1

Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Lord Rama

This page offers some of the latest developments regarding the archeological
research on the ancient temple of Lord Rama at His birthplace at Ayodhya.
1. WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT AYODHYA
By N.S. Rajaram
There already exists a good deal of literary and archaeological evidence
relating to the existence of temples at the disputed site.
The Allahabad Bench of the Uttar Pradesh High Court has directed the
Archaeological Survey of India to excavate in the disputed site at Ayodhya to
determine whether the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a temple that was
already. This is a welcome development, for we will soon have a scientific
investigation of the claims and counterclaims in full public view and under
official direction. It is important to note however that there have been
previous investigations, both literary and archaeological, that pretty much
establish the pre-existence and destruction of temples at the site where the
Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baki on Babar's orders. This was drowned in all
the noise generated in the emotionally charged climate following the destruction
of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992. I will present some of this
material from sources that are well known to experts, but not the public.
Literary Evidence
There are basically two kinds of literary sources--written records and
inscriptions. Both these are available at Ram Janmabhumi at Ayodhya. One major
inscription is that of Mir Baki himself, apparently placed on the Masjid wall
when it was built in the 16th century. Another was discovered following the
demolition on December 6, 1992. I'll look at it later. There are numerous
literary records by Hindu, Muslim and British authors. When we survey even a
small part of this vast literature, we find that until recently, until some
politicians created the so-called 'controversy', no author--Hindu, Muslim,
European or British official--questioned that a temple existed on the spot,
which had been destroyed to erect the mosque. We may begin with a couple of
references from European writers from published sources that are widely
available.
A. Fuhrer in his The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the
North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891,
pp 296-297 records: "Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of
Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one,
for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction

of Babar's Masjid." H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow,

1905, pp 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple "was destroyed by Babar and
replaced by a mosque." Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow,
1905, pp 172-177 further tells us; "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the
birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a
week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still
known as Babar's mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple]
were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation."
One could cite many more in similar vein, but these examples should suffice for
recent European records. When we reach back in time, what we find particularly
interesting are the accounts attributed to Guru Nanak. He was a contemporary of
Babar, and an eyewitness to his vandalism. Nanak condemned him in the strongest
terms. The historian Harsh Narain in his book The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute:
Focus on Muslim Sources, writes: "Guru Nanak, according to Bhai Man Singh's
Pothi Janam Sakhi, said to have been composed in 1787 Anno Vikrami/1730 A.D.,
visited Ayodhya and said to his Muslim disciple Mardana: 'Mardania! eh Ajudhia
nagari Sri Ramachandraji ki hai. So, chal, iska darsan kari'e. Translation:
'Mardana! this Ayodhya city belongs to Sri Ramachandra Ji. So let us have its
darsana.'"
This indicates that Nanak visited Ayodhya shortly before the destruction of the
Rama temple by Babar. Another work by Baba Sukhbasi Ram gives a similar account,
again suggesting that Nanak visited Ayodyha before the temple was destroyed by
his contemporary, the Mughal invader Babar. Muslim sources also give a similar
account. In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad for the recapture of Hanuman
Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from the Babri Masjid, which at that time
was in the possession of Hindus. This Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab
Wajid Ali Shah of Oudh. It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was
a participant in that Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856,
i.e. the year following the failed Jihad. Miza Jan tells us:
"'wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the
establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas'ud Ghazi's rule, the Muslim rulers in India
built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu'azzins, teachers and
store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise
they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth of reprobation
(infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama's
father. Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a
big mosque, ... Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923
A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan!" Even more impressive is
a Persian text known as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa'ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by
a granddaughter of the Moghul emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his
Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada just cited. Mirza Jan quotes several lines from her
work which tell us:

