P. 1
Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 11 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 11 of 14

|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by satyabhashnam
Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict by Prayagraj Allahabad High Court by justices Shri Dharam Veer Sharma, Sibghat Ullah Khan, and Sudhir Agarwal.

RAM, Muslim, hindu, temple, Masjid, mosque, mandir, babri, ram janam bhoomi, ramjanmabhoomi, ramjanmabhumi, ramjanambhoomi, ram janma bhoomi, ram janma bhumi, ram janam bhumi, ramjanambhumi, babar, babur, श्री रामजन्मभूमि, अयोध्या, बाबर, बाबरी मस्जिद, रामायण, श्रीरामचरितमानस, वाल्मीकि रामायण, राम, लक्ष्मण, सीता, हिन्दू, मुस्लिम, इस्लाम, सनातन धर्म
Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict by Prayagraj Allahabad High Court by justices Shri Dharam Veer Sharma, Sibghat Ullah Khan, and Sudhir Agarwal.

RAM, Muslim, hindu, temple, Masjid, mosque, mandir, babri, ram janam bhoomi, ramjanmabhoomi, ramjanmabhumi, ramjanambhoomi, ram janma bhoomi, ram janma bhumi, ram janam bhumi, ramjanambhumi, babar, babur, श्री रामजन्मभूमि, अयोध्या, बाबर, बाबरी मस्जिद, रामायण, श्रीरामचरितमानस, वाल्मीकि रामायण, राम, लक्ष्मण, सीता, हिन्दू, मुस्लिम, इस्लाम, सनातन धर्म

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: satyabhashnam on May 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/22/2012

pdf

text

original

3768

32 Dr. Supria Varma claim to have made the complaint of
creation of pillar base by ASI people to the muslim parties. On
page 79, PW -32 Dr. Supriya Varma has said:
"These complaints were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me.
These complaints were handed over to muslim parties and
their counsels."
3704. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma was present at the site
on the following dates:
(a) 5
th
April, 2003 to 12
th
April, 2003, (b) 11
th
May, 2003
to 31
st
May, 2003, (c) 22
nd
June 2003 to 27
th
June, 2003
and (d) 8
th
July 2003 to 19
th
July, 2003
3705. PW 29 Jaya Menon has given the period when she
was present at the site, in para 2 of her affidavit, as under:
(a) 26
th
April, 2003 to 2
nd
May, 2003, (b) 20
th
May, 2003 to
31
st
May, 2003 (c) 22
nd
June, 2003 to 27
th
June, 2003 and
(d) 19
th
July, 2003 to 26
th
July, 2003
3706. Therefore, at Trench G2, between 16
th
May, 2003 to
19
th
May, 2003, according to the own admission, PW 29 was not
present. Similarly at trench ZF1, PW 32 was not present
(29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003). PW 29 in para 13M(i) of the
affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 has asserted that she
observed Trench ZF1 from 29
th
to 30
th
April, 2003, noticed
creation of pillar base and made a complaint.
3707. The Site Note Book no. 30 maintained by Sri
A.R.Siddiqui, Trench Supervisor show at page 24 that digging
of Trench ZF1 commenced on 29
th
April, 2003 and on that date
digging could be made up to the depth of 40 cm. The note on the
Site Note Book 30 dated 29
th
April, 2003 regarding Trench ZF1
is as under:
3769
"This trench ZF 1 is also measuring 4 x 4 Mtrs. But
its half of the part towards northern side is occupied by
the barbed wire fencing and flower trees. So the only
southern portion of the trench could be possible for
excavation i.e. 4 x 2 Mtrs.
After cleaning the debries and brushing the surface
the digging work in this trench has been started from the 0
cm depth up to the depth of 40 cms. At the same depth a
floor made of lime and surkhi exposed towards western
side of the trench. At the same time a brick wall exposed
running towards west-east attached with the southern
section of the trench resting on lime floor. The width of the
brick exposed wall was 40 cms.
Finding : a red sand stone piece showing lotus (sic)
a glazed tile piece of blue colour T.C. Red ware
and bones."
3708. On 30
th
April, 2003, the digging commenced at the
depth of 40 cms. and closed at 65 cms.. The note of the Trench
Supervisor Sri Siddiqui is as under:
"After digging up to the depth of 65 cms a brick structure
or so called pillar base foundation was exposed almost at
the centre of the trench measuring 100 x 100 cms. At the
same depth and same level a floor made of lime Surkhi was
also exposed on either side of the brick structure which is
the earlier one or if both these were constructed at the
same time so what was the purpose of building of both
these structure as there is no co-relation between the two
with each other.
Finding : glass bangle pieces
3770
Red ware T.C.
Bone pieces"
3709. We may note here the proceedings of 1
st
May, 2003,
2
nd
May, 2003 and 3
rd
May, 2003 of Trench ZF1 also, as under:
"Trench – ZF-1
Date – 01.05.03
Digging started – 65 cms.
Digging closed – 80 cms.
Digging again started in this trench at the depth of
65 cms. After reaching to the depth of 75 cms. again a
floor made of lime and Surkhi was also discovered on the
western side attached with the section upto the almost half
of the trench.
At the same time and same depth a wall made of
bricks also exposed in the northern section running from
west to east direction of about 200 x 55 cms. area.
However again the exposed floor removed for further
digging. The last depth of this trench was 80 cms.
thus the layer making in this trench could be
ascertained as under
A Layer (1) at the depth of 40 cms in the shape of lime
surkhi floor
B Layer (2) at the depth of 65 cms in the shape of lime
surkhi floor
C Layer (3) at the depth of 75 cms in the shape of lime
surkhi floor
Photo recording of this trench with layers and floor
completed.
One iron nail piece, red ware pottery pieces, bone pieces,
3771
and black slipped recovered at a depth 65-80 cms.
"Trench – ZF-1 and ZE-1
Date – 02.05.2003
Trench – Baulk removal between ZF-1 and ZE-1
Process of Baulk removal which was lying between
ZF1 and ZE-1 started to find out position under the boulk.
The size of this boulk was 200 x 100 x 60 cms.
After removal of baulk a floor made of lime and
surkhi exposed partly in ZF.1 and partly ZE-1 trenches
measuring 342 x 170 cms. the floor exposed running
towards west east direction attached with the southern
section at a depth of 75 cms.
The archeological finds were, Decorated Stone
piece, stone beading, a wooden beading containing
grove lining redware, bone pieces, and terracotta pottery
pieces. These were recovered during removal of above
baulk.
Photorecording done after removal of baulk and
exposed floor.
Two pits also received on either side of the brick
pillar base foundation.
"Date : 03.05.2003
Trench : ZF 1
Operation area : 4 x 2 Mtrs.
Digging Started : 80 cms. depth
Digging closed : 90 cms depth
Due to removal of baulk the further digging work
could not be continued. However, after a gap of one day,
again this trench taken into consideration. During the
3772
course of digging just at 08 cms below the lime floor at a
depth of 83 cms a brick wall with lime plaster exposed in
this trench extending up to the next trench i.e. ZE.1. The
wall was 55 cms wide while the length was 7.40 mtrs
resting on a brick bats.
Further digging was continued up to the depth of 90
cms where again Floor (4) made of brick exposed on
both the sides of the brick structure called pillar base
foundation. This earlier exposed pillar base structure is
measuring 118 x 102 cms. Thus in this trench No. ZF.1 the
stratigraphic context may be ascertained as under:
Layer (1) i.e. floor (1) at the depth of 40 cms.
Layer (2) i.e. floor (2) at the depth of 65 cms.
Layer (3) i.e. floor (3) at the depth of 75 cms.
Layer (4) i.e. at the depth of 90 cms.
3710. The day to day register mention following for the
same period, as above, regarding Trench no.ZF1:
"Trench ZF 1
Operation Area : 4 x 2 mt.
Digging started at 25 cm & closed at 40 cms.
A lime surkhi floor exposed on plan, partly damaged in the
central half. A brick wall towards south running east-west.
Pottery: Red ware, slipped black ware" (Page 110)
"Trench ZF 1
Operation Area : same
Digging started at 40 cm & closed at 65 cm
A lime surkhi floor exposed at western walls. Brick & stone
pillar base also exposed (1 mt x 1 mt) in the centre of the
trench.
3773
Pottery: Red ware, black slipped ware" (Page 115)
"Operation Area : Same
Digging started at 65 cm & closed at 80 cm.
Floor of lime surkhi at a depth of 72 cm and a brick wall
running E-W.
Pottery: Red ware, black slipped" (Page 118)
"ZF1-ZE1
Baulk removed
Intermediate baulk between ZE1 & ZF1 was removed down
to Floor 2 at the depth of 48 cm.
Pottery: Red ware, black ware etc." (Page 122)
"Trench ZF 1
Operation Area : 4 x 2 mt.
Digging started at 75 cm & closed at 90 cm.
A brickwall with lime plaster on outer face exposed upto 80
cm. The wall is 55 cm wide. A lime surkhi floor exposed on
both sides of brick & stone pillar at 90 cm.
Pottery: Red ware, black slipped ware" (Page 129)
3711. The day to day register on all the five days, as
above, has been signed by the parties or their representatives but
none of the above two witnesses have signed it. The two
witnesses did not remain at Ayodhya from 1
st
June to 21
st
June,
2003. Therefore, we do not find any occasion for them to play
any role in preparation of the complaint dated 7
th
June, 2003 or
that might have been prepared by them by 31
st
May, 2003 but
submitted on 7
th
June, 2003. We do not find anything on record
to show that besides these two, anyone else assisted the
complainants in preparing the objections since only these two
have claimed on it.
3774
3712. Now, the careless manner in which the complaints
are made may be seen. On internal page three, in last paragraph,
the complainants say that the depth recorded for trench F8 on
May 21, 2003 was 2.70 m. and on May 22, 2003, it was found
2.65 m. It is complained that instead of increasing, the depth has
gone decreasing. Had it been so, the complaint would have been
absolutely correct. However, from perusal of Site Note Book
No.44 maintained by Sameer Deewan, Trench Supervisor, on
page 39 we find that the digging of trench F8, on 21
st
May,
2003, started at 220 cm depth and closed at 260 cm. On 22
nd
May, 2003, page 41 of the aforesaid site note book shows that
the digging started at 260 cm and closed at 265 cm. The
complainants instead of 260 cms. have mentioned 270 cm which
showed that either they have deliberately tried to misguide the
authorities or the complaint lack bona fide. This laxity is
strengthened from the fact that in para 8(A) of the affidavit, PW
29 has said that on 2
nd
May, 2003 in Trench ZH1 area covering 4
x 0.5 metre dug upto a depth of 0.5 metre and soil was thrown
without any sorting.
3713. PW 32 on page 212 of statement has said:
"The Trenches G-2 and F-3 were excavated in my
presence."
3714. The Site Note Book No.16 pertain to Trench F3
maintained by Sri Sujeet Nayan, Trench Supervisor, shows that
digging of Trench F3 started on 30
th
May, 2003 and continued
till 19
th
July, 2003. A pillar base was found on 5
th
June, 2003.
Page 25, site note book says:
"A squarish brick structure (and in a "middle
portion" scored out) seems to be a pillar base was noticed
3775
at the depth of 2.86 metre from surface and continued upto
3.03 to 3.08 metre resting on floor 3."
3715. Admittedly, PW 32 was not present at the site from
1
st
June, 2003 to 21
st
June, 2003 and therefore, her claim that the
excavation was made in her presence in Trench F3 as such is not
correct. The correct position is that excavation of Trench F3
started when she claims to be at the site but on the date when
pillar base was found, she was not present at the site. On page
211 about the objection dated 7
th
June, 2003 she said:
"I have clearly mentioned about the structural basis (which
was later prescribed as pillar bases) in my objections
dated 7
th
June, 2003, I do not know as to when the
trenches referred in para 3 of objections dated 7
th
June,
2003 were excavated. Since I was not present at the time of
excavation of above referred trenches, I cannot exactly
disclose as to when these trenches were excavated."
3716. PW 32 also said that the objection dated 21
st
May,
2002 was also her's, as is evident from page 212:
"It is wrong to suggest that except the objections dated May
21, 2003 and 7
th
June, 2003, I have not prepared any other
objection for the party I represented. It is correct to say
that my objections of May, 21, 2003 related to trench G-2
alone. It is completely wrong to say that no irregularity
had been committed as mentioned in the objection dated
21
st
May, 2003, vis-a-vis, the irregularity during excavation
in trench G-2 and it is also wrong to say that there was no
occasion to point out any irregularity."
3717. From the texture and the over all facts and
circumstances, some of which we have already discussed, it
3776
appears to us that as soon as underneath structures started
appearing, the complainants, in consultation with their alleged
experts, engaged in preparing a kind of anticipatory ground to
assail the ASI people, their proceedings and report. What was
submitted on spot do not show that it was a simultaneous
preparation of something which was actually observed and
found objectionable by the persons present thereat.
3718. PW 30, who claims to remain present at the site of
excavation from March to August 2003 (para 2 of the affidavit),
has said on page 118:
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬| ªi ·i; - ¬·i¬n ¬ ¬i·ºii ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬·i|
¤·i¬iº ¤· ¬·¬ ·il-·| ¬| ¬¤l-·iln - r| ¬i ; -¬·¸ º ¤i ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o -|- ¬i ¬i ; ¬·-¤ ¬-ªi·· ·i ¤ - ¬i ¬¬ni ·ii| ªi ·i;
¬ ¬-¤ ¬·i¬n ,iºi l·¤ ·n ¤¤ ··i¬ ¬¤l-·in ºrn ·i | .... ªi ·i; ¬
¬-¤ - º ¬i·i - l-¬- ¤·i ¬ ¤¬, ·i , n|· ¤·¬¤- ÷ ·il-·| ºrn
·i | (¤ ¬ ··s)
"It is true that in the Ayodhya excavation, under the
orders of the court, any labourer or any member of the ASI
team could go to the excavation site only in the presence of
all the parties or their nominees. Court-appointed
supervisors used to be present at the time of excavation. ...
At the time of excavation, I used to be accompanied with
one or two or three experts or nominees from the Muslim
side.” (E.T.C.)
3719. PW 16, Suraj Bhan, visited the site of excavation
for three days in June 2003 and has admitted that consistent with
the GPR survey anomalies, ASI has discovered certain walls,
pillars, flows:
¬|o¤|o¬iºo ¬· · ¬i ¤·i-¬|¬ lr·- ¬| ·i|, ¬·- ¬ ¬ s ¤º
¬-ªi·· - ·i ~¬, l ¤¬¬ ¬i º ¤ ¬i ¬ ni l -¬ ·i , (¤ ¬ ·rs)
3777
“at some places in respect of which anomalies were hinted
in the G.P.R. survey, walls pillars and floors were
discovered in the excavation" (E.T.C.)
- º| · l·- - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ¬i ¬i ¬i ¤·i · l ¬¤ ¬i ·
·i ¬| ¤| ¬ ·i | , ·r ¤r ·i| l¬ ¬· ri · «i «º| -l -¬· ¬ ·| ¤
¬; ·| ·i º , ¤ºi ¬i º ¬ s l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ªi i ¬ l ·¬i ¬
r , ¤r ¬i ·¤ r | (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“In my opinion, the ASI Report had a feature not
amenable to criticism. It was that they (the excavators)
have discovered many walls and floors and some pillar
bases beneath the Babri mosque, and all these constitute
evidence.” (E.T.C.)
3720. We find it a bit surprising that the two experienced
experts i.e. PW-16 and 24 of plaintiffs (Suit-4) visited the site in
June, 2003 yet they were not taken into confidence by disclosing
full facts pertaining to the alleged creation of pillar bases.
3721. Trench F10 was taken up for excavation on 18
th
May 2003 by the Trench Supervisor Z. Ali. Site notebook no. 9
from pages 37 to 45 deals with Trench F10 which was excavated
on 18
th
, 20
th
, 21
st
and 22
nd
May, 2003 Sri Z.Ali found floors and
brick structures which he mentioned in detail. The day to day
register dated 18
th
May 2003 at page 178 says:
"Trench: F10 New Trench Opposite Areas: Norther half
Digging closed at 10 cm.
Squarish brickbats alignments noticed on plan
Pottery: Red ware."
3722. Similarly further details of other three days are on
pages 183, 187 and 191. They are also duly signed by the
representatives of the parties which does not include either PW
29 or PW 32.
3778
3723. In the complaint, about Trench F10, the only
averment is:
"Brick bats do not only lie under the stone but even over as
in SB No. 11 and 12 and F7 and SB No. 2 in F10."
3724. This is the only reference of Trench F10 mentioned
in the aforesaid complaint. Thereafter, in the concluding part it
has been included with the allegation that structural bases are
being sought to be created in trenches. The site notebook no. 9
on page 37 shows that after initial excavation a floor was
exposed and in order to go deep the floor was removed in the
north half. It is just below the floor, a single course brick
alignment partly squarish shape was noticed at 10 cm depth
which was below the floor. Then again further structure was
found on 20
th
May, 2003 going further deep, i.e., from 10 cm to
52 cm.
3725. We find no reason to doubt the correctness of the
above record. There does not exist any other reason to infer that
there could have been any occasion for the Trench Supervisor,
Sri Z. Ali to create any pillar base on his own and if so why.
3726. Trench F9 is mentioned in the complaint with a
general statement that brick bats have been removed from the
sections. Amongst other, Trench F9 is also mentioned.
3727. Site notebook no. 18 contains the details of
excavation of Trench No. F9 under the Trench Supervisor,
Sureet Narayan (Assistant Archaeologist). The work started on
8
th
April, 2003 and on the first day, digging made up to the depth
of 25 cm. Further digging was made on 9
th
April, 2003 from 25
cm to 55 cm, and on 17
th
April, 2003 from 55 cm to 80 cm. On
page 6 of the notebook, discovery of a pillar base at the depth of
3779
50 cm is mentioned on 9
th
April, 2003. PW 29 obviously was not
present when the above digging took place though PW 32 was
present at the site as claimed by her. No averment however by
her that she witnessed anything wrong in Trench F9.
3728. In the day to day register dated 9
th
April, 2003, brief
detail of the work of Trench F9 is mentioned at page 39 to 41.
The register has been signed by nine persons which included
Mohd. Abid, Mahfooz Ahmad, Khalid Ahmad Khan. We find no
reason as to why after almost two months this kind of complaint
was made when at the relevant time nothing of this sort was
found by any party particularly when nine persons have signed
day to day register showing that it was highly watched at that
time.
3729. Moreover GPR survey indicated anomaly at the
depth of 0.5 meter and ASI actually found pillar base in Trench
F9 at such depth which conform the said anomaly. PW 32 Dr.
Supriya Verma has admitted that she is totally unaware of the
GPR report and has not even gone through it. On page 133/134
she has shown her unawareness with GPR survey report. On
page 132 she said "such so called pillar bases appearing in the
section were not created in my presence but from the close study
of the section, I could say that there were created pillar bases."
This is purely imaginary and that too without giving reasons in
support of such an opinion.
3730. In order to give weight to her statement she says that
"pillar base shown in the baulk of F2 G2 was created in my
presence and I lodged complaint against ASI observations. It was
created between 16
th
to 20
th
May, 2003. Besides me, Mohd. Abid
was also present at the time of aforesaid pillar base being
3780
created. This pillar base and pillar base no. 21 was created
during aforesaid period of 5 years."
3731. Sri Abid on page 156 has said that he has seen only
one person creating pillar bases in respect to whom a joint
objection was given to observer though the complaint was not
signed by him. The person concerned was some Sharma. On his
complaint the observer also came to the site. His statement is:
- · ¬¤· ¬i «¤i· - ¬ri r l¬ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬i-¬º «·i¤
n¤ r , ·r ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬ ¬· i | ¬i n ·r| ¬ºn ·i | - ·
¬¤·| -i ¬¸ ·n| - ¤¬ ¬i r« ¬i «·i n r ¤ · ªi i ·i i ¬·¬ «iº
- ··i;·-¬| ¬i·¬ ·ºi· ¬i·¬ · ¬ ¬i l·¤i ·ii| ·i ¬i r« ¬i ·i -
ºi i ¤· ºi -i ¬| ·i i | ¬¬ ¤nºi ¬ ¤º r-i º ·-nªi n ·r|
r | «l~¬ ·r ri¬| -r«¸ « ¬ir« ¤i ¬ ¤ º¤i« ¬|¬i·| ¬ir « ¬il· ¬
·-nªin ¬ ·ilªi¬ l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ¤r l¤¬º « ¬ - ¤ · o ¬|÷z ¬
¬i¬÷¤i¬ ·ii, ¤º - n ni º| ªi ¬i º ¬-¤ ¬« ¤i · ·r| r |
- · ¬i·¬ · ¬ ¬i ¬i¬º «ni¤i ·ii l¬ ·ri ¤º l¤¬º« ¬ «·i¤ ¬i ºr
r | ·i ·i ¬i·¬ · ¬ ¤ -«º - « - ºrn ·i ¬iº ·r| ¬i¬º ·i ·i ¬i «ni
l·¤i ¬ºni ·ii| - º| l ºi ¬i ¤n ¤º ¬i · ¬ · ¬ -i ¬ ¤º n¤
·i | ¤r - n ¤ni ·r| l¬ ¬i·¬ · ¬ ¬ir« · ;¬ ·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬i ;¬
¬ « ·i - lº¤i - ·| ·i| ¤i ·r| | l¤¬º « ¬ «·i· ¬ ·i ºi· r| ¬·ii n
¤ i¬ ¬ ¬ ·i ºi· r| - ¬i·¬ · ¬ ¬ir« ¬i ·ri ¬ n¤i ¬i º l·ªii¤i ·ii|
- n ·r| -i¬¸ - l¬ ¬i·¬ · ¬ ¬ir« · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ·i¬i ¬ ¬ s
¬ri ¤i ·r| | - ¬« ¬i·¬ · ¬ ¬ir« ¬ ¬i·i -i ¬ ¤º n¤i ni ¬i·¬ · ¬
¬ir«i· ·ri ªi· ri n¤ ¬iº ·r| ªi· ºr | (¤ ¬ ·rc)
"The fact stated by me in my statement that the pillar
bases have been carved out, was not done by all the ASI
people. I had seen one gentleman do the same in my
presence. I had given a joint objection to the observers
regarding him. That gentleman was probably known as
Mr. Sharma. Said objection does not bear my signature
and instead had been filed under the signature of either
3781
Hazi Mahboob or Zafaryab Jilani etc. This pillar base was
near the Trench No. G2, but I do not recollect the date
and time now. I had gone to the observers and told them
that pillar bases were being carved. Both the observers
used to remain seated in the chamber and I used to tell
both of them over there. The observers went to the spot on
my complaint. I do not know whether the observers had
submitted a report in this behalf to this Court, or not. I had
taken the observers to that place during the creation of
pillar bases, i.e., during the process and had shown it to
them. I do not know whether the observers told something
to the ASI people, or not. When I visited the spot alongwith
the observers, they stopped there and stood there." (E.T.C.)
3732. Now this statement of Sri Abid does not corroborate
statement of PW 32 inasmuch as she has not said anything about
such complaint to Observer and his coming to the concerned
place etc.
3733. The excavation of Trench F2 commenced on 24
th
May 2003 under the Supervision of C.B. Patil vide site
notebook no. 8. Excavation of Trench G2 admittedly
commenced on 16
th
May 2003 under Sri S.K. Sharma Trench
Supervisor which we have already discussed above. Therefore,
this part of the complaint is also untrustworthy.
3734. Trench F6 was supervised by Gajanan L. Katade.
The excavation commenced on 29
th
April 2003 on which date
PW 32 was not present at site. It continued on 1
st
May 2003, 2
nd
May 2003 and 3
rd
May 2003. the pillar base said to have
discovered on 01.05.2003. In day today register four persons
have signed the report on page 122. Nothing has been said
3782
against the above Trench Supervisor as is evident from the
statement of Mohd. Abid.
3735. Trench G9 though has been mentioned in the
complaint alleging that the same was created but on page 25
DW 6/1-2 Mohd. Abid has admitted that there was no
disturbance in the pillar base shown in plate 38, Vol. II, ASI
report, which is pillar base no. 45, Trench G9. He says:
¤ º·÷ ·¤i ¬i¤ ¬« -i ¬ ¤º ·i ni ·¬ - · . «s - si¤i l¬n ¬l·in
l¤¬º« ¬ ¤ ¬ ; - ;¬ +¤º ¬| ¬nr ªii ·· ¬ «i· l·¬¬i|
¬-nº÷ ;¬ ¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ +¤º ¬i;- ¬ ªi | -i ¬¸ · ·i| ¬iº ;¬¬
+¤º ¤ ¬i º ·ii ;¬l¬¤ l¤¬º « ¬ ·r| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ l¬¬ ºi·¬ - ¤r l·ªii¤| ¤· ºri r ¤ ¬i
r| ¤ ¬iº r-i· ¬ «i· l·ªii¤| ¤· ºri ·ii| ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬
l¬n· ·i| ¬l·in l¤¬º« ¬ ¬ l-¬ r , ¬· ¬«- ·¬ - «s ¬ ¬ r| ¬ ¬º|¬
¤i ¬ º· --i · ¬i « ¬ l-¬i ri | ·¬ - «s - ¬ ¬i ¬l ·i n
l ¤¬º« ¬ l ·ªi i ¤| ¤· ºri r · ¬i r| l ·¬¬i ·i i , ;¬-
¬i -÷si - ·r| l ¬¤i n¤i ·i i | (¤ ¬ zr)
"Question:- Whether the alleged pillar base
appearing in Plate No. 48, had been recovered as it is on
excavation of the upper surface, in your presence at the
spot?
Ans. Lime-'Surkhi' were present over this alleged
pillar base and a floor existed above it, due to which it
cannot be called pillar base.
It is correct to say that after removal of the floor, it
was appearing similar to the one appearing here. It is
wrong to say that concrete or sand stone bases have been
found in all the alleged pillar bases, as found in plate 48.
The alleged pillar base appearing in plate 48, was found
in the same form and it had not been cut." (E.T.C.)
3783
3736. We may mention at this stage that there is a self
contradiction in the statement of expert witnesses of Sunni
Board and other muslim parties. While DW 6/1-2 on page 25
has not disputed the correctness of pillar base in Trench G9 as
shown in page 48, Vol. II of ASI report, PW 29 Jaya Menon on
page 230 has said:
"The Plate No. 48 shows some structure but the same is not
pillar base. I do not know what it is."
3737. Similarly in the complaint the pillar bases in Trench
ZF1, ZG1 and ZH1 have been alleged to be created by ASI
people but PW 32, Dr. Supriya Verma on page 120 has admitted
the pillar bases forming part of Z series:
"The pillar bases which are acceptable to me form part of
Z series of trenches. The area of the Z series of trenches
was surveyed by the GPR survey team but I am not hundred
percent sure as to whether they had covered that area or
not."
3738. The pillar base in Trench ZH1 has been admitted to
be there and correct by PW 29 on page 203 where she said:
"Plate no. 36, 37, 38 of the ASI report were shown to the
witness who stated that all these photographs are INSITU
photographs of pillar bases. These pillar bases were found
in the north of dispute site. In my opinion these are the
pillar bases."
3739. Plate no. 36 is pillar base no. 13 Trench ZH1 while
plate No. 37 and 38 are pillar bases no. 1 and 5 of trenches ZH
3/ZH 2. The above discussion, therefore, shows that in respect
to most of the pillar bases which are mentioned in the above
complaint one or the other witnesses have said otherwise.
3784
3740. There are three complaints of 8
th
June 2003, two by
Sri A.A. Siddiqui and one by Sri R.L. Verma Advocates. The
two complaints of Sri Siddiqui are about omission of recording
of a glazed ware recovered from Trench F3 on 6
th
June, 2003 by
the Trench Supervisor, Sujeet Narayan Singh and rest one is
about some newspaper reports. Sri R.L. Verma had complained
against stoppage of excavation in Trench F4 and G4. Complaint
dated 05.06.2003 is by Sri Hazi Mahboob about the visit of Sri
S.P. Gupta at the site but non mention of his name at the entry
point. Complaint dated 07.06.2003 is by Sri Jilani for taking
protective measures. The complaint dated 10.06.2003 in fact is
not a complaint but a letter requesting the Observer asking ASI
to inform about the trenches where excavation has completed so
that his experts may enter the same and obtain necessary
information. Then again the complaints dated 11.06.2003,
28.05.2003, 28.05.2003 are in respect to some news paper
reports etc. The complaint dated 13.06.2003 is for arranging
water proof tents for protection of trenches. The letter dated
08.06.2003 is about an inquiry pertaining to samples sent to
various laboratories. Then letter/complaint dated 15.06.2003 of
Sri Jilani is for ensuring the observances of principles of
excavation by ASI team in preparation of report. It says:
"With reference to the orders of the court regarding
maintenance of Transparency of the excavation work and
digging to be done on the basis of the principals governing
excavation, it is submitted that setting up Section Labels,
indicating stratum numbers, on the key/important sections,
was imperative and in the initial stages of digging this
practice was even adopted but, for the reasons best known
3785
to the ASI Team, this practice was not only abandoned but
even the labels put earlier were removed making it almost
impossible for our Nominees and Experts to check and
observe the strata, specially with reference to the
numbering of layers vis-a-vis the pottery kept in the pottery
yard.
It may also be relevant to mention that sketch plans of the
features (walls etc.) uncovered during excavation and
sketch of sections of certain key trenches should also be
accompanied with any report filed by the ASI, whether
progress report or any other report, and in future this
essential component of the report should not be omitted.
It is therefore requested that the ASI Team Leader
may kindly be instructed to observe the aforementioned
principles of excavation so that transparency may also be
maintained in the excavation work and the
digging/excavation may be completed and report may be
submitted in accordance with the order/orders of the
Court."
3741. Thereupon the Observer has made the following
note, after obtaining views of Sri Hari Manjhi ASI team leader
at that time:
"The views of the ASI team leader Shri Hari Manjhi
on the objections raised in this application/objection are as
follows:
The ASI has been following the transparency in the
excavation work right from the beginning and the work is
being carried out strictly on the principle of excavations.
There is nothing known as section labels as mentioned in
3786
the application dated 15.06.03 by the learned advocate.
The layer labels and with them only the photograph of the
trenches and their section are taken. All the sectional
photographs contain layer labels and as such it is wrong to
say that layer labels have not been put up on the sections.
Due to wind, rains and other factors the labels have fallen
and damaged. They have not been removed. Any trained
excavator and archaeologist does not require the layer
labels for study the strata and he can study the
stratigraphy on the basis of his own knowledge. It is
strange that the experts nominated by the party are
finding it "almost impossible", "to check and observe
the strata". Relevant sketch plans of the features (walls
etc.) would be definitely included in the final report and to
far as periodic progress report is concerned they are not
required as essential feature of the report.
As the ASI team is following the principles of
excavation/perfectly and observing full transparency in the
work no instruction is required to be given to the team
leader in this regard."
3742. The complaint dated 21.06.2003 by Sri M.A.
Siddiqui is in respect to certain media reports. The complaint
dated 21.06.2003 by Sri M.A. Siddiqui is for requesting ASI
people to notice the existence of plaster on the walls in trench
F1, F6, F8 and F9. The letter dated 01.07.2003 of Sri R.L.
Verma is not a complaint but actually it is an objection against
the complaint dated 07.06.2003 and 29.06.2003 submitted on
behalf of muslim parties alleging that there is an attempt to put
barrier and hurdle in the free functioning of ASI whithout there
3787
being any substance.
3743. Next is the complaint dated 28.06.2003 signed by
several persons including Sri Jilani, Mohd. Afzal, Hazi
Mahboob etc. as a supplementary objection to that of dated
07.06.2003. It requests that apart from the pillar bases ZH2/ZJ2
baulk other reported structures be not labeled as pillar base and
be dismantled. Here complaint is in respect to Trenches G8, J1,
H9 and H10.
3744. There are three more complaints of the same date.
The second complaint dated 28.06.2003 by Sri Jilani and others
is in respect to pillar base G5 and next one is with respect to the
stratification in Trench G8.
3745. The complaint dated 02.08.2003 is for dismantling
of pillar bases in Trench G2 and F2/G2 baulk. It is alleged that
between 17.07.2003 to 26.07.2003 the excavation was made in
such a manner that a pillar base in the baulk F2/G2 was created.
3746. So these are the total complaints. The substantial
one are dated 21.05.2003, 07.06.2003 and 28.06.2003. Broadly
we have seen and considered the same by perusing record and
find no basis. It thus appear that these complaints were a
brainchild of two experts PW-29 and 32 who could not support
the same during cross examination. This is really unfortunate.
As admitted by these two witnesses, they were partisan and
interested, yet it was expected from the renowned Experts that
they shall tender opinion objectively but here we found it
lacking.
3747. Now we proceed to those which were filed before us
after ASI report. Such objections/additional objections/replies,
in brief, are :
3788
(a) Objection dated 8.10.2003 filed by plaintiff no.1
(Suit-4). The prayer made in the objection is to reject the
ASI report dated 22.08.2003.
(b) An additional objection dated 3.2.2004 was also
filed by plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4). It was filed on the ground
that initially, only four out of ten video cassettes were
displayed and unless all the video cassettes are displayed
to the parties alongwith other concerned material,
complete objection may not be filed. In the circumstances,
while permitting all the cassettes/C.Ds to be made
available to the party/parties concerned, they were also
permitted to file additional objections. The prayer for
rejection of ASI report was reiterated in the additional
objections.
(c) Objection dated 6/8
th
October 2003 filed on behalf
of defendant no.5 (Suit-5) Mohd. Hashim praying for
rejection of ASI report and in particular, Chapter X
thereof, and further to direct ASI as under:
"(i) to make a tabulation of all the bone pieces,
glazedwares and glazed tiles found during excavation
in the manner the other finds have been tabulated,
indicating the layer, trench, pit or dump with a
comparative table of the other artefacts as well.
(ii) to place the whole situation of the entire spot
on one sheet at one surface by making use of different
inks as regards the structures, the floors, the walls
with other materials found/noticed by the ASI during
the course of excavation and if it is found difficult it
may be done on the 5 sheets as the ASI has itself
3789
indicated to have partitioned the area in 5 blocks and
below the same the necessary notes enabling the
reader to get whole thing at one look instead of
jumping through different chapters, figures, plates or
appendixes."
Defendant no.5 (Suit-5) also filed a supplementary
objection dated 16.2.2004.
(d) Plaintiff no.9 (Suit-4) filed objection dated
8/9
th
October 2004 praying for rejection of ASI report.
Plaintiff no.9 in para 2 of objection adopted objections
filed by other plaintiffs and raised his objection in addition
thereto. In para 8 of his additional objections, plaitniff
no.9 also adopted the additional objections filed by
plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4).
3748. There are several replies filed by other parties to the
objections/supplementary objections referred to above but we
find it unnecessary to refer in details at this stage.
The Nature, Status and Scope of challenge to ASI Report
3749. Order XXVI, Rule 10A of C.P.C. empowers the
Court to issue a commission where the question involving a
scientific investigation is involved and the Court is of the
opinion that it would be convenient to have a commissioner
appointed to enquire into such question and file report. The
procedure of commission, as contained in Order XXVI rule 10,
has been made applicable vide sub-rule 2 of Rule 10A. Order
XXVI, Rule 10 and 10A of C.P.C. read as under:
"Rule 10. Procedure of Commissioner- (1) The
Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems
necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken
3790
by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report
in writing signed by him, to the Court.
(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit- The
report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him
(but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence
in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court
or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to
the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open
Court touching any of the matters referred to him or
mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the
manner in which he has made the investigation.
(3) Commissioner may be examined in person-Where
the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the
proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further
inquiry to be made as it shall think fit.
Rule 10A. Commission for scientific investigation- (1)
Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific
investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be
conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if
it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice
so to do, issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit,
directing him to inquire into such question and report
thereon to the Court.
(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall, as far
as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed
under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner
appointed under rule 9."
3750. A bare reading of Rule 10A of C.P.C. shows that a
discretion is vested in the Court to get any scientific
3791
investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient.
It is only when the Court is of the opinion that scientific
investigation may help it in extracting truth. The report of
Commissioner appointed to make investigation together with the
evidence enclosed therewith is an evidence in the suit. The
parties having grievance, have two kinds of remedies. Firstly,
they can file an objection to the report and secondly, they can
also lead evidence to show that what has been said in the report
is not correct.
3751. In Vembagounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder AIR
1996 Madras 347 the Court took the view that before asking
parties to lead evidence on merit, if an objection has been raised
to the report of Commissioner, it ought to be considered and
decided.
3752. In this case also parties have raised objections
against the report and were to be decided by this Court, but then
it was found that the nature of objection raised by the parties is
such that unless the parties are allowed to lead evidence, as
several factual aspects were involved, the decision on objection
cannot be taken. Therefore, a detailed order was passed on
03.02.2005 directing that ASI report shall be admitted as an
evidence but the objection raised by the parties shall be
considered and decided at the time of final hearing by which
time the evidence etc. would stand completed.
3753. In Amena Bibi Vs. S.K. Abdul Haque AIR 1997
Cal. 59 the Court said that acceptance of Commission's report as
an evidence does not mean that parties are precluded from
challenging the report. The report of the commissioner is not
binding on the Court. It may accept the facts arrived at by the
3792
commissioner or may not accept his conclusion or vice-versa as
held in Bibhuti Bhushan Vs. Sadhan Chandra AIR 1965 Cal.
199 and Sankar Kumar Vs. Mohanlal Sharma AIR 1998
Orissa 117.
3754. There is no requirement in law nor the reading of
rule 10 or 10A C.P.C. shows that unless the Commissioner is
examined as a witness, his report cannot be treated to be a
substantive evidence. None of the parties in this case has opted
to examine the commissioner touching on any of the matter in
the report submitted by ASI. In fact the detailed objections filed
by the parties, particularly the plaintiffs (Suit-4), do not suggest
that the entire report and finding are incorrect or perverse but
what has been argued vehemently is that the conclusion drawn
by ASI in its report in the penultimate paragraphs and chapter is
wrong and should be ignored or rejected. However, allegations
of bias or mala fide are also levelled and in case those
allegations are found substantiated, it may result in vitiating the
entire report.
3755. Sri P.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant
no.20 (Suit-4) supporting ASI report contended:
A. The report of ASI is an elaborate document and the
persons comprising excavation team of ASI were working
directly under the control and direction of this Court.
Their integrity is unquestioned and as such the said report
is entitled to be accepted in its entirety as an expert
scientific report under Order XXVI Rule 9, 10 and 10A
read with Section 75 C.P.C. as well as Section 45 of the
Evidence Act.
B. Section 75(e) of C.P.C. is part and parcel of Part III
3793
titled as 'incidental proceedings' whereunder the order can
be passed by this Court to carry out excavation work and
submit report to this Court. The report having been
submitted in compliance thereof is a scientific report and
an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It
is reliable and admissible being valuable piece of
evidence.
C. The A.S.I. Report is result of incidental proceeding
which is in aid of the final proceedings. The report has to
be relied on to do complete and ultimate justice.
D. A.S.I. is a reputed institution. Integrity of its team
members cannot be questioned hence its report must be
accepted as it is.
E. There are only wild allegations that the ASI people
acted under the hands of the then BJP Government and
Minister concerned but the same has not been
substantiated by giving cogent evidence. The plaintiffs
had several opportunities to make applications before this
Court impeaching the integrity of the ASI but as the
opportunity has not been availed of and no such thing was
done. It is only when the report was submitted to this
Court which goes against the plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. some
of the defendants of other suits, the objections making
reckless allegations has been filed therefore are liable to
be rejected.
F. The plaintiffs, their experts, nominees, advocates
have participated in excavation proceedings and the
excavation proceedings was conducted in their presence
and observation. It was also supervised by the Observers
3794
appointed by this Court. In these circumstances any
challenge to the ASI report on the ground that the
excavation has not been done faithfully and correctly
cannot be accepted and the objections are liable to be
rejected.
G. Since no party made an application for examination
of ASI Archaeologist/Experts, there is no occasion for
them to assail the report since it amounts to acceptance.
3756. He has also relied on some of the authorities of the
Apex Court and High Courts which we may refer in brief since
the principles laid down therein cannot be doubted.
3757. Chandan Mull Indra Kumar & Others Vs.
Chiman Lal Girdhar Das AIR 1940 PC 3 says that it is not safe
for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate
report of a Commissioner whose integrity and carefulness are
unquestioned, whose careful and laborious execution of task
was proved by his report and who had not blindly adopted the
assertions of either party.
3758. In Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese
2004(6) SCC 378 the Court said that "incidental" and "ancillary"
proceedings are taken recourse to in aid of the ultimate decision
of the suit and any order passed therein would have a bearing on
the merit of the matter. "Supplemental proceedings", however,
mean a separate proceeding in an original action in which the
court where the action is pending is called upon to exercise its
jurisdiction in the interest of justice. Supplemental proceedings
may not affect the ultimate result of suit and a supplemental
order can be passed even at the instance of the defendants.
3759. In G.L. Vijan Vs. K. Shankar. 2006 (13) SCC 136
3795
in the context of incidental and ancillary power, the Court said:
“11. Such a supplemental proceeding is initiated with a
view to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
Supplemental proceedings may not be taken recourse to in
a routine manner but only when an exigency of situation
arises therefor. The orders passed in the supplemental
proceedings may sometimes cause hardships to the other
side and, thus, are required to be taken recourse to when it
is necessary in the interest of justice and not otherwise.
There are well defined parameters laid down by the Court
from time to time as regards the applicability of the
supplemental proceedings.
13. The expression “ancillary” means aiding; auxiliary;
subordinate; attendant upon; that which aids or promotes a
proceeding regarded as the principal.
14. The expression “incidental” may mean differently in
different contexts. While dealing with a procedural law, it
may mean proceedings which are procedural in nature but
when it is used in relation to an agreement or the delegated
legislation, it may mean something more; but the
distinction between an incidental proceeding and a
supplemental proceeding is evident.
3760. In Harihor Misra Vs. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah
AIR 1966 Orissa 121 in para 4 the Court said :
"Rule 10 of O. 26 does not make the report of the
Commissioner as concluding the question of valuation. On
the contrary, the rule gives clear indication that the report
of the Commissioner is only one of the pieces of evidence
amongst other evidence to be led by the parties for
3796
determination of the issue on valuation of the suit. When
the parties file no objection to the Commissioner's report,
the court rightly accepts the report. Its acceptance by itself
does not, however, mean that parties are precluded from
challenging the evidence of the Commissioner and the
witnesses examined by him or by giving any other evidence
to countermand the effect of the Commissioner's report. "
3761. Following the above decision, Calcutta High Court
in Amina Bibi (Supra) said:
"Thus, from the underlying principle emerging from
the above cases, it is manifest that the party objecting to
the Commissioner's report can lead best possible evidence
at the time of hearing to countermand the report even if the
same was accepted earlier. The Court on taking the
comprehensive view decide the point at issue and arrive at
right conclusion I do not find at this stage any justification
to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court order
accepting the Commissioner's report.”
3762. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India
AIR 1984 SC 802 in para 14 it was held:
"It would be entirely for the Court to consider what
weight to attach to the facts and data stated in the report of
the Commissioner and to what extent to act upon such facts
and data. But it would not be correct to say that the report
of the Commissioner has no evidentiary value at all, since
the statements made in it are not tested by cross-
examination."
3763. In para 81 of the said judgemnt the court said:
"Interference with the result of a detailed and careful
3797
report so submitted should be made only for cogent and
compelling reasons. In a case where an elaborate report is
filed by the Commissioner, whose integrity, credibility and
carefulness are not questioned, whose careful and
laborious execution of his task is proved by the report
itself, interference will be made only in exceptional
circumstances, in cases where convincing evidence contra
is available before Court."
3764. In Sharda Vs. Dharampal 2003 (4) SCC 493 the
Court held that the primary duty of the Court is to see that truth
is arrived at. It also held that in certain cases scientific
investigation by the experts in the field is not only found to be
leading to the truth of the matter, but may also lead to the
removal of misunderstanding between the parties.
3765. There are some other authorities which are basically
on the question that the report of the Commissioner cannot be
rejected or ignored only on the ground that the Commissioner
was not examined as witness or that in the absence of any
allegation against the integrity and impartiality of the
Commissioner the report must be admitted. These are not
relevant for our purposes for the reason that there is no
challenge to the ASI report on the ground that the members of
the team of ASI have not been examined. So far as the second
part is concerned, general allegations of bias have been levelled
and they have to be considered and investigated.
3766. Sri Jilani referred to one part of his objection i.e.,
bias and mala fide of ASI in order to buttress his submission for
rejection of the entire report but rest of his objections pertain to
individual findings/interpretation of finds and artefacts and,
3798
therefore, basically travel into the realm of credibility of the
evidence and not the mere procedural irregularity.
3767. The allegations of bias, lack of impartiality against
ASI have been made in general in the objections filed by the
plaintiffs (Suit-4), but perusal thereof makes it clear that no
individual in particular or the group of persons as such has been
named in respect of the said allegations. When an act of officials
is challenged on the ground of bias etc., certain well established
principles have to be observed.
3768. We may refer to State of Bihar and Anr. Vs.
P.P.Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222. The Court in para 50, 51
and 52 said:
"50. Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias,
grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose.
The administrative action must be said to be done in good
faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done
negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have
been done in good faith. An administrative authority must,
therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act
for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to
the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the
circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly
exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The
determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions,
namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique
motive; and (ii) whether the administrative action is
contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a
valid exercise of administrative power.
51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have
3799
been made mala fide for such considerations Mere
assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It
must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts
and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If it is
established that the action has been taken mala fide for any
such considerations or by fraud on power or colourable
exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to stand.
52. Public administration cannot be carried on in a spirit
of judicial detachment. There is a very wide range of
discretionary administrative acts not importing an implied
duty to act judicially though the act must be done in good
faith to which legal protection will be accorded. But the
administrative act dehors judicial flavour does not entail
compliance with the rule against interest and likelihood of
bias. It is implicit that a complainant when he lodges a
report to the Station House Officer accusing a person of
commission of an offence, often may be a person
aggrieved, but rarely a propone publico. Therefore,
inherent animosity is licit and by itself is not tended to
cloud the veracity of the accusation suspected to have been
committed, provided it is based on factual foundation."
3769. In CEAT Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar &
Ors. 2006 (3) SCC 56 the words "favoritism" or "partiality"
came to be considered. In para 11 to 16 the Court held:
"11. ....the Legislature has consciously used the words
'favoritism or partiality to one set of workers' and not
differential treatment. Thus, the mental element of bias was
necessary to be established by cogent evidence. No
evidence in that regard was led. On the contrary the
3800
approach of the Industrial Court and the High Court was
different. One proceeded on the basis of breach of
assurance and the other on the ground of discrimination.
There was no evidence brought on as regards the pre
requisite i.e. favoritism or partiality. favoritism means
showing favour in the matter of selection on circumstances
other than merit. (per Advanced Law Lexicon by
P.Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005). The expression
'favoritism' means partiality, bias. Partiality means
inclination to favour a particular person or thing.
Similarly, it has been sometimes equated with capricious,
not guided by steady judgment, intent or purpose.
favoritism as per the Websters' Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary means the favouring of one person or group
over others having equal claims. Partiality is the state or
character being a partial, favourable, bias or prejudice.
12. According to Oxford English Dictionary "favoritism"
means - a deposition to show, or the practice of showing
favour or partiality to an individual or class, to the neglect
of others having equal or superior claims; under
preference. Similarly, "partiality" means the quality or
character of being partial, unequal state of judgment and
favour of one above the other, without just reason.
Prejudicial or undue favouring of one person or party: or
one side of a question; prejudice, unfairness, bias.
13. Bias may be generally defined as partiality or
preference. It is true that any person or authority required
to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter must act
impartially.
3801
"If however, 'bias' and 'partiality' be defined to mean
the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the
Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no
one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no
blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions
and the processes of education, formal and informal,
create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular
instances and which, therefore, by definition, are
prejudices." (per Frank, J. in Linahan, Re. F 2d at p
652).
14. It is not every kind of differential treatment which in
law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which
is not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest -
whether pecuniary or personal.
15. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also
seen as an extension of the principles of natural justice that
no man should be a judge in his own cause. Being a state of
mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine.
Therefore, the courts have evolved the principle that it is
sufficient for a litigant to successfully impugn an action by
establishing a reasonable possibility of bias or proving
circumstances from which the operation of influences
affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be
inferred.
16. As we have noted, every preference does not vitiate an
action. If it is rational and unaccompanied by
considerations of personal interest, pecuniary or otherwise,
it would not vitiate a decision.
3770. In a case where mala fide or bias is substantiated by
3802
cogent material the act of the authority howsoever high it may
be shall immediately get tainted and vitiated in law but mere
dissatisfaction or displeasure of an individual or group of
individual's perception about something cannot be a yardstick to
hold, an otherwise valid act or report of an authority, invalid.
3771. In People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. U.O.I.
2005(5) SCC 363 the Court in para 11 and 12 observed :
"11. ....if public displeasure or perception were to be the
yardstick to exclude people from holding constitutional or
statutory offices then many such posts in the country may
have to be kept vacant.
12. Then again what is the yardstick to measure public
perception. Admittedly, there is no barometer to gauge the
perception of the people. In a democracy there are many
people who get elected by a thumping majority to high
legislative offices. Many a times public perception of a
class of society in regard to such people may be that they
are not desirable to hold such post but can such a public
opinion deprive such people from occupying constitutional
or statutory offices without there being a law to the
contrary? There is vast qualitative difference between
public prejudice and judicial condemnation of an
institution based on public perception."
3772. In Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja
Shankar Pant 2001 (1) SCC 182 explaining the concept of bias
the Apex Court said:
“10. The word “bias” in popular English parlance stands
included within the attributes and broader purview of the
word “malice”, which in common acceptation means and
3803
implies “spite” or “ill-will” (Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,
5
th
Edn., Vol. 3) and it is now well settled that mere general
statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of
indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence
available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether
in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the
miscarriage of justice.
32. Lord Hutton also in Pinochet case 16 observed:
“There could be cases where the interest of the Judge in the
subject-matter of the proceedings arising from his strong
commitment to some cause or belief or his association with
a person or body involved in the proceedings could shake
public confidence in the administration of justice as much
as a shareholding (which might be small) in a public
company involved in the litigation.”
33. Incidentally in Locabail [Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v.
Bayfield Properties Ltd. 17 ] the Court of Appeal upon a
detail analysis of the oft-cited decision in R. v. Gough 18
together with the Dimes case 19 Pinochet case 16,
Australian High Court’s decision in the case of J.R.L., ex p
C.J.L., Re 20 as also the Federal Court in Ebner, Re 21 and
on the decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa
in President of the Republic of South Africa v. South
African Rugby Football Union22 stated that it would be
rather dangerous and futile to attempt to define or list the
factors which may or may not give rise to a real danger of
bias. The Court of Appeal continued to the effect that
everything will depend upon facts which may include the
nature of the issue to be decided. It further observed:
3804
“By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought
to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity
between the Judge and any member of the public involved
in the case; or if the Judge were closely acquainted with
any member of the public involved in the case, particularly
if the credibility of that individual could be significant in
the decision of the case; or if, in a case where the
credibility of any individual were an issue to be decided by
the Judge, he had in a previous case rejected the evidence
of that person in such outspoken terms as to throw doubt on
his ability to approach such person’s evidence with an open
mind on any later occasion; or if on any question at issue
in the proceedings before him the Judge had expressed
views, particularly in the course of the hearing, in such
extreme and unbalanced terms as to throw doubt on his
ability to try the issue with an objective judicial mind (see
Vakuta v. Kelly23); or if, for any other reason, there were
real ground for doubting the ability of the Judge to ignore
extraneous considerations, prejudices and predilections
and bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues
before him. The mere fact that a Judge, earlier in the same
case or in a previous case, had commented adversely on a
party-witness, or found the evidence of a party or witness
to be unreliable, would not without more found a
sustainable objection. In most cases, we think, the answer,
one way or the other, will be obvious. But if in any case
there is real ground for doubt, that doubt should be
resolved in favour of recusal. We repeat: every application
must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the
3805
individual case. The greater the passage of time between
the event relied on as showing a danger of bias and the
case in which the objection is raised, the weaker (other
things being equal) the objection will be.”
34. The Court of Appeal judgment in Locabail 17 though
apparently as noticed above sounded a different note but in
fact, in more occasions than one in the judgment itself, it
has been clarified that conceptually the issue of bias ought
to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the
individual case — a slight shift undoubtedly from the
original thinking pertaining to the concept of bias to the
effect that a mere apprehension of bias could otherwise be
sufficient.
35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere
apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias
and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances
must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion
drawn therefrom — in the event however the conclusion is
otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger
of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained: If on
the other hand, the allegations pertaining to bias is rather
fanciful and otherwise to avoid a particular court, Tribunal
or authority, question of declaring them to be
unsustainable would not arise. The requirement is
availability of positive and cogent evidence and it is in this
context that we do record our concurrence with the view
expressed by the Court of Appeal in Locabail case17.”
3773. In State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna 2001 (2) SCC
330 it was decided that the test is whether there is a mere
3806
apprehension or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this
score that on the surrounding circumstances must and ought to
be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. The
court in para 8 and 8 said:
"5. Whereas fairness is synonymous with
reasonableness- bias stands included within the attributes
and broader purview of the word "malice" which in
common acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill
will". One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing
bias or malice and is now well settled that mere general
statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of
indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence
available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether
in fact, there was existing a bias or a malafide move which
results in the miscarriage of justice....In almost all legal
enquiries, "intention as distinguished from motive is the
all- important factor" and in common parlance a malicious
act stands equated with an intentional act without just
cause or excuse."
"8. The test, therefore, is as to whether there is a mere
apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it
is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must
and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn
therefrom. In the event, however, the conclusion is
otherwise that there is existing a real danger of bias
administrative action cannot be sustained. If on the other
hand allegations pertain to rather fanciful apprehension in
administrative action, question of declaring them to be
unsustainable on the basis therefor, would not arise."
3807
3774. Since some general but serious allegations have
been levelled against ASI regarding manner of excavation,
interpretation and assessment, though not substantiated, but we
shall examine all these aspects minutely since it is not a matter
where we should leave even an iota of doubt in the mind of any
party. Rather we intend to consider all the possible angles in the
matter so that there may not remain a grievance that one or other
aspect, howsoever minor it is, has escaped consideration of the
Court.
3775. The origin, status, reputation and other credentials of
ASI would be a relevant factor for considering credibility and
reliability of its report, besides other aspects of the matter. The
facts about ASI's origin, development, status etc. have been
placed before us in the form of a computerized printout taken
from Internet site of Archaeological Survey of India and this has
not been doubted or objected by any of the parties. A perusal
thereof shows that the ASI traced back its origin to 15
th
January
1784 when Sir William Jones formed “Asiatic Society” at
Calcutta consisting of a group of antiquarians. This Society
started archaeological, historical, monumental, cultural and
religious researches in India and commenced its publication of
periodical journal “Asiatic Researches” in 1788. The objective
of the said research and publication was to make public aware of
the antiquarian wealth of India.
3776. Since William Jones is referred as the point of
commencement of ASI. Some facts throwing light on his profile
would be ancillary but important. Born on 28
th
September' 1746
in London, William Jones studied Arabic, Hebrew and also
acquainted himself with French and Italian. In 1764, he entered
3808
University College, Oxford and continued his study of oriental
literature. He learnt Persian and Arabic by the aid of one “Syrian
Mirza”, whom, it is said, he discovered and brought from
London. He added to his knowledge Spanish, Puertagese and
Chinese also. In 1766, he obtained a fellowship. When King
Christian VII of Denmark visited England in 1768 bringing with
him a “Light of Nadir Shah” in Persian, Jones was requested to
translate the manuscript in French. This translation appeared in
1770 with an introduction containing a description of Asia and
short history of Persia. In 1771, he published a Dissertation “Sur
Law Literature Orientale” defending Oxford scholars against the
criticism made by Anquetil du Perron in the introduction to his
translation of the “Zend Avesta”. In the same year, i.e. 1771
appeared his Crammer of Persian language. He then studied law
and was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1774.
Appointed Commissioner in Bankruptcy in 1776 made Judge of
Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, then “Fort William”
and was Knighted in 1783. He arrived in India sometimes in
1783 (probably in December) and founded in January' 1784, the
“Bengal Asiatic Society”. He remained its President till his
death. In India, he studied Sanskrit. In 1789, he completed his
translation of “Shakuntala” of Kalidasa. He also translated the
collection of fables titled as “Hitopadesa”, “Geet Govind” and
considerable portion of “Vedas”; besides editing the text of
Kalidasa's poem “Ritusamhara”. He undertook in 1788, task of
compiling a digest of Hindu and Mohammedan law, which he
could not complete since died on 27.4.1794, but got published
“Ordinance of Manu” and some items with respect to
Mohammedan laws of succession of property by intestate and
3809
inheritance.
3777. This biography apparently shows his mettle but
there existed something more. In “Asiatic Researches” Vol-I,
first published in 1788, recently republished in 1979, pages 234-
235, we find the following comments of Sir William Jones:
“As to the general extension of our pure faith in
Hindustan there are at present many sad obstacles to
it . . . . . We May assure ourselves that . . . . . Hindus will
never be converted by any mission from the Church of
Rome, or from any other Church; and the only human
mode perhaps, of causing so great revolution, will be to
translate it to Sanskrit . . . . . Such chapters of the
prophets, particularly of Isaiah, as are indisputably
evangelical together with one of the gospels, and a plain
prefatory discourse, containing full evidence of the very
distant ages, in which the predictions themselves, and the
history of the divine person (Jesus) predicted, were
severally made public; and then quietly to disperse the
work among the well educated natives.”
3778. He wrote an essay “On the Gods of Greece, Italy
and India” in 1784 running in about 47 pages, which had the
following comments:
“Since Gods of all shapes and dimensions may be
framed by the boundless powers of imaginations or by the
frauds and follies of men, in countries never corrected; but
when features of resemblance, too strong to have been
accidental, or observable in different systems of
polytheism, without fancy or prejudice to colour them and
improve the likeness . . . . . It is my design, in this assay, to
3810
point out such a resemblance between the popular
worships of the old Greeks and Italians and that of the
Hindus.”
“Rama and Crishna, must now be introduced, and
there several attributes distinctly explained. The first of
them, I believe, was the Dionysus of the Greeks.”
“The first poet of the Hindus was the great Valmic,
and his Ramayan is an Epick Poem . . . . . Comparison of
the two poems (the Dionysus and the Ramayan) would
prove Dionysus and Rama to have been the same person;
and I incline to think that he was Rama the son of Kush,
who might have established the first regular Government in
this part of Asia.” (emphasis added)
3779. About “Manu”, Jones writes:
“This epitome of the first Indian history . . . . . though
whimsically dressed up of a form of allegory, same to
prove a Primeval tradition in this country of the universal
deluge described by Moses and fixes consequently the time
when the genuine Hindu chronology actually begins.”
“We may suspect that all the 14 Menus are reducible
to one, who was called Nuh by the Arabs and probably by
the Hebrews; though we have disguised his name by an
improper pronunciation of it. Some mere relation between
the 7
th
Menu and Grecian Menos may be inferred.”
3780. He further said:
“The whole crowed of God and Goddess of ancient
Rome and modern Varanes (Varanasi of India) mean only
the powers of nature, expressed in a variety of males and a
multitude of fanciful names.”
3811
“Be all this as it may, I am persuaded that a
connection subsisted between the old idolatrous nations of
Egypt, India, Greece and Italy, long before they migrated to
their several settlements.”
3781. This shows the approach, real motive and attitude
with which the learned gentleman appears to give boost to the
Indian literature. However, one must feel indebted to him for the
reason that he and others like him gave birth to a local cadre of
historians, academicians etc. to explore and research with sheer
nationalistic instinct. Moreover, ultimately we got an institution
which has been able to protect commendably a lot of ancient
monuments and has also resulted in discovery of cultural wealth
of this country.
3782. Going back to our study about ASI, the research
work, it claimed, resulted in collection of a large number of
manuscripts of Hindu scriptures as also antiquities and other
remains in the office of Asiatic Researches. A museum was
established at Calcutta in 1814 where the above collection
housed. Similar Societies were also statrted at Bombay
(Mumbai) in 1804 and at Madras (Chennai) in 1818. In 1800
Dr. Francis Buchanan (a Physician) was appointed by Marquis
of Wellesley to survey Mysore. Dr. Buchanan was also required
to undergo a survey of Provinces subject to Presidency of
Bengal by the Governor General in Council in 1807. This area
of survey constituted parts of the present day Bihar and Uttar
Pradesh. He was engaged to survey the monuments and
antiquities in the area of survey. At that time it was East India
Company which had commenced its transmission into a Ruler
from its initial position of a Merchant. Dr. Buchanan was
3812
required to collect information upon the general topography of
each District; the conditions of the inhabitants, their religious
customs; the natural productions of the country; fisheries,
forests, mines and quarries; the state of agriculture; the
condition of landed property and tenures; the progress made in
the arts and manufactures; the operation of commerce, and
every particular that can be regarded as forming an element in
the prosperity or depression of the people.
3783. To provide protection to antiques, monuments etc.
the first legislation came in the form of Bengal Regulation, XIX
of 1810 which empowered the Government to intervene in case
of risks to monuments. In 1833 "James Prinsep" became
Secretary of Asiatic Society. He was assisted by "Alexander
Cunningham", a Second Lieutenant of the Bengal Engineers.
They planned for an organization “Indian Archaeological
Survey” and placed their proposal before the British
Government in 1848. However, this attempt failed. After take
over of reign by the British Government from East India
Company, it appears that a fresh proposal was submitted by
"Alexander Cunningham" which drew attention of Lord
Canning who sanctioned a scheme of survey in Northern India
and appointed "Alexander Cunningham" as the first
Archaeological Surveyor with effect from December 1861.
Cunningham’s survey stretched from Gaya in the East, to
Indus, in the northwest, and from Kalsi in the north to Narmada
in the south between 1861 to 1865. In this survey, it is said that
Cunningham proceeded in the footsteps of Chinese traveller
(pilgrim) Hieun Tsang and also submitted his report.
3784. In 1863, Act No. XX of 1863 was passed which
3813
empowered the Government to prevent injury to and preserve
buildings remarkable for their antiquity or for their historical or
archaeological value. Lord Lawrence, however, abolished the
archaeological survey in 1866 bringing to a sudden halt of the
archaeological survey in Indian Sub-continent. Some minor
work with respect to the state of archaeological style of India in
Bombay, Madras, Bengal and the Northwestern Provinces
continued but the revival of archaeological survey saw the light
of the day in 1871 when it was revived as a distinct department
of the Government. A. Cunningham was appointed as Director
who assumed charge in February 1871. He was provided with
three assistants J.D. Beglar, A.C. Carlleyle and H.B.W. Garrik.
A new journal “Indian Antiquary” was also started in 1872.
Cunningham got published “Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum”
which contains inscriptions of connected epigraphical material
and pursuant to his suggestion the Government appointed J.F.
Fleet as Government Epigraphist in January 1883 for
deciphering and interpreting the inscriptions.
3785. The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 was
promulgated to protect and preserve the treasure found
accidentally but had archaeological and historical value. This
legislation was treated to be a landmark for confiscation and
safety of treasures and antiquities found during chance digging.
In 1878 when Lytton observed that conservation of ancient
monuments be not left exclusively to the charge of the
Provincial Governments and should be brought under the
purview of the Government of India, it resulted in appointment
of Major H.H. Cole as Curator of ancient monuments in 1881
with an aim to assist the Provincial and Central Government in
3814
all matters related to conservation of monuments. A.
Cunningham retired in 1885 followed by Burgess who was
appointed Director in March 1886. Besides others, during his
period, a new publication “Epigraphica Indica” started in 1888
and he got 20 volumes published of which seven formed part of
Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series. He
suggested to abolish the post of Director General and to divide
the entire country into two Circles which caused a lot of chaos
and confusion. In 1895 the Government of India requested the
Asiatic Society to bear the responsibilities of publication of
survey report which it refused. Later on, a proposal was made
for creation of five Circles with an Archaeological Surveyor as
Head at Bombay with Sind and Berar ; Madras and Coorg ;
Punjab, Baluchistan and Ajmer; Northwestern Provinces and
central Provinces ; Bengal and Assam and to make provision for
pension to those who joined survey department before that date.
The said proposal was accepted in May 1899.
3786. John Marshall was appointed as the new Director
General in 1901 and the entire Survey Department was
centralized vesting power with the Director General of A.S.I.
by Lord Curzon. Marshall started new series of publication,
namely, Annual reports of the Director General which contained
the works and research activities carried out by the Survey
Department. A separate branch for Arabic and Persian in
Epigraphy was also created and Dr. Ross was appointed for this
purpose in 1904 Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904
(Act no. 7 of 1904) was promulgated to provide effective
preservation and authority over the monuments particularly
those which were in the custody of individual for private
3815
ownership. The strength of the organization thereafter continued
to increase by addition of Archaeological Chemist and Deputy
Director General in 1917 and 1918. John Marshall relinquished
the post of Director General in 1928 succeeded by H.
Hargreaves and since thereafter this organization has continued
with credit of making several discoveries, explorations and
excavations of National and International repute. After the
country achieved its independence in 1947, the Act no. 31 of
1947 “The Antiquities Export Control Act, 1947” was enacted
to regulate export of antiques through Director General, ASI.
Under the constitution which the people of India gave to
themselves on 26.1.1950, the Archaeology was given due
importance which is reflected from Entry 67 of List 1 ; Entry 12
of List 2 and Entry 40 of List 3 Seventh Schedule which read as
under :
List-1
“67. Ancient and historical monuments and records, and
archaeological sites and remains, declared by or under law
made by Parliament to be of national importance.”
List-2
“12. Libraries, museums and other similar institutions
controlled or financed by the State; ancient and historical
monuments and records other than those declared by or
under law made by Parliament to be of national
importance.”
List-3
“40. Archaeological sites and remains other than those
declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of
national importance.”
3816
3787. The Government of India also enacted “The Ancient
and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act” in 1951
(Act no. LXXI of 1951). All the protected ancient monuments
already notified under Act no. VII of 1904 were redeclared as
monuments and archaeological sites of national importance
under Act no. LXXI of 1951. Another 450 monuments and sites
of part B States were also added. Some more monuments and
archaeological sites were also declared as of national
importance under Section 126 of the States Reorganization Act
1956.
3788. Later on some more enactments came into existence,
i.e., Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains
Act, 1958 and Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The
former repealed Act no. LXXI of 1951 and the later repealed
Act no. XXXI of 1947. Under the aforesaid legislations ASI and
its Director General and other Authorities have been entrusted
several statutory duties/obligations and powers besides the
power of granting license for private individuals (natural or
juristic) to undertake excavation work in the country.
3789. The above discussion beyond doubt shows that ASI
is an organization under the Government of India and satisfies
all the requisites to be termed as a “Department of the Central
Government”. Admittedly it is working under the Ministry of
Culture and Human Resources. By all means ASI therefore,
represents the Government of India being a Department thereof
and in law, can be presumed to be an expert body of the
Government on the subject.
3790. The disputed site or the disputed building was not
3817
notified/declared as a Protected or Preserved Monument under
the above enactments and the learned counsel for the parties
neither could dispute it nor could show otherwise.
3791. Sri P.R. Ganpati Ayer, senior Advocate referring to
the Act of 1904 and 1958 submitted that ASI and its officers
including the Director General are part and parcel of the
Government of India and a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution of India. No substantial objection thereto
could be raised by other learned counsels also. In view of
discussion made above, we find substance in it.
3792. Now back to the objections, the substantive
objections to the very credibility of ASI report and its
functioning are by the plaintiffs (Suit 4) and defendant no. 5
(Suit 5). These objections were considered by this Court but
vide order dated 3.2.2005. It held that objections can suitably be
considered and appreciated after giving liberty to the parties to
adduce relevant evidence and thereafter decide at the time of
hearing.
3793. We propose to refer ASI report as well as the
objections of the parties aforementioned and the relevant
evidence (favour and against) in order to appreciate the
genuineness thereof and to decide whether ASI report can be
relied upon as an evidence wholly or partly in consideration of
the aforesaid issues which are of prime importance to both the
sides.
3794. The first allegation is that the ASI has prepared its
report with prejudiced mind and one-sided presentation of
evidence. It is under the pressure of the then BJP Government at
the Centre (para-1 of the objection of plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4). The
3818
rest of the objections are under the headings "Archaeological
evidence of 'massive structure'"; "The pillar bases are real and
no myth as alleged"; "The alleged circular shrine"; "The Divine
Couple and other architectural Members"; "Inadequacies of the
stratigraphy"; "Terracotta figurines—Relevance of"; "Glazed
wares and Glazed Tiles "Pottery"; "Bones"; "inscriptions"; and
lastly "Other contradictions and discrepancies". We shall
reproduce details at the relevant stage.
3795. In the objections filed by defendant no.5 (Suit-5)
great stress has been laid on who wrote Chapter X. Para 2
thereof shows that he has proceeded by assuming that the
disputed structure “indisputably” was raised in 1528 though the
record shows that this fact itself is an issue and has to be
adjudicated upon by this Court. Therefore, the question that it is
an “indisputable fact” does not arise. About the identity of
figurines and artefacts, defendant no.5 (Suit-5) says that they are
not confined to only Hindus but Ayodhya was also an important
religious centre for Muslims known as “Khurd Mecca” having
graves of two sons of Adam i.e., Ayyub and Sheesh and also
that of Buddhist, Jains and Shaivites. The terracotta, human and
animal figurines are used and played by children of all
irrespective of religious inclination, particularly during festivals
like Diwali etc. but ASI has ignored this aspect. The divinity to
any such figurine would not come unless there is deification by
observing prescribed rituals i.e., Pran Pratishtha. Rest of the
objections are basically in line with what has been said by
plaintiff no.1 (Suit-5). Similar is the position to the objections
filed on behalf of plaintiff no.9 (Suit-4).
3796. One thing however is clear. Though the report of
3819
ASI on certain aspects including technical has been criticized by
the Experts of Muslim parties but in general, what emerges,
some undisputed facts, i.e. admission on the part of the objectors
on many aspects, which are :
(i) A lot of structural and construction acitivities
existed at the disputed site going back to the level of
Shunga and Kushan period.
(ii) The exact number of floors, pillar bases and walls
noted by ASI though objected but the very existence of
several floors, walls, and pillar bases beneath the disputed
stricture is not disputed.
(iii) The structure below the disputed structure sought to
be explained as Kanati mosque or Idgah. There is no
suggestion that the structure below the disputed building
was of non-religious nature.
(iv) Some of the constructions or artefacts are sought to
relate to Jains or Buddhist but here also it is not the case
that it was Islamic in nature or non religious.
(v) Though allegations of lack of independence in
professional style etc. is sought to be supported from the
alleged misinterpretation or wrong interpretation or
omission or contradictions and discrepancies in some part
of the report but no one of ASI team, individual or group
has been named or shown to have worked in a manner
lacking integrity, independence etc. (except where two
nominees of Muslim side i.e. Dr. Jaya Menon (PW 29)
and Dr. Supriya Verma (PW 32) reported creation of pillar
bases in Trench G2 vide complaints dated 21.5.2003 and
7.6.2003).
3820
3797. 28 witnesses, i.e., PW 1 to 28 on behalf of plaintiffs
(Suit-4) were examined between 24.07.1996 to 14.05.2005. The
rest of four witnesses, i.e., PW 29 to 32 were examined between
28.09.2005 to 27.03.2006, i.e., against ASI report. Two
witnesses were examined again i.e. PW 16 from 20.03.2006 to
28.07.2006 and PW 24 from 05.12.2005 to 04.01.2006 i.e. after
ASI report. Similarly, on behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-5) 16
witnesses, i.e., OPW 1 to 16 were examined between 22.11.1999
to 21.07.2003. After the submission of ASI report three
witnesses, i.e., OPW 17 to 19 were examined between
17.08.2006 to 05.12.2006. Defendant no. 1 (Suit-4) got all his
three witnesses, i.e., DW 1/1 to 1/3 examined from 22.07.2003
to 21.08.2003 and did not produce any oral evidence after ASI
report. Plaintiff (Suit-3) got his 20 witnesses, i.e., DW 3/1 to
3/20 examined from 29.08.2003 to 30.11.2004 and he also did
not produce any witness either in support or against ASI report.
Defendant no. 2/1 (Suit-4) got three witnesses, i.e., DW 2/1-1 to
DW 2/1-3 examined from 01.12.2004 to 09.03.2005 and none
was in respect to ASI report. DW 13/1 (Suit-4) got examined
three witnesses, i.e., DW 13/1-1 to 13/1-3 from 10.03.2005 to
05.05.2005. Out of these three witnesses the statement of
Mahant Awadh Bihari Das Pathak, DW 13/1-2 remained
incomplete and, therefore, has to be excluded and cannot be
read in evidence. Similarly, defendant no. 17 (Suit-4) examined
sole witness DW 17/1 from 09.05.2005 to 17.05.2005;
defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) got examined four witnesses, i.e., DW
20/1 to 20/4 from 25.05.2005 to 23.11.2005. Its fifth witness
DW 20/5, Jayanti Prasad Srivastava deposed statement to
support ASI report and was examined from 15.01.2007 to
3821
23.03.2007. Defendant no. 6/1 (Suit-3) produced two witnesses,
i.e., DW 6/1-1 and 6/1-2 who were examined from 29.08.2005
to 29.09.2005.
3798. Thus plaintiffs (Suit-4) produced eight witnesses
called 'experts' (Archaeologist) to assail ASI proceedings,
observations interpretations and findings. Similarly, plaintiffs
(Suit 5) produced three witnesses, and defendant no.20
produced one witness in support of ASI report.
3799. We would refer hereat first that part of statements of
the plaintiffs (Suit-4)'s Experts where they have concurred with
ASI report and will find out the extent of consensus:
(a) PW 16, Surajbhan
- º| · l·- - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ¬i ¬i¬i ¤·i · l¬¤ ¬i· ·i¬|
¤|¬ ·i|, ·r ¤r ·i| l¬ ¬· ri · «i «º| -l -¬· ¬ ·| ¤ ¬;
·| ·i º , ¤ºi ¬i º ¬ s l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ªi i ¬ l ·¬i ¬ r , ¤r
¬i ·¤ r | (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“In my opinion, the ASI Report had a feature not amenable
to criticism. It was that they (the excavators) have
discovered many walls and floors and some pillar bases
beneath the Babri mosque, and all these constitute
evidence.” (E.T.C.)
«l~¬ -l-¬· ¬ ·|¤ ¬~n·n ¬i¬ ¬ ;-¬il-¬ «i ¤ r| ºr
·i | (¤ ¬ zc/)
“Rather, only the Islamic structures of the Sultanate period
were beneath the mosque.” (E.T.C.)
·i~¤¸ -÷· ¬ ¤ ¬÷«· ¤º ¤|lº¤·÷/ (-l··¬ ¬l«¬) ¬ ·|¤ ·¸ ¬º|
n|¬º| ¤l·n¤i - l¬ªi| n¤| «in ¤º ¬i·i| ¬i ·¤i· ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i n¤i|
¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ;¬ «i ¤ ¬i ·z·| ¬ ·c·| ¬·| ¬ «|¤ ºªi·i ¬r|
·r| r, «l~¬ ;¬¬i l·-i ºi ¬~n·n ¬i¬ - r| ·|·iº · o÷·/ ¬ «i ¤
¬ «i· l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬ «i ¤ ¬i l-l·l·¤¬ ¬r·i « i· ¬ ·¬ - ni
3822
-|¬ r , ¤º·n l-l·l·¤¬ ¬i¬ ¬ ·i| ¬; ¤ ¬ ¬ -i· ¬in r ¬iº
;¬l¬¤ - ;¬ «i ¤ ¬i ¬~n·n¬i ¬ ¬ «i · ¬ ¤i - -
ºªi ¸ ni |(¤ ¬ zs/)
“When the attention of the witness was drawn to second
and third lines below period-7 (medieval level) on page 41
of volume-1, he stated – It is not correct to place this
structure between the 12
th
century and the 16
th
century;
rather its construction followed the structure of wall no. 17
in the Sultanate period itself. To attribute this structure to
the medieval period is certainly correct in a broad sense;
but since the medieval period is also taken to have many
phases, I will place this structure in the later part of the
Sultanate period” (E.T.C.)
¤ ¬º¬ ¬º ¬«l¬l·¤º| ¬i; · ... ¤|nº z« · z« ¤ ¤º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i,
¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ¤r ¬r·i -|¬ r l¬ ¤ri ¬¬| ¬ -| ¬º¬ ¬º
¬i·-- ·ºi· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r ¬i r ¬i +¤º ;· - ¤¬ - «ni; n¤| r | -
« i·¬| ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i ¬¬| l-l··¬ ¬r·i ¬l¤n ¬-nni r ¸ ¬iº ¤r
« i ¤i ¬¬ ¬i ¬ - l -·i n ri · ¬ l ·ª, - º ¤i ¬ ¬i ; n¬
·r| r | (¤ ¬ zsr)
“When the attention of the witness was attracted to a
circular subsidiary shrine … Figures 24 and 24A, he stated
– It is correct to say that the semi-circular construction
which is mentioned here is same as stated above to be in
these trenches. Broadly speaking, I think it proper to call
this period early medieval period. I do not have any
arguments contradicting this structure being attributed
to that period.” (E.T.C.)
lº¤i - ¬| ·¬ - ¬ o rs · co ¬i l·ªii¤ ¬i· ¤º ¬i·i| · «ni¤i
l¬ ¤r -- ·¤iº r¤ ¬ ¬i·i ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬-¤ l-¬ r ¤ ¬º¬ ¬º
¬i ; · ¬i ;·¬| -¸ ¤i -i n i ¤ r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ·¬ - ¬ o
3823
co - ·i·i ¬ilº¤·- ºi· - ¤¬ ·i¬| l·ªii¤| · ºr| r ¤r
¬i · -- ·ºi · ;-¬i l -¬ ¬i ¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ¬i r (¤ ¬ «sz)
“On being shown plate nos. 59 & 60 of the report, the
witness stated that it was the in-situ photograph of the
circular shrine found along with structure 5A at time of
excavation. It is correct to say that a drain is visible in
north orientation of plate no.60. This construction is prior
to the Islamic period.” (E.T.C.)
l¬¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬| ; - ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i c/ - ·¬º ¬i ºr| r , ¬¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬|
; -i ¬i - · ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ·r| · ªii ·ii| ¬-ªi··¬ni ;·
; -i ¬i ¬~n·n¬i¬ - ºªi ºr r , - n ;¬- ¬i ; ¬i¤l-n ·r| r |
(¤ ¬ zss)
“I had at the excavation site of Ayodhya seen such bricks
as are seen in plate no.67. The excavators have placed
these bricks in the Sultanate period to which I do not have
any objection.” (E.T.C.)
·i ¬ · o÷·c - ¤¬ · ¬i º - · l « ¬ º| ÷¤¸ ¬ ¬| n; r |
;¬ ¤ ¬i º ¬| · ¬i º - · ; - n · n¬i ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬º ¬~n·n
¤| l º¤· ¬ ¤r¬ n¬ «·n| ºr| r | ·¬ - ¬ o÷zs - ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| ·|·iº ;·¬|-¸ r | ¬« - · ;¬ · ªii ·ii, n« ºii¤· ¤r - ¤ ¬n·in
¤¬ -|-º nrºi; n¬ ªii ·| ¬i ¤ ¬| ·i|| (¤ ¬ sss)
“One decorated brick has been re-used in wall no.16.
Such decorated stones were built from the Gupta period
to the Sultanate period. The wall visible in plate no. 29 is
in-situ. By the time I saw it, this trench had probably been
dug about one metre deep.” (E.T.C.)
¬- nº ¬| nº¤ ¬ s l ¤¬º« ¬ ¬ ¬r| -i ¬¸ - · n r , l ¬·
¤º -n- ·i ¬i l · ªi · ºr ri n ¬i º sn ·i | ºr| ri n| | (¤ ¬
so·)
“There appear to have been some actual pillar bases on
3824
the north on which pillars etc. may have been standing
and the roof may also have been based.” (E.T.C.)
·¬ - ¬ o÷«s ¬i l·ªii¤ ¬i· ¤º ¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ;¬ ·¬ -
- ¤¬ ni ¬ ¬i ¬ l n ¬i ¬i ¬- ·ºi · ·¬º ¬i ºri r , l¬¬
¬-ªi··¬ni · l ¤¬º« ¬ ¬ri r | ¤ºi ¬ri ¤º -¸ -| r ; r ,
¬¬- ¤r ¬i·¬- ·ºi· l-·in r | ;¬ ·¬ - - ¬i ¤ ºi ·¬º ¬i ºr| r,
¬¬¬| -i -i; z÷s ¬ -|o ºr| ri n|| (¤ ¬ ss/)
“On being shown Plate No.-48, the witness stated that a
round shaped construction is visible in this plate, which
has been termed as pillar base by the excavator. This
construction is situated on the floor where it is broken.
Thickness of the the floor visible in this plate might be 2-3
cm.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¤ ·l’i n l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ - ¤¬i ;·- - ni
l ·ªi i ; · ni r , ¤º· n l ¤º ·i | ;·- ¬· nº ni r r| ¬iº
lº¤i - - ·i| ¤r| l¬ªii n¤i r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ¤r l¬ªii
r ¬i r l¬ ¬| o¤| o¬i ºo ¬· - ¤i ; n; ¬ s ¤·i -¬| ¬ ¬
-·i i · ¤º ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ¬ s l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¤i ¤ n¤ ·i ,
¤º·n ¬n·in ·so ¬i ;· -| ¤i ; · ¤·i -¬| ¬ - ¬ ¬ ·¬ «o ¬
¬º| « -- ·¤¬ ¬i ·i i l n¬ ª¤ - ªi i ¬i n¤i ·i i , ;¬ ¤ ¬iº
¬i ¬~¬ ªi lº¤i - - l¬¤i n¤i r | ¬ s n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ ·’i·¬
- ·i| · ªi ¬i ¬¬n r | ¬i l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ ·’i · ¬ - l -¬ r ,
¬·- ¬ ¬ s ¬i - · · ªi i r | (¤ ¬ «c«)
“Alignment is visible in pillar bases shown by ASI,
however, the difference is there and the same has been
written in the report. It has been mentioned in the ASI
report that the ASI had found few pillar bases instead of
the few anomalies found in GPR survey. The report
contains reference to the effect that out of approximately
180 identified anomalies, only about 40 structures had
been physically traced out. The sections of few alleged
3825
pillar bases can also be seen. Out of the pillar bases
sections found, I have seen few.” (E.T.C.)
¬i n·ii¬l·in ro l ¤¬º « ¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · l ·ªi i ¤ r ,
· ¤¬ r| ¤ ’i ¤º ·r| r ¬i º · ¤¬ r| ¬i ¬ ¬
¬- «l · ·i n r | (¤ ¬ «cr)
“The alleged 50 pillar bases shown by ASI, are not on
the same floor and are also not related to the same
period.” (E.T.C.)
¬-nº ¬| nº¤ -l-¬· ¬| «i¬·· | ¬ ¬i ¬ º· --i · ¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤
r ¤ -- ·¤¬ r , · l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ l·ªii; · n r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · -·¤ ·i|
¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ·z ¬ ¬º| « l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ -¤· -,
ªi i · n¤ r | (¤ ¬ «c/)
“The sand stone structures in north from the boundary of
the mosque, appear to be pillar bases. The ASI has also
mentioned in its report that it had clearly dug out about 12
pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - ÷ · ¬ ¤|nº s÷¤ - , ¤|o«|.·, ¤|o«|o÷s,
¤|o«|or, ¤|o«|o÷c, ¤|o«|o÷/, ¤|«|o÷s, ¤|o«|o÷s, ¤|.«|. ·s ¬i º ·«
l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ -i¬¸ - · n r , (¤ ¬ «cs)
“P.B.-1, P.B.-3, P.B.-5, P.B.-6, P.B.-7, P.B.-8, P.B.-9, P.B.-
13 & P.B.-14 of figure 3-A of ASI report Vol.-1, appear to
be pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)
¬i·i| ¬i ·¤i· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ -÷z ¬ ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i s/,ss, ·
«c ¤º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i, ¬i·i| · ;· ·¬ -i ¬i ¤ ’· l¬¤ ¬i· ¤º «ni¤i
l¬ ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¤r ¬i-- ·’i· l¬·r l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ri n¤i r ,
¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º ;·÷¬| -¸ l·ªii¤| · ºr r | - º| · l · - - · ¬ -
¬ ª¤i s/ ¬ l ¤¬º « ¬ · o · · r n·i i · ¬ - ¬ ª¤i ss ¬
l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ª¤i · - n l º¬ · l «¬| l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ -i ¬¸ - · n
r |” (¤ ¬ «/·)
“The attention of the witness was drawn towards plate nos.
37, 38 and 46 of ASI’s report Vol. II and on being
3826
questioned about these plates, the witness stated that it is
true that these constructions, which have been termed
pillar bases, are visible in- situ at the excavation site. The
pillar base nos. 1 & 5 of plate no.37 and the pillar base
no.1 of plate no.38, reasonably appear pillar bases to
me.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ·i¬ · o ·c ¬ -- ·¤º ¬ ¬«¬ +¤º ·i¬ ¤ºi ¤º ro
l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ «ni ºr| r | ¤r ¤ i¤º ;¬-- ºi· ,iºi ¤ ·lºi n l¬¤i ¬i·i
¤ilr¤, n·i| ¬·¬| ¬ ª¤i ¬i º ;·¬i ¤ºii ¬ ¬ « ·i -¤·- ri ¤i¤ ni|
(¤ ¬ «/s)
“The ASI is giving 50 pillar bases on the top floor of the
structure of wall no.16. It should have been shown by
proper illustration and it is only thereafter that the
relationship between their number and floors would be
established.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ·|·iº · o÷·c ¬ ¤i¬ ·ºi· - n·ii ¬ s +¤º ·i|
lº¤¸ ·· - -|lº¤¬ l-¬i r ¬i ¬¬| - ·| l ·¤¬ -i ;- ¬i ri ·i
-i ¬¸ - ri ni r , ¤º·n ¤r n¤ ·r| ri ¬ini l¬ ¬¬¬ -|¬ ·|¤ ¬i ;
-l··º ·ii, l¬¬ ni · ¬º ¤ ¤-·iº ¬il· ¬ ¬·ºi·i ·|·iº · o÷·c -
;-n -i¬ l¬¤ n¤| (¤ ¬ ss·)
“It is true that the reused material found in the foundation
of wall no. 16 as well as slightly above it, appears to be of
early medieval period but that does not go on to establish
that immediately below it lay any temple, which was
demolished and its remains like stone etc. were used in wall
no.16.” (E.T.C.)
·| ·i º · o÷·c, «i «º ¬| «·i ; r ; ·r| r , ¤º· n ¬¬-
¬i -¬~¤¤· --i · ¬n r , · l ·l º¤n ª¤ ¬ ¤ ºi · «i ¤i
- ;-n -i ¬ r ¤ ¤- ·i º r ¬i º ¬· ¬·i| ¬i¬i - ¬ri «i ¤i ¬i ·;
¬i-n | ¬ «·i· ¬| ¬il·i ¬ ·i-ni ¬i ¬·ii· ·ii ¤i ¬¬ l¬-- ¬
3827
-·il-¬ ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬·ii· ·ii, ·ri ¬i ·i| ¬¤¬··i - -|lº¤¬ ¬i¬i·| ¬ ¬iº
¬- ªi¤ ¬ l-¬ ¬ini ·ii, ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i ¬ini ·ii| (¤ ¬ ss·)
“The wall no. 16 has not been built by Babar however,
the sculptured stones used in it, are certainly the stones
used in old structures. During those periods where there
was lack of either financial means to build structures with
new materials or aesthetic sense of that kind, all such
materials were used, which were easily available at low
cost.” (E.T.C.)
·¬ - ¬ o÷ss ¬i · ªi· ¬ «i· ¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ;¬ ·¬ - - ·¬ º
¬i ºr ·iin ¬i - · -i ¬ ¤º · ªi i ·i i | ;¬ · ¬ - - ·i ¬ ÷·c
·¬º ¬i ºr| r | ;¬ ·¬ - ¬i · ªi· ¬ ¤r ¤ni ¤¬ni r l¬ ·i ¬
· o÷c, ·i ¬÷·c ¬ +¤º ¬i ºr| r ¬i º ;¬l¬¤ «i· - «·|
·i|| (¤ ¬ ssr)
“After looking at plate no.33, the witness stated that the
portion visible in this plate had been seen by me on the
spot. The wall 16 is visible in this plate. On looking at this
plate it appears that the wall no.6 was moving above the
wall 16 and as such had been built subsequently . (E.T.C.)
·i ¬ · o ·c ¬ ·| ¤ ¬i ¤i ºi · · ¬i --· r | ;¬¬ -¤· -
ri ni r l ¬ ¤r l ¬¬| ·i ·· ¬| ·| ·i º r | ·i¬ · o ·c ¬i ·i¬
· o r ¬ ¬i·iiº ¬ ª¤ - ;-n -i¬ l¬¤i n¤i r | ·i¬ · o r ¬i ¤lº¤-
¬| nº¤ -·n ¤ ·| · ·i| ¤i- ¬| ºr| r n·ii ¬ s - ·¤ ¬ - ·i¬ · o ·c
·i¬ · o r ¬i ¬i·iiº l·ªii¤| n¤| r | (¤ ¬ «//)
“The portion beneath wall no.16 is plastered. It shows
that it is the wall of some building. The wall no. 16 has
been used as foundation of wall no.5. There was a partly
independent foundation of wall no. 5 towards west and in
some of the trenches, the wall no.16 appears as foundation
of wall no. 5.” (E.T.C.)
3828
·¬ - ¬ o zr ¬i l·ªii¤ ¬i· ¤º ¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ¤r ·i¬ · o ·c
¬i ¬··º ¬i ¤i -i n i¤ r | ;¬- l« ·¬ ¬ ·/ ¬i ¬ ¬ l·ªii¤| · ºr r
¬iº ;· ; -i ¬ ·|¤ ¤-·iº ¬ -¬ ·¬ ·| · - l·ªii¤| · ºr r | ¤r
¤-·iº ¬ -¬ ·¬ ;¬ ·|·iº ¬| ·| · ¬ ª¤ - r | (¤ ¬ «/s)
“On being shown plate no.25, the witness stated that it is
the photograph of inside of wall no.16. Seventeen courses
of bricks are visible in it and stone slabs are also visible
beneath these bricks in the foundation. These stone slabs
are in form of foundation of this wall.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ·i ¬ · o or ·i ¬ · o ·c ¤º º -- ¬º
ºr| r | (¤ ¬ «//)
“It is correct to say that wall no. 05 is on rest against wall
no.16.” (E.T.C.)
-i ¬ ¤º ·i¬ · o÷·c ¬iº ·i¬ · o÷·/ ¬i - · · ªii ·ii| ·i¬ · o÷·/
¬-nº÷·l·iºi l·ºii - -i - ni º ¤º ro -|-º ¬ ¬n·in ¬-«| «ni; n;
r | ·i¬ · o÷·c ·i| ¬n·in ;n·| r| ¬-«| «ni; n; r | ¤ ·i ·i ·i¬
·ii · ¬ l·l·¤ºi· ¬i si · ¬º ¬n·in ¤¬ r| ¤¬i;·- - - +¤º ÷ ·|¤
¤¬ ºr| r |(¤ ¬ soz÷sos)
“ On the site I saw wall no.16 and wall no.17. From the
north to the south wall no.17 is roughly stated to be nearly
50 metres in length. Wall no.16 is also stated to have nearly
the same length. Except for certain deviations these two
walls are in up and down positions nearly in the same
alignment.” (E.T.C.)
- · ·i ¬ · o÷ zs ¬ni ¤n ·i ¬ · o÷z/ ¬| ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¬
¬- «· ·i - -·¤ ¬i ; l º¬¤ ¤i ¬·¤¤· ·r| l ¬¤i r | ;·
·| ·i ºi ¬| ¬i ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¤o¤¬o¬i ; ,i ºi ¬| n; r ,
¬¬- - n¬i l ¬¬| ¤ ¬i º ¬| ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r| r | (¤ ¬
«/c)
“I have not carried out any research or study on my own
regarding the period calculation of wall nos.23 to 27. I
3829
have no objection on the period calculation of these
walls, as made by ASI.” (E.T.C. )
·i ¬ · o÷·c ¬ +¤º «i «º| -l -¬· ¬| ¤l º¤-| ·| ·i º ·i | |
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ;¬ ·i ¬ · o ÷ r ¬ri n¤i r ·|·iº
¬| ¬i ¬ ª¤i ¤o¤¬o¬i; ,iºi ·i¬| n; r , ¬ - ¬¬r-n ·r|
r¸ | (¤ ¬ sss)
“The western wall of the Babri mosque lay above the
wall no. 16. It has been termed as wall no. 5 in the ASI
report but I do not agree with the number assigned to the
wall by the ASI.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - · ¬ ¤|nº ¤iº (¤ ·- r· «|) · ªi¬º
«ni¤i l¬ l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¬ ·l ·i ºi | ·i i n - ¤¬ ¤ i ¬· · ºi ·
·i ¬ l -¬| r ¬i l ¬¬| ri ¬ ¬| l ·ªi i ¤| · ºr| r | ;¬¬|
¬-«i; c.·r -|-º ri ¬¬n| r ¤º·n ;¬¬| ¤i ·i; ;¬ ¬-¤ -i¬¸ - ·r|
r | ¬ ¬º|- ·¬i¬¬ ¬ ·i ¬i ¬ ¬ ·¬º ¬i ºr r | ;¬ ¤ |nº - ¬i
¬i ¬ ¬ ·¬ º ¬i ºr r ·i -i ¬ ¤º ¬ ¬º|- --i · ¬ ·i | (¤ ¬ sso)
“After looking at figure-4 (page-51B) of ASI’s report vol.-1,
(the witness) stated that a foundation wall was found in
south of the disputed site, which appears to be of some
hall. Its length may be 6.15 metres but its breadth is not
known presently. Two courses of concrete blocks are
visible. The courses which appear in this figure, are of
concrete stone at the spot.” (E.T.C.)
·i ¬ · o ÷· ¬ni ¤n ·r l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬ ¬ri n ¬|
·| ·i º r | ·i¬ · o÷·c ¬-nº ¬ ·l·iºi ¬-«i; - r n·ii ¬n·in ro
-|-º ¬-«| r | ;¬¬| ¤i ·i; ¬ ·i¬· ·.// -|-º r | ;¬| ¬ ¬i-i·i·nº
·i¬ · o ÷·/ r, ¤r ·i| ¬n·in ¬¬| ¬-«i; ¬| r , l¬¬ ¬-«i; ¬|
·i¬ · o ·c r | ·i¬ · o ·/ - ·l·iºi ¬| nº¤ ¤lº¤- l·ºii - -¬i;-
· l·¤ºi· r , ¬ ¬i l¬ ¬-nº - ¤r · l·¤ºi· ¤¸ º« ¬| ¬iº r | ·i ¬ · o
·c «i «º| -l -¬· ¬ l ·-i ºi ¬ ¤r¬ ¬ ·i ·· ¬| ·| ·i º
r | ¤r ·| ·i º, «i «º| -l -¬· ¬| ¤l º¤-| ·| ·i º ¬ ·| ¤
3830
l -·i n r | . . . ·i ¬ · o÷·s¤ , ·s«| , ·s ¬| n·i i ·s·| ÷
·i ¬ · o÷·c ¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬| r n·i i ¤¬ r| «i ¤ ¬| ·| ·i º
-i ¬¸ - · n| r | ·i¬ · o ÷ ·s «|, -- ·¤º ÷r, l¬¬ ¬¬ ¬º ¬i;·
¬ri n¤i r , ¬ ¤lº¤- - r ¬iº ·i¬ · o ÷ ·s¤, ¬¬¬ ¤¸ · - l-·in
r | ·i¬ · o÷zo -- ·¤º · o÷r ¬ ¤¸ · - ·ºii ; n; r | - n ;¬ «i n
¤º ¬i ; l ··i · ·r| r l ¬ ·i ¬ · o÷zo, ·i ¬ · o÷·s¤ ¬|
¤i ¬º· ºi · ·i ¬ ¬ ª¤ - ¤ ¤ ·n r ; ri n| | ·i¬ · o z·
¬¬ ¬º ¬i;· ¬ ¬-nº ¤¸ · l·ºii - l·ªii; n¤| r | ¤|nº÷s¤ - ºii¤·
·i¬ · o z· · « ·i -|-º ¬-«| l·ªii; n; r | (¤ ¬ «/r÷«/c)
“Wall nos. 1 to 15 are walls of the courtyard of the
disputed structure. The wall no.16 runs from north to
south and is about 50 meters long. Its breadth is
approximately 1.77 meters. The wall no.17 runs parallel to
it and is of almost the same length as that of wall no.16.
The is slight deviation towards west in south of wall no.17,
which deviation is eastwards in the north. The wall no.16
is a construction prior to the construction of Babri
mosque. This wall is situated beneath the western wall of
the Babri mosque. … The wall nos. 18A, 18B, 18C &
18D are of the period of wall no.16 and appear to be
walls of the same structure. The wall no. 19B is to the
west of structure-5, which has been stated termed circular
shrine, and the wall no. 19A is situated in its east. The wall
no.20 has been shown in east of structure no.5. I do not
dispute that wall no.20 may have been used as
foundation wall of wall no.19A. The wall no.21 has been
shown in north-east of the circular shrine. The wall no. 21
has possibly been shown about 1½-2 meters longer in
figure 3A.” (E.T.C.)
.·i¬ · o÷zs ¬ ·¬ ¬ilºi¬ ª¤ - r| l·ªii; · ºr| r , ¬-·i·n ¤r
3831
¬-nº÷·l·iºi - ºr| ri n|| ·i ¬ · o÷zr ¤¸ º« ¬| nº¤
¬- nº÷·l ·i ºi l ·ºi i - r | ¤r ·|·iº, - ¤ ¬ ÷c - r | - ¬¬--in
l«·i ¬···i ¬i ¬i· r ¤ ¤r ·r| «ni ¬¬ni l¬ ·i¬ · o÷zr n ·n¬i¬
¬| r , ¤º·n - n ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ;¬ n · n¬i ¬ ¬| «ni ·
¤º ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·i | ·r| r | ·i ¬ · o zc ·i| ·i¬ · o÷zr ¬
¤r¬ ¬| r ¤i ·r| , ¤r ;¬ ¤|nº -i¤ ¬i · ªi· ¬ -¤·- ·r| r,
¬l¬· ¤ ¬i ¬- ·i · r l ¬ ¤r ·| ·i º ·i ¬ · o÷zr ¬
¤¸ · ¬i l ¬¬ ri , ·¤i l ¬ - · ·ri ¤º - ¤ - ¬¬| ¤º ¤| l º¤·
¬| ·| ·i º · ªi | ·i | | ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ;¬ ¬ · i i ºi ¤| l º¤·
- ºªi i n¤i r , ni - n ;¬- ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r| r | (¤ ¬
«/c)
“Wall no. 23 is visible only partially. Probably it may have
been in north-south. The wall no. 25 is eastwards in
north-south direction. This wall is in trench J-6. I can not
tell at the spur of moment without knowing the context, as
to whether the wall no. 25 is of the Gupta period. However,
I do not have any objection in ASI terming it to be of the
Gupta period. Whether the wall no.26 is older than wall
no.25 or not, is not clear only from perusal of this figure.
However, it is possible that this wall is earlier to wall
no.25, because I had seen wall of earlier period over
there in the trench. ASI has shown it to be of Kushana
period, and I have no objection in it.” (E.T.C.)
·i ¬ · o÷zs - ¤ ¬ o÷s - r | ¤r ¬ ¬ | - --i · ·i ¬
ºi n ¤| l º¤· ¬| r , ¤ ¬i l º¤i - - l ¬ªi i r ¬i r | ;¬
¤ ¬i º ¬| ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¬ - n ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r| r | (¤ ¬
«//)
“The wall no.28 is in trench J-3. It is so mentioned in
the report that this concrete stone wall is of the Shunga
period. I have no objection about such period
calculation.” (E.T.C.)
3832
lº¤i - ¬ r| · ¬ - ¬ o·z/ ¬i · ªi¬º «ni¤i l¬ ;¬ ·¬ - ¬
¤i -i n i¤ - ¤¬ ¤¬| r ; l-- -| ¬| ri ·i | ¬| -¸ -| r ; ¬i ¬ l n
·¬º ¬i ºr| r | ·l·¬ ·i- - ri·i| ; · ¬i ·ir· ·ii ¤º·n lr··¸
·i- - « r -i, l··ºi , -r ºi n|·i ¤ - ªi · ·ni¬i ¬ ri·i| ¬i ¬ « ·i ·r| r
l¤º ·i| lr··¸ ·i- ¤¬ l·ºi- ·i- r ¬iº ;¬¬| l·l··i ºiiªii¤ r ¬iº
;¬¬i «·i l·¬i¬ r ¬i r ni ¬r| · ¬r| l¬¬| · l¬¬| ¬- ·i¤ -
¬i ; ¤ºi ¤i ·ii ¬il· -r-·¤¸ ºi ·iil- ¬ l¤·r ¬ ª¤ - -i ¬¸ · ri ¬¬n r
¤r - ºi ¬i -i ·i | «i «º| -l -¬· ¬ ¤¸ · ·n| ¬~n·n¬i ¬ ¬
«i ¤i ¬ ¬- «l · ·i n ·r| r | (¤ ¬ sos÷s·o)
“Looking at plate no.127 only of the report, the witness
stated – A broken figure of elephant made of baked soil
is visible in the photograph of this plate. In the Vedic
religion, elephant was a vehicle of Indra; but in Hinduism,
three main deities – Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh – are not
associated with elephant. Nevertheless, Hinduism is a vast
religion and it has various branches, and as it has
developed considerably, animals, plants etc. may be found
as important religious emblems somewhere or the other or
in some community or the other. This terracotta is not
associated with the structures of the Sultanate period
prior to the Babri masjid.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l ¬ l r· ·¸ ·i - ¬ ¬ « l · i n ¬· ¬ ¬·ºi · i
¬¤i · ¤i ¬ l ·ºi · i -nºi ¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ¤ i · n r ¤ r | ( ¤ ¬
s·o)
“ It is correct to say that several remains associated with
Hinduism have been discovered from the excavations of
particular strata of Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
l ¬n·i ·i | ¬- ªi ··¬ni ¬i · l ·ªi i ¤i r , ·r
l ·l ’¤n ª¤ ¬ ¬- ªi ·· - r| -i ¬¸ · ·i i | ¬·i i n ¬n·i
¤i ’i · ;·÷¬| ÷-¸ -i ¬¸ - · ni r | ( ¤ ¬ «/·)
“Whatever has been shown by the excavators, was
3833
definitely present in the excavation i.e. that portion
appears to be in-situ.” (E.T.C.)
-l · ·º ¬ «i º - ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · l ¬· ¬·ºi · i i ¬i ¬¤·|
l º¤i - - «ni ¤i r , ¬·¬ - ;¬ ª¤ - ¬; ¬nr ¬r-n
r¸ l ¬ · ¬·ºi · i l ¬¬| -l · ·º ¬ ºr ri n | ( ¤ ¬ ss/)
“I agree with the report of ASI about the remains of
temple, to the extent that these remains may have been
of some temple” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ¤r «ni¤i n¤i r l¬ · ··inº| l¬l¤ ¬i ¤¬
;l-¬ ·ºi· ªi ·i; ¬ ·i ºi· l-¬i ·ii| ¬ri ¤º ¬i ·i - r ¤· i ·ii|
(¤ ¬ sss)
“It has been mentioned in ASI’s report that an inscription
in Devnagari script was found during excavation, where it
was lying upside down.” (E.T.C.)
¬i ·i - r ¤· r ¤ lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬i ¤i -i n i¤ - ¤ ¬ ¬··º ¬ r| l¬¤i
n¤i ri ni| ¬i·i - r ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬| l¬ªii·-
·|¤ ¬| nº¤ ·i| n·ii ·r ·iin l¬¬ ¤º ·r| l¬ªii ·ii, ·r +¤º ¬|
nº¤ ·ii| l¬¬ ¬-¤ - - ·¤ ¬ ¬··º n¤i ·ii, ¬¬ ¬-¤ lºi¬i¬ ªi
·|¤ ¬| nº¤ ·i|| - · ¬ ·¬ ;¬ ¤-·iº ¬i · º|¤i; ¬º· ¬| ¬ilºiºi
¬| ·i| l¬ ;¬ ¤º ¬ s l¬ªii r ¬·i·i ·r| | (¤ ¬ sss)
“The photograph of the inscription lying upside down,
must have been taken inside the trench. By ‘upside down’ I
mean that the writing of the inscription was towards the
lower part and the unwritten part was upwards. When I
entered the trench, the inscription was facing the lower
side. I had only tried to verify whether anything had been
inscribed over this stone or not.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬i;- -i- º ¬i ¤ ¤i n ·i· ¬ ¤º| ¤o·|o -
n·ilºi¬i ¬iº ¤il¬-ni· - ri ·i ¬ ·iiºi¬i¬ - ¤i¤i n¤i r ¤º·n ¤r
«r n ¬|l-n -i¤i - ·ii| (¤ ¬ s«·)
“It is correct to say that lime mortar was found to have
3834
been used in the 3
rd
century AD during the Kushana period
in Takshshila and Pakistan, but its use was very limited.”
(E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ -÷z ¬| ·¬ - · o÷zz · zs · ªi¬º «ni¤i l¬
·i ·i ¤i -i n i¤ ¬ - · ¬iº - · --i · lº¤¸ ¬ l¬¤i n¤i l·ªii; · ºri
r | ¤r ¤i¬º· ºi· ¬ ¬¤º| ·iin - ·i¬÷r - lº¤¸ ¬ l¬¤i n¤i r | ·¬ -
¬ o ÷zz - ·¬i--º ·¬ º ¬i ºri r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ;¬¬i ·i -
-¬º ¤ ºi i ¬| l ·¤ ¬i · - - n ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r| r | ;¬|
lº¤i - ¬| ·¬ - ¬ o÷z« ¬i l·ªii¤ ¬i· ¤º ¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ;¬
·¬ - - ¤- ·i º ¬| ·| ·i º, ¬i ·| ·i º · o÷r ¬ ¬- «l · ·i n r ,
; -i ¬| ·| ·i º · o÷ ·c ¬ +¤º ¬i n| l ·ªi i ; · ºr|
r |(¤ ¬ ssz)
“After looking at plate nos. 22 & 23 of ASI report Vol.-2,
(the witness) stated that in both the photographs decorated
stones can be seen to have been re-used. They have been
used in the upper part of the foundation of wall-5. Plaster
is visible in plate no.-22. I have no objection in ASI
naming it as Makar system. On being shown plate no.-24
of said report, the witness stated that in this plate the stone
wall related to wall no.-5, can be seen going above the
stone wall no.-16.” (E.T.C.)
- · ;¬ - ¤ ¬i -i ¬ ¤º · ªii ·ii| ;¬ - ¤ - ·|¤ ¬| nº¤ ¤¬
· ¬iº - · º|÷¤¸ ·· --i · -¬ « ·¬ º ¬i ºri r | +¤º ¬ · ªi· ¤º ¤r
¤-·iº « ¬ - ¬i ·¬º ¬i ºri r | ;¬ ¤-·iº ¬i l·¬i¬¬º · ªi· ¬ «i·
r| «ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ¤r l¤¬º ¬i lr-¬i r ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ ss/)
“I had seen this trench at the spot. A re-used stone slab is
visible in this trench towards bottom. If seen from above
this stone appears like a bracket. Only after taking out this
stone, can it be said whether it is a part of the pillar or
not.” (E.T.C.)
3835
¤ o÷ «r n ¬ ¬il¬ - ·¤º¬ - -«º l¬·¬| l·¬i;· ¬¤ºi ·n ·¬ - ¬ o
sc n·ii s/ - ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , -- l¬¬ ¬- ·i¬| l·¬ i;· ¬ l-¬n|
¬ ¬n| ·i|, ·i¬÷·c - lº¤¸ ¬ l¬¤ r ¤ ¤i¤ n¤ ·i | ·¤i ¬i¤· ¬·¬i
· ªii ·ii`
¬o÷ ¬| ri | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ - · ¬·¬i · ªii ·ii ¬iº ¤ ¬ ¬ s
· ¬iº - · --i · -¬ ·¬, ·i¬ · o÷·c ¬| ¤i¬ · ºi· ·i¬ - ¬n ·i | ¤r
¬i ; «r n ·¤i·i l·ªii; ·r| · ºr ·i ¬i º ¤r ¬·i| ¬¬| l-·|l·¤¬
¤|lº¤· ¬ ·i ¬i º ¤r ·i| ¬·i| · ¬i º - · ¬il¬ - ·¤º¬ - -«º r , ¬i
¬¬| l -·| l ·¤¬ ¬i ¬ ¬| º¤·i r , ¤º· n ¬· r ¬~n·n¬i ¬
¬| ·i ¬ · o÷·c ¬| ¤i ¬ · ºi · ·i ¬ - l º¤¸ ¬ l ¬¤i n¤i
r | (¤ ¬ «z«÷«zr)
“Question- Many architectural members, whose designs
were appearing in aforesaid plate nos. 86 &87 and were
resembling the stencil cut design, were found to have been
re-used in wall-16. Did you see them?
Answer- Yes. It is correct that I had seen them and few such
decorated stone slabs were used in the foundation wall of
wall no.16. They were not much in number and were of
early medieval period. There are all decorated
architectural member, which are works of early medieval
period, but have been re-used in the foundation wall of
wall no.16 of the Sultanate period.” (E.T.C.)
“¤o¤¬o¬i; o · l¬·¬ ¤|lº¤· ¬i ···| · ·z·| ¬·| - ºªii| - n ¤o
¤¬o ¬i; o ,iºi I ¬ V ¬| ¬i ¬ ¬ - ¬| nºi ·i ¬ l ··i i ººi
¬ ¬ « · i - ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r| r , ·¤i l ¬ ;¬¬i ;¬
¬--¤i ¬ ¬i ; ¬ « · i ·r| r | (¤ ¬ «rr)
“The ASI has marked the sixth period in 11
th
& 12
th
century.
I have no objection in determination of period
calculation of I to V by the ASI, because it is not related
to the present dispute.” (E.T.C.)
3836
- º lr¬i« ¬ VII ¤|lº¤· ¬~n·n ¬i¬ - ¤|lº¤· VI ¬ «i·
l·l’¤n ri ·i ¤ilr¤| ri ¬i l ¬ ¬~n·n ¬ ;· ·i ·i ¬i ¬i ¬|
¬i ; l ·l ’¤n l nl ·i ¬· i | n¬ ¬¤¬· ·i ·r| r | - º ¬·¤¤· ¬
¬· ¬iº ¬-nº ·iiºn - ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ ·s·| ¬·| ¬ -i ·i ¬i ni
r | - º ¬· ¬iº VI ¤|lº¤· ¬¬n·n ¬i¬ - ¤r¬ ¬i¤i ¬i º ¤|lº¤·
VII ¬¬¬ «i·| ¤r ¬-·i· r l¬ ¤|lº¤· VI ·s·| ¬·| ¬ ºi ª r ¬i
ri ¬iº ¤|lº¤· VII ·c·| ¬·| ¬ ’i ª n¬ ºri ri | ... ·i-n· -
;·¬i ·i ¬i¬ ¬r·i ·i| n¬n ri ni| ¤r ¬ ·¬ ·i ·i··i ¬ «i ¤ r ,
¬i ¬~n·n ¬i¬ - «·i¤ n¤ ¬iº ¬-i·n ·i| ri n¤ | ;·- ·i¬ · o
·/ ·i¬i «i ¤i ¬·ii n ¬i¬ VI ¬ ¬ «l·in ¬ri ¬i· ·i¬i «i ¤i ¤r¬
¬i r ¬iº ¬ ·¬ ¬i¬ VII ¬i «i ¤i «i· ¬i r, ¬~n·n ¬i¬ ¬i|
;·¬ ¬i·i ¤i¤ n¤ ·i¤··il--¬ ¬·’i·ii n·ii ;·¬| ·|·iº · ¤’i n·ii
·¬i· ¬il· ¬| ¬-i·ni ¬ · ªii ¬i ¬¬ni r ¬i ¤|lº¤· V ¬
¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬·’i ·ii ¬i º ·i·· l·-i ºi ºi ¬| ¬ ¤¬·- l·i·· r | (¤ ¬
«rc÷«r/)
“I feel that the VII period should be fixed during the
Sultanate period after period VI. However, no fixed date
of both these Sultanate periods, is not available so far.
According to my studies, the Sultanate period in north
India is considered from the 13
th
century. According to
me, the VI period came first in the Sultanate period and the
period VII followed. It is possible that the period VI started
in the 13
th
century and the period VII in the 16
th
century. . . . Actually it be wrong to term them as two
periods. They are only the remains of two buildings, which
were built and saw their end during the Sultanate period.
The structure of wall no. 17, said to be related to period VI,
is a prior structure and only the structure of period VII is of
subsequent period, Sultanate period. It can be seen in the
similarity of diagnostic remains, their walls, floor, plan
3837
etc., which is entirely different from archaeological remains
and house construction pattern of period V.” (E.T.C.)
- n ·i ¬ · o÷·c · ·/ ¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬| ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¤º
¬i ¤l - n r , - ¬¬ n¬n -i ·ni r¸ | ;¬¬ ¤r¬ ·i ¬|
·| ·i ºi ¬| ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¬ ¬- «· ·i - - n ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r|
r | (¤ ¬ «//)
“I have objection regarding the period of wall nos.16
and 17, as worked out in the period calculation. I
consider it to be wrong. I had no objection about the
period calculation in respect of the other walls.” (E.T.C.)
¤ o÷ ·i¬ · o÷· ni ·r · ·s ni zs ¬ ¬-«··i - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi
¬| n¤| ¬i¬nºi·i ¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i¤¬i ¬i ; ¬i¤l-n ·r| r , ¬ ¬i l¬
¬i¤¬ ¬-nº ¬ -¤·- r | ;¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i¤¬i ·¤i ¬r·i r`
¬o÷ - n ¤| l º¤· ÷c · ¤| l º¤· / ¬ «i · ¬| ¬i ¬nºi ·i
¬·i ·i ¬¬¬ ¬- «l · ·i n -- ·¤¬ ¬| ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¬i si · ¬º
¬¬¬ ¤r¬ ·i ¬ -- ·¤¬ ¬·i ·i ·| ·i ºi ¬| ¬i ¬nºi ·i -
¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r| r | (¤ ¬ «//)
“Question- From your reply it is clear that you have no
objection about the period calculation made by ASI in
respect of wall nos. 1 to 15 and 18 to 28. What you have to
say in this behalf?
Answer- I have no objection regarding the period
calculation of structures and walls except for the period
calculation made in respect of structures subsequent to
period 6 & 7.” (E.T.C.)
·i~¤¸ - ¬| ¤|nº s¤ (¤ ¬ «s¤) · ªi· ¬ «i· «ni¤i l¬ ;¬ ¤ |nº -
-- ·¤¬ ¬i ·¬i· l·ªii¤i n¤i r |
;¬ ¤|nº - ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·i ºi· l·l·i·· ¬i¬i ¬ -- ·¤¬ , ·i~¬,
n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬il· ¬ ·¬i· l·ªii¤ n¤ r | ;¬ ·¬i· - ¬ri
n¬ - · ªi ¤i ºri r¸ zs ·|·iº l·ªii; n; r | ¬- ªi ·· - ;¬ ¬|
· ¬i · ¬ ¬· ¬i º zs ·| ·i ºi ¬ ¬ ’i ¤ i · n r ¤| - ¤r¬
3838
¬r ¤ ¬i r¸ l ¬ - ¬ ·¬ n| · l ·· ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ·i ºi · ·ri
n¤i ·i i ¬i º ¤ ¬« ¬| ¬« ·|·iº ¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ ¬-ªil·n ·r| r ;
·i| | ¬ s ·|·iº r| ¬-ªil·n r ; ·i| | - º l·º|·iºi n¬ ¬i ·|·iº ·ri
-¤·- l·ªii; ·| , ¬·- ·|·iº · o÷r, ·c, ·/, c, /, s, s, ·o, ··, s, zr,
z ¬iº ¬ s ¬·¤ ·|·iº r | ;¬ ·¬i· - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ro n·ii¬l·in
l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ l·ªii¤ n¤ r | . . . .¤ ¸ l ¬ - · ;· ¬·i | n·i i ¬l ·i n
l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬i -·i ¬ ¤º ·r| · ªi i ·i i , ¬ s ¬i r| · ªi i
·i i , ;¬l ¬¤ ;·¬i ¬- ¤i l ¤n ¬º·i - º l ¬¤ ¬- ·i · ·r|
r | (¤ ¬ «co)
“After looking at figure 3A (page 48A) of the volume, (the
witness) stated that the plan of structures has been shown
in this figure.
This figure shows the plan of structures, walls, alleged
pillar bases etc. of different periods found during
excavation. To the best of my ability, I can see that 28 walls
have been shown in this plan. According to this plan,
remains of 28 walls have been found in the excavation. I
have already stated that during the excavation I had
gone there on only three days and all these walls had not
been excavated by that time and only few walls had been
excavated. At time of my inspection, the walls clearly
visible were wall nos.r,·c,·/,c,/,s,s,·o,··, s, zr, z and few
other walls. The ASI has shown 50 alleged pillar bases in
this plan. . . . . . Since I had not seen all these alleged
pillar bases on the spot and had seen only few, as such it
is not possible for me to verify them.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ · ÷-¸ ÷· ºl¬--º (¤ ¬ zrr) niº|ªi ·s.c.zoos - ·¬ ··
· ¤º ¬| l·- ¬ l¬ªi| r ; r ¬iº ¤ ¬ zrc ¤º ¬| ¬ ¤ º¤i« ¬|¬i·| ¬
·-nªin r | (¤ ¬ r·«)
“It is true that the details of glazed ware are mentioned in
3839
the day-to-day register dated 13.06.2003 (page 255) and
page 256 bears the signature of Mr. Zafaryab
Jilani.”(E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ·i | ·i i ºn -
·¬ ·· · ¤º · ·¬ ·· -i ; ~¬ «·n| ºr| r , ¤º·n «r n ¬-
-i¤i - r ¬iº ¬~n·n · - n¬¬i¬ ¬| ·¬ ·· · ¤º · -i; ~¬ l·i··
¤ ¬iº ¬ r | (¤ ¬ rzc)
“It is true that glazed ware & glazed tiles were being
made in India even prior to the Sultanate period, but they
were very less in number and different from the glazed
ware & tiles of the Sultanate and Mughal period.” (E.T.C.)
·¬ - · o÷rs ¬iº co - ¬i ¬, ni ¬i¬iº -- ·¤º «·i r , ·r «i«º|
-l-¬· ¬ - · -- ·¤º ¬ ·ii · | ·¸ º| ¤º r | ;· ·¬ - ¬ - l« ¬ ·i¬ ·i|
l·ªii; · ºr| r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - · ;· ·i ·i ¤|¬i ¬i ¤¬ r|
¬i¬ ¤i·| ¤|lº¤· ÷ r - ºªii r | - ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi l ·¤ n¤
¤| l º¤· ¬i ¤ l n·i · ·r| ¬º ¤i ºri r¸ , ·¤i l ¬ - · ;¬¬
¬- «l · ·i n ¬i ·¤ ·r| · ªi i r | . . . . ;· · ¬ -i ¬i · ªi · ¬
¤ ¬i l ·l ·n ri ni r l ¬ l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º ¬·¬ l ¬·
¬ -- ·ºi ·¬ ¤l ·-l ·-| ºr| ri n| , ¤l · ;·¬| l nl ·i ¤i -| ¬
ri | ;· n-·|ºi ¬i · ªi· ¬ ¤r ·i| -¤·- r l¬ l« ¬ ·i¬ ;· ¬| -¸
¤i·| ¬¤· -¸ ¬ -·ii· ¤º r | (¤ ¬ rsr)
“The semi-circular structure in plate nos. 59 & 60, is a bit
after the main structure of Babri mosque. Brick wall is
also visible in these plates. Both of them have been marked
in the same period-5, in the ASI report. I am unable to
dispute the period given by ASI, because I have not seen
the evidence related to it. … From perusal of these
plates it appears that successive constructional activity
must have existed at the disputed site, if their dates are
correct. From perusal of these photographs, it is also clear
3840
that the brick wall is in-situ i.e. at its original
place.”(E.T.C.)
