234 V. A. Smith— Notes on the Bhars of Bundcllchand. [No. 3, 
found intermingled, and “ intermarriage between the daughters of the 
Kharwar chief and a Chandel Rajput prince is mentioned in the annals of 
Bundelkhand.”* * * § In Lalatpur, too, the connection between the Gonds and 
Chandels seems to be remembered,f and the story of the marriage of Durga- 
vati of the Chandel line with the Raja of Garha MandlaJ shows that 
the connection subsisted so late as the sixteenth century A. D. ; there is 
therefore nothing improbable in supposing that the myth of the union of 
Hemavati with the moon as related in the Chandel legends was invented to 
conceal the fact that the Chandels really sjDrang from an aboriginal stock ; 
whether this stock was called Bhar or Gond we cannot say, and, if I am 
right in thinking the two tribes to he very closely connected, the question 
is of no importance. The construction of the great Yijayanagar or Bija- 
nagar lake near Mahoba is attributed to the Gaharwars, who are said to have 
preceded the Chandels in that part of the country, and I think it is not 
unlikely that the Chandel clan is the result of crossing Gahanvar with 
Bhar or Gond blood : the popular legends indeed assert the fact of relation¬ 
ship between the Gaharwars § of Benares and the Chandels. 
The Bhars of Bundelkhand, so far as we know them, seem to have 
possessed little of the arts of civilization, and to have consequently left 
behind them almost nothing of architectural or artistic interest. In the 
eastern districts the Bhars are credited with the construction of many 
tanks and massive forts, but in Hamirpur I have not met with a single 
fort or tank the construction of which is ascribed to them ; everything old 
is indiscriminately called Chandel, and is usually placed to the credit of 
Raja Parmal or his famous champions Alha and Uclal: it is, however, pro¬ 
bable that some of the works attributed to the Chandels were executed by 
other races. The commonest objects of antiquity in the district are rude 
bas-reliefs of Hanuman, here usually called Mahabir, and there is scarcely 
one of the numerous sites of ancient abandoned villages, whether Bhar or 
otherwise, which is not marked by an image of the monkey-god. 
Upright slabs or pillars of granite bearing on one face a pair of rudely 
carved figures in relief, are met with in many places. The design consists 
of two standing figures, one male, and the other female, holding each other 
by the hand: at the top left hand corner of the stone there is a detached 
* Chandra Sekhara Banurjf, in J. A. S. B., Yol. XLYI, Pt. I, p. 25. I do not 
know what annals are referred to. 
f N. W. P. Gazetteer, Yol. I, p. 351 ; but the statement there may he based only 
on Sleeman’s narrative. 
X Sleeman’s History of the Garha Mandla Rajas in J. A. S. B. for 1837, Yol. YI, 
(2), pp. 621-648. 
§ Vide Cunningham, Arch. Rep. II, ‘ Mahoba’ and Beam.es’ Elliot, s. v. Bhar, 
Chandel, Gaharwar. 
