Hemant Dave Ramayana Between Archaeology and Text

ζвНРФСЯФπбЩНЮψХЪУФΤСРΔΥΑϋмШЩєЧХχмЩмеНѤНΓϋЫХПСЯНЪР
ϋХЯХЫЪЯΑЬЬΔӓӒӚέӓӗӔΔσСгιСШФХΓιΔπΔυЮХЪагЫЮШРΔӔӒӓә
2
R¹m¹yaªa
Between Archaeology and Text
Hemant Dave
nahi ¶ruti¶atamapi ¶»to ’gniprak¹¶o veti

bruvatpr¹m¹ªyamupaiti
— ˜r»mat ã¡kar¹c¹rya
˜r»madbhagavadg»t¹ Bh¹¬ya, 18.66
T HIS note looks into R¹m¹yaªa from an archaeological

perspective.1 In order to do so I have had to necessarily deal with
the textual history of the epic at some length. Lest someone is
led to think that archaeology, being an empirical discipline, is
infallible, I have also pointed out its limitations. In approaching
such subjects, we are in a doubly disadvantageous situation: we
have no securely dated uncontaminated “original” text, nor do
we have foolproof archaeological evidence, and yet we seek to
correlate them.
Epics and Criticism

In Sanskritic tradition, R¹m¹yaªa and Mah¹bh¹rata are called
itih¹sa, or “history”.2 The word itih¹sa is also used in almost
1
References to the texts are from critical editions; those to Sanskrit plays
refer to act, verse and dialogue. Thus, Uttarar¹macarita 2.5.2 means 2nd
dialogue after verse 5 of Act 2. IAR (followed by years) refers to Indian
Archaeology — A Review, a publication of the Archaeological Survey of
India.
2
I am at a loss to see Thapar declaring that “[n]or is it [sc. R¹m¹yaªa]
generally classified as an itih¹sa — that which was believed to
R¸M¸YA¥A: BETWEEN ARCHAEOLOGY AND TEXT | 109
all the New Indo-Aryan languages for English history. Though

English history and Sanskrit itih¹sa refer to different categories of
knowledge, for an average Indian, R¹m¹yaªa and Mah¹bh¹rata
have happened in the past” (1991: 142; also cf. Sankalia 1973b: 2;
Arunkumar 1981: 162). At another place she makes a distinction
between k¹vya and itih¹sa by pointing out that “[t]he R¹m¹yaªa is
always [my emphasis] referred to as a k¹vya unlike the Mah¹bh¹rata
which is often called itih¹sa” (Thapar 1978: 30, n. 9; also, cf. Sankalia
1973b: 19; Lal 1993: 7). I am at a loss because it is a quite common
knowledge that R¹m¹yaªa was/is considered as itih¹sa, cf. for instance,
De and Hazra: “The present anthology consists of selections from what
is known as Itih¹sa and Pur¹ªa, the former comprising the two Great
Epics of India, namely the Mah¹bh¹rata and the R¹m¹yaªa [. . .]” (1959:
v). Khare writes the same: “सं स्कृ त-काव्यशास्त्र-परम्परा में [रामायण-महाभारत को]
‘महाकाव्य’ नहीं कहा जाता बिल्क वे ‘इितहास’ काव्य की श्रेणी में रखे जाते हैं।” (1999: 13).
BhavabhØti explicitly calls R¹m¹yaªa itih¹sa in his Uttarar¹macarita,
thus: itih¹sa‚ r¹m¹yaªam (2.5.2). Thapar appears to be underlining
that if itih¹sa is something “believed to have happened in the past”
and k¹vya an imaginary poem, then R¹m¹yaªa being a k¹vya does not
have any historical basis. We may remember here that the historian
Kalhaªa calls himself a kavi and his history a k¹vya (1.3-5, 7; also Stein
1900: 22ff., 38ff.). Thus there is no binary opposition between the two.
Second, though Mah¹bh¹rata is usually referred to as itih¹sa, it is also
called a k¹vya (cf. kr‫ݍ‬ta‚ mayeda‚ bhagavank¹vya‚ paramapØjitamA
¸diparvan, Appendix 1, l. 13; also ll. 34-35), apart from variously
referred to as a Pur¹ªa (1.1.15), Upani¬ad (1.1.191) and even Veda
(1.1.204-05; 1.57.74). Sanskrit aestheticians like Kuntaka while dealing
with works based on “historical” themes cite examples ultimately
coming from Mah¹bh¹rata and R¹m¹yaªa (cf. Vakroktij»vita 4.3-4 and
4.16-18). In his exegesis on the k¹rik¹s (ad 4.16-17), Kuntaka in fact
names these two works. ¸nandavardhana also refers to these two epics
when he talks about “historical” themes (cf. his auto-commentary on the
Dhvany¹loka 3.11-14). For example, it is said that the vivid description
of Aja’s marriage in Raghuva‚¶a and the account of bringing the
p¹rij¹ta tree (Nyctanthes arbortristis Linn.) from the heavens to please
Satyabh¹m¹, as given in Harivijaya, are unknown to the “historical
books”, namely, R¹m¹yaªa and Mah¹bh¹rata (cf. Dhvany¹loka, ad
loc.). Clearly, then, there was/is the Sanskritic convention to call both
the “epics” itih¹sa.
110 | HEMANT DAVE
are histories in the English sense of the word, that is, “something
that actually happened in the past”. For them, R¹ma, S»t¹,
Lak¬maªa, Kౙ¬ªa once existed is beyond question; the invasion
of La¡k¹ by R¹ma or the Mah¹bh¹rata war between the Kauravas
and P¹ª©avas were historical incidents (cf. Pollock 1993: 279).
Since these two epics were/are thus purely historical for them,
there had never arisen the need to examine them critically.
This should not be taken to mean that the ancient Indians did
not have the faculty of criticism or reason.3 A couple of examples
should suffice. While denouncing S¹¡khya philosophy in his
commentary on BrahmasØtra, ã¡kar¹c¹rya says we do know that
Kapila (the founder of S¹¡khya philosophy) is referred to in ˜ruti,
that is in the Vedic literature (sc. ˜vet¹¶vatara Upani¬ad 5.2), and
ipso facto beyond challenge. ¸c¹rya, however, argues that it is
not possible to let Kapila’s S¹¡khya philosophy go unchallenged,
for the tradition speaks of more than one Kapila, for example,
the Sage Kapila who incinerated the sons of king Sagara. How
can we be sure, asks ã¡kar¹c¹rya, that Kapila mentioned in
˜vet¹¶vatara Upani¬ad is none other than the founder of the
S¹¡khya school? (ad. 2.1.1).4
At the beginning of the fourth book of ˜r»madbhagavadg»t¹,
Kౙ¬ªa, while imparting the supreme secret knowledge to Arjuna,
tells him that
ere long I had given this knowledge to Vivasv¹n (SØrya); he
passed it on to his son Vaivasvata Manu; Manu transmitted
the same to his son Ik¬v¹ku; and then it disappeared from
3
Bronkhorst in one of his assuming papers attributed what he called
“rationality” in Indian tradition to the Greeks (Bronkhorst 2001). His
“unusual” idea of rationality is clearly derived from Popper (1963:
26). Bronkhorst’s fantastic proposition has been roundly, and justly,
rejected (cf. Gerrow 2002; also cf. Turco 2005, 2011). For a discussion
of Indian rationality, see Chakravarti (1999) and Ganeri (2001), to
which Bronkhorst does not refer.
4
However, Böhtlingk, Hopkins, and Olivelle accept this identification
(cf. Olivelle’s note ad loc. 1998: 625).
this world; but you being very dear to me, I will disclose it to
you anon.
Arjuna in a critical spirit asks Kౙ¬ªa,
apara‚ bhavato janma para‚ janma vivastataåA
kathametadavij¹n»y¹‚ tvam¹dau proktav¹n itiAA
Vivasv¹n, the sun, was born much before you were born, so
how is that you gave this knowledge to him?
Here Arjuna clearly exhibits a rational mindset and puts up a
critical inquiry.5
Notwithstanding this, we must acknowledge that neither
R¹m¹yaªa nor Mah¹bh¹rata were examined from such a critical
perspective, ever.6 It began after the Europeans had started
studying these texts. They read, edited, printed, translated and
studied these texts, usually with the help of the traditionally
trained paª©its (cf. Rocher 1986: 3 and n. 11, pp. 49-51; and now
Dharamsey 2012: 23-30). Though their interest was not always
purely scholarly (cf. Said 1978/2001),7 they created an academic
atmosphere in which such texts came to be studied and discussed
5
We may compare here Maitreya’s question to Par¹¶ara, “we have heard
that ˜r» came out of the K¬»ras¹gara during the churning of the ocean,
then how do you say that she was the daughter of Bhౙgu and Khy¹ti?”
(k¬»r¹bdhau ¶r»å samutpann¹ ¶rØyate ’mr‫ݍ‬tamanthaneA bhr‫ݍ‬goå khy¹ty¹‚
samutpannetyetad¹ha katha‚ bhav¹nAA — Vi¬ªu Pur¹ªa 1.8.15)
6
Unless we treat the “rectified” Jaina, etc. versions of R¹m¹yaªa
as “criticism” of the original story (cf. Goldman 2005: 85ff.; for
“rationalization” in the Paümacariya, see, Kulkarni 1980/2009: 233ff.).
7
One of the unfortunate, and unwarranted at that, outcomes of this
book is the increasing tendency on part of Indian (nationalist–Marxist)
historians to read “conspiracy” in all colonial writings and to explain
(away) all complex historical processes in modern India in the light
of “colonial rule”. The colonial rule and its policy of “divide and rule”
have become, in this way, almost a metanarrative in recent historical
writing.
112 | HEMANT DAVE
in larger contexts;8 in many cases, they helped to understand such

texts in a better way. What follows here is largely in continuation
of the critical work thus initiated on such texts, albeit from an
archaeological perspective, with considerable help from the
textual studies done by various scholars.
Archaeology: Scope and Pitfalls

Before we embark upon studying R¹m¹yaªa from an archaeological
perspective, we need to understand what archaeology can and
cannot do. Archaeology is comparatively a new discipline. It
originated, evolved and matured in European countries in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It studies material remnants
produced by human activities of the bygone ages. Humans are a
species that produce the largest amount of waste on this globe,
and some portion of this waste, generally solid and durable,
gets buried in the soil, and given congenial conditions, survives
for a long time. This garbage, when scientifically excavated
and systematically retrieved, along with the monuments and
other artefacts that have withstood the ravages of time, when
properly studied, offer a hoard of new information about the
past life-ways of the people who left them. The discovery of
the HaÅappan civilization is an excellent example of the kind of
miracles archaeology can perform.
While archaeology can and do perform miracles, it has
its limitations too, which must not be overlooked. First,
archaeologists cannot dig places where people presently live;9
there is always a possibility that such places have valuable, even
crucial, evidence buried beneath the ground. In India, because
8
D.D. Kosambi writes that “most of our source material was first collected,
analysed, arranged by foreign scholars. To them we owe critical
method, the first publication of authoritative texts, and archaeological
exploration” (1948: 272).
9
Lal and Dikshit, for instance, write, “[t]he ancient mound known as
Garhi is largely under occupation by the villagers and it was with great
difficulty that suitable spots were found for excavation” (1982: 26).
of the population pressure archaeological sites are destroyed

and disappearing fast, thus the important evidence is getting
lost forever. Second, digging reveals only a part, in fact a very
insignificant part, of the original cultural material: only those
things that are durable can sustain, and that too seldom in their
original shape and quantity.10 Third, when a site, usually a
mound, is excavated, it is, as a rule, not excavated fully, for it is
required that some area of the site be kept untouched for future
archaeologists so that with superior techniques and advanced
methodology they can retrieve data and interpret the evidence
in better ways. Fourth, in countries like India, because of limited
funds,11 it is not always possible to carry out large-scale horizontal
excavation of sites; most of the sites are excavated vertically and
to ascertain the cultural sequence of a given site or a region.
The retrieval of archaeological data in India is thus doubly
restricted. Fifth, and this is important, there is no axiomatic
correlation between human activities and archaeological
remains (cf. Mate 1990; contra Paddayya 2008: 59ff.).12 Next,
10
The utensils of the valuable NBPW were riveted and reused. This should
explain why costlier metal objects are rare from earlier deposits. The
limited number of metal artefacts does not necessarily mean lack of
“advanced” technology or that the metal was rare: until very recently
metal objects were melted to make new objects from it. The practice
can be still seen in many parts of India today.
11
Lal informs us that he did not excavate the sites “south of Chitrakuta,
for obvious reasons of lack of time and money” (2002: 42).
12
One example: literary evidence suggests the dispersal of the Vedic
Aryans from the Saptasindhu towards the Ga¡g¹ basin in around
the second half of the second millennium BCE. Lal writes, “[i]f this is
true, one may reasonably expect the remains of their settlements in
these areas” (1955: 6; cf. per contra Rau 1976: 50). Lal is here tacitly
subscribing to this axiomatic correlation. One more example: since the
exact meaning of dh¹na being debated (cf. Wojtilla 2003: 44; in their
recent translation of the text, Jamison and Brereton (2014: II.787) have
not improved upon the previous attempts), it is safe to assume that R‫ݍ‬k
Sa‚hit¹ refers to only one cereal, namely barley (Hordeum vulgare).
Though the evidence of barley has come forth from many parts of India
114 | HEMANT DAVE
it is not always possible, despite the tall claims made by the

