10-06-2010, 02:54 AM
Below is a summary of the ASI research results in their own words with my comments.
Archaeological Survey of India
Summary of Results, Pages No. 268-272 (PDF, pp. 20-25)
Period V (Post-Gupta Rajput level 7th to 10th century)
During the Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century A.D.), too the site has witnessed structural activity mainly constructed of burnt bricks. However, among the exposed structures, there stands a circular brick shrine which speaks of its functional utility for the first time. To recapitulate quickly, exteriorly on plan, it is circular whereas internally squarish with an entrance from the east. Though the structure is damaged, the northern wall still retains a provision for pranala, i.e, waterchute which is distinct feature of contemporary temples already known from the Ganga-Yamuna plain. p. 21
COMMENT: This ancient shrine, built during the Gurjara Pratihara period must have been severely damaged by Mahmud Ghaznavi around 1016, when he had defeated Rajyapala Pratihara of Kanyakubja.
Period VI (Early Medieval-Rajput level 10th to 12th century)
1. Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh-twelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived, as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crush floor. p. 21-22
COMMENT: This was the older Rathor temple, during the reign of the Kanyakubja Rashtrakutas, which was demolished by a Ghaznavid, the best candidate is Salar Masud around 1035.
2. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it.
The architectural members of the earlier short lived massive structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential structures, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII. p. 22
COMMENT: This is the old Vishnu Hari temple, which as per Vishnu Hari inscription was built by the local ruler Meghasuta during the reign of Govindrachandra Gahadavala (1114-1154).
The at least three structural phases and three successive floors point to at least two destructions and reconstructions in the next period. (Qutbuddin Aibak, Iyaltimish/Balban and Firuz Shah?)
Period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level 12th to 16th century)
ââ¬Â¦ a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII.
It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it. p. 22
COMMENT: The first sentence has to do with the major parts of the structure of the Vishnu Hari temple which survived for the whole Sultanate period. The superstructure was demolished by Qutbuddin Aibak in 1194.
The second sentence has to do with the repairs and rebuilding of the roof with the triple stupa-like semi-circular dome of the newly repaired Vishnu Hari temple, possibly during Harishchandra Gahadavala and/or his successor Adakamalla. Both were in possession of the Gahadavala kingdom after Jayachandra while paying tribute. It is also possible that it was repaired (again?) after Timur's raid of Delhi, when many rulers became independent.
The first destruction, a major one, must have been occurred through Qutbuddin Aibak. The reconstruction was done by Harishchandra or Adakamalla. (2nd successive floor)
The second one was perhaps done by Iyaltimish or Balban. (3rd successive floor)
The third one was most likely in Tughluq time, perhaps through Firuz Shah, who was a iconoclast. (fourth successive floor)
After his death Timur destroyed Delhi. And Ayodhya became independant. (The glazed wares at the end of period VII point to a new influence, the Lodis)
Terracotta lamps from the various trenches and found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are associated with the structural phase.
In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods ââ¬Â¦ . p. 22-23
COMMENT: Perhaps the glazed wares are accessed from trade with areas controlled by the Lodi Pathans.
Period VIII (Mughal level 16th to 18th century)
There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50 x 30 m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. p. 22
COMMENT: The structure below the disputed one points to the demolished huge Rashtrakuta and parts of the demolished massive Gahadavala temple built on top of that.
The disputed structure itself is the remnant of the repaired massive and monumental new Vishnu Hari temple with the triple dome. This structure was desecrated, damaged and converted into a structure worth the name of 'an alighted place of angels' (meaning a mosque), as the inscription of Mir Baqi puts it.
In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods where they are accompanied by glazed tiles which were probably used in the original construction of the disputed structure. p. 22
COMMENT: Possibly, the glazed tiles point to the appearance of Babur, Mir Baqi and Ashikan.
Archaeological Survey of India
Summary of Results, Pages No. 268-272 (PDF, pp. 20-25)
Period V (Post-Gupta Rajput level 7th to 10th century)
During the Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century A.D.), too the site has witnessed structural activity mainly constructed of burnt bricks. However, among the exposed structures, there stands a circular brick shrine which speaks of its functional utility for the first time. To recapitulate quickly, exteriorly on plan, it is circular whereas internally squarish with an entrance from the east. Though the structure is damaged, the northern wall still retains a provision for pranala, i.e, waterchute which is distinct feature of contemporary temples already known from the Ganga-Yamuna plain. p. 21
COMMENT: This ancient shrine, built during the Gurjara Pratihara period must have been severely damaged by Mahmud Ghaznavi around 1016, when he had defeated Rajyapala Pratihara of Kanyakubja.
Period VI (Early Medieval-Rajput level 10th to 12th century)
1. Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh-twelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived, as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crush floor. p. 21-22
COMMENT: This was the older Rathor temple, during the reign of the Kanyakubja Rashtrakutas, which was demolished by a Ghaznavid, the best candidate is Salar Masud around 1035.
2. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it.
The architectural members of the earlier short lived massive structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential structures, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII. p. 22
COMMENT: This is the old Vishnu Hari temple, which as per Vishnu Hari inscription was built by the local ruler Meghasuta during the reign of Govindrachandra Gahadavala (1114-1154).
The at least three structural phases and three successive floors point to at least two destructions and reconstructions in the next period. (Qutbuddin Aibak, Iyaltimish/Balban and Firuz Shah?)
Period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level 12th to 16th century)
ââ¬Â¦ a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII.
It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it. p. 22
COMMENT: The first sentence has to do with the major parts of the structure of the Vishnu Hari temple which survived for the whole Sultanate period. The superstructure was demolished by Qutbuddin Aibak in 1194.
The second sentence has to do with the repairs and rebuilding of the roof with the triple stupa-like semi-circular dome of the newly repaired Vishnu Hari temple, possibly during Harishchandra Gahadavala and/or his successor Adakamalla. Both were in possession of the Gahadavala kingdom after Jayachandra while paying tribute. It is also possible that it was repaired (again?) after Timur's raid of Delhi, when many rulers became independent.
The first destruction, a major one, must have been occurred through Qutbuddin Aibak. The reconstruction was done by Harishchandra or Adakamalla. (2nd successive floor)
The second one was perhaps done by Iyaltimish or Balban. (3rd successive floor)
The third one was most likely in Tughluq time, perhaps through Firuz Shah, who was a iconoclast. (fourth successive floor)
After his death Timur destroyed Delhi. And Ayodhya became independant. (The glazed wares at the end of period VII point to a new influence, the Lodis)
Terracotta lamps from the various trenches and found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are associated with the structural phase.
In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods ââ¬Â¦ . p. 22-23
COMMENT: Perhaps the glazed wares are accessed from trade with areas controlled by the Lodi Pathans.
Period VIII (Mughal level 16th to 18th century)
There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50 x 30 m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. p. 22
COMMENT: The structure below the disputed one points to the demolished huge Rashtrakuta and parts of the demolished massive Gahadavala temple built on top of that.
The disputed structure itself is the remnant of the repaired massive and monumental new Vishnu Hari temple with the triple dome. This structure was desecrated, damaged and converted into a structure worth the name of 'an alighted place of angels' (meaning a mosque), as the inscription of Mir Baqi puts it.
In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods where they are accompanied by glazed tiles which were probably used in the original construction of the disputed structure. p. 22
COMMENT: Possibly, the glazed tiles point to the appearance of Babur, Mir Baqi and Ashikan.