Latest news with #KAmarnathRamakrishna
Time of India
7 days ago
- General
- Time of India
‘All excavation reports need proper vetting and editing before publication'
Chennai: A week after a controversy broke out over its seeking corrections to the draft report on the Keeladi excavations, especially the dating of the settlement's first period to between the 8th century BCE and the 5th century BCE, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on Thursday said, "All reports need proper vetting, editing, proofreading, and designing before they are sent for publication. " "That the ASI is uninterested in the publication of the Keeladi report is a figment of imagination, which aims purposefully to paint the department in bad colours," it further said in a statement. Archaeologist K Amarnath Ramakrishna, who excavated the Keeladi site that proved the existence of an urban centre during the Sangam Age, classified the site's age into three different periods: the pre-early historic period (from the 8th century BCE to the 5th century BCE), the mature early historic period (from the 5th century BCE to the end of the 1st century BCE), and the post-early historic period (from the end of the 1st century BCE to the 3rd century CE). More than two years after the submission of the 982-page report, ASI's director (exploration & excavation), Hemasagar A Naik, asked Ramakrishna to make "corrections" in his draft report on the Keeladi excavations "to make it more authentic" as per the suggestions of two experts who were not named. Naik said Keeladi could at best be dated to around 300 BCE. Ramakrishna defended his findings, saying the final report has "all documentary evidence and chronological sequence". Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo In response to the adverse reactions to its demand, ASI said: "In a set process, after the submission of the reports by the excavators, those are then sent to various subject experts, who are requested to vet the reports for publication. Various alterations, as suggested by the subject experts, are carried out by the excavators and resubmitted finally for publication. These are then published as Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India (MASI). " "The same procedure was adopted in the case of the Keeladi report, wherein the report was sent for vetting to experts. Accordingly, the excavator of the Keeladi has been communicated the suggestions of the experts for making necessary corrections in the draft report submitted by him, but he did not carry out the correction to date," it said. "The story being circulated in a part of the media is misleading, untrue, and is absolutely and vehemently denied. The Director General and the ASI officials understand the importance of an excavated site, but all reports need proper vetting, editing, proofreading, and designing before they are sent for publication," the release said. It also called the notion that the ASI is uninterested in the publication of the Keeladi report "a figment of imagination which aims purposefully to paint the department in bad colours". "The letter from the director (Excavations & Explorations) is a routine matter which the Director (EE) regularly writes to the excavators for carrying out changes in the report or otherwise," the release said. Madurai MP Su Venkatesan, who raised the issue on various platforms, called the release a joke.
New Indian Express
7 days ago
- General
- New Indian Express
Keezhadi report delay is a figment of imagination: Ministry of Culture
CHENNAI: Days after the controversy over Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) seeking clarifications on the Keezhadi excavation report from the excavator K Amarnath Ramakrishna, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in its response on Thursday, denied allegations that there is a move to delay the publication of the report. A release from the Union Ministry of Culture said, 'That the ASI is uninterested in publication of Keezhadi report is a figment of imagination which aims purposefully to paint the department in bad colours.' The release said the director general and the ASI officials understand the importance of an excavated site, but all reports needed proper vetting, editing, proofreading and designing before it is sent for publication. The release said the excavator of the Keezhadi has been communicated the suggestions of the experts for making necessary corrections in the draft report submitted by him, but he has not carried out the corrections to date. However, the release was silent on the delay of 2.5 years for the vetting and publication. When asked whether ASI was intentionally delaying it, Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, joint director, ASI, who is also the spokesperson for the ASI, told TNIE: 'Not at all. Why should it be delayed? The ASI has invested in it and permission was given for two seasons (of excavations).' 'Before the publication, the report should pass through many stages. The excavator should make changes as pointed out by the ASI. In this case, it has not been done,' she said. Asked about the reply given by Amarnath in April 2023 while filing his revised final report on Keezhadi excavation, the ASI spokesperson said, 'The reply does not hold ground.' On the next step of the ASI regarding publication of the report, she said, 'As soon as we get the corrected report, if it is publication-worthy, then it will be taken up for publication'. However, sources said Amarnath is expecting a reply from the ASI to his letter dated May 23, which was sent in response to the ASI's May 21 letter seeking corrections and additional information. In his reply, he had said adequate evidence had already been furnished in the report regarding the time period of the Keezhadi habitation site, a key concern raised in the letter.
