Archaeologist K Amarnath Ramakrishna, in a letter to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on February 2, said that there was no need to alter his 982-page report on the politically controversial site of Keeladi and demanded its release. HT has seen a copy of the contents of Ramakrishna’s letter. The ASI had evaluated his work and stated in a 114-page note that the report was ambiguous and recommended changes.
“I continue to maintain here also that the chronology of the Keeladi excavation has been reconstructed strictly in accordance on the basis of careful consideration of the primary sources namely, cultural deposit, stratigraphic sequences and its material culture etc., by following the existing principles and established methodology of the Archaeological Survey of India,” Ramakrishna said in his letter.
“Therefore, I request you to consider the findings and conclusion drawn in the Keeladi excavation to be final and there is no need or valid reasons to alter the said report, much less to substitute the chronology of the site. In the light of my unambiguous reply no useful purpose would be served in further withholding the Keeladi excavation report submitted by me and as such the same may be published at the earliest.”
ASI in May 2025 asked its officer Ramakrishna to rework his voluminous report of the first two excavations at Keeladi challenging the dating and classification of key discoveries. Ramakrishna refused and stood by his report, stating that by relying on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating of 23 artefacts, a chronological sequence of Keeladi to be between the 8th century BCE to 3rd century CE has been established. ASI transferred him on June 17 last year days after chief minister MK Stalin on June 13, 2025 said that the truth from the findings in Keeladi does not serve the script of the BJP and RSS and so they are dismissing the “rigorously proven antiquity of Tamil culture”. The chief minister has framed these archaeological pursuits as part of a broader ideological battle. On June 11 last year, Union minister of culture and tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat had alleged that the DMK government was refusing to cooperate with the central government on Keeladi research and politicising the findings.
{{/usCountry}}ASI in May 2025 asked its officer Ramakrishna to rework his voluminous report of the first two excavations at Keeladi challenging the dating and classification of key discoveries. Ramakrishna refused and stood by his report, stating that by relying on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating of 23 artefacts, a chronological sequence of Keeladi to be between the 8th century BCE to 3rd century CE has been established. ASI transferred him on June 17 last year days after chief minister MK Stalin on June 13, 2025 said that the truth from the findings in Keeladi does not serve the script of the BJP and RSS and so they are dismissing the “rigorously proven antiquity of Tamil culture”. The chief minister has framed these archaeological pursuits as part of a broader ideological battle. On June 11 last year, Union minister of culture and tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat had alleged that the DMK government was refusing to cooperate with the central government on Keeladi research and politicising the findings.
{{/usCountry}}Firstly Ramakrishna said he hadn’t received the letter of the ASIs internal committee dated December 11, 2025 which had remarked on the Keeladi Excavation report (2014-2015 and 2015- 2016) on time due to an incorrect email address . The letter was sent to him last December 23 titled “Critical evaluation and Recommendations for the Keeladi Excavation Report (2014-2016)” prepared by the committee. It comprised five members: Priyank Gupta, assistant archaeologist, Garima Kaushik, assistant superintending archaeologist, P Aravazhi, deputy superintending archaeologist, Hemsagar A Naik, director, and Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, joint director general.
A bare perusal reveals that there is no unanimity among the members who had prepared the note, Ramakrishan said in his response. “That apart, I am constrained to state that the procedure of setting up an internal committee to critically evaluate a report submitted by an archaeologist who had actually conducted physical excavation is unprecedented,” Ramakrishna said. Until now, every report submitted by an archaeologist has been subjected to scrutiny only for proofreading for errors in spelling, grammar, paging, drawings, photos, indexing, he said.
“The recommendation divulges serious and fundamental flaws in the procedure adopted by the internal committee,” he continued. “The internal committee ought to have handed over the copy of my original Keeladi Excavation Report, submitted by me in January 2023 with its critical evaluation remarks endorsed on it. The said committee while doing critical evaluation and giving its recommendations has not given any plausible reasons and valid justification requesting me to improve my report that too, on my findings.”
He added that the evaluation discloses non-application of “scholarly humans” and seemed to be a product of AI on his report and reiterated that the excavation report has been prepared on the basis of the factual evidence found during the excavation.
“Such kind of incident has never happened in the annals of the excavation reports ever published by the Archaeological Survey of India so far. This appears to be the first instance of its kind,” Ramakrishna said.
He pointed out that previously too the department had asked him to respond to their observations in March 2025. At that time too Ramakrishna said that the principles and methodology adopted by the ASI since its inception has been strictly followed in the Keeladi excavation report.
“I was repeatedly asked to make the changes in the report. I wonder as to why repeatedly this is happening to the Keeladi excavation report alone?” Ramakrishna questioned. “It virtually seeks to supplant my findings which are purely based upon careful consideration of the primary sources namely, from the archaeological excavation, cultural deposit, stratigraphic sequences and its material culture etc., which were actually retrieved from the site.” He also described it as “pathetic” that the internal committee, he claimed, had never visited the Keeladi site. “In such circumstances, there is no need or justification whatsoever for the internal committee to seek change in the report of the site.”
“During the compilation of the report, all our previous excavation reports such as those of Adhichchanallur, Hulas, Bhagavanpura, Kalibangan, Kaveripattinam, Pauni, Adam, and Nagarjunakonda as well as the State archaeological department reports of Korkai, Alagangulam, Keeladi were meticulously referred and considered,” he said.