Dear colleagues,
Recently, I came across a YouTube video by Anusha Ravi Sood, the Editor of the South First portal, on the Keezhadi excavation. The South First portal is based in Hyderabad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9TgPNBKLI4 As I sought more details regarding what exactly are the objections to the report, I came upon the following links. https://thesouthfirst.com/tamilnadu/asis-bias-against-southern-excavations-archaeologist-amarnath-ramakrishna-defends-keezhadi-excavation-findings/ https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2025/Jun/10/keezhadi-report-of-amarnath-ramakrishna-not-scientific-well-supported-union-culture-minister These too did not provide clear information on the objections ASI had towards the 982-page report by the archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna. Finally, the following Tamil YouTube video interview of Prof. Marappan of Presidency College seem to provide more details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi8-CxWKl0A It looks like the archaeologist has divided the Keezhadi civilization into three periods 8th century BCE – 5th century BCE as Early Phase, 5th century BCE to 3rd century BCE as the mature Phase and 3rd century BCE to first century CE as the Decline Phase. Amarnath Ramakrishna who worked the site for the first two years found the carbon-datable sample at 190 CM depth dated to 3rd century BCE. Later excavation by Tamil Nadu archaeologists got a carbon-datable sample at 225 cm depth datable to 6th century BC. Apparently, ASI objects to this chronology although it is not clear what exactly the objection is with respect to what is presented in the report. According to Prof. Marappan, this is the first time ASI had sent the archaeological report to two reviewers and ASI had not done such a thing with any other site. Apparaently, one of the reviewers is from Tamil Nadu and the other had worked on the Ayodhya excavations. He says that Ramakrishna had been keeping the ASI superiors updated during the time he was working on it and ASI did not have any problem then. He feels the report should be published and scholars can decide on its merits and defects. He also points to the extraordinary length of time (15 years) ASI took to publish a reltaively slender report on Prof. Marappan says that when the archaeologist sent the report to ASI, he had sent, Word, PDF, and hard copy files. Even if some hard copies are lost or damaged, how can digital files also get lost, he asks. I would like to know from scholars familiar with ASI and its procedures if what Prof. Marappan says is true regarding review by outside experts. Also, what is the problem with adding any additional details the archaeologist has agreed to provide and then publishing it? Have any scholars seen the draft report or the objections? Thank you. Regards, Palaniappan
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
