Interesting problems below.
>About the massive structure, he says that the recovery of a round bezel in >>greenish glass with legend `Sidhe' in Ashokan Brahmi (P 38) clearly >suggested >that the site was uninhabitated before 6th BC. "The ASI has >made our job easy >in proving that there was no human habitation in the >age in which Lord Ram was >said to have been born or, in other words, this >Ayodhya was not the same >Ayodhya where Lord Ram was born," argued the >archaeologists. *** Does anyone know how the conclusion that the site was uninhabitated before 6th BC was made below? >About the massive structure, he says that the recovery of a round bezel in >>greenish glass with legend `Sidhe' in Ashokan Brahmi (P 38) clearly >suggested >that the site was uninhabitated before 6th BC. *** The other question I have is about Lord Ram: Was he a human - a messiah, or is he a god? If it is the former, are there other hindu gods who have a human origin ( I mean by birth) ? cm 'Lord Ram's birth facts wrong' SRAWAN SHUKLA TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ TUESDAY, OCTOBER 07, 2003 01:03:49 PM ] LUCKNOW: The Sunni Central Waqf Board (SCWB) is all set to kick up more dust on the Archaeological Survey of India's excavations when it outrightly rejects claims, being made on the basis of the ASI report, that the present disputed site in Ayodhya was the birth place of Lord Ram. "The ASI categorically mentioned in its report that the disputed site in Ayodhya was uninhabitated before 6th century. This clearly means either Lord Ram was not born during that said period or the present Ayodhya was not the place where he was born," argues the Board in its objections, to be filed before the three-member special full bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (August 8). The special bench had given six weeks time on August 25 to the petitioners to file their objections. The deadline ended on Monday but since the court is closed due to Dussehra holidays, the Board would file its 25-30 pages objections on Wednesday when courts reopen. The Board has raised a very pertinent question that "no mention of Babri mosque" was made in the entire ASI report whereas the mosque was demolished only recently on December 6, 1992. "The word Babri mosque was not used even at one place in the entire voluminous report. This shows the bias of the ASI team," pointed an independent archaeologist. The SCWB in its objections has blown to smithereens the ASI's 'pillar theory' archaeologically as well as stratographically. "Since neither any statue of Hindu deity was recovered from the strata where these pillars were found nor were these pillars found to be attached with the original floor, thus the massive structure theory was nothing but a figment of imagination. These pillars could have been of Babri mosque/or any other structure too. And then these pillars could in no way withstand the so-called massive structure, the prized find of the ASI," argued another archaeologist. About the massive structure, he says that the recovery of a round bezel in greenish glass with legend `Sidhe' in Ashokan Brahmi (P 38) clearly suggested that the site was uninhabitated before 6th BC. "The ASI has made our job easy in proving that there was no human habitation in the age in which Lord Ram was said to have been born or, in other words, this Ayodhya was not the same Ayodhya where Lord Ram was born," argued the archaeologists. Moreover, the Board archaeologists also disapproved ASI linking the foliage, floral, geometric designs, lotus medallion with North India temples to draw the conclusion that the pillared structure was a temple belonging to 10 to 12 century. "These pieces were part of Indo-Muslim architecture prevalent during that period. Since no carving of Hindu deity was recovered in plate nos 70 to 90, how could the ASI relate these items, found in dumps, with a temple," quips he in the objections. About the mutilated `divine couple' statue (Page 130) in alingana mudra, the archaeologists feared that it may have been planted in the debris. "In any case, archaeolgically it is irrelevant as it was a surface collection recovered from the debris," he added. Similarly, 62 human and 131 animal terracota figurines were also termed as irrelevant as majority of them belonged to ancient period and had no connection with the 10th-12th century massive structure. The Board has also pointed to the ASI's attempts of undermining the importance of the glazed tiles and organic material. "The ASI's silence on these items is indicative of their prejudiced mind with which they carried out the excavations," they fumed praying that the bench should reject the "misleading' ASI report. _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
