本文的目的在於利用岸裡社和新港社的例證，說明十八世紀中葉至十九世紀平埔族的「番租」性質。這兩個部落的業主都曾以「番產漢佃」的租佃模式，將草地或田園出租給漢人佃戶耕作，抽取租粟，俗稱「番租」。不同的是，以（潘）敦仔家族為代表的岸裡社業主，屬於清代最為富有的熟番地主階層。在潘家管下轄下的田業（「租業」）分為四大類：部落公業、潘家祭祀公業、潘家共業和潘家各房私有田業。基本上，前三項田業都採用出?漢佃的辦法，抽取「大租」（俗稱「番大租」）。在私有田業方面，則因複雜的番漢租田典賣關係與地方戰亂的影響，區分成「番大租」和「番小租」兩類；兩者性質不同，但沒有出現所謂「大小租」的番租名目。至于田寮地區的番業主，則因地理和生計環境的惡劣而呈現普遍性貧困化現象。許多番業主為求脫貧而將山林埔地出租給漢佃燒墾，抽取「番大租」，補貼生計。本文的主要論點在於指出，熟番業主基本上仿照漢人業主既有的「俗例」，按照田地改良程度而調整番租的比例。至於熟驟的番餉或地稅（假設有的話）負擔，並不會影響番租的本質。

The essay intends to clarify the nature of tribal rights in late imperial Taiwan. From the case study of two different tribes, the Anli tribe and Xingang tribe, it shows that the tribal landlords would manage their rental rights based on the productivity of various fields. The past scholarship tends to view the tribal rents into the category of big-rents rights whereby the tribal landlords received a small portion of rice grains from the Han Chinese tenants. On the other, the revisionist intends to show the tribal rents belonged to the category of small-rent rights. This paper will point out that both views of tribal rents are wrong in two aspects. First, they fail to examine correctly the contents of land contracts. Secondly, they tend to view the tribal rents in a static form, rather than analyzing the dynamic rental behavior of the rights holders. The paper analyzes the varieties of rental pattern in two different tribes. It shows that the rich tribal landlords, the Pans, by controlling the rights of productive paddy fields, would invest in two types of rental rights. They collected the tribal big-rent while they leased the uncultivated grasslands to the tenants. Meanwhile, they received the tribal small-rent from the cultivators through the investment of subsoil rights. To the Xingang tribal lords who resided in poor mountainous areas, however, they mainly collected the tribal big-rent.