Archaeological sites and features were recorded primarily in terms of categories built around artifact classes while in the field. The site - isolate dichotomy is useful for expediency while doing fieldwork, but "Sites" and "Site Types" did not form the basic unit of analysis. Rather, in the course of survey, if a given group of artifacts was isolated or belonged to a "site", and if it was sufficiently large to be considered a site, then the recording strategy shifted to a more detailed analysis method.

When it came time for a site to be documented, attributes were recorded on numerous levels: on the level of the site, on the level of loci of three feature classes (lithics, ceramics, and structures), and finally on individual artifacts found in spatial association with that site. With these categories, the data and the lab results could be used to categorize the sites after-the-fact based on actual data and not only based on in-field intuition. In this manner, in-field impressions of archaeological features contributed to, but did not structure, the framework in which data was recorded. The structure provided by digital forms and GPS based mapping technology was complemented by interpretive notes and impressions that were written on field journals in daily narratives during fieldwork. The details of our Arcpad mobile GIS recording system are provided later in this chapter.