practitioners of archaeology (usually in theoretical books with
imaginary illustrations), to accurately interpret archaeological
evidence.13 Moreover, the interpretations are rarely free from
biases; often, they are politically motivated. We should also
bear in mind that before the mid-1970s, and indeed even after
that, site formation processes were poorly understood, if at all.
Site formation processes study how archaeological records come
into existence and how they are modified by natural and human
agencies after their discard and subsequent deposition (Schiffer
1972, 1976; for Indian context, see Petraglia 2002). Excavators
often interpret archaeological data as if they were found in situ
and did not undergo any change after they had been discarded.
But this is not the case: in both sedentary and migratory societies
the disposal of waste is, as a rule, “outside their use location” and
in case of advanced sedentary societies the same is much more
systematic and organized (Murray 1980). This means most of
the artefacts are found “out of context”. Inferences based on such
data can, therefore, be positively delusive. It would be advisable
if the reader keeps these limitations in mind while reading the
following pages.
(Kajale 1991), it is from the HaÅappan and from the Neolithic sites in
Baluchistan that barley forms a lion’s share. For instance, at MehrgaÅh,
period I, barley comprises more than 90 per cent of the total grain
evidence (Constantini 1984).
13
When I say that it is not always possible to accurately interpret an
archaeological record, what I mean is it is not always possible to decipher
its original meaning. In post-processual archaeology multiplicity of
interpretation is praised. But that means your interpretation is as useful,
or as useless if you wish, as mine. Though the author of an artefact is
dead, and literally so, “the death of the author” (à la Barthes) — by
which we can neatly separate, or we think we can neatly separate,
the author and his work — does not hold good in archaeology. The
intention of the author, in archaeology, however concealed, is crucial.
I am discussing ramifications of this position in a separate note titled
“Archaeological Interpretation(s): Between Barthes and Sainte-Beuve”.
There are then some issues particular to archaeology as

practised in India. First, when sites are excavated only important
— that is, what the excavator deems important — results are
announced, generally, in the Indian Archaeology — A Review and
elsewhere; detailed reports of the excavations are not always
published; some are published so late that they become less
reliable. More often than not, the results of excavations consist
of cultural sequences alone; other antiquities, which may throw
welcome light on the material conditions of a given period,
are seldom adequately studied.14 Excavated material though
systematically housed, is not easily accessible to researchers.
Despite limitations, archaeology as a discipline has
immense potential to reconstruct history. No wonder that soon
after the potential importance of archaeological findings was
realized, attempts were made, by professional archaeologists
and amateurs alike, to ascertain the historicity or otherwise of
the mythical and traditional accounts. Heinrich Schliemann’s
digging at HisarlÜk (which he identified as Troy) is a well-
known, if controversial, example of such attempts (cf. Traill
1995). More recently, Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical
Archaeology Review, announced the sensational discovery of
an ossuary with the Aramaic inscription Yaakov bar Yoseph,
Achui de Yeshua (Eng. “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”).
As claimed by Shanks, this was “the first ever archaeological
discovery to corroborate biblical references to Jesus”. The
discovery, it appeared, would put an end to the endless debates
on the historicity of Jesus. As anybody’s guess, the discovery
was a hoax (cf. Silberman and Goren 2003). Such uncritical
use of archaeology, however, should not dissuade one from
correlating archaeology and tradition.
14
In an otherwise admirable report on Chalcolithic N¹v©¹Բol», Sankalia’s
discussion on the possible connections between the central Indian
cultures and the Iranian ones elicited this remark from the reviewer:
“It is a pity that with so much solid evidence to work with, such space
is devoted to unprofitable speculation” (Glover 1974: 481).
116 | HEMANT DAVE
When we think of correlating archaeological evidence with

literary data — or for that matter with oral traditions — or the
other way round, a methodological question comes up, namely,
whether one should proceed from archaeology to text or from
text to archaeology? To put differently, should our approach
be that of archaeology-based text or text-based archaeology?
Usually it is on the basis of texts or legends that archaeological
investigations are taken up. It must, therefore, be made clear
that when we give more importance to archaeology over text, it
is from the point of view of interpretation and dating alone.15 In
India, where texts in certain genres were constantly revised and
rewritten, and the dating of most of the literary texts, right from
the earliest text, R‫ݍ‬gveda, is heatedly debated, Sankalia rightly
remarked that “[o]ur ancient literature should not be used for
dating monuments and sites, but it should be just the reverse. For
clearly, we have much better evidence to date our monuments
than to date our literature” (1982a: v).
These words of a great archaeologist, who was also a good
Sanskritist, admirably explains what is “archaeology-based text”
approach.
Traditions and Archaeology in India

In India, much before Schliemann’s work in Anatolia,
Cunningham had quite diligently followed the accounts of
the Chinese travellers in order to locate the tracks trodden
and places visited by them (Cunningham 1871/1924). John
Marshal’s obsession for the Greeks — as he confessed later,
he was “filled with enthusiasm for anything Greek” (1951: xv)
— led him to search for their material remains in the north-
west India. For a long time, due no doubt to the phenomenal
discovery of the HaÅappan Civilization, other archaeological
activities in India came to a halt as it were. After Leonard
Woolley’s severe criticism of the Archaeological Survey of India
15
To me, the argument and thesis of Schopen (1991) are, though related,
entirely different.
for its preoccupation with the HaÅappan Civilization, and after

the appointment of Mortimer Wheeler as Director General of
the Survey, archaeological activities in India were resumed in
a more systematic and scientific fashion. Many new vistas of
archaeological investigations opened up. One such opening,
though in no way inspired by Woolley or Wheeler, was what
came to be called “epic archaeology”. It was B.B. Lal who first
thought of ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of ancient
Indian traditions with the help of archaeology. Lal systematically
explored places either associated with 16 or mentioned in
Mah¹bh¹rata, for example, Hastinapur (anc. H¹stinapura,
Uttar Pradesh (UP), Indrapat or Pur¹n¹ Qil¹ (anc. Indraprastha,
Delhi), Tilpat (UP), Bair¹Բ (anc. Vir¹Բanagar», Jaipur, Rajasthan),
Barn¹w¹ (anc. V¹raª¹vata, Meerut, UP), Kuruk¬etra (Haryana),
B¹ghpat (UP), P¹nipat (Haryana), Ahichchhatra (UP), K¹mpil
(UP), R¹j¹ Karaªa-k¹ Qil¹ (Punjab), and Mathur¹ (UP). At all
these sites, the lowest levels of the deposits were distinguished
by the ubiquitous presence of a thin, fine, wheel-thrown, well-
fired grey pottery painted over in black colour, hence named
the Painted Grey Ware (PGW). The authors of the PGW culture
— as was the custom of the time to name a culture after the
distinctive pottery type17 — were familiar, among other things,
16
Cf. “And even sites not mentioned in the texts but associated with the
story through local tradition were not spared. [. . .] The whole idea
of the investigation was not to leave out any site which came on the
way and was believed to be associated with the Mah¹bh¹rata story”
(1973: 2).
17
The PGW was first reported from Ahichchhatra (org. Adhicchatra) in
1946 (cf. Ghosh and Panigrahi 1946: 38, 40-41, 58-59). The common
types of this ware are dish, bowl and loԲ¹. The PGW, if distinctive, is
not prominent compared to the pottery repertoire of the culture — it
forms at the most only 10 per cent of it. The other wares of this culture
are the black-slipped ware, black and red ware, and red ware, which
is very common (Lal 1989b: 107). Converse divided the pottery types
into the finely made, thin, at times slipped, red ware; thick grey ware (a
sub-variety of this ware is the black-slipped ware); medium heavy ware
118 | HEMANT DAVE
with iron — though not at the early stage perhaps (cf. J.P. Joshi
1978: 99-101; Lal 1980: 79; Makkhan Lal 1986: 93) — and
horse (for a compact survey of the PGW cultures, see Lal 1992).
Lal later on excavated H¹stinapura,18 the capital of the Kurus,
and Pur¹n¹ Qil¹, traditionally identified with Indraprastha, the
capital of the P¹ª©avas. He also found certain archaeological
evidence in support of the textual data. For instance, the Pur¹ªas
inform us that during the reign of Nicak¬u,19 when the waters
of the River Ga¡g¹ inundated the capital, it was relocated to
Kau¶¹mb» (ga¡gay¹pahr‫ݍ‬te tasminnagare n¹gas¹hvaye tyaktv¹
nicak¬urnagara‚ kau¶¹mby¹‚ sa nivatsyati, etc. cf. Pargiter
1913: 5, 65 ad finit). Archaeological evidence of the flood20 were
found at H¹stinapura and so was attested the continuity of the
PGW culture at Kau¶¹mb», where a developed form of the PGW
was noticed in the lower strata.
On the basis of his findings at H¹stinapura, Lal quite
reasonably, if tentatively, equated the PGW people with the
later Vedic people, for not only the time bracket of the PGW and
with red slip on the exterior and grey on the internal wall (including
the reserve slip ware). The black-and-red ware, Converse informs us,
could not be located at the site (H¹stinapura) or at Safdar Jung (1978:
480).
18
Wrongly spelt, and consistently so, as Hastin¹pura. Mah¹bh¹rata calls
it H¹stinapura, a name derived from its founder Hastin (cf. 1.90.36),
who was the tenth king up the line from ˜¹ntanu, the great grandfather
of the Kauravas and P¹ª©avas. The great grammarian P¹ªini also is
familiar with the name H¹stinapura only (cf. 6.2.101). I have retained
Hastin¹pura in quotations, etc. though.
19
His genealogy is as follows: Arjuna Abhimanyu Parik¬»ta
Janmejaya ãt¹n»ka A¶vamedhadatta Adhis»makౙ¬ªa
Nicak¬u.
20
Lal’s interpretation and claimed evidence of floods at H¹stinapura were
not acceptable to scholars like Das (1969). The floods have otherwise
been a constant menace in the Indian subcontinent, and have been
repeatedly encountered in archaeological contexts (cf. Biswas 1994;
for the period we are dealing with here, see, ibid.: 265ff.).
later Vedic texts but also the sites of the PGW and the places
mentioned in the later Vedic texts matched only too well. The
findings and the interpretations, if true, were indeed startling.
Even so, the excavator ended his report with a caution, which
is curiously absent in later discussion on Lal’s pioneering work:
the evidence is entirely circumstantial and until and unless
positive ethnographic and epigraphic proofs are obtained to
substantiate the conclusions [put forward above], they cannot
but be considered provisional.
— Lal 1955: 151; original emphasis
A. Ghosh in his “Notes on the Report” observed the compelling
evidence on the suggested identification. He wrote:
[T]he distribution of the pottery is virtually co-terminous with
the land Brahm¹varta and Brahmarshi-de¶a [. . .]. The date of
the pottery is no less significant, for, if the “conventional date”
of the entry of the Aryans into India, viz. 1500 B.C., is accepted
[. . .], they would well have reached the Gangetic plain a few
centuries later. — 1955: 2
Nevertheless, while summing up, he remarked, mirroring Lal’s
scepticism, that it would be “premature to hold that the latter
[sc. the PGW] people were no other but the Aryans” (ibid.: 3).
He cautiously wrote:
The following report [sc. of H¹stinapura] often refers to the
Mah¹bh¹rata and the place-names mentioned in it and brings
into prominence the fact that the Painted Grey Ware is found
at the sites associated with the story of that epic. [. . .] But a
word of caution is necessary, lest the impression is left on the
unwary reader that the Hastin¹pura excavation has yielded
archaeological evidence about the truth of the story of the
Mah¹bh¹rata and that here at last is the recognition by “official
archaeology” of the truth embodied in Indian traditional
literature. Such a conclusion would be unwarranted. Beyond
the facts that Hastin¹pura, the reputed capital of the Kauravas,
was found to be occupied by a people whose distinctive
ceramics were the Painted Grey Ware in a period which might
120 | HEMANT DAVE
roughly have synchronized with the date of the origin of the

