ABSTRACT
As the oikos developed within the clan, and as the aristocratic state developed out of the basis of tribal institutions, the right of the clansmen to a share of the inheritance would become more and more formal. The existence of the oikos, moreover, presupposes pecial religious and social obligations, such as would be associated with the maintenance of the estate, of family ties and duties, and the upkeep of rites at the founder's tomb. The heir to the estate would be primarily responsible for these duties and obligations. In the absence of free testamentary disposition, the head of the oikos would thus have to become increasingly aware of the necessity of ensuring that he had a suitable heir within the oikos. As clan ties weakened, he would be increasingly reluctant to allow his possessions to pass out of the limits of the oikos, and even more unwilling to allow them to pass to his serfs in the absence of epiballontes. In the now prevailing social conditions, we may assume, the aristocracy had transferred the initiative in
The custom is attested at Gortyna among the earliest surviving inscriptions,! and is the occasion of a number of important and interesting provisions of the Code.2 At Gortyna, adoption was called anpansis, whence anpanamenos (or ampanamenos) for the adopter, and anpantos (or ampantos) for the adopted, all deriving from ampainethai ('show forth'), for reasons which are made clear in the description of the rites associated with the practice.
