Remains of other days
The Archaeological Survey of India was established in 1862, under Sir Alexander Cunningham. The ASI and Indian archaeology in general were nurtured by world- renowned men like Sir John Marshall, Sir Mortimer Wheeler, A Ghosh, BK Thapar and BB Lal. Archaeologists excavate ancient sites slowly, uncovering every layer and the material remains associated with it. They collect organic materials dated by physicists by radiocarbon dating techniques, called the C-14 method. They collect stones geologists identify. They collect bones palaeotologists examine to identify species. Archaeology is multi-disciplinary and highly scientific. Stratigraphy is the backbone of excavations. A site is dug layer by layer-the lower layers are considered earlier in time than the upper ones. This sequence applies to walls, floors, pits and structures of temples, mosques, churches, etc. Arch-aeological excavations reconstruct the past with greater precision than historical investigation.
No wonder the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench asked the ASI to excavate the disputed site in Ayodhya and inform it if any temple/structure existed beneath the mosque.
The ASI report took into account all kinds of evidence, including the sequence of structural remains, stratigraphical positions of objects found in trenches, architectural fragments of temples and the mosque, terracotta figurines of yakshas, mother goddesses, etc, inscriptions, seals and coins, and thousands of beads, glass and metal objects as well as pottery. It concluded that a massive structure existed just below the disputed structure. It had found evidence of continuity in structural phases from the 10th century on, upto the disputed structure's construction. Stone and decorated bricks, a mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural members, including foliage patterns, a doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of a black schist pillar, lotus motifs, a circular shrine with parnala (water chute) in the north and 50 pillar-bases, etc, are indicative of remains with distinctive features associated with North Indian temples.
The ASI declared a massive 12th century AD temple existed prior to the disputed structure of 1528-29. Some non-archaeologists-like Irfan Habib-condemn the report as anti-Muslim and anti-mosque. One of their funniest objections is that presence of animal bones proves a temple did not exist. Our historian friends need to be reminded animals were sacrificed in temples in the past as they are to this day. As for the claim glazed ware appeared with the coming of the Muslims, our historian friends need to know it appeared in the Kushana levels of the 1st-2nd century AD. At Sanjan, on the western coast near Mumbai, I have found them from the 8th-10th century levels.
Habib points to use of lime-mortar to make floors and bond bricks for the first time by the Delhi Sultans in the early 13th century. What better example of ignorance could there be? Lime-mortar was used in ancient India as we know from the 2nd century BC Sanchi stupa. There are hundreds of examples from the Gupta period (700 years before the Delhi Sultanate)-Nalanda in Bihar and Kausambi in UP are only two. Its use continued in subsequent periods such as by the Gahadval kings for 11th and 12th century temples at Sarnath.
The observations of Habib, Suraj Bhan and others are tilted in favour of a particular community's claims. They are also contradictory. They dismiss the pillar bases as fiction, yet say these could not carry the heavy load of a temple's pillared hall; that only a temporary structure may have existed such as a cow-shed, They impute motives to the excavators, both Hindu and Muslim: They are said to have 'created' the 'bases' by leaving some portions intact and throwing away other materials-in the presence of policemen, judges, nominees of litigants, etc!
There is a story of two temples at the site and not one. Four pillar bases excavated so far in the lower levels belong to a 10th century temple while 46, belonging to the upper levels, belong to a 12th century temple.
Habib calls the 'circular temple
with parnala' a tomb. Whose tomb? No answer. Where is the dead body? No
answer. What is a water chute's role in a tomb? If it was not a feature
of a temple with linga worship, in which other structure could it exist?
No answer. Is there any example of this kind of a tomb anywhere in 7th-to-
10th century India? No answer. Is there any tomb constructed in circular
fashion right from the foundation level? No example. The inference may
be drawn that these Marxist historians have an axe to grind in denouncing
the ASI because its report does not go in their favour.