Keeladi report under review, Union Ministry of Culture tells Lok Sabha

The Union Ministry of Culture on Monday informed the Lok Sabha that the report of the lead archaeologist who led the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)’s excavation in Keeladi in Tamil Nadu was “under review”. “The comments of experts have been shared with the lead archaeologist, which are still to be finalised,” it said.

In his reply to DMK MP Thamizhachi Thangapandian, Union Minister for Culture Gajendra Singh Shekhawat said excavations conducted by the ASI’s archaeologists were done over a period of time during which more than one archaeologist could have led the excavations. She asked if the report submitted by archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna was officially reviewed by the government. “The lead archaeologist submits a report of the excavation, which is vetted by the experts at ASI. After duly verifying and incorporating the conclusions of experts in concurrence with the lead excavation Archaeologist, ASI releases an official report,” the Minister said.

To the DMK MP’s query over the “rationale behind repeated transfer of the lead archaeologist within nine months and its impact on excavation continuity”, Mr. Shekhawat said: “Allocation of works to archaeological officers is a routine administrative matter.”

As for Ms. Thangapandian’s query on whether the Centre was committed to restoring excavation autonomy and “set a joint expert panel, including Tamil Nadu government appointees, in line with protecting Tamil heritage and Dravidian pride”, the Minister said the excavations were conducted as per the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. “ASI is fully committed to following the law and due scientific process for releasing accurate findings based on the excavation in Keeladi. Views of eminent experts will be considered and incorporated for scientifically authentic record,” he added.

Mr. Singh further said experts had suggested that “the nomenclatures of the three periods require change” and “the time bracket of 8^th Century BCE to 5^th Century BCE given for Period 1 is not justified at all.” They said the other two periods should also be determined on the basis of scientific AMS dates and the material recovered in view of stratigraphical details. “For the earliest period in the present state of our knowledge we can, at the maximum, suggest than it originates somewhere in pre-300 BCE.”

The available scientific dates “only depth from where the sample has been collected may not be enough but the layers should also be marked for comparative consistency analysis,” they have said, as per the information shared by the Minister in the Lok Sabha.

The experts have registered their reservations over the following in the submitted report — village map must be redrawn, content/map, plate, drawing, plan, contour, cultural period to be reoriented as specified, stratigraphy, drawing and image-graffiti, among others.