, priority treatment must be given to the names attested in non-literary, i.e., epigraphic sources (in the broadest sense of the word). The main reason for this is that only a small part of the personal names appearing in the Zoroastrians’ books in Middle Persian language or in the Manichean literature has a direct connection with the Sasanian empire. In the Pahlavi literature several hundreds of personal names or of patronymic formations are indeed attested, but the persons mentioned there are of a very different character, a great many of them being alleged ancestors of Zarathustra, members of his family, literary characters, or other legendary or historical persons known already from the surviving books of the Avesta. With the Sasanian kings and princes, provincial governors, high officials, and military leaders things are clearer, but the religious and juridical authorities appearing there, the Zoroastrian priests (mōbeds, hērbeds) and scholars, the authors and scribes of Zoroastrian writings, and the persons mentioned in connection with some juridical case can be put in chronological order only in exceptional cases. Of the Manichean literature of Central Asia, it is important to consider the writings concerning ecclesiastical history, which deal with the Sasanian state and sometimes mention kings and dignitaries of that time by name. Among the Iranian (Middle Persian, but also Parthian or Sogdian) personal names of Manicheans (for which see Sundermann, 1994), those of Manichean churchmen, which go back to the 3rd century CE, are particularly characteristic formations derived from theonyms or anthroponyms. But the bulk of the Manichean names (of laymen) belong to the 8th–11th centuries and thus in terms of onomastics have very little to do with the Sasanians. As to their formation they correspond in all essentials to the personal names attested elsewhere in Middle Persian sources, including even the so-called ‘dummy dvandvas’ (see iv., above), as we find them in names such as Mihr-Wahman or Tīr-Mihr.

A comprehensive treatment of all the Middle Persian personal names attested in inscriptions, papyri, ostraca, coins (for which see also Alram, 1986, pp. 186–214), seals, etc. is available in Gignoux, 1986 (with a supplement [up to 2001] of 2003), who concerned himself in particular with hunting out the evidence from the countless seals and bullae so widely distributed over public and private collections. For the late Sasanian period the economic and administrative documents from Egypt (which was occupied by the Persians in 619–28 C. E.), both Greek (see Huyse, 1990) and Middle Persian papyri, parchments, and ostraca are of special interest. Moreover, there are also ostraca from various sites in Persia itself, mostly receipts issued for goods. Unfortunately, the interpretation of all these texts is rendered difficult by their fragmentary character and their extremely cursive writing (see Weber, 1992, and Huyse, 1995).

Middle Persian names, and all the various types known from the native tradition, are found also in some branches of the collateral tradition, especially in Armenian (where, however, they take second place to the Parthian onomastic borrowings [for which see section iv., above]) and in Syriac. The evidence of Iranian anthroponyms attested in the Syriac Acts of the Persian Martyrs heretofore has been somewhat neglected since the epoch-making text edition by Hoffmann (1880; see, however, Gignoux 1975–1976 and 1982).

Typology and morphology of names. Among the Middle Persian anthroponyms attested in the religious sources (both Zoroastrian and Manichean) as well as secular sources, all the inherited types of names are found, as their morphological analysis has clearly shown (cf. Gignoux, 1979; Gignoux, 1987; Zimmer, 1991; Sundermann, 1994, pp. 255 ff.). In addition there are also younger formations of a secondary origin, which took place only on the Middle Iranian level. A remarkable peculiarity of the Zoroastrian tradition is the names that are mere transcriptions of Avestan forms into Pahlavi (cf. Cereti, 2000; Cereti, in prep.). Altogether it must be said, that the frequency of the various types of names has changed if compared with Old Iranian. Two-stem names are still extant, but no longer prevalent, and there is only a relatively small number of forms which may be understood as direct continuants of Old Iranian names: thus, e.g., MPers. gwnd-ply Gunda-farr from OPers. Vinda-farnah-, hwslwb, etc. Hu-srav from OIr. *Hu-sravah-, mtrdʾtMihr–dād from OIr. *MiΘra-dāta-. In many cases of names such as MPers. dʾtpl Dād-farr and OIr. *Dāta-farnah– (as attested in El. Da- [ad-]da-bar-na, Gk. Dataphérnēs) an independent new formation cannot be excluded in spite of the exact formal correspondence to be seen.