(b) PW 24, D. Mandal:
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬-¤ l-·iº ¤i -i n i¤| n·ii
·|l·¤i n i¤| ·i ·i r| ri n| ºr| r | ªi ·i ; ¬ ¬-¤ l ··i l ·n -·i ¬
¤º ¬i ¬i l - ¤ ·- ¬ri ¤º l -¬i ¬¬¬ ¬- «· · i -
· i ¤ -- · ¬¬¬| l -·i l n ¤i l · ·r l ¬¬ -·i i · ¤º l ¬n·
¤ l n¬ n·i i l ¬n·| nrºi ; ¤º r , ¤r «·i ni ºri r |
· i¤ -- · ªi ·i; ri · ·i¬ -·ii· ¬i ¬· ·iºi ¬º¬ ¤r l··ii ººi ¬ºni r
l¬ ¬ri ¤º ªi ·i; ri n| n·ii ¬ri ÷¬ri ¤º l¬n· ¬i; ¬ ¬| - ¤ «· n|
n·ii ¬¬ ¤º ·-«º ·i¬ ni| ·n -i· -i-¬ - ·i| ;¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬i¤ ·ir|
r ; , ¤º·n ¬ri ¬iº l¬n·| - ¤ l¬n· ¬i; ¬ ¬| «· n| ¤r · i¤ -- · ·
·r| n¤ l¬¤i, «l~¬ ªi ·i; ¬º· ·i¬ ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- ¬i -|- ¬i
¬|·º ·ii ¬¬· n¤ l¬¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·r/)
"It is true that both still-photography and
videography were carried out at time of excavation. The
drafts-man had been maintaining the location i.e. the
place, angle and depth of the place where artefact was
found during excavation at the disputed site. The drafts-
man surveys the site to be excavated and determines the
place to be excavated, the place & size of the trenches to be
dug up and numbers them. In the present matter also,
similar action was taken but the drafts-man did not
determine the place, number and size of the trenches to be
dug up and instead it was decided by the archaeologist
carrying out the excavation, who was also the team
leader."(E.T.C.)
ªi ·i; ¬ ¤r¬ ªi ·i; -·i¬ ¬ +¤º ¬| ¬nr ¬| ¤i -i n i¤|
·i| ¬| ¬in| r | (¤ ¬ ·r/)
"Prior to excavation, photography is also done of the
3841
upper surface of the excavation site." (E.T.C.)
- º ¬¤· ª¬· ¬ ·i ºi · - ·r| ¬-nni l ¬
¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ¬i · l ¬¬| l ¤¬º ¬i l · ¬i l ·-i ºi l ¬¤i ri |
- º ¬i -· ¤ ¬i ¬ s ·r| r ¬i l ¬ ¬·n ¤ ºi n- ·· ni ¬i ·
l s¤i ¬º ¤i ¬ «º·-n| ¬ s «·i ¤i ri | ªi ·i ; ¬ ·i ºi ·
- · ¤r · ªi i ·i i l ¬ ¬-ªi ·· ¬ ·i ºi · l -¬| ¬i -l n ¤i
¬i ¬¬n÷¬¬n l ¬¤i ¬i ni ·i i | (¤ ¬ ·c·)
"I do not think that during my stay, the
archaeologists had built any pillar etc. In my presence,
nothing took place such as the said archaeologists
building something secretly or forcibly. During the
excavation, I had seen that the articles found in
excavation were separated." (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ s -|-º «i; s -|-º ¬i ¤¬ ¬ ¬º|-
¤ ºi ¬i l·-i ºi ¬ ÷r, ¬ ÷c, ¬|÷r, ¬|÷c ¬ ·|¤ l-¬i ·ii| ¬¬| ¤ ºi
¬i ¤·¬- ºi· ¬|÷/ - ¤ - l-¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·c·)
"It is true that a concrete floor construction of 9
metre x 9 metre size was found beneath J-5, J-6, G-5, G-6.
The extension of that very floor was found in Trench G-7."
(E.T.C.)
- · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ¬i ¬·¤¤· -- -|n i¤| ¬| · l·- ¬
nr· ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r ¬i º -- -|n i¤ | l¬¬| ·i| ¬-ªi·· ¬i « ¬ «i ·
ri ni r | (¤ ¬ ·sc)
"I have carefully studied the A.S.I. Report from the
angle of stratigraphy. Stratigraphy is the backbone of any
excavation." (E.T.C.)
s-| ºi ni · ·| ; -·| ¬ «i · ¬i ¬i ¬ ¤i -- n · ni
¤| l º¤· ¬ri ¬i ni r | -· ¤ ¬i ¬ ·i i ºn ¬ ;l nri ¬ ¬
¬i ¬ - ·z·| ºi ni · ·| ¬ ¬ n ¬ · ·s·| ºi ni · ·| ¬
ºi ª¬i n ¬ -i ·i ¬i ni r | ¬~n·n ¤| l º¤· ¬| ºi ª¬i n
·zoc ; -·| ¬ -i ·| ¬i n| r | (¤ ¬ z«z)
3842
"The post 6
th
BC period, is called post-Gupta
period. The Medieval period of Indian History is
considered to be from last of 12
th
century to the
beginning of 13
th
century. The beginning of Sultanate
period is considered to be 1206 AD." (E.T.C.)
¬-ªi·· - ¤|º|¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¬ ·i nº|¬ r , ¤r¬i -nº|¬ººi
·¸ ¬ºi ¤ i·n ¬·ºi ·i ¬i -nº|¬ººi ¬ ¤iº-¤lº¬ ¬ « ·i| - ¤ ¬i ¬-nni r¸
l¬ ¤r ·i ·i l·l·i¤i ¤|º|¤·i; ¬ºi· ¬i ¬i·iiº ·i| r ¬i º l·l·i ·i| r |
¤ ºin-· - ·i¤· --| ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ·i| ¬i¬ l··ii ººi ri ni r ¤l·
¤ i¬ ln¬ ¬·ºi ·i ¤ i·n r ¤ ri | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l ¬ ¤ ºi n- · -
¤| º| ¤·i ; ¬ ºi · ¬ l ¬¤ n| · nº| ¬ r ¤r¬i ¬ ¤º ·i ;¬ ,
·¸ ¬ºi ·i ¤· --| ·i ;¬ , n| ¬ºi ¬ · ¤ º| ·i ;¬ | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r|r
l¬ ¬ ·¤ º| ·i; ¬ ¤|º|¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¤ ºin-· - -i·¤ni ¤ i·n · · nil·¬
l·l·i r | - ¤¬ ¤ ºin-·· -ni ¬ ª¤ - ;¬ «in ¬ ¬r-n r¸ l¬
¬ ·¤ º|·i;¬ ¤|º|¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¤¬ ¤ ·-º ºªii r | ;¬ ¤ ·-º
¬i - · ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r | ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o l º¤i - - n| ·i l ·l ·i ¤i
¬·i i n ¬ ¤º ·i ;¬ , ¬ · ¤ º| ·i ;¬ n·i i ·i ;· --| ·i r¬
¤| º| ¤·, ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º ¤| º| ¤·i ;¬ ºi · l ¬¤i r | ¤ ¬i ·r| r
l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬i¬ nºi·i - ;· n|·i l·l·i¤i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
¬¬n÷¬¬n l¬¤i ri | (¤ ¬ zcs÷z/o)
"There are two methods of periodization in
excavation. The first is stratification, the second is the
mutual relation of the remains found with the stratification.
I am of the view that both these methods form basis of
periodization as also the methods. In archaeology, period
determination is also made on basis of dynasties, if
relevant remains are found. It is correct to say that there
are three methods of periodization in archaeology. The
first is layer-wise, second is dynasty-wise and third is
century-wise. It is correct to say that century-wise
periodization is a recognised and scientific method of
3843
archaeology. As an archaeologist, I agree that there is a
chapter related to century-wise periodization. I have
studied this chapter. Periodization has been done in the
A.S.I. Report on basis of all the three methods i.e. layer-
wise, century-wise and dynasty-wise period. It is not that
in period determination, the A.S.I. has mentioned all the
three methods separately." (E.T.C.)
¬ ¤º, ·i¤·--| n·ii ¬ ¤ º| l·l·i¤i ¬i ¤ ºin-· ¬| · l·- ¬ ·i
·iini - l··iil¬n l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r | ¤r¬i º ¬l-· · l- n - ·i·
·¸ ¬ºi ¤«¬i ¬¸ - · l- n - ·i·| (¤ ¬ z/·)
"From archaeological point of view the layer, dynasty
and century methods can be divided in two parts. The first
being relative dating method and the other being absolute
dating method." (E.T.C.)
.¤·¬i~¤¸ - · l- n ¬ ¬·nn n ¬i« · · l- n n·ii ¬·¤ l·l·i¤i
¬in| r | ¬i« · · l- n ¤|lº¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¬i ¤¬ · nil·¬ nº|¬i r |
¬i-i·¤n ¬i« · · l- n ¬ ¬i lnl·i ¬in| r , ¬¬¬i ¬r| -i·n r |
(¤ ¬ z/·÷z/z)
"Carbon dating and other methods fall under
absolute dating. Carbon dating is a scientific method of
periodization. Usually the date determined by Carbon
dating, is considered correct." (E.T.C.)
º ¬l-· · l- n n·ii ¤·¬i ~¤¸ - · l- n - - n ¬·i--¬ ª¤ ¬
¤·¬i ~¤¸ - · l- n ¬l·i¬ ¤ -ilºin -i·¸ ni| ¬i « · · l - n ¬ ¬i ·i i º
¤º ¬i ¬i ¬ l ··i i ººi l ¬¤i ¬i ni r , ·r| ¤ -i l ºi n r | ¤r
¬r·i ¬r| r | (¤ ¬ z/z)
"Comparatively I would consider absolute dating to
be more authentic between relative dating and absolute
dating. It is correct to say that the period determined on
basis of Carbon dating is authentic." (E.T.C.)
3844
¤ º·nn ¬-ªi·· - ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · · ÷-¸ ÷· ºl ¬--º,
¬i ;-·i - « ¬ n·i i ¤ -| ·¤¸ -| ºl ¬--º÷n| ·i ¬i - · - ·
l ¬¤i ·i i | · ÷-¸ ÷· ºl¬--º - ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·iºi· ¤ lnl·· l¬¤ n¤
¬i¤ ¬i l··ººi n·ii ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·iºi· ¤ i·n ¬i-ln ¤i ¬i ·¤i ºi ¤ ·i-
· ·-¤i ¬l¬n l¬¤i ¬ini ·ii| ¤ -|·¤¸ -| ºl¬--º - ¤ -|·¤¸ -| ¤ ·i-
· ·-¤i ¬ ¬| ¬nn| r , ¬¬¬i l··ººi ·i - l¬¤i ¬ini r | ¬i;- ·i -
« ¬ - ¤·i;¬ - ·- · ¬| ¬in| r | (¤ ¬ zs«)
"In the excavation in question, the A.S.I. had
maintained all three–Day-to-day Register, Site Notebook
and Antiquity Register. The details of work done on each
day of excavation and the prima facie description of
articles found during excavation, were entered in the Day-
to-day Register. The details of antiquities, as they appeared
prima facie, were entered in the Antiquity Register. The Site
Notebook was maintained trench-wise." (E.T.C.)
- · ¬¤·| - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i ¤¤ - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi
¬· ºl·in · ÷-¸ ÷· ºl¬--º ¬i ·i| ¬i·iiº -i·i r | - · ¬i;- ·i -« ¬
n·ii ¤ -|·¤ -| ºl¬--º, ¬i ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬i·º¤¬ lº¬i· r , ¬i · ªi·
¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni ·r| ¬-n|, ·¤i l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - n·ii · ÷- ÷·
ºl¬--º - ¬·¤¤· ¬ l¬¤ ¤¤i ·n ¬i-n | ¬¤¬··i ri n; ·i||
(¤ ¬ zsr)
"In the affidavit of my examination-in-chief, I have
also taken the Day-to-day Register maintained by A.S.I. as
a basis. I did not deem it necessary to peruse the Site
Notebook and Antiquity Register, which are essential
records of excavation, because sufficient material was
available for study from the A.S.I. Report and Day-to-day
Register." (E.T.C.)
- ¬ ÷s - ¤ - l¬¬| ·i| ¬ ¤º ¬i ¬ ·º ¬i¬º l·º|·iºi ·r| ¬º
¤i¤i, ¬ ·¬ +¤º ¬ r| · ªi ¬º ¬i «¬ º· ºi · l ¬¤i ·i i | - ·
¬ ÷« ¬i º ¬ ÷r - ·¤ ¬ ¬i ·i| l·º|·iºi l¬¤i ·ii| ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬ ÷s,
3845
¬ ÷« · ¬ ÷r ¬ «ºi«º ¤¸ º« ¬| ¬i º ; -i ¬i ¤ºi l -¬i ·i i
¬i ªi ·i ; ·i ¬| ¬nr ¤º +¤º| ¬nr ¬ ¬º| « ¬·i -| -º
·| ¤ ·i i | - · ;· ¤i ¬iº ; -i ¬i ¬·¤¤· ·r| l¬¤i| ;¬| ¬nr ¤º
¬ ÷·, ¬ ÷z · ¬ ÷·, ¬ ÷z - ·¤ ¬ ¬i ¤il¤¤i ¬ n n· ¬ ¬-nº - r ,
¬ ·|¤ ¬¬| nrºi; ¤º -|¬ ¬¬| nºr ¬ ; -i ¬i ¤ºi l-¬i ·ii| ¬«
- n ¤r ¤i· ·r| r l¬ ¬ ÷s - ¤ - ªi ·i; · ¤ º¬ -·i¤¬ n¬ r ; ·i|
¬·i·i ·r| | (¤ ¬ ·co)
"I was not able to go inside and inspect any layer of
Trench J-3, and had carried out observation from outside.
I had inspected Trenches J-4 and J-5 as well. It is true that
a brick floor was found towards east in front of J-3, J-4
and J-5, which was about 1¼ metre below the upper
surface of the excavation site. I did not study these square
bricks. A similar brick floor was found at the same depth
below Trenches J-1, J-2 & K-1, K-2, which are in north of
traveler's gangway. I do not recollect as of now whether the
excavation in Trench J-3 had been carried out upto the
natural soil or not." (E.T.C.)
l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¬ ¬- nº| ·i i n - ¤¬ - l ¬· ·i ¬
¤i ; n; ·i | , ¬i ¬- nº÷·l ·i ºi l ·ºi i - ·i | | ¬¬ ·i¬ ¬|
¬-«i; ºii¤· ro -|-º r n·ii ¬¬¬| ¤i · i; - n -|¬ ¬ ¤i· ·r| r ,
¬l¬· ¤r ·|·iº ¬i¤| ¤i · | ·i| n·ii ¬n·in ·.co -|-º ¬ ¬n·in
¤i ·i; - ·i|| ;¬ - l¬· ·i¬ ¬ ·|¤ ¤¬ ¬i º ·|·iº ¤i; n; ·i|, ¬i
¬-nº÷·l·iºi - ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·s«)
"A massive wall was found in the northern part of
the disputed site, which was in the north-south direction.
The length of that wall was probably 50 metres and I do not
properly remember its breadth. However, this wall was very
thick, and was about 1.60 metres in thickness. Another wall
was found under this massive wall, which was in north-
3846
south." (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - n·ii -·¤ ¬ -·i¬ l·º|·iºi ¬ ¬i·iiº
¤º - ;¬ l ·· ¬· i ¤º ¤r ¤i r¸ l ¬ l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º
¬ · i i ºi ¬i ¬ - n·i i n · n ¬i ¬ - «· ¤ -i · ¤º
-- ·¤º¬ ¤ ·-| l ·-| r ; r | (¤ ¬ z/«)
"On basis of the A.S.I. Report and my own spot
inspection, I have arrived at the conclusion that large
scale structural activities were carried out at the disputed
site during the Kushana period and Gupta
period."(E.T.C.)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬i -- ·¤º ¤i¤ n¤ r , ¬·¬i l··ººi ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤· lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - ¬ ¤ |nº s ¬iº s¤ - l·¤i r |
l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º ¤i ¤ n¤ l ¬· -- ·¤º¬ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
¤ | nº s n·i i s¤ - l ¬¤i n¤i r , · l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º r ,
;¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · ¬¤·| l º¤i - - «
¤ ¬i ¬ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l ¬¤i r , l ¬¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬
z/r)
"The details of structures found at the disputed site,
have been given by the A.S.I. in Figure 3 & 3A of its report
volume. I agree that the structures found at the disputed
site and mentioned in Figure 3 & 3A, are at the disputed
site. The A.S.I. has mentioned four floors in its report,
with which I agree." (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - · ~¤¸ - · ¬ ¤ ·- z/ ÷¤ ¤º l·¤ n¤
¤i- - ·ºii ¤| n¤| - ¤ ¬| ÷/ ¬ ¬ ¤º · o s · « ¬i ¬i ¬
¬º¬| l -·| ·¬ ¬~n·n ¬r| ·ºi i ¤i n¤i r | - ;¬¬
¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·/o)
"The period of Layer Nos. 3 & 4 of Trench G-7
shown in the chart at page 27A of A.S.I. Report volume-
1, has been correctly shown as early medieval Sultanate.
3847
I agree with it." (E.T.C.)
¬| ÷r - · ¤ - ¬ ¤º r · c ¬i ¬i ¬ ·i | ¬º¬|
l -l ··¬ ¬~n·n ¬r| l ·¤i n¤i r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| ri ni l¬
¬|÷/ ¬| ¬ ¤º s · « n·ii ¬ ÷r - ¤ ¬| ¬ ¤º r · c ¬| ¬-¬i¬|·
·i|| ¬ ÷r, ¬|÷/ ¬ ¤ ¬i º · o « · s ¬ -ºi ¤¬ r| ¬nr ¤º r |
(¤ ¬ ·/o÷·/·)
"The period of Layer 5 & 6 of Trench G-5 has also
been given correctly as early medieval Sultanate. It
would be correct to say that Layers 3 & 4 of G-7 and
Layers 5 & 6 of Trench J-5, were contemporary. The Floor
Nos. 4 & 3 of J-5, J-7 were of the same level." (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o ¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - ÷· l¤ nº ÷· ¤ ·- ÷·s¤ ¤¬
¬ -¸ º - ¤ r | - ;¬¬ ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·/c)
"Figure-1 at page 13A of Volume-1 of A.S.I. Report,
is a contour map. I agree with the same." (E.T.C.)
- º l ·¤i º - ¤r ¬¬ ¬º ¬i ;·, n · n¬i ¬ ¬i
ri ni | (¤ ¬ ·//)
"In my view, this circular shrine would be of the
Gupta period." (E.T.C.)
n·ir · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - ÷z ¬| · ¬ - ÷·r ¬i
· ªi ¬º ¬ri l ¬ ;¬- ¤i ¤ l ·l ·i · · -- ·¤º¬ ¤ ¬ ¬
l ·ªi i ; · ºr r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ·¬ - ÷·r ¬ ·|¤
ºi-¤«¸ nº ¬i ¤¸ ·| · º¤ l·ªii; ¤· ·i l¬ªii r | (¤ ¬ ·s/)
" After looking at Plate-15 of A.S.I. Report Volume-
2, the witness stated that five different structural phases
appear in it. It is correct to say that visibility of eastern
view of Ramchabutra, is written below Plate-15." (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i -|¬ r l¬ +¤º| ¬nr ¬ « ¬ ¬| ¬nr n¬ ¬;
¬l«¬ l·n-i· ·i | ·¬ - ·r - ¬ ¬i l¬ l·ªii; ¤· ºri r , +¤º| ¬nr
¬i si · ¬º ¤iº l·l·i·· ¬l·~¬ r | ¤r ¬r·i ·i| ¬r| r l¬ rº ¬nr
- ¬ ªi| ¬i;- ¬i -i- º r ¬iº ¬ ¬¬ |- ¬ ·¬i¬ ·iº r | ¤r ¬r·i
3848
¬r| ·r| r l¬ ¬ ¬ º· ¬ l·¬ - ¤¬ ¤i ¬iº ¤-·iº ¬i - ¬· i l·ªii; ·
ºri r | ·¬ - · o÷·r - +¤º ¬ ·|¤ ·¸ ¬º| ¬nr ¤º n i¬º· ¬l·¬
¤º ¤¬ ¤i ¬i º ¬¤ · si -i ¬i ·¬ -¤i- l·ªii; · ºri r, ¬i - ª¤ ª¤
¬ ¤¸ · ¬ l·l- n r | ;¬¬| -i -i; n¬ º|«· «÷r ; ¤ ri n|| - n ¤r
ni· ·r| r l¬ ;¬ ¤i ¬iº ¬nr ¬i ;-n -i¬ ¤nºii¬i - · ·| ¬ ª¤
- l¬¤i ¬ini ·ii| ;¬ ¬-«··i - - ¤r ¬r·i ¤ir¸ ni l¬ ;¬ ¬nr ¬i
¬i ; ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¤ -iºi ¤n ¬| · ·| ri · ¬i ·r| l-¬i r | - ·
ni ¤n ¬i -n¬« ¬i ·ni r¸ ¬i º · r| · ·| ¬i | (¤ ¬ ·s/)
"It is correct to say that many levels existed from the
upper surface to the surface of the base. As appearing in
Plate-15, there are four different levels besides the upper
surface. It is also correct to say that each layer has lime-
surkhi mortar and are full of calcrete blocks. It is not
correct to say that a square stone piece is visible in the
second level. From top to bottom in Plate No.15, a small
square shaped platform, made-up mainly of lime, is visible
in the ground level of second layer. Its thickness would be
about 4-5 inches. I have no knowledge that this square
place was used as 'Vedi' of 'Yagyashala' (altar). In this
behalf I would like to say that no archaeological evidence
has been found about this place being the 'Vedi' of 'Yagya'
(altar). I neither know the meaning of 'Yagya' nor of
'Vedi'." (E.T.C.)
- ·o ¬¸ ·, zoos ¬ ·r ¬¸ · zoos n¬ ¬- ªi ··
-·i ¬ ¤º ºri ·i i | ¬¬ ¬-¤ ·¤i·inº ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ ¬-i·n ri · ¬|
¬·¬·ii - ·ii| ¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ ·¤i·inº -r-·¤¸ ºi -- ·¤º ¤·¬¤i ¬ ri
¤ ¬i ·ii ¬i º ·¤i·inº ¬ ·ºi·¬ ·i| ¬-·iil-n ri ¤ ¬ ·i | - º ¬-ªi··
-·i¬ ¤º ºr· ¬ ·i ºi· -- ·¤¬ r| ¤·¬¤i ¬ r ¤ ·i , ¬i ; ¤¬ ¤ ºi·ºi ·i
- º ¬¤l-·in ºr· ¬ ·iºi· ·ri ¤º ¤ i·n ·r| r ¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ ·ss)
"I remained at the excavation site from 10
th
June,
3849
2003 to 15
th
June, 2003. At that time, most of the
excavation work was in conclusion stage. By that time most
of the important structures had been exposed and most of
the sections had been explored. Only structures had been
exposed during my stay at the excavation site, and no
movable archaeological remain had been found over there
during my stay." (E.T.C.)
«| º«¬ ¬i r·| ;· --| - ¤¸ -, ¬i « · · l - n ¬| ¤¬
¤ -i l ºi ¬ ¬ -·i i r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¤·.«|o¤|o··¬¸ o
¬i ¬i¬ ¬i ¤|º|¤· · ¬ ª¤ - s-| ºini··| «|o¬|o ¬ n|¬º| ºini··|
«|o¬|o l·ªii¤i r , ¬¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ z/z)
"Birbal Sahni Institute is a recognised institution
of Carbon-Dating. I agree with the period of NBPW given
by A.S.I. in its report as Period-1 from 6
th
BC to 3
rd
BC."
(E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ¤ ·- ss ¤º ¤|lº¤· s ¬ ª¤ -
¬ ·iiºi ¬l·¬ ¬| ¬·l·i ¤r¬| ¬ n|¬º| ºini··| ¤o·|o l··ii lºn ¬| n¤|
r , l¬¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | ;¬| ¬ ·|¤ ¤|lº¤· « ¬ ª¤ - n ·ni ¬l·¬
¬i ¬~¬ ªi r n·ii ;¬¬i ¬i¬ ¤i·i| ¬ s-| ¤o·|o l··ii lºn l¬¤i n¤i
r l¬¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ z/s)
"At page-39 of the A.S.I. Report, the period of
Kushana level has been determined from first to third
century AD as Period-3, with which I agree. The Gupta
level is mentioned under it as Period-4 and its period has
been determined from 4
th
to 6
th
AD, with which I agree."
(E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi l·¤ n¤ ;· ¬i;¬i -l-¬ ·¤¸ - ·lºi n
l¤¬º· ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬-¤i¤· - · l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ·r| l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ z/r)
"The pillar bases visible in these isometric view given
by A.S.I., have not been verified by me from the disputed
3850
site." (E.T.C.)
¤ ¬i º · l ·-¤ - · -- ·¤º ¬| ¤ ¬i º r | ¤ ¬i º z,
¤ ¬i º · ¬ ¤¸ · ·n| ¤ ¬i º r , l ¬¬- l º¤i - - ¬· i |
l ¤¬º« ¬ ¬ · -- ·¤¬ ¬i l ·ªi i ¤i n¤i r | . . . .·i ¬ ¬
¬ « · i - - º| ¬¬r-l n ·r| r ¤º·n ¤ ¬i º s ¬ ¬- ¤ ¬i l¤¬º
l·ªii¤ n¤ r , ¬¬¬ - ¬r-n ·r| r¸ | ¤ ¬i º «, s ¬| ¤¸ · ·n| ¤ ¬iº
r , l¬¬¬ ¬-·· ·i¬ n·ii -- ·¤º ¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ z/r÷z/c)
"Floor-1, is the floor of the disputed structure. The
Floor-2 lies to east of Floor-1, in which all the pillar
bases and structures have been shown in the report. . . . .
My disagreement is not regarding the wall, but I do not
agree with the pillars shown attached to Floor-3. Floor-4
lies to east of three, and I agree with the wall and
structures attached to it." (E.T.C.)
- · ·i¬ · o ·c, ·s¤, ·s«|, ·s ¬|, ·s·| ¬ «iº - ¬·¤¤·
l¬¤i r | ·i¬ ¬ o ·s¤, ·s«|, ·s¬|, ·s ·|, ·i¬ ¬ o ·c ¬ ¬-¬il¬¬
·r| r | ·i ¬ ¬ o ·c ¬i - ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ ¬| ·i ¬ -i ·ni
r¸ | ;¬¬i ¤ i º- ·i ·s·| ¤o·| o ¬ r ¬i ·i i| (¤ ¬ z/s)
"I have studied about Wall Nos. 16, 18A, 18B, 18C
and 18D. Wall Nos. 18A, 18B, 18C and 18D are not
contemporary of Wall No. 16. I consider the Wall No. 16
to be of the Sultanate period. It began in 13 AD."
(E.T.C.)
·i¬ ¬ o r ¬i ¬l-n-· - ¬lºi¤ - -- ·¤º ¬ ¬-nº - ·ii ·i
¬iº ;¬| ¤ ¬iº - ¬lºi¤ - -- ·¤º ¬ ·l·iºi - r | (¤ ¬ z/s)
"The existence of Wall No. 5 is partly in north of the
makeshift structure and similarly in south of the makeshift
structure." (E.T.C.)
·i ¬ ¬ o ·/ - ¤¬ · ¬i º - · --i · ¬ni r | ¤r
· ¬i º - · --i · ¤ ¬i º¬-i l -¤ r | ;¬¬i ¤ ¤i n l r· ·¸
3851
- l ·ºi - ri ni r | ·i ¬ ¬ o ·/ n · n ¬i ¬ ¬| r | ¤r
¤i ·i | ºi ni · ·| ¬ s-| ºi ni · ·| ¤o·| o ¬ «| ¤ ¬| ¬·l ·i ¬|
r | (¤ ¬ zsz)
"A decorated stone has been fixed in Wall No. 17.
This decorated stone is floral motif. It is used in Hindu
temples. Wall No. 17 is of the Gupta period. It is of the
period between 4
th
to 6
th
AD." (E.T.C.)
·¬ - ¬ o zz - l·¬·¤¸ - · -- ·¤º ¬| ¤lº¤- l·ºii ¬| ¬i¬-º
·i¬ ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ¤r -i ¬ ¬i ;·÷¬|÷-¸ ¤i -i n i¤ r | - ¤r ·r|
«ni ¬¬ni l¬ ;¬| ·i¬ ¬i ·i¬ ¬ o r ¬ ª¤ - ¬i·i ¬ini r ¬·i·i
·r| | ;¬ ·| ·i º - ¤¬ ¬¬ ¬ n ¤- ·i º ¬i - ¬· i ·¬ º ¬i
ºri r , l ¬¬- -¬º ¬| ¬i ¬ l n «·| r | ¤r ·i | l r· ·¸
- l ·ºi - ¤ ¤ ·n ri ni r | (¤ ¬ zss)
"The outer wall in western side of the disputed
structure, is visible in Plate No. 22. It is in-situ photograph
of the spot. I cannot tell whether this wall is known as Wall
No. 5 or not. A piece of decorated stone is visible in this
wall, which has a crocodile figurine over it. It is also
used in Hindu temples." (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ¬ ¤º ÷r¤ ¬i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i n¤i
r , ¬¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | ¤r ·i · ÷ ;-¬i l -¬ -- ·¤º r | -n¸ ¤
- ¤º·i ¬i ¬ · i ·n ·r| ri ni r | l¤º ¬ri l¬ - n ;¬ «in ¬|
¬i·¬iº| ·r| r l¬ -n¸ ¤ - ¤º·i¬i ri ni r l¬ ·r| | (¤ ¬ zs«÷zsr)
"I agree with the layer 5A mentioned in A.S.I. Report.
It is non-Islamic structure. A 'Parnala' (gargoyle) is
possibly not there in Stupa. Then stated that I do not have
knowledge of the fact whether there is a 'Parnala'
(gargoyle) or not in a Stupa." (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ - n¬ ¬i ¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ·i | l ··i l ·n -·i ¬
¤º l ·-i ºi ¬i ¤ ¬| nl nl ·l ·i ¤i r ; ·i | | (¤ ¬ zr«)
"It is correct to say that construction activities had
3852
been carried out at the disputed site even before the
Mughal period." (E.T.C.)
¤¬ ¤ ºi n- ·l ·· ¬ ª¤ - l ··i l ·n «i ¤ ¬ ·| ¤ ¬- ªi ··
- -- ·¤º ¬ l -¬· ¬| «i n - -·| ¬i º ¬ºni r¸ |(¤ ¬ zcc)
"As an archaeologist, I admit discovery of
structures beneath the disputed structure during
excavation." (E.T.C.)
(c) P.W. 29, Dr. Jaya Menon :
" I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post
Mughal periods" (Page 71)
"The contour map given at page 13-A is correct. To
make a contour map Theodolite, tapes, and measuring staff
are required and now a days a total station is used.”
(Page 71)
" After going through page no.1 of this site note book
the witness stated that the location mentioned there, is
correct.” (Page 92)
“..the caption for plate 62, is correct." (Page 111)
"Plate no. 36,37,38 of the ASI report were shown to
the witness who stated that all these photographs are
INSITU photographs of pillar bases. These pillar bases
were found in the north of dispute site. In my opinion
these are the pillar bases." (Page 203)
"Floor 2, floor 3 and 4 were associated with the
pre Babri Masjid structure. . . . . . . . . These floors may be
dated from the end of the 12
th
century to the 16
th
century
AD. According to me walls and structures prior to 12
th
century were found in excavation but no floor prior to
12
th
century was found at the site. According to me the
3853
oldest wall found in excavation was of first to third
century AD and the oldest structure found would be
structure 5 which may be of 6
th
century AD." (Page 205-
206)
“I agree with the observation of Prof. H.C.
Bharadwaj at page 73 of his article that gypsum
mortar/plaster was used in the Harappan period. I agree
with the observation in the latter part of this para that
gypsum was used as mortar in the Kalibangan period
also. . . . . .Lime mortar was definitely used from Neolithic
period." (Page 224)
3800. PW 30 Dr. R.C.Thakran (student of Prf. Surj Bhan
PW 16) also deposed as an Archaeologist. He admits that he is
not a field archaeologist and do not possess enough knowledge
of architecture. He, however, admits of having no proof which
may justify any doubt on the integrity of ASI people and said:
- n ¬i l ¬ - ·¤º ¬i «r n ni · ni ·r| r , ¬ l¬· ¤ ºin-· ·
;lnri¬ ¬i l·ni·i| ri · ¬ ·in ·i i · | ÷ «r n ¬i ·¬i º| ni r |
(¤ ¬ «·)
“I do not have a good knowledge of architecture but I do
have some knowledge of it as a student of archaeology
and history." (E.T.C.)
- · ¬· i | ¬i ; ¬- ªi ·· -·¤ l ¬¬| ¤| ~· - ·r| l ¬¤i |
- ª¤ ni º ¤º ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬i ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| · - l«¬
¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| - l··iil¬n l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n ri ni l¬
- ¤| ~· ¬i l ¬ ¤i ¬i ¬| ·r| r¸ | «l~¬ ¬ ·¬ - l«¬
¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- r| r¸ | ... - ¬¤· ¬i¤ ¬i ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- -i·ni
r¸ , ·¤il¬ - ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- ¬i ¬i- ¬ºni ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬
·sc)
“I myself never did any excavation in any field.
3854
Archaeology can be divided mainly into field archaeology
and table archaeology. It will be wrong to say that I am
not a field archaeologist; rather, I am just a table
archaeologist. I consider myself to be a field archaeologist
because I have been doing the job of field
archaeologist.”(E.T.C.)
- º ;¬ l··i¤ ¬i ni· -·ii¤-¤ ¬¬i ¤· ·i-n ¬¬i ¬ ¬ «l·in r ¬i º
¬·¤ «ini ¬ ·i| ¬ ·i r ¬i r | ¬·¤ «ini - ·¬ ·¬÷· ¤º, ·¬ ·· -i;~¬
n·ii ¬ « l·in - -|lº¤¬ - ºiil-¬ r | - · ;· ¬·i| «ini ¬i ¬·¤¤·
l¬¤i r | - ºi ¤r ni· l·l·i·· ¬ ªii ¬ ¬ ºii -i¤ ¤º r| ¬i·iilºn ·r|
r , «l~¬ -·¤ - º ¬· ·i· ¤º ·i| ¬i·iilºn r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬-¤¸ ºi ª¤ ¬
-|¬ ·r| ri ni l¬ - ·i··i - ¤ ¤ ·n ¬¤ºi ·n ¬ ·l·i n - -|lº¤¬ ¤·
--i;~¬ ¬i l·ºi·in ·r| r¸ | - ¬-¤¸ ºi ni· ¬ ºi·· ¬i ¤ lnºin ni ·r|
«ni ¬¬ni, ¤º·n - ¤r ¬r ¬¬ni r¸ l¬ - n l·ºi·i ni· ¬¤ºi·n ¬i
r , ¬i - º ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬i·iilºn r | - · ;¬ l ·· i ¤ ¤º
¬i ; ªi i ¬ ¤ -n¬ ·r| ¤« | r | - · l ¬¬| l ·ni ·÷
¤ ¤i nºi i ¬i - ·i | ;¬¬i ¬· ¤¤· ¬l ¬ n ·r| l ¬¤i r ,
¤º· n - n ¬· ·i · ¤· ¬· ¤¤· ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º ¤r ni ·
r | (¤ ¬ ·c/)
“My knowledge of this subject is related to sculpture and
architecture and also to other things. Other things include
glazed ware, glazed tiles and concerned materials. I have
made study on all these things. This knowledge of mine is
based not only on some portions of several articles but also
on my own experience. It would not be fully proper to say
that I am not a specialist in the above referred materials
and styles applied to buildings. I cannot quantify the word
'complete knowledge' in percentage but can say that I have
special knowledge of the afore-said facts which is based on
my study. I have not studied any particular book on this
3855
subject. I have not gained knowledge of it in any science
laboratory too but I have this knowledge on the basis of
my experience and study.” (E.T.C.)
- ¤¬ ¤ ºi n- · l ·ºi · i n ¬ ª¤ - ¤ri ¤º ¬¤l -·i n r ¬i
r¸ |(¤ ¬ ·s/)
“I am present here as an expert in archaeology".
(E.T.C.)
- ¤ ºin-· ºii-¤ ¬| ¬·i| l··ii¬i ¬ l·ºi·in ¬ ª¤ - «¤i· · ºri
r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·r·)
“I am giving statement as a specialist in all branches of
archaeology." (E.T.C.)
·i i ºn| ¤, ;l nri ¬ ¬i ¤ i o ¬¸ º¬·i i · ¤« i n ·i | ¤ i o ¬¸ º¬
·ii· l·nn ·¬ ··ii ¬ lº-i¤º ri ¤ ¬ r ¤ i o ¬¸ º¬·ii· ·r| r , l¬·¬i
«¤i· ;¬ ·¤i¤i¬¤ - ri ¤ ¬i r | (¤ ¬ s·)
“Prof. Suraj Bhan taught Indian history. 10 years has
passed since Prof. Suraj retired. Prof. Suraj Bhan is the
same person that has given his statement in this
court."(E.T.C.)
- º| ¬i ·¬i º| - ¤ ¬i ¬i ; ;¬ l -·i l n - ¤ -i ºi ·r| r ,
l ¬¬¬ ¤r ¬i l «n ri ¬¬ l ¬ ;·¬| ¤ -| l n -| ( ¬- ¤l ·· -i )
¤º ¬ · r l ¬¤i n¤i ri | (¤ ¬ rz)
“To my knowledge, there is no proof capable of
establishing that their integrity has been
doubted.”(E.T.C.)
3801. PW 30 also make it clear that it was not possible for
anyone to take anything inside the area due to the security
reasons.
¬- ªi ·· -·i ¬ ¤º ¬i ; « n ¬·i ·i ¬· ¤ l ¬¬| ¤ ¬i º ¬i
¬n ¬ ¬ ¬º ·r| ¬i · ¤i n ·i | ;¬ ¬ ¬i ·i ¬ · i · r|
·r| ·i i | ¬ ·¬ -i¤ r- ¬i n ¬¤·i ¤ ·, ¤ l¬¬ · ºi; l- n ¤ · ¬ ¬º
3856
·ri ¤º ¬in ·i | (¤ ¬ ro)
"None was allowed to go to the excavation side along
with any bag or any other type of luggage. It was not
possible to take it along. Only we went there taking along
our pens, pencils and writing pads.” (E.T.C.)
3802. The parts of his statement which shows agreement
on some aspects of ASI report are:
- º ¬· ¬iº ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - ÷ z (·¬ - ¬) - ¬i ¤«¸ nºi
l·ªii¤i n¤i r , ·r -- ·¤º r | ¤r ¤«¸ nºi ¤ºi ¤º l-¬i r ¬i r | ¤ ºi
· ¬ r| si · ·| n; r | ¤ ºi n¬ ¬ ·ºi· ·i| ¬i¤- r | ;¬ -nº n¬
;¬- ¬i ; n¬n| ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·zo)
“The Chabutra shown in plates of the ASI report volume-2,
is, in my opinion, are structure. This chabutra is based on
the floor. The floor has been left as it is. The section also
exists up to the floor. Up to this level it has no
flaw.”(E.T.C.)
;¬ ¬i; ¬i - l- ¬ ·¤¸ - ¬i ¤¬ ¬ ¤iº n¬ ¤ ¬iº l·ªii¤ n¤ r ¤i
¬·¬| ¬i nºi·i ¬| n¤| r , ·r ¬r| r | ¬ l¬· l¬¬ nºr ¬ ¤iºi
¤ ¬i º ¬i ¤ri ¤º ¤ ·lºi n ¬º· ¬| ¬ilºiºi ¬| n¤| r , ·r ¬l¤n ·r|
r | (¤ ¬ ·z/)
“Showing of floors from one to four in the isometric view
or whatsoever calculation of them has been done, is true.
But the way in which an endeavour has been made to show
the four floors here, is not proper.” (E.T.C.)
- n ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - ÷ · ¬ ¤ ·- ÷ /o¤ ¤º ¤|nº ÷
·/ ¬ ·|¤ ·i¬ l¤¤ - ·ilr·| ¬i º ¤¬ ¤n¬| ¬| ·i¬| l·ªii; ¤·
ºr| r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ;¬ ¤|nº ÷ ·/ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤r ·i¬|
¬-nº ¬| ¬iº ¬i ºr| r | ¤r ·i | ¬r·i ¬r| r l ¬ ¬- nº ¬|
¬i º ¬i n| r ; ¤ ¬| ·i ¬| «i , -n¸ ¤ - ·r| ri n| r | ...¤r
¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ -÷z ¬ ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i÷co
- «i; ¬i º ¤¬ n|º ¬i l·ºii· «·i r ¬i r | ;¬ ·¬ - - ¤¬ ¤n¬| ¬|
3857
·i¬| ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·ro)
"A slender drain is visible to me on the north side in the
picture below figure 17 on page 70-A of the ASI report
volume-1. It is correct to say that as per this figure 70, this
drain is going northwards. It is also correct to say that the
Buddhist stupas do not have such north- bound
drains. ..It is true to say that there is an arrow mark on the
left side in plate no.60 of the ASI report, volume-2. A
narrow drain is seen in this plate.” (E.T.C.)
l··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º -- ·¤º¬ ¤·¬| l ·-| ¬ ¬| ºi ª¬i n - º|
¬i ·¬i º| ¬ ¬· ¬i º ¬ · i i ºi ¬i ¬ ¬ ¤ i º- ·i ri n| r ¬i º
¬¬¬ «i · ¬ ¬i ¬i - l ¬¬| · l ¬¬| ª¤ - ¤¬n| ºr|
r | l ·l º¤n ni º ¤º l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º ¬i l ··i l ·n
·i ·· ·i i ¬¬ ·l ¬ · ¬ º· ¤º ·r| «·i ¤i n¤i ·i i |
¬ ¬i l¬ - · ¤r¬ +¤º «ni¤i r l··il·n ·i·· l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º «·i¤i
n¤i ¬¬ ·i·· ¬ -·i¬ ¤º l·-i ºi nlnl·l·i¤i | ¬ ·iiºi ¬i¬ ¬ ¤ iº-·i
ri ¬º ¤iº¤in ¬ ¬i¬i - l¬¬| · l¬¬| ª¤ - ¤¬n| ºr| r | ¤iº¤in
¬i¬ ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ n ·n ¬i¬, ¬¬| l-l··¬ ¤|lº¤·, ¬~n·n ¬i º
- n¬ ¤|lº¤· · «i· ¬ ¬i¬i ¬ r | - ¤r ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni r¸ l¬
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬i l·-i ºi ¤i ·i·· ºr ri n ¬·r ni ·i ·i| n¤i ri ni,
·¤i l¬ ªi ·i ; ¬ ·i ºi · l ¬¬| ·i | ¤¸ · ¬i ¬| · -- ·¤º ¬
l ·· · ¬ ¬ ¬i ; ¬·ºi · i ·r| l -¬ r | (¤ ¬ z·s)
“In my knowledge, the structural activities at the
disputed site started from the Kushana period and
continued in the subsequent periods in one form or the
other. Certainly the disputed site, which was the
‘disputed structure’, had not been built over ‘virgin
land’. As already stated by me, the site where the disputed
structure had been built, had seen structural activities
beginning from the Kushana period and continuing
3858
periods, in one form or the other. By subsequent periods, I
mean the Gupta period, early medieval period, Sultanate
period, Mughal period and subsequent periods. I cannot
tell that the constructions or buildings existing at the
disputed site, must have been demolished because during
the excavation, no remains were found of demolition of
any earlier period structure.”(E.T.C)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º - · ¤ ºi · ªi| r | - · l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º
¬- ªi ·· ¬ ·i ºi · ¤i º ¤ ¬i º · ªi ·i | ¤i ·i| ¤ ¬iº ¬i
¤|lº¤· - º ¬· ¬iº l-l·l·¤¬ ¤|lº¤· r | ¤ ¬i º ·i | ·i| l-l·l·¤¬
¤|lº¤· ¬| r | ;¬| ¤ ¬iº ¤ ¬i º ÷-¸ ·i| l-l·l·¤¬ ¤|lº¤· ¬| ·i|,
¤º·n ¤ ¬i º ÷ ·· ;¬ ¤|lº¤· ¬| ·r| ·i|| ¤ ¬iº ·· ¬i·i l·¬ ¬i¬
¬| r | ¤i ·i| ¤ ¬iº - ¤ºi ¬i «·i· ¬ l¬¤ ¬i;- n·ii ¤¬ ªii¬ nºr
¬| «l« ¤i l-- -| ¬iº ; -i ¬ ¤i¬·º ¬i ¤ ¤i n r ¬i r , l¬¬¬i ¬i;-
÷¬ ªi| ¬ri ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ zcs)
“I have seen floors at the disputed site. During the
excavation, I had seen four floors at the disputed site.
According to me, the fourth floor is of the medieval period.
The floor-three was also of the medieval period. Similarly,
the floor-two was also of the medieval period, but the floor-
one was not contemporary. The floor-one is of modern
period. Lime and a special type of good quality earth and
brick powder, called lime- surkhi, has been used in laying
down the fourth floor.” (E.T.C)
¬i·i| ¬i ·¤i· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ -÷z ¬ ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i «s, ro
n·ii rr ¤º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i n¤i, ¬i·i| · ;· ·¬ - ¬ ¬i · ªi¬º «ni¤i
l¬ ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i ro · rr - ¤ ¬i º ¬ ª¤i · · ¤ ¬i º ¬ ª¤i÷z l·ªii; ·
ºr r | ;· ·¬ - ¬ ¬i · ªi· ¬ ¤r -¤·- ri ni r l¬ ¤ri ¤º
¬·¬ l ¬· -- ·¤º¬ ¤·-| l ·-| ¬ ºr| | (¤ ¬ zc«)
“The attention of witness was drawn towards plate nos.49,
3859
50 & 55 of the A.S.I report vol.-2. After looking at these
plates, the witness stated that floor no.1 & floor no.2 are
visible in plate nos.50 & 55. By looking at these plates, it
transpires that successive structural activities existed
over here.” (E.T.C)
¤ o÷·¤i ¤ ¬i º ¬ ª¤i ÷z · s ¬-¬i¬|· ¤ ¬i º r `
¬o÷·i ·i ¤ ¬i ¬ r¸ ÷«÷r¸ ¬-¬i¬|· ·r| r |
¬o ¬¬¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ ·i ·i ¤ ¬i ¬ ¤¬ ¬-¤ ¬| «·| r ; ·r|
ri ¬¬n| r | ¤ ¬iº ¬ ª¤i÷z · « ¬| ·i| ¤r| l-·iln r | (¤ ¬ zcr)
“Question:- Are floor nos.2 & 3, contemporary floors?
Answer:- Both the floors are not exactly contemporary.
Answer:- By it, I mean that both the floors cannot be
contemporary. The position of floor nos.2 & 4, is also the
same.” (E.T.C)
- · l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¤ ¬i ¬ ¬| ¬i l-·iln · ªi| ·i|, ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬iº
¤ ¬i º ÷z · ÷s ¬i l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ¬i ·i ¬i ¬¬ni r ¬i º ¬¬|
nºr ¬ ¤ ¬iº ·o÷· ¬i ·i| l··il·n ·i·· ¬ -- ·¤º ¬ ¬i·i ¬i · i ¬i
¬¬ni r | ¤ ¬i º · o÷·, z n·ii s ·i| ¬-¬i¬|· ·r| ·i | -·¤ ¬ri l¬
¬-¬i¬|· ri · ¬i ¤ri ¤º l·ºi·i ¬·i r, ;¬¬i ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ l¬¬
¬-¤ ¤ ¬i º · o÷s «·i¤i n¤i ri ni, ¬¬| ¬-¤ ¤ ¬i º · o÷z ·i| «·i¤i
n¤i ri | ¤ ¬iº · o÷s, ¤ |l·¤¬ -- ·¤º ¬i ¤ ¬i º r | ¤r ¬¬ -- ·¤º
¬i ¤ ¬i º r , ¬i l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ·|¤ l-¬i|¤ ¬i º · o · · z l··il·n
·i·· ¬ r| ¤ ¬i º r | - n ¤ ¬i ·r| ¬nni r l¬ ¤ ¬i º · o÷z l¬¬|
¤ |l·¤¬ -- ·¤º ¬i ¤ ¬iº r | (¤ ¬ zc/÷zcs)
“According to the situation of floors seen by me at the
disputed site, the floor nos.2 & 3 can be linked to the
disputed structure and similarly the floor no.1 can also be
linked to the structure of the disputed building. Floor nos.-
1, 2 & 3 are not contemporary. The floor nos.2 & 3 were
also not contemporary. Stated on his own that
3860
contemporary has a special meaning over here. It implies
that when the floor-3 was laid, at the same time floor-2
must also have been laid. Floor no.-3 is a floor of previous
structure. It is the floor of that structure, which was
discovered beneath the disputed structure. Floor nos.1 & 2
are floors of the disputed structure. It does not appear to
me that the floor no.2, was the floor of any previous
structure.” (E.T.C)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ -÷z ¬| ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i÷zc ¬i l·ªii¤ ¬i· ¤º
¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ;¬ ·¬ - - ·i| ·i ¤-·iº ¬ · ¬iº - · ¤|¬ ¬ ¬i
¤ ¤in r ¬i r | ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i÷zr n·ii ·¬ - ¬ o zc - l¬· · ¬i º - ·
¤|¬ ¬ ¬ «iº - - · ¬·i| «ni¤i r , ¬i lº¤¸ ¬ l¬¤i n¤i r | ¤r
¤- ·i º l ·l º¤n ni º ¤º l ¬¬| · l ¬¬| -- ·¤º ¬ ¬r| ·
¬r| l r-¬i ºr ri n ¬i º ¬¬ -- ·¤º ¬ ªi l º·n ri · ¬
«i · r| ;·¬i ·i «i ºi ¤ ¤i n ;¬ ·| · - l ¬¤i n¤i ri ni |
;· ·i ·i ·¬ -i ¬i · ªi· ¬ ¤r -¤·- r l¬ ;¬- l« ¬ n·ii ¤-·iºi
·i ·i ¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i ¬i·i ¬n ºri r | (¤ ¬ soz)
“On plate no. 26 of ASI Report, Volume-2 being shown the
witness stated – Two decorated stone pieces are used in
this plate as well. The decorated pieces in plate nos. 25 and
26 – about which I have just stated – have been reused.
These stones must have been somewhere parts of some
structure or the other, and only after that structure
having been demolished, they may have been reused in
this foundation. At the sight of these two plates it is clear
that there is use of both bricks and stones in them.”(E.T.C.)
¬i·i| ¬i ·¤i· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - z ¬ ·¬ - ¬ o÷rs · co ¬|
¬i º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i n·ii l·-· ¤ º· ¤¸ si÷
¤ º·÷ ·¤i ·¬ - ¬ o ÷rs n·ii co - ¬º¬ ¬º -- ·¤º ¬ l¬·iº ¬i
l··iº ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ·r ¬¬| ¤|lº¤· ¬| r l¬¬ ¤|lº¤· ¬i
3861
¬º¬ ¬º -- ·¤º r `
¬-nº÷ ¤r ¬ ·i· r l¬ ¬º¬ ¬º -- ·¤º n·ii ·|·iº ¤¬ r| ¤|º|¤· ¬|
ri | ¬º¬ ¬º -- ·¤º n·i i ·| ·i º n · n ¤| º| ¤· ¬| ri ·i
¬ · i · r |
¤ º·÷ ·¤i ¬¤ºi ·n ·¬ -i ¬i · ªi¬º ¬i¤ «ni ¬¬n r l¬ ;¬ -·ii·
¤º n ·n ¤|º|¤· ¬ «i· ·i| -- ·¤º¬ ¤·-|l·-|¬ ºr| r `
¬-nº÷ ;· ·¬ -i ¬i · ªi ¬º ;¬ «iº - «ni ¤i·i ¬-·i· ·r| r l¬
¬¬ -·ii· ¤º «i· - -- ¬¤º¬ ¤l·-l·-|¬ r ; ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ szs)
“The attention of the witness was drawn to plate nos. 59
and 60 of ASI report, volume-2 and the following question
was asked:-
Question:- Is the wall, visible on the edge of the circular
structure seen in Plate nos. 59 and 60, is of the same
period as that of the circular structure?
Answer:- The circular structure and the wall may be of the
same period. The circular structure and the wall are
possibly of the Gupta period.
Question:- Can you, by looking at the aforesaid plates, tell
whether structural activities have been witnessed at this
place even after the Gupta period?
Answer:- By looking at these plates it not possible to tell
whether structural activities were later seen or not at that
place.” (E.T.C.)
¤ ·- s/ ¤ ¤º ¬i ¬~¤º¬ l·¤il¬- ¬i l·ªii· ¬ l¬¤ nil¬¬i «·i¤|
n¤| r n·ii l¬¬¬i ºi|·i ¬ - ·- l-· ¤|º|¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¬i¤ l· l·-¤ - ·
¬i; - ¤ - ¬¤i ·¤i r , ¬i · ªi¬º ¤r ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ - ¤ · o÷/
- n ·ni · ¤i -- n ·ni ¤|º|¤· ¬ l·¤il¬- ¬ r ¬«l¬ - ¤ · o ¬ o s -
;· ·i ·i r| ¬i¬i ¬ ¬·ºi·i ·r| l·ªii¤ n¤ r | ;¬¬ ¬i·i÷¬i·i ;¬
¤|nº ¬i · ªi¬º ¤r ·i| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ - ¤ · o ¬| ÷ / -
¬ ¤º ¬ ª¤i s,·o,··,·z ¬ ·iiºi ¬i¬ ¬ l·¤il¬- ¬i ·ºii n| r ¬iº ;¬|
nºr ¬ - ·¤ · o ¬ o s - ¬ ¤º ¬ o÷/ · s ¬ ·iiºi ¬i¬ ¬ ¬~¤º¬
3862
l·¤il¬- ¬i ·ºii n| r | (¤ ¬ sso÷ss·)
“Looking at the table on page 37A, showing cultural
deposits and having the caption ‘Tentative Periodization of
the Disputed Site at Ayodhya’, it can be said that there are
deposits of the Gupta and the post-Gupta period in Trench
no. 7; whereas remains of both of these periods are not
shown in Trench no. J-3. Besides by looking at this figure it
can also be said that Layer nos. 9, 10, 11 & 12 of Trench
no. G-7 show the deposits of the Kushana period; and in
this very manner, Layer nos. 7 & 8 of Trench no. J-3 show
cultural deposits of the Kushana period.” (E.T.C.)
¬-ªil·n -·i¬ ¤º ¤l· ¬¤ºi ·n ¬i¬i ¬| ·-n ¬i ¬ «iº - ¤¸ si ¬i
ºri r ni ¬¬ ¬ « ·i - - ¬ ·¬ ¤r| ¬r ¬¬ni r ¸ l ¬
l ¬·÷l ¬· - · ¤ ¬ - ¬ · i i ºi , n · ni , ¤i -- n · ni · ºi ¬¤¸ n
¬i ¬i ¬ ¬~¤º¬ l ·¤i l ¬- ¬ l ¬¬l ¬¬ ·i º ¬¤l -·i n r ,
·ri ¤º ;· ¬i ¬i ¬| ¤i -º| ni ¬·º¤ l -¬| r | (¤ ¬
ss·)
“If I am asked about the things of the aforesaid periods
present on the excavation site, I can only say that potteries
of the Kushana, Gupta, post-Gupta and Rajput periods
have certainly been discovered in the Trenches where
cultural deposits of the said periods are serially
present.”(E.T.C.)
¤r -¤·- ri ¬ini r l¬ ·z·| ºini··| ¬ ¤r¬ ·i| ;¬ -·i¬ ¤º -i··
«l-n¤i ¬ ¬·ºi ·i ¬¤¬··i r |
¬ ilrº r l¬ ¬nº ¬º¬ ¬º -- ·¤º ¬iº ¬¬¬ ¬i¬÷¤i¬ ¬
¬·¤ -- ·¤º¬ ¬·ºi ·i n ·n ¬i¬ ¬ ¬ «l·in r , ni ·z·| ºi ni · ·| ¬
¤¸ · ¤ri ¤º -- ·¤º¬ ¤·¬| l ·-| ¬ ¬ ri · ¬| ¤ l · - ¬ºn
r | (¤ ¬ ss·)
“It gets clear that remains of human settlements, even prior
3863
to the 12
th
century, are there on the site.
It is clear that if the remains of the circular structure
and other structures adjoining it, are related to the
Gupta period, that establishes the presence of structural
activities there prior to 12
th
century.” (E.T.C.)
;¬ «in ¬| ¤¸ º| ¬-·ii··i r l¬ ¤i¬º· ºi· ¬ +¤º ¬i ; -i ¬|
·|·iº r, ¬¬¬i ¬in ¤¬ ¬º¬ ¤i¬º· ºi· ¬ ª¤ - ·i| ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i
ri |
¤ o÷ ¬i¤· ¤r ¬ri l¬ ¤ ¬i ri ¬¬ni r l¬ ; -i ·i¬| ·|·iº ¬i
¤ ¤i n ¤ i¬º· ºi· - l¬¤i n¤i ri , ni ¤r -- ·¤º ¬| ·|·iº ·r| ri
¬¬n| r | ·¤i ¬i¤ ;¬ «in ¬ ¬r-n r `
¬o÷ ¤ri ¤º ¤r ¬- ·i · r l ¬ ¤- ·i ºi ¬ ¤ i ¬º· ºi · ¬ +¤º
¬i ; -i ¬| ·| ·i º r , ·r ¤r¬ -- ·¤º ¬i l r-¬i ºr|
ri | (¤ ¬ ssr)
“There is every possibility that the brick wall above the
foundation, may also have been used as the foundation
afterwards.
Question:- You stated that the brick wall might have been
used as the foundation; then it cannot be the wall of the
structure. Do you agree on this point?
Answer:- Here it is possible that the brick wall above the
stone foundation may have earlier been the part of the
structure.” (E.T.C.)
- º ¬· ¬iº ;¬ ¤|nº · - ¬i - ¬º- - l·ªii¤i n¤i r, ·r -|¬ r | .
...- º| ¬i ·¬i º| ¬ - ni l «¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ·i ºi · ¬| o¤| o¬i ºo
- l ·ªi i ; n; ¬ s ¤·i l -¬| ¬ ¬| ¤ l · - r ; | (¤ ¬ s««)
“The measurement shown in figure no. 1 is, in my opinion,
correct. … As per my knowledge, the presence of some
anomalies in the GPR got confirmed in course of the
excavation.” (E.T.C.)
3864
¤ ¬i º · o s · ¤ ¬i º · o « ¬ ¬ · | r ; ·| ·i º l ··i l ·n
·i ·· ¬ ¬-¤ ¬ ¤¸ · ¬| ·i | |. ...- º l·¤iº ¬ ¤ |nº ÷zs -
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬| ¬i l-·iln l·ªii¤| n¤| r , ·r ¬r| r | (¤ ¬ srs)
“The walls connected with Floor No. 3 and Floor No. 4
were prior to the time of the disputed structure. In my
opinion, the position in which the disputed structure is
shown in Figure 23 is correct.” (E.T.C.)
3803. PW 31, Dr. Ashok Dutta has assailed the ASI report
only in respect to pillar bases by means of his affidavit dated
20.1.2006. However, while agreeing that underneath the
disputed structure there exist earlier structure, he said in para 19
and 20 of the affidavit that the periphery region of the mound
was inhabited by Islamic cultured people and the site was
continuously occupied by Islamic cultured people right from the
time of Sultanat period and the structure associated with this
level belong to Islamic culture. Regarding the affidavit, he says
on page 67:
“I have gone through the report submitted by ASI, and on
the basis of my personal observation I filed my affidavit in
examination in chief in the court. The affidavit filed by me
is my observation report.” (Page 67)
3804. The following aspects in the proceeding and report
of ASI has not been disputed by him:
“Human animal figurines in terracotta and stones were
found from disputed site also. … It is correct to say that
terracotta figurine were recovered during excavation and
have been shown in the report of the ASI. ” (Page 75)
“The floors which have been shown in this figure are
correct as four floors were found from excavation and the
floors as shown in figure 23-A may be similar as this figure
3865
is the replica of floors found in the excavation" (Page 90)
“On the basis of these floors an archaeologist can draw
conclusion that these floor represent structure of
different periods. It is very difficult to infer on the basis of
these floors that it was an open space.” (Page 92)
“The floors which have been shown in this figure are
correct as four floors were found from excavation and the
floors as shown in figure 23-A may be similar as this figure
is the replica of floors found in the excavation” (Page 96)
“I agree with the opinion of ASI that there lie a number
of structure in the forms of walls and floors beneath the
disputed structure. Wall number 1-15 may be related to the
disputed structure. Walls number 16 onwards are walls
belonging to a period before the construction of disputed
structure. (Page 249)
“Figure 3B … shown to the witness. The witness stated that
it appears from this figure that it has used 3 different
colours for structures belonging to 3 different periods 6,7
and 8. It is correct to say that in this figure walls and
structures found during excavation are shown. I can
identify wall no.16 and 17 in this figure 3B. Wall number
16 is a bit larger than wall no. 17. Wall no. 16 appears to
be about 50 meters in length, where as wall no. 17 is
approximately 35-40 meters if the measurement as done by
ASI is correct. I have seen wall no. 17 on spot but I have
not taken its measurement. The measurement shown by ASI
in this figure 3B appears to be correct because it will be
presumed that them measurement given by ASI is correct.”
(Page 249)
3866
“The structures which were found beneath the structure,
belong to earlier than 1528 AD.” (Page 253)
3805. In cross examination, PW 31 has concurred with the
periodization of ASI except that of period VI :
“I agree with the suggestion that the stratigraphy is it self
a scientific mode of periodization. I agree with the
periodization given by the ASI of period 1 from 6
th
to 3
rd
century B.C., period 2 is from 2
nd
to 1
st
century B.C., period
third is from 1
st
to 3
rd
century A.D. and period 4 from 4
th
to
6
th
century A.D. The ASI has fixed period 5 from 7
th
to 10
th
century A.D. and period 6 has been fixed by ASI from 11
th
-
12
th
century and period 7 is from 12
th
to the beginning of
the 16
th
century A.D. It is true that in chapter 3 the ASI has
given periodization on the basis of dynasty, Stratigraphy as
well as on the basis of century wise but no stratigraphical
sequence has been followed by the ASI. Moreover they have
used both centurywise as well as dynasty wise
periodization. Volunteered that gross mistake of
periodization is in the period 6 which is shown as
medieval sultanate-period starting from 11
th
- 12
th
century
A.D. when they were non existent. This shows that the
Stratigraphy was not followed properly. The ASI people
had not done the carbon dating of different samples found
from different level to support their periodization.” (Page
254)
3806. The parts of statement of PW 32 Supriya Verma,
which shows agreement on some aspects of ASI report are:
"It is correct that the ASI in its report has shown it as a
Ram Chabutara because a larger platform on the top of it
3867
was existing and known as Ram Chabutara. The ASI has
also in its report said that this platform was a Vedi.” (Page
97)
“It is correct to say that from the findings of ASI, it is
established that there was some structure beneath the floor
of disputed site and I also concede that there was some
structure beneath the site in dispute.” (Page 131/132)
"However, I agree that the three floors were found.”
(Page 134)
“All the three floors no. 2 to 4 are attached with wall no.
16. Wall no. 16 is the same wall which is just below the
wall no. 5. Undisputedly, wall no. 5 was that of the
disputed structure. It is correct to say that below wall no.
16 is there wall no. 17. Yes, it is correct to say that ASI has
shown a circular shrine which according to me is Buddhist
Stoop.” (Page 135-136)
“It is correct to say that this wall 22 lies below the
foundation of wall 16 in west-side. This goes to show that
wall no. 22 is earlier to wall 16. Wall no. 25 runs in north
south direction which is situated in the east of the disputed
structure. Wall No. 26 is earlier to wall no. 25. Just below
wall no. 26 is wall no. 27 which is running in north south
direction with a slight angle. The period of wall no. 27 has
been indicated by ASI as Kushan period. I also date this
wall to Kushan period. Huge calcrete blocks are attached
to wall no. 28. It is in trench J-3. ASI has dated it to
Shunga period and I agree with this conclusion. Shunga
period can be dated between 2
nd
B.C. and 1
st
B.C. century.
Kushan can be dated between 1
st
century A.D. to 3
rd
century
3868
A.D. Wall no. 16, 18-A, 18-B and 18-C are more or less
contemporary.” (Page 146)
“I agree with the finding of the ASI regarding
existence of the structure underneath the disputed
structure but I disagree with the interpretation arrived at
by ASI. I do not agree with the procedure followed by ASI. I
think, very categorically it is very difficult to say that some
of the finds of ASI relate to Hindu religion structures
because these finds could well have been a part of palaces
Budhist structure, Jain structure and Islamic
structure.”(Page 147)
“As far as plans are concerned except those concerning
the pillar bases I agree with the rest of the plans given in
the ASI report.” (Page 151)
“It is true that ASI has given concordance of some of
the trenches showing relationship of different areas of
the excavations. I agree with this chart.” (Page 153)
“It is true that plate 129 of ASI report is of cobra head.
Similarly, plate 130 of the report is of bull head.” (Page
162)
“Plate 133 of ASI report is of bull figurine.” (Page 162)
“These animal figurines which are shown in plates 129 to
135 were recovered during excavation by the ASI.” (Page
162)
“I agree with the ASI report in regard to the pillar bases
1 and 5 shown in plate 37 Vol II of the ASI report.”
(Page 167)
“It is correct to say that the disputed structure was not
constructed on the virgin land.” (Page 168)
3869
“Yes, in the foundation of the disputed structure, a few
decorated stones were used which were found during
excavation.”(Page 171)
“From walls 16 to 28, except wall 18-D are the walls
underneath the disputed structure." (Page 137)
3807. PW 24 though had disputed the several artefacts
found at different level by ASI stating that they were not found
thereform, but PW 32 has contradicted on page 107 and said :
“I have no doubt about the depths of the antiquities
mentioned in ASI report.”
3808. Now we start with our journey of adjudicating the
objections raised against the ASI's report and findings, in the
light of the evidence adduced by the parties and the arguments
of learned counsels.
3809. Initially the case set up by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) was
that the building in dispute was constructed at a place where
neither there existed any Hindu religious structure nor the place
in dispute was place of worship nor there exist any evidence to
show birth of Lord Rama thereat. However, with the excavation
proceedings progressed, a marked change in the approach of
plaintiffs (Suit-4) becomes evident. Some of the Archaeologist,
who also deposed later in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4), against
ASI report, tried to set up a new case that there appears to be an
Islamic religious structure existing beneath the disputed building
or that there existed an Islamic religious structure when the
disputed building was constructed. The suggestion was that it
could be either an Idgah or a Kanati Masjid wherein only one
long wall on the western side was constructed with a niche. The
consensus appears to be amongst the eight experts of Muslim
3870
parties, more or less accepting the existence of a structure
beneath the disputed structure. The above approach that the
earlier structure was a Islamic religious structure excludes the
possibility of a non religious structure at the disputed site
beneath the disputed structure. It narrows down our enquiry to
the question whether such structure could be an Islamic
religious structure or non Islamic structure i.e. a Hindu
Religious Structure.
3810. In the pleadings, specific case of the plaintiffs (Suit-
4) was about non existence of any temple or building on the
disputed site when the building in dispute was constructed.
Subsequently, parties have not sought for any amendment in the
pleadings and there is no case or suggestion even till date, in the
pleadings that there could have been or there was any possibility
of existence of an Islamic religious structure at the time when
the disputed structure was constructed and it is after demolition
of such earlier structure the subsequent one was constructed.
3811. On the contrary, besides plaintiffs (Suit 5),
defendant no.13 (Suit 4) had also pleaded that there existed a
temple which was demolished and thereafter the disputed
structure was constructed and the structure of the earlier
demolished temple can be found beneath the disputed structure.
It is in this context the OPW-9 had deposed that on excavation
of the disputed site these facts can be fortified.
3812. The entire process of excavation and submission of
report has been completed by ASI in a record period of about
six months and ten days’. It commenced its work on 12
th
March
2003 and submitted report on 22
nd
August 2003. The report is in
two Volumes. First consists of text of report and Second
3871
contains various plates (photographs) of the finds, excavated
site, trenches etc. The report has been submitted by Sri Hari
Manjhi and B.R. Mani with contribution from M/S Shubhra
Pramanik, P.K. Trivedi, P. Venkatesan, L.S. Rao, C.B. Misra,
A.R. Siddqui, T.S. Ravishankar, C.B. Patil, S.K. Sharma, M.V.
Vishweshwara, G.S. Khwaja, Vishnu Kant, N.C. Prakash, D.K.
Singh, Niraj Sinha, A.A. Hashmi, Bhuvan Vikrama, Sujeet
Nayan, Gajanan L. Katade, Prabash Sahu, Zulfeqar Ali and S.K.
Tewari.
3813. Volume I of the Report is in 10 Chapters as under:
A. Chapter 1 - "Introduction" written by B.R.Mani
(Page 1-12)
B. Chapter II – "Cuttings" written by B.R. Mani,C.B.
Misra,C.B. Patil, A.A. Hashmi (Page 13-36)
C. Chapter III - "Stratigraphy and Chronology"
written by L.S. Rao, Bhuvan Vikrama, N.C. Prakash,
Zulfeqar Ali (Page 37-47)
D. Chapter IV – "Structure" written by B.R. Mani, D.K.
Singh, Bhuvan Vikrama, Gajanan L. Katade, Prabhash
Sahu, Zulfeqar Ali (Page 48-72)
E. Chapter V – "Pottery" written by B.R. Mani, P.
Venkateshan, Vishnu Kant, Prabhu Sahu (Page 73 – 120)
F. Chapter VI - "Architectural Fragments" written by
L.S. Rao, A.R. Siddiqui, Sujeet Nayan, (Page 121 – 173)
G. Chapter VII - "Terracotta Figurines" written by P.K.
Trivedi, C.B. Patil, Gajanan L. Katade (Page 174 – 203)
H. Chapter VIII - "Inscriptions, Seal, Sealings &
Coins" written by T.S. Ravishankar, G.S. Khwaja (Page
204 – 218)
3872
I. Chapter IX - "Miscellaneous Objects" written by
Shubhra Pramanik, S.K. Sharma, Prabhash Sahu (219 –
267)
J. Chapter X – "Summary of Result" (Page 268 - 272)
3814. Besides, there are five Appendices (though
numbered as Appendix I, IIA IIB, III and IV) and the contents
thereof in summary are as under:
Appendix Contents Page No.
Appendix I C14 Dating of Charcoal Samples from
Ayodhya-excavation
273
Appendix IIA Report on the Chemical Analysis of
Floor Samples pertaining to different
trenches collected from Ayodhya
274-277
Appendix IIB Report on the Chemical Analysis of
Floor Samples pertaining to different
trenches collected from Ayodhya
278-285
Appendix III On-Site Chemical Treatment and
Preservation of Excavated Artefacts
286-290
Appendix IV Information on the Data-Form as per
direction of Special Full Bench,
Lucknow of the Hon’ble High Court,
Allahabad.
291-309
3815. The complex nature of the job, time constraint,
functioning constraint, continuous observance by a huge
number of persons, disrupted peace and calm atmosphere of
functioning in a matter which requires serious concentration,
were some of the feature in which this body, not habitual of, but
worked. This is admitted by ASI as is evident from Chapter I,
“Introduction”, under the heading “Objections and
Methodology” and “Constraints” which reads as under :
“Objectives and Methodology
The High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of
India to excavate the site attesting the statement of the GPR
3873
Survey that the exact nature of anomalies/objects has to be
confirmed by systematic truthing such as provided by
archaeological trench. Thus excavations at the disputed
site were taken up with this objective only.
The excavation at the disputed site of Ayodhya is of a
very special nature though with the limited but defined
objective. All precautions by the Archaeological Survey of
India under the High Court’s direction were taken to plan it
in such a way that the work could be taken up and
completed as per the directions of the High Court. In
planning the excavation, it was decided to adopt the latest
technique of layout of trenches where limited spaces are
available and therefore in place of general practice of lay
out of 10x10 m. squares divided into four quadrants of
4.25x4.25 m. separated by 0.50 m. baulk all around, the
change in the practice was made by fixing pegs at a
distance of every 5 m in both north-south and east-west
directions with cutting area of 4x4 m in leaving 0.5 m baulk
all around which in contiguous trenches effectively left a
space of 1.0 m in between two cuttings for the easy
movement of archaeologists and labourers. One meter wide
baulk was specially provided, considering the fact that due
to modern fillings and debris the trench may not collapse
due to earth pressure in a most sensitive area.
To avoid any confusion and for better understanding
by even laymen, instead of the X, Y and Z areas of
traditional layout, it was decided to put the initial reference
peg Al at the north-west corner of the site and accordingly
A, B, C, D etc. letters were put to denote trenches in the
3874
west to east direction and numerals 1,2,3 4 etc. attached
with them in the north to south direction. Only at later
stage to expand the excavated area in the north the Z area
was included with this setup and layout of trenches. The
entire area under excavation was designated as AYD-1 to
differentiate it with other mounds in the nearby localities.
Full attention was given to the report and GPR
Survey drawing submitted by the Tojo-Vikas International
(Pvt.) Ltd and accordingly decision was taken to start
excavation at first to the north of Ram Chabutra and also
to its adjoining area where greater signals had been
detected by the GPR Survey. As the work of excavation
required to be completed at a time bound programme, the
archaeological documentation including drawing and
photography of the structural remains, pottery and
antiquities were arranged to be done simultaneously.
Samples of plaster, floors, bones, charcoal, palaeo-
botanical remains were also collected for scientific studies
and analysis. Trenches were also laid in the entire disputed
area on all sides excepting the area of the makeshift
structure where Ram Lala is enshrined along with its
periphery at a distance of 10 feet from Ram Lala as
specified by the High Court. The excavation work was
planned in phased manner in particular areas as per
significant signals for anomalies pointed out by the GPR
Survey.
The entire proceedings of excavation and recording
of structures and antiquities were documented by still and
video cameras as per the directions of the Hon’ble High
3875
Court.
Constraints
On the directions of the Hon’ble High Court,
Archaeological Survey of India has excavated ninety
trenches in a limited time of five months, soon after which
the excavation report in required to be submitted within
fifteen days. This is an unprecedented event in the history
of one hundred and forty two years of the existence of the
Survey. All through the period of excavations at the
disputed site favourable as well as adverse criticism has
been encountered in the press and the media. In view of the
very sensitive and important issue involved, Archaeological
Survey of India did not react or clarify the position as per
the orders of the Hon’ble Court.
Throughout the period of excavation the team had to
work under close presence of advocates, parties and their
nominees involved in the title suit. As per the instructions
of the High Court in order to maintain transparency, all the
excavated material including antiquities, objects of
interests, glazed pottery and tile and bones recovered from
the trenches were sealed in the presence of advocates,
parties and nominees and kept on the same day of their
recovery in the strong room provided by the Authorised
Person (The Commissioner of Faizabad Division) to the
excavation team for the specific purpose which again was
locked and sealed everyday when it was opened. Thus the
time available for their documentation, study, photography,
drawing and chemical preservations was limited to just a
few hours only and that too not in the case of material
3876
recovered from the trenches towards closing of the work for
the day. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the study,
documentation and preservation of the material after
opening the seals in the presence of advocates, parties or
their nominees and again putting them under seal in their
presence. Work was often affected and delayed due to
formalities involved in securities checks and such other
administrative requirements.
Working condition worsened at the onslaught of the
monsoon from June onwards when the entire site was
covered with multi-coloured waterproof sheets creating
heat and humidity besides total darkness in a number of
deep trenches. Monkeys started damaging the sheets as a
result of which several layers of the sheets were spread
over bamboo and wooden poles. They created further
darkness. Photography was also affected due to bad light
and natural colours were not easily obtained as the multi-
coloured sheets reflected their colours on the surface and
sections. Much difficulty was felt for the stratigraphical
observations particularly for determining layers. These
factors slowed the process of ongoing work. However, the
Authorised Person was asked by the High Court to provide
sufficient light and air in the covered area for further work.
The excavation team had to lower electric lights several
meters deep in the trenches where work was continuing at
further deep levels. Grill barricading and poles fixed on
baulks of traenches throughout the area made normal
movements difficult. One team member fell down and
fractured his hand and leg while others including some
3877
casual labourers received electric shocks by touching
pedestal fans fixed on baulks. In spite of all such
constraints the team of the Archaelogical Survey of India
worked vigorously with full devotion and spirit.
In the task of synthesizing and analyzing the
enormous data that excavation produced every care has
been taken to avoid mistakes, however, due to voluminous
data coupled with time constraint some typing errors may
have inadvertently crept in the report.”
3816. It is also mentioned at page 12 of the report that
initially, excavation team of ASI consisted of 14 Members but
it was enlarged at later stages to a total of 53 Members including
two team leaders. Since ASI in this particular case proceeded on
the report of GPR survey, carried out under the orders of this
Court, it had the benefit of site information to some extent
which obviously made it convenient to decide the working
stretch with better certainty than that of a case of unknown
excavation site. This is what has been said in Chapter II
(Cuttings):
"The benchmark denoting 108.48 m above the Mean
Sea level was fixed at the spot on the stone slab, which
represents the place where the outer eastern gateway of
the disputed structure once stood. The 108.0 m contour at
the site clearly suggests the region, which covered the core
area of structural activity (Fig.1). Though the surrounding
ground level still contains the cultural deposits and debris
accumulated for centuries, the contour map itself suggests
that the deposits at the site are no less than 8.0 m. Radar
signatures of foundation and the different levels of
3878
stratigraphy shown in the GPR Survey had already
suggested that anomalies mapped are not all
contemporaneous and they appear in different
stratigraphic contexts noticed between the depths of 0.5
to 5 m (Fig.2)
In view of the above indications from GPR Survey
followed by the contour survey, full precautions were taken
for archaeological investigations through excavations
planned in such a way that most of the area of strong
amplitude and ringy signals, strong dipping reflectors,
discontinuous anomaly alignments and scattered
anomalies could be covered in the excavation trenches
which were laid out in the form of 5 x 5 m grids with 4 x
4 m of cutting line instead of larger trenches as already
explained in the previous chapter. This was planned to take
up excavations to be completed in accordance with the time
bound programme with the intention to cover maximum
GPR indications as per the directions of the High Court
and also in order to simplify the layout with lesser chances
of erosion of sections and easy movement on baulks.
The area covered under GPR Survey comprises 132
trenches, which were all laid out, though many of them do
not contain anomalies. Trenches having no anomalies
were avoided and they were taken up for excavation only
when some structural alignments were found to be traced
in them. Five trenches in the northern area were excavated
though that area was not covered by the GPR survey but
was essential for excavation for exposing the buried
structural remains. In total a number of 90 trenches were
3879
partly or fully excavated.
The entire site was divided into five areas – a) the
eastern area, b) the southern area, c) the western area, d)
the northern area and e) the raised platform. Excavations
in all these five areas were taken up in phased manner
(Fig.3) for better understanding the nature of structures
and cultural deposits.
The Eastern Area
Excavations were taken up first in the eastern area
where the eastern enclosure wall alongwith remnants of a
gateway was noticed below whtich lie floors and walls of
earlier phases (Pls. 1-2). The central part of the platform,
locally called Ram Chabutra was noticed in this area
constructed in five stages. The area is presently enclosed
by barricaded gangway from three sides through which the
visitors move. Seventeen trenches fully or partly, twelve
within the above area and five outside the gangway within
outer barricade towards east were taken up for
excavation in J,K and L series. The main features exposed
in this area include fourteen extant courses of reused
brickbats and calcrete stone blocks in the enclosure wall
with a part of 2.12 m in the middle of the wall suggesting
the entrance doorway which was topped by marble slabs
and the floor levels consisting of lime and cement floors by
marble dedicatory slabs of the second half of the twentieth
century. Some elongated hearths and a furnace of late
Mughal period were found (Pl.3). The enclosure wall
was constructed over the lime floor connected with the
disputed structure and therefore, it seems to be a later
3880
addition. The lime floor has a platform, sloping towards
east and a step to descend on the floor. Below the lime floor
a brick paved floor having large squarish burnt bricks was
encountered running further to the north beyond the outer
barricade. Towards west of the brick floor another
pavement attached to it divided by a brick-on-edge pattern
was found which is composed of brickbats. Another lime
floor has been noticed below this pavement. These floors
were damaged during construction or enlargement of the
Ram Chabutra which is located abutting them on the
southern side. In trench J3 excavations were conducted
upto the depth of 10.85 m when natural soil was found.
The Southern Area
Twenty-three trenches were partly or fully
excavated towards the south of the raised platform, party
covering it (Pl.4). This area covered the southern part of
the disputed structure alongwith its southern enclosure
wall moving towards west. Towards east the extended part
of the Ram Chabutra was encountered abutting the floor of
the courtyard of the disputed structure. Parts of the
northern and western walls and their foundation and the
foundation of the southern and eastern sides built of
calcrete stone blocks of the disputed structure were exposed
which were found resting directly in the west over a 1.77 m
wide brick wall of earlier period, the lower part of which
has decorated stone blocks and calcrete stone foundation
and over 50 pillar bases arranged at regular intervals
connected with the lime plastered brick wall through a
floor. The core of the wall of the disputed structure was
3881
filled with brickbats. The pillar bases comprise some
courses of brick bats in squarish or circular formations
over which two to five calcrete stone blocks are kept,
possibly below sand stone blocks as found in the northern
area, though only one decorated sand stone block was
found in this area. Further below the above mentioned
brick wall another brick wall was noticed on the top of
which decorated stone blocks were found used. In the
levels further down brick structures were noticed in
trenches E8 and F8, though their full plan could not be
exposed. At two points, below the pillar bases, traces of
earlier pillar bases were also found in trenches F8 and
F9 which were connected with the second floor below
the floor with which most of the other pillar bases were
connected. The brick wall mentioned above was found
badly damaged on the southern side, possibly for taking
out its bricks. This wall was found extending in the
northern side of the raised platform. A brick shrine,
circular on its outer and squarish on its inner plan with a
rectangular projection for entrance in the east and a chute
on its northern side was found below the levels of above
mentioned walls. Due to steep slope in the area further
south of the trenches, it was not possible to excavate there.
The natural soil was reached in G7 at the depth of 10.84
m, which was confirmed by digging further upto the
depth of 13.20 m (Pl.5).
The Western Area
Trenches laid out towards west of the raised
platform on the slope represented by B and C series of
3882
trenches fall under the western area. During 1976-77
excavation in a trench gave the chronological sequence of
the site. The area was covered with fallen masonry blocks
and stones of the disputed structure. In order to have a
thorough probing to locate and study the anomalies
indicated in the GPR Survey, the area was first of all
cleared of the accumulated fallen material, the huge chunks
of which weighing several tones were lifted with the help of
a crane and stalked in the closeby area with out breaking
them as emotions of many people are attached with them
(Pl. 6). After cleaning the area (Pl.7), excavations in parts
of nineteen trenches were conducted mainly to verify the
anomalies mentioned in the GPR Survey. At some places
remains of a brick wall having nearly fifty courses were
seen, particularly in the northern side. In the rest of the
trenches mostly accumulated debris was found resting
over earlier levels or structures (Pl.8).
The Northern Area
The area towards norths of the raised platform has
the barricade with gate and is more often used by the
priests and the security forces (Pl.9) Twenty-one trenches
were fully or partly excavated in this area. The massive
brick wall located in the southern area was noticed running
in north-south direction in this area and below its level
another wall was also found as seen earlier in the
southern area. The top three floors and pillar bases
attached with the top floor were exposed (Pl.10). The
interesting feature of the pillar bases in this area was that
over the calcrete stone blocks these bases were given
3883
proper finishing by providing squarish stone blocks of sand
stone encased with four upright stone pieces placed on the
four sides for giving support to the pillar at the base in
order to avoid any movement. The stone blocks project a
little above the floor.
The squarish brick pavement noticed in a number
of trenches in the eastern area was found extended in
the northern area in northeastern part in trenches K1,
ZK1 and ZL1 below the lime floor connected with the
disputed structure. The eastern enclosure wall was traced
in this area in K1 and was found turning towards west in
ZK1. A drain of recent origin was noticed alongwith flight
of steps leading to the site from the northern road, which is
no longer in use at present.
The Raised Platform
After the demolition of the disputed structure, nearly
1.5 m to 2.0 m of structural debris has accumulated over
central and northern part of the erstwhile structure. The
makeshift structure is also located on it. The High Court
allowed excavations by order dated 05 March 2003 on this
raised platform with the condition that archaeologists shall
not disturb any area where the idol of Shir Ram Lala is
existing and approximately 10 feet around it and they shall
not affect the worship of Shri Ram Lala and thus, status
quo as regards His Puja and worshippers’ right of Darshan
shall be maintained.
Excavation partly in ten trenches on the raised
platform was taken up besides part of the four trenches
of southern area, which fall under the raised platform. It
3884
was feared that if the excavation in the trenches on raised
platform was done, the modern brick walls enclosing the
makeshift structure already having cracks may collapse
(Pl.11) and the mound on which Shri Ram Lal is existing
may also be damaged. In view of taking all the required
precautions the High Court on 22 May 2003 directed the
Chief Engineer, P.W.D. to remain present at the time of
excavation and to ensure and make necessary
arrangements so that no structure is affected. While
excavations the P.W.D. provided G.I. sheets and wooden
planks against the exposed sections to avoid erosion of
debris and stones and packed the cavities with sand bags.
Brick structures, floors and pillar bases were found
below the floors and the walls of the disputed structure
on the raised platform as well.
Confirmation of G.P.R. Survey
As ordered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, the Archaeological Survey of
India invited the Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt.) Limited,
New Delhi to undertake the G.P.R. Survey at the disputed
site at Ayodhya. The final report on GPR Survey submitted
on 17 Feb 2003 concluded that the ‘GPR Survey reflects in
general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5
meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and
contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations
walls slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the
site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to be
confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as provided
by archaeological trenching.
3885
The report further mentions that the accuracy of
depth is normally within # 5%, 10% for homogeneous
strata while X-Y accuracy could be and the measurements
of Georadar are based on the returning signals by a
dielectric constant change in addition to other limitations
of the GPR Survey. The report also mentions that the
anomalies are of different types like discrete anomaly such
as pillar or wall foundation ; ringy signal indicating some
kind of floor or platform structure made of concrete, bricks
or stone slabs; rubbles of heterogeneous material or
reworked materials from its original stratigraphy; the
mounds containing the buried collapsed dwellings etc.
A word of caution was also included in the report
that not all hyperbolas shaped radar anomalies correspond
to pillars and wall foundation.
Keeping in view these parameters, the
Archaeological Survey of India conducted the excavation
at the disputed site at Ayodhya between 12
th
March 2003
to 07
th
August 2003 to verify the anomalies. Spread over
the disputed site, 184 anomalies indicated by the GPR
Survey fell in 82 trenches. For the sake of convenience,
these anomalies were numbered in the ascending order
depending on their depth in each trench where they were
indicated and the anomalies shown in between the baulks
were also included to the nearest excavation trenches.
Among 184 anomalies, 39 of them were confirmed
during excavation at the specified depth and location
where they were shown and 74 were not found in spite of
digging up to the required depth. In view of the
3886
importance of the structures found at the upper levels than
the depths indicated in GPR Survey, another 27 anomalies
could not be located. It was not possible to verify the
remaining 44 anomalies as their location restricted the
probing due to either non availability of sufficient space
like raised platform or the presence of gangways,
barricades, pathways and trees etc. for conducting the
excavation.
3817. In the trenches no. B1 to B9, C1 to C9, L1 and L2
no anomaly was found though indicated in GPR survey.
Trenches no. D3, D10, E3, E5, F5, G3, G4, H3, H8, J10, K9,
K11 and L11 were not excavated due to area restriction on
account of various reasons namely, gangway, pathway, fencing,
barricading stone post and raised platform (make shift
structure). In several other trenches excavation to some extent
was made, but not proceeded further due to area restriction or
for the safety of make shift structures etc. despite finding one or
more anomalies as indicated by GPR survey.
3818. The details of the trenches where the anomalies
were found (completely or partly) as as under:
Sl No 20. Trench No. D6: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 3.20 m. The trench
was excavated upto a depth of 1.80 m.
However, the excavation was not conducted in
the area where the anomaly was shown due to
the presence of barricade.
Sl No 21. Trench No. D7: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 4.0 m. The trench
was excavated upto a depth of 1.70 m.
3887
However, the excavation was not conducted in
the area where the anomaly was shown due to
the presence of barricade.
SI No. 23. Trench No. ZE1: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 0.6 and 2.0 m.
The trench was excavated upto a depth of 2.55
m. The first anomaly was not found at the
specified depth and location. A step like
structure of stone and brick at 0.45 m that goes
down to 1.90 m. was found where the second
anomaly was shown.
Sl No 24. Trench No.E1: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 0.5 m. and 1.0
m. The first anomaly was not found at the
specified depth and location. However, a wall
oriented north south was found at a depth 0.95
m. where the first anomaly was shown. The
second anomaly was also not found at the
specified depth and location. However, a
brickbat pavment was found at a depth of 1.32
m. where the second anomaly was shown.
Sl No. 25. Trench No. E2: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 1.50 and at 2.50
m and another anomaly in the form of an
alignment at the depth of 2.50 m. The trench
was excavated upto a depth of 2.70 m. The first
anomaly was not found at the specified depth
and location. However, a rectangular stone
pillar base was found at a depth of 1.80 m
3888
where the first anomaly was shown. The second
anomaly and the other anomaly of an
alignment were not found at the specified depth
and location. However, a stone pavement was
found at a depth of 1.60 m where the alignment
was shown. In view of the importance of the
exposed structure, further excavation was not
conducted to the required depth were the
alignment was shown.
Sl No 28. Trench No. E8: The GPR Survey indicated
anomalies at the depths of 0.7 and 5.2 m. The
trench was excavated upto a depth of 3.54 m.
The first anomaly was not found at the
specified depth and location. However, a lime
surkhi floor and a wall oriented east west were
found respectively at the depths at 0.80 and
2.15 m where the first anomaly was shown. An
important structure was found where the
second anomaly was shown. In view of the
importance of the exposed structure, further
excavation was not conducted to the required
depth where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 29. Trench No. E9: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 1.0 m. The trench
was excavated upto a depth of 1.44 m. A floor
with a pillar base was found at a depth of 0.60
m where the anomaly was shown. In view of the
importance of the exposed structure, further
excavation was not conducted up to the
3889
required depth where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 30. Trench No. ZF1: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 3.0 m. The trench
was excavated upto a depth of 1.14 m. A lime
surkhi floor was found a t a depth of 0.60 m
where the anomaly was shown. In view of the
importance of the exposed structure, further
excavation was not conducted up to the
required depth where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 31. Trench No. F2: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies in the form of alignments at the
depths of 2.3-2.5 m. A wall oriented cast west
was found at the depth of 1.50 m where the
alignment was shown. In view of the
importance of the exposed structure, further
excavation was not conducted up to the
required depth where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 32. Trench No. F3: The GPR Survey indicated
anomalies at the depths of 1.50, 1.80, 2.0, 2.80
and 4.30 and 4.50 m and one more anomaly in
the form of an alignment at the depths of 2.7-
3.9-4.1 m. The trench was excavated up to a
depth of 4.60 m. An ‘L’ shaped wall from 0.18
m down to a depth of 2.85 m and another
structure at 3.95 m were found where second
and third anomalies were shown. The
excavation was not conducted in the area
where the remaining anomalies and alignment
were shown due to area restriction on raised
3890
platform.
Sl No 33. Trench No. F4: The GPR Survey indicated
anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 1.2, 2.4 and 4.5
m. The trench was excavated up to a depth of
4.70 m. The architectural members were found
from the debris where the first and second
anomalies were shown. A calcrete stoner
structure was found at the depth of 2.37 m
where the third anomaly was shown. The fourth
anomaly was not found at the specified depth
and location.
Sl No 35. Trench No. F6: The GPR Survey indicated
anomalies at the depths of 0.70, 1.0 and 2.70
m. The trench was excavated up to a depth of
1.70 m. A pillar base was found at the depth of
0.70 m where the first anomaly was shown.
Another pillar base and a floor were found
respectively at the depths of 0.55 m and 1.06 m
where the second anomaly was shown. The
third anomaly was not found at the specified
depth and location. However, a pillar base was
found at the depth of 1.60 m where the third
anomaly was shown. In view of the importance
of the exposed structures, further excavation
was not conducted up to the required depth
where the third anomaly was shown.
Sl No 36. Trench No. F8: The GPR Survey indicated
anomalies at the depths of 1.5 and 2.0 m. The
trench was excavated upto a depth of 2.65 m. A
3891
pillar base was found at a depth of 0.70 m
where the first anomaly was shown. In view of
the importance of the exposed structure, further
excavation was not conducted up to the
required depth where the first anomaly was
shown. The second anomaly was not found at
the specified depth and location. However, a
wall running east west was found at the depth
of 2.65 m where the second anomaly was
shown.
Sl No 37. Trench No. F9: The GPR Survey indicated
anomaly at the depth of 0.5 m. The trench was
excavated upto a depth of 2.18 m. A pillar base
was found on a floor at a depth of 0.50 m
where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 38. Trench No. ZG1: The GPR Survey indicated
three anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 1.6 and
3.0 m. The trench was excavated upto a depth
of 1.75 m. A lime floor and a pillar base were
found respectively at the depths of 0.48 and
0.50 m where the first and second anomalies
were shown. A brickbat structure was found at
a depth of 1.75 m where the third anomaly was
shown. In view of the importance of the
exposed structures, further excavation was not
conducted up to the required depth where the
anomalies were shown.
Sl No 39. Trench No. G2: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly in the form of an alignment at the
3892
depths of 2.0-2.01 m. The trench was excavated
up to a depth of 2.62 m. No such alignment was
found at the specified depth and location.
However, two pillar bases on a floor were
found at a depth of 2.20 m where the anomaly
was shown.
Sl No 42. Trench No. G5: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 2.5 and 3.5 m
and another in the form of an alignment at the
depths of 2-2-2.5 m. The trench was excavated
up to a depth of 3.56 m. No such alignment was
found at the specified depth and location.
However, a pillar base and a calcrete stone
block structure were found respectively at the
depths of 2.05 and 2.70 m. The excavation was
not conducted in the area where the remaining
anomalies were shown due to area restrictions
on raised platform.
Sl No 43. Trench No. G6: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at the depth of 0.5 m. The trench
was excavated up to a depth of 1.60 m. No
anomaly was found at the specified depth and
location. However, successive floors were
found at the depths of 0.38, .082, 1.09 and 1.60
m where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 44. Trench No. G7: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 1.5 and another
anomaly in the form of alignment at a depth of
2.5 m. The trench was excavated upto a depth
3893
of 13.45 m. Neither the anomalies nor the
alignment were found at the specified depths
and locations. However, a brick structure and a
wall running east west were found respectively
at the depths of 1.75 and 2.85 m where the
anomalies were shown.
Sl No 45. Trench no. G8: The GPR Survey indicated the
anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 2.0 and another
anomaly in the form of an alignment at 2.2 m.
The trench was excavated upto the depth of
2.37 m. A retaining wall of Ram Chabutra from
surface and a pillar base underneath were
found at a depth of 0.90 m where the first
anomaly was shown. In view of the importance
of the exposed structure, further excavation
was not conducted up to the required depth
where the anomaly was shown. The second
anomaly was not found at the specified depth
and location. The area where the third anomaly
ringing signal was shown was not excavated
upto the required depth because of the existing
Ram Chabutara.
Sl No 46. Trench No. G9: The GPR Survey indicated
three anomalies at the depth of 0.50 m each.
The trench was excavated upto a depth of 1.55
m. A pillar base, and a floor were found
respectively at the depths of 0.20 and 0.57 m
where the first and second anomalies were
shown. The third anomaly was not found at
3894
the specified depth and location. However, a
brick structure was found at a depth of 1.15 m
where the third anomaly was shown.
Sl No 47. Trench No. ZH1: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 1.0 and 3.0 m.
the trench was excavated up to a depth of 0.80
m. A floor and a pillar base were found
respectively at the depths 0.70 and 0.55 m
where the anomalies were shown. In view of the
importance of the exposed structure, further
excavation was not conducted up to the
required depth where the anomalies were
shown.
Sl No 48. Trench No. H1: The GPR Survey indicated
three anomalies at the depths of 0.4, 0.5 and
1.6 m. The trench was excavated upto a depth
of 1.20 m. The first and second anomalies were
not found at the specified locations and
depths. However, two pillar bases were found
respectively at the depths of 1.50 and 0.70 m
where the first and the second anomalies were
shown. A brickbat floor was found at a depth of
1.15 m where the third shown. A brickbat floor
was found at a depth of 1.15 m where the third
anomaly was shown. In view of the importance
of the exposed structure, further excavation
was not conducted up to the required depth,
where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 49. Trench No. H2: The GPR Survey indicated
3895
the anomaly at the depth of 2.8 m. The trench
was excavated upto a depth of 0.95 m. The area
where the anomaly was shown was not
excavated due to area restriction of barricade
and pathway.
Sl No. 51. Trench No. H4: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 2.2 m and another
anomaly in the form of an alignment at 2.0 m.
The trench was excavated upto a depth of 1.18
m. A lime floor was found at the depth of 1.15
m where the first anomaly was shown. In view
of the importance of the exposed structure,
further excavation was not conducted up to the
required depth where the anomaly was shown.
The excavation was not conducted in the area
where the alignment was shown due to area
restrictions of gangway and pathway.
Sl No 52. Trench No. H5: The GPR Survey indicated
three anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 1.7, and
3.0 m and another anomaly in the form of
alignment at 1.18 m. The trench was excavated
upto a depth of 1.15 m. A wall oriented north
south was found at a depth of 0.60 m where the
first anomaly was shown. A lime surkhi floor
was found at the depth of 0.85 m where the
second anomaly was shown. Another lime floor
was found at the depth of 1.15 m where the
third anomaly was shown. A pillar base was
found at a depth of 0.82 m where the alignment
3896
was shown. In view of the importance of the
exposed structure, further excavation was not
conducted up to the required depth where the
anomaly was shown.
Sl No 53. Trench No. H6: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 0.7 and 2.0 m.
The trench was excavated upto a depth of 0.80
m. No anomalies were found at the specified
location and depth. However, a floor and a
wall were found respectively at the depths of
0.80 and 0.58 m where the first anomaly was
shown. The excavation was not conducted in
the area where the second anomaly was shown
due to existing Ram Chabutra.
Sl No 54. Trench No. H7: The GPR Survey indicated at
the depth of 2.0 m. The trench was excavated
up to a depth of 0.75 m. The excavation was
not conducted in the area where the anomaly
was shown due to existing Ram Chabutra.
Sl No 56. Trench No. H9: The GPR Survey indicated
three anomalies at the depths of 0.5 m each.
The trench was excavated upto a depth of 0.76
m. No anomalies were found at the specified
locations and depths. However, a lime surkhi
floor was found at a depth of 0.76 m
respectively where the first two anomalies were
shown. The third anomaly was not found at the
specified and location.
Sl No 57. Trench No. H10: The GPR Survey indicated
3897
the anomaly at a depth of 0.5 m. The trench
was excavated upto a depth of 0.66 m. No
anomaly was found at the specified location
and depth. However, a floor was found at a
depth of 0.60 m where the first anomaly was
shown.
Sl No 58. Trench No. ZJ1: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 0.6 m. The trench
was excavated up to a depth of 1.63 m. A brick
wall oriented north south was found at a depth
of 0.30 m. In view of the importance of the
exposed structure, further excavation was not
conducted up to the required depth where the
anomaly was shown.
Sl No 59. Trench No. J1: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 0.50 and 1.0 m.
The trench was excavated upto a depth of 1.54
m. No anomaly was found at the specified
depth and location where the first anomaly was
shown. A lime floor and a large brick floor
were found respectively at the depths of 0.90
and 0.95 m where the second anomaly was
shown.
SI No 60. Trench No. J2: The GPR Survey indicated
four anomalies, two at a depth of 0.50 m each,
the third at 0.70 and the last at 2.0 m. The
trench was excavated up to a depth of 0.95 m.
A wall was found at a depth of 0.50 to 0.95 m
where the third anomaly was shown. The
3898
excavation was not conducted in the area
where the remaining three anomalies were
shown due to area restrictions of gangway and
pathway.
Sl No 61. Trench No. J3: The GPR Survey indicated
seven anomalies, two at a depth of 0.5 m each,
one at 0.6 and the remaining four at 1.0 m
each. The trench was excavated up to a depth
of 108.5 m. The first five anomalies were not
found at the specified depth and location.
However, a lime floor was found at a depth of
0.70 m where these three anomalies were
shown. The fourth anomaly was not found at
the specified depth and location. The
excavation was not conducted in the area
where the fifth anomaly was shown due to area
restrictions of the presence of tree.
Sl No 62. Trench No. J4: The GPR Survey indicated
six anomalies, two at the depths of 1.0 m each,
1.5, 1.8, 2.5 and 3.2 m. The trench was
excavated up to a depth of 2.55 m. A brick floor
was found at a depth of 0.95 m where the first
and second anomalies were shown. The third
anomaly was not found at the specified depth
and location. However, a brickbat paving was
found at a depth of 1.70 m where this anomaly
was shown. A brick floor was found at a depth
of 0.95 m where the fourth anomaly was
shown. In view of the importance of the
3899
structure found further excavation was not
conducted. The remaining two anomalies were
not found at the specified depth and location.
Sl No 63. Trench No. J5: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 1.0 m and an
arrow shaped alignment at the depths of 1.5-
2.0-2.01 m. The trench was excavated up to a
depth of 5.45 m. a large sized brick floor was
found at a depth of 0.95 m where the first
anomaly was shown. No such alignment was
found at the specified depth and location.
Sl No 64. Trench No. J6: The GPR Survey indicated
four anomalies, three at the depths of 1.5 m
each the fourth at 2.0 m. The trench was
excavated up to a depth of 5.45 m. The
successive levels alternating with calcrete
stone blocks run from surface down to a depth
of.
Sl No 65. Trench No. J7: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly at a depth of 2.0 m. The trench
was excavated at a depth of 5.12 m. The
successive levels alternating with calcrete
stone blocks run from surface down to a depth
of 7.45 m.
Sl No 66. Trench No. J8: The GPR Survey indicated
six anomalies, one at a depth of 1.0, two at 1.5
m each, one more at 2.0 and the remaining two
respectively at 2.2 and 2.8 m. The trench was
excavated upto a depth of 5.12 m. The area
3900
where the first, second, and sixth anomalies
were shown was not excavated due to the
presence of the Ram Chabutra. The successive
levels alternating with calcrete stone blocks
run from surface down to a depth of 7.45 m
where third, fourth and fifth anomalies were
shown.
Sl No 68. Trench No. K1: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomalies at the depths of 0.7 and 2.2 m.
The trench was excavated up to a depth of 2.45
m. A lime floor and large sized brick floor were
found respectively at the depths of 0.95 and 1.0
m where the first anomaly was shown. The
second anomaly was not found at the specified
depth and location.
Sl No 69. Trench No. K3: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly in the form of an alignment at the
depth of 0.5 m. The trench was excavated up to
a depth of 0.93 m. No such alignment was
found at the specified depth, and location. A
lime surkhi floor was found at a depth of 0.73
m where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 70. Trench No. K4: The GPR Survey indicated
five anomalies, at the depths of 0.7, and two at
2.0 m. each and another anomaly in the form of
an alignment at the depths of 1-1.5 m. The
trench was excavated up to a depth of 2.30 m.
A lime surkhi floor and a large size brick floor
were found respectively at the depths of 0.73
3901
and 0.95 m where the first and third anomalies
were shown. No such alignment was found at
the specified depth and location. However, a
large size brick floor was found at these depths.
In view of the importance of the structure found
further excavation was not conducted. The
remaining two anomalies were not found at the
specified depth and location.
Sl No 71. Trench No. K5: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly in the form of alignment at the
depths of 1.3-1.5-1.7-2.0 m. The trench was
excavated up to a depth of 1.70 m. No such
alignment was found at the specified depths
and locations. However, a large brick wall
oriented north-south runs from surface to a
depth of 0.95 m where the alignment was
shown. In view of the importance of the
structure found further excavation was not
conducted. The second and third anomalies
were not found at the specified depth and
location.
Sl No 72. Trench No. K6: The GPR Survey indicated
three anomalies, two at the depths of 2.0 and
the third at 2.3 m and one more anomaly in the
form of an alignment at the depths of 1-1.5 m.
The trench was excavated up to a depth of 5.40
m. No such alignment was found at the
specified depths and locations. However, a
large sized brick floor was found at a depth of .
3902
95 m where this alignment was shown. In view
of the importance of the structure found further
excavation was not conducted. The area where
first and second anomalies were shown was not
excavated due to the presence of Ram
Chabutra, which runs to a depth of more than
2.0 m. The third anomaly was found at the
specified depth and location. However, a wall
running east-west at a depth of 3.5 m was
found where this anomaly was shown.
Sl No 73. Trench No. K7: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly in the form of a floor in the
western part of the trench. The trench was
excavated up to a depth of 7.45 m. Successive
levels alternating with calcrete stone blocks
run from surface to a depth of 7.40 m where the
anomaly was shown.
SI No 74. Trench No. K8: The GPR Survey indicated
the anomaly in the form of a floor in the
western part of a floor in the western part of
the trench. The trench was excavated up to a
depth of 7.45 m. Successive floors alternating
with calcrete stone blocks run from surface to a
depth of 7.45 m where the anomaly was shown.
Sl No 79. Trench No. L3: The GPR Survey indicated
four anomalies at the depths of 1.80, 2.20, 2.40
and 3.20 m in the northern portion of the
trench. The trench was excavated up to a depth
of 2.70 m. A pavement of brickbats was found
3903
at the depth of 2.40 m where the third anomaly
was shown. The second anomaly was not found
at the specified depth and location. The
excavation was not conducted in the area
where the remaining two anomalies were
shown due to area restrictions of gangway and
barricade.
Sl No 80. Trench No. L4: The GPR Survey indicated
two anomalies at the depths of 1.9 and 2.4 m.
The trench was excavated up to a depth of 2.65
m. A single coursed L shaped structure of the
brickbats was found at the depth of 1.98 m
where the first anomaly was shown. The second
anomaly was not found at the specified depth
and location.
SI No 81. Trench No. L7: The GPR Survey indicated
two anomalies at the depths of 1.4 and 4.0 m.
The trench was excavated up to a depth of 4.40
m. The first anomaly was not found at the
specified depth and location. The stone
platform was found at the depth of 4.40 m
where the second anomaly was shown.
3819. Next comes the stratigraphy and chronology for
periodization of site/trenches with respect to layers, finds,
artefacts etc. ASI has divided the deposits into nine cultural
periods based on the strength of combined and corroborative
evidence of pottery sequence, structural remains and other
datable finds etc. Chapter III Vol.I, of the Report deals with it,
and says:
3904
Stratigraphy and Chronology
Excavation at the disputed site of Ayodhya has
yielded a continuous cultural sequence contained in the
total deposition of about 10.80 m. Although the 10.80 m
thick deposit can be divided into 9 cultural periods on the
strength of combined and corroborated evidences of
pottery sequences, structural remains and other datable
finds, several disturbances cannot be discounted. It,
therefore, becomes pertinent to refer to the nature and
behaviour of the mound and the processes of accumulation
of deposits, before venturing into the details of the
stratigraphy of the site.
Excavations have made it amply clear that the site
had seen successive structural activities which began from
the middle of the Kushan level at the site. The brick and
stone structures that were raised in Kushan and the
succeeding periods of Gupta and post-Gupta times have
added heights to the mound. To build further structures
upon the earlier debris the later people added a deposit of
earth excavated from the periphery of the mound, which
belonged to the much earlier cultural periods. This is true
for the rest of the structural phases also.
Existence of different structures at the site at different
levels, in different orientation and in different formations,
which has been evidenced from the excavation, has resulted
in the differences of layers in different pockets of the site.
The C
14
determination of the charcoal samples from
the early levels (Periods I to III) provide dates which start
from the last centuries of the second millennium B.C.,
3905
which do not conform to the evidence gleaned from
stratigraphy and ceramic tradition. However, they indicate
early settlement of the site, which was not found in the two
trenches sunk down to the natural soil (see Appendix-I)
Based on the act of correlating and synthesizing of
various layers identified at different depths of all the
excavated trenches, an account of the stratigraphy and
chronology, as ascertained, is detailed below (Figs. 19, 20
and 22).
Period – 1( Northern Black Polished Ware Level)
The earliest people to settle at the site used Northern
Black Polished Ware (NBP ware) and other associated
ware (Grey ware, Black slipped ware and Red ware) which
are diagnostic ceramics of a period from sixth to third
century B.C. In the limited operation areas in this level no
structural activity of the period was noticed except reed
impressions on burnt clay. The total accumulation of
deposit of this period is about 1.00 m in trench G7
represented by layer 17 and 18 and a pit sealed by layer 18
(however, the material from this pit has been registered as
those from layers 19, 20 and 21) and about 1.70 m in
trench J3 represented by layers 12, 13 and 14. Besides the
pottery, this level yielded broken weights, fragments of
votive tanks, ear-studs, discs, hopscotches, a wheel made
on disc, a broken animal figurine ( all in terracotta), an
iron knife (broken), glass beads, bone point etc. However,
the most significant find from the level is a round bezel in
greenish glass with legend ‘sidhe’ in high relief in Asokan
Brahmi on the obverse while the reverse is plain (Rg. No.
3906
778).
Period – II (Sunga Level)
Frequency of NBP sherds, however, decreases
considerably in the upper levels of the period and finally it
almost disappears from the horizon in layer 16 of G7 and
layer 11 of J3, which marks the beginning of the Sunga
level (circa second-first century B.C.) at the site. This
level attests its presence with a deposit averaging in
thickness to 1.60 m represented by layers 13, 14, 15 and 16
in trench G7 and by layers 9, 10 and 11 in trench J3. It is
in this period that the site witnessed first structural activity
in stone and brick, as noticed in J3. The level is
represented by terracotta objects comprising human and
animal figurines, bangle fragment, ball, wheel and a
broken sealing with only ‘sa’ letter in Brahmi extant (Rg.
No. 701), a saddle quern and part of a lid in stone, a glass
bead, a hairpin and an engraver on bone and an ivory dice,
besides the period pottery of the level.
Period – III (Kushan Level)
Pottery of the previous period continues in the
deposit of Kushan level (circa first-third century A.D.)
which accounts for an average total thickness of 1.50 m
recorded in layers 9, 10, 11 and 12, and in layers 7 and 8 in
trenches G7 and J3 respectively. Period-III is rich in
pottery, typical of the period, however, in the number of
antiquities the period is deficient. In trench J3 a huge kiln
was noticed in the lower levels which accounted for
much of Kushan deposit in this particular trench as well
as for the deficiency of other artifacts. In trench G7,
3907
however, the limited area yielded animal and human
figurines, bangle fragment and a portion of votive tank all
in terracotta, a hairpin in bone, a bead in glass and an
antimony rod in copper. In trench J5, though the regular
stratified deposit was not encountered in the operation
area, the eastern section yielded a record of regular
deposition and almost all the structural activity at the site.
A massive brick construction, running into 22 courses
above excavated surface, is noticed at the bottom of J5-
J6 which belongs to this period. The Kushan period
certainly gave a spurt to construction of structures of
large dimensions which attest to their public status.
Besides, the same trench provided evidence for a stone
structure, nature of which is not very clear.
From this period onward, tradition of stone and
brick constructions is very much in vogue at the site and
each successive period added some structures to the site
increasing the height of the mound.
Period – IV (Gupta Level)
Almost 2 m thick deposit, represented by layer 7 and
8 in G7, by layers 9 and 10 in J5-J6 and layers 7 and 8
in trenches E8 and F8, above the remains of the preceding
period belong to Gupta times (circa fourth-sixth century
A.D.), the presence of which is attested mostly by
terracotta figurines typical of the period and of course by a
copper coin (3.75 m, layer 8, G7, Rg. No. 1030) bearing
image of king on the obverse and garuda standard in
upper register and legend ‘sri chandra(gupta)’ in lower
register on the reverse. The structures which appear above
3908
those of Kushan, some times using the Kushan wall itself,
as in J5-J6, belong to this period. Structures of this period
have been exposed in trenches E8, F8, G7, J5, J6 and
K6. It is interesting to note that the deposits that go with
these structures contain earlier material as well. It appears
that to raise the level plain, earth excavated from the
nearby area of the mound is utilized at this level. Among
the pottery too majority of wares and shapes belong to
earlier periods, only a few sherds are of the period
concerned.
Period – V (Post Gupta – Rajput Level)
The period is marked by the appearance of the knife-
edge bowls and other types which belong to the period
from seventh to tenth century A.D. In this period also
structural activities were witnessed in numerous phases
in trench E8 and F8. A circular subsidiary shrine
belonging to the late level of this period was exposed in
trench E8-F8 (Fig 24 and 24A). Among the pottery
assemblage Kushan type is more frequent than the period
pottery. Other finds also include earlier material like
Kushan pestles and terracotta figurines of Sunga-Kushan
type. The total deposit assignable to this period is about 90
cm represented by layers 5 and 6 in trench G7, by layers 7
and 8 in trenches J5-J6 and by layers 5, 5A and 6 in
trenches E8-F8.
Period – VI (Medieval-Sultanete Level)
A thick floor made of brick-crush floor appears, on
the circumstantial evidence, to have been attached to a
wide and massive looking north-sourth oriented brick
3909
wall (No.17) markedly inclined to east (noticed in
trenches D7 and E2-E1, F1 and ZF1) which was the major
structural activity of the period (circa eleventh-twelfth
century A.D.). Another wall in same orientation has
been noticed in G2 and ZG1 at a depth of 180 cm which
is sealed by layer 6A in G2. The red brick-crush floor is
noticed extending in a large area of the mound covering
trenches E8, F8, G7, J5 & J6 with varying thickness. At the
same level, in trench G5, calcrete stone blocks have been
noticed in formation which may be of large dimension.
Since not many trenches have been excavated to that depth,
it would be premature to speak about the nature and
behaviour of the structure, however, the structural activity
appears to have lived a short life. In trench G2 from the
same level (layer 6) were collected several knife-edge
lipped lamps in red ware with soot/burnt marks at the
lips. Total deposit of this period, as ascertained in trench
G7, is 70-74 cm belonging to layers 3, 3A and 4, layers 5
and 6 in J5-J6, layers 3 and 4 in E8-F8 and layers 5, 6 and
7 in tr. G2.
Period – VII (Medieval Level)
Period VII is marked by structural activities in three
sub-periods A, B & C which together lasted from the end
of the twelfth to the beginning of the sixteenth century
A.D. In sub-period-A, a massive wall (no. 16) in north-
sourth orientation was constructed, the foundation trench
of which cuts the red brick-crush floor of the previous
period. A new style of construction is noticed in this period,
however, in a limited area. Level of the mound was raised
3910
considerably by the material excavated from the vicinity to
lay a floor of lime mixed with fine clay and brick-crush,
over which a column-based structure was built (evidence
of pillar bases are available in trenches F9, F8 and G7).
This floor is traced within a thin wall enclosed area with
N/S wall forming the back and covering trenches ZE1 to
ZH1 in the northern area to E6 and to H5-H6, which in the
second phase, was extended southwards up to G10 at a
slightly elevated level out side the wall.
In the sub-period B, the area enclosed by the thin
wall is found earth filled and is over-laid with a brick-bat
paving on top of which is laid a layer of rammed brick jelly
as bedding to the 4-5 cm. thick floor of lime mixed with grit
and fine brick nodules which runs over the broken/leveled
wall. The finished surface is leveled at par with the
southward extension of the earlier floor. Another thin wall
which is erected resting over the earlier floor makes an
enclosure which is slightly smaller. This floor also extended
in the eastern area in trenches J4-J5-J6 and in the northern
area it is found to the limits of the mound itself is found cut
attached to this floor must have been some brick structure
within the raised platform area as the deposit above it
contains a lot of brick debris in the central part which can
be witnessed in the northern section of E6 and in the
western section of H4-H5. In the same period, to the east of
J4-J5-J6 where the floor was bound by a flat row of bricks-
on-edge, pavement of large square bricks was provided as
an open court-yard to the floored complex, which extended
upto the junction of trenches of K-series and L-series in the
3911
east and in the north upto ZK1 beyond which it is stopped
by a lime floor. There is a circular depression specially
made by cutting the large brick pavement (Pl.67), having
the diameter of 1.05 m with a rectangular projection of
0.46 x 0.32 m towards west. It is interesting to note that the
circular depression comes in the centre of the pavement
if the central part is calculated on the basis of extant
length of wall 16 or wall 17 and longitudinal length of
the alignment of pillar bases from north to south. Thus,
suggesting it as a place of importance. Besides, the
circular depression faces the central part of the disputed
structure over which ‘Ram Lalla’ is enshrined. Bricks
measuring 50x50x8 to 10 cm, 50x47x8 cm and 40x40x6 cm
were used in the pavement as specially made floor titles.
In sub-Period C, when the surface of the earlier floor
(Floor No.) is weathered enough (as witnessed in the
combined trenches H4-H5) to be replaced, debris of the
brick (and stone) structures was leveled to attain height. In
this deposit foundations to support pillars or columns were
sunk which were overlaid with a 4-5 cm thick floor which
had a grid of square sandstone bases for pillars
projecting out, only a few still survive. Floor around most
of the pillar bases is found broken with pillar base
foundations in much disturbed condition. This floor is the
most extensive on the mound, which is found spreading
from the north-south wall of the sub-Period A in the
west and is found broken with the mound towards north
as well as south, while in the eastern part it has been
damaged by the later structural activities. (Fig. 23 and
3912
23A).
Total deposit of the period is approximately 50 to 60
cm thick which includes layers 1 and 2 in almost all the
trenches except those in the eastern area where the deposit
was disturbed by the construction in the later periods and
in the northern area where the floor of the period VII-C
remained exposed and under use till late. In the northern
area layers 2 and 3 belong to this period. The three floors
of this period were not found in all the trenches uniformly.
At some places due to differential coverage area of the
floor itself while at some other places due to destruction or
decadence one of these was found missing. During
excavation in different trenches they were named according
to their occurrence from 1 onwards. The relative levels can
be seen in the cross sections of the mound and in the
schematic cross section of the mound.
Period – VIII (Mughal Level)
Structural activities of this period are limited only
to the raised platform and the area immediately adjacent
to it particularly in the south and the eastern area
covering trenches E2 – G2 in the north to E7 – G7 in the
south. This period through two successive floors, which
account for total thickness of about 23 to 25 cm, not only
registers the two continuous phases of the structure but
also document at least two horizontal expansion of the
fore-court from the simple apron flooring to terraced
platform towards the eastern side.
The floor of the previous (Period VII-C) is found cut
by the stone block (mostly calcrete) foundations of the
3913
disputed structure (mosque). However, the north-south wall
of the Period VII-A is retained as foundation for the back
wall. Inside the foundation and in the immediate from part
a layer of rammed earth is laid which is then overlaid with
rammed deposit of grey coloured kankars and a thin layer
of ashy deposit which contains riverine shells burnt white.
The total deposit accounts for a thickness of about 20-25
cm, which acts as soling for the first floor of the Mughal
period inside as well as out side of the structure to a short
distance to the east forming an apron floor. The apron floor
which extends out to the east for 4.45 cm is provided with
an edge-wall of brick to withstand the stress of stepping.
The edge wall rests on the floor of the Period VII-C.
In the next phase another floor of lime mixed with
brick nodules and some grit is laid over the earlier floor
after it was duly chiseled for grip. This floor extends from
inside the structure out to the east. In this phase the apron
wall is converted into an extended platform, which exceeds
the apron by almost 4.00 m. An edge-wall is provided on
north, east and south which uses chiseled calcrete stone
blocks and some carved sandstone blocks as well.
An interesting feature of the layer sandwiched
between the floors of this period and the last floor of the
preceding period is that it contained least amount of
pottery and other material, apparently much care and
effort was taken for leveling the deposits before laying
the floor and sinking the foundation of the structure. No
deposit, definitely contemporary to this period, exists on
the mound presently.
3914
Period – IX (Late and Post Mughal Level)
In this period two successive floors were laid,
another platform was added to the east forming a terrace
and subsequently two successive enclosure walls were
erected, one around the first platform of the structure and
the other encompassing the second terrace and adjoining
areas to the north and south of the structure covering an
area under trenches ZE1-ZK1 in the north to E8/E9-K8/K9
in the south.
In this period to attache a terraced platform to the
east of the existing one, deposits of the earlier periods were
excavated and removed, in which the floor of the period
VII-C was cut and destroyed from the eastern area. Slightly
later, a partition wall was added attached to the first
terrace platform along with a small step in the centre.
And then was added another floor inside the structure
which ran out on the now enclosed platform and abutted to
the partition wall. Some times later an enclosure wall
was added to the entire complex without any foundation
which rested over the existing floor, which was provided
with two gates, larger one to the north and a smaller one
to the east. Sometimes around this period dead bodies were
buried in the north and south of the disputed structure
which have cut the top floors and which are sealed by layer
1.
This period has not been very fortunate in preserving
the representative deposits of the period in primary context,
as immediately after or even during this period the site was
subjected to various damaging digging activities. Whatever
3915
contemporary material is shown in the plates has been
gleaned from the deposits dumped in the various large pits.
The accumulation above the floor of the period VII-C in the
northern area is a very recent one and so is the deposit in
the eastern area below the modern brick paving.
Finally a floor of cement was laid inside the structure
which was painted over with arch-patterned blocks in
bichrome. A brick paving was laid in the eastern part over
which were laid inscribed (in Devanagri script) memorial
marble slabs.
