New Delhi: When the publication division of the Archaeological Survey of India raised its requirement for a printer on the Government e-Marketplace earlier this year, all it got was an “unavailability certificate”. Months later, it’s still waiting and, thus, so are long-pending excavation reports, including for Sinauli, hailed as a discovery that challenges the Aryan invasion theory.
But the missing printer is just one aspect of a much older malaise. For decades, the 164-year-old ASI has been bogged down with an ever-growing backlog of excavation reports, some unfinished and some not even started. In some cases, reports have been pending for more than 60 years.
While the pace of excavations has increased over the last decade, many key reports are still in limbo, from Sinauli to Rakhigarhi, Mathura, and Ropar. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) first flagged the issue in 2013, and then again in 2022, but the pile-up has only grown worse. These reports are among the core responsibilities of the ASI. Their absence has hindered the dissemination of valuable information to researchers, scholars, and the public, ultimately impacting the field of archaeology and cultural heritage preservation in India.
For the last three years, the publication division of ASI has laid the blame largely on a lack of printing capacity.
“The printer is the biggest hindrance for us to publish crucial excavation reports, including the Sinauli excavation report,” said Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, spokesperson and joint director general (monument and publication), ASI.
As of June 2023, 56 excavation reports had been cleared, but the existing printer couldn’t produce them to ASI’s standards. For instance, an excavation report from Odisha last year was printed but it fell short on quality. After several complaints to the Kolkata-based printer supplier, ASI “cancelled the order”, Bhattacharya said at her office in the ASI headquarters in Delhi.
The ASI is handing out excavation licences promptly and digs are happening with urgency, but even after crores of rupees are spent, reports are not published on time.
“The continuous transfers of archaeologists, overburden with administrative work, absence of a monitoring policy, no separate time given to archaeologists for report writing are among the reasons for the delays,” said Phanikant Mishra, former regional director (East), ASI. “But these reasons can’t be the excuse. Reports are very important, and without them significant knowledge of sites has been lost.”
Costly digs, missing reports
In 1982, Phanikant Mishra discovered a Mauryan-era stupa in Deur Kothar village of Madhya Pradesh’s Rewa district, dating back to the third century BC. Excavations continued there until 1999-2000.
Decades have passed, but the site’s excavation report is still pending.
“I have been writing to ASI headquarters for years to seek permission to write an excavation report. But I’m still waiting,” said 68-year-old Mishra, who settled in Bihar’s Madhubani district after retiring from the ASI. He added that huge sums are spent on excavation work, but without timely reports, the investment is wasted.
Between 2014 and 2024, the Narendra Modi government allocated Rs 9,652.01 crore to the ASI, of which Rs 63.27 crore went to excavations. Major sites such as Rakhigarhi in Haryana, Sinauli in Uttar Pradesh, and Keezhadi in Tamil Nadu were dug up in this period but the reports haven’t been published. Excavators of these sites have written articles, presented their findings on various forums, and given interviews, but the detailed reports — the official record — have not materialised.
Mishra said this is a pressing concern in the ASI but no one is trying to resolve it.
“Writing excavation reports should be a norm, not an exception,” he said, “The report should be published within a year after the completion of excavation by either ASI or state departments or by universities, failing which necessary legal actions should be taken.”
There is no mechanism within the ASI to monitor excavation reports, even though various solutions to the problem have been floated over the years.
A long, detailed report cannot be written on the basis of memory alone. The things found during excavation are also kept in closed boxes and keep getting spoiled
-Phanikant Mishra, retired archaeologist
In 2005, a decision was taken by ASI to complete the pending excavation reports within a period of two years. Thereafter, 56 reports were identified for completion by 2007.
Less than half of this target was achieved, according to a 2013 CAG report, titled Performance Audit of Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities.
“Only 25 reports were submitted as of September 2012,” it noted, adding that some had been pending for as long as 57 years, for sites including Sravasti, Mathura, and Ropar. “It was unlikely that accurate reports could be written at such a belated stage without re-excavation.”
