The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has delivered a severe blow to the long-awaited report on the landmark Keeladi excavations. On Tuesday, the ASI sent archaeologist K Amarnath Ramakrishna a 114-page, highly critical evaluation of his 982-page excavation report, branding it as "ambiguous, incomplete and underdeveloped". This development intensifies the standoff over the scientific document related to the Sangam-era site in Tamil Nadu.
A Scathing Internal Review
The comprehensive review was conducted by a five-member internal committee of the ASI, which scrutinized all 11 chapters of Ramakrishna's report. The critique, in its opening assessment, stated that the report's scholarly value is limited by "structural ambiguity, incomplete source attribution and underdeveloped conceptual linkages to broader South Asian contexts".
Under a section titled 'key issues and recommendations', the ASI pointed out specific flaws. It noted that "the narrative blends historical background, literary references and research gaps without clear thematic divisions". According to the evaluation, this approach reduces readability and obscures the analytical focus of the document.
Core Disputes and Allegations of Delay
The ASI's evaluation highlights several methodological concerns. It criticized the report for incomplete citations, such as referencing "S C Jayakaran, 2004" without full bibliographic details. It also flagged the presentation of traditional claims, like the "Sangam duration of 4,440 years", without proper clarification, which the ASI says "undermines academic transparency" and risks "perpetuating uncritical narratives".
Perhaps the most significant scientific disagreement centers on Ramakrishna's interpretation of Keeladi as a 'uni-cultural site' with continuous cultural evolution. The ASI committee concluded that this claim is "inconsistent with the stratigraphic evidence and material culture variations" documented in the report itself. It recommended revising terminology and integrating data more rigorously.
This evaluation comes just three days after DMK MPs raised the issue of the report's delay in Parliament. On December 19, Union Culture Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat stated the report was pending due to a lack of response from the archaeologist and accused opponents of "politicization of an incomplete scientific document".
A Clash of Perspectives
Sources close to Ramakrishna have countered the ASI's actions, calling the 114-page critique "clearly a delaying tactic". They also questioned the expertise of the evaluation team, claiming only one of its five members had "some little experience in excavation".
The conflict has deeper roots. Ramakrishna submitted his voluminous report two years ago. On May 21 this year, the ASI wrote to him recommending corrections. A key point of contention is the dating of the site's earliest period. The ASI has stated that the proposed date of the 8th century BCE to 5th century BCE "appears to be very early" and suggested it could, at most, be somewhere pre-300 BCE.
Ramakrishna has defended his work staunchly. He responded that the ASI's dating recommendation was "against well-reasoned, conclusive findings". In a July interview, the archaeologist, who now serves as ASI director (National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities), made his position clear: "I can proof-read and correct spelling errors but not the concept. If I change the concept, I become a criminal."
The ASI's final recommendation urges a revision to align the interpretation with the archaeological record, which it believes will ultimately enhance Keeladi's significance as a dynamic urban settlement in Tamil Nadu's early historical and Sangam-age context. With both sides entrenched, the release of the definitive Keeladi report faces further uncertainty.
