Archaeology of Ayodhya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archaeological studies in the 1970s: Project "Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites"

Though results were not reported in that period,[citation needed] between 1975 and 1985 an archaeological project was carried out in Ayodhya to examine some sites that were connected to the Ramayana story. The Babri Mosque site was one of the fourteen sites examined during this project. After a gap of many years since the ecavations the BB Lal led ASI team claimed in the Rashtriya Swayam-sevak Sangh (RSS) magazine Manthan in October 1990 of having found the pillar-bases of what may have been a temple at the site which must have belonged to a larger building than the Babri Mosque.

The team of archaeologists of the ASI, led by B.B. Lal, found rows of pillar-bases which must have belonged to a larger building than the Babri Mosque.

Accordingly, archaeological findings of burnt bases of pillars made of brick, a few metres from the mosque indicated that a large temple stood in alignment with the Babri Mosque since the 11th century. [1] In a trench at a distance of four metres south of the mosque, parallel rows of pillar-foundations made of brick-bats and stones were found. [2]

Professor Gupta later commented on the findings of the period prior to 1990: "Several of the temple pillars existing in the mosque and pillar- bases unearthed in the excavations conducted in the south of the mosque (although in the adjoining plot of land) show the same directional alignment. This will convince any student of architecture that two sets of material remains belong to one and the same complex.“ [3]

[edit] June to July 1992

In July 1992, eight eminent archaeologists (among them former ASI directors Dr. Y.D. Sharma and Dr. K.M. Srivastava) went to the Ramkot hill to evaluate and examine the findings. These findings included religious sculptures and a statue of Vishnu. They said that the inner boundary of the disputed structure rests, at least on one side, on an earlier existing structure, which “may have belonged to an earlier temple”. (Indian Express, 4 July 1992.) The objects examined by them also included terracotta Hindu images of the Kushan period (100-300 AD) and carved buff sandstone objects that showed images of Vaishnav deities and of Shiva-Parvati. They concluded that these fragments belong to a temple of the Nagara style (900-1200 AD).

Prof. S.P. Gupta commented on the discoveries: "The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the late Pratiharas and early Gahadvals. (....) These objects included a number of amakalas, i.e., the cogged-wheel type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire or the main shikhara ... This is a characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period (...) There was other evidence - of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings, door jambs with floral patterns and others - leaving little doubt regarding the existence of a 10th - 12th century temple complex at the site of Ayodhya." [4]

[edit] 2003: The ASI report

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavated the mosque site at the direction of the Allahabad Bench of the Uttar Pradesh High Court in 2003. The archaeologists reported evidence of a large 10th century structure similar to a Hindu temple having pre-existed the Babri Masjid. A team of 131 labourers including 29 Muslims - who were later on included on the objections of the Muslim side[citation needed] - was engaged in the excavations. In June 11, 2003 the ASI issued an interim report that only listed the findings of the period between May 22 and June 6, 2003. In August 2003 the ASI handed a 574-page report to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

The ASI, who examined the site, issued a report of the findings of the period between May 22 and June 6, 2003. This report stated:

Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls ‘in east-west orientation’, several ‘in north-south orientation’, ‘decorated coloured floor’, several ‘pillar bases’, and a ‘1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with yaksha figurines on four corners’ as well as "Arabic inscription of holy verses on stone" [5] Earlier reports by the ASI, based on earlier findings, also mention among other things a staircase and two black basalt columns ‘bearing fine decorative carvings with two crosslegged figures in bas-relief on a bloomed lotus with a peacock whose feathers are raised upwards’.

The ASI report of August 25, 2003 stated that there was evidence of a large Hindu temple having pre-existed the Babri mosque. The ASI report mentions a huge structure (11-12th century) on which a massive edifice, having a large pillared hall (or two halls), with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it was constructed later on. The report also stated that "there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum of 50 x 30 metre in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure". The ASI report of 2003 concluded that: "Viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with yield of stone and decorated bricks as well mutilated sculpture of divine couple...., fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India."