After the construction of the disputed structure at the
site, practically no deposition, except that of floors, was
allowed to settle. Most of the deposit in the northern area is
post 1992. The site, thus, has stratified cultural material
only from the first seven periods, while the last two periods
are only represented by structural activities.”
3820. For determining stratigraphy/periodization, ASI has
given due credit to the disturbances in strata and has also
explained its recording method :
“Disturbances in Strata
After the construction of the structures of Mughal
period directly above the Floor of the Period VII-C, much
disturbances have taken place at the site, some of which
were for accommodating fresh construction while others
were apparently aimless destruction to either retrieve
bricks and other material or for no reason at all, which not
only have disturbed the deposits but also have raised
problems in understanding the site.
Huge pits have been excavated at different locations
3916
of the site, the purpose of some could be discerned while
some others still remain a mystery.
Multiple pits in J5-J6 are understood as dug for the
construction of the enigmatic structure at the place
remembered in tradition as ‘Ram Chabutra’, but the
successive digging of pits in the same spot has
obliterated the earliest pit line that could have dated the
construction of the first phase of this structure. Similarly,
another huge pit was excavated in J3-J4, the purpose of
which could not be discerned by the data available at
hands. During excavation in trench J3, however, the same
could not be identified, as the pit was larger than the
operation area and the pit line was not available, which
was later confirmed in trench J4, and the material,
therefore, from the trench has been marked as those from
layers 1 to 6 but in effect it belongs to the pit and the layers
are superficial.
It becomes important to note that both the pits in
trenches J3-J4 and J5-J6 respectively are excavated down
to some what equal depth and filled I with similar material.
It may not be surprising at all if some of the potsherds and
other finds from the two pits match to the broken ends.
Another huge pit was excavated damaging lower
strata down to the depth of 1.70 m in trenches G6, G7, G8,
G9 and H6 (confirmed and many more) for constructing
the last and extended phase of the ‘Ram Chabutra’. Several
smaller pits were dug into the floor of the Period VII-C,
where it remained open to the surface or was covered with
a superficially thin accumulated deposit. These, pits are
3917
filled back by simple earth and the purpose of them
becomes difficult to explore. In the northern area the
deposition above this floor was used as a burial ground.
Several graves, of course without any grave stones to
indicate, were encountered during excavation. Similarly
in the south, the same floor which is found repaired by
overlaying it with a new one in Period IX, probably during
the construction of the second terrace in the eastern area,
is found to have been used for burying the dead, apparently
in this period only. Pits for all these graves have been cut
into the top soil and are found seal by only humus. In the
northern area these graves have disturbed the floor of the
Pd. VII-C.
Trench E8 and E8 have been badly damaged by pits
dug in the last period and also by burrowing creatures. In
trench E8 some amount of wall robbing has also been
noticed in the south-western corner. There has been
some digging activity in and along the baulk between
trenches E8 and F8.
Another huge digging exercise is witnessed in area
falling in trenches K6-L6 to K8-L8 and beyond to south,
which was taken up some times in the Late/Post Mughal
period with certain vengeance and resolution that
propelled the diggers to cut and remove the layered
structure built of lime concrete and calcrete stone blocks.
In trenches K7 and K8, which fell in the centre of the pit,
the material from the deposit were labeled as those of
layers from 1 to 8, which fell in the centre of the pit, the
material from the deposit were labeled as those of layers
3918
from 1 to 8. The pit later was confirmed, on the basis of the
combined evidences gathered from tenches J5-J6, K6, K7
and K8, to have been sealed by layer 3. The material
already registered as those from layers 4 to 8 is actually
from the pit and has been treated in the same way. Similar
is the case with the material from layers 2 to 6 in trench J3.
During the excavation several objects were
encountered with though of recent origin were documented
and recorded among antiquities with equal details and
definitions like the camera lens from trench ZE1 and the
pendants in whitish metal from D6 and D7.
Recording Method
Northern area, eastern area and the southern area
being more or less in the same level plain showing
marginal difference of about 10 to 15 cm, all the recordings
in the excavation were made taking the surface as the
zero level in the areas where the floor of the disputed
structure were not found. While in the raised platform
area all depths were recorded from the floor of the disputed
area.”
3821. Criticising this periodisation, Plaintiffs (Suit-4) in its
objection dated 08.10.2003 in para 8, has said:
"8. INADEQUACIES OF THE STRATIGRAPHY :-
8.1. That an essential requirement in an excavation report
is a chapter that describes, one after the other, the main
strata or levels found in the excavation, their nature (soil
texture, colour, etc.) and contents. For example in H.D.
Sankalia and S.B. Deo, Report on the Excavations at Nasik
and Jorwe, Poona: Deccan College, 1951, Chapter Two,
3919
entitled "Strata and Structures" contains on pp. 9-19 a
description of all the strata in the different excavated areas
of the site. Earth colours, textures, the presence of charcoal
or ash, the slope of the strata, their depth, etc. are
described. So also, in M.K. Dhavalikar et al., Excavations
at Inamgagaon, Pune: Deccan College, 1988, Chapter 7 on
"Cuttings and Stratigraphy" describes the 16 layers of the
site (pp. 121-125). Even through Inamgaon was occupied
only in the chalcolithic period and is not a multi-period site
like Ayodhya, there is information on each of the 16 layers
of the mound in this chapter. Veerapuram is a site on the
Krishna river in Andhra Pradesh, with neolithic,
megalithic (iron age), early historic, and early medieval
(AD 300-400) levels. For this site too, the excavators have
given a description of each of the 15 strata. See T.V.G.
Sastri, M. Kasturi Bai, and J.V. Prasada Rao, Veerapuram:
A type Site for Cultural Study in the Krishna Valley,
Hyderabad: Birla Archaeological and Cultural Research
Institute, 1984, pp. 15-19. But there is no such section,
leave alone a chapter, in the Ayodya report. There are
serious consequences of this lacuna in basic excavation
and recording procedure. Moreover, the descriptions in
Chapters II (Cuttings), III (Stratigraphy and Cuttings) and
IV (Structures) very rarely allude to the drawn sections
presented in the report while Sections present, in a sense,
an "X-ray" of the history of a mound. It is on the basis of
sections that the sequence and history of a mound is
constructed.
8.2. That it may also be pointed out that, the descriptions
3920
given in the report are not always matched by the sections.
The reverse is also true. The text does not state the periods
to which the following layers belong:
(i) Trench J3: layer 6 with the inscribed stone
(Figure 22):
(ii) Trenches ZE1-ZF1: Layers 4 to 6 (Section
Facing South, West- East (K-L); and
(iii) Trench E7: Layers 3 to 6 (Section Facing
South, West- East (E-F).
8.3. That the text mentions (p.40, pp. 68-69) a red brick
crush floor of Period VI, attached to Wall 17, and states
(p.40) that this floor can be traced in Trenches E8 and F8,
G7, J5 and J6 and ZF 1. It is seen in the east section of G1.
As regards trench G7, we see this red floor in Photograph
No. V, and we find a floor marked "Floor 4" in the Section
Facing South, West-East (E-F). But as regards E8, the
Section Facing South, West-East (C-D) marks (or numbers)
Floors "1" and "2" only: which, the text indicates, belong
to later periods, layers 3 and 4, below "Floor 2", are
assigned to Period VI on p. 41. As for J5 and J6, the
Section Facing South, West East (E-F) indicates, "Floor 2"
below layer 4, at a lower level, a very thick layer or
flooring of brickbats.
The same problem is faced as regards ZF1: the
Section Facing South, West-East (K-L), does not mark or
number or floors in the layers 1 to 6. Layers 4 to 6, are not
assigned to any of the periods of the sequence. ZF 1, was
found to have been dug down 1 m against the north section,
in which some broken bricks can be seen, but these are not
3921
the same as the red brick-crush floor. Thus the numbering
of floors and other details are not according to the
stratigraphy and the report is full of confusion.
8.4. That chapters, II, III, and IV mention the actual layer
numbers, in specific trenches, assigned to Periods I to VI.
For instance, to Period VI, which lies below the "massive
structure", belong the following (pp. 40-41).
layers 5, 6, 7 in Trench G2;
layers 3, 3A, 4 in Trench G7;
layers 5, 6 in Trench J5 and J6; and
layers 3, 4 in Trench E8 and F8.
However, the text fails to mention which particular
layers, in these and other trenches, pertain to Period VII
(pp. 41-43), which very stratum is claimed to represent the
alleged massive pillared hall. We could assume that in the
published sections either one or two layers above those
listed for Period VI would pertain to the so called "massive
structure". Also, on page 42 is given the confusing
information that the period is represented by
"... layers 1 and 2 in almost all the trenches except
those in the eastern area where the deposit was
disturbed ... and in the northern area where the floor of the
period VII-C remained exposed and under use till late. In
the northern areas layers 2 and 3 belong to this period. The
three floors of this period were not found in all the trenches
uniformly."
We can only assume that in the southern area it is
layers 1 and 2 (with Floors "2" and "3" as marked on the
Section Facing South, West-East (E-F) that represent this
3922
allegedly significant period, and, by default, that noting but
the mosque floor lies over it. Significantly, and as stated
above, we are not told the periods to which layers 3, 4, 5
and 6 of Trench E7 are assigned.
If G2 whose layers 5, 6 and 7 belong to Period VI, is
counted as one of the "northern" trenches and layers 2 and
3 belong to Period VII as the paragraph quoted above
indicates, to which period can we assign its layer 4? If it is
counted as one of the "southern" trenches (where, the para
quoted above says, layers 1 and 2 belong to Period VII, to
which period do layers 4 and 3 belong? With no section
drawing of G2 available, we are none the wiser. In the
Schematic Cross Section of the Disputed Mound and the
Tentative Periodization of the Disputed Site, in fact, no
layer below layer 3 is mentioned in the relevant column.
Thus we see the consequences of the serious
inadequacy of the report, mentioned above. Nowhere does
the report tell us the content / colour / texture of the
northern layers 2 and 3, or the southern layers 1 and 2. No
evidence is cited to show that layers 1 and 2 in the south of
the mound are contemporary with layers 2 and 3 in the
north of the mound. The paragraph on P. 42 of the report,
quoted above, remains without substance.
8.5. That below "Floor 1", obviously belonging to the
mosque, we except to see, in the sections and plans of the
various trenches, a sequence of 3 floors, presumably from
"Floor 2" downwards to a "Floor 4" of Period VII with a
Floor 5 belonging to Period VI. But nowhere is there any
section showing Floors numbered "4" (which we expect,
3923
from the text, to be the lowest floor of the alleged "massive
structure" of Period VII) or "5" (which we would expect to
be of the Period VI below), and no section shown a
sequence of floors numbered "1" to "5".
On p. 42 the text mentions the most extensive floor of
the mound, assigned to Phase C of Period VII, but fails to
state what number has been assigned to it in the relevant
trenches.
In Photograph 24 of Trench E7, we see a floor
marked "Floor 3" at the bottom of the trench, uniformly
touching the remnant plaster on the east face of the western
wall, within the South Chamber of the mosque. The
acceptable inference would be that this "Floor 3", about 1
m below surface, belonging to the so called "massive
structure", is actually in functional relationship with the
brick-course levels of the north-south wall on the west.
Below Floor 3, which is very approximately 1 m
below surface in various trenches (as seen in several
sections), a floor is marked "4" in the Section Facing
South, West-East (E-F), as also in Trench G7 (see also
Photograph 5). This floor 4, however, is shown as lying
between layers 4 and 3A in the section (between layers 3
and 4 in the photograph). These layers 3 and 4, the text
tells us (p.41), belong to the earlier Period VI. Thus
"Floor 4" in this section cannot belong to Period VII or the
"massive structure". Moreover, this floor is quite different
from the floors that lay above it in the west section of G7,
as evident in Photograph # 5. Thus it would be "Floor 3"
that belonged to Period VII, which means that in this
3924
trench only two floors, 3 and 2, may possibly be assigned to
that Period.
In Photograph # 53, "Floor 4" is mentioned in the
caption as the "first" floor associated with the north-south
wall. It is shown at the base of the excavation. The trench is
without number in both photograph and caption. The floor
at the base of the trench lies several (30-40?) centimeters
below what is marked "Floor 1" on the section. Moreover,
the section labels above this floor mark only layers 3 and 2,
with "Floor 1" between these layers.
The only other mention of "Floor 4" is in the
hypothetical isometric reconstruction of the mosque and
'temple' in Figure 23A. This is only a suggested
reconstruction.
True, it is said (pp. 42-43) that the numbering of the
floors of Period VII differs from trench to trench. Yet the
question still remains as to which section in the report
shows phases A to C of Period VII and their three floors,
whatever the numbers assigned to them. As pointed out
earlier, the report nowhere states the nature and content of
the layers distinguished as VIIA, VIIB and VIIC.
In stratigraphic terms, then, the characteristics and
content of the 3 phases of "Period" VII as given in the text
of the report, are thrown in doubt by lacunae and
inconsistencies. Lacunae include not only an absence of 3
sequential floors in the sections of the relevant layers, but
also the absence of information as to the content of the
strata below those assigned to Period VII in Trench E7, one
of the more important on the mound as it contains an
3925
undisputed part of the mosque, the South Chamber.
8.6. That a simple stratigraphic principle is that no
wall can be accurately dated vis-a-vis floors, unless we can
see from which level the foundation trench for the western
wall was cut, and which floor seals (or runs over) that
vertical foundation cut (running close along the wall). A
wall can be used, even raised higher, in periods after it was
originally built. If a floor runs right up to a wall, with no
gap or interruption between them, we assume that the wall
and floor are functionally related, i.e. that they belong to
the same building; it may be that the floor was laid after
the wall was built, but not vice versa. The stratum to which
the first construction of the wall dates, is indicated by the
level from which the cut was made for its foundation. That
cut, in its turn, will be dated by the floor or surface that lies
immediately above the cut, or, in the jorgon, the
floor/surface that seals the cut. The report does not state
which layer or floor seals the so-called foundation trench
mentioned on p. 41 and p. 69.
Photograph no. 52 (Trench E8) purports to show a
cut, indicating the date of the massive west wall, in the
north face of the trench, but (a) this face or section
(technically, the "Section Facing South") shows an animal
burrow sloping away from the west wall towards the east.
The burrow cuts the second floor from the top, and also the
red crush floor below it. From the level of the latter, the red
stratum, a cut goes down vertically, but is too far (about 75
cm) from the west wall to be appreciated as its foundation
trench cut.
3926
Besides, (b) there is no "proof" because in the
photograph the cut in the floor at the bottom of the trench
(this floor lies several centimeters below what is marked
"Floor 2" on the section in the photograph) is neither
close to, nor parallel to, the line of the wall, and does not
therefore indicate the edge of a trench dug to make a wall.
In Photograph 55 of Trench ZE1 we see labels
marking "Floor 1" and Floor 2" in the section, and a floor
(without number) at the base of the excavated area below,
but there is no cut visible in the trench section close to the
east face of the north-south running wall. The upper and
lower floors run right up to the east face of the wall. Thus
we cannot say that either of these floors was earlier than,
and cut to make room for, the upper courses of the north-
south wall. The same observation follows from the Section
Facing South, West-East (K-L), pertaining to Trench ZE1,
east of Wall # 5A.
So too no cut is visible in the Section E-F, Facing
South, in E7 inside the South Chamber of the mosque. All
that we have in this is a sequence of surfaces or strata
below "Floor 3" coming straight up to the western wall in
E7. There is no cut line, vertical or sloping, near the
vertical edge of the wall."
3822. The periodization/stratification made by ASI has
also been criticized by some of the witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit
4). Real criticism has come from PW 16 Prof. Surajbhan, PW 24
Prof. D.Mandal, PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon, PW 30 Dr. R.C.
Thakran, PW 31 Dr. Ashok Dutta and PW 32 Dr. Supriya
Verma. Some others who have supported the
3927
stratification/periodization by ASI are OPW 18 Sri Arun Kumar
Sharma; OPW 19 Rakesh Dutt Dwivedi and DW 20/5 Sri
Jayanti Prasad Srivastava.
3823. P.W. 16, Prof. Surajbhan, in his third appearance,
has deposed in the matter of ASI report and the said statement is
contained in Parts 3 and 4 (paras no. 135 to 556) of his oral
deposition. He claim to have actually visited the site of
excavation for a period of three days in June, 2003 when the
excavation was continuing:
l¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬¤i ·¤i - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬-ªi·· ¬i ¬i¤ ¤¬
ºri ·ii, ¬¬ ¬-¤ - n|· l··i ¬ l¬¤ ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º ¬¬¬i
l·º|·iºi ¬º· n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·sr÷·sc)
“ When excavation was going on at the disputed site
in Ayodhya. I went to the site of excavation for three days.”
(E.T.C.)
¬« - ¬¸ · zoos - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º n¤i ·ii n« - º ¬i·i
·io - ·¬, ·io lºiº|· º-·inº, ¤· ¤-·i ¬ ¬i¤ r ¤ ¤ ºin-· ¬ ¤¬
¬·¬iºi ¤ i·n ·i¤º ·-º ·io ¬|niºi- ºi¤ n¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ ·«r÷·«c)
“When I went to the disputed site in June 2003, I was
accompanied by Dr.Mandal, Dr.Shireen Ratnagar and Dr.
Sita Ram Rai, a retired director of archaeology, who had
come from Patna.” (E.T.C.)
- ¤ ¬ ÷s - - l¬¬ niº|ªi ¬i ¬nºi ·ii, ¤r ¤i· ·r| r,
¤º·n ¬¸ · -ir ¬ -·¤ ·iin ¬ ¬i¬÷¤i¬ - ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º n¤i
ri + ni, ¤º·n ;¬¬ «iº - - l·lº¤n lnl·i ·r| «ni ¤i +ni|
(¤ ¬ zss)
“ I do not remember on which date I had descended
into Trench J-3. However, I may have gone to the
excavation site nearly in the middle of June but I cannot
tell any definite date in this respect.” (E.T.C.)
3928
- ¤ri ¤º ¬i- ·¤l·n ¬| rl¬¤n ¬ n·ir| · · ¬º ¤ ºi n- ·
¬ l ·ºi · i n ¬| r l ¬¤n ¬ n·i r| · ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬ s·r)
“I am giving testimony here as a specialist in
archaeology, not as a layman.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ·i| ¬¤ r l¬ - ¬¤·| n·ir| - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - ·
¬¬¬ l··iin ¬i lnº-¬ n ¬º· ¬·i·i ¬¬ ªilº·n ¬º· ¬ l¬¤
¬¤l-·in r ¬i r¸ | (¤ ¬ ssc)
“It is also true that I have appeared to discard or
reject the report of ASI and its department, through my
evidence.” (E.T.C.)
;¬ ·n|¬ ¤º ¤r ¤i r¸ l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬i ¬··¬¸ ¬· n¬n
r | (¤ ¬ ss/)
“I have drawn the conclusion that the conclusion of
ASI is wrong.” (E.T.C.)
- ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ;¬ ¬-ªi·· lº¤i - ¬ «iº - ¬¤·i ¬i ¬¬· · ·
¬i¤i r¸ ¬iº ¤r «ni· ¬i¤i r¸ l¬ ;¬ lº¤i - ¬ l··¬·i «i«º| -l-¬·
¬ ·|¤ l¬¬| - l·º ¬ ri · ¬ «iº - l·ºi·iiº r | (¤ ¬ s«s)
“I have come to give my estimate about this
excavation report of Ayodhya and also to tell that the
conclusion of this report regarding existence of any temple
beneath the Babri mosque, is baseless.” (E.T.C.)
¤ º·÷ ¤r¬| «iº ¬« ¬i¤ ;¬ ·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬ ¬-·i n·ir| · · ¬¤l-·in
r ¤ ·i ¬« ¬i¤ ¤¬ ¤ ºin-·· -ni ¬| r l¬¤n ¬ ¬i¤ ·i ¤i ¤¬
;lnri¬¬iº ¬| r l¬¤n ¬ ¬i¤ ·i `
¬-nº÷ - ¤ ºin-·· -ni ri n r ¤ ;lnri¬¬iº ·i| r¸ ·¤i l¬ ¤ ºin-· ¤¬
¤lnril¬¬ l·ni· r ;¬l¬¤ - ¬« ¬i - ¬ ¬i-· ¤ ºi r ¬i, ;¬ l··i¤
¤º ¬-n ni ¬ ¬¤·| n·ir| · · ¬ l¬¤ ¤ ºi r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ srz)
“Question- Your first appearance in this court to give
evidence was as a archaeologist or historian?
Answer- Besides being an Archaeologist, I am also a
3929
historian because archaeology is a historical science and
as such when I appeared before this court, I appeared to
give my evidence on this topic in entirety.” (E.T.C.)
rº ··i ·ri;¬ ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- (¤ ºin-·· -ni) ;lnri¬¬iº ·i|
ri ni r ¬iº ;lnri¬ ¤¬ ·¤i¤¬ l·ni· r ¤ ºin-· l¬¬¬i ¬ n r, -
¬« ;lnri¬¬iº ¬ ª¤ - n·ir| · · ¬i¤i ¬¬¬i ¤r ni-¤¤ ·r| r
l¬ - ¤ ºin-· ¬ ni· · l·l·i ¬ · l¤n ri ¬º ¬i¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ srs)
“Every worthwhile archaeologist is also a historian.
History is a detailed science with archaeology being its
branch. When I came to give evidence as a historian, it did
not mean that I had come without the knowledge and
method of archaeology.” (E.T.C.)
¬i;- ¤º - ¬« n¤i, ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¤ i o ºi|º|· º-·inº, ¤ i o -º·¬ n·ii
¬ s ¬i·¬· ¬ , l¬·¬ ·i- - n ;¬ ¬-¤ ¤i· ·r| r , -i ¬¸ · ·i ¬iº
¬-ªi·· ¬ «iº - ·ri ¬ ¬¤¬··i ¬i-n | ¬ «iº - ¬·¬ ¬i·i ¤¤i
ri n| ºrn| ·i|| ¤r ·i ·i ·¤l·n ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬¬ ¬-¤ -i ¬¸ · ·i , ¬« -
·ri n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ss·)
“When I visited the site, Prof. Shirin Ratnagar, Prof.
Mandal and few Observers, whose names I do not
remember, were present and I had discussions with them
about the excavation and the materials available there.
Both these persons were present in Ayodhya, when I had
gone there.” (E.T.C.)
¤ ·i ·i ·¤l·n ··¤ «i · ¬| nº¤ ¬ ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º n¤
·i | (¤ ¬ ss·)
“Both these persons had been to the excavation site
on behalf of Waqf Board.” (E.T.C.)
l¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬i¤| ¬-ªi·· ri ¤ ¬i ·ii ¬¬ ¬-¤ - ·ri n¤i
·ii ¤º·n ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬ s ¬-ªi·· ·¤ - ¤ ¬ - l¬¤i ·i| ¬i ºri ·ii|
l¬¬ ¬-¤ - ·ri ¤º n¤i, - ·¤ · o ¬|÷/ - ¬-ªi·· ¤¬ ºri ·ii| ;
3930
¬iº ¤¤ ¬|º|¬ ¬| - ·¤ ¬ - ·i| ¬r| ÷¬r| ¬-ªi·· ¤¬ ºri ·ii| ¤¸ ·
- ·i| ¬ , ¬ , ¬|º|¬ - ¬ri nri ¬-ªi·· ¤¬ ºri ·ii| (¤ ¬ ««s)
“I went there, when much excavation had taken
place. However, at that time excavation was being carried
out in few new trenches. When I went there, excavation was
being carried out in trench no. G-7. Excavation in E & F
series trenches was also being carried out at places.
Earlier also the excavation was being carried out at places
in J, K series.” (E.T.C.)
- · ¤·¬¤- ¬ ª¤ - n|· l·· n¬ r ¤ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬ -¤¬ ¬i
· ªii, ¬·¬ ¤i- ¤º|¤i· ¬i · ªii, (¤ ¬ ««c)
“As an expert, I examined the sample of three days
excavation, their pottery yard,” (E.T.C.)
- ¬i - ¬| ;¬i¬n ¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ · ªi·
¬ l¬¤ n¤i ·ii| ;¬ r n ·¤i¤i¬¤ - ¤ i·i ·i ¤¤ ·¬|¬ ¬ir« · l·¤i
ri ni| ¤ i·i ·i ¤¤ ;¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬·º¤ l·¤i n¤i ri ni| . ..;¬ ¬ « ·i -
- º| ·ini ¬| ¬|¬i·| ¬ir« ·¬|¬ ¬ir« ¬ r ; ·i|, l¬·ri · - n¬ ¤r
«ni¤i ·ii l¬ - º ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º ¬i· ¬ « ·i| ;¬i¬n ¤ i·n ri n¤|
r | (¤ ¬ ro·)
“I had gone to the disputed site to inspect the
excavation, under court permission. The advocate must
have moved an application before the court in this behalf.
Application must have been moved in this behalf. . . . I had
a discussion in this behalf with Mr. Jilani, the advocate,
who told that permission had been accorded for my visit to
the excavation site.” (E.T.C.)
.- º ¬i·i ¬; ¬iº l·,i· ¬i n ·i| ·i , l¬·¬ ¬i·i - ¤ ºi·ºi·ii ¬i
· ªi· n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ roz)
“Many other scholars had accompanied me, when I had
gone to inspect the archaeological remains.” (E.T.C.)
3931
¤ l-n¬i ¬n·-- ¬-¤ ·¬i;¬ºi· ¬i¤ ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ÷ ¤÷
l¬ l-¬ ¬i¤ l· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - - ¬i ¬r-n ·i-¬ ¬ -·ii ¬
¤ ¬ilºin r, - ºi ·i| ¬ ªi r | ;¬¬i ºi|·i ¬ « · - ·i·, ¤ ¬º lº¬ ~-
÷ ¤÷ l¬ l-¬ ¬i¤ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - r | (¤ ¬ ro«)
“My article is also included in the magazine
‘Against Communalisation of Archaeology- A Critic of the
ASI Report’, published by institution named Sahmat. Its
title is ‘Bad Method, Poor Result-A Critic of ASI Report’.”
(E.T.C.)
¬¤ ·º riºi-| - -i lº¤¬ - -- r, l¬¬ ;· ºii- ¬r-n ¬rn
r | - ¬r-n ¬i ¬·-¤ ni ·r| r¸ , ¤º ¬·¬ ¬· ¬ ¬i¤i - lr-¬i
¬ ni ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬ rzo)
“Safdar Hashmi Memorial is a trust, which is called
Sahmat in brief. I am not a member of Sahmat, but I do
take part in many of its activities.” (E.T.C.)
¬r-n - n¬|· ·i| ¤ ¬ilºin ¬ºni r, ¤º ¬¬ - n¬|· ¬i ·i- ;¬
¬-¤ ¤i· ·r| ¬i ºri r | ;¬ - n¬|· - - º ·i| ¬ s ¬il- l¬~¬ s¤
r | (¤ ¬ rzo)
“Sahmat also publishes a magazine, whose name I am not
able to recollect at present. Few articles of mine have been
published in this magazine as well.” (E.T.C.)
¬ ·i·n - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ··, ·z, n·ii ·s ¬¸ · zoos ¬i n¤i ·ii|
(¤ ¬ rs«)
“I had been to the disputed site possibly on 11
th
, 12
th
and
13
th
June, 2003.” (E.T.C.)
3824. In respect to certain fields he also clearly admitted
his lack of expertise and experience as under:
¬il¬ - ·¤º¬ ¬i;·¬ ¤º - º| ¬i ; ¤¬ · l-¬ ··i¬|l¤¬ºi· ·r| r ,
«l~¬ ¤r - º ¬· ·i· ¬i º ¬·º¬ --·| ¤º ¬i·iilºn r | (¤ ¬ r·s)
“I have no academic qualification in architectural science
3932
and instead it is based on my experience and general
study.” (E.T.C.)
- ·¤¸l-¬-l-·¬ (- · i ºii-¤) ¬i ¤·¬¤- ·r| r¸ (¤ ¬ rzz)
“I am not an expert in numismatics.” (E.T.C.)
;¬| ¤ ¬iº - ¤¤|n i¤| ¬i ·i| ¤·¬¤- ·r| r¸ ,
“Similarly I am not an expert in epigraphy,” (E.T.C.)
- · ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¬ ¤ i·n r ; ·¬ ·· -i; ~¬ · ·¬ ·· · ¤º ¬i·iin
·r| · ªi r , (¤ ¬ rzc)
“I have not actually seen the glazed tiles & glazed ware
found from the excavation site,” (E.T.C.)
3825. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan filed his affidavit dated
20.03.2006 in support of the objections filed on behalf of
plaintiff 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report. He says that the ASI has
misrepresented the true nature of the structure, floors and pillar
bases underlying the Babri-Masjid ruins. With respect to
stratification, PW 16 in para 5 says that though the stratigraphy
of each trench is claimed to be finally co-related with the
general sequence of culture at the site, the ASI having failed to
give a list of layers and periods trench-wise for facilitating the
testing of the conclusions of the excavators has distorted the
facts and gave wrong findings with regard to structure 3 and 2.
PW 16 asserted that a concordance ought to have been provided
in the report. The conclusions drawn by ASI alleged to be bound
and it says that they have adopted a defective methodology and
biased assumption (vide para 4 of the affidavit). Then general
allegations in para 14 has been made that the report, on the
whole, lacks scientific rigour, objectivity and professional
integrity and such trend and tendency in Indian Archaeology
may pose a serious challenge not only to the world of historians
but also to those citizens who are interested in truth and nothing
3933
but the truth. In his cross-examination PW 16, however, said:
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¬i ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ l¬¤i n¤i ·ii,
¬¬¬| lº¬il· n ¬iº -nº|¬ººi -|¬ « n ¬ ·r| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬l¬¤
¤o¤¬o¬i; o¬| lº¤i - - ¬i n ·¬ r , ¬·¬i · -i ¤i lº¬i· ¬ l«·i
¬-¤il¤n l¬¤i ¬i ; ¬ln- -n ·r| ·¤·n l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni|
(¤ ¬ ·«r)
“ In case of the excavation done by A.S.I. at the disputed
site, its recording as well as stratification was not properly
done. That is why a final opinion cannot be given without
verifying the gaps(wide divergences) of the A.S.I. report
from the data or record.” (E.T.C.)
¬i-ni º ¤º l·,i· ¬ s ¤¬ -- ¬ ¬r-n r , ¬ ¬ ¤·o«|o¤|o··¬¸ o,
ºi n, ¬ ·iiºi, n ·n| ¤º·n ¤i -- n ·n÷ ºi¬¤¸ n ¬i¬ ¤ ¤l¬n ·r| r |
¬¬| l-l·l·¤¬÷¬ ~¬i· - ·i| ¤ ¤l¬n ·r| r | l-l·l·¤¬ ¬i¬ ¬
- n¬ ¬i¬ ¬i ¬¤ºi·n ¤i- - ¬¬n l¬¤i n¤i r | ¤r ·i| ¤ ¤l¬n
·r| r, ·¤i l¬ - n¬ ¬i¬ ·i| -|l·l·¤¬ ¬i¬ ¬i r| lr-¬i r |
(¤ ¬ ·«s)
“Generally, scholars are in agreement on the use of some
terms such as N.B.P.W., Shunga, Kushan, Gupta. But the
term like 'post-Gupta-Rajpoot era' is not in vogue. The
term 'Early Medieval – Sultanate' is also not in use. In the
afore-said chart, the Mughal period is shown separately
from the medieval period. It is also not in vogue because
the Mughal period is only a part of the Medieval Period.”
(E.T.C.)
¬ s lnl·i¤i ¬ l¬¤ ¬i« ·÷·«, l¬·¬i ¬i º ¤i-º|¬ ¬i ·i| ;-n -i¬
l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·rr)
“ In determination of some dates, Carbon-14, coins and
potteries have been used.” (E.T.C.)
¤º·n ¬i ;¬ lº¤i - - ¤ l- ·¬º ¬i ºr| r, ·r ¤r r l¬ ¬·ri · ¬ s
¬ ¸lºi¤¬ ¬i·¤ ¬i ¤ i·n ¬º· ¬·i·i ¬¬¬i l·º¬ ·iºi ¬º· - ¬-¬i º|
3934
l·ªii; r n·ii n¬n l··¬·i l·¬i¬· ¬ l¬¤ ¬ s ¬i·¤i ¬i ¬ªºn ¬
·¤i·i -r-· l·¤i r ¬iº ¬·¬i l¬ l-¬¬ ¤·il¬l¬¬ ·r| l¬¤i r |
·¸ ¬º| nº¤ ¬ s ¬·¤ -r-·¤¸ ºi ¬i-n | ¬i , ¬i ;¬ ¬--¤i ¤º l·ºi ·i
-r-· ºªin| r, ;··i º l¬¤i n¤i r · ¬¤ ¬ l¬¤i n¤i r, nil¬ ¬¤·
¤¸ · ¬l~¤n l··¬·i ¬i l¬, l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ | ;·r| nº|¬i ¬i - n¬n
-i·ni r¸ ¬i º ;· l¤ ¬-¤ºi¬ ¬i - «i¤-· ¬rni r¸ | (·ss÷zoo)
“But an error perceptible in this report is that they have
shown weakness in obtaining some crucial evidences or in
analysing them and have given too much stress on some
evidences so as to infer wrong findings and have not made
any critical analysis of them. On the other hand, some
other vital materials, which hold special significance to
this problem, have been either ignored or suppressed, so
that they may be able to establish their preconceived
findings. I take these very methods to be faulty and term
these presumptions as biased.” (E.T.C.)
-nº ¬i -i¬ ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¬; ¬i·¤i ¬i ¬i·iiº ¬ ·i ¤· ni r, ·¤i l¬
¬; «iº l-·iln «r n ¬i-¤¬ ·¬ ri n| r | (¤ ¬ zsc)
“Several pieces of evidence have to be relied upon so as to
mark the level because the situation gets very complex
many times.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬; «iº ¤¬ r| ¬i¬ - ¬; -nº ri ¬¬n r
¬iº ¬·¤ ¬-¤ - ¬¬n÷¬¬n -nº ¬¬n÷¬¬n ¬i¬i ¬ r| ¬¸ ¤¬ ri
¬¬n r | ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬i¬ nºi·i ¬ l¬¤ ·iiln¬ ¬·ºi·ii ¬i r| ¬i·iiº
ri ni r | (¤ ¬ zsc)
“It is correct to say that many a time a single period may
have various strata and at other times different periods
may be indicative of different strata. Only the physical
remains provide a base for the reckoning of a cultural
period.” (E.T.C.)
3935
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ºiºi·| ¬| -i ¬¸ ·n| - r| ¤ i¤ -nºi ¬| ¤r¤i·
« rnº ri ¤in| r | ;¬¬ ¬¬i·i ·¬ ·|¬ ¬ -nºi ¬i · ªi· ¬ ¬iº -·¤
¬¬¬ ¤r¤i·· ¬ l¬¤ ¬¤· ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¤i¬¸ (¬il¬ ¤i ¬i l¬¬¬ ·i;¤ )
¬i ¤ ¤i n ¬º¬ « rnº l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r, ¤º·n ·¸ º ¬ · ªi¬º ·i| ¬iº
¤i -i n i¤ n·ii ¬ ·ºi·¬ · i; n ¬i · ªi¬º ·i| -nºi ¬| l·i··ni ¬i
¬i·ii¬ ri ¬¬ni r | ¤i -i n i¤ ¬i · ªi¬º ¤r ¬· ¬ «iº ¤r¤i· l¬¤i
¬ini r l¬ ¬- ¬ ¬-ªi·· - -nº|¬ººi - l¬n·i ¬il¤-¤ ¬i º l¬n·|
nl~n¤i r | ¤ i¤ ¤ i -i n i¤ - -nºi ¬| l-- -| ¬ - ·¬¤º, ¬¬¬ º n ¬|
si¤i ·i| ¤· n| r | -·¤ ¬ri l¬ l¤- ¬il· ¬i «r n ¬º¬ni ¬ ¤r¤i·i
¬i ¬¬ni r | (¤ ¬ zs/)
“ It is correct to say that stratum is often better identified
only in the presence of light. Besides, it can be better done
by looking at the strata from a close range and by using
one's archaeological knife for their identification. But one
may have an impression as to difference in strata even by
looking from a distance and also by looking at photograph
and sectional drawing. From the sight of a photograph,
many times it is known how much propriety and how many
lacuna are there in the stratification done in a particular
excavation. The soil texture of strata and their colour often
gets reflected in the photograph too. (Himself stated) A pit
etc. can be identified very easily.” (E.T.C.)
¬o÷¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬-ªi·· - ¬ ·ºi· ¬i nºiºi·i «r n ¬¤i; ¬ l¬¤i
n¤i r , ¤ir -nº|¬ººi - ¬; ¬nr ·i·i ri | (¤ ¬ zs/)
“Answer:- The section cutting has been done in a very fine
manner in the excavation of Ayodhya, though there may be
lacuna at several places in stratification.” (E.T.C.)
¬· ¤¤· ¬º· ¬ «i · r| ¤r ¤ni ¤¬ ni l ¬ · l ·· ¬· i
¬r| r ¬·i ·i ·r| | (¤ ¬ zss)
“Only after study it will be known whether those
3936
findings are correct or not.” (E.T.C.)
« rnº ¤r| ºrni r l ¬ ¬ ª¤i - -¬ « n ¬ ¬i º ºi ¬· l n¬,
¬i l ·i ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º ¬i ¬÷l ·ºi ¤ l ¬¤i ¬i ¤ | l·l·i··
·i¤· --|¬ l·l·i·· ºi¬·ºi ;¬ ¬i¬÷¬ - - ¬i ¬i¤ n , ¤º·n l·l·i··
ºi¬·ºii ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º l¬¤ n¤ ¬i¬÷¬ - ¬| ¬; ¬|-i¤ ri n| r | ¤
o¤¬o¬i ; o · ¬¤·| l º¤i - ¬ ¬ ·¬ ºi ¬· ºi ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º
r| ¬i ¬÷nºi ·i ·r| ¬| r | ¬¬- ¤ ºi ni l - ·¬ ¬i -n | ¬
¬i ·i i º ¤º, ¬ ¬ ¤·o«| o¤| o ·· ¬¸ o ¤| l º¤· n·i i
¤ l nri l ¬¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º, ¬ ¬ ÷ -· ¤ ¬i ¬, ¬- nº · ¤i --
- n ¬ ¬i ¬ ¬i l · ·i | ·i - l ·¤ r | ;¬ lº¤i - - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ·
¬ ·iiºi ¬i¬, ºi n¬i¬, n ·n¬i¬, ¬iº ºi¬¤¸ n ¬i¬ n·ii - n ¬¬i¬
¬·º¤ l·¤ r , ¬i ·i¤· --|¬ ¤i ºi¬·ºii ¬ ¬-«l··in r ¤i ¬·¬i
¬- -n r , ¤º·n ¬ s ¤ ¬ ¬··¬¸ ¬· ·i| lº¤i - - l·ªii; · ºr r , l¬·-
¤¸ · -·¤¬i¬ ¬iº ¬~n·n ¤|lº¤· ¬| l··ii¬· º ªii ·r| ¤r¤i·| n;
r | ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬i¬¬ - - - · ¤º· ¬i-¬ , ¬·º¬ ¬i-il¬¬ ¬ º¤·i ¬i
« n r| ¬¤· ¬i¤ - l¬¬| ¬¬n ¬i¬ ¬i ¬·i·i ºi¬·ln¬, ¬il·i ¬
·¤·-·ii ¬i ¬¸ ¤¬ ·r| r |(¤ ¬ z««)
“It is better that periodization is done numerically and
on political and economic grounds. Several dynasties and
several royal lineages will be covered in this chronological
order. But periodization based on several royal lineages
has many limitations. The ASI in its report has not
proceeded with the reckoning of time merely on the basis
of royal lineages. It has given the name of NBPW period
on the basis of archaeological materials and those of
medieval period, later or post Mughal periods etc., on
historical basis. The ASI, in this report, have certainly
given the names of Kushan period, Shunga period, Gupta
period, later Gupta period, Rajpoot period and Mughal
period, which are related to dynasties/royal lineages or
cover such dynasties/royal lineages. But the report contains
3937
certain conclusions in which no line of separation is seen
between the early medieval period and the Sultanate
period. In cultural chronology, trade & commerce and
general social structure by themselves are not indicative of
any separate period or of any political and economic
system.” (E.T.C.)
¤¸ º ¬- ªi ·· ¬·l ·i - - n| · l ·· n¬ ·ri ¤º ºri | ......
¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·i ºi· lº¬il· n - ·¤ ¬ - ¬| n¤| ri n|
¤º·n - º| ¬i ¬i·¬iº| r ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬-ªi·· ºi ª ri · ¬
¬n·in ¤¬ -r|· n¬ ¬i º ¬i - ¬ ¬i·ºi n¬ ·¬ ·· · ¤º, ·¬ ··
-i; ¬¬ n·ii rl· ·¤i ¬| -|¬ ¬ lº¬il· n ·r| ¬| n¤| ·i|| - · ¬ ·¬
- ·¤ ¬ - -- -|n i¤| n·ii ¬i¬| - ·¤º¬ lº-·¬ ¬i ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i ·ii,
·ri «·i¤| ¬i ºr| · i; n ¬i ¬i lºi¬ ª¤ ¬ · ªii ·ii, - ·¤ ¬ ·i - « ¬
¬iº · ¬| ºl¬--º ·r| · ªii ·ii| - n ¬i ; ¬-ªi··¬ni -·i¬ ¤º
¬i; - ·i -« ¬ l¬ªini ·i| l·ªii; ·r| l·¤i| - n ¤r ¤ni r l¬
¬ ¤º·i¬º ¬| ·i -« ¬ n·ii ¤·-|l··-| ¬ ºl¬--º ¬il· «·i¤ n¤ r
¤º·n ·¤i ¬ ¤º·i;¬º · ¬i; - ¤º ¬-ªi·· ¬ºn ¬-¤ ·i¤º| l¬ªi| r ,
;¬ «iº - - n ’i¬ r | ¤·-|l··-| ºl¬--º ¤º ·i| - n ºi¬ r l¬ ·r
¬¬ « n ¬ ·r| l¬ªii r l¬¬ « n ¬ l¬ªii ¬i·i ¤ilr¤, «i· - ¬i ;
¬i - ¬| ¬ªºn ¬ ¬· ¬iº n ¤iº ¬º l·¤i ¬nni r | - ºi ¤r ºi¬ - º
-·¤ ¬i ·i| r n·ii ;¬ «iº - - · ¬i·¬iº| ·i| ¤ i·n ¬| r | ¤r
¬i·¬iº| - n ·io -º·¬ ¬ir« · , -i¬ºi· ¬ir« · l’iº|· º-·inº
n·ii ¬iº ·i| ¬; ¬i n ¬i ·ri ¤º ·i , · l·¤i ·ii| ¬« - · ;¬¬i · ªii
ni ¤r ¤i¤i l¬ ¤r ¬¬ « n ¬ lº¬il· n r| ·r| r , ¬ ¬ ¬i-i·¤
¬-ªi·· - ¬| ¬in| r | ¬ri n¬ - n -i¬¸ - r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n n|·i
·¤l·n¤i l¬·¬ - n ¬i·¬iº| ¤ i·n r ; ¬·- -i¬ºi· ¬ir« ¬i¤ | ¬-¤
n¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ºr ri n | ….... l¬n· l··i n¬ - ¬-ªi··
-·i¬ ¤º ºri, - n ¤r ¤ni ¤¬i l¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ «i· ’ii- ¬i
¤·-|··|-|¬ · ¬| ºl¬--º - ¤« i; ¬in| ·i| ¬iº ºii¤· ¬i ni ¬
·-nªin ·i| l¬¤ ¬in ·i | ¬ ¤º·i; ¬º ¬| ·i - « ¬ ¬i - ·¤ ¤º
¬ ¤º·i; ¬º l¬ªini r, ·r - · l¬ªin r ¤ ·r| · ªii «l~ ¬ - · ¬ s
3938
¬ ¤º·i; ¬º ¬i ¬« - - ·¤ · ªi· ¬ini ·ii, n« ·r ·ri ¬ ¬¬n
¬i¬º « - ¬i· ¬i ·i| · ªii ·ii| ;¬¬ - n ¬nni ·ii l¬ ¬·i|
¬ ¤º·i; ¬¬ ¤¬ ¬ ¬ ¬|lº¤¬ ¬-ªi··¬ni ·r| ·i | (¤ ¬ ««s÷«««)
“In the total excavation period, I stayed there for three
days. . . . . ASI may have carried out recording in the
trenches during the excavation. However, to the best of my
knowledge recording of glazed ware, glazed tiles & bones
was not carried out properly for about one month from the
beginning of excavation till the order of court. I had only
studied the stratography of trenches and archaeological
remains and had partially seen the drawing being made
there but had not seen the trenches note book & daily
register. I did not see any excavator writing the site note
book at the site. I know that Supervisor’s note book &
antiquity register etc. have been prepared but I have doubt
that the Supervisor has written the dairy at time of
excavation. I also have doubts about the antiquity register
that it has not been written in the manner it should have
been written and appears to have been prepared
subsequently according to requirement of court. This doubt
is my own and I have also gathered information in this
behalf. This information was given to me by Dr. Mandal,
Mr. Thakran, Shirin Ratnagar and many other persons who
were present there. When I looked at it, I found that the
recording was not in the manner, as is done in usual
excavation. To the best of my knowledge, out of the said
three persons from whom I received the information, Mr.
Thakran must have stayed at the disputed site for a long
duration. . . . . . . . In the period of my stay at the
excavation site, I came to know that after the excavation,
3939
the antiquities were entered in the evening in the daily
register and probably signatures were also obtained. I did
not see the Supervisor’s note book being written, which is
written by the Supervisor at the trench and instead at time
of my visit to the trench I used to find some of the
Supervisors sitting a side the trench. From this, it appeared
to me that all the Supervisors were not equally serious
excavators.” (E.T.C.)
lº¤i - ¬ ¤ ¬i r| ¤ni ¤¬ni r ¤º·n - º| ·¤l·nnn ¬i·¬iº| ¬
¬· ¬iº - ·¤ ¬ - ¬º¤ ¬ ¬ · ··i ¬| ¬in| ·i| · l¬ l¬¬| · -- º··
· -- ¬i;· ¬ , ¤ ¬i - n ¬’ii ¬ ·-ni ¬| ¬ ·i| ¤ni ¤¬i| (¤ ¬ ««r)
“It appears so from the report but as per my personal
knowledge the depth of trenches is measured from the
surface and not from any standard datum line. I came to
know the same from Mr. Ashok Dutta as well.” (E.T.C.)
- n ¤r ¬i·¬iº| r l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - ¬ ¬i·i ·|l·¤i
¬ ¬ - ¬ n·ii ¤ i -i n i¤ ¬ ·ilªi¬ l¬¤ r | ...¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i -
¬ ¬i·i ¬i ¤i -i n i¤ ¬ ·ilªi¬ l¬¤ n¤ r, ¬¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬i ¬·¤
¤i -i n i¤ ¬ ¬i ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ·ilªi¬ l¬¤ r , ¬·¬i ’ii¤· - · ·r|
· ªii r | - · ·o÷zo ¬|o·|o · ªi| ri n|| - · ºii¤· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi
·ilªi¬ - ·¤ ·i - « ¬ ·r| · ªi| r | - n ¤r ¤ni ¤¬i ·ii l¬ - ·¤ ·i -
« ¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ·ilªi ¬ ¬| n¤| r | - ¬¤· ;¬ -n ¤º ¤r ¤i
r¸ l¬ lº¤i - ¬| ¬-¬ilº¤i --i¬ - ºªi ¤i -i n i¤ ¬, ¬|o·|o, ·i¤lº¤i
¬·i·i ¤·-|··|-|¬ ºl¬--º ¬il· ¬ ¤¸º| ·r| ¬| ¬i ¬¬n| r |
(¤ ¬ ««r÷««c)
“I have the knowledge that along with its report, ASI
has also filed video cassettes and photographs. . .. . . .The
photographs filed by ASI in addition to the photographs
filed along with its report, have probably not been seen by
me. I may have seen 10-12 CD. I have probably not seen
3940
the trench note book filed by ASI. I had come to know that
ASI had filed trench note book.
I have arrived at the conclusion that the
shortcomings of report can not be made good by
photographs kept in stock, CD, diaries or antiquities
register.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l ¬ -·i ¬ ¤º ¬-ªi ·· ·l - ¬¬ ¬i º
r º| ¬· -¬ ·i ·i l ·l ·i ¬ l ¬¤i n¤i | ·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬ ¬i· ºi ¬i
¤i¬· ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ l¬n·i ri º|¬ ·-¬ ¬iº ·l- ¬¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬i·º¤¬
·ii ¬¬¬ ¬r| ·¤i·i ¬-ªi·· l¬¤i n¤i r | . . . . . ¤º·n - ·¤ ¬ s
¬iº ¬| / - · ¤ º¬ -·i¤¬ n¬ ¤r ¤·i ¬i º ¬i« · ·« l·l·i ¬·
¬l¬ ¤º ¤|º|¤· ·ooo «|o¬|o ¬ ·i| ¤ ºi·i -·n« n ª¤ ¬ «·i · ·i ¤r
¬i - ¬| ¬¤ ·ii ·r| ·i|| ·¸ ¬º| nº¤ ·oo - ·¤ ¬ ¬i ªii ·¬º ¤ ºi-·i¬
¬| ¬iº| ¬¬ ¬i-n | ¬i ··- ¬º · ·i l¬¬¬i ·il··¤ - « rnº n¬·|¬
¬ ¬i· ¤º ¬i º « rnº ¬-ni ¬i ¬¬ni ·ii, ;¬¬| ·i| ¬i·º¤¬ni ·r|
·i|| (¤ ¬ ««c÷««/)
“It is correct that the excavation at the site has been
carried out by both vertical and horizontal methods. The
horizontal and vertical excavation was carried out in
excess of the required excavation, in order to comply with
the court order. . . . . . .However, it was not the intention of
the court to go deep to natural soil in trench J-3 & G-7 and
arbitrarily making the survey older than the earlier period
1000 BC by Carbon-14 method. Further, there was no
necessity to dig up 100 trenches and destroy all its
archaeological materials, which could have been better
appreciated on advent of improved technology.” (E.T.C.)
¬-ªi·· +¤º ¬ ·|¤ ¬i ri ni r | ¬i¬ ¬¬ ¬i¬ l··ii ººi
·|¤ ¬ +¤º ¬| ¬i º l¬¤i ¬ini r |. ... ¬i« ·· l-|n ¬i ¤·¬i ¬¸ -
· l- n ¬| ¤¬ · nil·¬ n¬·|¬ -i·i ¬ini r , ¤º·n ;¬¬| ¬|-i¤ ri n|
3941
r | (¤ ¬ «ro)
“The excavation takes place from top to bottom.
These days the period determination takes place from
bottom to top. ...The carbon dating is considered a
scientific technique of absolute dating, but it has its
limitation.” (E.T.C.)
¤ o÷ - · ¬i¤¬ -¤·- ª¤ ¬ ¤r ¤¸ si ·ii l¬ ¤¸ ºin-· - ¬ ¤ º|·i;¬
¬i¬nºi·i ¬i ¤ i-ilºi¬ -i·i n¤i r ¤i ·r| , l¬¬¬i ¬i¤· -¤·-
¬·i« ·r| l·¤i`
¬-nº÷ ¬ ¤ º|·i;¬ ¬i¬nºi·i ¤l· ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬i¬nºi·i ¬·i·i
¬il’i¤i ;¬i ·il-¬ ¤· ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬ º¤·i ¬| nºi·i ¬ - ¬ ·r| ªiini,
ni r- ;¬¬i ¬¤¤i n ·r| ¬º n |
¤ ¬| ¬i ; ¤ ºin-· - ¤il¬l--¬ ¬i¬nºi·i ¬| ¤i· l--¬ ·r|
ri n|| (¤ ¬ «rs)
“Question- I had specifically asked whether in archeology,
the century wise period calculation has been considered to
be reliable or not, which has not been clearly replied by
you?
Answer- If the century wise period calculation does not
match with cultural period calculation or the calculation of
socio-economic & cultural structure, then we do not use it.
In archaeology, there is no yardstick for fossistic
period calculation.” (E.T.C.)
- · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - ¬i ºi ª ¬ ¬·n n¬ ¤« i r | ¤
o¤¬o¬i ; o · ;· n| ·i ¬·i i n ·i ¤· --| , ºi ni · ·| n·i i
¬ ¤º ¬ ¬· ¬i º ¬i ¬nºi ·i «ni ¤| r , ¤º· n ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¬i
¬ s ¬i ¬i - -¸ ¬÷¬i ·i i º r| · n¬ ·- ¬º l ·¤i r , ¬ ¬
¬i ¬ ¬ o ÷c · / ¤¬·- n·¤i ¬ ¬¬n ¬i ¬º ¤ | ¬ ¬| · ·
¬i ;l ·¤i ¬ ¬ nrn n¤ l ¬¤ n¤ r ¬i º ¬·¬| lnl·i ¤|s
«¬ ¬| n; r , ¬i ¤ ºin-· ¬ l··i¤ - ¬·¬-n| (¬ni·) ¬i l·ªiini r
¤i ¬·¬ -il-· ¬| nº¤ ;ºiiºi ¬ºni r |
3942
¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬i ¬nºi ·i ¬ l ¬¤ ¬| ÷·« l ·l ·i ¬i
;-n -i ¬ l ¬¤i r , ¤º· n ¬; ¬nr ¤r n¬n r ¬iº ¬;
¬nr ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¬i« ·· l- n ¬ -¤ ~¬ n·ii ¬·¬
l··¬·ii ¬ «iº - ¤¬ ¤i- l·¤i r |
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ·i~¤¸ -÷· ¬ ¤ ¬÷z/s ¬ ¬¤ l··¬÷· . . . .n·ii
¬ -¤ ¬ · o÷z,s « «| n·ii r «| ¬ «iº - ¤r ¤¸ si l¬ ;·¬ ¬·nn n ¬i
¬i« ·· l- n r ; n·ii ¬i l··¬·i l·¤ n¤ r , ¬¬¬ ¬i·i| ¬r-n r ¤i
·r| | ¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ¤r ¤ ’· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬ ¤¸ si ¬i·i ¤ilr¤,
·¤i l¬ ¤ri ¤º · l¬¬| ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬i¬ ¬i l¬¬ r ¬i º · l¬¬|
l·’i·i - ¤ ¬ l·’i·i -nº ¬i l¬¬ r , l¬¬¬ ¤r ¬ -¤ ¬ l¬¤ n¤ ·i ,
;¬l¬¤ ¬-ªi··¬ni ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬i ; ·i| ;¬ ¬·i¸ º ¤¤ l··¬ ¬ ·¤i
¬·i ¬ni¤ ni|
¤ o÷ ¬¤ºi ·n ¤iºi ¬ -¤ ~¬, l¬·¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i n¤i r , ¬ «iº - ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l¬¤i r ¬·i·i ·r| `
¬o÷ ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ni l¬¤i ri ni, ¤º·n ;¬ ¤¤ l··¬ - ¤r ¬·’¤
l¬ªii ¬i·i ¤ilr¤ ·ii|
¤ o÷ ;¬ ¤¤ l··¬ - l·¤ n¤ ¬ -¤ ~¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - -
¬ri ÷¬ri l¬¬ - ¤ · l¬¬ ¬ ¤º ¬ ¬-«l··in r , ;¬¬i ¬i¤· lº¤i - -
¬i ; ¬·¤¤· ·r| l¬¤i, ;¬| ¬iººi ¬i¤ ¬|÷·« ¬ lº¬~- ¬ ¬-«··i -
¬i ; -¤·- ¬-nº · · ¬º ¬ ·¬ ¤¤ l··¬ ¬¤¸ ºi ri · ¬i «¤i· · ºr r |
;¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i¤¬i ·¤i ¬r·i r `
¬o÷ ¤ ¬i ¬r·i ¤ ºi n- · ¬ ¬-ªi ·· ¬| l º¤i - ¬ ¬i ¬ ¬
¬ n- · -¤· - «·i ¤i ¬i ¤ , ;¬¬ - r -i · ·i r | ·i -n· -
¬« ·i | ¬i ; ¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ¬¤· ¬- ªi ·· ¤º ¬i ; l º¤i -
l ¬ªi ni r , ·r ;¬ ¤l · ¬’i ¬º· ¬ l ¬¤ ri n| r , ni l ¬
¬i ni ¬i ·; ¬i ·¬i º| ¬·i ·i ·¤ ni · ¬i ¤ni ¬n ¬¬ ,
¤º· n ;¬ l º¤i - - ¬ ·¬ ;¬| ¤¤ l ··¬ - ·r| , ¬i º ·i |
¬; ¬nri ¤º, ¬ri ¤ -| ·¤ -| ¬ ¬| l ¬-- ·| n; r , ·ri
¤º ·i | ¤r ;· ¤i - ’i · ·r| ·| n; r l ¬ ¬- ¬ ¤ -| ·¤ -|
l ¬¬ ¬i ¬ ¬ r ¬i º l ¬¬ -nº ¬ r | ¤i -i n i¤ ¬ · · i; n -
·i| ¤r ¬-| ¬i¤ · ªi| ¬i ¬¬n| r | - ·r| ¬i·ni l¬ - ;¬ lº¤i -
¬i ¤ -ilºi¬ ¬ ¬ -i·¸ | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ - · lº¤i - ¬i ¬·¤¤·
3943
·r| l¬¤i r |
¤ o÷ ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬| l º¤i - - ;¬ «i n ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l ¬¤i
r l ¬ ¤ ¬ - ¤ ¬ ¬ri ÷¬ri ¬i º l ¬¬ ¬ ¤º ¬ ¬- «l · ·i n
r | ;¬ ¬- «· ·i - ¬i ¤¬i ·¤i ¬r·i r `
¬o÷ ;· l nl ·i ¤i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ni ¬ri nri ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ·
l ¬n·i -| ¬ ¬-ni ri ni , l ¬¤i ri ni |
¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · l ¬·¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬i ···| · ·z·| ¬·|
- ºªi i | - n ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi I ¬ V ¬| ¬i ¬ ¬ - ¬|
nºi ·i ¬ l ··i i ººi ¬ ¬ « · i - ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r| r , ·¤i l¬
;¬¬i ;¬ ¬--¤i ¬ ¬i ; ¬ « ·i ·r| r | (¤ ¬ «r«÷«rr)
“I have read the complete ASI report. The ASI has
made the period calculation on basis of these three viz.
dynasty, century and layer. However, the main basis of
period calculation has been neglected in few periods
such as the period nos. 6 & 7 have been decided contrary
to facts on basis of pre-conceived ideas and have been
ante-dated, which only reflects on lack of knowledge in
archaeology or the motive.
The ASI has used the C-14 technique for period
calculation. However, it is incorrect at many places. In its
report, the ASI has given a chart at many places regarding
the carbon dating samples and its conclusion thereon.
The witness was asked whether he agreed or not with
the carbon dating and conclusions contained in Appendix 1
page 273 ASI Vol. 1. … and sample no. 2, 3, 4B and 5B.
The witness stated that this question should be put to ASI
because there is no mention of any cultural period or any
particular layer of any particular trench, from where these
samples had been taken and as such none other than the
excavator would be able to decipher this incomplete
3944
appendix.
Question- Has the ASI made any mention about the said
four samples in its report or not?
Answer- It must have been mentioned, but it should have
been written in appendix.
Question- You have not studied the trench and layer, with
which the samples given in this appendix are related to,
due to which you are unable to give a specific reply
regarding the result of C-14 and are only stating about the
appendix being incomplete. What you have to say in this
behalf?
Answer- The suggestion on making the archaeological
excavation reports clear and comprehend-able, amounts
to avoiding the issue. Actually whenever any
archaeologists prepares report on his excavation, it is
meant for publication so that people may get new
information or knowledge. However, not only in the
appendix of this report but at many other places as well,
where the list of antiquities has been given, the
information about the period and level of any particular
antiquity has not been given. This deficiency is clearly
visible in photographs and drawing. I do not know how to
accept this report as authentic. It is wrong to say that I
have not studied the report.
Question- It has been mentioned in the ASI report as to
from where the samples were taken and to which layer
were they related to. What you have to say in this
behalf?
Answer- These dates must have been mentioned at
3945
appropriate places by ASI, according to its wisdom.
The ASI has marked the sixth period in 11
th
& 12
th
century. I have no objection in determination of period
calculation of I to V by the ASI, because it is not related
to the present dispute.” (E.T.C.)
- º l r¬i « ¬ VII ¤| l º¤· ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ - ¤| l º¤·
VI ¬ «i · l ·l ’¤n ri ·i ¤i l r¤| ri ¬i l ¬ ¬~n·n ¬ ;·
·i ·i ¬i ¬i ¬| ¬i ; l ·l ’¤n l nl ·i ¬·i | n¬ ¬¤¬· ·i ·r|
r | - º ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬-nº ·iiºn - ¬~n·n ¬i¬ ·s·| ¬·| ¬
-i·i ¬ini r | - º ¬· ¬iº VI ¤|lº¤· ¬¬n·n ¬i¬ - ¤r¬ ¬i¤i ¬iº
¤|lº¤· VII ¬¬¬ «i·| ¤r ¬-·i· r l¬ ¤|lº¤· VI ·s·| ¬·| ¬
ºi ª r ¬i ri ¬iº ¤|lº¤· VII ·c·| ¬·| ¬ ‘’i ª n¬ ºri ri | ...
·i-n· - ;·¬i ·i ¬i¬ ¬r·i ·i| n¬n ri ni| ¤r ¬ ·¬ ·i ·i ··i
¬ «i ¤ r , ¬i ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ - «·i ¤ n¤ ¬i º ¬-i · n ·i |
ri n¤ | ;·- ·i ¬ · o ·/ ·i ¬i «i ¤i ¬·i i n ¬i ¬ VI ¬
¬ « l · i n ¬ri ¬i · ·i ¬i «i ¤i ¤r¬ ¬i r ¬i º ¬ ·¬ ¬i ¬
VII ¬i «i ¤i «i · ¬i r , ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ ¬i | ;·¬ ¬i·i ¤i¤
n¤ ·i¤··il--¬ ¬·’i·ii n·ii ;·¬| ·|·iº · ¤’i n·ii ·¬i· ¬il· ¬|
¬-i·ni ¬ · ªii ¬i ¬¬ni r ¬i ¤| l º¤· V ¬ ¤ ºi ni l - ·¬
¬·’i · i i ¬i º ·i ·· l ·-i ºi ºi ¬| ¬ ¤¬·- l ·i · · r | (¤ ¬
«rc÷«r/)
“I feel that the VII period should be fixed during
the Sultanate period after period VI. However, no fixed
date of both these Sultanate periods, is not available so
far. According to my studies, the Sultanate period in north
India is considered from the 13
th
century. According to me,
the VI period came first in the Sultanate period and the
period VII followed. It is possible that the period VI started
in the 13
th
century and the period VII in the 16
th
century. ...Actually it be wrong to term them as two periods.
3946
They are only the remains of two buildings, which were
built and saw their end during the Sultanate period. The
structure of wall no. 17, said to be related to period VI, is
a prior structure and only the structure of period VII is
of subsequent period, Sultanate period. It can be seen in
the similarity of diagnostic remains, their walls, floor, plan
etc., which is entirely different from archaeological
remains and house construction pattern of period V.”
(E.T.C.)
¬~n·n ¬i ¬ ¬i ¬-¤ ;l nri ¬¬i ºi · ¤r¬ r| n¤
¬º ºªi i r , l ¬¬ ¬· ·zoc ; -·| ¬ ·rzc ; -·| ¬ «| ¤
- ºªi i ¬i ni r | ¤r - º ºii·i ¬i l··i¤ ·r| r | (¤ ¬ «r/)
“The period of Sultanate period has already been
determined by the historians, as falling between 1206
AD to 1526 AD. It is not a topic of my research” (E.T.C.)
¬i ¬il¬ - ·¤º ¬| lr-- | ¬i l··i¤ r | …... ·i-n· - ¤r
¤ ’· ¬il¬ - ·¤º ¬| ¬-¤ºl-· --·| ¬i ¬·i¬ r ¬¬ ¤ n l ·’i · i ¬
¬i l ¬ - ·¤º ¬| ¤l · ¬i ·¬i º| r , ni ¤r «ni ¤i ¬i ¬¬ni
r l ¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ¤ i · n «i ¤ l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ri ¬¬n ·i ¤i
·r| - º ;¬ ¬- nº ¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ¤¸ s n¤ n| ·i ¤ ’·i ¬i
¬- nº ¤¸ ºi ri ¬i ni r | (¤ ¬ «cs)
“Which is the subject matter of history of
architecture... Actually it is a matter of comparative study
of architecture. If information is available regarding the
architecture of that particular period, then it can be told
whether the structures found in excavation were pillar
bases or not. This reply of mine is good enough for the
aforesaid three questions.” (E.T.C.)
3826. About periodization PW 16 has made a very vague
statement and failed to provide any proper reason to challenge
3947
the same. On page 244, PW-16 has simply said that there are
some conclusions in the report which do not give any clear cut
line of separation between the early Mughal period and Sultenat
period. Regarding the allegations of lack of professional
integrity, objectivity, scientific rigor, pursuing defective
methodology and biased assumption, we find on the contrary,
predetermined attitude of the witness against ASI which he has
admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having
been seen by the witness, he formed opinion and expressed his
views against ASI. He said:
“¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬ s ;’¤¸ ¬ ¤º - · ¬¤· l ·¤i º ¤
o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬| l º¤i - ¬ · ¤i ¤i ¬¤ - ¤ -n n ri · ¬ ¤r¬
¬¤·| ¬i ·¬i º| ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º ¬¤· l ·· ¬· i l ·¬i ¬ ¬i º
l ·¤i º · ¤·n l ¬¤ | (¤ ¬ ««c)
“It is true that my conclusions and views on certain
issues are based on my knowledge existing prior to the
submission of ASI’s report in court.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| ;¬ -i-¬ - lº¤i - ¬i· ¬ ¤º¤in - · n·ii
¤ i o ;º¤i· r«|« · ¤r «in ¬i· ¤º l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º -l··º ¬
¬·ºi ·i l-¬ r , ¤r ··n·¤ l·¤i ·ii l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ·|¤ ¤ ºi·|
-l-¬· ¤i ; ·nir ¬ ¬·ºi ·i l-¬ r · l¬ -l··º ¬ | ¬nº ¤r
¤ i ¤i n º·i · ri ni l¬ l··iln· -·i¬ ¤º -l··º ¬ ¬·ºi ·i l-¬ r , ni
- n · ¤ i o ;º¤ i· r«|« ¬i ¬¤ºi ·n ··n·¤ · · ¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni ·r|
·i|| (¤ ¬ rz·)
“Consequent to submission of ASI’s report in the
matter and the claim that remains of temple were found at
the disputed site, I and Prof. Irfan Habib had given this
statement that remains of old mosque or Eidgah had been
found beneath the disputed site and not of any temple. If
this propaganda that remains of temple were found at the
3948
disputed site, had not taken place, there would have been
no occasion for me and Prof. Irfan Habib to give the above
statement.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ - «i«º| -l-¬· ¤º r ¤ ¬-ªi·· n·ii
¬¬ ¤º l¬ªi n¤ ¬ ªii ¬il· ¤º ¬¤·| l-·¤ºi| ¬ºni ºri r¸ n·ii -n
¬ilrº ¬ºni ºri r¸ | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬r-n ¬ -·ii · - n lº¬··i;¬
l¬¤i n·ii ¬; «iº - n ;¬ ¬-«··i - l-·¤ºi| ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¬i-l¤n
l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ rzr)
“It is true that I have been making comments and
expressing my opinion over excavation of Babri mosque
and the articles etc. written over it. It is true that the
institution Sahmat had recognized me and had invited me
on number of occasions to comment in this behalf.”(E.T.C.)
- º ª¤i¬ - ¬n-n ¬ ¬·n ¤i l¬n-«º ¬· zoos ºi ª - ¤r
lº¤i - ¤i-| ¬ ¬i ·| n; ·i|| - n ¤¬ ÷ · « r¤ n «i· ¤r lº¤i - ¤« ·
¬i l-¬||
- · ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ¤ -n n l º¤i - l ¬n- «º zoos
- ¤« | ·i | | l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬ «l·in ¬ s -¬¬i ¤º ¤¸ s ¬i· ¤º
- · ¤o¤¬o¬i ; ¬| l º¤i - ¬i · ¬ ¤r¬ ·i | ¬¤·i -n
l ·¤i r | . ...¤r ¬r| r l ¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬| l º¤i - ¬i · ¬
¤r¬ - ¬¤·i -n «·i ¤ ¬i ·i i | - ··i ·sso ¬ l··il·n -·i¬
¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬¤·i -n ·¤·n ¬ºni ºri r¸ | - · ¬¤·i ¤r -n ªi ·i; ¬
¤r¬ ·¤·n l¬¤i ·ii l¬ ªi ·i; ¬º· ¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni l··i· ¬i ¬ ¬ni·
¬ l¬¤ ¬i·º¤¬ ·r| r | (¤ ¬ r«/)
“In my view, this report had been given to the parties
in last of August or beginning of September, 2003. I got to
read the report after about 1-1½ weeks.
I had read ASI’s report in September, 2003. Prior
to submission of ASI’s report I had given my opinion on
few issues related to the disputed site. ...It is true that I
had formed my opinion prior to submission of ASI’s
3949
report. I have been expressing my opinion regarding the
disputed site, since the year 1990. This opinion of mine that
there was no requirement of excavation to resolve the
dispute, had been expressed by me earlier.” (E.T.C.)
3827. He also admitted to have made statement on the
request of a party, i.e., plaintiff-1 (Suit-4) as under:
- · ¤r¬ l¬¬ ¤i-| ¬ ¤·i - «¤i· l·¤i r , ¬·r| ¬| nº¤ ¬ -
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“ I went to the disputed site on behalf of the party in favour
of which I have earlier given statement.” (E.T.C.)
- ¬|¬i·| ¬ir« ¬| -i¤ n ¬ ·ri n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“ I went there through Gilani Sahib.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬i lºi¬ ª¤ ¬ ¬r| r l¬ - ¬ ··| ··¤ «i · ¬| ¤ i·i ·i ¤º
¤ ºin-· ¬ l··i¤ ¤º ¬i; - ¤º n¤i r¸ ¬i º ¬¤· l·¤iº l·¤ r |
(¤ ¬ r«/)
“It is partially correct that I had been to the site in
connection with archaeology on the prayer of Sunni Waqf
Board and had given my views.” (E.T.C.)
3828. He visited excavation site during the course of
excavation only for three days but even during that period did
not make any proper study of the finds, but has tried to blame
ASI. It is evident from his own statement:
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·iºi· - ¬¸ · zoos - n¤i ·ii| ¤ ¬
·ss)
“I went to the disputed site in June 2003 in course of the
excavation.” (E.T.C.)
¬i · -i ·il¬¤i - ¤ ¬ ·ii, n·ii l¬¬¬ l¬¤ ¬i - ¬| ·i| ¬· -ln ·i|,
·r - ·r| · ªi ¤i¤i ·¤i l¬ ;¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬ l··ii ·r| l-¬ ¤i; | ¬ l··ii
· l-¬· ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ ¬ s - ¤i ¬i - -|lº¤¬ r- ¬i n
· ªi·i ¤irn ·i , ¤º·n ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ·¸ ¬º ¤·i ¬ ¬i ni ¬i ¤r ¬r·i
3950
·ii l¬ ·r ¤¬ l¬º ¬ r| ;· - -|lº¤¬ ¬i l·ªii ¬¬n r l¬¬¬
l ¬¤ - º ¤i ¬ ¬-¤ ·r| ·i i | ;¬ ¬ ·· i - - · ¬¤·i
¬i · ¬ ·ºi · l ¬l ªi n ª¤ ¬ ·r| l ·¤i ¤º· n ;¬ ¬ « · i -
·ri ¤¤i r ; ·i | | (¤ ¬ ·«c)
“I could not see the data which was packed in packets and
access to which was permitted even by the court, inasmuch
as I could not get the facility in this respect. By the
expression 'not getting the facility', I mean that we wanted
to see the materials of some trenches but the A.S.I. and
people of other side insisted that they can show the
materials only from an end; for which I did not have time.
In this respect I did not give my objection in writing but
held discussion there.” (E.T.C.)
-·¤ ¬ri l¬ ¤i-º| ¤i· - - - -|lº¤¬ ¬i ;¬l¬¤ ·r| · ªi ¤i¤i
·¤i l¬ ¬¬- ¤ ºi·i · «i· ¬ ¬i¬ ¬i - -|lº¤¬ «r n ¬| - ¤ ¬ ¬i
l-·¬· ª¤ ¬ ¤·i ·ii ¬·¬i ¬¬n÷¬¬n ·¬i¬|¤i; · ·r| l¬¤i n¤i
·ii ¬iº · r| ;¬ «i º - ¬i ; «ni · ·i ¬i ·i i | ;¬ ¬ ··i -
·i| - · ¬¤·| ¬i ; l¬lªin ¬i¤l-n ¤ -n n ·r| ¬|| (¤ ¬ ·«c)
“ (Himself stated) I could not see the materials in the
pottery yard because old materials and those of a
subsequent period were lying in mixed forms in several
trenches. They were not distinctly classified, nor was there
anybody to tell us in this regard. I did not make any
objection of mine in writing in this respect also.” (E.T.C.)
¤¸ l ¬ - ¬ ·¬ n| · l ·· ¬ l ¬¤ ¬- ªi ·· -·i ¬ ¤º n¤i
·i i ;¬l ¬¤ - · -·¤ ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ¤ -n n ·r| ¬| | (¤ ¬
·«/)
“Since I was at the disputed site for only three days, I
myself did not move any objection.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤º¤in lº¤i - ¬i
3951
·¤i¤i¬¤ - ¤ -n n ¬º l·¤ ¬i· ¬ «i·, - · ¬·i| l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i
¤ · l·º|·iºi ·r| l¬¤i| - º l¬¤ ;¬ -·i¬ ¤º lº¤i - ¬ ¤ -n n ri · ¬
«i· l·º|·iºi ¬º·i ¬ ·i· ·r| ri ¬¬i ¬i º ¤ ºi n- · ¬| -| - · - n
¬i - l ¤n ·i | ·r| l ¬¤i | (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“On a report being submitted to the court after excavation
had been carried out by the ASI at the disputed site, I never
went to the disputed site for re-inspection. After the
production of the report on this site, it could not be possible
for me to make inspection of this site, nor did the
archaeological team invite me for this.” (E.T.C.)
- · «i· - ·i| - ¤ ¬|÷/ n·ii - ¤ ¬ ÷s ¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤ i·n ¤ ºi·ºi·ii
¬i ·r| · ªii| - ;·¬i · ªi·i ¤irni ·ii, ¤º·n ¤r - n l·ªii¤ ·r|
n¤ | ;¬¬ «iº - - ¤r¬ ·i| ¬¤· «¤i· - «ni ¤ ¬i r¸ | - ¤ ¬|÷/
n·ii - ¤ ¬ ÷s ¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ l¬¬ -nº ¬ ¬i · ¬ ¤ ºi·ºi ·i l-¬ ,
¤r ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ·i| ·lºi n ·r| r | (¤ ¬ zz·)
“I did not see the antiquities discovered from Trench G-7
and Trench J-3 even later. I wanted to see them but they
were not shown to me. In my statement, I have already
stated in this regard. It is also not noted in the ASI report
as to which antiquities were discovered from Trench G-7
and Trench J-3 and from which strata.” (E.T.C.)
- · · ÷-¸ · ºl ¬-- º, ¬i ·n -i · ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ¬ « l · i n r ,
·r| · ªi i | - º| ¬¸ ¤·i ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - ¤º . . . r n·ii - ·
·ri ¤º ¬i ¬¤· n|· l·· ¬ ª¬· ¬ ·iºi· ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i ·ii, ¬¬
¤º ¬i·iilºn r | (¤ ¬ zzz)
“I did not see the day- to-day register, which pertains to
the present excavation. My knowledge is based on the ASI
report and on the study which I had done during my three-
day-stay there.” (E.T.C.)
¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ;¬ ¬|÷·¬i· - ¤¸ º ¬i;- ¬| l·l·i·· ¬i¬i ¬ -- ·¤¬ ¬
·¬i· ;·- -| ¬º ·| n; r , l¬¬¬| · ni ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬·¤ ¬| ¤¸ ln ¬
3952
l¬¤ ¬i·º¤¬ni ·i| ¬i º · r| ¬¬ ¬¬ ¬·¤ ¬i ;¬ ·¬i· - ¬l·i¬
-¤·- ¬º· ¬| ¬i lºiºi r | ¬-ªi·· ¬º· ·i¬ ¬iº ·¬i· «·i· ·i¬
l·ºi·in, ri ¬¬ni r l¬ ;¬ -|¬ ¬-nn ri ¬i º ¬·r ;¬¬| ¬-¤ni -
·i| l·º·i¬ ri | -i ¬ ¤º - ¬i;·i ¬º·i ¬n·i -r-·¤¸ ºi ·r| ri ni r,
l¬n·i ¬-ªi·· ¬º·i ¬iº ¬¬¬| lº¤i - l¬ªi·i ¬iº ¬¬ lº¤i - ¬
l··¬·ii ¬i -¤·- ª¤ ¬ n¬ ¬ nn l·ªii· ¬ l¬¤ ;¬-- ºi· · ·i|
¤ o - ºi ¤r ¬i·iiººi ¬·i¬ r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¬i -i ¬ ¤º
- ¬i;·i ¬º· ¬ «i· ¬nº ¬i¤ ¬¤ºi ·n ¤|nº s¤ (¤ ¬ «s) ¬i · ªi·
¬ «i· ·¤i ¤r ¬-ni ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ¤r ¬|÷·¬i· ¬·s| nºr ¬
«·i r ¬iº ;¬¬i ¬-ni ¬i ¬¬ni r `
¬o÷-i ¬ ¤º ¬-ªi·· - l·-n n ¬·¤¤· ¬ «i· ;¬ ·¬i· ¬i ¬-ni ¬i
¬¬ni r ¬iº ¤l· ;¬- ¬i ; ¤ l-¤i r , · ·i| ¤¬· | ¬i ¬¬n| r |
(¤ ¬ zsr)
“In this key plan of Ayodhya, plan of structures of different
periods has been collected from the whole of the site which
was not needed for the fulfilment of objective of the
excavation, nor does this plan make any attempt to make
this objective clearer. The excavators and the plan makers
may be considering it to be correct and they may be having
belief in its veracity. To make inspection of the site is not so
important as to make excavation, to write its report and to
give illustrations to clearly show the findings of such report
to be logical.
Question:- Supposing that you have an on-the-spot
inspection of the excavation site of Ayodhya and you are
shown the afore-said figure-3A (page 48), a plain question
I would like to ask you is whether you can say that this key
plan is properly prepared and can be understood?
Answer:- After making an on-the-spot extensive study in
regard to the excavation this plan can be understood and
3953
its mistakes, if there be any, may also be detected.” (E.T.C.)
- ¤i-º| ¤i· - ¬« ¤i-º|¬ ¬i ¬·¤¤· ¬º· n¤i ni ·ri
·¬i¬|¤i; · « n ¬ ¤i-º| ·r| ºªi| r ; ·i| l-·¬ ¤i-º|¬ ·ri ¤º ·i|
;¬l¬¤ ¬|l-n ¬-¤ - ¬¬¬i ¬·¤¤· ¬ ·i· ·r| ·ii| ¤i -º| ¤i · -
¤i -º| ¬i · ªi · ¬ l ¬¬| · - n ºi ¬i ·r| ·i i ¤º· n ·ri
¬i ; ¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ·i | ·r| ¬i ¤i ·i i ¬i ;¬ ¬· ¤¤· -
- º| -·· ¬º ¬¬ni | .......·ri ¤·-|··|-|¬ ¬ ¬i·i · ªi· ¬|
¬i lºiºi ¬| ·i| ¤º·n ·ri ¬·ºi ·ii ¬i r- ·r| l·ªii¤i n¤i| ¤r -
¤r¬ ·i| «ni ¤ ¬i r¸ | (¤ ¬ soc÷so/)
“When I went to the pottery yard to make study on
potteries, I did not find potteries arranged in a classified
manner. Potteries were lying there in a mixed form, hence it
was not possible to make their study in a limited period.
Nobody forbade me from observing the potteries in the
pottery yard but no archaeologist was also there to help
me in my study. …... I had tried to see them along with
antiquities but remains were not shown to us. I have
already stated about it.” (E.T.C.)
¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬-ªi·· - ¤ i·n ·¬ ·· · ¤º¬ ¬i - n l·ªii¤i r| ·r| n¤i,
;¬l¬¤ ¬¬¬ ¤º|·iºi ¤i ¬i·¬ · ºi· ¬i ¬·¬º r| - n ¤ i·n ·r| r ¬i|
¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º ¬« - n|· l··i n¬ ºri, n« - n ¬i ; ·¬ ·· · ¤º
· ni ¬i;- ¤º l·ªii¤i n¤i ¬iº · r| ¤ -|·¤ -| ¬ ·ºi· - r| - n
l·ªii¤i n¤i, ¬«l¬ ;¬¬i - · ªi·i ¤irni ·ii| - n ;¬ «iº - l¬¬|
¬ ¤º·i;¬ º · ¬i ; ¬i·¬iº| ·r| ·| l¬ - º n|· l··i n¬ ¬-ªi··
-·i¬ ¤º ºr· ¬| ¬·l·i - ¬i ; ·¬ ·· · ¤º ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¬ ¤ i·n r ¬i
¤i ·r| | - º ¬i ·i ¬- ªi ·· -·i ¬ ¤º ¬i - º n| · ¬i º
¬r¤i n| ·i , ·r ·i | l ·,i · ·i , ¬·¬ ºi i ¤· ;¬ l ·· i ¤ -
- º| ¤¤i ·r| r ; ·i | l ¬ - º ¬- ªi ·· -·i ¬ ¤º ºr· ¬
·i ºi · ·¬ ·· · ¤º ¤ i · n r ¤ ¤i ·r| , ¤º·n r- ¬« ¬ s - ¤ ¬
·¬ ·· · ¤º · ¤ -|·¤ -|¬ · ªi·i ¤irn ·i ¬i º ¬¬ · ªi· ¬ l¬¤ ·ri
n¤ ·i|, ¤º·n r- ¬i ni ¬i ;¬ l·ªii¤i ·r| n¤i| (¤ ¬ r·z)
3954
“The glazed wares found in the excavation at Ayodhya,
were not shown to me and as such I did not get the
opportunity to examine or observe them. When I remained
at the excavation site for three days, no glazed ware was
shown to me either at the site or in the antiquity section
despite the fact that I wanted to see them. No Supervisor
informed me whether during the period of my three days
stay at the excavation site, any glazed ware was found at
the excavation site or not. My three other associates at the
excavation site, were also learned. I possibly did not
have any discussion with them as to whether glazed
wares were found or not during my stay at the
excavation site. However, we all wanted to see some
trenches, glazed ware and antiquities and we even went
there to see them, but they were not shown to us.” (E.T.C.)
- n ;¬ «in ¬| ¬i·¬iº| ·r| r l¬ ·s ¬¸ ·, zoos ¬i ¬« - ·ri
-i ¬¸ · ·ii, ·¬ ··· ¤º ªi ·i; - l·¬¬i ·ii ¤i ·r| , «l~¬ - º| l¬ni¬i
·i| l¬ ¤l· ¬i ; ·¬ ·· · ¤º l·¬¬i ri , ni - ¬¬¬i · ªi ¬ | . . .
r- ¬i ni · ·¬ ·· · ¤º · ªi· ¬| -i n ¬| ·i|| ¬- ªi ·· -·i ¬ ¤º
¤¸ l ¬ - - ¤ ¬ ¬i - ¬i ¤·i ¬º· - ¬ni ·i i ;¬l ¬¤ ¬¬
¬nr ¤º ·¬ ·· · ¤º ¬| -i n - · ·r| ¬| ·i | | - n ¬¬
-·ii· ¤º l¬¬| · ·¬ ·· · ¤º ¬¬ l·· ¤i¤ ¬i· ¬| ¬¸ ¤·i ·i| ·r|
·|| ·s ¬¸ ·, zoos ¬i · ni - º| -i ¬¸ ·n| - · ÷-¸ ÷· ºl¬--º n ¤iº
l¬¤i n¤i| (¤ ¬ r·«)
“I have no knowledge whether glazed ware was found or
not in the excavation on 13
th
June, 2003, when I was
present there, and on the contrary it was my curiosity to see
the glazed ware found there, if any. . . . . . . We had
demanded to see the glazed ware. Since I was involved in
inspection of trenches at the excavation site, I did not
3955
demand the glazed ware over there. Nobody intimated me
on that day about discovery of any glazed ware at that
place. The day-to-day register was not prepared in my
presence on 13
th
June, 2003.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l ¬ · ÷-¸ ÷· ºl ¬--º ( ¤ ¬ zrr) ni º| ªi ·s. c.
zoos - ·¬ ·· · ¤º ¬| l ·- ¬ l ¬ªi | r ; r ¬i º ¤ ¬ zrc
¤º ¬| ¬ ¤ º¤i « ¬| ¬i ·| ¬ ·-nªi n r | (¤ ¬ r·«)
“It is true that the details of glazed ware are mentioned
in the day-to-day register dated 13.06.2003 (page 255)
and page 256 bears the signature of Mr. Zafaryab
Jilani.” (E.T.C.)
3829. He repeatedly said that he has come to assail the
conclusion given by ASI in its report:
- ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¬¤i ·¤i - l¬¤ n¤ ¬-ªi·· n·ii ¬¬ ¤º n ¤iº
¬| n; lº¤i - ¬ l··¬·ii ¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i ¤ ¬º ¤r «¤i · · ·
¬i ¤i r¸ l ¬ ;¬ l º¤i - - ¤r l ·· ¬· i n·¤i ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º
¬r| ·r| r , «l ~¬ -l -¬· ¬ ·| ¤ ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ ¬
;-¬i l -¬ «i ¤ r| ºr ·i | (¤ ¬ zc/)
“ With regard to the excavation carried out by the ASI in
Ayodhya and the findings contained in the report prepared
thereon, I, after examining facts, I have come here to state
that this finding in the report is not factually correct.
Rather, only the Islamic structures of the Sultanate
period were beneath the mosque.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ·i| ¬¤ r l¬ - ¬¤·| n·i r| - ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬| l º¤i -
· ¬¬¬ l ··i i n ¬i l nº-¬ n ¬º· ¬·i ·i ¬¬ ªi l º·n
¬º· ¬ l ¬¤ ¬¤l -·i n r ¬i r¸ | ·i-n· - - · ;¬ lº¤i - ¬i
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r ¬i º ;¬|l¬¤ - · ¬i ¬¤¤ ·n n·¤ · ªi r , ¬·¬i
l··¬·i l·¬i¬i r l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| ¬-ªi·· l·l·i n·ii ¬·¬
¤·¬ il-· ºi· ¬i ·i| ¬¬ ¬- - l¬¤i r ¬i º n« ;¬ ·n|¬ ¤º ¤r ¤i r¸
l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬i ¬··¬¸ ¬· n¬n r | (¤ ¬ ssc÷ss/)
3956
“It is also true that I have appeared to discard or reject
the report of ASI and its department, through my
evidence. Actually I have studied the said report and after
seeing the aforesaid facts as well as carrying out the
assessment of excavation method & its examination by ASI,
I have drawn the conclusion that the conclusion of ASI is
wrong.” (E.T.C.)
- ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ;¬ ¬-ªi·· lº¤i - ¬ «iº - ¬¤·i ¬i ¬¬· · · ¬i¤i r¸
¬iº ¤r «ni· ¬i¤i r¸ l¬ ;¬ l º¤i - ¬ l ·· ¬· i «i «º| -l -¬·
¬ ·| ¤ l ¬¬| - l ·º ¬ ri · ¬ «i º - l ·ºi ·i i º r | (¤ ¬
s«s)
“I have come to give my estimate about this excavation
report of Ayodhya and also to tell that the conclusion of
this report regarding existence of any temple beneath the
Babri mosque, is baseless." (E.T.C.)
3830. Prof. D. Mandal, P.W. 24, while commenting upon
the ASI report, has said that the form in which ASI has
excavated the site at Ayodhya does not appear to be justified for
the reason that only vertical excavation in some of the trenches
was sufficient for achieving the object and horizontal excavation
at such a large scale was not only unrequited but misuse of the
available resources. He has made comments based upon the
information, which he received from the personal visit at the site
of excavation firstly from 10.6.2003 to 15.6.2003 and thereafter
from 27.9.2003 to 29.9.2003; the ASI report containing two
volumes and day to day register maintained by the ASI officials
during the course of excavation.
3831. Sri Mandal's comments in his affidavit pertaining to
stratigraphy/periodisation are:
c. ¤r l¬ ¤o ¤¬o ¬i; o lº¤i - - ¤ ln¤il·n -nº|¬ººi ¤· ¬i¬¬ -
3957
¬ - ¬r-n ·r| r¸ | ;¬ ¬-«··i - ¬l·i¬i·i| l·-· n·¤ ¤ -n n ¬ºni r
÷
A÷ ;¬ l··i¤ ¬ ·i ¤r¬¸ r | ·i ·i -r-·¤¸ ºi r |
(i) ¤r¬i -nº|¬ººi, ·¸ ¬ºi ¬i¬¬ -| ·i ·i - ¤r¬ ¬i -r-· ¬l·i¬
r | ·¤i l¬ ¬i¬¬ - ¬i l··ii ººi ¤ ·ii·n -nº|¬ººi ¤º l··i º
¬ºni r, · l¬ ;¬¬ l·¤º|n| ¤o ¤¬o ¬i; o lº¤i - -
“Stratigraphy and chronology” ·i-¬ ¬·¤i¤ -
-nº|¬ººi ¬ ¬-«l··in n·¤i ¬i l·ni·n ¬·ii· r | ¤¸ ºi ¬i ¤¸ ºi
¬·¤i¤ ¬i¬¬ - ¬ ·¤iº ¬ ·iºi r | ·r ·i| ¤ -ilºin n·¤i ¤º
¬i·iilºn ·r| | ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤ ¬iºi - ¬i¤ -nºi
¬| ¬ ª¤i n·ii ¬·¬ ·i-¬ººi -i¤ ¬ r| -nº|¬ººi ¬i
·i-nl·¬ ¬·i - l··ii ººi ·r| ri ¬ini|
(ii) ¬iºnl·i n -nº|¬ººi ¬ l¬¤ ¬-«, -nºi ¬ ¤ i¬ ln¬ l·ºi ·ini¬i
(physical features) n·ii ¬·n· -n ¬i (contents) ¬i l·l·i·n
·ºi · ¤· ·¤iª¤i ¬-¤·n ¬i·º¤¬ r | ;¬- ¤ -¤ ¬ -nº ¬i º n
(Colour) n-· (texsture), ¬ º¤·i (composition) n·ii
¬·n· -n ¬i ¬i l·-n n l··ººi l·ni·n ¬¤l·in r | ;·r| n·¤i ¬|
·¤iª¤i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º l¬¬| ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¬ ¬-i· ¬ ;lnri¬
(depositional history) ¬| º¤·i ¬| ¬in| r | ;¬¬ ¬; n¸ «
n·¤i ¤º ¤ ¬iºi ¤· ni r | ¬ ¬ ·¤i ¬- ¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¬ ¬·i|
¬-i· ¤ ºinil-·¬ r? ¬·i·i ·¤i ¬·- ¬ ¬ s ¤ i¬ ln¬ ¬-i·
(natural deposit) ·i| r ` ¤l· ¬·- ¬ ¬ s ¤ i¬ ln¬ r ni
¬·¬i ¤ ¬iº ·¤i r` ¬ ¬ , ·¤i · ¬¬ l·l- n r (water
borne) ¤i ·i¤ l·l- n (air borne) ¬il· ¬il·| lº¤i - - ;·
n·¤i ¬i ¤¸ ºi ¬·ii· r | -nº|¬ººi ¬ ¬···i - ¬·¬ l¬¬| ·i|
-nº ¬ º n, n-·, ¬ º¤·i ¬il· ¬ l··i¤ - ¬i ; ¬¸ ¤·i ·r| r |
¬-i· ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬| ni ¬i ; ¤¤i r| ·r| |
B- (i) - n ¬¤·| l·º|·iºi ¬·l·i ¬ ·ºl-¤i· ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤ ¬iºi -
¬i¤ ¬ ·ºi· (Section) ¬i, ¬-i· ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬| · l·- ¬ ,
¬·¤¤· ¬º· ¬i ¬·¬º l-¬i| ¤ ºi n- · ¬i l ·ni ·i | ri ·
3958
¬ ·i n G7 - ¤ ¬i ¬,i ¤¸ · ¬ ·-· ¬ºni r ¸ | ;¬
- · ¤ ¬i ¬ ·ºi · ;¬ ¤ ºi -·i ¬ ¬| ¤¸ º| ¬ri ·| ¬rni
r | ¤r ¤¬ ªi ¬| l ¬ni « r | ;¬¬i rº ¤ºn l¬ni« ¬
¤··i ¬| nºr r | ¬i ¤« ¬¬ ¤« ¬ | ¬|l-n ¬-¤ - r-·
¬¤·| ¬i·iiººi ·i-ni· ¬iº ¬i ¬ s ¤« i ¬¬ ¤ -n n ¬ºni r ¸ |
(ii) -nº|¬ººi lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤ri ¬ ¬ l-¬i¬º ·s ¤ºni ¬i
¬-i· ¤ ¬iºi - ¬i¤i r | ¬i·i - ¬ s ¤ºni ¬ ¬ · r ¤ l¤-
(Pit) ·i| r | ·s ¤ºni ¬i ¤r ¬-i· ¤ i¬ ln¬ l-- -| (natural
soil) ¤º l-·in r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬ l·,i·i · ¤¸ º ¬-i· ¬i
¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-i· (archaeological deposit) -i·i r | ¤r
n·¤ lº¤i - ¬ ;¬ ¬·i· ¬ -¤·- “Excavation at the
disputed site of Ayodhya has yielded a continuous
cultural sequence contained in the total deposition of
about 10.80 m.” (ASI Report, Vol.I p.37) ;¬ l··¬·i ¬
r-iºi -n·i · r | r- ;¬ ¬-i· ¬i - ª¤n ·i ¬i l- - l··iil¬n
¬ºn r÷ ¤ ºinil-·¬ (archaeological) ¤· ¤ i¬ ln¬
(natural)| ¬ l··ii ¬ l¬¤ ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¤ · ·i ·iini - l··iil¬n
l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r ÷ (a) «¬i·-| (habitational) n·ii (b)
nº «¬i·-| (non-habitational)| ¤ri n º «¬i·-| ¬i ni-¤¤
·iºn|÷¬-i· (filling deposit) ¬ r |
(iii) º n, n-· n·ii ¬ º¤·i (colour, texture and composition)
¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ·s ¤ºni - ·i ¤ i¬ ln¬ ¬-i· (natural
deposit) ¬| ¬i l- - ¬in r | G7 ·i-¬ - ¤ (l¬¬ ¬ l··ii ¬
l¬¤ Index trench ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r) - ;· ¤ºni ¬i
¤ lnl·l·i-· Layer No. 4 ¬i ¬¤º| lr-¬i n·ii Layer No. 6
¬ºn r | ¤ri ;¬ «in ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬º · ·i ¬i·º¤¬ r l¬
lº¤i - - Layer 4 ¬| ¬r| ¤r¤i· ·r| ¬| n¤| r | ·-n n ;¬
¤ºn - ·i l·l·i·· ¤ ¬iº ¬ ¬-i· l-¬ r ¤ r | ;¬¬i ¬¤º| ·iin
¤ i¬ ln¬ (natural) n·ii l·¤¬i ·iin ¤ ºinil-·¬
3959
(archaeological) ¬-i· r |
(iv) Layer 4 ¬i ¬¤º| ·iin n·ii Layer 6, ·i ·i - ª¤n ¬¬ l·l- n
(water borne) ¬-i· r | º n, n-· n·ii ¬º ¤·i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º
· l¬~- (silt) ¬i l- ¬ ¬-i· ¤ n|n ri n r | l¬~- ¬i l·-i ºi
¬¬ ¤ l¬ ¤i ¤º ¬il¬n r | Layer 6 ¬i º n r~¬i ·i¸ ¬º n-·
l¤¬·i l¬·n ¬ªn n·ii ¬ º¤·i - «i¬¸ n·ii ¬|¤· (sand and
mud) ¬i ¬l-¬ºi ¤ n|n ri ni r, ;¬- ¤·i ¬·i ¬|¤ (shell)
n·ii ¬-·i·n·ii ·ii (snail) ¬il· ¬ ¬·ºi·i ·i| l·ªii; · n r |
(¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ riverine shell l-¬· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi lº¤i - ¬
¤ ·- ¬ ª¤i «s ¤º ·i| r | ¤r Period VIII ¬ ·iºn| ¬-i·
(filling deposit) ¬ ¬···i - r | ·iºn| ¬-i· - ¤¸ · ¬i¬|·
l-- -| ¬i ¬¤¤i n r ¬i r )| ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ;¬ ¬-i· -
«¬i·-| ¬i-ln ¤i ¬i l·ni·n ¬·ii· r | ¤r ¬i·¤ ·i| ;¬ n·¤
¬i ni n¬ r l¬ ¤r ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-i· ·r| r |
(v) Layer 4 ¬i ¬¤º| ·iin ·i¬i ¬-i·, º n, n-· ¤· ¬ º¤·i ¬|
· l·- ¬ ¤ · ·i ·iini - l··iil¬n ¤ n|n ri ni r ÷ ¬¤º| n·ii
l·¤¬i ·iin| l·¤¬i ·iin º n, n-·, ¤· ¬ º¤·i - Layer 6 ¬
¬n·in ¬-i· r | l¬·n ¬¤º| ·iin - ¬ s -r-·¤¸ ºi ¬·nº
l·ªii; · ni r | ¤r nrº ·i¸ ¬º º n ¬i r | ;¬¬| n-· ¬¤ ·ii¬ n
«|¬| (loose) r | ;¬¬i nrº ·¸i¬º º n ¬i ri ·i ¬-·i·n ;¬
n·¤ ¬i ni n¬ r l¬ ;¬¬ l·-i ºi - ··-¤ln (vigtation) ¬|
l·ºi ·i ·i¸l-¬i ºr| r | ;¬ « ¬º÷¬nr (sterile level) ¬i ¤ i¤|·
r¤¸ -¬ (ancient humus) ·i- ¬ ¬-«il·in l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r |
l¬¬| ¬nr ¤º ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬i ¬-i· ¬¬ ¬nr ¬i ¬-« ¬¬ n¬
·|ºi· ºr· ¬ ¤º¤in r| ri ni r | ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ;· ·i
¤ºni ¬i ¬-i· ;¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¬ ¬· ¬·i| - ¤ - l-¬ r l¬·-
;· -nºi n¬ ¬-ªi·· l¬¤i n¤i r |
(vi) ¬¤¬··i n·¤i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ;¬- ·i ºi¤ ·r| l¬ l¬~- ¬-i·
·i¬ ·i ·i ¤ºni ¬i l·-i ºi «i« ¬ ¤¬-·ª¤ r ¬i| Layer 6
·i¬ «i« ¬ n-¬i¬ ¤º¤in ¤ri ¬i«i·| ¬i ¤ -iºi ¬¤¬··i r
3960
l¬·n Layer 4 ·i¬ «i« ¬ ¤º¤in ;¬ ;¬ -·i¬ ¤º ¤¬ ¬-«
¬¬ n¬ ¬i«i·| ·r| ri · ¬i -¤·- ¤ -iºi l-¬ni r |
(vii) ·s ¤ºni ·i¬ ;¬ ¬-i· - ;· ·i ¤ºni ¬i si · ¬º (Layer 4
¬i +¤º| lr-¬i n·ii Layer 6) ºi·i ¬·¤ ¬·i| ¤ºn ¤ ºinil-·¬
¬il- - ¬in| r | ¤ i¤|· r¤¸ -¬ (ancient humus) ¬-i· ¬
¬¤º l-·in ¬·i| ¤ºn n·ii r¤¸ -¬ ¬ ·|¤ ¬| ¤ºn ¬ ª¤i / n·ii
s ·iºn|÷¬-i· (filling deposit) ¬il- ¬ r | ;¬¬ ·|¤ ¬|
ºi·i ¬·i| ¤ºn (¤ºn ¬ ª¤i s ¬ ·s) l·¤l-n ¬i·i¬|¤
(regular habitation) ¬-i· ¬| ¬ ºi| - ¬in| r |
(viii) ¤ i¬ln¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¬i ·iºn| ¬-i· (filling deposit) ,iºi + ¤i
¬º· ¬i -¤·- ¤ -iºi l-¬i r | ¤r ¤ -iºi ;¬ n·¤ - l·lrn r
l¬ ¬-«, -nºi ¬ l·l·i·· ¬i¬i ¬| l-¬| ¬ ¬| ¬i-ln ¤i ¤ i·n
r ; r | ¤ ºin-· - ;¬ l-·iln ¬i -nº + ¤i ¬º· ¬ ¬i·¤ ¬
ª¤ - -i·i ¬ini r | ¬¤¬··i ¬i·¤i ¬ ¬· ¬iº ;¬ -·i¬ ¬i
+ ¤i ¬º· ¬| ¤ l¬ ¤i Layer 8 ¬ r| ¤ iº-·i ri ¬in| r | ¤r
¤ l¬ ¤i ·i ¤ºni ¬i si · ¬º (Layer 6 n·ii Layer 4 ¬i ¬¤º|
·iin) Layer 1 n¬ ¤¬n| ºrn| r | lº¤i - - ·i| ¬nr ¬i ¬;
«iº + ¤i ¬º· ¬| «in ¬r| n; r | l¬·n ¬¬¬ ¬iººi ¤º ¬i ;
¤ ¬iºi ·r| ·i¬i n¤i r | ;¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¬i «iº «iº + ¤i ¬º·
¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni ·¤i ¤· |` ¤r ¤¬ -r-·¤¸ ºi ¤ º· r |
(ix) - º ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬· ¬iº ;¬¬i - ª¤ ¬iººi ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¬i «i« ¬
¬ º·ii ¤ ·i· ¬º·i ¤ n|n ri ni r | ¤ i·n ¬i·¤i ¬ ¤r l·l·n
ri ni r l¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¤ iº-·i ¬ r| «i« ¤ · -n (flood prone) ºri
r | ;¬ ¬-«··i - ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ;¬ -·i¬ ¬ ¤lº¤- - ¬|
B.B.Lal -ri ·¤ ,iºi ¬| n; ªi ·i; - ¤ iºl-·i¬ ¤ lnril¬¬
¬i¬ ¬ “··|¬ n «i¬¸ ¬-i· “ (fluviatile sand bed) ¬i
¬·ºi·i ¤ i·n r ¬i r (Indian Archaeology-A Review,
1976-77, p. 52)| -·i¬i¬ ln ¬-«··i| ¬i·¤ (topographical
evidence) ¬ ·i| ;¬ ¬--¤i ¤º ¤ ¬iºi ¤· ni r | ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r
l¬ ;¬ · l·- ¬ ¤ i¬ln¬ ·i ¤ ¤ ¬· ·¬ · (flood plain) ¬
3961
¬·nn n ¬ini r | lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº “...the region around
Ayodhya along the river comes under its flood plain
….” (ASI Report, Vol.I, p.1)| ¬i¬ -ri ·¤ ¬| ªi ·i;
- ¤ri ¬ ¤ iºl-·i¬ ¤ nril¬¬ ¬i¬ - l·l- n º -¤-
(Rampart) n·ii ¤ i -| l ¤ ¬ ºi · ·i ¬ (fortification
wall) ¬i ·i | ¬·ºi · i l -¬i r | ¤r ¬i·¤ ·i| «i« ¬ º·ii ¬|
· l·- ¬ ¬-¤·n -r-·¤¸ ºi r | ¤ ¬·i| ¬i·¤ «i« ¬ º·ii (flood
protection) ¬| ¬iº -¤·- ¬ ¬ n ¬ºn r | ;· ¬«i - ¬·i l·i¬
-r-·¤¸ ºi ¬i·¤ ni ¤ri ¬ ¬¬i « ¬-i· ¬i ¤ -iºi ¤ i·n ri ·i r |
¤ri ¬ ·i «iº ·i|·iºi «i« ¬i· ¬i -¤·- ¤ -iºi l-¬ni r |
¬¤¬··i n·¤i ¬ ¬i¬i ¬ - ;¬ «in ¬| ¤¸ º| ¬- · i i ··i r l ¬
«i « ¤ ¬i ¤ ¬ ¬ º·i i ¤ ·i · ¬º· r n r| ;¬ -·i ¬
¬i «i º÷«i º + ¤i ¬º· ¬| ¬i ·º¤¬ni ¤· | | ;¬
¤-·i¬ - - ¤¬ ¬-¤ ¤ ¬i ·i| ¬i¤i l¬ «i« ¬ ¬iººi ¤ri ¬
¬i ni ¬i «i·¤ ri ¬º ¤¬ ~i-« ¬-¤ ¬ l¬¤ ¤r -·ii· r| -¤in
· ·i ¤·i| ¤r n·¤ «i« ¬ ¤º¤in r¤¸ -¬ ¬-i· ¬ ¬i·¤ ¬
¤ -ilºin ri ni r |
C-
(i) ¬i¬¬ - , ¤ i¬ln¬ l··i¤ ¬i ¤r ·¸ ¬ºi ¤r¬¸ r | lº¤i - - ·s
¤ºni ¬ ¬-i· ¬i l·-· ·i ¬i¬i - l··iil¬n l¬¤i n¤i r÷
NBPW, Sunga, Kushana, Gupta, Post Gupta-Rajput,
Early Medieval-Sultanate, Medieval, Mughal n·ii
Late and Post Mughal.
(ii) ¬i¬¬ - - ¬···i - lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬·i| ¬i¬i - ¬i -¬ ln¬
l·º·nºni (cultural continuity) r (ASI Report Vol.I,
p.37)| ¤ ºin-· ¬| · l·- ¬ ¤r ¤¬ ¬-¤·n r| -r-·¤¸ ºi
l··¬·i r | l º¤i - ¬ ;¬ l ·· ¬· i ¬ r- ¬r-n ·r|
r |
(iii) r-i º ¬· ¤¤· ¬ ¬· ¬i º ¤ ·i - ¤i º ¬i ¬i ¬ ¤º¤i n
¤r ¤ ºi -·i ¬ ¤¬ ¬- « ¬-¤ ¬ l ¬¤ ·| ºi · ri n¤i |
3962
¬i¬i ¬| l·º·nºni ·i n r ; | ;¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬·nºi¬
¬i -¤·- ¤ -iºi ¬¤¬··i r | ¬i¬¬ - ¬i ¤i ·ii ¬i¬ n ·n ¬i¬
r | lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬| lnl·i 4
th
-6
th
Century AD
l··ii lºn ¬| n; r | - º ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬· ¬iº ;¬ ¬i¬ - ·i «iº
«i« ¬i· ¬i ¤ -iºi l-¬ni r | ·¸ ¬º| «iº ¬ «i« ¬ ¤º¤in
¬i ni · ;¬ -·ii· ¬i ¤¬ ¬-« ¬-¤ ¬ l¬¤ -¤in l·¤i| ¤r
n·¤ ;¬ ¬i·¤ ¬ ¤ -ilºin ri ni r l¬ ;¬ «i« ¬-i· ¬ ¬¤º
r¤¸ -¬ ¬-i· ¬i ·i -iºi ¬¤l-·in r | ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ r¤¸ -¬
¬-i · ¬ «i · l ¬¬ ¬ -¬ l n ¬ ¬·ºi · i l -¬n r ·
Islamic ¬i ¬ ¬ r | r¤¸ -¬ ¬-i · ¬ ¬¤º ¬ ¤ºni
¬ ·¬ · · · ¤º (glazed ware), ·¬ · · -i ;~¬ (glazed
tiles), ¬i ··ºi ¬| rl · ·¤i n·i i ¤¸ ·i ¤· ¬¸ ºªi |
(lime and surkhi) ¬ l ·l - n ¤ ºi i ¬ ¬·ºi · i ¬i
l -¬·i ;¬ n·¤ ¬ ¬¬i - ¤ ¤ -i ºi r | Day to Day
Register ¬ ¤ i·n ¬¸ ¤·i¬i ¬ l·º¬ ·iºi ¬ ¤r ¤ -ilºin ri ni r
l¬ r¤¸ -¬ ¬ +¤º ¬ ¬·i| ¤ºni ¬ ·¬ · · · ¤º n·ii ¬i··ºi
¬| rl· ·¤i ¬ ¬·ºi ·i l-¬ r l¬·¬i ¬~¬ ªi Appendix I ·
II - l·¤i ¬i ºri r | ;¬| ¤ ¬iº lº¤i - ¬ Chaper VI (pp.
164-172) - ¬¤¬··i ·¬ · · -i;~¬ ¬ - ¬·i ¬| ¬¸ ¤| ¬ ¤ i·n
¬¸ ¤·i¬i ¬ l·º¬·iºi ¬ ¤r ¤ -ilºin ri ni r l¬ r¤¸ -¬ ¬-i·
¬ ¬¤º l-·in ¬·i| ¤ i¬ln¬ ¤ºni ¬ ·¬ · · -i;~¬ ¬ ¬·ºi ·i
l-¬ r l¬¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi Appendix III - l·¤i ¬i ºri r |
(iv) ¤ri - l-¬- ¬ -¬ ln ¬ ¬-«, ·¬ · · · ¤º ¬i ¬·ºi ·i ¬~n·n
¬i¬ ¬ l-¬·i ¤ iº-·i ri ¬ini r | ;¬ ¬i ¬ ¬i ¤ i º-· i
¬n·i n n ºr·| ¬·| ¬ ¤ i º- ·i ¬ -i ·i n¤i r | ¤ri
¤i ·i ¬i¬ (n ·n ¬i¬) ¬i ¬·n s-| ºini··| ;¬·| l··ii lºn ¬|
n; r | ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬ ·¸ ¬º «i« ¬-i· ¬ ¤º¤in r| r¸ ¤-¬ ¬-i·
¬i ¬i·¤ l-¬i r | ;¬¬ ¤ i º· +¤º ¬| ¤ºn ¬ ·¬ · · · ¤º
¬i ¬i·¤ ¬¤¬··i r l¬¬¬| lnl·i ¬n·in n ºr·| ¬·| r | ¤
n·¤ ¬- l¤n ª¤ ¬ ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬·nºi¬ ¬i ¬¬i- ¤ ¤ -iºi
¬¤l-·in ¬ºn r | ;· ¬i·¤i ¬ ¬i¬i ¬ - lº¤i - ¬| ¤r
3963
¬··iiººii l¬ ¤ri ¬ ¬·i| ¬i¬i - ¬i -¬ ln¬ l·º·nºni ·i| ¬-¤
¤ n|n ·r| ri ni| ·-n n ¤ri ¬ ·s ¤ºni ·i ¬ ¬-i · ¬i
s ¬| ¬nr r ¬i -¬ l n¬ ¬i ¬i - r| l ··i ·n l ¬¤i
¬i ·i ¤i l r¤| n · n ¬i ¬ ¬ ¤º¤i n ¤¬ ¬- «| ¬·l ·i
¬i ¬· nºi ¬, ;¬¬ ¤º¤i n ;-¬i l -¬ ¬i ¬ ¤ i º-·i
r i ni r | ;¬ ¤i ¤· ¬i -¬ ln¬ ¬i¬ (Cultural Period) ¬i
¬; «i ¤i÷¬i·iilºn ¬i¬i (Structural Period) - l··iil¬n
l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r |
(v) ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi lº¤i - - ¤ ln¤il·n ¤i ¤·i , s-i ¤·
¬i n·i ¬i ¬ -·-i ·| (arbitrary) ¬i ·¤i ¤º ¬i ·i i l ºn
¤ n| n ri ni r | ;¬ ¬-«··i - l·-· n·¤ ¤ -n n r÷
Period V-
(a) ¤i ¤· ¬i¬ ¬i Post-Gupta-Rajput ¬i¬ ¬ri n¤i r | lº¤i -
¬ ¬· ¬iº G7 - ¤ - Layer 5 n·ii Layer 6 ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i
¤ lnl·l·i-· ¬ºn r (ASI Report, Vol. I, Table after page
36; also page 40)
(b) lº¤i - - ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬| ¤r¤i· - ª¤n Knife-edge bowl ¬
¬| n; r | ;¬¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ;¬ ¬in·| ¬ ·¬·| ¬·| ¬ «|¤
º·ªii n¤i r | ”The period is marked by the
appearance of the knife-edge bowls and other types
which belong to the period from seventh to tenth-
century AD” (ASI Report, Vol I, p. 40)| ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r
l¬ Knife-edge bowl ¬i ¬~¬ ªi Stratigraphy and
Chronology ¬ ¬·¤i¤ - ni r ¬i r , l¬·n Pottery ¬
¬·¤i¤ - ¬ri ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬¤l·in ·ii, ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r |
lº¤i - ¬ figure 44 - ¬l·i¬i ºi bowls ¬i º ªii l¤¤ ¤ ¬ilºin
r l¬·n ¬·¬ ·ºi · - l¬¬| ¬i ·i| Knife-edge bowl·r|
¬ri n¤i r | ¤ ¬ l·lºi·- ¤ -iºi ¬i · ¬ ·¬ º ªii l¤¤, «l~¬
si¤il¤¤ ·i| ¤ ¬ilºin ri ·i ¤ilr¤ ·ii| ;¬¬ l«·i º ªiil¤¤ ¬|
¤ -ilºi¬ni ¬i -¸ ~¤i ¬· ¬-·i· ·r| | ¬¤~i··i n·¤i ¬| l·· ¤·i
3964
¬ ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ·-n n ;¬ n·i i ÷¬l ·i n ¬i ¬ ¬ ;¬
¤ ¬i º ¬i bowl l -¬i r| ·r| |
(c) n·ii ¬l·in Post Gupta-Rajput ¬i¬ ¬ ¤ ¬| ¬i-n | ¬i
l·ni·n ¬·ii· r l¬¬¬ ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬| l·ºii ¤¬ ¤r¤i· «·n| ri ,
¬ ¬ l ¬·¬i , ¬| ¬, ¬| l ¬ n, -¬~¤¤º ¬i l ·| ;¬¬
l·¤º|n ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬ n ·n ¬i¬ ¬ ¤i-º| (pottery) l-¬n r |
;·- n ·n¬i¬|· Lid-cum-bowl, knobbed lid, Inkpot type
lid ¬il· ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r | (ASI Report, Vol.I, Fig. 44).
(d) Layer r n·ii c ¬ ¤ i·n ¬i-ln ¤i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i
Post Gupta-Rajput ¬i¬ l··ii lºn ¬º·i l«~¬ ¬ -·n« ·n
¤ n|n ri ni r | ;¬ ¬-«··i - ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ Depositional
History ¬ ¬i¬i ¬ - ni Layer 6 ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-i· r r|
·r| | ·-n n n·ii÷¬l·in ¤i ¤·i ¬i ¬ n · n ¬i ¬ ¬i r|
¬ n ¤ n| n ri ni r |
Period VI-
(e) lº¤i - - ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i Medieval Sultanate ¬i¬ ¬ri n¤i
r | ;¬¬| lnl·i 11
th
- 12
th
Century AD l··ii lºn ¬| n; r |
¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ lº¤i - - ;¬ lnl·i l··i iººi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¬
¬-«··i - ¬i ; ¬i·¤ ¤ -n n ·r| l¬¤i n¤i r | ;¬ ¤ º· ¤º l¬
;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i Medieval-Sultanate ·¤i ¬ri n¤i ,
l º¤i - ¤¸ º| nºr -i · r |
(f) lº¤i - - G7 - ¤ ¬| ¤ºni s, s A n·ii « ¬i ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i
¬-¬il¬¬ ¬-i· ¬ri n¤i r | l¬·n Depositional History
¬ ¬· ¬iº Layer « ¬i +¤º| ·iin ni ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-i· r r|
·r|, ;¬¬i l·-i ºi ni «i« n·ii r¤¸ -¬ ¬-i· ¬ ¤¬-·ª¤
r ¬i| l¤º ;¬¬ ¤º¤in ¤r ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¬-« ¬-¤ ¬ l¬¤ ·|ºi·
ri n¤i| ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ;¬¬ +¤º l-·in ¬·i| ¤ºni ¬
l·l·i·· ¤ ¬iº ¬ ·¬ · · · ¤º (glazed ware) n·ii ·¬ · · -i;~¬
(glazed tiles) ¬ ¬·ºi·i l-¬ r (See Appendix I, III) ¤ ¬|
l-·iln - Layer s, s A n·ii « ¬| lnl·i 11
th
-12
th
Century
3965
AD l··ii ººi ¬º·i l¬¬| ·i| ¤ ¬iº ¤ l·n ¬ nn ¤ n|n ·r| ri ni|
(g) ¬¤ºi ·n n·¤i ¬ ¬i¬i ¬ - Post Gupta-Rajput ¬i¬ ¬|
nºr ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i ·i| ¬i ; ¬l--i-· ·r| ¬nni|
Period VII-
(h) lº¤i - - ;¬ Medieval ¬i¬ ¬ri n¤ir | ;¬¬| lnl·i 12
th
¬
16
th
Century AD ¬| ºi ª¬in ¬ «|¤ l··ii lºn ¬| n; r
(ASI Report Vol I, p. 41)| ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ;¬ l nl ·i
l ··i i ººi ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¬ ¬- «· ·i - ¤ i ¬ l n¬ ¬· ¤i ¤
(Stratigraphy and Chronology) l «~¬ ¬ -i · r
¬«l¬ lnl·i ¬-«··i| ¤¤i ;¬| ¬·¤i¤ - ¬¤ l·in r |
(i) lº¤i - ¬ Structures ·i-¬ ¬·¤i¤ - ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬| lnl·i
l··ii ººi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬ s n·¤ ¬¤¬··i r | lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº
;¬ ¬i¬ - l·l- n ·|·iº · o ·c (Wall No. 16) n·ii ··-¤n|¤
-i -|¤ (floral motif) ¬ ¬ ¬l·¬n ¤¬ ¬·-·i ¬i¬iº
lºi¬iªiº· (Octagonal sand stone block) ¬i - ª¤ ¬i·iiº
¬ ¬i·¤ ¬ ª¤ - ¤ -n n l¬¤i n¤i r (ASI Report, Vol I,
pp. 52 and 56)
(j) lº¤i - - ;¬ ; - l·l- n ·|·iº (wall 16) ¬| ¬-ni ¬iº·i·i
¬ ·i- ¤¬ l¬· l·riº - l-·in ¤¬ l·ºi ·i ; - ¬| ·|·iº ¬
-·iil¤n ¬| n; r | ;¬ l·riº ¬i l·-i ºi nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬
ni l··· ¤·· ¬| ºi·| ¬ -iº · ·| · «iºr·| ¬·| - ¬ºi¤i ·ii|
(k) ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬·-·i ¬i¬iº lºi¬iªiº· (Octagonal sand stone
block) ¬| n ¬·i ¬iº·i·i l·riº - l-·in ··-¤n|¤ -i -|¤
(floral motif) ¬ ¬ ¬l·¬n ¤¬ l·ºi ·i lºi¬iªiº· (stone
block) ¬ ¬| n; r | ;· ·i ·i - ¬-i·ni -·iil¤n ¬| n; r |
;¬ ¬-i·ni ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º wall No. 16 ¬i «iºr·| ¬·| ¬i
¤i l·in l¬¤i n¤i r | lº¤i - - ;¬| ¬i·¤ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬in·
¬i¬ ¬| ¤ iºl-·i¬ lnl·i «iºr·| ¬·| l··ii lºn ¬| n; r |
“6. That I do not agree with stratigraphy and chronology
as laid down in the ASI report. In this behalf the witness
3966
presents the following facts:-
A- There are two aspects of this subject. Both are
important.
(i) The first one is stratigraphy and the other one is
chronology. Out of the two, the first one holds more
importance, because chronological determination
depends mainly on stratification but its contrary is
not true. There is an utter absence of facts in relation
to stratification, in the chapter “Stratigraphy and
Chronology” in the ASI report. The whole chapter is
replete with details about chronology, that too, not on
the basis of verified facts. It is pertinent to mention
that stratification cannot be done in a real sense,
only on the basis of number of layers coming to light
through excavation and their nomenclature.
(ii) For a meaningful stratification, it is very essential to
make a proper description and explanation of
physical features and contents of the concerned
layers. In this process, an extensive description of
colour, texture and composition of every layer as also
their contents is absolutely necessary. The
depositional history of an archaeological site is
constructed on the basis of explanation of these very
facts. It throws light on several abstruse facts, such
as whether all the deposits on the said
archaeological site are of archaeological nature or
whether some of them are also natural deposits. If
some of them are natural deposits then what is their
type, such as, whether they are water borne, air
3967
borne etc.? The report suffers from utter absence of
these facts. It contains no information about the
colour, texture, composition etc. of any layer in the
process of stratification. It has no discussion on the
depositional history.
B- (i) In course of my observation, I got an opportunity
to study the sections which have come to light
through excavation, from the view- point of
depositional history. As a student of archaeology I
pay obeisance to Trench G-7. The section of this
trench tells the whole story of this archaeological
site. It is an open book. Every layer of its is like
pages of a book which can be read by anybody who
is capable of doing so. I put forward whatsoever I
have been able to gather in a limited time by virtue of
my ordinary capacity.
