Under a project called ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’ excavations were carried out between 1975 and 1986 at five sites, viz. Ayodhya, Sringaverapura, Bharadvaja Asrama, Chitrakuta and Nandigrama, all associated with that epic.

Sites such as Harappa continued to be inhabited and are still important cities today. . . . Late and post-Harappan settlements are known from surveys in the region of Cholistan, . . . the upper Ganga-Yamuna Doab,. . . and Gujarat. In the Indus Valley itself, post-Harappan settlement patterns are obscure, except for the important sites of Pirak. . . . This may be because the sites were along the newly-stabilized river systems and lie beneath modern villages and towns that flourish along the same rivers.

The priests of the temple of Govardhan founded by the Valabhacarya sought safety in flight. The idols were removed and the priests softly stole out in the night. Imperial territories offered no place of safe asylum either to the god or his votaries. After an adventurous journey, they at last reached Jodhpur. Maharaja Jaswant Singh was away on imperial errands. His subordinates in the state did not feel strong enough to house the god who might have soon excited the wrath of the Mughal emperor. Damodar Lai, the head of the priesthood in charge of the temple, sent Gopinath to Maharaja Raj Singh to beg for a place to be able to serve his religion in peace. The Sassodis prince exterided his welcome to Damodar Lai. The party left Ghampasani on 5 December, 1671, and was right royally received by MaharSna Raj Singh on the frontiers of his state. It was decided to house the god at Sihar and with due religious ceremony, the god was installed on 10 March, 1672. Mewar thus became the centre of Vaisnavism in India. The tiny village of Sihar has how grown into an important town which is named after the god, is now known as Nathadwara. At Kankroli (in Udaipur State) another Vaisnava idol of Krsna similarly brought down from Bindraban had been housed a little earlier. It forms pother, though less famous, shrine of Vaiinavism in India today. Thanks to Aurangzeb^s religious zeal, Udaipur state became a new Bindraban to the devotees of the Bhakti cult.

SIDPOOR – JUNE 20th – In the infancy of our geography of India, the illustrious D’ Anville said of this city, “ville qui tire son nom des Shites, ou toiles peintes, qui s’y fabriquent;” but it boasts of a more dignified etymology, being called after its patron, the Balhara prince, Sid-Rae. By some he is supposed to be the founder, but there is every reason to believe that he was only the renovator, of this place, the position of which on the Sarasvati, flowing from the shrine of Ambabhavani, is well-chosen. Here are the remains of what in past ages must have been one of the grandest efforts of Hindu architecture, a temple dedicated to Siva, and termed Roodra-Mala, or ‘the chaplet of Roodra,’ the god of battle; but so disjointed are the fragments, that it is difficult to imagine what it may have been as a whole. They are chiefly portions of porticoes, one of which tradition names the prostyle of the munduff, or vaulted mansion occupied by the bull, companion of Roodra, whose sanctum was converted into a mosque. It is said to have been a rectangular building, five stories in height, and if we may judge from one portion yet remaining, this could not have been less than one hundred feet…I found two inscriptions, from one of which I learned that it was commenced by Raja Moolraj [the founder of the Solankhi dynasty of Anhilwara], in S. 998 [A.D. 942], and from the other that it was finished by Sid-Raj…A couplet records its destruction by All-u-din – “In S. 1353 [A.D. 1297], came the barbarian Alla: the Roodra-Mala he levelled, “carrying destruction amongst the lords of men.”

Protector of the pilgrim places located in Kasi, Kushika, Uttar-kosala (Ayodhyā) and Indra-sthān (Indra-prastha).

Islamic literary sources provide far more extensive evidence of temple destruction by the Muslim invaders of India in medieval times. They also cover a larger area, from Sinkiang and Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, and from the Seistan province of present-day Iran in the West to Assam in the East. As we wade through this evidence, we can visualise how this vast area, which was for long the cradle of Hindu culture, came to be literally littered with the ruins of temples and monasteries belonging to all schools of Sanãtana Dharma-Bauddha, Jaina, Šaiva, Šãkta, VaishNava and the rest. Archaeological explorations and excavations in modern times have proved unmistakably that most of the mosques, mazãrs, ziãrats and dargãhs which were built in this area in medieval times, stood on the sites of and were made from the materials of deliberately demolished Hindu monuments.

During the summer of 2000, a very public controversy arose surrounding the excavation of a 10th century Jain Temple in Fatehpur Sikri where the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had unearthed a pit filled with numerous damaged, broken statues. The debate about this archeological find offers an example of not only the ideological gulf dividing social scientists in India, but is indicative of the manner in which opposing camps of scholars have been using the popular media to sensationalize their perspectives. After the newspapers reported about this particular excavation site, Prof. K.N. Panikkar, Prof. Romila Thapar, Prof. K.M. Shirmali, Prof. Harbans Mukhia from JNU and Prof. Ifran Habib from Alighar Muslim University and several Indian academics who never miss a chance to oppose, condemn, and ridicule the "Sangh Parivar" accused the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) of acting irresponsibly by excavating this destroyed Jain temple saying it was an example of "saffron archeology".

