Searching For Vishnu, Archaeologists Find Devi Instead!

[Guest guest]

An interesting little observation appeared in "The Hindu" newspaper

yesterday, buried deep in ongoing coverage of the ugly and

unfortunate Ayodhya dispute. It directly involves Devi worship,

which is why I'm posting it here -- but the story does not stress

this factor, so I'll first offer a little background for those of

you who aren't familiar with what's happening at Ayodha.

 

You see, several hundred years ago, a mosque -- the Babri Masjid --

was built in Ayodhya while North India was under Muslim rule. In

recent times, some Hindus (mainly those associated with the more

militant wings of the ruling Hindu Nationalist BJP party) began to

claim that the Muslims had built this mosque as an intentional slap

in the face to Hindus, by siting it on the spot where tradition says

the heroic god-king Rama (Vishnu's mythic avatar in the Ramayana)

was born. Further, they claimed, the Muslims tore down a 12th

Century Rama temple to make room for the mosque. Muslims denied

these allegations.

 

The situation escalated until -- during an ugly riot in December of

1992 -- a huge, angry mob of BJP supporters physically tore down the

mosque, brick by brick. Since then, militant Hindu groups have been

campaigning to "rebuild" a Rama temple on the site on the Babri

Masjid. Muslims who oppose the rebuilding have now obtained a court

order instructing government archaeologists to excavate the site and

establish whether the remains of a Hindu temple can actually be

found there.

 

Yesterday's report suggests that a temple may indeed have existed on

the site. But -- surprise, surprise! -- it appears to be an ancient

Devi temple, long predating the cult of Rama! Read on ...

 

ASI REPORT RAISES MORE QUESTIONS

 

By Anjali Mody

 

New Delhi (Aug. 26, 2003) - The report of the Archaeological Survey

of India on its excavation at Ayodhya is unlikely to settle the

academic debate, and will prolong the legal dispute on what lay

beneath the disputed site. While proponents of the theory that a

12th Century Hindu temple preceded the Babri Masjid say that they

have been vindicated, the opposing side is readying to question the

basis of the ASI's claim.

 

A great deal of the heat will focus on the ASI's conclusion that it

has found material at the site "indicative of remains which are

distinctive features found associated with the temples of North

India" ...

 

The most significant finding, from an archaeological point of view,

is that the evidence of the first human settlement of the site has

been put at 1300 BC [, predating by millenia the claimed Rama

temple]. ...

 

[Okay ... now here comes the kicker! Read closely! -- DB]

 

In addition, the report records finding terracotta images of the

mother goddess, female figurines and remains of votive tanks, as

late as the third century AD. Archaeologists say that these are

evidence of folk worship, and "are not associated with Vaishnav

worship", to which the Ramayana tradition belongs. ...

