This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 17 November 2014, At: 20:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

Dendrochronological Dating ofWooden Artefacts using PhotographyKjersti Myhr a , Terje Thun a & Håkan Hytteborn aa Department of Biology , Norwegian University of Science andTechnology , (NTNU) , Trondheim, Norway E-mail:Published online: 18 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Kjersti Myhr , Terje Thun & Håkan Hytteborn (2007) DendrochronologicalDating of Wooden Artefacts using Photography, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40:2, 179-186,DOI: 10.1080/00293650701708909

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650701708909

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dendrochronological Dating of WoodenArtefacts using Photography

KJERSTI MYHR, TERJE THUN and HAKAN HYTTEBORN

Core sampling is normally used for dendrochronological age determination of

both timber and living trees. As core sampling can seriously damage artefacts,

a photographic method was tried on 29 wooden objects made of Scots pine

(Pinus sylvestris L.). These were photographed and tree-ring sequences for

dendrochronological analysis were measured on the photographs in the

laboratory. Nine objects could be dated. The undatable objects had few tree-

rings or a non-matching tree-ring pattern. The region in Norway where the

material had grown could be determined by matching against various regional

chronologies.

INTRODUCTION

Dendrochronological dating of Norwegian

timber buildings has enabled the construc-

tion of five regional chronologies for Scots

pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) that extend back to

the early Viking age (Fig. 1). Approximately

600 wooden buildings and more than 1000samples from archaeological excavations

have been dated using these chronologies

(Thun 2002, 2005).

Dendrochronology has been used to dateoak (Quercus sp.) artefacts in Europe for

many years (e.g., Klein 1983, 1985, 1990,

2003, 2005; Eckstein et al. 1986; Klein &

Wazny 1991, Fraiture 2002). However, it has

been very little used for Norwegian artefacts

of Scots pine, and only one such dating has

been published (Thun 2002:136). This con-

cerned a cross section of a wooden mask(head) that was originally in the demolished

Al Stave Church in south-east Norway. The

tree-rings were measured with a microlens

with a built-in scale. The chronology dated

the tree-ring sequence to AD 1011–1134.

In the early 1990s, when dendrochronolo-

gical samples were cored from Urnes Stave

Church in the inner part of Sognefjorden,

Hakon Christie, an architect at the

Directorate for Cultural Heritage

(Norwegian: Riksantikvaren), asked whether

tree-ring widths could also be measured

directly on the wall boards with a microlens.

Tree-rings are normally measured on the cross

section, but a measurement on boards must be

performed along the radial section. However,

some boards were measured and could

actually be dated, which indicated that

boards and maybe other artefacts made

from Scots pine grown in Norway could

also be dated. Measuring the material in situ

with a microlens is time consuming and

mistakes can easily be made. It was therefore

decided to photograph the material along a

radius and then measure the tree-rings on

photographs.

Before we continued dating projects in

Norwegian stave churches, we wanted to

try the method on various artefacts

Kjersti Myhr, Terje Thun and Hakan Hytteborn, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

(NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: kjf78@start.no; terje.thun@bio.ntnu.no; hakan.hytteborn@bio.ntnu.no

ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2007

DOI: 10.1080/00293650701708909 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Føllesdal 2005). Even if it had been

successfully used on European oak, the

method could not necessarily be directlytransferred to Scandinavian conifers, as

different species can react differently to

the same environmental factors. Moreover,

in many European countries, oak

panels and other artefacts are made from

imported timber. Consequently, separate

oak chronologies have been constructed

based entirely on artefacts (Baillie et al.

1985).

Since Scots pine is widely available in

Norway, pine wood is unlikely to have been

imported. However, wood used for objectsmay differ from logs used for building

timber. If so, can Norwegian artefacts be

dated using chronologies constructed from

building timber samples, or is it necessary

to construct specific chronologies based

on artefacts in the Scandinavian countries

too?

Artefacts can easily be moved from

one part of the country to another. If they

can be dated with the existing chronologies,it may also be possible to determine the

region in the country where the material

grew.

A precise dating of an artefact can

prove or disprove an age determination

based upon style. However, a dendrochro-

nological dating only provides information

on the year the various tree-rings in theartefact grew. Estimates of any missing tree-

rings in the outer wood and how many

years the material was stored prior to its use

are important issues when the actual execu-

tion of a piece of art or furnishing is to be

dated. However, whenever a tree-ring

sequence in a piece of wood can be dated,

the youngest tree-ring will provide the oldestpossible age of the object (a ‘‘terminus post

quem’’). It may also disclose a forgery if the

youngest tree-ring grew after the death of the

artist claimed to have executed it (Klein

1983).

