1919.] The Rajput Kingdoms of Mediaeval Chhattisgarh. 243 
the papers, for Mr. Hewitt’s assertion of the Haihayas’ ‘imme- 
diate control’ of Chhattisgarh is not the only point of impor- 
tance in which his reading of the Deshbahi seems to have 
differed fundamentaily from Mr. Chisholm’s. 
7 
fact that the Barhons were still actually in existence over a 
large part of the forest country of Bilaspur District at the time 
of his settlement in 1869 yet there is not a single reference of 
any kind to this old territorial division in Mr. Chisholm’s 
Settlement Report or in any of his writings which I have seen. 
On the other hand Mr. Hewitt is equally silent as regards the 
Chaurasi. It is true that he records in his list of Khalsa 
Pergunnahs, already quoted the most valuable evidence we 
possess as regards the former existence of this 84 village group, 
but Mr. Hewitt was evidently quite unconscious of the signi- 
number. He 
existence of the smaller unit or Talug. Judging from what I 
have already quoted from his ‘‘ Notes, on the Early History of 
on the part of these two officers is that any information which 
the old Deshbahis contained as regards the further division of 
the country into smaller as well as larger groups of villages has 
been altogether withheld from us. 
Then again, in view of this confusion in the use of the 
expect these to be lists of Daos or Barhainihas in charge of 12- 
village groups. But there must have been many hundreds of 
these Barhons in existence in the 16th century, and it wor 
surely be strange to preserve lists of the minor territorial, chief- 
tains while taking no account of the more important Diwans in 
charge of Chaurasis. Now we know that the lists of T'aluqdars 
were not complete. Mr. Hewitt tells us (Report, para. 62) that 
they only existed for that part of Chhattisgarh which was later 
comprised in the Bilaspur District. And Mr. Chisholm in his 
Settlement Report on that District (though he never refers to 
any list of Talugdars) clearly identifies the Taluq with the 
Garh. He expressly quotes ‘ the Revenue Book of Kullian 
Sai’s period” in para.56 of his Report as authority for his state- 
ment that “ the Ratanpur Government at that time comprised 