 

~~~~~~~~~~

 

Interesting, huh? There appears to have been a Hindu place of

worship down there all right. But Devi, not Vishnu, was the deity of

choice. What do you think? Am I interpreting this information

correctly, or am I all wet?

 

If you want more information, the complete news story (which

contains a lot of archaeological detail that I edited out for easier

reading in this post) appeared in yesterday's edition of "The Hindu"

at:

 

http://www.hindu.com/2003/08/27/stories/2003082704801200.htm

 

For an excellent, comprehensive primer on the entire Ayodhya

situation, see the BBC's resource page on the event at:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2528025.stm

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

DEVI RULES!!!

 

<devi_bhakta wrote:

 

.... the report records finding terracotta images of the

mother goddess, female figurines and remains of votive tanks, as

late as the third century AD. Archaeologists say that these are

evidence of folk worship, and "are not associated with Vaishnav

worship", to which the Ramayana tradition belongs. ...

 

Interesting, huh? There appears to have been a Hindu place of

worship down there all right. But Devi, not Vishnu, was the deity of

choice. What do you think? Am I interpreting this information

correctly, or am I all wet?

[Guest guest]

DB,

 

I just love this! It figures that the followers of these 2 Gods are

fighting over the site of a temple to the Goddess.

 

Maybe we can have Her temple resurrected there.

 

Nah. Best just to move on and set up little temples to Her all over

the world.

 

Namaste,

 

pr

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> An interesting little observation appeared in "The Hindu" newspaper

> yesterday, buried deep in ongoing coverage of the ugly and

> unfortunate Ayodhya dispute. It directly involves Devi worship,

> which is why I'm posting it here -- but the story does not stress

> this factor, so I'll first offer a little background for those of

> you who aren't familiar with what's happening at Ayodha.

>

> You see, several hundred years ago, a mosque -- the Babri Masjid --

> was built in Ayodhya while North India was under Muslim rule. In

> recent times, some Hindus (mainly those associated with the more

> militant wings of the ruling Hindu Nationalist BJP party) began to

> claim that the Muslims had built this mosque as an intentional slap

> in the face to Hindus, by siting it on the spot where tradition

says

> the heroic god-king Rama (Vishnu's mythic avatar in the Ramayana)

> was born. Further, they claimed, the Muslims tore down a 12th

> Century Rama temple to make room for the mosque. Muslims denied

> these allegations.

>

> The situation escalated until -- during an ugly riot in December of

> 1992 -- a huge, angry mob of BJP supporters physically tore down

the

> mosque, brick by brick. Since then, militant Hindu groups have been

> campaigning to "rebuild" a Rama temple on the site on the Babri

> Masjid. Muslims who oppose the rebuilding have now obtained a court

> order instructing government archaeologists to excavate the site

and

> establish whether the remains of a Hindu temple can actually be

> found there.

>

> Yesterday's report suggests that a temple may indeed have existed

on

> the site. But -- surprise, surprise! -- it appears to be an ancient

> Devi temple, long predating the cult of Rama! Read on ...

>

> ASI REPORT RAISES MORE QUESTIONS

>

> By Anjali Mody

>

> New Delhi (Aug. 26, 2003) - The report of the Archaeological Survey

> of India on its excavation at Ayodhya is unlikely to settle the

> academic debate, and will prolong the legal dispute on what lay

> beneath the disputed site. While proponents of the theory that a

> 12th Century Hindu temple preceded the Babri Masjid say that they

> have been vindicated, the opposing side is readying to question the

> basis of the ASI's claim.

>

> A great deal of the heat will focus on the ASI's conclusion that it

> has found material at the site "indicative of remains which are

> distinctive features found associated with the temples of North

> India" ...

>

> The most significant finding, from an archaeological point of view,

> is that the evidence of the first human settlement of the site has

> been put at 1300 BC [, predating by millenia the claimed Rama

> temple]. ...

>

> [Okay ... now here comes the kicker! Read closely! -- DB]

>

> In addition, the report records finding terracotta images of the

> mother goddess, female figurines and remains of votive tanks, as

> late as the third century AD. Archaeologists say that these are

> evidence of folk worship, and "are not associated with Vaishnav

> worship", to which the Ramayana tradition belongs. ...

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Interesting, huh? There appears to have been a Hindu place of

> worship down there all right. But Devi, not Vishnu, was the deity

of

> choice. What do you think? Am I interpreting this information

> correctly, or am I all wet?

>

> If you want more information, the complete news story (which

> contains a lot of archaeological detail that I edited out for

easier

> reading in this post) appeared in yesterday's edition of "The

Hindu"

> at:

>

> http://www.hindu.com/2003/08/27/stories/2003082704801200.htm

>

> For an excellent, comprehensive primer on the entire Ayodhya

> situation, see the BBC's resource page on the event at:

>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2528025.stm

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I found another article with pictures of some of the finds and a more

detailed "chronology" that may be of interest to those following this

story, particularly as it related to the worship of Devi.

 

http://www.mid-day.com/news/nation/2003/august/62277.htm

 

Blessings,

 

prainbow

 

, "prainbow61" <paulie-

rainbow@u...> wrote:

> DB,

>

> I just love this! It figures that the followers of these 2 Gods are

> fighting over the site of a temple to the Goddess.

>

> Maybe we can have Her temple resurrected there.

>

> Nah. Best just to move on and set up little temples to Her all over

> the world.

>

> Namaste,

>

> pr