nucleus of the Mah¹bh¹rata story, that this occupation came to
an end with a heavy flood and this Ware is found at many early
sites, some of which are connected, either in literature or by
tradition, with the epic-heroes, the excavation has no bearing
on the authenticity or otherwise of the epic tale. It is indeed
tempting to utilize archaeological evidence for substantiating
tradition, but the pitfalls in the way should be guarded against,
and caution is necessary that fancy does not fly ahead of facts.
— ibid.: 2-3
This indeed was a prudent note, for it reminds us that unless
unambiguous evidence is found, we must not jump to conclusion
from circumstantial evidence.21 A similar warning was issued
by Sankalia. Commenting upon the findings of the excavation
at Dv¹rak¹, he wrote that though the evidence of the sea
encroaching upon Dv¹rak¹ was beyond doubt, the same did not
support in any way the story of Kౙ¬ªa’s migration to Dv¹rak¹ or
Dv¹rak¹ being his capital (1973a: 15; also cf. 1966: 17).
Compare now this remark of Wheeler with the scepticism
of Ghosh and Sankalia: In his report of Ch¹rsada excavations,
21
Later on, in the light of later researches, Ghosh changed his view and
accepted the proposed identification to be secure. He wrote: “it would
suffice to emphasize that the geographical horizon of the later Aryans
is conterminous with that of the ware; there is also a remarkable
chronological proximity between the dates of the beginning of the
ware and the later Vedic age, which no critical scholar would place
before the start of the first millennium BCE There can, therefore, be no
reasonable doubt in ascribing the Ware to the later Aryans, together
with the vast mass of red ware associated with it” (1973: 6). Parpola
puts the Middle Vedic Period around 1000 BCE and correlates it with the
PGW and the Kuru state (1984: 453ff.). Witzel follows Parpola without
referring to him (Witzel 2003: 35ff.). It is widely accepted that it was
Lal who proposed the connection between the PGW and the later Vedic
people (cf. Brockington 1998: 159-60). R.S. Sharma thinks differently,
however. In his opinion, it was he who suggested this identification
and that it was “subsequently” “favoured” by A. Ghosh and B.B. Lal (cf.
Sharma 1996: 43-44 and n. 7 on p. 50).
Wheeler, after delineating the early stages of habitation at the

site, wrote that “the early history [of Ch¹rsada] thus runs parallel
to that of Taxila (BhiÅ Mound) in the Punjab, and the assertion of
the R¹m¹yaªa that Taxila and Pushkal¹vat» were founded at the
same time accords with the archaeological evidence” (Wheeler
1962: xii, 15). Such bold approbation from Wheeler was welcome
in that the tradition survived in R¹m¹yaªa, and by implication
in other sources, may well be historical.22
The archaeological data recovered from the excavation at
H¹stinapura and the discovery of identical material culture from
the lowest levels at other sites associated with Mah¹bh¹rata,
either orally or textually, convinced Lal that “the Mah¹bh¹rata
may not altogether be a concoction” (1975: 312; cf. 2002: 39-40,
52). On similar lines, therefore, the project of the archaeology
of R¹m¹yaªa was conceived. However, the problems of doing
archaeology of — or extracting historical information from —
unwieldy texts such as R¹m¹yaªa and Mah¹bh¹rata are very
many and in some sense insurmountable.
Textual Problems of the Epic

The various parts of the epics, R¹m¹yaªa and Mah¹bh¹rata,
were composed at different intervals, not quite unlike the Iliad
and Odyssey ascribed to the imaginary author “Homer”.23 The
22
The account of founding of these twin cities refers not to the earliest
cities but to the ones founded by the Indo-Greeks in the second-first
century BCE in the so-called “chessboard pattern” (cf. Wheeler 1962: 13-
14). In a later publication Dani informs that this account of R¹m¹yaªa
“has been disproved by new archaeological evidence” (1986: 40).
23
Cf. Finley 1966: 5ff. Even the name “Homer” is anything but Greek
(for conjectural etymologies of the name “Homer”, see, Ford 2002:
113, n. 4). We do not hear of this “Homer” before the sixth century
BCE. Herodotus (c. 440 BCE) is the first person to refer to these bardic
collections as Iliad (Ford 2002: 148). Plato’s quotations from the epics
are often not found in the present-day texts of the Iliad and Odyssey,
showing the texts were still in a flux in as late as 350 BCE (cf. Bouvier
2003: 60; also cf. 2004).
122 | HEMANT DAVE
composers of these different parts of the epics depicted, naturally,

the conditions and things as known to them, both in terms of
time and space. For example, the reference to the inscribed
finger ring of R¹ma suggests that the author of that part of the
epic was familiar with signet rings that were first introduced in
India by the Indo-Greeks.24 Sit¹’s vow of offering a hundred pots
of wine to the River Yamun¹ shows poet’s acquaintance with
Roman wine, definitely a luxury import in India, which came in
Roman amphorae during the palmy days of the so-called Indo-
Roman trade, that is, in the early centuries of the Common Era
(cf. Sankalia 1982b).25
One must first, therefore, undertake to discern the layers of
the texts and to date them before or by correlating them with
archaeological data, which is simply a daunting task. Even if
one succeeds in untangling the hopelessly mixed up strata of
the texts,26 the problem is far from solved, for the texts, or parts
of the same, do inescapably reflect the Weltanschauungen and
concerns of the interest groups who composed them. Such texts
24
Interestingly, a round signet bearing legend in A¶okan Br¹hm» was
found from Ayodhy¹ (cf. Dikshit 2003: 116).
25
The sherds of the Rouletted Ware (c. 100-200 CE) were recovered from
Ayodhy¹. This, according to the excavator B.B. Lal, was “perhaps the
most inland context” in which the ware was found in northern India,
and which suggests some sort of contact with the Western world, and
presumably also of flourishing trade (cf. IAR 1976-77: 53; 2002: 44).
26
Sukthankar writes: “[T]here are numerous passages, short and long,
that are found in one recension and are lacking in the other [. . .].
No convincing proof can in general be given to establish either the
originality or the spuriousness of any given passage of this type. What
may fairly be regarded as interpolations are in general so ingeniously
fashioned and so cunningly fitted in that, except under very favourable
circumstances, the intrinsic (contextual) evidence is inconclusive”
(1933/1944: 98-99, original emphasis; also cf. p. 126). The same
applies to R¹m¹yaªa, too. For necessarily-not-very-successful attempts
with regards to R¹m¹yaªa, see Guruge 1960: 31-35, 38-41; Brockington
1984: chap. 2, pp. 16-61, and tabulated summary on p. 330.
serve the political–religious–social ends of such groups, usually

the br¹hmaªas or even a sub-segment of them, and may not
depict a correct picture of the society.27 The episode of ãmbØka,
for instance, was concocted especially to deny the ¶Ødras the right
of penance, though the selfsame text also portrays the mixed-
caste ˜r¹vaªa performing Vedic rituals (2.58.28). He is the son
of a sØdra mother by a vai¶ya father (2.57.37), who according
to Manu would be called a Karaªa (Manusmr‫ݍ‬ti 10.6; KullØka
denies them the caste of their fathers, ad loc.; also cf. Amarako¶a
2.10.2), and, as a rule, not allowed to perform sandhy¹. The long
interpolated passages of wailing by T¹r¹ and Mandodar» after
the deaths respectively of V¹lin and R¹vaªa, as well as the fire
ordeal of S»t¹, were forged specially to rivet the idea of a chaste
woman (sat») (cf. Sen 1952; Bhatt 1956).
Lastly, the description of material culture in the texts, given
the unbridled poetic fancy of the poet, may well be a far cry from
the actual conditions. The celestial craft Pu¬paka is an excellent
example. The same may apply to socio-economic conditions, too.
Dev Raj Chanana’s study of R¹m¹yaªa shows that agriculture was
not practised in or around La¡k¹, nor were animals domesticated
(1963: 8-9, 11-13, 24). This r¹k¬asa culture, as described by
the poet, scarcely seems to be more advanced than that of the
savages (“savagery” in archaeo-anthropological sense of the
term, that is hunting-gathering economy), and therefore without
any, or at the best minimum, surplus. Such economy is simply
incapable of producing towering palaces, beautiful gardens,
27
Sukthankar’s masterly treatment showed how the Bhౙgus, as the
transmitters and composers of Mah¹bh¹rata, had inflated the epic
beyond imagination (1937/1944; cf. also Shende 1943a, who suggested
that along with the Bhౙgus, the A¡girasas were equally responsible for
the additions). In the case of R¹m¹yaªa also, the role of the Bhౙgus
is indicated (cf. Shende 1943b; also cf. Shastri 1978). Goldman,
after carefully examining the Critical Edition of R¹m¹yaªa, came to
the conclusion that Bhౙguization can be seen only in B¹lak¹ª©a and
Uttarak¹ª©a. Curiously, Goldman does not make any reference to
Shende’s article (cf. Goldman 1976).
124 | HEMANT DAVE
gigantic forts, etc. that are so vividly described in the text. This
means the picture of La¡k¹ is anything but realistic. References
to the natural wealth of La¡k¹ made in R¹m¹yaªa,28 which has
become legendary in Indian psyche, in terms of pearls, precious
stones, valuable metals, and above all gold, are surely later
interpolations, which in all probability were inserted after its
unfortunate identification with Ceylon.29
28
Thapar fancies that it may have been “a vague folk memory of the rich
cities of the Bronze Age past”! (1978: 20).
29
According to Goldman, “the poet knew of an island kingdom, [. . .] said
to lie some distance off the coast of the Indian mainland” but given his
limited geographical knowledge, he placed La¡k¹ in around the Vindhya
Range. According to him, it is “unlikely” that “La¡k¹ was conceived of as
lying within the boundaries of peninsular India” (Goldman 1984: 28).
Goldman seems to be equating La¡k¹ with Sri Lanka (so does Guruge
1960: 68-69). However, as argued by Sankalia, the toponym La¡k¹ for
the island is not attested in inscriptions earlier than the sixth century
CE (1977; cf. Gokhale 2004: 139; Bapat also showed that the early
P¹li sources do not know Ceylon as La¡k¹; the names are uniformly
either Tamba-paªªi-d»pa or S»hala-d»pa. Ap. Shah 1976: 109). The
Ceylonese chronicles Dipava‚sa and Mah¹va‚sa(c. 400 CE) do refer to
their country as La¡k¹, but it is not attested anywhere in Indian records
before the sixth century CE. The Bodh-Gay¹ inscription of Mah¹n¹ma
that equates La¡k¹ with Ceylon is fairly late, that is of 588-89 CE (cf.
Sankalia 1977: 209; Sircar 1980/2009: 333); moreover, it was inscribed
by a native of Sri Lanka who called their island by that name. La¡k¹ of
R¹m¹yaªa is doubtless earlier than this date and therefore it cannot be
identical with Sri Lanka. The suggestions of Wüst on the etymology of
La¡k¹ (1965) are also helpful in this connection, in that they can more
appropriately be applied to the geographical description of La¡k¹ as
given in R¹m¹yaªa (cf. Mankad 1965: LXII) rather than to Sri Lanka.
Sircar’s copious — and irrelevant — references are unsuccessful to
prove the identity of Ceylon and La¡k¹ (1980/2009: 327-33). For a
survey and argument that La¡k¹ is not Ceylon, see Shah (1975: 31-
50; 1976). The Old Tamil text, Akan¹n৆Ør৆৆u, is said to refer to KøԲi (sc.
Dhanu¬køԲi) as “the place from which the victorious R¹ma crossed over
to La¡k¹” (cf. Hart 1975: 61f.; Parpola 2002: 362). The poem is dated
to the second-third century CE. If the dating is correct, this should be
Composed and revised over a millennium, the textual

evidence is thus not reliable in its entirety. As M.C. Joshi has
laconically put it, the text lacks “(a) the objectivity, and (b) the
contemporaneity” (1978: 98). Not that Lal was not aware of
these problems, for he clearly wrote that the correlation between
archaeology and the epics
would have been easier had the two epics [. . .] been
contemporary with the events narrated in them. Unfortunately,
however, these are very far removed from the probable time
of Krishna and Rama. The texts, as available to us now, are
broadly assignable to circa 3rd-4th century AD. Besides, they
evince a full play of poetic imagination. All these make the path of
the historian extremely difficult. — 1975: 311
Scholars consider a large portion of B¹lak¹ª©a30 and Uttarak¹ª©a
as a whole to be later additions.31 In all probability, the
R¹makath¹ so-called, consisted of Ayodhy¹, Araªya, Sundara,
Ki¬kindh¹ and Yuddhak¹ª©a. This is not to suggest that there
are no interpolations in them.32 The critical edition of R¹m¹yaªa,
the earliest reference to R¹ma’s association with Ceylon. However, it

