44 SOCIAL SCIENTIST therefore his observations must be regarded as reliable (GOI Paper, p. 13). The BJP paper also quotes the same authority and adds more emphasis to substantiate its claims. However in the process of doing so, it distorts the very observation of Tieffenthaler. 'In 1767, an Austrian Jesuite traveller, Joseph Teiffenthaler, found that in spite of the Mughal king's efforts to prevent them, the Hindus had re-occupied the courtyard, raised the Ram Chabootra thereon, and were worshipping and celebrating Ramnavmi there as well as under the domed structure*. (BJP Paper, p. 21, 2.8). The several fallacies in the statement are easily discernible. In 1767 Ayodhya was under the direct rule of the Shi'ite Nawabs of Avadh, the rule of the Mughal emperors had become limited to the area around Delhi. Again, until 1767 the alleged Rama 'Chabootra' had not been raised inside the courtyard of the Babri Masjid. The district gazetteers confirm that the platform in front of the Babri Masjid had been raised after the bloody incident of 1853-55.u It also pointed out that the platform had been raised to allow the Hindus to perform their religious rites. The Jesuit priest Teiffenthaler had come to Ayodhya in the later part of the eighteenth century and his observations are therefore extremely significant for an understanding of the religious developments in Ayodhya. In Ayodhya he actually observed a 'vedi1 (a platform) situated in the middle of the town (it is wrong to state that according to Teiffenthaler the platform was siutated right in front of the Babri Masjid as is alleged in the BJP Paper). He added that the local Hindus congregated and prostrated there at the platform in obeisance to Lord Rama. Teiffenthaler's observations should not be viewed as those indicating geographical locations of the places of worship but as indications in the religious developments in Ayodhya. In 1608-1611 AD an English traveller, William Finch, came to Ayodhya and observed that most of the places of worship that were associated with Rama were situated on the banks of the river Sarayu. It is clear from the observations of Teiffenthaler that by the end of the eighteenth century the places of worship that were associated with Rama had expanded and came to be situated in the midst of Ayodhya. The GOI Paper commits another grave error when it states, 'Some Survey records of 1807-14 have come to notice in which the disputed site has been marked as "Yanmasthan", i.e., Janmasthan*. (GOI Paper, p. 13, 2.7). We only know of one surveyor who went to Aydohya in 1812-14 and he was Francis Hamilton Buchanan. He does inform us of the circulating local myths but he never marked the disputed site as the 'Yanmasthan'. The BJP Paper does not mention the findings of Buchanan and instead quotes Montgomery Martin and two other British administrators to project the claims of the VHP on the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Martin published his findings in 1838 and expressed his doubts regarding the local myths about the 'Sun' dynasty, Rama and the several temples that had been constructed by