The Keeladi excavation in Tamil Nadu has resurfaced as issue in 2025. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is embroiled in controversy over the findings and handling of this ancient site. The site reveals an advanced urban civilisation from the Iron Age. However, political and institutional conflicts have overshadowed the archaeological importance.
Recent Developments in Keeladi Excavation
Keeladi excavations began in 2014 and uncovered over 7,500 artefacts indicating a literate, urban society from the 6th to 2nd centuries BCE. The site is linked to the Vaigai Valley Civilisation and reflects the second urbanisation phase in ancient India. In 2017, lead archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna was transferred abruptly, halting further excavation. The ASI dismissed the findings as in, sparking a political dispute between Tamil Nadu and the central government. The Madras High Court transferred control to the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology, which resumed work and found over 18,000 artefacts. Ramakrishna returned in 2021 and defended his findings using scientific methods including Accelerator Mass Spectrometry dating. The ASI’s demand for report revision has intensified the conflict.
Archaeological Survey of India’s Methodological Issues
The ASI claims the need for wider scientific validation before accepting new historical narratives. Yet its approach is inconsistent. While it downplays Keeladi, it has embraced controversial mythological links at other sites like Rajasthan’s Bahaj village. This selective acceptance reflects methodological nationalism that favours a single, state-approved historical vision. Critics argue the ASI relies on outdated excavation methods and lacks comprehensive research designs. Institutional problems such as arbitrary staff transfers and poor infrastructure further hinder quality research.
Comparison with Global Archaeological Practices
Unlike the ASI, many global archaeological institutions publish findings openly on academic platforms. This transparency encourages scholarly debate and methodological accountability. Institutions such as Germany’s Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and France’s Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives maintain rigorous scientific standards and invite global collaboration. The ASI’s closed internal review system limits accessibility and scholarly engagement, affecting the credibility of Indian archaeology.
Political and Epistemic Challenges in Indian Archaeology
The Keeladi controversy marks the politicisation of archaeology in India. Nationalistic narratives often overshadow scientific inquiry. The ASI’s pursuit of portraying India’s past as a monolithic civilisation restricts plural historical interpretations. Calls for reform stress the need for financial autonomy, structural changes, and adoption of modern scientific methods. Embracing diverse historical perspectives can strengthen India’s archaeological enterprise and restore its credibility.
Questions for UPSC:
- Point out the challenges faced by the Archaeological Survey of India in maintaining scientific rigour and transparency in archaeological research.
- Underline the role of archaeological findings in shaping regional identities in India and analyse the political implications of such discoveries.
- Critically analyse the impact of methodological nationalism on the interpretation of Indian history with suitable examples from archaeological practices.
- Estimate the importance of international collaboration and publication transparency in advancing archaeological research and knowledge dissemination.
