[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.c9.s9.49 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s9.49 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s9.49 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c9.s9.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s9.49) We may now pass on to the ¹⁴C dates which offer ‘direct’ evidence. Here however the difficulty is twofold. In the first place, we do not have ¹⁴C dates for many of the well-known sites, e.g. Harappa itself, and in certain cases, e.g. Mohenjo-daro, the dates are available only for the later part of the occupation. Secondly, though offering direct evidence, the ¹⁴C dates themselves are not unassailable, partly because of the possibility of contamination of the samples (in some cases) and more because of the now well-established deviation between the dates obtained by this method on the one hand and those by the astronomical/historical/tree-ring methods on the other \[5.3\]. To get over the drawback of contamination, erratic or incongruous dates shall be discounted. As to the deviation problem, MASCA correction (Ralph \*et al.\*, 1973), which is acceptable to most scholars, shall be applied. With the foregoing limitations the emergent picture is as follows. - [Previous: v1.c9.s9.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s9.48) - [Next: v1.c9.s9.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s9.50) - [Up: v1.c9.s9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s9) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s9.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s9.49) · Pramāṇa