The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has not requested any “revised report” on the Keezhadi (or Keeladi) excavations in Tamil Nadu, the Centre knowledgeable Parliament Monday, however mentioned the report is “below overview” and as per strategies of consultants the nomenclatures of the three durations talked about in it “require change”.
Tradition Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat mentioned the time bracket of Eighth-Fifth century BCE given for Interval 1 within the report was “not justified in any respect”. “For the earliest interval within the current state of our data we will, on the most, recommend it originates someplace in pre-300 BC,” he mentioned in an annexure hooked up with the response to a query by DMK MP T Sumathy.
Keezhadi is an historical website in Tamil Nadu’s Sivaganga district, about 12 km from Madurai. Over a decade in the past, Amarnath Ramakrishna, ASI’s then Superintending Archaeologist, led excavations on the website that unearthed proof of a classy city society.
In line with the Keezhadi report, carbon relationship had revealed the objects to be over 2,160 years previous, similar to the Sangam period in Tamil historical past. It categorised the location’s historical past into three durations — Pre-Early Historic (Eighth-Fifth century BCE), Mature Early Historic (Fifth-1st century BCE) and Early Historic (1st century BCE-Third century CE).
The report triggered an argument between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu authorities and the NDA-ruled Centre, after the ASI, which comes below the Union Ministry of Tradition, requested Ramakrishna to overview his report. The DMK noticed this as an try by the Centre to stress Ramakrishna to “change” his findings.
DMK MP Sumathy had requested the Ministry if the Keezhadi report ready was formally reviewed by the Authorities after submission in June 2025, in search of particulars of the precise deficiencies cited by the Authorities or ASI resulting in its rejection.
In his reply, Shekhawat mentioned: “Keezhadi excavation has been carried out below the aegis of ASI and a report of lead archaeologist is below overview. The feedback of consultants have been shared with the lead archaeologist, that are nonetheless to be finalised.” Nevertheless, the minister added, “there isn’t any observe of rejecting a report”.
Story continues under this advert
Within the annexure, which particulars excerpts from consultants’ observations, on the premise of which Ramakrishna has been requested to overview the report, Shekhawat mentioned the “lacking particulars” require the village map to be redrawn and the cultural interval to be reoriented as specified, amongst different issues.
“As per consultants suggestion: a) the nomenclatures of the three durations require change; b) the time bracket of Eighth century BC to Fifth century BCE given for Interval 1 just isn’t justified in any respect; c) The opposite two durations must also be decided on the premise of scientific AMS dates and the fabric recovered in view of stratigraphical particulars. For the earliest interval within the current state of our data we will, on the most, recommend that it originates someplace in pre-300 BCE…” the annexure mentioned.
On June 10, Shekhawat had mentioned additional research had been wanted to validate the ASI findings on an historical civilisation at Keezhadi.
In response to a different query by DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran, the Ministry knowledgeable Parliament Monday that ASI has not requested any “revised report” on the location from the Tamil Nadu State Division of Archaeology.
Story continues under this advert
Maran additionally requested particulars of the “further excavation phases and funding assist” by ASI for the tenth part of Keezhadi excavation that started on June 18, 2024, which has already “recognized six terracotta pipelines and numerous city settlement buildings”. To this, Shekhawat replied: “Query doesn’t come up.”