(ii) As per stratification report, a deposit of total 18
layers has come to light here. Besides, there are also
pits connected with some layers. This deposit of 18
layers is on natural soil. The ASI scholars have taken
the whole deposit as an archaeological deposit. This
fact is brought forth by a statement contained in the
report which reads as “Excavation at the disputed
site of Ayodhya has yielded a continuous cultural
sequence contained in the total deposition of about
10.80 m.” (ASI Report, Vol.I p.37). I disagree with
this finding. We classify this deposit mainly into two
categories: archaeological and natural. For
convenience, archaeological category can be further
3968
divided into two parts: (a) habitational and (b)non-
habitational. Here non-habitational means “filling
deposit”.
(iii) On the basis of colour, texture and composition, two
of the eighteen layers come under the category of
natural deposit. At the Trench G-7 (which can be
called index trench for convenience), these layers are
represented by the upper portion of Layer no.4 and
the Layer no.6. Here it is necessary to mention that
Layer no.4 is not correctly identified in the report.
Actually, two different types of deposits have been
discovered at this layer. Its upper portion is a natural
deposit and its lower portion is an archaeological
deposit.
(iv) The upper portion of Layer 4 and the Layer 6 are
both mainly water borne deposits. On the basis of
colour, texture and composition they appear to be
deposits categorized as silt. Formation of silt
depends on water process. The colour of Layer 6 is
light grey; its texture is smooth but hard and its
composition appears to be a mixture of sand and
mud. Remains of shells and possibly of snails, etc.
are also seen in it. (It is pertinent to mention that the
discovery of riverine shell finds mention also on page
no. 43 of the report. It relates to the filling deposit of
Period VIII. The filling deposit contains soil of the
early period). It is worth mentioning that there is an
utter absence of habitational materials in this
deposit. This evidence also suggests that it is not an
3969
archaeological deposit.
(v) The upper portion deposit of Layer 4, from the angle
of colour, texture and composition, appears to be
further divided into two parts- upper and lower parts.
The lower part is almost similar to Layer 6 in respect
of colour, texture and composition. It is of dark grey
colour. Its texture is comparatively loose. Its being of
dark grey colour perhaps suggests that vegetation
has had a special role in its formation. This sterile
level can be termed as ancient humus. This type of
deposit is seen at any level only after that level
having remained desolate for a long period. It is
pertinent to mention that deposit of these two layers
have been discovered at this archaeological site from
all those trenches which have been excavated down
to these layers.
(vi) On the basis of the facts available, it is beyond doubt
that both the layers characterized as silt deposit
came to be formed as a result of flood. Proof of
habitation is available here after the flood-stemming
deposit of Layer 6 but no clear proof of there being
habitation for a long time is found at this place, after
the flood-stemming deposit of Layer 4.
(vii) In this deposit having 18 layers, all layers, except
for these two layers (the upper part of Layer 4 and
the Layer 6), come under archaeological category.
All the layers above the ancient humus and Layers 7
and 8 below the humus are categorized as filling
deposits. All the remaining layers (layers 9 to 18)
3970
below it come under the category of regular
habitation.
(viii) A clear proof is found of having elevated the
archaeological site in question through filling
deposits. Its proof consists in the fact that mixed
materials of different periods have been discovered
from the concerned layers. In archaeology, this
position is taken to be evidence of elevating the level.
As per the evidences available, the process of
heightening this sites starts right from Layer 8. This
process continues upto Layer 1 with the exception of
two layers (Layer 6 and the upper part of the Layer
4). The report also speaks of the level having been
elevated many times but it has not thrown light on its
reasons. It is an important question why there was
necessity of repeated heightening of this
archaeological site.
(ix) As per my study, providing protection to the
archaeological site against floods appears to be the
main reason for it. From the evidences discovered it
transpires that the archaeological site has been
flood-prone since the beginning. In this behalf it is
pertinent to mention that remains of fluviatile sand
bed belonging to the Early Historic Period have been
discovered at the excavation carried out by Sri B.B.
Lal in the west of this site (Indian Archaeology- A
Review, 1976-77, p. 52). Topographical evidence also
throws light on this problem. It is pertinent to
mention that the region in question, from this point of
3971
view, comes under flood plain. As per the report, ". . .
. . . . the reason around the Ayodhya along the river
comes under its flood plain. . . . . ." (ASI Report,
Vol.I, p. 1). At the excavation carried out by Sri Lal,
remains of ramparts and fortification wall
constructed in the Early Historic Period have also
been found from here. From the view point of
protection against flood, this evidence is also very
important. All these evidences clearly alludes to
flood protection. Discovery of alluvial deposit from
this place is the most important evidence out of these
ones. A clear proof of fierce floods having occurred
twice has been found from this place. The facts
available give rise to a full possibility that necessity
was felt for repeated heightening of this place only
with a view to provide protection against the fury
of flood. In course of this development, there was
once a time when people had to abandon this place
itself for a long period on account of flood. This fact
is borne out by the evidence of humus deposit in the
wake of flood.
C-
(i) Chronology- This is the second aspect of the subject
in question. In the report, deposit of 18 layers has
been divided into the following nine periods: NBPW,
Sunga. Kushana, Gupta, Post Gupta-Rajput, Early
Medieval-Sultanate, Medieval, Mughal and Late and
Post Mughal.
(ii) In reference to chronology, the report says that there
3972
is cultural continuity in all the periods (ASI Report
Vol.I, p.37). From archaeological point of view, it is
a very important finding. We do not agree with this
finding of the report.
(iii) As per our study, after the first four periods this
archaeological sites became desolate for a long
time. The continuity of periods came to be broken. In
this behalf a clear proof of cultural intermission is
available. The fourth period of chronology is the
Gupta period. As per the report this period has been
dated as 4
th
-6
th
century AD. As per my study, proofs
are found of floods having occurred twice in this
period. After the second flood people abandoned
this place for a long time. This fact is evidenced by
the fact that proof is found of there being humus
deposit above this flood-stemming deposit. It is
pertinent to mention that the remains of whichever
culture is found after the humus deposit, belongs
to the Islamic period. Discovery of remains of
glazed ware, glazed tiles, animal bones and the
floors made of lime and surkhi from the layers
above the humus deposit are unassailable proofs of
this fact. On analysis of the information collected
from Day-to-Day Register, it is proved that from all
the layers above the humus, remains of glazed ware
and animal bones have been discovered details
whereof are being given in Appendices I and II. In
this very manner, the analysis of the information
collected from the list of pieces of glazed tiles given
3973
in Chapter VI (pp. 164-172) goes to prove that
remains of glazed tiles have been discovered from all
the concerned layers above the humus deposit, in
which respect details are being given in Appendix III.
(iv) Here we begin to find glazed ware associated with
the Muslim culture from the Sultanate period. The
beginning of this period is attributed to the
beginning of around 13
th
century. Here the end of
fourth period (the Gupta period) is attributed to the
sixth century. Evidence of the humus deposit has been
found only after the second flood-stemming deposit of
this period. Evidence of there being glazed ware has
been found from the layer immediately above it which
is dated to around 13
th
century. These facts properly
present unassailable proofs of cultural continuity.
The conception of the report believing there to be
cultural continuity here in all the periods does not
appear to be true in light of these evidences. Actually
the 18-layer deposit of this place should be divided
only into in five cultural periods instead of nine
ones. After the Gupta period, the Islamic period
begins after a long interval. This fifth cultural
period can be divided into many structural periods.
(v) Fifth, sixth and seventh periods as envisaged in the
ASI report appear to be based on arbitrary
evidences. In this behalf the following facts are
presented:
Period V
(a) The fifth period has been termed as Post Gupta-
3974
Rajput period. As per the report, this period is
represented by Layer 5 and Layer 6 at Trench G-7
(ASI Report, Vol.I, Table after page 36; also page
40).
(b) In the report, this period has been identified mainly
with knife-edge bowls. On this basis this period has
been placed between 7
th
to 10
th
century. “The period
is marked by the appearance of the knife-edge bowls
and other types which belong to the period from
seventh to tenth century AD” (ASI Report, Vol. I, p.
40). It is pertinent to mention that knife-edge bowl
certainly finds mention in the chapter titled
Stratigraphy and Chronology but it finds no mention
in a chapter on pottery where it was required to be
mentioned. Figure 44 of the report carries diagrams
of most of the bowls but in their description none of
them has been called knife-edge bowl. Not only
diagrams but also photographs of so special proofs
ought to have been published. But for them, it is not
possible to assess authenticity of diagrams. From the
analysis of the facts available, it appears that this
type of bowls have actually not been discovered
from this so-called period.
(c) Among the materials discovered from the so-called
Post Gupta-Rajput period, there is an utter want of
such materials as coins, seals, ceiling, sculpture
etc. which may be helpful in identifying this period in
a conclusive manner. On the contrary, potteries from
this period to the Gupta Period are found. Out of
3975
these, lid-cum-bowl, knobbed lid, inkpot type lid etc.
are worth mentioning. (ASI Report, Vol.I, Fig. 44).
(d) On the basis of the materials discovered from layers
5 and 6, dating this period as Post Gupta Rajput
Period appears to be utterly fabricated. In this behalf
it is worth mentioning that Layer 6, in the light of
depositional history, is certainly not an
archaeological deposit. Actually, the so-called fifth
period appears to be a part of the Gupta period
itself.
Period VI
(e) In the report, this period has been termed as
Medieval Sultanate. It has been dated 11
th
-12
th
century AD. It is worth mentioning that no evidence
has been presented in the report in connection with
the basis of this dating. The report is completely
silent over the question as to why this period has
been termed as Medieval-Sultanate period.
(f) In the report, layers 3, 3A and 4 of Trench G-7 have
been termed as contemporary deposits of this period.
But as per Depositional History, the upper portion of
Layer 4 which is certainly not an archaeological
deposit, was surely formed as a result of floods and
humus deposit. After that this archaeological site got
depopulated for a long time. It is worth mentioning
that remains of several types of glazed ware and
glazed tile has been discovered from all the layers
above it (See Appendices I & III). In such a situation,
it does not appear proper in any manner to date
3976
Layers 3, 3A and 4 as 11
th
-12
th
century AD.
(g) In the light of aforesaid facts, like Post Gupta-Rajput
period this period too does not appear to have any
existence.
Period VII
(h) In the report, it has been termed as medieval period.
It has been dated between 12
th
to the beginning of
16
th
century AD (ASI Report Vol. I, p. 41). It is
pertinent to mention that the concerned chapter
(Stratigraphy and Chronology) is completely silent
over the basis of this dating, whereas dating-related
discussion is required to be there in this very chapter.
(i) In a chapter titled Structures in the report, some facts
are available about the basis of dating of this period.
Constructed in this period Wall No.16 and an
octagonal sand stone block decorated with floral
motif have been cited in the report as evidence of the
main basis of dating (ASI Report, Vol, pp. 52 and 56).
(j) The report has established similarity of this brick-
built Wall 16 with a particular brick-wall standing in
Dharmachakrajin Vihar of Sarnath. Kumar Devi,
queen of Gahadwal ruler Govind Chandra, had got
this monastery built in the 12
th
century.
(k) The octagonal sand stone block of Ayodhya has been
compared with a Sarnath Vihar-situated particular
stone block decorated with floral motif. Similarity
between these two has been established. On the basis
of the similarity, Wall No. 16 has been attributed to
the 12
th
century. On this very evidence, the beginning
3977
of the seventh period has been attributed to the 12
th
century, in the report." (E.T.C)
3832. The facts stated in affidavit, he (PW 24) admits to
have based on Trench G-7, as is evident form page 287 and
293/294:
- ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬i ¬i ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¤ -n n l¬¤i r, ·r ¤ ·ii· ª¤ ¬
¬|÷/ - ¤ ¬ ¬·¤¤· ¤º ¬i·iilºn r , ·¤i l¬ - ¤ ¬|÷/ - r| · ¤ º¬
-·i¤¬ n¬ ¬i -nº|¬ººi ¬ ¬i·¤ ¬¤¬··i r ¤ r , · l¬¬| ¬·¤ - ¤ -
¬¤¬··i ·r| r | - ¤ ¬|÷/ ¬i ;¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¤º r ¤ ¬-ªi·· ¬i
;º· ·¬ - ¤ ·i| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r | - º| · l·- - - ¤ ¬|÷/, ;º· ·¬ - ¤
ri ¬¬n| r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n l¬· ¬·¤ - ¤i - ·l¬ · -·i¤¬ n¬
¬-ªi·· r ¬i r , · - ¤ ¬ - º| · l·- - ¬n· -r-·¤¸ ºi ·r| r |(¤ ¬ zs/)
“The affidavit of the examination-in-chief, is mainly
based on study of Trench G-7 because the evidences of
stratification found up to natural soil in Trench G-7, are
not available in any other trench. The Trench G-7 can also
be called the index trench of the excavation carried out at
this archaeological site. In my view, the Trench G-7 can be
the index trench. Besides it, the other trenches excavated
up to virgin soil, are not that important in my
view.”(E.T.C.)
- · ¬¤·| - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi÷c (ºi¤·i ÷¤¤ ¬
¤ ¬÷r ¬ni¤n ·/) - ¬i -n ·¤·n l¬¤i r , ·r - ¤ ¬|÷/ ¬ ¬·¤¤·
¤º ¬i·iilºn r | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ - · -nº|¬ººi n·ii ¬i¬
l··ii ººi ¬ l¬¤ - ¤ ¬|÷/ ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·¤ - ¤i ¬ ¬·¤¤· ¬|
¬i·º¤¬ni ·r| ¬-n|| - · ¬¤· ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi÷c - - -|lº¤¬,
lº¤¸ ¬ ¬º· ¬| «in ¬r| r | l ¬¬ ·i | - -| l º¤¬ ¬ l º¤¸ ¬ l ¬¤
¬i · ¬i - · «ni ¤i r , ·r - -| l º¤¬ ·i ·÷;-¬i l -¬
l «l ~· · ¬ ¬ - -| l º¤~¬ r n·i i · l r· ·¸ - l ·ºi ¤i «i ,
l ·ri º ¬ ¬ « l · i n r | (¤ ¬ zss÷zs«)
“The opinion expressed by me in para-6(page 5 to 17
3978
of the affidavit) of the affidavit of my examination-in-chief,
is based on study of Trench G-7. It is wrong to say that for
stratification and periodization, I did not consider it
necessary to study other trenches besides Trench G-7. In
para 6 of my affidavit, I have stated about reuse of
material. Whatever material I have stated to be reused, is
material of non-Islamic building and related to Hindu
temples or Buddha Vihar.”(E.T.C.)
3833. PW 24 D.Mandal treated trench G7 as the best
trench, but PW-30 has a different view:
¬¤i ·¤i - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬-ªi·· ¬| ºi ª¬in ¬-nº l·ºii - ¬ ÷s
¬ r ; ·i||
¤ º·÷ - ¤ ¬ ÷s ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º ªii ¬| n¤| - ¤i - ¬ ¤¬ ¬ln
-r-·¤¸ ºi - ¤ -i·| ¬in| r, ;¬¬| ¬i·¬iº| ¬i¤¬i r `
¬-nº÷ - º| · l·- - ¬-ªi·· ¬ l¬¤ l¬n· ·i| - ¤ ¬ni¤ ¬in r , ¬·i|
-r-·¤¸ ºi ri n r , ·¤i l¬ ¤ ºin-· - ¬i·¤ ¬| ¬¤l-·iln · ¬· ¤l-·iln
·i ·i r| ¬i-i·¤ ni º ¤º -r-·¤¸ ºi ri n| r | (¤ ¬ rs)
“The excavation at the disputed site in Ayodhya had
commenced from J-3 in the north.
Question:- Do you have the information that trench J-3 is
considered to be a very important trench out of the trenches
dug out at the excavation site?
Answer:- In my opinion, all the trenches made for
excavation are important because generally presence and
absence of evidence are both important in
archaeology.”(E.T.C.)
3834. The witness, therefore, while not disputing the
stratification/ chronology upto the period IV, i.e., Gupta period,
has challenged V, VI and VII periods alleging it arbitrary. For
period V, he has given two reasons, firstly that Knife-edge bowl
3979
though referred in the Chapter of stratigraphy and chronology
but no reference is given in the Chapter of "Potteries". Figure 44
showing sketched diagram of bowl does not justify the inference
leading to a knife-edge bowl. According to PW 24, it appears
that no such bowl was actually found. Secondly, according to
him, the conclusive identity proofs like coin, seal, sealing,
sculpture for determining post Gupta-Rajput period were not
found. Only potteries of Gupta period were found like, lid-cum-
bowl, knobbed lid, inkpot type lid etc. Period VI has been
assailed on the ground that no reason or evidence has been
mentioned to treat 11
th
and 12
th
Century A.D. as medieval
Sultanate period. Besides above, from layer 4 in Trench G-7
different types of glazed wares and glazed tiles were found in all
the levels. Hence, on the basis of layers 3, 3A and 4, the 11
th
and
12
th
century A.D. period is not justified to be determined. VIIth
period termed as medieval from 12
th
to 16
th
century is also said
to be silent with regard to any contextual material etc. Some of
the structural evidence like wall 16 has been taken but its
similarity and the reasons thereof are not correct. Similarly, it
has also said that period VIII termed as “Mughal” is also based
on conjectures and surmises and, in fact, period IX ought to
have been treated as 5
th
period by terming it as "Islamic" period.
Here what we find is PW 16 sought to make his statement with
respect to history also claiming himself to be an authority, but
when confronted, he claimed himself an 'Archaeologist'
- ¤ ºin-·l·· r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“I am an Archaeologist.” (ETC)
- ¤ri ¤º ¬i- ·¤l·n ¬| r l¬¤n ¬ n·ir| · · ¬º ¤ ºin-· ¬
l·ºi·in ¬| r l¬¤n ¬ n·ir| · ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬ s·r)
3980
“I am giving testimony here as a specialist in archaeology,
not as a layman.” (E.T.C.)
¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬ ¬-«··i - - l·ºi ·in r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·sc)
“I am an expert in field archaeology.” (ETC)
3835. However, when his opinion on history was
challenged in the cross examination, he claimed that being an
Archaeologist, he is Historian also:
¤ º·÷ ¤r¬| «iº ¬« ¬i¤ ;¬ ·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬ ¬-·i n·ir| · · ¬¤l-·in
r ¤ ·i ¬« ¬i¤ ¤¬ ¤ ºin-·· -ni ¬| r l¬¤n ¬ ¬i¤ ·i ¤i ¤¬
;lnri¬¬iº ¬| r l¬¤n ¬ ¬i¤ ·i `
¬-nº÷ - ¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ri n r ¤ ;l nri ¬¬i º ·i | r¸ ·¤i l¬
¤ ºin-· ¤¬ ¤ lnril¬¬ l·ni· r ;¬l¬¤ - ¬« ¬i - ¬ ¬i-· ¤ºi
r ¬i, ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º ¬-n ni ¬ ¬¤·| n·ir| · · ¬ l¬¤ ¤ ºi r ¬i
·ii|(¤ ¬ srz)
“Question- Your first appearance in this court to give
evidence was as a archaeologist or historian?
Answer- Besides being an Archaeologist, I am also a
historian because archaeology is a historical science and
as such when I appeared before this court, I appeared to
give my evidence on this topic in entirety.” (E.T.C.)
rº ··i · ri ;¬ ¬i l ¬ ¤i ¬i l ¬-- ( ¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ) ;l nri ¬¬i º
·i | ri ni r ¬i º ;l nri ¬ ¤¬ · ¤i ¤¬ l ·ni · r ¤ ºi n- ·
l ¬¬¬i ¬ n r , - ¬« ;lnri¬¬iº ¬ ª¤ - n·ir| · · ¬i¤i
¬¬¬i ¤r ni-¤¤ ·r| r l¬ - ¤ ºin-· ¬ ni· · l·l·i ¬ · l¤n ri ¬º
¬i¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ srs)
“Every worthwhile archaeologist is also a historian.
History is a detailed science with archaeology being its
branch. When I came to give evidence as a historian, it did
not mean that I had come without the knowledge and
method of archaeology.” (E.T.C.)
3981
3836. The PW 24 sought to discredit other like report of
Prof. B.B. Lal by saying :
¤ i o «|o«|o ¬i¬ ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- r , ;lnri¬¬iº ·r| r |
“Prof. B.B. Lal is an Archaeologist, not a historian.”(ETC)
3837. On periodization or stratification and chronology,
PW 24 said in cross examination:
ºi n ¬i¬ ¬ ¬ º· ¬ ¤ º| «|o¬|o ¬ ¤ iº ·i ri ni r ¬iº ¤-- ¬ ·¤ º|
«|o¬|o ¤º ªi-- ri ni r | ºi ¬¤¸ n ¬i ¬ ¬i ; -- l · ¬º· ¬i ¬
·r| r | ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i ¬i-i·¤ ª¤ - ;lnri¬ - ¤ ¤i n r ¬i r , l¬¬¬|
lnl·i ¬n·in ·i ·| ºini··| ¬ ·¤iºr·| ÷«iºr·| ºini··| ¬ «|¤ l··ii lºn
¬| ¬i ¬¬n| r |
n ·n ¬i¬ ¬i ¬·n s-| ºini··| ¤o·|o l··ii lºn l¬¤i n¤i
r ,(¤ ¬ ·r«)
"The Shunga period begins with the second century B.C.
and ends with the first century B.C. The Rajput period is
not an established period. This period has been generally
used in history and can be dated between around ninth
century and 11
th
-12
th
century.
The end of the Gupta period has been attributed to
6
th
century AD." (E.T.C)
;¬ ¬i¬ ¬ «i· r·i ¬i¬ ¬i ¤ iº ·i ri ni r | r·i ¬i¬ ¬in·| ºini··|
- ¬-i·n ri ¬ini r | r· i ¬i ¬ ¬ «i · ¬i ; -- l · ¬º· ¬i ¬
¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l -¬ni r , l¬·n ¬¬¬ «i· ¬| ¬·l·i - ºi¬¤¸ n
ºii¬¬i · r·i ¬ «i· ¬ l·ªilº·n ·i ¤i - ºi·¤ l¬¤i, ;¬¬ ¬¤ºi·n
¬~n·n ¬i¬ ¬i ¤ iº-·i ri ni r |
¬~n·n ¬i¬ ¬i ¤r¬i ºii¬¬ ¬ n « · ·|· ¤ «¬ ·zoc - r ¬i
·ii, (¤ ¬ ·r«)
"The Harsha period begins after this period. The Harsha
period concludes in the 7
th
century. No established period
is found after the Harsha period but in the subsequent
3982
period the Rajput rulers reigned in the post-Harsha
disintegrated regions. After that begins the Sultanate
period.
Qutb-ud-din Aibak took over as the first ruler of the
Sultanate period in 1206 AD." (E.T.C)
- ;¬ «in ¬ ¬r-n r ¸ l¬ ·zoo ¤o·|o n¬ l¬¬| ¤¬ ·ºi ¬|
r ¬¸ -n ·r| ºr|, «l~¬ l·l·i·· ºi¬· ºii · ºi·¤ l¬¤i| - ;¬ «in ¬
·i| ¬r-n r¸ l¬ l·l·i·· ·ºii - - ª¤n ¤iº · ºi ¤i¬ ·¤, n¸ ¬º, ¤i ri·,
¤ lnriº ¬ r| ºi·¤ ºr | - ¤r ·r| «ni ¤i + ni l ¬ ;· ¤i ºi
· ºi i ¬i r| ºi ¬¤¸ n ¬ri ¬i ni r| - n ;¬ «in ¬| ¬i·¬iº|
·r| r l¬ coo ¤o·|o ¬ ·zoo ¤o·|o n¬ ¬i ¬i¬ ·iiºn ¬|
¬ilrl-¤¬ ¬¤¬l··i ¬ l¬¤ «r n -r-·¤¸ ºi r | (¤ ¬ ·rr)
"I agree that period upto 1200 AD witnessed the reign of
no single dynasty but of many royal dynasties. I also agree
that out of many dynasties, mainly four dynasties-
Chalukya, Gujar, Chauhan and Pratihar- had their reigns.
I am not in a position to tell whether these four
dynasties themselves are called Rajputas. I do not know
whether the period from 600 AD to 1200 AD is very
important for literary achievement in India." (E.T.C)
coo ; -·| ¬ ·zoo ; -·| ¬ «| ¤ ¬i ; l ··i ºi ¬i º| «i «
¬¤i · ¤i - ¬i · ¬i ¤ -i ºi ·r| r , ¤º·n ¤ ¬ ¤ -iºi r , l¬·¬
¤ni ¬nni r l¬ ¤ ¬ l··iºi¬iº| «i« ¬ ¬i· ¬i ºi ¬· ¬i · i¤i¬
l¬¤i n¤i ri | (¤ ¬ ·rc)
"There is no proof of Ayodhya having witnessed any
disastrous flood between 600 AD to 1200 AD but there
are such proofs as go on to reveal that efforts have been
made to prevent such devastating floods." (E.T.C)
(This is contrary to what he said in C(iii) chronology)
- º -ni· ¬iº ¤¸ l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ¬iº| ¬i-ln ¤i l¬· -nº ¬ l·¬¬| l·ªii;
3983
n; r ¬·¬ l-¬| r| ·r| r , ;¬l¬¤ ;·¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¬i¬
l·¬i¬·i - -l¬· ·r| ·ii| - º ¬· ·i · · ni · ¬ ¬· ¬i º
¬¤ºi ·n ¬· i | ¤· -| l ··-| ¬ ¬i ¤ · - z/ ¤º ·¬ r , ·i
¬ ¤º / ¬ r| l -¬ ¬¬n| ·i | | (¤ ¬ ·/o)
"In my view, since all the aforesaid materials have not been
discovered from the levels from where they are shown to
have been discovered, it was not possible for the ASI to
date them. As per my experience and knowledge, all the
aforesaid antiquities, mentioned on page 27, could be
found only from Layer 7." (E.T.C)
¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬| l º¤i - · ~¤¸ - · ¬ ¤ · - z/÷¤ ¤º l ·¤
n¤ ¤i - - ·ºi i ¤| n¤| - · ¤ ¬| ÷/ ¬ ¬ ¤º · o s · «
¬i ¬i ¬ ¬º¬| l -·| ·¬ ¬~n·n ¬r| ·ºi i ¤i n¤i r | -
;¬¬ ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·/o)
"Layers 3 and 4 of Trench G-7, shown in the chart given
on page 27A of the ASI report, Vol. I, have been
correctly shown to be of Early Medieval Sultanate
period. I agree with the same." (E.T.C)
¬| ÷r - · ¤ - ¬ ¤º r · c ¬i ¬i ¬ ·i | ¬º¬| l -l ··¬
¬~n·n ¬r| l ·¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·/o)
"Layers 5 and 6 at Trench G-5 have also been correctly
shown to be belonging to Early Medieval Sultanate
period." (E.T.C)
- º ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬ ¤ ºi c ¤|lº¤· (v) --i¬ «| (¤ ·- ·z) - ·i;¤
¤ ¬ ¬ ¬ ··i - - ºi ¤r ¬·i· r l¬ ¤ ¬| ¤i-|º|¬ ¬i ¤ ¬, ·i;¤ ¤ ¬
ri ¬¬ni r ¬iº ·r| ·i|| - º -ni· ¬iº ·i;¤ ¤ ¬ «i+¬ ¬i -n¬« r
l¬ «i+¬ ¬i l¬·iºi ¬|·ii ri | ºii¤ ri ·i ¬ ªº| ·r| r ¬i º ¬¬-
¬ º|·ºi· ri · ¬i ¤ º· r| ·r| ¬-ni| - · ¤ · - ·z ¤º l ¬¬
·i ; ¤ ¤ ¬ «i +¬ ¬i ¬ ·· i l ·¤i r , ¬¬ «i +¬ ¬i -i ¬
¤º · ªi · ¬i ¬·¬º - n ¤ i · n ·r| r ¬i | (¤ ¬ ·/z÷·/s)
"In reference to "Knife-edge" mentioned in para 6, period
3984
(V) b (page 12) it is my statement that the edge of such
potteries may or may not be knife-edge. In my opinion,
knife-edge bowl means that the edge of bowl should be
straight. Its being sharp is not necessary and there is no
question of corrosion in it. I got no chance to have an on-
the-spot look at that very knife-edge bowl which is
referred to on page 12." (E.T.C)
- · ¬¤· ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬ ¤ ·-÷s« ¤ -nº ·z¬| ¤º ¤r «in ¬r| r l¬ ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - -nº|¬ººi ¬ ¤iº-¤lº¬ ¬-«··ii ¬i
ni · ÷-ºi · ¬º ¤ -n n l¬¤i n¤i r | ¬nº ¬¬ -nº|¬ººi ¬iº ¬i¬¬ -
¬i «·¬ ·i| l·¤i ¬i¤ ni ·i| - º l·¤iº - ;¬ lº¤i - - ¬i º ·i| ¤ l-¤i
r | (¤ ¬ ·/s)
"On page 34, para 12C of my affidavit I have stated that
co-relation of stratification has been distorted in the ASI
report. Even if the said stratification as also chronology is
changed, this report, in my opinion, still has
discrepancies." (E.T.C)
- · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ¬i ¬·¤¤· -- -|n i¤ | ¬| · l·- ¬ nr·
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r ¬iº -- -|n i¤ | l¬¬| ·i| ¬-ªi·· ¬i « ¬ «i · ri ni
r , (¤ ¬ ·sc)
"I have made an in-depth study of the ASI report from
stratigraphical point of view, and stratigraphy is the back
bone of any excavation." (E.T.C)
- · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - - -- -|n i¤| ¬ ¬-«l··in ¬·i| ºi··i ¬i º
-l- ·i ¬i ¬| ¬i ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·sc)
"I have studied all the words and terminology related to
stratigraphy used in the ASI report." (E.T.C)
¤ o÷ªi ·i; -·i¬ ¬ l¬¬| ¤¬ ·iin ¬ «iº - ¬i¤ «ni;¤ l¬ ;¬¬i
¤iº-¤lº¬ ¬ « ·i -nº|¬ººi ¬ n ¬n r ¬i r `
¬o÷ ·i¬ · o÷·s¤ n·ii ·i¬ · o÷·c ·i ·i ¬i ¤iº-¤lº¬ ¬ « ·i ¤
3985
o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - n ¬n ª¤ ¬ ¤ ºi l¬¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ zoo)
"Question- Tell about any portion of the excavation site
where its co-relation has been wrongly established with
stratification.
Answer- Co-relation between both the Wall No. 18A and
Wall No. 16 has been wrongly presented in the ASI report."
(E.T.C)
lº¤i - - - · ¤r ¤« i r l¬ ·i¬ · o÷·s¤ ¬i º ·c ·i ·i ¬-¬il¬¬ r ,
l¬·n ¬¤¬··i ¤ -iºi ¬ ¬· ¬iº ·i ·i ·|·iº ¬-¬il¬¬ ·r| r | ·i ·i
·|·iºi ¬ «|¤ - l·i¬ (-i -i) ·¬i--º ¬¤¬··i r | ·i ·i ·|·iº ¤º-¤º
«iº· · ¬·ii n ¬ ·| r ; ·r| r | ¤l· ·i ·i ·|·iº ¬-¬il¬¬ ri n| , ni
·i ·i ¬i ¤º-¤º ¬ ·i r ¬i ri ·i ¤ilr¤ ·ii, ¤º·n ¤ ¬i ·r| r, «l~¬
·i ·i ¬ «|¤ - ¤¬ ·¬i--º r , ¬i ;¬ «in ¬i ¤ -ilºin ¬ºni r l¬
·i ·i ·|·iº ¬-¬il¬¬ ·r| r | (¤ ¬ zoo÷zo·)
"I have read in the report that Wall No. 18A and Wall No.
16 are both contemporaneous; but as per the proof
available, both the walls are of the same time. There is a
thick plaster between both the walls. Both the walls are not
bonded or connected with each other. If both the wall were
contemporaneous, both of them ought to have been
connected together but such is not the position; rather,
there is a plaster in between, which proves that both the
walls are not contemporaneous." (E.T.C)
- ºi l··¬·i ¤r r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ·i ·i ·|·iº ¬-¬il¬¬ ·r| r ¬iº
l¬¬¬i ·i¤i ·n ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¤ -iºi ¬¬¤··i r |
·i¬ ·s÷¤ ¤|lº¤·÷/ ¬ ·¸ ¬º -- ·¤º¬ ¤|lº¤· ¬| r |
¤ º·÷ ·¤i ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ·i¬÷·c n·ii ·i¬ ·s÷¤ ¬i ¬i¬ ¤¬ r|
r `
¬-nº÷ ¬¤ºi ·n ·i ·i ·| ·i ºi ¬i ¬i -¬ l n¬ ¬i ¬ ¤¬ r|
r , l ¬· n -- ·¤º¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬¬n÷¬¬n r |
;· ·i ·i ·|·iºi ¬ -- ·¤º¬ ¤|lº¤· (¬-¤i·l·i ¬·ii n - -¤iº¬
3986
·¤¸ º ºi·) ¬ ¬ nº ¬i ·r| «ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬
¬¤ºi ·n ·i ·i ·|·iºi ¬i ¬i¬ ¤¬ r| r , ¤º·n ¬¬¬| ¬-¤i·l·i
¬¬n÷¬¬n r , l¬¬ «ni¤i ·r| ¬i ¬¬ni| (¤ ¬ zos)
"My finding is that both the aforesaid walls are not
contemporaneous and archaeological proof thereof is
sufficiently available.
Wall 18A belongs to the other structural period of Period-7
Question- Is it true that Wall 16 and Wall 18A are of one
and the same period?
Answer- The cultural period of both the aforesaid walls
is the same but their structural periods are different.
It is not possible to tell the space of time between the
structural period (temporal duration) of these two walls. It
is true to say that both the walls are of the same period but
their temporal duration is different which cannot be
determined." (E.T.C)
- · ¬¤· - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬ ¤ ¬ c ¤º B-II - -nº|¬ººi
lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬ ¬ l-¬i¬º ·s ¤ni ¬ ¬-i· ¬ ¤ ¬iºi - ¬i· ¬i
¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r | ¬· ·s ¤ni ¬i ¬-i· - ¤ ¬ ª¤i ¬|÷/ - l-¬i
·ii| ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ·s ¤ni ¬i ¬i ¬-i· - ¤ ¬ ª¤i ¬|÷/ - «ni¤i
r , ·r n ¬n r | - º ¬· ¬i º - ¤ ¬ ª¤i ¬| ÷/ - ·/ ¤ni ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ri ·i ¤i l r¤| ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · ;¬ - ¤ - ¤ºn
¬ ª¤i s · s÷¤ ¬i n ¬n l ·ªi i ¤i r | ;· ¤ni ¬ l·¬¬ ¤ ¬·
¬ «i· - · - ¤ ¬ ª¤i ¬|÷/ ¬i · ªii ·ii, ¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ ¬n·in ·i
¤ni n¬ ¬| ªi ·i; ;¬ - ¤ - r ; ·i|| - ¤ ¬ ª¤i ¬|÷/ - ¤n ¬ ª¤i
s ¬ ·|¤ ·i¬| ¤n ¬r| r , ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ;¬¬ ¬ «l·in
n·¤ ¤ ¬ilºin ri · ¤º ¬¬¬i - · · ªii ·ii| - º ·¤l·nnn ni· ¬
¬i·iiº ¤º ¤n ¬ ª¤i s ¬ ·|¤ ¬| ¤n ¬r| r | ¤n ¬ ª¤i s ¬ +¤º
¬| ¤ni ¬| ¬r| ¤r¤i· ·r| r ; | ¤l· ;· ¤ni ¬| ¬r| ¤r¤i· ri n|
ni ;¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¤º ¤ i·n ·s ¤ni ¬ ¬-i· ¬i ¬i ¤ ºil-·¬ ¬-i· ¬ri
n¤i r , · ¬i ·r| ¬ri ¬ini| ;¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¬ s ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-i· ·
3987
¬ s ¤ i¬ ln¬ ¬-i· ¬| «in ·i| ¬r| ¬in|, ¬ ¬i l¬ ·r| ¬ri n¤i r |
¤ i¬ ln¬ ¬-i· ·r ¬-i· r , l¬¬ ¬-i· - -i·· l·l- n ¬·ºi·ii ¬i
¤¸ ºi ¬·ii· ri , n·ii n-·, ¬ º¤·i, ¬·-·- ¬ ¤º ·r ¬-i· ¤ ¬ ln l·l- n
¤ -ilºin ri ni r | - º ¬· ¬iº ·ri ¤º ¤ i¬ ln¬ ¬-i· ¬ ª¤ - l¬~-
¬i ¬-i· ·ii| l¬~- ¬ «i· ·ri ¤º ¤ ¬i ¬-i· ·ii, ¬i -i·· l·l- n
·ii| l¬¬- -i·· l·l- n ¬·ºi·i ¤ i·n r | l¬~- ¬i ·iin ·r| ri ni| ;¬
l¬~- ¬i ¬-i· ¬n·in s ¬ ·o ; ¤ -i -i ·ii| ·ri ¤º ·i l¬~- ¬i
¬-i· r, ¤¬ ¬ ¤º÷c · ·¸ ¬ºi ¬ ¤º÷« ¬ +¤º| lr-¬ - l¬~- ¬-i·
·ii| ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - - l¬~- ¬ ¬-i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l«~¬ ¬
r| ·r| l¬¤i r | ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · l ¬~- ¬-i · ¬i ¤ ºi ni l - ·¬
¬-i · ¬ ª¤ - ¤ -n n l ¬¤i r |
¤ º·÷ ·¤i l¬~- ¬ ¬-i· ¬i ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬i ¬¬n ¬ ¤º ¬ ª¤ -
l·ªii·i ¤ilr¤ ·ii`
¬-nº÷ ¬| ri |
¤ ¬i ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ·r| l¬¤i n¤i r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi l¬~- ¬i
¬¬n ¤n ¬ ª¤ - l·ªiin n« ·i| ¤r ¤n ·s ¤ni ¬ ¬·nn n ¬in|
n·ii ;¬ l·ªii· ¬ ¤ni ¬| ¬ ª¤i - ¬i ; · l, ·r| ri n|| ¤
o¤¬o¬i ; o · ·s ¤ni ¬i ¬i ¬-i · «ni ¤i r ·r ¬r| r
¤º· n ¬¬¬i ;· -º¤ - ºi · ¬r| ·r| r | (¤ ¬ zo«÷zor)
"At page 6 of the affidavit of my examination-in-chief, I
have mentioned about discovery of deposit of in all 18
layers in B-II as per the stratification report. The deposit
of those 18 layers was found in Trench No. G-7. The
deposit of 18 layers given by ASI in Trench G-7, is wrong.
According to me 17 layers should have been mentioned
in Trench G-7. In this trench, the ASI has wrongly
shown Layer Nos. 3 & 3A. I had seen Trench G-7 after
discovery of these layers, by that time excavation in this
trench had been carried out up to about nine layers. The
layers below Layer 9 in Trench G-7 are proper. I had seen
it after publication of facts related to it in the ASI Report.
3988
On basis of my personal knowledge, the layers below the
Layer No. 9 are proper. The layers above Layer No.9 have
not been properly identified. Had these layers been
properly identified, then the deposit of 18 layers found at
this archaeological site would not have been termed as
such. Some archaeological deposit and some natural
deposit is also claimed, which has not been given. Natural
deposit is that deposit which totally lacks man-made
remains and on its constitution, construction and contents
it is established to be nature made. According to me, silt
deposit was present here as natural deposit. After the silt,
there was such deposit over there which was man made.
The one in which man-made remains are found, will not be
part of silt. This silt deposit was about 8-10 inches thick.
Silt deposit was found there at two places, one in Layer-6
and the other in upper part of Layer-4. In its report, ASI
has not all mentioned about the silt deposit. The silt
deposit has been presented by the ASI as archaeological
deposit.
Question: Should the ASI have shown the silt deposit as a
separate layer ?
Answer: Yes.
It has not been done so by the ASI. Had the ASI
shown this silt as a separate layer, then also this layer
would have fallen under the 18 layers and there would
have been no increase in the number of layers. The deposit
of 18 layers given by ASI is correct, but its interpretation
is not." (E.T.C.)
- · ;l nri ¬ ·i i · i «r n ¤« i r | (¤ ¬ z··)
3989
"I have studied a bit of history."(E.T.C.)
-nº|¬ººi ¤ ºin-· l·ni· ¬i « ¬«i · r ¬iº ¤l· ¬¬ « ¬«i · ¬i
¬·¤¤· ¬r| ·r| ri ¤i¤i, ni ºi·i ¬·¤¤· l·º·i ¬ ¤· ¬·i r|· ri ¬ini
r ¬i º ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ¬i -- -|n i¤ | ¬iº ¬ i ·i ¬i¬| ¬i l··¬·i
n ¬n r | ;¬| ¬i·iiº ¤º r-· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ¬i n ¬n ¬-nii r |
(¤ ¬ z·z)
"Stratification is back bone of archaeology and if this back
bone has not been studied properly, then the remaining
study becomes useless and meaningless. The stratigraphy
and conclusion of chronology in the ASI Report is wrong
and on this basis I have considered the ASI Report to be
wrong."(E.T.C.)
¤r¬ - · ¬¬¬| -- -|n i¤| ¬i·· ¬| ¤ ·-i ¬| ¬i º ¤r ¤i¤i l¬
-- -| n i ¤ | ¬| · l · - ¬ l ¬¬ ¬i -¬¬ ¬i l ¬ ¬ ;¬ l º¤i -
- r , ·r ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ¤ i · n r| ·r| r ¬i r | ¬n ¬¬¬
¬-«··i - ¬l·i¬ ¬i·¬iº| ¤ i·n ¬º·i ·¤·i r | ·r ¬i-¬¬ ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ·i~¤¸ -÷· ¬| ¤ |nº ÷rs ¤º ¬ri n¬ - n
--ººi r , ¤ ¬ilºin r | (¤ ¬ z·«)
"I first attempted to find out its stratigraphy and found that
the 'Amlak' (myrobalan) mentioned in this report from
the angle of stratigraphy, had not been found in the
excavation. Hence, it was useless to gather more
knowledge in its behalf. As far as I remember, this 'Amlak'
is published at Figure 59 of ASI Report Vol. I."(E.T.C.)
¬i-¬¬ ¬| -- -|n i¤ | ·r| ri n| r | ¬i-¬¬ l¬¬ ¤|¬ ¤º «·i ri ni
r , ¬¬¬| -- -|n i¤ | ri n| r | ¬i-¬¬ (¬i·¬ ·-) ¬ -- -|l¤ ¬ºi· ¬i
- · ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r ¬iº ¤r ¬i-¬¬ ¬i ¤|¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤ i·n ·
ri ¬º ¬º¤ ¬ ¬ ¤ i·n r ¬i r | (¤ ¬ z·r)
"Stratigraphy is not done of 'Amlak'. Stratigraphy is done
of the object on which the 'Amlak' is built. I have studied
the stratification of the 'Amlak' (object) and this piece of
3990
'Amlak' has been found at the surface and not from
excavation."(E.T.C.)
¬·¤¤· ¬ «i· - · ¤r ¤i¤i l¬ ¤r ¬i-¬¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤ i·n ·r|
r ¬i r , «l~¬ ¬º¤ ¬ ¬ +¤º ·-¤ ¬ ¤ i·n r ¬i r ¬i º ¤ ºin-· ¬|
· l·- ¬ ·r ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬i-n | ·i¬ r| ri , l¬·n ¬¬¬i ¬¤¤i n
¤ ºinil-·¬ ¤ -iºi ¬| · l·- ¬ ¬·i| ·r| l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni| ·r ·-¤
¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ «irº ¬i ·ii|
¤ º·÷ ·¤i ¬¤ºi ·n ·-¤ ªi ·i; -·i¬ ¬ «irº ¬ ¬i¤i ·ii`
¬-nº÷ ;¬ ·-¤ ¬ «irº ¬ ¬i· ¬| ¬ ·ii··i ¬i ·¬iºi (ª¬¬i¬-)
·r | ¬i ¬¬ni r |
- · l ¬¬| ¬i «i rº ¬ ;¬ ·- ¤ ¬i ¬i n r ¤ ·r| · ªi i
·i i | ;¬ ·- ¤ ¬i «i rº ¬ ¬ ¬i ·i ª¬¬i ¬- ·r| l ¬¤i ¬i
¬¬ni r , (¤ ¬ z·r)
"After studies I have found that this 'Amlak' has not been
found from excavation and instead has been found from
dump over the surface. From archaeological point of view
it may be an archaeological article but it can never be used
from the point of archaeological evidence. This dump was
besides the archaeological excavation.
Question: Had this dump come from outside the excavation
site ?
Answer: The possibility of this dump coming from outside
cannot be ruled out.
I had not seen anybody bringing this dump from outside.
The bringing of this dump from outside cannot be ruled
out."(E.T.C.)
- ;¬ ·¤i¤i¬¤ - ¬ ··| ¬ ·- ¬ «i · ¬i¤ ·· ¤ ¬| nº¤ ¬ n·ir| ·
ºri r¸ | - · · -¸ · ºl¬--º ¬i¬ ¬ ¬n·in z÷s -ir ¤¸ · · ªii ·ii|
;¬¬ ¤r¬ - · ;¬ ºl¬--º ¬i ·r| · ªii ·ii| (¤ ¬ zzs)
"I am giving evidence in this Court on behalf of Sunni
3991
Central Board of Waqf. I had seen the day-to-day register
about 2-3 months ago. I had not seen this register
earlier."(E.T.C.)
¤ º·÷ ¤ ¬ ¬i · ¬ n·¤ ·i ¬i ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ·r|
l»i r `
¬-nº÷ ¤r¬i ·ri ¬ -nº| ¬ººi ¬ ¬ « · i - l ¬~- l ·¤i l ¬ -
¬i ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi · ¬º·i ·¸ ¬ºi ¤ ·| -¬ «i · ¬ ¤º l ·-n n
l º¤i - · · ·i n| ¬ºi ·¬ · · · ¤º n·i i ·¬ · · -i ;~¬ ¬
«i º - · i ¤i · n ¬i ·¬i º| · · ·i | ¤ - ª¤ n·¤ ·i , l ¬·¬i
¬~¬ ªi ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ¬| l º¤i - - ·r| r | ;¬¬ ¬¬i ·i
¬· ¤ «r n ¬ ¤ ¬ n·¤ r l ¬·¬i ¬~¬ ªi l º¤i - - ·r|
r | ¬ ¬ ¬º¬ ¬º ¬i ;· ¬| ¬r| l nl ·i l ··i i ººi · ¬º·i ,
¬i ¬¬ - ¬i ¬r| l ··i i ººi · ¬º·i ;- ¤i l ·| ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi
- · ¬¤· - ª¤ ¤º| ·i i ¬ ºi ¤·i ÷¤¤ - ¬·º¤ l ¬¤i
ri ni | (¤ ¬ zsz)
"Question: What are the facts, which have not been
mentioned by ASI in its report ?
Answer: Firstly, the non-mention of silt deposit in
context of the stratification over there. Secondly, the
non-furnishing of a detailed report on animal bones.
Thirdly, the non-furnishing of sufficient information
about glazed ware and glazed tiles. These were the main
facts, which have not been mentioned in ASI report.
Besides these, there are many other facts which have not
been mentioned in the report, such as the non-
determination of correct date of circular shrine, the non-
correct determination of chronology etc. I must have
mentioned these in the affidavit of my examination-in-
chief."(E.T.C.)
- - ·¤ ¬ o. ¬|÷/ - ¬nºi ·ii ¬i º ¬¬ - ·¤ ¬i · ªii ·ii, ;¬ - ·¤ ¬
3992
¬ ¤º ¬ o c ¬i l·º|·iºi l¬¤i ·ii| ¬« ¤r - ·¤ «r n nrº| ªii · ·|
n; , n« - · ;¬ - ·¤ - ·|¤ ¬nº ¬º ·r| · ªii| ¬« - ¤r¬| «iº
¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º n¤i ·ii, n« ;¬ - ·¤ ¬|÷/ ¬| ¤¸ º| ª i·i; ·r| r ;
·i|| - · ¬¤ºi ·n ¤ -nº ¬ ·¸ ¬º| n·i i n| ¬º| ¤ l ·n - ¤r
l ¬ªi i r º n, n-· n·i i ¬ º¤·i ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º · l ¬~-
¬i l - ¬ ¬-i · ¤ n| n ri n r - º ¤ n| n ºi · · l ¬ªi · ¬i
ni - ¤¤ ¤r r l ¬ ·r l ¬~- ¬i l - ¬i ¬-i · ri ¬¬ni r
¬i º ·r| ·i | ri ¬¬ni r | -·¤ ¬ri l¬·n ¬ri n¬ º|·º ¬ ·ºi·
¬i - n ¬· ·i· r ¬¬¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ;¬¬| ¬ ·ii··i ¬l·i¬n- r l¬ ·r
l¬~- l·¤il¬ - r| r ¬iº ;¬¬i ¬r| l··¬·i n« n¬ ·r| l·¬i¬i ¬i
¬¬ni ¬« n¬ l¬ ¬¬¬i º¬i¤l·¬ ¤º|·iºi ¤ ¤i nºii¬i - · l¬¤i
n¤i ri | - · ¤ ¤i nºii¬i - ;¬¬i º¬i¤l·¬ ¤º|·iºi ·r| l¬¤i ·ii
·¤i l¬ - ;¬¬i ¤º|·iºi ·r| ¬º ¬¬ni ·ii ·¤i l¬ ¬¬¬i ·-¸ ·i
¬¤¬··i ·r| ·ii| - · ¬¬¬i ·-¸ ·i ·r| -i ni ·ii| - · ;¬ ¤ -nº -
¤i ¤·| ¤ l ·n - l ¬¬ ¤ n| n ºi · · ¬i ¤ ¤i n l ¬¤i r
¬¬¬ ·i | - ºi ni - ¤¤ ·r| r ¬i - · ;¬ ¤ -nº ¬ n| ¬º|
¤ l ·n - ¤ ¤ ·n ºi · · ¤ n| n ¬i «ni ¤i r | (¤ ¬ zss÷zs«)
"I had got down inside Trench No. G-7 and had seen that
trench, had inspected Layer No. 6 of this trench. After this
trench had been dug very deep, I did not see it by getting
inside this trench. When I first went to the excavation site,
this Trench G-7 had not been excavated completely. In
second and third line of the aforesaid paragraph I have
stated that 'on basis of colour, constitution and
construction, they appeared to be silt category deposits.'
By the word 'appear' it means that it could be and could
not be a deposit of silt category. Stated on his own that
'however as per my experience of river section, the
probability is maximum that it is silt deposit and its correct
conclusion cannot be derived till its chemical analysis has
been carried out in laboratory. I have not carried out its
3993
chemical examination in laboratory because I could not
carry out its examination as its sample was not available. I
had not asked for its sample. By the word 'appear' used by
me in fifth line of this paragraph as well, I imply the
same what I have given for the word 'appear' used in
third line of this paragraph."(E.T.C.)
- · ¬¤· - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi÷s ¬| ·¸ ¬º| n·ii n|¬º|
¤l·n - ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ·r ¤ l ·n¬ nn ¤ n| n ·r| ri ni r
;¬ ºi · · ¬-¸ r - ¤ ¤ ·n ºi · · ¤ n| n ¬i ·r| ni - ¤¤ r
¬i - · ¬·i | ¬¤· +¤º «¤i · - «ni ¤i r , ;¬¬i ni - ¤¤
ri ¬¬· n·i i · ri ¬¬· ·i ·i ¬ r | (¤ ¬ ÷zs«)
"In the second and third line of para-3 of the affidavit of my
examination-in-chief, I have stated that 'It does not appear
reasonable'. The word 'appear' used in the said
sentence, means the same as just stated above by me in
my statement. It implies both 'possible' and 'not
possible'. "(E.T.C.)
l·,i· l¬ºr¬ni ¬l·i··ni · ¬i·i| ¬i ·¤i· ¬·¬ - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬
ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi c (B)(iv) (ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬i ¤ ·- / · s) ¬| ¬i º
l·¬i¤i l¬¬- ¤r l¬ªii r ¬i r l¬ ¬ ¤º « ¬i +¤º| ·iin ·i¬i ¬-i·
... º n, n-· ¤· ¬ º¤·i ¬| · l·- ¬ ¤ · ·i ·i i ni - ri ·i ¤ n| n
ri ni r ¤ri ¤º ¤ n| n ri ni r , ¬i ni - ¤¤ ri ¬¬·
n·i i · ri ¬¬· ·i ·i ¬ r l¬·n ¤ri ¤º - n ¤r ¬r·i r
l¬ · nil·¬ ¬· ¬ ·ii· - ¬·i| ·i| l¬¬| ªii ¬ ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¤r ·r| ¬ri
¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ · ri ¬¬· ¬| l-·iln ·r| ¬i ¬¬n| r | (¤ ¬ z«·)
"The learned counsel for the cross examiner drew the
attention of witness to para 6 (B)(iv)(page 7&8 of the
affidavit) of the affidavit of his examination-in-chief
wherein it has been stated that the upper deposit of Layer
No. 4, again appears to be in two parts from the point of
3994
colour, constitution and construction. Here 'appears'
implies both 'possible and not possible', but I have to
state at this stage that in scientific research it can never be
said regarding any discovery that the stage of not possible
cannot arrive." (E.T.C.)
- º ¬· ¬iº n ·n¬i¬ n|¬º|, ¤i ·i| ºini··| ; ¬·| ¬ s-| ºini··| ; -·|
n¬ ¬i ¬i¬ r | s-| ºini··| ; -·| ¬ «i· ¬i ¬i¬ ¤i-- n ·ni
¤|lº¤· ¬ri ¬ini r | -· ¤ ¬i ¬ ·i i ºn ¬ ;l nri ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬ -
·z·| ºi ni · ·| ¬ ¬· n ¬ · ·s·| ºi ni · ·| ¬ ºi ª¬i n ¬
-i ·i ¬i ni r | ¬~n·n ¤|lº¤· ¬| ºi ª¬in ·zoc ; -·| ¬ -i·|
¬in| r | ¬ri n¬ - n --ººi r ¤r ¬ n « · ·|· ¤ «¬ ¬i ¬-¤
·ii|(¤ ¬ z«z)
"According to me the Gupta period extends from third,
fourth century AD to 6
th
century AD. The period subsequent
to 6
th
century AD, is called the post-Gupta period. The
period of medieval Indian History is considered to be
from last of 12
th
century to beginning of 13
th
century. The
beginning of sultanate period is considered to be from 1206
AD. As far as I remember, it was the period of Qutub-ud-
din Aibak." (E.T.C.)
¤¬ ¤ ºin-·l·· ¬ ª¤ - ¬|o¤|o¬iºo ¬| ¬i; l-l¤¬ lº¤i - ¤º
l·º·i¬ ¬ºni r¸ | .....¤ ºinil-·¬ · l·- ¬ ¬|o¤|o¬iºo ¬· ¬ ,iºi
¬i ¤·il-¬| l-¬n| r ¬¬¬| ¤ l·- ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-ªi·· ¤· ¬i·¤i ,iºi
ri · ¤º ¬¬ ¤ ·- r ¬i -i·i ¬i¤ ni| (¤ ¬ zcc)
"As an archaeologist, I believe in the scientific report
of GPR. . . . .The anomalies found in a GPR survey, from
archaeological point of view, are treated confirmed upon
confirmation by archaeological excavation and evidences."
(E.T.C.)
¬|o¤|o¬iºo ¬ l¬· l¤¬º« ¬ ¬ n·ii --·¤º ¬| ¬-ªi·· ¬ ,iºi ¤ l·-
3995
¬| n; ¬¬¬i l··ººi ;¬ lº¤i - - r l¬·n ¬¬¬ - ¬r-n ·r| r¸ |
l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º ¬- ªi ·· ¬ l n · l ¬--- ¬| l ·l ·i
¬¤·i ; n; ·i | | ¤r ¬· nºi · - | ¤ -nº ¤º -i · ¤ni ¤ i · n
l ·l ·i r | ¬- ªi ·· - ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ·i | ·i ;- ºi ·¬
l ·l ·i ¬ l º¬i l · n ¬| n; r | - ·¤ ·i;¬ n·ii ¬ ¤º·ir¬
¤i -i n i¤| ¬| n; r | l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ·l- ¬¬ n·ii ri º|¬ ·-¬ ·i ·i
l·l·i¤i ¬ ¬-ªi·· l¬¤i n¤i r | ¬i l ¬ ¤i ¬i l ¬¬¬ ¬-ªi ·· ¬|
¬i -i · ¤ni ¤ i · n l ·l ·i r , ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬i º r| l ··i l ·n -·i ¬
¤º ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ¬- ªi ·· l ¬¤i n¤i r l¬·n ¬ s ¬·¤
¤r¬ ¬i ¬| ¬·· ªi| n; r | (¤ ¬ zcs)
"The details of those pillar bases and structures of GPR,
which have been verified by excavation, are found in this
report but I do not agree with them. The grid system
method of excavation was used at the disputed site. It is
a method recognised at international level. In
excavation, the ASI has carried out recoding by three
dimensional method. Photography has been carried out
trench-wise and layer-wise. Excavation has been carried
out at the disputed site by both vertical and horizontal
methods. The excavation at the disputed site has been
carried out by ASI as per the recognised method of
archaeological excavation, but few other aspects have
been overlooked." (E.T.C.)
¬-ªi·· - ¤|º|¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¬ ·i nº|¬ r , ¤r¬i -nº|¬ººi ·¸ ¬ºi ¤ i·n
¬·ºi ·i ¬i -nº|¬ººi ¬ ¤iº-¤lº¬ ¬ « ·i| - ¬-nni r ¸ l¬ ¤r ·i ·i
l·l·i¤i ¤|º|¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¬i ¬i·iiº ·i| r ¬iº l·l·i ·i| r | ¤ ºin-· -
·i¤· --| ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ·i| ¬i¬ l··ii ººi ri ni r ¤l· ¤ i¬ ln¬ ¬·ºi ·i
¤ i·n r ¤ ri | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l ¬ ¤ ºi n- · -
¤| º| ¤·i ; ¬ ºi · ¬ l ¬¤ n| · nº| ¬ r ¤r¬i ¬ ¤º ·i ;¬ ,
·¸ ¬ºi ·i ¤· --| ·i ;¬ , n| ¬ºi ¬ · ¤ º| ·i ;¬ | ¤r ¬r·i
¬r| r l ¬ ¬ · ¤ º| ·i ;¬ ¤| º| ¤·i ; ¬ ºi · ¤ ºi n- · -
3996
-i · ¤ni ¤ i · n · ni l ·¬ l ·l ·i r | - ¤¬ ¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ¬ ª¤
- ;¬ «i n ¬ ¬r-n r¸ l ¬ ¬ · ¤ ºi ·i ;¬ ¤| º| ¤·i ;¬ ºi ·
;¬¬i ¬«¬ ¬·si nº| ¬i r | ¤o ¤¬o ¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - -
¤|º|¤·i;¬ºi· ¬ ¬« ·i - ¤¬ ¤·-º ºªii r | ;¬ ¤·-º ¬i - ·
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r | ¤o ¤¬o ¬i; o lº¤i - - n|·i l·l·i¤i ¬·i in ¬ ¤º
·i;¬ , ¬ ·¤ º| ·i;¬ n·ii ·i¤· --|·i;¬ ¤|º|¤·, ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º
¤|º|¤·i; ¬ ºi· l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ zcs)
"There are two methods of periodization in excavation.
Firstly, stratification. Secondly, by co-relation of remains
found with stratification. I understand that these two
methods are not only bases but also methods of
periodization. In Archeology, dating is done on the basis of
dynasty as well, if relevant remains have been discovered.
It is correct to say that there are three methods of
periodization in archeology. First is layer-wise, second
dynasty-wise, third century-wise. It is correct to say that
century-wise periodization is a recognised and scientific
method in archeology. As an Archaeologist, I agree that
century-wise periodization is its best method. The ASI has
dealt with periodization in a chapter in its report. I have
studied this chapter. In ASI Report, periodization has been
done by all three methods i.e. layer-wise, century-wise and
dynasty-wise period."(E.T.C.)
l·,i· l¬ºr¬ni ¬l·i··ni · ¬i·i| ¬i ·¤i· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i -
·i~¤¸ - · ¬ ¤ ·- ss ¬ni¤n «« ¤º l·¤ n¤ ¤|lº¤· ¬ o · ¬n i¤n s
¤º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i n·ii ¬i·i| ¬ ¤r ¤¸ si l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi l·¤ n¤
;· ¬·i| ¤|lº¤·i - ¤|º|¤·i;¬ ºi· ¬| ¬¤ºi ·n n|·i l·l·i¤i ¬i ¤ ¤i n
l¬¤i n¤i r ¬·i·i ·r| , ¬i·i| · ;¬ · ªi· ¬ «i· «ni¤i l¬ rº
¤|º|¤·i ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬ ¤º, ¬i¬ ¤· ¬ ¤ º| ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l¬¤i n¤i
r | ¬ ¤ º| ¬i ¬~¬ ªi rº ¤| l º¤· ¬ ¬i ·i l ¬¤i n¤i r |
(¤ ¬ z/o)
3997
"The learned counsel for the cross-examiner drew the
attention of witness to period no. 1 to 9 given at page 38 to
44 of ASI Report Vol. 1 and asked the witness whether the
aforesaid three methods of periodization had been used or
not by the ASI in all these periods. After looking at it the
witness stated that layer, period and century have not been
mentioned in respect of each period. Century has been
mentioned with each period."(E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬ ¤ º| ¬
¬· ¬iº ¬i ¬i¬ nºi·i ¬| n¤| r ¬¬¬ - ¬r-n ·r| r¸ | ;¬ ¬ « ·i
- - ¤r ¬r·i ¤ir¸ ni l¬ ¬ ¤º, ·i¤· --| n·ii ¬ ¤ º| l·l·i¤i ¬i
¤ ºin-· ¬| · l·- ¬ ·i ·iini - l··iil¬n l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r | ¤r¬i
º ¬l-· · l- n - ·i· ·¸ ¬ºi ¤«¬i ¬¸ - · l- n - ·i·| ¤o ¤¬o ¬i; o ,iºi
¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· ¬ «iº - ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¬i ¬ri n¤i r ·r ¬r| ·r|
r | ¬ ¤ º| l·l·i ,iºi ¬i ¬i¬ ¬i l··ii ººi l¬¤i n¤i r ¬· lnl·i¤i ¬i
l··ii ººi ¬i ¬º ; ¤º (¬i º ··i ) ,iºi l¬· l·l·i¤i ,iºi lnl·i l··ii ººi ¬|
¬in| r | ;· l·l·i¤i ,iºi lº¤i - - ¬ ¤ º|·i;¬ ¬i lnl·i l··ii lºn ¬|
n; r | ·r ¬· l·l·i¤i ¤º ¬i·iilºn ·r| r | ;¬¬i ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬
lº¤i - - ¬ ¤ º| ,iºi ¬i ¬i¬ nºi·i ¬| n; r ·r ¤·¬i~¤¸ - ·l- n
- ·i· ¤º ¬i·iilºn ·r| r | ¤·¬i~¤¸ - · l- n ¬ ¬·nn n ¬i« · · l- n
n·ii ¬·¤ l·l·i¤i ¬in| r | ¬i « · · l - n ¤| l º¤·i ;¬ ºi · ¬i ¤¬
· ni l ·¬ nº| ¬ i r | ¬i -i · ¤n ¬i « · · l - n ¬ ¬i l nl ·i
¬i n| r , ¬¬¬i ¬r| -i ·n r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬| lº¤i - - ¬i« ·
· l- n ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¤¬ ¬¤ l··¬ - l·¤i n¤i r l¬¬¬i - · · ªii r | ¤
o¤¬o¬i ; o · ¬¤· ¬¤ l ··¬ - l ¬· ¬i « · l nl ·i ¤i ¬i
¬~¬ ªi l ¬¤i r ¬·- ¬n·i n ¬l ·i ¬i ºi l nl ·i ¤i ¬ ¬ « · i
- ¬ ¤º ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l¬¤i n¤i r | ¬n ¬¬¬| l·º·¬·|¤ni
¬ · r¤ · ri ¬in| r | (¤ ¬ z/·÷z/z)
" I do not agree with the period determination done as per
century by ASI in its report, in respect of periodization. In
this behalf I would like to say that layer, dynasty and
3998
century methods can be divided in two parts from the point
of archaeology. First, relative dating method, second,
absolute dating method. The version of ASI in its report
regarding periodization, is not correct. The dates of period
determined by century method, have been determined by
solar year, by which method dates are determined. The
dates determined century-wise in the report by these
methods, are not based on those methods. It implies that
the period determination done in the report by centuries, is
not based on absolute dating method. Carbon-dating and
other methods fall under absolute dating. Carbon-dating is
a scientific method of periodization. Usually the date
determined by Carbon-dating is accepted as correct. An
appendix regarding Carbon-dating is contained in ASI
Report, which has been seen by me. Layers have not been
mentioned in respect of most of the Carbon dates
mentioned by ASI in its appendix. Hence, its credibility
becomes doubtful." (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¤·o«|o¤|o··¬¸ o ¬i ¬i¬ ¬i ¤|lº¤·
· ¬ ª¤ - s-| ºini··| «|o¬|o ¬ n|¬º| ºini··| «|o¬|o l·ªii¤i r,
¬¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ z/z)
"I agree with the period of NBPW shown by ASI in its
report as Period-I from 6
th
century BC to 3
rd
century
BC."(E.T.C.)
;¬| ¤ ¬iº ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬ lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - · ¬ ¤ ·- «o ¤º ¤|lº¤· r
¤i -- n ·ni÷ºi¬¤¸ n ¬ l·¬ ¬i /·| ¬ ·o·| ºini··| ¤o·|o «ni¤i n¤i
r , l¬¬¬ - ¬r-n ·r| r¸ | - º ¬· ¬i º ¤r ¬·l ·i ·s·|
ºi ni · ·| ¬ ·r·| ºi ni · ·| ¤o·| o ri ·| ¤i l r¤| ;¬| ¤ ·- ¤º
¤|lº¤· c -·¤¬i¬|·÷¬~n·n ¬ l·¬ ¬i ¬i¬ ···| ¬ ·z·| ºini··| ¤
o·|o «ni¤i n¤i r , l¬¬¬ - ¬r-n ·r| r¸ | - º ¬· ¬iº ¤r ¬i¬
3999
·s·| ºini··| ¬ ·r·| ºini··| ¤o·|o ri ·i ¤ilr¤| ;¬| lº¤i - ¬ ¤ ·-
«· ¤º ¤|lº¤· / ¬ ª¤ - -·¤¬i¬|· ¬l·¬ ¬i ¬i¬ ·z·| ¬ ·c·|
ºini··| ¤o·|o «ni¤i n¤i r , ;¬¬ ·i| - ¬r-n ·r| r ¸| - º
¬· ¬iº ¤r ¬i¬ ·s·| ºini··| ¬ ·r·| ºini··| ¤o·|o ¬ ¬·nn n r|
¬i· ni| ;¬| lº¤i - ¬ ¤ ·- «s ¤º ¤|lº¤· viii (- n ¬ ¬l·¬) ¬i ¬i¬
¬ ¤ º| ¬ ¬· ¬iº l··ii lºn ·r| l¬¤i n¤i r | - º ¬· ¬iº ¤r ¬i¬ ·c·|
ºini··| ¤o·|o ¬ -i·i ¬i¤ ni| ;¬| lº¤i - ¬ ¤ ·- «« ¤º ¤|lº¤· s
l¬¬ ¬ - ¤·· ¤i-- - n ¬ ¬ l·¬ ¬ri n¤i r, ;¬¬| lnl·i ·i| ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¬ ¤ º| - l··ii lºn ·r| ¬| n; r, - º ¬· ¬iº ¤r ¬i¬
·c·| ºini··| ¬ ·/·| ºini··| ¤o·|o r | - º ¬· ¬iº ¤|lº¤· s n·ii
¤|lº¤· s ¬i ¬ - ¬l·¬ ·c·| ¬ ·/·| ºini··| ¤o·|o r | ¤i -- - n ¬
¬l·¬ ·/·| ºini··| ¬ ¬« n¬ ri ¬¬n| r | ;¬| ¤ ¬iº - º ¬· ¬iº
¤|lº¤· c ¬iº ¤|lº¤· s ¬i ¬i¬ ·s·| ºini··| ¬ ·r·| ºini··| ¤o·|o
r | ¤|lº¤· / ¬ ¬ « ·i - ·i| - · ¤r| ¬ri r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº - ¤
o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi l ¬¤ n¤ ¬i ¬ l ··i i ººi ¬i ¤| l º¤· r, c
n·i i / ¬i l ¬¤i n¤i r , ¬ ¬¬i ·i ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi l ¬¤
n¤ ¬· ¤ ¬i ¬ l ··i i ººi ¬ ¬r-n r ¸ | (¤ ¬ z/s÷z/«)
"In this very manner, on page 40 of the ASI report, Vol. I,
Period-5 Post Gupta-Rajput Level is stated to be belonging
to 7
th
to 10
th
century AD, with which view I do not agree. In
my opinion, this period ought to be from 13
th
century to
15
th
century. On this very page, Period-6: Medieval-
Sultanate Level has been ascribed to 11
th
to 12
th
century
AD, with which view I do not agree. In my opinion, this
period ought to be from 13
th
century to 15
th
century. On
page 41 of this very report, the Medieval Level is stated to
be Period-7 and to have spanned between 12
th
century and
16
th
century AD; with this view too I do not agree. In my
opinion, this period would be covered under the period
spanning between 13
th
century and 15
th
century. On page
43 of this very report, Period-8 (Mughal Level) is not dated
4000
in terms of century. In my opinion, this period will be taken
to have begun from 16
th
century. On page 44 of this very
report, Period-9, termed as Late and Post Mughal Level,
has also not been dated in terms of century by the ASI. In
my opinion, this period is from 16
th
century to 17
th
century
AD. The Post-Mughal Level may be from 17
th
century till
date. In this very manner, the span of Period-6 and Period-
9, in my opinion is from 13
th
century to 15
th
century AD. I
have stated this very thing in reference to Period-7 as well.
In this way, with the exception of dating done by ASI in
respect of Periods 5, 6 and 7, I agree with the dating
done by it in respect of other periods." (E.T.C)
- · ¬¤·| - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬i ¬i ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¤ -n n l¬¤i r , ·r ¤ ·ii· ª¤
¬ ¬|÷/ - ¤ ¬ ¬·¤¤· ¤º ¬i·iilºn r , ·¤i l¬ - ¤ ¬|÷/ - r| · ¤ º¬
-·i¤¬ n¬ ¬i -nº|¬ººi ¬ ¬i·¤ ¬¤¬··i r ¤ r , · l¬¬| ¬·¤ - ¤ -
¬¤¬··i ·r| r | - ¤ ¬|÷/ ¬i ;¬ ¤ ºi-·i¬ ¤º r ¤ ¬-ªi·· ¬i
;º· ·¬ - ¤ ·i| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r | - º| · l·- - - ¤ ¬|÷/, ;º· ·¬ - ¤
ri ¬¬n| r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n l¬· ¬·¤ - ¤i - ·l¬ · -·i¤¬ n¬
¬-ªi·· r ¬i r , · - ¤ ¬ - º| · l·- - ¬n· -r-·¤¸ ºi ·r| r |
(¤ ¬ zsc÷zs/)
"The affidavit I have filed at my Examination-in-Chief,
depends mainly on the study of Trench G-7, because
stratigraphical evidences which have been discovered upto
the depth of natural soil in Trench G-7 itself, are not
available in any other trench. Trench G-7 may also be
termed as index trench of the excavation carried out on this
archaeological site. Trench G-7, in my opinion, may be an
index trench. Besides, other trenches wherever excavations
have been carried out upto the depth of virgin soil, are, in
my opinion, not so important." (E.T.C)
1
4001
¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬|l-n ¬-¤ - -io ¬·¤ ·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬ l·· ºii· ¬iº
ri º| ¬ -¬ n·i i ·l - ¬¬ ·i ·i l ·l ·i ¤i ¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬i ¤
¤¸ ºi l ¬¤i , ¬i ¤¬ ¤ ºi ¬·| ¤ ¬i ¤ r , l ¬· n l ¬n·| ¬-
¬·l ·i - ¤r l º¤i - ¤ ¬i l ºi n ¬| n; r , ·r ¤ ºi ¬·| ¤
·r| r | - º l·¤iº ¬ lº¤i - ¬| ¤ -n ln ¬ l¬¤ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬i ¬i º
¬-¤ l·¤i ¬i·i ¤ilr¤ ·ii| l¬¬ -nº ¬i ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º l¬¤i n¤i ·ii, ¬¬¬| lº¤i - ¤ -n n
¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ¬i ¬- ¬ ¬- s -ir ¬i ¬-¤ ¬i º l·¤i
¬i·i ¤ilr¤ ·ii| ¬- ¬-¤ - lº¤i - ¤ -n n l¬¤ ¬i· ¬ ¬iººi ;¬
lº¤i - - ¬· ¬ l·l-¬ ¤ ¬| r | (¤ ¬ zso÷zs·)
"Under the orders of Hon'ble High Court, the ASI by
using both the horizontal and vertical methods
completed excavation work in a limited time, which is
an appreciable work; but a short span of time in which
this report has been published is not appreciable. In my
opinion, the ASI ought to have been given more time for
submission of report. Considering the level of excavation
work which had been undertaken on the disputed site by the
ASI, it should have been given at least six months' more
time for submission of report. On account of submission of
report in less time, this report suffers from many
discrepancies." (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¤i;·¬ -- -|n i¤| n·i| ¬-·i· r, ¬« ¬¬ - ¤
- ¬ln- -nº n¬ ¬-ªi·· ¤¸ ºi ¬º l¬¤i ¬i¤ | · ÷- ÷· ºl¬--º -
¤ i;·¬ -- -|n i¤| ¬i l¬ªii ¬i·i ¬-·i· ·r| ri ni r | ¤ lnl·· ¬
¬-ªi·· - ¬i ¬i-ln ¤i l-¬n| r , ¬¬| ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬¬- l¬¤i ¬ini
r | ¤ º·nn ¬-ªi·· ¬ «iº - · ÷- ÷· ºl¬--º - ¤ lnl·· ¤ i·n ri ·
·i¬| ·-n ¬i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i n¤i r | - · · ÷- ÷· ºl¬--º ¬i ¬¤·|
- ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i ¤¤ - ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬ «l·in ¬¤·i -n ·¤·n ¬º·
¬ l¬¤ ¤¬ ¬i·iiº «·i¤i ·ii, ;¬¬i ¬iººi ¤r r l¬ ;¬ ·-ni· ¬ ¬
-i·¤- ¬ r- · ÷- ÷· ¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤ i·n ¬i-ln ¤i ¬i l··ººi l-¬
4002
¬¬ni ·ii ¬iº ¤r ¬i·¬iº| ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ,iºi ¤ i·n ·r| ·i||
(¤ ¬ zs·÷zsz)
"It is true to say that final stratigraphy is possible only
when excavation is carried out upto the last level at the
concerned trench. It is not possible to write about final
stratigraphy in Day-to-Day register. Whatsoever materials
are discovered at each day's excavation are mentioned
therein. As far as the excavation in question is concerned,
materials discovered therefrom on each day have been
mentioned in the Day-to-Day register. I used the Day-to-
Day register as a basis to express my opinion on the
excavation, in the affidavit filed at Examination-in-Chief;
its reason is that I could through this document get details
about the materials discovered at Day-to-Day excavations
and this information was not forthcoming from the ASI
report." (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·i ºi· ¬·i·i ¬¬¬ «i· ¬« - ·
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i l·l¬ - l¬¤i ·ii, n« - · ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ¬|
n; -- -| n i ¤ | ¤i ¬-ªi ·· ¬ «i º - ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·r|
¬-i ; ·i | | (¤ ¬ zsr)
"It is true to say that when I, during or subsequent to the
excavation, visited the disputed site, I raised no objection
about the stratigraphy or excavation carried out by the
ASI." (E.T.C)
3838. The statement extracted above shows self
contradiction and lack of clarity on the part of PW-24.
3839. PW 29, Jaya Menon, is co-author of the objections
filed on behalf of PW 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report. It is for this
reason that she was examined first before re-examination of PW
16 and 24. The affidavit of PW 29 is dated 28.9.2005 and her
4003
cross examination was conducted from 29.9.2005 to 19.1.2006.
PW 24 was examined second time when he was produced in
respect to ASI report by filing his affidavit dated 5.12.2005 and
the cross examination conducted from 5.12.2005 to 4.1.2006. So
far as PW 16 is concerned, on third occasion his affidavit is
dated 20.2.2006 and cross examination held from 20.3.2006 to
28.7.2006. It is for this reason probably that the periodization/
chronology vis-a-vis its co-relation with various finds and
structures etc. found by ASI have been assailed in para 8 (from
para 8.1 to 8.6) of the objections of plaintiff 1 (Suit-4).
However, in her affidavit dated 28.9.2005, PW 29 has changed
her stand and in para 4 and she says:
“4. That the ASI Report has problems with stratigraphy
and chronology, which may be summarised as
under:-
(A) That as many as 15 pieces of terracotta figurines of
later periods were reported from earlier levels, an
impossible situation if deposits were actually
stratified. In fact, deposits from Gupta period
onwards are not stratified and the material is all
mixed up. This is a point that is not debated by the
ASI and has been repeated several times through the
Report.
(B) That there are clearly problems with the stratigraphy
which is indicated by other inaccuracies. If one
calculates the total depth of deposits in different
periods from a single trench such as G7, it is clear
that there are gaps. Specifically, in G7, there is 1
metre deposit for Period 1(NBP), 1.6 metre for
4004
Period II (Sunga), 1.5 metre for Period III (Kushan),
2 metre for Period IV (Gupta), 0.9 metre for Period V
(Post Gupta), 0.75 metre for Period VI (Early
Medieval), 0.6 metre for Period VII (Medieval) and
0.25 metre for Period VIII and Period IX has not
been indicated (as derived from Chapter III). This
totals up to 8.60 metres of cultural deposits.
According to the ASI, the total cultural deposit is
10.80 metre, which means that almost 2.20 metre is
not accounted for. Not only this, Appendix IV, at the
end of the book, mentions total depth dug for Trench
G7 as 13.45 metre. Even if the ASI points out that the
lower layers in G7 belong to a pit and we accept
their depth for natural as 10.80 metre, it still means
that there is a massive pit of about 2.65 metre depth,
which is a trifle difficult to imagine. There could have
been a fill as there is in Trench J3, but not a pit of
such dimensions.
(C) That the ASI also mentions a continuous cultural
occupation of the site. However, if we examine Plate
5 of the Final Report, a layer with no cultural
material (termed in archaeology as a sterile layer)
can be clearly seen, for example, below layer 4. The
ASI has marked out this layer but has not numbered
it. Sterile layers indicate periods when there was no
habitation or occupation. These layers are ascribed
to the Early Medieval/Sultatnate period (Period VI)
in the tentative periodization of the site. There is
then a possibility that there was no Early Medieval
4005
occupation and there was a gap between the Gupta
and the Medieval periods. This had been noted as
early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from
the Department of Ancient Indian History and
Culture, of BHU, Varanasi, which had noted a
desertion of the site between the Early Historic and
Medieval periods. (By neglecting to indicate the
sterile layers and their implications, the ASI is trying
to project a continuous occupation of the site from
the Early Historic to the Medieval periods. Neither
the stratigraphy nor the artefacts, however,
substantiate such a claim. There is a certain bias
here, which again goes against the norms of
archaeological objectivity, to force a certain
interpretation on the material, that from the 10
th
century AD onwards the area was occupied by
Hindu religious structures.)
(D) That in the same context, the layering of fill deposits
in J3, J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to
show continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It
was only when complaints were made that these fill
deposits were acknowledged but eventual
registrations of artefacts from these deposits in the
final Report were left uncorrected.
(E) That in archaeology, structures can be dated if there
are special construction techniques or material,
known specifically to have been used in a particular
period, such as lime-surkhi from the end of the 12
th
century AD. Structures can also be dated on the basis
4006
of associated artefactual material coming from
stratified contexts in association with the structures.
But when the material is all mixed up from the
Gupta period onwards, it is impossible to neatly
slot structural remains into periods of post-Gupta,
Early Medieval or Medieval levels.
(F) That in this attempt to force a particular
interpretation on the material that cannot be
substantiated, there is bound to be confusion and
discrepancies. Confusion is clearly indicated by the
manner in which floors are numbered at various
places in the text. The same floor is given different
numbers, some floors appear and disappear, their
extent keeps changing and so forth.) The numbering
of floors in association with so called “pillar bases”,
mentioned in the Table on pages 56-67 of the Final
Report does not match with those in Fig. 8,9,10,11,12
and 13. On page 41, it is mentioned that the earliest
floor extended in the eastern area up to the H series
of trenches in sub-period VIIA. In sub-period VIIB,
the next floor extended up to trenches J4-J5-J6. On
page 42, it is indicated that in sub-period VIIC, the
floor associated with the “pillar bases” is the most
extensive on the mound. In Fig. 23A, however, Floor
4 (the earliest floor) is shown as extending all over
the mound while Floor 3 and Floor 2 are more
restricted, providing a completely contradictory
picture.
(G) That the tentative periodization and schematic cross-
4007
section of the mound that has been provided between
page 37 and 38 of the Final Report does not provide
a layer-wise description of all the trenches. For
example, no information on layers has been provided
for important trenches like E8, F8, F9, G8, G9 and
G1. Even for trenches that have been mentioned in
the diagrams, we have no indication of the layers
below Floor 4 in important trenches like F3 and
F4/F5. (There should have been a concordance of the
layers of trenches from the north and south of the
site.)
(H) That in some cases strata were marked in almost
complete darkness within trenches such as G8. A
study of stratigraphy within a trench requires careful
examination of the sections to discern differences in
colour and texture of soil. Obviously plenty of light
is required for such a study. Even though there were
arrangements for artificial light, very often this was
not used as in the case of Trench G8 and yet strata
were marked and antiquities registered as from
particular layers.”
3840. PW 29, this time has taken stand which substantially
conforms to that of PW 24. In cross examination, she said :
“I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal
periods but with the rest of the periods I do not agree.
According to my information N.B.P.W. should be dated
from 600 B.C. to 100 B.C. whereas Shunga period is
second century B.C. which would overlap the N.B.P.W.
N.B.P.W. denotes Northern Black Polished Ware. N.B.P.W.
4008
is well known pottery of Northern India. From my point of
view archaeological periods should not be distinguished
on the basis of dynasties Kushan period is dated from Ist
to 3
rd
century A.D.” (Page 71)
“I have mentioned in para 4-A of my affidavit that deposits
from Gupta period onwards are not stratified. In this
regard I have to say that all the materials of earlier and
later periods, were mixed up. If the material is mixed up it
does not give a correct picture of the stratification.” (Page
74)
" I do not agree with the periodisation of the disputed site
at Ayodhya as shown by ASI in Chart, at page No. 37-A of
the ASI report, Volume-I" (Page 45)
"In para 3 A of my affidavit I have mentioned about
terminology ad periodization. The defects in terminology
and periodization show confusion in the report. Due to the
defect of terminology and periodization, the report of
ASI is also biased." (Page 70)
“Terminology and periodization play a significant role
but they are not most important. The terminology and
periodization can be changed. I would also have
problems with archaeologically identifying periods
according to dynasties. I do not know about universal
periodization.” (Page 70)
“Learned counsel drew the attention of witness towards
A.S.I. Report Vol. 1, (Text) at page no. 37-A. The witness
stated that in last column of page period has been
mentioned but I am not in agreement with this
periodization.” (Page 71)
4009
"… I think that the stratigraphy shown in this plate, is
correct. The layers are distinct in texture.” (Page 111)
“Starting period of Muslim rule in India is from 1206 A.D.
i.e. of Qutubuddin Aibak. I don’t know whether this period
is known as Illawari Turk. According to renowned
historians, the period before 1206 A.D. is known as
Early Medieval period. Since I have not read the book by
B.S. Smith, therefore I cannot say whether he refers to the
period from Harsha till 1200 A.D. as Rajput Period. I have
not heard about Anoop Sanskrit Library of Bikaner. I don’t
know whether the most authentic version of Prithviraj Raso
written by Chandbardai is maintained in this library. … I
would say Rigveda can be dated from 1500 B.C. Alexander
invaded India in 327-325 B.C. Mauryan dynasty was
established in 321 B.C. The Mauryas were succeeded by
Sunga dynasty. Sunga dynasty is dated from 2
nd
century
B.C. to 1
st
century B.C. Archaeologically, the periods
cannot be categorized on the basis of dynasties.” (Page
115-116)
“I will not agree with the statement even in para 1 to 5 just
because the period VI and VII have been changed in
nomenclature. In my view A.S.I.’s period V, and period
VI and period VII should be considered as Early
Medieval.” (Page 129)
“Stratigraphy is a term used in Archaeology. Stratigraphy
is the study of layers as they are formed over time. … The
Archaeology periods can be fixed on the basis of centuries.
Centuries can be put into various periods for the purposes
of study. Harappan period is dated from 2600 B.C. To 1900
4010
B.C. from 600 B.C. various Mahajanpad period was
followed by the Nandas and the beginning of Mauryan
period. During 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. the two dynasties
ruled while the Mauryan dynasty continued beyond 300
B.C. also." (Page 144)
"It is correct to say that for the purpose of periodization,
the method of century-wise study is better and preferable
to that of dynasty-wise. The period 800 AD to 1200 AD
falls within the Early Medieval period, which started much
earlier to 800 AD. … Early Medieval period lasted from
600 AD to 1200 AD. I know the periods in terms of pre-
Gupta, Gupta and post-Gupta periods. According to me,
Gupta period begins from fourth century AD and continued
up to sixth century AD and prior to that, was the pre-Gupta
period up to the time immemorial. Pre-Gupta period would
date back to 600 BC and post-Gupta is from 600 BC to
1200BC." (Page 150)
"Medieval period would be post 1200 A.D. According to
archaeology periodisation is on the basis of stratigraphy.
Ques- Will it not be correct to say that there are three well
established norms of periodisationm that ism no. 1 layer,
wise 2. century wise 3. Dynasty wise. ?
ANS- It is not correct to say that 'periodisation' in
archaeology can be done on the basis of 'dynasties'.
I do not agree that periodisation can be done century-
wise. Century-wise periodisation is covered by stratigraphy
or layer wise study. The numbering of the layers is done
from top to bottom. Where as periodisation is ascertained
from bottom to top.” (Page 182-183)
4011
“A.S.I. has mentioned about periodisation in its report. It is
correct to say that A.S.I. has adopted all the three methods
of periodisation mentioned above in its report. It is wrong
to suggest that A.S.I. has mentioned in its periodisation by
layers, century and dynasties. According to me some
periods were identified on the basis of century wise and
one was identified on the basis of archaeological
culture. I think A.S.I. has identified nine periods in its
report. According to me century has been mentioned in
all the above nine periods. Dynasty wise report is not
mentioned in all the above mentioned nine periods. A.S.I.
has given details of dynasties of four periods. The
dynasties mentioned by the A.S.I. are Shungas. Kushans,
Guptas, Mughal. A.S.I. has not mentioned any dynasty
other than the Mughal for the medieval period... I don't
agree with the identification of the period 'post Gupta
Rajput level. According to me the post Gupta Rajput part
of the period should be called as early medieval period
which should extend upto 1200 A.D. According to me
post' Gupta Rajput period will be period from 7
th
century
to 1200 A.D. … The term post 'Gupta Rajput period' is
used in archaeology, not in history. I have not heard about
the term Medieval-sultanate period in archaeology. I do not
agree that the period of 12
th
century is called as medieval
sultanate period in archaeology. Medieval period is
considered from 1200 A.D. Till the colonial period that is
13
th
century till 18
th
century.” (Page 183-185)
“I have heard about periodization on the basis of
dynasty. It is prevalent and used in Archaeology.
4012
Probably dynasty wise periodization commenced in the
1940's. It is correct to say that Medieval is a phase in
history.” (Page 186)
“I do not correlate medieval period with Islam because
Islam reached the sum continent much earlier. Islam
reached Sindh in 8
th
century AD. Islam would have reached
probably in Kerala through traders in 8
th
or 9
th
century AD.
I am of the opinion that in archaeology century wise
periodization is possible particularly for the earlier
periods. I think it will be more or less correct to say that
century wise periodization is correct method of
periodization in archaeology.” (Page 187)
“I have not done detail study of the periodization given
in appendix 1 on the bases of carbonating. As such I am
unable to express my opinion about information given in
appendix 1. As regards sample no. 9, which from trench
G7 (layer 20) is dated 1680 – 1320 BC. This layer
according to ASI was a pit and so these early dates have
little meaning.” (Page 188)
“ Periodization was done on the bases of layers, centuries
and dynasties. … I will not agree with periodization.
...According to me in history the dynasty wise, century wise
periodization for period is correct. In my opinion
periodization in history and archaeology is different. In my
opinion in archaeology the periods referred above as
period 1 to IV is the Early Historic period. . . .I will not
agree with the sun division on the basis of dynasty that has
been provided by ASI.” (Page 189-190)
“According to me the terms for identification for periods in
4013
history and archaeology are different but not altogether
different. . . . It is more or less correct to say that
periodization on the basis of centuries is correct." (Page
193)
3841. A few thing, which we may say immediately to
show apparent false allegations are that para 4(B) of the
complaint said that according to ASI, the total cultural deposit is
10.80 metre but Appendix IV, at the end of the book, mention
total depth dug for trench G7 as 13.45. The complainant
probably has not seen the report properly which says that the
natural soil was found at 10.80 metre but the ASI people dug the
trench further to find out and ensure the presence of natural soil
and this fact they have also mentioned in the report. Similarly,
PW-29 on the one hand stated that she agree with N.B.P.W.,
Mughal and late post Mughal periods, but do not agree for rest
of the period (Page 71) while PW-24 has expressed his
agreement with all other periods except 5, 6 and 7. Similarly, on
page 70, PW-29 says that terminology and periodization are not
most important while PW-24 has expressed a different view on
page 186 and says stratigraphy is the backbone of any
excavation. The statement of PW-29 on page 186 is
contradictory to what she has said on page 182-183.
3842. PW 30 (Dr. R.C.Thakran), though assailed ASI
report on the ground of lack of integrity and manipulated
nomenclature etc. but its main stress is not that of wrong
interpretation but she says that ASI has interchangeably used
periods VI and VII according to convenience so as to co-relate
the Finds, structural or otherwise, with a period which may give
it a desired result. The part of objection with respect to
4014
periodization of PW 30, we have already noted above in para
535 from page 598 to 602. In the cross examination, however,
he has said :
¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬iº ¬-ªil·n ¬i-n | ¬ ¬- l¤n l·º¬ ·iºi ¬ l¬¤
- ¤ ¬| -- -|n i¤| ¬i l·lº¤n niº ¤º «r n -r-· r |
¤ o÷ -nº÷ l··¤i¬ ¬·ii n l·l·i·· -nºi ¬ l··ii ººi (-- -|l¤¬ºi· ¬i¤
¬ ¤¬ ) ¬i ·¤i ¬i·iiº ri ni r`
¬o÷¤ ºin-· - l¬¬| ·i| -nº (¬ ¤º) ¬i l··ii ººi ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¬¬ -nº
l·ºi ·i - ¤i¤| ¬i· ·i¬| ¬i-n | ¬i -·ª¤ · ¤ºn ¬| «·i·- - l¬¬
nºr ¬| l-- -| ¬l--l¬n ri n| r , ¤r -nº÷l··ii ººi ¬º· - - ª¤
¬i·iiº ¬i ¬i- ¬ºn r |
¬« ·i| ¬·i| ¤ ºin-· - ªi ·i; ¬ ·i ºi· ¬ ¤º ¬| ¤r¤i· ¬|
¬in| r, n« ¤r ·i| ¬i··i ¬i·º¤¬ ri ni r l¬ ¬¬ ¬ ¤º ¬| l-- -|
¬| ¬ º¤·i ·¤i r , ¬¬¬i º n ·¤i r , ¬¬¬| ¬-i ºni ¬ ¬| r, ¬¬-
-i··÷l·l- n ¬i-n | r ¤i ·r| , ;· ¬·i| «ini ¬i l·ºi·i ·¤i· ºªii
¬ini r | ri¬i l¬, ¬¤ºi ·n ¬i·iiº «r n -r-·¤¸ ºi r , ¬ l¬· ;¬¬
«i·¬¸ · ·i| -·n ¤ni (¬ ¤º¬ ) ¬ ¤r -¤·- ri ni r l¬ ¤ i¤|· ¬i¬ ¬
¬·ºi·ii ·i¬| ¤r ¬ ¤¬ l·i·· l·i·· r | ;·¬| ¤r¤i· ¬º· ¬ l¬¤
¤ ºin-·· -ni ¬i r| ¤ ºin-· l·¤-i ¬ ¬· ¬iº ;· ¬ ¤¬ ¬|
¬¬n÷¬¬n ¤r¤i· ¬º·| ¬ªº| ri n| r | ¬ ¤¬ ¬| -i -i;
¬¬n÷¬¬n ri ¬¬n| r , -i -i; ¬¬n ri · ¬ l¬¤ l·l·i·· ¬iº¬ ri
¬¬n r | (¤ ¬ cs÷c«)
“Question:- What is the basis of stratification of layers ?
Answer:- In stratification of any layer, the form of the
material discovered in that particular layer and the type of
soil inherent in the formation of its coats, work as main
bases in archaeology.
In archaeology, whenever identification of a layer is
carried out in course of digging, it is also necessary to
know what the soil structure of that layer is, what its
colour is, how hard it is and whether man made materials
4015
are in it or not. All these facts are specially taken into
account. Despite the afore-said bases being very important,
it is not clear from layers themselves that these layers
comprised of remains of the ancient time are different. For
their identification, it is necessary for an archaeologist to
separately identify them in accordance with rules of
archaeology. The width of layers may be different which
may be due to several factors.” (E.T.C.)
- ·¤ ¬ ªii · ¬i· ¤º -- -|n i¤ | ¬| ¬ ¤¬ ¬| -il¬ n (·-«lº n) +¤º
¬ ·|¤ ¬| ¬iº ¬| ¬in| r ¬«l¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¤ i·n l·l·i·· ¬i -¬ ln¬
¬i¬i ¬| -il¬ n ·|¤ ¬ +¤º ¬| nº¤ ¬| ¬in| r | ¬nº ¬ ¤º ¬ o z
¤º ¬ ¤º ¬ o s -·iil¤n r ni ¤r -i·i ¬i¤ ni l¬ ¬ ¤º z º l-- n ¬i·
¬ ¤º ·i|| (¤ ¬ cc)
"On trenches being dug up, stratigraphical layers are
marked from top to bottom; whereas several cultural
periods discovered as a result of excavation are marked
from bottom to top. If layer no. 3 is placed on layer no. 2, it
will taken to mean 'layer-2 resting on layer-3.” (E.T.C.)
ºi n ¬ «i· ¬··· · ¬ ·iiºi ¬i¬ ¬in r ¬i º ¬ ·iiºi ¬i¬ ¬ «i· -i -
niº ¤º n ·ni ¬i¬ ¬ini r | n ·n¬i¬ ¬i ¬ n coo ; -·| - ¬i¬º ªi--
ri ¬ini r | n ·n¬i¬ ¬ «i· ¬i-i·¤ niº ¤º ¬¬| l-l··¬ ¤|lº¤· ¬|
;lnri¬ - ºi ª¬in -i·| ¬in| r | ¬¬| l -l ··¬ ¤| l º¤· coo ¤
o·| o ¬ ºi ª ri ni r ¬i º l ·~¬| ¬~n·n ¬ -·i i l ¤n ri ·
n¬ ¤r| ¬i ¬ ¤¬ni r | l ·~¬| ¬~n·n ¬| -·i i ¤·i ·zoc
; -·| - r ; ;¬| l ¬¤ coo ¤o·| o ¬ ¬ ¬º ·zoc ¤o·| o ¬i
¬¬| l -l ··¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬ ·i - ¬ ¬i ·i ¬i ni r | coo ¤o·|o
¬ ·zoo ¤o·|o ¬ «|¤ - l·~¬| ¤º ¬· ¬ ·ºii ¬ ºi·¤ ¬-¤÷¬-¤
¤º ºr | - ª¤ ni º ¤º nr· ·i¬, ¤i ri·, n¸ ¬º ¤ lnriº, ¤i¬ ·¤ ¬il· ¬
ºi·¤ l·~¬| · l·~¬| ¬ ¬i¬ ¤i¬ - ºr | l¤º ¬ri l¬ ¤i¬ ·¤ ¬i
·i ¤ l·~¬| ¬ ¬i¬÷¤i¬ ·r| ·ii, ·r ¬-nº| -riºi·- - ri ni ·ii| ¤r
-|¬ r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ¤iºi · ºi¬ ¬¤· ¬i ºi¬¤¸ n ¬rn ·i | ¤r -| ¬
4016
r l ¬ ¬i ; ;l nri ¬¬i º ¤l · l ¬¬| l ·ºi · i ·i ¤ ¬i ¬¬|
l -l ··¬ ¬i ¬ ¬ ºi ¬¤¸ n ¬i ¬ ¬ ¬ «i l · i n ¬º·i ¤i r , ni
¬º ¬¬ni r , ¤º·n ;lnri¬ - · r· ª¤ - ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬i ¬¬|
l-l··¬ ¬i¬ ¬ ·i- ¬ r| ¬i·i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ ···÷··z)
"The Shunga period is followed by Kannav and Kushana
periods and the Kushana period is, roughly speaking,
followed by the Gupta period. The Gupta period comes to
an end in 600 AD. Generally, the history of early
medieval period is considered to have started after the
Gupta period and this very period continues up to the
emergence of Delhi Sultanate. The Delhi Sultanate
came to be established in 1206 AD and hence the period
spanning between 600 AD to 1206 AD is known as early
medieval period. Between 600 AD to 1200 AD Delhi was
under the reign of several dynasties from time to time.
Mainly, Gahadwals, Chauhans, Gujar-Pratihars,
Chalukyas, etc. had their reigns in Delhi and its adjoining
areas. (Further Stated ) The territory of Chalukya was not
in and around Delhi; it was in northern Maharashtra. It is
true that those belonging to the afore-said four dynasties
called themselves Rajputas. It is true that if any historian
wants to name a particular period as the Rajput period
under early medieval period, he can do so but this period,
under the broader division in history, is known only as
early medieval period.” (E.T.C.)
·i¤·l--¬ ¤|lº¤· - ºi n, ¬ ·iiºi, n ·ni n·ii ¤i -- n ·ni ¤|lº¤· ¬ini
r | ¤i -- n · ni ¤| l º¤· - r| ºi ¬¤¸ n ¤| l º¤· ¬i ¬l - -l ¬n
¬º l ¬¤i ¬i ni r | ;¬¬ «i · ¬i ¬i ¬ ¬~n·n ¬i ¬ ¬ri
¬i ni r | ¬~n·n ¬i¬ ¬ «i· - n¬ ¬i¬ ¬ini r | - n¬ ¬i¬ ¬
«i· ¬-nº - n¬ ¬i¬ ¬ini r | ¬-nº - n¬ ¬i¬ ¬ «i· ¬i·i l·¬
4017
·iiºn ¬i¬, l¬¬ l« l-ºi ¬i¬ ·i| ¬ri ¬ini r, ¬ini r |
- n¬ ·i¤· --| ¬· ·rzc ; o ¬ ¬ ¬º ·/o/ ; o n¬ - ª¤ niº
¤º -i·| ¬in| r - n¬· ºi ¬i ¤ iº-·i «i«º · l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ ·sz)
“The dynastic periods include Shunga, Kushana, Gupta
and post Gupta periods. The Rajput period is included in
the post Gupta period itself. Its subsequent period is
called Sultanate period. This Sultanate period is followed
by the Mughal period. The Mughal period is followed by
later Mughal period. The later Mughal period is followed
by modern Indian period, which is also called the British
period.
The Mughal dynasty is mainly dated from 1526 to
1707. Babur ushered in the Mughal dynasty.” (E.T.C.)
l-l··¬ ¬i¬ ¬¤· - l·-n n ¬i¬ r ¬i ¬· coo ¤o·|o ¬ ºi ª
ri ¬º ¬· ·/o/ n¬ ¤¬ni r ¬iº ;¬ ¤¸ º ¬i¬ ¬ ¬·nn n ¬; ¬¤
¬i¬ r , ¬ ¬ ¬· coo ¬ ·zoo n¬ ¬¬| l -l ··¬ ¬r¬i ni r
¬i º ¬· ·zoc ¬ ·rzc n¬ ¬~n·n ¬i¬ ¬ri ¬ini r · ¬· ·rzc ¬
·/o/ n¬ - n¬ ¬i¬ ¬r¬ini r | (¤ ¬ ··s)
“The medieval period in itself is a broad period which
begins from 600 AD and continues up to 1707 and the
whole of this period has many sub-periods, for example-
the period between 600 to 1200 AD is called Early
Medieval period; the period between 1206 to 1526 is
called Sultanate period and the period between 1526 to
1707 is called the Mughal period.” (E.T.C.)
·i i ºn| ¤ ¤ ºi n- · ;l nri ¬ - - l -¬- ¤| l º¤· ºi · · ¬i
¤ ¤i n ·r| r ¬i r , ¬ l ¬· l « l -ºi ;l nri ¬¬i ºi · ·i i ºn| ¤
;l nri ¬ ¬ -· ¤ ¬i ¬ ¬i - l -¬- ¬i ¬ ¬i l «n ¬º· ¬|
¬i l ºi ºi ¬| r | . . . . . . . ¬ - ¬ l -¬ · ;¬ ¬i ¬ ¬i
- l -¬- ¬i ¬ ¬i ·i - l ·¤i r | ¬ - ¬ l -¬ · ¬~n·n ¬i ¬
4018
· - n¬¬i ¬ ¬i - l -¬- ¬i ¬ ¬ ¬ ·º ºªi i r ¬·ii n - l-¬-
¬i¬ ¬ ¬ ·º ¬¤¬i¬ ¬ ¬·nn n ¬¬ -i·i r | (¤ ¬ ··s÷··«)
“The words 'Muslim period' are not used in Indian
archaeology and history but British historians have tried
to establish the Medieval period of Indian history as the
Muslim period . . . . . .. James Mill has named this
period the Muslim period. James Mill has placed the
Sultanate period and the Mughal period under the
Muslim period, that is to say, he has taken them to be sub-
periods of the Muslim period.” (E.T.C.)
···| ºini··| - nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬i ¬i ºi·¤ ¬··i ¬ ¤º ·ii|(¤ ¬ ··s)
“In the 11
th
century, Kannauj was under the reign of
Gahadwal rulers.” (E.T.C.)
·iiºn|¤ ;lnri¬ - l¬¬| ¤|º|¤· ¬ i ;-¬il-¬ ¤|lº¤· ·r| ¬ri
¬ini r | - · ¬¤·| - ª¤ ¤º| ·i i ¬ ºi ¤·i ¤¤ - ¤¬ ¬nr
¤º ;-¬i l -¬ ¤| l º¤· ºi · · ¬i ¤ ¤i n l ¬¤i r , - ºi ;¬¬
ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ ;¬ ¬i¬ - ·¬ ·· -i;~¬, ·¬ ·· ¤i -º| ¬i -l-¬· -
¤ ¤i n l¬¤i n¤i r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| ·r| r l¬ ;lnri¬ -
¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· ¬ ·i-¬ººi ¬i ¬i ; -r-· ·r| r | - · ¬¤· ºi¤·i÷¤¤
- ;-¬il-¬ ¤|lº¤· ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n ;lnri¬ n·ii ¤ ºin-· ¬ ¬···i -
·r| l¬¤i r , «l~¬ ¬ s ªii¬ n·¤, l¬·¬| ¤¤i +¤º ¬| n; r , ¬
¬-«··i - l¬¤i r | - · ;¬ ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n ;-¬il-¬ ¤ ¤¬·i ¬ l¬¤
l¬¤i r | ... - · ¬¤·i ºi ¤·i ÷¤¤ ¤¬ ¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ¬ ª¤ -
¤ -n n l ¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ zzs÷zzs)
“No period of Indian history, is called ‘Islamic period’. I
have used the term ‘Islamic period’ at one place in the
affidavit of my examination-in-chief, by which I mean
that glazed tiles, glazed pottery were used in mosques in
this period. It is not correct to say that nomenclature of
periodisation has no importance in history. The term
4019
‘Islamic period’ has not been used by me in my affidavit
with reference to history and archaeology, and instead has
been used for certain particular facts, which have been
discussed above. I have used this term for Islamic
practices. …I have filed my affidavit as an
archaeologist.” (E.T.C)
;lnri¬ - n·ii¬l·in ;-¬il-¬ ºii¬¬i ¬ ºi·¤ ¬i ¬i¬ ¬· ·zoc
; o ¬ ºi ª ri ¬º ·s·| ºini··| ¬ -·¤ n¬ -i·i ¬ini r | ¤ri ¤º
n·ii¬l·in ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ -· ¤¬i ¬ ¬ ;¬ ·i i n ¬i
;-¬i l -¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬ ·i - ¬ ·i | ¬-nn r | «r n ¬
;l nri ¬¬i ºi · ;¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬i ;-¬i l -¬ ¤| l º¤· ¬ri r |
- l¬¬| ¤ ¬ ¤ l¬, ;lnri¬¬iº ¬i ·i- ¬·i·i ¬·¬| ¤ -n¬ ¬i ·i-
·r| «ni ¤i+ ni, l¬·ri · ¬·i·i l¬·¬| ¤ -n¬ - ;-¬il-¬ ¤|lº¤·
ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i ri | ... ;lnri¬ - ·i¤· --| ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬i¬
l··ii lºn l¬¤ ¬i· ¬i - -|¬ ·r| -i·ni r¸ , ¤º·n ;lnri¬¬iºi ·
·i¤· --| ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬i¬÷l··ii ººi l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ zzs)
“In history, the period of the alleged Islamic rulers is taken
from 1206 AD to mid of 18
th
century. By ‘alleged’, I mean
that this portion of the medieval period is taken as
‘Islamic period’. Many historians have termed this
period as ‘Islamic period’. I will not be able to name any
famous historian or his book, where the term ‘Islamic
period’ has been used. … I do not approve determination of
periods in history, on basis of dynasty but historians have
determined periods on basis of dynasties.” (E.T.C)
(Note: The statement on page 229 is contrary to what the
witness has said on page 228)
¤ o÷·¤i ;lnri¬ - l¬¬| l·ºi ·i ¬- ·i¤ ¤i ¬-¤ l·-| ¬·i·i l¬¬|
l·ºi ·i ·n ¤i l¬¬| l·ºi·i ·i- ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬i¬¬ - ¬i l··ii ººi l¬¤i
¬ini r`
4020
¬o÷«r n ¬ ;lnri¬¬iº ;· ¬i·iiºi ¤º ;lnri¬ ¬i l··ii¬· ·
·i-¬ººi ¬ºn r , ¬ l¬· ;lnri¬ ¬ · nil·¬ · l·-¬i ºi ¬ ;¬ ¬l¤n
·r| -i·i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ zs·)
“Question:- Is period determined in history on basis of any
particular community, class or religion?
Answer:- Many historians divide and name history on these
bases, but from scientific view of history, it cannot be
considered proper.” (ETC)
¤ o÷¬i¤¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ¬-nº ¬ ·¤i - ¤r ¬-n¸ l¬ ¬i¤ ,iºi ¤ ¤ ·n
;-¬il-¬ ¤|lº¤· ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n ¬l¤n ·r| r `
¬o÷ ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| ·r| r , ·¤i l¬ - · ;¬ ¬···i - ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬
l·¬i¬÷¬ - ¬ l·ºi ·i ¤ ¤¬·i ¬| nº¤ ;ºiiºi ¬ºn r ¤ ¤ ¬i l¬ªii r |
(¤ ¬ zs·)
Question:- Should I infer from your above reply that the
use of term ‘Islamic period’ by you, is not proper?
Answer:- It is not correct to say so, because in this
reference I have mentioned so by referring to the particular
practices of development-chain of this period.”(E.T.C)
¬-ªi·· - ¬ ¤¬ ¬| ·-«lº n +¤º ¬ ·|¤ ¬| ¬i º ri n| r n·ii
¤|lº¤· ¬i l¤ ·¬ºi· ·|¤ ¬ +¤º ¬| ¬i º ri ni r | (¤ ¬ s«r)
“At excavation, layers are numbered from the top to the
bottom and fixation of periods is done from the bottom to
the top.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i ; o · ¬i ¤| l º¤··i ;¬ ºi · ¬ ¤¬ ¬ ¬· ¬i º
l ¬¤i r , ·r ¬r| r , ¤º·n ·i-¬ººi ¬ lr¬i« ¬ ¬r| ·r| r ¬iº
· r| · ºii·¬| ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º l¬¤i n¤i ·i-¬ººi ¬l¤n r |
¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· ¬| · l- n ¬| - ª¤ niº ¤º ·i l·l·i¤i r ÷
·. ¬i¤l·i¬ l·l·i
z. · nil·¬ l·l·i
lº¬l-· ¤|lº¤·i; ¬ºi· ¤¬ ni -- -|n i¤| ¬ - nil«¬ ¬i º ·¸ ¬º|
¤r¬ ¬| ¬ -¬ ln ¬| ¬i-n | n ¬·i--¬ l·º¬ ·iºi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º|
4021
¤·¬i ~¤¸ - · ¬i;l-l¤¬ l·l·i¤i ¤¬ r| r | ;¬ l·l·i ¬i ¬ i ·i l-l- ¬ ·i|
¬rn r | ¬i« · · l- n - ·i· · ·i-i ~¤¸l-l·¬ ¬ - ·i ·, · · i ¬ i ·i ¬i ¬|
· l- n - ·i· ¬il· r | ¤r ¬r·i r- ºii ¬ l¬¤ ¬r| ·r| ri ni l¬
¤·¬i ~¤¸ - · l- n ¤i · nil·¬ l·l·i ¬ l¬¤i n¤i ¤|lº¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¤¬·-
-|¬ ri ni| ¤r ¬r·i ·i| ¬r| ·r| r l¬ ¬i;l-l¤¬ l·l·i ¬i
¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· ¤ i¤ ¬r| r| ri ni| -nº|¬ººi ,iºi l¬¤i n¤i
¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· ·i| ºin ¤ lnºin l·ºii ¤¬ ·r| ri ni| ·i ·i l·l·i¤i ,iºi
l¬¤i n¤i ¤|lº¤·i; ¬ ºi· n·ii ·i ·i l·l·i¤i ,iºi n ¬·i--¬ l·º¬·iºi
¬º|«÷¬º|« ¬r| -i·i ¬i ¬¬ni r , ¤º·n ¤·¬i ~¤¸ -¬| ¬··¬¸ l¬«
·r| | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| - ¬i;l-l¤¬ l·l·i ,iºi
l¬¤i n¤i ¤|lº¤·i; ¬ ºi· ¬··¬¸ l¬ · r| ri ni| ·¤i l¬ ;· l·l·i¤i ¬ ,
iºi ¬i lnl·i¬ººi l¬¤i ¬ini r ·r ¬-ªi·· - ¬-ªil·n l¬¤ n¤
¬ -¤¬ ¬i ¤ ¤i nºii¬i - l¬¤ n¤ l·º¬·iºi ¤º ¬i·iilºn r ¬i º ¬ -¤¬
¬ n ··n ¬l¤n ¬i··iil·¤i «ºn·i, ¬ -¤~¬ ¬| ¬r| ¤ l¬ n ¬º·i,
¬ -¤~¬ ¬| ¬r| -il¬ n ¬º·i ¬iº ¬ -¤~¬ ¬i ¤¬·- ¤ i¬ ln¬ ºil·n¤i
¬ ¤ ·iil·n ri ·i ¬i·º¤¬ r | (¤ ¬ sr·÷srz)
“The periodization which ASI has done on the basis of
layers, is correct, but the same, when based on
nomenclature, is not correct, nor is it proper to name them
(i.e. periods) on the basis of genealogies. There are mainly
two methods of dating through periodization -
1. Relative method
2. Scientific method
Relative periodization may be based on stratigraphy
and on the comparative analysis of the materials of the
earlier culture. Absolute and scientific methods are one and
the same .This method is also called chronometric. There
are methods known as carbon-dating method, thermo-
luminescence method, dedo -chronology dating method,
etc. It will not always be correct to say that periodization
carried out through absolute dating or scientific method
4022
will be entirely correct. It is also not correct to say that
scientific method of periodization will often be correct .
The periodization carried out through stratification is also
not cent percent conclusive . Periodization and
comparative analysis through both the methods, may be
considered to be almost correct . But they are not
absolutely conclusive . It is wrong to say that in
archaeology the periodization carried out through
scientific method will certainly be conclusive , because the
dating done through these methods is based on analysis
done in laboratories ,of samples excavated in course of
excavations . And while taking samples, proper care should
be exercised, samples should be properly packed and they
should be properly marked. And it is natural for samples to
get absolutely influenced by natural forces.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o · -- -|n i¤| ¬ ¤ ·-º - ¬i« · · l- n ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º l¬¬
· l- n ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r , ¬¬ - ¬r| ·r| -i·ni, ·¤i l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o
¬ ,iºi ¬i ¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· l¬¤i n¤i r , ·r r| ¬· l¤n r | ... ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¬ ·¤ º|¬ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬| n; ¬i¬ nºi·i ¬| l·l·i ¬i
- ¬r| -i·ni r¸ |
¤ º·÷ ·¤i ¬i¤¬i ;¬ «in ¬| ¬i·¬iº| r l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·|
lº¤i - - l·l·i·· ¬ ¤¬ ¬| ¬i¬nºi·i ¬i ºini··| - l¬¤i r , ¬¬-
¬i« · · l- n ¬ lº¬~- ¬i ¬i·iiº «·i¤i r `
¬-nº÷ ¬ ·i·n ¤r ¬r| r , ¤º·n - ºi -n r l¬ ¬ ·¬ -i¤ ¬i« ·
· l- n ,iºi ¤ i·n ¬| n; · l- n ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬i¬ l··ii¬· ¬i ¬r|
·r| -i·i ¬i ¬¬ni r | (¤ ¬ sr«)
“I do not take to be correct the dating, done through
carbon dating method, about which A.S.I. has mentioned
in a chapter on stratigraphy, because the periodization
itself carried out by ASI is improper. … I take to be correct
4023
the method of century-based reckoning done by ASI.
Question:- Do you have the knowledge that the dating of
several layers which ASI has in its report done in terms of
centuries, is based on the result of Carbon-dating method
applied to them ?
Answer:- It is perhaps correct but my opinion is that the
division of time done on the basis only of Carbon-dating
cannot be treated to be correct.”(E.T.C.)
(Note: The statement of witness is contrary to what PW 24
has said as also this very witness has stated on page 351
and 352)
3843. PW 31 did not make any comment with respect to
stratification but PW 32 has virtually towed the line as that of
PW 24 and 29 in her affidavit. She has said in para 6 of her
affidavit dated 27.3.2006 about stratigraphy as under:
“That one of the most important concepts in archaeology is
stratigraphy. “The law of superposition states that the book
at the bottom of the stack was put there before, and is
therefore older, than the one placed at the top. Sediments
generally obey this principle as well as the archaeological
materials they contain … The essence of stratigraphic
analysis is determining discrete, superimposed layers of
features and then examining their contents.” It was so
stated by Clive Gamble in his book entitled as
“Archaeology: The Basics”, published by Routledge
(London & New York) 2001. A true copy of the relevant
extract of the aforesaid book is enclosed herewith as
ANNEXURE No. 1. An examination of the stratigraphy as
indicated by the sections of various trenches at the site of
4024
Ayodhya revealed the following three important features:
(i) That only the archaeological deposits of Periods I,
II and III are stratified and hence found in a
primary context, that is in their original place of use
or discard.
(ii) That the deposits from Period IV till Period IX are
not stratified and the material found is in a
secondary context. In order words the
archaeological deposits that have been described of
Periods IV to IX mostly comprise of fill deposits
brought from elsewhere for the purpose of
construction in the Medieval Period. Hence this is
not their original place of use or discard. The
deposits from the Gupta Period onwards are not
stratified is substantiated by the fact that as may as
15 pieces of terracotta figurines of later periods were
reported from earlier levels, an impossible situation
if deposits were actually stratified. The ASI was
Stratifying the layers incorrectly was even pointed
out through a complaint filed on 26.06.2003
regarding Trench G8. In Trench G8, under the top
floor are the brick courses of a wall foundation.
Under these brick courses is a fill deposit. Neither
the foundation nor the fill deposit can be ascribed a
layer. It appears that this stratification was done on
the basis of the calcrete and brick filling that lies to
the east. However, this method of stratification is
completely wrong. The calcrete and brick filling
visible in trench G8 belongs to a single construction
4025
phase and cannot be ascribed separate layers.
Moreover, the area that was excavated on 25
th
June
lies to the west of the clacrete and brick filling. Thus,
if stratification of the filling is wrong, stratifying a
structure in relation to it is also incorrect. The whole
principle behind stratification is to identify
chronologically distinct phases. Thus, a brick wall of
six courses of brick can not be ascribed six different
layers. Similarly, six rows of calcrete alternating with
brick, sandwiched with thick mortar, cannot be
ascribed six different layers, the reason in both cases
being a single construction phase.
(iii) That there is a possibility that there was no Early
Medieval occupation and there was a gap between
the Gupta (Period IV) and the Medieval Periods. If
we examine Plate 5 of the Final Report, a layer with
no cultural material (termed in archaeology as a
sterile layer) can be clearly seen, for example, below
layer 4. The ASI has marked out this layer but has
not numbered it. Sterile layers indicate periods when
there was no habitation or occupation. These layers
are ascribed to the Early Medieval/ Sultanate Period
(Period VI) in the tentative periodization of the site.
A gap in occupation of the site between the Early
Historic and Medieval Periods had been noted as
early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from
the Department of Ancient Indian History and
Culture, at BHU, Varanasi, and later in 1976-77 by
Professor, B.B. Lal and his team from the A.S.I. The
4026
ASI is trying to falsely project a continuous
occupation of the site from the Early Historic to the
Medieval Periods. Neither the stratigraphy nor the
artefacts, however, substantiate such a claim. There
is a certain bias here, which again goes against the
norms of archaeological objectivity, to force a
certain interpretation on the material, that from the
10
th
century AD onwards the area was occupied by
Hindu religious structures.
In the same context, the layering of fill deposits in J3,
J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to show
continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It was only
when complaints were made that these fill deposits were
acknowledged but eventual registrations of artefacts from
these deposits in the final Report were left uncorrected.”
3844. In her cross examination, however, she (PW-32)
says:
“There is no period known as early medieval Saltanate
period. I have not heard any period which is called as
'Early Mughal period'. I came across the 'Early Medieval
Rajput Period' in the ASI report filed in this case. Process
of periodization is based on certain features found in polity,
society and economy. Stratification is based on discerning
layers in sections that have formed due to either geological
or human activities.”(Page 31)
“I mean to say that ASI people have flouted the principles
and methods of stratification, such as the fill deposit has to
be reported as a fill deposit and a pit has to be reported as
a pit but in the excavation in question, the ASI was wrongly
4027
stratifying a pit and in the report they themselves have
gone on record saying that pits in J-3 and also in K-7
and K-8 were wrongly identified as layers and they
themselves admitted that pits were stratified and they
have stated so in the report.” (Page 93)
“Marking of different layer is done on the basis of soil
colour, soil texture, compactness of the soil and cultural
material.” (Page 110)
“It is correct that several layers put together comprise one
cultural period. Contemporary, layer means it is in relation
to some other layers, e.g. Layer 14 in J-3 could be
contemporary with layer 18 in trench G-7, both belonging
to NBPW period. Similarity of number is not necessary
because it may vary from trench to trench.” (Page 111)
“Method of association in archaeology means associated
cultural material in a layer. In a layer, so many different
articles may be found, such as bangles, potteries, bones
etc.” (Page 112)
“I have learnt from the report of Prof. A.K. Narain that the
entire Ayodhya is one site and stratification can be similar.
In archaeology entire Ayodhya would be referred to as one
site.” (Page 130)
“'Stratigraphy' means a study of layers of different
chronological periods indicating what comes earlier is at
the bottom and what follows will be above it and so the
sequences gets built up 'Early historic period' is a term
used by historians to describe the period between sixth
century B.C. and sixth century A.D. and 'medieval' is used
by the historians for the period between 12th and 18
th
4028
centuries. The period between sixth century A.D. to 12
th
century A.D. is called 'early medieval period'. The
medieval period has been further sub-divided into two
periods, namely 'Sultanate period' and 'Mughal period'.
There is no period like pre-Sultanate period.” (Page 23)
“This chronological order was created by James Mill who
wrote the book 'History of India in 1830. 'Filling' means
that for the purpose of construction activities, a ground has
to be levelled and while doing so, some earth is brought
from outside to fill up the uneven ground. ”(Page 23)
“...the whole issue of periodization in history and
archeology is contested and debates are there.”(Page 36)
“Early medieval-6/7
th
century up to 12
th
Century A.D.
