For this year's NaNoWriMo I've decided to write a novel in a historical setting. More specifically, early Parthian (Arsacid) history. I have some basic knowledge of the area and the time period, but nowhere near enough to paint an accurate picture of the setting. The following questions have priority at the moment:

1. Is the ancient Persian language similar enough to the modern Persian language to use modern Persian terminology for certain objects in the prose?

2. Would an interpreter of the local satrap, who belongs (or previously belonged) to the Persian nobility be enslaved or not?

3. Would Zoroastrianism be the only religion among the native Persians, or were cults such as the Mithras-cult common enough (and perhaps more importantly, legal?)?

4. Where would the main points of cultural strife between the Parthian/Persian culture and that of the Hellens? I've been told the Parthians were far more Hellas-orientated than the Sassanids for example, but surely there were some vast cultural gaps?

5. Was Persian a written language at the time? If so, on which system was it based?

6. Is the satrap of Parthia under the Seleucid Empire, somewhere around 225 BCE, known? If so, what was his name and where would I find information about him and his office, if there is any?

That's it for now, really. If you could help me with any of these questions, or even just point me at literature that will have useful information, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks! :P

This site will probably be a good help to you. The wikipedia references for the Arsacid empire will probably be helpful as well. I myself have found the references section to be immensely helpful at times. As they are legitimate sources.

scholar.google, of course will help you. (Please note, for me, as a person who follows links like a trail to gain information, google.scholar can be less of a help. But an excellent place for actual publications and so forth.)

1. I highly doubt it. There will definitely be very large differences. Almost every ancient language has evolved significantly up to modern times. However, as far as I know, there is very little actual documentation for that period of time. So you could probably get away with the modern language.

2. Chances are, he'd probably be enslaved. Slaves were a lot cheaper then actually paying for an interpreter. But keep in mind that in those times, slaves were generally treated very well by their masters, especially if they were high ranking ones. Frequently they could have been considered extended parts of the family.

3. Both were fine, from what I've found. In fact, they seem to have been fairly equal in terms of followers.
Note. Do some proper research into Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, particularly Mithraism. As it seems very much like one thing on the surface, but is nothing like it when you actually study it.

4. Don't know. I read at one point that they considered themselves to be friends of the Greeks. Which meant the real strife was with the Sassanids. Who considered them traitors as a result. Even the academia slagged them for it.

5. Yes. Definitely. But I don't know what system.

6. I don't know. I'd have to look a lot more extensively to find out.

Good luck. Sorry I can't help much, but I'd have to do a lot of research to do that, and I haven't the time.