In its follow-up report, CAG again pointed out that “writing of excavation reports was pending for more than 60 years and its expenditure on the activity was less than one per cent”.
In 2023, ASI informed a Rajya Sabha standing committee that it had received 11 reports — two from Bihar, three from Odisha, and two each from Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh— but these were still being vetted.
“The Committee further recommends that the vetting process of the 11 excavation/exploration reports must be expedited and the reports should also be published timely and kept in public domain,” the panel said in its report Functioning of Archaeological Survey of India
Degradation of knowledge, evidence
Delays can be fatal for accuracy in archaeology. Memory falters and evidence degrades, according to Mishra.
“A long, detailed report cannot be written on the basis of memory alone,” he said. “The things found during excavation are also kept in closed boxes and keep getting spoiled.”
During the excavation period, excavators maintain a site note-book about the daily findings. This trench-by-trench log is one of the primary resource materials for the final report. But every observation is not necessarily available in the records.
“The site can be analysed later, but if the stratigraphy of the site is not written at the right time, it becomes difficult to remember it later,” said a senior superintending archaeologist serving in North India. “If the person doing the excavation writes a report after many years, he will forget many details about the site. No one’s memory is that sharp.”
The loss isn’t only in knowledge. Antiquities themselves can deteriorate if they are left to languish for too long. In 2010, ASI informed the culture ministry it could not prepare reports for Kunnattur in Tamil Nadu and Nalanda in Bihar because the finds had become unidentifiable. The CAG also found that when excavators were transferred, they were sometimes allowed to carry antiquities with them. At Dholavira, material was not handed over even after 12 years.
“In such a situation damage and loss of antiquities lying with the excavators without proper insurance and security, could not be ruled out,” the 2013 CAG report warned.
ASI needs to change its transfer policy. In every two-three years, a person is transferred. In such a situation, even if one is a good scholar, he will not be able to work
-KK Muhammed, retired archaeologist
Delays in reports, and the lack of clarity this creates, can give room for disputes to brew. In Keezhadi—a site that has become central to a North-South clash over civilisational clout—lead archaeologist Amarnath Ramkrishna submitted the report to DG ASI in 2023, eight years after the excavation. His report on the first two phases was mired in controversy as ASI asked for changes. The third phase, led by archaeologist PS Sriraman, is still without a report. Sriraman, who retired in 2019, sought permission from ASI to write the reports for Keezhadi and Kodumanal. In July, ASI gave him permission to prepare a detailed report on the work carried out under his supervision and granted him access to the materials in the Chennai circle.
Mishra said the excavated antiquities were often not accessioned and instead dumped in ASI circle offices and storerooms. Though the culture ministry had stated that ASI would have a policy for excavators to catalogue all antiquities unearthed, this is yet to happen.
Between 2007 and 2012, the ASI undertook 113 excavations and explorations. But reports were submitted in only 12 cases.
“It’s a sad reality that ASI is going backward academically and the backlog is increasing. We don’t have the reports of our prime sites and there is no such conscious efforts towards this,” said a young archaeologist who participated in several North India excavations.
Also Read: Indian archaeology is getting a cool, new makeover. Out of the trenches, letting people in
‘Painful work’
Archaeologists insist it is not unwillingness but rising workload that has slowed report writing. Bhattacharya said ASI is eager to publish more reports.
“This is our mandate but the frequent transfers of officials from one circle to another is one of the biggest challenges,” she said.
Veteran archaeologist KK Muhammed experienced this first-hand. Posted in the Bihar circle, he excavated the Kesariya Stupa in 1998. He submitted a preliminary report but not a detailed one before being transferred to Agra. Burdened by new administrative and other demands, he said he was not able to finish the stupa report.
