Have a look at this report that appeared in the Times of India. Those who detested my earlier views expressed in Part-1 and Part-2and who believe that theASI report has not been doctored may find this story interesting. Based on this report I wonder how ASI even made its conclusions public, or was it just a media moment. As per the TOI report

..by the own reckoning of ASI, there exists no indication of any temple-like structure having existed from 1200 AD to 1500 BC (the expected antiquity of a Ramayana site), i.e., over a period of 2,700 years..

The newspaper further says that

Whatever may be the outcome, the fact remains that in the entire Ayodhya region where excavations have been undertaken by the ASI since 1975, at the disputed site, at Hanuman Garhi and at Sita-ki-Rasoi, despite the discovery of numerous coins and terracotta figurines of varied antiquity, none of them are connected to Rama, Sita or Laxman, or Dashratha.

The interesting twist in this reportage is, however, the mention of discovery of the Jain terracotta figurine during the excavation which, says TOI, could actually strengthen the claims of Jain communityover Ayodhya. The quote from Praful Bidwai's article, Archaeological finds are subject to a wide range of interpretations, seems all the more true now.