ASI blames archaeologist for Keeladi report delay, denies hidden agenda
While Ramakrishna has said he was asked to make changes to the report which he refused, ASI says report can be published only once the corrections are made
The delay in publishing the Keeladi excavation report is not because of any hidden agenda but because the archaeologist concerned failed to make the changes suggested by experts, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has explained.
An ASI official told The Federal that along with the Keeladi report — which contains significant findings related to the existence of an urban civilisation in Tamil Nadu some 2,000 years ago — 56 similar excavation reports with pending corrections are awaiting publication.
The Keeladi findings
Archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna unearthed the ancient civilisation in Keeladi in 2014, in Tamil Nadu’s Sivaganga district. Since 2014, after extensive excavation and the collection of artefacts at the site, he concluded in his report that a highly urbanised civilisation existed in Keeladi, dating back to the Sangam period (6th Century BCE to 3rd Century CE). Though the final report was completed in January 2023, it has not been published so far by ASI.
Recently, several news reports highlighted the delay in the publication of the Keeladi report, wherein Ramakrishna told the media that he was asked to make changes to the report and he refused.
Also read: Keeladi excavations: ASI asks archaeologist Ramakrishna to resubmit his report
He said he filed the report based solely on evidence, and that the views expressed by experts requesting further examination of the sequence were against the well-reasoned and conclusive findings from the excavation.
ASI’s explanation
However, the ASI has now issued a disclaimer stating that the idea that it is not interested in publishing the Keeladi report is a “figment of imagination” aimed at painting the department in a negative light.
Speaking exclusively to The Federal, Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, Joint Director General of ASI, said the report was not put on hold but simply could not be published because Ramakrishna has not made the necessary corrections.
“The ASI has no hidden agenda to delay the report. ASI reports are not just documents — they shape the way history is taught. That’s why every report undergoes a rigorous vetting process. We cannot let inaccuracies slip through, no matter the pressure or assumptions made outside. We haven’t received the corrected version from Amarnath Ramakrishna. The report will be published once the corrections are made,” Bhattacharya Sahu told The Federal.
‘ASI has no agenda’
She said the Keeladi excavation report submitted by Ramakrishna was shared with experts who possess relevant knowledge and experience for verification.
“It’s not just Keeladi — several reports undergo a vetting process before publication. We applied the same standards to the Keeladi report. Since the archaeologist did not make the changes, we cannot publish a draft form,” she said.
She added that instead of verifying the facts with ASI, certain sections of the media chose to publish baseless narratives suggesting that ASI had deliberately delayed the Keeladi report.
“The ASI has no agenda; we are committed to scientific accuracy and neutrality. Reports like these are not delayed without reason. There are layers of academic review, expert inputs, and technical corrections involved. When these steps are overlooked or misrepresented, it not only undermines our work but also misleads the public about the standards we uphold,” Bhattacharya Sahu told The Federal.
Also read: A common Tamil thread could have bound Keeladi with Harappa
The Adichanallur report
However, many archaeological enthusiasts, like Tamil writer A Jeevakumar, say that the Keeladi report is facing a fate similar to that of the Adichanallur report.
“The Adichanallur excavation report was published only after 15 years. It faced delays due to several factors — including ASI’s delay in sending evidence for carbon dating, lack of necessary resources for the excavation, and the retirement of lead archaeologist T Satyamurthy. Now, ASI seems to be following the same pattern with the Keeladi report,” he said.
When asked about the 15-year delay in publishing the Adichanallur excavation report, Bhattacharya Sahu said, “In the case of Adichanallur, the main reason for the delay was the archaeologist’s delayed submission. We treat every report the same, and the same process is applied to all excavation reports.”
When The Federal asked for the details of the changes to be made in the Keeladi report and the names of the experts involved in the vetting process, she said those details are confidential.