New Indian Express
25-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
‘Keezhadi time-period evaluated as per procedures': Archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna
CHENNAI: Two days after the ASI requested him to rework his Keezhadi Excavation Report (2014-15 and 2015-16) to make it 'more authentic', archaeologist K Amarnath Ramakrishna has defended his 982-page report, saying that the findings during the first two excavations including the time period of the artefacts found were based on facts, supported by documentary evidence. Sources said Amarnath, in his response to the ASI, said the request of the director of Exploration and Excavation of ASI for further examination of sequence 'is against the well-reasoned conclusive finding of the excavator (Amarnath) of the site'. Amarnath pointed out that the time period has been evaluated according to established procedures. Also, the period of the site was reconstructed as per the stratigraphical sequence, cultural deposit available with material culture and with the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry-based dating of artefacts found during the excavation. Stating that the absence of 'layer numbering' mentioned in the letter will be done if it is found missing, Amarnathpointed out all relevant maps, plates and drawings were given in HD format in soft copy as well as in hard copy to the ASI headquarters at the time of submission of the report. Meanwhile, VCK general secretary and MP, D Ravikumar urged director general of ASI, to release the Keeladi excavation report without any delay.
Indian Express
25-05-2025
- General
- Indian Express
Archaeologist refuses to revise Keeladi report, writes back to ASI quoting excavation's integrity
Amid renewed scrutiny from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), archaeologist K Amarnath Ramakrishna has written a strongly worded letter, refusing to revise his final report on the Keeladi excavations. The letter, sent to ASI's Director (Exploration and Excavation) Hemasagar A Naik, defends the findings and methodology employed in documenting one of Tamil Nadu's most consequential archaeological sites. More than two years after Ramakrishna submitted his 982-page final report in January 2023—after previous preliminary and interim submissions in 2016 and 2017, respectively—the ASI had written to him on May 23, 2025, asking for corrections to 'make the report more authentic'. In response, Ramakrishna offered a point-by-point rebuttal in a letter that stops short of confrontation but leaves little room for reinterpretation. 'After a gap of two and half year of my submission,' Ramakrishna wrote, 'you have again raised some query on my final report…In this regard, it is informed you that already accepted nomenclatures of the changes in the period was agreed and accordingly the changes of the same was communicated', referring to a letter in April 2023. Responding to the ASI's request for fresh justification of the earliest dating—spanning 8th to 5th century BCE—Ramakrishna wrote: 'It is to inform that regarding the period of Keeladi excavation has been evaluated (as per) the archaeological excavation procedure. Here the period of the site was reconstructed as per the stratigraphic sequence, cultural deposit available with material culture and with AMS date found during the excavation. Based on the findings and facts 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. The view expressed by you for further examination of sequence is against the well reasoned conclusive finding of the excavator of the site.' 'The tone of Ramakrishna's reply is notably formal, but his words make clear he sees the ASI's intervention as redundant and unnecessary,' said a source known to the letter's content. Agreeing to minor procedural updates, he wrote'layer numbering will be done if it is found missing'. On the issue of visual data, which the ASI had previously said needed replacements or were missing, Ramakrishna clarified: 'All relevant maps, plates and drawing were given in high resolution format in soft copy as well as in hard copy to the H.Q. at the time of submission of the report. Hence there is no chance of any missing happens, however if anything is found missing will be corrected.' The ASI's original letter, dated May 15, had asked for a reassessment of the site's chronological brackets, particularly the proposed 8th century BCE dating. It had suggested the earliest date 'can be, at the maximum, somewhere in pre-300 BCE', citing concerns that the three cultural periods required 'proper nomenclatures or re-orientation'. It also cited feedback from two unnamed experts, which sparked disquiet among several independent scholars who viewed the delay and revisions as attempts to dilute Keeladi's significance. Keeladi has long been politically charged. Following Ramakrishna's sudden transfer to Assam in 2017, ASI closed the excavation citing 'lack of significant findings'. Only after a Madras High Court intervention was the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology allowed to resume digging. Later findings—including over 13,000 artefacts—strengthened Keeladi's claims of being a significant urban settlement from the Sangam era or earlier. When contacted, Ramakrishna told The Indian Express that he was not allowed to comment on his official transactions.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