The inherited types of personal names may be illustrated by the following examples, which are taken mostly from Gignoux, 1986 (followed by the relevant number, for further information):

A.i. (single-stem full names). plḥw Farrox (no. 352) from OIr. *Farnah-vant– ‘Being full of splendor (of happiness)”; štrp Šahrab (no. 868) from the title MPers. šahrab, based on OIr. (non-Pers.) *xšaΘra-pā/ă- “satrap”;

A.ii. (two-stem full names):

A.ii.1 (possessive compounds): ʾtwlpln Ādur-farr (no. 53) from OIr. *Ātṛ-farnah– (cf. Av. Ātərə-xvarənah-) “Possessing the splendor of the fire” (see section iii., above); gwštsp Guštasp (no. 423), wštʾspy Vištāsp (no. 1013) from OPers. Vištāspa– and Av. Vīštāspa– respectively;

A.ii.2 (determinative compounds): ʾtwrpʾt Ādur-bād (no. 33) from OIr. *AÚtær-pāta- “Protected by the Fire-god” (cf. Av. Ātərə-pāta-); ʾtwrdʾt Ādur-dād (no. 46) from OIr. *Ātṛ-dāta- “Given by the Fire-god” (cf. Av. Ātərə-dāta-); mtrbwḥt Mihr-buxt (no. 638) from OIr. *MiΘra-buxta– “Saved by Mithra”; mtrdʾt Mihr-dād (no. 639) from OIr. *MiΘra-dāta-, whereas names like ʾwḥrmzddʾt Ohrmazd-dād (no. 709) are secondary formations (replacing, in the case given, OIr. *Ahura-dāta– and/or *Mazdā-dāta-);

A.ii.3 (governing compounds): gwndply Gunda-farr (no. 401) from OPers. Vinda-farnah– “Being blessed with splendor”; Man. MPers. Nox-dār “Holding the first rank”;

A.ii.4 (inverted forms): dʾtʾwḥrmzd Dād-Ohrmazd (no. 292) formed by inversion of Ohrmazd-dād (see above); this and other examples of the type are clear signs of mechanical joining of the two elements and indicate that theonyms, in particular, could be used ad lib. as the first or second element of a name;

B.i.1 (single-stem short names): dʾt Dād (no. 270) from OIr. *Dāta– (attested in El. Da-ad-da), based on the many compounds containing this element; mtl(y) Mihr (no. 613) from OIr. *MiΘra– and the theophoric names with this theonym;

B.ii.1 (single-stem hypocoristics): bwḥtkyBuxt-ag (no. 254) based on some compound in OIr. *-buxta- “saved by” (see A.ii.2, above); mtlky Mihr-ag (no. 629) based on OIr. *MiΘra-ka– (as in Aram. mtrk, Gk. Mithrákēs); cḥlyt(-ʾn) Čaxrīd (no. 267) based on OIr. *Čaxr-ita-, i.e., *čaxra– “wheel” and the hypocoristic suffix –ita-; mtrʾt Mihr-ād (no. 615) based on the theonym and suffixed by *-āta– as OIr. *MiΘr-āta– (reflected by Bab. Mi-it-ra-a-tu, Gk. Mithrátēs, etc.).