[edit] Some results of the 2003 ASI report:

Period 1000BC to 300BC:

The findings suggest that a Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) culture existed at the mosque site between 1000 BC and 300 BC. A round signet with a legend in Asokan Brahmi , terracotta figurines of female deities with archaic features, beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks have been found. [6]

Sunga Period. 200 BC:

Typical terracotta mother goddess, human and animal figurines, beads, hairpin, pottery (includes black slipped, red and grey wares), and stone and brick structures of the Sunga period have been found. [7]

Kushan period. 100-300 AD:

Terracotta human and animal figurines, fragments of votive tanks, beads, bangle fragments, ceramics with red ware and large-sized structures running into twenty-two courses have been found from this level. [8]

Gupta era (400-600 AD) and post-Gupta era:

Typical terracotta figurines, a copper coin with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta), and illustrative potsherds of the Gupta period have been found. A circular brick shrine with an entrance from the east and a provision for a water-chute on the northern wall have also been found. [9]

11th to 12th century:

A huge structure of almost fifty metres in north-south orientation have been found on this level. Only four of the fifty pillar bases belong to this level. Above this lied a structure with at least three structural phases which had a huge pillared hall. [10]

[edit] Radar search

In the January 2003, Candadian geophysiscist Claude Robillard performed a search with a ground-penetrating radar. The survey concluded that "there is some structure under the mosque". The structures were "ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site". Claude Robillard, the chief geophysicist stated that "there are some anomalies found underneath the site relating to some archaeological features. You might associate them (the anomalies) with pillars, or floors, or concrete floors, wall foundation or something. These anomalies could be associated with archaeological features but until we dig, I can't say for sure what the construction is under the mosque." [11]

[edit] Inscriptions

Hari-Vishnu inscription:

During the demolition of the Babri mosque in December 1992, three inscriptions on stone were found. The most important one is the Hari-Vishnu inscription inscribed on a 1.10 x .56 metre slab with 20 lines that was provisionally dated to ca. 1140. The inscription mentioned that the temple was dedicated to "Vishnu, slayer of Bali and of the ten-headed one" [Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu who is said to have defeated Bali and Ravana]. [12] The inscription is written in the Nagari Lipi script, a Sanskrit script of the 11th and 12th century.[13] It was examined by world class Epigraphists and Sanskrit scholars (among them Prof. A.M. Shastri).[14][citation needed]

Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the Epigraphical Society of India and a specialist in Epigraphy and Numismatics, examined the Hari-Vishnu inscription and stated:

"The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari- script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (sila-samhati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akrtam krtam nrpatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple- city (vibudh-alaayni) of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district, line 17) (...). Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana, i.e., Ravana)." [15]

[edit] Pillars

Pillar bases were first discovered by the ASI's former director-general BB Lall in 1975.

In the Babri Mosque were at least fourteen stone pillars that have been dated to the early 11th century and more pillars were found during excavations buried in the ground near the mosque.

Two similar pillars were also found placed upside down by the side of the grave of Fazle Abbas alias Musa Ashikhan. This Muslim saint was the person that incited Mir Baqi to destroy the Janmasthan temple and build a mosque on it. [16]

[edit] Controversy of the archaeological findings

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
This article has been tagged since June 2006.

Many Muslim and Marxist historians dispute the finding of ASI report, such as Dr Sushil Shrivastava in his review of ASI report. [17]

In fact, two Muslim graves were also recovered in the excavation and as reported in Outlook weekly. While the ASI videographed and photographed the graves on April 22, it avoided further analysis of the important evidence. The skeletons found at the site were not sent for carbon-dating, neither were the graves measured.Countercurrents / Outlook. Anirudha Srivastava a former ASI archaeologist said that in some trenches, some graves, terracotta and lime mortar and surkhi were also discovered which indicated Muslim habitation and it was also surmised that there existed some mosque on the site and that Babri was built on the site of another mosque. [18]

Richard M Eaton, an American historian of medieval India, in his controversial Essays on Islam and Indian History (ISBN 0-19-566265-2) documents desecration of all Hindu temples between 1192 and 1760. The total adds up to 80. Eaton in his book does not claim that this list is exhaustive. Furthermore, each of theses 80 cases represents the destruction of not just one, but of a large number of temples. For example one of these 80 cases, the “1094: Benares, Ghurid army” case, refers to the Ghurid royal army that “destroyed nearly one thousand temples, and raised mosques on their foundations”. This figure of 80 cases doesn't include a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

They also refer to a study by the Archaeological Survey of India in 2003, conducted on the orders of the Indian Supreme Court, the evidence indicates that a Hindu temple did exist at the site prior to the construction of the mosque.

