512 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 19 3 5 



numerous newspaper and magazine articles attributing approxi- 

 mately 200 years' greater antiquity to one major ruin than it actually 

 possesses. This not only created an entirely erroneous idea about 

 the age of the site, but it gave rise to considerable confusion, since 

 nearby structures believed to be contemporaneous, on the basis of 

 archeological evidence, had yielded much later dates. Peculiar in- 

 consistencies in some recent identifications and interpretations of 

 material have led a number of those specializing in dendrochro- 

 nology to formulate an agreement to the effect that each date, as well 

 as the specimen upon which it is based, be examined and approved 

 by Dr. Douglass before it is released for publication. There is no 

 question but that great care should be taken. The results so defi- 

 nitely fix a ruin's position in the chronology that an inaccuracy might 

 wholly obscure the actual course of events in a region. 



One gratifying feature about the tree-ring dating is that the re- 

 sults have checked with the findings obtained from other sources of 

 evidence. Prior to the perfection of the system the relative ages 

 of a number of large ruins and village sites, even of remains in dif- 

 ferent districts, had been worked out by archeological methods. 

 When dendrochronological dates became available, it was noted 

 that the conclusions reached previously had been correct, although 

 the estimated time lapses had been much too great. 



As a result of the stimulation of interest produced by Kidder's 

 book, the entrance into the field of numerous new workers not wholly 

 familiar with existing conditions, an increase in published material, 

 and a growing confusion in the correlation of information, it became 

 apparent that something should be done to improve the situation. 

 Accordingly, Dr. Kidder invited the workers in southwestern arche- 

 ology and related fields to meet in informal conference at the Phil- 

 lips Academy, Andover, excavation camp at Pecos, N. Mex., on Au- 

 gust 29-31, 1927. The 3 days of discussion led to an agreement 

 on a series of sequent stages in the culture growth and a set of 

 names designating the several phases, the Pecos Classification, was 

 adopted. This conference was so satisfactory to most of the workers 

 that many of them again met at Pecos in the summer of 1929. The 

 sessions of the second gathering were devoted mainly to a review of 

 the original classification and to reports on excavations conducted 

 subsequent to the first conference. 



Most of those attending the second conference expressed the belief 

 that the classification had been of help to them in their studies. Some 

 stated that they had had difficulty in applying the various criteria. 

 This was especially true for one definite region. Consideration of 

 this perplexity served to emphasize a fact which had been becoming 

 more and more apparent, namely, that the remains in the southern 

 and western portions of the area, the desert domain, are not Puebloan 



