Archaeology of Ayodhya
The archaeology of Ayodhya concerns the excavations and findings in the Indian city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
British-era studies
In 1862-63, Alexander Cunningham, the founder of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), conducted a survey of Ayodhya.[1] Cunnigham identified Ayodhya with Sha-chi mentioned in Fa-Hien's writings, Visakha mentioned in Xuanzang's writings and Saketa mentioned in Hindu-Buddhist legends. According to him, Gautama Buddha spent six years at this place. Although Ayodhya is mentioned in several ancient Hindu texts, Cunningham found no ancient structures in the city. According to him, the existing Brahmanical temples at Ayodhya were of relatively modern origin. Referring to legends, he wrote that the old city of Ayodhya must have been deserted after the death of Brihadbala "in the great war" around 1426 BCE. When King Vikramāditya of Ujjain visited the city around first century CE, he constructed new temples at the spots mentioned in Ramayana. Cunningham believed that by the time Xuanzang visited the city in 7th century, Vikramaditya's temples had "already disappeared"; the city was a Buddhist centre, and had several Buddhist monuments.[2] Cunningham's main objective in surveying Ayodhya was to discover these Buddhist monuments.[3]
In 1889-91, an ASI team led by Alois Anton Führer conducted another survey of Ayodhya.[1] Führer did not find any ancient statues, sculptures or pillars that marked the sites of other ancient cities. He found "a low irregular mass of rubbish heaps", from which material had been used for building the neighbouring Muslim city of Faizabad. The only ancient structures found by him were three earthen mounds to the south of the city: Maniparbat, Kuberparbat and Sugribparbat. Cunningham identified these mounds with the sites of the monasteries described in Xuanzang's writings. Like Cunningham, Führer also mentioned the legend of the Ramayana-era city being destroyed after death of Brihadbala, and its rebuilding by Vikramaditya. He wrote that the existing Brahmanical and Jain temples in the city were modern, although they occupied the sites of the ancient temples that had been destroyed by Muslims. The five Digambara Jain temples had been built in 1781 CE to mark the birth places of five tirthankaras, who are said to have been born at Ayodhya. A Svetambara Jain temple dedicated to Ajitanatha was built in 1881. Based on local folk narratives, Führer wrote that Ayodhya had three Hindu temples at the time of Muslim conquest: Janmasthanam (where Rama was born), Svargadvaram (where Rama was cremated) and Treta-ke-Thakur (where Rama performed a sacrifice). According to Führer, Mir Khan built the Babri mosque at the place of Janmasthanam temple in 930 AH (1523 CE). He stated that many columns of the old temple had been utilized by the Muslims for the construction of Babri mosque: these pillars were of black stone, called kasauti by the natives. Führer also wrote that Aurangzeb had built now-ruined mosques at the sites of Svargadvaram and Treta-ke-Thakur temples. A fragmentary inscription of Jayachandra of Kannauj, dated to 1241 Samvat (1185 CE), and a record of a Vishnu temple's construction were recovered from Aurangazeb's Treta-ke-Thakur mosque, and kept in Faizabad museum.[4]
Archaeology of the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid site
Awadh Kishore Narain of Banaras Hindu University led an excavation in Ayodhya during 1969-70. He dated establishment of Ayodhya to early 17th century BCE, and also observed that there was evidence of strong Buddhist presence in the area.[5]
B. B. Lal led a more detailed ASI study of the area in 1975-76.[5] Though the results of this study were not published in that period,[6] between 1975 and 1985 an archaeological project was carried out in Ayodhya to examine certain sites referenced to in the Ramayana or that belong to its tradition. Ascribed to the 4th century AD, it is the oldest image found in Ayodhya.The Babri Mosque site was one of the fourteen sites examined during this project. Prof B. B. Lal conducted excavations in Ayodhya and found a terracotta image showing a Jain ascetic.[7] He pointed out that Ayodhya was the birthplace of five Jain Tirthankaras. It is called Ishvakubhumi in Jain writings, and the first Tirthankara, Rishabhanatha, is believed to have been born here. After a gap of many years since the excavation, an article in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) magazine Manthan in October 1990 by the BB Lal- led Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) team claimed to have 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 former Director-General ASI (1968–1972), B.B. Lal in 1975–76, worked on a project titled "Archaeology of Ramayana Sites", which excavated five Ramayana-related sites of Ayodhya, Bharadwaj Ashram, Nandigram, Chitrakoot and Shringaverapura.