"...keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all
idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah,
grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on 'Id days and
waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and 'keep in constant use
for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the
temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh."
Other Muslim authors than Mirza Jan also cite the work, which appears to have
been widely available in the 18th and 19th centuries. Then there is the evidence
of the three inscriptions at the site of the mosque itself, at least two of
which mention its construction by Mir Baqi (or Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar.
Babar's Memoir mentions Mir Baqi as his governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the
inscription were damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with
minor loss. In any event, it was well known long before that, recorded for
instance in Mrs. Beveridge's translation of Babur-Nama published in 1926.
Discoveries at the site I: The Temple City of Ayodhya
While this evidence is strong, the archaeological evidence is still stronger.
This is what Dr. S.P. Gupta (former director of the Allahabad Museum), has to
say about recent excavations at Ayodhya: "At Ayodhya, Professor Lal [B.B. Lal.
Former Director General of ASI] took as many as 14 trenches at different places
to ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that the history of
the township was at least three thousand years old, if not more... When seen in
the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found re-used and standing
in position as corner stones of piers for the disputed domed structure of the
'mosque', Prof. Lal felt that the pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu
temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD..."
On further archaeological and other evidence, Lal concluded that the pillar
bases must have belonged to a Hindu temple that stood between 12th and the 16th
centuries. What this means is that Lal had found evidence for possibly two
temples, one that existed before the 13th century, and another between the 13th
and the 16th centuries. This corresponds very well indeed with history and
tradition. We know that this area was ravaged by Muslim invaders following
Muhammad of Ghor's defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain
in 1192 AD. This was apparently rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed
again in the 16th century by Babar.
The Hari-Vishnu Inscription
The demolition on December 6, 1992 changed the picture dramatically, providing
inscriptional support to the traditional accounts--both Hindu and Muslim. The
most important of these is the Hari-Vishnu inscription. It is written in 12th
century AD Devanagari script and belongs therefore to the period before the
onslaught of the Ghorids (1192 AD and later). It was later examined by Ajay
Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the Epigraphical Society of India who gave the
following summary.

"The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a very

small portion in prose, and is engraved in 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 stones ... , and beautified with a
golden spire ... unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings ...
This wonderful temple ... was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in
Saketamandala. ... Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali ... and
the ten headed personage (Dashanana, i.e., Ravana)." The inscription confirms
what archaeologists Lal and Gupta had earlier found about the existence of a
temple complex. I have given a copy of the Hari-Vishnu inscription. New
archaeological finds ordered by the court are likely to yield more such riches
but unlikely to change the historical picture.
Note added after publication
The reaction of 'secularist' scholars aired from their favorite platform of
SAHMAT is intriguing to say the least. First they say that no excavation should
be carried out because that would open a can of worms leading to disputes at
other sites also. This is not very different from the objection raised by Pope
Innocent against Galileo's discoveries. Not so long ago, the same worthies were
telling us that no temple was destroyed by Babar when the mosque was built. If
they were telling the truth, why should they fear excavation?
_________
Dr. N.S. Rajaram is a mathematician, linguist and historian. He has written
several books
on India including Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

MORE NEWS
2. Archaeological Excavations at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi
New Delhi, June 16, 2003. A few days ago a news item allegedly supplied by the
Archaeological Survey of India was planted in the newspapers that no evidence of
a pre-existing structure under the disputed Rama Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid was
found. The said news item was definitely deceptive, groundless, misrepresented
and calculated to dupe the country. The misrepresented item was based on an
unfinished progress report of the ASI. Three-fourths of the report have been
concealed. The item was cooked up on the basis of the excavation report of a
spot that was about 50 feet away from the western wall of the Rama Janma Bhumi
structure. As such the inferences of the news item based on the report of this
pit is reckless. In spite of this, even these pits gave away two-thousand year
old molded bricks and ornate stone pieces of different shapes and sizes. The
news item dishonored these facts.

The excavations so far give 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 fabrication. The
bricks used in these perimeters predate the time of Babur. Beautiful stone
pieces bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel, alligator
facade, etc., have been used in these walls. These decorated architectural
pieces have been 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 Dev Nagari inscription that turns out to be a Hindu name.
The items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old. According to
archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoil every hundred
years. Primary clay was not found even up to a depth of 30 feet. It provides the
clue to the existence of some structure or the other at that place during 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) has been found.
These facts prove the enormity of the pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been
used as a construction material in our country since over 2000 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 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 idols of divine fugurines, serpent, elephant,
horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found. Even to this day terracotta idols
are used in worship during Diwali celebrations and then put by temple sanctums
for invoking divine blessings. The Gupta and the Kushan period bricks have been
found. Brick walls of the Gahadwal period (12th Century CE) have been found in
excavations.
Nothing has been found to prove the existence of residential habitation there.
The excavation gives out the 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. That was an uncommon and
highly celebrated place and not a place of habitation for the common people.
Hindu pilgrims have always been visiting that place for thousands of years. 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.
So the excavation was to find the answer to the question as to whether Babur
superimposed the domed structure on a preexisting structure after demolishing it
or built it on virgin ground. The answer to this question has been found from
the excavations.
3. Archeological Society of India Says Temple Existed at Ramjanmabhoomi Site