Hindu parties have criticized Muslims and Marxists for not studying this evidence. Press reports tended to underplay its importance, and often even stated that the ASI report (of the findings of the period May 22 to June 6, 2003) didn't find anything. Sandipan Deb commented on the ASI report: “While most papers covering the new ASI report last week said that it claims there was no structure under the Babri Masjid, what the report actually says is that of the 30 recent trenches, the team has found man-made structures in eight, and none in sixteen. In five, they couldn’t decide due to ‘structural activities in the upper levels’ (mainly the plinth of the Babri Masjid). One trench they did not survey. Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls ‘in eastwest orientation’, several ‘in northsouth orientation’, ‘decorated coloured floor’, several ‘pillar bases’, and a ‘1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with yaksha figurines on four corners’. [19]


There are Marxist historians who say the entire town of Ayodhya was settled by Buddhists, not Hindus, and the town had a large number of Buddha viharas (Buddhist shrines). Remains of some Buddhist shrines may be found in excavations, but they are unrelated to Hindu claims.

In 2003 it was alleged by the Marxist paper People's Democracy that the Hari-Vishnu inscription would correspond to an inscription dedicated to Vishnu that was supposedly missing in the Lucknow State Museum since the 1980s. The museum director Jitendra Kumar however stated that the inscription had never been missing from the museum, although it wasn't on display and he showed the inscription of his museum at a press conference for all to see. It was different in shape, colour and text contents from the Vishnu-Hari inscription. [20]. In addition, there are photographs that show the Kar Sevaks carrying a huge stone-slab bearing a sculpted frieze (e.g. In India Today, 31. December 1992: p.33). And the inscription has been examined by many leading epigraphists like Prof. Ajay Mitra Shastri.

There were also attempts by Babri Masjid supporters to prohibit all archaeological excavations at the disputed site. Naved Yar Khan's petition at the Supreme Court to prohibit all archaeological excavations at the Mosque site was rejected. [21]. Similarly there were questions raised as to what level the archaeological digging should continue - should they stop till the point an evidence of Hindu temple was found with both Buddhists and Jains asking for the digging to continue much further to find if they could also lay claim to the site.[22]

Pillar bases were first discovered by the ASI's former director-general BB Lall in 1975. His report gave an enormous boost to the Ram Temple cause. It was however criticised by archaeologist D. Mandal. In the excavation of 2003, fifty of "pillar bases" were once again unearthed. Although they appear to be aligned, D. Mandal's conclusion by archaeological theory stated that: "pillar bases" belonged to different periods, that is, all of them had never existed together at any point of time; they were not really in alignment with one another; they were not even pillar bases, but junctions of walls, bases of the load-bearing columns at the intersections of walls. [23]

[edit] Criticism of the Study Reports

 The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

BB Lal's announcement that brick base found in the vicinity of the masjid could be meant for sustaining pillars and therefore suggest the existence of a temple-like structure south of the Babri masjid has been taken by the BJP as the basic evidence for the existence of a temple where the masjid stood.

A group of pro-Marxist and pro-Babri Masjid experts examined the site notebook and register of antiquities connected with the Ayodhya excavations, studied the drawings, plans, photographs, and excavated material and found that the claim of Prof. Lal regarding the existence of a mandir-like structure was unsubstantiated. They alleged that the existence of a brick base for pillars does not prove that it could be of a temple. They also alleged that the eighteen objects which VHP claims to have found at the site during its excavations, which were witnessed neither by the Archaeological Survey of India experts nor by any other Marxist archaeologists or historians, are not in situ objects and could have been brought from elsewhere.

