As Centre, TN spar over archaeological finds, ASI takes ‘antiquity’ off Keeladi specialist

CHENNAI: After sparring over the antiquity of the archaeological finds at Keeladi with the Tamil Nadu govt, the Union govt has removed Amarnath Ramakrishna as ASI director (antiquity). Ramakrishna had submitted a report that said the south Tamil Nadu finds were from the 8th century BCE.

After Union culture minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat said on June 10 that the Keeladi report was not scientifically sound, Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin hit out at Centre, saying it’s not the report, but some minds that need to be changed. The Tamil Nadu govt had revived archaeological excavations in the state to further its narrative of Dravidian glory of yore.

ASI director (exploration & excavation) Hemasagar A Naik, who sent a letter to Amarnath on May 21 seeking “concrete justification” for the dating of the Keeladi findings — and received a sharp response from Ramakrishna — will now head the antiquities department. Ramakrishna will remain in charge of National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities (NMMA). Sources said NMMA, set up by the govt in 2007 to create two national registers to document monuments and antiquities across the country, has been virtually defunct.

On May 23, Ramakrishna replied to Naik’s letter, stating that the period of Keeladi excavation “was reconstructed as per the stratigraphical sequence, cultural deposit available with material culture and with accelerator mass spectrometry date found during the excavation”.

He added, “The final outcome of the observation of the excavator was incorporated in the final report with all documentary evidence, and the chronological sequence of the Keeladi site was clearly explained in the report.”

In his letter, Naik said, “The date of the earlier period (8th century BCE to 5th century BCE) in the present state of our knowledge appears to be very early and that it can be, at the maximum, somewhere in pre-300 BCE.”

Ramakrishna was firm in his reply: “The view expressed by you for further examination of sequence is against the well-reasoned conclusive finding of the excavator of the site.”

To Naik’s observation that “only mentioning the depth for the available scientific dates is not enough but the layer number should also be marked for comparative consistency analysis”, Ramakrishna replied, “Layer numbering will be done if it is found missing.”

Finally, on Naik’s insistence that the submitted maps may be replaced with better ones, that the village map lacked clarity, some plates were missing, drawings were missing and trenches/cuttings required, Ramakrishna replied that “all relevant maps, plates and drawings were given in high resolution format”.

Recently, Shekhawat had said the report on Keeladi submitted by Amarnath Ramakrishna was not “technically well-supported” and more data was required.

“The report is not technically well-supported and established yet. A lot of things are to be done before recognition and accreditation are accorded to the findings presented by the archaeologist. Let them come up with more results, more data, evidence and proof. One finding cannot change the discourse of history,” he had said.