40 
[No. 1, 
V. A. Smith —History of Bundelhliand. 
The argument here stated is to me quite unintelligible, and I am un¬ 
able to trace any connection between the conclusion and the premises. 
What proof is there of the startling assertion that the Bhars, on attaining 
royal power, were advanced to the dignity of Kayaths, and how is this 
fact, if fact it be, curiously borne out by inscriptions preserved in the old 
fort of Garhwa ? 
The only answer given in the Gazetteer to these questions is the state¬ 
ment that there are at Garhwa statues dedicated by Kayath Thakurs in 
1142 A. D,, and that there is at the same place a Bhar statue, apparently 
older, and connected with traditions of a local Bhar dynasty. 
But it was already well known that a Bhar dynasty once ruled over 
the eastern Doab, and the mere fact that a Bhar statue was found among 
ruins along with statues of a different date dedicated by Kayaths is no 
evidence of the identity of Kayaths and Bhars. 
Unless then there exists other evidence of their identity at Garhwa 
or elsewhere, it is plain that the Garhwa inscriptions and sculptures give 
no reason for believing in such identity. 
The identification of the Kayath Malika of the Jayadurga inscription 
with the Bhar chief Dalaki-wa-Malaki is moreover inconsistent with the 
evidence of the other documents discussed in this paper, as well as with 
the testimony of the inscription in question, which records that Nana 
Kayath, grandson of Malika, was a servant of the Chandel prince. We 
have learned from the Tabakat-i-Nasiri that Dalaki-wa-Mal^ki, so far from 
being a servant of the Chandels, lived in an inaccessible fortress, and that 
the Rai of Kalinjar had no authority over him. By the “ Rai of Kalinjar” 
no other can be meant than the reigning chief of the Chandel house. 
A brief discussion of the few known facts concerning the successors 
of Parmal on the Chandel throne will facilitate the comprehension of the 
mediaeval history of Bundelkhand. 
It has been shown above that the Mahoba tradition concerning the 
retirement and death of Parmal is absolutely untrue, and that the state¬ 
ment of the same tradition that he was succeeded in Mahoba by his son 
Samarjit is probably erroneous. 
The only substantial evidence regarding the names and regnal order 
of Parmal’s immediate successors is that of the Dahi inscribed copper-plate, 
formerly in the possession of Colonel Ellis, who was at one time Political 
Agent at Nagod. 
Unluckily this inscription is not now forthcoming, and no good copy 
of it seems to exist. The original was probably destroyed in the mutiny 
with the rest of Col. Ellis’ property. The inscription is known only from 
General Cunningham’s imperfect account of it, which is as follows : 
