Shoutout to prominent archeologists and anthropologists on highly doubtful early Iron age claims in Tamil Nadu

 

Shoutout to prominent archeologists and anthropologists on highly doubtful early Iron age claims in Tamil Nadu

Dear Sirs,

In the early part of 2025, The Chennai based Frontline magazine published a series of widely publicized cover stories suggesting how new archaeological evidence in Tamil Nadu completely rewrote global and Indian Iron Age timeline backed by claimed evidence from sites such as Mayiladumparai, Adichanallur, and Sivagalai, all located in Tamil Nadu state. This was based on an article released by the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology which was titled “Antiquity of Iron: Recent Radiometric Dates from Tamil Nadu”, which claimed that iron was actively used in Tamil Nadu from 3345 BC, which interestingly is placed a couple of decades before the start of the Kot Diji phase, or the early Harappan phase. We do not know if this is purely coincidental or not. This pushes the origin of the Indian Iron Age back by more than a millennium and a half and also turns long-held global archaeological paradigms and axioms on their head. The standard textbook theory is that iron smelting technology emerged from copper smelting in Anatolia somewhere between 2000 BC and 1200 BC, which Frontline wants to negate in a gungho fashion. All of this must be construed as rampant sensationalism of the highest order, though critics are welcome to negate our assertions. Mainstream researchers, including metallurgy experts such as David Killick, note that iron smelting developed incrementally and in stages from copper smelting in regions like Anatolia which equates to modern Turkey somewhere between 2000 BC and 1200 BC. This is the standard textbook narrative.

But what exactly is pseudo-archaeology? Pseudoarchaeology refers to the use of distorted data or highly biased and flawed methods in order to generate fake and dubious narratives regarding the past—it is dangerous because it damages science, society and the education system heavily, and leads to dubious narratives being mainstreamed if not kept or held in check.  In some cases, these are linked to wholly dubious pseudo scientific narratives such as Atlantis and Lemuria which have been long discarded. Pseudo archeology is mostly derived from a fervent and feverish desire to boost sectarian pride, and proponents of such theories often revel in conspiracy theories or resort to persecution complexes to justify their claims. One theory claims that there were ancient aliens at Palenque- This theory was proposed by Erich von Daniken in his book “Chariots of the Gods”, but he was clearly a fraudulent writer.  The Piltdown man hoax was a famous early twentieth century hoax proposed by Charles Dawson, but it was eventually and ultimately exposed, and brought to light though a great deal of damage had been done to science in the process. In India, fallacies abound; for example, some people wish to treat the great Indian epics literally, though Sanskrit literature obviously contains more than a nugget of historical information – as accepted by Dr Michael Witzel of Harvard university and others. During the period of feverish historical revisionism in India some twenty years ago, an eminent Indian magazine carried a much publicized cover story claiming that a lost civilization had been found in the Gulf of Cambay, and it was some 9000 years old. This was based on the alleged discovery of a sherd. This is obviously a fallacy, but the Frontline magazine is intentionally falling into the same trap, and causing the same degree of harm to scientific temper. History in India is often seen as a ding-dong battle between the left and the right, i.e north and south India (i.e “Aryan” versus “Dravidian”, and much of the faultlines are ideologically driven.

There is a great deal of skepticism regarding Tamilnadu’s Iron age claims, and this magazine is obviously setting a dangerous trend and compromising severely with scientific temper. It is a clear case of rewriting history using decibel and fake propaganda. Most archaeometallurgists argue that an Iron Age date around the fourth millennium BCE before Christ skips or bypasses the copper age transition and predates established global smelting frameworks. Extraordinary claims obviously require extraordinary evidence. It has also been pointed out by skeptics that early radiocarbon dates can be flawed if there is a contamination from charcoal or other substances produced from burning wood, which would obviously cause errors to be generated, and these would point to a date of the age of wood itself. Of course, objectivity in mindset is required if error-proof research is to be generated, and this is obviously in short supply. Technologies do not pop up in isolation, and such isolated claims negate well accepted theories of cultural diffusion, which means that artifacts would have spread to neigbouring parts of south India and elsewhere. Why did this not happen? Why did even the much more advanced Harappans move into the Iron age when they were situated between South India and West Asia? There was also no advanced urban civilization in Tami Nadu in 3345 BC, and what was the motivation to produce such “advanced” Iron technologies as Dr Sharada Srinivasan has claimed? Iron smelting requires controlled smelting at temperatures well above one thousand degrees Celsius which rural folk many not have been able to achieve. Moreover, why did they not transition from a copper or a bronze age when the technology was already available in North west India? Others criticize the methodology of taking the fringe and earlies over-ambitious radio carbon dating readings from a sample instead of getting them verified by a large or a broad cross-section of experts from around the world. Samples taken from same data sets in the above mentioned sites in Tamil Nadu yielded widely different dates, (many as recent as after 1500 BC) and this makes the whole methodology highly suspicious and dubious – also driven by a false subregional pride rather than skepticism and scholarly objectivity. Also, furnaces and workshops have not been unearthed, along with other supporting infrastructure which would have been so essential for such a culture to evolve and reach maturity.