Even in his own report submitted to the Archaeological Survey of India in 1976-77 and in 1979-80, Professor Lal had stated "several later medieval brick-and-kankar lime floors have been met with, but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest." The later medieval period indicated 17th-l8th centuries. If remains of a structure of 17th-l8th centuries, are found outside the masjid area, how do they prove the presence of a temple that was supposedly built in the 11th century and destroyed in the early 16th century? the Marxists asked. They also alleged that the excavations did not reveal any pillars, or roof material of the supposed temple at the site where the brick pillar base stood.

Interestingly, pieces of glazed ware pottery were unearthed from the trenches above the floors associated with the brick-pillar base structure and immediately below the general floor of the Babri Masjid. It was alleged that Islamic glazed-ware pottery has never been used in Hindu temple. Excavations conducted by Prof. A.K. Narain in other parts of Ayodhya, where he claimed to have unearthed glazed ware in the trenches, tried to uphold this view. Finds of Islamic glazed ware unearthed by both B.B. Lal and A.K. Narain make it possible that the Muslims lived in Ayodhya from the 13th century onwards and may have built a mosque at the site of an old ruin.

Now about the black basalt stone-pillars used in the four arches of the Masjid. VHP argues that they formed part of the temple which was destroyed. Similar pillars are also found in the graveyard nearby. All these differ in their style and diameter and their total lack of stratigraphic association rules out the possibility of their being an integral part of any single structure. Such pillars are also found in other parts of Ayodhya in completely unrelated contexts. Besides, the pillar bases existing at a distance of about 60 feet to the south of the Babri Masjid structure are in alignment with the pillars used in the Babd Masjid. They could have been part of a veranda or a dwelling place or an animal shed and are of no importance as such structures could be found in the area even now.

(excerpted from KP Prakasam Ayodhya:Questions of History)

[edit] Alleged Flaws of the ASI Report

While in its interim report the ASI said it had found no signs of the temple. [24] The final ASI report of August 25, 2003 stated that there was evidence of a large Hindu temple having pre-existed the Babri mosque. Midway into the excavations the courts ordered the removal of the head of the ASI excavations for not following the excavation norms.[25]

On the basis of these investigations Suraj Bhan and former Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research Irfan Habib concluded that what the ASI found was as a previous layer of mosque.

[edit] Rebuttal

This was refuted by many scholars, including Professor R. Nath who concludes in "The Baburi Masjid, p.78": “The foregoing study of the architecture and site of the Baburi Masjid has shown, unequivocally and without any doubt, that it stands on the site of a Hindu temple which originally existed in the Ramkot on the bank of the river Sarayu, and Hindu temple material has also been used in its construction.”

[edit] Political Reaction

The leaders of Babri Masjid Action - Reconstruction committee expressed reservations on the credibility of the ASI in carrying out the assignment impartially owing to political pressure. ASI comes under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, which was headed by Murli Manohar Joshi, himself an accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case.[26] The Muslim side expressed doubts on the final ASI report saying that the notes and other draft items were destroyed by the ASI with the 24 hours of the final report submission.[27] The sounding tests by a Canadian agency mentioned that some structure or anomalies could be established but that could not be a temple on a conclusive note.

Prof Suraj Bhan, who has personally taken an inventory of the site, said the ASI had clubbed pottery from the 11th to the 19th century together and not really distinguished them into different periods. He, however, questioned the basis for the ASI interpreting that a massive burnt brick structure was that of a Ram temple. "The Babri Masjid had a planned structure and the ASI findings conform to this plan. The Nagar style of star-shaped temple construction prevalent between the 9th and 12th century is not at all present at the structure," he said.

One of the central findings in the ASI report was a very large temple, the foundations of which far exceed the circumference of the Babri mosque. According to Irfan Habib the pillar-bases were actually the floor of the Babri Masjid, but a large part of the foundations was located outside the confines of the mosque and hence cannot possibly be confused with the mosque floor, except by a highly prejudiced mind.

