This chapter presents and discusses the Sumerian names in the Neo- and Late Babylonian onomasticon. Since Sumerian was not a spoken language for at least 1,500 years by this period, this is a very small corpus, comprising of a few family names (and not names of individuals). The family names are mostly associated with scholars and cultic practitioners who in turn associated themselves with the Sumerian language through their ritual recitations, or through their scholarly study. The chapter presents the Akkadian rendering of these Sumerian names when known, and also discusses the relationship between the Sumerian family names and the different cities in which they are attested.

The Argead Kingdom in Macedonia knew only primitive political institutions until the middle of the fourth century. Its Kings came from a family that had been divinely chosen and was differentiated from the rest of the population by a collective charisma. It was kept in power through its association with a Hetairoi (Companion) class, with which it socialized in symposia, which it fought with as cavalry in war, with which it hunted, sometimes for reasons of state. The royal hunt was sometimes more than a leisure activity, more than a bonding experience, and more than a preparation for war: it was one of a series of orchestrated showcases which validated and legitimized a King’s rule. In special hunts the King acted out the role of a hero, whose responsibility it was to protect all of his subjects from the forces of chaos both physical and metaphysical. As observers of the King’s prowess, the Hetairoi testified, where appropriate, to the King’s right to rule. Things began to evolve in Macedon at the end of the Peloponnesian War, but only picked up steam after the accession of Philip II. However, even as late as Alexander III, Macedonian expectations remained conservative and tradition-bound.

This chapter provides an introduction to Elamite personal names attested in Neo- and Late Babylonian texts. The typology of Elamite anthroponyms is discussed, from the standard composition of Elamite personal names to hypocoristica and hybrid names. A remarkably high number of Elamite hypocoristica is attested in Neo-Babylonian texts due to the omission of the theophoric element. Since the Elamite language has no linguistic ties with the various dialects of Akkadian, Elamite onomastic conversions into Babylonian texts are actually transcriptions. These transcriptions follow certain patterns, which are explained in the Elamite–Babylonian conversion rules formulated in this chapter. General features for these Akkadian renderings of Elamite anthroponyms are the reduction of consonants, a consonant shift, and/or vowel alterations. The chapter further analyses the ethno-sociological profile of persons bearing Elamite names in Neo-Babylonian texts. Roughly two groups can be distinguished. One group consisting of Elamite kings and high officials is mentioned in official Neo-Babylonian state documentation. Another group of Elamites appears in dispersed Neo-Babylonian private archives, generally in connection with trading activities or in the context of Babylonian-Susian borderland communities.

The purpose of this book is twofold. On one hand it intends to provide a survey and analysis of the colonate in the Roman Empire from the legal point of view, embedded as much as necessary in the social and economic context of Roman society. On the other hand, it is meant to show how to approach the sources in a case like this and, in general, how to work with the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, in a way that does justice to the place of the texts in the whole of these codifications, that is, taking account of their function within a codification. The individual texts have their value as historical sources, yet one must be aware how they have come to us, in which context and to which purpose they were selected and edited, or else their historical value might diminish or even disappear.

The image of Alexander flourished across the disiecta membra of the empire he created and far beyond it. Consideration is given here to the appropriation of the king’s image in the broader sense – and principally through the medium of texts – in relation to the founders of the greater two of the Successor dynasties, those of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. The legend of Seleucus was richly bathed in Alexander-imagery, and this imagery was focused, in different ways, on the person of Seleucus himself. Some of the tales focus syntagmatically on his personal interaction with the king, whilst he yet lived, and indeed in one case even after even he had died. Others serve to establish paradigmatic or typological parallel between the actions of Alexander and those of Seleucus, and some seek to do both. The case of Ptolemy is different: whilst there is again some focus on Ptolemy’s personal interaction with Alexander, much of the legend-generation focuses rather on Alexander’s relationship with Ptolemy’s city of Alexandria, the glory of which was the king’s tomb. So long as Ptolemy remained ensconced in the city, he could afford to bask in a more indirectly reflected variety of the king’s charisma.

The identification of Assyrian personal names in Babylonian sources poses a challenge because there is a considerable degree of overlap between the name repertoires of Babylonia and Assyria in the first millennium BCE. As a first step, this chapter identifies three relevant categories of names attested in Babylonian sources: distinctively Assyrian names, distinctively Babylonian names, and names common to both Assyria and Babylonia. The next step is to isolate names belonging to the first category: those that are distinctively Assyrian. To this end, the chapter identifies four diagnostic features which may occur separately or in combination: (i) Assyrian divine elements; (ii) Assyrian toponyms; (iii) Assyrian dialectal forms, and (iv) vocabulary particular to the Neo-Assyrian onomasticon. Orthography and phonology, including the treatment of sibilants, are further considerations. The chapter also addresses the historical background since this provides important context for investigating the presence of Assyrian name-bearers in Babylonia, both before and after the fall of Assyria in 612 BCE.

The chapter deals with the administration of Alexander’s empire. The main focus is on the satrapal administration. Although Alexander borrowed the system of regional governance from the Achaemenids, he introduced changes to it, adapting it to the new circumstances. Alexander’s actions in the administrative sphere were not aimed at a realization of any abstract ideal. They were taken to satisfy specific needs arising at given points. Nonetheless, it is obvious that all the actions of the king were in pursuit of one main goal: the creation of an effective administrative system for the Imperial lands that would allow him to control and exploit the subjugated peoples better.

The chapter discusses ancient and modern treatments of Alexander’s death. It describes the omens said to foretell his death and their cultural and historical background, treating ancient versions of what led to Alexander’s death and attempts by historians and scientists to detect the working of poison, conspiracy, or less-violent and sinister causes. The rest of the chapter focuses on Alexander’s so-called last plans, their authenticity, the reasons for their rejection, and the contentious history of his body and burial.

The proper transcription of logograms used for verbs in Neo-Babylonian names is not always clear for modern readers: as logograms are polyvalent, it is often possible to interpret written Neo-Babylonian names in multiple ways. This chapter shows that Babylonian scribes followed a consistent orthographic system. They used logograms very carefully and avoided confusion by resorting to syllabic spellings, phonetic complements, or unique name elements. The chapter explains, step by step, how this system worked, and it offers practical tools for determining the correct reading of logographically spelled Babylonian names.

Alexander III inherited the Persian campaign from his father Philip II, who had aimed to conquer Asia Minor, probably in order to secure a permanent source of income from the revenues of its rich cities. Going further, Alexander ended the reign of the Achaemenid dynasty established by Darius I in 522/21 BC and campaigned to the borders of Achaemenid influence in the Indus region. Contrary to the panhellenic propaganda preserved by the Alexander historiographers, the war was about the acquisition of territory, influence and wealth – not a war of ‘liberation’ or ‘reprisal’. Since there exists no Persian historiography and the extant numismatic, administrative and archaeological sources reveal little of political history, it is difficult to view the events from a Persian perspective. However, scholarship’s traditional biased images of the Persian empire as weak, chaotic, compromised by decadence and inner strife, and hence doomed to fall, have come to be rejected as reflecting Greek and Roman stereotypes. In current scholarship, it is stressed that Alexander appropriated and adapted most of the political and administrative structures of the Achaemenid empire: it was the existing system that supported his conquest.

A. is born (6 Hecatombaeon = July 20) to Philip II and the Epirote princess Olympias.