Medieval-Generally 12
th
to 18
th
Century A.D.
late medieval-Generally 18
th
century or late Mughal
period.” (Page 107)
“As far as I know Century wise periodization is
recognised under archaeology because certain diagnostic
material do establish chronology in terms of centuries.
Dynasty-wise periodization is a subject of historians
although sometimes Archaeologists do follow it. It is true
that in excavation on the disputed site the ASI has adopted
all the three methods for the purpose of periodization.”
(Page 125-126)
“Volunteers that she does not agree with the periodization
given by the ASI.” (Page 126)
3845. PW 32 in general appreciated function of ASI:
"It is true that each trench was being supervised by an
archaeologist. It is also correct to say that excavation was
4029
being conducted as per norms of grid system of excavation-
which is one of the accepted system of excavation. It is
correct to say that the excavation work was going on in
presence of the parties and their nominees; and two
judicial officers under the orders of the court were also
supervising the excavation. So long I was there, the
presence of the parties, their nominees and supervision
of the judicial officers continued. Generally, for
antiquities, it was three dimensional recording but for other
finds, just a depth was recorded. Photography and Video
recording of trenches and also of antiquities were also
being done.” (Page 121)
“It is true that at the site in dispute, excavations were made
horizontally as well as vertically.” (Page 123)
“It is correct to say that the ASI excavated up to the
required depth.” (Page 125)
“It is correct to say that for getting result in compliance of
court orders excavation by horizontal and vertical methods
were necessary which has been done by ASI. In this case
only vertical excavation was not sufficient.” (Page 147)
3846. From the statement of the six expert witnesses
produced on behalf of plaintiff (Suit-4), we find that all of them
are not unanimous in saying that the entire stratigraphy or
periodization made by ASI is bad or incorrect or suffers such
material illegality or irregularity that the same deserves to be
rejected, which would ultimately may result in rejection of the
entire report itself. Their statements are also contradictory,
vague, confused and based on more of conjectures.
3847. PW 16 on the one hand says that he has no objection
4030
to the categorization of period 1 to 5 (page 455), tried to dispute
the ascertainment of period 6-7 (page 454), then on page 456
made some unclear statement by observing that period 7 should
come after period six as Sultanate period. What appears to us is
that in the ASI report the period 6 has been termed as "Medieval
Sultanate" and period 7 as Sultanate but PW 16 wanted that
period 6 should not be termed as "Sultanate" at all since it
started in 13
th
century. He, however, suggested that in another
manner period 6 ought to have started with 13
th
century if it is
related with "Sultanate period".
3848. PW 24 on the contrary stated that after the first four
periods there appears to be total dissolution for a long time and
this has disturbed the continuity of the period. The 4
th
period
(Gupta period) ended in 6
th
century and thereafter there is a gap
of about 700 years since the further layer of natural deposition
with the evidence of habitation appears to be related to 13
th
century hence total periodization instead of 9 ought to have been
5. He says that 5
th
, 6
th
and 7
th
period has been determined
arbitrarily. The gap of 7
th
century to 12
th
century he has tried to
justify on the ground of flood on account whereof the people
abandoned the place for along time. However, on page 156 he
himself admits that there is no evidence of any disastrous flood
witnessed at Ayodhya between 600 AD to 1200 AD and further
that there are evidence revealing that efforts were made to
prevent such devastating floods. This shows that there had to be
habitation otherwise who took steps for preservation of
disastrous flood and why, if there was no habitation and the
place stood abandoned. His statement on his own is ex facie
contradictory, reflects on a total confusion to his part. Then he
4031
tried to justify his conclusion by stating on page 170 that all the
finds were not discovered from the levels as claimed by ASI and
that is why it could not have determined the period correctly.
PW 16 has not disputed that the finds discovered by ASI were
actually found by them. Then PW 29 says that except NBPW
Mughal and late post Mughal period she disagree for the rest of
the periods (page 71). She pointed out that the ASI had made
some change in the nomenclature inasmuch as in the Chapter of
stratigraphy, period six has been termed as Medieval Sultanate
but in the subsequent chapter of result they have termed period 7
as medieval Sultanate and period 6 has been termed as early
medieval period.
3849. PW 30 on his own evolved a different theory by
suggesting that periodization made on the basis of carbon dating
is not correct though the process of cabon dating has been
appreciated by PW 16 and 24 both. PW 24 on page 170 has
justified layer 5 and 6 as that belonging to early Medieval
Sultanate period but then on page 271 disagree with centurywise
periodization made by ASI.
3850. Two more witnesses namely, Prof. Shereen F.
Ratnagar, PW 27 and Dr. Sitaram Roy PW-28 were also
examined by the plaintiffs (Suit-4). Both of them claimed to be
Expert (Archaeologist). Both were examined before ASI
proceedings. PW 27 basically sought to contradict Dr. B.B. Lal's
observation about Ayodhya based on his excavation thereat
made in 1976-77 and supported the book Exhibit 63 (Suit-4),
("Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition") written by Prof. D.
Mandal criticising Dr. B.B. Lal's report with respect to Ayodhya.
3851. Exhibit 14 (Suit-5) (Register 20, pages 125-127)
4032
contains two pages number 52 and 53 of Indian Archeology
1976-77- A Review. At Sl. No. 75, it talks of excavation at
Ayodhya, District Faizabad conducted by Dr. B.B. Lal and Sri
K.V. Soundra Rajan. It reads as under:
“75. Excavation At Ayodhya, District Faizabad.- In
continuation of last year's work which was taken up under
the project called 'Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites',
excavation as resumed under Professor B.B. Lal of the
Indian Institute of Advanced Study' Simla and Sri K.V.
Soundra Rajan of the Survey, assisted by Sarvashri B.
Narasimhaiah, Rambabu, M. S. Mani, R.K. Sehgal, J, C.
De and A.K. Mishra of the Survey and Surya Kant
Srivastava and R.N. Kaw of the Institute. The work was
concentrated on two important sectors in the ancient part
of the city, namely Ram Janma Bhumi mound and the open
area to the west of Hanuman Garhi, besides a few trenches
at Sita-ki-Rasoi.
The excavation revealed a fairly compact and
working sequence for the antiquity of the place from its
first settlement over the natural soil. This began with the
use of the well-known Northern Black Polished Ware, in all
its shades. At the lowest levels, alongside the Northern
Back Polished Ware, were also found a few sherds of grey
ware, painted with fugitive bands in black pigment along
the rim or obliquely on the exterior. This is taken, on a
consideration of the position of this ware at Sarvasti,
Piprahwa, Kausambi, etc., as the very late and degenerate
phase of the well-known Painted Grey Ware found at
Hastinapura, Mathura, Ahichchhatra, etc. On the basis of
4033
the date available from other sites like Mathura, Sravsati,
Kausambi, etc., it would seem reasonable to ascribe the
first occupation of the Janma Bhumi area to circa seventh
century B.C.”
3852. The statement of PW 27, may not be relevant for the
purpose of testing ASI report. But even otherwise we find that
her deposition and opinion does not inspire confidence and it is
short of the "expert's opinion" which may be termed "relevant"
under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. She admits of having
never visited the disputed site till she appeared as witness in
these cases. She had written "introduction" to Prof. Mandal's
book (Exhibit 63). From her cross-examination it is evident that
she had no experience of field excavation.
"It is correct that in India I have not done any
digging and excavation on my own." (page 52)
3853. She admits of writing things giving hypothetical
sketches with respect to the disputed site:
"It is also correct that at pages 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and
14 some sketches are given in my Introduction. Those
sketches are purely by way of Introduction to the book as
they are hypothetical. It is correct that from pages 16 to 69
is the book itself." (page 53)
3854. Merely on the basis of a photograph entire book and
article etc. has been written. About her own work PW 27 says:
"It is substantially correct that I wrote my critique on
the basis of the said sole photograph." (page 63)
3855. Her lack of knowledge about disputed site is evident
from page 67:
"I am not absolutely certain of the area and extent of
4034
the disputed site at Ayodhya. I do not know in which part of
Ayodhya the disputed site is located."
3856. Though she came to support the book written by Dr.
Mandal criticising Dr. B.B.Lal's report but when specifically
asked whether she agree with the report of Dr. B.B. Lal relating
to Ayodhya on page 75 she says:
"I cannot say in terms of whether I agree or disagree
with them."
3857. She (PW-27) also admitted that there is a possibility
of some structure of the earlier period at the disputed site. On
page 84 she said:
"It is correct to say that I do not rule out the
possibility of any other structure of any other early period
at the disputed site."
3858. Similarly, PW 28, Dr. Sitaram Roy, a retired
Director, Archaeology from the State of Bihar was also
examined in 2002, i.e., before the excavation proceedings
commenced. He tried to make a statement that according to his
studies and as a student of Archaeology he can say that neither
Ram Janam Bhumi temple nor any other kind of temple ever
existed at any point of time, therefore, the question of
construction of mosque after demolition of temple does not
arise. He also tried to dispute stone inscription found in
December, 1992 that the script therein is not of 12
th
century as is
being claimed by other side. Archaeological evidence he can say
that Lord Rama was not being worshipped at Ayodhya in 12
th
century and in 12
th
-13
th
century no temple of Lord Rama existed
at Ayodhya. On the one hand he appeared as Expert
(Archaeologist) and on the other hand he has tried to make
4035
various statements on History and other subjects.
- ¤¬ ;l nri ¬¬i º ¬ ª¤ - ¬·i· · · ¬i ;lnri¬ ¬i
¤ -ilºi¬ n ··i ·r| -i·ni r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·s)
“As a historian, I do not recognise Atharvaved as an
authoritative book.” (E.T.C.)
¬¤i · ¤i ¬ l ¬n· ·i | ·n -i · - l ·º r - l ·º ¬
¬·ºi · i r ¬·- ¬i ¬ ¬ n| · ¬i ·· i i ¬ ¤¸ · ¬i ¤¬ ·i |
¬·i rººi ·r| l -¬ni r | ¤ ¬i «i · - ¬º-·º·i ¬l ·i ¬ ªi
¬ - ¤l ºl ¤n r¸ | ¬ ·i·n ¤r n ·n ¤|lº¤· ¬i r ;¬ ¬-¤ ¤i·
·r| r | ¬º-·º·i ¬l ·i ¬ ªi - - l ·º ¬i l ¬¬ r | (¤ ¬ ·s)
“The temples which are existing at present at
Ayodhya are the remains of the temples, out of them no
instance of any temple dating back to three hundred
years from today is found. I am aware of the
Karamdanda inscription of Faizabad. Probably, it relates
to Gupta period, presently, I do not remember. There is
reference of a temple in Karamdanda inscription.”
(E.T.C.)
“¬i n·| ºi ni · ·| ¬ ¬¤¬« ¬ - l ·º ¬| ·| ·i º ¤º
¤¸ · ¬ «·i ¤| n¤| ºi -, ¬·-ºi , ¬| ni , r· -i · ¬|
¬i ¬ l n¤i ·i | ¬i ¬« ·r| r | ¤r ¬i ¬ l n¤i ·¬·| , n¤i ºr·|
ºi ni · ·| ¬| ·r| , «l ~¬ ¬i n·| ºi ni · ·| ¬| ·i | |
¤ ºi n- ·· - ni ;¬ - l ·º ¬i ¬i n·| ºi ni · ·| ¬i -i ·n
r ·¤i l¬ ;¬- ¬¬ ¬i¬ ¬i ¬l·i¬ ªi l-¬i r l¬¬¬i ·i- r ºi¬i
¬il·-¤¬ · ¬i ¬¤¬« ¬ ¤ i·n ¬l·i¬ ªi| (¤ ¬ zo)
“On the walls of temple of Afsarh of 7
th
century,
there existed images of Ram, Lakshman, Sita, Hanuman
made of lime, which do not exist now. These images were
not of 10th-11
th
century but of 7
th
century.
The archaeologists recognize this temple as of 7
th
4036
century because it contains the inscription of that period,
named as inscription of King Adityasen recovered from
Afsarh." (E.T.C.)
- · lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬i ¤¸ ºi ¤i -i n i¤, -- -¤ ¬ ¤i ¬¬¬i
l·¬i;¤º- - ·r| · ªii r | - · ¬¤·i ¬ ªi l¬ªin ¬-¤ lºi¬i¬ ªi
¬i ¤i ¬¬¬ ¤¸ º ¤i -i n i¤ ¬i · ªi· ¬| ¬ªºn ¬-n| ·i|, ¤º·n - º
¤i¬ ¬i ¬i·i· ·i ¬¬ ¬iºnº · ri · ¬| ·ºii - - ¤¸ ºi ¤i -i n i¤ · ªi
·r| ¤i¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ z«)
“I have not seen full photograph, stampage of the
inscription or its decipherment. At the time of writing my
article, I felt need to see the inscription or its full
photograph, but for wants of means I could not see the full
photograph. ” (E.T.C.)
3859. He tried to dispute the very factam of place of birth
of Lord Rama in Ayodhya. This statement now goes against the
stand of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) in view of the statement made
under Order 10 Rule 4 in April 2009. This witness has no
experience of field Archaeology as is evident from page 66. The
credibility of the said witness, based on his archaeological
conduct is tried to be dislodged by the defendants, in the
following manner:
¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ ¬« - º| ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬¬¬ ¬· ¬i¤
; l·¤i - ·i ¬º| r ; ni ¤ i o ¬iºo¤¬oºi-i ¬¬ ¬ ¬ ·ºi· «i · - ¬·-¤
·i | ¤r ¬r·i l«~¬ ¬ n¬n r l¬ ¬« - l«riº ¬º¬iº - ¤·¬·¬i ººi·
¤ · ¤·¬·· ºi· - ¬i¤|¬º ¬ ¤· ¤º ¬i¤ ºn ·ii ni ¬ s -¸ln ¤i ni¤«
ri n¤| ·i| | - · ¬| ·iº ·i¬ · · ¬i r·| ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r ·r l«riº ¬
¬i ¬i¤ ·n ·i | - º ¬i¤ ¬i¬ - -¸ln ¤i ni¤« ·r| r ; ·i|| ¤r ¬r·i
l«~¬ ¬ n¬n r l¬ n·ii¬l·in -¸ ln ¤i ¬ ¤iº| ¬ «i· ¬i ; ¬¤
¤i-| «·| ·i| ¬iº ;¬ ¬-«··i - - -¤·- ¬º·i ¤ir¸ ni l¬
¤ -|··|-| ¤º· ¬i- - ¬¬ ¤·- ¬ nrn ¬i ; ·i| ¤ i; · - ; l·l·¬¸ ¬¬
¬¤· ¤i¬ ¤ ºi ¬·ºi·ii ¬i l·«··i· ¬ºi¬º ºªi ¬¬ni r | ;¬| ¬
4037
¬·n n ·io ¬iºo«|o¬i r·| ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬|l··i¬ ºi·, ¬i; o¤o¤¬o, ¬ ·i- ¬
¬ s ¤ ºi ¬·ºi·i l·«l··in ¬ºi· ¬ l¬¤ ¬i· ·· ¤¤ · ¬º ·io ¬i r·|,
¬i ¬i¤ ·n ¬ ¬ ·il·· -n ri n r| ¬· ¤ ºi ¬·ºi·ii ¬ ¬i·i ¤¸ ·i ¤¬ n¤ |
·r| ¤ ºi¬·ºi ·i ·io ¬i r·| · l«riº ¬º¬iº ¬i ¬¤· ·i- - ·|·ii
ªii ¬· ¬| ºin ¤º ¬ºin ~ºi ¤º l«riº ¬º¬iº ¬i ¬i ¤ l·¤i| ¤r
«in n¬n r l¬ - º| ¤ ºi· ¬ zo ¤ lnºin ¬| ¬-i n| ri n¤|| ¤r
-| ¬ r l ¬ - º| ¤ ºi · ¬ l «ri º ¬º¬i º · r ¤ l nºi n
¬-i n| ¬| «i n ¬r| ·i | ¤º ·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬ ¬i·ºi ¬ ·r ¬i·ºi
l·º-n ri n¤i| ¬i¬ - ¤¸ º| ¤ ºi· ¤i ºri r¸ | - º| ¤ ºi · ¬|
¬¤ºi ·n ¬-i n| ¬i ¬i · ºi ;¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º r ¬i ·i i l ¬ - ·
¬i r·| ¬i r« ¬i ¤ · -| ¬ -| ¬ ¬i · ¬ ºi ¬i ·r| | (¤ ¬ ss)
“It is wrong to say that when I got job in
Archaeological Survey of India, Prof. R.S. Sharma was a
member in that Selection Board. It is totally wrong to say
that while I was posted as Exploration and Excavation
officer in Bihar Government, some idols had been stolen
away. I have heard the name of Sri Dhar Vasudev Sohani.
He was Lokayukt in Bihar Government. The idols were not
taken away during my period. It is wholly incorrect to say
that any search party was constituted after the 'alleged
theft of idols' and in this connection, I would like to make it
clear that under the Antiquity and Art Treasures Act, any
private individual can keep with him any archaeological
remains after getting it registered. Under this very Act, Dr.
R.B. Sohini soon after his superannuation from the post of
Lokayukt and after submitting an application for
registration of certain archaeological remains in the name
of his son Sri Niwas Rao I.A.S., went to Pune with the
aforesaid archaeological remains. Dr. Sohini handed over
the said archaeological remains to the Bihar Government
4038
on the condition to allot a gallery in his name on
conditional loan it is incorrect that the 20 % of my pension
was deducted. It is correct that the Bihar Government
had said for deduction of 5% from my pension but by
the order of the Court tht order was cancelled. Today I am
drawing full pension. The order for the aforesaid
deduction from my pension was passed on the ground
that I had not prevented Sohini Saheb from carrying
away the antiquity.” (E.T.C.)
3860. However for our purposes, we do not find the above
facts relevant in any manner.
3861. PW-28 has admitted that Dr. R.S. Sharma has been
his teacher and when he was selected for the post of Director
Archaeology and Museum, Bihar by Public Service
Commission Dr. R.S. Sharma was the Expert Member in the
selection board. He also admitted his acquaintance with Dr.
Sharma since 1953 when he was in Post-Graduation (page 83).
His Article (Paper No. 199 C 2) was published in 1996 in a book
where Prof. K.M. Shreemali of Delhi University was Editor.
3862. Supporting stratificaton/periodization made by ASI,
Sri M.M.Pandey submitted that:
I. Archaeology provides scientific factual data for
reconstructing ancient historical material culture,
understanding Archaeology for the past is a multi
disciplinary scientific subject and requires a team of
workers for effective results. Excavation of ancient sites is
one of the major works of Archaeologists. As it is a
scientific discipline, it uses scientific methods in its
working.
4039
II. All Archaeological excavations are revealing and
also at the same time destructive; revealing in the sense
they yield unknown data like structures, antiquities etc,
destructive that as one digs layer after layer, the upper
layer have to be removed to go deeper and deeper to know
more.
III. The area proposed to be excavated is divided into
squares rising grid system and all available latest
recording by documentation system, i.e., photography,
video-recording etc. is done before starting excavation at
desired and appropriate stages so that discovery of all
structural remains and important finds to maintain a
proper record for all future purposes.
IV. In archaeological context, layers (strata) are
occupational and deposits caused by human and natural
activities are generally distinguishable by their colour and
texture as one digs.
V. Layers (strata) are important as they establish the
relation between the structures and antiquities that help in
establishing chronology provided the layer remained
undisturbed.
VI. The thickness of a layer (stratum) also indicates the
time span of activities and occupation..
VII. In some places long walls may pass through several
trenches but these are easily seen through the layers, the
baulk and are retain.
VIII. Archeological excavations and its methods have been
referred in various books. According to the views referred
to by Mr. Brain M. Faigan in his book styled as "In the
4040
beginning an introduction Archeology" as well as
according to the famous archeologist who is considered to
be father of Archeology Sir Mortimer Wheeler in his book
"Archeology from the earth" have settled certain norms of
excavation. According to them archaeological excavation
work is a scientific investigation which is be conducted on
sound research methodology.
IX. Here laboratory work also includes the process of
writing report.
X. Detailed records and accurate measurement are the
foundations of a sound, scientific excavation.
Documentation (recording) throughout the excavation
includes site diary, antiquity register and daybook. This
day book records all events which have meticulously
maintained in this case also. Moreover the day-today
register has been duly signed by their advocates and expert
nominees present on the spot in presence of Judge
Observers.
XI. The antiquity Register is maintained to contain a
special number of each small find, numbered with its level,
trench number, depth below surface and additional
information relating to the layer in which the object was
found. This procedure provides a permanent record of
significant artifacts which must be described individually
in the final report and whose preservation is important.
Lists of 'bag of finds' found during excavation are also
recorded in this register; each bag, especially of common
artifacts like pottery, animal bones, and stone implements
receives a serial number which is recorded in a list in the
4041
back of the small-finds register.
XII. Recording of Site Plan, structures and stratigraphic
sections are equally important. Accurate plans provide a
record of measurement and grid set up before excavation to
provide a metrical framework for trenching. A system of
redial coordinate measurements is used to record the
position of horizontal features, with the radial lines
forming an accurate network of reference points.
XIII. Three dimensional recording of major features and
important artifacts is also a vital part of the excavation
process. Many huts, pits or burial groups are important
merely because of their association with other features or
artifacts. Such information can be recovered only by 3-
dimentional measurements, i.e. by recording the feature's
horizontal and vertical coordinates with reference to the
site grid.
XIV. In Archeology period of construction and
stratigraphy is most important. Stratigrahpy is itself a
scientific basis of periodization. It is based on Geological
law of superimposition. Position of layers and their
relation with structures is the basis for the same. Layers
(strata) have to be worked out on the basis of texture,
behaviour, colour, etc. It has to be seen whether the deposit
is normal or flood deposit, layer (stratum) is disturbed or
undisturbed, relationship of layer with structures, its
contemporary deposit etc. For determination of age of the
layer carbon dating is considered to be most scientific
method. Periodization is done on the basis of finds that
includes pottery, epigraphic materials, artifacts etc.
4042
complied with C-14 dating.
XV. A perusal of chapter 3 of the report makes it clear
that ASI has adopted all the three methods of periodization
and has based its report on sound archeological norms. It
is well settled that periodization is done mainly in either of
the three ways: - (1) Century wise (timeframe
periodization) (2) Dynasty wise periodization (3) Layer
(stratum) wise (Stratigraphically). The dating are of two
types i.e. absolute dating and relative dating. The carbon
dating is considered to be absolute dating being
periodization by scientific investigation. Relative dating is
base on stratigraphical observation. There may be
variation in nomenclature of the periodization amongst the
scholars but there may be no point of controversy in
century wise periodization. However the report mentions
about all the three methods in its reports as is evident from
the report at pages 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 & 44 (volume 1).
XVI. To begin with, i.e. historically the year 1192 A.D., i.e.
12
th
century, is the end of the Hindu rule in Delhi when
Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated by Muhammad Ghori in
the 2
nd
battle of Tarain and Ghori appointed Qutabuddin
Aibak as his nominee to look after the territory of Delhi
which he did although formally he proclaimed himself to be
the ruler (Sultan) only in 1206, after the death of his
master. Thus, for all practical purposes, in Delhi the
Sultanate started during the closing years of the 12
th
century A.D.
XVII. Another world fame renowned scholar of
Indian History professor A.L. Basham used the term
4043
"Medieval Hindu India for Chapter 6, pp. 51-59 in his book
"Cultural History of India", Oxford, 1975".
XVIII. On the basis of well established datable
artifacts, cermacised and C-14 dates, the ASI report has
followed the cultural sequence of Ayodhya as under:-
NBPW= Northern Black Polished Ware
RW= Red Ware
BSW= Black Slipped Ware
GW= Grey Ware
Late & Post Period IX Glazed Ware + RW+BSW
(p.109)
Mughal
Mughal (p.41) Period VIII Glazed Ware + RW+BSW
(p.109)
Medieval Period VII (1200-1600 A.D.) '' " (p.109)
Medieval (p.40) Period VI (1000-1200 A.D.)-
RW+BSW+GW (p.104)
Sultanate
Post-Gupta(p.40) Period V (700-1000 A.D.)-
RW+NBPW+GW (p.98)
Rajput
Level
Gupta Period IV (400-600 A.D.)–RW+BSW+NBPW
Earlier material of pd. III is in pd. IV (p.40)
Kushan(p.39) Period III (100-300 A.D.) – RW
-Triratna Sample (p.85)
-Spouted wide open mouth of Makar (p.85) &
Plate 69/71
Sunga Period II (300-100 B.C.)-
4044
NBPW+RW+BSW+GW (p.39)
NBPW Levels Period I (600-300 B.C.)–
NBPW+BSW+GW+RW (p.38)
It is pertinent to mention here that
The pottery sequence of pd. VII, VIII & IX are the
same. (p.108)
XIX. A perusal of the report submitted by ASI shows that
the excavations were conducted by the ASI in a most
standardized settled norms of excavations, Recording and
writing of the reports were strictly followed. The
excavations were conducted in vertical and horizontal
manners by way of grid system of layout for excavation.
Three dimensional recording were done and principal of
stratigraphy was strictly followed. The Archaeological
excavation being a scientific investigation was conducted
on spot in accordance with settled norms. The trench
supervisor’s note book, diary, daily register antiquity
registers were maintained regularly in presence of the
parties. Three dimensional records were done and
principles of stratigraphy were strictly followed.
XX. The objection of the plaintiffs that in view of the
evidence drawn from the despositional history of the site
there was no habitation at this site after Gupta Period for a
long time. It was reoccupied after a long desertion in 13
th
century A.D.
XXI. In this connection it may be submitted that the source
of this 'evidence drawn' can only be a figment of malicious
mind. The Report mentions on page 271 para one:
"Another noteworthy feature is that it was only duing
4045
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".
XXII. In the same para it further mentions:
"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".
XXIII. From where and on what basis 'a long
desertion' is established and how the site is shown as
'reoccupied in 13
th
century A.D.' is neither clear not
justified.
XXIV. The objection of the plaintiffs that essential
requirement in an excavation report is a chapter that
describes, one after the other, the main strata or levels
found in the excavation, their nature (soil texture, colour,
etc.) and contents. But there is no such section, level alone
a chapter, in the Ayodhya report.
XXV. Periodization has been done on the basis of
finds of a particular layer or set of layers that is on the
basis of contents of the layers.
XXVI. The Chapter III covers all the salient points
required for defining and study of layers and their
respective periods.
XXVII. It is again the 'ostrich attitude' of the objector
who wishfully do not want to acknowledge the existence of
all these features in the Chapter IIII "Stratigraphy and
Chronology" from pp. 37-47 in the Report.
4046
XXVIII. The objection of the plaintiffs that descriptions
given in the report are not always matched by the sections.
The reverse is also true. The report does not states the
period to which layer 6 of J3, layers 4-6 in ZE1-ZF1 And
layers 3-6 in e7 belong.
XXIX. In this connection it may be submitted that on
page 46 of Report in 5
th
line form top it is mentioned that
the material marked those from layer 1 to 6 "belongs to a
pit and the layers are superficial". So far as the period of
the pit is concerned the data unearthed from the excavation
is too scanty to determine, as the successive digging of pits
for later construction in the same spot has obliterated the
earliest pit line that could have dated the pit.
XXX. In any excavation report it is neither required
nor possible to include each and every layer of every
trench excavated while describing the stratigraphy of the
site. However, in general walls 16 and 17 have been
defined along with their associated layers to definite
periods.
XXI. The objection of the plaintiffs that the
numbering of the floors and other details are not according
to the stratigraphy and the report is full of confusion.
XXXII. In this connection it may be submitted that
confusion does not exist in the report rather it has been
created out of lack of understanding of the subject and
because facts are seen in isolation of one another and not
in the right perspective. Archaeological evidences at any
given site are found in different trenches and then they are
put to gather to reach a meaningful conclusion. It is like
4047
completing a jigsaw puzzle. Therefore, any description of it
should be seen and read in the same way.
XXXIII. There is no single trench which has produced
all the floors and layers. Evidence of different trenches has
been shown in the Schematic Cross Section.
XXXIV. The objection of the plaintiffs that the text fails
to mention which particular layers in these (Tr. G2, G7, J5-
J6 and E8-F8) and other trenches pertain to Period VII.
XXXV. In this connection is may be submitted that
since the layers of this period are not regular depositional
layers rather are the filling material brought from out side
to level the area as a preparatory to lay the successive
floors, these floors have been described to belong to this
period. The layers of fill, which are sandwiched between
these floors, naturally become contemporary layers and
therefore, have been defined as belonging to this period.
The excerpt from page 42 of the Report is incomplete and
should be read with the remaining part of the same
paragraph which reads as:
XXXVI. As some places due to differential coverage
area of the floor itself while at some other places due to
destruction or decadence one of these was found missing.
During excavation in different trenches they were named
according to their occurrence from one onwards. The
relative levels can be seen in the cross-sections of the
mound and in the schematic cross section of the mound".
XXXVII. The confusion disappears as it never existed
rather is a concocted one. The division of five areas of
eastern, northern, western, southern and raised platform
4048
are treated in Chapter II "Cuttings" which defines the
limits of each area. Therefore, there is no need to "count"
any trench in any area, rather it should be verified from the
relevant chapter.
XXXVIII. In G2, a narrow strip (about 1 m wide) was
excavated and in that small area with some top layer
disturbances all the floors top floors (upto Fl.4) were
found, since the dividing line for different periods is floors
all the layers in between shall belong to the respective
period, so the layer 3 and 4 also belong to the Period VII.
XXXIX. The objection of the plaintiffs that nowhere is
there any section showing floors numbered "4" or "5" and
no section shows a sequence of floors numbered "1" and
"5".
XL. Prof. Dhaneswar Mandal, who was examined
as PW 24 by the plaintiff as an archaeologist of pre-history,
has been re-examined after submission of excavation report
by the Archaeological Survey of India by the plaintiff Sunni
Central Waqf Board to support the objections filed by them.
It is pertinent to mention that Prof. Dhaneswar Mandal,
who has written a book styled as "Archaeology after
Demolition", had never visited the disputed site before
writing the book. During excavation the disputed site was
visited by him twice as stated by him in his examination in
chief from 10.06.2003 to 15.06.2003 and from 27.09.2003
to 29.09.2003. The entire evidence given by Prof. Mandal
makes it clear that the book was written by him on the basis
of news published in newspapers, magazines, booklets,
particularly paper 118/C. This fact has been admitted by
4049
him. Regarding excavations also he has very clearly stated
that his observations are based on his own observations
without any measurement or actual verification of the site.
Prof. Mandal admits that he has no knowledge about the
disputed site nor ever attempted to see the artifacts,
inscriptions, etc., found at the time of leveling or
excavation of the disputed site. Prof. Mandal in his
statement has admitted that the process of excavation, i.e.,
grid system excavation was perfectly correct which is
internationally accepted mode of excavation. He further
admits the circular sign found during the excavation to be
of Gupta period i.e. 4th-6th century AD which is
undisputedly a non-Islamic construction of pre-Islamic era.
XLI. Dr R.C. Thakran was examined as PW 30 by
SCWB in support of their objections against report of ASI,
who, according to him, has not carried any excavation,
rather during his masters degree course had attended some
excavation at the sites of Mirzapur Karan ka Quila. The
witness, in para 1 of his affidavit, has stated that he is
involved in archaeological research since 1976 and had not
excavated any site. The witness has given various details of
the report in his examination in chief and annexed various
documents but has failed to establish the same, rather the
cross examination proved his statement to be false and
baseless. The witness was in full agreement with the
method of excavation, its marking, recording and listing.
The witness stated that comparative study of
archaeological finds was not possible on his part at the site
and the witness could know about the alleged defects only
4050
after submission of the report. Regarding periodisation, the
witness stated that periodisation from period 7th to 10th
century A.D., as mentioned in page 40 period 5 in report of
ASI is correct but the witness expressed his disagreement
with the nomenclature only. According to the witness early
medieval period started from 600 AD and continues up to
1200 AD. But at page 112 the witness admits that early
medieval period may be termed as Rajput period. Further,
contracting his own admission at page 113, the witness
states that the medieval period starts from 600 AD and
continues up to 1707 AD although further clarifies that
period from 600 AD to 1200 AD is called early medieval
period where as period from 1206 AD to 1526 AD is called
Sultanate period and period from 1526 AD to 1707 AD is
said to be Mughal period. Admitting existence of pillar
bases at the disputed site, the witness states at page 116:
"Maein us report mein likhi ish baat se sahmat hoon ki
pillar bases patthar ke pedestal par tikey huwey
thei....Maeine Ayodhya ki khudai ke dauran sabhi pillar
bases ko dekha thaa. Usmein pedestal stones kahin par
nahin haein, kewal Mata Sita ki Rasoi ki taraf kuchh
pillar bases ke upar patthar paye gaye haein jo pedestal
se bhinna haein." Regarding manufacturing of pillar
bases the witnes stated: "Jabtak maein khudai sthal par
raha aisa nahin hai ki ASI walon nein pillar base
banaye hon, Baad mein agar unhone kuchh kiya ho to
mujhe is baat ka gyan nahin hai.Yadi sabhi trenches
mein lagatar videography ho rahi hon to pillar base
banana sambhav nahin hai. " Regarding use of Chuna
4051
and Surkhi, the witness admitted the same being used in
7th-8th century and also in Gahadwal period. The witness
supporting the third stand taken by SCWB regarding
existence of old mosque/Idgah underneath the disputed
structure stated at page 69: "Khudai ke dauran diwar ko
dekhne se tatha ASI ke report dekhne se mujhe aisa laga ki
Babri masjid ya uske poorva ke masjid/idgah banne mein
jo material punah prayog mein laya gaya wah kahin aas
paas se laakar istemal kiya gaya hai. The witness admitted
existence of Kapot padi door jamb, lotus motif at the
disputed site and has also stated that he has not seen any
such thing in any mosque. The witness who is an atheist
stated that: "Maein Ishwar ya devi devta mein astha nahin
rakhta hoon." The witness admitted that he has no
knowledge nor had ever studied about differences of masjid
and idgah. At Page 187 the witnerss states: "Masjid wa
idgah ke antar ke barey mein maine avashya suna hai,
parantu iske barey maein maine adhyayan nahin kiya. Yah
kahna sahi hai ki masjid wa idgah ke sambandh mein
mainey sa-sapath apna bayaan mukhya pariksha ka prastut
kiya hai ish vidha mein maein vishesh gyan nahin rakhta
hoon.... Keval neemv ki diwar ko dekhkar uparokt donon
antar bata pana mere liye sambhav nahin." The witness
admitted existence of taakh or niches in temples. The
witness at page 191 states: "Mandiron ki khudai ki reports
mein animal bones paye jane ke barey mein maine padha
hai." The witness admits importance of Kalash and floral
motifs for temples and stated that it is used in temples only.
The witness admits circular structure and wall belonging to
4052
Gupta period. A perusal of the cross examination of the
witness at page 356 to 360 makes it clear that the witness
has no idea of the walls and has not identified the same in
spite of filing detailed affidavit and going through the
same. The entire cross examination of the witness makes it
clear that the witness has no idea of excavation and has
tried to support the objection of SCWB merely on the basis
of some bookish knowledge as well as under some
extraordinary circumstance.
XLII. At page 251, the witness (PW 31) admitted that
the ASI had adopted all the three methods of periodisation
and the carbon dating was a scientific mode which was
considered to be absolute dating method. But according to
the witness the Sultanate period was confined to 10th and
11th centuries only. The only objection against
periodisation, according to the witness, was as stated by
him at page 252: "I do not have any objection regarding
periodisation of ASI in which they did not mention early
Sultanate period from 10th to 11th century. In my opinion
one of the objections regarding periodisation is the mention
of early medieval Sultanate period, The periodisation
should not be made on the basis of dynasty-wise."
Regarding periodisation, the witness stated that he was in
full agreement with the periodisation done by ASI but he
was not agreeable to the periodisation of period 6 which is
shown as medieval Sultanate period.
XLIII. The witness (PW-32) has categorically stated
about her presence on the spot during excavation although
so many things have been stated in her affidavit filed by
4053
way of examination in chief. But the cross examination of
the witness proves that, although the witness is not a field
archaeologist, the excavations were conducted by A.S.I. as
per settled norms. Describing fill deposits, the witness
confirmed in her cross examination at page 24 that no
stratification is possible in fill deposit.
3863. From the above, it is evident that the entire
chronology/stratification of ASI has not been condemned/
objected/criticized by Experts of Plaintiffs (Suit-4) but basically
it is confined to 5, 6 and 7 period. PW 16 on page 54 stated that
the determination of period 6 and 7 is contrary to the facts on
the basis of pre-conceived ideas and have been antedated. On
page 455 it says that he has no objection to the determination of
periods 1 to 5. PW 24 does not dispute periods 1 to 4 but then
has made comments against the periods 5, 6 and 7, as
determined by ASI but then on page 170 in cross examination
stated that layer 5 and 6 have rightly been shown belonging to
early medieval Saltnat period and then on page 271 says that he
does not agree with the century-wise periodization made by ASI
and tried to explain the same on page 273-274, and, concluded
that except period 5, 6 and 7 he agree with rest of the
determination made by ASI. PW 29 on page 71 while agreeing
with N.B.P.W. Mughal and late post Mughal expressed for her
disagreement with the rest of the periods. PW 30 without raising
any serious objection with respect to periodization has said that
the periods 6 and 7 have been mentioned in report by ASI
interchangeably creating confusion. PW 31 remained silent with
respect to stratification but PW 32, who is co-author of the
objection filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) against ASI report,
4054
claims that period 6 to 9 are not based on the deposits but the
material found therein is a secondary context and therefore, the
determination of the said period is not correct. These witnesses
have given their different version in support of their opinion or
understanding which are not in general harmony with each other
and therefore, it cannot be said that all the witnesses have
provided similar or common reasons against that part of
stratification/chronology of the ASI which they have challenged.
On the contrary, most of them admits that determination of
stratigraphy/chronology can be done in one or more method
which are well recognized and they are three (1) Dynasty wise,
(2) Century wise and (3) Layer wise, and the ASI has followed
all the three system (PW 16 page 454, PW 24 page 269, PW 29
page 144, 150, 183, PW 30 page 351/352,)
3864. Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, OPW 18 has supported
ASI report in its entirety. He retired in 1992 from the post of
Superintending Archeologist from ASI. Having done M.Sc. in
Physical Anthropology in 1958 from University of Sagar and
Post Graduate Diploma in Archaeology in 1968 from Institute of
Archaeology, Government of India, he served ASI Department
for about 33 years and had the experience of exploration,
excavation of archeological sites. Some of the excavation work
he has undertaken has been detailed in para 5 and 6 of his
affidavit. He has clearly averred that the three ways of
periodization is well established in the field of Archaeology and
the ASI has adopted all the three methods. Regarding 6 and 7
period determined by ASI, he has explained that suggestion by
some of the witnesses that the medieval period in India must be
co-related with Islam only is not correct and is not a universally
4055
excepted proposition. He has referred to the opinion of Ram
Sharan Sharma, a Historian, recorded in his book "Perspectives
in Social and Economic History of Early India" published in
1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi, where on page 228 Chapter XVI the author says "
"An important problem in the general history of India
is that of transition from the ancient to the mediaeval.
Certain dates such as AD 647, 711, 750, 916, 997, and
1206 have been suggested as landmarks in political history.
But since politics was the preoccupation of a small section
of society in early times, it has to be shown whether any of
the above-mentioned dates or whether any other date or
point of time is equally significant in the history of land
system, crafts and commerce, polity, society, language, art,
religion, etc. There has taken place a lot of discussion
whether Harsavardhana's death in AD 647 marks the end
of one and the beginning of another era in Indian history.
The statement of Vincent Smith that the death of
Harsavardhana set in the process of decline in Indian
history has been ably refuted by a number of scholars, and
especially by H.C. Ray. But for those who wish to
investigate patterns of social and economic life, the real
point to look for is not the presages of decline and
prosperity but the nature of change in the existing way of
life. If the change is of a fundamental nature, it should be
regarded as heralding the advent of a new period. If it is a
minor change it would not necessitate any new
characterization of the period. Even the question of decline
and prosperity has to be examined in relation to the process
4056
of change involved in it. We have to carefully consider how
far the decline of the existing system of life shows
symptoms of the rise of a new pattern of life. None of these
points has been taken into account by V. Smith when he
says that the death of Harsavardhana in AD 647 begins a
period of decline nor by those who try to refute his theory.
On the grounds of dynastic and political history H.C.
Ray suggests that AD 916 should be accepted as the line of
demarcation between the two periods in the history of
northern India. In his opinion: 'these may be called the
ancient and the mediaeval periods; but it would be perhaps
more reasonable to call them simply the Hindu period and
the period of the Turks and Afghans.' A similar approach
has been adopted by some other scholars. In the fifth
volume of the History and Culture of the Indian People it is
said at one place that ancient India came to an end in AD
997, and again, at another, that in Indian history the
mediaeval factor was introduced in the thirteenth century.
Both views are based on the assumption that the Muslim
conquest ushered in mediaevalism in India. Does it mean
that without the Muslim conquest there would have been no
mediaevalism in India? Does it imply that the countries of
Europe which escaped this conquest had no mediaeval
period in their history? In Europe it is difficult to think of
mediaevalism without feudalism, the origins and nature of
which have to be examined in the case of India. In our
opinion the beginnings of a feudal way of life can be sought
in the age of the Guptas and Harsa, which marks a period
of transition in the history."
4057
3865. He has also referred to the opinion of another
learned Historian A.L.Basham's book "A Cultural History of
India" (first published in 1975) Oxford University Press
(Eighth Indian Impression in 1992) contained in Chapter VI,
titled as "Medieval Hindu India". While giving details of various
Hindu kings ruling different parts of the country, even after
Muslim invasion, Dr.Basham has observed that it is not that the
entire Indian Continent got influenced by Muslims from 7, 8 or
9 century but from time to time different parts were ruled by
different Hindu kings of great vitality.
3866. We have copy of the entire book of A.L. Basham,
i.e., "A Cultural History of India" (first published in 1975) and
10
th
impression 2006 by Oxford University Press, New Delhi
(Book No. 112). Sri Basham in Chapter VI which runs from
page 51 to 59 has noticed that the Gupta Empire disappeared by
the middle of 6
th
century. In the second half of 6
th
century, a city
on Upper Ganga, before its confluence with Jamuna,
Kanyakubja (later known as Kanauj), rose to prominence as the
capital of the Maukhari kings. The city of Sthanvisvara, now
Thanesar, in the watershed between the Ganga and the Indus,
became the capital of a rising family of rulers descended from a
certain Pushyabhuti. Gujarat and Malwa were in the power of
the Maitraka Dynasty, founded by the general of the Guptas. In
the Deccan the Chalukya Dynasty was gaining in strength, while
in Tamilnadu the Dynasty of the Pallawas was also enlarging its
boundaries. This is the pattern of Indian politics until the
Muslim invasion. It further says:
"The political history of India between the end of the
Gupta Empire and the coming of the Muslims can be traced
4058
in some detail from thousands of inscriptions which contain
the genealogies and brief accounts of the reigns of kings,
and in the panegyrics which form the preambles to records
of land-grants, mostly to religious bodies-temples,
monasteries, or groups of learned brahmans."
3867. In 7
th
century (606-47 AD) Harshavardhana gained
control of Kanyakubja (Kannauj). After heirless demise, his
empire also died with him. The subsequent period by Sri A.L.
Basham is described as under:
"The succeeding period is very obscure and badly
documented, but it marks the culmination of a process
which had begun with the invasion of the Hunas in the last
years of the Gupta Empire. The sixth and seventh centuries
saw the rise of many new dynasties, small and great, in the
northern part of the sub-continent. Few of these ruling
families are to be found mentioned in sources from periods
before the Guptas, and many of their genealogies begin
with names which do not seem Sanskritic. These people
appear to have been new-comers. Some of them may have
been related to the Hunas. A new people, who began to
make their presence felt towards the end of the sixth
century, the Gurjaras, gave their name to the present
Gujarat and founded several important ruling dynasties.
Since place-names containing a similar element can be
found as far to the north-west as Pakistan and Afghanistan,
it is commonly suggested that the Gurjaras entered India
in the wake of the Hunas. Their name has been linked with
that of the ancient people of the south Russian steppes
called Khazars, and with the Georgians (Gruz) of the
4059
Caucasus. Other obscure tribes of Central Asians may also
have followed the Hunas, and wilder peoples from outlying
areas may have profited from the unsettled conditions to
gain political control of important regions. In any case,
new ruling houses arose in the post-Gupta period and
many of their names survive to the present day as those of
the Rajput clans.
Towards the end of the eighth century three of the
recently arisen dynasties contended for Kanyakubja, by
now the acknowledged metropolis of northern India. These
were the Palas of Bihar and Bengal, the Rashtrakutas of
the Deccan, and the Gurjara-Pratiharas, who controlled
parts of Malwa and Rajasthan. The great city was for a
time occupied by the Palas, whose Buddhist king
Dharmapala drove up the Ganga valley and exacted tribute
from many kings of the area. The Rashtrakuta Govinda III,
whose policy of raiding the north, continued by his
successors, was to have many repercussions, drove
Dharmapala out, but was forced to return to his base
owing to trouble at home. The vacuum was filled, very
early in the ninth century, by Nagabhata II of the Gurjara-
Pratiharas.
For about a hundred years the Gurjara-Pratiharas of
Kanyakubja restored a little of the glory of the earlier
empires. Under their greatest kings, Mihira Bhoja (c. 836-
90) and Mahendrapala (c. 890-910), they received tribute
from rulers from Gujarat to the borders of Bengal, and
Muslim travellers were much impressed by the
peacefulness and prosperity of their quasi-feudal
4060
empire. But their old enemies, the fierce Rashtrakutas from
the Deccan, were constantly worrying them, and in about
916 Kanyakubja was again temporarily occupied by Indra
III of the Rashtrakutas, whose lightning raids provided a
foretaste of the similar attacks of the Marathas 800 years
later.
Indra III soon returned to the south; but his effects
were longer-lasting than those of previous Rashtrakuta
raiders. Though the Pratiharas returned to their capital,
they were humiliated and weakened, and their vassals
ceased to respect them. Within a generation or two the
greater vassals had thrown aside their allegiance, and were
fighting with their former masters and among themselves.
It was in these circumstances that Mahmud or Ghazni, in
the early years of the eleventh century, carried out his
seventeen raids on India; but though the Turkish raiders
ransacked and destroyed palaces and temples, and
returned to their headquarters in Afghanistan with
immense caravans of riches and slaves, India resumed
her traditional political ways as if nothing had
happened.
The Turks overwhelmed the Sahi kingdom, which had
controlled a large area of the north-west, from Kabul to
Lahore. The rulers of this realm had also been Turks, but
Turks who had adopted Hindu traditions, and who offered
no serious threat to their neighbours to the east. The
Ghaznavids also conquered the Muslim kingdoms of Sind,
occupied by the Arabs early in the eighth century, whose
chiefs had long ceased to trouble the hindu kingdoms on
4061
their frontiers. Thus the hindu states of the Gangetic
basin and Rajasthan now had on their borders a young
aggressive kingdom with new methods of warfare and
with a religious ideology which might be expected to
encourage aggression.
The most remarkable feature of the situation was
that, as far as surviving records show, nobody whatever in
hindu India recognised the menace of the Turks. The
Ghaznavids made a few further raids, but these were far
less impressive than those of Mahmud. The Turks were
soon torn by internal strife and, though they continued to
hold the Panjab, it must have seemed to the hindu
politicians of the time that, like that Arabs before them,
they would be contained indefinitely. Having no real
historical tradition, the Indian memory, of earlier
conquerors coming from the north-west-Greeks, Sakas,
Kushanas, and Hunas-was so vague that it was quite
ineffectual as a warning to the rulers of the time.
In the involved situation arising from Mahmud's
raids, five larger kingdoms shared most of northern
India between them, the Chahamanas (Chauhans) of
Rajasthan, the Gahadavalas (Gahrwals) of Kanyakubja
(Kanauj) and Varanasi (Banaras), the Chaulukyas or
Solankis of Gujarat, the Paramaras (Parmars) of
Malwa, and the Chandellas (Chandels) of Bundelkhand,
to the south of the Ganga. These dynasties bore names
which are among the best-known of the thirty-six Rajput
clans. Their kings had already acquired something of the
traditional Rajput character-gallant, extremely sensitive to
4062
points of honour, glorifying war, but war of a gentlemanly
kind, intensely devoted to tradition, and quite incapable of
serious co-operation one with another. The Palas, who
governed Bihar and Bengal, had been quite untouched by
Mahmud's invasions. Early in the twelfth century they were
replaced by the Sena Dynasty, which reversed the Palas'
traditional support of Buddhism and encouraged hindu
orthodoxy. They seem to have played little or no part in the
politics of the western part of India, where the five major
kingdoms and numerous lesser tributary realms fought
honourable among the themselves, basing their strategy
and tactics on principles inherited from epics.
In 1173 Ghazni was captured by Ghiyas-ud-din,
whose headquarters were Ghur in Afghanistan. From
his new capital Ghiyas-ud-din turned his attention to
India. His brother, Muhammad bin Sam, occupied the
Panjab and deposed the last ruler of the line of Mahmud.
Then in 1191 Muammad bin Sam attacked Prithviraja, king
of the Chahamanas, the hindu ruler on his eastern frontier.
Prithviraja, fighting on his own ground with a larger army,
defeated Muhammad at Tarain, and he retreated. In the
following year, 1192, Muhammad came again with stronger
forces, and on the same field of Tarain Prithviraja lost the
day, and the Ganga valley was open to the invaders. Before
the century was over Turkish control was established along
the whole length of the sacred river.
It is easy to suggest reasons why the Hindus were
unable to resist the Turks, and many such suggestions have
been put forward. In dealing with the question it must be
4063
remembered that the invasion of the Turks was only one of
numerous attacks through the north-western passes which
took place in historical times. The Aryans, by a process not
fully known to us, gained control of the Panjab from the
decadent Harappans. The Achaemenians of Iran occupied
part at least of the Indus valley; Alexander's troops reached
the Beas, but were compelled to retreat; in the second
century B.C. the Greeks from Bactria occupied the Panjab;
they were followed in the next century by the Sakas or
Scythians; in the first century A.D. came the Kushanas, and
in the fifth the Hunas. Mahmud's raids in the early eleventh
century were precursors of the even stronger Turkish
attacks of Muhammad bin Sam, which led to the protracted
domination of most of India by Muslim rulers.
These were not by any means the last attacks from the
north-west, however. Soon after the Turkish occupation,
Mongol hordes swept into India and occupied much of the
territory west of the Indus. In 1398 Timur, the great Mongol
conqueror, sacked Delhi and raged through western India,
causing tremendous carnage and destruction. In 1526
Babur the Mughal defeated the Afghan rulers of Delhi and
occupied the country. In 1555 his son, Humayun,
reconquered it from his base in Afghanistan. During the
eighteenth century Persians and Afghans raided India in
turn, both sacking Delhi before returning to their
homelands."
3868. The above clearly shows that in the period of
Mahmood Gaznavi raids and thereafter, the northern India was
shared by five larger kingdoms namely, Chauhans (Rajasthan),
4064
Gahadavalas (Kannauj and Banaras), Chalukyas or Solanki
(Gujarat), Parmaras (Malva) and Chandellas (Bundelkhand).
The said dynasties have been titled by learned author as one of
"the best known of 36 Rajput clans". The Palas, who governed
Bihar and Bengal remain untouched by Mahmud Gazanavi's
invasion but early in the 12
th
century they were replaced by Sena
dynasty which reversed the Palas traditional support of
Buddhism and encourage Hindu orthodox religion. The
Chauhans rule came to end with the defeat of Prithvi Ram
Chauhan in 1192 AD by Mohammad Ghuri at Tarain leaving the
Ganges valley open to invaders/foreigners. In 1206 AD
Gaharwals (King Jai Chand) was also defeated by Ghuri.
3869. The details of Maukhary, Pushyabhuti, Pratihar,
Gaharwal etc. rulers has also been given in "Ayodhya Ka Itihas
Evam Puratatva" (supra) (Book No. 141), Chapter-7, pages 81
to 105 which is a minute and detailed study on the subject and
except of some observations made therein based on 1992
inscriptions found at Ayodhya which for the time being we can
exclude, the rest of the contents of the said chapter as such have
not been shown inaccurate or incorrect, hence may be referred
hereunder:
-i ªi º| , ¤ · ¤· i ¸ l n, ¤º·n| n · n, ¤ l nri º ¤· nr· ·i ¬i ¬i
¤ n
n ·n ¬i- i·¤ ¬ ¤n· ¬ «i· ¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ºi¬·|ln¬ -r-· ¬n·i
¬l·i¬ ·r| ºr n¤i ·ii| ¬-ni ¬i n ª-· ¬·· ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ r-¬º
¬··i ¬ ¬·i·i ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¤r ¤ n¤i| n ·n ¬i- i·¤ ¬ ¤n· ¬ ¬i¬ -
¬i-·ni ¬i -r-· ¬¬| ¬· ¤in - «« ni n¤i l¬¬ ¬· ¤in - ¬¤i·¤i ¬
n ·n ¬- i-i ¬| ¬ ·· |¤ ¬-ni - l«ªiºi· ¬i· ¬ni ·ii| ¤i ¤·| ºini··|
¬ ¬ ln- ¤ººi n¬ ni n ·n ¬- i- l¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬i- i·¤ ¬| ¤¬ni «·i¤
ºªi ¬¬ ·i n·ii s-| ºini··| ¬ ¤ ·i- ¤ººi - ¬·· |¤ ¬-ni ¬ l¬¤
4065
ri · ·i¬ ¬ ·i·ii ¬ ¬iººi n ·n ¬i- i·¤ ¬ ¬·nn n ¬· ¬ ¬·i|·-·i
ºi¬· ºi ¬l-n-· - ¬i n¤| ; ¬i ¬| s-|÷¬in·| ºinil··¤i - l¬·
ºi¬· ºii ¬i ¬·¤ r ¬i ¬i º ¬·ri · ¬-nº ·iiºn ¬| ºi¬·|ln¬
nlnl·l·i¤i ¤º ¤ ·ii· ·i¬i ¬·- n|· ºi¬· ºi - ª¤ ª¤ ¬ ¬~¬ ªi·|¤
r ÷ (·) ¬··i ¬ ¬ -i ªiº|, (z) ·ii·º·º ¬ ¤ ·¤·i¸ln n·ii (s) -i¬·i ¬
¤º·n| n ·n, l¬·ri · «i· - -n·i ¤º ºii¬· l¬¤i| ;·¬ «i·
¤ lnriºi ¤· nr· ·i¬i ¬i ¤ n ¬ini r l ¬¬- nr· ·i ¬i ·
¬¤i · ¤i - l ·ºi · i ªl ¤ ¬| |
¬· ·i ¬ ¬ -i ªi º|
¬· ·i ¬ ¬ -i ªi l º¤i - ¬«¬ ¤r¬i ºi ¬i rl º·-i r ¬i |
; ºii··-i ¬ rºri ¬l·i¬ ªi - -i lªilº¤i ¬| · ºii·¬| rlº·-i ¬ ¤ iº-·i
ri n| r | ¬¬¬ ¤¸ · ¬ ¬ ·i·n l«riº ¬ ¤ri ¬i¤ ri n , ·¤i l¬ l«riº ¬
n¤i l¬¬ ¬ «ºi«º ¬i º ·ini¬ ·| ¤ril· ¤i ¬ -i ªiº| ºi¬i¬i ¬ n|·
¬l·i¬ ªi ¤ i·n r ¤ r | ;· ¬l·i¬ ªii - n|· ºi¬i¬i ¬ ·i- l-¬n
r ÷¤n·-i , ºii·¸ ¬·-i n·ii ¬··n·-i | ¬··n·-i ¬i ¬i ; ¬¤il·i ·r| ·|
n; r l¬·n ¬¬¬ l¤ni ºii·¸ ¬·-i ¬i ¬i-·n ¤¸ ºii-lºi ¬ri n¤i r |
ºii·¸ ¬·-i ¬ l¤ni ¤n·-i ¬i ·i| · ¤ -i¤ ¬ri n¤i r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº s-|
ºini··| ¬ ¤ iº-·i - ¤ ¬i-·n -i ªiº| ·º ºi n¤i ¬ ·i ¤ - ºii¬· ¬º
ºr ·i | ;¬- ¬i ; ¬·· r ·r| r l¬ n¤i ¬ ¤ n|·i -i ªiº| ºi¬i n ·n
¬- i-i ¬ ¬·i|·-·i ¬i-·n ·i , l¬·n ;·¬i ¬··i ¬ ¬ -ilªilº¤i ¬ ·¤i
¬-«··i ·ii, ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º ¬ s ¬r·i ¬ ·i· ·r| r |
¬l·i¬÷¬ ÷¬l·i¬ ¤r| ¬ ·ii··i ¬| ¬i ¬¬n| r l¬ n ·n ¬- i-i ¬
l·· ºi ¤º l«riº ¬ -i lªilº¤i ¬ · ºi - ¬-¤·· rlº·-i ¬i ¬i·¤¬ ·¬
¬·i·i ¬··i ¬ - ¬i-·n ¬ ª¤ - l·¤ l·n l-¬| ri | rºri ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi
- rlº·-i ¬i -i¤ ºi¬i ¬ri n¤i r n·ii ¬¬ ¬il· ·ººi -i·i n¤i
r | ¬l¬· ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤r -¤·- ·r| ri ni l¬ -iªilº¤i · ¬¤·i
ºii¬· ¬ri ¬ ºi ª l¬¤i ·ii ¬·i·i ¬·¬| ºi¬·ii·| ¬ri ¤º ·i|| ºi·ii
ni l··· «¬i¬ ¬i ¤r -n r l¬ ¤ iº-·i - -i ªilº¤i · ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ºii¬·
l¬¤i ·ii n·ii «i· - ¬·l·n·-i ¬ ¬i¬ - ¬·ri · ¬¤·| ºi¬·ii·|
¬··i ¬ ¬i «·i¤i| -i ªilº¤i ¬| ºi¬·ii·| ¬··i ¬ - ·i|, ;¬¬| ¬¸ ¤·i
r- r·i ¤lºn ¬ ¤ i·n ri n| r l¬¬- ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l¬ -i ªiº| ºi·|
ºi¬¤¬|, ¬i r·i ··i · ¬| «r· ·i|, -i¬·ºi¬ ¬ ,iºi ¬··i ¬ - r| «··|
4066
«·i ¬| n; ·i|| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¤|·| ¬ i ni - ·i| ;¬ «in ¬ ¬ ¬ n
l-¬n r l¬ ¬··i ¬ -i ªilº¤i ¬| ºi¬·ii·| ·i| ¬i º ºi·¤¬| ¬i - ·n
¬ºi· ¬ «i· r·i ¬ ¬··i ¬ ¬i ºii¬· ¬ ·ii¬· ¬i ¬in r l¬¤i n¤i
·ii| -i ªi l º¤i ¬ ¬l ·i ¬ ªi ¬i ·¤ º ( ¤¸ ·| ¬- nº ¤ · ºi ) n·i i
rºri ( l ¬¬i «i ºi « ¬| , ¤¸ ·| ¬- nº ¤ · ºi ) ¬ ¤ i · n r ¤ r |
;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n l«riº - ·i¬··i, ¬ ºi· ·-i ¬| ¤¬ l-- -| ¬| - rº
n·ii -·¤ ¤ ·ºi - ¬¬|ºn« ¬ ;¬| ºi¬i ¬| ¤¬ ni « ¬| - rº ¤ i·n r ;
r | ni ºªi¤ º l¬¬ ¬ ¬i r·in ·i-¬ -·ii· ¬ ¬·l·n·-i ¬| ¤¬ - rº
¤ i·n r ; r n·ii ;¬| ºi¬i ¬| ¤¬ l-- -| ¬| - rº ·i¬··i ¬ ·i| ¤ i·n
r ; r | ¬··i ¬ ¬ r| ¬·l·n·-i ¬| ¤¬ l-- -| ¬| - rº ¤ i·n r ; r |
·i¬··i ¬ r| l-- -| ¬| ¤¬ ¬·¤ - rº ¤ i·n r ; r l¬¬ ¤º ¬·l·n·-i
¬ ¤ ¤ ºi¬il·iºi¬ ¬| ¬ . . ·i- ¬l~¬lªin r | ªilº·n ri ¬i· ¬
¬iººi ºi¬i ¬i ¤¸ ºi ·i- ·r| ¤« i ¬i ¬¬i r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬;
-i ªi º| ºi ¬i ¬i ¬ l ¬·¬ ·i | ¬l r·s¤i , ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i º
l ·i -i ºi ( ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ l ·¬-, l ¬¬i ¤ ¬i «i ·) ¬ ¤ i · n r ;
r | ;· ¤ -i ºi i ¬ ¤r -¤· - ni n ri ni r l ¬ n · n ºi ¬· ºi
¬ «i · ¬¤i · ¤i n·i i ¬¬¬ «i · ¬i ºi ¬ ¤ · ºi -i ªi º|
ºi i ¬·i · nn n ¬i n¤i ·i i |
-i ªilº¤i · ¬¤·| ºi¬·ii·| ¬¤i ·¤i - ·¤i ·r| «·i; ri n|, ;¬
¬ « ·i - ¬ ·¬ ¬· -i· r| ¤ -n n l¬¤ ¬i ¬¬n r | ¤r¬| ¬ ·ii··i ¤r
r l¬ n ·n ¬- i-i · ¤ iº l·i¬ -i ªiº| ¬i-·ni ¬i ¬··i ¬ - -·iil¤n ri ·
¬i l·· ºi l·¤i ri ¬iº ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ - ¬« -i ªiº| ¬l·i¬ ºil·nºii¬|
ri n¤ ¬i º n ·n ¬i- i·¤ ¬i ¬·n ri n¤i ni ·i| ¬·ri · ¬n·in ¬·r|
¬iººii ¬ ¬¤·| ºi¬·ii·| ¬¤i ·¤i - «·i· ¬i l·¤iº · l¬¤i ri l¬·¬
¬iººi ¤ ·¤l-¤ ºi n · -i ¤ ºi¬·ºi ¬i ¬·n ri ¬i· ¬ «i· ¬¤·|
ºi¬·ii·| ¤i-l¬¤ ¤ - ·r| «·i; |
rlº·-i ¬ «i· ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ ¬il·-¤·-i -i ªiº| · ºi ¬i ºi¬i r ¬i|
¬¬¬i l··ir r·i n ·ni ¬ r ¬i ·ii| ·i- ¬i-¤ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤r -i·i
¬ini r l¬ r·i n ·ni ¤º·n| n ·n ºi¬·ºi ¬ ·¸ ¬º ºii¬¬ r·i n ·n ¬|
«r· ·i|| r·i n ·n ¬i ¬-¤ ror÷r·r ; o ¬ «|¤ -i·i ¬ini r | ;¬
¤ ¬iº ¬il·-¤·-i ¬i ·i| ¤r| ¬-¤ -i··i ¤ilr¤| ¬il·-¤·-i ¬i ¤ ¤
; º·º·-i r ¬i l¬¬¬| ¤-·| ¬i ·i- ¬¤n ·ni «ni¤i n¤i r | «|o¤|o
4067
l¬·ri · ¤r -n ·¤·n l¬¤i r l¬ ¬¤n · ni ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ n · n
¬- i - l ·· ºi n · n ¬| «r· ºr| ri n| | ¤r l ·· ºi n · n ºi ¬· ºi
¬i ¬l · n- ºi i ¬¬ -i ·i ¬i ni r ¬i º ;¬¬i ¬-¤ r«s÷rro
; o n¬ «ni ¤i n¤i r | ¬ l¬· l¬ººi ¬ -iº ·i¤l¬¤i¬ ¬i ¤r
-i··i r l¬ ; º·º·-i ¬| ¤-·| ¬¤n ·ni · ·| ¬ ·i·n ¤º·n| n ·n
ºi¬· ºi ¬| ºi¬¬ -iº| ·i|| ; º·º·-i ¬ ¬i ·¤ º ¬l ·i ¬ ªi ¬ ¤r
ni n ri ni r l ¬ ¬¬· ¬i · ·i ¬ ºi ¬i ¬i ¬i ·i | ¤ºi l ¬n
l ¬¤i ·i i n·i i ·i i ºi ¬ ¬i · ·i ¬ l ¬¬| ¬i ¬ -ºi ¬i l ·¤¬
¬º l ·¤i ·i i | ¬ ·i·n ·iiºi ¬ ¬i· ·i¬i ¤r ¬i¬ -ºi r¸ ºiºi¬
l-lrº¬ ¬ ¬ ,iºi l¬¤i n¤i ¬i¬ -ºi ·ii ¬i º ; º·º·-i · n ·n ¬- i-
¬ ¬i-·n ¬ ª¤ - ;¬ ¤ , - ·iin l¬¤i ri ni ¬i ; ¬iº¤¤ ·r| |
¬ l¬· ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ;¬ ¬-¤ n¬ -iªiº| n ·n ºi¬· ºi ,iºi ºiil¬n
¤ · ºii - ¬«¬ ºil·nºii¬| ¬i-·n ¬ ª¤ - -·iil¤n ri ºr ·i |
¬- nº ·i i ºn - -i ªi l º¤i ¬| ºi l ·n ¬i ¤¸ ºi ¬·¤ ¬|
; ºi i ··-i ¬ ¬-¤ - ri ni r | ; ºii··-i ¬ r· ri ¤i·iiºi
¬l·i¬ ªi (º¬i ¬ ·s) - ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¬¬· ¬i··i ¤ln ¬i ¬|n¬º,
ºi¸l¬¬i ¬| ¬ ·i ¬i ¤ºi-n ¬º¬ n·ii ni · i ¬i ¬-«··i ¤ ··| ¬ s ·i¬º
¬·r ¬- ·i¬¤| ri · ¬ l¬¤ «i·¤ ¬º¬ , l¬ ri¬· ¬i ¬l·i¬ n l¬¤i ·ii|
;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ; ºii··-i · ¤r l·¬¤ ¬¤· ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬i¬
- ¤ i·n ¬| ·i| ¬i º ;¬| ¬iººi ¬¬¬ l¤ni ¬ ¬i¬ - l¬ªi·i¤ n¤
¬i ·¤ º ¬l·i¬ ªi - l···¤ ¬i º ¬i··i ¬ ºi¬i¬i ¬i ¤ºi-n ¬º· ¬| ¬i
«in ¬r| n; r ¬¬- ; ºii··-i ¬i ·i| ¬r¤i n ·ii| ¬ri n¬ ni · i ¬i
¤ºi-n ¬º· ¬| «in r ¬¬¬ ¬-«··i - l·,i·i ¬| ¤r ºi¤ r l¬
-i ªilº¤i · ¤r ¬l·i¤i· ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ n ·n ¬- i-i ¬| ¬·i|·ni - ¤¬i¤i
ri ni| ¬il·-¤¬ · ¬ ¬¤¬i« ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¤r ¬~¬ ªi ¬i¤i r l¬
¬|l·nn ·n · , ·r ·i| n ·ni ¬i ¬i-·n ºri ri ni, ¬·¬| · ·ii ¬|
ºiiªii¬i ¬ ¬i· -n ¬- · n-i ¤º ºr· ·i¬ ºi¤ ¬i ¬i ¤ºi-n l¬¤i ·ii|
l¬·ri · ni ¤ri n¬ ¬ri r l¬ ¤r n ·n ºii¬¬ l··ºi n ·n ¤·· il·-¤
ºri ri ni|
; ºii··-i ¬ «i· ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ ºi· ·-i ºii¬¬ r ¬i| ¬ l¬· r· ri
¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ ; ºii··-i ¬i ¤¬ ¬i º ¤ ¤ ¬¸ ¤ ·-i
r ¬i| l¬·n ¬¸ ¤ ·-i · ºii¬· l¬¤i ·ii ¬·i·i ·r| , ¤r ¤ º· l··i·i-¤·
4068
r ·¤i l¬ ; ºii··-i ¬ ¤ ¤ ºi· ·-i ¬i º ¬¬¬ ¬-nºil·i¬ilº¤i · ¬¸ ¤ ·-i
¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l¬¤i r | ¬ l ¬·, -· ¤ ¤ · ºi ¬ ¤ i · n
-ri l ºi ·n · n «i ¬i ¬ · ¬ -~ri º ni - ¤¤i l ·i ¬ ªi ¬ ¤r ni n
ri ni r l ¬ -i ªi º| ºi ¬· ºi ¬i ¬¸ ¤ ·-i -n·i ¬i ºi ¬i
·i i | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤r -·|¬iº l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ; ºii··-i · ¬¤·
¬|··¬i¬ - r| -n·i ¬i ¬¤· ¬·i|· ¬º l¬¤i ·ii ¬i º ¬ ·i·n
; ºii··-i ¬ «i· ¬¬¬ ¤ ¤ ¬¸ ¤ ·-i · ¬ s ¬-¤ n¬ ºii¬·
l¬¤i| ¤nl¤ l¬º¤ º ¬ ¤ i·n ¤¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬¸ ¤ ·-i ¬i ¬ ·¬ · ¤ ¬ri
n¤i r ¬ l¬· ;¬¬ ;¬ n·¤ ¤º ¬i ; ¬·nº ·r| ¤· ni l¬ ¤r ¬¸ ¤ ·-i
-i ªiº| ·º ºi ; ºii··-i ¬i ¤ ¤ ·ii|
-i ªi º| ¬l ·i ¬ ªi i - ¬ ·¬ r· ri ¬l ·i ¬ ªi ¤¬-i ¤
¤ ¬i ¬ ªi r l ¬¬ ¤º l nl ·i ·| r ; r ¬i º ·r l ·¬ - ¬ ·n
c·· r ¬i ; -·| ¬· rr« - ¤· ni r | ¤r ¬l·i¬ ªi ¤nl¤
; ºii··-i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬¸ ¤ ·-i ,iºi l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i ·ii l¤º ·i| ¬¬ ¬-¤
-i ªiº| l¬ ri¬· ¤º ; ºii··-i r| ¬i¬|· ·ii| ; ºii··-i ¬i ¬-nºil·i¬iº|
¬¬¬i ¤¬ ¬·¤ ¤ ¤ ºi· ·-i r ¬i l¬¬¬i - rºi ¤º ¤º- -ir º·º
-riºi¬il·iºi¬ ¬ri n¤i r | ºi · ·-i ¬i ºi i ¬· -n·i ¬ ¬ ¬º
-· ¤ ¤ · ºi - ¬¬| ºn« n·i i « · · ¬ªi º· n¬ ¤ ¬i ·i i |
¤l º¤- - ¬¬¬i ºi i ¬· ¬i n· i n¬ l ·-n n ·i i | ¬ s ¬i ni
· ¤r l·¤iº ·¤·n l¬¤i r l¬ ¤¸ l¬ ¬··i ¬ ¬i º ¬i n·i ¬ «|¤
¤ ·¤·i¸ln · ºi ¬i ·i| ºii¬· ¤· ni r ;¬l¬¤ ¬i n·i - -i ªilº¤i ¬i
ºii¬· ¬ ·i· ·r| r | l¬·n ;¬ «in ¬i -i· ¬ ·i ¤ilr¤ l¬ ¬ ·i·n
¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ ¤ ·¤·i¸ln · ºi ¬¤·| ¬i-·n ¬·-·ii - r| ·ii ¬«l¬
-i ªiº| · ºi ¬ ·ººi -riºi¬il·iºi¬, ¤º- º·º ¬il· ¬¤il·i¤i ¬
l··i¸ l·in l¬¤ ¬in ·i | ·i i ¬· · ¬ «i ºi r ni - ¤¤i l ·i ¬ ªi - ;¬
¤º- º·º ºi · ·- · · ¬ri n¤i r ¬i º ¤r «ni ¤i n¤i r
l ¬ ¤º- º·º ºi · ·- · · · ¬i ¬ ¬º - ·¬ ¬ ¬· - «º l ·· i ¤
- ¬ s ·i ¸ l -·i · l ¬¤i ·i i | ¤º·n| n ·n ºii¬¬ ¬|l·nn ·n l,n|¤
¬ · ··ºii ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¤º- º·º ¬|ºi· ·-i n·ii ¤º- º·º ¬|
¬·l·n·-i n·ii ¤¬ ¬·¤ -riºi¬il·iºi¬ ¤º- º·º ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni
r | ;¬ ¤ ¬i º ¤r -¤· - r l ¬ -i ªi º| · ºi ¬¤· ¬-¤ -
¬- nº ·i i ºn ¬i ¬«¬ ºi l ·nºi i ¬| ºi ¬· ºi ·i i ¬i º ¬·¬i
4069
¤ ·i i · ·i ¤ ·i | ¬n·i n ¤¸ º ¬- nº ·i i ºn - l ·-n n ·i i |
;¬ ¬i¬÷ªiº· ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬i l¬ªi· ·i¬ l·,i·i · ¤º·n|
n ·n ºi¬·ºi ¬iº ¤ ·¤·i¸ ln ºi¬· ºi ¬i -iªilº¤i ¬ ¬-i· r| -r-· ·
ºªii r | ¤ ¬|- · ¬«¬ ¤r¬ ¬il·-¤¬ · ¬ ¬¤¬i« ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬i
¬ ¤i·· l¬¤i ·ii ¬iº ¬·ri · ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¤ i·n ¤º·n| n ·n ºi¬· ºi
¬ ºii¬¬i ¬i -i ªilº¤i ¬i ¤ ln, ·| ºi¬· ºi «ni¤i| ¬¬¬ «i· l¬n·
·i| ;lnri¬¬iºi · ¤º·n| n ·n ºi¬· ºi ¬ l··i¤ - l¬¤i r ¬· ¬·i| ·
;¬ -n ¬i -r-· l·¤i r | ¬l¬·, ·i-nl·¬ni ¤r r l¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬
n · n ¬- i -i ¬ ºi ¬· ºi ¬ ¤n· ¬ «i · ¬· ·i ¬ ¬ -i ªi º|
ºi ¬· ºi · ¬n·i n ·r| l -·i l n ¤ i · n ¬º ¬| ·i | ¬i n · n
¬- i -i ¬| ·i | | s-| ºini··| ¬ ¤ iº-·i - ¤º·n| n ·n ¬i º ¤ ·¤·i¸ln
ºi¬· ºii ¬| l-·iln si - ÷-i - ¬i-·ni ¬ ¬| r| ·i|| ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ;lnri¬
¬ ¬-«··i - l·¤iº ¬ºn ¬-¤ ¤r «in ¤ - ªi ª¤ ¬ ¬r| ¬i ¬¬n| r
l¬ -iªiº| ºi¬· ºi ¬ n r·-i ¬ ºi·¤¬i¬ n¬ ¬i ºi¬ ¬·¬
ºii¬·i·nn n «·i ºri| ¬ s l·,i·i · ¤º·n| n ·n ºii¬¬i ¬i -n·i ¬
¬· ·i¸ n r ¬i -i·i r l¬¬¬ ¤r ·iiººii «·n| r l¬ ¬ ·i·n ¬i ºi¬ ·i|
l¬¬| ¬-¤ ¤º·n| n ·ni ¬ ¬·nn n ºri ri ni| l¬·n ¤ri ¤r «ni · ·i
¬i·º¤¬ r l¬ s-| ºini··| ; o - ¤º·n| n ·n ºi¬· ºi ºi¬-·ii· ¬
-i¬· ¬·¤· ¬| -·ii·|¤ ¬iº ¬i-i·¤ ºil·n ·i|| ¬il·-¤¬ · ¬i
¬¤¬i« ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬in·| ºini··| - l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i ·ii l¬¬ ¬-¤ ·r
-n·i ¬i ¤¬ -r-·¤¸ ºi ºii¬¬ «· n¤i ·ii| ¬¬· ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬¤·
¤¸ · ¬i ¬i l··ººi l·¤i r l¬¬- ¬¤· ¤¸ · ¬ ¬in ºi¬i¬i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
l¬¤i r | ¬il·-¤¬ · ¬i ¬¤¬i« ¬ ªi ¬· -r-·¤¸ ºi ¬ ªii - r l¬·r
¤ iº-·i ¬ r| n¬n ¬ ··i - ¬-ni n¤i r | ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi -
¬il·-¤¬ · ¬¤· ¤¸ · ¬i ¬i ¬i·iiººi · ¤ ¬·i·i ¬| ¬il· ·i- ¬ r|
¬l·ilrn ¬ºni r l¬¬¬ ¬·¬ ¬i-i·¤ -·ii·|¤ ºii¬¬ ri · ¬| «in
-i·| ¬i·| ¤ilr¤| ¬ s -·ii·i ¤º ¬¬¬ ¤¸ · ¬i ¬ -i ªiº| ºi¬· ºi ¬
¬i·i ¤ ln, l,ni ¬i º ¤ ln-¤·ii ¬| «in ¬r| n; r | ¬¤¬i« ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬
¬i-· º¬i ¬ - ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¬il·-¤¬ · ¬ ¤i ·i ¤¸ · ¬ ¬ -iºn ·n
· ºi¬i¬i - ¤·· -i ¬ ¬-i· ¬| ; ºii··-i ¬| ¬ ·i ¬i - ·ºi¤¬ ¤· n
¬| ·iiln l·-l·in (-·i) ¬º l·¤i ·ii| l¬·n ;¬ ¤ , ¬i ·¤i ¤lººii-
r ¬i ¤r ·r| «ni¤i n¤i r | ¬l¬· ¬n¬ r| º¬i ¬ - ¤r ¬·º¤
4070
¬¸ l¤n l¬¤i n¤i r l¬ ºii ¤ ¬-¤· n·iiº| · ¤ ¤in ¬i¬º ¬º|·i
(¬·· ¤i ¬¤¬ ) ¬| ¬l·· - ¤ · ºi ¬º¬ ¬i--r-¤i ¬º ¬| ·i|| ¤r
l¬¬ ¬iººi l¬¤i n¤i ¤r -¤·- ·r| «ni¤i n¤i r | l¬·ri · ¤r
¬ ni· l·¤i r l¬ ¬ -iºn ·n · ; ºii··-i ¤º ¤ i·n l·¬¤ ¬| ¤ ¬··ni -
· ·ni¬i ¬ ¤ ln ¬ nnni ni¤· ¬ ª¤ - ¬i--·ir l¬¤i ·ii| l¬·n ;¬
¤ ¬iº ¬ l·¤iº ri-¤i-¤· r ·¤i l¬ l¬¬| ·i| l·¬¤ ¬ ¬¤ºi n l·¬¤|
ºi¬i -·¤ ¬i ¬i--·ir ·r| ¬ºni| ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ¬ -iºn ·n ;¬
¤ , - ¤ºil¬n ri n¤i ·ii l¬¬¬ ¬iººi ¬¬ ¬i--r-¤i ¬º·| ¤· ||
;¬¬ «i· ¬ º¬i ¬i - ¬ -iºn ·n ¬ ¤ ¤ ·i-i ·ºn ·n ¬ l··i¤ - ¬ri
n¤i r l¬ ·r -iªilº¤i ¬ ¤ , - r¸ ºii ¬| n¬¬ ·i ¬i l··il-n ¬ºn
r ¤ -¸ ls n ri n¤i ·ii (-iºi n¤i ·ii) n·ii ¬¬¬| ·| · -·n - ¬i¬º
¬ º··i ¬i ¬ ¬º÷-¤ºi ¬ ªi ¬|| ;¬ º¬i ¬ ¬i ¬·i ¤ ¬|- · ;¬ ¤ ¬iº
l¬¤i r ¤ , - (¬ ¤¬¬º -iº ·i¬· ¬ ¬· · º¤ ¬ ) r¸ ºii ¬| ¬ ·i¬i
¬i ¬ªii· ¤ ¬ · · ·i¬ -i ªiº| ¬ ¬in «« n r ¤ -·--n ºil·nºii¬|
ril·i¤i ¬ ·¤¸ r ¬i l··i-· ¬º¬ ·r -¸l·s n ri n¤i| (n·ii ¤ · -·n
- ) ¬ º··i ¬i ¬ «|¤ ¤¤· ¬ºn r ¤, n·ii (¬- ¬ ¬·i·i ¬- ¬) - º|
r ¤r ¬rn r ¤ ¬·¬ ¬º÷¬-¬i ¬ ¬ ªi· -¤ºi ¬ ¤ n· r ¬i| ¤ ¬|-
,iºi l¬¤ n¤ ;¬ ¬· ·i· - ¬·¬i ¤r ¬in r n¬¬ni r l¬ ¤r ¤ ,
·i| -i ªilº¤i ¬i º ¤º·n| n ·ni ¬ «|¤ r ¬i ·ii| ¬ l¬· ·i-n· - ¤ ¬i
¬nni r l¬ ; ºii··-i ¬ ¤ , - ¬ -iºn ·n ¬ ¤ºil¬n ri · ¬ «i·
·i-i ·ºn ·n ¬i -i ªilº¤i ¬| ¬·i|·ni -·|¬iº ¬º·| ¤·| ·i| ¬iº
; ºii··-i ¬·i·i ¬¬¬ ¬-nºil·i¬iº| ¬ ¬i·i r¸ ºii ¬ ¤ , - ·i-i ·ºn ·n
¤¬ ¬i-·n ¬ ª¤ - ¬· n r ¤ -iºi n¤i ·ii| ;¬- n¬¬ ·i ¬i ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ¬i¤i r ·r r¸ ºii ¬| n¬¬ ·i ¬i ¬nni r , ¬iº ¤ , r¸ ºii ¬i º
-i ªilº¤i ¬ «|¤ ¬·i n¤i ·ii| ;¬¬i ¬ ¬ n r- ¬i ·¤ º ¬ ; º·º·-i
¬ ¤i·iiºi ¬ ªi - l-¬ni r l¬¬- ·iiºi-in l·l·n nil··¬lºi¬i ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ¬i¤i r | ¤r ¬ ·i·n r¸ ºi ¬i¬ -ºi ¬i r| ¬~¬ ªi r |
-i ªi º| ºi ¬· ºi ¬i ºi i ¬· ;¬ ·i ¤ ¤º ¬-÷¬ ÷¬-
¬·l · n·-i ¬i º ¬¬¬ ¤ ¤ n r·-i ¬ ¬-¤ n¬ ¤¬i |
;l nri ¬¬i ºi ¬i ¤ ¬i ¬· -i · r l ¬ r· i ··i · · n r·-i
¬| r- ¤i ¬ «i · ¬· ·i ¬ ¬i ºi i ¬· -·¤ ¬ · i i ¬ l ¬¤i ·i i
¬i º ;¬ ¤ ¬i º ¬· ·i ¬ ¬ -i ªi l º¤i ¬i · ºi ¬-i · n ri
4071
n¤i ·i i | r · ·¬i n · ·i| ¤r ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r l¬ ºi¤ ¬i ¬i ·-·
¬º· ¬ «i· ¬··i ¬ ¬ -l¤¤i · r·i ¬ ¬··i ¬ ¬i ºii¬· ¬ ·ii¬· ¬i
¬· ºi ·i l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n r·i ¬| l·¬¤i ¬i º ¬i-ª- ¬
ºii¬¬ ·ii-¬º·-i ¬ ¬i·i r·i ¬ ·i -¤ ¬-«··i ¬| «in ¬i ·¤i· -
ºªin r ¤ ¤r -·| ¬i º ¬º·i ¤· ni l ¬ ¬ s ¬-¤ ¬ l ¬¤
¬¤i · ¤i n·i i ¬i ºi ¬ ·i ¤ ·i | , r· i ¬ ¬i - i ·¤ ¬i ¬ n «·
n¤i ·i i | ¤r ·i| ¬ ·i· r l¬ r·i · ¬··i ¬ ¬i ¬ ·¬ ¬¤·|
nlnl·l·i¤i ¬i ¬·· -i¤ «·i¤i ri | ¬l¬·, -i ªiº| ºi¬·ºi ¬i l··iºi
ri n¤i ·ii ¤r -·|¬iº ·r| l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni| ·i¬··i ¬ ¤ i·n ¤¬ - rº
- ¬·l·n·-i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬ ·i- ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r ¬i r l¬¬¬ ·i- ¬i ¬ ·¬
¤ ·i- ¬·iº ¬ ¤«i ¬i ¬¬i r | ¬ s l·,i·i · ;¬ ¬ ¬i ¬ ¤·· ·-i
-i·· ¬i ¬ ni· l·¤i r | ¤ri ¤r ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ;¬ - rº -
¬·l·n·-i ¬ ¤ ¤ n r·-i ¬i ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r | «r n ¬ ·i· r l¬
n r·-i ¬ «i· ¬·l·n·-i ¬ ·¸ ¬º ¤ ¤ ¬ · ºi·¤ l¬¤i ri |
¬i¤ - ¬ ¬|-¸ ¬¬~¤ - n r ¬ «i· ¬ · ¬ ºii¬¬ ri · ¬| «in ¬r|
n; r | ¬ ¬ «i· -i ªiº| ºi¬· ºi ¬i ;lnri¬ ¤ ·l· l- n ¬º·i ¬l-·
¬i¤ r | ¬ s l·,i·i · ¤¸ ºi ·-i ¬i -i ªiº| ºi¬i -i·i r n·ii r · ·¬i n
·i| ¬¬ ¬ºii ¬ºi¬ ¬i ¬ln- ¬-nºil·i¬iº| -i·ni r | ¤¸ ºi ·-i ¤i ni
-n·i ¬i -·n ¤ ºii¬¬ ·ii ¬·i·i -i ªiº| ·ºi ¬i ¬i ; ¬-nºil·i¬iº| ·ii|
cso ; o - ·i ¬· ·i ¬| ¤i ¤i ¬º· ·i ¬ r · ·¬i n ·
¤¸ ºi ·-i ¬i ¤¸ · ¬i ¬ ¬i ºi ¬i «ni ¤i r | ¬ s l·,i·i · ¤r ·i|
¬ ni· l·¤i r l¬ ¤¸ ºi ·-i r·i ,iºi l·¤ ·n -n·i ¬i ºii¬¬ ·ii ¬iº
¬¬¬| - -¤ ¬ ¬¤ºi n r| -i·i·n ·n r·i ,iºi -n·i ¬i ºii¬¬ l·¤ ·n
l¬¤i n¤i| ;¬| -i·i·n ·n ¬i ¤ ¤ ¬il·-¤¬ · ·ii l¬¬· ¬¤¬i« ¬i
¤i·iiºiªiº· ¬l·i¬ ªi l¬ªi·i¤i ·ii| -i ªi º| · ºi ¬i l ·- ¤¬ · ¬
¬-¤ - ·i | ·· - ·r| r ¬i ·i i , ;¬ «i n ¬| ¬¸ ¤·i r-
· ¤i ¬ ¬ ¬¤· · l ,n| ¤ ¬ ¤ºi ¤l n ¬l ·i ¬ ªi ¬ ¤ i · n ri n|
r | ¤r ¬l ·i ¬ ªi · ¤i ¬| ¬ ·n ·r/ ( //s ; o) - l n·¤i l ¬n
r | ;¬- ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l ¬ -n·i ¬ ºi i ¬¬ ¬i l ·- ¤¬ ·
· ¬¤·| ¤ ¤| ¬i l ··i r -i ªi º| ·º ºi ·i i n·-i ¬ l ¬¤i ·i i
¬i º ;¬ ·i i n·-i ¬| ¤ ¤| ·- ¬· ·| · ¤i ¬ ¬ l ¬·s·| ·º ºi
¬¤· · l ,n| ¤ ¬| -i ni n·i i l ºi ·· · l ,n| ¤ ¬| ¤- ·| ·i | |
4072
;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤nl¤ r·i ¬ ¤ ·¤·i¸ ln · ºi ¬ l··i¤ - ¬in·| ºini··| - r-
¬i ; ¬i·¬iº| ¬¤¬··i ·r| r l¬·n -i ªiº| · ºi ¬in·| ºini··| ¬ ¬ ln-
¤ººi - ·i| ¬l-n-· - ·ii, ;¬¬| ¬¸ ¤·i · ¤i¬ ¬ ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ nin
ri n| r | l¬·ri · ¤r ¬ ni· l·¤i r l¬ ·ii n·-i · ¬··i ¬ ¤º ¬l·i¬iº
¬º l¬¤i ·ii n·ii ;¬| ¬iººi ¬il·-¤¬ · · ¬¬¬ ¬¤·| ¤ ¤| ¬i l··ir
¬º l·¤i| ¬·ri · ¤ri n¬ ¬ri r l¬ ·ii n·-i ¬il·-¤¬ · ¬i ¬i-·n
ºri ri ni| l¬·n ¤ ·i ·i «in ¬i~¤l·¬ ¬nn| r |
;¬| ¬···i - ¬··i ¬ ¬ ¤ºii ·-i ¬i ·i| ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i ¬i
¬¬ni r l¬¬¬i ·ºi · ·i·¤lnºi¬ ¬ ¤ i¬ n ¬i·¤ ni · ·ri - l¬¤i
n¤i r | ¤ºii ·-i ¬i ¤¬ ¤i·iiºi ¬l·i¬ ªi ·i¬··i ¬ ¤ i·n r ¬i r | ¤r
¬l·i¬ ªi ·i-n· - ¤·ii ·-i ¬ ¤¬ - ¤|, -i¬i· ¬ ,iºi l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i
·ii l¬¬- ºi¬i ¬ «iº - ¬ s l·ºi·i ·r| ¬ri n¤i r , l¬·i¤ ;¬¬ l¬
·r ¬·iº ¬i º ¬·iºi¤ ºi¬i ·ii| n·ii ¬· ¬ ¤ ,i ¬i l·¬ ni ·ii| ;¬¬
¬lnlº·n ¤ºii ·-i ·i- ·i¬ ¬ s l¬·¬ ·i| ¤ i·n r ¤ r ¬i ;¬| ºi¬i ¬
«ni¤ n¤ r | l¬·n ;¬ ¬-«··i - l·,i·i · ºi ¬i ·¤·n ¬| r ,
·¤i l¬ ¤ l¬·¬ ¬º-|º ¬i º ¤ ¬i« ¬ ¤ i·n r ¤ r ¬iº ;º·i ÷¬|l·i¤·
¤ ¬iº ¬ r l¬·¬i · ¬ ·i¬ ¤ ni¤il·-¤ l,n|¤ (/oo; o) n·ii ¬¤i¤|·
l··¤il·-¤ (//z ; o) ¬ «|¤ ºªii n¤i r | ¬l¬· ;¬ ¬i¬ - ¬º-|º -
;¬ ·i- ¬i ¬i ; ¬·¤ ºi¬i · ri · ¬ ¬iººi ¤ l¬·¬ ¬··i ¬
¬ ¤ºii ·-i ¬ -i· ¬i ¬¬n r |
¤ºi i ·-i ¬i ;¬ ¬i · ¤ - ¤· · · ºi - ¬- ¤· · ºi ¬i
«ni ¤i n¤i r n·i i ¤r ·i | ¬ri n¤i r l ¬ ¬¬¬|
ºi ¬·i i ·| ¬· ·i ¬ - ·i | l ¬¬¬ ¬i ººi l ·,i ·i · ¤r
-·| ¬i º l ¬¤i l ¬ ¤r ¤ºi i ·-i -i ªi º| · ºi ¬i ri ¬¬ni
r | ¬ l ¬· -i ªi º| · ºi ¤· · · ºi | ¤ ·r| ·i i | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n
·- · ·i- ·i| ¬ ·¬ -i ªiº| ºi¬· ºi - ¤ ¤l¬n ºri ri , ¤r «in ·i| ·r|
r | ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬| · l·- ¬ ¤r «in ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¤ºii ·-i
· rlºº¤·· ¬| ·nº| (rlº¬ · ·¬lº¤ ) - ¤¬ r| l ·· - ¤¬ - l ·º
¬i l ·-i ºi ¬º·i ¤i ·i i | ¤ri rl ºº¤· · ·nº| ¬ ¬¤i · ¤i
¬i ni - ¤¤ r | ¬ ·i·n ¬··i ¬ ¬ ¤ºii ·-i · ¬¤·| l·l··¬¤ ¬
·iºi· ¤r ¬i¤ l¬¤i ·ii| ·i ¬¤l nºi ¬ ¬ ;¬ n ·i ¬i ¬-¤
/sr ; o -i ·i ¬i ni r |
4073
; ¬i ¬| ¬in·| ºini··| - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i ;
¬·¤ ¬ilrl-¤¬ ¬·i·i ¬l·i¬ lªi¬ ¬i·¤ ¬¤¬··i ·r| r | s-| ºini··|
¬ ¬·n - ¬·i·i ¬in·| ºini··| ¬ ¤ iºl-·i¬ ··ii - , ¤¬ ¤ ¬| ·i-·i
·i- n; l¬¬¬ ¬iººi -i ªilº¤i ¬ ¤ ºii¬· ¤º ¬ s ¬-¤ ¬ l¬¤ n rºi
¬n n¤i| -i ªiº| ¬- i- n r·-i ¬i l··ir ¤ ·¤·i¸ln ·ºi ¬ ºi¬i
¤ ·ii¬º··i · ¬| ¤ ¤| ºi·¤¬| ¬ r ¬i ·ii| -i¬·i ¬ ºi¬i · ·n ·n ¬i º
ni · ¬ ºi¬i ºiºii ¬ · -i ªiº| · ºi ¬| ºi¬·ii·| ¬··i ¬ ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi
¬º¬ n r·-i ¬i -iº l·¤i n·ii ¬¬¬| ºi·| ºi·¤¬| ¬i ·r| ¬
¬iºiniº - ·i¬ l·¤i| «iºi ¬ r·i ¤lºn ¬ ¤r ¬i·¬iº| l-¬n| r l¬
;¬¬| ¬¸ ¤·i l-¬· ¤º ·ii·º·º ¬ ºi·¤··i · ¤¬ ¬ ·i ¬ ¬º -iªiº| ·ºi
¬ ºi¤ ¬i ¬ ¬· · ¬ l¬¤ l·¬¬i ¬ l¬· ·r -·¤ ºi¤ ¬i ¬
l·º·i¬·iin ¬ ¬iººi -iºi n¤i| ;¬¬| ¬¸ ¤·i l-¬· ¤º r·i · ºi¤ ¬i
¬i ¤ºi-n ¬º· ¬i l·º¤¤ l¬¤i| ;¬| «|¤ - ºi·¤¬| ¬iºiniº ¬
l·¬¬¬º l···¤ ¬ ¬ n¬i - ¤¬| n; ·i|| r·i ¬ ¬¬¬| ·i - ·r| ¤º
ri n| r | r·i ¤lºn ¬| ¬ri·| ¤r| ¤º ¬-i·n ri ¬in| r | ¬ l¬·
¤|·| ¤i¤| r · ·¬i n · ;¬¬ ¬i n ·i | l ··ººi l ·¤i r
·¤i l ¬ ·r ¬n·i n csc ¬ c«o ; o ¬ «| ¤ r· i ¬ ¬i ·i
¬¬¬| ºi ¬·i i ·| ¬· ·i ¬ - ºri ·i i | ;¬¬ ¬i·i ·r ¤r ·i|
¬¸ ¤·i · ni r l¬ ¬··i ¬ ¬ - l¤¤i · ¤r l·· ·· l¬¤i ·ii l¬ ·r
¬··i ¬ ¬i ºi·¤·iiº ¬ ·ii¬ ¬ | r· i ¬ ºi i ¬· ¬i ¤ i º-· i coc
; o - -i ·i ¬i ni r ¬i º ;¬¬ ¬n·i n n| ¬ ·· i i ¬ «i ·
r · ·¬i n · ¬¬¬ ·º«i º - ¤r ¤ni r | ;¬ ¤ ¬i º ¤r
¬-¤ r· i ¬ ºi i ¬·¬i ¬ ¬i ¬·i l ·i ¬ -r- ·¤¸ ºi ¬i º · ·i ·
¬i ¤ n ·i i | ¤ ¬| l -·i l n - ¤l · r · ·¬i n r· i ¬| l ·¬¤i
¬ n·i i ¬¬¬ ¤ ·i i · ¬ ¤ ·i i l ·n ri ¬º ¬¬ ¬· ·i ¬ ¬i
ºi i ¬¬ -i ·ni r ni ;¬ ¬-·i ·i i l ·¬ ·r| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni |
¬ l¬· r- ¤r ·i| ·r| -i· ¬¬n l¬ -i ªiº| · ºi ¬-i·n ri n¤i ·ii
¬i º ¬¬¬ ··ºii·ºi ·i ¤º r·i · ¬¤·i ¬i- i·¤ l·-i ºi l¬¤i ·ii| r·i ¬
«i· ¤ ·¤·i¸ln · ºi ¬i ·¤i r ¬i ;¬¬ l··i¤ - ¬i ; ¬i·¬iº| ·r|
l-¬n|| ¬ l¬· l·l·i·· ¬ i ni ¬ r- ¤r ¬i·n r l¬ -iªiº| ºi¬· ºi
¬in·| ¬i º ¬i-·| ºinil··¤i - ·i| ¬|l·n ºri| ;¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤r ¬ri
¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ¬in·| ºini··| ¬ ¤¸ ·i , - r·i ¬i ¬·¤ ¤¬
4074
¬i¬l--¬ ·i-·i ·i| ¬i º ¬¬¬ «i· ¤ · ¬-nº ·iiºn ¬| ºi¬·|ln ¬¤·|
-·i·iil·¬ l-·iln - ¬i n; | ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ r·i · -i¬·i ¬ ¤º·n|
n ·n ºi¬·ºi ¬ -i·i·n ·n ¬i -n·i - -·iil¤n l¬¤i ·ii ¬i º ;¬ ¤ ¬iº
-i ªilº¤i ¬i -n·i ¤º ¬ ¬¤·i ¬l·i¬iº si · ·i ¤· i ri ni| ;¬¬
«i·¬¸ · ¬i ºi¬ ¬i ·i ¤ -i ªilº¤i ¬ r| ºii¬·i·nn n ºri| ;¬ -i·· -
¬i ; ¬l-·i; ·r| ri ·| ¤ilr¤|
r· i ¤· ¤º·n| n · ni ¬i ¬i ¬
¬in·| ºini··| ¬ ¤¸ ·i , - ¬i ¬¬ ·i ¤ - ·i| r·i ··i · ¬i ºii¬· ·ii
;¬¬| ¤ l · - ¤ ¬i «i · ¬ l ·¬- l ·i -i ºi ¬ ¤ i · n ¤¬ l ·l ·i
¬ ri n| r | ;¬ l ·l ·i - z«s ¤i ·| ¬ l ¬·¬ r· i ··i · ¬
-i · ¬i n r l ¬· ¤º ¬| ºi ¬·- n ( ¬| ºi | ¬i l ·- ¤) ¬ ªi
¬- ¬| ºi r | ¬i ºo «· · ;· r r· i ¬i l ¬·¬i -i ·i r | ·i o
· ·r¸ l n ·i | ;¬ -·| ¬i º ¬ºn| r |
¤|·| ¤i¤| r · ·¬i n ·i| ;¬| ¬-¤ ·iiºn ¬i¤i ·ii ¬iº ¬¬· ;·
·i ¤i ¬| l·-n n ¤i¤i ¬| ·i| n·ii ¬¤· l··ººi ¤¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬ ª¤ -
l¬ªi ·i | ¤i º¤i -¤ l ·,i ·i · n·i i ¬·¬ ¬· ¬ººi ¤º ¬· ¬
·i i ºn| ¤ ;l nri ¬¬i ºi · ·i | , r · ·¬i n ¬ l ··ººi i ¬i
¬· · ri n| n « n ¬ -·| ¬i º l ¬¤i r | ¬ l¬·, r · ·¬i n ¬ ¬·i|
l··ººi ¤¸ ºi ª¤ ¬ l·º·¬·|¤ ·r| r | ¬«¬ «· | «in ni ¤r r l¬
¬¬· ¬¤· l··ººii - ;·iº÷¬·iº ¬ ¬ ·|÷¬ ·i; «ini ¬i ¬-¤l·i¬
-·ii· l·¤i r | l¬¬- ¤ lnril¬¬ n·¤i ¬ ¬i·i÷¬i·i ¬i· ·iiln¬
¬ril·¤i , l·ºi·i ª¤ ¬ «i , ·i- ¬ ¬-«l··in, ¬l·i¬ -r-· ¬ ¬i·i
¬· ·i n ¬| n; r | ·¸ ¬º| «in ¤r r l¬ ¬¬¬i · l·-¬i ºi «i·i ·i-
¬ ¤¬ ¬· ¤i¤| ·i·n ¬| ·ii ln ·ii l¬¬· ¤ - ªi ª¤ ¬ ¬ ·¬ «i , ·i-
¬ ¬-«l··in -·ii·i , --iº¬i n·ii ¬·ºi ·ii ¬i l··ººi l·¤i r | ¬·¤ ·i-i
¬ ¬-«l··in l··ººi «r n ¬ ·i ¤ - ¬i º ¤¬ni+ « n ¬ l·¤ n¤ r |
n| ¬º| «i n ¤r r l ¬ ¬¬¬ ,i ºi l ·¤ n¤ ·i i ni l ¬¬
l ··ººi «r n ¬l ·i ¬ l ·º·¬·| ¤ ·r| r | n·i i ·¸ l º¤i ¬
l ··ººi ·i | ¬·i | ÷¬·i | ¬l ·º·¬·| ¤ ¬nn r | r · ·¬i n ·
¬i ºi ¬ ¬ ¬- «l · ·i n ·i -·i i ·i ¬i l ··ººi ¬¤· ¤i ¤i
· ni · n - l ·¤i r | ¤r¬i -·i i · ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¬i r l ¬¬ ,
l ··ººi ¬i ¬ ¬l ¬n ¬º· ·i ¬i · , ¬¤i · ¤i -i ·i r n·i i
4075
¬· i | ;l nri ¬¬i ºi · ;¬ l ··ººi ¬i ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i r| l ··ººi
-·| i ¬º l ¬¤i r | ¬··i ¬ ¬ ··· ·¬ ¬ (·÷¤i ÷ln÷¤i ÷¬ ÷¬i ) ¬|
·¸ º| ¤¬ ¬i ¬| «nin r ¤ ·ri ¬ ·l·iºi÷¤¸ · ¬| l·ºii - s ¬i ¬|
¤¬¬º n ni ¤iº ¬º· ¬ «i· ·r ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¤r ¤ni r | ¬¬¬i ¬i
¤i¤i -in r ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¬ n|· ¬i ¬| ¤¸ · ¬i· ¬ «i·
n ni ¬ ¬-nº - ·r r¤- ªi (¬i ÷l¤÷- ÷lªi) ¤r ¤ni r ¬iº ·ri ¬
¬in ¬i ¬| n ni ¬ ·l·iºi ¬i¬º ¤ ¤in (¤i ÷¬i ÷¤÷l¬¤i) ¤r ¤ni r |
¤ ¤in ¬ ¤i ¤ ¬i ¬| ¤¬¬º ·r ¬iºii-«| ¤r ¤ni r n·ii ¬i ºii-«| ¬
¬in ¬i ¬| ¬-nº ¤¬¬º ·r ¬¬¤ º (lºi÷l¬¤i÷lºi÷¬i ÷¬i) ¤r ¤ni r
¬i º ·ri ¬ ·/o ¬·i·i ·so ¬| ¬-nº l·ºii - l·ºiiªi (l¤÷¬i ÷l¬¤i)
¬| l-·iln «nini r | ;¬ l ¤÷¬i ÷l ¬¤i ¬i ¬l · ·i - ,i ºi
¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ¬-n l ¬n l ¬¤i n¤i r ·¤i l ¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i ¤¬
·i - l ·ºi i ªi ·i | ·i i |
¬« r · ·¬i n ¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ( ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ) n·i i l ·ºi i ªi
( l ¤÷¬i ÷l ¬¤i ) ¬| ¤r¤i · ¬ ¬- «· · i - ·i - ¬- ¤· · ri ·i
-·i ·i i l ·¬ r ·¤i l ¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ( `) ¬ ·r l ·ºi i ªi ¤r ¤· ¬
l ¬¤ l ¬¬ - « ÷- « -i n ¬i ¬¤·i ni r ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬i º ;·
·i ·i -·i i ·i ¬i ¤¬÷·¸ ¬º ¬ ¬i ¤| ·¸ º ri ·i ¤i l r¤|
¬l· ·i- · ··n·ii·· ¬ º· ¬·ii n « , ¬| ·ini · ¬ ¬¤¬ · ·i ¬| ¬·ii
¬ ¬iººi l¤÷¬i ÷l¬¤i ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i -i·i r l¬¬¬i l··ººi r- ¤|s ·
¬i¤ r | ¬« ¤l· ¤r ¬¤i ·¤i ·ii ni ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¬i ·÷¬i -·ii· ºri
ri ni, ¤r l·¤iº· ¬| «in r | ¬ l ¬· r-i º ;l nri ¬¬i ºi · l «·i
;¬ l ·· i ¤ ¤º l ·¤i º l ¬¤ ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¬i ¬¤i · ¤i -·| ¬i º
¬º l ¬¤i r n·i i ¬¬¬ l ··ººi ¬i ·i | |
r · ·¬i n ¬ ¬· ¬i º ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni r,ooo ¬| ¬ ·i ¤ -
l·-n n ·ii ¬i º ;¬¬| ºi¬·ii·| zo ¬| ·i ¤ - ¤ ¬| ·i|| ¤ri ¤º ·oo
¬ ·iiºi- ·i n·ii s,ooo l·i·i ·i l¬·- r|·¤i· ¬i º -ri¤i· ·i ·i ¬ r|
l·i·i ¬l--l¬n ·i | ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¬ ·i ¤ - ·o · ·-l·º ·i | ¬l¬· ¬¬-
ºr· ·i¬ l·l·i·· ¤ ·ii ¬i -i·· ·i¬ l·,i·i ¬| ¬ ª¤i «r n ¬- ·i||
;¬| ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬-«··i - r · ·¬i n · ·¬ «··i «il·i¬-· ¬| ¬·ii ¬i
l··ººi l·¤i r | ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i ·ºi · ¬º· ·i ¬ ¬i ·i l ·¬ l ·,i ·
;¬ r| ¬¤i · ¤i -i ·n r | ¬ l ¬· ¬l · ·i - · ·i i ni l ¬¬
4076
¬l -·i ;¤i ¬i · ªi n r ¤ ¬i ·¤ º ¬ ¬- nº÷¤l º¤- ¬| ¬i º
¬i ¬¸ ¤ º ·i -¬ ¤¬ ¬-« ¬ ;¬¬| ¤r¤i · ¬| r | ¬«¬
«· | «i n ni ¤r r l ¬ ;¬ ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¬i n ni ¬ l ¬·i º
l -·i n «ni ¤i n¤i r | ¤ º· ¤r r l ¬ ¬¤i ;¬¬| ¤r¤i ·
¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ¬º ¬¬n r ` n·ii ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni - l¬· -n¸ ¤i , ¬ ·iiºi-i
¬i º l·riºi ¬i l··ººi r · ·¬i n · l·¤i r ·¤i ¬·r ¬¤i·¤i ¤º
¬iºil¤n ¬º ¬¬n r ` ¤l· ;¬¬i ¬-nº ri - l·¤i ¬i¤ ni
l¤÷¬i ÷l¬¤i ¬·ii n l·ºiiªii ¬ l··i¤ - ·¤i ¬ri ¬i¤ni ¬i ·ii nil¬¬
· l·- ¬ ¬i ÷¤ ÷ni ¬ ¬i¤| ·¸ º r n·ii ¬ri ¤º « , ¬ ·ini · ¬
¬-¤·· · ·i ¬i l··ººi l-¬ni r | ;· ·i ·i -·ii·i ¬ l··ººi ¬i º
¤r¤i· - ¬l-·i; ¬ ¬iººi ¤¸ ºi ¤i¤i l··ººi r| ¬·· r ¬ ·i º - ¬i
¬ini r |
¤ l nri º ¬i ¬
¬i -·| ¬ ·¬·| ºi ni l · ·¤i ¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ;l nri ¬
¬ l ·· i ¤ - ¬i ; l ·ºi · i ¬¸ ¤·i ¬i l ·i ¬ l ªi ¬ ¤· ¬i l rl - ¤¬
¬ i ni ¬ ·r| l -¬ ¤i n| | l¬·n ¬-nº ·iiºn ¬ ºi¬·|ln¬
;lnri¬ - ¬··i ¬ ¬i -r-· «·i ºri ·¤i l¬ n ¬ º÷¤ l nri º
ºi ¬i ¬i · ··| ºi ni · ·| ; o - ¬· ·i ¬ ¬ ºi i ¬· l ¬¤i
·i i | ·in·i- - l,n|¤ ¬i ¤r¬ nil··· n n|¤ ¬ ¤ºil¬n ri ¤ ¬i ·ii,
¬··i ¬ ¤º ¬l·i¬iº ¬º· ¬ «i· ¬¤· ¬i ¬- i- ·iil·in ¬ºni r n·ii
¤º- ·i- -iº¬ -riºi¬il·iºi¬ ¤º- º·º ¬| ¬¤il·i¤i ·iiººi ¬ºni r |
¬¬| ¬ ·ºi - ·in¤i¬ ¬ «i· ºi-·i· n·ii ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ l-lrº·ii ¬
ºii¬¬ «·ni r | ¤ lnriº ¬i¬ - ¬··i ¬ ¬ ¤ lnriºi ¬ ¬ ·i·i ·l·iºi -
ºi·- ¬¸ -i ¬ ¬i·i n·ii ¤¸ · - « ni¬ ¬ ¤i¬i ¬ ¬i·i l·º·nº ¤¬n ºr |
l-lrº·ii ¬ ¬ «i· ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ -r ·· ¤i¬ ºii¬¬ r ¬i l¬¬¬| ºii¬·
lnl·i ssr÷s·r ; o n¬ -i·| ¬in| r | -r·· ¤i¬ ¬ «i· ·ii ¬ l,n|¤,
n-¤º¤in -r|¤i¬ ¬i º ¬¬¬ «i· -r ·· ¤i¬ l,n|¤ ¬iº · ·¤i¬ ºii¬¬
«·n r | · ·¤i¬ ¬| ¬ ln- nin lnl·i s«s ; o r ¬i º ¬¬· ¬ ·i·n sro
; o n¬ ºii¬· l¬¤i| · ·¤i¬ ¬ ·i·n ¬l·n- -r-·¤¸ ºi ºi¬i ·ii ·¤i l¬
nr· ·i¬ ºi¬i ¤·· · · ¬ ¤·· i·n| ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬
¬¬¬ l¤ni-r ¤ºii l·n r · · ·¤i¬ ¬ · ºi¬i ¬ ··- ri ¬i· ¬ «i·
«¬¤¸ · ¬ ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¤º ¬l·i¬iº ¬º l¬¤i ·ii| ¤r ¤¬ l·¤iº ¬º· ¬|
4077
«in r l¬ · ·¤i¬, ¬i ¬¤ ·ii¬ n ¤¬ ¬-¬i º ºii¬¬ ·ii ¬i º «r n r|
¬~¤ ¬-¤ ¬ l¬¤ ºi¬n· ·| ¤º « -i, l¬¬ ¤ ¬iº nr· ·i¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii -
¬· ·i n l¬¤i n¤i r | ·i-n· - · ·¤i¬ ¬ «i· ¤ lnriº · ºi ··- ·r|
r ¬i ·ii n·ii ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ nin ri ni r l¬ ¬¬¬ «i· l·¬¤¤i¬ ¬i º
n-¤º¤in ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ ºi·¤¤i¬ ºii¬¬ r ¬i| l¬·n ;¬ ¬·l·i - ¤ lnriº
· ºi ¬ ºi·¤ ·i ¤ ¬i r· ¤· ·i¬ ¬; ºi¬· ºi ¬- ªi· r ¤ ·i |
ºi ·¤¤i ¬ ¬ ºi i ¬·¬i ¬ - r| ·o·s ; o - ¬· ·i ¬ ¤º
-r-¸ · n¬··| ¬ ;¬ ¬i ¬ -ºi r ¬i ·i i | - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºii ¬i
l··ººi r- ¬n¬ ¬·¤i¤ - · n | ;¬l¬¤ ¤ri ¤º -r-¸ · n¬··| ¬ ;¬
¬i¬ -ºi ¬| l·· ¤·i ·r| ¬| ¬i ºr| r | ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ «in ¤r r l¬ ;¬
¬i¬ -ºi ¬ ·i| ¤ lnriº · ºi ¬i ¬-¸ ¬ l··iºi ·r| r ¬i ·ii ·¤i l¬ l ·¬ -
¬ ·n ··s« ( ·oz/ ; o) ¬ ;¬i ri «i · l ¬¬ - l -·i n n¸ ¬|
¬ ¤ i · n ri · ·i ¬ ¤¬ ¬l ·i ¬ ªi - ºi ·¤¤i ¬ ¬ ¤ ¤
l ¤¬i ¤·¤i ¬ ¬i ¤º-·i - -i º¬ -ri ºi ¬i l ·i ºi ¬ ¤º- º·º
¬ri n¤i r | ¬ l¬· l¤¬i ¤·¤i¬ ¬i l¬n·i ºi¬·|ln¬ -r-·
·ii, ¤r ·r| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni| ·o·s ; o - -r-¸ · ¬ ¬i¬ -ºi -
l¤¬i ¤·¤i¬ · ·i| ¬i¤| ·|ºni l·ªii¤| l¬·n ·r ¤ºil¬n ri n¤i|
l¤¬i ¤·¤i¬ ¬ «i· ¤ºi¤i¬ ·i-¬ ¤¬ ¬·¤ ¤ lnriº ºii¬¬ ¬i ·i-
l-¬ni r l¬¬ -riºi¬il·iºi¬ ¤ºi¤i¬ ¬ri n¤i r ¬ l¬· ¤r ·r|
¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni l¬ ;¬ ¤ºi¤i¬ ¬i l¤¬i ¤·¤i¬ ¬ ·¤i ¬ « ·i ·ii| ;¬
¤ ¬i º ¬· ·i ¬ ¬ n ¬ ·÷¤ l nri ºi ¬i ; ¬i ¬| ·¤i ºr·|
ºi ni · ·| ¬ ¤¸ ·i , - ¤n· ri n¤i ¬i º ¬·¬i -·i i ·
nr· ·i ¬i · ¬ l ¬¤i |
¤ lnriº ¬i¬ - ¬ri n¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬iº ¬i ºi¬ ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬i
¤ º· r , ¤r l·º¤¤¤¸ · ¬ ·r| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni l¬ ¤r ·i ¤ ¤ lnriº
ºi¬i¬i ¬ ¬|·i ¤ ºii¬· ¬ ¬·nn n ·ii ¬·i·i ¬·¬ l¬¬| ¬i-·n ,iºi
¤ ºiil¬n ri ºri ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¤r ·i| l·º¤¤ ¬ ¬i·i ·r| ¬ri
¬i ¬¬ni l¬ ¬-¤¸ ºi ¬i ºi¬ ¤ · ºi ¤¬ r| ¬i-·n ¬·i·i ¬l·i¬iº| ,iºi
¤ ºiil¬n ri ni ·ii ¬·i·i ;¬ ·i ¤ - ¬; si - ÷-i - ¬i-·n ºii¬· ¬º ºr
·i | ·ii ni l¬¬ l·¬-ni ¬| · l·- ¬ ¤r -·|¬iº ¬º· - ¬ ¬i ¤ ·r|
ri ·i ¤ilr¤ l¬ ¬i ºi¬ ¬|·i n ¬º÷¤ lnriº ºii¬¬i ¬ ¬·nn n ·ii|
nr· ·i ¬ ¬i ¬
4078
¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ;l nri ¬ ¬| · l · - ¬ nr· ·i ¬ ¤ n ¬- ¤l ·i ¬
-r- ·¤¸ ºi r | ¤nl ¤ ;¬ ¬-¤ ·i | ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ¬- «· ·i -
¬l ·i ¬ ¬i l ·i ¬ l ªi ¬ ¬·i ·i ¬i l rl - ¤¬ ¬i ·¤ ¬¤¬· ·i ·r| r
l ¤º ·i | ¬· ¬ -·i ¬i ¤º ¤ ¬ ¬~¬ ªi l -¬n r l ¬·¬
¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ;l nri ¬ ¤º ·i i · i «r n ¤ ¬i ºi ¤· ni r |
nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬ -·¤ ¬i ¬iºi| ¬iº ¬-nº ¬i ¬¬ ¬il· n|·ii ¬i ¤i¬·
¬º· ·i¬i ¬rn r ¬iº ¬·¬i ¤r ¬·i· ;¬ · l·- ¬ ¬iº -r-·¤¸ ºi ri
¬ini r l¬ ;¬ ¤ n - ¤lº¤- ¬ - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi «iº÷«iº ri ºr ·i |
¬·i| ri¬ r| - c l·¬-«º ·ssz ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i - ºi-÷¬·-·i¸l- -·i¬
l-·in «i ¤ ¬i lnºin ¬-¤ ¬¬¬| ·|·i¬i ¬ ¬··º l¤· n¤ ¤-·iº ¬
¤¬¬ ¤º ¬-¬|ºi «|¤ ¤ l·n¤i ¬i ¤¬ nr· ·i¬ ¬i¬|· ¬l·i¬ ªi ¤ i·n
r ¬i r | ;¬- ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¤lº¤- ¬ ¬i· ·i¬| ·i|ln (¬i¬ -ºii )
¬i ¤ -¤i·ln n l¬¤i n¤i n·ii ¬¤i ·¤i - l··ºi rlº ¬i ¤¬ l·ºii¬ -l·º
«··i¤i n¤i| ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬¤i·¤i nr· ·i¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ -
¬·¬ ,iºi r| ¬iºl·in ºr||
¤ºi i l ·n r
nr· ·i¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ¬· ¬iº, ;¬ ·ºi ¬ ¤ ·i- ¤ ª·i ¬i ·i- ¤ºii l·n r
·ii ¬i ¤·· · · ¬i l¤ni-r ·ii| ¬¬¬ l··i¤ - ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¬¬·
¤ ··| ¬i ¬|n¬º ¬¬ ¬¤·| ·º·¤ ºil¤·| «·i¤i| ¤ i¤ ¤r -i·i ¬ini
r l¬ ¤ºi i l ·n r · ·¤i ºr·| ºi ni · ·| ; . ¬ -· ¤ - ºi i ¬·
l ¬¤i ·i i | l¬¬| ¬·¤ ¤ -iºi ¬ ¬·ii· - ¤r| ·i| -i·i n¤i r l¬
¬¬· ¬n·i n zr ·· i ºi i ¬· l ¬¤i ri ni |
-r| ¤· ·
¤ºiil·n r ¬i ¤ ¤ -r|¤·· ¬i l¤ni ·ii| ;¬¬i ·ºi · ·i| nr· ·i¬
¬l·i¬ ªii - ¬i·iiººi « n ¬ ¤¬ l·¬¤| ºi¬i ¬ ª¤ - l¬¤i n¤i r
n·ii ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¬¬¬i ¤ºi ¬- · ¬ ¤iº n¬ ¤ ¬ ¤ ¬i ·ii|
-riºi¬¤ ¤ ni l···¤·· ¬ ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi - ¬¬ · ¤ ¬ri n¤i r
n·ii ¤r «ni¤i n¤i r l¬ ¬¬· ¬· ¬ ºi¤ ¬i ¤º l·¬¤ ¤ i·n ¬| ·i||
;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬¬ -r|n¬ ·i- l·¤i n¤i r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ;lnri¬¬iºi
¬i ¤r -i··i r l¬ ¤ºii l·n r n·ii -r|¤·· ·i ·i r| ¬i-·n ºii¬¬ ·i
¬i º l¬¬| «· ºi¬i ¬| ¬·i|·ni -·|¬iºn ¬ºn ·i | ¬ ·i·n ;·¬i
-·i-| ¬~¤ lº ºii¬¬ ¬·-|¬ºi (·o«z÷·o/o ; o) ·ii l¬¬¬i
4079
¬-nºil·i¬iº| ¤ºi¬ºi ·ii| -r|¤·· · ·i| ¬ ·i·n ·¤iºr·| ºini··| ; o
¬ n|¬º ¤ººi - ºii¬· l¬¤i ri ni|
¤· · · ·
¤·· · · nr· ·i¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬i ¤ ·i- ¤ ni¤| ºi¬i ·ii| ¬¬¬i ¤r¬i
¬l·i¬ ªi ¤·· i·n| ¬ l-¬i r ¬i º ¬¬ ¤º l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··«s (·oso ; .)
