I get a deep sense of gell-man amnesia from this paper. I don't have familiarity with all of the regions in the analysis, but the analysis don't match existing

I get a deep sense of gell-man amnesia from this paper. I don't have familiarity with all of the regions in the analysis, but the analysis don't match existing RC data for the southwest region at all. The well-understood RC peak numbers for AZ (HU 15) should be about century later than in the study (~1100). The 4 corners region (HU14) should be about 350 years later (~1150). The rio grande should be about 150 years later (~1200-1400), with a barely noticeable decline from 1400-1600. They explain this away as regional averaging, but it's sloppy to have some of the best regional RC datasets in the world available and not use them as analysis controls or even cite the relevant landmark papers. That's to say nothing of the much-discussed difficulty matching RC data to demography. I don't know how bad the data is in some of the other areas, but I suspect it's not much better.