Chennai: Union culture minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat on Monday listed “missing details”, pointed out by unnamed experts, in the Keeladi excavation report submitted by lead archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna. The minister clarified that ASI did not request any revised report on Keeladi from the state archaeology department.Shekhawat was responding in writing to questions from DMK MPs Thamizhachi Thangapandian and Dayanidhi Maran in Lok Sabha. Thamizhachi asked whether the Centre officially reviewed the excavation report after it was submitted in June.According to Shekhawat, the “omissions” include “the need for the cultural period to be reoriented as specified, the village map to be redrawn, and updates of content/map, plate, drawing, plan, contour, cuttings, stratigraphy, drawing, and image-graffiti”. “ASI is fully committed to following the law and due scientific process for releasing the accurate findings based on the excavation at Keeladi. Views of eminent experts will be taken and incorporated for a scientifically authentic record,” the minister said. Amarnath declined to comment on the matter. His associates said he gave all necessary details in both soft and hard copies during the submission stage and responded to queries on May 23.Shekhawat said “experts” were of the view that nomenclature of the three periods listed by Amarnath need to be changed, and the time bracket of the 8th century BCE to the 5th century BCE given for the first period was “not justified at all”. The “experts” suggested the other two periods should be dated using accelerator mass spectrometry and the material recovered. According to “experts”, the earliest period originates somewhere in pre-300 BCE. They noted that for the available scientific dates, the depth from where the sample was collected may not be enough and that layers should be marked for comparative consistency analysis.Shekhawat said the excavation conducted under ASI and the lead archaeologist’s report are under review. He said that the experts’ comments have been shared with the lead archaeologist and are yet to be finalised. “There is no practice of rejecting a report as explained in the aforementioned paragraph,” he said. Regarding the repeated transfer of the lead archaeologist within nine months and its impact on excavation continuity, Shekhawat said allocation of work to archaeological officers is a routine administrative matter.In a separate response to Dayanidhi Maran, Shekhawat said ASI did not request any revised report on Keeladi from the state archaeology department. “Since 2018, the TN state department of archaeology is conducting excavations at the site, for which ASI does not provide any funding support,” said Shekhawat.
