Chivay obsidian distributions during the Tiwanaku period are somewhat of an enigma. As Tiwanaku persisted for longer than Wari one might expect Tiwanaku evidence at the Chivay source either preceding or simultaneous with Wari presence in the Colca valley. However, the nature of procurement and distribution of Chivay obsidian during the Tiwanaku period was such that diagnostic materials from the consumption zone do not appear at the Chivay source. There appears to have been considerable nuance in the relationships between state leaders, corporate integration, and ethnic local kin-based groups during the period of Tiwanaku hegemony. Groups living in the Tiwanaku peripheral areas were perhaps consistent with Dillehay's characterization as"…a patchwork of overlapping, geographically disparate, and apparently politically semi-autonomous core valleys, oases, and plateaus or foci of cultural development, each of which primarily exploited its own immediate peer area"(Dillehay 1993: 247). Along these lines,Stanish (2002: 188) notes that early states appear to have "selectively incorporated certain areas around the basin" rather than attempt comprehensive control. John Janusek summarizes a variety of evidence demonstrating that "Tiwanaku was an incorporativemore than it was a transformativestate, simultaneously employing multiple strategies of regional control and influence" (Janusek 2004: 162), along the lines of corporate political strategies described by Blanton et al.(1996). Accordingly, a direct correlation between the predominance of Chivay obsidian in the Tiwanaku economy and clear, material evidence of incorporation in the archaeological remains of communities in the Chivay source area should not be expected. The political affiliation of Colca valley communities was probably made more complex due to the presence of the Wari frontier during the Middle Horizon.

The asymmetrical, export-only exploitation is consistent with a pattern that has been observed at a number of prehispanic obsidian sources in the Andes. Obsidian sources generally have few diagnostic artifacts or architecture in association with quarrying. It was mentioned earlier that Formative distributions of Alca obsidian were strikingly asymmetric with export to long distance consumption sites but no corresponding diagnostics from those consumers back at the Alca source (Burger, et al. 2000: 314, 323). Similarly, the Quispisisa source has little diagnostic evidence the immediate vicinity linking the source to Wari or any other known group, despite the long history of use of that obsidian type in Wari sites (Burger and Glascock 2000;Burger and Glascock 2002). The asymmetrical nature of Chivay obsidian use during the time of Tiwanaku and Wari is, therefore, consistent with a pattern apparent at raw material sources elsewhere in the Andes where obsidian procurement does not involve reciprocation or discard of diagnostic artifacts from the consumption zone.