The objectives of this methodological

study of Norwegian Scots pine artefacts can

be summarised as follows:

N Can tree-ring sequences measured on

photographs of cross sections and

radial sections of Norwegian Scots pine

be dated?N Can wooden artefacts be dated by

chronologies constructed using build-

ing timber?

N Has the wood used in the artefacts

grown in Norway, and can the region

in Norway be determined by compar-

ing the tree-ring patterns with known

regional chronologies?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To try to find answers to the questions

posed above, the Viking Ship Museum

(Vikingskipshuset), the Norwegian Museum

of Cultural History (Norsk Folkemuseum),

both in Oslo, and the Museum of Natural

Fig. 1. The five regions in Norway for which long

conifer tree-ring chronologies are available. Places

referred to in the text: 1. Tingelstad Church, 2.

Oslo, 3. Setesdal, 4. Bergen, 5. Voss, 6. Stryn, 7.

Trondheim, 8. Selbu, 9. Følling, 10. Kvæfjord.

180 Kjersti Myhr, Terje Thun and Hakan Hytteborn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

History and Archaeology (Vitenskapsmuseet)

at the Norwegian University of Science and

Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim were

asked to provide material for the study.

Objects sent directly to the Dendro-

chronological Laboratory in the Department

of Biology, NTNU, were also investigated

(Tables 1 and 2).

A total of 29 objects were made available:

seven altars, two beds, two benches, two

boards, one coffin, one collection box, two

crucifixes, one door, timber from six houses,

one lectern, one painting, timber from one

stall, and two tables.

Most of the material, 21 objects, came

from the Norwegian Museum of Cultural

History (Tables 1 and 2). Five objects came

from the Museum of Natural History and

Archaeology, two were sent directly to the

Dendrochronological Laboratory, and one

came from the Viking Ship Museum

(Tables 1 and 2). The objects originated

from 16 places in Norway. Most of them

came from south-east Norway (10 objects)

and southern Norway (nine objects). Four

came from places in west Norway, five from

central Norway and 1 from north Norway

(Tables 1 and 2).

The altars included in the study are part of

the collection in the Museum of Cultural

History, University of Oslo. Four of the six

houses, 1, 2, 4 and 6, now at the Norwegian

Museum of Cultural History, came from the

valley of Setesdal, southern Norway (Fig. 1,

Tables 1 and 2). The tree-rings in the wall

timbers from these houses were measured.

Tree-rings were also measured on various

items from three of these houses (beds

[houses 1 and 4], benches [1 and 2], a door

[1] and tables [1 and 4]) (Tables 1 and 2). The

other two houses at the same museum

originated from Voss, west Norway (Fig. 1).

The objects from central Norway belong

to the Museum of Natural History and

Archaeology at NTNU in Trondheim.

Their origins are shown in Tables 1 and 2

(VMT).

The radius for measurement was chosen

where no growth irregularities occurred, the

highest number of tree-rings was present,

and the outermost tree-ring in the object was

present.

Table 1. Details of dated artefacts.

Dated

artefacts

Origin of

artefact (site

and region) Museum

Measurement Results

No. of

boards

No. of

radii

Measured

tree-rings

Time

period Chronology

Altar 3 Tingelstad, SE, 1 NMCH 3 4 72 1106–1182 W

Lectern Selbu, C, 2 VMT 3 8 107 1113–1222 C

Collection box Følling, C, 3 VMT 1 3 101 1373–1473 C

Board Stryn, W, 4 NMCH 1 2 127 1439–1566 W

Bench, house 1 Setesdal, S, 5 NMCH 1 1 142 1392–1576 SE

Door, house 1 Setesdal, S, 5 NMCH 2 3 149 1428–1598 S, SE

Bed, house 1 Setesdal, S, 5 NMCH 2 6 194 1431–1659 SE

Wall, house 77 Voss, W, 6 NMCH 1 2 112 1605–1727 W

Wall, house 76 Voss, W, 6 NMCH 2 3 144 1591–1761 W

NMCH: Norwegian Museum of Cultural History, Oslo; NTNU: Dendrochronology Laboratory at the

Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim; VMT: Museum

of Natural History and Archaeology, Trondheim; and VSM: Viking Ship Museum, Oslo. SE:

chronology from south-east Norway, S: from southern Norway, W: from west Norway, C: from central

Norway.