Along the same lines as Habib, Muslim Personal Law Board secretary Mohammed Abdul Rahim Quraishi “said a team of well-known archaeologists including Prof. Suraj Bhan had visited the site and inspected the excavated pits and was of [the] opinion that there was evidence of an earlier mosque beneath the structure of the Babri Masjid”. (“ASI ‘finds’ temple, Muslim front says no”, Hinduonnet.com, 25 August. 2003)

The two agree on a pre-Babri Muslim presence, but it should ne noted that how Quraishi’s “interpretation” of the findings is already starkly at variance with Habib’s: the latter saw no mosque underneath, while Quraishi’s employee Bhan did. This indicates the non-seriousness of at least one of these interpretations, possibly both. By contrast, the ASI team could settle for a single interpretation, just one, which also converges with S.P. Gupta’s, K.N. Dixit’s and R.K. Sharma’s reading.

Noted lawyer Rajeev Dhawan said the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case has taken a wrong turn and the ASI report had no historical or moral significance and the conclusions were based on political considerations. However, anti-temple lawyer, Mr. Dhawan said, "The legal case did not relate to the question of whether a temple existed on the site or not".[28]

[edit] Court defers the use of ASI report

The Special full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, hearing the Ayodhya title suits on February 3 ruled that the report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which carried out excavations to find out whether a temple had ever existed at the place where once the Babri Masjid stood, would be seen only in the light of further evidence in the case. The three-member bench further remarked “no doubt, the objections taken against the report have to be considered before the ASI report is acted upon but that situation will arise only when the court decides the matter finally.”

The court remarked that it would not be advisable nor expedient to make any comments at this stage regarding the correctness or accuracy of the report, or the tenability or otherwise of the objections. Whether the report is biased or suffers from discrepancies or infirmities, or is unacceptable, for various reasons stated in objections have to be considered along with the rest of the evidence that has been brought on record, the Bench added and said that in its considered view this is not the proper stage to pronounce on these points.

[edit] References

  1. ^ (B.B. Lal (Manthan,10/1990) and S.P. Gupta (Indian Express, 2 December 1990), and annexure 28 to the VHP document Evidence for the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir.)
  2. ^ (Professor B. B. Lal, in the Hindu: 1 July 1998.)
  3. ^ (Indian Express, 6 December 1990)
  4. ^ (Narain, Harsh. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute)
  5. ^ Sandipan Deb in Outlook India, 23 June 2003
  6. ^ (Pioneer, 9 September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
  7. ^ (Pioneer, 9 September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
  8. ^ (Pioneer, 9 September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
  9. ^ (Pioneer, 9 September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
  10. ^ (Pioneer, 9 September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
  11. ^ [1] Rediff Online News, March 19, 2003
  12. ^ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
  13. ^ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
  14. ^ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
  15. ^ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
  16. ^ (Hans Bakker: Ayodhya)
  17. ^ [2]
  18. ^ http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/sep08/top.asp Deccan Herald September 8, 2003
  19. ^ (Outlook India, 23 June)
  20. ^ (Hindustan Times, 8 May 2003)
  21. ^ (The Hindu, 10 June 2003)
  22. ^ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2848393.stm BBC News 14 March 2003)
  23. ^ (http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030602&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1 The Outlook)
  24. ^ 'No sign' of Ayodhya temple
  25. ^ Rediff
  26. ^ The Hindu News
  27. ^ Milligazette
  28. ^ Historians find flaws in ASI report Escaping the ASI’s final conclusions

[edit] Further reading

  • Swapan Dasgupta et al.: The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 81-85990-30-1
  • Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies. ISBN 81-86041-02-8 hb ISBN 81-86041-03-6 pb
  • Elst, Koenraad. 1991. Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society. 1991. New Delhi: Voice of India. [3]
  • Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya, The Finale - Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate (2003) ISBN 81-85990-77-8
  • Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002) ISBN 81-85990-75-1
  • R. Nath. Babari Masjid of Ayodhya, Jaipur 1991.
  • Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta: Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’). Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi.
  • Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’) by Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta. Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi. (An important work on the archaeology of the temple.)
  • History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91. New Delhi: Voice of India.

[edit] See also

The Ayodhya debate
Timeline
Babri Mosque
Ram Janmabhoomi
Archaeology of Ayodhya
2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya
People and organizations
L. K. Advani
All India Babri Masjid Action Committee
Babur
Bharatiya Janata Party
Koenraad Elst
Indian National Congress

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/c/Archaeology_of_Ayodhya_14e5.html"