Keeladi findings: Where's evidence for 600-year gap, asks ASI's Nandini Sahu

The Keeladi excavations in Tamil Nadu have drawn national attention for their potential to reshape our understanding of early urban civilisation in South India. However, controversy erupted when archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna claimed that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was blocking the publication of his report.

In this exclusive interview with The Federal, Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, Joint Director General and official spokesperson of ASI, responds to the allegations and explains the reasons behind the delay.

Why was Amarnath Ramakrishna asked to revise his excavation report?

He was asked to provide scientific support for the dates mentioned in the report. That includes stratigraphy, layer markings, and clear backing for chronological claims. Reports must reflect the raw evidence as retrieved on-site. In this case, several aspects were either missing or unclear, especially in the first two excavation phases. If the stratigraphy isn’t clear, it creates scientific gaps.

Amarnath says the chronology he provided was based on scientific methods like AMS. Why was that not accepted?

AMS results were submitted, but the earliest confirmed date was the 3rd century BCE. He claimed the site dates back to the 9th century BCE.

Archaeology is about uncovering, not hiding. We reveal and preserve the cultural history of all regions equally.

That’s a 600-year gap he needs to explain. If the evidence exists, it should be included in the report. The ASI only asked for such additions or clarifications, in plain language.

Why not call a meeting to resolve the issue directly with him?

That option was open. If he needed clarity, he could have approached the ASI to discuss the required edits. Instead, he refused to incorporate the changes and took the issue to the media.

He alleges that making the changes would reduce the importance of his findings. Is that true?

Editing is a standard process for any publication. No one dictated conclusions to him. ASI only asked him to either provide or remove unsubstantiated claims. This doesn’t reduce the importance of the findings. It ensures they stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Has ASI blocked the publication of the Keeladi report?

No. He received full support, including funds and permissions for two excavation seasons. Even when he was posted elsewhere, he was allowed to submit his report. If suggestions for revision are viewed as suppression, that’s a misinterpretation. The site is still being excavated by the Tamil Nadu State Department. Findings will continue to emerge.

There’s a perception that ASI treats southern projects differently from northern ones. Is there a bias?

Absolutely not. Every part of India matters equally to ASI. We have established a dedicated Trichy Circle in Tamil Nadu and operate an epigraphy branch there. Suggesting regional bias is unfortunate and incorrect.

Tamil Nadu's Archaeology Minister has accused the BJP-led Union government of treating Tamils as second-class citizens and suppressing Keeladi's significance.

I cannot comment on the views of political leaders. But I can assure you that ASI holds Tamil Nadu in high regard. We have been actively working in the state and are proud of its rich heritage.

When can we expect the Keeladi report to be published?

As soon as the required additions are made the report will be published. Archaeology is about uncovering, not hiding. We reveal and preserve the cultural history of all regions equally.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)