and of the miserable one hide (“aratrum”) of land to the Benedictine monastery at Ostrov by “Detricus” of the same grouping do not suffice to indicate property dif-ferentiation within the Vrsovci lineage(?), though the “conical clan” character may well be expected in their case. However, we do possess a testimony of unusual clarity concerning property relations within such groupings, a testimony which, though it has been recorded at the beginning of the 13th Century some 60 kilometres north of our present-day frontier in Silesia, is so close to our own Situation that it is highly relevant and is worth quoting in full here: “Si quicquam possideo, quod avus meus et pater michi in possessionem reliquerunt, hoc est meum verum patrimonium. Hoc si cuiquam vendidero, heredes mei habent potestatem iure nostro requirendi. Sed quam* cumque possessionem mihi dominus dux pro meo servicio vel gratia donaverit, illam vendo eciam invitis amicis meis, cuicunque voluero, quia in tali possessione non habent heredes mei ius requirendi” (Ksi^ga Henrykowska, or the chronicle of the monastery of Henryköw/Heinrichau, Silesia: Grodecki 1949 Liber 1.8 p. 280 1. 86). The text clearly refers to a right of blood relatives to property inherited from the ancestors, a right which applied even in cases that the estate had been alienated as it operated on the principle that all members of a given kinship group are entitled to a share in the group’s landed property. In Bohemia, the right of revindication of landed property sold among relatives of the male line within one year and one day of the transfer of it is recognized by the “Ordo judicii terrae” law code of the I4th Century (JireZek 1870, 198—255, cf. §§ Id—11 on pp. 240—241). In our sources, this principle of the essential inalienability of landed property belonging to one single kinship group (apparently related to the “retrait lignager” of French historical sources, cf. for instance Duby 1953, 263) may be observed since the 12th Century. In fact, even the Nemoj’s very early donation to the Vysehrad chapter of canons (year 1100) was sub-sequently seized by secular owners but this could be a case of confiscation of the Vrsovci property after 1108 (CDB 7: 100, pp. 105—106, on further transfers of these lands until the 80’s of 12th Century cf. CDB 1:288 pp. 253 — 254). A clause prohibiting any vindications of relatives, however, is included in the text of the noble Miro-slav’s donation to the Cistercian monastery of Sedlec of 1142-1148 {CDB 1: 155, 157 : 5). Other allusions to this principle are with a high degree of probability contained in some of the Charters concerning the Benedictine house of Kladruby and written between 1158 and 1173 (PraZäk 1958, esp. p. 133 and the table between pp. 144 and 145, as well as CDB 1:268 on p. 237). Subsequently, Charters concerning somewhat turbulent fates of some of the dona-tions given to the Cistercian abbey of Plasy over the end of 12th and first quarter of 13th Century attest to such practices abundantly (CDB I: 343 pp. 309—310, year 1193; CDB 1: 344 pp. 310-311, year 1192-1193; CDB 7:406, 439:27-30, year 1187?; CDB 7:399, 414:3-4, end of 12th Century; CDB II: 125 pp. 113—114, year 1216; CDB 77: 187 pp. 172-174, year 1219; CDB 77: 258, 248 : 18-20, year 1224; CDBTI:3\6, 312:25-28, year 1228), in addition to other materials from the same age. Such property revindications could even be subsequently lega-lized including written confirmations; this is the case of

villages donated to the Maltese knightly Order by a gentle* man named Mesek and later seized back by his brother Hroznata (CDB I : 320 p. 293). This evidence covers testi-monies of seizures of already alienated goods (cspecially concerning donations to Church institutions to the written records of which we must be grateful for documentation of this practice), property held in indivision by a group of relatives (which is not exactly the same as “retrait lig-nager”; on indivision and its historical role cf. now, for instance, Duby 1988, 98—100) and sanctions against persons intending to seize already alienated property. Wherever more particular references to such usurpers turn up, they invariably designate agnatic or cognatic relatives (brothers, nephews, specifically male, wives, children or generally “cognati” or “propinqui”). I think that we may conclude with reasonable probability that in early medieval Bohemia, birth within a certain group of relatives entitled the respective individuals to shares in the property of such groups.

The evidence available now does not suffice for an exact determination of the nature of the social groups under consideration here. Both the data referred to above (e.g. the importance of ancestor figures) and the fact that lincages rather than clans tend to be operative in everyday life (on these questions in general e.g. Ebrey - Watson 1986, 5—6) suggest the Identification of our groupings as lineages (on clans in general cf. now Bonte 1987, esp. p. 8, on the role of kinship in societies on their way to statehood Maiseis 1987, esp. pp. 336—337). The distinc-tion among “well-born” and commoner lineages(?) is virtually impossible in our sources though even commoners could hold land, as is evidenced, for instance, by the laws of Conrad Otto of 1189 (CDB II: 325, 330: 13, the ex-pressed reference to a “nobilis“ as against “aliquis, cuius est villa”)- Other indications point to the role of kinship in property transactions in a different manner. It can be demonstrated that not infrequently, alienations of property followed instances in which the holders lost hopes of emergence of their own progeny. In these cases, they either entrusted their holdings to the dukes (CDB 1: 245, 215 : 19—22, years 1158—1169 — “post decessum uxoris”) or transferred them to ecclesiastical institutions (CDB I: 155, 157:4—5, years 1142—1148 — “deficiente in linea filiorum herede”, or CDB 1: 358, 326 : 14—18 on Blessed Hroznata, founder of the Tepla chapter of Premonstraten-sians who remained without a son). The above cited passage mentioning the “inheritor in the filial line” cm* phasizes the patrilinearity of these groupings. Of course, the male household heads were obliged to provide for their mothers, wives and daughters. One of the manners in which this was done and which may be documented in our sources was the transfer of dowry upon marrying out daughters. Married women clearly disposed of their dowries in the course of their wifely lives (e.g. Prazäk 1958, 150—151, years 1158—1166) while widows could have been provided for by an unspecified form of levirate practices. In 1149, the pope Eugene III responded to enquiries sent to him by Jindfich (Henry) Zdik, bishop of Olomouc, saying, among other things, that no one is allowed to marry the wife of his own cousin after his death (Bistfickp - Pojsi 1982, p. 137, on the originality of this text considered by G. Friedrich, editor of CDB,