Dendrochronological Dating of Wooden Artefacts 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The growth of Scandinavian conifers

often contains long sequences with extre-

mely narrow tree-rings, and it is necessary

to measure down to three or four hun-

dredths of a millimetre. It is therefore easy

to miss one or more tree-rings during such

measurement. To ensure that all the tree-

rings were measured, a strip of freezer tape

was placed on the object, along the mea-

sured radius. A short line was marked on

the tape beside every tree-ring, and a longer

one beside every 10th tree-ring (Fig. 2).

After the photograph was taken, it was thus

possible to ensure in the laboratory that all

the tree-rings were measured. With

sequences containing such narrow tree-

rings, it is necessary to measure the tree-

ring widths manually on a photograph;

using digitalised measuring on such narrow

tree-rings may cause errors (Thomas

Bartholin, pers. comm. 12 October 2006).

The tree-ring sequences on the objects

were photographed with an analogue reflex

camera on a tripod. Different techniques and

types of film were tested and it was foundbest to use a cable release and a 100 iso film.

In sections where growth had been very

slow, individual tree-rings were very narrow

and hardly possible to measure individually.

In such cases, the tree-rings were counted

using a microlens, and the number was noted

on the tape. Where cracks were present, the

tree-ring widths were measured on the otherside of the tape.

To actually date the artefacts, the tree-ring

series for each object was compared with all

the Norwegian master chronologies (Thun

2002, 2005) using the CATRAS (Computer

Table 2. Details of undated objects.

Undated

artefacts Origin Museum

No. of

boards No. of radii

Measured

tree-rings

Altar Heddal Church (SE) NMCH 4 7 33–43

Altar Volbu Church (SE) NMCH 3 15 36–45

Altar 2 Tingelstad Church (SE) NMCH 1 1 48

Coffin Klement Church, cemetery (SE) VSM 1 1 58

Altar 1 Tingelstad Church (SE) NMCH 1 1 62

Crucifix 1 Ringebu Church (SE) NTNU 2 4 57–62

Altar Øye Church (SE) NMCH 4 9 52–63

Wall Setesdal, house 2 (S) NMCH 5 5 34–65

Wall Setesdal, house 1 (S) NMCH 4 4 35–74

Crucifix 2 Ringebu Church (SE) NTNU 2 6 32–76

Boards Rein Church (C) VMT 2 6 57–100

Painting Melhus Church (C) VMT 3 6 80–100

Table Setesdal, house 1 (S) NMCH 1 1 105

Wall Setesdal, house 4 (S) NMCH 5 9 57–119

Altar Kvæfjord Church (NN) NMCH 4 10 45–135

Bench Setesdal, house 2 (S) NMCH 2 2 115–135

Wall Setesdal, house 6 (S) NMCH 9 14 64–136

Stall Værnes Church (C) VMT 2 4 43–143

Bed Setesdal, house 4 (S) NMCH 2 6 129–144

Table Setesdal, house 4 (S) NMCH 1 3 111–150

SE: south-east Norway, S: southern Norway, W: western Norway, C: central Norway, NN: northern

Norway. NMCH: Norwegian Museum of Cultural History, Oslo; NTNU: Dendrochronology

Laboratory at the Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim; VMT: Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Trondheim; and VSM: Viking Ship

Museum, Oslo.

182 Kjersti Myhr, Terje Thun and Hakan Hytteborn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Aided Tree-Ring Analysis System) programpackage described by Aniol (1983). In such a

dating procedure, the sequence of the tree-

ring pattern of the object is compared with

the whole time span of the master chron-

ologies. A series of correlations is obtained,

on which, together with visual comparison of

the tree-ring curves, the dating is based. The

correlations were calculated using the t-test(Baillie & Pilcher 1973) and the sign test

(Eckstein & Bauch 1969).

The number of boards measured from the

same object varied between one and five,

except for one object where nine boards

were measured. The number of measured

radii on the same object varied between one

and 15, with an average of four (Tables 1and 2). In a few cases, the same radius was

measured several times, for example on the

top and the bottom of a sample. This

explains the relatively large number of radii

measured in some samples (Tables 1 and 2).

Only one radius was measured on fiveobjects.

RESULTS

A total of 29 artefacts were processed. Nine

could be dated and the results of the dating

are given in Table 1 and the statistics in

Table 3. The time periods given in Table 3are, in all but one case, shorter than the

period given in Table 1. Narrow tree-rings at

one end of the dated time period could not

be used in the dating as they were too narrow

to be individually measured, but they could

be counted and thus be included in the total

dated period (see Materials and Methods).

