[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v1.c10.s3.4 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c10.s3.4 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c10.s3.4 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c10.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c10.s3.4) The only solution out of this confusion seems to be to ¹⁴C-date long tree-trunk sequences from bog-buried oaks. Already German and Irish workers have established some floating dendrochronologies. A long sequence of ¹⁴C dates on such dendro-dated tree-rings will alone tell us the real magnitude of ¹⁴C/¹²C variations, as these tree-trunks would not suffer from the disadvantage of bristlecone and sequoia where a single tree lived for \*c\*. 5000 years. The second solution is a comparison of well-dated archaeological and ¹⁴C-dated samples of short-lived material from Egyptian and Mesopotamian sites. Till these uncertainties are resolved one can continue to use uncorrected ¹⁴C dates based on 5730-years half-life value. Uncorrected dates will not create any confusion, but corrected ¹⁴C dates based on various correction formulae can create a lot of confusion if archaeological inferences are based on them. It is better to wait till a consensus emerges and the uncertainties are removed. - [Previous: v1.c10.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c10.s3.3) - [Next: v1.c10.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c10.s3.5) - [Up: v1.c10.s3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c10.s3) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c10.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c10.s3.4) · Pramāṇa