Most likely, southern India had not even entered the Chalcolithic age at the time, Such isolated and random carbon dating is not accompanied by a widespread evidence of actual large-scale iron-smelting infrastructure or major societal shifts that must be associated with such claims. Such claims are clearly therefore being conflated with Dravidian identity politics, and many claims are highly extravagant or ambitious in scope.  Most ideologically driven proponents are not interesting in what is factually correct, but take refuge in fake narratives driven by a high degree of shrill sensationalism and chest-thumping. No pan India integration is attempted (neither is a broader integration attempted across regions) only a crude north India versus south India rivalry. Of course, Tamil Nadu has a rich and glorious past, and this cannot be disputed. They had early major dynasties, the Sangam age, and brief territorial expansion into North India and South East Asia Why cannot all this be highlighted, as a part of Tamil identity and pride? Rakesh Tiwari states that Iron originated in North India much, much later, around 1800 BC (even this date may be slightly over-ambitious) from a west Asian origin. Some other early iron artifacts have also been dated much later to the second millennium before Christ in regions like Ahar-Banas in Rajasthan, the Central Ganga Valley, and in Malhar.

There are several critics of Frontline magazine’s claims. For example, Prof. David Killick who is an international archaeometallurgist who reviewed the radiometric data for the findings expressed deep skepticism, arguing for terminal dates between 1300 BC and 1800 BC for the development of iron technologies, and calling such early dates even outrageous and shocking. Prof. Parth R. Chauhan who is an archaeologist at IISER has also expressed a high degree of skepticism. There is also a great deal of skepticism from the Archeological survey of India. The Archaeological Survey of India has raised red flags over the methodology adopted and has called for exercising a great deal of restraint. The ASI has also criticized the practice of making massive press announcements to sway public opinion, in lieu of robust and rocksolid research. ASI vetting experts also note that the claimed and postulated fourth millennium BC dates may have been primarily obtained from Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) from organic charcoal, ceramic bits, and paddy husks pulled from surrounding soil layers, rather than from the iron objects themselves. This is highly fallacious and misleading to say the least. ASI experts also point out that many southern urn-burial sites are known for being heavily disturbed or highly stratified. In such cases, older charcoal fragments routinely invade younger layers, leading to erroneous results being obtained. It was again noted that a variety of objects found close together have yielded widely different dates defeating the theory of cohesiveness. The absence of furnaces and ovens was again highlighted, and this is highly concerning.

Why we are critical of Frontline’s claims in addition to the fact that such timelines are highly implausible. The following are our twelve major reasons.  

1.       Such claims have been made from mainstream media outlets such as Frontline, and mainstream media must not commit cardinal errors

2.       Mainstream media’s association with a non-scientific ideology i.e. association with Dravidian nationalism raises cause for alarm

3.       Prominent Tamilnadu state government departments are involved such as the state department of archeology

4.       Association with obsolete paradigms, obsolete intellectualism and academic Marxism is another cause for concern

5.       Possible association with pseudoscience and pseudo archaeology

6.       Attempts to sensationalize  and approach the uneducated public first thorough massive media engagements, instead of forging a consensus among specialists sets a dangerous trend and precedent

7.       Attempts to mainstream narratives in academic institutions in an underhand fashion damages science, society and the education system very badly

8.       Fostering a culture of non-objectivity in general is extremely dangerous and antithetical to science

9.       Setting a bad trend and example: This sets a bad trend and example for others to follow

10.   A very serious affront on scientific temper: This is a very serious affront on objectivity and objectivity in mindset

11.   Needs validation by a variety of experts: Experts from a wide variety of fields must validate or disprove Frontline magazine’s claims  

12.   Prevent recurrence of events of a similar nature: Such nefarious chauvinistic and parochial tendencies must be nipped in the bud before they raise their ugly head in future  because they set a bad example for rival groups as well

As we have always observed, “ one kind of biase legitimizes every other kind of bias

Warm regards,

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

Founder director

Institute for the study of the globalization of science