is possible that since the local population called their country La¡k¹,
which was also the name of the R¹vaªa’s place, the neighbouring Tamils,
familiar with the epic, invented the story of R¹ma’s invasion of Ceylon.
30
Some portion of B¹lak¹ª©a formed part of the original story (cf. Jacobi
1893: 55ff.; Goldman 1984: 61ff.).
31
The Brockingtons translated the five k¹ª©as, namely Ayodhy¹, The
Forest, Ki¬kindh¹, Beauty and War, which in their opinion consisted
of “an early form of the R¹m¹yaªa” (cf. Brockington and Brockington
2006).
32
Naïve dependence on these k¹ª©as for assertion or denial of a fact,
therefore, becomes problematic. For instance, Lal points out that
Kౙ¬ªa is mentioned at the event of S»t¹’s fire ordeal in Yuddhak¹ª©a
(6.105.14; 6.105.25), which is “never regarded as a later addition like
the Bala-kanda and Uttara-kanda”, and hence R¹ma may well have
been later than Kౙ¬ªa (Lal 1988: 62; 2002: 50). This is a desperate
attempt on Lal’s part to interpret textual tradition to conform to
archaeological findings. But, as pointed out earlier, the episode of
126 | HEMANT DAVE
though a commendable achievement in itself, is not very helpful

in reconstructing the “original” or “Ur”-R¹m¹yaªa. The critical
edition of any text aims not at the Ur-text but tries to get as
near as possible to the oldest recension that can be retraced on
the basis of the available manuscripts;33 the redactor is bound
by the manuscript tradition and cannot be go beyond it, even
when he is fully aware of the interpolations in the critically
constructed text.34 For example, the nonsense episode of feast
and merrymaking by the army of Bharata — and that too in the
S»t¹’s fire ordeal is an interpolation. The same applies to Joshi’s
objection to Sankalia’s equation of R¹vaªa with a Gond chief: “[a]
Gond, traditionally, could be called a ãbara and not a R¹k¬asa.
And R¹vaªa was not an ordinary R¹k¬asa but a Brahma-R¹k¬asa
well-familiar with the Vedic lore” (M.C. Joshi 1978: 101). R¹vaªa’s
reputation as a Brahma-R¹k¬asa,well-versed in the Vedas, is based on
Uttarak¹ª©a, which, as a whole, is a much later addition, unknown
to the original story, and this makes Joshi’s objection ineffectual (cf.
also Goldman and Masson 1969).
33
I cannot do better than quote the great Sukthankar. He wrote: The
critical edition presents “a version of the epic as old as the extant
manuscript material will permit us to reach with some semblance of
confidence. It is, in all probability, not the best text of the Great Epic,
possible or existing, nor necessarily even a good one. It only claims to
be the most ancient one according to the direct line of transmission, purer
than others [. . .]” (1933/1944: 129; original emphasis; also cf. p. 97).
34
Thapar states, “even the Critical Editions of both [sc. the R¹m¹yaªa
and the Mah¹bh¹rata] [. . .] have not been able to prune the texts to
the original or approximate epics” (1984: 15; my emphasis). This is a
common misunderstanding about critical editions. Such “pruning”, in
the words of Sukthankar, was “beyond the scope of this edition, since
the entire manuscript evidence unanimously supports the conflation,
which is too old and deep-rooted to be treated by ordinary principles
of textual criticism” (1933/1944: 110). Sankalia is equally innocent.
He writes: “The episodes of R¹ma’s p¹duk¹ and finger-ring are known
[. . .]. Everyone, even scholars, have accepted these as historical facts, so
much so that even the Editors of the Critical Editions of the R¹m¹yaªa,
[. . .] have included these episodes and even others, in the respective
editions [. . .]” (1982b: 337).
presence of Bharata and the three widowed wives of Da¶aratha —

on their way to meet R¹ma, at the hermitage of Bharadv¹ja after
the recent death of Da¶aratha and the banishment of R¹ma, is an
apparent interpolation (cf. Sankalia 1982b), yet it is retained in
the critical text (cf. 2.85) only because the manuscript evidence
uniformly supports it.
The oldest available manuscript of R¹m¹yaªa, written
in New¹r» script, dated to 1020 CE,35 belongs to the Northern
Recension (or, more correctly, to the North-western Recension,
cf. Shah 1980: 94); this NW Recension, according to the majority
of scholars, underwent many changes. In the Southern Recension,
which is believed to have preserved the original text better, the
manuscripts are of a much later date; the earliest one bears the
date of 1416 CE.36 D.R. Mankad, the editor of Ki¬kindh¹k¹ª©a, in
his Introduction points out that even before the Ur-text bifurcated
into the Northern and Southern Recensions there had been
many interpolations and excisions (1965: XLI). After carefully
comparing the episode of the Mandeha r¹k¬asas with the ones
given in Brahm¹ª©a and V¹yu Pur¹ªa, Mankad concludes that
“several original readings [of R¹m¹yaªa] are not traceable in any
of the Mss collated by us. Thus the R[¹m¹yaªa]-text tradition
goes far beyond these Mss” (Ibid.: XLIII). He rightly deduced that
“[w]e are, therefore, very far from the original R[¹m¹yaªa]-text”
(ibid: XLI).
Discounting the interpolations, R¹m¹yaªa is a fairly early
and homogeneous text. Modern scholarship accepts and supports
the perceptive observations made by Jacobi more than a century
35
The date is mentioned at the end of Ki¬kindh¹k¹ª©a. Shah writes,
“[w]ho copied the remaining k¹ª©as is not known, nor do we know
when they were copied” (1980/2009: 94).
36
Before the discovery of this manuscript (called M9), the earliest one
was dated to 1512 CE comprising B¹lak¹ª©a and Ayodhy¹k¹ª©a. M8,
which contains Uttarak¹ª©a alone, is said to be as old as early eleventh
century (cf. Shah 1980/2009: 95-96).
128 | HEMANT DAVE
ago on the dating of R¹m¹yaªa,37 and puts the oldest parts of

the epic between 750–550 BCE (cf. Goldman 1984: 22-23). While
it is comparatively easy to determine and date the kernel of the
R¹ma story, it is quite difficult to visualize the kind of material
culture that could have been associated with the original story.
And therefore, needless to say, the project to correlate the same
with the archaeological evidence found from such sites as are
mentioned in R¹m¹yaªa becomes precarious.
Archaeology of the R¹m¹yaªa Sites

In 1975, B.B. Lal took up the project “Archaeology of Ramayana
Sites” to excavate the places mentioned in R¹m¹yaªa to ascertain
the historicity or otherwise of the legend of R¹ma. Under the
Project, the site of Ashrafi Bhavan, in Ayodhy¹, was excavated
first. Subsequently, other sites like Sringraur (anc. ˜ౙ¡gaverapura),
where R¹ma et al. passed their second night after their banishment
from Ayodhy¹; Bharadv¹j ¸¶ram (Allahabad, UP), where they spent
their fourth night; Pari¹r (?< Parih¹ra, meaning “abandonment”,
referring to the stranding of S»t¹ by Lak¬maªa, in Unn¹o, UP);
BiԲhØr (the place where V¹lm»ki reputedly had his hermitage and
where S»t¹ stayed), were also excavated.38
37
For instance, and I summarize from Goldman (1984: 20ff.), R¹m¹yaªa
speaks of Vi¶¹l¹ and Mithil¹ as two different settlements, with two
different rulers, whereas by the Buddha’s time they had conjoined to
form the one city-state of Vai¶¹li, and we hear nothing of Mithil¹; it
does not make any reference to the great city of P¹Բaliputra (estd. c. 490
BCE) while narrating the origins of Kau¶¹mb», Mahodaya, Dharm¹raªya,
Girivraja and Vasumat» (1.31.3-8), where its mention was all but
unexpected (cf. Goldman 1984: 21 n. 22); the epic mentions Ayodhy¹
as the capital of Kosala, but Prasenajita, the king of Kosala and a
contemporary of the Buddha, rules not from Ayodhy¹ but from ˜r¹vast»;
the name S¹keta, so prolifically referred to in the Buddhist literature,
is nowhere to be met with in the epic (also cf. Sankalia 1982a: 7-9).
This, of course, does not mean that the present text of R¹m¹yaªa is
equally old.
38
Though the last two sites are not mentioned in some publications, for
AYODHY¸39
Lal’s was not the first attempt to do the archaeology of the
R¹m¹yaªa sites; a few attempts were made before: B.B. Lal
himself had explored Ayodhy¹ (and some other sites associated
with the epic), in 1955-56, soon after his excavation of
H¹stinapura.40 The survey brought to light sherds of the Northern
Black Polished Ware (NBPW),41 fine grey ware without paintings
and “large-sized bricks with typical finger marks” (IAR 1955-
56: 71). As early as 1964, Sankalia had suggested excavating
“principal places associated with Rama — such as Ayodhya” for a
better understanding of the epic (1964/1977: 278). After this, a
very cursory exploration was carried out by Vijai Shankar Dubey
(cf. IAR 1961-62: 53).
A.K. Narain and his team were the first to excavate the site
of Ayodhy¹, in 1969-70, with the view of ascertaining its cultural
sequence. In all, three digs were made at Jain Gh¹Բ, Lak¬maª
ëkr» and Nal ¨»l¹, and were referred to in the report respectively
as Ayodhy¹-1, Ayodhy¹-2 and Ayodhy¹-3. At Ayodhy¹-1 and 2,
example, Lal 1987: 79, they were referred to in an earlier publication

of Lal, namely, राम-कथानक सं बं धी स्थानों का पुराताित्त्वक अन्वेषण (Gwalior, 1975),
which I have not seen (I quote this from M.C. Joshi 1978: 101, n. 1).
39
Based on IAR 1976-77: 52-53; IAR 1979-80: 76-77.
40
Any attempt to correlate archaeology and the epic must take into
account the problems of identification of places mentioned in the text
and their possible modern equivalents; else one would end up digging
an altogether different site. The key site for archaeology of R¹m¹yaªa
has to be Ayodhy¹, naturally. Though a couple of scholars (e.g. M.C.
Joshi 1978, 1982; Bakker 1986a, 1986b) have raised their doubts
about the association of Ayodhy¹ of R¹m¹yaªa with the present town
of Ayodhy¹ (Faizabad, UP), majority of the scholars, quite correctly,
are convinced of the identification (cf. Hemant Dave, forthcoming).
41
Though called Black, which by the way is quite common and found in
abundance from all the NBPW sites, the polish differs and we do come
across other colours like “steel-blue, silvery, golden, pinkish, gold-blue
and brown-black” (Nigam 1961: 37).
130 | HEMANT DAVE
three cultural periods were noticed. While the first two were
continuous, there was a hiatus between the first two and the
third. Interestingly, at Ayodhy¹-3, “at a comparatively lower
level than the remaining two cuttings [sc. Ayodhy¹-1 and 2], the
deposits of only the earliest cultural period were encountered”.
The earliest cultural period of Ayodhy¹-3 could be taken to
mean the earlier habitation of Ayodhy¹, whereas the multiple
cultural deposits of Ayodhya-1 and 2 represent the later Buddhist
habitation of S¹keta. The remains recovered from the excavation
were the NBPW, terracotta discs, balls, wheels, bone artefacts,
and objects made of copper and iron. From the upper levels,
human and animal terracotta figurines and a couple of Ayodhy¹
coins42 were found (IAR 1969-70: 40-41). The excavation
thus stratigraphically established what was known from the
explorations at the site, that the earliest culture in Ayodhy¹ was
the NBPW.
Under Lal’s project, excavations were first carried out at
Ayodhy¹ at no less than fourteen different places like the Ram
Janmabhumi mound, the open area west of Hanum¹n GaÅh»
and near S»t¹ k» Rasoi from 1975-76 onwards. While the digs
confirmed that the earliest habitation at the site was marked by
the presence of the NBPW, it also revealed that the NBPW here
had two distinct phases: the earlier, datable to the beginning of the
seventh century BCE, was marked by some peculiar shapes that were
not encountered in the second phase. The NBPW was discovered
in association with the red ware and grey ware. The shapes of the
red ware changed with time and so did the terracotta images with
42
The coins found from around the region of Ayodhy¹ are named after
the region. Chronologically, they come after the city coins, which are
extremely rare and bear legends in Prakrit (cf. Lahiri 1970: 59). The
reports of coins bearing the Prakrit legend ajudhe suggest that the
regional coins of Ayodhy¹ were preceded by the city coins of Ayodhy¹
(cf. IAR 1967-68: 65 and IAR 1970-71: 63). One more coin engraved
with the legend ajudhe was reported from the Allahabad Museum but
the reading was questioned (cf. Tripathi 1965 and Ahmad 1971).
greater variety and proliferation. The grey ware was interpreted

