Identities and Onomastics of Enslaved Persons in the Classical Period

Until recently, it was widely accepted that slaves in the classical Greek world were bearers of stereotypical ethnic or foreign names that marked them as outsiders, reflecting an ideology that differentiated citizens from slaves. Recent studies have shown that ethnic and foreign names account for only a minority of recorded slave names, and that many enslaved persons shared names with citizens. This article asks whether the Athenian model applies to the rest of the Greek world. To explore this, the study compares three datasets of enslaved individuals from Athens, Chios and communities of the Peloponnese. The evidence reveals at least two distinct models: On the one hand, Athens and Chios share a common pattern, in which ethnic and foreign names (many with direct connections to Asia Minor) constitute a substantial proportion of slave names and are repeatedly assigned to multiple individuals. On the other hand, the Peloponnesian material is strikingly different: ethnic and foreign names are entirely absent, composite and corporal names predominate, and there is no evidence of name reuse. The article introduces the concept of “epichoric slave naming systems” to account for these differences, arguing that naming practices were shaped by each community’s specific institutions, economic networks, and social ideologies. By analyzing regional divergence in slave onomastics, the study contributes to a broader understanding of how personal names in the classical Greek world expressed regional identity and the cultural meanings attached to slavery

Ethnic group · Ideology · Onomastics · Proper noun · Toponymy · Classical Antiquity Studies · Contemporary and Historical Greek Studies · Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research