The Site Problem: A Critical Review of the Site Concept in Archaeology in the Digital Age

Abstract

While the site concept continues to be fundamental to archaeology there are a number of known practical and theoretical problems with sites as units of observation. In the digital age, geospatial technologies give us the capacity to detect, record, index, and analyze sites at scales impossible in the analog age when the notion of a site entered our lexicon. Using examples from recent research, I present a critical review of how geospatial technologies have complicated how we think about sites, specifically centering on three trends: 1) increasing application of remote sensing; 2) the new ways we make field observations with high resolution recording techniques, like 3D scanning; and 3) site indices that must balance the inherent conflict between obscuring site locations to protect them from unwanted visitation and damage, and displaying site location as a necessary prerequisite of advocating for their protection.

Finding Fields: Locating Archaeological Agricultural Landscapes Using Historical Aerial Photographs

“…The extensive nature of the field systems and other cultural features we have documented in this study, within and beyond existing site boundaries, works to underscore the limits of the archaeological “site” as an operational concept (Binford 1992; Dunnel 1992; Howey and Brouwer Burg 2017; McCoy 2020). Although a long history of scholarship has problematized the archaeological “site” and the intellectual baggage with which it comes, sites remain the primary recording and documentation system used in both academic and cultural resource management archaeology, largely because they offer a simple way to represent areas in the landscape that are of particular interest or significance to archaeologists.…”

“…Today, extant mounds, fields, and other cultural features are generally treated as discreet sites in both academic literature and state records. But the intensive use of these spaces since Euro-American settlement and resultant impacts from erosion, farming, and development means that historical or modern records of the sites are unlikely to capture the full extent or complexity of the archaeological landscape (Howey and Brouwer Burg 2017; McCoy 2020:518).…”

Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle Acquired Lidar for Mapping Monumental Architecture

“…Many of these efforts have focused on detecting and extracting different types of features from bare-earth models (e.g., Casana 2014; Forest et al 2020; Howey et al 2016; Kokalj et al 2011; McCoy et al 2011; Sevara et al 2016; Quintus et al 2017). These new data, plus the tools to visualize them, changed the way we “see” the archaeological record (Huggett 2020; McCoy 2020a, 2020b; VanValkenburgh and Dufton 2020). In the next stages of the geospatial revolution in archaeology, we will need to find more ways to leverage our steady stream of different kinds of lidar data (McCoy 2017b), create more kinds of visualizations that are useful for archaeology, and carefully consider which remote-sensing techniques are appropriate for the goal of the project (Casana 2020).…”

Theoretical Repositioning of Automated Remote Sensing Archaeology: Shifting from Features to Ephemeral Landscapes

“…Perhaps the greatest theoretical advancement offered by the methods discussed here is the reformulation of "site"-based archaeological studies. For decades, researchers have challenged the usefulness of the archaeological unit of "site" and its role in archaeological investigations (Caraher, Nakassis and Pettegrew 2006;Dunnell 1992;Dunnell and Dancey 1983;McCoy 2020). Particularly with the rise of geospatial technologies like remote sensing, the "site" concept has been vastly complicated by new levels of resolution and scale (McCoy 2020: S24; also see Czajlik et al 2021).…”

“…With an ability to record archaeological components at multiple scales and at varying levels of resolution, how we think about and categorize archaeological data requires reformulation. As researchers have argued, it is vital that the term "site" is understood as a result of archaeological observation, and not anything inherent in how things actually are; in other words, we find sites, but sites are not what we actively seek out (Dunnell 1992;McCoy 2020).…”