Historicity of the Ramayana

Rāmāyana is one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India and important text of Hinduism, the other being the Mahābhārata.

Quotes

 * References to the story of Rama occur in the earliest part of the Sangama literature of Tamil Nadu, dating back to a period almost as old as the Ramayana of Valmiki. [... a theme from the Ramayana] forms the subject-matter of a terracotta representation from Kausambi, ascribable to the 2nd-1st century BCE.
 * Lal, B. B. (2008). Rāma, his historicity, mandir, and setu: Evidence of literature, archaeology, and other sciences. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. p.8


 * In the Buddhist literature there are the Jatakas, three of which deal with the story of Rama... The most noteworthy of these is the one called Dasaratha Jataka... The carry-over of these Jataka stories to China only serves to emphasize how popular was the Rama story even with the Buddhists.
 * Lal, B. B. (2008). Rāma, his historicity, mandir, and setu: Evidence of literature, archaeology, and other sciences. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. p.8-9


 * Whether people like it or not, the fact is that there is no credible proof that Valmiki's Ramayana post-dates the Buddha. There is a complete absence of mention of Buddha or Mahavira or their followers or of Nandas, Mauryas or Shungas and so on. There is no mention of Pataliputra or Rajagriha. Rather, the latter's predecessor Girivraja is mentioned. Even if there were additions to the text in subsequent centuries, the data in the text itself is clear that it belongs to a much older era. In a country of 1.2 billion people, you will find all sorts of interpretations and retellings... When even early Buddhist authors can claim (e.g., the Spitzer Manuscript, dated to 200 AD or earlier on palaeographic grounds) that the omniscience of Buddha is proven because he had studied the Ramayana and Mahabharata, the obvious conclusion is that these texts were considered pre-Buddha even by Buddhist writers at that time. Otherwise, they would not fool their readers. For that matter Jatakas etc. have their own versions of Krishna's life too. But it is obvious which one is older and which is a recast.
 * Agarwal V., as quoted in The Huffington Post debate on A.K. Ramanujan 2012