[6] At Ayodhya, the team found rows of pillar-bases which must have belonged to a larger building than the Babri Mosque. In 2003 statement to the Allahabad High Court, Lal stated that after he submitted a seven-page preliminary report to the Archaeological Survey of India, mentioning the discovery of "pillar bases", immediately south of the Babri mosque structure in Ayodhya. Subsequently, all technical facilities were withdrawn, and despite repeated requests, the project wasn't revived for another 10–12 years, despite his repeated request. Thus the final report was never submitted, the preliminary report was only published in 1989, and in Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) volume on historicity of Ramayana and Mahabharat.[6] Subsequently, in his 2008 book, Rama: His Historicity Mandir and Setu, he wrote, "Attached to the piers of the Babri Masjid, there were twelve stone pillars, which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings, but also figures of Hindu deities. It was self-evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the Masjid, but were foreign to it."[8]
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.[9] 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.[10]
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-brick pillar bases a few metres from the mosque indicated that a large temple stood in alignment with the Babri Mosque since the 11th century. (B.B. Lal (Manthan,10/1990) and S.P. Gupta (Indian Express, 2/12/1990), and annexure 28 to the VHP document Evidence for the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir. ) 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. [11]
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.“ [12]
Jain Samata Vahini, a social organisation of the Jains stated that the excavation conducted at Hanuman Garhi by Prof B B Lal in 1976 threw up a grey terracotta figurine that was dated back to the fourth century BC,[13][14] and Prof B B Lal, former director-general of the Archaeological Survey of India also acknowledge the same.[15]
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, 4.7.1992.) 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." [16]
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" [17] 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."
The excavations gave ample traces that there was a mammoth pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed Babri structure. Ancient perimeters from East to West and North to South have been found beneath the Babri structure. Beautiful stone pieces bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel, alligator facade, etc., were used in these walls[citation needed]. These decorated architectural pieces were anchored with precision at varied places in the walls. A tiny portion of a stone slab is sticking out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. The rest of the slab lies covered in the wall. The projecting portion bears a five-letter Devanagari inscription that turns out to be a Hindu name claimed by VHP but is disputed and thus still unproven whether it is a Hindu name or not. The items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old [citation needed]. According to archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoil every hundred years.[citation needed] Primary clay was not found even up to a depth of 30 feet. It provides a clue to the existence of some structure at that place over the last 2,500 years.
More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans. The pillar-bases are in two rows and the rows are parallel. The pillar-base rows are in North-South direction. A wall is superimposed upon another wall. At least three layers of the floor are visible. An octagonal holy fireplace (Yagna Kund) was found. These facts prove the enormity of the pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been used as a construction material in our country for over 2,000 years and, in the constructions at the Janma Bhumi, Surkhii has been extensively used. Molded bricks of round and other shapes and sizes were neither in vogue during the Middle Ages nor are they in use today. It was in vogue only 2,000 years ago. Many ornate pieces of touchstone (Kasauti stone) pillars have been found in the excavation. Terracotta religious figures, serpent, elephant, horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found. Even to this day, terracotta figures are used in worship during Diwali celebrations, then put by temple sanctums for invoking divine blessings. Gupta Empire and Kushan Empire period bricks have been found. Brick walls of the Garhwal period (12th Century CE) also have been found in excavations [citation needed].
ASI also mentioned in its report that they have found ruins of other eras also. These ruins could be the ruins of a Jain temples.[18]
Nothing has been found to prove the existence of residential habitation there. The excavation suggests a picture of a vast compound housing a sole distinguished and greatly celebrated structure used for divine purposes and not that of a colony or Mohalla consisting of small houses. It was an uncommon and highly celebrated place and not a place of habitation for the common people. Hindu pilgrims have visited that place for thousands of years.[citation needed] Even today there are temples around that place and the items found in the excavations point to the existence of a holy structure of North Indian architectural style at that place.
