In large part, Patterson assumes that that kind of specialized analysis has been done, and that its conclusions are undisputed.  While this is necessary for the purpose of his presentation, it is still an important part of the interpretation of a site.

    But the analysis is not only too broad, it is also too specific to one area. The sites are taken completely out of their surroundings.  Patterson's discussion ignores any surrounding landscape or societies, which may be utilized to describe the nature of the culture.  From the climate of the region and time period, to the neighboring groups of people, environment plays a key role in the shaping of a site.  Was this culture truly isolated, or did it interact with other groups?  What was the nature of that interaction: trade, conquest, military alliance?  Considering these factors would help prove or disprove Patterson’s theories about the power of the social classes and hierarchy.

    The type of economic system, an important part of what makes a society run, is not discussed by Patterson; indeed it may be impossible to understand from the evidence given.  Farming was in use, but what kind and to what extent?  How much did the people rely on wild vegetation?  What about animals?  Also, no written records or historical documents are mentioned that might support the interpretation of this site, as there may have been for a true excavation.  The sites appear to have very little time depth; that is, they cover only a few generations.  There is no hint as to whether this is because there was no previous occupation or whether Patterson did not choose to include that information.