as the “very late and degenerate phase” of the famous PGW.
As for the material culture, the first phase was represented
by houses made of wattle and daub and mud; the second was
by baked bricks, town planning, terracotta ring-wells (called
maª©alin in Sanskrit, cf. Agrawala 1959: 30), a massive wall
(interpreted as a fortification wall), and a deep ditch. This phase
ended around the third century BCE but the site was occupied
during the following periods. Though material belonging to the
Gupta period was not discovered in earlier seasons at the site,
a house as well as pottery ascribable to the Gupta period was
unearthed in the later seasons.
A rich hoard of antiquities was excavated from the site.
An important find was a grey terracotta figurine with the head
shaven, elongated earlobes, and standing probably in k¹yotsarga
pose (the image is broken; only the upper torso has survived),
and therefore identified as a Jina image (now on this image, see
Lal and Srivastava 1981). This could be possible as Ayodhy¹,
being the birthplace of the first t»rtha¡kara ౚ¬abhadeva,was also
a great centre of Jainism.43 Among other important finds were
the terracotta sealing of King V¹sudeva who was already known
from his Ayodhy¹ series of coins,44 and a coin of King MØladeva
of the same period, second century BCE.45 A good number of
43
The image comes from the “levels ascribable to circa fourth century B.C.
and is perhaps the earliest Jaina [sic!] figure of this kind so far found
in India” (IAR 1976-77: 53). Elsewhere it is dated to “the beginning
of the third century B.C., if not somewhat earlier” (Lal and Srivastava
1981: 329). The identification is not universally accepted, however (cf.
Cort 2010: 38-39).
44
Elsewhere Lal refers to the terracotta sealings of King V¹yudeva (sic!
V¹sudeva?) and Vijayamitra (1989a: 32).
45
We do not know if these kings V¹sudeva and MØladeva were related to
King Dhanadeva of the famous Ayodhy¹ inscription (cf. Sahni 1929).
It is important to note here that a copper coin of Dhanadeva and a
terracotta sealing bearing the legend (dha)nadeva were recovered from
˜ౙ¡gaverapura (Lal 1993: 46).
132 | HEMANT DAVE
cult images, comparable to those from sites like Ahichchhatra,

Kau¶¹mb», Piprahw¹, Vai¶¹l», were also brought to light. The
discovery of a few sherds of the rouletted ware, according to
Lal, suggests “large-scale trade and commerce at Ayodhy¹ in
the early centuries of the [Common] era”. To this we may add
cylindrical pieces (weights?) of various sizes made of siliceous
and semi-precious stones recovered from all levels. Pendants of
crystal and valuable stones styled after animals and birds were
among the other notable antiquities.
Ayodhy¹ was certainly a great centre during the third
century BCE as the discovery of “an inverted lotus capital of
Mauryan craftsmanship and bearing typical Mauryan polish,
installed as argha supporting a ˜iva-li¡ga of a later period, in
the Nagesvarnath temple” conclusively proves (cf. IAR 1977-78:
83). This capital, in all probability, belonged to one of the pillars
erected by A¶oka.
The Gupta period at the site was followed by a gap; the site
was “again occupied around the eleventh century”.
After the demolition of the Babari Mosque, excavations
were carried out at the disputed site by Hari Manjhi and B.R.
Mani in 2003-04. They revealed no earlier deposits than those
previously noticed.46 Notwithstanding this, the date of the NBPW
was pushed back to “the beginning of c. 1000 BCE” (Dikshit 2003:
116).47 According to the excavators, the earliest date of the site is
“c. 1300 BCE (1250 ± 130 BCE)” (ibid.: 117). During this period, the
46
Source: Dikshit (2003), who had access to Hari Manjhi and B.R.
Mani’s report “Ayodhya: 2002-2003. Excavation at the ‘Disputed Site’,
Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi (photostat copy)”, which I
have not seen.
47
Dikshit writes: “As revealed in earlier excavations the Northern Black
Polished Ware was again noticed in the lowest levels along with [the]
grey ware, black slipped ware and associated red ware but instead
of placing it [sc. the NBPW] between c. 600–300 B.C., the present
excavators on the basis of material evidence and Radiocarbon dates
placed the beginning to c. 1000 B.C.” (2003: 116).
evidence of burnt clay with reed impression was found. Among

“other minor objects” were reported “broken weights, ear-studs,
discs, [a] broken animal figurine, [an] iron knife, glass beads,
bone points and a round signet with legend in A¶okan Br¹hm»”
(ibid.: 116). The material evidence, as described by Dikshit,
does in no way warrant an earlier date; as a matter of fact, they
suggest a late date. Yet, Dikshit maintained that
[the] pre-NBPW deposit has strengthened the Hindu myths
and belief that the story of R¹ma and Ayodhy¹ is earlier than
the story of Krishna and Mah¹bh¹rata and Hastinapur. The
earlier analysis of correlating them with [the] early Northern
Black Polished Ware now stand [sic!] altered and goes more
in favour of placing the Ramayana episode to [the] pre-NBPW
horizon. — ibid.: 117
NANDIGR¸M
Excavations at and around Nandigr¹m, some 16 km south of
Ayodhy¹, on the River Tamas¹, the famed place from where
Bharata ruled the kingdom as the regent of R¹ma (cf. R¹m¹yaªa,
1.1.31c, 1.3.10b; 2.107.12c, 13d; 2.107.19c, etc.), also “revealed
a co-eval antiquity, by and large, with Ayodhy¹”. It may be
stressed here that the aforementioned evidence came not from
Nandigr¹m, which is on the northern bank of the Tamas¹, but
from the mound called Rahet, on the southern bank of the river
(IAR 1976-77: 53).
˜ౚ‰GAVERAPURA48
Sringraur (ancient ˜ౙ¡gaverapura), also known as SØrya
Bhit¹, situated 35 km upstream of Allahabad on the Ga¡g¹, is
mentioned several times in R¹m¹yaªa (cf. 1.1.25c; 2.44.1d,
2.105.22c, 23a; 6.111.28c, 6.113.4a, 6.113.20a). This site was
subjected to excavation from 1977 to 1986.
48
Based on IAR 1977-78: 54, 56; IAR 1978-79: 57-59; IAR 1979-80: 74;
IAR 1980-81: 67-68; IAR 1981-82: 66-67; IAR 1982-83: 91-92; IAR
1983-84: 84-85; and Lal 1993.
134 | HEMANT DAVE
Unlike other sites associated with R¹m¹yaªa, with the

exception of Pari¹r, cultural deposits at this site went back to the
black-slipped ware and Ochre Coloured Pottery (OCP), datable
respectively to the eighth and eleventh century BCE (cf. Agrawal
et al. 1981); the other wares being the thick red ware (a few
sherds), black-and-red ware and burnished grey ware.
The OCP,49 so-called, is represented here by the red-slipped
ware of which two categories were noticed: one fine made
(occasionally decorated with incised or appliqué designs or
painting in black), and the other not well made and coarse. The
shapes include jars, bowls, shallow basins, vases and dishes.
Though baked and unbaked bricks are reported from the OCP
layers from sites like L¹l Qil¹ (IAR 1969-70: 38 and IAR 1971-72:
46), none was discovered here; instead, remains of wattle and
daub structures were noticed. In this period, the site was only
partly and intermittently occupied. After a gap, in the next period,
the black-slipped, black and red, and burnished grey ware appear,
but the house structures remain the same. It was in the middle
strata of this period that the sherds of the PGW were discovered.
Beads of terracotta and jasper, bone-barbed arrowhead, pendants
and points were also recovered from this period.
Though in the lower strata the PGW was not encountered,
shapes reminiscent of the potteries associated with the PGW (at
H¹stinapura) were detected in the OCP; in the lowest levels of
the NBPW phase, a few sherds of the PGW were spotted along
49
Also called the Ochre Colour Ware (OCW). The ware was found in
association with copper objects at L¹l Qil¹, (cf. IAR 1969-70: 38). Its
association with the Copper Hoard Culture was confirmed at Saipai
where it was revealed that the ware in effect was red slipped ware (cf.
IAR 1970-71: 38). Earlier from L¹l Qil¹ “[a] large number of painted
sherds showing designs in black over a red-slipped surface” were
reported, which, as was subsequently proved, were nothing but the
OCP (IAR 1968-69: 37; also cf. IAR 1969-70: 39). It has been argued
that because of water-logging for a considerable period the colour of
the pottery changed from red to ochre (cf. Lal 1968).
with the fine grey ware, with an NBPW-like treatment on the

outer surface. This was interpreted as an “intimate relationship”
between the PGW and NBPW. The NBPW period could be divided
into three sub-phases at the site. The first sub-phase of the NBPW
was devoid of baked bricks. In the second and the third sub-
phases, the site expanded and with it were introduced coinage,
weights, baked bricks and script.
Of special importance was the chance discovery of a massive
tank built with baked bricks datable to the second century BCE.
It was in use till the beginning of the Common Era. A structure
with multiple rooms with successive brick floorings, with a drain
and a soakage pit longer than 4 m, was also unearthed.
In the subsequent period, cultural deposits belonging to the
Ku¬¹ªa and Gupta times were detected. The excavators also
observed “widespread disturbance” at the site during the Gupta
period. The fourth period is called the post-Gupta period and
marked by the cultural material datable to the sixth to thirteenth
centuries.
Apart from a good number of images of the Goddess H¹riti
and miniature terracotta lamps, the site also yielded beads of
various shapes and material, terracotta objects, ring-wells, copper
utensils, uninscribed cast coins, silver and copper punch-marked
coins, Ayodhy¹ coins, Ku¬¹ªa coins and G¹ha©av¹la silver coins.
Some beautiful terracotta images, seals and sealings, etc. were
also found.
PARI¸R50
Located on the left bank of the Ga¡g¹, Pari¹r (Dist. Unnao)
is traditionally considered to be the place where Lak¬maªa
abandoned S»t¹; on the opposite bank is BiԲhØr, where the
¹¶rama of V¹lm»ki once stood (though the Ga¡g¹ is mentioned,
neither of the places is named in R¹m¹yaªa, cf. 7.44.15ff.).
Earlier explorations at the site had revealed copper harpoons and
50
Source: IAR 1978-79: 61-62; Lal and Dikshit 1982.
136 | HEMANT DAVE
spear-heads typical of the Copper Hoard Culture; later sherds

of the PGW were also discovered (cf. IAR 1953-54: 38; also cf.
IAR 1961-62: 57; IAR 1962-63: 39). Though the suggestion for
excavating the site was made, it was not carried out (cf. IAR
1953-54: 42).51
On the ancient mound called gaÅh», otherwise thickly
populated, five trenches were laid. Only one of these digs, PRR-
3, clearly indicated the sequence of cultures. The OCP, black-
slipped, and black and red ware were found in a mixed context
at the lowest levels.52 The latter two continued in the next period
along with the red ware. The third and fourth periods were
marked by the PGW and NBPW respectively. The ˜u¡ga–Ku¬¹ªa
was the fifth period.
Nothing important came forth from the lowest levels. From
the second period, apart from the pottery mentioned above,
terracotta beads and discs, bone points, copper and stone artefacts
were collected. Post-holes of various sizes with plaster and reed-
impression, suggesting some kind of structure, were also noticed.
From the PGW levels, ghaԲa-shaped beads, terracotta discs and
bone points were recovered. As in Ayodhy¹, the NBPW phase here
could be divided into two sub-phases: the earlier was devoid of
miniature bowls, carinated h¹ª©»s and Ahichchhatra type 10A;
they appear in the second sub-phase. With these remains were
found, of terracotta, female figurines, wheels, skin-rubbers,
beads, discs, bangles and gamesmen, a ring-well, bone points and
antimony rods of copper. That burnt bricks were manufactured
at the site is clear from the remains of brick kilns. The last phase,
51
The black and red ware of UP and those from ¸haÅ (Rajasthan) have
no common characteristics; in the former region they “consist mostly
of dishes and bowls which are devoid of any painting” whereas “¸haÅ
has yielded its own characteristic shapes and painted designs” (IAR
1979-80: 31; Lal and Dikshit 1982: 31).
52
A later publication includes burnished grey ware to this repertoire;
this ware was absent in the following stage (cf. Lal and Dikshit 1982:
26-27).
the ˜u¡ga–Ku¬¹ªa, is represented by “flimsy deposit”.
CITRAK¿Ä53
Though the site of CitrakØԲa (Dist. B¹nd¹) is mentioned in the
epic several times (cf. 1.1.26c and 28a; 2.48.26c, 34d, etc.), it
was not subjected to excavation. During the exploration of the
site, sherds of the black-slipped ware, NBPW, and associated red
wares were picked up. A few red ware sherds of a later period
were also met with.
BHARDV¸JA ¸˜RAMA (DIST. ALLAHABAD)54
The place is mentioned in R¹m¹yaªa (2.48.7 onwards; 2.84.1,
etc.). During the exploration and excavation at the site, it was
observed that the place must have once stood right on the banks
of the Ga¡g¹. Here trench ALB-3 revealed the existence of the
black-slipped ware, grey ware, NBPW and associated red ware,
along with a “few charcoal bits and lumps of clay with reed-
impressions”. The latter evidence suggests “a casual habitation”
in this area. In the words of the excavator,
the deposit yielding stray sherds of the NBP ware was that of
sandy loam and not of regular house-floors. The presence of
reed-impressed clay-plaster clearly indicates that on the sandy
bank of the river there stood a few huts — a scenario which
fits well into that of a hermitage. Whose hermitage it was,
unfortunately archaeology will have to remain dumb since at
that point of time writing was not used in the Ga¡g¹ valley.
— 1993: 7
The site was again populated during the Gupta period. Lal wants
to connect the reoccupation of the site with the rising popularity of
the epic during and after the Gupta period, which is clearly visible
in the numerous R¹m¹yaªa episodes carved on the temple panels
in India and, a little later, abroad (cf. Kala 1988: 17-48; Vatsyayan
2004, for a survey). From this period were recovered an inscribed
53
Source: IAR 1980-81: 70.
54
IAR 1978-79: 56; IAR 1982-83: 90.
138 | HEMANT DAVE
seal, a few sealings, terracotta figurines and pottery. An inscribed

