The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of Near Eastern Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
3
4
Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords,
Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. By Jan Tavernier. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 158. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Pp. lxiv + 850. 98 (cloth).
Reviewed by Ilya Yakubovich, Moscow State University.
When scholars of the Ancient Near East hear the
phrase Old Persian, most of them think of the language of monumental inscriptions commissioned by
the Achaemenid Kings of Kings and recorded in a spe-
(Wiesbaden, 1975) generally did not strive for completeness, giving just one citation for any particular orthographic variant. In addition, Hinzs presentation of
the Iranian lexical material attested in Akkadian texts
was spotty even by his own standards and for his own
times. If we add to this that Tavernier could avail himself of the transliterations of the unpublished Persepolis Fortification Tablets, the rationale for undertaking
his study becomes obvious.
The lexemes treated in the volume under review
are divided into five groups. Directly transmitted
Iranica refer to cases when a particular Nebenberlieferung has a direct counterpart in the Old Persian version of a bilingual inscription (pp. 1141).
Semi-directly transmitted Iranica comprise those
forms that either have parallels in the Old Persian inscriptional corpus, but in a different context, or show
formal differences with their direct Old Persian counterparts, e.g. by virtue of belonging to the Median
dialect (pp. 4390). Non-Iranian Proper Names and
Loanwords in Old Persian are treated only in those
instances when it is possible to show that they were
borrowed from their source language into the language of their transmission through Iranian mediation
(pp. 9195). Indirectly transmitted Iranica comprise the largest set of forms, which have no parallels in
the Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions and thus enrich
our knowledge of Achaemenid Iranian (pp. 97463).
The forms whose Iranian origin has been conjectured
but not proven belong to the category Incerta (pp.
465538). Within each group, divine names, personal
names, toponyms, and common nouns (together with
other parts of speech) are treated in different sections,
while common nouns are further subdivided according to semantic parameters. In spite of its complicated
outlook, this system is fully manageable because all the
cited forms are cross-referenced in the indexes at the
end of the volume.
Franois Andrieux, a French man of letters, said two
hundred years ago: Tous les autres auteurs peuvent
aspirer la louange; les lexicographes ne peuvent esprer que dchapper au reproche. Even today, many
linguists have a regrettable attitude of regarding lexicographic work as an ancillary task, not on the same level
with writing a monograph that argues a point. In my
opinion, however, there are plenty of reasons to praise
the author for his achievement. For the first time in
the history of Iranian Studies, it has become possible
to cite Achaemenid Iranian forms with reference to
primary sources. Furthermore, the glossary of lexical
elements detected in this corpus (pp. 54773) and
Hieroglyphenschlssel: Entziffern, Lesen, Verstehen. By Petra Vomberg and Orell Witthuhn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008. Pp. lxxi + 486 + 7 figs. + 2 tables. 24.80 (paperback).
Reviewed by Rozenn Bailleul-LeSuer, University of Chicago.
The crowds in the Egyptian galleries of art museums
all over the world are a constant reminder that ancient
Egypt never ceases to fascinate the public. To fuel this
interest, library shelves are filled with introductory
books covering various aspects of Egyptian society.