“ASI needs to change its transfer policy. In every two-three years, a person is transferred. In such a situation, even if one is a good scholar, he will not be able to work,” he added.
Bhattacharya admitted the pendency is huge. She said even when reports are submitted, they have to go through an intense process of vetting, re-vetting, proofreading, and publication under the Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India (MASI). This process can create bottlenecks. She cited one excavation in Goa where the archaeologist submitted a report but later withdrew it.
“Unfortunately, he passed away and the report never completed,” she said.
The celebrated Harappan site, Rakhigarhi in Haryana, also doesn’t have a completed report. Because of this, the site was dropped from India’s UNESCO World Heritage nomination dossier.
Excavated multiple times, Rakhigarhi has yielded evidence of a mature Harappan township with brick houses and a drainage system. Bhattacharya said archaeologist Amarendra Nath, who excavated it between 1997 and 2000, submitted a report, but a few chapters are still incomplete.
“We have told Nath to submit it but he hasn’t yet,” said Bhattacharya.
The publication division, which she heads, is responsible for producing the journal Indian Archaeology – A Review, excavation reports, and guidebooks. But technical expertise on publication standards is thinning.
“ASI has a specific stylesheet for its publication of reports. Very few people in the publication division these days know the style sheet,” said the senior archaeologist serving in North India.
RS Fonia, veteran archaeologist and former additional director general at ASI, said the department is also struggling with domain experts who can review excavation reports.
“ASI has very limited expertise and they are not doing anything for capacity building. Archaeologists are not submitting the report when they are in service and trying to make it a post-retirement benefit,” he alleged.
Report-writing needs dedication. It’s painful work, that’s why archaeologists avoid it.
-Senior archaeologist
Another problem, Fonia added, is that the Central Advisory Board of Archaeology (CABA) gives excavation licenses to archaeologists by name.
“It should be changed and the licence should be given by designation, so that if the person transfers or retires, the next person will continue that work,” he said.
The quality of archaeological writings, according to Fonia, is suffering across the board.
The decline shows in ASI’s flagship journal as well. Archaeologist Amalananda Ghosh, ASI director general from 1953-68, had started the in-house annual Indian Archaeology – A Review (IAR) in 1954 to provide year-by-year briefs of all explorations, excavations, and conservation works.
However, after 2000, the ASI stopped publishing its report annually. Post the 2013-14 edition (which came out in 2016), no report was published at all.
A senior archaeologist recalled that there was a time when a posting in the publication division was considered an honour, but today it is seen as a punishment.
“Reports will come only when this work is viewed with respect,” he said. Having worked in the publication division himself, he recounted that only some archaeologists gave report-writing its due—such as JP Joshi, who wrote detailed and scholarly reports of sites he excavated, including Bhagwanpura in Haryana.
To him, the lack of amenities being cited is just a smokescreen.
“Report-writing needs dedication. It is unfortunate that people today do not have the same dedication as they had earlier,” he said, adding that the government provides all the required facilities for publishing reports. “It’s painful work, that’s why archaeologists avoid it.”
Correction: An earlier version of this report quoted an article that suggested no issue of the IAR was published for the last 25 years. The last edition actually came out in 2016, for the year 2013-14.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
It is amazing that Bharat, that prides itself on it’s IT Sector, Know-How, Infrastructure and ALL-INDIA Access, still relies on hundreds of year old hard copy printing for its reports…
Why can all these ASI Reports not be put on an ASI Website… for “the world” to access.. directly… Something is missing here.
Perhaps it is the “army of Babu’s” at ASI and elsewhere, “waiting in line” to get THEIR Piece of the Pie… from those lucrative Printer Contracts.
Are Modi’s “MADE AS INDIA” Officials Awake … Listening … Aware … or they prefer to just 🙈🙉🙊🙈🙉🙊🙈🙉🙊….????
Which low IQ moron wrote this article? AIT has already been debunked but agenda driven so-called journos won’t write factually but their own opinions as facts.