3, to use No.

1 as a guide, since it was only legitimate to conclude that Nos.

2 and 3 represented translations of No.

1 into two languages, which, by the side of Old Persian, were spoken by the subjects of the Achaemenian kings.

That one of these languages should have been the current speech of Mesopotamia was exactly what was to be expected, since Babylonia and Assyria formed an essential part of the Persian empire.
The beginning was made with proper names, the sound of which would necessarily be the same or very similar in both, or, for that matter, in all the three languages of the Persepolitan inscriptions.[11] In this way, by careful comparisons between the two styles, Nos.