Wow...you dont have specific co-ordinates nor does you have a temple big enough to prove its historical mightyness, nor does any major historical documentation has any reference of a majestic temple at birth place of Ram. When over the centuries Hindus where building massive temples accross the region none of them ever thought of building a massive temple for RAM at birth location. And now of after 1000s of years we all of a sudden realize that that was exact place where RAM was born and now we need to build that massive temple.
.
man stop quoting that there wasn't a big temple at the ram janmabhumi site, read this
from 2003 archeological survey report :
Findings of Ayodhya digging
Summary of the main findings may be stated as follows:
- There is 'archeological evidence of a massive structure' below ground where the Babri mosque was destroyed in 1992.
- The structure bears distinctive features associated with ancient temples of northern India.
- There is evidence of building work there from as far as the 10th century.
The excavated area covered beneath the disputed land at least 14,000 sq.ft over which the report said,
'There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 meters in the north-south and east-west directions, respectively, just below the disputed structure.' The report said that excavation clearly showed distinctive features of a tenth century temple below the ruins of the Babri Mosque. It further mentions discovery of 50 pillar bases, decorated bricks bearing features of 10th century, deities of Hindu gods and goddesses, lotus motifs, and curved architectural pieces. The report, on the basis of these archeological findings came to the conclusion of existence of a Hindu temple at the site of dispute. The pillar bases exposed in the northern and southern gave some idea of
the length of the massive wall of the earlier construction with which they were associated and might have been originally 60 m. Toward the east of the central point, a circular depression was noted signifying some important object was placed there. In the report it is stated that the main chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated because of the presence of the idol of the infant Rama in the makeshift structure. The salient and significant conclusion of the excavation seem to be that area below the disputed site remained a place for public use till the
Mughal period when the disputed structure was built (Babri Mosque) which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archeological materials. This conclusion, the report said, is further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitational structure such as house complexes, soakage pits, and jars, ring wells, drains, hearths, kilns or furnaces.
-
Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls ‘in east-west orientation’, several ‘in north-south orientation’, ‘decorated coloured floor’, several ‘pillar bases’, and a ‘1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with yaksha figurines on four corners’ as well as "Sanskrit inscription of holy verses on stone"[6]
These decorated architectural pieces were anchored with precision at varied places in the walls. A tiny portion of a stone slab is sticking out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. The rest of the slab lies covered in the wall. The projecting portion bears a five-letter Devanagariinscription that turns out to be a Hindu name. The items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old. According to archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoil every hundred years.[citation needed] Primary clay was not found even up to a depth of 30 feet. It provides a clue to the existence of some structure at that place over the last 2,500 years.
Radar search[edit]
In the January 2003, Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard performed a search with a
ground-penetrating radar. The survey concluded the following:
"There is some structure under the mosque. The structures were ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site".
Claude Robillard, the chief
geophysicist stated the following:
"There are some anomalies found underneath the site relating to some archaeological features. You might associate them (the anomalies) with pillars, or floors, or concrete floors, wall foundation or something. These anomalies could be associated with archaeological features but until we dig, I can't say for sure what the construction is under the mosque."[8]
Archeological Findings of Ayodhya Ruins
Archaeology of Ayodhya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- any new ideas to debate that there was no temple or the temple wasn't big ??