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. [19]
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. [20]
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. [21]
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. [22]
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. [23]
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." [24]
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]. [25] The inscription is written in the Nagari Lipi script, a Sanskrit script of the 11th and 12th century.[26] It was examined by world class Epigraphists and Sanskrit scholars (among them Prof. A.M. Shastri).[27] [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)." [28]
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. [29]
Controversy of the archaeological findings
Many Muslim and Marxist historians dispute the finding of ASI report, such as Dr Sushil Shrivastava in his review of ASI report.[30]
In fact, two Muslim graves were also recovered in the excavation as reported in Outlook weekly. While the ASI videographed and photographed the graves on April 22, it did not perform a detailed analysis of them. The skeletons found at the site were not sent for carbon-dating, neither were the graves measured.Countercurrents / Outlook [archive]. 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.[31]
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’.[32]
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.[33]. 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.[34]. 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.[35]
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.[36]
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.”
B. B. Lal's team also had K. K. Muhammed, who in his autobiography claimed that Hindu temple was found in excavation and said that left historians are misleading the Muslim communities by aligning with fundamentalists.[37][38]
Court verdict after analysis of ASI report
On October 2010, after sifting through all the evidence placed before it, the Allahabad High Court, in an order that ran into over 8,000 pages, said that the portion below the central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and other Gods are placed in a makeshift temple, belongs to Hindus. All three judges agreed that the portion under the central dome should be allotted to Hindus.[39] On objections raised with regards to ASIs various scientific claims by the Muslim parties, the Supreme Court observed, the contesting parties could have raised it before the Allahabad High Court as there were legal remedies available for the same.[40] The apex court of India also commented that the ASI report which was submitted on behalf of the Allahabad High Court was not an "ordinary opinion".[41] At the same time, on The Historians report to the Nation authored by Aligrah historians and presented as an evidence, the court observed : "At the highest, this report can be taken as an opinion."[42]
The 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute states that the entire disputed land of area of 2.77 acres be handed over to a trust to build a Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternative 5 acre land to the Sunni Waqf Board.[43] The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ashok Malik (24 March 2003). "Depths of Ayodhya" [archive]. India Today.
- ↑ Sir Alexander Cunningham (1871). Four Reports Made During the Years, 1862-63-64-65 [archive]. Government Central Press. pp. 317–327.
- ↑ Peter van der Veer (1994). Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India [archive]. University of California Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-520-08256-4.
- ↑ Alois Anton Führer (1891). The monumental antiquities and inscriptions: in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh [archive]. Printed and pub. by the superintendent, Government press, N.-W.P. and Oudh. pp. 295–300.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Sushil Srivastava (25 October 2003). "The ASI Report - a review" [archive]. Frontline. The Hindu.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 "I found pillar bases back in mid-seventies: Prof Lal" [archive]. Indian Express. Mar 6, 2003. Retrieved 2013-08-09.
- ↑ "Long ago, by the Sarayu" [archive]. The Indian Express. 2019-10-27. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
- ↑ "Ayodhya: High Court relies on ASI's 2003 report" [archive]. Economic Times. Oct 1, 2010. Retrieved 2013-08-09.
- ↑ (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.)
- ↑ (Professor B. B. Lal, in the Hindu: 1 July 1998.)
- ↑ (Professor B. B. Lal, in the Hindu: 1 July 1998.)