Apart from certain cases that are difficult to judge (such as bwlcʾcʾt Burz-āzād [no. 237], seemingly “Grand-and-noble,” but presumably not a real copulative compound), there are special innovations of Middle Persian anthroponomastics, among them the peculiar type of the ‘dummy dvandvas’. These new formations so typical for Middle Iranian are characterized by containing two (or even more) theonyms. Suffice it here to illustrate this rather frequent type (for a fuller treatment, see Gignoux, 1979, pp. 72 ff.) with a few examples: Ādur-Anāhīd, –Māh, –Mihr, –Ohrmazd; Mihr-Ādur, –Ohrmazd, –Vahrām; Tīr-Māh, -Mihr, -Ohrmazd, etc. Two particular points must be stressed in this connection: firstly, that the names of the sacred fires of Sasanian Iran (esp. Farrbay and Gušnasp) are also part of this anthroponomastic subsystem, and, secondly, that there are forms containing the element bg-/-bgBay-/-bay (from OIr. *baga– “god”), the supposed theonymic character of which is rather controversial. Moreover the interpretation of the ‘dummy dvandvas’ as a whole is in dispute, and it seems to me over-optimistic to keep several groups of such formations apart and to identify a basic stock of genuine dvandvas (pace Zimmer, 1984, pp. 292 ff.). Also the reference to the calendar, namely, to the names of days and months, as proposed by Schmitt (1988, p. 271) is mere speculation. Not least, the numerous three- and four-part formations like Ādur-Farrbay–Gušnasp, Burz-Māh-Gušnasp, Māh-Ādur-Frāy-Gušnasp, Māh-Ādur-Ohrmazd, or Mihr-Ādur-Farrbay seem to indicate that originally they were shorter forms and only expanded by some additional element (in an agglutinative manner, as it were), or even are newly-formed compounds based on a two-stem full name as their first or second element.

Motives of name-giving; use of the names. Examples for the traditional customs of name-giving can be found also in Middle Persian in large number. Thus the names of father and son often have one element in common, e.g., in “Dād-Farrox, son of Dād-Ādur,” or are even fully identical in cases like “Dād-Ohrmazd, son of Dād-Ohrmazd” (see Gignoux, 1979, pp. 57f.; Zimmer, 1991, pp. 114f.). Here the various ways of giving the father’s name or the family name may be mentioned. For this purpose the patronymic (or “propatronymic”) formations in -ʾn-ān and -kʾn –agān were used, normally joined to the son’s (or daughter’s) idionym by means of the relative particle ī (e.g., Ardaxšīr ī Pābagān “Ardaxšīr, son of Pābag”), or partly without ī owing to Parthian influence. Sometimes the father’s name is added to the son’s idionym unchanged, with or without the word for “son” (MPers. pus). The family name is expressed by a construction such as Dād(a)rōy ī az Husravdād-ān “Dād (a)rōy from [the family] of Husravdād” (cf. Huyse, 1995, p. 363).

Theophoric personal names are already very common in the Old Iranian period, but their percentage may have increased later. A number of theonymic elements (including the names of the great sacred fires [see Zimmer, 1991, pp. 138 f.]) appear most frequently: Ādur, Anāhīd, (Ādur-)Farrbay, (Ādur-)Gušnasp, Māh, Mihr, Ohrmazd, and Vahrām. The same is true for the names of some of the Sasanian kings, which obviously have frequently been re-used (esp. Ardaxšīr, Šābuhr, Narseh, Vahrām, and Husrav). A special problem connected with part of the theophoric anthroponyms is posed by those names that are supposed to be related to the calendar. All interpretations, however, that go beyond the type of name formed by a divine name plus the element -dād “given by” as, e.g., MPers. Māh-dād “Given by Māh [the Moon-god] (as genius of the 12th day)” (for which see Schmitt, 2000) are pure speculation: e.g., the supposed allusions to the names of planets, of the zodiac and the like.

As women’s names, several types of new formations have become productive; they were intended to characterize these names more clearly and to distinguish them better from men’s names, since the inherited distinguishing features had become unrecognizable. These new formations are of the following types: (1) theophoric short names consisting only of the name of a goddess (e.g., Spandarmad) or two-stem forms with such a name as their second element (e.g., Ādur-Anāhīd); (2) determinative compounds formed with MPers. -duxt “daughter” (attested in dozens of examples), which should not be taken too literally, however, as becomes clear, e.g., in Yazdān-duxt “daughter of the gods” or in cases where the real father’s name, known from some other source, is not the one appearing before the element –duxt; but the actual meaning of duxt in those forms remains uncertain, all the more so since we find quite different first elements, not only theonyms (as, e.g., in Ohrmazd-duxt) or names of persons (as, e.g., in Narseh-duxt), and therefore may suppose that it is only the frequent occurrence of the elements that matters; (3) similar compounds with the adjective anōš “sweet, charming, dear (lit. immortal)” corresponding to Armenian names in -anoyš such as Xosrov-anoyš, etc. (as assumed by Schmitt, 1988, pp. 268 f.).

vi. ARMENIAN NAMES OF IRANIAN ORIGIN

For many centuries Armenian life and culture has been influenced in a distinctive manner by Iran because of Armenia’s great political dependence on Iran’s powerful rulers. This influence was most intensive under the auspicious conditions of the Parthian period, when the Arsacids ruled Armenia directly and with the support of the Parthian nobility, and it also penetrated the Armenian language to a considerable extent.

