Latest news with #SangamAge
Time of India
30-05-2025
- 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.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Science
- The Hindu
ASI asks archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna to rewrite his report on Keezhadi excavations
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has asked archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna, who unearthed an ancient civilisation in Keezhadi near Madurai, to resubmit his report about the excavation after making necessary corrections for taking further action. A letter from the ASI said two experts had suggested corrections in the report submitted by Mr. Ramakrishna, who was in charge of the excavation, to make it 'more authentic.' Mr. Ramakrishna, who conducted extensive digging that began in 2014, studied the ancientness of the objects through Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and prepared a 982-page report. Carbon dating of charcoal found at the Keezhadi site in February 2017 established that the settlement there belonged to 200 BC. Several artefacts discovered during the excavation pointed to the existence of an urban civilisation in Tamil Nadu since the Sangam Age. Mr. Ramakrishna sent it to the Director General of ASI on January 30, 2023. Earlier, before he could send his report, Mr. Ramakrishna was transferred to Assam in 2017 and now, he is working as Director, Antiquities. After more than two years since the report was submitted, the ASI has asked him to rewrite his report. According to the ASI, three periods require proper nomenclature or re-orientation, and the time bracket of 8th century BCE to 5th century BCE for Period I requires concrete justification. 'The other two periods also must be determined based on scientific AMS dates and the material recovered with stratigraphical details. The date of the earliest period, in the present state of our knowledge, appears to be very early. It can be, at the maximum, somewhere in pre-300 BCE,' said the ASI. It had informed Mr. Ramakrishna that only mentioning depth for the available scientific dates was not enough; the layer number should also be marked for comparative consistency analysis. 'The submitted maps may be replaced with better ones; the village map lacks clarity, some plates are missing; plan, contour map, stratigraphy drawing, drawings are missing; and a plan/map giving the location of the trenches/cuttings is required,' according to the letter from the ASI to Mr. Ramakrishna. 'Unprecedented decision' When his opinion was sought, former IAS officer R. Balakrishnan, who authored the book Journey of a Civilisation: Indus to Vaigai, said the decision of the ASI seemed to be 'unprecedented' and obviously a result of the 'pressure of history.' 'Not digging adequately is considered a tragedy, not letting the reports come out is a greater tragedy. It is simply pathetic,' he said. Reiterating that history was not a frozen snow, but a flowing river, Mr. Balakrishnan, formerly Additional Chief Secretary of Odisha, said the treatment of southern archaeology by the ASI has consistently been far from satisfactory. 'We have been seeing a clear bias. In a multicultural country like India, history requires careful and responsible handling,' he said. He noted that no one touched Adichanallur for 100 years after Alexander Rea, the British archaeologist. 'The Adichanallur report by T. Sathyamoorthy did not see the light of day for 15 years until the intervention of the court. Now, the same thing has happened to Keezhadi. The delay in publishing the reports of Mr. Sathyamoorthy and Mr. Ramakrishna is a cause of concern,' he said.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Science
- The Hindu
ASI asks Amarnath Ramakrishna to rewrite his report on Keezhadi excavations
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has asked archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna, who unearthed an ancient civilisation in Keezhadi near Madurai, to resubmit his report about the excavation after making necessary corrections for taking further action. A letter from the ASI said two experts had suggested corrections in the report submitted by Mr. Ramakrishna, who was in charge of the excavation, to make it 'more authentic.' Mr. Ramakrishna, who conducted extensive digging that began in 2014, studied the ancientness of the objects through Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and prepared a 982-page report. Carbon dating of charcoal found at the Keezhadi site in February 2017 established that the settlement there belonged to 200 BC. Several artefacts discovered during the excavation pointed to the existence of an urban civilisation in Tamil Nadu since the Sangam Age. Mr. Ramakrishna sent it to the Director General of ASI on January 30, 2023. Earlier, before he could send his report, Mr. Ramakrishna was transferred to Assam in 2017 and now, he is working as Director, Antiquities. After more than two years since the report was submitted, the ASI has asked him to rewrite his report. According to the ASI, three periods require proper nomenclature or re-orientation, and the time bracket of 8th century BCE to 5th century BCE for Period I requires concrete justification. 'The other two periods also must be determined based on scientific AMS dates and the material recovered with stratigraphical details. The date of the earliest period, in the present state of our knowledge, appears to be very early. It can be, at the maximum, somewhere in pre-300 BCE,' said the ASI. It had informed Mr. Ramakrishna that only mentioning depth for the available scientific dates was not enough; the layer number should also be marked for comparative consistency analysis. 'The submitted maps may be replaced with better ones; the village map lacks clarity, some plates are missing; plan, contour map, stratigraphy drawing, drawings are missing; and a plan/map giving the location of the trenches/cuttings is required,' according to the letter from the ASI to Mr. Ramakrishna. 'Unprecedented decision' When his opinion was sought, former IAS officer R. Balakrishnan, who authored the book Journey of a Civilisation: Indus to Vaigai, said the decision of the ASI seemed to be 'unprecedented' and obviously a result of the 'pressure of history.' 'Not digging adequately is considered a tragedy, not letting the reports come out is a greater tragedy. It is simply pathetic,' he said. Reiterating that history was not a frozen snow, but a flowing river, Mr. Balakrishnan, formerly Additional Chief Secretary of Odisha, said the treatment of southern archaeology by the ASI has consistently been far from satisfactory. 'We have been seeing a clear bias. In a multicultural country like India, history requires careful and responsible handling,' he said. He noted that no one touched Adichanallur for 100 years after Alexander Rea, the British archaeologist. 'The Adichanallur report by T. Sathyamoorthy did not see the light of day for 15 years until the intervention of the court. Now, the same thing has happened to Keezhadi. The delay in publishing the reports of Mr. Sathyamoorthy and Mr. Ramakrishna is a cause of concern,' he said.