LUCKNOW, INDIA, August 25, 2003: The Archaeological Survey of India

(ASI) said a temple-like "massive structure" existed beneath the disputed site
in Ayodhya in its 574-page report. The ASI report, submitted on August 22, was
opened by the three-member Full Bench, comprising Justice SR Alam, Justice Khem
Karan and Justice Bhanwar Singh on Monday. The bench has given six-week time to
contesting parties for filing their objections on the sensational revelations
made by the ASI in its two-volume report. "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," concluded the ASI in its report. The ASI team, led by
Hari Manjhi and B R Mani, had excavated the disputed site for nearly five months
between March 12 and August 7 2003 on the March 5 order of the High Court. In
its report on the famous excavations, the ASI has dwelt at length the period
from circa 1000 BCE to 300 BCE and from Sunga (first century BCE) to Kushan,
Gupta, Post-Gupta up to Medieval Sultanate level (12-16 century CE). The ASI
report mentions a huge structure (11-12th century) on which a massive structure,
having a huge pillared hall (or two halls), with at least three structural
phases and three successive floors attached with it was constructed later on.
"There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure
having a minimum of 50 x 30 meter in north-south and east-west directions
respectively just below the disputed structure," states the report.
To prove its point, the report says that during the course of digging,
nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped by
sandstones were found. It also suggests that the center of the central chamber
of the disputed structure falls just over the central point of the length of the
massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated due to
presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the makeshift structure. Significantly, the
ASI report did not give any weightage to the glazed wares, graves and skeletons
of animals and human beings found during the excavations. Rather it suggests
that the glazed tiles were used in the construction of original disputed
structure. Similarly, the celadon and porcelain shards and animal bones,
skeletons recovered from trenches in northern and southern areas belong to late
and post-Mughal period, it adds. In drafting its report, the ASI has also given
importance to the carbon dating to ascertain the period of soil and artefacts
found during digging. About the habitation around the disputed ground, the ASI
report observed that "below the disputed site remained a place for public use
for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built
which was confined to a limited area and population settled around it as
evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material, including
pottery."
However, and as to be expected, the ASI report has come as a rude shock
to the Sunni Central Wakf Board and other Muslim organizations. "It is baseless,
misinterpreted, based on wrong facts and drafted under intense political
pressure," reacted Jafrayab Jilani, counsel for SCWB while announcing that they
will challenge the report.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=145797
4. The Archeological Survey of India's Report on Ayodhya
August 27, 2003
In what could be a turning point in the Ayodhya dispute, the
Archaeological Survey of India has reported to the high court that its
excavations found distinctive features of a 10th century temple beneath the
Babri Mosque site. The Sunni Central Waqf Board, however, termed the report as
'vague and self-contradictory'.
The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions and maps and
drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on
Monday morning.
The report said there was archaeological evidence of a massive structure
just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural
activities from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed
structure (Babri Mosque).
Among the excavation yields it mentioned were stone and decorated
bricks, mutilated sculpture of divine couple, carved architectural members
including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular
shrine pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif,
circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in
association with a huge structure.
The archaeological evidence and other discoveries from the site were
indicative of remains that are distinctive features found associated with the
temples of north India, the ASI report said.
The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive
and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in
north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed
structure.
In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat
foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found, the
report said.
It said the pillar bases exposed during the present excavation in the
northern and southern areas also give an idea of the length of the massive wall
of earlier construction with which they are associated and which might have been
originally around 60 metres.
The centre of the main chamber of the disputed structure falls just over
the central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period
which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the
make-shift structure, the ASI report said.
In a significant observation the report said towards east of this
central point, a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the
large sized brick pavement, signifying the place where some important object was
placed.
The ASI report, however, said various structures exposed right from the
Sunga to Gupta period do not speak either about their nature or functional
utility as no evidence has come to approbate them. The report said during and
after the Gupta period up to late and post-Mughal period the regular
habitational deposits disappear in the concerned levels and the structural

phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken
out from the adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose.
As a result of this much of the earlier material in the form of pottery,
terracottas and other objects of preceding periods, particularly of Kushan
period, are found in the deposits of later periods mixed along with contemporary
material, it said.
The area below the disputed site thus remained a place for public use
for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built
which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as
evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including
pottery, the ASI said in its report.
It went on to state that this observation was further attested by the
conspicuous absence of habitational structures such as house-complexes, soakage
pits, soakage jars, ring wells, drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces.
The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th
century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only
archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.
The ASI report said the northern black polished ware using people were
the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya in the first millennium BC
although no structural activities were encountered in the limited area probed. A
round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this
level, it said.
The report said the Sunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in
order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period.
The report said during the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a
huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which
seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed
during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor. On the
remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least
three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it, it said.
The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure
with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the
construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall
different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of
construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time
during the period, the report said.
The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction
during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed
directly resting over it.

Summary of the Report submitted by the ASI on Ayodhya excavations

August 31, 2003
Excavation at the disputed site of Rama Janmabhumi " Babri Masjid was carried
out by the Archaeological Survey of India from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003.
During this period, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Lucnow. 82
tenches were excavated to verify the anomalics mentioned in the report of the
Ground Penetrating Radar Survey which was conducted at the site prior to taking

up the excavations. A total number of 82 trenches along with some of their

baulks were checked for anomalies and anomaly alignments. The anomalies were
confirmed in the trenches in the form of pillar bases, structures, floors and
foundation though no such remains were noticed in some of them at the stipulated
depths and spots. Besides the 82 trenches a few more making a total of 90
finally were also excavated keeping in view the objective fixed by the Hon'ble
High Court to confirm the structure.
The results of the excavation are summarized as hereunder.
The Northern Block Polished Ware (NBPW) using people were the first to occupy
the disputed site at Ayodhya. During the first millennium B.C. although no
stuructural activities were encountered in the limited area probed, the material
culture is represented by terracotta figurines of female deities showing archaic
features, beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks
etc. The ceramic industry has the collection of NBPW the main diagnostic trait
of the period besides the grey, black slipped and red wares. A round signet with
legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of the level. On the basis of
material equipment and 14 C dates, this period may be assigned to circa 1003
B.C. to 300 B.C.
The Sunga horizen (second-first century B.C.) comes next in the order of the
cultural occupation at the site. The typical terracotta mother goddess human and
animal figurines, beads hairpin, engraver etc. represent the cultural matrix of
this level. The pottery collection includes black slipped, red and grey wares
etc. The stone and brick structure found from this level mark the beginning of
the structural activity at the site.
The Kushan period (first to third century A.D.) followed the Sunga occupation.
Terracotta human and animal figurines, fragments of votive tanks, beads antimony
rod, hair pin, bangle fragments and ceramic industry comprising red ware
represent the typical Kushan occupation at the site. Another important feature
of this period is the creation of large sized structures as witnessed by the
massive structure running into twenty-two courses.
The advent of Guptas (fourth to sixth century A.D.) did not bring any
qualitative change in building activity although the period is known for its
Classical artistic elements. However, this aspect is represented by the typical
terracotta figurines and a copper coin with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta) and
illustrative potsherds.
During the Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century A.D.), too the
site has witnessed structural activity mainly constructed of burnt bricks.
However, among the exposed structures, there stands a circular brick shrine
which speaks of its functional utility for the first time. To recapitulate
quickly, exteriorly on plan. It is circular whereas internally squarish with an
entrance from the east. Though the structure is damaged the northern wall still
retains a provision for pranala, i.e. waterchute which is a distinct feature of
contemporary temples already known from the Ganga-Yamuma plain.