- ↑ (Indian Express, 6/12/90)
- ↑ Aug 29, Royden D'Souza / TNN /; 2003; Ist, 22:05. "Digging doubts-II: Jain figurines found, but no Ram | India News - Times of India" [archive]. The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
{{cite web}}
:|last2=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ↑ Mar 9, PTI /; 2003; Ist, 15:44. "Jain body claims disputed site in Ayodhya | India News - Times of India" [archive]. The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
{{cite web}}
:|last2=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ↑ "Long ago, by the Sarayu" [archive]. The Indian Express. 2019-10-27. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
- ↑ (Narain, Harsh. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute)
- ↑ Sandipan Deb in Outlook India, 23 June 2003
- ↑ "Ayodhya: Archaeologists yet to examine artefacts found at mandir site" [archive]. The Week. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
- ↑ (Pioneer, 9th September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
- ↑ (Pioneer, 9th September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
- ↑ (Pioneer, 9th September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
- ↑ (Pioneer, 9th September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
- ↑ (Pioneer, 9th September 2003. Ayodhya: lost and found By Sandhya Jain)
- ↑ [1] [archive] Rediff Online News, March 19, 2003
- ↑ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
- ↑ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
- ↑ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
- ↑ (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)
- ↑ (Hans Bakker: Ayodhya)
- ↑ The ASI Report - a review [archive]
- ↑ http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/sep08/top.asp [archive] Deccan Herald September 8 2003
- ↑ (Outlook India, 23 June)
- ↑ (Hindustan Times, 8 May 2003)
- ↑ (The Hindu, 10 June 2003)
- ↑ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2848393.stm [archive] BBC News 14 March 2003)
- ↑ (http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030602&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1 [archive] The Outlook)
- ↑ "Left historians prevented resolution of Babri Masjid dispute, says KK Mohammed, former ASI regional head" [archive]. Firstpost. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
- ↑ Singh, Varun (2017-05-11). "Muslims misled over Ayodhya, says KK Mohammed" [archive]. The Asian Age. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
- ↑ https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-allahabad-high-court-says-divide-land-in-3-ways-433808 [archive]
- ↑ "Ayodhya dispute: Muslim parties in SC retract statement on Ram Chabutra - India News" [archive]. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
- ↑ "Ayodhya case: SC says ASI report not an ordinary opinion; inferences drawn by cultivated minds - The Economic Times" [archive]. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
- ↑ "Historians' report on Babri mosque mere 'opinion': SC | India News - Times of India" [archive]. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
- ↑ "Ram Mandir verdict: Supreme Court verdict on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case" [archive]. The Times of India. 2019-11-09. Retrieved 2019-11-09.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
- Swapan Dasgupta et al.: The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 8185990301
- 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. [2] [archive]
- Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya, The Finale - Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate (2003) ISBN 8185990778
- Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002) ISBN 81-85990-75-1
- 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.
Wikipedia bias
An user complains on the wikipedia talkpage:
- This article stinks. It seems to be espousing the 'my people get this thing because we were here first' mentality that is extensively used by people who failed at diplomacy. It needs to be revamped completely. Sukiari (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
On the wikipedia talkpage, Wikipedia user Kautilya3 [archive] says [3] [archive] about the wikipedia article:
Joshua Jonathan, I am intending to revert this edit [archive] of yours, which is said to have copied content from the B. B. Lal page. I find it full of polemics and innuendo and short on substance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- I object; it also changed the structure of the article. What exactly do you find "full of polemics"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The very section title "Lal's pillars (1990)" smacks of a partisan attack. And what is the first sentence saying? Why such WP:CITEKILL, without even saying what the "controversial stance" is? What does this have to do with archaeology of Ayodhya anyway?
- Multiple "historians" are supposed to have criticised it. Well, historians are not archaeologists. All these historians had a chance to testify in the Allahabad High Court and their testimonies fell apart under cross-examinations. Here [archive] is a sample of what happened in the court.
- Most citations are missing urls or miss page numbers etc. (This is characteristic of POV pushers.) The ones I checked are hardly authentic. Kristin Romey [archive] is hardly a scholar. She is at best a scientific journalist. Brian Hole [archive] apparently did a PhD on this dispute and went off to doing something else. He cites a key publication (Lal 2001)[1] but then ignores everything that was revealed in it. Romey doesn't even cite it. She isn't aware of it at all.
- Whatever might be our predelictions, there are clearly two camps: pro-Masjid and pro-Mandir. No THIRDPARTY scholars have managed to interrogate the two sides the way Allahabd High Court managed to do. So we can't ignore the Court judgement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Lal, B. B. (2003), "A note on the excavation at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir-Masjid issue", in Layton, Robert; Thomas, Julian (eds.), Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property [archive], Routledge, pp. 117–126, ISBN 9781134604982
- Well, then clean-up that section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Brian Hole
Brian Hole writes here [archive]: "Template:FormattingError"
So you would think, "brilliant, here is somebody who knows archaeology and he is examining identity politics". But, as far as Ayodhya is concerned, I don't see him having done any new investigation other than what has already been published in various places. (UCL thesis [archive]). For example, B. B. Lal had said repeatedly that his funding was cut off and he could't complete the report of his excavations. Obviously, it was cut off by the "nation state". You would think a scholar investigating the issue would try to find out why it was cut off, who did it and for what reason. No such luck!
