terrarius wrote:...With this graph you found hard evidence for Hollstein's 207 year mismatch!
The quality of the match is indeed good. Though the look of that match may be because of a mix of wood from different times!
Either such a mix might be the cause that made the match at all occur. Or, without the mix the match had looked even better than it now does. Or it is all right.
Only more data will reveal the case. Certainly more unpublished data exists, see e.g.http://dendro.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/ufg/pdf/labore/dendroarchaeologie/projekte/roemerzeit.pdf
(90 more stems from the Rhein bridge dated to AD336).
The case of Kirnsulzbach:
Dated by Hollstein to BC443 - probably from a combination of historical evidence and dendrochronology as it was practiced at that time - when the use of computers and the availability of computer software were limiting resources.
My Roman time reference from the Hollstein data ends at BC340 and it has no evident match towards the Kirnsulzbach curve. So I cannot say anything about the dating of Kirnsulzbach!
In his book, Mike Baillie makes quite a big story on mistakes done by Ernst Hollstein.
Though Hollstein published his data to a very high extent and thereby made himself open to criticism.
If all dendrochronologists had followed the scientifically correct path of Hollstein and published their data for an independent scrutiny, then we had not been discussing these chronology problems here today.