¬| lnl·i ¤· | r ; r | ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬¬ ¤º- ·i- -iº¬ -riºi¬il·iºi¬
¤º- º·º ¤º-irº·º l·¬·i ¬i ¤il¬ n ¬|¬i·¤¬ ·¬il·i¤-¤ ¬|¤·· · ·l·¬¤|
¬ri n¤i r | ;¬¬ ¤r ¬· -i· ¬ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ·oso ; o ¬
¬i¤| ¤r¬ r| ¬¬¬i ºii¬· ¤ iº-·i ri ¤ ¬i ·ii| ¤ i¤ ¬·i| nr· ·i¬
¬l·i¬ ªii - ¬¬ ¬iºi| (·iºiºi¬|), ¬ lºi¬ (¬·¤¬ ·¬ ¤i ¬··i ¬),
¬-nº¬iºi¬ (¬¤i ·¤i) n·ii ;·· -·ii·|¤¬ ¬il· n|·ii ¬i ¤i¬· ¬º·
·i¬i ¬ri n¤i r | ¬l·i¬i ºi l·,i· ;·· -·ii·|¤¬ ¬i ;·· ¤ -·i ¬·i·i
l·~¬| r| -i·n r | ;¬ ¬-¤ l·~¬| ¤º ni -ºi ¬i ºi·¤ ·ii ¬iº ¬¬¬
«i· ¤ir-i·i ¬i ºii¬· r ¬i| ni -ºi ¬ l¬¬| ·i| ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ;¬ «in
¬| n¬¬ ·r| l-¬n| l¬ l·~¬| ¤º nr· ·i¬i · ºii¬· -·iil¤n l¬¤i
ri ¬i º ni -ºi ¬i ¬¤·-·i l¬¤i ri | l¤º ·i|, ¤·· i·n| ¬l·i¬ ªi -
¬l~¬lªin ;·· -·ii·|¤¬ ¬i ¤l· l·~¬| -i·i ¬i¤ ni ¤r| -·|¬iº
¬º·i ¤· ni l¬ ¤·· · · n ¬i ¬ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ l·ª, ¬l·i¤i· ¬ºn r ¤
l·~¬| n¬ ¤r ¤i ri ni ¬iº ¬¬¬| º·ii ¬| ri n||
¤·· · · · l¬· ¤lºl-·iln¤i - ;¬ l·-n n ·i¸ ÷·iin ¤º ºii¬· ¤ iº-·i
l¬¤i, ;¬¬ l··i¤ - ¬ s ¬ ¬ n -riºi¬¤ ¤ nil···¤·· ¬ «¬ir|
ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤ i·n ri ni r l¬¬- ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ·ii ¬ ¬| - -¤
¬ ¤º¤in n·ii ¬ºi ¬| ¬|ln ¬ ¬·ºi·i ¬ ··- ri · ¤º ¬« ¤ ··|
¬l-·i; - ¤· n; ·i| ni ¤·· · · · ¬¬¬| º·ii ¬|| ¤·· i·n| ¬l·i¬ ªi
- ¤r ·i| ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¬¬· ¬¤· ¬·iº ¤ ni¤ ¬ ¬--n ¤ ¬i ¤· ·i
¬i ºii·n ¬º¬ nil·i¤ º ¬il·iºi·¤ ¬i ¬l¬ n l¬¤i n·ii ºi¤ ¬i ¬i
l···-n ¬º l·¤i|
·¬i r| ·i ·¤¤ ¬ ªi - ¬l ~¬l ªi n ·i i ¬ ¬| ¤r¤i ·
·i i ¬ ¤º-i º ¬ ¬| n; r l ¬¬· ·ooo ¬ ·oro ; o n¬
ºi i ¬· l ¬¤i ·i i , n·i i ¬ºi ¬| ¤r¤i · ¬~¤ l º ºi i ¬¬
¬·-| ¬ºi ¬ ¬| n; r l ¬¬· ¤ , - ¬; «i º ¤ºi l ¬n
ri · ¬ «i · ¬¤·i l ¬ ri ¬· ·o/s ; o ¬ ¤¸ · ¬¤·
4080
¤ ¤ ¤ºi ¬ºi ¬ l ¬¤ si · l ·¤i ·i i | ¬·-|¬ºi ¬| ¤ºi¬¤i ¬
«i· ¬·n· ·| - ¬i ; ºil·nºii¬| ¤ lnºi ·i · ºr ¬i· ¬ ¬iººi n·ii
¤lº¤n ¬ - ¬¬-i·i ¬ l·º nº ri · ·i¬ ¬i¬ -ºii ¬ ¬iººi ¤ ¬i¬·i -
·i¤ ·¤i·n ri n¤i ·ii| ;¬¬i ºii·n ¬º· ¬i ¬ ¤ ¤·· · · ¬i ¤ i·n
r ¬i| - ¬¬-i · ;l nri ¬¬i ºi ¬ ¬~¬ ªi i ¬ ¤r ni n ri ni
r l ¬ ¬-¬i ¬| · n¬·| ¬ ¬ ~ni · ;« i l r- · ( ·ors÷ss
; o n¬) ·i i ºn ¤º ¬; «i º ¬i ¬ -ºi l ¬¤ ·i | r«| « l -¬¤º
·i -¬ ;l nri ¬ ¬ ªi ¬ ¬i ¤r ¬r·i r l ¬ ¬¬·
l r· · -ni · ¤º ¬; «i º ¬i ¬ -ºi l ¬¤i ¬i º rº «i º l ·¬¤|
ri ¬º n¬·| ¬i -i | ¤ ¬ - ¬-¤ - ¤· · · · · n ª· ¬
¬i ¬ -ºi i ¬ ;· · ·n| ·i i ¬| ¬ º·i i ¬º· ¬ l ¬¤ n·i i
¤ ¬i - · ¤i · n ¬¤· ·i ¬i ºi i · n ¬º· ¬ l ¬¤ ºi i ¬· ¬¤·
ri ·i - ¬ l ¬¤i |
¤·· · · ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¤iº ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬¤¬··i r ¬i l·¬ -|
¬ ·n ·o«s, ·oro, ·or« - ln·¤il¬n r | ¤·· · · ¬i ·iºiºi¬| ¬ l·~¬|
n¬ ¬ ·i ¤ ¬i -·i-| «·· ¬ l¬¤ ¬; ¤ , ¬º· ¤· ri n | nr· ·i¬
¬l·i¬ ªii - ºi¤ ¬i ··- ¬º· ·i¬i (¬ i·nl,·i·-º·¬) n·ii ¬,n
¤i ,i¬i ¬ ,iºi ¤ ¬i¤ n¤ ¬··i¬iº ¬i ··- ¬º· ·i¬i
(l···-ni ,n·i|º¤i ·ilnl-º) ¬ri n¤i r | ¤· · i ·n| ¬ l ·¬ - ¬ ·n
··ro ( ·oss ; o) ·i ¬ ¬ ªi - ¬¬ ·º¤l n, n¬¤l n,
l nl º¤l n n·i i l ¤ºi ¬ ¤l n ¬i ¬| n· ¬i ¬ ¤ l ·¤i n¤i r |
;·¬ l··i¤ - l·º¤¤¤¸ · ¬ ¬ s l·ºi·i ·r| ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni| ¬ ·i·n ¤r
¬~¤ lº ºi¬i¬i ¬| ¬¤il·i¤i ·i| ¬·i·i ¤ ¬i-·ni ¬ ¬ s l·ºi·i ·n ·i |
¤·· · · ¬| ¬«¬ -r-·¤¸ ºi ¬¤¬l··i ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬·i·i -ri ·¤ ¤º
¬l·i¬iº ¬º·i ºri r | ¬··i ¬ -i ªiº| ¬i¬ ¬ r| ¬·n· ·| ¤º ºii¬·
¬º· ·i¬ ºil·nºii¬| ¬- i-i ¬| ºi¬·ii·| ºr| r | r·i ¬i º ¤ lnriº
¬- i- ·i| ¬··i ¬ ¬ ºii¬· ¬º ºr ·i | ;¬| ¬iººi ¤ i¤ ¬·i|
¬il·i¬ilº¬ nr· ·i¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬| l·¬¤ ¬i ·i «iº
¬ ·l·i n l¬¤i ¬ini ºri r | (¬|-· nil·i¤ ºil·iºi·¤ ¬- ·il· ¬ - ºi ¬l¬ n
n·ii l·¬·i ¬i ¤il¬ n ¬| ¬·¤¬ ·¬il·i¤-¤ )| ¤·· · · ¬ ¤i ¤
ni l···¤·· ,iºi ¬¤· l¤ni -··¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - -riºi¬¤ ¤
¬ ª¤ - l¬ª·i¤ n¤ «¬ir| ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¤·· · · ¬ l··i¤ - ¤r ¬ri
4081
n¤i r l¬ ¬¬· ¬i · ¤¬ · ¬ ¬i ¬¤·| ºi ¬·i i ·| «·i ¤i
(¬i·¤¬ ·¬ · i¬i ºi¬·ii·|-l· l·ni-)| ¤ i¤ l·,i·i · ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º
l·¤iº ¬º· - ¬l·i¬ ¬-¤ ·¤n|n l¬¤i r l¬ nr· ·i¬i ¬| ºi¬·ii·|
¬··i ¬ - ·i| ¬·i·i ·iºiºi¬| - , ¬iº ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬| ¬ ·ii··i¤ ·¤·n ¬|
r l¬ ¤r¬ ¬··i ¬ ¬i ºi¬·ii·| «·i¤i n¤i ¬i º «i· - ¬¬ ·iºiºi¬|
·i¤¬ ¬ ¬i¤i n¤i ·¤i l¬ l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··o· ¬ «¬ir| ¬l·i¬ ªi -
¤·· · · ¬ ,iºi ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i ºi¬·ii·| «·i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬ini r
¬«l¬ l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··cz ¬ ¬-i¬| ¬l·i¬ ªi - ;¬¬i ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r|
l-¬ni | ¤ri ¤º ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¤ ·i ·i r| ¬l ·i ¬ ªi ¤· · · ·
¬| - - ¤i ¤ºi n ¬¬¬ ¤ ¤ -··¤i ¬ ¬ ºi i ¬·¬i ¬ -
-ri ºi ¬¤ ¤ ni l ·· ·¤· · ,i ºi l ¬ªi ·i ¤ n¤ ·i | ¤r ¤¬
ri-¤i-¤· ¬· -i· -i ¤ r | ·i -n· - nr· ·i¬i ¬| - ª¤ ºi¬·ii·|
·iºiºi¬| r| ºr| ri n| n·ii ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬·¬| l,n|¤ ºi¬·ii·| -i·| ¬i
¬¬n| r ¬i º ¬¬¬i ¬iººi ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i ¤º-¤ºinn ºi¬·ii·| ¬ ª¤
- ¤ i·n ¤ ln·-i ¬i «ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r | ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ -
¬¬ ¬-¤ nil·i¤ ºil·i¤ln ni ¤i¬ ¬i ·ºi¬ ¬i-·n ¬ ª¤ - ºii¬· ¬º
ºri ·ii ¬i º ¬-¤÷¬-¤ ¤º nr· ·i¬ ·º ºi ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ - ·i| ºrn ºr
ri n |
¬ s l ·,i ·i · ¤· · · · ¬| ¤r¤i · ¬¬ ¤i ·ºi ¤ ¬
¬º· ¬| ¬i l ºi ºi ¬| r l ¬¬¬ l ·· i ¤ - - l -¬-
;l nri ¬¬i ºi ¬i ¤r ¬r·i r l ¬ ·r n¬·| ¬ ºi i ¬¬i ¬i
rl -n¤i ¬ ·i i | ·|o ¬|o ni n ¬| · ;¬ «in ¬i ¬· ¤ ·i- ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i
r ¬i º ¤r ¬r· ¬| ¬i lºiºi ¬| r l¬ ¤·· · · -¸ l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i
¬i rl-n¤i¬ ·ii ¬i º ¬·¬i ¬º· ºi¬i ·ii| ¤nl¤ ¤r l¬,i·n ¬ · r ¬
¤º ·r| r n·ii ;¬¬i ªiº·· ·i| l¬¤i ¬i ¤ ¬i r l ¤º ·i|, r · ¬
« ¬º · ¬· i | ri ¬ - r| ;¬¬| ¤ ·ªl ·n ¬| r | ¤ ¬i
¬nni r l ¬ ¬· ri · ºi -i l ·¤i n| ,i ºi l ¬l ªi n nr· ·i ¬
ºi ¬· ºi ¬ ;l nri ¬ ¬i · ªi i r| ·r| |
ni n ¬| · ;¬ ·i-·i ¬i ¬¤· n¬ ¬i ¬i·iiº «·i¤i r l¬¬¬
¬· ¬iº nil·i¤ ºil·i¤ln ni ¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¤¬ «iº ¤ · - ¬¬-i·
¬ ·i · ¬·n· ·| ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i ·ii| r«|« l-¬¤º ¬ ¬· ¬iº ;¬
¬i¬ -ºi ¬i · n -· ;« ilr- · -·¤ l¬¤i ·ii| ¬ l¬· ¬¬-i· ¬ ¬· ¬iº
4082
¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ -r-¸ · ;¬ ¬ ·i ¬i · n -· ¬º ºri ·ii| ¬¤¤i¬ ¬
·|ºni¤¸ · ¬ ¤ lnºi ·i ¬ «i·¬¸ · ¤ºi¬¤ ¬ «i· ¤iºi l·ºii¬i ¬ ºi¬i
¬i n ¬-|º ¬ l¬¤ ¬¤riº ¬ ¬º ¬i· ¬n | ¬¤riºi - ;n· ¬l·i¬ ri·i|
l-¬ l¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬i ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ - ¤¬ rl-nºii¬i -·iil¤n ¬º·| ¤·|
¬i º ¤i ·ºi¤ ·i-¬ ¤¬ ·¤l·n ¬i ¬¬¬i rl-n¤i¬ l·¤ ·n l¬¤i
n¤i| ¤ri ¤º ;¬ ¤i ·ºi¤ ¬| ¤r¤i· nr· ·i¬ ·º ºi ¤·· · · ¬ ¬| n;
¬i º ni n ¬| ,iºi ¤r ¬ ni· l·¤i n¤i l¬
·ii·¤ ¬i ¤-¬i· ¬ l¬¤ ¤·· · · · - ¬¬-i·i ¬i
¬i·i -·|¬iº l¬¤i| ¤ iº-·i - ¬¬· -r-¸ · ¬ ¬·i|·
¬··i ¬ - rl-n¤i¬ ¬ ª¤ - ¬ ·i ¬º·i -·|¬iº
l¬¤i| ¬ l¬· - l-¬- ¬ ·i ¬ ¤ -·ii· ¬ n º·n «i·
¬¬· «¬¤¸ · ¬ ¬··i ¬ ¤º ¬l·i¬iº ¬º l¬¤i ¬iº · ºi
¬i ºii¬¬ «· n¤i . . . . | ¤·· · · · ¬··i ¬ ¬|
ºi·¤¬-ni -r-¸ · ¬ ¬-·i · ¬ ;¬ ºin ¤º ¤ i·n ¬| ·i|
l¬ ·r n¬·| ¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬i ·il·i ¬ ¬º · ni| «iºr·|
ºini··| - - ¬¬-i·i · nr· ·i¬ ¤ ·ºii ¤º «iº÷«iº
¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤| -¤·-n ¤ r-¬ ¤·· · · ¬ · ºi¬i ¬i
¬ ~ni· ¬i «ºi«º ¬º · · ¬i «i·¤ ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ l¬¤
¬in ·i |
ºi -i l·¤i n| · ·io¬|o ni n ¬| ,iºi ¤·· · · nr· ·i¬ ¬| ¤r¤i·
¤i ·ºi¤ ¬ l¬¤ ¬i· ¬| ¬i¬i ¤·i ¬| r ·¤i l¬ ¤r ¬; ¤ ¬iº ¬
¤¸ · ¬··iiººii¬i ¤º ¬i·iilºn r | ¬«¬ ¤r¬| «in ¤r r l¬ rl-n¤i¬
¤i ·ºi¤ ¬ +¤º l¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬ ¬º ¬i l··ii ººi l¬¤i n¤i ·ii, ;¬
«in ¬| ¬¸ ¤·i ·|·i·÷¤÷¬¬-i· r«|« l-¬¤º ¬·i·i ¬-|¬-n·iº|ªi -
·r| ·| n; r | ·¸ ¬º| «in ¤r r l¬ nr· ·i¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - ¬ ·l·i n
n ª·¬ ·º· ·i-¬ ¬º ¬| ¤ ¬ ln ¬ l··i¤ - ¬i ; -¤·- ¬i·¬iº| ·r|
r ¬ l¬· ¤ri ¤r -i· l¬¤i n¤i r l¬ nr· ·i¬ ºi¬i ¬¤·| ¤ ¬i ¬
n ª·¬ ·º· ;¬l¬¤ ·¬¸ ¬ ¬ºn ·i l¬ n¬·| ¬ ºii¬¬i ¬i ¬º ·
¬¬ | n|¬º| «in ¤r r l¬ nr· ·i¬i ¬ ºi·¤ ·i ¤ - n ¬i ¬ l·º nº
¬i¬ -ºi ¬·¬ ¬º ·¬¸ ¬· ¬ l¬¤ ri n ·i ;¬¬i ·i| ¬i ; - l-¬- ¬·i·i
·iiºn|¤ ¤ -iºi ·r| l-¬ni| ¬¬ ¬i¬ - - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi ¤ i¤ ¬·i| lr··¸
ºi¬i¬i ¤º ri n ·i ¬iº ¬·r ¬ ·¬ nr· ·i¬i ¤º r ¤ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ ¬ ··i
4083
- ·r| · ªii ¬i·i ¤ilr¤| ·| ·i ·÷¤÷¬¬-i · - - ¬¬-i ·i ¬
nr· ·i ¬ ·i ¤ ¤º ri · ·i ¬ ¬i ¬ -ºi ¬i l ·-ni º ¬ ¬~¬ ªi
l ¬¤i n¤i r ¬ l ¬· ¬¬- ¤r ¬r| ·r| ¬ri n¤i l ¬ ¤r
¬i ¬ -ºi ¤i ·ºi ¤ ¬ · ºi ¬i ¬ ¬º ·¬¸ ¬· ¬ l ¬¤ l ¬¤i
n¤i ·i i | ·i-nl·¬ni ni ¤r r l¬ ·|·i· - ¤i ·ºi¤ ¬i ¬··i ¬ ¬|
rl-nºii¬i ¬i rl-n¤i¬ l·¤ ·n ¬º· ¬ ¬~¬ ªi ¬ «i· ¬¬¬ ¬|·· ¬
l··i¤ - l¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬i ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l¬¤i n¤i r ¬iº · ¤r ¬ri
n¤i r l¬ ¬¬· ¬··i ¬ ¤º ¬«º·-n| ¬·¬i ¬º l¬¤i ·ii ¬·i·i ¬º
·¬¸ ¬· ¬ l¬¤ n¬·| ¬| ¬ ·i¤ ¤i ·ºi¤ ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ºn| ·i| | ;·
¬iººii ¬ ¤i ·ºi¤ ¬| ¤r¤i· ¤·· · · ¬ ·r| ¬| ¬i ¬¬n|| ¤ri ¤r
--ººi | ¤ r l ¬ ¤· · · · ¬ l ¤ni ¬i º l ¤ni -r ·i ·i r|
· ¤ ¬r n¤ r n·i i ¤ i ¤ ¬·i | l ·,i · -·| ¬i º ¬ºn r
l ¬ ·i ºi ºi ¬| n·i i ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ·i ¤ - ¤· · · · ¬ l ¤ni ¬i º
l ¤ni -r ·i ·i r| · ¤ ¬r n¤ r n·i i ¤ i ¤ ¬·i | l ·,i ·
-·| ¬i º ¬ºn r l ¬ ·i ºi ºi ¬| n·i i ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ·i ¤ -
¤· · · · ¬ ¤¸ · ¬i ¬i ¤r¬ ¬ ºi ¬·| l n¬ ¬l -n- · ºri
ri ni | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤·· · · ¬| ¤r¤i· ¤i ·ºi¤ ¬ ·r| ¬| ¬i ¬¬n|
l¬¬· - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i ¬ rl-n¤i¬ ¬| ·i ¬º| -·|¬iº ¬|
·i|| ¤r ¤i ·ºi¤ ¬i ; ¬i-i·¤ ·¤l·n ºri ri ni| ·¸ ¬º| ¬i º ¤·· · ·
¤ iº-·i ¬ r| - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i ¬ ¬i¬ -ºii ¬i ¬-nº · · ¬ l¬¤
;lnri¬ - ¬i·i ¬ini r |
l ·¬ - ¬ ·n ··ro ¬ ¬i l º·· ··| ·r ºl ··i º,
n·· ¬i º zs ¬·-¸ «º ·oss ¬| l nl ·i - ¬ l ¬n ¤· · · · ¬
¤· · i ·n| ni - ¤¤i l ·i ¬ ªi - ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i ¬ s ¬~¬ ªi l -¬ni
r | ¤· · · · · ¬¤i · ¤i - l ·· ºi rl º ¬ - l ·º - ¬· ¬ ¬i ·
¬ ¬¬ ¬ººi ¬º·i ¤ n·i i ¬i ºi | - ¬i l ·¬ ºi · ¬| ¤ l n-i
¤ l n· -i l ¤n ¬ºi ; | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬-nº ¬i ¬¬ l-·in ¬¤i ·¤i -
¬¬· ¬ ¬~¤¤¸ · ¬ (¬ nl·º¤) ·i¸ l-·i· l·¤i| ¤r ¬i¤ ¬ilº·· -i¬ ¬|
¬-i·-¤i ¬i l¬¤i n¤i ·ii ¬i ºl··iº ri · ¬ ¬i·i÷¬i·i ¬¸ ¤ n rºi ¬i
·i| ¬·¬º ·ii| ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ;¬¬ ·¸ ¬º l·· ¬ ºiiº·|¤ ··ºi¤ ¬i
¤ iº-·i ri ni r | ;¬ ¬·¬º ¤º ¤·· · · · ¬º¤¸ ·i·i ºi ··| ¬ n- ¤º
l-·in -·n ,iºi ·i-¬ n|·i ¤º -·i· l¬¤i (¬º¤¸·i·i ºi·i-·i ºi
4084
-··n ,iº·il-· n|·i -·i-·i)| n·i ¤ºi·n ¬¸ ¤ ¬| ¬¤i¬·i ¬|
(¬·ºiºi l¤·i- ¤-·ii¤), l¤º ¬¬· ·in·i· lºi· ¬| ¬¤ ·i ¬|
(¬i ·i·i|¤lnºi¬¬ºi ªiº ¬-·¤·¤ ), l¤º n|· ¬i ¬i ¬ -·i-| º·i¬ ·i¬ · ·
¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º¬ (·in·nl-¤·i ··¤in ··i ¬ · ·-¤ ¤¸ ¬i l··ii¤) r·· ¬º· ¬
¤º¤in (¤ ¤ º¤i¤¬ · rl··ii rl··i ¬ r -·i), ¬¬· l¤nºi ¬i l¤º··i·
l¬¤i (l¤n l¤º·¤nl¤·· -¤ )| ¤ri ¤r ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¤·· · · · ·i·
· · ¬ ¤¸ · +¤º ¬l~¬lªin ¬i ·iil- ¬ l··ii· l¬¤ · ¬ r| ·iil- ¬
l·l·i÷l··i· ¬¬¬ · ºi¬i ni l···¤·· ¬il· ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - ·i| l¬¤ ¬i·
¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r | ;¬ ¬iººi ¤r ¬-n·i ¬l¤n ·r| ri ni l¬
¬¤i ·¤i - ·i· · n ¬-¤ ¤·· · · · ¬i ; l·ºi ·i ¤ l¬ ¤i ¬¤·i; ·i||
¤· · · · ¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ni - ¤¤ ¬ ¤r ni n ri ni r l ¬
¬-÷¬ ÷¬- -·n ,i º ·i - ¬i n| ·i nr· ·i ¬ ¤ n - ·i |
¬l -n- · - ·i i | ;¬¬ ¤r ·i | ni n ri ni r l ¬ ¬º¤¸ ¬¬
¬-¤ ·i | ¬º¤¸ ·i ·i ºi ·i - ¬ ¤ ¤l ¬n ·i | | l·· ºi ¤·· ¬º¬iº
¬i ¤r -n ¬-·i ·|¤ ·r| r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i -·n ,iº n|·i ¬º¤¸ ¬i º ·ii·iºi
¬ ¬ n- ¤º l-·in ·ii| ·i-nl·¬ni ¤r r l¬ ¬º¤¸ ÷·ii·iºi ·i- ¬¬
··| ¬i r l¬¬¬ l¬·iº ¬¤i ·¤i ·nº «¬i r ¬i r | ¬º¤¸ ¬i ¬º¤¸ ÷·
i·i ºi ·i- ·¤i l-¬i ;¬¬ l··i¤ - r- ¤r¬ ¬·¤i¤ - l·¤iº ¬º ¤ ¬
r |
;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤r nin ·r| ri ni l¬ ¤·· · · (¤·· il·-¤· ·) ·
lºi· ¬iº ·i¬ · · ¬| ¤¸ ¬i l¬· -l··ºi - ¬i¬º ¬| ·i|| ¬ l ¬· ;¬
¬l ·i ¬ ªi ¬ ¬i -· º¬i ¬ - ¤r ¬~¬ ªi l ¬¤i n¤i r l ¬
¤· · · · · -l ºi ¤i ¬ ¬· r ¤ ¬i · ¬ ¬i ·i ¸ · i ºi ¬¤i · ¤i -
l ·· ºi rl º ¬ - l ·º - ¤« i ¤ n·i i ¬i ºi | - ¬i l ·¬ ºi · ¬|
¤ l n-i ¬i ·i | -·ºi º- ·i ¬ ¬i ·i ¸ · i ºi ¬ l ··i ¸ l · i n l ¬¤i |
;¬ ¤ ¬i º ¤· · · · ¬ ¬-¤ - ¬¤i · ¤i - l ·· ºi rl º ¬
- l ·º ¬ ¬l -n- · - ri · ¬i l ·º¤¤ ri ni r | «i · -
ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬ ¬i ¬ - ¬¬¬ ¤ ·l · -i ºi ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·ssz
- ¤ i · n ¬¤i · ¤i ¬l ·i ¬ ªi - l -¬ni r l ¬¬¬ ¤r -¤· -
ri ni r l ¬ l ·· ºi rl º ¬i - l ·º ¬· --·i i · -l · ·º r| ·i i |
-··¤i ¬ · ·
¤·· · · ¬ ¤º¤in ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ -··¤i¬ l¬ ri¬·ª« r ¬i| ¤·· · · ¬
4085
ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬i ¬l · n- ¬l ·i ¬ ªi ··rc l ·¬ - ¬ ·n -
l n·¤i l ¬n r (··oo ; o) ¬i º -··¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬· ¬i¬ ¬i ¤r¬i
¬l·i¬ ªi ··c· ¬ ·n (··os ; o) - ln·¤il¬n r | ;¬ ¬iººi ¤r -i·i
¬ini r l¬ -··¤i¬ ··oo ¬iº ··os ; o ¬ «|¤ - l¬¬| ¬-¤
ºii¬·iª« r ¬i ·ii| ¬ l¬· ¬«¬ ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ «in ¤r r l¬ ··os ; o
- ¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i «¬ir| ¬i ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi -··¤i¬ ¬ ¤ ¤ ni l···¤··
¬ ,iºi ¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬ ·n ··r« (·os/ ; o) - ¬iº|
l¬¤i n¤i « ni¬ ¤lºi¤il-¬ ¬i ¬i;-| ¬i ni- n¤il·i¬ ªi -··¤i¬ ¬ ,
iºi ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi -
-··¤i¬ ¬i ¬--n ºi¬¬|¤ ¬¤il·i¤i ¬ ¬l~¬lªin l¬¤i n¤i r
(¬|¤·· · ·¤i·i· ·¤in ¤º- ·i- -iº¬ -riºi¬il·iºi¬¤º- º·º ¤º--irº·º
¬|-·-··¤i¬ · ·)| ;¬¬ ¤r l¬, ri ni r l¬ -··¤i¬ ¬i ºi·¤il·i·i ¬
¤·· · · ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - r| ·os/ ; o ¬ ¤r¬ r| ri ¤ ¬i ·ii| ¤n
l¤ ¤r ·i· ¤·· · · · r| l¬¤i ·ii l¬·n ;¬¬i ¤ ¬iºi· -··¤i¬ ·
¬¤·| - · i ¬ ¬º·i¤i ·ii ¬i º l·«l··in ¬º·i¤i ·ii| ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬
¤·· · · ¬i¤| · , ri ¤ ¬i ·ii ¬i º ;¬ ¬iººi ¬¤· ¬|··¬i¬ - r|
¬¬· ¬¤· ¤ ¤ ¬i ºi·¤il·il·i·n ¬º·i l·¤i ·ii| ¤·· · · ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi
¬ ¬-÷¬ ÷¬- ·i ··i ¬ «i· n¬ ·i| ¬|l·n ºri| ;¬¬i ¤ -iºi ¬¬¬
¤·· i·n| ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤ i·n ri ni r ¬i l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··rc (··oo
; o) - ln·¤i l¬n r |
-··¤i¬· · ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ s ¬l·i¬ ªi ¤ ¬iºi - ¬i¤ r
l¬¬- « ni¬ ¤lºi¤il-¬ ¬i ¬i;-| ¬i +¤º ¬l~¬lªin ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi,
¬¬· ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - ¤ ¤l¬n ¬º·i¤i ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n
¬¬¬i l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··c« - ¤ ¬ilºin «· ºi ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi -i¤ ¤ ¬i
¬l·i¬ ªi r ¬i ¬¬¬ ,iºi ¬¬ ¬ ·i- ¤º ¬iº| ¬º·i¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬¬
¬lnlº·n n|· ¬·¤ ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi -··¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¤ ¤ilºn
l¬¤ n¤ ¬iº ¤ n|·i r| ºi¬¤ ¤ nil···¤·· ¬ ,iºi l¬ªi·i¤ n¤ ·i |
«¬ir| ¬ ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi - ¬¬ ºi¬¤ ¤ ni ¬ri r| n¤i r ¬i·i| r|
ºi¬i¬i ¬i ln¬¬ ·i| ¬ri n¤i r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n l·¬ - ¬ ·n ·occ
- ln·¤il¬n ºi;· ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi - ·i| ¬¬ -riºi¬¤ ¤ ¬ri n¤i r |
-··¤i¬ ¬ ¬i¬ ¬i s-i ·i·¤¤ l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··c« ¬i «ni¤i ¬ini r
l¬¬- -riºi·| ¤ ··|¬|¬i ¬ ·i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | ;¬ - º|¤º· ¬-¤·|
4086
¬i ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ri n¤i r ¬l¬· ¬« ¤r ¬¤¬··i ·r| r | ¬| « ¬i¬ ·
¬· ¬ ¬i¤ ºi ¤¬ ¤lºi¤il-¬ ¬i ¬i;-| (·scc) - ;¬¬i l¬¬ ¬ºn
r ¤ ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ;¬¬| ·ii·ii l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··cz ¬ ¬-i ¬| ·i·¤¤
¬ l-¬n|÷¬ ¬n| r ¬i º ¬ ·i·n ;¬ ·i| ni l···¤·· · ¤ ¤l¬n ¬º·i¤i
ri ni|
¤ iº-·i - ¬ ·¬ · r| ¤iº ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi ¬¤¬··i ·i l¬·¬i
-riºi¬¤ ¤ nil···¤·· · ¬-¬|ºi ¬º·i¤i ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬iººi l·,i·i
- ¤r ·iiººii «¬·n| r ; l¬ ¬ ·i·n -··¤i¬ · ºii¬· r| ·r| l¬¤i
·ii| ¬iº ;¬ ¬iººi ¤r ¬· -i· ¬ni¤i n¤i l¬ ·r «|-iº ¤i ¬ºi·n
·ii| ¬n ºii¬·÷¬¸ ¤ ºi¬¤ ¤ ni l···¤·· ¬i ¬ ·ii¬·i ¤· i n·ii «¬ir|
·i·¤¤ - ¬l~¬lªin ¤ ºilrn ¬in ¬, -r-n¬ «i~r· n·ii ¤ lnriº ni n-
¬ ¬-·i · ¬ ·i·¤¤ l·n n l¬¤ ¬i· ¬n ·i | ¬iº ¬ ·i·n ºii¬· ¤ «··i
¬ l¬¤ ¤ ·ºi¬, ºi·| ºi~ri· ·| n·ii ¤ ºi lrn ¤ lnriº ¬i º -r-n¬
¬| ¤¬ ¬l-ln «··i; n; ·i|| ¬ l ¬· «· ºi ¬i ni - ¤¤i l ·i ¬ ªi
·szc - ¤ i · n r ¬i n·i i ·s«· - ¤ ¬i l ºi n r ¬i l ¬¬¬ ¤r
l ·l º¤n -i · ¬i · ¬ni l ¬ ¤º-·i - -i º¬, ¤º- º·º,
¤º-i -i r º·º ¬| -i · -··¤i ¬· · · ·i -n· - ºi i ¬· l ¬¤i
·i i | ¬l¬· ¬iº¤¤ ¬| «in ¤r r l¬ l¬¬| ¬i ·¤i· « ni¬
¤lºi¤il-¬ ¬i ¬i--| ¬ ¬¬ ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi ¬| ¬i º ·r| n¤i l¬¬-
-··¤i¬ ¬i ¬· ¬--n ºi¬¬|¤ ¬¤il·i¤i ¬ ¬i·i ¤ -n n l¬¤i n¤i r
l¬¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi r- ¤r¬ ¬º ¬i¤ r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤r l·º¤¤¤¸ · ¬ ¬ri
¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ -··¤i¬ · ·i| ¬i¤| ¬-« ¬-¤ n¬ ºii¬· l¬¤i
ri ni ¬iº ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - r| ¬¬¬i ºi·¤il·i·i ¬ ¬ºi l·¤i
n¤i ri ni| ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¤·· · · ¬ ¬i¤| ¬-« ¬-¤ n¬ ¬|l·n
ºri ri · ¬ ¬iººi ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ -··¤i¬ ¤ i «i·-·ii - r| ºii¬¬ «·i
ri ni|
nr· ·i ¬ · ºi - -··¤i ¬ r| ·r ¤r¬i ºi ¬i r
l ¬¬· ¤i ·| ¬i º ni « ¬ l ¬·¬ ¤¬·i ¤ ·i | ¬¬¬ l ¬·¬
· · i ·i ¬i º ¬º·i ºi r| ¤ ¬i º ¬ r ¬i ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬- nº ·i i ºn
- ¤ ¤¬· - ·i | ;·¬ ¤ ºi ·iin ¤º ¬º·iºi r| ¬i ·i· ·i l¤¤ r n·ii
¬¬¬ ¤iºi ¬iº ºi¬i ¬i ·i- -··· · l¬ªii l-¬ni r | ¬l¬· l¬¬|
·i| l¬·¬ ¤º ¤¸ ºi ·i- ·r| l-¬ni| ¬r| -·· ¬r| -· ¬iº ¬|-
4087
l-¬ni r | ¤ · -·i i n ¤º « - r ¤ · · i ·i ¬| º ªi i ¬ l n r l¬¬ ¤º
-i·i· ¬| ¬i-·n (¬·i·i -i·i· ¬|¬i- ¬·i·i -i·i) l-¬ni r |
-··¤i¬ ¬ ¤i ·| ¬ l¬·¬ ¬-¤l·i¬ l·º¬ r l¬·- ¤ i¤ ·iiº| l-¬i·-
ri n| r | ·ii-¬ · ;¬ ºi¬i ¬ ¤¬ l¬·¬ ¬i ¤i ·| ¬i º ni « ¬i «ni¤i
r n·ii ¬l· ·i- · ¤¬÷·¸ ¬º l¬·¬ ¬i l·¬i · ¬i «ni¤i r | ;·¬i
·iiºn ·iiºn|¤ -i· ¬ ¬· ¬iº sz º-n| ¬i ri ni r | ¬ l¬· ·i-n· -
·ozr n io ¬ ¬ ¬º ·.cz n io ¬ ·iiº ·i¬ l¬·¬ l-¬ r ¬«l¬ sz º-n|
¬n·in z n io ¬i ri ni r |
¬ s l·,i·i · ¤r ¬· -i· ¬ni¤i r l¬ -··¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬
- n ª·¬ ¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i · ¬i¬ -ºi ¬º¬ ¬··i ¬ ¤º l·¬¤ ¤ i·n ¬º
¬| ·i| ¬iº -··¤i¬ ¬i « ·| «·i l¬¤i ·ii| ni l···¤·· · - l·n·i·
· ¬º -··¤i¬ ¬i - ·n ¬ºi¤i ·ii| ;¬ -n ¬| ¤ «¬ ¬-·i ¬ ºi -i
l·¤i n| r l¬·¬ n¬i ¬i ¬ l·i·n l··ººi ;¬ ¤ ¬iº r |
ºi -i l·¤i n| ¬ ¬· ¬iº, «¬ir| ·i·¤¤ - ¤r ¬l~¬lªin r l¬
¤·· · · · ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i ¬¤·| ºi¬·ii·| «·i l¬¤i ·ii (¬·¤i¬ ·¬
¬ºi · i¬i ºi¬·ii·|-l·l·ni- )| ¬·¬i ¤r ¬· -i· r l¬ ¤r ·i·¤¤
-··¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··c· - l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i ·ii, n·ii
l·l¤¤ «in ¤r r l¬ ¬-i ¬| ·i·¤¤ - ¤r º¬i ¬ ·r| l-¬ni ¤nl¤
¬·¤ ¬·i| º¬i ¬ · ¬ r| l-¬n r | ·i-n· - ¬i ; ·i| nr· ·i¬ ¬ ªi
¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i ºi¬·ii·| ·r| «nini| ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬·ri · ¤r ¬· -i·
¬ni¤i r l¬ zr l·¬-«º ··o« ; o («¬ir| ·i·¤¤ ¬| lnl·i) n·ii z«
¬·- «º ··or ; o (¬-i¬| ·i·¤¤ ¬| lnl·i) ¬ «|¤ - l¬¬| ¬-¤
nr· ·i¬i ¬i ºi¬·ii·| ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i si · ·i ¤· i ri ni n·ii nil···¤··
¬i ··or ; o - ·nº ¬i ¤ · ¤ i·n ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¤ , ¬º·i ¤· i| ·
ºir· ·i·¤¤ - ;¬¬i ¬iººi ªii ¬n| r l¬¬- ¤r ¬~¬ ªi ¬ini r l¬
¬¬-i· ¤ , ¬ «iº÷«iº ri · ¬ ¬iººi r--|º ¬i ¬¤·i ·º si · ·i ¤· i
(r--|º ·¤-· º - r º¬-ººi¬ |· ¤i ¤i l··in )| ¬·¬ ¬· ¬iº, r--|º ¬·i·i
¬-|º (- l-¬- ¬ ·i¤ln) ¬i l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··cc ¬ ¤¸ · nil···¤·· ,iºi
¤ºil¬n l¬¤i n¤i ·ii, n¬·| ¬i ¬ ~ni· -¬¸ · ;·· ;« ilr- (n n|¤,
·oss ¬ ···r ; o) ¬·i·i ¬¬¬i ¬i ; ¬l·i¬iº| ºri ri ni|
n«¬in÷¤÷·i¬º| ¬ ¬· ¬iº, ;¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ril¬«
n ·iinn|· · n ni ¤iº ¬º¬ lr·· -ni· ¬ ¬· ·i ¤i n¬ ¬ ri· s ·i ¬ri
4088
¬ ~ni· -r-¸ · ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·¤ l¬¬| ¬| ¬ ·i¤ ·r| ¤r ¤| ·i| |
¬-¬i¬|· ¬l· ¬¬-i· · ¬¤· ·|·i· - ;¬ ·i-·i ¬i l··ººi ;¬
¤ ¬iº l·¤i r÷
;-¬i- ¬| ¬ri¤ni ¬ -¬¸ · · ¤¬ ¬ ·i ªi· | ¬|| ¬ ri·
¬ l¬¤ ¬¬· lr·· -ni· ¤º ·ii·i «i ¬i| lr·· ¬ ºii¬¬
ªi ·i ¬ -iº r ¤ -~r| ¬i «··| «·i¤i, ¬··i ¬ lr·· ¬|
ºi¬·ii·| ·i| l¬¬ ¬il¤º ¬¤·i ·i ·niºi -i·n ·i | ¤r
¬ -l·¤i ¬i ¬i«i ·ii ¬i º ¬il¤ºi ¬i l¬«¬i ·ii| ¬iº
lr·· ¬| ·i·ºilºi ¤ri ¬-i ri n| ·i| ¬ ¬ l¬ ¬·i| ·l·¤i
¬- · - l-¬n| r | -~r| ¬ ¤i¬ ¬ ·i, ·i·, ri·i|, rl·i¤iº
·¤i ¬ s ·r| ·ii|
ºi -i l·¤i n| · -~r| ¬·i·i -~r|º ¬i -·· ¬i ¬¤·i ºi -i·i r | · ¬ s
¬i ni ¬ ;¬ ¬ ni· ¬i l·ºi ·i ¬ºn| r l¬ ¤r -~r| l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··/c
- ¬iº| l¬¤ n¤ ·i·¤¤ ¬i -·· ºri ri ni| ¬·¬ ¬· ¬iº, -~r| ¬i
lr·· ¬i ºii¬¬ ¬ri n¤i r n·ii ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i lr·· ¬| ºi¬·ii·|
«ni¤i n¤i r | ;¬ ¬iººi ¤ºil¬n ºi¬i -·¤ nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬ ºri
ri ni| ;¬ ¬iººi ¤ºil¬n ºi¬i -·¤ nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬ ºri ri ni| ;¬
¤ ¬iº · ¤r ¤lººii- l·¬i¬n| r l¬ l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··c·÷cz - n¬·| ¬
¬ ~ni· -¬¸ · n n|¤ ¬| ¬ ·i ¬i ·¸ n -· ¬ºn r ¤ ril¬« n ·iinn|·
¬i·¤¬ ·¬ n¬ ¤« ¬i¤i ¬i º ¤l· ¬l· ¬¬-i· ¤º l·º·i¬ l¬¤i ¬i¤
ni ¬¬· nr· ·i¬ ºi¬i -··¤i¬ ¬i «··| «·i l¬¤i n·ii ¤ -¤¤ ºi ºilºi
¤i· ¬ «i· si · i|
¤ri ¤º ºi -i l·¤i n| ¬ ¬¤ºi ·n l¬,i·n - ¬; ¬l-¤i r ¬i
r-iºi ·¤i· ¬i¬ ·- ¬ºn| r | «¬ir| ¬ ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi - ¤·· · · ¬
l··i¤ - ¬i ¤r ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¬¬· ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i ¬¤·| ºi¬·ii·|
«·i¤i ·r l¬¬| ·¸ ¬º ¬ ··i - -·|¬iº ·r| l¬¤i ¬i·i ¤ilr¤| ·i-n·
- ¬--n nr· ·i¬ ¬ ªii - ¤·· · · ¬i ·ºi · ¬ºn ¬-¤ ¤r ¬~¬ ªi
l-¬ni r l¬ ¬¬· ¬¤· «ir l·¬ - ¬ ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i ºi·¤ ¤ i·n l¬¤i|
«¬ir| ·i·¤¤ ¬ ªi - ;¬| «in ¬i ¬~¬ ªi -|¬ ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º ¤r
¬r¬º l¬¤i n¤i r l¬ ¬¬· ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬i ¬¤·| ºi¬·ii·|
«·i¤i| ¤r ¤¬ ¬i-i·¤ ¬~¬ ªi l·l·i·· ¤ ¬iº ¬| ºi··÷º¤·i - ·¤
º¬i ¬ ¬ ª¤ - «¬ir| ·i·¤¤ - ¬ini r | ;¬¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬· -i·
4089
¬ni·i l¬ ¬-i ¬| ¬l·i¬ ªi - ºi¬·ii·| ºi·· ·r| ¬ini ;¬l¬¤
¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ºi¬·ii·| ¬ ª¤ - nr· ·i¬i ¬ ls· n¤i ·ii, ¤l·n¤i ¬
«|¤ - ¤« · ¬i ¤ ¤i¬ ¬ri ¬i¤ni| ·i-n· - ¬-i ¬| ·i·¤¤ ¬ ªi ¬
«i· ¬ l¬¬| ·i| nr· ·i¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬ ºi¬·ii·| ri · ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ·r| ¬ini, ni ·¤i ;¬¬i ¤r ¬·i l·¬i¬i ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ «i·
- l¤º ¬·i| ¬··i ¬ nr· ·i¬i ¬| ºi¬·ii·| ·r| «· ¬¬i`
·¸ ¬º| «in -~r| ¬| ¤r¤i· -··¤i¬ ¬ ¬º· ¬ ¬-«l··in r |
l¬¬| ·i| ·ii·ii÷ºii-¤|¤ · l·-¬i ºi ¬ -·· ¬i ¬¤·i ºi -~r| ·r| «·i¤i
¬i ¬¬ni| ¤l· -~r| ¬ ¬-|¤ ¬i ; ·i- ¬ini r ni ·r ¤·· · · ¬
l¤ni -r|¤·· ¬i ·i- ri ¬¬ni r l¬¬¬i ·¸ ¬ºi ª¤ -r|¤¬ ¤i
-r|n¬ ¬il· ¬ ªii - ¤ i·n ri ni r | ....
ni l ·· ·¤· ·
¤nl¤ ni l···¤·· · ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - r| ºii¬·÷¬¸ ¤ ¬ ·ii¬
l¬¤i ·ii n·ii ¬¬¬i ·i| ¤¬ ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬ ª¤ - -r-·¤¸ ºi ¬l·i¬iº ¤ i·n
·i ¬l¬· ·r ¬¤· l¤ni ¬| ·iiln ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - ºi¬¤·
¤º ¬l·il·i·n ·r| r ¬i ·ii| ¬¬¬i l¤ni-r ¤·· · · ¬-«| ¬i¤ n¬
¬|l·n ºri| ;¬ ¬iººi ¬¬¬i l¤ni ¬i¤| ¤ i «i·-·ii - r| ºi¬i «·
¤i¤i ri ni ¬i º «r n ¬ ·ii··i ;¬ «in ¬| ¬r| ¬i ¬¬n| r l¬ ·r ·i|
¬¤· ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¤i ··il¤n n ¬l-·ni ªii ¤ ¬i ºri ri l¬¬¬ ¬iººi
ni l···¤·· ¬i ¬ s ¬l·i¬ r| ¬l·i¬iº ¤ i·n ºr ri | ;¬¬| ¬¸ ¤·i
ºi¬¤ ¤ ¬ ª¤ - ¬iº| l¬¤ n¤ nil···¤·· ¬ ·i·¤¤i ¬ l-¬n| r |
ni l···¤·· ¬| -ini ¬i ·i- ºi~ri· ·| ·ii l¬¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi l·¬ - ¬ ·n
··/s ¬ ¬-i ¬| ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi - l-¬ni r | -··¤i¬ ¬| ¤¬ ¬·¤
ºi·| ¤ ··|¬|¬i ¬ l··i¤ - ·i| r-¬i l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··c« ¬ «r ·ºi
·i·¤¤ ¬ nin ri ni r l¬ l¬¬ - º| ¤º· ¬-¤·| ¬i ·i·¤¤ ·i| ¬ri
¬ini r | l¬·n ¤r -¸ ¬ ¬ ªi ¬« ¬¤¬··i ·r| r | ni l ·· ·¤· ·
nr· ·i ¬ ºi ¬· ºi ¬i ¬«¬ -ri · ºi i ¬¬ ·i i | ¬¬· ¬n·in
¬i·i| ºini··| n¬ ¬-nº ·iiºn ¬| ºi¬·|ln ¬i ¤ ·iil·n l¬¤i| ¤¬
¤ ·ºi¬ ¬ ª¤ - ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ºii¬·÷¬i¬ - r| ¬¬· ¬i ¬¤¬ni¤
¤ i·n ¬| ¬¬¬ ¬iººi ¬¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - ¬--nºi¬¤ l¬ ¤i ¤ n ¬ri n¤i
r | ¬¬¬i ¬i ¤¤ilº¬ ºi·¤il·i·i ¬ ··os ; o ¬ ···« ; o ¬ «|¤ - l¬¬|
¬-¤ r ¬i ri ni ·¤i l¬ ¤ ·ºi ¬ ¬ ª¤ - ¬¬¬i ¬ l n- ºi r·
4090
·i ·¤¤ l ·¬ - ¬ ·n ··cc ( ··os ; o) - ¬i º| l ¬¤i n¤i
·i i n·i i -ri ºi ¬i l ·i ºi ¬ ¬ ª¤ - ¤i l ¬ ni - ¤¤i ¬ ªi l ·¬ -
¬ ·n ··/· ( ···« ; o) - ¬i º| l ¬¤i n¤i ·i i | ¬n ¬¬¬i
ºi·¤l·i·i ¬ n·ii ¬¬¬ l¤ni -··¤i¬ ¬| - -¤ ;·r| ·i lnl·i¤i ¬ -·¤
ºªi| ¬i ¬¬n| r | ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬ ,i ºi ¬i º| l ¬¤i n¤i
¬l · n- ni ¬| ·i ·¤¤ l ·. ¬. ·z·· ( ··r« ; o) ¬i r ¬«l ¬
¬¬¬ ¤ ¤ l ·¬¤¤· · ¬i ¤r¬i ·i ·¤¤ l ¬o¬ o ·z·/ -
( ··co ; o) - ¬i º| l ¬¤i n¤i ·i i | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬ ª¤ -
¬¬¬i ¤ ·i- ·i·¤¤ l·o¬o ··c· (··o« ; o) - ¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii|
;¬ ¤ ¬iº ni l···¤·· ¬i ¬-nº ·iiºn ¬| ºi¬·|ln - ¬i¤ ¬º· ¬i
¬n·in rc ··i ¬i ¬i¤ ¬i¬ ¤ i·n r ¬i|
¤ ºi ni l - ·¬ ¬ i n
¬¬¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¬n·in «r ¬l·i¬ ªi ¤ i·n r ¬i ¬¬¬ ¤ ·ºi¬
¬i¬ - l¬ªi·i¤ n¤ n|· ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ¬lnlº·n r | ;¬ ¬iººi ¤r
l·º¤¤¤¸ · ¬ ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ni l···¤·· · ¬¤· ºi¬· ºi - ¬«¬
¬l·i¬ ·i·¤¤ l¬ªi·i¤| ¬ l¬· ;· ·i·¤¤i - ¤¬ ¬¬¬| ºi·|
¬ -iº· ·| ,iºi ¤i·iiºi÷ªiº· ¤º l¬ªi·i; n; ¬iº·i·i ¬ ¤ i·n ¤ ºil-n
·i| ºiil-¬ r n·ii n|· ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬¬¬ ºi¬¬ -iºi ¬ ,iºi n·ii ¤¬
l¬¬| ¬·¤ ·¤l·n ,iºi l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i r | ....
¬i l rl - ¤¬ ¬ i n
;· ¤ ºinil-·¬ ¬i·¤i ¬ ¬lnlº·n ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬
-ri ¬i l · ·i l ·n l r¬ ¬·-| ·i º ,i ºi l ¬l ªi n ¬- ¤÷¬~¤nª
n · ·i ·i | ¬¤¬· ·i r l¬¬¬ l··i¤ - ¬ ªi¬ ¬i ¤r ¬·i· r l¬
¬¬¬| - ¤ºii · ºi¬i ¬i ¤ºi ¤ i·n ¬º·i¤i (nn ¬· ªi¬ ¤-¤
- ¤-lr-iº¤¤ ¬r ¬·-|·iº) ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·-|·iº ¤r ·i| ¬rni r
l¬ ¬¬· ¬iºi| ¬ ºi¬i ¬ ºi¤ ¬i ¬ ¬¤¬ni¤¸ · ¬ ¤ , l¬¤i ·ii
(·|ni¬iº¤il·i¤-¤¤ · lº¤ ·-n « r -¤¤ ¤º- )| ;¬ ¤ ¬iº nil···¤·· ¬i
-ri¬il··il·n lr¬ ¬·-|·iº ¬ ·¬ ¬ ªi¬ ¬iº ¤¬ l·,i· r| ·r|
·º· ¤¬ ¤i ,i n·ii ºi¬·|ln¬ ºi¬ ·¤l·n ·i| ·ii| ¬¤·| ¤ -n¬ ¬ ¬·n
- · ¤·ri º¬i º· ¬ ¬· n - ¬·-| ·i º ¤r ¬rni r l ¬ ¬¬·
¬ -¤¬~¤nª ¬| º¤·i ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬ ¬i · ºi ¤º ¬| ·i |
(-riºi¬l·iºi¬ ni l···¤·· · ·il··- · . . . ¬| ¬·-|·iº ·i- - ·l·ºl¤n . .
4091
)| ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤r n ·i ·i| nil···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬i ¤¬
¬ i n r | ¤¬ ¬·¤ n ··i ·¤¤·· ,iºi l·ºl¤n º-·ii- ¬º| ·i-¬ r l¬¬-
ni l···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¬ s ¬~¬ ªi l-¬n r | ¤ri ¤r
¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¬·i| ri¬ r| - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¤ i·n ¬l·i¬ ªi - ·¤¤··
·i-¬ ¤¬ ·¤l·n ¬i ni l···¤·· ,iºi ¬i¬ n -º·¬ ¬ ¬l·i¤ln ¬ ª¤
- l·¤ ·n l¬¤ ¬i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r ¬i ¬~rºi ¬i ·in|¬i «ni¤i
n¤i r | ;¬ «in ¬| ¬-·ii··i ¬| ¬i ¬¬n| r l¬ ¤r ·¤¤··
º-·ii- ¬º| ·i-¬ ¬i ¬ ªi¬ ·¤¤·· ri ¬¬ni r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n
ni l···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¬-«··i - ¬ s ¬~¬ ªi ¬·¤ ¬-¬i¬|·
ºi¬· ºii ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ·i| ¤ i·n ri n r | - l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬ ¬ s
¬~¬ ªi ·i| ¤ -¤·i ¬·i·i ¬¤ -¤·i ª¤ ¬ nil···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¤º
¤ ¬iºi ·i¬n r | ¬l¬· ¬l·i¬iºi - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºii - ¬i¬ i·ni¬i ¬i
- r ¬| ªii·| ¤· | ·i| n·ii - l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi ,iºi - l-¬- ºii¬¬i ¬|
¤ºi¬¤i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi · ¬º· ¬| ¤ · l-n ¬ ¬iººi ¬· ¬ ¤ ,i ¬i ¬·ri ·
¬~¬ ªi n¬ ·r| l¬¤i r ¬i ni l···¤·· ¬i º - l-¬- ¬i¬ i·ni¬i ¬
«|¤ ¬· n¤ ·i |
- l -¬- ¬i ¬ -ºi
ni l···¤·· · ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬ ª¤ - ¬« ¬ ºii¬· ¬i¤ ¤ iº-·i l¬¤i n·i| ¬
¬¬· ¬¤·| ¤ ºii¬l·¬ ¤ ln·ii ¬iº ¬i-lº¬ ¬ ºi¬ni ¬i ¤ ·ºi · ¤ iº-·i
¬º l·¤i ·ii| ¤nl¤ ¬¬· ¬i¬¤i¬ ¬ ºi·¤i ¤º ¬¤·| ·ii¬ ¬-i ¬|
·i| n·ii ¬· ¬ ºi¬· ºii ¬i ¤ºil¬n ¬º¬ ¬·¬ ºi·¤·i ¤ ¬¤· ºii¬·
¬ ¬·nn n ºiil-¬ ¬º l¬¤ ·i , l¤º ·i|, ¬¬¬| ¬i-lº¬ ¤ ln·ii ¬i
¤ ·ºi · ¤lº¤- ¬ ri · ·i¬ - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºii ¬ ¤ -¤i·n · - l·ªii;
¤· ni r | ¬ s ;lnri¬¬iºi · ¤r l·ªii· ¬i ¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i r l¬ n¬·|
¬ ¤il-·| ¬ ~ni·i ¬| ¬ ·i · ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi ¬º¬
¬-·ii¤| ª¤ ¬ ¬¬ ·nº ¬i ¬¤· ¬l·i¬iº - ¬º l¬¤i ·ii ¬i º ¬ ·i·n
nil···¤·· ¬ l¤ni -··¤i¬ ¬i «··| «·i l¬¤i ·ii| l¬·n ¤|s
r- ¤r · ªi ¬i¤ r l¬ ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬| ¬~¤·i - ¬i ; ¬·¤i; ·r| r
n·ii - ¬¬-i·i ,iºi ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi, ¬l·i¬iº n·ii -··¤i¬ ¬
«··| «·i¤ ¬i· ¬ ¤|s ¬i ; n·¤i--¬ ¤ -iºi ·r| ¬¤¬··i r | ;¬
¬iººi ºi -i l·¤i n| ¬i ¤r ¬r·i l¬ ¤il-·| ¬ ~ni·i ,iºi ¬i·¤¬ ·¬
¬| ¤ºi¬¤ ¬ nr· ·i¬i ¬i ¤¬ ·i·¬i ¬ni ·ii, ¬l¤n ·r| ri ni|
4092
nr· ·i ¬ ºi ¬· ºi ¬ ¤ ·i - ºi i ¬¬ ¤· · · · ¬
¬l ·i ¬ ªi i - ¬i ¤r ¬~¬ ªi l -¬ni r l ¬ ¬¬· ¬i ºi | ,
¬i · ¤¬ · ¬, ¬¤i · ¤i n·i i ;· · -·i i ·| ¤¬ ¬i l · n| ·i i
¤l º¤i ¬· ( ¬ º·i ºi ) l ¬¤i ·i i , ¤r ·ºi i ni r l ¬ - l -¬-
¬i ¬ -ºi ¬i l º¤i ¬ ,i ºi ;· n| ·i i ¬| ¬ º·i i ¬i ªi nºi
¬- ¤· · ri n¤i ·i i ¬i º ¤ ¬ ¬-¤ - ¤· · · · · ¬- nº
·i i ºn ¬ «· ·i ¸ ÷ªi º· ¤º ¬i l ·i ¤- ¤ -·i i l ¤n ¬º· ¬i ¬i
¬i ¤ l ¬¤i ¬¬¬ ¤| s ;· n| ·i ·i ¤i ¬| - l -¬-
¬i ¬ i · ni ¬i ¬ ¬ º·i i r| - ª¤ ¬· · º¤ ·i i | ¤r ¬i¤ ¬¬¬
¤ ¤ -··¤i¬ n·ii ¤i ¤ nil···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¬¤¬ni¤¸ · ¬ l¬¤i
¬ini ºri| ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¤ i·n ¤i·iiºi ¤¬¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r
l¬ ni l···¤·· ¬ ¬-¤ - ¤lº¤- ¬ ¬i· ·i¬ ·i|ln ¬i ¤ -¤i·ln n
l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬l~¬lªin ¤r ¤iº¤i-¤ ·i|ln l·º¤¤
r| ¤lº¤- ¬ ¬i· ·i¬| - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ ·i¤ ¬| ¬i º ¬ ¬ n ¬ºn|
r |
¤lº¤- ¬ ri · ·i¬ - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i ¬i ¬·· l«·· n¬·|
·ii ¬ri ¤º ¤il-·| ¬ ~ni· ºii¬· ¬º ºr ·i | ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬|
ºi i ¬·i ·l ·i - ¬n· i n ¤i ¤ ¬ ~ni ·i · n¬·| ¤º ºi i ¬·
l ¬¤i | ¤nl¤ ¤ ¬ ~ni· ¬i·nlº¬ nn·i - ·¤-n ºr l¤º ·i|, ·iiºn
·i¸ l- ¤º ¬iri º - ¬·· -·iil¤n ¬º¬ ¤ ¬i·nlº¬ ·iini ¤º «iº÷«iº
¬i¬ -ºi ¬ºn ºr | ;· ¬i¬ -ºii ¬| ¤ ¬ ln - ª¤ ª¤ ¬ ·i¬ ¬i ¬|
·iiln ¬¸ -÷¤i- ¬ l¬¤ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬º·i ¬i º ·i¤¬ ¤¬ ¬i· n¬ r|
¬|l-n ºr|| · ¬i ¬ i · n ·i ¤i ¤º ¬·i | ºi i ¬· -·i i l ¤n ·r|
¬º ¬¬ | ·iiºn|¤ ºi¬·ºi ·i| ;¬ ªi ¬ ¬ ª¤ - ¬ n ºr | nil···¤··
¬ ¤i ·ºi¬ ¬i¬ - l¬ªi·i¤ n¤ ··os ; o ¬ ºir· ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi
- ¤r -¤·- ª¤ ¬ ¬ri n¤i r l¬ - r¸ º¬-ººi¬ |· i - riº ¬i· ¬
¬iººi ¬-|º ¬i ·º -¤in · ·i ¤· i| (r--|º ºi·· ¬º«| ºi·· ¬-|º ¬i
·iiºn|¤ ª¤ r )| ¬ l¬· ;¬ ¬~¬ ªi - ººi¬ |· i ºi·· ·¤i· · · ¤i ·¤ r
l¬¬¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤r ¬· -i· ¬ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ·iiºn|¤ ;¬ ¤ ,
¬i ªi ¬ r| -i·n ·i ·¤i l¬ - l-¬- ¬i¬ i·ni ¬¤i·¬ ¤ ¬- ri n ¬i º
¬·ni ¬i ¬¸ -n ÷¤i-n n·ii n ¬i- «·i· ¬ l¬¤ «··| ¬ºn ¬i º ºi¬i
¬| ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i-·i ri · ¤º ·ii · i÷«r n ¤ , ¬º¬ ·iin ªi· ri n | ¬ l¬·
4093
;¬ ¬~¬ ªi - ·i ºi·· ¬«¬ -r-·¤¸ ºi r · r ÷ - r¸ º ¬i º
¬¬- | - r¸ º ¬i ¬·i ri ni r «iº÷«iº n·ii ¬¬- ¬i ¬·i ri ni r
¬¬-i· ºil·n| - l -¬- ¬i ¬ i · ni ¬¸ -÷¤i - ¬ ;ºi · ¬ ·i i · |
¬| ·i | ¬ ·i ¤¬¤ ¬º ¤i · ¬ «i · ;¬ ¤ ¬i º ¬| ¬¸ -¤i -
¬ l ¬¤ l ·¬¬ ¤· n ·i ¬i º ¬-¬º ¤ ,i - ¬i -·i ·r|
¬ºn ·i | ¬ri ¬r| ¤º ¬·¬i ¬¤¬ni l -¬ ¬i n| ·ri
¬·¬ ·º«i º| ;l nri ¬¬i º l ·¬¤·i i · i ¬ ¬i ·i ¬·¬|
¬¤¬ni ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬ºn n·i i ¬i ·i r| · ;· n| · «i ni
¬i ·i | ¬~¬ ªi ¬º·i ·r| ·i ¸ ¬n ÷ ·. l ¬n· l r· · ¬i ¬i
-i ºi ¬i º n ¬i - «·i ¤i , z. l ¬n· + -i ¤º ·i ·÷·i ¬n
¬i ·¬º ·i ¤¬ ¬ n¤, n·i i s. l ¬n· l r· ·¸ · · - l ·ºi
¬i · ·-n l ¬¤i ( n·i i ¬·¬º l -¬· ¤º ¬·¬ +¤º -l -¬·i
¬i l ·-i ºi ¬ºi ¤i ) | ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - r--|º ,iºi ºi¤ ni si · · ·
¬i ¬i ¬ ¬ n l¬¤i n¤i r ·r ¤r| «nini r l¬ nr· ·i¬ ¬ ·i ,iºi
¤ºil¬n ri · ¬ «i· ¬ s ··ii n¬ - l-¬- ¬i¬ i·ni ;¬ ¬i º ¤ · ¬i·
¬i ¬ir¬ ·r| ¬º ¬¬ |
nil···¤·· ¬ ¬-¬i¬|· ¬i ¤i ¤ ¤il-·| ºii¬¬ r ¤ ¬·¬ ·i-
¬i º ºii¬·¬i¬ ;¬ ¤ ¬iº r ÷·.-¬¸ · (n n|¤) ;·· ;« ir|-
(¬o·oss÷···r; o), z. ºi|º¬i·(···r÷·c; o), s. ¬¬ ¬i· ºiir
(···c÷·s; o), «. «rºi- ºiir (···s÷rz; o), ¬i º r. ªi ¬º« ºiir
(··rz÷co; o)| ¤ ¬ ~ni· n· ·| ¬ l¬¤ ¤º-¤º ¤ ,ºn ºrn ·i | ;·-
¬«¬ ¬l·i¬ l··iºi¬iº| ¬ ·i·i ¬¬ ¬i· ºiir ¬i º «rºi- ºiir ¬ «|¤ -
r ¬i l¬¬- ªi ºi¬i· ¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬ ¬º · -i ¬ ¬i ¬i·i ¬-i¬º «rºi-
¬i ¬i·i l·¤i ¬iº ¬¬ ¬i· ¬i ·iin¬º ·iiºn|¤ ·i ¤ - ºiººi ¬ ·| ¤·||
«rºi- ¬ ~ni· ¬ ¬º ¬ ¬ º·iºi - n¬·| ¬i ¬ ~ni· «·i| «i· -
¬¬ ¬i· · «rºi- ¬i ¤ºil¬n ¬º l·¤i| l¬·n ªi ºi¬i· ¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬
,iºi «rºi- ¬| ¬ri¤ni l¬¤ ¬i· ¬ «i· ¤¬ ¤ , - ¬¬ ¬i· -iºi
n¤i| «rºi- ºiir · ···s ¬ ··rz ; o n¬ ¬ ¬¤· ¬-« ºii¬·¬i¬ -
·iiºn ¤º ¬; ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤ ¤ ¬i - ¬¬-i· ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬i ¬r·i r |
¬ l¬· ºi -i l·¤i n| ¬i ¤r ¬r·i ¬· ·ii ¬l¤n r l¬ ;·
¬ ~ni ·i ,i ºi ·i i ºn ¤º l ¬¤ ¬i · ·i ¬ ¬i ¬ -ºi i ¬i ¬i ;
·i | l ·-n n l ··ººi - l -¬- ;l nri ¬¬i ºi · ·r| l ·¤i r |
4094
¬«l¬ nil···¤·· ¬ -ri¬il··il·n lr¬ · ¬ -¤¬~¤nª ¬| ºi¬¤ ºil-n
- nil···¤·· ¬ «iº - ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ¬¬· ¬¬-i· ¤ , - r--|º
·|º ¬i -iº ·i¬i (¬¬-÷¬-º÷¬-¤¬÷¬-¤- ºii ¤ ·ii¬i-
÷¬·l·iº·l·i÷¤ , ¤ · r--|º ·|º)| ¬--|·iº nil···¤·· ¬
-ri¬il··il·n lr¬ ·i ¬iº ;¬ ¬iººi ¬·ri · ni l···¤·· ¬ l··i¤ - ¤r
¬i ¬¸ ¤·i ·| r l¬ ¬·ri · ¬¬- ¤ , - ¬-|º ¬i ··i ¬º l·¤i ·ii,
n¬n ·r| ri ¬¬ni| ¬ l¬· ;¬ ¤ , - -iº n¤ ¬-|º ¬i ·¤i ·i- ·ii
¬i º ¤r ¤ , l¬¬ ¬-¤ r ¬i ·ii ;¬¬i l·º¤¤ ¬º·i «r n ¬l-· r,
·¤i l¬ - l -¬- ;l nri ¬¬i º ¬¤·| ¤ºi ¬¤i ¬| ¬ri l ·¤i ¬i
¤ i ¤ ¬·· ªi | ¬º n¤ r | ºir· ·i·¤¤ - ·i|, ¬ ¬i r- · ªi ¬i¤
r, ¤¬ ¬-|º ¬ ,iºi ºi¤ ni -¤in l·¤ ¬i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | ¤ ¬i ¬nni
r l¬ ¤ ·i ·i ¬~¬ ªi ·i ¬¬n÷¬¬n ¬-¤ - r ; ·i-·i¬i ¬ ¬ «l··in
r | ºir· ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi ¬¬ ¬-¤ l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i ·ii ¬«
ni l···¤·· ¤¬ ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬·i·i -riºi¬¤ ¤ ·i | ¬l¬· ¬·-|·iº ,iºi
l¬¤i n¤i ¬~¬ ªi nil···¤·· ¬ -riºi¬l·iºi¬ «· ¬i· ¬ «i· ¬| ·
i-·i ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬¬- ¬i¬ -ºi¬iº| · ni -iºi n¤i ·ii| ;¬
«in ¬| ¬ ·ii··i ni ·r| ¬nn| l¬ ¤r ¬i ; ¤il-·| ¬ ~ni· ºri ri ni,
¬ l¬· ¤r ·iiºn - n¬·| ¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬i ¬i ; ¤ lnl·l·i l·lº¤n ª¤ ¬
ºri ri ni| ºir· ·i·¤¤ ¬i º ¬ -¤¬~¤nª ·i ·i - r| ¤¬ «in
¬-i· ª¤ ¬ · ªi· ¬i l-¬n| r | ¤¬ - ¬¬- ººi ¬ |·i ¬i º ·¸ ¬º
- ¬¬- ¬-º ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r ¬iº ;· ·i ·i ¬| ºi··i ¬i ¤¬ r|
¬·i r l¬ ;· ¤ ,i - ·i ·i ¬ ·i¬i ¬ «¬ ¬-i· ·r| ·i | ¤ ¬i ¬nni
r l¬ ni l···¤·· ¬| l·ºii¬ ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i-· ¤¬ «iº ni ¬i¬ i·ni ¬i
·iin ¬i·i ¤·i ¬i º ·¸ ¬º| «iº ¬ ¤ , - ·r -iºi n¤i|
. . . .
ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬ ¬i -· n ¤· ¬-¬i ¬| ·
¬ -iº· ·| ¬ ¬iº·i·i ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¤r ¬~¬ ªi r l¬ ¬¬· ·iºiºi¬| ¬|
º·ii ¬ l¬¤ ¬i¤ l¬¤i| ¬·-| ·i º ¬ ¬ - ¤¬~¤nª - ·i | ¤r
¬~¬ ªi r l ¬ ·r ºi ¤ ¬i ¬ ¬i ºi | ¬| º·i i ¬ l ¬¤
¬· i | ¤ ·i ·i r| ¬~¬ ªi ¤r ¬ ¬ n ¬ºn r l¬ ¬iºi| ¤º ·i| n ª·¬
¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i ¬i ·ii·i r ¬i ·ii l¬·¬ ¬iºi| ¬| º·ii ¬ l¬¤
ni l···¤·· ¬i ¬· ·i ¤· i| ºi -i l·¤i n| ¬i ¤r l·¤iº r ¬|
4095
ni l···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - nr· ·i¬ ºi·¤ ¬i ¤lº¤-| ¬|-i·n ¬i¤|
¬ ºl·in ºri ri ni ·¤i l¬ l·~¬| - ni -º ¬¬¬ ¬·i|· ºi·¤ ¬º ºr ·i |
«·i¤¸ - ºi·- ¬ - ·i n·ii ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ - nil·i¤ ºil·iln ni ¤i¬ ¬ · ºi¬
ºi·¤ ¬º ºr ·i | ¬ ·i·n nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬ ¬| ¤r ¬ l·¤ilºn ·|ln ºr|
ri l¬ ¤lº¤-| ¬|-i·n ¬i ;· ºii¬¬i ¬ ¬·i|· si · l·¤i ¬i¤ l¬¬¬
· n ª·¬i ¬ ¤r¬ l·¤- ¬ | ¬l¬·, ·iiºn|¤ ¬i-·n·i· ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤¬
«· ºi¬i ¬ ¬·i|· ¬· ¬ si - ÷«· ¬i-·n r ¬i ¬ºn ·i ¬i -·ii·|¤
¤ ºii¬· ¬¤·| ªl¤ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤¬in ·i ¬i º ¬·¬ · ·l··· ¬i¤i -
¬l·iºi¬i ¬i ¬i ; r-n·i ¤ ·r| ri ni ·ii| ¤ ¬·i| ¬i-·n ¬¤·|÷¬¤·|
¬ ·i ¬ ¬i·i ¬l·iºi¬ ¬| ¬ ·i ¬i l·-i ºi ¬ºn ·i | ¬i·º¤¬ni ¤· ·
¤º ¤¬ ¬i·i ¤¬ ri n ·i | ;¬ ¬iººi ¤r ¬r·i ¬l¤n ·r| r l¬
¤lº¤- - nil···¤·· · ;· n|·i ºi¬· ºii ¬i ¬i·÷ «¸ n¬º ;¬l¬¤
si · l·¤i ·ii l¬ · n ª·¬ ¬i¬ -ºii ¬i ¤r¬ ¬i-·i ¬º n | ·i-n· -
¬-¤¸ ºi nr· ·i¬ ¬i- i·¤ ·i ¤ - ¬ ¬· i si - ÷-i - ºi¬· ºi ºii¬· ¬ºn
ºr ri n l¬·- ¬ ¬ ·¬ ¬ s ¬ l··i¤ - r| r- ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬·i·i ¬·¤
¬ i ni ¬ ¬¸ ¤·i l-¬ ¤in| r | ;· ¬i-·ni ¬ «i·i¬¸ · ¬i- i·¤ ¬| -·ii¤|
¬ ·i ¬|-i·ni ¤º l·¤ ·n ºrn| ri n|| ¬l¬· ;¬¬ «i·¬¸ · n ª·¬
¬i¬ -ºi¬iº| l¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬iºi| ¬·i·i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬·i·i -·i ºi n¬ ¬i¬ -ºi
¬º· - ¬¤¬ ri ¬in ri n l¬·¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬·i|÷¬·i| ·iiºn|¤ ¬ i ni ¬
r- nin ri ni r |
nil···¤·· ¬i ¬i- i·¤ ¤¸ · - ¤-·i ¬iº - n º n¬ l·-n n ·ii
¬i º ;¬ · l·- ¬ ¬·i|÷¬·i| ¬¬¬i ¬ ·i·i ni · ¬ ¤i¬ ºi¬i¬i ¬ ·i|
r ¬i ·ii| ¤-·i ¬ l ·¬- -i · º ·i -¬ -·i i · ¬ ¤ i · n l ·o¬ o
··ss ( ··z« ; o) ¬ ªi ¬ ¤r ni n ri ni r l ¬ ;¬ ¬-¤
n¬ l «ri º - ¬-÷¬ ÷¬- ¤-·i ¬i ·i ¤ ¬¬¬
ºi i ¬·i · nn n ¬i n¤i ·i i | ;¬¬ ¬l nl º·n ¬- nº ¤ · ºi -
l -·i n ¬i º ¬ ¤ i · n l ·o¬ o ·zoz ( ··«c ; o) ¬ ¤¬
¬l ·i ¬ ªi ¬ ¤r ni n ri ni r l ¬ ;¬ ·· i ¬¬· - ··l nº|
( - n º, l «ri º) ¬ ;¬ ¬ ªi ¬i ¤ ¬i ºi · l ¬¤i ·i i | ¤r
¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ni l···¤·· ¬ l¤ni -··¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¤r
·i ¤ « ni¬ ¬ ¤i¬ ºi¬i ºi-¤i¬ ¬ ¬·i|· ·ii| ¬ l¬· l¬¬| ¬-¤
ni l···¤·· · ;¬ ·i ¤ ¤º ¬¤·i ¬l·i¬iº ¬º l¬¤i ·ii| ·l·iºi - ¬¬·
4096
l¤¤ º| ¬ r r¤ ¬~¤ lº ºi¬i ¬i rºi¬º ¬¬¬i ·i ¤ ¬¤· ºi·¤ - l-¬i
l¬¤i ·ii| ¬~¤ lº ºi¬i ¤ºi¬ºi ¬i ¬¬¬ l¤ni-r ¤·· · · · ¤ºi-n
l¬¤i ·ii| l·o¬ o ··// (··zo ; o) ¬ « ni¬ ¤lºi¤il-¬ ¬i ¬i;-| ¬
·i·¤¤ ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ ni l···¤·· · ¬~¤ lº ºi¬i ¤ºi¬ºi
¬ ,iºi ¬¤· n ª lºi·i¤i¤ ·i- -iº¬ ¬i l·¤ n¤ ·i· ¬i ·i¤¬ ¬ ¬º
-·¬ º ·lºi·- ·i- « i-rºi ¬i · l·¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¤r¬| «iº
ni l···¤·· · ¬ ¤ l¬, ¬~¤ lº -iªiº|, ¤ ·¤·i¸ln, ¤º·n| n ·n, ¤ lnriº ¤·
nr· ·i¬i ¬i ¤ n ¬¤il·i ¬º·¤ln, n¬¤ln, ·º¤ln, ºi¬¤¤il·i¤ln
¬i ·iiººi ¬º l¬¤i l¬¬¬i ¬·i ¤r -i·i ¬ini r l¬ ¬¬· ¬~¤ lº
ºi¬· ºi ¤º ¬¤·| l·¬¤ ¬i º ªiil¬n ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ;¬ ¬¤il·i ¬i
·iiººi l¬¤i ·ii, l¬¬ ¬¬¬ · ºi¬ ¬·n n¬ ·iiººi ¬ºn ºr | ;¬¬
¬lnlº·n ni l···¤·· · ¬~¤ lº¤i ,iºi ¤ ¤l¬n ¬·-|¤ ¬iº ¬ l¬·¬i
¬i ·i| ¬¤·i¤i ¬i ¬¬¬| ¬~¤ lº¤i ¤º l·¬¤ ¬i ¤¬ ¤ -iºi -i·i
¬ini r |
nil···¤·· · ·l·iºi l·ºii - ·ºiiºi ¬·i·i ¤¸ ·| -i¬·i ¤º ·i|
l·¬¤ ¤ i·n ¬| ·i|| ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·¤¤·· ºl¤n º-·ii- ¬º| ·i-¬ -
r ¬i r | ;¬ ·i-¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº l¬¬ l·· ni l···¤·· · ·ºiiºi ¤º
l·¬¤ ¤ i·n ¬| ¬¬| l·· ¬¬¬ ¤i ¤ ¬¤¤·· ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii ¬iº
;¬| ¬iººi ¬¬¬i ·i- ¬¤¤·· ºªii n¤i| ¬¬ ¬-¤ ·ºiiºi ¤º ¤º-iº
· ºi ¬ ºii¬¬ ºi·¤ ¬º ºr ·i n·ii ·º·- · ¬i º ¤ºii ·- · nil···¤··
¬ ¬-¬i¬|· ·i | ¬l¬· ni l···¤·· ,iºi -i¬·i l·¬¤ ¬| ¤ l·- l¬¬|
¬·¤ ¬ i n ¬ ·r| ri ¤i; r |
nil···¤·· ¬i ¤ · ¬ ¬-¬i¬|· -···-i (··zs÷ss; o) ·ii ¬iº
;¬¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¤·· ¬ ºil·n ¬i l·ºi ·i l·¬i¬ r ¬i| -···-i ¬
-+ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ nin ri ni r l¬ ¬iºi| ¬ ºi¬i ¬i ri· ¬ ¬i·i ¬¤·i
¬-¤ l«nin ·i (¬i ¬ ¬i ri· ¤· -¤i nn-¤ln ¬nn ¤i-n ¬ilºiºi¬)|
·l·iºi ·iiºn ¬ ·i| nil···¤·· ¬ ºi¬l·¤¬ ¬ «··i ºr ri ·i
;¬¬ ¬il·i¬lªi¬ ¤ -iºi n n ¬i º·¤i ¬¤ º- ¬ ¤ i·n ri n r | ¬ ¬i -n n
¤ ·i- (·o/o÷··zo; o) ¬ ;¬ni¬|¬· ºi·¤··i - ¬-¬|ºi ¬ ªi ¬ ·|¤
nr· ·i¬ ºi¬·ºi ¬| · ºii·¬| ¤ºiil·n r ¬ ¤·· · · n¬ nr· ·i¬ ºi¬|
¬| l¬l¤ - ¬-¬|ºi r | ¤nl¤ ¤r ¬ ªi ¬¤i·¬ ª¬ ¬ini r l¤º ·i|
¬ ¬i -n n ¤i ¬ ¬ ¬·n ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤r ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬
4097
;¬ -··¤i¬ ¬·i·i nil···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¬-¬|ºi l¬¤i n¤i
ri ni| ·l·iºi ·iiºn ¬ «i , l·i·i ¬i·-n| (¬r n÷-r n) - ¬¤l-·in ·i
;¬¬| ¬¸ ¤·i nil···¤·· ¬ l·o¬ o ··/c ¬ ¬r n÷-r n ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬
¤ i·n ri n| r | ;·- ¤¬ l·i·i ¤i ¬ · ºi ¬i ·ii, ·¸ ¬ºi l·i·i ¬i · · ºi
(¬·|¬i) ¬i ·ii l¬·r ·i· l·¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¤i¬ ·¤ ºi¬i
l¬,ºi¬ ¬¤l¬ r ¬ ¤¬ ºi¬·¸ n ¬ ¬iºi| ¬ ºi¬i ¬¤¤·· ¬ ·º«iº -
¬i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi - ªn n ¬ ¤ «··i l¤·ni-lºi - l-¬ni r | ;¬| ¤ ¬iº
ºi¬nºlnºi| ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ nil···¤·· ¬ ¬-¬i¬|· ¬º-|º ¬
ºi¬i ¬¤l¬ r ¬ ¬¬¬ ¬·s ¬ « ·i ·i | ºi -i l·¤i n| ¬i ¤r ¬r·i r l¬
¤nl¤ nr· ·i¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - ni l···¤·· ¬ ¬-¬i¬|· ¬ ¬-¬i¬|·
ºi¬i¬i ¬ ¬i·i ºi¬·l¤¬ ¬ « ·ii ¬i ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l-¬ni l¤º ·i|
¬-¬i¬|· ºi¬·ºii ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii n·ii ¬·¤ ¬ilrl-¤¬ ¬ i ni ¬ ¤ i¤ ¬·i|
-r-·¤¸ ºi ¤·i ¬| ºi¬i¬i ¬ ¬i·i l-¤ni ¬ ¬-«··ii ¬ ¬~¬ ªi l-¬n r |
;¬ «in - ¬i ; ¬ · r ·r| r l¬ ¬-nº ·iiºn - ºi¬·|ln ¬ ·i ¤ - ;¬
n|¬º nr· ·i¬ ºi¬i ¬i ¬-¤ n ¬·¤ ¬i·ººi|¤ -·ii· ¤ i·n ·ii|
nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬ nil···¤·· ¬i ¤º-¤ºi· ¬iº ¬· ¬ ¬i-·n ·i|
¤ i·n r ¤ ·i | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬¬· ¬ s ¬i º ·i ¤i ¬i ¬|n¬º ·ri ¬
ºii¬¬i ¬i ¬¤·i ¬i-·n «·· ¬ l¬¤ l··ºi l¬¤i| ¤nl¤ l·~¬| ¬
ni -º nr· ·i¬i ¬| ¬·i|·ni ¬ l··i¤ - ¬¤· ¬l·i¬ ªii - ¬i ; ¬ ¬ n
·r| · n l¤º ·i| ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ · nr· ·i¬i ¬| s¤si¤i - ¬n·in
-·n ¤ ª¤ ¬ ºii¬· ¬º ºr ·i | nil···¤·· ¬i ¬-¬i¬|· ni -º ºi¬i
¬ ·i·n -r|¤i¬ · · ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n «·i¤¸ - ºii¬· ¬º ºr
ºi·- ¬¸ - ºi¬· ºi - nil···¤·· ¬ ¬-¬i¬|· ºii¬¬ ¬ ·i·n ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬iº
¤i ¤ ºr ri n | ºi -i l·¤i n| · ¤r ¬-·ii··i ·¤·n ¬| r l¬
nil·i¤ ºil·i¤ln ni ¤i¬ ¬i ºi¬· ºi ¬ ·i·n «·i¤¸ ¬ ºi·- ¬¸ - ni ¤i¬ ¬
ºi¬· ºi ¬ l·i··i ºri ri ni| ;¬ nil·i¤ ºil·i¤ln ni ¤i¬ ¬i · ºiºi¬
-··¤i¬ ni l···¤·· ¬i ¬-¬i¬|· ·ii l¬¬¬ - ¤| l·ni·iº · l·o¬ o
··/c (···s ; o) ¬i ¬r n÷-r n ·i·¤¤ ¬iº| l¬¤i ·ii|
l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··s· (··s«; o) ¬ ¬-i ¬| ·i·¤¤ ¬ ¤¬ ¬·¤
¬i-·n ¬ nº · ºi|¤ ·-¬ºi¬ ¬i ¬l·i¬ ªi l-¬ni r | ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi -
¤·· · · ¬ ¬ ¬º ni l···¤·· n¬ nr· ·i¬ · ºii·¬| ·| n; r | ;¬¬
«i· ¬ nº ·ºi ¬ ºi¬i¬i ¬| · ºii·¬| ·i| ·| r ; r | ;¬- ·i·¬ni
4098
·-¬ºi¬ ¬i -riºi¬¤ ¤ ¬ri n¤i r n·ii ¬¬¬ l¤ni ¬i ·i- ¬i rºi· ·
«ni¤i n¤i r | ¬i rºi· · ¬ l¤ni ¬i ·i- ¬~rºi n·ii ¬¬¬ l¤ni ¬i
·i- ¬|¬-¬¤i¬ «ni¤i n¤i r | ¬|¬-¬¤i¬ ¬ nºi -i ·i-¬ -·ii· ¬
¬i¤ ·i ¬n ;¬ · ºi ¬i ·i- ¬ nº · ºi ¤· i|
;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n «iºr·| ºini··| ¬ ·inº| l¬l¤ - l¬ªi n¤
¬¬¤i (¬ ºi|·nº, ¬o¤ o) ¬ ¤ i·n ¤¬ ªilº·n ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ·i| ¤¬ ¬·¤
¬~¤ lº ºi¬· ºi ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r ¬i nr· ·i¬i ¬ ¬i-i·n ºr ri n |
;¬- ¬l·n- ºi¬i¬i , lºi·ºi¬ ¤ ·i- (·i¸ ·i ¬i ¤ln), ¬·-ºiºi¬ n n|¤
n·ii ·i|-n - ¬ ¬i ; ·i| ni l···¤·· ¬i ¬-¬i¬|· ¬i-·n ºri ri ni|
¬ s nr· ·i¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - ¬º·iº ºi·· ¬i¤i r ¬i ¬º¤¸ ¤iº ¬i
¤ ¬ n ª¤ ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r | ¬iº ¬ ¤ i·n (¤ ¬ ss÷·oo)-i · º ¬l·i¬ ªi
¬ ¬lnlº·n nil···¤·· · l·o¬ o (··«c ; o) ¬ - ··lnlº (- nº) ¬ ¤¬
¬·¤ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬iº| l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬º¤¸ ¤iº ni l·¬i¬¬ ¬
¬·nn n ¤i··¬ ¤n¬i - · ·i ¬| n i- ¬ ·i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | ¬º¤¸ ¤iº
¬i ¬~¬ ªi ni l···¤·· ¬ l·o¬ o ··/· ¬ ¤il¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ·i| r ¬i r
l¬¬- ¤il¬ ¬iº ¬··¬ n i-i ¬ ·i- ¬in r |
¤¬ ¬·¤ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ;¬| ·i ¤ ¬ ¤¬ ¬·¤ ºi¬i ¬|ln ¤i¬ · ·
¬ l··i¤ - ¬i·¬iº| l-¬n| r | ¬ªi·+ ¬ n ri¬¤ - ¬ n r|n l·o¬ o
··c/ (····; o) ¬ ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi ¬ nin ri ni r l¬ ¤º-·i- -iº¬
-riºi¬il·iºi¬ ¤º- º·º ¤º-ir º·º ¬| ¬|ln ¤i¬· · · ¤¬ ·i· l·¤i ·ii
¬i ¤º-·i- -iº¬ -riºi¬il·iºi¬, ¤º-- º·º ¤º-irº·º ¬| l·¬ -¤i¬· ·
¬ ¤i·i· ·¤in ·i n·ii l¬·ri · ¬-nº ¬- · ¬·i·i l¬··i ¬i -·il--·
¬¤· «ir «¬ ¬ ¤ i·n l¬¤i ·ii| ¤r ¬ ªi l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··c/ ¬ ¤i~n ·
-i¬ ¬ ºi ·¬ ¤·i l,n|¤i, l·· ºil··iº, ¬i ¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii ¬i ··
¤º·º| ···· ; o - ¤· ni r | l¬· n i-i ¬i ·i· l¬¤i n¤i ¬·¬i ·º·
nº·¬| · ºi - l-·in «ni¤i n¤i r | ¤nl¤ ;¬ ·i ¤ ¬| ¤r¤i· ·r| ri
¤i; l¤º ·i| ¬|¬ri· ¬i ¤r ¬ ni· r l¬ ¤r ·i ¤ l«riº - «r· ·i¬|
nº·¬| ··| ¬| ·ii-| - ºri ri ni| ºi -i l·¤i n| ¬i ¤r l·¤iº r
l¬ ¤r ·i ¤ ni ºªi¤ º l¬¬ ¬ ¤¸ ·i -nº - ¤· ·i ¤ilr¤ ¬i ;¬ ¬-¤
· ·lº¤i l¬¬ ¬i ¬--º| ·iin r | ºi -i l·¤i n| · l--·i ,iºi ¬¬¬-ni ¬
;lº·¤· -¤¸l¬¤- - ·lºi n ¬|ln ¬ ªi ·i¬ ¬ s l¬·¬i ¬i
¬|ln ¤i¬· · ¬i l¬·¬i -i·i r | ¬·ri · ¤r ·i| ¬ ni· l·¤i r l¬ ·º·
4099
nº·¬| · ºi ·ii·iºi ¬i º «·| nº·¬ ¬ «|¤ ¬i ·i ¤ ºri ri ni ¬i º
lnl·i ¬| · l·- ¬ ¬|ln ¤i¬ -··¤i¬ ¬·i·i nil···¤·· ¬i ¬-¬i¬|·
ºri ri ni| ;·ri · ¤r ·i| ¬ ·ii··i ·¤·n ¬| r l¬ ni l···¤·· ¬ ¤il¬
ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi - ¬i ·iºi·¤ n¬ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r ;¬¬ ¤r
¬· -i· ¬ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ni l···¤·· · ¬|ln ¤i¬ ¬ ¬-nº ¬- ·
¬·i·i ¬i -¤ l¬··i ºi·¤ ¬i l·¬ - ¬ ·n ··c/ (···· ; o) n·ii l·o¬ o
··/· (···« ; o) ¬ «|¤ - ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬·i·i ºi¬i ¬ ª¤ - ¬|n l¬¤i
·ii|
....¤ri ¤r «in ·i| ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ni l···¤·· ¬ l·o¬ o ··sz
¬ ¬-i ¬| ni- ¤¤il·i¬ ªi - ·i| ¤¬ ¬~rºi ¬i ·i- ¬ini r l¬¬¬ ¤ ¤
¬|-ºi · ;¬ ni- ¤- - ¬ ªi ¬| º¤·i ¬| ·i|| ;¬ ni- ¤¤ - ¬~rºi ¬i
¬|·i-n·¤ ¬ ¬i · ·i¸ n ¬i¤-·i ¬ri n¤i r |
¬| ·i -n· ¤÷¬ ¬i · ·i ¸ n÷¬i ¤-·i i ~rºi ÷¬¸ · ·i |
l¬lªin-ni-« (- ) ¤- -i s¤ ¬|-ºi · · ¤in¤ln ||·r||
;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬~rºi ¬ ·i ¤ ¤i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r ¬i º ¤r ·i ·i r|
¬ilr-¤¬iº ·i | ·in|¬i ·¤¤·· ¬i ¬i¬ n -º·¬ ¬i ¬l·i¤ln ·ii ¬iº
l¬¬· º-·ii-·¬º| ·i-¬ ¬| º¤·i ¬| ·i|| ¤¬ ¤ ¤ ¬|-ºi ¤i ¬ ·ºi
·ii l¬¬ ¬ ·ºi¤·· ·i| ;¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ¬¬¬ ·i
¬·¤ ·ii;¤i ¬ ·i- ¬ ¬·n - ¤·· ºi·· ¬ini r ¬i º ¬|-ºi ¬i
¬ ·ºi¤·· ¬i ¬¤·i ºi -i· ¬¬n r | ;¬ ¬|-ºi ¬i ni l···¤·· ¬
ºii¬· ¬i¬ - ¤ ¤ilºn ¬-i¬| ·i·¤¤ ¬| º¤·i ¬i ¬ ¤ ¤ i·n r |
¬~rºi ¬i ·¸ ¬ºi ¬i º si -i (¬l·¤i·) ¤ ¤ ¬i¤ ·i¤·· ·ii l¬¬· ¬¤i·¤i
¬| ¤ ºil-n ¬| º¤·i ¬| ·i| ¬i º ;¬ ¤ ºil-n ¤ ¤r ·i| ¬ ¬ n l-¬i r
l¬ ·r ;¬ ¬-¤ -·¤ ¬¤i·¤i ¬i ºi¬i ·ii| ¬¤i · ¤i -
¤ ¤l ¬n ¤¬ ¤º- ¤ºi ¤r ·i | -·| ¬i º ¬ºn| r l ¬ ;¬ ·i ¤
¤º ¬| ·i -n· · ºi · ºi ·¤ l ¬¤i ·i i |
. . ºi -i l ·¤i n| ¬i ¤r -i ··i r l ¬ nr· ·i ¬ ºi ·¤
¬i ¬l ·i ¬i ºi ·i i n ¤·i i , ¬i · ¤¬ · ¬, «·i ¤ ¸ , ¬i ·¤ º, ¤ ·i º,
ºi rni ¬n«, ·i ºi ºi ¬| n·i i ¬ · i ·n ¬¤i · ¤i ·i | - l -¬-
ºi ¬·| l n¬ ¤ ·i i · ·i ¤ ¬ «i rº ·i |
ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬ l ¬·¬ «r n «· | -i ¤i - ¬n·i n
¬- ¤¸ ºi ¬- nº ·i i ºn ¬ ¤ i · n r ¤ r | ¬¬¬ ¬ ·¬ ¬i · ¬
4100
l ¬·¬i ¬| ¬ ª¤i ¬n· i n ¤¬ r¬i º «ni ; ¬i n| r | ¤i ·|
¬i º ni « ¬ l¬·¬i ¬| ¬ ª¤i ¬¤ ·ii¬ n ¬- r | ¬¬¬ l¬·¬ l«riº
¬i º ¬-nº ¤ · ºi ¬ ¬ ¬º l·~¬| n¬ ¬ ·i ¤ ¬ l-¬ r | «rºi;¤ l¬¬
¬ ·i·¤iºi ¬ soo ¬i · ¬ l¬·¬ l-¬ ·i | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ;¬iri«i·,
«·iº¬, ¬··i· l¬¬ - ¤º- ·i, l«riº - ¤i ¬i ¬iº n« ¬i n·ii - n º ¬
¤i¬ ¬¸ º¬n« , ºi ¤|, ·i¬··i ¬iº ºi¬lnlº ¬ ·i| l-¬ r | l·~¬| ¬ ¤i¬
¬ ·i| ni l··¤·· ¬ l¬·¬ ¤ i·n r ¤ r | ni l ·· ·¤· · ¬ l ¬·¬ ·i
¤ ¬i º ¬ r , ¤ ·i - ¤ ¬i º - ¬·-| ¬| ¬i ¬ l n ·i ¬ l ¬·¬
¬i n r ¬i º ·¸ ¬º ¤ ¬i º - ¬º·i ºi r| ¤ ¬i º ¬ l ¬·¬
¬i n r | ;· ¤º ¬|-·ni l···¤·· · · ¬ ªi n|· ¤ l·n¤i - l-¬n r |
¬ l¬· ¬l·i¬iºi l¬·¬i - · · ºi·· ·r| l-¬ni| nil···¤·· ¬ ¬i · ¬
l¬·¬ s.ss n io ¬ r | ¤nl¤ ¬ s l¬·¬ o.« n i- ¬ ·i| l-¬ r |
nil···¤·· ¬ ¤lº·iº ¬ l··i¤ - ·i| r-¬i ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬·i·i
¬·¤ ¬ i ni ¬ ¬i·¬iº| l-¬n| r | nil···¤·· ¬| -ini ¬i ·i- ºi~ri
· ·| ·ii| nil···¤·· ¬| ¤iº ºil·¤i ¬ ·i-i ¬ ¬~¬ ªi l-¬n r | ;·-
¬ -iº· ·| ¬ ,iºi l¬ªi·i; n; ¤¬ ¤ ºil-n ¬iº·i·i ¬ ¤ i·n r ; r |
¬ -iº· ·| lnl- ¬ l¤·¬i º ºi¬· ºi ¬ ºi¬i · ·ºl·in ¬| ¤ ¤| ·i||
· ·ºl·in ni · ¬ ¤i¬ ºi¬i ¬i ¬i-·n ·ii| ¬ -iº· ·| · ¬iº·i·i - «i ,
l·i·i ¬i ¬i ·i· l·¤i ·ii| nil···¤·· ¬ ¬-i ¬| ·i·¤¤ ¬ ªi ¬ ¬¬¬|
¤¬ ¬·¤ ¤- - -ri· ·| ·¤·¬ l¬ ¬i ·i- l-¬ni r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n
«inº-+ ·i·¤¤i ¬ ¤¬ ¬·¤ ¤- - -ri· ·| ni ¬~¬· ·| ¬i ·i- l-¬ni
r | ¤¬ ¤i ·i| ºi·| «¬·n· ·| ¬ ·i- ¬i ¬~¬ ªi · ¤i¬ ¬ ·º«iº
¤ -n¬i¬¤ - ¬ n lrn ¬·-¬irl-¤¬i ¤ ni¤iºl-ni ·i-¬ ¤iº· l¬l¤ ¬
nin ri ni r |
nil···¤·· ¬ ·i ¤ ¤i ¬ ·i- ·i| r- ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ¤ i·n ri n r |
l·o¬ o ··so (··«o ; o) ¬ ¬·«º| ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi - ¤ ·ºi¬
¬i-¤i -¤·· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ·i ¬·¤ ¬l·i¬ ªii -
-riºi¬¤ ¤ ºi·¤¤i¬ · · ¬i ·i| ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r | ¬ l¬· ni l···¤··
¬ ¤º¤in ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ l·¬¤¤·· ºii¬¬ r ¬i| ;¬ ¬iººi ¤r ¬ri ¬i
¬¬ni r l¬ ¬i-¤i -¤·· ¬iº ºi·¤¤i¬ · · ¬| - -¤ nil···¤·· ¬
¬|··¬i¬ - r| ri n; ·i||
l ·¬¤¤· ·
4101
¤ i¤ ¤ ¬i ¬-ni ¬ini r l¬ ni l···¤·· ¬ «i· ¬ r| nr· ·i¬ ºil·n
¬i ¤n· ¤ iº-·i ri ¬ini r | ni l···¤·· · ºi¬¬--ii ¬i ¬¤¤i n ¬i¤|
¬-¤ n¬ l¬¤i| ¬¬¬ ºi i ¬·¬i ¬ ¬i ¬l · n- ¬l ·i ¬ ªi
l ·o¬ o szss (··r« ; o) ¬i r | ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ;¬¬ ºi|·i
«i· r| ni l···¤·· ¬i · ri·n ri n¤i ¬i º ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ l·¬¤¤··
ºii¬·iª« r ¬i| nr· ·i¬ ºi¬·ºi - ¤r ¤º-¤ºi ºr| r l¬ ¬¤· l¤ni
¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - r| ¤ ·ºi¬ ·i| ·i·¤¤ ¬iº| ¬ºn ·i | ¤·· · · ¬
¬|··¬i¬ - r| -··¤i¬ ¬i ºi·¤il·i·i ¬ ¬º l·¤i n¤i ·ii, ;¬¬i
¬~¬ ªi r- ¬º ¬i¤ r | -··¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - nil··· · -riºi¬
¬ ¤ ¤ ¬ ª¤ - ·i·¤¤ ¬iº| l¬¤| ;¬| ¤ ¬iº ni l···¤·· ¬
ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¬¬¬ ·i ¤ ¤i · ºii¬·¤¤ ¬iº| l¬¤| ¤ ·ºi¬
¬i-¤i -¤·· · ·i· ·| ¬i ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi l·o¬ o ··so - ¬iº| l¬¤i ·ii|
¬¬¬ «i· -riºi¬¤ ¤ ºi·¤¤i¬· · · ¬··¬ ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi l·o¬ o
·zo· - ¬iº| l¬¤i ·ii| ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬i-¤i -¤·· · · ¬i
· ri·n l·o¬ o ··so ¬ «i· l¬¬| ¬-¤ ri n¤i| ¬-·i·n -riºi¬¤ ¤
ºi·¤¤i¬· · ·i| ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - r| l·· nn ri n¤i ·ii|
nr· ·i¬ ºi¬·ºi - ¬-·i·n ¬ ·¬ l·¬¤¤·· r| ¤¬ -i¤ ¤ ¬i ºii¬¬
r l¬¬¬i ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ¬|··¬i¬ - ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi ¬iº| ¬º· ¬i
¬·¬º ·r| ¤ i·n ri ¬¬i ·ii|
l ·¬¤¤· · ¬ ºi i ¬·¬i ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ s ·i ·¤¤i l ·i ¬ ªi
¤ i · n ri n r | ¬¬¬i ¤r¬i ·i·¤¤ l·o¬ o ·z·c (··c· ; o) -
¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬¬· l·o¬ o ·zz· (··cr ; o)
n·ii l·o¬ o ·zzs (··cc ; o) - ·i| -·n ¤ ª¤ ¬ ·i·¤¤ ¬iº| l¬¤
·i | l·o¬ o ·zz« - l·¬¤¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - -riºi¬¤ ¤ ¬¤¤·· ·
rlº¤ ºi ¬i ·i·¤¤ ¬iº| l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬¬ «i· l·o¬ o ·zzr (··/o ; o)
- ¤i ·ºi·¤il·il·i·n -riºi¬¤ ¤ ¬|¬¤¤·· · · · ·in¬| ·i·¤¤ ¬iº|
l¬¤i| ;· ¤i ¤ ·i·¤¤i ¬ ¬lnlº·n l·¬¤¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - l·¬ -
¬ ·n ·zzr (··cs ; o) - ¬i ·¤ º ¬ l¬¬| ·i- -iº¬ ·il··i¸ ·iºi · ¤¬
-n-·i ¬l·i¬ ªi ·i ¤ l·n¤i - l¬ªi·i¤i ·ii|
·i o ºi -i l·¤i n| · l¬¬ ¬-¤ nr· ·i¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬i ;lnri¬
·i-¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬i ¤ ºi¤· l¬¤i ·ii n« n¬ l·o¬ o ·z·/ ¬ ¬lº··|
4102
·i·¤¤ ¬i ¤ ¬iºi· ·r| ri ¬¬i ·ii ¬ º ·zz· n·ii ·zzs ¬ ·i·¤¤ ·i|
¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ ¤ ¬iºi - ·r| ¬i ¬¬ ·i l¬¬¬ ¬iººi ¬·ri · ¤r
¬· -i· ¬ni¤i ·ii l¬ ··r« ; o - nil···¤·· ¬ ¬l·n- ·i·¤¤ ¬
¤º¤in ··cs ; o n¬ l·¬¤¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬i ¬i ; ¬·¤ ·i·¤¤
¬ ªi ·r| l-¬ni| ¤r n ºr ··ii ¬i ¬·nºi¬ ;¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬ l¬¤
¬¬i·iiººi ¬i ¬nni r | ¬«l¬ ;¬¬ ¤r¬ n¬ ¬· ¬ ·i·¤¤ ¬iº|
l¬¤ ¬i ¤ ¬ ·i | ;¬¬ l¬¤ ¬·ri · ¬i·nlº¬ ¬¬r ¬i l¬-- ·iº -i·i
·ii n·ii ¤r ·i| «ni¤i ·ii l¬ ºii¤· ¤ ·ºi¬ ¬i-¤i -¤·· ¬iº
-riºi¬¤ ¤ ºi·¤¤i¬ · · ¬ ¬i·i ¬-nºil·i¬iº ¬i ¬ ·i·i ri ¬¬ni r |
;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¤¬ ·¸ ¬º| ¬ ·ii··i - ¬¬-i·| ¬i¬ -ºii ¬ ¬iººi l·~¬|
¬i ri·i ¬ l·¬¬ ¬i·i ·i| ri ¬¬ni r |
¬l·i¬ ªii - l·¬¤¤·· ¬i ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ ¬ ¤ ºil¬n l¬¤i n¤i
r | ;¬¬ ¬i·i r| ¤r ·i| ¬ri n¤i r l¬ ¬ ¬iº ¬i ·l¬n ¬º· ·i¬
r--|º ¬ ·ilº¤i ¬| ¬i ªii ¬ l·¬¬· ·i¬| ¬¬·iiºi ¬ ¬¬·
¤ ··|¬i ¬ ¬ ni¤ ¬i ·ii ·i¬i ·ii ·i ·· ÷ ·¬· ÷ r ¬i ÷ r-¤ ÷
r-·|º ÷ ·iº| ÷ ·¤· ÷¬¬·÷·ii n÷·i¸ ¬i ¬ni¤| ¤ri ¤º ¬l~¬lªin
r--|º ¬i ni-¤¤ l·¬¤¤·· ¬ ·i ¬-¬i¬|· ¤il-·| ¬ ~ni·i ¬ ri
¬¬ni r ÷ ·. ªi ¬ª ºiir, l¬¬· ··ro÷co ; o ¬ «|¤ ºii¬· l¬¤i
¬i º z. ªi ¬ª -il¬¬, l¬¬· ··co÷sc ¬ «|¤ ºii¬· l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬-
¤r¬ ¤il-·| ¬ ~ni· ¬| ¬ ·ii··i ¬l·i¬ ¬| ¬i ¬¬n| r ·¤i l¬ ¬¬¬i
ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬¤nil·-ni· ¬ ·i ¬ ¬«|¬ ¬ ¬i ni ¬ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ ¬iººi
l·¤l¬n ºri ¬i º ¬¬ ·iin¬º ·iiºn - ¬iriº - ¬¤·i ¬ ·· «·i·i
¤· i| ¬-|º ¬i º l·¬¤¤·· ¬ «|¤ ¤r ¬ ·i·i ··c· ; o ¬ ¤¸ · r ¬i
ri ni| ·¤i l¬ ¬¬¬ «i· ¬ ¬·i| ¬l·i¬ ªii - l·¬¤¤·· ¬ l¬¤ ;¬¬i
¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r | ¤r ·i| ¬ ·i· r l¬ l·¬¤¤·· · n ª·¬i ¤º ¤r
l·¬¤ ¬¤· l¤ni ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¤ i·n ¬| ri |
¤ ··| ºi ¬ºi ¬i - ¤· ··º·i ¤| · l ·¬¤¤· · ,i ºi ¬|
n; ¬; l ·¬¤i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l ¬¤i r l ¬¬¬ l ·· i ¤ -
;l nri ¬¬i ºi ¬i ¬ ·r r | ;¬¬ ¬· ¬i º, l ·¬¤¤· · ·
¬-¬ ( ¬· | ¬i ) ¬ ¬i -· ºi | ºi ¬i - ¬ · ·· · ¬i ¤ºi l ¬n
l ¬¤i ·i i n·i i ¬¬ ;¬ «i n ¬ l ¬¤ «i · ¤ l ¬¤i ·i i l ¬ ·r
¬¤·| ¤ ¤| ¬i l ··i r ¬¬¬ ¤ ¤ ¬¤¤· · ¬ ¬º · |
4103
¬¤¤· · ¬| ;¬| ¤- ·| ¬ ¬ ¤i l nni ¬·i ·i ¬ ¤ ·ni ¬i ¬· -
r ¬i ·i i l ¬¬¬ «i · - ¤ ··| ºi ¬ ¤i ri · ¬ l ··i r r ¬i |
¬ l¬· ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬i ¤r l·º·i¬ r l¬ ·l·iºi ¬iºi¬ ¬ ¬i -· ºi|
ºi¬i¬i ¬i n ni · ni l···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¤ iº-·i - r| ¤ºi-n
¬º¬ ¬·¬i ºi·¤ r· ¤ l¬¤i ·ii n·ii - ¬ ··· · ·i- ¬ l¬¬| ºi¬i ¬i
·i- ¬·|¬i ¬ ;lnri¬ - ·r| l-¬ni| ;¬¬ ¬-nº - ¤r ¬ri ¬i
¬¬ni r l¬ - ¬ ··· · ¬i -·ºi| ºi¬i¬i ¬i ¬i ; ¬~¤nin ¬-nºil·i¬iº|
ºri ri ni ·¤i l¬ ¤l· ¬¬¬ ¬l-n-· ¬ r| ; ¬iº ¬º l·¤i ¬i¤ni ni
¤ ··|ºi¬ ¬i º ¬ ¤ilnni ¬| ¬·ii ¬i ¬i·iiº r| ¬-i·n ri ¬i¤ni ¬i
¤ ··|ºi¬ºi¬i ¬i - ª¤ l··i¤ r | ºi¬i - r| ¤r ·i| ¬ri n¤i r l¬
l·¬¤¤·· · l·~¬| ¬ ni -º ºi¬i ¬· n¤i¬ ¬i rºi¤i ·ii| ;¬¬
¬lnlº·n ¤- -·¤ º ¬ ·i i ¬i · i | - ¬i ·i | ¬¬· rºi ¤i ·i i |
;¬ ·i i ¬i · i | - ¬| ¤r¤i · ¬·l r¬¤i -¬ ¬ ¤i ¬ ·¤ ·º ºi
·i | -· · l ,n| ¤ ¬ ¬| ¬i ¬¬n| r l¬¬¬ ºii¬· ¬i ¤ iº-·i
··/s ; o ¬ ri ni r | ;¬¬ ¤¸ · ¬¬¬ l¤ni ¤i¬ ·¤ ¬ -iº¤i¬ · ···«
; o ¬ ··/s ; o n¬ ºii¬· l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬i ¤r
-i··i r l¬ ·i|-· · l,n|¤ ¬ ºii¬·iª« ri · ¬ n|· ··i ¤¸ · r|
l·¬¤¤·· ¬i ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬-i·n ri n¤i ·ii| ¬ l¬· ;¬ ¬-«··i - ¤r
¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ·i|-· · l,n|¤ ¬ l·¬¤¤·· ¬i ¬ ·i·i ¬¬ ¬-¤
r ¬i ri ¬¬ni r ¬« ·i|-· · ¤ ·ºi¬ ·ii| ¬¬¬i l¤ni ¤i¬ ·¤
¬ -iº¤i¬ ¬n·in rs ··ii n¬ ºii¬· ¬ºni ºri ¬i º «r n ¬ ·i· r l¬
¬¬¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¬l·n- l··i - ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ r| ºii¬· ¬i¤ · ªini
ºri ri |
ºi -i l·¤i n| · ¤r ·i| ¬ ·ii··i ·¤·n ¬| r l¬ « ni¬ ¬ ¬ ·
ºi¬i¬i · ·i| nr· ·i¬ ¤ · ºi ¤º l·¬¤ ¤ i·n ¬| ·i| ·¤i l¬ ¬·-ºi¬ ·
¬ -i·ii; ·nº ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ ¬« ·r ¬ -iº ·ii n·i|
¬¬· ni · ¤º ¬l·i¬iº ¬º l¬¤i, ¤ , - ¬iºi|ºi¬ ¬i ¬|n¬º
(¤ ·÷¬i¬i ÷¬iºi|ºi¬ ¬-º÷·i ·l·l¬ni) n·ii ¬l¬ n ¬| ·ilº¤i ¬ ¬i·i
¬ |· i ¬||
;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n l·º·ª¤¬ · n·ii ¬¸ ¤ ¬ · ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ¤r
nin ri ni r l¬ ¤i ni ¬·-ºi¬ · · ¬·i·i l·º·ª¤¬ · · ¤ ¤in ¬iº
¬iºi|¤ º| ¤º l·¬¤ ¤ i·n ¬º¬ l·¬¤ -n-·i ªi· l¬¤ ·i (·i ¤
4104
l·º· º·º-¤.....l¤· º¤i.....·i·i ·¤ º¤n÷¤¸ ¤ ¬r ¬-º ¬¤÷-n-·i÷-i¬i·¤
·iil¤)| ¬ l¬· ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ¤ ¬l·n¤i ¤º-¤ºinn ¤ ºi ¬i--¬ «in
r| ·i| ·¤i l¬ l·¬¤¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - ¬¬¬| ºi¬·ii·| ·iºiºi¬| n·ii
ºi·¤ ¬ r ·¤-·i¬ - l-·in ¤ ¤in ¤º ni · ¬ ·i¤ l·¬¤ ¤ i·n ¬º ¬¬|
ri , ¤r ¬·i · ·r| ¬nni| ¤r ¬·º¤ ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ n|·i ¤i¤| ¬
ª¤ - ;· ºi¬i¬i · ·iºiºi¬| ¬i º ¤ ¤in - ¤n ¬º¬ ¤n÷¤¸ ¤ ªi·
l¬¤ ri |
ºi -i l·¤i n| · ¤ «··i l¤·ni-lºi ¬| ¤¬ ·i-·i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i
r n·ii ¬¬¬i nr· ·i¬ ·i ¤ ¤º ¬ · ¬i º n ª·¬ ¬i¬ -ºii ¬ ¬i·i ¬i ·i
r | ;¬ ·i-·i ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤i ¬ ·¤ ¬ -iº¤i¬ ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ (···«÷/s
; o) - ·iºiºi¬| ¬ ¤¬ ¬l· l·º·º·º ¤- -· n¤ n·ii ¬·ri · ¬ ·i¤i¤
r -¤·· ,iºi « ¬i; n; ¤¬ ¬ilrl-¤¬ ¬ ni·-| - ·iin l¬¤i| «i· -
¤i ¬ ·¤ ºi¬i ¬ -iº ¤i¬ · ¬·¬ ¬¤· ºi·¤ - r| -rº ¬i· ¬i
¬· ºi ·i l¬¤i| l¬·n l·º· º·º · l··- ni¤¸ · ¬ ¬-nº · n r ¤ ¤r ¬ri
l¬ ¬·¬i -· ¤ ·ii¬ n|·i ¬i· ¬i ·¤i¬ ¬ r ·¤i l¬ ¬ºi ¬ ·¬
·i--i¤ ¬i ¬ril·¤i - ºi·i ºr n¤ r | ·iºiºi¬| ·nº - ¬i n ·r| ºr
n¤ r n·ii rlº ¬ ·i ¤ - r--|º ¬ ·ii · ¤ ¬··ni¤¸ · ¬ lr·lr·i ºr
r | ¤ri ¤º ¬¤ºi ·n ¬,ººi - ¬r| ·i| ¬ · ºi¬i ¬ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬i ¬ ¬ n
·r| l-¬ni| ¤i¬ ·¤ ¬ -iº¤i¬ ¬i ºii¬·¬i¬ ···« ; o - ¤ iº-·i r ¬i
·ii ¬i º ¤r| ·r ··i r ¬« ni l···¤·· · nr· ·i¬ ·º ºi ¬ ª¤ -
¬¤·i ¤ ·i- ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬iº| l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¬iººi l·º· º·º ¬ ,iºi +¤º
l·¤i n¤i ·ºi · ni l···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¤º ·i| ¬in¸ l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni
r | «·iº¬ ¬ ¬i·i÷¬i·i rlº ¬ ·i ¤ - r--|º ¬ ·ii · i ¬| lr·lr·ir-
¬i ¬·i ¬¤i ·¤i ¤º - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ ¬-«l··in l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r |
ri¬ r| - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¤ i·n ¤i·iiºi ¤¬¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬| ¤¤i r- ¬º ¬i¤
r n·ii ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ¬l· l·º·º·º ¬i ¤r ¬~¬ ªi ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬¬
¬l·i¬ ªi - ·lºi n ·i-·i ¬ ¬-«l··in r ¬i l¬ ni l···¤·· ¬
ºii¬·¬i¬ - r ; ri n||
;¬| ¬ ···i - l·o¬ o ·zzs (r l¬n-«º ··cc ; o) ¬i l«riº ¬
ºiiri«i· l¬¬ ¬ ¬ ·rº n i- ¬ ¤ i·n ¤¬ ¬i¬| ni- ¤¤iil·i¬ ªi ¬i
¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i ¬i·i ¤ilr¤| ·i-n· - ¤r ·i·¤¤ -riºi¬i l·¬¤¤·· ·
l·l·i¤¸ · ¬ ·i· ¬º· ¬ «i· l¬ªi·i¤i ·ii n·ii ;¬¬i ¬ ªi¬
4105
-ri¬·i¤-l¬¬ -·¬ º ¬| ¬|¤ln r l¬·ri · ni l···¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ -
¬; ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬i l¬ªii ·ii| ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¬· ¬iº, -·ºi r¬ n i- ¬
« ir-ºii ¬i ·i¸l- n; ·i|| ¤r -·ºi r¬ ¬·i·i ¬i ·r¬ n i- ·n -i· -
¬ ·rº n i- ¬ri ¬ini r | ;¬¬i -r-· ;¬ · l·- ¬ r l¬ ¤ ni¤ ·i·¬
¬ niºi¤º·| lºi¬i¬ ªi - ;¬¬i ¬ ni- ¤¤ ¬ri n¤i r l¬¬¬i
nil·i·nº ¬ ºi¬i ¬ ¤¬ ·i¬ (¬l·i¬iº|), l¬¬¬i ·i- · ¬ ·ii, ¬i
-·ºi r¬ ¬ « i r-ºi i · ·i ¸ ¬ ( ¬- ¬i ¤) · ¬º l ¬ªi ·i l ¬¤i
·i i | ¤ ni¤ ·i·¬ · ·c ¬¤ ¬ ··cs ; o ¬i ¤r ºii¬·¤¤ ¬iº|
l¬¤i l¬ ;¬ n i- ¬ « ir-ºii ¬i ¬ ; ¬| ·i ¬ «ºi«º ·i¸l- ·i| · ·|
¬i¤ n·ii ¤r ¬i· ºi -ri·i¤¬ ¤ ni¤ ·i·¬ ¬ · ºi ¬ ¤ ¤÷¤i ¤i ¬i ·i|
«ni l·¤i ¬i¤ l¬ ;· ¬-¤- « ir-ºii ¬ ¬¤º nl·¬ ·i| l·º·i¬ ·r|
l¬¤i ¬i·i ¤ilr¤| niºi¤º·| ¬ ;¬ lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬ ¬; ºi ¤¬ «in
¤ ¬iºi - ¬in| r | ¤r¬| «in ni ¤r r l¬ -ri·i¤¬ ¤ ni¤ ·i·¬ ¬¤·
¬i ¬i-·n ¬rni r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n -·¤ ¬i ¬il¤¬il·i¤ln -ri·i¤¬
¬|¤ ni¤·i·¬ ·i| «nini r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤r ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r l¬ ¤ ni¤
·i·¬ l·¬¤¤·· ¬i ¤¬ ¬i-·n ºri ri ni| ¬l¬· ;¬¬ «i·¬¸ · ¬¬¬
¤ · ºi - ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬ ºi¬i l·¬¤¤·· · ¤¬ n i- ¬| ¬ s ·i¸ l- ·i· -
·| l¬¬¬ l··i¤ - ¤ ni¤ ·i·¬ · ¤r ¬i · ºi ¬i º| l ¬¤i l ¬ ¤r
·i ·¤¤ · ¬ ·i -¬ ºi ¬¬- ¤i º| ¬i ·i ¸ ¬ · ¬º l ¬ªi ·i ¤i
n¤i ·i i ¬i º ¬· « i r- ºi i ¬i l ¬· r ·i ¸ l - ·i · - l -¬| ·i |
¬¬¬ « ·ªi ¬ ¬º l ·¤i n¤i | ¤ri ¤º ¬i-·n ¬iº ¬l·iºi¬ ¬
¬l·i¬iºi ¬ ¬ « ·i - ºi¤¬ n·¤ ¤ i·n ri n r ¬i º ¤r nin ri ni r ¤l·
¬·i- ¤¸ · ¬ ¬-¬i ¤ ¤i ·i¸ ¬ · ¬º ¬i ; ·i· ¬l·iºi¬ ¬ ¬º·i l¬¤i ¬i¤
ni ¬·i|·-·i ¬i-·n ºi¬i ¬¬¬i -i·· ¬ ;·¬iº ·i| ¬º ¬¬ni ·ii|
l·¬¤¤·· ¬i ¬ ·rº ·i·¤¤ ¬ ªi ;¬| ¬ ºi| - ¬ini r |
l·¬¤ ¤·· ¬i ¬l·n- ·i·¤¤ -i·i ¬ ·| ·r, l·o ¬ o ·zzr -
¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii n·ii ¬¬¬ ¤ ¤ ¬¤¤·· ¬i ¤ ·i- ·i·¤¤ ¬i·ii«
¬ ·| c, ·zzc ¬i ¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¤ ¬i º ¤r ¬· -i ·
¬ni ¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r l ¬ -i ·i ·zzr ¬ «i · n·i i ¬· i i «
·zzc ¬ ¤¸ · l ¬¬| ¬-¤ l ·¬¤¤· · ¬i · ri · n r ¬i |
¬¤¤· ·
¬¤¤·· ¬i ¤ ·i- ·i·¤¤il·i¬ ªi z· ¬¸ · ··/o ; o ¬i ¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i
4106
·ii ¬i º ¬¬¬ «i· ¬¬· ¬n·i n z« ·· i i n¬ ºi i ¬· l ¬¤i |
¤ ¬| -i · ¤ni r l ¬ - ;·¬ · ·| · - r- -· ni º| ¬ ¬i ·i ··s«
; o - ¤· ··º ¬ ¤ , - ·r -i ºi n¤i ·i i | ;¬ «|¤ - ¬¬¬
ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ¬n·in z« ¬l·i¬ ªi ¤ ¬iºi - ¬i¤ r | ;·- ¬ s ¬l·i¬ ªi
¬ s ¬i-i·¤ ·inlº¬i ,iºi ·i| ¬iº| l¬¤ n¤ r | ¬¤· l¤ni-r ¬iº
l¤ni ¬| ·i iln ¬¤¤·· ¬ ¬-¤ - ·i| nr· ·i¬ ºi·¤ ¬¤·| ºil·n ¬|
¤º- ¬|-i ¤º ·ii| ¬¬¬i ¬-¬i¬|· ¤·· ¬ ºi¬i ¤º-il· ·ii n·ii
¤lº¤- - ¤i ri· ºi¬i ¤ ··|ºi¬ ·i| ¬¬¬i ¬-¬i¬|· ·ii| ¤iri·i ¬i º
¤·· ¬i - ¤º-¤º ¬; ¤ , r ¤ l¬·- ¬¤¤·· ¬| ¬ri· ·i¸ ln ¤·· ¬i ¬
¬i·i ºr|| ¬¤¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - r| ¤ ··|ºi¬ ¬i º ¬¤¤·· ¬| ¤ ¤|
¬ ¤i lnni ¬| ·i-·i ¬| ¬i·¬iº| ¬ilrl-¤¬ ¬ i ni ¬ l-¬n| r | ¬ l¬·
;¬¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i ; ¬il·i¬ lªi¬ ¤ -iºi ·r| l-¬ni| ¬¤¤·· ¬
ºii¬·¬i¬ - ·i| ¬¬¬i ºi·¤ ·i ¤ ¤ i¤ ·r| «·i ºri ¬i ¬¬¬ l¤ni ¬
ºi¬·¬i¬ - ·ii|
·iiºn|¤ ¬ilrl-¤¬ ¬ i n ¬¤¤·· ¬i ¬¤· ¬-¤ ¬i ¬«¬ «·i
ºi¬i l¬, ¬ºn r n·ii - l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬ ¬·i· ·i| ;¬| «in ¬|
¤ l·- ¬ºn r l¬ ·r ·iiºn ¬i ¬«¬ «· i ºi¬i ·ii n·ii ¬«¬ «· ·i ¤
¬i -·i-| ·ii| ¬¬¬ ¤i¬ «r n «·| ¬ ·i ·i|| ¬¤¤· · nr· ·i ¬
ºi ¬· ºi - ¤¬-i ¤ ¤ ¬i ºi ¬i r ¬i ·i i ºn| ¤ ¬i l r- ¤ -
¬i ·i ¬i ni r | ¬¬¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬| ¬i ; «·| -r-·¤¸ ºi ·i-·i
¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ·r| nin ri n| ¬ l ¬· ·i i ºn| ¤ ¬i l r- ¤ ;¬ «i n ¬|
¬¸ ¤·i · n r l ¬ ¬¬¬i - ¬¬-i ·i ¬ ¬; «i º ¬ ·i · i r ¬i
·i i |
l ·ni ¤l n ¬ n · ·i ¤ ª· i ¤º| ·i i n·i i ·¤¤· · ¬
º-·i i -·¬º| ·i -¬ ¤· ¤ ··| ºi ¬ºi ¬i ¬ ¤r ni n ri ni r
l ¬ - ;·¬ ,| · ( l ºi ri « · ·| ·) ni º| ¬ ¬¤¤· · ¬ ¬; «i º
¬ ·i · i r ¤ n·i i ¬¤¤· · · ¬¬ ¤ºi -n ¬º¬ ·i i n· ¤º
l ··ºi ¬º l ·¤i | ·¸ ¬º| ¬i º ¬·i | - l -¬- ;l nri ¬¬i º
n¤i ¬ · ·| · ¬ ·i i ; - ; ·¬ · ·| · - r- -· ni º| ¬ ¬i ·i
¤ ··| ºi - ¬ ¬ ·¬ ·i ¤ ,i n·i i ¬¤¤· · ¬ ¬ ·¬ ¤¬ ¤ ,
¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬ºn r | n¤i¬ · ·|· - r--· ni º| ··cs ; o - niº ¬i
¬ ~ni· r ¬i ¬i º ¬¬· ¬¤· ·ii; lºiri« · ·|· - r--· niº| ¬i n¬·|
4107
¬i ºi·¤¤i¬ l·¤ ·n l¬¤i l¬¬· ·iiºn ¤º ¬· ¬ ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤, ¬ l¬·
«iº÷«iº ¤ºi-n ri ·i ¤· i| - r--· ¬ ¤ iºl-·i¬ ¬l·i¤i· · ºi ;--i; ¬
ªii· ¬ ¤lº¤- - l-·in ni -¬ ·º ¬ ri n ·i ·¤i l¬ ¤r -in si -i ¬i º
¬l·i¬ ¬ ºl·in ·ii| ¤lººii--·ª¤ - ~ni· ¬i º ¬s ¬¬¬ ¬·i|· ri n¤|
«i· - l¬··i ·i| ·iºiºii¤| r ¬i ¬ l¬· ¬« ¬¬· -ª·i¸ l- ¤iº ¬º¬
n ¬ºin ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi ¬º· ¬i ¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i ni ¬¬ - r ¬| ªii·| ¤· ||
··/s ; o - - r- -· ni º| -ª·i ¸ l - ¤i º ¬º¬ ¬i «¸ n¬
¤r ¤ n¤i ·i i ¬ l ¬· ;¬- ¬¬¬| ¬ ·i ·· - ri n; ¬i º
«¤| ªi ¤| ÷¬ ·i ¬i ¤i ¬ ·¤ ºi ¬i - ¬ºi ¬ l ,n| ¤ · ·· -
¬º l ·¤i | - r- -· ni º| ¬¤· ·i i · ¬ l ¬¤i l r¤i ¬ ¬i ·i
¬l -·i ; ¤¸ · ¬ ¬i · «¤i ¬¬i | ¬¬¬ «i · ¬¬· ·¸ ¬ºi
ºi -ni ¬¤·i ¤i | ¬¬· ··/s ; o - ¤ ºi i ·º ¬i º ··sr -
-¤i ¬¬i - ¬ l ¬¤i | ¬n¬ ·· i ¬i ri º ¤º ·i | ¬¬¬i ¬· ¬i
ri n¤i | ;¬¬ «i · ·r ¤i ri · ºi ¬i ¤ ··| ºi ¬ n n| ¤ ¤º
¤« ·i · i n·i i ¬¬¬ ¬; «i º ¤ºi l ¬n r ¬i | ¬ n - ··sz
; o - nºi ; · ¬ ¤ , - ¤ ··| ºi ¬ ¤ºi l ¬n r ¬i ¬i º -i ºi
n¤i | ¬¬¬ ¤¬ ¬ ·i ¤l n ¬ n « · ·| · ¤ «¬ · ··sz -
ri ¬| ¬i ¬| n l ¬¤i n·i i - º- ¬i º «ºi · ( « ¬· ·ºi rº) ;·
·i -·i i ·i ¬ ¬¬· ¤¸ · - ¬¤· ¬i ¬ -ºi i ¬i ¬ ¤i ¬·
l ¬¤i | l ¤º «i · - ¬¬· ¤i ri · ºi ¬i ¬i l ·~¬| ¬
·i ni ¬º ··ss - ¬¤·| ºi ¬·i i ·| «·i l ¬¤i | si - ÷-i -
¬i ¬ -ºi i - ¬¬· ¬i ¬ ( ¬¬| n« ) n¬ ¬¤·i ¤ ·i i · ¤ ¬i
l ¬¤i |
¤· ··º ¬i ¤ ,
. . . .