ASI seeks revised report on TN excavations
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has challenged the dating and classification of key discoveries from Tamil Nadu's Keeladi excavations, asking its officer to carry out extensive revisions to a report that underpins the state government's, and of rival Dravidian parties', claims about ancient Tamil civilisation. In a May 21 letter, ASI asked K Amarnath Ramakrishna—who led the first two phases of excavations at the politically sensitive site—to rework his 982-page findings submitted in January 2023. The central agency said two experts had vetted the report and suggested five corrections to make it 'more authentic.' ASI questioned his classification of three historical periods and suggested the earliest dating was 'very early,' placing it 'at maximum, somewhere in pre-300 BCE'—significantly more recent than claims supporting Tamil Nadu's narrative. The intervention strikes at what has become a core issue of an escalating political conflict over Keeladi, a site near Madurai that has become central to the ruling DMK government's campaign to establish an ancient history of Tamil civilisation. Ramkrishna did not respond to HT's request for a comment on the matter. Ramakrishna led ASI's initial excavations at Keeladi from 2015-2017, finding artifacts that appeared are now key to chief minister MK Stalin's contention that Tamil civilisation is thousands of years older than traditionally believed and contemporaneous with major ancient civilisations like the Indus Valley. But ASI transferred him in 2017 and declared 'no significant findings' after a third round of excavations that were led by a different expert PS Sriraman. The Tamil Nadu's government took control and made bold assertions about a 5,000-year-old Tamil civilisation, tying to findings Ramakrishna made in a 982-page scientific report submitted in 2023 — it is this report the ASI now wants amended. The report by Ramakrishna, now ASI's director of antiquities, stems from excavations at Keeladi in that began in March 2015. The site was earmarked alongside several others in Madurai district as part of ongoing research into a possible civilisation that existed on the banks of the Vaigai river. His team discovered brick construction, terracotta and beads that appeared to match descriptions from Tamil Sangam literature, fuelling hopes of validating ancient Tamil texts through archaeological evidence. ASI's latest intervention questions Ramakrishna's classification of Keeladi into three periods: pre-early historic (8th-5th century BCE), mature early historic (5th century BCE-1st century BCE), and post-early historic (1st century BCE-3rd century CE). The letter from Hemasagar A Naik, ASI's director (exploration and excavation), demanded 'proper nomenclatures or re-orientation' and stated that 'the pre-early historic period requires concrete justification.' The agency insisted that 'the other two periods also be determined on scientific AMS dates and the material recovered with stratigraphical details.' The agency also cited extensive technical deficiencies, demanding that 'only mentioning depth for the available scientific dates is not enough but the layer number should also be marked for comparative consistency analysis.' The letter detailed missing elements including unclear village maps, absent plates, plan and contour maps, stratigraphy drawings, and plans showing trench locations. 'Therefore, you are hereby requested to resubmit the report after making the necessary corrections for taking further action in this matter,' ASI stated. In 2017, when ASI declared 'no significant findings' at the site, regional parties protested and approached courts. The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court eventually handed excavation rights to the Tamil Nadu state department of Archaeology in 2018. The current DMK administration has escalated further, with Stalin declaring in January this year: 'I am telling the world today, the technology of smelting iron began in Tamil Nadu around 5,300 years ago. I am saying it with scientific evidence from recent chronometric results.' The chief minister has framed these archaeological pursuits as part of a broader ideological battle, arguing that 'many used to argue that it was a figment of imagination that Aryan and Sanskrit were the origin of India,' while asserting that discoveries support claims that 'the language spoken in the Indus Valley could be Dravidian.'