…Let the reader discard his shoes, and prepare to enter with me the sacred fanes of Dailwara. This is a contraction of Dewulwarra, ‘the place or region of temples,’ a term aptly applied to the site of this numerous group, from which I select two of the most remarkable. The reader will be pleased to consider himself at the entrance of the shrine sacred to Vrishabdeva, the first of the Jains. Beyond controversy this is the most superb of all the temples of India, and there is not an edifice besides the Mahal that can approach to it. The pen is incompetent to describe the exuberant beauties of this proud monument of the Jains, raised by one of the richest of their votaries (by whose name, and not that of the pontiff enshrined within, it is still designated), and which continues to attract pilgrims from every region of India. Bimul Shah, whose work has immortalized him, was a merchant of Anhulwarra, at one time the Tyre of India, and the ancient stronghold of the Jain faith. It was, however, towards the close of her long career of renown, that these two edifices were erected and happily for these votaries of Jainism, who, to use the words of the bard, “exchanged their perishable wealth for an immortal name,” for hardly were the fabrics reared, when the metropolis of Western India was sacked, its merchants driven forth, and their riches transferred to the Northern Invader. Previous to their erection, the immediate spot was occupied by the orthodox divinities, Siva and Vishnu, whose ministers would not tolerate the approach of any of the sectarian enemies of their faith; but the Sahoos of Nehrwalla, giving this the preference over any other site on the surface of Aboo, determined to try the effect of gold on the sovereign, or, as they allegorically say, “Lacshmi herself entered into the scheme, to gain a victory for their faith.” The bribe was high, they offered to cover as much ground as they required for their purpose with silver coin, – a temptation too powerful for the Pramara to withstand, – and, despite the anathema of the priests of Bal-Siva and Vishnu, he took the lacs of the Jain merchants. The name of the prince is not mentioned, but the date of the temples shews him to be the same sacrilegious Dharaburz, who attempted to inundate the Khar of Sacti. The merchants were not ungrateful of Lacshmi, whom they enshrined in a niche on the right hand of the entrance.

“In conclusion we may say that there is evidence for the existence of five Vishnu temples in Ayodhya in the twelfth century. Harismriti (Guptahari) at the Gopratara ghat, (2) Vishnu-hari at the Chakratírtha ghat, (3) Chandrahari on the west side of the Svargadvãra ghats, (4) Dharmahari on east side of the Svargadvãra ghats, (5) a Visnu temple on the janmabhùmi. Three of these temples have been replaced by mosques and one was swept away by the Sarayù. The fate of the fifth is unknown but the site is occupied today by a new Guptahari Chakrahari temple.” (p. 54)

When Firuz Tughluq invaded Orissa in 1359 and learned that the region's most important temple was that of Jagannath located inside the raja's fortress in Puri, he carried off the stone image of the god and installed it in Delhi 'in an ignominious position'.

In the ninth year a magnificent temple built by Bir Singh Bundela at Urchha was destroyed during the course of military ; operations against Jujuhar Singh Bundela. Several other temples suffered the same fate or were converted into mosques. When the ' fort of Khata Kheri was conquered and taken from its Bhil ruler Bhaglrath in 1632, Muslim rites were performed there just as had happened in the temple of Kangra on its conquest by Jahangir. The fort of Dhamuni under Jujuhar Singh was similarly desecrated in A.D. 1644-45 (1045 a.h.). Earlier, in a.d. 1630-31 (1040 a.h.) when Abdal, the Hindu chief of Hargaon in the province of Allahabad, rebelled, most of the temples in the state were either demolished or converted into mosques. Idols were burnt. Prince Aurangzeb while viceroy of Gujarat (February, 1645 to January, 1647) was responsible for the demolition of several temples. In Ahmedabad and elsewhere in Gujarat and Maharashtra many temples were destroyed, among them being the temple of Khandai Rai at Satara, and the temple of Ghintaman close to Sarashpur. Probably after Aurangzeb’s departure in 1647 many of these temples were again taken possession of by the Hindus.

With the separation of the Pakistan Provinces, the main sites of what was known as the Indus Valley Civilisation have gone to Pakistan. It is clearly of the utmost importance that archaeological work in connection with this early period of Indian history must be continued in India. A preliminary examination has shown that the centre of the early civilisation was not Sind or the Indus Valley but the desert area in Bikaner and Jaisalmer through which the ancient Saraswati flowed into the Gulf of Kutch at one time.

The earliest records of the Madras area, including money-lenders' accounts, go back to the fourth century CE. They identify Mylapore, Triplicane and Tiruvottiyur as temple towns. The Nandikkalambakkam describes Mylapore as a prosperous port under the Pallavas, the early-fourth- to-late-ninth century emperors of Kanchipuram, who patronized various schools of Hinduism including Jainism and Buddhism, built temples and generously supported the arts. There is no record of a Christian church or saint's tomb at Mylapore before the Portuguese period, and Olschki is basing his comments on the wrong assumption that Marco Polo did visit Mylapore and that he found a church there. Friar Oderic is describing the original Kapaleeswara Shiva Temple on the Mylapore seashore (see Henry Yule's comment: "This is clearly a Hindu temple."), which the Tamil saint Jnanasambandar has positively identified as being there at least before the sixth century CE.

Lane Poole's thesis iterates that in most cases, the destruction perpetrated by the invaders on the Hindu capital cities was conclusive enough to see their permanent end. Kannauj is an outstanding example. So was Ujjain, Gaur, the ancient capital of Bengal, and Ajmer. The ruling elites, Rajputs or others, evidently saw no future in a revival and migrated to other areas. Rajputana offered an useful sanctuary because of the Aravalli hills as well as stretches of desert which made defence against Islamic aggression possible. The arrival of Raja Jaichand's grandson in Marwar is an example.