In the years following the Partition of India, there was a growing need among people to know the truth of their past. In the absence of much written evidence, all eyes turned toward archaeology where scholars started to testify epics as part of historical investigation. In 1948-1949, the excavation at Hastinapur began with the hopes of finding archaeological evidence of India’s beloved epic and by 1975 it was Ramayana’s turn.
Although it was just the beginning of a new sub-genre of research, it unknowingly started a new area of discussion and curiosity. It expanded and exploded in the decades that followed. This is the story of the famous Ramayana Project and how it was projected to the world that archaeology is a tool to validate the great Indian epics.
Archaeology of the Ramayana sites
In 1975, a project was initiated at Ayodhya by Prof. S.Nurul Hassan, the then Minister of State for Education and Culture. The project – Archaeology of the Ramayana Site – was the brainchild of Prof. B.B. Lal, who was the head of department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology at Jiwaji University, Gwalior. Lal had just transferred to the Jiwaji University after spending a considerable time as the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The aim of this project was to excavate archaeological remains at places mentioned in the Ramayana to ascertain its historicity or otherwise the legend of Rama. The site of Ashrafi Bhavan in Ayodhya was the first site to be excavated. Then it was Sringaverapura in Uttar Pradesh. Rama had spent his second night at Sringaverapura after he was banished from Ayodhya.
At Sringaverapura, also known as Surya Bhita, excavations started in 1977 and continued till 1986. Unlike other sites excavated under this project, the cultural deposit at Sringaverapura went back to the OCP/Copper Hoard Period. This period is dated to around 2400 BCE. It was followed by PGW strata and then NBPW period, which is found at the lowest levels at the site. The highlight of the discovery of a massive tank built with baked bricks datable to the 2nd 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 Kusana and Gupta times were detected. The excavators also observed widespread disturbance at the site during the Gupta period.
Nandigrama was another site, 16km south of Ayodhya on the river Tamasa, was excavated and has revealed a co-eval antiquity, by and large, with Ayodhya.
The archaeological site of Pariar is considered the place where the ashram of Valmiki once stood. Early explorations revealed copper harpoons and spear-heads along with a few sherds of PGW. About five trenches were laid at garhi where OCP, PGW and NBPW were found followed by evidence from Sunga-Kushana period.
Sankisa is another important site in Farrukhanad district of UP. It is identified with Sankasya, the capital of Kusadhvaja, the younger brother of King Janaka. It was the Buddha descended from Trayastrimsa Heaven and has an Asoka pillar. Lal found PGW and NBPW (IAR 1955-1956) but the site was excavated by BR Mani. Five cultural phases were brought to light – the PGW period followed by NBPW, Sunga-Kusana and the Gupta period.
Also read: Rajgir’s rediscovery is as complex as its history–12 archaeologists unravelled its mysteries
Limitations of archaeology
Archaeology is the scientific study of material remains—such as pottery, tools, and architectural remnants—uncovered from the ground to understand ancient societies. It can reveal insights into past life: ways and socio-economic conditions, especially when written records are unavailable. However, archaeological work faces significant limitations, particularly in ancient towns and cities. Places like Mathura, Kashi, and Delhi have been continuously occupied, leaving archaeologists with little space to excavate. This space constraint forces vertical digging, which provides only partial information, such as the site’s chronology, but fails to recover key details like house plans or architectural features.
Additionally, rapid destruction of archaeological sites, technical challenges at excavation sites, and limited funding for research further hinder the scope of archaeological understanding. Often, projects are abandoned mid-way due to these issues, resulting in a loss of valuable evidence.
So, when correlating a text like Ramayana, archaeologically speaking, a handful of sites with scattered excavations and mostly vertical digging is not the answer, a point constantly stressed by Sankalia. When dealing with great Indian epics, which are sacred for millions of Indians, especially when the ‘original version’ of the text is missing, tradition-based archaeology, or as Sankalia has suggested archaeology-based text approach, is the correct approach to follow. After all, it is the traditions that we have inherited.
So far, in the case of the Mahabharata, BB Lal undertook the ‘geographical explorations of the epic’ wherein the Painted Grey Ware became the common denominator, an evidence accepted by most. Although scholars like Ghosh and Sankalia remained cautious in making assertions at the early stages of research. In the case of Ramayana, Lal placed Northern Black Polished Ware at the pedestal during the initial years of investigation. However, if this were to take into consideration Mahabharata would be chronologically earlier than the Ramayana. That is why the idea of NBPW being the marker of the Ramayana was not given space. In the end, the archaeological understanding of many important sites—their inception and evolution etc—is lost or not known.
Archaeology – a tool to validate belief?
Can archaeology validate one’s beliefs? The answer is no. So why is it used as a political tool to validate the sacredness of epics that the majority of Indians love and worship? Is it necessary to utilise archaeology as a last resort to resolve an age-old debate? When it comes to validating the traditions or beliefs tied to religious or mythological texts, archaeology is not, and should not be, the only tool. Sankalia said that the traditions and beliefs should not be underestimated for archaeological explorations but should be done with an open mind to discover the unknown facets of the past.
The job of an archaeologist is not to validate beliefs but to find threads which connect us to our past – unhinged and unbiased.
Disha Ahluwalia is an archaeologist and junior research fellow at the Indian Council Of Historical Research. Views are personal. She tweets @ahluwaliadisha.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)