The account of _gentes_ being received into the Roman community is accompanied by a tradition of their keeping together in their new settlement. Thus the Claudii, on the reception of the _civitas_, are said to have received a special tract of territory across the Anio for themselves and their clients.[53] Such a tradition at once suggests a close connexion between the _gens_ and the soil, which there is no reason to doubt. But the further questions have been raised, whether the _gens_ as a whole was the owner of the land on which it settled, and whether this was the form of common possession recognised in early Rome. It must be admitted that tradition knows nothing of such a tenure. Dionysius represents the territory given to the Claudii as destined to be divided up amongst the various _familiae_ of the _gens_;[54] while in other accounts of land-assignments we hear of such being made to the _curia_ (φράτρα)[55] or to individuals (_viritim_),[56] but never to the clan. Yet a plausible theory of common possession has been based on the survivals both of legal terms and of clan rights.[57] Amongst the terms describing early territorial possession we have, apart from _ager publicus_, the _heredium_ and the _ager privatus_. The private possession of the _heredium_ is attributed to Romulus,[58] and is thus regarded as a modification of some form of common tenure; and the _heredium_ consisted of only two _jugera_,[59] an amount obviously insufficient for the maintenance of a family. Hence there must have been _ager privatus_ as well, owned by some larger unit, and this unit would naturally have been the _gens_. It has also been thought that the terms descriptive of individual ownership—_manus_, _mancipium_—referred originally to movables,[60] as though immovables belonged to a common stock. Lastly, we find connected with the clan the survival of a corporate right to property and collective duties connected with it. According to the rules of regular intestate succession, in default of the _suus heres_, property lapses to the _proximus agnatus_ and then to the _gentiles_;[61] and it was in connexion with this right, which lasted down to the end of the Republic,[62] that the definition of a _gentilis_ was of such legal importance.[63] This inheritance is by the _gentiles_ as a whole, for there is no _proximus gentilis_, and in historic times it must have been an inheritance by individuals, the property being divided amongst those who could prove their claim; but it may be the relic of an earlier inheritance by the _gens_ as a corporation. But the _gentiles_ have rights in a _corporate_ capacity as well. By the Twelve Tables they have the guardianship of the insane[64] and a reversionary right of guardianship over women and children.[65] Guardianship (_tutela_) must have given them all the rights of a person in Roman law, to exercise which they must have had a personal representative. But this devolution itself shows the _gens_ acting as a corporation.