All but one of the dated artefacts had morethan 100 tree-rings (101–194) with a median

value of 127 years. Five objects were

constructed of two or three boards with a

matching tree-ring pattern (Table 1). This

enabled the construction of long mean

Fig. 2. The radius measured on the collection box from Følling Church. The tree-rings and other

information are marked on freezer tape (Photo: Kjersti Føllesdal).

Dendrochronological Dating of Wooden Artefacts 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

curves. The exception was altar 3 from

Tingelstad Church, which gave a mean curve

comprised of 72 tree-rings. However, since it

consists of three boards with a matching tree-

ring pattern, a mean curve could be con-structed. Four artefacts had only one board,

three of them with more than one measured

radius, and one (the bench in house 1) had

only one measured radius, but could never-

theless be dated.

Three of the dated artefacts came from

different objects in the same house (no. 1).

The last dated year for these artefactsdiffered considerably, from 1576 to 1659.

Two of these objects fitted the chronology

from south-east Norway best, but the third

fitted best with the chronology from south-

ern Norway.

Tingelstad is in south-east Norway (1 in

Fig. 1), but the tree-ring pattern of its altar

matches the regional chronology from westNorway (W). The lectern and collection box

are from central Norway (C) (8 and 9 in

Fig. 1) and their tree-ring patterns match the

regional chronology for central Norway. The

tree-ring patterns obtained from the board

from Stryn and houses 76 and 77 from Voss

match the regional chronology for west

Norway (W), which is where they originated.House 1, from Setesdal (3 in Fig. 1),

provided a bench, a door and a bed. Their

tree-ring patterns match the regional chron-

ology from south-east Norway (SE) or a

local chronology for southern Norway (S)

constructed by Thomas Bartholin (pers.

comm.) using timber houses situated in

Setesdal (3 in Fig. 1), southern Norway.

Some objects that could not be dated

(Table 2) had too few tree-rings (e.g. the twocrucifixes), as much of the material had been

planed away when the objects were made.

Others with more than 100 tree-rings con-

sisted of two or more boards whose tree-ring

patterns did not match (e.g. a bed in house 4

and a bench in house 2). Yet other objects

had parts with very narrow tree-rings that

were impossible to measure (e.g. the altarfrom Kvæfjord Church). The wall timbers in

the Setesdal houses (1, 2, 4 and 6) were

difficult to measure because the surface was

rather rough and the border between the

tree-rings was difficult to detect. Although

one of the two objects from house 1

contained four boards, their time span was

too short (35–74). The tables in houses 1 and4 could not be dated due to irregular tree-

ring patterns.

DISCUSSION

All the dated objects, except altar 3 from

Tingelstad Church, have tree-ring series that

are longer than 100 years, and several arealso composed of two or three boards with

matching tree-ring patterns (Table 1). A long

time series and several samples are, indeed,

normally required for a standard dendro-

chronological dating, and would have been

Table 3. Statistics of the artefacts which could be dated.

Artefact, origin Time period t-value Sign test, % Significance level, %

Altar 3, Tingelstad 1106–1165 5.25 72.9 99.9

Lectern, Selbu 1113–1219 4.92 63.2 99.0

Collection box, Følling 1373–1473 4.36 63.0 99.0

Board, Stryn 1439–1565 3.69 69.4 99.9

Bench, house 1 1392–1533 4.13 66.0 99.9

Door, house 1 1428–1570 5.19 64.2 99.9

1429–1528 6.08 70.7 99.9

Bed, house 1 1431–1624 4.49 62.4 99.9

Wall, house 77 1605–1716 5.29 64.4 99.0

Wall, house 76 1591–1734 5.22 64.0 99.9

184 Kjersti Myhr, Terje Thun and Hakan Hytteborn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

expected if the same material had been core

sampled. Normally, if timber from a building

is to be dated, core samples are taken from 10logs from the same building phase. Hence, our

results show that measurements made on a

photograph of an artefact function well for

dating purposes. On the other hand, many

boards or several measured radii do not

guarantee a successful dating (e.g. the altar

at Volbu Church, house 6 and the altar at

Kvæfjord Church (Table 2) where datingfailed). However, all these objects had periods

with extremely narrow tree-rings that made

their precise measurement difficult.

The matching of the tree-ring pattern

between chronologies from timber construc-

tions and the artefacts indicates that the

material used came from trees felled in

similar types of forest. The regionalNorwegian chronologies constructed on tim-

ber from buildings are therefore also suitable

for dating artefacts. The artefacts are dated

to several different time periods, from the

beginning of the 12th century to about 1730,

a period of more than 600 years.

