Chennai: Refuting allegations that his transfer would affect the Keezhadi archaeological report, a source close to archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna said that only the excavator can submit the final report on the controversial site.
“Wherever he goes or whichever post he holds inside the ASI, the final report is supposed to be from Amarnath. If a report on Keezhadi’s first two excavations are released, it will be authored by Amarnath Ramakrishna,” the source told ThePrint, adding that the maximum they can do to Ramakrishna is a transfer.
Ramakrishna has been relieved as Director of Antiquity in New Delhi, and will now serve as Director of the National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities (NMMA) in Greater Noida.
This comes days after Union Minister for Culture and Tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat said that the report on Keezhadi excavation lacked sufficient technical evidence and required further scientific validation before it could be officially recognised.
The ASI, on 21 May, had returned the 982-page Keezhadi report to Amarnath Ramakrishna asking him to rework it. It suggested about five corrections after the report was vetted by two experts. Within a few days, on 25 May, Ramakrishna refused to revise the report saying it was backed by scientific evidence.
In his letter to ASI’s Director (Exploration and Excavation) Hemasagar A Naik, he stated “the view expressed by you for further examination of sequence is against the well reasoned conclusive finding of the excavator of the site”.
The report has triggered a political strom in Tamil Nadu, with the ruling DMK demanding that the report submitted by Amarnath Ramakrishna be released. The party’s student wing has planned a protest in Madurai on 18 June, condemning the ASI.
In a post on X on Tuesday, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin said the Tamils were able to establish the antiquity of the race with the help of science, despite the obstacles.
“Yet some minds refuse to accept it. It’s not the statements that need to be corrected; it’s some minds,” he wrote.
On Amarnath Ramakrishna’s transfer, ASI’s joint director and spokesperson, Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, said it has nothing to do with the Keezhadi report and that it is a usual administrative procedure in ASI.
“In any case, he was already the director of NMMA, which is headquartered in Noida. Now he is working in the ASI Headquarters in Delhi as Director of Antiquity and NMMA. By relieving him from the Director of Antiquity post, he will continue to work as the Director of NMMA. Even otherwise, he was visiting the Noida office in his capacity as the Director,” said the spokesperson.
The DMK, which has been trying to rewrite history from the Tamil landscape, has condemned the BJP-led central government for exerting pressure on Amarnath Ramakrishna to change his findings.
“As the pressure to officially release the report was building, the BJP is attempting to bring in a ‘yes-man’ in his place who will withdraw the report and dilute the findings to suit their xenophobic narrative,” DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson said in a post on X on Tuesday.
Why is the Keezhadi report a big deal?
While most of the excavations in Tamil Nadu were done on burial sites, Keezhadi was among the first habitation sites to be excavated after the advent of modern technology. One of the major revelations of the Keezhadi excavation was that it pushed the origins of Sangam age to at least 800 BCE. Traditionally, the Sangam age was believed to be from the 3rd century BCE to the 3rd century CE.
According to sources privy to the report submitted by Ramakrishna, Keezhadi was classified into three periods – Pre-Early Historic period (between 8th century BCE – 5th Century BCE), Mature Early Historic Period (between 5th century BCE – end of the 1st century BCE) and Post Early Historic Period (end of 1st century BCE – 3rd Century CE).
“The period of 8th Century BCE-3rd Century CE was arrived at not merely based on AMS dating but also from other datable associated materials like ceramics, floral phytoliths, artefacts, structures, and faunal remains,” the source close to the Ramakrishna told ThePrint.
In regard to the recent controversy, the source said it is the first time the ASI wants to revise the findings of an archaeologist who excavated the site.
“Mostly the report will be proofread and if there are any typos, grammatical errors, or if some drawings were missing, that would be asked to be added. But, this is the first time that the findings of the excavations were asked to change”.
The source added that the report was not written by Ramakrishna alone. “It was a team effort including scholars, draftsmen and a lot of other people. He cannot just go by what the ASI wants to say. They want to change the period. But, the dates given in the report were found using existing norms”.
The source stated that only an excavator can draft a report and if the report has to be reworked, the excavation itself will have to be re-done.
“It is just like a postmortem. Only the doctor who performed it can comment on it. Not the people who see the report and want to change it according to their wish,” the source said.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)