Dendrochronology, the science of assigning precise and accurate calendar dates to annual growth rings in trees (Stokes and Smiley 1968), was the first independent dating technique available to prehistorians. Ar­chaeological tree-ring dating came of age at a time when North American archaeologists concerned them­selves primarily with time/space systematics (Willey and Sabloff 1980) and yet had no absolute and inde­pendent dating techniques available to guide their analyses.

Histories of archaeology typically have not considered the development of archaeological tree-ring dating in detail. Willey and Sabloff (1980:12) devote one paragraph to the development of Southwestern archaeological tree-ring dating, as does Steibing (1993:261). Trigger (1989:305) considers dendrochronology (in the sense of the Douglass method) only in light of radiocarbon dating. Textbooks and regional histories of archaeology do a little better in their treat­ment of dendrochronology, though discussions typically focus on the interpretation of tree-ring dates and not on the developmental history of the technique itself (e.g. Cordell 1984:88-90; Fagan 1991:129-133; Lyon 1996:46; Michels 1973:116; Thomas 1979:190-194). Scott (1966:9) argues that 'the story of the discovery of archaeological tree-ring dating by A E. Douglass and others has been told and retold and is now familiar to scientists and laymen alike'. I beg to differ.