Apart from the door in house 1, the tree-

ring pattern in each dated object matchedonly one regional chronology (Fig. 1), which

clearly indicates the region where the tree in

question grew. However, unlike a building,

an artefact can easily be moved from one

region to another, which clearly is the case

for altar 3 in Tingelstad Church. This church

is in south-east Norway, but its altar matches

the regional chronology for west Norway.Professor Unn Plather (pers. comm.) has

proposed that all Norwegian altars in the

medieval period were carved in a studio in

Bergen on the west coast of Norway. The

result of this dendrochronological investiga-

tion supports this notion.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that measurements

made on photographs of tree-ring sequences

from Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seem to

be just as datable against chronologies from

building timber as those on core samples

from logs. This enables dendrochronological

dating of objects that could not previously be

dated because sampling would seriously

damage them. As most Norwegian artefacts

seem to have a tree-ring pattern that matches

master chronologies from the same region in

which they are located, it is also possible to

determine in which region in Norway the tree

in question grew.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to express our gratitude to the

Viking Ship Museum, the Norwegian

Museum of Cultural History, both in Oslo,

and the Museum of Natural History and

Archaeology, Trondheim for providing

material. Richard Binns, Trondheim, offered

valuable comments and carefully corrected

the English.

REFERENCES

Aniol, R.W. 1983. Tree-ring analysis using

CATRAS. Dendrochronologia 1, 45–53.

Baillie, M.G.L. & Pilcher, J.R. 1973. A simple

cross-dating program for tree-ring research.

Tree-Ring Bulletin 33, 7–14.

Baillie, M.G.L., Hillam, J., Briffa, K.R. &

Brown, D.M. 1985. Re-dating the English art-

historical tree-ring chronologies. Nature

315(6017), 317–319.

Eckstein, D. & Bauch, J. 1969. Beitrag zur

Rationalisierung eines dendrochronologischen

Verfahrens und zur Analyse seiner

Aussagesicherheit. Forstwissenschaftliches

Centralblatt 88, 230–250.

Eckstein, D., Wazny, T., Bauch, J. & Klein, P.

1986. New evidence for the dendrochronologi-

cal dating of Netherland paintings. Nature 320,

465–466.

Fraiture, P. 2002. Contribution of scientific

methods to the understanding of the work of

the 16th century painter, Henri Bles.

Dendrochronologia 20, 285–299.

Føllesdal, K. 2005. Arringanalyse av kunst-og

bruksgjenstander. Candidata scientiarum the-

sis, NTNU, Trondheim.

Dendrochronological Dating of Wooden Artefacts 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Klein, P. 1983. Dating of art historical objects,

pp. 209–222, in Eckstein, D., Wrobel, S. &

Aniol, R.W. (eds.). Mitteilungen der

Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Forst-und

Holzwirtschaft 141. Hamburg. Proceedings of

a Workshop of the European Science

Foundation (ESF), held in Hamburg, 28–30

April 1982.

Klein, P. 1985. Dendrochronologische Untersu-

chungen an Gemaldetafeln und Musik-

instrumenten. Dendrochronologia 3, 25–44.

Klein, P. 1990. Tree-ring chronologies of conifer

wood and its application to the dating of

panels. ICOM, Committee for Conservation,

Ninth Triennial Meeting. August 1990, Dresden,

38–40.

Klein, P. 2003. Dendrochronological analyses of

Netherlandish paintings, pp. 65–81, in

Faries, M. & Spronk, R. (eds.). Recent

Developments in the Technical Examination of

Early Netherlandish Painting: Methodology,

Limitations & Perspectives. Proceedings of a

1996 symposium organized by the Harvard

University Art Museums. Brepols Publishers,

Turnhout, Belgium.

Klein, P. 2005. The use of wood in Rembrandt’s

workshop. Wood identification and dendro-

chronological analyses in The Learned Eye.

Regarding Art, Theory and the Artist’s

Reputation. University Press, Amsterdam,

pp. 28–37.

Klein, P. & Wazny, T. 1991. Dendrochronological

analyses of paintings of Gdansk painters of the

15th to the 17th century. Dendrochronologia 9,

181–191.

Thun, T. 2002. Dendrochronological construc-

tions of Norwegian conifer chronologies pro-

viding dating of historical material. Dr Phil.

thesis, NTNU, Trondheim.

Thun, T. 2005. Norwegian conifer chronologies

constructed to date historical timber.

Dendrochronologia 23, 63–74.

186 Kjersti Myhr, Terje Thun and Hakan Hytteborn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14