Guest guest Posted August 26, 2003 Report Share Posted August 26, 2003 >BJP News <bjpnews >bjp-l (BJP Discussion Group) >vaidika1008 >[bJP News] Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI Report >Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT) > >Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report >Rediff.com >August 25, 2003 18:31 IST >http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm > >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. > >PTI > > > _______________ Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.