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > An interesting little observation appeared in "The Hindu"

newspaper

> > yesterday, buried deep in ongoing coverage of the ugly and

> > unfortunate Ayodhya dispute. It directly involves Devi worship,

> > which is why I'm posting it here -- but the story does not stress

> > this factor, so I'll first offer a little background for those of

> > you who aren't familiar with what's happening at Ayodha.

> >

> > You see, several hundred years ago, a mosque -- the Babri Masjid -

-

> > was built in Ayodhya while North India was under Muslim rule. In

> > recent times, some Hindus (mainly those associated with the more

> > militant wings of the ruling Hindu Nationalist BJP party) began

to

> > claim that the Muslims had built this mosque as an intentional

slap

> > in the face to Hindus, by siting it on the spot where tradition

> says

> > the heroic god-king Rama (Vishnu's mythic avatar in the Ramayana)

> > was born. Further, they claimed, the Muslims tore down a 12th

> > Century Rama temple to make room for the mosque. Muslims denied

> > these allegations.

> >

> > The situation escalated until -- during an ugly riot in December

of

> > 1992 -- a huge, angry mob of BJP supporters physically tore down

> the

> > mosque, brick by brick. Since then, militant Hindu groups have

been

> > campaigning to "rebuild" a Rama temple on the site on the Babri

> > Masjid. Muslims who oppose the rebuilding have now obtained a

court

> > order instructing government archaeologists to excavate the site

> and

> > establish whether the remains of a Hindu temple can actually be

> > found there.

> >

> > Yesterday's report suggests that a temple may indeed have existed

> on

> > the site. But -- surprise, surprise! -- it appears to be an

ancient

> > Devi temple, long predating the cult of Rama! Read on ...

> >

> > ASI REPORT RAISES MORE QUESTIONS

> >

> > By Anjali Mody

> >

> > New Delhi (Aug. 26, 2003) - The report of the Archaeological

Survey

> > of India on its excavation at Ayodhya is unlikely to settle the

> > academic debate, and will prolong the legal dispute on what lay

> > beneath the disputed site. While proponents of the theory that a

> > 12th Century Hindu temple preceded the Babri Masjid say that they

> > have been vindicated, the opposing side is readying to question

the

> > basis of the ASI's claim.

> >

> > A great deal of the heat will focus on the ASI's conclusion that

it

> > has found material at the site "indicative of remains which are

> > distinctive features found associated with the temples of North

> > India" ...

> >

> > The most significant finding, from an archaeological point of

view,

> > is that the evidence of the first human settlement of the site

has

> > been put at 1300 BC [, predating by millenia the claimed Rama

> > temple]. ...

> >

> > [Okay ... now here comes the kicker! Read closely! -- DB]

> >

> > In addition, the report records finding terracotta images of the

> > mother goddess, female figurines and remains of votive tanks, as

> > late as the third century AD. Archaeologists say that these are

> > evidence of folk worship, and "are not associated with Vaishnav

> > worship", to which the Ramayana tradition belongs. ...

> >

> > ~~~~~~~~~~

> >

> > Interesting, huh? There appears to have been a Hindu place of

> > worship down there all right. But Devi, not Vishnu, was the deity

> of

> > choice. What do you think? Am I interpreting this information

> > correctly, or am I all wet?

> >

> > If you want more information, the complete news story (which

> > contains a lot of archaeological detail that I edited out for

> easier

> > reading in this post) appeared in yesterday's edition of "The

> Hindu"

> > at:

> >

> > http://www.hindu.com/2003/08/27/stories/2003082704801200.htm

> >

> > For an excellent, comprehensive primer on the entire Ayodhya

> > situation, see the BBC's resource page on the event at:

> >

> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2528025.stm

> >

> > Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Hi Prainbow ...

 

Thanks for the link. So the lowest levels of excavation contain Devi

relics, Shiva/Parvati pairs further up, and finally the great temple

that was claimed: "a huge pillared hall in the Medieval-Sultanate

period. It was over this structure that the dispute Babri Masjid was

constructed in the early 16th C."

 

Here is yet another article from yesterday's paper:

 

500-YR-OLD TEMPLE CLUES BENEATH BABRI

 

NEW DELHI: The Archaeological Survey of India has claimed that there

is evidence "indicative" of remains associated with "temples of

North India" at the Babri Masjid site from the 10th Century AD,

predating the mosque by at least 500 years. ...

 

Covering a sweep of seven periods since 1000 BC, the ASI says that

its conclusion is based on "archaeological evidence of massive

structure just below the disputed structure (Babri Masjid) and

evidence of continuity in structural phases from the 10th Century

onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure..."

 

This "massive structure," the ASI claims, is one with "stone and

decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and

carved architectural members including foliage patterns ... 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 ..."

 

.... The ASI excavation covers seven periods, starting from 1000 BC

till the Medieval-Sultanate period which is 12th AD-16th AD. ...

 

 

* The study began at the deepest level of the dig belonging to 1000

BC to 300 BC, confirmed after Carbon-14 dating. At this level, the

ASI found "no structural activity" but discovered "terracotta

figurines of female deities showing archaic features" and Northern

Black Polished Ware, typical of the period.

 

* The next level, Period II of Sunga horizon, 2nd century BC to 1st

century BC, yielded terracotta mother goddesses and elementary

construction, the ASI claimed. ...

 

And so on ...

 

Full article is at NewIndPress.com

URL: http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?

ID=IEH20030825140109&Title=Top+Stories&rLink=155

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe