268 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA 
evidence, the question remains open whether the recorded 
Valuation of a Chief's country represents tribute actually paid, 
or is merely a nominal figure, arrived at in the course of negotia- 
tions for a formal submission. My own guess is that practice 
varied, and that some Chiefs paid tribute while others did not, 
but, so far as Akbar’s reign is concerned, I cannot advance 
facts in its support. 
Another example of the entries relating to Chief's country 
may be taken from the district of Kumaiin in the province of 
Delhi (Ain, i. 521). Here, out of 21 subdivisions, the Valuation 
of five was “undetermined,” or, in other words, no arrangement 
had been come to with the Chiefs; for the remaining 16, the 
Valuation is given without further details: and as in the case of 
Bikanir, the question remains open whether any payment of 
tribute was actually made or claimed. Further examples of the 
same kind will be found in other provinces, but I have discovered 
no case in which it is possible to say with certainty whether 
Akbar claimed tribute or not; and the only point on which we 
can be reasonably sure is that the figures do not represent what 
the country was worth to the Chiefs, or, in other words, they 
furnish no indication of the Demand made bv the Chiefs on the 
peasants in those regions. 
So far then as the more important Chiefs are concerned, it is 
possible, subject to the ambiguity as to payment of tribute, to 
interpret the statistics in the light of our knowledge of the period: 
the question remains whether it is possible to trace the smaller 
Chiefs, who certainly existed at this period. The statistics treat 
each subdivision as a unit, and consequently it is hopeless to 
look for traces of Chiefs holding less than a complete subdivision; 
but there are certain indications, of varying value, which suggest 
that some entire subdivisions were held by Chiefs, and it may be 
of service to students of local historv to explain what these 
indications are. 
(2) In a measured district, the absence of area-figures for a 
subdivision suggests that it may have been left in the hands of a 
Chief, so that assessment bv Measurement had not been extended 
to it. 
(6) When the Valuation is given in a round figure, there is a 
suggestion that it may have been fixed in a lump, and not built 
up from the figures of the constituent villages. 
{¢) The absence of anv record of Grants points vaguely in the