CHENNAI: Days after the controversy over Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) seeking clarifications on the Keezhadi excavation report from the excavator K Amarnath Ramakrishna, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in its response on Thursday, denied allegations that there is a move to delay the publication of the report.
A release from the Union Ministry of Culture said, “That the ASI is uninterested in publication of Keezhadi report is a figment of imagination which aims purposefully to paint the department in bad colours.” The release said the director general and the ASI officials understand the importance of an excavated site, but all reports needed proper vetting, editing, proofreading and designing before it is sent for publication.
The release said the excavator of the Keezhadi has been communicated the suggestions of the experts for making necessary corrections in the draft report submitted by him, but he has not carried out the corrections to date.
However, the release was silent on the delay of 2.5 years for the vetting and publication. When asked whether ASI was intentionally delaying it, Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, joint director, ASI, who is also the spokesperson for the ASI, told TNIE: “Not at all. Why should it be delayed? The ASI has invested in it and permission was given for two seasons (of excavations).”
“Before the publication, the report should pass through many stages. The excavator should make changes as pointed out by the ASI. In this case, it has not been done,” she said.
Asked about the reply given by Amarnath in April 2023 while filing his revised final report on Keezhadi excavation, the ASI spokesperson said, “The reply does not hold ground.”
On the next step of the ASI regarding publication of the report, she said, “As soon as we get the corrected report, if it is publication-worthy, then it will be taken up for publication”.
However, sources said Amarnath is expecting a reply from the ASI to his letter dated May 23, which was sent in response to the ASI’s May 21 letter seeking corrections and additional information. In his reply, he had said adequate evidence had already been furnished in the report regarding the time period of the Keezhadi habitation site, a key concern raised in the letter.