This research project encompassed three major zones: a river valley zone, a high punazone, and the obsidian source itself. A principal challenge in the archaeological evaluation of contrasting survey regions is the construction of meaningful categories that allow for comparison between these varied zones. Consequently, this project sought to strike a balance between the in-field assessment of sites and features based on the experience of archaeologists, and the significance and categorization provided by ancillary lab results and spatial analysis.

The 2003 field recording approach resulted in the presentation of data in this chapter that is a combination of two major forms of information. (1) Data that were recorded during survey work that described features and artifacts assessed by fieldworkers and quantified both in the field and in the lab, in the course of subsequent lab analysis. These categories are scalable, but the larger structure of the database is rigid in order to allow for comparison between different contexts. (2) Data were derived through inference and subjective assessment in the course of fieldwork by the project director (Tripcevich) and by five other experienced archaeologists who participated in segments of the fieldwork. The insights and notes of other project participants were also included into this subjective data category.

The result is a project that is integrated by using comparable quantitative measures, but that is informed by the subjective experience and interpretation of the archaeologists that conducted the fieldwork. The following data presentation is therefore based on quantitative measures, but the comments and assessments are informed by the insights from daily observations and personal notebooks.