ON THE STRUCTURE OF GREEK TRIBAL SOCIETY AN ESSAY by Hugh E. Seebohm London MacMillan And Co. And New York 1895. CONTENTS Preface Chapter I. Introductory. Chapter II. The Meaning Of The Bond Of Kinship. § 1. The Duty Of Maintenance Of Parents During Life, And After Death At Their Tomb. § 2. The Duty Of Providing Male Succession. § 3. The Position Of The Widow Without Child And The Duties Of An Only Daughter. § 4. Succession Through A Married Daughter: Growth Of Adoption: Introduction Of New Member To Kinsmen. § 5. The Liability For Bloodshed. Chapter III. The Extent Of The Bond Of Kinship. § 1. Degrees Of Blood-Relationship; The Ἀγχιστεία. § 2. Limitations In Respect Of Succession Outside The Direct Line Of Descent. § 3. Division Amongst Heirs. § 4. Qualifications For The Recognition Of Tribal Blood. § 5. Limitations Of Liability For Bloodshed. Chapter IV. The Relation Of The Family To The Land. § 1. The Κλῆρος And Its Form. § 2. The Relation Of The Κλῆρος To The Οἶκος. § 3. The Householder In India: The Guest. § 4. Tenure Of Land In Homer: The Κλῆρος And The Τέμενος. § 5. Early Evidence _continued_: The Κλῆρος And The Maintenance Of The οἶκος. § 6. Early Evidence _continued_: The Τέμενος And The Maintenance Of The Chieftain. § 7. Summary Of The Early Evidence. § 8. Hesiod And His Κλήρος. § 9. Survivals Of Family Land In Later Times. § 10. The Idea Of Family Land Applied Also To Leasehold And Semi-Servile Tenure. Chapter V. Conclusion. Index. Footnotes PREFACE These notes, brief as they are, owe more than can be told to my father’s researches into the structure and methods of the Tribal System. They owe their existence to his inspiration and encouragement. A suitable place for them might possibly be found in an Appendix to his recently published volume on the Structure of the Tribal System in Wales. In ascribing to the structure of Athenian Society a direct parentage amongst tribal institutions, I am dealing with a subject which I feel to be open to considerable criticism. And I am anxious that the matters considered in this essay should be judged on their own merits, even though, in pursuing the method adopted herein, I may have quite inadequately laid the case before the reader. My thanks are due, for their ready help, to Professor W. Ridgeway, Mr. James W. Headlam, and Mr. Henry Lee Warner, by means of whose kind suggestions the following pages have been weeded of several of their faults.