¬¤ºi ·n ¬iººii ¬ ¤l· ºi¬i , ¤ ª·i¤º|·ii ¬i º º ·ii÷- ¬º| ·i-¬
¬il· ¤r l··ººi · n r l¬ ni º| ¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬i ¬; «iº ¤ºi¬¤ ¬i
- ªi · ªi·i ¤·i ni ;¬- ¬-¤ ¬i ¬ s ¬ºi ¬·º¤ r| r | ¬ l¬·
- ¬¬-i· ;lnri¬¬iº nr· ·i¬ ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i·i ¤¬ si -| n· ¤ n·ii
¤···º ¬ - ·i· - ¤¬ «· ¤ , ¬i l··ººi -i¤ · n r | r¬· l·¬i-|
¬ ni¬¬¬-i·i|º ¬ ¬· ¬iº l·~¬|, ¬¬- º ¬i º ¬i ¬ ¬i ¤ºil¬n ¬º·
¬ «i· ¬ ~ni· · ¬¤·i ·¤i· nr· ·i¬i ¬| ¬i º ¬ni¤i| ¬ n « · ·|· ¬
4108
· n -· - ro,ooo ¬| ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i·i ¬¬· ·|· (·i- ) ¬ · º-·i ¬| ¬ ·i
¬i ¬i-·i l¬¤i ¬iº ¬¬ rºi¤i| ¤ ¬i ¬ri ¬ini r l¬ ¤r n· ¤
nr· ·i¬ ¬ ·i ¬ ¬|-i·n ¤ · ºi ¬| ¬ º·ii - ¬n| - ¬·| ¬ ¬i·i r ;
ri n| · l¬ ¬¬¬| - ª¤ ¬ ·i ¬ | ¬il-¬¬-n·iº|ªi - ·i| ;·· ¬·i|º
· ¬ n « · ·|· ¬ ;¬ ¤« i; ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r l¬¬- ¬¬· ¬· ¬ ¬i
-iº ·i¬i ·ii n·ii «l··¤i ¬i º ¬¸ - ¬ ¬i·i ·iº ·il¤¬ ¬i n¤i ·ii|
¬« ¬¤¤·· ¬i ;¬¬| ¬¸ ¤·i ·| n; ni ¬¬· ¬¤·| ¬ ·i ¬i ¤¬¤
¬º¬ - ¬¬-i·i ¬ ·i ¤ - ¤ · ºi l¬¤i| nr· ·i¬i ¬i º - l-¬- ¬ ·i ¬
«|¤ ¤···º ¬ - ·i· - ¤ , r ¬i| ;¬- ¬¤¤·· -· ¤ ri·i| ¤º ¤« ¬º
¤ , ¬i ¬ ¤i¬· ¬º ºri ·ii| l¤l ººni ¬ ¬· ¬i º ¬ n « · ·| · ,
i ºi ¤¬i ¤ n¤ ¤¬ n| º ¬ ¬¤¤· · -i ºi n¤i | ;¬¬ «i ·
·i ¤ ¬º -i º¬i - r ; ¬i º n| · ¬i ri ·i | l ¬· ·i ¤¬· l ¬¤
n¤| ¬-·| ¬ l ¬¬ ¬i ¬¸ - l ¬¤i n¤i , ¬ri ¤º nr· ·i ¬
ºi ¬i ¬i · ¬¤· ¬i · ÷¤i ·| n·i i º- ·i ¬ ·i º·i º ¬-i
¬º ºªi ·i | «·i º¬, ¬i l r· · · ºi ¬i ¬ · · -i ·i ¬i ni
·i i , ·i | ¬¸ - l ¬¤i n¤i ¬i º ·ri ¤º ¬n·i n ¤¬ r¬i º
-l · ·º l nºi l ·¤ n¤ ¬i º ¬·¬| ·| · ¬ ¬¤º -l -¬· ¬-i
·| n; | - l -¬- ;l nri ¬¬i ºi · ¤r ¬¸ ¤·i ·| r l ¬ l r· ·
¬ ºi ¬i ¬i º ¬i -· n ¬-| º ¬ ¤ l n ¬¤·| ¬·i | ·ni ¬ni ·
¬ l ¬¤ ¬i n ¬i ¤| · ºi ¬i ¤ «··i ¤¬ l·º·-n ·¤l·n ¬i ¬i ¤i n¤i
¬i ¬i ni ¬i ·¤i¤ · ¬¬ ¬iº -¸ ln ¤¸ ¬¬i ¬i ·«i ¬¬ | ¬l¬· - l-¬-
;lnri¬¬iºi · ;¬ ·¤l·n ¬i ·i- ·r| «ni¤i r | «i· - ¬ n « · ·|·
l·~¬| ¬i ºi·¤¤i¬ l·¤ ·n l¬¤i n¤i ¬i º l·~¬| - ¬¬· ¬¤·|
ºi¬·ii·| «·i ¬||
nr· ·i¬ ºi¬·ºi ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬i l¬ªi· ·i¬ ¤ i¤ ¬·i|
;lnri¬¬ºi ¬i ¤r -n r l¬ ¤···º ¬ ;¬ ¤ , ¬ «i· nr· ·i¬
¬i- i·¤ ··-n ri n¤i ¬i º - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i ¬ -in ¬| ¬«¬
«· | «i·ii ·¸ º ri n¤|| ¬ l¬· ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬ l¬¬| ¬l·i-n ¬i ¬r| ·r|
-i·i ¬i ¬¬ni ·¤i l¬ ¤· ··º ¬ ¤ , ¬ ¤i ¤÷s ¬i ¬ «i ·
·i | ¬¤¤· · ¬i ¤ ¤ rl ºº¤· · ¤¸ º| ºi ¬¬| ¤ ¬¤i l ·i ¤i ¬
¬i ·i ºi i ¬· ¬º ºri ·i i | ¬i ·¤ º ¬ -s¬| ºi rº nr¬| ¬ -
l ·i ¬·i ¤ºn·i ¬ ¬i -·i ·i -¬ n i - ¬ ¤¬ ni - ¤¤i l ·i ¬ ªi
4109
¤ i · n r ¬i r l ¬¬ ¤º ºl ··i º ¤i · i ¬ ·| ·r l ·o ¬ o ·zrs
( c ¬··º| ··s/ ; o) ¬| l nl ·i ¤· | r ; r | ;¬¬ ¬· ¬iº
¤º- ·i- -iº¬ -riºi¬il·iºi¬ ¤º- º·º, ¤º--ir º·º ¬º·¤ln n¬¤ln
·º¤ln ºi¬¤¤il·i¤ln l·l··i l··ii l·¤iº ·i¤-¤ln ¬| rlºº¤·· · · ,iºi
¤-rl¤ n i- ·i· l·¤ ¬i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | ;¬ ¤-rl¤ n i- ¬| ¤r¤i·
¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤ il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬-|¤ l-·in ¤i ri ·i-¬ n i- ¬ ¬| n; r |
;¬ ¬iººi ¤r -·|¬iº ¬º· - ¬l-·i; ·r| ri ·| ¤ilr¤ l¬ ¤···º
¤ , ¬ ¤i ¤ ÷s ··i «i· ·i| ¬¤¤·· ¬i ¤ ¤ rlºº¤·· ¬¤· · ºi ¬|
¬-¤¸ ºi ºi¬¬|¤ ¬¤il·i¤i ¬ ¬i·i ºii¬· ¬º ºri ·ii|
¤ri ¤º ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¤· ··º ¬ ¤ , ¬ ¬-¤
rl ºº¤· · ¬| ¬i ¤ ¬n·i n ·s ·· i ºr| ri n| ·¤i l ¬
rl ºº¤· · ¬i ¬· - ··/r ; o - r ¬i ·i i | ¬¤¤· · ¬
«· ¬º ·i ·¤¤i l ·i ¬ ªi - , ¬i ºl ··i º ·i i · «·| s l ·o ¬ o
·zsz ( ·o ¬n-n, ··/r) - l ¬ªi ·i ¤i n¤i ·i i , rl ºº¤· · ¬
¬i n¬- ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r n·i i ¬¤¤· · ¬ l ·o ¬ o ·zsz ¬
¬i l º·· ¬ ·| ·«, l ·· ¬i -·i º ( zs l ¬n- «º, ··/r) ¬
¤· ··º ¬l ·i ¬ ªi - -ri ºi ¬ ¤ ¤ rl ºº¤· · · · ¬ ¬i ni - ¬·
¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº -s¬|ºirº ¬ ·i·¤¤ ¬i l¬ªi·i· ¬
¬-¤ rlºº¤·· ¬| ¬i¤ zz÷zs ··i ºr| ri n|| ¬ s ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬i ¤r
l·¤iº r l¬ ;¬ ¤ ·¬ ºi¬i · - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºii ¬i ¬ ¬ n ¬i ri ni ;¬
¤º l·¤iº ¬º·i ¬l-· ¬i- r | ¬·ri · ¤r ¬ ni¤i r l¬ ¬-·i·n
- ;·¬ · ·|· - r--· ni º| ¬| ºi¬·|ln¬ ·¸ º·lºi ni ¬ ¬iººi rlºº¤··
¬i ¤¬ ¬i-·n ºi¬i ¬ ª¤ - ºii¬· ¬º· ¬| ¬· -ln · ·| n; ·i||
¬iºo ¤¬o l¤¤i-| ¬i ¤r l·¤iº r l¬ ;¬ ¬ ·i·i ¤¸ ºi ¬i¬ - «i¬¬
ºi¬i ,iºi ¬¤·| -·n·¤ni ¬| ¤¬ si -| ¬|-i ¬i ·i| «¤i¤ ºªi ¤i·i
¬l·º¬·|¤ ¬nni r | ¬l¬· rlºº¤·· ¬ ,iºi ¬·i| ¬¤il·i¤i ¬i ·iiººi
¬ºn r ¤ -s¬|ºirº ¬ ·i·¤¤ ¬i ¬iº| ¬º·i ¤r ¤ ·lºi n ¬ºni r l¬
¤···º ¬ ¤ , ¬ n º·n «i· nr· ·i¬ ¬i- i·¤ ··-n ·r| ri n¤i
·ii, ¤nl¤ ¬¬¬| ¤ ln·-i ¬i ·i·¬i ¬ni ·ii| nr· ·i¬ ¬i- i·¤ ¬
¬· ¬ ¬i-·ni ¬ ¬ ªi ·i| ;¬ «in ¬| ¤ l·- ¬ºn r l¬ · ;¬ ¬-¤ ·i|
nr· ·i¬ ¬il·i¤-¤ ¬i r| -·|¬iº ¬ºn ·i · l¬ - l-¬- ¬il·i¤-¤ ¬i |
¬·irººi ¬ l¬¤, ºiºi¬ l·¬¤¬ºi ¬i ¤¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi l-¬i ¤ º l¬¬ ¬
4110
« ¬ªiºi n i- ¬ ¤ i·n r ¬i r ¬i l·o ¬ o ·zrs ¬ ·ºiiªi ¬ ·| ·· (zs
¬¤ ¬, ··s/ ; o) ¬i ¬iº| l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬- ºiºi¬ ¬|l·¬¤¬ºi ¬
ºi¬ - ¤¬ ·¤l·n ,iºi ¤¬ -n-·i ¬| -·ii¤·i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | ;¬-
rlºº¤·· ¬i ·i- ·r| r | l¤º ·i|, ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ l·¬¤ºi·¤ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
l¬¤i n¤i r (¤º-·i- -iº¬÷;-¤il· ºi¬i·¬|). . .
.¬º·¤ln÷n¬·ln÷·º¤ln÷ºi¬l¤¤il·i¤ln÷l·l··i÷l··ii l·¤iº÷·i¤-¤ln
÷ ¬|-n ÷¬i·¤¬ ·¬ l·¬¤ºi·¤|
;¬| ¤ ¬iº -·¤ ¤ · ºi - ·ini · l¬¬ - ¬· ·¬ · ·| ,iºi
l¬ªi·i¤i n¤i ¤¬ ªilº·n ¬l·i¬ ªi ¤ i·n r ¬i r l ¬¬ ¤º ·zs/ ; o
¬| l nl ·i ¤· | r ; r | ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬i -ri¬i-·n ºi¬ «ºr· · ¬|
¤ ¤| ¬· ·· ·|, ¬i ¬i·¤¬ ·¬ - ¤ ·i r ; ·i| n·ii ¬i ¬| -r-··· · ¬|
¤- -ºin| ·i|, · l¬ªi·i¤i ·ii| ;¬- l ·· · ¤ º·º l ºi · ¬ - l ·º ¬
l ·-i ºi ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | -r-··· · nr· ·i¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬ ¬|
¬i··¬-~¬- ¬i ¬i-·n ·ii (¬|-· nr· ·i¬÷¬ ¬÷
l·¬¬·÷¬r¬ i ºi ÷¬| ¬i (··¬) -~¬÷¬i-i·n÷ºiººi÷ ¬inn÷·¬ ÷
¤ ¬º÷¬|-· ÷ -r-··· ·÷ ¤- -ºini÷ ¬|¬· ·¬· ·¤)| ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬
ni l···¤·· · · · l¬¬ ¬-¤ l···¤ ·i ¤ - ¬~¤ lº ºi¬i ¬i rºi¤i ·ii
¬¬| ¬-¤ nr· ·i¬ · ºi ¬ l¬¬| ºi¬¬ -iº ¬i ·ri ¬i ºii¬¬ l·¤ ·n
l¬¤i ·ii l¬¬¬i · ºi¬ ¬i··¬-¬ ·ii | ¤nl¤ ;¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi -
¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ¬ nr· ·i¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r l¤º ·i| ¤r
¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r l¬ ¬¬ ·i ¤ - - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºii ¬i ¬i; ¤ ·ii· r ¬i ·r|
¬nni| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ºirni¬n« (l«riº) ¬ l·¬ - ¬ ·n ·zs/ (·zzs
; o) ¬i ¤¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ªi º·i¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬ ¤ ni¤ ·i·¬ l,n|¤ ¬i ¤ i·n
r ¬i r l¬¬- ¬¬· ¤··i ¬i ªi ¬÷ªi ¬ - rºi· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r |
(¬··÷·¬·÷-i·¬¬)| ·i·¬ ºi¬·ºi ·i| nr· ·i¬ ¬ ¬·i|· ·ii|
¬n nr· ·i¬ ºi¬· ºi ¬i ¬i- i·¤ ¤···º ¬ ¤ , ¬ «i· ¤¬·-
·iºiºii¤| ri n¤i, ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬| ¤r ¬··iiººii ¬r| ·r| ¬nn| |
- l~¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬ l··ººii ¬i · ªi· ¬ ¤nl¤ ¤r ¬ªº ¬¸ l¤n
ri ni r l¬ ··ss ; o ¬ ¤···º ¬ ¤ , - «·iº¬ ¬i ¬|n l¬¤i n¤i
·ii ¬iº ¬¬¬ ¤¬ r¬iº -l··º ·iºiºii¤| ¬º l·¤ n¤ ·i | ¬l¬· ¤ ¬i
¬nni r l¬ «·iº¬ ¬| ¤r ¬¸ - ¬ ·¬ ¬-·ii¤| r| l¬, r ; ¬iº
nr· ·i¬i · ¬¬ ¤º ¤ · ¬·¬i ¬º l¬¤i ·ii| n«¬in÷¤÷·i¬º| ¬
4111
¬· ¬iº ;~n nl-ºi ¬| ¤ iºl-·i¬ l·¬¤i - «·iº¬ ¬i ·i| ºiil-¬ l¬¤i
n¤i r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤l· ¤r -i· l¬ rlºº¤·· · ··ss ¬ ¤ , ¬ «i·
¤ · ¬¤·| ºi¬·ii·| ¬iºi| ¤º ¬·¬i ¬º l¬¤i ·ii ni ¬· l¤n ·r|
ri ni| - l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi ,iºi ¬-¤¸ ºi nr· ·i¬ ¬i- i·¤ ¤º ¬l·i¬iº
¬º ¬ · ·i¬| «in l¬n·| ªii ªi¬| r ¤r ¬·¬ ¬~¬ ªii ¬ l·º¬·iºi ¬
·i| l¬, l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬i r | ··ss ¬ ¤··i·º ¬ ¤ , ¬ «i· ¬··i ¬
¬|ni ·r| ¬i ¬¬i ·ii, ¬ ·¬ l¤lººni r| ¬¬ ··i ¬ ¤ , ¬ «i· ¤r
¬rn r ¤ l¬ ¬ ~ni· · « ni¬ ¬| ¬|-i n¬÷·i ¤ ¬i ¬¤· ¬l·i¬iº -
¬º l¬¤i ·ii, ¬··i ¬ ¬i l·l¬n l¬¤ n¤ ·nºi - ºiil-¬ l¬¤i n¤i
r | ¬ l¬· l¤lººni ¬i l··ººi «i· ¬i ri · ¬ ¬iººi l·º·¬·|¤ ·r|
-i·i ¬ini| n«¬in÷¤÷·i¬º| ·i| ¤r ¬~¬ ªi ·r| ¬ºni l¬ - l-¬-
¬ ·i¤ ¬··i ¬ - ¤r ¤| ¤i ·r| | ¬ l¬· ·r ¤r ¬·º¤ «nini r l¬
¬i·¤¬ ·¬ ;~n nl-ºi ¬ ,iºi l·¬¤ l¬¤i n¤i n·ii ;¬ ¬·¬º ¤º ·¤
l¬·¬ ¤¬·i¤ n¤| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ni¬¬¬-i·i|º n·ii
¬il-¬¬-n·iº|ªi ¬ ¬ ¬-¬i¬|· ;lnri¬i - ·i| ··ss ; o - - l-¬-
¬ ·i ,iºi l·l¬n ·nºi - ¬··i ¬ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l-¬ni|
n«¬in÷¤÷·i¬º| - ¬··i ¬ ¬ ¬i·i÷¬i·i «·i¤¸ ¬iº ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ·i|
;~n nl-ºi ¬ ,iºi ¬|n ¬i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤lº¤-|
¬-nº ¤ · ºi - «·i¤¸ , -·¤ ¬-nº ¤ · ºi - ¬··i ¬ n·ii ¤¸ ·| ¬-nº ¤ · ºi
- ¬iºi| ¬iº ¬¤i ·¤i - ;~n nl-ºi ,iºi l·¬¤ l¬¤ ¬i· ¬ ¬~¬ ªii ¬
¬iººi ¤r -i··i ¤· ni l¬ ;~n nl-ºi ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ n¬ ¤ ·i ¤
nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬i ¬| ¬-ni -·|¬iº ¬ºn ºr | ¤nl¤ ¤¬÷¬i·i -lii·i ¤º
¬r| ÷¬r| - l-¬- ¬ ·i¤ln¤i ¬i ¬in|º l·¤ ¬i· ¬ ¬~¬ ªi l-¬n r |
¬·irººi ¬ l¬¤ - r--· ;·· «lªn¤iº ¬i ··sc ; o - n ni ¬- ·iºii ¬
«|¤ - ·in·i· ¬iº l·i¬¬| ¬| ¬in|º l·¤ ¬i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l-¬ni r |
¬ l¬· ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬in|ºi ¬i «·i¤ ºªi ¤i·i «· i ¬l-· ¬i- ri ni ºri
ri ni ·¤i l¬ ¤iºi ¬i º lr··¸ ºi¬i ¬i º ¬i-·n ºii¬· ¬º ºr ·i ¬i
- l-¬- ¬-ni ¬i ¤ ·i n| · n ºrn ·i | ·i|º ÷·i|º l·~¬| ¬ ¬ ~ni·i ¬|
¬-ni ¬·n· ·| ¬ ¬i·nlº¬ ·i ¤i - ·i| -·|¬iº ¬| ¬i· ¬n| ri n|
¬ l¬· nr· ·i¬ ºi¬·ºi ¬ ¬ ln- (`) ºii¬¬ rlºº¤·· · ¬« n¬
ºii¬· l¬¤i ¬i º ¬¬¬ «i· ;¬ ºi¬·ºi ¬i ·¤i r ¬i ;¬¬ l··i¤ -
l¬¬| ·i| ¬ i n ¬ ¬i ; ¬i·¬iº| ·r| l-¬n|| (Pages 81-105)
4112
3870. The Sultanate and Mughal period is said to
commence not in the entire part of India but initially at Sindh
and thereafter gradually it increase to other parts. As such,
therefore, it may not be said that with the advent of Sultanate
period the territory of Oudh was ruled by Muslims. On this
aspect also in Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evem Puratatva (supra) at
Chapter-8, pages 109-113 some details have been given and the
same may be referred as under:
;-¬i- ¬| -·ii¤·i ¬ «i· r| ¬i-·| ºini··| ¬ ¤ iº-·i - ¬º«i
· ·iiºn·i¸ l- ¤º ¬«¬ ¤r¬ l¬··i ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i ¬l¬· ·ri ¬·r
¬i ; «r n «· | ¬¤¬ni ¤ i·n ·r| ri ¬¬| ·i|| ·ri ¤º ¬ ·¬ ¤¬i·i
·i ¤i ¤º r| ¬·¬i ºi·¤ ¬i¤- ri ¬¬i ¬ri · ¬n·in ¬nin ª¤ ¬
n|· ºinil··¤i n¬ ¬¤·i ¬l-n-· «·i¤ ºªi ¬¬ | ;¬ «| ¤ -
;-¬i - · ¤¸ ºi ¤ ¬ ¬ ¬º ¤| · n¬ ¬ l ·ºi i ¬ ·i ¸ ÷· i i n ¬i
¬| n l ¬¤i ·i i l ¬· n ·i i ºn - l ¬· ·i ¬ ¬i n · ¬¤·i
l ·-ni º ·r| ¬º ¬¬ ·i | l¬··i ··| ¬| ·ii-| - ·i| ;¬ «|¤ -
¬·¬i ¬l-n-· ·i ·i·i ¬ r| ºri| ºil·nºii¬| ¬·«i¬| ªi¬|¤i l¬¬
·iiºn·i¸l- ¬i ·r| ¬|n ¬¬ ¬·r ¬¤nil·-ni· - -·iil¤n ri · ·i¬
si - ÷-i - n ª·¬ ºi¬· ºii · ºinil··¤i n¬ «iº-«iº l¬¤ ¬i· ·i¬
¤ ¤i¬i ¬ «i· ¤ i·n l¬¤i| ··| ºini··| - ¬¬--¸ · ¬ ¤¬ ¬ ·i¤ln
nilrº ¬i ªi ºi¬i· ¬i ¤ ºii¬¬ l·¤ ·n l¬¤i n¤i n·ii «n·i· ¬ ¤¸ ·
¬i ¤¸ ºi ·i ¤ ¬¬¬ ºii¬· - · l·¤i n¤i| ºi|·i r| nilrº ¬i º ¬¬¬
· ºi¬i · -·n·¤ni ¤ i·n ¬º ¬| ¬iº ·iiºn ¬| ¬|-i¬i n¬ ¬¤·i
l·-niº l¬¤i| ··| ºini··| ¬ ¤i ·i ¤ººi - ¬¤¸ « ;·· ·¤n ¬¬¬¤º
¬ · n -· - ¤¬ ·¤ ºi¬· ºi ¬i ¬·¤ r ¬i l¬¬· nilrº ¬ · ºi¬i ¬
-·ii· ¤º ¬¤· ¬i -·iil¤n l¬¤i n·ii ¬i« ¬, ¬i« ¬ ¬i º l¬··i n¬ ¬
¤ · ºii ¬i ¬|ni| ·¬·| ºini··| ¬ ¬l·n- ·ºi¬ - ºil·nºii¬| ¬i-i·|
¬i- i·¤ ¬i ·i n ª·¬ ºi¬·ºii · ¬i¤¬ - «i - l¬¤i| ¬i-i·| ¬i- i·¤
¬ ·l·iºi ¬i ·iin ¤i-|·| ºi¬·ºi ¬ ¬i ni · ¤ i·n l¬¤i, l¬·r
¬i·i l·¬ ;lnri¬ ¬ ¬ ªi¬ n¬··| ¬rn r |
¬¬n·n ¬i ¬
4113
¤i-|·| ºi¬· ºi ¬ ¬i n ¬¤· ¬i ¤iº¬ ¬ ¬- i-i ¬i · ºi¬ «nin r |
;¬| · ºi - ¬ « ·n|n|· ·i-¬ ·¤l·n ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii l¬¬· n¬·| -
¤i-|·| ºi¬· ºi ¬| ·| · ·i¬| ·i|| ¬l¬· ¤ iº-·i - ¬« ·r ¬ ·¬ «iºr
··i ¬i ¤¬ «i¬¬ ·ii, ¤·i ¬ ¬ ¤¬ ¬«|¬ ,iºi «··| «·i l¬¤i n¤i|
·ii·¤ ¬ ¤ º ¬ ·r ¬; «iº « ¤ ¬i· ¬ «i· ªi ºi¬i· ¬ ¬i-i·|
ºii¬¬ ¬ ¤¬ ¬l·i¬iº| ¬¬·nn|· ¬ ,iºi ªiº|· l¬¤i n¤i| s// ; o
- ¬ « ·nn|· · ¬¤· ºi¬· ¬| -·ii¤·i ¬| ¬i º ºi|·i r| ¬¬· «-n,
·i·º, ¬ ¬·iº, n ªiilº-ni· n·ii ·i¸ º ¬i ¬¤· ºi·¤ - l-¬i l¬¤i|
¬¬¬ «i· ·iiºn - ¬¬· ºiir| ºi¬· ºi ¬ ¬i·i ¤ , l¬¤i n·ii ¬¬¬
¬ s ·i ¤i ¬i ¬¤· ºi·¤ - l-¬i¤i| ¬ « ·nn| · ¬| - -¤ ss/ ; o
- rs ·· i ¬| ¬i ¤ - «~ªi ¬ ¬| -i · n ¤º r ; | ¬¬¬ «i ·
¬¬¬i ¤ ¤ -r-¸ · n¬·| ¬ l ¬ ri ¬· ¤º sss ; o - « -i |
¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬¬¬| ¬i¤ -i¤ z/ ··i ¬| ·i|| ·ooo ; o - ¬¬· ·iiºn ¤º
¤r¬i ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i| ¬¬¬ «i· ¬¬· ¤ i¤ ¤ -¤ ¬ ··i ·iiºn ¤º
¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤| ·iiºn|¤ ;lnri¬ - ·r -r-¸ · n¬··| ¬ ·i- ¬ ¤ l¬,
r | ¬¬¬ ¬i¬ -ºii ¬| ¤ ¬ ln - ª¤ ª¤ ¬ ¬¸ -· n·ii ¤ºil¬n ºi¬i¬i
¬ ·i· ·¬¸ ¬· ¬| ·i||
- l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi · -r-¸ · n¬··| ¬ ¬i¬ -ºii ¬ ¬i l··ººi
l·¤ r · ¬lnºl¬n -i¬¸ - ri n r ¬i º ¬·- ¬ ·¬ ¬¬¬| ¬¤¬ni¬i ¬
l··ººi r| l-¬n r | ;· l··ººii ¬i l¬·r| ¬·¤ ¬ i ni ¬ ¬-l·i n ·r|
l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni ¬ l¬· ¤ i¤ ;·r ¬r| -i· l¬¤i ¬ini r | ¬in ¬i
l··ººi l·¤i ¬i ºri r ·r ¤¸ º| nºr - l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬ l··ººii ¬
¬i·iiº ¤º r| r | n ni÷¤- ·i ¬| ·ii-| - ¬¬¬i ¬i¬ -ºi ·o·s ; o -
r ¬i ·ii| ¬¬· z l·¬-«º, ·o·s ¬i ¤- ·i ··| ¬i ¤iº l¬¤i n·ii ºi-n
- ¬ s ¤ri·| l¬¬i ¬i ¬|nn r ¤ «º·, ·n -i· « ¬··ºirº, ¤r ¤i| ¬¬
¬-¤ ·ri ¬i ºi¬i rº·-n ·ii l¬¬· -r-¸ · ¬i - ¬i«¬i l¬¤i ¬l¬·
¤ºi-n r ¬i| ¬¬ ¬ ~ni· ¬i ·¬ ¬iªi l·ºr- ¬i º n|¬ ri·i| · ¬º
¬ l·i ¬º·| ¤· || ¬¬¬ «i· -r-¸ · · -ri«· - ¤i·· ºi¬i ¬ ¬¤··
¬i ¤ºi-n l¬¤i| n- ¤º¤i n -·i ºi ¬¬¬ ¬i ¤ ¬i ·i i ¬· «·i |
-·i ºi ·nº ;¬ ¬-¤ ¤-·i º ¬ ¤ i ¬i º ¬ l ·i ºi r ¬i ·i i |
l ¬¬- ¬· ¬ l ·ºi i ¬ -l · ·º ·i | ;¬- ¬«¬ «· i -l · ·º
·nº ¬ ¬ · · - ·i i | ¬ · i ·n ¤r ¬ · ºi ÷¬· -·i ¸ l - ¬i
4114
- l · ·º ·i i | ;¬¬| l·ºii¬ni ¬ -r-¸ · ¬-¤l·i¬ ¤ ·iil·n r ¬i| ¬¬¬i
¬· -i· ·ii l¬ ¤r -l··º ¬-÷¬ ÷¬- ·¬ ¬ºi · ¬i¬ ·|·iºi ¬
«··i¤i n¤i ri ni n·ii ¬-¤l·i¬ ¬ ºi¬ lºil~¤¤i · ·i| ;¬¬i «·i· -
¬-÷¬ ÷¬- ·i ¬i ··i ¬i ¬-¤ ¬ni¤i ri ni| ;· -l··ºi ¬| ¬· ¬
-¸ ln ¤i - ¤i ¤ -¸ ln¤i ºi , ¬i · ¬| «·i; n; ·i| l¬·¬| ¬i ªii - ¤¬
¬iªi ·|·iº ¬ º-· ¬· ·i | ;· ¬· i | -¸ l n ¤i - cs, soo l -· ¬¬
·i i º ¬i ¬i ·i ·i i | ¤i ·| ¬| -¸ l n ¤i ¬| ¬ ª¤i zoo
·i | | ¤r ·nº l ·~¬| ¬ ºi ¬i ¬ ¬·i | · ·i i ¬ l ¬·, l «·i
l ¬¬| ¬ ·i · i ¬ -r-¸ · · -·i ºi ¤º ¬l ·i ¬i º ¬º l ¬¤i n·i i
¬i · ¬i º ¤i ·| ¬| ¬· i | -¸ l n ¤i ¬i ¬l ·i ¬i º - ¬ · ¬
«i · ¬¬· ¬·i | -l · ·ºi ¬i ¬¬i ¬º ºi ªi ¬º · · ¬i
¬i · ºi ¬º l ·¤i | ;· -¸ l n ¤i ¬i ¬i ·÷«¸ n¬º
- ¬· ÷- ¬· ¬º l ·¤i n¤i | ·nº - «| ¬ l ··i n¬
¬¸ --i º ri n| ºr| n·i i ¬l ·i ¬i ºi ·i ·· ¬¬i ¬º ºi ªi ¬º
l ·¤ n¤|
-·i ºi ¬i ¬¸ -· ¬ «i· -r-¸ · n¬··| · ¬··i ¬ ¬| ¬i º ¤ ¤iºi
l¬¤i| ¤nl¤ -in - ¬¬ ¤ lnºi ·i ¬i ¬i-·i ¬º·i ¤· i, l¤º ·i| ·r
¬· ·i ¬ ¤r ¤ n¤i | ¤r ·nº ¬i n · ni ¬ ¤ ·n ·i i l ¬¬-
·¬ r¬i º -l · ·º ·i | -r-¸ · ¬ ¬in-· ¬| ¬¸ ¤·i ¤i¬º ¤ lnriº
· ºi ¬i ºi¬i ºi·¤¤i¬ n ni ¬ ·¸ ¬º| ¬iº «iº| ·i-¬ -·ii· - ¤¬i
n¤i| ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬· ·i ¬ ¬i -r-¸ · · ¤¸ º| nºr ¬¸ -i | ¬· ·i ¬
¬ ¬l ·i ¤i · - -r-¸ · ¬i ·i ¬ºi · l ·ºr-, l nº¤· r¬i º
«· ·| n·i i n| · ¬i ¤¤i ¬ ri ·i | ri ·i ¬n |
-r-¸ · ¬··i ¬ ¬ ¬in ·r| «« i ¬iº ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬¤i ·¤i ¬¬¬
¬i¬ -ºi ¬ «¤ n; | ¬ l¬· -r-¸ · ¬ - ª¤ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬¬¬|
¬ ·i ¬ ¬ s ¬ ·i¤ln¤i ¬ ¬i¬ -ºii ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ¬·º¤ n ¬·i ¤·i
ri ni| -r-¸ · · ·ozr ; o ¬ ¬··º| -r|· ¬ -·¤ - ¬i -·i·i ¤º
¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i ¬i º ¬¬ ¬¸ -i| ¬i -·i·i ¬ -l··º ¬ lºi·l¬ n ¬i ¬¬·
ni · ¬º ªilº·n ¬º l·¤i n·ii ·i ¬ºi · l·ºr- ¬i ·i· ·i| ¬¸ -i| -l··º
¬i ·i| ··-n ¬º l·¤i n¤i n·ii lºi·l¬ n ¬ - ¬· i ¬i n¬·| ¬ ¬i¤i
n¤i ¬ri ¤º ¬· - ¬· i ¬i ¬i-| -l-¬· - ,iº ¬| ¬|l« ¤i - ¬ni
l·¤i n¤i| ;¬ ¬i-| -l-¬· ¬i l·-i ºi ·o·s ; o - ¬··i ¬ ¬i ¬¸ -·
4115
¬ «i· ¬ºi¤i n¤i ·ii| ¬i -·i·i ¬ ;¬ ¤ , - ¬ ¤ ¤· ¬i¬iº -¬¸ · ·i|
ºiil-¬ ·ii| ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬¬¬| ¬i¤ ·z ··i ¬| ·i|| . . . . .
¬·· º r-i· l¤ºn| ¬ ¬· ¬iº -¬¸ · -r-¸ · n¬··| ¬| «r· -i ¬i
¬i ¤ ¤ ·ii| ;¬¬ l¤ni ¬i ·i- ¬ ~ni· ¬i¬iº ¬ir¸ ·ii ¬i ¬¤· ¬-¤
¬i ¤ l¬, ; ºi·| ¤i ,i ·ii| ¬i -·i·i ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi ¬ ¬-¤ -¬¸ · ·i|
-r-¸ · n¬··| ¬ ¬i·i ·ii ¬i º ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬¬¬| ¬i¤ ¬ ·¬ ·z ··i
·i|| ¬i -·i·i ¬| ¬¸ - ¬ ¤i ¤ ··ii ¬ «i· -¬¸ · · ;-¬i- ¬ ·i-
¤º ¤¬ ¬ ·i ¤¬¤ ¬| ¬iº ¬¤· l¤ni ¬i¬iº ºir ¬| ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i·i
lr·· -ni· ¬i ¤nr ¬º· ¬ ;ºi· ¬ l¬··i ··| ¬i ¤iº l¬¤i| -¬¸ · ·
¤r¬ - ~ni· ¬ ºiir| ºi¬i ¬· n¤i¬ ¬i ¤ºil¬n l¬¤i| ;¬¬ «i·
¬¬· l·~¬| ¬ ºi¬i -lr¤i¬ ¬ l·ª, -i ¤i l¬¤i| l·~¬| ¬ «i·
-¬¸ · · - º- ¤º ¤«i; ¬|| - º- ¬iº ¬··i ¬ ¬ ºi¬i¬i · ¬¬¬ ¬i·i
¤ , ¬º·i -|¬ · ¬-n¬º l-¤ni ¬º ¬|| . . ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ l-¤i º¬«
¬i¬iº ¬ ¤ · ·|· · «rºi;¤, ¬-|º r¬· ¬º« · -r¸ ·i n·ii -l¬¬
¤¬¬ · «·iº¬ ¬|n l¬¤i| ¬ ¬ni¤ ¬¬i·|· ¬i º -|º «lªn¤iº ·l·iºi
¬| ¬i º ¬··¸ º n¬ n¤ | ¬ l¬· ·ri -|º «lªn¤iº lr··¸ ¬ ·i ,iºi -iº
·i¬i n¤i| ¬i¬iº -¬¸ · · º¬« -i¬ ¬| ·«·| niº|ªi ¬·ii n ºl··iº
·« ¬¸ ·, ·oss ; o ¬ l·· «rºi;¤ - «i¬i¬ («i¬ ¬¸ ¤ ) ¬ -l··º ¤º
¬i¬ -ºi ¬º l·¤i| -¬¸ · ¬i ··i ºi¬i ¬ r ¬ · · ¬ ,iºi r ¬i| ;¬ ¤ ,
- «r n ¬ ¬i ni ¬| ¬i· n; ¬l¬· zz ··i| ¤ ¬i¬iº -¬¸ · ¬| - -¤ ¬
«i· ¤r ¬i¬ -ºi l«ªiº n¤i| l ¤ºn| · ¬ ·i ¬i ¬| ¬ ª¤i «r n
«« i ÷¤« i ¬º l ¬ªi | r | ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬i º, l r· ·¸ ¬ ·i - «| ¬
¬i ªi ·i · ¬·i º ¬i º n| ¬ ¬i ªi ¤ ·¬ ·i n·i i ·i ·i ¬i º ¬
¬n·i n ¤i · ¬ºi · ¬ l ·¬ ¬· ·i | ¬ l ¬· ¤ ¬ ª¤i ¤
¬- ¤l ·i ¬ ¬l nº l ¬n r | ¬· · º r-i · l ¤ºn| ·
-| ºi n÷¤÷-¬¸ ·| ¬ ¬· n - l ¬ªi i r l ¬ ÷
¬i¬iº -¬¸ · ¬| - -¤ ¬ «i· ¬¬- º - - ¬¤ ¤º ªii·
·i| -iºi n¤i| ¬¬¬ ¬-nºil·i¬ilº¤i ¬i lr·· ¬i ·
-iº ·ini¤i|¬i -¸ ln ¤i ni ·| n; ·i| , · ¤ · -·iil¤n ri
n; |
¤ ¬i«i· n¬l-¤º - ·i| ;¬¬i l··ººi l·¤i n¤i r | l--·i · ¬¬|
lr-- | ¬i· ;lº·¤i - l¬ªii r l¬ ÷
4116
··ii ¬ «i· -¬¸ · · ¬¤·| ¬ ·i ¬i ¬¬ ·i· (¬¤i·¤i) ¬
l·ª, ¬ ¤il¬n l¬¤i| ¤nl¤ ¬· l··i ·r -·ii· ·
¬¬¬ ¬i¬ ¤i¬ ·i·| ¬i«i·| ·i| l¤º ·i| l«·i ¬ ·i·i ¬
¬¬ ¬|n l¬¤i n¤i| -¬¸ · ¬¬ ·i· ¬ -i ¬- ¬ ¬i¤|
¤ ¬·· ·ii ¬iº ¤¸ l¬ ¤ri ¤º lºi¬iº ¬·s l-¬n ·i
;¬l¬¤ ·r ¬n¬| ··ii n¬ ¤ri ª¬ n¤i ¬iº ¬¬¬
«i· l·~¬| n¤i|
¬i¬iº -¬¸ · ¬ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬i ¬i¤| ¤ lnºi·i r ¬i ¬i º ¬¬¬| ¬ ·i ¬
¬i ni ¬i ¬nr÷¬nr -iº ªii·| ¤· || ¬ªi·+ ¤ ¬i«i· ¬ ¤ ºi· -in
¤º -¬¸ · ¬| n·ii¬l·in ¬« i ¬ ;¬¬| ¬-¤ni ¬i ni· ri ni r | -r-¸ ·
¬| ¬ ·i ¬i ¤¬ ¬·¤ ¬ ·i·i¤¬ ¬r-· l·¤i~nn|· ·i| ·ii l¬¬ -r-¸ ·
n¬··| · ¤ ¬i« ¬¸ « ¬i ¬l·i¬iº| «·i¤i ·ii| ¤ ¬i ¬ri ¬ini r l¬
¬¬· ·os« ; o - «·iº¬ ¬i ¬¸ -i ·ii| r·¬ « ¬º ¬i ¬r·i r l¬ ¤i
ni ¬¬· ¬·i·i ¬¬¬| ¬ ·i ¬ l¬¬| ¬·¤ ·i¤¬ · ;¬ ¬·¬º ¤º
¬¤i ·¤i ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i ri ¬¬ni r | ¬l¬· r·¬ « ¬º ¬ ;¬ ¬·i·
¬i r- ¬ ·¬ ¬·¬| ºi ·i ¬~¤·i -i¤ ¬r ¬¬n r ·¤i l¬ ;¬¬i
¬i ; ·i | ¤ -i ºi ·r| l -¬ni l ¬ l ·¤i ~nn| · ¬| ¬ ·i ¬
l ¬¬| ¬ ·i ¤l n · ¬¤i · ¤i ¤º ¬i ¬ -ºi l ¬¤i ·i i | ;¬¬
¬lnlº·n ¬n·in ¤¬ r| ··i ¤¸ · ¬i¬iº -¬¸ · ¬¤i·¤i ¬ l·¬- «rºi;¤
- -iºi n¤i ·ii| · ¬ , ¬r-· l·¤i~nn|· ¬ ;¬ ¬i¬ -ºi ¬i ·i| r-
- l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iºi ¬| n¤ r| -i·n r ·¤i l¬ n·iº|ªi÷¤÷¬ « ·nn|·
- « ri¬| · l¬¬ nºr ¬ ;¬ ·i-·i ¬i ·ºi · l¬¤i r ·r «·i ¬ l···i
¬i ¬nni r ¬i º ¤ ¬i ¤ ¬ni r l¬ l·¤i~nn|· ¬| ¬ ·i ¬iriº ¬
l·¬¬¬º ¬¤i·¬ «·iº¬ ¤r ¤ n; ¬i º ·i ¤rº n¬ ¬¸ -¤i- ¬º¬
·-i¬ ¬ ¬-¤ n¬ ·i¤¬ ¬i - n; | « ri¬| ¬i l··ººi ;¬ ¤ ¬iº r ÷
¬¬· (l·¤i~nn|· ) ¬¤· ¤i ,i¬i ¬i º ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i·i ·oss
; o - ¬iri º ¬ l·¬¬¬º -i¬ ºi ¬ ¬«º·-n| ªi¸ « º¬-
·¬¸ ¬|| «i· - ·r n ni ¤iº ¬º¬ ¬¬¬ «i¤ l¬·iº ¬
·|¤ ¬| ¬i º ¤¬ ¤·i| ¤¬i¤¬ ·r «·iº¬ ·i- ¬ ºirº
- , ¬i n n ·i- ¬ ºi¬i ¬ ºi·¤ - ·ii, ¬i ¤r ¤i| ;¬¬
¤r¬ ¬i ; ·i| - l-¬- ¬ ·i ·ri n¬ ·r| ¤r ¤| ·i|| ·nº
·i ¤º¬ n - º·« - ·ii ¬iº ¬¬- ¬i¤| ¤i·| ·ii| ¬ ·i
4117
·ri ¬· º ¬ ·i ¤rº ¬| ·-i¬ n¬ -rº| ·¤i l¬ ·¤i·i
-rº· - ªinºi ·ii| «¬i¬i n·ii n l·i¤i ¬iº ¬irlº¤i ¬|
«i¬iº ¬¸ - ¬| n; , ¬ l¬· ;¬¬ ¬ s ¬l·i¬ ¬º·i
·i- -l¬· ·ii| ¬ ·i ¬ l¬¤ir| ·i| ;¬l¬¤ ¬·i|º ri n¤
·¤i l¬ · ¬¤· ¬i·i ¬¸ - ¬i ¬i ·i, ¤i ·|, ¬nº ¬iº
¬·irºin ¬ ¬º ¬r| ¬¬i-n| ¬i - ¬i·i ¤irn ·i |
;¬ ¤ ¬iº l·¤i~nn|· ,iºi «·iº¬ ¬| ¬¸ - ¬| ·i-·i l«~¬ ¬
l·º·¬·|¤ ·r| ¬nn||
-r-¸ · n¬··| ¬ ¬·n· ·| (·i ¬i«i) - ;· ¬i¬ -ºii ¬ «i· ¤ri
¤º ¤¬ ºil·nºii¬| ¬i- i·¤ ¬| -·ii¤·i r ; | nr··i¬ · ºi ¬ ¤·· · ·
¬·i·i ¤·· il·-¤ · · · l¬¬ ¬i- i·¤ ¬| ·| · ºªi| ¬¬· ¬n·in ¤¬
ºini··| n¬ ¬·n· ·| ¬| ¬ º·ii ¬|| ¤·· · · ¬i º ¬¬¬ ¬-nºil·i¬ilº¤i
¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ nr· ·i¬ ·ºi ¬ ¬·i| ºi¬i¬i ¬
n ª·¬ ¬i¬ -ºi¬ilº¤i ¬i ¬i-·i ¬º¬ ¬·r «iº÷«iº ¤ -¤i·ln n ¬º·i
¤· i| ¬ -iº· ·| ¬ ¬iº·i·i ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ · ·-
n ª·¬÷«|º ¬ ·iººi¬| ¬| º·ii ¬ l¬¤ ·in·i· l··ºi ¬i nil···¤·· ¬
ª¤ - ¬·niº ¬ ·i ¤· i l¬¬ l¬¤ lºi· · ¤ i·i ·i ¬| ·i|| nil···¤··
¬ ºir· ni- ¤¤ ¬ ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ nil···¤·· · ¬¬- ¤ , -
r--|º ¬i ºi¤ ni -¤in· ¬ l¬¤ «i·¤ ¬º l·¤i ·ii| «·i¤¸ ¬ ¬ªi·¤i¬
¬ ¤¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ·i| ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ ¬¬¬ ¤¸ · ¬ -··¤i¬ ·
r--|º ¬ ·· ··| (n ni) ¬| ·ii-| - ¬i¬ -ºi ¬i ¬¬ ·i· «·i l·¤i ·ii|
ni l···¤·· ¬ ¤ ¤ l·¬¤¤·· ¬i ·i| r--|º ¬| nlnl·l·i¤i ¬i
¬¤¬ni¤¸ · ¬ ºi ¬· ¬i ¬ ¤ l·¤i n¤i r | l·~¬|÷lºi·il¬¬ -n-·i ¬ ªi
- l·ºii¬· · ¬i -¬ ·si ¬i ·iºi ¬º· ¬i ¬ ¤ l·¤i n¤i r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº
¬·n· ·| - - l-¬- ¬i¬ -ºi¬iº| ¬niniº ¤ ¤i¬ ¬ºn ºr ¬i º ¤ri ¬
ºi¬· ºii · ¬·¬i ¤ lnºi ·i ·i| ¬-¤÷¬-¤ ¤º l¬¤i| ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·
¬ ·¬ - l-¬- ;lnri¬¬iº ¬ºn r «l~¬ ·iiºn|¤ ºi¬i¬i ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬
·i| ;·¬| ¬¸ ¤·i l-¬n| r | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬·i| ri¬ r| -
¤ i·n l¬¤ n¤ ¤i·iºi ¤¬¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ ·i| ¤r nin ri ni r l¬ ni l···
¤·· ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ - l¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬i ¬i¬ -ºi ¬¤i·¤i - r ¬i ·ii|
··ss ; o - ¤···º ¬ ¤ , - ¬¤¤·· ¬ ¤ºil¬n ri ¬i· ¬ «i·
- ¬¬-i· ¬ ·i¬i · ·iºiºi¬| ¬i ··- l¬¤i ·ii ;¬¬| ni ¬¸ ¤·i l-¬n|
4118
r, l¬·n ¬¤i ·¤i - ·i| ¬·¬i ¬i¬ -ºi r ¬i ·ii ;¬¬| ¬i ; ¬¸ ¤·i ·r|
l-¬n|| ¬ s ;lnri¬¬iº ¤r -i·n r l¬ - r--· ni º| ¬ ¤¬ ¬l·i¬iº|
-ªi·¸ -ºiir ¬ ºi· ni º| · ¬¤i ·¤i ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi ¬º¬ ¬il··i·i ¬ ¬ ·
- l·º ¬i ni · i ·ii| ¬ l¬· ¬¬· ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ l¬¬| ¬·¤ lr··¸ - l·º ¬i
·i| ··- l¬¤i ·ii ;¬¬| l·lº¤n ¬¸ ¤·i ·r| l-¬n|| nr· ·i¬ ¬- i- ¬
¤ , - ¤ºil¬n ri ¬i· ¬ «i· - l-¬- ¬ ·i¤ ¬iº nr· ·i¬ ¬i- i·¤ ¤º
¬¤·i ¤ ºii¬· -·iil¤n ¬º ¬¬| ri n| ;¬ ¤º ·i| l·º·i¬ ¬º·i ¬l-·
r ·¤i l¬ ¬· ¬ ¬nri ¤º -·ii·|¤ ª¤ ¬ - l-¬- ¬ ·i¬i ¬i ¤ lnºi ·i
¬iº| ºri ¬i º ¬r| ¬r| ¤º «r n ºil·nºii¬| ¤ lnºi ·i l¬¤i n¤i, ;¬¬i
¬~¬ ªi r- ¤|s ¬º ¬i¤ r | ·zzc ; . - ;~n nl-ºi ¬ ¤ ¤ -l¬¬
·il¬ª· ·|· -r-¸ · ¬i ¬··i ¬i ¤ ºii¬¬ l·¤ ·n l¬¤i n¤i ¬i º ¬ ·i·n
¬¬ ¬-¤ lr··¸ ¤ lnºi ·i ¬i ¤¬ ·i·¬i ¬ni| n«¬in÷¤÷·i¬º| - ¤r
¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i n¤i r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - «ºn¸ r ·i-¬ ¤¬ ·¤l·n · «|¬
r¬iº - ¬¬-i·i ¬i -i n ¬ ·ii- ¬niº l·¤i ·ii| ¬ l¬· ·¬|ª· ·|·
-r-¸ · · ¬··i ¬ ;· ¬il¤ºi ¬i ¬ªii· ¤ ¬i|
¬··i·i¬| ¬i¬i ¬|niºi- · ¬¤· ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ;lnri¬ - l¬ªii
r l¬ ¤·· ·º ¬ ¤ , - ¬¤¤·· ¬ ¤ºil¬n ri · ¬ «i· ºiri« · ·|·
ni º| · ··s« - ¬··i ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i ¬i º -ªi·¸ - ºiir ¬ ºi· ni º|
¬¤i ·¤i - -iºi n¤i ¬i º ·r| ¬¬¬| ¬-il·i «·|| ¤º·n «lªn¤iº
lªi¬¬| · ¬«¬ ¤r¬ ¬··i - ºi·¤ ¤ «··i l¬¤i ¬iº ¬¬ ¬ ·i ¬i ¤¬
¬ ·· «·i¤i| ;¬- ¬¬¬i ;n·| ¬¤¬ni l-¬| l¬ ¬i¬i- n¬ ¬i ·i ¤
¬¬· ¬¤· ¬·i|· ¬º l¬¤i| ¬¬· ¬¤·| ºil·n ;n·| ««i ¬| ·i| l¬
¬ n « · ·|· ¬| - -¤ ¬ «i· ¬« ;~n nl-ºi n· ·| ¤º « -i ni ¬¬¬i
·i¬ ¬-n¬º ¬¬¬| ¬i·i|·ni -·|¬iº ¬º· ¬ ;·¬iº ¬º l·¤i| ¬¬¬
¤ ¤ ln¤i¬ · ·|· · « ni¬ - -·n·¤ ºi·¤ -·iil¤n ¬º l¬¤i l¬·n ¬ s
r| l··i - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬¬¬| ¬·i|·ni ¬ ls· n; ¬iº «rºi;¤ ¬iº
-il·¬¤ º ¬ «|¤ ¬i ¤ ·ºi l·~¬| ¬| ¬·i|· ¬º l·¤i n¤i| ;¬¬
lr·· ¬i - «·| ¤ lnl¬ ¤i r ; ¬iº ¬ ·i·i - «r n ¬ - ¬¬-i· -iº n¤|
lr·· ¬i ¬i ·-· ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ºiir¬i·i ·¬|ª· ·|· ¬i l·~¬| ¬ ·i ¬i
n¤i| ·zsc ¬i º ·z«z ; o - ¬ -ºi ·¬|ª· ·|· -r-¸ · ¬iº ¬-ª· ·|·
¬ ºi· ¬··i ¬ ¤ ºii¬¬ ºr |
··rr ; o - ¬ ~ni· ·¬|ª· ·|· ¬| -i -¬¬÷¤÷¬ri · ¬ n¬ n
4119
ªii· ¬ l··ir ¬º l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¬iººi ¬ n¬ n ªii· ¬i ¬··i ¬i
ril¬- «·i l·¤i n¤i n·ii ·c ¤º·º| ·zrr ¬i ¬¬ ¬··i ¬i· ¬i
¬i· ºi l·¤i n¤i| ;¬ «|¤ - ¬¬ ·i ªii· l·~¬| ·º«iº - ºil·nºii¬|
ri n¤i ·ii n·ii ¬¬· «i·ºiir ¬ ¤r r ·- l·¬¬·i l·¤i l¬ -l¬¬
ni¬ · ·|· -ir ¤ ºii·| ¬i «rºi;¤ ¬i ril¬- «·i¤i ¬ini r | ;¬ ¤º
¬ n¬ n ªii· · -l¬¬ ni¬ · ·|· ¬i «··| «·i l¬¤i ¬l¬· ·r ·iin
l·¬¬i ¬i º «rºi;¤ ¤r ¤ n¤i| ;·iº l·~¬| ·º«iº · ¤ · ¬ n¬ n ªii·
¬i ¬··i ¬ «rºi;¤ -·ii·i·nlºn ¬º l·¤i ¬ l¬· ¬¬· ;¬ ¬i· ºi ¬i
·r| -i·i| «i· - ·zrc ; o - l·~¬| ¬ ¬ ·i ¬i· ¤º ·r ni¤« ri
n¤i| ¬¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¬¬ ¬i· ªii· ¬ ¬º ¬i ¬··i ¬i ril¬- «·i¤i
n¤i l¬·n ·zrs ; o - ¬¬· ·i| l·· i r ¬º l·¤i n·ii l·¬i¬ l·¤i
n¤i|
;¬¬ «i· -l¬¬ ¤lnn|· - ; ÷·ºi¬ (¬-« «i¬i ·i¬i), l¬¬
¬-|· ªii· ·i| ¬ri ¬ini ·ii, ¬i ¬··i ¬i ril¬- «·i¤i n¤i| «¬«·
· ¬ªi·i n| ¬ n ·i |¬ ¬ l·· i r ¬i ·«i· ¬ l¬¤ ¤¬ «· | ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i·i
¬-|· ªii· ¬i ·i ¬i, ¬ l¬· ·r riº n¤i| ;¬ ¤º «¬«· ¬| ¬ini ¬
¬-|· ªii· ¬i l¬º ¬i-¬º ¬··i (¬¤i ·¤i) ¬ ,iº ¤º -i n l·¤i n¤i|
;¬¬ ·ii · r| l·· «i· ¤ºrn ªii· ¬i ¬··i ¬i ril¬- l·¤ ·n l¬¤i
n¤i| ¬¬· ºiºi« ¬ ·ºi - ¤¬ ·|¤ ¬i -iº ·i¬i| ¬¬¬| l··i·i ·
«¬«· ¬ ¤lº¤i· ¬|| «¬«· · ¤ºrn ªii· ¬i roo ¬i · ¬n·i¤ ¬iº
¬¬ ¬¬ l··i·i ¬i ¬i ¤ l·¤i|
¬~n·n ¬i ¬ - ¬··i ¬i r| l r· · -ni · ¬-ni ¬i ni
·i i | «¬«· l·~¬| ¬ ¬··i ¬ -in ¬i l··¬º-¬ «·i· ¬ l¬¤
¤ ¤-·ºi|¬ ·ii| ·r ·i «i· l·~¬| si · ¬º ¬l-¤¬ ¬iº ¤l-¤i¬| -
¤i ¤÷sr -r|· -rºi l¬¬- ¬ - ºi ¬iº ·i¬ ¬i ¬ l·~¬| ¬ ¬··i ¬i
-in ¬i¤ ri ¬i¤| ;¬¬ l¬¤ ¬; ¤ ¤i¬ ·i| l¬¤ n¤| « ni¬ - n ·i |¬
¬ l·· ir ¬i ·-· ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¬in ¬-¤ ·r ¬··i - -rºi ·ii n·ii
·ri ¤º ¬ ·i - ¬i- ¬i· ·i¬ l·l·i·· ¤ ¬iº ¬ ·¤l·n¤i , ¤·ii÷·
i · ¬·iº, ¤ ·¬, ¤i¤¬, ·i· ·i º, ¬riº, ¬ ·i·|, n|º··i¬, n ¬i-, ·i ¬º,
·¤i¤iº|, · ¬i··iº, ¬il· ¬i ·i ¬iªi ¬| ¬ ª¤i - ¤¬l¤n ¬ºi¤i|
¬ªi·i n| l·¬¤ ¬ «i· «¬«· · « nºi ªii· ¬i ·ri ¤º l·¤ ·n l¬¤i|
ºi¬·ii·| ¬i -· ¤º ¬-¬· -·i¤i n¤i n·ii n ·i |¬ ¬ ¬-·i ¬i ¬i -i n
4120
¬ ·ii- ¬niº· ¬i ¬i·ºi l·¤i| ¤nl¤ ¬i¬| · ¬ s ¬i «¤i l¬¤i
l ¬· n ;l nri ¬¬i º «·| l ¬ªi ni r l ¬ n ·i | ¬ ¬ ¬-·i ¬i
- ¬ ¤¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ºi ªi ¤º| · ¬ n ¬÷¤÷ºi i ¬º ¬
¬-i nªi i ·i - ¬i l - -¬ ºi i l · n ¤i · ¬| ;·si ºªi ni ·i i |
«¬«· ¬ «i· « nºi ªii· ¬i « -i ¬ ¬ «i· l·~¬| ¬i ¬ ~ni·
«·i| ¬·iº ¬ªi·i n| - « nºi ªii· -·n ¤ ri n¤i ·ii| «i¤÷« - ·i ·i ¬|
¬ ·i¤ ¬i-· ÷¬i-· ·i| | ¤¬ ·ii·iºi ¬ ;¬ l¬·iº ¤º · ºi ·i¬ ·ii ni
·¸ ¬ºi ·ii·iºi ¬ ¬¬ ¤iº| ¬i¤| ¬ · ºii ¬ ¬i·i·÷¤ ·i· ¬ «i·
l¤ni÷¤ ¤ ¤¬ -·ii· ¤º l-¬ ni ¬ ¬ «i· · ¬¤· l¤ni « nºi ªii· ¬
¤ººii ¤º lnº¬º ¬¬ ¬i ¬ ¬i ¬ l·ini l·¤i| «i· - ·i ·i ¬¤· ÷¬¤·
ºi·¤i - ¬i - n¤|
¤ºrn ªi i · ¬ l ·¬i ¬ ¬i · ¬ «i · ªi i ·¬ri ¬··i
¬i rl ¬- «·i ¤i n¤i | ¬¬| ¬ ¬i ¬ - ¬-| º ªi ¬ºi ·i
·· i n¬ ¬¤i · ¤i - ºri ¬i º ¤ri ¬| «i ¬| -
¤i º¬| ÷l r· ·| ¬i ºi ªi i l ¬¬«i º| ¬| º¤·i ¬| |
¬« l ªi ¬¬| · ºi ¬| ¬~n·n l ·~¬| - ¬i ¤- r ; ni
;¬ · ºi ¬ ¬ -·i i ¤¬ ¬¬i ¬ · ·| · ¬i ·i n| ¬i ¬¬i ¬· ·| ·
¬··i ¬i ºi i ¬¬ «·i ¤i n¤i | ¬¬i¬· ·|· ;¬iri«i· ¬ l·¬-
¬· i - ºrni ·ii ¬ri ¬¬· ·iiªi ¬ ¬¤· ¤i¤i ¬i l¬º ¬-·i¬º ·i·
¬i n ni ¬| º n| - l¤ ¬·i l·¤i ¬iº ªi · ¬ ~ni· «· « -i|
¤i ·r·| ºini··| - lªi¬¬| · ºi ¬ «i· n n¬¬ · ºi ¬l-n-· -
¬i¤i| niº|ªi÷¤÷l¤ºi ¬ ºiir| - l¬ªii r l¬ - r--· l«· n n¬¬ ·
n ni ¬ n- ¤º ¤¬ ·nº «¬i·i ¤iri ·ii l¬¬¬i ·i- ¬¬· -·n ,iº|
ºªii ·ii| ¬ ~ni · l ¤ºi ¬ n n¬¬ ·i «i º ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i ¤i ·i i |
¤r¬| «i º ·sz« ; o - ¬i º ·¸ ¬º| «i º ·s«s ; o - | ¬¬¬
¬-¤ - -l ¬¬ l ¬nl · ¬i º ¬i ¤i · ¬ - ~¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬
ºi i ¬¬ ºr |
- r--· n n¬¬ ¬i ¤¸ · ·i- ¬¸ ·i ªii· ·ii ¬i º ¤r ¬ri ¬ini r
l¬ ¬¬| ¬ ·i- ¤º ¬i ·¤ º «¬i¤i n¤i ·ii| «i· - ¬i ·¤¸ º - ºi¬| ·ºi
¬i ºi·¤ r ¬i ¬i º ¬¤i ·¤i ¬·¬ ºii¬· ¬ ¬·nn n ¬i n; |
3871. We may mention that the description of Salar Masud
about his alleged attack on Ayodhya is incorrect and has been
4121
admitted by Sri T.P. Verma in his cross-examination before this
Court also. We have already discussed this aspect while
considering the issues relating to period of construction of the
building. Rest of the historical events particularly the rulers and
their periods substantially could not be show incorrect by the
learned counsels.
3872. What actually appears from the above books that the
twilight zone when Hindu rulers came to be dominated by
Muslim rulers has been considered by some of the historians as
the commencement of the medieval period which some has
termed as early medieval and some as Sultanate period. With the
advent of Mughal Rulers the term has been called medieval and
that has been treated to be the end of the Sultanate period. It is
in this context we find ASI has taken a mid way and termed 6
th
period as Medieval Sultanate, 7
th
as Medieval and have divided
the same centurywise, i.e., 11
th
and 12
th
century as Medieval
Sultanate, 13
th
to 16
th
century to be more precise upto 1526 AD
to be medieval and thereafter Mughal. In fact for more clarity
this division has been made. None of the alleged expert witness
has shown the said classification or periodization of ASI wholly
unknown to historians or perverse or something which could not
have been said or conceived by a person well conversant in such
matters.
3873. It brings us to the concept of periodization of Indian
history-particularly for Northern India as Ancient, Medieval and
Modern. By and large, in the present day usage, the Ancient
Period ends in the 7
th
century A.D., after the rule of Emperor
Harsh. Then starts the Early Medieval Period. It lasts till the end
of the 12
th
century. It is followed by the Medieval Period which
4122
starts in the 13
th
century. In fact, the 11
th
and 12
th
centuries form
the 'transitional stage', the stage between the Ancient and
Medieval i.e. early Medieval period. Earlier, in the history
books written in the first part of the 20
th
century, there was no
concept of “Early Medieval”, the “Ancient” ended in the 11
th
century and “Medieval” started in the 12
th
century. Thus there is
absolutely no need of making sarcastic remarks against the
Archaeological Survey of India, as the historians themselves
have not been unanimous on this issue during the last one
hundred years. Earlier, even “Hindu”, “Muslim” and “British”
were the designations of the three-fold division of Indian
history.
3874. Many scholars have pointed out inadequacy of use
of the term “Medieval” in Indian history since this is imposing
the European concept on Indian history, the characteristic
features of say British Mediaevalism which was never present
otherwise in India. It is more systematic and precious to use
centuries, like 11
th
, 12
th
, 16
th
, 20
th
in the present context instead
of Ancient, Medieval and Modern. For this kind of division
there are several Radiocarbon Dates from the site, the list of
which is given in the Report. Periodization won't be a cut off
feature like on-off electric current by a switch. It is the flow and
merger of previous culture and power structure of the
immediately following period. Any specific data is only
suggestive of some event of significance which throws light
both on the past and the next.
3875. Professor R.S. Sharma mentioned in his book
“Perspective in Social and Economic History of Early India”
on page 228-229 an important problem in the general history of
4123
India is that of transition from the ancient to medieval, certain
dates such as AD 647, 711, 750, 916, 997 and 1206 have been
suggested as landmarks in political history. But since politics
was the preoccupation of a small section of society in early
times, it has to be shown whether any of the above mentioned
dates or whether any other date or point of time is equally
significant in the history of land system, crafts and commerce
polity, society, language, art, religion, etc. There has taken place
a lot of discussion whether Harsavardhana's death in AD 647
marks the end of one and the beginning of another era in India
history. The statement of Vincent Smith that the death of
Harsavardhana set in the process of decline of Indian history has
been ably refuted by a number of scholars, and especially by
H.C. Ray. But for those who wish to investigate patterns of
social and economic life, the real point to look for is not the
presages of decline and prosperity but the nature of change in
the existing way of life. If the change is of a fundamental nature,
it should be regarded as heralding the advent of new period. If it
is a minor change it would not necessitate any new
characterization of the period, even the question to the process
of change involved in it. We have to carefully consider how far
the decline of the existing system of life shows symptoms of the
rise of a new pattern of life. None of these points have been
taken into account either by V. Smith when he says that the
death of Harsavardhana in AD 647 brings a period of decline or
by those who try to refute his theory.
3876. On the grounds of dynastic and political history
H.C. Ray suggests that AD 916 should be accepted as the line of
demarcation between the two periods in the history of northern
4124
India. In his opinion: “these may be called the ancient and the
medieval periods; but it would be perhaps more reasonable to
call them simply the Hindu period and the period of the Turks
and Afghans. A similar approach has been adopted by some
other scholars. In the fifth volume of the "History and culture
of the Indian People", it is said at one place that ancient India
came to an end in AD 997, (the period subsequent whereto
Mahmood Gazni invaded on the northern front) and again at
another, that in Indian history the medieval factor was
introduced in the thirteenth century. Both views are based on the
assumption that the Muslim conquest ushered in mediaevalism
in India. Does it mean that without the Muslim conquest there
would have been no mediaevalism in India? Does it imply that
the countries of Europe which escaped this conquest had no
mediaeval period in their history? In Europe it is difficult to
think of mediaevalism without feudalism, the origins and nature
of which have to be examined in the case of India.”
3877. In "The History and Culture of the Indian People",
Bhavan's Book University published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan
Mumbai (first edition 1957), 5
th
Edition 2001, Vol. V, "The
Struggle for Empire" in the foreword written by Dr. K.M.
Munshi it is said that for over 2000 years, i.e., from before the
days of King Janmejaya Parikshita, referred to in the
Brahmanas, the culture of the dominant classes, developing in
almost unbroken continuity, had brought large sections of the
people within its fold. It was, however, disturbed on occasions,
for instance by the raids of Alexandar; by the influx of the
Bactrian Greeks, the Kushanas and the Sakas; by the invasion of
the Hunas; by the Arab incursions in Sindh. But these inroads
4125
were only temporary episodes; the vitality of the culture and
social organisation found it easy to absorb most of the alien
elements which were left behind in the country after they were
closed. It was based on the faith that Bharatvarsha, in its ideal
aspect often referred to as Aryavarta, was the sacred land of
Dharma, 'the high road to Heaven and to Salvation'; where 'men
were nobler than the Gods themselves; where all knowledge,
thought and worship were routed in the Vedas, revealed by the
Gods themselves; where the Dharmasastras prescribes the
fundamental canons of personal life and social relations; where
Chaturvarnya, the divinely-ordained four-fold order of society,
embraced all social groups; where, whatever the dialect of the
people, Sanskrit, the language of the Gods, was the supreme
medium of high expression. 'The Dharmasastras' and by that is
meant not only the Smritis beginning with the Manu-smriti, but
the Mahabharata and Ramayana have played a very big role in
the life of the country. Manu-smriti as the Dharmasastra of
divine origin, has had an all-pervading influence from the time
historical memory could reach back to moulding the mind and
the life of men, not only in India but in the India beyond the
seas, in Burma, Siam, Annam, Combodia, Jawa and Bali. With
the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, it has provided a
background of continuity to the social and moral life; modified
customary laws of tribes and communities in different stages of
civilization; and built up the Collective Unconscious of our
people that subconscious source of integrative vitality which
keeps a people together, leads them to feel and react as one in
the face of certain circumstances, and provides the urge to
collective action of a recurring character. Century after century,
4126
the system, first formulated by the Manu-smriti, was accepted
throughout the country, never by force of arms, less by royal
fiats than the sanction implied in the belief that 'God gave it and
the ancestors obeyed it'. It was found so acceptable because it
had a revealing basis of reality: of a frank recognition of the
temperamental inequalities of man; of the predominance of
hereditary influences over environments; of the need for a
synthetic framework for widely differing social groups in a vast
country where culture have been staggered from not only region
to region, but often from one group of villages to another. But
then the year AD 1000 was fateful year for Bharatversha. The
crucial age in Indian history began in AD 998 when the Turkish
conqueror Mahmood captured Ghazni and thereafter invaded
India for umpteen times. Generally it is believed that Mahmood
invaded Indian territory for 17 times and his last visit was in AD
1027. He drove India on enormous wealth and destroyed much
of its man power by repeated expeditions. This extortion of
economic resources and man power told upon the future
political destiny of India. Particularly the destruction of Shahi
Kingdoms which barred the gates of India against foreign
invaders dealt with a severe blow to its future independence.
The inclusion of Punjab and Afganistan in the kingdom of
Ghazni made Islamic conquest of India a comparatively easy
process. The northern part of India, however, soon recovered. In
Bihar area, i.e., Magadh, Tirabhukti and Mithila, sometimes
around AD 1097 Nanyadev of Karnataka dynasty established his
supremacy while Kannauj was taken by Gaharwala dynasty in
the later part of the 11
th
century. After 1034 AD till 1068 AD we
find no information about any military campaign by muslims
4127
against Hindustan. The cause might be the forceful dominant
military power of Parmar Bhoj and Kalchuri Karn who led
expeditions even into the heart of muslim territory of Punjab.
Bhoj died about 1055 AD and Karn died about 1072 AD
whereafter the military expeditions recommenced. Prince
Mahmood, the Governor of Punjab plundered Kannauj and
Kalanjar and invaded Ujjain between 1086 to 1090 AD. 42
inscriptions of Govindacharya's reign bearing dates extended
from AD 1114 to 1154 proving that his kingdom extended
atleast up to Banaras, Fatehpur and Kanpur districts on the south
Kannauj, on the west Gonda and Gorakhpur, on the north
Dinapur in Patna (Bihar) on the east. The last king in succession
who live peacefully for about 2 decades was Jaichand but was
defeated in the end of 12
th
century by Muizz-ud-din Muhammad
Ghuri who came after conquering Delhi and Ajmer by defeating
Prithviraj Chahmanas. Ghuri captured the fort of Asni in
Fatehpur district where the treasure of the king of Banaras was
despoted and then plundered Banaras city also. In 1197 it
appears that Harishchandra son of Jai Chandra retained his
power over Kannauj, Jaunpur and Mirzapur district resting his
patron kingdom from the commands of muslims. He was,
however, killed by Malik Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah the
eldest son of Iltutmish in AD 1226 and the Kannauj was finally
conquered by Iltutmish. It may be added at this stage that
Muhammad Ghuri after his death was succeeded by Kutubuddin
Aibak in 1206 AD who establish the Turkish Sultanate in India
at Lahore later transferred to Delhi. It is in this context that the
Sultanate period is considered to have commenced in the first
half of 13
th
century.
4128
3878. Nothing is brought to our notice which may suggest
anything otherwise in the historical background referred to
above. We therefore find no reason whatsoever in the above
background to hold periodization determined by ASI as
mistaken.
3879. Moreover, we have no doubt in our mind that ASI,
as a premier institution of this country, is responsible for the
preservation, maintenance and discovery of ancient monuments
and sites, as well as archaeological survey and excavation. They
are experts of expert. No archaeologist in this country can
undertake an archaeological expedition at a historical site of
importance without permission or licence from ASI. The status
enjoined t ASI which we have already referred, empowers it to
control all these activities. The finds and researches as well as
the determination and conclusion of any archaeologist or other
expert in this field is not normally recognised unless it has been
scrutinized by ASI and after approval it is also published in the
regular journals of ASI. An individual at some point of time may
be said to have acted with some kind of bias, legal or factual as
the case may be, but to brandish the entire body or a large
number of its officials who belong to different religions
including Muslims also, that they have worked with
preconceived notions is not only an irresponsible attitude to
show some kind of pre-determined plan and scheme to atleast
create a clout on a remarkable and excellent work ASI it has,
otherwise performed. The result of a work, if it is not chewable
to one or more, will not make the quality of work impure or
suspicious. The self contradictory statement, inconsistant with
other experts made against ASI of same party i.e. Muslim, extra
4129
interest, and also the fact that they are virtually hired experts
reduces trustworthiness of these experts despite of their
otherwise competence. The allegations, need much more
material to substantiate. In the matter of stratigraphy/
periodization made by ASI, in the absence of anything to show
that what they have said is improbable, ex facie fake or incorrect
or that no person having adequate knowledge in the subject may
have formed such opinion, we have no reason to disbelieve or
discard it and instead accept version of interested and partisan
expert witnesses who at times have made contradictory
statements as we have already noticed to some extent above.
We, therefore, find no force in the objection with respect to
the stratification/periodization made by ASI.
Pillar Bases
3880. The next and the biggest objection is with respect to
the pillar bases. We thus proceed to consider the same. A serious
allegations of framing of certain structures in particular, i.e.
certain pillar bases have been levelled by submitting objections
dated 21.05.2003 and 07.06.2003 which we have already
discussed in detail. Normally, it would have been suffice to
mention at this stage that had there been any truth, the same
could not have gone unnoticed by such a large number of
persons present at the site particularly when two members of
Higher Judicial Services were also present there as 'Observers'
having been appointed by this Court. We have already noticed
that two expert archaeologist, i.e., PW 16 and 24 who have
given very long statements before this Court thrice and twice
respectively, both of them visited the site in June 2003 and Dr.
Mandal also visited again in Sept. 2003. Both of them admitted
4130
that in June 2003 they had no idea or information that any
structure was manipulated by the members of Archaeological
Team of ASI. However considering the seriousness and also the
fact that in the Court, the stand is slightly different, we would go
in further detail of these allegation.
3881. The ASI in Chapter IV commencing from page 48
has considered various structures it found during the course of
excavation. For the time being we leave other structures and
proceed with the pillar bases in respect whereto the reference is
on page 55 and onwards. It says:
"From the excavation it could be inferred that there
were seventeen rows of pillar bases from north to south,
each row having five pillar bases. Due to area restriction
and natural barriers, the pillar bases in the central part
occupied by the make-shift structure on the raised platform
could not be located. Out of excavated fifty pillar bases
only twelve were completely exposed, thirty five were
partially exposed and three could be traced in sections
only. A few pillar bases were noticed during earlier
excavation after which a controversy took place about their
association with different layers and their load bearing
capacity. The present excavation has set aside the
controversy by exposing the original the form of the bases
having calcrete and stone blocks arranged and set in a
proper manner over a brick foundation and their
arrangements in rows including their association with the
top floor of the structure existing prior to the disputed
structure.
The seventeen rows of pillar bases were constructed
4131
along the north-south running brick wall (wall 16) on the
west. The distance of the first pillar base in each row from
the wall ranges from 3.60 to 3.86m. Seventeen rows of
pillar bases could be categorised in three different groups
on the basis of north-south distance which varies in
different groups whereas east-west distance from centre to
centre of each pillar base vary from 2.90 to 3.30m. Six rows
of the pillar bases on north and south were at the
equidistance which ranges from 3 to 3.30m. Central five
rows consisting twenty five pillar bases show different
equations-two rows on either sides of the central row were
placed approximately at the distance of 5.25m. whereas the
other two rows on either side of these three rows were at
the distance of 4.20 - 42.5 m. From this it could be easily
concluded that the central part of the pillared structure was
important and special treatment was given to it in
architectural planning.
In the southern area only one decorated sand stone
was found over a pillar base while in the northern area
many of the pillar bases were found topped by a plain sand
stone block set over the brick bat foundation having
calcrete blocks over them (Pl. 36). Top parts of stone
encasings had a projection in the middle. In the northern
area at a few places where the stone blocks were not found
sand stone slabs were found over the calcrete blocks of the
crick bat foundation of the pillar bases. The decorated
octagonal sand stone block on pillar base32 having floral
motif on four corners in trench F7 in the southern area is
the unique example at the site (Pl. 39) which definitely
4132
belongs to the twelfth century A.D. as it is similar to those
found in the Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi at
Sarnath (Pl. 40) which belongs to the early twelfth century
A.D. Seeing its cut or broken surface on one side its use as
the base of a neighbouring pilaster (Pl. 41) attached with
wall 16 in trench E6 cannot be ruled out."
3882. Thereafter the details of pillar bases have been
tabulated showing a total number of 50 pillar bases in different
trenches the relevant extract whereof is as under:
Pillar Base
number given
by ASI
Trench No. Pillar Base
given by
ASI
Trench no.
1. ZH3-ZH2 baulk 2. ZF2
3. ZG2 4. ZG2
5. ZH2 6. ZH2-ZJ2 baulk
7. ZF1 8. ZG1
9. ZH1 10. ZF1
11. ZG1 12. ZG1
13. ZH1 14. ZH1-H1 baulk
15. F1 16. F1-G1
17. G1 18. H1
19. H1 20. F2-G2 baulk
21. G2 22. F2
23. F2-G2 baulk 24. G2
25. F3 26. G5
27. H5 28. F6
29. F6 30. G6
31. F6-F7 baulk 32. F6-F7
33. G6-G7 baulk 34. E7-F7 baulk
35. F7 36. G7
37. F8 38. F8
39. G8 40. F8-F9 baulk
4133
41. F8-F9 baulk 42. G8-G9 baulk
43. E9-F9 baulk 44. F9
45. G9 46. G9-H9 baulk
47. E10-F10 baulk 48. F10
49. G10-H10 baulk 50. H10
3883. The learned experts who have appeared before this
Court rendering their opinion on behalf of muslim parties have
sought to challenge this part of the report making serious
allegations that most of the pillar bases have been created,
actually they did not exist. This attack is led on front by PW 29,
32 and DW 6/1-2. These very Experts (Archaeologists) who
have deposed their statements on behalf of muslim parties
complaining about the manner in which the ASI have functioned
in the above excavation have also said simultaneously
something otherwise.
3884. PW 29, Jaya Menon on pages 177-178 and 179-180
has said:
“Excavation was conducted by a team of members
of the A.S.I. It was supervised by two Judicial Officers
throughout the excavation. Besides these observers,
parties, their counsels nominees and experts were also
present during excavation. Day to day register was
maintained during excavation on day to day basis by ASI
but so far as site note book is concerned I don't know about
it. Day to day register was signed by parties or their
nominees and Advocates regularly on day to day basis.
Antiquity register was not maintained by ASI on day to day
basis. During my stay at the excavation site I did not sign
on the daily register. Since it was not compulsory to sign
this register therefore I did not sign this register, day to day
4134
register mentioned the antiquities found in various trenches
on daily basis . . . . . .During my stay at Ayodhya I verified
by inspection of day to day register, the antiquities recorded
on day to day basis in the daily register but did not sign the
register.” (Page 177-178)
“During excavation photography of trenches
along with artefacts was being regularly done. There was
three dimensional recording during excavation.
Videography was regularly done but I do not know that
videography of each and every trench was being dome or
not. I have not seen the C.D. Of video recording prepared
by the ASI. . . . . .I have seen the site note books prepared
by the A.S.I. And submitted in the court. Site note books
were prepared by the A.S.I. trenchwise on the basis of
regular excavation at excavation site. It is correct that
excavation conducted by the A.S.I. Was grid system of
excavation. Vertical and horizontal excavation were some
by A.S.I. At the site. . . . . .It is correct that for the
compliance of the order of the court horizontal excavation
was necessary on the spot. Vertical excavation by itself was
not sufficient because both types of excavation were
necessary. Both types of excavation had been conducted by
the A.S.I. at the spot. A.S.I. has given it's report along with
some plans and sections." (Page 179-180)
3885. Similarly PW 30, Dr. R.C. Thakran has said:
¬i-i·¤ ni º ¤º ·iiºn|¤ ¤ ºin-· l··iin ¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬| -|- ¬
¬·-¤ l¬·¬i ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬i¤ ¬i ¬ ¤ºl·¬ · ¬i ·iiº ¬i ¤i n¤i ·ii, ·
·i - ¬ ni ¬ n ·i , ¤º· n ¬¬ nºr ¬ ·i - ¬ ·r| l ¬¤
¬i n ·i , l ¬¬ nºr ¬ ·i - ¬ ¬| ¤ ¬| ¤l ºl -·i l n¤i -
¬i ·º¤¬ni ri n| r | ·i - ¬ ¬ · ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ªi ·i; ¬ ·i ºi· ¬i
4135
·i| ¬·ºi ·i ¤ i·n ri n r , ¤ir · l¬n· r| n ·s ·¬ º ¬in ri , ¬·i| ¬|
¬l¤n ¤ ¬iº ¬ lº¬il· n ri ·| ¤ilr¤ ¬iº ;¬ lº¬il· n ¬i ¬ ªii÷¬i ªii
- ¤ ·i - « ¬ - ri ·i r| ¤ilr¤, nil¬ ¬« ·i| ¬·i| ;¬¬i ¬·¬~- ¬º·
¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni ¤· , ni l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ | - n ;¬ «i n ¬| ¬i ·¬i º|
r l ¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o ,i ºi ¤¬ · ¬| ºl ¬--º - · - · l ¬¤i
¬i ni ·i i , l ¬¬- ºi i - ¬ ··n l ··÷· i º ¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬
·i ºi · ¬- ªi ·· ¬ni ¬i ¬ ¬· ¬i º ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·| ¤ ¬·ºi · i
ri n ·i , ¬·¬| l º¬i l · n ¬| ¬i n| ·i | | - · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi
-i ¬ ¤º ¬i; - ·i - « ¬ - ·- · ¬ºn ·r| · ªii ·ii| ¤nl¤ ¬i-ni º
¤º ¬i;- ·i - « ¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·iºi· ¤ ¤i n ¬| ¬in| r | (¤ ¬ r«)
“Generally, members of the excavation team of
Indian Archaeology Department who were assigned the job
of supervising the excavation work, used to take notes but
such type of notes were not taken down as are required
in such circumstances. By the words 'taking notes' I mean
that proper recording should be done of all the remains
which are discovered in course of the excavation,
howsoever trivial they seem to be, and accounts of this
recording should only be maintained in the note book in
regard to the trench so that it may be consulted whenever
such need be there. I have the information that ASI
maintained a daily register recording in the evening all
remains discovered in course of day-long excavation and
which the excavators take to be worth recording. I did
not see ASI taking site notebooks, though such notebooks
are generally used in course of excavation." (E.T.C.)
¬-ªi·· ¬ ·iºi· ¬« - ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¤º -i ¬¸ · ºri ·ii, n«
- · ¤r · ªi i ·i i l ¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ¤ i · n ¬i ¤ ºi ·ºi · i
¬- ªi l ·n l ¬¤ ¬i n ·i , ¬·¬| l º¬i l · n ni ri n| ·i | , ¤º·n
¬·i| ¤ ¬iº ¬ ¤ ºi·ºi·ii ¬| ¬- l¤n lº¬il· n ·r| ri n| ·i|| (¤ ¬ /r)
4136
“In course of the excavation, when I was present at
the excavation site, I saw that the antiquities obtained
from the excavation were certainly recorded but a proper
recording of all sorts of antiquities was not done.” (E.T.C.)
¤ º·÷ ¬¤i·¤i - ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·i ºi· ¬i ¤ ºi·ºi·i ¤ i·n r ¤ ·i ,
·¤i ¬·¬| ; · l·¬ n (·-«lº n) ¬| n; ·i|`
¬-nº÷ ri , - n ;¬ «in ¬| ¬i·¬iº| r l¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ·i ºi · ¬i
¤ ºi ·ºi · i ¬¤¬· ·i ri n ·i ¬i º l ¬·¬i ¬-ªi ··¬ni
-r- ·¤¸ ºi -i ·n ·i , ¬· ¤ ºi ·ºi · i i ¬| ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ·i ºi ·
-i l ¬ n ¬| ¬i n| ·i | |
¤ º·÷ ¬¤ºi ·n ¤ ºi·ºi·i l¬·¬| -il¬ n ri ·i ¬i¤· ¬·i| «ni¤i r ,
·¤i ¤r -il¬ n l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º l-·in - ¬ lºi¤ - -- ·¤º ¬ ¤¸º«
l-·in ¤¬ ·i· ¤«¸ nº ¤º ri n| ·i|`
¬-nº÷ ri , - n ¤r ¬i·¬iº| r l¬ ¬·n -·i¬ ¤º l·· ·iº ¬| ªi ·i;
¬ ·iºi· ¬i ¤ ºi·ºi·i (¬-ªi··¬ni ¬i ¬| · l·- ¬ n·ii¬l·in -r-·¤¸ ºi
¬·ºi·i) l-¬n ·i , ¬·¬| -il¬ n ¬iº l¬l-- n ·ri · ¬º¬ l¬¬| ¬·¤
¬nr ¤º ¬| ¬in| ·i| ¬iº ¬¬¬ ¤º¤in ;¬ nºr ¬ l¬l-- n ¬| n;
¤ ºi·ºi ·ii ¬| ¬i·¬iº| ¬-ªi··¬i¤ ¬i ¤ lnl·· ¬-i·n ¬º· ¬ ¤r¬
¬¤l-·in ¤¤ · ·i¬i ¤i ¬·¤ ¬¤l-·in ·¤l·n¤i ¬i ·| ¬in| ·i|| (¤ ¬
/c)
“Question:- Was the indexing done of the antiquities
discovered from the Ayodhya excavation ?
Answer:- Yes, I have the information that the antiquities
which were discovered in course of the excavation and
which were considered to be important by the
excavators, were marked in course of the excavation.
Question:- You have just told about the marking of the
afore-said antiquities. Was this marking done at a big
chabutra located east of a make-shift structure at the
disputed site ?
Answer:- Yes, I have the information that the marking and
4137
listing of the antiquities which were discovered as a result
of the day long digging at the said place (and which were
called important from excavators' point of view ), used to
be done at any place other than there. After that,
information regarding the antiquities thus listed, used to be
given to supervisors or the other present persons before the
end of each day's excavation work.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬| ªi ·i ; - ¬·i ¬n ¬
¬i · ºi i ¬ ¬· ¬i º ¬· i | ¤·i ¬i º ¤· ¬·¬ ·i l -·| ¬|
¬¤l -·i l n - r| ¬i ; -¬·¸ º ¤i ¤o¤¬o¬i ; o -| - ¬i ¬i ;
¬·-¤ ¬- ªi ·· ·i ¤ - ¬i ¬¬ni ·i i | ªi ·i ; ¬ ¬-¤
¬·i ¬n ,i ºi l ·¤ ·n ¤¤ · · i ¬ ¬¤l -·i n ºrn ·i | . . . . . .
. .- · ¤¬ ¬-¤ - n|·, ¤iº - ¤ ¬ ¬ ·i| ·¤i·i - ¤ ¬ - ªi ·i; ri n
· ªii ·ii| - · ¬i- ÷·¬, «iºr - ¤ ¬ - ¤¬ ¬i·i ªi ·i; ri n · ªii ·ii|
ªi ·i ; ¬ ¬-¤ - º ¬i ·i - l -¬- ¤·i ¬ ¤¬, ·i , n| ·
¤·¬¤- ÷ ·i l -·| ºrn ·i | (¤ ¬ ··s)
"It is true that in the Ayodhya excavation, under
the orders of the court, any labourer or any member of
the ASI team could go to the excavation site only in the
presence of all the parties or their nominees. Court-
appointed supervisors used to be present at the time of
excavation. . . . . . . I had at a time seen the digging going
on in even more than three to four trenches. I had seen the
digging going together in 8-10 or 12 trenches. At the time
of excavation, I used to be accompanied with one or two
or three experts or nominees from the Muslim side.”
(E.T.C.)
ªi ·i; ¬ ¬-¤ ¤·i¬iºi - -i o rilºi- n·ii ri¬| -r«¸ « ªi ·i;
-·i¬ ¤º ºrn ·i, ;·¬ ¬lnlº·n ·ri ¬ ¬i -·ii·|¤ ·¬|¬ ºrn ·i ,
¬·¬ ·i- - n ¤i· ·r| r . . . . . ¤ ¬i ·r| ·ii l¬ ·i ·|l·¤i ¬ -ºi,
4138
·i l--¬ ¤i -i n i¤ º n·ii ·i · i¤ -- · ªi ·i; ·i¬ rº - ¤ ¤º ºrn ·i |
ªi ·i; ¬ ··n ºii- ¬ ¬-¤ · ¬| ºl¬--º - l¬n· ¬il- ¤ ·-¬ l-¬n
·i , ¬·¬i ;·· i¬ ;· ¬il- ¤ ·-¬ ¬| ¤ il·n ¬| - ¤, ¬¬¬| nrºi; n·ii
¬il- ¤ - ¬ ¬ l··ººi ¬ ¬i·i l¬¤i ¬ini ·ii| ºl ¬--º - ;· · i ¬
· ¤i ¤i ¬¤ ,i ºi l ·¤ ·n ·i · ¤ · ·i ¬i ¬| ¬¤l -·i l n - ri ni
·i i | ºl ¬--º - ;¬ ;· · i ¬ ¬ «i · ¤¤ · · i ¬i n·i i
¤·¬¤- ¬ r-ni ·i º ri n ·i | - · ·i | ¬·n · ¬| ºl ¬--º
¤º r-ni ·i º l ¬¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ ··s)
“Among the parties Mohammad Hashim and Haji
Mahmood used to be present on the excavation site at the
time of excavation. Besides them, local counsels used to be
there. I do not remember their names. . . . . . . It was not
that two video cameras, two still photographers and two
draftsmen used to be present at every trench of digging. All
the artefacts discovered in course of the excavation, used to
be entered in the daily register in the evening with the
name and depth of trench from where these artefacts were
discovered and with descriptions of artefacts. Entries in
the register use to be done in presence of two court-
appointed supervisors. After the recording of entries in
the register, they used to be signed by supervisors and
experts. I had also signed the said daily register.”
(E.T.C.)
3886. On the question of "Pillar Bases" Para 5 (5.1 to
5.16) contains the allegations and alleged irregularities, as
under:
5. THE MYTH OF SO CALLED "PILLAR BASES":-
5.1 That the so called pillar bases are one or more
calcrete stones resting upon brickbats, just heaped up,
though A.S.I. claims that mud-mortar was also sometimes
4139
used. In many of them the calcrete stones are not found at
all. As one can see from the descriptive table on pages 56-
67 of the Report not a single one of these supposed "pillar
bases" has been found in association with any pillar or
even a fragment of it; and it has not been claimed that
there are any marks or indentations or hollows on any of
the calcrete stones to show that any pillar had rested on
them. The A.S.I. Report nowhere attempts to answer the
questions (1) why brickbats and not bricks were used at the
base, and (2) how mud-bounded brickbats could have
possibly withstood the weight of roof-supporting pillars
without themselves falling apart. It also offers not a single
example of any medieval temple where pillars stood on
such brick-bat bases.
5.2. That the Report's claim of these so called "pillar
bases" being in alignment and their being so shown in
infancy drawings (Figures 23, 23A and 23B), is not borne
out by the actual measurements and distances; and there is
indeed much doubt whether the plan provided by A.S.I. is
drawn accurately at all, since there are enormous
discrepancies between Fig. 3A (the main plan) and the
Table in Chapter IV on the one hand, and the Report's
Appendix IV, on the other.
5.3. That even those "pillar bases" that lie in the first
north-south "row" on the west, lie at different distances
from thick western wall: the distances varying between
3.60 and 3.86 m. The east-west distance between any two
features (center to center) can vary from 2.9 to 3.3 m
(difference of 40 cm) (p. 55) whereas in the north-south
4140
direction there is greater variation between each feature
and its neighbor: 3-3.3 m in the north and in the south, and
about 5.25 m in the central area. The use of the term
"rows", therefore, is incorrect.
5.4. That the entire manner, in which the A.S.I. has
identified or created the so called " pillar-bases" is a
matter of serious concern. Complaints were regularly made
to the Observers appointed by the High Court that the
A.S.I. was ignoring calcrete-topped brickbat heaps where
these were not found in appropriate positions and selected
only such brickbat heaps as were not too far-off from its
imaginary grids, and there creating the so called "bases"
by clearing the rest of the floor of brick-bats. In this respect
reference may be made to the complaints dated 21.5.2003,
7.6.2003, 28.6.2003, 26.7.2003 and 2.8.2003 etc.
5.5. That the most astonishing thing, that the A.S.I. so
casually brushes aside, relates to the varying levels at
which the so called "pillar-bases" stand. Even if we go by
the A.S.I.'s own descriptive table (pages 56-67), as many as
seven of these so called 50 "bases" are definitely above
Floor 2, and one is in level with it. At least six rest on
floor 3, and one rests partly on Floor 3 and 4. Since at
least Floors 1 to 3 are even recognised by the A.S.I. to be
floors of the Mosque, how can so many pillars be said to
have been erected after the Mosque had been built, in order
to sustain a so called earlier temple structure! Moreover, as
many as nine so called "pillar bases" are shown as cutting
through Floor No. 3. So, are we to presume that when the
Mosque floor was laid out, the so called "pillar bases"
4141
were not floored over? It is thus clear that the said
structures are simply not "pillar bases" at all, but some
kind of loosely-bonded brickbat deposits, which continued
to be laid right from the time of Floor 4 to Floor 1.
5.6. That the comparative stratigraphy of these 50 alleged
bases also requires comment. The tabulation on p.p. 56 to
67 gives us the following data:-
2 bases (nos. 16, 26) were cut through Floor 4.
25 of them (from the Z- trenches in the north to the
G10 and H10 trenches in the south) rested on Floor
4.
6 of them on Floor 3 (nos. 19, 21, 23, 24, 30, 37).
1 ( no. 28) actually is said to rest "at the junction of
Floor 3 and 4".
2 of them cut through Floor 3 (nos. 12, 15).
7 of them project above Floor 2 (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8
and 14).
We thus see that these 50 features belong to different floors
and therefore could not all have been functional at the
same time. They lack coherence as architectural features. It
is irresponsible, therefore, to repeatedly refer to "rows" of
these features, as has been done in the report.
Some of these features appear to incorporate all sorts of
material: pieces of brick, small stones and brick pieces,
long stone slabs, and D-shaped large stones, etc. This also
leads to the inference that all these structures could not
belong to any one period.
5.7. That even the table on pages 56-67 of the A.S.I.'s
Report may not correctly represent the layers of the pillar
4142
bases, since its information on floors does not match that of
the Report's Appendix IV, which in several trenches does
not attest to Floor No. 4 at all, which the said "pillar-
bases", in many cases, are supposed to have been sealed
by, or to have cut through or stand on!
5.8. That most of these so called pillar bases of the
northern side comprise of sqaure sandstone slabs, perhaps
resting on calcrete blocks (only one has been excavated
that reveals the calcrete block). The inner dimensions of
these pillar bases range from 48.5x43, 50x50, 47x46,
48x56, 49.5x49 and 51x51 cm. These dimensions are
completely different from those of the pillars that have
actually been recovered. The dimensions of the latter range
from 21x21 to 24x24 cm. Thus, the pillars that could be
said to have stood on the said northern pillar bases would
certainly not be the black stone pillars, used in the mosque,
or any other pillars of the same or similar type.
5.9. That the A.S.I.'s assumption is that the floor, with
which are associated these so called pillar bases in the
north, is the same as Floor 2 in the south. However, it
cannot be definitely said that the floors in E2, F2 or G2
can be easily correlated with E1, F1 or G1 or with ZF1 or
ZG1.
5.10. That the A.S.I.'s own information on the said pillar
bases is highly confusing and marked with discrepancies.
For example, in the tabulation of so called pillar bases in
Chapter IV, 50 'pillar bases' have been described and have
been illustrated in Fig. 3A. The number and the location of
these 'pillar bases', however, do not tally with information
4143
given in Appendix IV as illustrated in the following Table:-
Discrepancies on numbers of 'pillar bases'
Trench Number of 'pillar
bases in Appendix
IV
Number of
'pillar bases'
in Fig. 3A
and
Tabulation in
Chapter IV
E1 Brick wall/pillar
base?-1
-
E2 Brick wall/pillar
base?-1
-
ZF1 3 2
F1 'pillar bases'-
unspecified
1
F2 1 1
F3 1 1
F4 1 -
F6 2 2
F7 1 4
F8 2 4
F9 2 2
F10 3 2
ZG2 'pillar bases'-
unspecified
1
ZG1 2 3
G1 2 2
G2 3 4
G5 1 1
G6 1 1
G7 2 2
G8 1 1
G9 3 3
G10 2 1
ZH2 2 2
4144
ZH1 2 1
H1 2 2
H5 2 1
H10 2 1
J2 1 -
L1 2 -
L2 2 -
L3 2 -
L7 2 -
5.11. That, two 'pillar bases' are mentioned in H5, H10,
G10 and ZH1 whereas only one in these trenches have been
illustrated and described in the text. 'Pillar bases' in the L
series of trenches and J2 have not been indicated in the
Tabulation as illustrated above.
5.12. That on p. 55, distances between 'pillar bases' have
been given, that in the east-west direction, center-to Centre
distance was 2.90-3.30 m. However, the distance between
'pillar bases' 37 and 38 is 3.80 m. Similarly, these are not
always in alignment as is the case with 'pillar base' 30 in
Trench G6. 'Pillar bases' 37 and 38 in Trench F8 are also
not in alignment with each other.
5.13. That the dubious nature of the 'pillar bases' is
illustrated by the figures attached with the complaints. The
collection of calcrete and brickbats at a lower level than
the above has been ignored by the A.S.I. even though it
resembles their so called 'pillar bases'. At times, walls were
cut to make 'pillar bases' as in Trench F6. The confusion
between walls and 'pillar bases' is apparent in Trenches E1
and E2. The same is the case with 'pillar base' 27 in Trench
4145
H5. This is nothing but the southern part of Wall 18B.
5.14. That more serious problem has been created by
giving Figs. 23A and 23B, showing the 'pillar bases'
hypohetically. An incorrect impression is being created, by
showing some 'pillar bases' where no structure was
exposed at all and where no excavation was also done.
5.15. That there is an additional problem with the "pillar
base" interpretation. Load carrying pillar bases require to
rest on hard and resistant surfaces, on floor slabs or
rammed floors of say 30 to 40 cm height, or else to be set
into or enclosed in pits that are packed tight with filled
material. The various sections in the report indicate that
this is not the case (see, e.g., Figures 8,9,10 where the
features appear to have only been set without packing into
the ground, and interrupt the continuity of Floor 2, which
is only a few centimeters thick, and lies over a stratum not
said to be homogeneous earth filling, or of rammed earth.
Thus the very use of the words "rows" and "bases" is
incorrect and misleading. These features could in some
cases represent a pile of unused bricks, broken or entire. In
other cases, they may have been used to fill hollows or to
raise the level of the mound. In yet other cases they could
have been used to shore up a heavy wall or else to function
as an apron for a building.
5.16. That the A.S.I. should have surely looked about for
other explanations of these heaps of brickbats, before
jumping to its so called "pillar base" theory. There was
another clear and elegant explanation. When the surkhi-
lime mortar bonded Floor No. 4 was being laid out over
4146
the mound, sometime during the Sultanate period, its
builders much have had to level the mound properly. The
hollows and depressions then had to be filled by brickbats
topped by calcrete stones (the latter often joined with lime
mortar) to fill them and enable the floor to be laid. When
in time Floor 4 went out of repair, its holes had similarly to
be filled up in order to lay out Floor 3. And so again when
Floor 3 decayed, similar deposits of brickbats had to be
made to fill the holes in order to lay out Floor 2 (or, indeed,
just to have a level surface). This explains why the so
called "pillar bases" appear to "cut through" both Floors 3
an 4, at some places, while at others they "cut through"
Floor 3 or Floor 4 only. They are mere deposits to fill up
holes in the floors. Since such repairs were at times needed
at various spots all over the floors, these brickbat deposits
are widely dispersed. Had not the A.S.I. been so struck by
the necessity of finding pillars and "pillar bases" to please
its masters, which had to be in some alignment, it could
have found scattered over the ground not just fifty but
perhaps over a hundred or more such deposits of brickbats.
3887. As we have already noticed, these objections were
prepared by PWs-29 and 32 as they themselves have admitted in
the affidavit filed by them supporting their stand taken in the
objections. There are some difference in their statement. PW-29
(Jaya Menon) in her affidavit in para 13 says as under:
A. That the ASI's own information on so called pillar
bases is highly confusing and marked with discrepancies.
For example, in the tabulation of so called pillar bases in
Chapter IV of the Final Report, 50 so called 'pillar bases'
4147
have been described and have been illustrated in Fig. 3A.
the number and the location of said 'pillar bases', however,
do not tally with the information given in Appendix IV. The
details have been provided in the Objections filed by the
Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP dated October 8
th
2003.
B. That Appendix IV in the Final Report mentions so
called pillar bases in trenches L1, L2, L3 and L7 (page 17
of Appendix IV). Yet, Site Note Book No. 30 makes no
mention of pillar bases in L1 (pages 76-85), L3 (pages 67-
75) and L7 (pages 54-66). Nor are there any pillar bases
mentioned in Site Note Book No. 24 for Trench L2, or Site
Note Books No. 22 and 38 on the cutting of baulks between
various trenches in the L series.
C. That a study of the Site Note Books brings out
discrepancies from the information provided in the Final
Report. site Note Books Nos. 37 and 21 for Trench G7
make no mention of recovering any pillar bases. however,
the listing of so called pillar bases in the Final Report from
pages 56-67 has records of so called pillar bases in Trench
G7 (pillar base No. 26; pages 64-65) and in the G6/G7
baulk (pillar base No. 33; page 64). Appendix IV of the
Final Report on page 10 mentions so called two disturbed
pillar bases for Trench G7. It needs to be emphasized that
the Site Note Books are the result of hte trench supervisor's
observations and impressions. Interpretations may also
form a part of Site Note Books. But, here, we find that
trench supervisors make no mention of anything remotely
like a pillar base but these suddenly appear in the Final
Report.
4148
D. That the so called pillar bases are not in alignment
with each other as should be expected in a pillared hall. At
the same time, anything that has been found out of line with
their imagined alignment has been discarded as evidence.
A complaint was also filed which noted that structure was
exposed in the eastern part of J2/J3 baulk after excavating
a platform. Since it did not fall in line with the ASI's pillar
base in Trench J1 it was not considered as base. But in
physical appearance, made of calcrete and brickbats, this
structure resembles many of the ASI's so called pillar
bases. It is clear that this structure indicates nothing but
the manner in which the platform was constructed. This
shows the bias with which the ASI was working and their
selective use of evidence.
E. That is is clear that at times, walls were cut to make
so called 'pillar bases' as in Trench F6 and thus there is in
Appendix IV, a confusion between walls and so called
'pillar bases' in Trenches E1 and E2. The same is the case
with the so called 'pillar base' in Trench H5. This is
nothing but the southern part of Wall 18B.
F. That a more serious problem is showing the so called
'pillar bases' hypothetically in Figs. 23A and 23B. An
incorrect impression is being created, by showing some so
called 'pillar bases' where they do not exist.
G. That the ASI's assumption that the floor, with which
are associated these pillar bases in the north, is the same
as Floor 2 in the south, is baseless as there has been no
concordance of trenches in the north and south.
H. That according to the Report (page 54), Structure 4
4149
(the 'massive structure') "has survived through its nearly 50
metre long wall (wall 16) in the west and fifty exposed so
called pillar bases to its east attached with Floor 2 or the
floor of the last phase of Structure 4." However, several
sections provided by the ASI (Figs. 6, 10, 16, Plates 21, 46)
clearly show that the floor to which they were supposed to
be attached sealed these so called 'pillar bases'. In Fig. 6,
the 'pillar bases' has cut through Floor 3 (the floor
associated with sub-period VIIB) and should have been
attached to Floor 2. However, the section in Fig. 6 clearly
shows Floor 2 intact over alleged 'pillar base' 31 which
means the supposed sandstone block with orthostats and
pillar could not have projected over Floor 2. This was the
case also with so called 'pillar bases' in Trenches F2, G2
and G5.
I. That these so called "pillar bases" are too flimsy to
have supported any load-bearing pillars. Made largely of
brickbats, these are completely lacking in uniformity that
would be expected if these were in reality pillar bases.
Diameters vary from 1.10 m to 1.90 m. Brickbats are not
placed in courses as should be the case, but are random, in
many cases in a tilted position. The height of brickbats
varies from 5-55 cm within a single base. Brickbats do not
lie only under the stone but also over the stone as in
Trenches F7 and F10. Brickbats make the entire structure
unstable and would get broken if a weight was placed over
them. If these really were rounded bases, originally they
would have been constructed of wedge-shaped bricks
instead of which we find brickbats of jagged shape.
4150
J. That if these really were pillar bases, they should
have had casings within which the pillar would have fitted.
In contrast, we see real pillar bases at the Early Historic
site of Sanghol. One notices that these are rectangular,
made of large bricks neatly placed with a depression in the
centre to set the pillar. These are all of uniform size,
constructed uniformly and are accurately aligned, unlike in
the case of Ayodhya. Three Photographs of these pillar
bases of Sanghol were filed as Annexures Nos. 2, 3, and 4
alongwith the Additional objection of Sunni Waqf Board
dated 3-2-2004.
K. That the northern area is the only area of the site
where pillar bases have been found. These appear to have
been part of a separate much later period structure. In an
area of about 10 x 10 metre, these were embedded in Floor
1 and hence were contemporary with Floor 1. These pillar
bases comprise of square sandstone slabs, of which only
one has been excavated with a calcrete block. The inner
dimensions of these pillar bases range from 48.5 x 43, 50 x
50, 47 x 46, 48 x 56, 49.5 x 49 and 51 x 51 cm. These
dimensions are completely different from those of the black
stone pillars that have actually been recovered with
dimensions ranging from 21 x 21 to 24 x 24 cm. Thus, the
pillars that would have stood on the said northern side
pillar bases were certainly not the black stone pillars.
These northern side pillar bases are the ones numbered 1-
8, 13 and 14, by the ASI.
L. That barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and 14, the ASI
has created so called 'pillar bases' in the rest of the site.
4151
Their creation has been actually observed during
excavation and complained about. The deponent has
personally witnessed the creation of so called " pillar
bases" in Trenches ZF1, F3, F6, G5 and F2/G2.
M. (i) That observations were made of the creation of
so called pillar bases in Trench ZF1 from 29
th
April to 30
th
April 2003. Floor 1 was exposed at 40 cm bsl, Floor 2 at
57 cm bsl and Floor 3 at 80 cm bsl, all floors being lime-
surkhi floors. Floor 1 was reached on April 29
th
2003 and
was cut through on 30
th
April 2003, exposing a complete
brickbat layer. But during excavation, when a stone was
observed as protruding out of the brickbats, the brickbats
in the area near the stone were left in a squarish shape
while the rest of the brickbats were removed and thrown
away. On April 30
th
2003 when Floor 2 was cut through,
the same king of brickbat layer was exposed beneath it.
This brickbat layer can be easily observed by studying the
south-facing section in Trench ZF1. A complaint was
lodged about the creation of this so called "pillar base".
(ii) That the creation of a so called pillar base was
observed in Trench G5 from 24
th
- 30
th
of May 2003. Under
the Babri Masjid floor various alignments of brickbats
were excavated. By the 28
th
of May 2003, brickbats in the
north-western area were concentrated on because there
were traces of mortar on these. The mortar was probably
remnants from Floor1. By the 30
th
of May 2003, brickbats
were left in a somewhat circular shape because a few small
stone chips with traces of mortar on them were found. This
whole contraption was made into a so called pillar base by
4152
selective digging and partial removal of brickbats. It
appears that any co-occurrence of stone, even in the form
of chips, and brickbats was made into a so called pillar
base, as long as it is 3.30 m to 3.50 m away from the next.
Any stones along with brickbats found out of this alignment
was not made into a pillar base. A complaint was lodged
during excavation about the creation of this "pillar base"
also.
(iii) That the same situation of creation of so called pillar
bases can be seen in Trench F3. The relevant excavation s
took place from July 8
th
to 12
th
July2003. In this trench,
part of the wall of the northern dome of the Babri Masjid is
still standing. A sandstone slab was recovered in the north-
western corner of the trench at 2.30 m bsl. On excavation,
brickbats were found lying all over the trench and Floor 2
was partially seen below the brickbats at 3.08 m below
surface level (bsl). On the 9
th
of July 2003, brickbats were
selectively removed, leaving those only around the
sandstone slab. Further excavation down to Floor 3 at 3.35
m bsl revealed a similar layer of brickbats under it. Finally
the so called pillar base was created by heaps of brickbats
that had been left in place around a sandstone slab while
removing all the other brickbats in the rest of the trench. A
complaint was lodged during excavation about the creation
of this "pillar base".
(iv) That the construction of a so called pillar base was
observed in Trenches F2/G2 from the 23
rd
to the 26
th
of July
2003. The loose deposit under the Babri Masjid floor was
removed leaving brickbats in the north-eastern part of the
4153
trench in a semi-circular shape. By the 24
th
of July, the
entire area was cleared leaving brickbats in the eastern
area and a small patch in the south-western part. What is
important is that the eastern and western parts of the
trench were excavated carefully with knife and brush unlike
the rest of the trench that was excavated with a pick. This
was because it was in the eastern and western portions that
so called pillar bases had to be created, keeping their
distance from those constructed in Trench G1. It must also
be pointed out that in the clearing work, a collection
brickbats and sandstone in the north-western part of the
excavated area was removed because it did not fall in an
expected alignment of so called pillar bases. This
'structure' had been objected to earlier in a complaint filed
on 21
st
May 2003. By the 26
th
of July, brickbats in the
south-western part were recovered along with sandstone
chips. Digging under Floor 1 revealed brickbats in the
entire area, but the south-eastern and south-western areas
were excavated separately. It was very obvious that these
were going to be made into so called pillar bases, even
though brickbats had been found in the entire area. By
11.40 am, the area was cleared but further digging
revealed the same king of deposit of brickbats, mud, and
brick nodules. By afternoon, the so called "pillar base" in
the south-eastern area was created by removing brickbats
from its edges to give it a neat shape. Glazed were sherds
were found at this level. The so called "pillar base" in the
south-western part of the trench was cleared of brickbats of
make it equal in size to its counterpart and a piece of
4154
broken floor sticking to it was removed. Very obviously,
these so called pillar bases were created by selectively
removing brickbats that lie under each floor. A complaint
was lodged during excavation about the creation of this so
called "pillar base".
N. That it was observed that, during excavation,
brickbats were selectively removed so as to leave brickbat
heaps around stone piece and blocks. (There were
preconceived ideas about where so called "pillar bases"
were to be carved out of brickbats. If no sandstone or
calcrete blocks or slabs were noted, heaps of brickbats
were left at intervals of 3.00-3.30 m.) A clear attempt was
made to neaten the edges of so called "pillar bases" by
removing brickbats to give rounded/squarish shapes. It
appears that at the end of the excavation, when some so
called 'pillar bases' were found obviously out of alignment,
they were dismantled as in the case of the structure in the
north-west of Trench G2.
O. That the sections of a trench provide us direct
evidence of the brickbats layers that lay under individual
floors. (It is also obvious that brickbats have been removed
from the sections of many trenches: south-facing section of
G8/G9 baulk, north, south, and east-facing sections of F1,
north- and south facing sections of G1, north-facing
section of H1, and east-facing section H1/H2 baulk, south-
and west-facing sections of ZF1, east-facing section of G2
and east-facing section of F9.) In archaeology, whenever
sections are made during excavation, protruding artefacts
like antiquities or bricks, stone and brickbats are never
4155
scraped level with the section but are allowed to protrude.
This provides a correct picture of the section and its
cultural material. In the case of Ayodhya, the above-
mentioned trenches show gaping holes from where
brickbats have been removed.
P. That the so called "pillar bases" were only part of a
floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was
underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with
stone blocks and slabs and other material as fillers. The
intervening spaces were filled with brickbats, mud and
brick nodules. Stones have also been used at the site as
fillers (as seen from the Plates 4, 21, 30, 50 in the Final
Report), levelling mechanisms and for raising walls and
platforms and so forth.
Q. That it seems that originally the aim was to create the
so called pillar bases all over the excavated area. 8 so
called 'pillar bases' were carved out in the L series of
trenches as can be seen by Appendix IV (page 17) of the
Final Report. As pointed out, there is no mention of these in
the individual Site Note Books of the L series of trenches.
These were probably not included in the final tabulation or
in Fig. 3B showing so called 'pillar bases' as they did not
fit in which the ASI' plan of a so called temple with a large
brick pavement in front. This brick pavement to the east
was considered as the entrance of the massive structure
and hence pillar bases would not have fitted into this plan
further to the east."
3888. PW 32 (Dr. Supriya Verma) in her affidavit dated
27
th
March, 2006 has said:
4156
A. That the northern area is the only area of the site
where pillar bases have been found. In an area of about 10
x 10 m, these were embedded in Floor 1 and hence were
contemporary with Floor 1. These pillar bases comprise of
square sandstone slabs, of which only one has been
excavated with a calcrete block. The inner dimensions of
these pillar bases range from 48.5 x 43, 50 x 50, 47 x 46,
48 x 56, 49.5 x 49 and 51 x 51 cm. These dimensions are
completely different from those of the black stone pillars
that have actually been recovered with dimensions ranging
from 21 x 21 to 24 x 24 cm. There is a pillar lying in the
gully to the north of the mound that may have fitted on top
of these pillar bases. Thus, the pillars that would have
stood on the northern side pillar bases were certainly not
the black stone pillars. These northern pillar bases are the
ones numbered 1-8, 13 and 14, by the ASI.
