Dear Keith.
Stepan Shiyatov said me you need only data covered last 2
millenium. Now I send data of 35 samples covered earlier
millenium. These are all samples concerning this period and they
are checked (there are about 130 more samples from 0 to 1800 AD
not checked at this time). I hope your desire to see low growth
about 350 BC will be more or less satisfied. However for some
reason there are no good correlation between number of samples
and growth rate. For instance, about 700 BC provided by only one
sample with very high growth during just this period. I don't
know why, may be number of trees depends on burial conditions as
well.
I have to note that 364 BC (not 360 BC as I wrote before) on
sample No. 60 slightly looks like false. On sample 453 it is
normal ring, on other sample it is very small. Therefore I can't
still say something definitely.
Best wishes,
Rashit Hantemirov