10

Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh to twelfth century

A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m. in north-south orientation was constructed
which seems to have been short lived as only four of the fifty pillar bases
exposed during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crush floor. On
the remains of the above structure was constructed, a massive structure with at
least three structural phases and three successive Peers attached with it. The
architectural members of the earlier short lived massive structure with stencil
cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction
of the monumental structure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is
different from residential structures, providing sufficient evidence of a
construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time
during the period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level to twelfth to sixteenth century
A.D.) It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth
century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it. There
is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a
minimum dimension of 50x30 m. in north-south and east-west directions
respectively for below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations
nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped by
sandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposed during the present
excavation in northern and southern areas also give an idea of the length of the
massive wall of the earlier construction with which they are associated and
which might have been originally around 60 m (of which the 50 m length is
available at present). The center of the central chamber of the disputed
structure falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of
the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at
the spot in the make-shift structure. This area is roughly 15x15 m on the raised
platform. Towards east of this central point a circular depression with
projection on the west cut into the large sized brick pavement, signify the
place where some important object was placed. Terracotta lamps from the various
trenches and found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are
associated with the structural phase.
In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their appearance and
continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods where they are accompanied
by glazed this which were probably used in the original construction of the
disputed structure. Similarly is the case of celadon and porcelain sherds
recovered in a very less quantity they come from the secondary context. Animal
bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods, but skeletal
remains noticed at the trenches in northern and southern areas belong to the
Period IX as the grave pits have been found out into the deposition coeval with
the late disputed structures and are sealed by the top deposit.
It is worthwhile to observe that the various structures exposed right from the
Sunga to Gupta period do not speak either about their nature or functional
utility as no evidence has come to approbate them. Another noteworthy feature is
that it was only during and after Period IV Gupta level) onwards upto Period IX
(late and post Mughal level) that the regular habitational deposits disappear in
the concerned levels and the structural phases are associated with either
structural debris or filling material taken out from the adjoining area to level
the ground for construction purpose. As a result of which much of the earlier

11

material in the form of pottery, terracottas and other objects of preceding

periods, particularly of Period I (NBPW level) and Period III (Kushan level) are
found in the deposits of later periods mixed along with their contemporary
material. The area below the disputed site thus, remained a place for public use
for a long time till the Period VIII (Mughal level) when the disputed structure
was built which was confined to a limited area and population settled around it
as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including
pottery. The same is further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitational
structures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage jars, ring wells,
drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces etc. from Period IV (Gupta level)
onwards and in particular from Period VI (Early Medieval Rajput level) and
Period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level).
The site has also proved to be significant for taking back its antiquarian
remains for the first time to the middle of the thirteenth century B.C.
(1250130 B.C.) on the analogy of the C14 dates. The lowest deposit above the
natural soil represents the NBPW period and therefore the earliest remains may
belong to the thirteenth century B.C. which is confirmed by two more consistant
C14 dates from the NBPW (Period I), viz. 910100 B.C. and 880100 B.C.) These
dates are from trench G7. Four more dates from the upper deposit though showing
presence of NBPW and associated pottery are determined by Radio-Carbon dating as
78080 B.C., 71090 B.C., 53070 B.C. and 32080 B.C. In the light of the
above dates in association with the Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) which is
generally accepted to be between circa 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. it can be pushed
back to circa 1000 B.C. and even if a solitary date, three centuries earlier is
not associated with NBPW, the human activity at the site dates back to circa
thirteenth century B.C. on the basis of the scientific dating method providing
the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the
site.
The Hon'ble High Court in order to get sufficient archaeological evidence on the
issue involved whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and
mosque was constructed on the disputed site as stated on page 1 and further on
p. 5 of their order dated 5 march 2003 and given directions to the
Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where GPR Survey
has suggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure, pillars,
foundation walls,
slab flooring etc. which could be confirmed by excavation. Now viewing in
totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive
structure jut 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 the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as
mutilated sculpture of divine coupe and carved architectural members including
foliage patterns, amalaka, kapolapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster,
broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine
having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases association of the
huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found
associated with the temples of north India.

12

Some Web Sites on More Information About Ayodhya

http://ayodhya2000.tripod.com -- N. S. Rajarama's web site all about Ayodhya
and the ancient temple of Lord Rama. You may also try:
http://members.tripod.com/ayodhya2000/table_of_contents.htm.
http://www.ayodhya.com -- another site on the sacred city of Lord Rama, Ayodhya.
[Home Page] [Back to the Archeological Finds page] [Back to the Articles page]