B. That barring pillar bases 1-8, 13 and 14, the ASI has
created 'pillar bases' in the rest of the site. Their creation
has been actually observed during excavation was even
and complained about. The deponent has personally
witnessed the creation of "pillar bases" in Trenches G2, G5
and F3. Observations were made on the creation of "pillar
bases" in Trench G2 from May 16-20, 2003, in Trench G5
from May 27-30, 2003, and in Trench F3 from July 8-12,
2003 and complaints were filed on May 21, 2003, June 28,
2003 and July 26, 2003 respectively. These
complaints/objections were prepared by the deponent and
Dr. Jaya Menon and were filed under the signatures of
Muslim parties and their counsels.
4157
C. That a close observation of the excavation and
recording was done of Trench G2 from May 16 to May 20,
2003. It was found that brickbats randomly scattered over
the entire excavated area were selectively removed so as to
create a visual impression that the brickbats were confined
to only a portion of the excavated area. An examination of
the section will reveal the fact that brickbats lay in the
layer below Floor 1. When Floor 2 was dug through, once
again a whole layer of brickbats was exposed.
D.. That the so called "pillar bases" were only part of a
floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was
underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with
stone block blocks and slabs and other material as fillers.
The intervening spaces were filled with brickbats, mud and
brick nodules. Stones have also been used at the site as
fillers (as seen from the Plates 4, 21, 30, 50 in the Final
Report), levelling mechanisms and for raising walls and
platforms and so forth.
E. That during excavation, brickbats were selectively
removed so as to leave brickbat heaps around stone pieces
and blocks. If no sandstone or calcrete blocks or slabs were
noted, heaps of brickbats were left at intervals of 3.00-3.30
m. It appears that at the end of the excavation, when some
so called "pillar bases" were found obviously out of
alignment, they were dismantled as in the case of the
structure in the northwest part of Trench G2.
F. That the sections of a trench provide us direct
evidence of the brickbat layers that lay under individual
floors. It is also obvious that brickbats have been removed
4158
from the sections of many trenches: south-facing section of
G8/G9 baulk, north-, south-, and east-facing sections of
F1, north- and south-facing sections of G1, north-facing
section of H1, and east-facing section of H1/H2 baulk,
south- and west-facing sections of ZF1, east-facing section
G2 and east-facing section of F9. (In archaeology,
whenever sections are made during excavation, protruding
artefacts like antiquities or bricks, stone and brickbats are
never scraped level with the section but are allowed to
protrude. This provides a correct picture of the section and
its cultural material.) In the case of Ayodhya, the above-
mentioned trenches show gaping holes from where
brickbats have been removed.
G. That the ASI's own information on the so called
"pillar bases" is highly confusing and marked with
discrepancies. For example, in the tabulation of "pillar
bases" in Chapter IV of the Final Report, 50 "pillar bases"
have been described and have been illustrated in Fig. 3A.
The number and the location of "pillar bases", however, do
not tally with the information given in Appendix IV. The
details have been provided in the Objections filed by the
Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP on October 8
th
2003.
H. That Appendix IV in the Final Report mentions so
called "pillar bases" in trenches L1, L2, L3 and L7 (p. 17 of
Appendix IV). Yet, Site Note Book No. 30 makes no mention
of pillar bases in L1 (pp. 76-85), L3 (pp. 67-75) and L7
(pp. 54-66). Nor are there any "pillar bases" mentioned in
Site Note Book No. 24 for Trench L2, or Site Note Books
No. 22 and 38 on the cutting of baulks between various
4159
trenches in the L series.
I. That it seems that originally the aim was to create
"pillar bases" all over the excavated area. Eight so called
"pillar bases" were carved out in the L series of trenches as
can be seen by Appendix IV. (p. 17) of the Final Report. As
pointed out, there is no mention of these in the individual
Site Note Books of the L series of trenches. These were
probably not included in the final tabulation or in Fig. 3B
showing "pillar bases" as they did not fit in with in the
ASI's plan of a temple with a large brick pavement in front.
This brick pavement to the east was considered as the
entrance of the massive structure and hence so called
"pillar bases" would not have fitted into this plan further to
the east.
J. That a study of the Site Note Books brings out
discrepancies from the information provided in the Final
Report. Site Note Books Nos.37 and 21 for Trench G7 make
no mention of recovering any so called "pillar bases".
However, the listing of "pillar bases" in the Final Report
from pp. 56-67 has records of "pillar bases" in Trench G7
(pillar base No. 36; pp. 64-65) and in the G6/G7 baulk
("pillar base" No.33; p. 64). Appendix IV of the Final Reprt
on p. 10 mentions two disturbed "pillar bases" for Trench
G7. It needs to be emphasized that the Site Note Books are
the result of the trench supervisor's observations and
impressions. Interpretations may also form a part of Site
Note Books. But, here, we find that trench supervisors make
no mention of anything remotely like a "pillar base" but
these suddenly appear in the Final Report.
4160
K. That the so called "pillar bases" are not even in
alignment with each other as should be expected in a
pillared hall. At the same time, anything that has been
found out of line with their imagined alignment has been
discarded as evidence. A complaint filed on 24
th
July, 2003
noted that a structure was exposed in the eastern part of
J2/J3 baulk after excavating a platform. Since it did not fall
in line with the ASI's so called "pillar base" in Trench J1 it
was not considered as a base. But in physical appearance,
made of calcrete and brickbats, this structure resembles
many of the ASI's so called "pillar base". It is clear that
this structure indicates nothing but the manner in which the
platform was constructed. This shows the bias with which
the ASI was working and their selective use of evidence.
L. That it is clear that at times, walls were cut to made
so called "pillar base" as in Trench F6 and thus there is in
Appendix IV, a confusion between walls and "pillar bases"
in Trenches E1 and E2. The same is the case with the
"pillar base" in Trench H5. This is nothing but the southern
part of Wall 18B.
M. That a more serious problem is that of showing the so
called "pillar bases" hypothetically in Figs. 23A and 23B.
An incorrect impression is being created, by showing some
'pillar bases' where they do not exist.
N. That the ASI's assumption that the floor with which
are associated these so called "pillar bases" in the north is
the same as Floor 2 in the south is baseless as there has
been no concordance of trenches in the north and south.
O. That according to the Report (p. 54), Structure 4 (the
4161
'massive structure') "has survived through its nearly 50 m
long wall (Wall 16) in the west and fifty exposed pillar
bases to its east attached with Floor 2 or the floor of the
last phase of Structure 4." However, several sections
provided by the ASI (Figs. 6, 10, 16, Plates 21, 46) clearly
show that the floor to which they were supposed to be
attached sealed these "pillar bases". In Fig. 6, the "pillar
base" has cut through Floor 3 (the floor associated with
sub-period VIIB) and should have been attached to Floor
2. However, the section in Fig. 6 clearly shows Floor 2
intact over "pillar base" 31 which means the supposed
sandstone block with orthostates and pillar could not have
projected over Floor 2. This was the case also with "pillar
bases" in Trenches F2, G2 and G5.
P. That these so called "pillar bases" are too flimsy to
have supported any load-bearing pillars. Made largely of
brickbats, these are completely lacking in uniformity that
would be expected if these were in reality pillar bases.
Diameters vary from 1.10 m to 1.90 m. Brickbats are not
placed in courses as should be the case, but are randaom,
in many cases in a tilted position. The height of brickbats
varies from 5-55 cm within a single base. Brickbats do not
lie only under the stone but also over the stone as in
Trenches F7 and F10. Brickbats make the entire structure
unstable and would get broken if a weight was placed over
them. If these really were rounded bases, originally they
would have been constructed of wedge-shaped bricks
instead of which we find brickbats of jagged shape.
Q. That if these really were pillar bases, they should
4162
have had casings within which the pillar would have fitted.
In contrast, we see real pillar bases at the Early Historic
site of Sanghol. One notices that these are rectangular,
made of large bricks neatly placed with a depression in the
centre to set the pillar. These are all of uniform size,
constructed uniformly and are accurately aligned, unlike in
the case of Ayodhya. The deponent had visited the said site
of Sanghol. District Ludhiana (Panjab) alongwith Dr. Jaya
Menon and Dr. Suchi Dayal in 2004 and Dr. Jaya Menon
and the deponent had taken the photographs of the said
Sanghol site (3 of which have already been filed as
ANNEXURES Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the Additional objection
dated 3-2-2004 filed by the Sunni Waqf Board against the
A.S.I. Report.)
3889. After very careful considerations of the above as
also the arguments advanced before us including ASI report, it
appears to us that the report of ASI sought to be criticized by the
plaintiffs (Suit-4) as if ASI was supposed to satisfy them about
its finding and not the Court. Several fanciful objections have
been made just to multiply and add the list of the objections.
3890. Under the heading "The Myth of so called pillar
bases", paras 5.12, 5.16, in a general way, all the pillar bases are
sought to be discredited though a number of pillar bases, we
have already demonstrated, are admitted by the experts of the
muslim parties. Complaints in respect to some of the pillar
bases, which were made on 21
st
May, 2003 and 7
th
June, 2003
have already been discussed above and that itself is sufficient to
discard the objections of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) on this aspect.
However, we propose to throw some more light on the subject
4163
of pillar bases.
3891. In the cross examination, the Expert (Archaeologist)
plaintiffs (Suit-4) have also said something about pillar bases.
PW-16 (Surajbhan) said:
;· n·i i ¬l ·i n l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¤º - l ·ºi ¬ ¬i ; l ¤· r
¬·i ·i l ¬- «¬ ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·«s)
“There are no signs or symbols of temples on these
so-called pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)
«··ii º ·i¬ --i · ¬ l¤¬º « ¬¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ¬-nº| ·iin
- ¬-ªil·n l¬¤ n¤ l¤¬º« ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ s l·i·· ·i | ¬ l¬· ¬i ; -i ¬
l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ «ni¤ n¤ r ¬· ¬«¬i ·i-n· - l¤¬º « ¬ ri ·i ¬ l···i
r | ¬· l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬i·i ¬ i¬¬ ·ºi· ·r| l·¤i n¤i r, l¬¬¬ ¤r
- -- l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ l¬ ·r si -i «i ¤i ·i-n· - ¤¸ ºi ª¤ ¬ ¤¬ l¤¬º
« ¬ r| l¬- - |¬¬ ¬-« ¬ «·i¤i n¤i ·ii ¬·i·i ¤r ;ºº n ¬º r ¬i º
¬ i¬¬ ·ºi· ¬ «n º ¤r ¬i··i ¬-·i· ·r| r l¬ ¤r ªi ·i; -
¤·¬¬ · -º · n ¬n| ¬ ¤i ¬i·«¸ n¬º ¤ ¬i ª¤ ni ·r| · l·¤i
r |(¤ ¬ ·ro)
“ Pillar bases of the Banbhor stone were slightly
different from the pillar bases excavated in the northern
part of the Babri mosque but it is doubtful that what have
been reported to be brick-built pillar bases are all actual
pillar bases. These pillar bases have not been provided
with cross section enabling it to ascertain whether that
small structure was actually built completely as a
symmetrical come-back(?) of a pillar base or whether it is
an irregular structure. Without the cross section, it is not
possible to know that the excavator has not by mistake or
deliberately given it such a shape in the
excavation."(E.T.C.)
- ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬ ¤ -nº ÷ z ¬| ·¸ ¬º| ¤ l·n -
4164
¬· l· l¬l-- · ¤º¤¬ ¬i¤ l·ln n l¬ªii r , ;¬¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ¤r r
l¬ ¬| o¤| o¬i ºo ¬· · ¬i ¤·i -¬| ¬ l r· - ¬| ·i | , ¬·-
¬ ¬ s ¤º ¬- ªi ·· - ·i ~¬, l ¤¬¬ ¬i º ¤ ¬i ¬ ni l -¬
·i , (¤ ¬ ·rs)
“By the words 'serve the limited purpose of digging'
which I have written in the second line, I mean to say that
at some places in respect of which anomalies were
hinted at in the G.P.R. survey, walls pillars and floors
were discovered in the excavation" (E.T.C.)
- ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬ ¤ ·- c ¬ni¤n s ¤ -nº ·· ¬ ¤ ·-
/ ¤º l·¤ n¤ ¬ ºi l· ¬i ¬i~· l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ r · ·i l¬-«il¬¬
¤|¤º¬ ¬i· · - ¬ ¬i·i| ¬i ni-¤¤ ·¤i r` ¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬
;¬¬ - ºi ni - ¤¤ - l ·ºi ¬| nºr l ¤¬¬ ¬ ·i r¬ --i · ¬
- ¬i ; l ¤¤¬i º| , ¬i ; l ·¬ i ; ·, l ¬¬| ¤·i ¬i l · ¬|
¬i ¬ l n¤i ¬ r |
¤ º·÷l¬¬| ·i·· ¬ l·-i ºi ¬ºn ¬-¤ ·¤i ¬¬¬ ¬i·iiºlºi¬i
(¤i¬··ºi· --i · - ) l¤l¤n ¤-·iº ·i¬ ¬in r `
¬-nº÷ lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤r n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¤ i¤ ¤ºi ¬ +¤º
-i ¬¸ · «ni¤ n¤ r ¬i º ·| · ªii · ¬º ºªi ·r| «ni¤ n¤ r , · r|
;·¬ ¬i·i ¬ ¬i ; ¬·¤ ¤ ºi ¬-¬i¬|· l·ªii¤ n¤ , ;¬l¬¤ ¤r|
¬-ni ¬i¤ ni l¬ ;· l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ +¤º ·i¬i «i ¤i ¤l· - l·º ·ii ni
;·¬i ¤ ºi ·i¬ · o ·c · ·/ ·i¬i ¤ºi r| ·ii ¬iº ;· ¤º ·i| ¬i ;
l¬-«¬ ¬·i·i ¬i ; l·¬i; · ¬-¬|ºi l-¬·| ¤ilr¤ ·i|, ·º·i ¬l·in
l·ºii¬ -l·º ¬ ·i·· - ¤r ¬ ª¤ni ¬i r| ¬i · n | (¤ ¬ zzc)
“ On being asked what the witness meant to say by
the words 'the so called pillar basis have no symbolic
features on them', which words find mention on point -7 of
para-11 given on pages 6 to 8 of the affidavit in the
Examination-in-Chief, the witness stated – By the said
words I meant to denote any drawing, any design and
any figure like that of Yaksha engraved in the stones
4165
sustaining the weight of the pillars looking like those of
temples.
Question:- Are engraved stones used as foundation stones
while constructing any building ?
Answer:- As per the report these so called pillar bases were
often said to be present on the floor and they have not been
laid after digging up the base, nor was any other floor
shown to be contemporaneous to them. Hence it will be
taken to me only that if the structure above these pillar
basis was a temple then the floor of wall no.16 or 17 was
certainly their floor and there ought to have been an
engraving in shape of symbol or design on them also, or
else they will be giving an ugly shape to the building of the
alleged large temple” (E.T.C.)
;¬ ¬ º¤·i ¬i · ªi · ¬ ¤ ¬i ·r| ¬n ºri r l ¬
l ¬¬| ¤ ºi ¬i «·i ¬º ¬¬¬ +¤º ¬i ; l ¤¬º « ¬ «·i ¤i
n¤i ri ¬i º · r| ;¬ n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬i·i ¤ri ¬i ; +¤º
¬ l¤¬º ¬ - ¬· r| l·ªii; · ºr r , ¬i ;¬ ¤ -ilºin ¬ºn l¬ ¤r
·i-n· - l¤¬º « ¬ ·ii| (¤ ¬ zzs)
“From the site of this structure, any pillar bases do
not seem to have been erected after building a floor, nor
even pieces of any upward pillars are seen along with this
so-called pillar-base, which fact would have been capable
of demonstrating that it was really a pillar base.” (E.T.C.)
;· l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ - ¬ ¬ s ¬i - · l ··i l ·n -·i ¬
¤º · ªi i ·i i | l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¬ ¬- nº nº¤ ¬i ·i -nl ·¬
l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ l ·ªi i ; · ºr ·i , ¬·- ¤¸ ·i ÷¬ ªi | -i - º ¬
ni º ¤º ;-n -i ¬ r ; -i ¬¸ - · n| ·i | |
(¤ ¬ zso)
“I saw some of these pillar bases at the disputed
4166
site. Lime and brick powder appeared to have been used
as a mortar in the actual pillar bases seen on the north
of the disputed site.” (E.T.C.)
¬-nº÷ ¤¸ l¬ - ¬· ¬ n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬r| ·r| -i·ni,
;¬l¬¤ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬i¬ «ni·i ni ¬-·i· ·r| r | ¤l· ¬i ;
·i-nl·¬ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ - n l¤¤ - l·ªii¤ ¬i¤ ¬iº ¬¬¬ ¬i·i ¤ ¬iº
¬ l·~¬ ¬iº ¬¬¬ ¬i·i ¬ i¬ ¬ ·ºi· l·l· ·- ri , ni ¤r «ni·i ¬-·i·
ri ni| l¤º ·i| ¤l· n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬i¬ ¬| r| ¬i·¬iº|
¬ ·| r , ni - ¤ ¬i º n·ii ¬ i¬ ¬ ·ºi· ¬ ¬i·i ¬¬¬ ¬-«··ii ¬| ¬i ¤
¬º¬ «ni ·¸ ni|
¤ º·÷l«·i l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬·¤¤· ¬ r| ¬i¤· ;·¬ ¬ ··i -
n·ii¬l·in ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i r , ;¬¬ «iº - ¬i¤ ¬¤i ¬r n `
¬-nº÷ ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| ·r| ri ni| ·¤i l¬ n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬;
¤ ºii ¬ ¬i·i l·ªii¤ n¤ r , ¬ ¬i l¬ ¬i;¬i -l- ¬ ·¤¸ ·i¬ l¤¤ - ·i|
¬i¤ ·|ªi ¤· ºri r , ;¬l¬¤ ;·¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ¤¸ · ¬
·i·· ¬i ¬i ¬¬· ·r| l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni ¬i º ¤r| «¬r r l¬ - · «i«º|
-l-¬· ¬| ¤lº¤-| ·|·iº ¬ ·|¤ ¬i ¤lº¤-| ·|·iº · ªi| ·i| ¬i º ¬·¬
¬i·i ¤ ºi ¬i - · · ªi ·i , ¬·¬ ¬lnlº·n - n ¬i ; ¬i º ¤ -ilºi¬ ¬i·iiº
·r| l·ªii; l·¤i, ¬i -- ·¤º¬ ¤ ¬ ¬ ¬·i·i ¬i¬i ¬i l··ii lºn ¬º· -
-·· ¬º ¬¬ni| (¤ ¬ zso÷zs·)
“Answer:- Since I do not take many of the so-called pillar
bases to be real ones, hence it is not possible for me to date
such pillar bases. If any actual pillar base is shown in a
picture and floor levels and cross section are also specified
along with it, it will be possible for me to determine its
antiquity. However, if the antiquity of the so called pillar
bases is to be ascertain, I will tell about it after examining
their floors and their relations to the cross section.
Question:- Even without having any study of these pillar
bases, you have used the word 'so-called' in reference to
them. What would you like to say in this regard?
4167
Answer:- It will not be correct to say so, because the so
called pillar bases have been shown with several floors, as
are seen even in the picture having an isometric view.
Hence, on the basis of this the building situated on the east
of the Babri masjid cannot be assessed. This is the reason
why I did not, except for the western wall and its
accompanying floor, which I had seen below the western
wall of the Babri masjid, see any other reliable basis,
which could have been helpful in determining structural
phases and their timings.” (E.T.C.)
¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ -÷z ¬ ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i÷ «c · ªi· ¤º
¤ º· l¬¤ ¬i· ¤º «ni¤i l¬ ni ¬ ¬i ¬i º ¬ l ¤¬º ¬ ¬| ¬i ¬ l n
¬i ¤r -¤· - l ¤¤ r | ;¬ l¤¬º « ¬ - ;¬l¬¤ ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni,
·¤i l¬ ;¬¬ ¬i·i l¬¬| l¤¬º ¬i ¤¬i l¬¤ºi· ¬·i·i ¬¬¬ - ¬· i
¬| ¤¬il¬¤ºi· ·r| l·ªii; · ni ¬·ii n l¤¬º « ¬ r- ¬¬ ¬rn r , ¬i
l¬¬| -n-·i ¬i ¬i·iiº ri | (¤ ¬ zs·÷zsz)
“When plate no.46 of the ASI report volume-2 was
shown to the witness, on being questioned he stated – This
picture clearly shows a figure like cylinder-shaped pillar.
I cannot style it a pillar base because its association with
any pillar or its pieces is not visible. I mean to say that
what we term as a pillar base is a base supporting a
pillar."(E.T.C.)
3892. PW-29 (Jaya Menon) about pillar bases has said:
"A.S.I. has also mentioned about pillarbases in its
report. The total number of pillarbases mentioned in the
A.S.I. report is 50 in relation to particular phase of
structure. . Some of the pillarbases have been reported by
the A.S.I. in the sections also. I don't know the exact
number of pillarbases mentioned in the sections." (Page
4168
181)
"I think one pillar base was found in the section in
the northern part of the disputed site. . . . . That 8 pillar
bases are projected over floor no 2. So far as floor no. 3 is
concerned I can not make out the exact no. of so called
pillar bases. Approximately they are 6 in number. It does
not appear on the perusal of figure 23 that some of the so
called pillar bases from 3 have penetrated down to floor
4." (Page 204-205)
"The plate no. 46 and 47 in Vol. II of ASI reports
have been shown to the witness who stated that they are not
pillar bases. The plate no. 48 shows some structure but the
same is not pillar base. I do not know what it is. This is
wrong to suggest that plate no. 48 shows a pillar base and
this is also wrong to say that I am not making the correct
statement . Plate no. 45 also does not show nay pillar
bases. The pillar bases shown by ASI in plate nos. 42 and
43 are not pillar bases. These are the part of the floors. In
reference to plate no. 43, the witness stated that the pillars
base have been created by removing the brick bats around
it and the photograph shows the alleged pillar base after
removal of brick-bats. In Plates no. 46 and 47, the lower
floor is visible. Besides decorative stones, decorative bricks
were also recovered. Plates No. 95 and 96 are decorative
bricks.” (Page 230-231)
“Pillar base means base of the pillar. . . . . Since I
am not an engineer, therefore, I am unable to reply that if I
am required to build a pillar base a foundation will be
required or not. ” (Page 248)
4169
3893. PW-30 (R.C.Thakran) about pillar bases has said:
¬« n¬ - ªi ·i ; -·i ¬ ¤º ºri , ¤ ¬i ·r| r l ¬ ¤
o¤¬o ¬i ; o ·i ¬i · l ¤¬º « ¬ «·i ¤ ri , «i· - ¬nº ¬·ri ·
¬ s l¬¤i ri , ni - n ;¬ «in ¬i ni· ·r| r | ¤l · ¬·i | - ¤ ¬ -
¬ni ni º ·| l ·¤i n i ¤ | ri ºr| ri , ni l ¤¬º « ¬ «·i ·i
¬- · i · ·r| r , . . . (¤ ¬ ··s)
“As long as I was present at the excavation site, it
was not that the ASI men might have erected pillar
bases. I do not have any knowledge if they may have done
so later on. If all the trenches are being constantly video-
graphed, it is not possible to erect pillar bases. ." (E.T.C.)
¬¤i ·¤i ¬| ªi ·i; - n·ii¬l·in ¬·i| l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¤º --i ·
-¬ « ·r| r | ¬¤i·inº ¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¤º --i · ·r| r , l¬· ¤º
--i · l-¬ ºr r , · ¬ l~ºi¤- ¬i º ¬i«i · - ¬ «· -¬i ·¬ l-¬ r , ¬i
¬-¬i º ri n r | ¤ ¬ ¤-·iºi ¬i ¬ ~¬ |- --i · ¬rn r | . . . ·¬ - · o
«c - l¤¬º « ¬ ¬i·i ¤ ¬i º ¤º r | ;¬ , ¬ ¬i · ªi· - ¬n ºri r,
¤ ·--¬ --i · ·r| ¬r n , ¬l¬· ¬nº ;¬¬| ªi ·i; - ¤¸ ºi « ¬ ri , ni
¤ · --¬ --i · ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r, ¤il· ¬nº ¬i º ªi ·i; ¬º· ¤º ·|¤
-¬i ·¬ ¬| ¤¸ º| ¤¬ ¤n l-¬ ni ¬¬ ¤ · --¬ --i · ¬r n | . . . .
- · ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ¬ l·ª, ¤ -n n ¬| n; ¬i¤l-n¤i ¬i ¤« i r ,
. .- ¤r ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ - · ¬·i| ¬i¤l-n¤i ¤« | r . . . . .- n ¤r
·i| ·r| -i¬¸ - l¬ ¬ ¬ l¬n·| ¬i¤l-n¤i lº¤i - ¬ l·ª, ¤i; ¬ ¬| n;
·i| | . . . . .- n ·r| -i¬¸ - r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ·i ·i ¬i¤l-n¤i - ;¬ «in
¬| ¬i¤l-n ¬| n; ·i| l¬ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬ri n¬ ªii ·i n¤i ·ii, ¬¬
l¤¬º « ¬ ¬i l·-- -¬ · l¬¤i ¬i¤|. . . . . ¬« n¬ - ªi ·i ;
-·i ¬ ¤º ºri - n ¤i · ·r| r l ¬ l ¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬- «· ·i -
¤ ¬| ¬i ; ¬i ¤l - n ·| n; ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ ··/)
“As revealed from the Ayodhya excavation, stone
slabs are not there at all the so called pillar-bases. Stones
are not there at most of the so called pillar-bases. The
stones which have been discovered, are made of calcium
4170
and carbonate and they are very week. Such stones are
called calcrete stones. . . . . In plate no. 46, the pillar base
stretches up to half of the floor. Keeping in view what it
looks like, we would not call it pedestal stone but if on
being excavated it is found to have full base, it can be
called pedestal stone. That is to say, we would call it
pedestal stone if we discover a full layer of stones below on
further excavation being carried out. . . . . I have gone
through the objections raised against the ASI report. . . . .I
also do not know how many objections were filed in all
against the report. . . . . . I do not know that in the afore-
said two objections it was objected to the pillar bases not
being dismantled up to the extent to which they were dug
up. . . . . I do not remember whether or not any such
objection was filed in regard to the pillar bases as long
as I was present on the excavation site.” (E.T.C.)
3894. PW 32 about pillar bases has said:
“Except the pillar bases in the north all the pillar
bases at different levels have been created, some of whom I
saw personally with my own eyes and complaints were filed
in the case of trenches G2, G5 and F3. These complaints
were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me. These complaints
were handed over to muslim parties and their
counsels.”(Page 79)
“...except pillar bases in the north, as I have stated
already, the remaining have been created by the
ASI.”(Page 80)
“I do not agree with the report of the ASI that there is
any pillar base in trench G-8. By saying that ASI people
4171
created pillar bases, I mean that while excavating, they
removed brick bats selectively from some portion leaving
the other portion to give shape of a pillar base and it is
because of this reason that the shape of the pillar bases as
also the size and depth vary from pillar base to pillar base.
I do not agree with the suggestion that the pillar is round in
shape and the brick bats set in regular courses and having
two stone slabs in the middle. However, it is true that two
concrete slabs are there in the middle. I do not agree with
the ASI report that it is a pillar base.” (Page 114)
"Since I do not accept that any pillar bases were
found during excavation except in the northern area, I do
not agree with ASI report that pillar bases were found in
the area of the 39 anomalies having been pointed by the
GPR survey report. The pillar bases which are acceptable
to me form part of Z series of trenches. The area of the Z
series of trenches was surveyed by the GPR surrey team but
I am not hundred percent sure as to whether they had
covered that area or not.” (Page 120)
“Prof. Mandal has referred to the findings of pillar
bases of Prof. B.B. Lal and he has contradicted Prof. Lal's
theory of pillar bases.” (Page 131)
"The ASI has reported about the existence of 50
pillar bases at one place and perhaps 67 at other place but
according to me, the number does not seem to be correct as
there is no consistency.” (Page 131-132)
“I clarify that no pillar base was exposed by ASI.
Rather it were floor bases that were exposed and partially
cleared and partially it was left exposed and then labelled
4172
as so called pillar bases.” (Page 132)
“An archaeologist can create pillar bases even in the
section by pulling out brick bats from the section while
excavating and preparing the section.” (Page 132)
“Such so called pillar bases appearing in the
section were not created in my presence but from the
close study of the section, I could say that there were
created pillar bases.” (Page 132)
“It is wrong to suggest that it is not possible to create
a pillar base in a section of baulk; rather it is very easy to
do so. Pillar base shown in the baulk of F2 G2 was created
in my presence and I lodged complaint against ASI
observations. It was created between 16 to 20 May, 2003.
Besides me, Mohd. Abid was also present at the time of
aforesaid pillar base being created. This pillar base and
pillar base no. 21 were created during aforesaid period of
five days. I complained against the ASI to the observer
about both the aforesaid pillar bases. The complaint was
lodged in writing. I completely disagree with the suggestion
that I am making a wrong statement to the effect that the
aforesaid pillar bases were created by ASI.
I do not know whether the GPR report has revealed
anomalies exactly on the spot where subsequently ASI has
shown the pillar bases. I do not know whether ASI has
indicated 22 pillar bases exactly on such spot where
anomalies were shown in GPR report. No doubts the ASI
has sketched a chart in its report indicating the places of
pillar bases allegedly found on the spots on the anomalies.
Since I do not accept the very existence of pillar bases, I
4173
did not considered it necessary verify the genuineness of
ASI report on the basis of GPR report." (Page 133-134)
"In the second line of para 14 of my affidavit I have
used the words created 'pillar bases' because in my opinion
and observation floor bases were cut and pillar base
created. In my opinion barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and
14, all other pillar bases were created by ASI. According
to me this creation of pillar bases was right from the
beginning of the excavations till the end of it. When I was
at the site in April 2003 no pillar bases had been excavated
when I returned to the site around 10
th
May 2003 some
pillar bases had already been excavated from 10
th
May
onwards I begin observing and between may 16
th
and 20
th
I
found that pillar base was created in trench G-2 and on
may 21
st
a complain was filed in this regard. Except the
complaint which are mentioned in para 14 of my affidavit
some other complaints were also filed by Dr. Jaya
Menon.”(Page 155-156)
“I do not agree with the suggestion that in plate 43 of
the ASI report Vol. II pillar bases have been shown. In fact,
the pillar bases asserted by the ASI are part of the floor
base.” (Page 165)
“As a matter of fact, they were crated before me. I
did make complaint regarding creation of pillar bases by
ASI. The complaints made by me were given to the Muslim
parties, who passed it to the observers, present
there.”(Page 166)
3895. The ASI has discovered 50 pillar bases during
excavation out of which twelve were completely exposed, thirty
4174
five partially and three were traced in section. The pillar bases
traced in section were F2, G2 in baulk (pillar base no.20), F8 F9
in baulk (pillar base No.40) and trench No.F8 F9 in baulk (pillar
base no.41). Confirming GPR survey report, twenty pillar bases
have been excavated in trenches no.E2, E9, F8, F9, ZG1, G2,
G5, G8, G9, ZH1 and H5. In all these trenches, one pillar base
each was discovered. Besides, in Trench F-6, three pillar bases,
Trench G-2, two pillar bases and Trench H-1, two pillar bases
have been found. Foundation of these pillar bases are circular,
square, oval or irregular in shape. Pillar base no.3 shows square
sandstone block with orthostats provided on its four sides,
contemporary with floor 2. Multiple courses of brick bats set in
mud mortar incasing rectangular blocks of calcrete stone fixed
with lime mortar were provided as foundation to the pillar bases.
Figure 3A shows alignment of pillar base and details of
respective distances. The important feature pointed out is that
there were seventeen rows of pillar bases from North to South,
each row having 5 pillar bases. There is no North-South row of
the West of wall 16 and17, as is being read and suggested by the
aforesaid experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4). Though we are not
agreeable to the allegation that some of them, or many of the
pillar bases are created but even if, for a moment, we assume as
claimed by three witnesses i.e. PW-29 Jaya Menon, PW-32 Dr.
Supriya Verma and DW-6/1-2 Mohd. Abid that they sought G-2
and F-6 trenches wherein pillar bases were created by one
Trench Supervisor S.K. Sharma and one more person, that will
not be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain several other
pillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is
there.
4175
3896. Archaeology provides scientific factual data for
reconstructing ancient historical material culture, understanding,
archaeology for the past is a multi disciplinary scientific subject
and requires a team of workers for effective results. Excavation
of ancient sites is one of the major works of Archaeologists. As
it is a scientific discipline, it uses scientific methods in its
working. All archaeological excavations are and also at the same
time destructive; revealing in the sense they yield unknown data
like structures, antiquities etc., destructive that as one digs layer
after layer, the upper layer have to be removed to go deeper and
deeper to know more and may cause destruction of the site for
any future excavation at that place.
3897. The term "Archaeology" came to be considered by
Apex Court in Joseph Pothen Vs. The State of Kerala AIR
1965 SC 1514 and in paras 13 and 14 it observed:
“13. The Constitution itself, as we have noticed earlier,
maintains a clear distinction between ancient monuments
and archaeological site or remains; the former is put in
the State List and the latter, in the Concurrent List.
14. The dictionary meaning of the two expressions also
brings out the distinction between the two concepts.
"Monument" is derived from monere, which means to
remind, to warn. "Monument" means, among others,"a
structure surviving from a former period" whereas
"archaeology" is the scientific study of the life and
culture of ancient peoples. Archaeological site or remains,
therefore, is a site or remains which could be explored in
order to study the life and culture of the ancient peoples.
The two expressions, therefore, bear different meanings.
4176
Though the demarcating line may be thin in a rare case, the
distinction is clear.”
3898. The Court also held that Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration
of National Importance) Act, 1951 apply to ancient and
historical monuments referred to or specified in Part 1 of the
Schedule thereto, which had been declared to be of national
importance.
3899. In this case, ASI did not work on an unknown
subject and site but was backed by a scientific investigation
report of GPR Survey which is a well known scientific system
used in such matters. The survey has pointed out a number of
anomalies underneath. The actual excavation needed to confirm
and verify those anomalies and their exact nature to avoid any
doubt. Regarding Pillar Bases, a number of such anomolies were
already pointed out by GPR Survey and ASI simply found the
existence of pillar bases so as to confirm the anomalies pointed
out by GPR Survey at those places. If we look carefully to GPR
Survey, as also the pillar bases confirmed by actual excavation
of ASI, a total number thereof we find comes to about twenty.
They are:
Sl. No. of
the report
Trench No.
of the Report/
(GPR)/ Page
No./ Report
Pillar Bases (with
depth)
P.B.
Page
no. of
the
report
Confirmation
of Pillar
Bases with
pillar base
No.
25 E-2/P. 23 1. Rectangular Pillar
Base (1.80 m.)
23 *
29 E-9/ P. 24 1. Pillar Base (0.60 m.) 29 43, 65
35 F-6/ P. 25 1. Pillar Base (0.70 m.)
2. Pillar Base (0.55 m.)
3. Pillar Bases (01.60
m.)
25 40, 41, 65
4177
36 F-8/ P. 25 1. Pillar Base (0.20 m.) 25 38, 65
37 F-9/ P. 26 1. Pillar Base (0.50 m.) 26 44, 66
38 ZG-1/ P. 26 1. Pillar Base (0.50 m.) 26 8, 55, 11, 58
39 G-2/P. 26 1. Pillar Base (2.20 m.)
2. Pillar Base (2.20 m.)
26 21, 60, 24, 61
42 G-5/P. 27 1. Pillar Base (2.50 m.) 27 26, 62
45 G-8/ P. 27 1. Pillar Base (0.90 m.) 27 28, 39, 63
46 G-9/ P. 28 1. Pillar Base (0.20 m.) 28 45, 66
47 ZH-1/ P. 28 1. Pillar Base (0.55 m.) 28 8, 58
48 H-1/ P. 28 1. Pillar Base (0.70 m.)
2. Pillar Base (1.50 m.)
28 18, 60, 19
52 H-5/ P. 29 1. Pillar Base (0.820 m.) 29 27, 62
3900. Interestingly, we find that in the two major
complaints dated 21
st
May, 2003 and 7
th
June, 2003 submitted to
the Observer when the excavation was going on, the allegations
of creation of pillar base mainly were made in those very
trenches where the GPR Survey has already detected anomalies
in the form of pillar bases etc. The complaints were already to
some extent aware of likelyhood of finding pillar bases in those
trenches. Trenches No.F1, F6, F8, F9, G1, G2, G5, G8, G9, H1,
ZG1 and ZH1 are in that very category. In other words, it can
easily be appreciated that the mind of two experts instead
working for the assistance of the Court in finding a truth, tried to
create a background alibi so that later on the same may be
utilized to attack the very findings. However, this attempt has
not gone well since some of these very pillar bases have been
admitted by one or the other expert of plaintiffs (Suit-4) to be
correct.
3901. Sri M.M.Pandey, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of defendant no.2/1 (Suit-4) while justifying ASI report
in respect to the various pillar bases, submitted that centre to
centre distance can not be measured correctly, except for those
4178
found complete topped by sandstone blocks and attached to
floor. It is not possible to fix the point where the finished sand
stone block would have been placed on top of the calcrete
blocks. Two pillar bases that have been found in sections (Fig. 8
& 9) demonstrate vividly that the sandstone block was not
necessarily placed in the centre of the calcrete block and
brickbat foundation rather was shifted as per the requirement of
alignment. Exposition of a structure that exist is done in an
excavation. The question of creation of any structure including
pillar base does not arise. Nothing was ignored during the
excavation. Utmost care was taken to ensure that each and every
find is documented and mentioned in the Report. No "calcrete
topped brickbat heap" is either found or identified as pillar
bases. Brickbats in the pillar bases are not heaped up rather they
are carefully laid in well defined courses. It is to be remembered
that pillar bases, except those found complete with sandstone
blocks in the northern area whose existence and genuineness is
admitted by Sunni Central Board of Waqf and its companion
parties, are essentially the foundation part required to remain
buried in ground. Once this fact is borne in mind then the
picture may be clearly understood. When the floor of sub-Period
VII B is "weathered enough to be replaced, debris of brick
structures was leveled to attain the desired height. In this deposit
foundations to support pillar or columns were sunk" to different
levels. Floors 1, 1A, 1B and 1C belonged to the disputed
structure (Period VIII & IX), Floors 2, 3 and 4 belonged to
period VII and the brick-crush floor existed in the earlier Period
VI. There appears to be some attempt on part of the plaintiff to
twist the facts and mislead by creating some sort of confusion.
4179
The transition from "calcrete topped brickbat heaps" through
"brickbat heaps" to "some kind of loosely-bonded brickbats
deposits" is very clear. The plaintiff at least accepts some sort of
bonding in brickbats which cannot be in case of "heaps"
(random deposit). This at best may be termed as self
contradicting argument.. Floor (F1.2) around most of the pillar
bases is found broken with pillar base foundations in much
disturbed condition.: (p.42, 2
nd
para). The evidence of broken
floor above most of the pillar base foundations, complete
finished pillar bases and the evidence of finished pillar bases
partly excavated and partly visible in section when combined
together point to the fact that all these 46 pillar bases belonged
to the one and the same period and were constructed in
association of wall 16 and F1.2. The pillars that have actually
been recovered are from the debris of the disputed structure.
Further, nowhere in the report it is said or hinted at that these
stone pillar were standing over these pillar bases. It is nothing
but wilful negation of the evident fact, nothing more can be said
in this regard. Layer of pillar bases are clear from the perusal of
the report. The objections of the plaintiff regarding creation of
pillar bases, distances and alignments and its interpretation is
without any substance. It is well established in archaeology that
walls can not be cut and shaped like pillar bases. The walls
alleged to have been cut and shaped like pillar bases are at the
maximum 0.55 m wide, whereas the pillar bases show much
bigger dimension which prima-facie falsifies the objection of
the plaintiff. The plaintiffs challenging the identity of pillar
bases alleged that unused brick broken or entire have been used
to fill hollow to raise the level of ground or to function apron for
4180
a building. In this connection it may be mentioned that a perusal
of report shows that most of the pillar bases are attached with
the floor 2, 3 & 4. If "hollow" is a synonym for foundation pit,
then certainly it is a good explanation. But 'fill' would be wrong
expression, as the brickbats are laid in defined courses. Raising
of ground is done uniformly and throughout and not as if "a pile
of unused bricks" or "to fill hollows". It is surprising to note that
the "heavy wall" disappears without leaving any trace except the
"pile of unused bricks" to "shore up". As "apron" for which
building? Apparently all the objections tendered above are
emanating from technically ignorant persons and willful attempt
to mislead the Court. All the interpretations were reached after
exploring all the possible explanations. ASI conducted
excavation at the behest and orders of this Court as Court
Commissioner and submitted its scientific Report to the Court
and did not engage in creation and that too in the presence of
judicial officers.
3902. The pillar bases traced on spot makes 64 squares in
between 17 rows of 5 pillar bases each. The seventeen rows of
pillar bases were constructed along the north-south running
brick wall (wall No. 16). The distance of the first pillar base in
each row from the wall 3.60 to 3.86 m. Seventeen rose of pillar
bases could be categorized in three different groups whereas
east-west distance which varies in different groups whereas east-
west distance from the centre of centre of each pillar base vary
from 2.90 to 3.30 m. Six rows of the pillar bases on north and
south were at the equidistance which ranges from 3 to 3.30 m.
Central five rows consisting of twenty-five pillar bases show
different equations- two rows on either side of the central row
4181
were placed approximately at the distance of 5.25 whereas the
other two rows on either side of these three rose were at the
distance of 4.20-4.25 m. The pillar bases are in alignment. The
ASI unit report in figure 23B has given an isometric view of the
pillar bases and in figure 23A the isometric view of the
excavated site with different floors and pillar bases.
3903. The foundation of the pillar bases are circular,
square, oval, or irregular in shape and the foundation has been
filled with brick bats covered with orthostat which prima facie
establishes its load bearing nature. It is also clear from the report
that all the fifty pillar bases, more or less are of similar pattern
except the orthostate position. The factual position is that the
pillar bases of northern side which are admitted by the plaintiffs
and other objectors to be pillar bases are undisturbed and
unexposed whereas the pillar bases of the southern side are
damaged and exposed but in any way there is no basic
difference between the two. The isometric view is a geometrical
drawing to show a building in three dimensions. The plan is set
up with lines at an equal angle (usually 30
0
) to the horizontal,
while verticals remain vertical and to scale. It gives a more
realistic effect than an axonometric projection, but diagonals
and curves are distorted. The existence of pillar bases was
challenged by the objectors on the ground that the distance
between the pillar bases, the spot position is not common as
such the same may not be considered pillar bases. In this
connection reference may be given of plan of Ukha Mandir
temple converted in to a Masjid published at surveyor general
office Calcutta in 1877 in which square pillars were found with
different angles and distances. Similarly in temple of Vishala
4182
Devi pillar bases of different sizes with different distances were
found which to has been lithograph at the surveyor general
office Calcutta in July 1877. Examples of plan of Shiva Temple
at Bastar, Shiva Temple at Shighanpur, Shiva Temple at
Chindgaon, Shiva Temple at Chitrakoot, Shiva Temple at
Narayanpur are relating to 10
th
Century A.D. may be given. A
perusal of photographs of the pillar bases, videography and the
time of excavation also falsify the allegations of the objectors
regarding creation of pillar bases.
3904. A perusal of the report particularly at page 54 shows
that all the 50 exposed pillar bases are attached with floor 2
dateable to 1200 A. D. and most of them are resting over floor
no. 4 which has the earliest floor,. The carbon dating report
referred at page 69 of the report also proves that in a trench ZH-
1 the date reported between floor 2 & 3 is between 900-1300
A.D. which prima facie makes it clear that floor 2 was not made
after 1300 A.D. and not before 900 A.D. while floor 3 was made
before 900 A.D. It is also clear from the report that all the pillar
bases exposed are attached with the floors existing prior to the
floor of disputed structure. Pillar base is reported from the same
trench, i.e. ZH-1 along with the floor which confirm the
association of floor 2/3 and pillar bases along with C
14
date
between floor 2 & 3 (S. No. 47 of pillar base in page no. 28) The
same pillar base of ZH-1 was predicted as an anomaly in the
GRP Survey. Therefore, it is clear that floor 4 which support the
foundation of pillar bases was the most extensive floor belong to
period VII A (page 42 of the report & fig. 23 & plate 35). The
timing of period VII-A is the beginning of 12
th
century (page 41
of the report.).
4183
3905. It is clear from the report that floor 4 which support
the foundation of pillar bases was a floor of a Temple. It cannot
be the floor of Idgah or Kanati Mosque because pillars are
always absent in Idgah so that maximum persons could be
accommodated in minimum space for offering prayer.
3906. Association of pillar bases has been reported at page
56 to 68 and a perusal of the same shows that pillar base no. 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 total 8 are projected over floor no. 2, pillar
base no. 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 30 total 8 are projected over floor
no. 3 which have penetrated downward by cutting floor no. 2
and pillar bases no. 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
total 29 pillar bases are projected over floor 4 which have
penetrated downward by cutting floor no. 2 & 3. In addition to
above pillar base no. 20, 40, 41 are pillar bases in the section
whereas pillar base no. 4 and 25 are not associated with any
floor due to damaged condition.
3907. We find substance in the submission of Sri Pandey.
We may also notice at this stage that though most of the pillar
bases were excavated at earlier point of time but complaint
thereof particularly about so called creation was made after
much gap. To start with, the first complaint of 21
st
May, 2003
was confined only to one pillar base found in trench G-2 but a
number of such pillar bases were included in the second
complaint dated 7
th
June, 2003, when both the so called authors
of the objections were not on the site. On the basis of record
these details can be shown in the form of a chart as under:
Pillar
Base/
Trench
Shape/Size
in cm
Site Note
Book No./
Page No.
Date of
Excavation/
Date of
Name of
Supervisor
4184
objection, if
any
1/ZH3-
ZH2 baulk
Square/63x
61.5x9
41/43 22.4.03 S.K. Sharma
2/ZF2 - 7 15.05.03 G.L.Katade
3/ZG2 Rectangula
r/60x53.5x
7
30/36 13/14.05.03 A.R.Siddiqui
4/ZG2 Square (?) 30 13/14.05.03 A.r.Siddiqui
5/ZH2 Square/61x
60x11
including
the
thickness
of missing
western
orthostat
41 19/22.04.03 S.K.Sharma
6/ZH2-ZJ2
Baulk
Square/58x
56
including
the
thickness
of missing
northern
orthostat
7 11.06.03 G.L.Katade
7/ZF1 Square/55x
55x6.5
30 29.04.03,
3/13.05.03
A.R.Siddiqui
8/ZG1 Square/59x
61.5x5
30/31-39 03/16.05.03/
07.06.03
A.R.Siddiqui
9/ZH1 Probably
square
foundation/
125x105x7
5
41/25-26 14/15 to
20.04.03/07.
06.03
S.K.Sharma
10/ZF1 Irregular
shaped
foundation/
150x100x4
0
30/24-29
depth 65
cm
29.04.03
13.05.03/07.
06.03
A.R.Siddiqui
Plaintiff
occupied by
barbed wire.
Only
southern
4185
portion
excavated
11/ZG1 Circular (?)
foundation
partially
exposed/97
x94x26
30 03/04/16.05.
03
A.R.Siddiqui
12/ZG1 Circular (?)
foundation
badly
damaged
and
partially
exposed/N
S 55 Ht 60
30/31-35 03/04/13.05.
03/07.06.03
A.R.Siddiqui
13/ZH1 Square/Als
o available
in section.
Top
54.5x46.5
foundation
EW 122
Ht. 69
(from top
to bottom)
41/25-27 14.04.03 to
20.04.03/07.
06.03
S.K.Sharma
14/ZH1-
H1
Square/63x
63x6.5
30 12.07.03 A.R.Siddiqui
15/F1 Rectangular
(?)
foundation
square
top/130x13
8
30/14-21
depth 98
cm
22.04.03 to
27.04.03/07.
06.03
A.R.Siddiqui
16/F1-G1 Irregular
baulk/130x
120x55
foundation
partially
exposed
30 22/27/18/23.
04.03
A.R.Siddiqui
17/G1 Square
foundation
30/5, 6, 7,
8
19/20.04.03
18.06.03/07.
A.R.Siddiqui
4186
partially
exposed/14
0x125x45
06.03
18/H1 Square
foundation
partially
exposed/15
0x130x56
41/3-9 11-
14
12.04.03/07.
06.03
S.K.Sharma
19/H1 Square
foundation
partially
exposed/78
x110x38
41/3-14 06/18.05.03/
07.06.03
S.K.Sharma
20/F2 G2
Baulk
Partially
exposed/N
S 55 Ht.22
7-8, 32,
45
08.07.03
17.07.03
02.08.03
24.05.03
03.06.03
10.05.03
20.05.03
Zulfiquar
Ali,
G.L.Katade,
C.B.Patil,
S.K.Sharma
21/G2 Square (?)
foundation
partially
exposed/E
W 140 Ht.
28
32/49-54
27-85
10/20.05.03/
07.06.03
21.05.03
S.K.Sharma
Zulfiqar Ali
22/F2 Square
foundation/
122x115x2
5
7-8 08/17.07.03
23/F2-G2
baulk
Square (?)
foundation
partially
exposed/10
5x72x33
7, 8, 32,
45
-
24/G2 Oval
foundation
partially
exposed/15
0x125x32
32 20
45/22 49
37 30
17.07.03
02.08.03
10.05.03
20.05.03/
07.06.03
Zulfiqar Ali
S.K.Sharma
25/F3 Square (?) 16 21.05.03 Sujeet
4187
foundation
partially
exposed/65
x145x55
30.05.03
19.07.03
Nayan
26/G5 Irregular
foundation
with square
top
partially
exposed/12
0x165x90
13/1 22 23 24.05.03
21.05.03
10.06.03 /
07.06.03
Sujeet
Nayan
27/H5 Square (?)
foundation
partially
exposed/10
0x25x35
40 26/30.04.03 Bhuvan
Vikrama
28/F6 Irregular
foundation
partially
exposed/14
8x147x54
23 24.05.03
01.06.03
Zulfiqar Ali
29/F6 Rectangular
foundation
partially
exposed/76
x170x51
19/3-4 29.04.03 to
06.05.03/07.
06.03
G.L.Katade
30/G6 Rectangular
foundation
partially
exposed/83
x55x40
33 07/11.05.03 G.L.Katade
31/F6-F7
baulk
Elliptical
foundation
partially
exposed/12
6x198x38
15, 19, 23 -
32/F6-F7 Irregular
foundation
partially
15-F-7 19-
F-6, 23
19.04.03
10.09.03
19.04.03
G.L.Katade
Zulfiqar Ali
4188
exposed/95
x155x40
06.05.03
24.05.03
01.06.03
33/G6-G7
baulk
Square (?)
foundation
/70x40x35
21 -
34/E7-F7
baulk
Square or
Rectangular
foundation
partially
exposed/10
0x100x34
12 05.04.03
08.05.03
14.05.03
Zulfiqar Ali
35/F7 Rectangular
(?)
foundation
partially
exposed/17
0x160x38
15/ 1 to 31 19.04.03 to
13.05.03/07.
06.03
G.L.Katade
36/G7 Square (?)
foundation
partially
exposed/80
x40x40
21 20.05.03
09.07.03
10.07.03
07.08.03
N.C.Prakash
37/F8 Circular
foundation
/170x170
44/ 2 to 45 15.04.03 to
23.05.03/07.
06.03
Sameer
Dewan
38/F8 Circular (?)
foundation
partially
exposed/70
0x145x37
44/13 15.04.03 to
23.05.03
Sameer
Dewan
39/G8 Circular
foundation
/
42x130x30
30 10/86
to 90 10
24.06.03 to
27.06.03
09.05.03
10.05.03/07.
06.03
A.R.Siddiqui
N.C. Prakash
Sujeet
Nayan
40/F8-F9
baulk
-/EW-120
Ht.33
44 -
41/F8-F9 -/EW-80 18 10/19/17/30. N.C.Prakash
4189
baulk Ht. 35 04.03 Sujeet
Nayan
42/G8-G9
baulk
Circular
foundation/
43x120x28
30, 10 24.06.03
27.07.03
09.05.03
10.05.03
A.R.
Siddiqui
Sujeet
Nayan
43/E9-F9
baulk
Rectangular
foundation
/
55x130x20
22, 35 04.07.03
20.04.03
07.05.03
Sujeet
Nayan
44/F9 Square
foundation
/
95x142x30
18/ 3-34 08.04.03 to
30.04.03/07.
06.03
Sujeet
Nayan
45/G9 Circular
foundation
/Dia- 118
Ht. 34
10/3-9 14-
22
06.04.03 to
09.04.03 to
11.05.03
14.05.03/07.
06.03
N.C.Prakash
Sujeet
Nayan
46/G9-H9
baulk
Square
foundation
partially
exposed/11
0x80x45
10 06.04.03
09.04.03
11.05.03
14.05.03
N.C.Prakash
Sujeet
Nayan
47/E10-
F10 baulk
Circular
foundation
partially
exposed/14
0x55x48
9 18.05.03
22.05.03
Zulfiqar Ali
48/F10 Circular
base and
square top
of the
foundation/
155x145x4
0 square 90
Ht. 12
9/37 to 45
38 45
18.05.03 to
22.05.03/07.
06.03
Zulfiqar Ali
49/G10-
H10 baulk
Square
foundation/
115x120x5
- -
4190
0
50/H10 Circular
foundation/
115x90x48
- -
3908. This chart would reveal that most of the pillar bases
were found during excavation in the months of April and May,
2003 which could have cleared to anyone having an idea on the
subject as to what inference those excavations is likely to cause.
It appear that in these circumstances under the Expert's advice
the complaints were made as a ground, so as to utilize later. It
cannot be doubted that as and when the pillar bases have been
excavated on that very day mentioned in the site notebook.
3909. We have very carefully perused the site note book,
day-to-day register as also more than twenty five video cassettes
as well as the photographs but find nothing unusual which may
create any suspicion in what the ASI has said in respect to pillar
bases in his report. Except of minor typographical mistake,
which is quite understandable in the manner they have worked
and with the pace with which have accomplished such a gigantic
job, that too under unusual circumstances where they were
constantly watched by huge number of persons and officials of
the Court.
3910. We may reproduce at this stage some part of the
statement of PW-29, 30, 31 and 32 again which would show that
in general, the finding of ASI about pillar bases, not found
incorrect:
3911. PW-29 Dr. Jaya Menon- She said:
"In my opinion 10 pillar bases were found in the
northern side of the disputed site. All these 10 pillar bases
4191
on the northern side were beyond the disputed structure.
…” (Page 204)
“…I think one pillar base was found in the section in
the northern part of the disputed site. I remember that one
pillar base was identified by the ASI in the baulk of the
trenches F2 and G2 and two so-called pillar bases were
identified by the ASI in the baulk of trench F8 and F9 but
according to me these were not actually pillar bases. …”
(Page 204-205)
“…approximately they are 6 in number. It does not
appear on the perusal of figure 23 that some of the so
called pillar bases from floor 3 have penetrated down to
floor 4. Approximately 25 so called pillar bases have been
shown in figure 23a as associated with floor 4 and floor 4a.
I do not remember whether floor 2 and 3 were carbon
dated by ASI from 900 to 1300 AD or not. In my opinion
floor I is the floor of Babri Masjid which is approximately
dated to the 16
th
century. Floor 2, floor 3 and 4 were
associated with the pre Babri Masjid structure. I don’t have
separate dates for floors 2, 3 and 4 but approximately these
floors may be dated from the end of the 12
th
century to the
16
th
century AD. According to me walls and structures
prior to 12
th
century were found in excavation but no floor
prior to 12
th
century was found at the site. According to me
the oldest wall found in excavation was of first to third
century AD. And the oldest structure found would be
structure 5 which may be of 6
th
century AD.” (Page 205)
3912. Dr R.C. Thakran (PW-30) admitting the existence
of pillar bases stated that:
4192
- ¬¬ lº¤i - - l¬ªi| ;¬ «in ¬ ¬r-n r¸ l¬ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¤-·iº ¬
¤ · --~¬ ¤º l-¬ r ¤ ·i | . . . - · ¬¤i ·¤i ¬| ªi ·i; ¬ ·i ºi· ¬·i|
l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬i · ªii ·ii| ¬¬- ¤ ·--~¬ --i · ¬r| ¤º ·r| r | ¬ ·¬
-i¤ ¬|ni ¬| º¬i ; ¬| nº¤ ¬ s l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ +¤º ¤-·iº ¤i¤ n¤
r | ¬i ¤ ·--¬ ¬ l·i·· r | . . .¬« n¬ - ªi ·i; -·i¬ ¤º ºri, ¤ ¬i
·r| r l¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ·i¬i · l¤¬º « ¬ «·i¤ ri , «i· - ¬nº
¬·ri · ¬ s l¬¤i ri , ni - n ;¬ «in ¬i ni· ·r| r | ¤l· ¬·i| - ¤ ¬
- ¬niniº ·|l·¤i n i¤| ri ºr| ri , ni l¤¬º « ¬ «·i·i ¬-·i· ·r|
r |(¤ ¬ ··c,··s)
. . .-l-¬· - ¬i l¤¬º «·i¤ ¬in r , ¬·¬ l¬¤ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬|
¬i·º¤¬ni ri n| r | ¬¤ºi ·n ·iiºi zz - ;· l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬-«··i -
¤¤i ¬| n¤| r n·ii l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ +¤º ¬i l¤¬¬ ªi· l¬¤ n¤ r ,
¬·¬| ·i| ¤¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·/c)
“I agree with the fact mentioned in that report that the
pillar bases rested on pedestals of stone ….. I had seen all
the pillar bases in course of the Ayodhya excavation.
Pedestal stones were nowhere in them. Only towards Sita
Rasoi, above some pillar bases have been found stones,
which are different from the pedestals…. As long as I
stayed at the excavation site, it is not that the A.S.I men
carved pillar bases; but if they did so later on, I do not
have knowledge about that. If all the trenches are
constantly being videographed, it is not possible to carved
pillar bases.” (Page 116/118)
“…For pillars to be carved in a mosque, there is
requirement of pillar bases. The aforesaid para 22
discusses about these pillar bases and also about the
pillars which have been erected above the pillar
bases.”(Page 176)
3913. Dr Ashok Dutta (PW-31) admitting the existence of
4193
pillar bases underneath of the disputed structure stated as under:
“…Plate no. 82 and 83 of ASI report vol. II were shown to
the witness who stated that stones slabs are possibly of
black basalt with some decorative motifs can be seen in
these plates. Black basalt is a kind of rock, which is
igneous rock. …” (page 109)
“…Learned cross examiner drew the attention of the
witness towards paper no. 200 C-1 after seeing
photographs no. 122 and 123 the witness stated that it
appears to me from the photographs that the stones used in
stole pillars is possibly black basalt. It appears that the
pillars which are seen in paper 122 and 123 are similar to
that as shown in plate 82 and 83 of ASI report vol. 2. …”
(page 110)
“…As an archaeologist at least I have that amount of
knowledge to differentiate between mosque and temple. I
don’t have any idea whether this type of stone slabs having
decorative motif were used in the mosque or not. In plate
no. 83 there are flower designs on the stone slab lower part
of this stone slab is not distinct and clear. After seeing plate
no. 83 with the magnifying glass the witness stated that
some objects are visible in this stone slab. They appear to
be lower part of a figure. But whether it represents human
being or any thing else is difficult to ascertain because the
foot is shown in different way than the man. In the centre of
this plate it gives an impression of a ‘Ghat with flower’. I
don’t have any idea whether these type of decorative motifs
are used in mosque. …” (Page 110-111)
“…I know that the depiction of human and animal figures
4194
is prohibited in the Muslim architecture.
So far I remember there was no figure of human beings on
the black basalt pillars. …” (Page 140)
“…I believe the theory of ‘Super imposition’. I believe that
according to the theory of ‘super imposition’ creation of the
pillar bases in the trenches is impossible but in certain
cases some super imposition is found. …” (Page 266)
3914. Dr Supriya Verma (PW-32) stated as under:
“16. That the so called “pillar bases” were only part of a
floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was
underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with
stone blocks and slabs and other material as fillers. …”
(Page 12)
“…It was for the first time in the year 1989 in an article
published in a magazine, namely, ‘Manthan’ that the
existence of pillar bases was mentioned by him (Prof. B.B.
Lal). …” (Page 127)
3915. Prof. Suraj Bhan (PW-16) who visited the site for
three days only, as mentioned by him at page-34, admitting the
existence of pillar bases, stated as under:
¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ;¬ -·i¬ ¤º «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ «i ¤ ¬ n º·n ·|¤ ·i¬ «i ¤
¬ ¬i·i ·i¬ ¤ºi ¬iº l¤¬º « ¬ ¬i ¤¬ ¬i·i ¤i -i l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni
·ii «ºin l¬ ;¬ · l·- ¬ ªi ·i; ¬| n¤| ri n|| . . . (¤ ¬ zz/)
“At this site of Ayodhya, the floor appurtenant to the
structure immediately below the structure of the Babri
Mosque could have been photographed, provided
excavation had been done from this angle…”(Page 227)
l·,i· l¬ºr¬ni ¬l·i··ni · ¬i·i| ¬i ·¤i· ¤o¤¬o¬i; o lº¤i - ·¤¸ ¬¸ -
z ¬ ·¬ - ¬ ª¤i «z ¤º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i| ¬i·i| · ;¬ · ªi¬º ¤ º· l¬¤
¬i· ¤º «ni¤i l¬ ;¬ ·¬ - - ·i ¤ ¬ ¬·-- ¬ºi· r ¬i l¤¬º « ¬
4195
¬ ª¤ - -i· l¬¤ n¤ r , ¤º·n ;·¬i ¤ -ilºin ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¬ i¬
¬ ·ºi· -|¬ ¬ ·r| l·ªi ¤i ºri r | (¤ ¬ zzs)
“The learned cross-examining counsel drew the attention
of the witness to Plate no. 42 of the A.S.I. report, volume 2.
After looking at this the witness on being questioned
replied that in this plate there are two such constructions as
have been taken to be pillar bases but cross section,
capable of establishing them, is not properly seen.”(page
228).
¤¬ ·|·iº ¬i ºii¤· ¬i- ¬º l¬¬ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ri ¬i ºri r ºii¤·
¬¬ «·i¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ zzs)
“What is being termed as pillar base, is perhaps carved out
from a wall.”(Page 229)
l¤¬º « ¬ r- ¬¬ ¬rn r ¬i l¬¬| -n-·i ¬i ¬i·iiº ri | ¬· ¬|
lº¤i - ¬ - nil«¬ ¤ i o «|o«|o¬i¬ ¬ ¬-ªi·· - ¤i¤ n¤ ¬·-- ¬ºi·
¬i ;¬l¬¤ l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ri n¤i r ·¤i l¬ ¬·¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬· ¤º
n·ii¬l·in -l··º ¬ -n-·i ªi· -i· n¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ zsz)
“We term as pillar base what is the base of any pillar. As
per the survey report, the constructions discovered at the
excavation carried out by Prof. B.B.Lal have been termed
as pillar bases because the pillars of the so called temple,
in his opinion, rested on them.”(Page 232).
·¬ - ¬ ª¤i «c ¬ «iº - ¬i·i| · ;¬ · ªi¬º ¤¸ s· ¤º «ni¤i l¬
- · ¤ri ¤r ¬r· ¬i ¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i r l¬ n·ii¬l·in l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¤º ·
ni ¬i ; l¬-«il¬¬ ¬i¬ ln¤i r ¬i º · r| ¬·¬ ¬i·i ¤¬ ·i| ¤-·iº ¬i
-n-·i ¬·i·i ¬¬¬ - ¬· l-¬ | (¤ ¬ zs«)
“On being queried about plate no.46, the witness, after
looking at the same, stated that here he had tried to say
that there are no symbolic shapes on the so –called pillar
bases and not a single stone pillar or its fragments were
4196
discovered with them.”(Page 234)
- n ;¬ ¬-¤ ¤r ¤i· ·r| r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n l¤nº s¤ - ·lºi n ro
l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ - ¬ l¬n· - º l·º|·iºi ¬ ¬-¤ ¤·¬¤i ¬ ri ¤ ¬ ·i |
-·¤ ¬ri, ;·- ¬ ¬ s -- ·¤¬ ¬-nº - , ¬ s ¤lº¤-| ·iin - n·ii ¬ s
·l·iºi - -- ·¤¬ ¤i- ¬| ¤i ¤¸ º| nºr ¤·¬¤i ¬ ri ¤ ¬ r , l¬·r l¤¬º
«¬ ¬ri ¬i ºri r | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¤ ·lºi n l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ -
¤¬i;·- ·- ni l·ªii; · ni r ¤º·n l¤º ·i| ;·- ¬·nº ni r r| ¬i º
lº¤i - - ·i| ¤r| l¬ªii n¤i r | (¤ ¬ «c«)
“At present I do not remember how many of the 50 pillar
bases shown in the aforesaid figure 3A had been exposed at
the time of my observation. (Stated on his own) Out of these
structures, some have been partly or completely exposed in
the north, some in the western part and some in the south,
which structures are being called pillar bases. Alignment is
certainly seen in the pillar bases shown by A.S.I., but they
definitely have differences, and this very fact is written in
the report.”(Page 464)
¤ i¤ ¤r ¬·-- ·ºi· ¤ºi «·i· ¬ l¬¤ ·iº| n¤| l-- -| ¬ ¬ «¬ ¬i
- ·- · ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ·i| ¤i l¬¬| ¬i º ¤º¤¬ ¬ l¬¤ ¤ -iºi ¬·i| ·r|
r |
¤ º·÷;· l¤¬º « ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬-«··i - ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¤ -n n - ¤
·i -« ¬, ·i¤º| · ·i¤º| ºl¬--º ¬il· ¬i ·i| ¬i¤· l¤¬º « ¬ ¬
¬-«··i - ¬i ; ¬i·¬iº| l¬¤i r ¬·i·i ·r| `
¬-nº÷ - ni lº¤i - ¬ ¬·¤¤· ¬ r| ¬i º ¬i; - ¤º l·l¬- ¬º¬ n·ii
¬¤· ;·-º¤·ºi· ,iºi r| ¬¤·i -n «·i¤i r | ;· ¬ ¤º·i;¬ºi ¬|
·i¤º| ¤i ¤·-|·¤¸ -| ºl¬--º ¬i - · ·r| · ªii r | lº¤i - - ·i| ¬·¬i
¬i ; l·ºi·i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r | (¤ ¬ «/o)
“As of now, there is nothing to show whether these
constructions were often meant to maintain the level of
soil for floor making or for any other purpose.
Question- Whether any inquiry in respect of these pillar
4197
bases, has been made by you or not of the Trench notebook,
diary and diary register etc. submitted by ASI ?
Answer- I have formed my opinion on studying the report,
visiting the site and by my interaction. I have not seen the
diary of Supervisors or the Antiquity Register. There is no
special reference of these in the report as well." (Page 470)
3916. Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal (PW-24) who was again
examined as expert witness after excavation by Sunni Central
Waqf Board, appreciated the work of ASI and its methodology,
nowhere alleged anything against ASI or manufacture of pillar
bases by them. Rather he admitted the existence of pillar bases
and the reference of the same in the report. Prof. Mandal stated
that:
lº¤i - ¬ ¬· ¬iº ro n·ii÷¬l·in -n-·i ¬i·iiºi (pillar bases) ¬
·|· ¬| ¤r¤i· ¬| n¤| r | ¬·r Floor z ( ¤i Structure 4 ¬|
¬l·n- ¬·-·ii) ¬ ¬-«, ¬ri n¤i r (ASI Report, Vol.I, p.54).
;¬ ¬·i· ¬ ¤r -¤·- ¬ ¬ n l-¬ni r l¬ ¬·¬i l·-i ºi Floor 2 ¬
¬-¤ r ¬i ri ni| ;¬ l-·iln - ·i ·i ¤º-¤º ¬-¬il¬¬ r ¤| (¤ ¬ ··s)
"According to the report, the foundations of 50 alleged
pillar bases have been identified. They have been termed as
attached to Floor 2 (or the last stage of Structure 4) (ASI
Report, Vol.1,p.54). This statement clearly indicates that
their construction would have taken place at time of Floor
2. In such situation both of them are mutually
contemporary. " (page 118)
¤ ºin-· l·ni· ¬ ¬· ¬iº l¬¬ ¬nr ¬ ¤r ªii; ªii ·| Pit ¬in| r
·r ¬¬¬ l·-i ºi ¬i¬ ¬i ¬-¬il¬¬ -i·i ¬ini r | . . . . lº¤i - -
¬n·in ·« -n-·i ¬i·iiºi ¬i ¬ ·ºi· n·ii ·¬i· ¤ ¬ilºin r | (¤ ¬ ··s)
"According to the archaeology, the level from which this
4198
pit is excavated, is considered to be contemporary with its
period of construction.......... The section and plan of about
14 pillar bases have been published in the report." (page
118)
“…- · ¬¬ ¬¤· «¤i· ¬ «i· ¬|o¤|o¬iºo ¬· lº¤i - n·ii ¬¬-
¬l~¬lªin l¬· ¤·il-¬|¬ ¬| ¤ ·-| ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi ¬| n; r ¬¬¬
¬ ··i - lº¤i - ¬i ¤ · ¬·¬i ¬· ·r| l¬¤i r , ;¬l¬¤ - ¬i¬ ·i| ·r|
«ni ¬¬ni r¸ l¬ ¬|o¤|o¬iºo lº¤i - - ¬l~¬lªin l¬· ¤·il-¬|¬ ¬|
¤ l·- ¤¤¬¬i; · ¬-ªi·· ,iºi ¬| r, ·r lº¤i - - ¬l~¬lªin r ¬·i·i
·r| | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o - ¬¤·| lº¤i - - l¤¬º« ¬ ¬i ¬i;¬i -l-¬ ·¤¸ l·¤i
r l¬¬¬i - · · ªii r | ¤¤¬¬i; ,iºi l·¤ n¤ ;¬ ¬i;¬i -l-¬ ·¤¸ -
·lºi n l¤¬º«l¬¬ ¬i ¬-¤i¤· - · l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ·r| l¬¤i r |
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬i -- ·¤º ¤i¤ n¤ r , ¬·¬i l··ººi ¤o¤¬o¬i; o -
¬¤· lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - · ¬ l¤nº s ¬i º s¤ - l·¤i r | l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º
¤i¤ n¤ l¬· -- ¬¤º¬ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¤|nº s n·ii s¤ - l¬¤i n¤i r ,
·r l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º r , ;¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | ¤o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·|
lº¤i - - ¤iº ¤ ¬i ¬ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r , l¬¬¬ - ¬r-n r¸ ¤º·n
¬ri n¬ ¤o¤¬o¬i; o ,iºi l·ªii¤ n¤ ¤ ¬iº «¤ ¬i ¤ º· r , ¬¬¬ -
¬r-n ·r| r¸ ·¤i l¬ ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¤¤¬¬i; ¬| lº¤i - ·i~¤¸ - · ¬
¤ ·- s/¤ (- ·- l-· ¤|lº¤·i;¬ ºi· ¬i ¤ l· l·-·¤¸ l-· ¬i;- ¤-
¬¤i ·¤i) - ·i| ·r| r | ¤ ¬i º · l·-·¤¸l-· --·¤º ¬| ¤ ¬iº r | ¤ ¬i º
z, ¤ ¬i º · ¬ ¤¸ · ·n| ¤ ¬i º r l¬¬- lº¤i - - ¬·i| l¤¬º« ¬ ¬ ·
-- ·¤¬ ¬i l·ªii¤i n¤ r | ¤ ¬i º s, ¤ ¬iº z ¬ ¤¸ · ¬| r, ¤
o¤¬o¬i; o · ¬¤·| lº¤i - - ¤ ¬i º s ¬ ¬-·· ¬i ·i ¬ n·ii l¤¬º
« ¬ ¬ r ¬¬¬i l·ªii¤i r, ¤º·n - ¬¬¬ ¬r-n ·r| r¸ | ·i ¬ ¬ ¬ « ·i
- - º| ¬¬r-n| ·r| r …” (¤ ¬ z/r)
"…....After my yesterday's statement, I have not re-perused
the report in context of the GPR survey report as well as
the anomalies mentioned therein, which have been verified
by ASI. As such even today I cannot tell whether the
anomalies mentioned in the GPR report and verified by ASI
4199
through excavation, have been mentioned in the report or
not. The ASI has given isometric view of the pillar bases in
its report, which has been perused by me. The verification
of the pillar bases appearing in this isometric view given by
the ASI, has not been done by me from the disputed site.
The details of the structures found at the disputed site have
been given by the ASI in Figure 3 and 3A of Volume 1 of its
report. I agree that the structures found at the disputed site
and mentioned in Figure 3 and 3A, are at the disputed site.
In its report, the ASI has mentioned about four floors, with
which I agree, but so far as the Floor 4A shown by ASI is
concerned, I do not agree with the same because it has not
been mentioned even at Page 37A(tentative periodisation
of the disputed site at Ayodhya) of Volume 1 of ASI report.
The Floor 1 is the floor of the disputed structure. The Floor
2 is anterior to the Floor 1, in which all the pillar bases
and structures of the report have been shown. The Floor 3
is anterior to the Floor2, in its report the ASI has shown
those walls and pillar bases which are attached to Floor 3,
but I do not agree with the same. I have no disagreement
regarding the wall......"(Page 275)
“…l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º r ¤ ¬-ªi·· - ¬ ¬ l¬n·| l··iº l-¬| ·i| ,
¬·¬| ¬ ª¤i - ·r| «ni ¬¬ni| ¬ ¬ ro l¤¬º« ¬ ¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·iºi·
l-¬ ·i | ¬ ¬ l¤¬º« ¬ ¬ ¬ ·ºi· ¬ ¬ · r ¤ ·i , ¬·¬| ¬ ª¤i ¬n·in ·«
r |…” (¤ ¬ z/c)
"…....I cannot tell the total number of walls found in the
excavation at the disputed site. A total of 50 pillar bases
were found during the excavation. Few pillar bases were
attached to the section, their number is around 14
4200
…......"(Page 276)
“…¬¤ºi ·n l¤nº s¤ - ¬-ªi·· ¬ ·iºi· ¬i ·i| ·|·iº ¬il· l-¬| r ,
¬·¬i ¤¤¬¬i; ,iºi ¤ ·l’i n l¬¤i n¤i r | ¤r ·i ¬ n·ii -- ·¤º ¬¤·
-·ii· ¤º r| l¤nº s¤ - ¤ ·l’i n r ¤i ·r| , ;¬¬i l«·i ;··--|n -
l¬¤ ·r| «ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni| - · ;¬ «iº - ¬i¬ n¬ ¬i ; ;·· --|n’i·
·r| l¬¤i r l¬ l¤nº s¤ - ¬i ·|·iº n·ii --·¤º l·ªii¤ n¤ r ,
· ¤·ii -·ii· ;¬ l¤nº - ¤ ·l’i n r ¬·i·i ·r| |....¤¸ l¬ - · l¤nº s¤
- -- ·¤º n·ii ·|·iºi ¬ ¤·ii-·ii· l·ªii¤ ¬i· ¬ «iº - ¬i ; ¬·¤¤·
·r| l¬¤i r ;¬l¬¤ - ;¬ «iº - ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni|””(¤ ¬ z/c÷z//)
"…..The walls etc. found during excavation, have been
shown by ASI in the aforesaid Figure 3A. Whether this wall
and structure have been shown at their respective place or
not in the Figure 3A, cannot be told without being
investigated. I have not carried out any investigation in this
behalf till date as to whether the walls and structures
shown in Figure 3A have been shown or not at their
respective places in this figure........ Since I have not
carried out any study regarding the depiction of structures
and walls at their respective places in Figure 3A, as such I
will not be able to reply in this behalf. "(Page 276-277).
3917. One of the objection with respect to the pillar bases
is that nothing has been found intact with them saying that the
pillars were affixed thereon. The submission, in our view,
thoroughly hollow and an attempt in vain. The other parties i.e.
Hindus categorically claimed that the erstwhile structure was
removed i.e. demolished so as to construct the disputed
structure. If we assume other cause to be correct for a moment,
in case of demolition of a construction, it is a kind of childish
expectation to hope that some overt structure as it is would
remain intact. There cannot be any presumption that the pillar
4201
bases was remained intact along ancillary material. Whatever
has been found that has to be seen in the context and not what is
not found. All the things have to be seen carefully and nothing
independently and in isolation. The pillar bases were detected by
B.B.Lal also in 1976-77 when he made excavation on the
western and southern side of the disputed site along with a wall
structure. The Archaeologist said that the matter needs further
investigation. It is thus further investigation which has infact
fortified and explained the earlier structure also. The pillar bases
in general were found during excavation in regular bases for
columns constructed in a proper pattern with equal distance
pattern in regular style. The calcrete stones were topped by
sandstone blocks over which pillars must have rested. Brickbats
were used in their foundation in the same manner as brick
aggregates were used in foundation of walls. The brickbats
course of the foundation rested under the ground. The question
of falling apart of the brickbat foundation could not have arisen.
The calcrete blocks topped by the sandstone blocks is capable of
supporting pillar bearings, the load of the roof. Even if there is
some minor variation in the measurement of the pillar bases that
would not invite the approach of total rejection of something
which is otherwise apparent from the existence of the above
pillar bases. There may be a reason for having variation in the
measurement of the pillar bases that the actual centre of the
pillar bases could not have been pointed out since the top
sandstone blocks are missing from most of them. Figure 3A in
any case has been confirmed to be correct by most of the
Experts (Archaeologist) of plaintiffs (Suit-4).
3918. In general, therefore, we do not find any substance
4202
in the objections relating to pillar bases and the same is hereby
rejected.
3919. The next objection is with regard to the Walls and
Floors. This has been complained by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) under
the title "Archaeological Evidence of Massive Structure" Para
4.1 to 4.14 in the objections dated 28.10.2003. It says:
"4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF "MASSIVE
STRUCTURE":-
4.1 That the theory of a so called "massive structure"
below "Babri Masjid" (P. 54), given by the A.S.I., is based
mainly upon nearly 50m long wall (wall 16) in the west
and the dumps of brick bats which it claims to be "pillar
bases", to its east. According to the A.S.I. they found 17
rows of the so called pillar bases from North to South; each
row having 5 pillar bases while actually they have referred
to 50 only, out of which only 12 were said to be completely
exposed, 35 were said to be partially exposed and 3 could
be traced in section only. The A.S.I. also asserts that the
central part of the pillared structure was important and
special treatment was given to its architectural planning.
The A.S.I. also claims that the so-called pillar bases found
in these excavations have settled the controversy regarding
association of these so-called pillar bases with different
layers and load bearing capacity while the report fails to
give any details about the actual regular layers and
accurate depth of all these so called pillar bases. The
remarks of the A.S.I about the central part of the pillared
structure also seem to be without any evidence. On what
basis the A.S.I. is saying that this part was important and
4203
special treatment was given to it in architectural planning,
is also not evident from the report.
4.2. That the A.S.I. failed to take into account that any
medieval temple in classical style would be expected to
have a Central portion with thick internal walls to support
a high superstructure like a Shikhara, while the Key Plan
of Structures shows, in H1, two lengths of a narrow wall or
two walls, each less than a metre long, with a gap of about
70 cm. Between them. No further information is given to
convince us that there is an " exposed entrance" as stated
on P. 69.
4.3. That the A.S.I. Report itself describes traces of inner
walls having a width of 0.48 m to 0.55 m, attached with the
earliest activities alongwith wall 16. These internal walls
not only appear to be narrow and not more than two or
three brick courses high, but also consisting of brickbats
only. They are plastered over the sides and upper surface
and it is difficult to infer that they were load bearing
walls:
4.4. That regarding the said wall 16, an unexplained
anomaly is that from the inner side its first phase of 10
courses is said to be plastered while on the exterior side
plaster was provided in the second phase of its raising
( four courses).
4.5. That no single example is offered by the A.S.I. of any
temple of pre-Moghal times having such a lime–Surkhi
floor, though one would think that this is an essential
requirement when a purely Muslim structure is being
appropriate as a Hindu one. Once this appropriation has
4204
occurred (page 41), we are then asked to imagine a
"Massive Structure Below the Distputed Structure", the
massive structure being a temple. It is supposed to have
stood upon 50 pillars, and by fanciful drawings (Figures
23, 23A and 23B), it has been " reconstructed". [Though
one may still feel that if was hardly "massive" when one
compares Figure 23 (showing Babri Masjid before
demolition) and Figure 23B (showing the reconstructed
temple with 50 imaginary pillars!)] Now, according to the
A.S.I.'s Report, this massive structure with "bases" of 46 of
its alleged 50 pillars now exposed, was built in Period VII,
the Period of the Delhi Sultans, Sharqi rulers and Lodi
Sultans (1206-1526): This attribution of the alleged Grand
Temple, to the "Muslim" period is not by choice, but
because of the presence of "Muslim" style materials and
techniques all through. This, given the distorted view of
medieval Indian history, must have been a bitter pill for the
A.S.I.'s, mentors to swallow; and, therefore, there has been
all the more reason for them to imagine a still earlier
structure assignable to an earlier time. Of this structure,
however, only four alleged "pillar bases", with
"foundations" attached to Floor 4, have been found; and it
is astonishing that this should be sufficient to ascribe them
10
th
-11
th
century and to assume that they all belong to one
structure. That structure is proclaimed as "huge",
extending nearly 50 metres that separate the "pillar-bases"
at the extremes. Four "pillar bases" can hardly have held
such a long roof, and if any one tried it on them it is not
surprising that the result was "short-loved" (Report, p.
4205
269). All of this seems a regular part of the Mandir
propagandist archaeology rather than a report from a body
called the Archaeological Survey of India.
4.6. That the four alleged pillar bases dated to 11
th
-12
th
centuries are said "to belong to this level with a brick crush
floor". This amounts to a totally unsubstantiated claim that
surkhi was used in the region in Gahadavala times (11
th
-
12
th
centuries). No examples are predictably offered. One
would have thought that Sravasti (Dist. Bahraich), from
which the A.S.I. team has produced a linga-centred Shavite
"circular shrine" of the said period for comparison with the
so-called "circular shrine" at the Babri Masjid site, would
be able to produce a single example of either surkhi or lime
mortar from the Gahadavala-period structures at Sravasti.
But such has not at all been the case. One can see now why
it had been necessary to call this period (Period V)
"Medieval-Sultanate" (p. 40) though it is actually claimed
to be pre-Sultanate, being dated 11
th
- 12
th
century. By
clubbing together the Gahadavalas with the Sultanate, the
surkhi is sought to be explained away; but if so, the "huge"
structure too must come to a time after 1206, for Delhi
Sultanate was only established in that year. And so, to go
by A.S.I.'s reasoning, the earlier allegedly "huge" temple
too must have been built when the Sultans ruled!
4.7. That the way the A.S.I. has distorted evidence to suit
its temple theory is shown by its treatment of the mihrab
(arched recess) and taq (niche) found in the western wall,
which it turns into features of its imagined temple. The
absurdity of this is self evident and particularly so when the
4206
inner walls of the niche are also found plastered, and the
A.S.I. is able to produce no example of similar recess and
niche from any temple.
4.8. That the structure denoted by wall 17 and a brick
Crush floor in Period VI has not been allotted any number
by the A.S.I. and the A.S.I.'s claims about the attribution of
the walls and floors of " Periods VI and VII" to two
successive temple structures can not be accepted. The
A.S.I.'s report in this respect also is full of contradictions
and other infirmities.
4.9. That the reason why would the western wall to be so
massive (1.77 m) and the other walls so thin ( 0.48-0.55) is
quite obvious. It should be noted that Wall 17 also was 1.86
m wide. Such wide western walls are a features of mosque
construction and not of temples. Temple walls, in fact, are
of uniform thickness. If, as the A.S.I. points out, the Babri
Masjid used this Wall 16 as a foundation for its western
wall, then this Wall 16 can only have been the foundation
of the Babri Masjid itself. Moreover, no Hindu temple has a
long continuously straight western wall-this is only a
feature of the mosque in India. In the case of a temple, a
plinth or raised platform would be required and the walls
would be broken by offsets, providing a cruciform plan to
the temple form. Moreover, the temple would have
mandapas in front of the grabagriha (the sanctum
santorum) and any at the side of the latter would be very
small and insignificant in nature. According to Krishna
Deva, "the main compartment of the temple are axially
articulated." ( See Temples of India by Krishna Dewa,
4207
1995, Vol. I ) In this case, as being suggested by the A.S.I.,
the central area now under the makeshift structure was the
garbagriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple structure
should have mainly projected towards the east, and not to
such an extent to the north and south ( as in Fig. 23A or
23B). The kind of structure as indicated in Fig. 23B
indicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can
only be the case in a mosque.
4.10.That the foundation of the Babri Masjid has some
decorated stone blocks along with plain sandstone and
calcrete blocks and bricks. This is natural in the
construction of a foundation where any available motley
material would be used, as the foundation would not be
visible. It has been pointed out by the A.S.I. (pp. 68, 269-
70) that material, from the structure associated with Wall
17, was reused to make Wall 16. However, if this had been
the case, decorated blocks would have been used for the
upper portions of walls rather than in the foundation. To
corroborate their statement of the reuse of decorated
blocks, the A.S.I. gives the examples of the
Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi of the 12
th
century A.D. at Sarnath. However, as can be seen in Plates
27-28, decorated blocks were used not for the foundations
but in the enclosure wall of a vihara. Moreover, this
structure was a vihara and cannot in any way be compared
with a Hindu temple.
4.11. That it can also be pointed out here that Krishna Deva
mentions ( on P. 11) that a temple customarily has a
vedibandha consisting of moulded courses. Even if the
4208
southern part of Wall 16 has not been excavated on its
outer face to indicate the presence or absence of
mouldings, we have the evidence of the outer face of Wall
16 in Trench ZE 1, to the north, where no mouldings are to
be seen. This kind of a plain wall with nothing but niches
on its inner face can only be a mosque/ Eidgah wall.
4.12. That On p. 68 are described two niches in the inner
side of Wall 16 at an interval of 4.60 m I trenches E6 and
E7. These were 0.20 m deep and 1 m wide. A similar niche
was found in Trench ZE2 in the northern area and these
have been attributed to the first phase of construction of the
so called 'massive structure' associated with Wall 16. Such
niches along the inner face of a western wall, are again
characteristic of mosque/ Eidgah construction. Moreover,
the inner walls of the niche are also plalstelred (as in Plate
49) which indicates that the plaster was meant to be
visible. A temple niche (and if found, would be on the outer
wall) would not be plastered if it were to hold a sculpture
or a relief. In the first phase of construction, the supposed
massive structure was confined to the thin wall found in
Trenches ZE1-ZE1 in the north and E6-H5/H6 in the south
(p. 41). How then does one explain the location of niches
outside the floor area of the said massive structure ? This is
typical of a mosque, which has a long, wide north-south
wall, with niches at intervals on its inner face and there
may be a small covered area in the center. Which would
have narrow demarcating walls.
4.13. That according to the A.S.I. (p. 42), the massive
structure in sub-period B collapsed and its debris of brick
4209
and stone was levelled to attain height. " In this deposit,
foundations to support pillars or columns were sunk which
were overlaid with a 4-5 cm thick floor, which had a grid of
square sandstone bases for pillars projecting out, only a
few still survive."
If, as implied, the structure of sub-period B had collapsed
and another floor constructed with another set of pillar
bases, then these are not phases of construction of a
structure but three separate structures. What is perhaps a
more plausible explanation is that in the beginning of the
13
th
century, some Muslim structure was built with a well-
polished lime surkhi floor. There was a low enclosure wall
(0.40-0.50 m wide) demarcating the area from E6 to ZE!
And extending east to the H series of trenches. Within this
enclosure was probably a small central covered area of
which the northern wall with a niche can be seen the
Trench F2. This wall was narrower (0.35-40 m ) thick.
Probably this was wall structure only as can be seen by the
narrow walls with no deep foundation. When this
collapsed, the entire area was filled in with brickbats, stone
slabs, calcrete blocks, brick nodules and mud to raise the
level in order to construct the next lime-surkhi floor. This
floor probably now functioned as an Eidgah or so as no
structural activity has been observed in association. When
this floor was degraded, another floor was raised, both
floors being of poor quality.
4.14. That wall recesses or niches are observed in the
mosque/ Eidgah structure in a highter stratum also (P. 53)
but the report fails to discuss about the same.
4210
3920. PW-29 (Jaya Menon) however in para 11 and 12 of
affidavit on this aspect has said:
A. That the Period VI structure according to the ASI
consisted of a 50 metre long wall and a brick crush floor,
and had 4 (so called) pillar bases associated with it.
However, nowhere are any specific (so called) pillar bases
associated with the brick crush layer.
B. That the brick crush layer was not a floor but a
levelling mechanism to level the area for the building of
subsequent structures. This is because the brick crush layer
can be seen to be of varying thickness in different trenches.
C. That Structure 4 to the ASI essentially seems to
consist of a massive western wall and (so called) pillar
bases and has been considered to have been a (so called)
temple. The important point is why should the western wall
have been so massive (1.77 metre) and the other walls so
thin (0.48-0.55 metre)? Such wide western walls are a
feature of mosque construction and not of temple
construction. Temple walls, in fact, are of uniform
thickness.
D. That the western wall of the Babri Masjid had a
slight tilt towards the east which is a feature of the western
wall of the mosques in India because of the direction of
Mecca. If, as the ASI points out, the Babri Masjid used Wall
16 as a foundation for its western wall, then this Wall 16
could only have been the foundation of the Babri Masjid
itself as it shows the same tilt. It should be noted that Wall
17, supposedly associated with the Period VI structure,
also had this tilt and was 1.86 metre wide. Also, if Wall 16
4211
and 17 were temple walls, why should they have had the
same tilt towards the east?
E. That no Hindu temple has a log continuously straight
western wall-this is only a feature of the mosque in India.
In the case of temple, a plinth or raised platform would be
required and the walls would be broken by offsets,
providing a cruciform plan to the temple form. Moreover,
the temple would have a linear alignment with mandapas
in front of the garbagriha (the sanctum sanctorum) and any
at the side of the latte would be very small and insignificant
in nature. In this case, as being pointed out by the ASI, the
central area now under the makeshift structure was the
alleged garbgriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple
structure should have mainly projected towards the east,
and not to such an extent to the north south. The king of
structure as indicated in Fig. 23B of the Final Report
indicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can
only be the case in a Eidgah mosque.
F. That the foundation of the Babri Masjid has
decorated stone blocks along with plain sandstone and
calcrete blocks and bricks. This is natural in the
construction of a foundation where any available motley
material would be used, as the foundation would not be
visible. It has been pointed out by the ASI (pages 68, 269-
270) that material, from the structure associated with Wall
17, was reused to make Wall 16. However, if this had been
the case, decorated blocks would have been used for the
upper portions of alleged temple walls rather than in the
foundation.
4212
G. That temple walls customarily have mouldings on the
outer face. The outer face of Wall 16 in Trench ZE1, to the
north, is available to view where no mouldings are to be
seen this kind of a plain wall with nothing but niches on its
inner face can only be an Eidgah or mosque wall. On page
68 of the Final Report are described two niches in the inner
side of Wall 16 at an interval of 4.60 metre in trenches E6
and E7. These were 0.20 metre deep and 1 metre wide. A
similar niche was found in Trench ZE2 in the northern area
and these have been attributed to the first phase of
construction of 'massive structure' associated with Wall 16.
(Such niches, along the inner face of a western wall, are
again characteristic of Eidgah or mosque construction.)
Moreover, the inner walls of the niche are also plastered
(as in Plate 49) which indicates that plaster was meant to
be visible.
H. That two Mughal coins were found in Trench K5 in
layer 3 "below (sic) the brick pavement" and from layer 3
in Trench L7. According to the ASI, the brick pavement
extended east from Trenches J4, J5 and J6 upto the
junction of the K and L series of trenches. The pavement
has been accorded great ritual significance by the ASI and
has been dated to Period VII, i.e. Medieval/Medieval-
Sultanate (end of 12
th
century to beginning of 16
th
century
AD/ before AD 1526). (Final Report pages 41-42).
However, if the brick pavement is pre-Mughal, it is
impossible for later period (Mughal) coins to be found in a
stratified context under it. Thus, clearly, the brick pavement
cannot be of pre-Mughal date.
4213
I. That the ASI's sections in Figures 5 and 19 of the
Final Report make no mention of "the massive structure"
(their so called temple) and only to "the disputed structure"
(the Babri Masjid), which means the hypothesis of a temple
was added at a later stage of the writing of the Report."
3921. Sri D.Mandal PW-24 has mainly confined his
objection with regard to stratification. Sri Suraj Bhan -PW16
has made a general statement against the conclusion of ASI that
underneath the disputed building there was a temple structure.
PW 30 R.C.Thakran and 31 have not said anything about
various walls excavated by ASI.
3922. The excavation of 28 walls by ASI virtually has
been admitted by the experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. PW-16 at
pages 153, 199, PW 29 at Pages 146, 147, 158, 159, 163, 164
and 181. PW-32 Dr. Supriya Varma very categorically on page
137 has said:
"from walls 16 to 28 except wall 18D are the walls
underneath the disputed structure."
3923. PW-30 Dr. R.C.Thakran specifically at page 190
page 46/190 said:
- ¤r -i·ni r¸ l¬ ¬ri ÷¬ri ¬|o¤|o¬iºo n¬·|¬ ¬ ,iºi
¤·i-¬|¬ ¬| nº¤ ;ºiiºi r , ·ri ÷ ·ri ¬ s -i ¬ ¬·¬-i·¬ ¤i ·-n
¤ i·n r ; r | (¤ ¬ ·so)
“I hold that wherever anomalies have been alluded
to through the G.P.R. technique, some solid substances or
objects have been discovered.” (E.T.C.)
3924. The ASI has discussed the walls and Floors as
under:
"Excavations in trenches D6, E6, F6, D7, E7 and F7
4214
brought to light the remains of foundation wall and floors
of the southern square chamber (Pl. 21, Fig. 4) of the
disputes structure (structure 3) which internally measured
6.14 m in north-south and 6.10 m in east-west direction
with its western wall (wall 5) measuring 3.0 m wide having
five courses of calcrete blocks with occasional use of sand
stone blocks as veneers filled in the core with brick-bats.
There is a recess of 0.75 m depth and 2.10 m in length in
the wall 5 in the inner side. Two decorated sand store
blocks from an earlier structure, one having the damaged
figure of a possible foliated makara-pra āla were found
reused in the foundation of wall 5 on its outer face (Pls. 22-
23). The wall 5 of the structure 3 was found resting directly
(Pl. 24, Fig. 5) over an earlier plastered brick wall (wall
16) having a foundation of five to six courses of calcrete
and sand stone blocks. Some of them reused from yet
another earlier structure as they are decorated ones with
foliage (Pls. 25-26) and other decorations. Similar nature
of wide brick walls with plain and decorated stone
members of earlier structures reused in their foundations
(Pls. 27-28) have been noticed at the Dharmachakrajina
Vihara of Kumāradevī, queen of Gahadwal ruler
Govindachandra of the twelfth century A.D. at Sarnath
exposed after excavation conducted in 1907 and 1908. The
wall 16 has externally as well as internally plastered
surface (Pl. 29) below the level of the twin floors of
structure 3.
The southern foundation wall (wall 6) of structure 3
directly rests over two pillar bases of earlier period (PB 34
4215
and PB 35) below its middle and south-eastern corner (Pl.
30). It has three courses of calcrete blocks and a width of
1.55 m with 0.15 m off-set and the length in east-west
direction of 10.70 m out of which 4.0 m in south-west is
disturbed and damaged. It takes a turn from south-eastern
corner towards north forming wall 7 of the front side
(eastern side) of the southern chamber of the structure 3.
The wall 7 of structure 3 in front of its southern chamber
rests over three pillar bases of the earlier period (PB 29,
PB 32 and PB 35) which were attached through floor 2 of it
to the wall 16 (Fig. 6). The width of wall 7 is 1.54 m and
there was an entrance to the southern chamber in the
middle of the wall having a gap of 2.65 m. There was a
northern wall or wall 8 of the southern chamber of
structure 3 measuring no less than 8.53 m in length and
whose width could not be determined due to debris on the
raised platform. Through wall 8 there was an entrance to
the central chamber of the structure 3.
Due to close proximity of the Ram Lala on the raised
platform, the central chamber could not be exposed fully,
but only a small cutting of 3 x 2 m in between trenches F4
and F5 was made to collect more evidence and to verify the
anomalies mentioned in the GPR Survey report and the
floor of the central chamber was found besides earlier
floors. In an area of 2.50 x 2.50 m in F3 also the same
floors were encountered with parts of the inner faces of the
southern wall (wall 10) and eastern wall (wall 11) of the
northern chamber of the structure 3 (Pl. 31). Ten extant
courses of calcrete blocks of wall 10 and eight courses of
4216
wall 11 were noticed with three such courses in the
foundation.
Parts of the western, eastern and northern walls
(walls 5, 11 and 12 consecutively) of the northern chamber
of structure 3 were found in trenches E2, F2 and G2. Wall 5
at the north western corner seems to be 2.40 m in width
made of reused bricks and brick-bats having two courses of
calcrete and sand stone blocks in its foundation. This part
is raised over the earlier brick wall (wall 16). Three
courses of calcrete blocks were found in the foundation of
the eastern wall (wall 11) of the northern chamber with its
extended lime floor over it in the courtyard and floors 1
and 1A in the inner side with decorative coloured cemented
surface painted with black and buff coloured arched
rectangles pointing towards west, a feature of the mosque
(Pl. 32). The width of wall 11 is 1.60 m and its two courses
of calcrete blocks plastered from inside were found in
trench F2. While laying the foundation of the wall, the
pillar base 23 was cut as noticed in the baulk between F2
and G2.
The northern wall (wall 12) of the structure 3 has
four courses of calcrete blocks in its foundation with one
course of bricks above the last courses of foundation
blocks. The wall over the foundation was plastered with 4
cm thick lime plaster. Width of the wall is 1.70 m and there
is a recess in the middle of the wall, 0.70 m deep and 2.50
m in length. The total length of wall 12 is 8.38 m (Fig. 7)
which in trench F2 rests just over the pillars base 22.
As mentioned earlier, remains of an outer wall was
4217
found in the section facing north in between trenches E10
and E11. Exact nature of the wall could not be studied, but
it seems to be the wall enclosing the outer pathway which
led to the back of the structure 3. In the western side the
damaged wall (wall 14) was traced partly in trenches D6,
D7 and D8 attached with a lime floor pathway. On the
northern side similar wall (wall 15) running in east-west
direction as noticed in the section facing south in the baulk
between ZF1 and ZF2. The C14 date from the
contemporary deposit of the foundation of the disputed
structure is 450±110 BP (1500 ± 110 A.D.) which is quite
consistant as determined from the charcoal sample from
trench G6.
The Massive Structure Below the Disputed Structure
As stated earlier the disputed structure or structure 3
was found directly resting over an earlier construction,
structure 4 (Pls. 33-34) which has survived through its
nearly 50 m long wall (wall 16) in the west and 50 exposed
pillar bases to its east attached with floor 2 or the floor of
the last phase of structure 4 (Pl. 35).
A square sandstone block placed at the top and the
orthostats provided on its four sides, contemporary with the
floor 2 was the prima facie nature of the pillar base which
primarily served as base for the pillar erected over it. Their
foundations were circular or square or irregular in shapes
made of brick-bat courses laid in mud mortar, most of them
resting over floor 4, top of which was provided with sand-
stone or calcrete blocks in lime mortar, these blocks were
also encased with brick-bats and somewhere sandstone
4218
chips were used to get the desired height and level." (Page
51-54)
"The wall 16 having its existing length around 50 m,
with its unexposed middle part, is 1.77 m wide. Its ten
lower brick courses are original and belongs to the first
phase of its construction, but the upper six courses as seen
in trenches E6, E7 and E8 are added at a later date- four
courses during the second phase of construction and top
two courses when its southern length outside the disputed
structure was utilized in later constructions by reducing the
width of the wall for the new structure along with the
structure 3. It is also noticed that the first phase of wall 16
has been plastered in the inner side with lime plaster while
on the outer side the plaster was provided in the second
phase of its raising. There are a few square cavities at
intervals on both the faces of the wall in the second phase
which might have been used for providing reinforcement to
the wall. At an interval of 4.60 m in the inner side of the
wall 16 in its first phase of construction two recessed
niches were found 0.20 m deep and 1.0 m wide along the
face of the wall and 0.78 m wide at its deeper side with
0.02 m thick lime plaster in trenches E6 and E7. The niche
in E6 was exposed while the niche in E7 was found
attached with the E7-E8 baulk. A similar niche was found
in ZE2 in the northern area with same dimensions (Pl. 49).
All of these three niches were closed during the second
phase of construction when the floor level was raised and
wall was raised above the ten original courses. A band of
decorative bricks was perhaps provided in the first phase of
4219
construction or in the preceding wall (wall 17) of which
scattered decorated bricks with floral pattern were found
reused in the wall 16. Walls 16 and 17 were found running
on almost the same alignment in north-south orientation in
trenches ZE1 and ZF1 (Fig. 14). Measurements of bricks of
bricks of wall 16 comprise 22x14x5, 24x16x5.5, 26x17x5.5,
29x19x6 and 28x14x5 cm. Due to restrictions in an area of
about 15x15 m comprising trenches D3 to F3, D4 to F4
and D5 to F5 forming the central part of raised platform,
the precise arrangement of the central part of the
construction below the level of the disputed structure and
also the elevation of the super structure of the former
construction cannot be ascertained. A layout plan of
trenches showing index of various sections can be seen at a
glance in Fig. 15.
The wall 17 which is a brick wall was found to be
1.86 m wide having the maximum of four courses in the
northern area (Pl. 50) and six courses in southern area. It
was found to be of the same length as that of wall 16,
through having a slight deviation in its orientation in the
cardinal direction. Thus, it runs in the lower level than that
of wall 16, almost parallel to it in the northern area and
comes out below the wall 16 in the southern area as
noticed in trench D7 where in the northern part it is
projected 0.74 m below wall 16 and in the southern part it
is projected 1.07 m below wall 16 having provided
decorated stone blocks on its top and also refixed in its
veneer (Pl. 51), probably at the time of the construction of
wall 16 to serve as its foundation. A thick floor of brick
4220
crush (Pl. 52) spread over a large area in northern and
southern areas with varying thickness was found associated
with wall 17. The floor was cut for foundation trench of
wall 16 with which were associated three lime floors
raising the ground levels in three different phases described
earlier in chapter III. Amongst the three lime floors
associated with this wall 16, the lowest was found in a
limited area within the inner walls 18A, 18B and 18C. The
upper two floors (Pls. 53-54, Fig 16) were found spread in
the area along wall 16 and show signs of repair patch
works (Pl. 41). Thus the evidence of three phases of the
structure 4 suggests its long span of existence. The
available C14 dates from the deposit between floors 2 and
3 in the trench ZH1 is 1040±70B.P (910±70 A.D.) having
the calibrated age range of A.D. 900-1030. The early date
may be because of the filling for leveling the ground after
digging the earth from the previous deposit in the vicinity.
A pavement no less than 29.25 x 6 m of large square bricks
in the eastern area as described in chapter III is associated
with the period.
Attached with the earliest activities along with wall
16 are traces of inner walls having a width of 0.48 m to
0.55 m having one exposed entrance to the east found in
trench H1. The inner walls are attached with the wall 16 in
the northern as well as southern areas. In northern area
the inner wall (Pl. 55) or wall 18A runs to a length of about
15.0 m in east-west direction and takes a turn to south in
trench ZH1 (Fig.8). It was traced upto a length of 6.0 m
(wall 18B) after which due to the existence of the
4221
barricaded gangway it was not possible to dig further. The
two parallel running walls 18C and 18D were traced in
trenches E6-F6, G6 and in E7 respectively. Traces of a
retaining brick wall (wall 19) with eroded outer face were
noticed in trenches ZE2, ZD2, C1 and C2.
Just below the levels attached with wall 16 and
possibly associated with wall 17 are remains of brick
structures located in parts of trenches ZH1 (P1. 56), G2,
F3, G5, J5 (Pl. 57) and F8 in the forms of walls, platforms
and brick foundations (structures 6 to 11 respectively). A
structure of calcrete blocks with calcrete block flooring was
found in trench G5 (structure 9). The exact nature and plan
of these structures could not be studied due to existence of
structures and floors of later phase resting above their
levels. Some skeletons lid in north-south orientation with
their faces turned towards west, which are apparently in
Muslim graves excavated through the top floor and sealed
by layer 1 were found in northern (Pl. 58) and southern
areas." (Page 67 - 70)
"The wall 19A rests over a still earlier wall (wall 20)
which is 0.62 m wide having damaged with which seems to
be attached a brick floor to its north. The end of another
wall (wall 21) attached with the section facing south in
trench F8 was found whose length was traced upto 1.39 m
where it goes in the section facing west. The minimum
distance of this wall from the structure 5 at the corners of
the walls is 0.51 m. Still another wall (wall 22) of six
courses of bricks running to a length of 5.43 m in east-west
direction and its western part going below the foundation
4222
of wall 16 (Pl. 62 was exposed along the section facing
north with a passage, 0.55 m wide, between it and wall 19A
(Pl. 63) seems to be an earlier wall than the structure 5.
Parts of two more brick walls (walls 23 and 24) attached
with sections facing east and west respectively in trench G7
belong to the same level. Although their width could not be
confirmed as they were attached with the sections, the wall
23 was found to be a brick wall of six courses having
broken length of 1.60 m. The wall 24 was noticed having
only two extant courses, the corner of which was found
attached with section facing west which is 0.75 m projected
from the section.
Layer 5A has contemporary deposit of structure 5
below which lie walls 19A and 20 respectively datable to
post-Gupta and Gupta periods. The layer below their
working level is layer 7 from which the charcoal sample
from trench E8 has been dated to 1810± 80 B.P.(or 140 ±80
B.C.) on C14 determination of which the calibrated age
range is A.D. 90-340.
Two more walls noticed in J6 belong to the Gupta
periods. The wall 25 (Figs. 19-20) runs in east-west
direction having only four extant courses of brick-bats, the
dimensions of which could not be seen as it was attached
with the section. Same is the case of another earlier wall,
wall 26 which also runs in east-west direction and which is
made of 17 courses of broken bricks. 52 cm below the
course of wall 26 was noticed wall 27 (Pl. 64) which seems
to be a wall of the Kushan period having 22 courses of
bricks of the size 38 to 41 to 43x25 to 27x5 to 7 cm running
4223
in north-south direction. The length of the wall in the
trench is 3.90 m though it runs further on either sides.
Attached with this wall was a floor like level having huge
calcrete blocks (Fig. 21) which at one place had three such
blocks resting one over the other. This construction also
seems to be a large one and not an ordinary house
complex. Working levels of Kushan period were noticed in
the trench J3 (Pls. 65-66).
Structural activity of Sunga period is represented by
a calcrete stone wall (wall 28) in the trench J3. It was not
found in the two excavated trenches in the respective levels
(Fig. 22) during NBPW period but can be inferred from the
presence of brick-bats from both the Sunga and NBPW
periods and reed impressions (Pl.68) from NBPW levels on
burnt clay, the latter suggesting constructions of hut like
structure of wattle and daub. Pictorial views of upper
levels of excavated trenches showing conjectural
representation of the disputed structure and deposit below
it. Figs. 23-24 give a fair idea of the succession of
structural activity at the site." (Page 71-72)
3925. Let us examine the manner of recovery of the walls
and the inference which may be drawn.
3926. During excavations, in all 28 walls were traced as
shown in Fig. 3A out of which wall no. 1 to 15 are either
cotemporary to the disputed structure or belong to disputed
structure. Walls no. 16 to 28 are earlier to the disputed structure
and were found underneath of the disputed structure. The details
of the walls found in excavation and their relative position, with
reference to the report, is as under:-
4224
Wall No 1 & 2 = of Modern time (p.48 of the report)
Wall No 3 & 4 = of 1856 (p.49 of the report)
Wall No 5 = (3 m. wide & 6.10 m. in east-west
direction is the foundation wall of the
southern chamber of mosque towards
west side and its north-south direction as
foundation of southern chamber is seen
in p.21) (p.51 & 52 of the report). Two
decorated sand stone block from an
earlier structure one having the damaged
figure of the possible foliated maker-
pranala were found resued in the
foundation of Wall 5 on its outer face
(pls. 22-23, page 52 of the report)
Wall No 6 = It is a north-south direction wall
which was a foundation wall of southern
chamber or str. 3 (p.52 of the report)
Wall No 7 = It is the extension of wall 6 in the eastern
side, therefore it is also a foundation
wall of the southern chamber of the
mosque towards east (p.52 of the report)
Wall No 8 = It is the northern wall of the southern
chamber of the mosque.
Wall No 9 = (8 m, in east-west direction) is the
southern enclosure wall of the disputed
structure (after 1526 A.D.) (p. 49 of the
report)
Wall No 10 = Southern wall of the northern chamber
of the mosque (p.53 of the report)
4225
Wall No 11 = Eastern wall of the northern chamber of
the mosque (p. 53 of the report)
Wall No 12 = Northern wall of the northern chamber
of the mosque (p.53 of the report)
Wall No 13 = (is also like wall no. 9) i.e. wall of 1526
or after 1526 (p.49 of the report)
Wall No 14 = South-north direction wall, present west
of southern chamber (fir. 3-A) p.54 of
the report.
Wall No 15 = As wall no. 14 are present in west, like
that wall no. 15 is present on northern
chamber running east-west direction
contemporary to mosque (1500+110
A.D.) (p.54 of the report)
Wall No 16 = Wall no. 5 is the wall of the mosque
which is directly resting over 50m. long
wall no. 16 running in north-south
direction (p. 52 of the report)and further
projects towards north and south beyond
the excavated area.
Wall No 16 = (1) Wall no. 16 is attached with floor no.
2 (page 52 of the report) belong to
period VII-A i.e. end of the 12
th
century
A.D. (page 52 & 54 of the report) and 50
pillar bases to the east of wall no. 16 is
attached with floor 2 (page 54 of the
report)
Wall no. 16, Floor No. 2 and 50 pillar bases were
contemporary and belong to period VII-A i.e. end of the 12
th
4226
Century A.D.
Wall No. 16 has 16 course of brick constructions relating
to three phases (page 67 of the report)
(1) Its 10 lower brick courses are original and belong to its
first phase of construction (page no. 67 & plate 52 of the
report)
(2) But the upper 6 courses are of second phase of
construction, out of which 4 courses are of 2
nd
phase and
top 2 courses are of letter construction (page 67 of the
report)
(3) The lower phase i.e. 6 courses of wall no. 16 has been
plastered in the inner side only i.e. towards east by lime
while upper 4 courses of wall no. 16 has been plastered by
both inner & outer side i.e. both in the east & in the west
(page 67 of the report)
(4) At interval of 4.60 meter in the inner side of wall no.
16 two inches were found in the lower phase of its
construction towards east (page 68 of the report)
Wall No 17 = Wall no. 17 is of the same length as that
of wall no. 16 (50 m) in north-south
direction below wall no. 16 though
having a slight deviation in its
orientation in north-east direction (p. 68
of the report). When wall 17 was not in
use, it served as a foundation of wall 16
(page 64 of the report)
(1) It is a 1.86 meter wide wall (plate 50)
(2) It function as a foundation wall for wall no. 16
having decorated stone blocks on its top and also re-
4227
fixed in its veneer (surface covering) (page 51 &
page 68 of the report)
(3) Since wall no. 17 in the foundation of wall no.
16 (period VII-A) therefore it belong to period VI
(1100-1200 A.D.)
Wall No 18-A = In northern position, this wall is in
north-south direction, attached with the
same floor of wall no. 16 (p. 69 of the
report)
Wall No 18-B = In northern portion this wall is 15 m.
long in east-west direction and
perpendicular to wall No. 16 like wall
No. 18-A (pl.55) (p. 69 of the report)
Wall No 18-C = In southern portion this wall is in east-
west direction and attached with
westerly wall No. 16 like wall No. 18A
& B this wall also runs perpendicular to
wall No. 16.
Wall No 18-D = This wall is parallel to wall No. 18-C is
southern portion (p. 69 of the report)
Wall No 19-A = In east west direction outside circular
shrine.
Wall No 19-B = In south-north direction outside circular
shrine.
Wall No 19-B = is sealed by layer 5A, which is
contemporary layer of structure 5 or
circular shrine (p. 70 of the report)
Wall No 20 = Wall No. 19-A rests over wall no. 20 in
east-west direction (Gupta period p. 72
4228
of the report) therefore, wall no. 20 is
earlier than wall no. 19-A (p.71) A brick
floor in north is attached with wall No.
20
Wall No 21 = 1.39 meters east-west direction wall
towards north side of the circular shrine.
Wall No 22 = 5.43 meters long wall running east west
direction south to circular shrine, and
entered below the foundation of wall no.
16 in west (p. 71 of the report) This
shows that wall no. 22 is earlier than
wall no. 16.
Wall No 23 = Running south –north having broken
length of 1.60 m (p. 72 of the report)
Wall No 24 = Present in sections, therefore, direction
is not traceable (p. 72 of the report)
Wall No 25 = Run east-west direction of Gupta Period
(p.72 of the report) in east of disputed
structure (J-6)
Wall No 26 = It is an earlier wall to wall no. 25, in
east-west direction in east of the
disputed structure (J-6)
Wall No 27 = 52 cm below the course of wall No. 26,
a wall No. 27 is present running north-
south direction of Kushan Period. (page
72 of the report) Huge calcrete block is
attached. with wall no. 27 of Kushan
Period (p. 72 of the report)
Wall No 28 = Calcrete stone wall in J-3 of Sunga
4229
Period (east of disputed structure).
3927. As the main wall of the disputed structure i.e. wall
No. 5 was filled with brick bats, it implies that it was
constructed with reused material. These brick bats prima facie
establish that they must be of the previous structure. Structurally
the date of the designing of pillar bases has also been confirmed
with example of Sarnath in which decorated octagonal stone
blocks were found in Trench F-7 belonging to 12
th
century A.D.
(page 56 & pl. 39 & 40 of the report). Plate 45 shows disputed
structure resting over pillar base No. 29. Wall No. 6 (foundation
wall of southern chamber of mosque) was directly rests over
two pillar bases no. 34 & 35 (Pl. 30). Wall No. 7 (foundation of
southern chambers of mosque towards east) is resting over 3
pillar bases (No. 29, 32 & 35) (P. 52) read with Fig. 6. Wall No.
12 (Northern wall of Northern Chamber of the Mosque) rests
just over the pillar base No. 22 (P. 53).
3928. The statements of Experts (Archaeologist) of
plaintiffs (Suit-4) in respect to walls and floors have already
been referred in brief saying that there is no substantial
objection except that the opinion ought to this or that, but that is
also with the caution that it can be dealt with in this way or that
both and not in a certain way. In other words on this aspect
witnesses are shaky and uncertain. We, therefore find no
substantial reason to doubt the report of ASI in this respect.
3929. The next serious objection is about "Circular Shrine"
which has been detailed in para 6 (6.1 to 6.10) as under:
6. THE ALLEGED "CIRCULAR SHRINE":-
6.1. That the sub-heading given to the discovery of a
structure of burnt bricks as "The Circular Shrine" at page
70 is indicative of the mindset with which the A.S.I. team
4230
did the excavation work. The A.S.I. team should have just
said "The circular structure" because there is no evidence
to make this structure a shrine. Just by comparing it with
certain temple structures and not with circular walls and
buildings of Muslim construction one can not come to the
conclusion that the circular structure was a Hindu shrine.
No object of Hindu worship was found on this layer. The
story of "pranala" is also a sheer figment of imagination
and a conjecture without any evidentiary basis. The
comparison at page 71 is irrelevant and also unrealistic.
The layer on which this circular structure was discovered
did not throw up any material to justify the naming of this
circular structure as a shrine. The surviving wall, even in
A.S.I.'s own drawing, makes only a quarter of circle and
such shapes are fairly popular in walls of Muslim
construction. And then there are Muslim built domed
circular building also.
6.2. That the scale of the Plan (as given in Figure 17 of
the Report), would have an internal diameter of just 160
cms. or barely 5 ½ feet. Such a small "shrine" can hardly
be worth writing home about. But it is, in fact, much
smaller. The plan in Fig. 17 shows not a circle (as one
would have if the wall shown in Plates 59 and 60 are
continued) but an ellipse, which it has to be in order to
enclose the entire masonry floor. No "elliptic (Hindu)
shrine" is, however produced by A.S.I. for comparison: the
few that are show are all circular. As Plate 59 makes clear
the drawing in Fig. 17 ignores a course of bricks which juts
out to suggest a true circle, much shorter than the elliptic
4231
one: this would reduce the internal diameter to even less
than 130 cms. or just 4.3 feet ! Finally, as admitted by the
A.S.I. itself, nothing has been found in the structure in the
way of image or sacred piece that can justify it being called
a "shrine".
6.3. That "the southern part of the said structure was
found resting over a 0.75 m wide brick wall (Wall 19A) of 9
courses belonging to earlier period which runs in east-west
direction and joins the end of the north-south oriented
brick wall (Wall 19B) having 7 extant courses of bricks and
a width of 0.55 m, making the south-western corner of the
earlier structure."
"The Wall 19A rests over a still earlier wall (Wall 20)
which is 0.62 m wide".
Another wall (Wall 21) is about 0.51 m away from
Structure 5 and northeast of it.
Wall 19A and Wall 20 are considered to belong to the
Post Gupta (Period V) and Gupta (Period IV) periods
respectively. It appears from their description and from
Plate 59 that the 'circular shrine' was built over existing
walls without removing the walls. These earlier walls were
of the preceding period as well as the same period. These
earlier walls could not have been used as the foundation
for the structure as they are of completely different
dimensions and shape.
6.4. That the size of Structure of 5 has an outer diameter
of 1.6 m and measures 0.6 m in the inner area. The
entrance is 0.5 m wide and length of the 'passage', from the
entrance to the inner area, is 0.4 m. Comparisons are being
4232
made with circular brick temples at Sravasti, Kurari,
Masaon, Tinduli and Chandrehe (p. 71, Fig. 18). The outer
diameter of these structures range from 6.1 m (Masaon),
5.8 (Chandrehe and Chirenath), 5.5 m (Tinduli), 4.9 m
(Kurari I) and 3.6 m (Kurari II) (See Fig.18). The inner
area of Kurari II, the nearest in size to the Ayodhya
structure is 1.4 m, Kurari I is about 1.8 m and Chirenath is
2 m. The entrance measurements are 0.9 m for Kurari II
and 0.7 m for Kurari I. The length of passage is 0.6 m for
Kurari II and 1.5 m for Kurari I.
6.5. That all the circular shrines have a mandapa except
for the Kurari temples. Kurari I is also on a plinth with
steps on the east. The closest in size to Structure 5, Kurari
II, is more than double the former structure. The inner area
of Structure 5 is too small to even allow anyone to enter it.
Where is the possibility, then, of performing any kind of
abhisekha?
Out of all the temples illustrated in Fig. 18, four have
the entrance from the west, one from the north and one
from the east. Thus, it seems that the comparison between
Structure 5 and these shrines is being stretched too far.
Structure 5 has been dated to the 10
th
century AD.
However, as will be evident from the Report, the layers
associated with this structure have mixed material,
preventing any chronological determination of the
structure.
6.6. That if, as pointed out by the A.S.I., subsequent
structural activity (in Period VI) damaged the circular
shrine, it is surprising that a later so called temple would
4233
destroy an earlier Hindu religious structure. Moreover, a
later temple could easily have incorporated an earlier
temple into its plan and maintained the sanctity of the
earlier structure. Instead, what is being suggested is that
the central part of the later temple is much further away to
the north, about 20 m away. Thus, it seems highly unlikely
that this structure was a Hindu religious shrine.
6.7. That Structure 5 could well have been a stupa,
belonging to perhaps the 6
th
or 7
th
century AD. Figure 24
giving a bird's eye view of the structure, shows a slight
difference in diameter between the first few lower courses
of bricks and the courses above them. This difference
recalls the two parts of the stupa, the medhi (or the drum)
and the anda (or the higher rounded portion of the stupa).
The 'opening' towards the east could well have been a
niche for a Buddha figure. One of the reasons for
consisting this structure as a stupa is that it is too small to
enter, which one would not have to do in the case of a
Buddist stupa. These religious structures symbolizing the
Buddha are meant to be walked around and not entered.
6.8. That According to the Table placed after Page 37
(A.S.I. Report) this period V is represented by layers 6 and
5. Layer 6 is a flood deposit and layer 5 belongs to Gupta
period. So the formulation of Period V assigned to Post
Gupta – Rajput times is arbitrary. Thus whatever structures
are said to have belonged to Period V, in fact, they belong
to Period IV (Gupta Period).
6.9. That the Text says that layer 5 A is a contemporary
layer of the shrine (structure 5) "below which lie walls 19A
4234
and 20..........The layer below their working level is layer
7..........."(page 72 of A.S.I. Report). There is existence of
only one layer between layers 5A and 7, the layer 6 (A.S.I.
Section, F8, Fig 16). Layer 7 has been dated to 140-80 BC
on 14c determination. The calibrated date reads AD 90 –
340 (Page 72 A.S.I. Report). The range of calibrated d