sealing with the figures of Ga¡g¹ and Yamun¹ was also found.
¿ÑCH¸G¸ON MAJHG¸VAN
There are some more sites which are associated with the epic
but were not taken into account by Lal. For instance, ¿ñch¹g¹on
Majhg¹van, which is said to be related to the Mah¹gr¹ma of
R¹m¹yaªa and Majhg¹van (?) of the P¹li texts.55 Ku¬¹ªa and
Gupta period potteries were collected from here but no pottery
of the older periods was noticed. A seal with the figure of a horse
and the legend a¶vagho¬asya was also found from here (IAR
1991-92: 105).56 From earlier explorations at the site the grey
ware, red ware and medieval glazed ware (IAR 1963-64: 54)
and some medieval sculptures were reported (IAR 1970-71: 80).
SA‰KIS¸
Sa¡kis¹ is another site (Dist. Farrukh¹b¹d, UP). It is identified
with Sa¡k¹sy¹, the capital of Ku¶adhvaja, the younger brother
of King Janaka, the father of S»t¹57 (cf. R¹m¹yaªa 1.69.3c,
1.70.16b, 19c), and Sa¡k¹ssa of the Buddhist literature (cf.
Malalasekera 1937, s.v.). It was here that the Buddha descended
from the Tr¹yastri‚¶a Heaven in order to preach the gods and
his mother. No wonder that A¶oka chose to erect a column with
55
Mah¹gr¹ma is mentioned but once in R¹m¹yaªa (4.39.21c), not as the
name of a place but of a “country” (cf. Mankad 1965: XLIV). In any case,
the sargas in question (39-42) are borrowed from the Pur¹ªas at a later
date (cf. Mankad 1965: XXXVff.), and therefore the mention is not of
much consequence. In P¹li literature, I have been unable to locate the
word “Majhg¹van”. The word mah¹gr¹ma occurs in the SØtra literature,
where, according to Wagle, it is equivalent of nigama meaning “a market
town”, “a town”, “a township”, or “a district” (1966/1995: 21).
56
Would it have any connection with the famous Buddhist poet
A¶vagho¬a?
57
R¹m¹yaªa (1.69.3b) locates it on the banks of the River Ik¬umat», which
is the modern ½khan aka K¹l» Nad».
elephant capital here58 and possibly built a stØpa too, remnants

of which are still visible. B.B. Lal had explored the site earlier
and reported the PGW and NBPW (cf. IAR 1955-56: 71). In later
explorations, apart from potteries mentioned above, terracottas,
coins, sculptures, etc. were noticed. The site was later excavated
under the direction of B.R. Mani. During the excavation, five
cultural phases were brought to light: the PGW, NBPW, ˜u¡ga,
Ku¬¹ªa and Gupta. From the PGW layers, along with associated
potteries, broken female figurine, rattles, discs, etc. of terracotta,
bone points and arrowheads, iron chisel and a stone bead were
recovered. A mud floor, 8 cm thick, with circular post-holes was
found from the early NBPW period. A burnt brick wall belonging
possibly to the Ku¬¹ªa period was also unearthed. It is not clear
if burnt bricks were used during the NBPW period, but it was
certainly in use in the subsequent periods as some structures made
of it belonging to the ˜u¡ga, Ku¬¹ªa and Gupta periods testify.
The recovery of no less than 343 antiquities from the first
season and 325 from the second season clearly shows that it was
a prosperous place (IAR 1995-96: 89-97; IAR 1996-97: 139-42).
BAS¸›H
The site of Bas¹Åh corresponds to the ancient twin towns of Vi¶¹l¹
(Vai¶¹li) and Mithil¹. The latter was the capital of Janaka, S»t¹’s
father (cf. R¹m¹yaªa 1.12.18c; 1.47.10; 1.64.29b, etc.). The site
was subjected to excavation many times (for a summary, see,
Sinha 1989). The earliest habitation at the site in the gaÅh area
is represented by the black and red ware with the NBPW and,
therefore, datable to c. 600–500 BCE. A few sherds of the so-called
degenerate grey ware with paintings, comparable to those from
Ayodhy¹, were also found.
Discussion
These, in short, are the results of the various explorations and
58
This capital is similar to the one discovered from Sodhanga (Dist. Ujjain,
MP) by Wakankar (cf. IAR 1966-67: 82).
140 | HEMANT DAVE
excavations carried out at the sites associated with R¹m¹yaªa. As

can be seen from the précis of the excavation reports, no positive
evidence could be found that would confirm the historicity of
the epic. This is due no doubt to an inherent epistemological
impasse. It has been insisted that only an indubitable proof,
like an inscription, can prove the veracity of the story. The
script being non-existence before the beginning of the fourth
century (cf. Coningham et al. 1996), this proof can never be
furnished. Circumstantial evidence, at times, can help us. The
evidence tells us that all the R¹m¹yaªa sites were contemporary.
˜ౙ¡gaverapura, Pari¹r, and possibly Mithila, pre-existed before
the other sites, true, but they were active during the NBPW
period, too. The site known and identified as Bhardv¹ja ¸¶rama
was inhabited only during the NBPW period (that it was
reoccupied during the Gupta era is a different thing), and it was
not a regular habitation site. If the identification of the sites is
correct, it can be argued that the kernel of the R¹m¹yaªa story
cannot be earlier than the seventh or eighth century BCE.59 The
same date is suggested on the ground of textual data (cf. fn. 37).60
59
The dating of Ayodhy¹ proposed on the ground of radiocarbon dates “c.
1300 B.C. (1250 ± 130 B.C.)”, cf. Dikshit 2003: 117) is too anomalous
to be seriously considered, not to mention the “material evidence”
— which by the way includes “a round signet with legend in A¶okan
Br¹hm»” — that speaks for a much, much later date.
60
If we accept the connection between H¹stinapura and the Mah¹bh¹rata
story and between Ayodhy¹ and the R¹m¹yaªa story, it would mean that
R¹m¹yaªa is later than Mah¹bh¹rata. It has been argued that according
to the doctrine of da¶¹vat¹ra R¹ma belong to the Tret¹ and Kౙ¬ªa to the
Dv¹para-yuga; the former comes before and the latter later. Therefore,
R¹m¹yaªa cannot be later than Mah¹bh¹rata (cf. B.P. Sinha quoted in
Dikshit 2003: 117). The contention is weak. First, both the theory of
the four yugas and the belief of the da¶¹vat¹ra are later than the epics.
As González-Reimann’s work on Mah¹bh¹rata competently shows, the
yuga theory was superimposed, albeit craftily and intelligently, on the
epic at a later date (cf. 2002). Second, R¹m¹yaªa itself places R¹ma
in the Dv¹para-yuga (cf. 7.65.19c; 7.65.20a; 7.65.23b).
The plausible dating of the story, however, does not

automatically validate the existence of persons and events
mentioned in it. The text of the epic was constantly revised and
inflated until very late; naturally, it covers many centuries and
therefore many cultural phases. A successful correlation of the
literary and archaeological data could have offered a possible
date for the various strata of the text and that would have been
a decent contribution to textual and archaeological study of the
epic. It is a pity that in the project on the archaeology of R¹m¹yaªa
no trouble was taken to do this. From the reports, the excavators
appear to have been concerned only with the cultural sequence
as revealed through pottery types. The reports usually, at times
even exclusively, are concerned with the description of pottery
even though the shapes, types, etc. of the cultures are fairly
known; the other antiquities are seldom described. B.R. Mani,
for instance, in his report of the first season of the excavation
at Sa¡kis¹ devotes nearly five pages (with drawings) out of
eight to pottery description whereas three hundred and forty
three antiquities — terracotta discs with a variety of decoration,
animal and human figurines, toy-cart wheels, beads, gamesmen,
ivory objects, a copper coin, etc. — are cursorily mentioned in
just one paragraph of twelve lines (cf. IAR 1995–96: 89–97).
In the second season, too, many human and animal figurines,
terracotta beads and pendants, bangles, discs, wheels, numerous
miscellaneous objects, stone beads, five copper coins, pieces of
glass bangles and beads, numerous metal objects, shell bangles,
a lithic human head, etc. were unearthed, but none is described
(cf. IAR 1996–97: 142). The same applies to excavated material
from the other R¹m¹yaªa sites — the only (partial) exception
being that of ˜r‫¡ݍ‬gaverapura, the first volume of the proposed
full report was published later.
If we wish to illuminate literary traditions with the help of
archaeology, it is quite obvious that merely the antiquity of the
sites, or the cultural sequence of the sites, or the description of
the pottery types, etc. will not help. Unfortunately, the excavators
142 | HEMANT DAVE
stopped where the actual work should have begun. We can only
imagine how a Vasudev Sharan Agrawala or a Motichandra
would have work on this enviably rich archaeological material.
H.D. Sankalia’s insightful correlation of archaeological findings
with the textual data (for example, that of the signet ring, the
Roman amphorae, the description of the cities, the p¹duk¹s of
R¹ma, etc.) could have served as a model for the excavator.61
An example may help understand this. A gigantic tank was
unearthed from ˜r‫¡ݍ‬gaverapura. Instead of searching any clue to
it from R¹m¹yaªa, Lal sought to attribute it to Dhanadeva of the
Ayodhy¹ inscription (Lal 1993: 47-48). The question is not that
his attribution is wrong (or right for that matter); the issue is,
for an investigator of a project on the epic, it would have been
worthwhile to look into the text to find any possible reference
to the tank in it. It was Sankalia who boldly put forward the
view that the tank could be related with the terrible drought
mentioned in R¹m¹yaªa (1.8.12ff., cf. Sankalia 1984). I do not
suggest that Sankalia’s guess is correct — there were many more
famines in ancient India (cf. Biswas 2000; Ganguli 1934 for
textual references), and the author of the verse in question might
be referring to any of them, we are not sure to which — but the
approach certainly is. The deplorable lack of full reports and of
good reproductions of the antiquities or their detailed description
will surely hinder the progress of archaeological understanding
of the epic in the coming years. Viewed from this perspective,
despite giving us a possible terminus post quem for the epic, the
R¹m¹yaªa Project disappoints us.
Lal had clearly announced his objective behind taking up
the R¹m¹yaªa Project that it was ‘to find out its [scil. Ayodhy¹’s]
antiquity and to ascertain if and what light it can (or even
cannot) throw on the historicity of the R¹m¹yaªa?’ (1981: 49)
Our answer to this question is plain: though our inferences are
61
No wonder that Nilmadhav Sen, a life-long student of R¹m¹yaªa, speaks
very highly of Sankalia’s contributions to the R¹m¹yaªa studies (Sen
1989; also cf. Lariviere 1986).
only provisional and stand to improvement and correction, our

current knowledge tells us that the site is not any more ancient
than the seventh-eighth century BCE and that it does not throw
any light on the historicity or otherwise of R¹m¹yaªa.
One need not be disheartened with the conclusions reached
in this note, for, as H.D. Sankalia correctly observed, ‘the truths
enshrined in these works — ˜ruti, Smr‫ݍ‬ti, Pur¹ªas — are eternal,
and cannot be shaken by such studies’ (Sankalia, 1976: 4).
All those who wish to interpret the archaeological record
otherwise, must remember R¹m¹’s these words: aha‚
satyamicch¹mi n¹nr‫ݍ‬tam (2.31.32).
Acknowledgement
My sincere thanks are due to Trupti More, librarian, and Pallavi
Chhellare and Dhananjay Survase of the Deccan College Library for their
excellent support. Thanks are also due to Vipul Inamdar, Gita Darbar
and Ankit Patel of Bhaikaka Library for their prompt help.
References
Agrawal, D.P., N. Bhandari, B.B. Lal and A.K. Singhvi, 1981,
“Thermoluminescence Dating of Pottery from Sringaverapura: A
Ramayana Site”, Proceedings of Indian Academy of Science, 90: 161-72.
Agrawala, V.S., 1959, “Notes on Sanskrit Words”, Journal of the American
Oriental Society, 79(1): 30.
Ahmad, Nisar, 1971, “Wrongly Read City Name Ayodhya on Coins”, Journal
of the Numismatics Society of India, 33(2): 114-15.
Arunkumar, 1981, “The Historicity of R¹ma and R¹m¹yaªa: An
Archaeological Perspective”, Journal of Oriental Institute, 31(2): 162-71.
Bakker, Hans, 1986a, Ayodhy¹, etc. (three parts bound in one), Groningen:
Egbert Forsten.
———, 1986b, “Ayodhy¹: le nom et le lieu”, Revue de l’histoire des religions,
203(1): 53-66.
Bhatt, G.H., 1956, “The Fire-ordeal of S»t¹: A Later Interpolation in the
R¹m¹yaªa?”, Journal of the Oriental Institute, 5: 292.
Biswas, Atreyi, 1994, “Devastating Floods in Proto-historic India”, East and
West, 44(2-4): 259-73.
144 | HEMANT DAVE
———, 2000, Famines in Ancient India: A Study of Agro-economy from

