Is Rama Setu a historical proof of Ramayana?

score:4

Accepted answer

No, it cannot be. This article by Frontline magazine (behind paywall; you can download the full article from this link) says, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found no evidence to indicate that Rama Setu or Adam's Bridge is a man-made structure.

Shifting lines

Print edition: October 05, 2007

...

The petitioners, including [Subramanian] Swamy, referred to the ancient history of India, and the epic, Ramayana in support of their demand that Adams Bridge be considered an ancient monument. Therefore, it was important for the government to explain why it could not, on the face of it, accept the claims of the petitioners in this regard.

The government found that there was no concrete evidence for the claims of the petitioners and that they just wanted a fishing enquiry into the history of Adams Bridge to determine their claims that it was historic and ancient.

Therefore, the ASI analysed the ingredients of the definition of ancient monument under Section 2(a) of the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Under this law, to qualify as an ancient monument, the monument must be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest. In paragraph 32 of the affidavit, the ASI concluded: In the light of the scientific study conducted, the said formation cannot, therefore, be said to be a man-made structure. The same is merely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance.

The ASI was categorical that its obligation under Article 49 of the Constitution must be fulfilled on the basis of scientific study and analysis with total objectivity. Excavations of sites and analysis of physical remains form an essential part of this scientific inquiry, and the ASI has so far not found any evidence to suggest that Adams Bridge is a man-made bridge. It concluded that there was no merit whatsoever in the claim to warrant any action on its part under the Act.


According to this article by The Indian Express, the natural formation is actually called a Tombolo:

Not a bridge to the past, say studies

...

The Government has conducted various geotechnical studies over the years to end the controversy. Before the project was commissioned, borehole investigations were conducted at 81 locations for up to 20 metres in the Adam's Bridge area. The then Union Minister for Coal and Mines Uma Bharati wanted the GSI to take up a R&D project to establish the paleography of the terrain. The GSI's Project Rameswaram between December 2002 and March 2003 dug up boreholes up to 205 metres.

The study concluded that it is sedimentation. "Core sediment/logs of boreholes indicate presence of compact clay, calcerous sandstone and fossiliferrous limestone deposited in an episodic manner. The sedimentation pattern clearly points to the past sea level fluctuations about 5-7 lakhs years ago.

NASA, shocked at the outrage, clarified on its website, calling the formation a "tombolo", which is a bar of sand connecting one island with another. "Such tombolos usually indicate a constant sediment source and a strong unidirectional or bi-directional (monsoonal) long shore current," they said.

The government scientists seem to buy this. They say, "The Adam's Bridge area has a constant sediment source from the rivers flowing into Palk Bay and experiences bi-directional long shore current, due to the south-west and north-east monsoon." This explains the formation of the Ramar setu.

More post

Search Posts

Related post