In the ancient world, surnames developed primarily as a means of identifying individuals more specifically within growing populations. Initially, people were often known by a single name, but as communities expanded, additional identifiers emerged based on factors like lineage, occupation, geographic location, or personal characteristics. For instance, the use of a father's name (patronymics) became common in various cultures, while others adopted names based on their trades or places of origin. Over time, these identifiers evolved into fixed family names, establishing the foundation for modern surnames.
this question Makes NO sense !
The various groups had not run out of given names, yet.
In ancient Greek: LoukasNo surnames were used at the time.
develop a writing system
In the time of St. George people did not have surnames. They did not develop for about another 1000 years.
Common Roman surnames included Julius, Claudius, and Flavius. These surnames often indicated a person's family lineage, social status, or connection to a specific Roman gens (clan). Surnames were important in distinguishing individuals and their place in Roman society.
During World War I, soldiers often carried their family surnames as part of their identity and military records. Surnames were crucial for distinguishing individuals in the ranks and for administrative purposes, such as issuing medals and documenting service. Additionally, many soldiers' surnames reflected their ethnic backgrounds, which were significant in the diverse armies of the time. The use of surnames helped maintain a sense of personal connection amid the chaos of war.
In ancient Egypt.
in the sinai desert
yes.
Yes
Cherokee's do not have surnames; surnames is a complete invention of the European culture. When Cherokee's were forced to begin using surnames, they took names from people they already knew or respected (in most cases). Please note that some Cherokee, both ancient and modern, began using their clan names to fulfill the surname requirement.