Prehistoric to Early Historic Period, New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.
Bouvier, David, 2003, “The Homeric Question: An Issue for the Ancients?”,
Oral Tradition, 18(1): 59-61.
———, 2004, “Homère chez Platon: citations et construction d’un silence”,
in La citation dans l’antiquité, ed. Catherine Darbo-Peschanski, Grenoble:
Jérôme Millon, pp. 33-49.
Brockington, John L., 1984, The Righteous R¹ma: The Evolution of an Epic,
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
———, 1998, The Sanskrit Epics, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Brockington, John L. and Mary Brockington, 2006, R¹ma the Steadfast: An
Early Form of the R¹mayaªa, London: Penguin Books.
Bronkhorst, Johannes, 2001, “Pourquoi la philosphie existe-t-elle en Inde?”,
in Études de Lettres, 2001/3: La Rationalité en Asie — Rationality in Asia,
ed. Johannes Bronkhorst, Lausanne: Faculté des Lettres de l’Université
de Lausanne, pp. 7-47.
Chakrabarti, Arindam, 1997, “Rationality in Indian Philosophy”, in A
Companion to World Philosophies, ed. Eliot Deutsch and Ron Bontekoe,
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 259-78.
Chanana, Dev Raj, 1963, The Spread of Agriculture in Northern India (as
Depicted in the R¹m¹yaªa of V¹lm»ki), New Delhi: Sumna Prakashan.
Coningham, R.A.E., F.R. Allchin, C.M. Batt and D. Lucy, 1996, “Passage
to India? Anuradhapura and the Early Use of the Brahmi Script”,
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6(1): 73-97.
Converse, Hyla Stuntz, 1978, “Similarities in Certain Pottery Fabrics Found
as Hastin¹pura: An Unexcavated Site in Kashmir and Sh¹h» Tump,
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 98(4): 478-82.
Cort, John E., 2010, Framing the Jina: Narratives of Icons and Idols in Jain
History, New York: Oxford University Press.
Costantini, Lorenzo, 1984, “The Beginning of Agriculture in the Kachi Plain:
The Evidence of Mehrgarh”, in South Asian Archaeology 1981, ed. B.
Allchin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29-33.
Cunningham, Alexander, 1871/1924, The Ancient Geography of India, New
Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal (repr.).
Dani, Ahmad Hasan, 1986, The Historical City of Taxila, Tokyo: The Centre
for East Asian Cultural Studies; Paris: UNESCO.
Das, S.R., 1969, “The Mah¹bh¹rata and Indian Archaeology”, in The Bh¹rata
War and Pur¹ªic Genealogies, ed. D.C. Sircar, Calcutta: University of
Calcutta Press, pp. 51-85.
Dave, Hemant, forthcoming, A Propos of Ayodhy¹.
De, S.K. and R.C. Hazra, 1959, सािहत्यरत्नकोश: पुराणेितहास सं ग्रह, vol. 2, New Delhi:
Sahitya Akademi.
Dharamsey, Virchand, 2012, Bhagwanlal Indraji: The First Indian
Archaeologist: Multi-disciplinary Approaches to the Study of the Past,
Vadodara: Darshak Itihas Nidhi.
Dikshit, K.N., 2003, “R¹m¹yaªa, Mah¹bh¹rata and Archaeology”,
Puratattva, 33: 114-18.
Finley Jr., J.H., 1966, Four Stages of Greek Thought, Stanford: Stanford
University Press, and London: Oxford University Press.
Ford, Andrew, 2002, The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic
Theory in Classical Greece, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press.
G[erow], E[dwin], 2002, “Review of Johannes Bronkhorst’s Why Is There
Philosophy in India?”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 122(1):
196.
Ganeri, Jonardon, 2001, Philosophy in Classical India: The Proper Work of
Reason, London and New York: Routledge.
Ganguli, R., 1934, “Famine in Ancient India”, Annals of the Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, 15(3-4): 176-97.
González-Reimann, Luis, 2002, The Mah¹bh¹rata and the Yugas, New York:
Peter Lang.
Ghosh, A., 1955, “Notes”, Ancient India, 10-11: 1-3.
———, 1973, The City in Early Historical India, Shimla: Indian Institute of
Advanced Study in association with Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi.
Ghosh, A. and K.C. Panigrahi, 1946, “The Pottery of Ahichchhatra, District
Bareilly, U.P.”, Ancient India, 1: 37-59.
Glover, Ian, 1974, “Review of Hasmukh Dhirajlal Sankalia et al. Chalcolithic
Navdatoli: The Excavations at Navdatoli, 1957-59”, Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies, 37(2): 480-81.
Gokhale, Shobhana, 2004, “˜r» La¡k¹ in Early Indian Inscriptions”, Annals
of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 85: 135-39.
Goldman, Robert P., 1976, “V¹lm»ki and the Bhౙgu Connection”, Journal
146 | HEMANT DAVE
of the American Oriental Society, 96: 97-101.

———, 1984, The R¹m¹yaªa of V¹lm»ki: An Epic of Ancient India, vol. 1,
B¹lak¹ª©a, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———, 2005, “Historicising the Ramakatha: Valmiki’s Ramayana and Its
Medieval Commentators”, India International Centre Quarterly, 31:
83-97.
Goldman, Robert P. and J. Masson, 1969, “Who Knows R¹vaªa?: A Narrative
Difficulty in the V¹lm»ki R¹m¹yaªa”, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, 50: 95-100.
Guruge, Ananda, 1960/1991, The Society of the R¹m¹yaªa, 2nd edn., New
Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
Hart, George L., III, 1975, The Poems of Ancient Tamil: Their Milieu and
Their Sanskrit Counterparts, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Jacobi, H., 1893, Das Râmâyaªa: Geschichte und Inhalt, Bonn: Verlag von
Friedrisch Cohen.
Jamison, Stephanie and Joel P. Brereton, 2014, The Rigveda: The Earliest
Religious Poetry of India, 3 vols., New York: Oxford University Press.
Joshi, J.P., 1978, “Interlocking of Late Harappan Culture and Painted Grey
Ware Culture in the Light of Recent Excavations”, Man and Environment,
2: 98-101.
Joshi, M.C., 1978, “Archaeology and Indian Tradition: Some Observations”,
———, 1982, “Ayodhya: Mythical and Real”, [Surrejoinder to Lal 1981.]
Kajale, M.D., 1991, “Current Status of Indian Palaeoethnobotany:
Introduced and Indigenous Food Plants with a Discussion of the
Historical and Evolutionary Development of Indian Agriculture and
Agricultural Systems in General”, in New Light on Early Farming: Recent
Developments in Palaeoethnobotany, ed. J.M. Renfrew, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, pp. 155-89.
Kala, Jayantika, 1988, Epic Scenes in Indian Plastic Art, New Delhi: Abhinav
Publications.
Khare, Vishnu, 1999, “महाकाव्य िवमशर्”, in महाकाव्य िवमशर्, ed. Vishnu Khare, New
Delhi: Vani Prakashan, pp. 13-20.
Kosambi, D.D., 1948, “Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture (review of S.A.
Dange’s India from Primitive Communism to Slavery)”, Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 29: 271-77.

Kulkarni, V.M., 1980/2009, “Jain R¹m¹yaªas and Their Sources”, in The
R¹m¹yaªa Tradition in Asia, ed. V. Raghavan, New Delhi: Sahitya
Akademi, pp. 226-41.
Lahiri, A.N., 1970, “Early Indigenous Coins of Northern India”, in Early
Indian Indigenous Coins, ed. D.C. Sircar, Calcutta: University of Calcutta,
pp. 48-77.
Lal, B.B., 1955, “Excavations at Hastin¹pura and Other Explorations in
the Upper Gang¹ and Sutlej Basins 1950-52: New Light on the Dark
Age between the End of the Harapp¹ Culture and the Early Historical
Period”, Ancient India, 10-11: 5-151.
———, 1968, “A Deluge? Which Deluge? Yet Another Facet of the Problem
of the Copper Hoard Culture”, American Anthropologist, 70(5): 857-63.
———, 1973, “Archaeology and the Two Indian Epics”, Annals of the
———, 1975, “In Search of India’s Traditional Past: Light from the
Excavations at Hastinapura and Ayodhya”, India International Centre
Quarterly, 2(4): 311-14; also, reprinted 1976, Prachya Pratibha, 4(1):
22-26.
———, 1980, “Did the Painted Grey Ware Continue up to the Mauryan
Times?”, Puratattva, 9: 64-80.
———, 1981, “Was Ayodhy¹ a Mythical City? [Rejoinder to M.C. Joshi
1978.]” Puratattva, 10: 45-49.
———, 1987, “Ayodhya of the Valmiki Ramayana: An Energizing Debate
on Its Identification”, Puratattva, 16: 79-84.
———, 1988, “Review of P. Banerjee’s Rama in Indian Literature, Art and
Thought”, Puratattva, 17: 61-62.
———, 1989a, “Ayodhya”, in An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, ed. A.
Ghosh, vol. 2: Gazetteer, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, pp. 31-32.
———, 1989b, “Painted Grey Ware (PGW)”, in An Encyclopaedia of Indian
Archaeology, ed. A. Ghosh, vol. 2: Gazetteer, New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, pp. 107-08.
———, 1992, “The Painted Grey Ware Culture of the Iron Age”, in History
of Civilizations of Central Asia, vol. 1, The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest
Times to 700 B.C., ed. A.H. Dani and V.M. Masson, Paris: UNESCO, pp.
421-40.
148 | HEMANT DAVE
———, 1993, Excavations at ˜r‫ݍ‬L¡gaverapura (1977-86), vol. 1, New Delhi:

Archaeological Survey of India.
———, 2002, “Historicity of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana: What Has
Archaeology to Say in the Matter?”, in Indian Archaeology in Retrospect,
vol. 4: Archaeology and Historiography: History, Theory and Method, ed.
S. Settar and Ravi Korisettar, New Delhi: Manohar, pp. 29-70.
Lal, B.B. and K.N. Dikshit, 1982, “Pariar — An Eastern Outpost of the
Painted Grey Ware”, Puratattva, 11: 26-31.
Lal, B.B. and S.K. Srivastava, 1981, “Perhaps the Earliest Jaina Terracotta
so far Excavated in India”, in Madhu: Recent Researches in Indian
Archaeology and Art History, Shri M.N. Deshpande Festschrift, ed. M.S.
Nagaraja Rao, New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, pp. 329-31.
Lal, Makkhan, 1986, “Chronology of the Protohistoric and Early Historic
Cultures of the Upper Ganga Plains”, East and West, 36(1-3): 83-100.
Lariviere, Richard W., 1986, Review of H.D. Sankalia, The Ramayana in
Historical Perspective, Journal of the American Oriental Society 106:
882-83.
Malalasekera, G.P., 1937, Dictionary of P¹li Proper Names, 2 vols., Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass (repr. 2007).
Mankad, D.R., 1965, “Introduction”, in The Ki¬kindh¹kaª©a: The Fourth Book
of the V¹lm»ki R¹m¹yaªa, the National Epic of India, ed. D.R. Mankad,
Baroda: Oriental Institute, pp. IX-LXIII.
Marshall, John, 1951, Taxila, vol. 1: Structural Remains, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mate, M.S., 1990, “The Clay Feet?”, Bulletin of the Deccan College Research
Institute, 49: 244-49.
Murray, Priscilla, 1980, “Discard Location: The Ethnographic Data”,
American Antiquity, 45(3): 490-502.
Nigam, J.S., 1961, “Northern Black Polished Ware”, Marg, 14(3): 37-46.
Olivelle, Patrick, 1998, The Early Upani¬ads: Annotated Text and Translation,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Paddayya, K., 2008, “Is Archaeology a Reliable Approach for Studying the
Historical Period of India?”, in Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia,
ed. Gautam Sengupta and Sharmi Chakraborty, New Delhi: Pragati
Publications and Calcutta: Centre for Archaeological Studies and
Training, pp. 57-67.
Pargiter, F.E., 1913, The PØr¹ªa Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age,
Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office (1962 repr.).
Parpola, Asko, 1984, “On the Jaimin»ya and V¹dhØla Traditions of South
India and the P¹ª©u/P¹ª©ava Problem”, Studia Orientalia, 55: 429-68.
———, 2002, 3DQGD¦LK and S»t¹: On the Historical Background of the
Sanskrit Epics”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 122(2):
361-73.
Petraglia, Michael D., 2002, “Pursuing Site Formation Research in India”, in
Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, vol. 4: Archaeology and Historiography:
History, Theory and Method, ed. S. Settar and Ravi Korisettar, New
Delhi: Manohar, pp. 217-41.
Pollock, Sheldon, 1993, “R¹m¹yaªa and Political Imagination in India”,
Journal of Asian Studies, 52(2): 261-97.
Popper, Karl, 1963, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific
Knowledge, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rau, Wilhelm, 1976, The Meaning of pur in Vedic Literature, München:
Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Rocher, Ludo, 1986, The Pur¹ªas, ed. Jan Gonda, A History of Indian
Literature, vol. II, fasc. 3, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Sahni, Daya Ram, 1929, “A ˜u¡ga Inscription from Ayodhy¹”, Epigraphia
Indica, 20: 54-58.
Said, Edward W., 1978/2001, Orientalism, New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Sankalia, H.D., 1964/1977, “Archaeology and Tradition”, in idem, Aspects of
Indian History and Archaeology”, ed. S.P. Gupta and K.S. Ramachandran,
Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, pp. 269-81.
———, 1966, “Dwarka in Literature and Archaeology”, in Excavations at
Dwarka, ed. Z.A. Ansari and M.S. Mate, Poona: Deccan College, pp.
1-17. (Also in his Aspects of Indian History and Archaeology, ed. S.P.
Gupta and K.S. Ramachandran, Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation,
pp. 191-201.)
———, 1973a, पुरातत्त्व अने रामायण, Amd¹v¹d: GØjar¹t Vidy¹p»th.
———, 1973b, Ramayana: Myth or Reality?, New Delhi: People’s Publishing
House.
———, 1976, “Archaeology and the R¹m¹yaªa”, Prachya Pratibha, 4(1):
1-21.
———, 1977, “Antiquity of the Name ‘Sri Lanka’ ” in idem, Aspects of Indian
History and Archaeology, ed. S.P. Gupta and K.S. Ramachandran, Delhi:
B.R. Publishing Corporation, pp. 209-10.
———, 1982a, The Ramayana in Historical Perspective, Delhi: Macmillan.
150 | HEMANT DAVE
———, 1982b, “R¹ma’s P¹duk¹ and Finger-ring”, in ¸c¹rya Vandan¹, D.R.

Bhandarkar Birth Centenary Volume, ed. Samaresh Bandyopadhyay,
Calcutta: Calcutta University Press, pp. 337-40.
———, 1984, “Why the Gigantic Shringaverapura Tank was Built (the Real
Reason)”, Indica, 21(2): 71-74.
Schiffer, Michael B., 1972, “Archaeological Context and Systemic Context”,
American Anthropologist, 37(2): 156-65.
———, 1976, Behavioral Archaeology, New York: Academic Press.
Schopen, Gregory, 1991, “Archaeology and Protestant Presuppositions in
the Study of Indian Buddhism,” History of Religion, 31(1): 1-23.
Sen, Nilmadhav, 1952, “The Fire-Ordeal of S»t¹: A Later Interpolation in
the R¹m¹yaªa?”, Journal of the Oriental Institute, 1: 201-06. (Also
reprinted in Va. Ga. R¹hØrkar (ed.), पं िडत श्रीधर शास्त्री वारे गौरव-ग्रंथ / Paª©it
˜r»dhar ˜¹str» V¹re Gaurav-granth, ãka 1887/1965 CE, N¹sik: MM
˜r»dhar ˜¹str» V¹re Satk¹r Samiti, pp. 233-49.)
———, 1989, “Sankalia and Ramayana Studies”, Man and Environment,
14(2): 201-05.
Shah, U.P., 1975, “Introduction”, in The Uttarak¹ª©a: The Seventh Book of
the V¹lm»ki-R¹m¹yaªa, the National Epic of India, ed. U.P. Shah, Baroda:
Oriental Institute, pp. 5-54.
———, 1976, “The S¹lakaԲa¡kaԲa and La¡k¹”, Journal of the American
Oriental Society, 96(1): 109-13.
———, 1980/2009, “R¹m¹yaªa Manuscripts of Different Versions”, in
The R¹m¹yaªa Tradition in Asia, ed. V. Raghavan, New Delhi: Sahitya
Akademi, pp. 93-102.
Sharma, R.S., 1996, The State and Varna Formation in the Mid-Ganga Plains:
An Ethnoarchaeological View, New Delhi: Manohar.
Shastri, Satyavrata, 1978, “Putre¬Բ» in the R¹m¹yaªa: Was It Really
Necessary?”, Indologica Taurinensia, 6: 279-82.
Shende, N.J., 1943a, “The Authorship of the Mah¹bh¹rata”, Annals of the
———, 1943b, “The Authorship of the R¹m¹yaªa”, Journal of the University
of Bombay, 12: 19-24.
Silberman, Neil Asher and Yuval Goren, 2003, “Faking Biblical History:
How Wishful Thinking and Technology Fooled Some Scholars and
Made Fools of Others,” Archaeology (September–October), 56(5): 20-29.
Sinha, B.P., 1989, “Vai¶¹l», Basarh”, in An Encyclopaedia of Indian
Archaeology, ed. by A. Ghosh, vol. 2: Gazetteer, New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, pp. 457-58.
Sircar, D.C., 1980/2009, “The R¹m¹yaªa in Inscriptions”, in The R¹m¹yaªa

Tradition in Asia, ed. V. Raghavan, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, pp.
322-33.
Stein, M.A., 1900, Kalhaªa’s R¹jatara¡giªi: A Chronicle of the Kings of
Ka¶m»r, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (Indian repr.).
Sukthankar, V.S., 1933/1944, “Prolegomena to the ¸diparvan”, in
Sukthankar Memorial Edition, vol. 1: Critical Studies in the Mah¹bh¹rata,
ed. P.K. Gode, Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House for V.S. Sukthankar
Memorial Edition Committee, Pune, pp. 10-140.
———, 1937/1944, “The Bhౙgus and the Bh¹rata: A Text-historical Study”,
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 19: 1-76 (repr. in
P.K. Gode (ed.), Sukthankar Memorial Edition, vol. 1: Critical Studies
in the Mah¹bh¹rata, Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House for V.S.
Sukthankar Memorial Edition Committee, Pune, pp. 278-337.)
Thapar, Romila, 1978, Exile and the Kingdom: Some Thoughts on the
R¹m¹yaªa, Bangalore: The Mythic Society.
———, 1984, From Lineage to State: Social Formations of the Mid-First
Millennium B.C. in the Ganga Valley, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
———, 1991, “A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama”, in Anatomy of
a Confrontation: The Babri Masjid–Ram Janmabhumi Issue, ed. Sarvepalli
Gopal, Delhi: Penguin Books, pp. 141-63.
Traill, David A., 1995, Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit, London:
John Murray.
Tripathi, R.R., 1966, “Some Rare Copper Coins in the Allahabad Museum”,
Journal of the Numismatics Society of India, 28(2) = Professor V.S.
Agrawala Number, pp. 208-11.
Turco, Bruno Lo, 2005, “Some Questions Posed by a Recent Epistemological
Approach to Indian Thought”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft, 155: 189-97.
———, 2011, “Evaluation or Dialogue? A Brief Reflection on the
Understanding of the Indian Tradition of Debate”, in Boundaries,
Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia, ed. Federico
Squarcini, London: Anthem Press, pp. 589-606.
Vatsyayan, Kapila, 2004, “The R¹m¹yaªa Theme in the Visual Arts of South
and Southeast Asia”, in The R¹m¹yaªa Revisited, ed. Mandakranta Bose,
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 335-54.
Wagle, Narendra, 1966/1995, Society at the Time of the Buddha, 2nd rev.
edn, Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Wheeler, Mortimer, 1962, Ch¹rsada: A Metropolis of the North-West Frontier
152 | HEMANT DAVE
(Being a Report on the Excavations of 1958), Oxford: Government of

Pakistan and the British Academy.
Witzel, Michael, 2003, Das alte Indien, München: Verlag C.H. Beck.
Wojtilla, Gyula, 2003, “What Can the ౚgveda Tell Us on Agriculture?”, Acta
Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 56(1): 35-48.
Wüst, Walther, 1965, “Zu altindoar. la¡k¹-, (f.n.; Pr.) und seiner Sippe”,
Indian Linguistics 25 = Baburam Saksena Felicitation Volume, pp. 59-60.

Hemant Dave Ramayana Between Archaeology and Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hemant Dave Ramayana Between Archaeology and Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hemant Dave Ramayana Between Archaeology and Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ζвНРФСЯФπбЩНЮψХЪУФΤСРΔΥΑϋмШЩєЧХχмЩмеНѤНΓϋЫХПСЯНЪР

nahi ¶ruti¶atamapi ¶»to ’gniprak¹¶o veti

T HIS note looks into R¹m¹yaªa from an archaeological

Epics and Criticism

all the New Indo-Aryan languages for English history. Though

in larger contexts;8 in many cases, they helped to understand such

Archaeology: Scope and Pitfalls

of the population pressure archaeological sites are destroyed

it is not always possible, despite the tall claims made by the

There are then some issues particular to archaeology as

When we think of correlating archaeological evidence with

Traditions and Archaeology in India

for its preoccupation with the HaÅappan Civilization, and after

roughly have synchronized with the date of the origin of the

Wheeler, after delineating the early stages of habitation at the

Textual Problems of the Epic

composers of these different parts of the epics depicted, naturally,

serve the political–religious–social ends of such groups, usually

Composed and revised over a millennium, the textual

the earliest reference to R¹ma’s association with Ceylon. However, it

though a commendable achievement in itself, is not very helpful

presence of Bharata and the three widowed wives of Da¶aratha —

ago on the dating of R¹m¹yaªa,37 and puts the oldest parts of

Archaeology of the R¹m¹yaªa Sites

example, Lal 1987: 79, they were referred to in an earlier publication

greater variety and proliferation. The grey ware was interpreted

cult images, comparable to those from sites like Ahichchhatra,

evidence of burnt clay with reed impression was found. Among

Unlike other sites associated with R¹m¹yaªa, with the

with the fine grey ware, with an NBPW-like treatment on the

spear-heads typical of the Copper Hoard Culture; later sherds

the ˜u¡ga–Ku¬¹ªa, is represented by “flimsy deposit”.

seal, a few sealings, terracotta figurines and pottery. An inscribed

elephant capital here58 and possibly built a stØpa too, remnants

excavations carried out at the sites associated with R¹m¹yaªa. As

The plausible dating of the story, however, does not

only provisional and stand to improvement and correction, our

———, 2000, Famines in Ancient India: A Study of Agro-economy from

of the American Oriental Society, 96: 97-101.

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 29: 271-77.

———, 1993, Excavations at ˜r‫ݍ‬L¡gaverapura (1977-86), vol. 1, New Delhi:

———, 1982b, “R¹ma’s P¹duk¹ and Finger-ring”, in ¸c¹rya Vandan¹, D.R.

Sircar, D.C., 1980/2009, “The R¹m¹yaªa in Inscriptions”, in The R¹m¹yaªa

(Being a Report on the Excavations of 1958), Oxford: Government of

You might also like