Linguistic research has documented that the majority of Iranian lexical and other borrowings in Armenian originated in the Parthian language (Meillet; Bolognesi). The borrowings include even common words of the basic vocabulary and everyday language, whereas the Middle Persian linguistic influence under the Sasanians is confined to particular titles and technical terms that were only superficially integrated within the Armenian language (see ARMENIA AND IRAN iv, no. 1). The onomasticon, and especially the personal names attested in Armenian sources, are a case similar to that of the common vocabulary, in that these also show a great number of foreign elements. If we leave aside people of foreign stock appearing in the Bible, the ancient historiographers, and the authors other writings of Old Armenian literature and confine ourselves to the names of Armenians by birth, we may summarize by saying that noblemen and noblewomen bore Iranian and mostly Parthian names, whereas clergymen had biblical and early Christian names that stayed close to their Greek and sometimes Syriac models in form. Ordinary people who were, to historians, not worth mentioning may often have maintained their genuine Armenian names (Hübschmann, 1893, pp. 99-100).

Thus many Iranian anthroponyms, some of which are still in use, are found in the Armenian written tradition from its beginnings in the fifth century CE. Roughly one quarter of all the Armenian personal names are of Iranian linguistic origin (according to Nalbandyan, 1971, p. 4). These are taken into account by Justi (1895), as regards prosopography, and by Hübschmann (1897, pp. 17-91), whose Armenian grammar marks the beginning of linguistic onomastic research in this field. Regrettably there is no systematic and comprehensive treatment of the Iranian personal names attested in Old Armenian sources; the lexicon of H. Ačaṟyan (1876-1953) lists them but does not differentiate between the various layers and groups of the anthroponymic material. From Hübschmann on, moreover, most scholars have not distinguished between the names used only by Iranians (e.g., members of the Arsacid or Sasanian dynasties, their generals, dignitaries, and officials) and those used by native Armenians who followed the fashion of the Parthian nobility. A special group is comprised of Iranian names that entered the Armenian language via Greek, for example during the Achaemenid period; Arm. Kiwros “Cyrus,” for example,does not reflect OPers. Kuruš, but evidently Gk. Kûros, in contrast to Dareh “Darius” (Schmitt, 2002, pp. 134 ff.).

The date of the borrowing of the Iranian names often can be established quite exactly from their Armenian forms, which normally remained in use without any change in appearance once taken over. For example, an Arm. r (e.g., Bagarat from Iran. *Baga-dāta- “given by the gods”) is a characteristic substitution for a Parth. δ, which in turn is derived from Iran. *d; it therefore gives a decisive indication of a Parthian date. Clear evidence is also provided by cases in which the same name was repeatedly borrowed at different times and/or places. Examples are the doublet Spandarat (from Parth. *Spandaδāt) and Spandiat (from MPers. Spandyāt), both of which are ultimately derived from Iran. *Spanta-dāta- “given by Spəṇtā [Ārmaiti, the genius of the 5thday]” and the quartet of Vahagn (from Parth. Varhragn), Vahan (cf. Parth., MPers. Varhrān), Vahram (from MPers. Vahrām, with secondary –m), and Vṟam (a shortened variant).

Altogether, Irano-Armenian personal names are essentially a collateral tradition of Parthian anthroponymy; and therefore they are discussed in the Parthian section (see above, iv). From the Parthian survey one can see that all the various types of Western Middle Iranian names are attested in Armenian, too, as has been demonstrated by Schmitt, 1984; examples are given there for the manifold categories and subcategoties of compound and shortened names, hypocoristics, etc. Also covered are new formations developed only in Parthian and Middle Persian: juxtapositions like Atrormizd (cfr. MPers. Ādur-Ohrmazd),which are described as “theophoric dummy dvandvas”; forms that have changed from patronymics (or from ‘propatronymics’) into idionyms; and the like.