In an unprecedented intersection of archaeology, statistics, and digital humanities, a recent study has cast new light on social dynamics within the ancient Hebrew kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the Iron Age II period, roughly spanning from 950 to 586 BCE. By applying advanced diversity metrics traditionally utilized in ecological research to the corpus of personal names etched on archaeological artifacts, researchers have unveiled nuanced insights into cultural openness, social stratification, and religious centralization in these historically pivotal societies. This innovative approach not only reframes the understanding of ancient naming practices but also sets a new standard for interdisciplinary methodologies in historical research.
The core of this research lies in onomastics—the study of names—and its quantitative analysis. Names, often perceived simply as identifiers, are profoundly embedded with cultural significance. They reflect linguistic heritage, religious beliefs, social hierarchies, and intercultural exchanges. This investigation, spearheaded by Ariel Vishne and Dr. Barak Sober of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, utilized a database of over a thousand personal names inscribed on seals, ostraca, and storage jars excavated from Iron Age archaeological contexts. These inscriptions primarily represent male elites, reflecting the limitations of archaeological evidence but providing a consistent framework to evaluate naming diversity across regions and time.
Utilizing diversity statistics such as Shannon entropy and Simpson’s diversity index—common tools in the ecology of biodiversity—the team quantified not only the richness (number of distinct names) but also the evenness (distribution of frequency among names) within the ancient datasets. This approach surpasses traditional count-based analyses, capturing the depth of variety and concentration within name use, akin to assessing how diverse and balanced a natural ecosystem is. By translating these methods into historical onomastics, the study pioneers a fresh analytical dimension that bridges natural science precision with humanities inquiry.
The results reveal remarkable differences between the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Despite fewer surviving inscriptions from Israel, the personal names exhibit significantly higher diversity compared to Judah. This suggests Israel’s society was culturally more heterogeneous and possibly more receptive to external influences due to its strategic position along key trade routes and its exposure to neighboring cultures and peoples. The onomastic diversity implies not only a wide range of linguistic roots but also a permeability of cultural boundaries that cultivated a vibrant societal tapestry.
Conversely, in Judah, name diversity diminished progressively, particularly when comparing inscriptions from the late 8th century BCE with those from the subsequent 7th to early 6th centuries BCE. This trend aligns with growing religious centralization around Jerusalem and increasing political consolidation, which likely entailed stronger social conformity and narrower naming conventions. The declining onomastic variety hints at a tightening of cultural identity, possibly influenced by evolving theological doctrines and social structures that prioritized uniformity within the elite circles.
Moreover, geographic disparities within each kingdom further bolster the complexity of these social dynamics. Samaria, the capital of Israel, manifests lower name diversity relative to its more peripheral regions. This counterintuitive finding intimates that Israel’s elites were dispersed throughout the kingdom rather than concentrated solely in the capital, illustrating a decentralized societal structure. In Judah, the opposite pattern emerges. Jerusalem’s elite population exhibits greater name diversity than other parts of the kingdom, likely reflecting demographic shifts including the influx of refugees following Assyrian military campaigns, which infused the capital with a range of cultural elements and naming practices.
The interdisciplinary methodology employed was rigorously tested for robustness. To confirm the validity of applying ecological statistics to human naming data, the team analyzed modern datasets from countries such as Israel, France, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Consistent patterns emerged, including higher name diversity among females compared to males and a general increase in naming diversity since the mid-20th century across studied populations. Additionally, societies characterized by strong traditional values tend to exhibit lower name diversity, mirroring patterns observed in the ancient contexts. These contemporary parallels bolster confidence in the framework’s accuracy when interpreting historical onomastic data, despite smaller sample sizes inherent to archaeological records.
Dr. Barak Sober emphasized the novelty and utility of this approach: “By leveraging statistical tools from ecology, we unlock new layers of social information embedded in ancient names. This allows us to detect signals of openness, identity, and cultural evolution invisible to conventional archaeological methods.” The fusion of quantitative ecology and archaeology is not merely methodological innovation; it signals a philosophical shift, embracing complexity and variability as vital datasets rather than nuisance variables.
Complementing this statistical perspective, Dr. Mitka R. Golub of the Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology highlighted the multifaceted nature of names: “Preserved personal names serve as linguistic fossils that convey much more than phonetics—they provide windows into religious practices, social hierarchies, and cultural interactions. This study taps into those dimensions with unprecedented depth.” The collaborative nature of the research, bridging statistics, archaeology, and digital humanities, underscores the increasing necessity for interdisciplinary synthesis in tackling long-standing questions about past societies.
From a broader archaeological standpoint, these findings align with previous evidence suggesting Israel’s cosmopolitan character, influenced by its geographic position. Professor Israel Finkelstein from the University of Haifa, an expert in the archaeology of the Levant, remarked, “The onomastic diversity mirrors known archaeological patterns—material culture, architectural diversity, and trade networks—supporting an image of Israel as a hub of cultural interchange, in contrast to Judah’s comparatively insular development.” These convergences imbue the statistical findings with tangible contextual grounding.
Crucially, this research advances the understanding of social complexity in ancient societies beyond mere political or economic narratives. Naming diversity emerges as a proxy for cultural vitality, permeability, and social integration, offering a dynamic lens on identity formation and transformation. The implications extend beyond the Hebrew kingdoms, inviting applications to various archaeological and historic datasets where names, graffiti, or inscriptions form the primary evidence.
Indeed, the successful adaptation of biodiversity indices to onomastic data heralds a new frontier for digital humanities and data-driven archaeology. It challenges scholars to reconsider the scope of quantitative methods, proposing that the patterns governing biological diversity and cultural diversity may indeed share fundamental statistical commonalities. This intersection creates fertile ground for cross-disciplinary dialogue and methodological evolution, promising richer reconstructions of humanity’s earliest complex civilizations.
In essence, this study reveals that beneath the lines scratched millennia ago in clay and stone lies a nuanced narrative of ancient human societies—a narrative discernible through the combined rigor of ecological statistics and the richness of archaeological record. The age-old question “What’s in a name?” is answered with renewed complexity: names are registers of societal openness, agents of cultural identity, and markers of political change, enabling us to glimpse the social fabric of antiquity with unprecedented clarity and depth.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Diversity statistics of onomastic data reveal social patterns in Hebrew Kingdoms of the Iron Age
News Publication Date: 16-May-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2503850122
Image Credits: Seals and seal impressions (bullae) Square seal from Bet Shemesh – courtesy of Benjamin Sass. Photo: Benjamin Sass. Reproduction of the lion seal (from Megido) – RTI photo: Michael Magen. King Hezekiah bulla (winged figure stamped on clay) – courtesy of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Photo: Ouria Tadmor. Nathan-Melech bullae (oval-shaped seal stamp) – courtesy of the City of David archive. Photo: Eliyahu Yanai. Black stone seal – courtesy of the City of David archive. Photo: Eliyahu Yanai. Inscribed inscriptions Arad 49 inscription (bottom of bowl) – courtesy of the Archaeological Institute, Tel Aviv University. Photo: Michael Cordonsky. Arad 3 inscription (red-brown clay inscription) – courtesy of the Archaeological Institute, Tel Aviv University. Photo: Michael Cordonsky. Samaria 18 inscription (Black and White rectangular shape) – courtesy of the Semitic Museum, Harvard University. Photo: Harvard’s expedition to Samaria. Graphic Design: Barak Sober
Keywords: Iron Age, Historical archaeology, Cultural diversity, Archaeology, Cultural anthropology