So when he says "Template:FormattingError", it is just idle speculation and hardly based on any facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Another interesting comment: "Template:FormattingError" (p. 84)
- Kishore Kunal writes that, when he was the special officer for coordinating the VHP-BMAC negotiations, the BMAC historians requested the archaeological materials. The Director General of ASI wrote back,
- So Lal is being blamed for the decisions being made by the "highest level", whoever it is. And a scholar who claims to be an advocate of "public archaeology" has no interest in these matters! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
References
See also
External links
- Hindu Temple lays beneath - dailypioneer.com - August 26 2003 [archive]
- The "Ram temple" drama - Frontline India Indian Newsmagazine [archive]
- ASI Report Critical Study Indian Newspaper [archive]
- The Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir - Hindu Organisation [archive] [4] [archive]
- White paper on Ayodhya - Hindu Organisation [archive]
- ASI fabricating evidence - Indian Mainstream Newspaper [archive]
- Ayodhya - Hindu Site [archive]
- https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/bb-lal-amu-professor-syed-ali-rizvi-kk-muhammed-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-excavation-letter/ [archive]
- Articles on the Ayodhya Debate - Foreign pro Hindu Researcher [archive]
- https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhinduism/comments/djwnux/proof_of_ram_mandir_at_ayodhya_prof_b_b_lal_on/ [archive]
- Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Rama - Foreign Pro Hindu Researcher [archive]
- A closer look at the Ayodhya issue Pro Hindu Researcher [archive]
- https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/ram-temple-existed-at-ayodhya-site-7-proofs-unearthed-by-asi/504471 [archive]
- Ram Janmabhoomi Information from Vishwa Hindu Parishad [archive]
- An article [archive] by Praful Bidwai, discussing critiques of the Ayodhya archeological investigation - Mainstream Online News]
- Ayodhya.com - from Web Archive - Hindu Site [archive]
- Ayodhya: Lost and found [archive] Sandhya Jain - Mainstream Newspaper
- Times of India news on ASI excavations [archive]Mainstream Newspaper
- Manufacturing Faith [archive]Muslim Newspaper
- Timeline till the tearing down of mosque [archive]- Muslim Site
- On Muslim past of Ayodhya [archive]- Mainstream Media
- The ASI report [archive] The Hindu Daily - Mainstream Newspaper
- Layers of truth [archive] Mainstream News Magazine - shows artists impression of ASI underlying temple
- https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/archaeologist-k-k-muhammed-who-resisted-leftist-pressure-to-assert-ram-temples-presence-under-babri-mosque [archive]
- https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/aligarh-muslim-university-islamists-protest-event-to-honour-kk-muhammad-cancelled-ram-temple-babri-masjid/ [archive]
- https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/ayodhya-ram-janmabhoomi-temple-excavation-asi-ram-mandir-babri-up.html [archive]
- https://swarajyamag.com/videos/discoveries-at-ram-janmabhoomi-site-pile-on-evidence-that-leftist-historians-have-tried-to-bury [archive]
- https://www.opindia.com/2020/05/ayodhya-excavation-ram-janmabhoomi-temple-pillars-masjid-teertha-kshetra-shivling/ [archive]
- http://indiafacts.org/ayodhya-excavation-digging-up-the-dark-history-of-hindu-masjids/ [archive]
- https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/ayodhya-the-need-to-preserve-history-while-we-build-the-temple [archive]
- http://indiafacts.org/ayodhya-excavation-digging-up-the-dark-history-of-hindu-masjids/ [archive]
- https://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-eminent-historians-guilt.html [archive]
https://www.hvk.org/specialreports/rjm/ch9.html [archive] ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES OF RAM JANMABHOOMI -By Dr. B.P. Sinha*
- CS1 errors: numeric name
- CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list
- CS1 maint: url-status
- Pages with script errors
- All articles with unsourced statements
- Articles with unsourced statements
- Articles with unsourced statements from March 2020
- Articles with invalid date parameter in template
- Articles with unsourced statements from March 2019
- Articles with unsourced statements from April 2013
- Articles with unsourced statements from December 2011
- Archaeological sites in India
- Ayodhya
- Regional History of India