The importance of tree-ring analyses to forestry and other disciplines (e.g., climate and ecology) requires that tree-ring measurements be as accurate as possible. Accuracy of tree-ring measurement, although often emphasized, may not be stressed as much as other areas of the research. Nonetheless, poor quality measurement data compromise the reliability of interpretations. Possible errors include individual ring mismeasurement errors, consecutive ring errors, multiple ring misdating errors, and multiple ring systematic errors. Verification of measurements can be accomplished by an independent observer who remeasures certain segments from randomly selected cores or cross sections and then uses the computer program VERIFY5 to quantitatively and qualitatively compare both sets of measurements. This program features analyses-such as comparative statistics, least squares analysis, and outlier detection-that can isolate specific measurement errors. Such errors can be minimized by: (1) proper training in the hardware and software used; (2) training in certain rudimentary dendrochronological skills; (3) developing a deliberate measuring pace; (4) consistently using VERIFY5 by an independent observer; (5) using a quality control program (such as COFECHA) to further check measurements and crossdating.

Dendroarchaeology is often discussed with reference to prehistoric contexts; however, it is equally relevant in historical contexts. Dendroarchaeological analysis independently dates the modem reconstruction of prehistoric Kinishba Pueblo with higher resolution than known documentary sources provide and illuminates reroofing practices. Kinishba is a large Mountain Mogollon pueblo on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation in east-central Arizona. Historically, the reconstructed Kinishba is attributed to the 1930s work of Byron Cummings. Nineteen dates from structural beams in nine rooms of the pueblo form a tight cluster with a strong terminal peak at 1950. This peak combined with beam and architectural attributes provides evidence for an undocumented, extensive reroofing episode. Thus, the target event was not the building of reconstructed rooms as originally expected, but replacement of the original reconstructed roofs. This study illustrates two important dendroarchaeological points. First, preconceived ideas, even if based on sound research, should not influence sample dating, which should be free of bias. Second, this study illustrates the importance of tree-ring dates in archaeology and the potential conflict between other types of data and tree-ring dates.