Centre-Tamil Nadu dispute over Keeladi find claims 1st sufferer: ASI director shunted | India News

TN govt had revived archaeological excavations within the state to additional its narrative of Dravidian glory of yore

After sparring with the Tamil Nadu govt over the antiquity of archaeological finds at Keeladi, the Union govt has eliminated Amarnath Ramakrishna as ASI director (antiquity). Ramakrishna had submitted a report that stated the south Tamil Nadu finds had been from the eighth century BCE.After Union tradition minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat stated on June 10 that the Keeladi report was not scientifically sound, TN chief minister M Okay Stalin criticised the Centre, saying it isn’t the report however some mindsets that must be modified. Tamil Nadu’s govt had revived archaeological excavations within the state to additional its narrative of Dravidian glory of yore. ASI director (exploration & excavation) Hemasagar A Naik, who despatched a letter to Amarnath on May 21 searching for “concrete justification” for the courting of the Keeladi findings – and obtained a pointy response from Ramakrishna – will now head the antiquities division. Ramakrishna will stay in control of the National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities (NMMA). Sources stated NMMA, arrange by the govt. in 2007 to create two nationwide registers to doc monuments and antiquities throughout the nation, has been just about defunct.On May 23, Ramakrishna replied to Naik’s letter stating that the interval of Keeladi excavation “was reconstructed as per the stratigraphical sequence, cultural deposit available with material culture, and with accelerator mass spectrometry”. He added, “The final outcome of the observation of the excavator was incorporated in the final report with all documentary evidence, and the chronological sequence of the Keeladi site was clearly explained in the report.“In his letter, Naik stated, “The date of the earlier period (8thcentury BCE to 5th century BCE) in the present state of our knowledge appears to be very early and that it can be, at the maximum, somewhere in pre-300 BCE.”Ramakrishna was agency in his reply: “The view expressed by you for further examination of sequence is against the well-reasoned conclusive finding of the excavator of the site.”To Naik’s commentary that “only mentioning the depth for the available scientific dates is not enough but the layer number should also be marked for comparative consistency analysis”, Ramakrishna replied, “Layer numbering will be done if it is found missing.” Finally, on Naik’s insistence that the submitted maps could also be changed with higher ones, that the village map lacked readability, some plates had been lacking, drawings had been lacking, and trenches/cuttings required, Ramakrishna replied that “all relevant maps, plates and drawings were given in high resolution format”.Recently, Shekhawat had stated the report on Keeladi submitted by Ramakrishna was not “technically well-supported” and extra knowledge was required. “The report is not technically well-supported and established yet. A lot of things are to be done before recognition and accreditation are accorded to the findings presented by the archaeologist. Let them come up with more results, more data, evidence, and proof. One finding cannot change the discourse of history,” he had stated.