AME
56
It is somewhat opposed to this view that the Ambashtas are mentioned in the Vishnu Purana, and are there said to belong to the north of Jndia, while atlases give a tribe Ambantx in the same region ; but next to the Ambashtas in the Vishnu Purana list come the Parasikas, and these belong to the north also. At the same time, General Cunningham says that the native name of the famous Prasii of Palibothra is Palisiya or Parasiya and he gives a derivative form of the one Palasaka, so that the corresponding derivative of the other is evidently Parasaka. Now I do not mean to assert that these two tribes are the same ; I am at least warranted in saying that the presence of a paxticnlar tribe in the north or west is no argument against the existence of its namesake in the east. That the Ambashtas in the latter direction aJone were referred to by Manu I do not say; on the contrary it is by no means impossible that they were connected with each other, for whatever may have been the case regarding the Parasakas, numerous instances might, I believe, be cited of branches of the same tribe being found at a very early period on opposite sides of India the Kambojas of Cochin may serve as aa example.
The
history has
now been sketched
of each division of theBandhalgotis by their own legends ; it reto be ascertained concerning Geuerarremarks!' them from other sources. Some twenty or " more generations ago," says Mr. Camegy, in his Notes, " there were two brothers in the service of the then Chief of Hasanpur in the Sultanpur district. Their as given in or suggested mains to notice what is
names were Kunnu Pande and Chtichu Pande. The first of these formed alliance with an Ahirin, and from this union are descended all the Kanhpurias. The other married a Dharkdrin in the raja's service, and an
from her are sprung
all the Bandal, Badhil, or Banjhilgotis, including the third in rank in the province The Bandhalgoti tribe, on certain occasions, still make offerings to the implement of their maternal ancestor, the b^nka or knife used in splitting the bamboo".
great chief
who
is
A
comparison of this account with that given by the Bandhalgotis themselves raises the question whether they are of Slirajbansi extraction, and settled where they now are after conquest and expulsion of a horde of Bhars, or whether they are of aboriginal descent. From th^ foundation of their fortunes to the service of their common ancestor with the raja of Hasanpur a third origin is assigned to them. Sir H. Elhot says they are a tribe of Eajputs of Chauhan descent, but I do not know on what authority the statement rests, nor have I been able to find anything in corroboWith regard to the theory which makes their Chhattri ration of it. In their case refutation is easy. They say they are descended from SffiMhan, 42nd from was Tilok Chand, hut that they the descendants of Tilok Chand alone survive and that the other forty-one generations have left no other progeny. This is absurd, what really happened was that Tilok Chand was the chief of the clan when it was formally Hinduised he of course was made a Chhattri just as the Gond chiefs have recently been made Chhattris' his clansmen were left in their sudra or aboriginal degradation just as the Gonds now are In process of time the clansmen too became civUised, and assert their rights to be admitted as Chhattns within the poUty established by Manu so will the Gonds, in due time both
whom
truly plead blood relationship to the chief, this the latter denies because he then to admit an aboriginal or at least » common and unclean ancestry for himself.
would have
