Archaeological site

Beyond this, the definition and geographical extent of a "site" can vary widely, depending on the period studied and the theoretical approach of the archaeologist.

Development-led archaeology undertaken as cultural resources management has the disadvantage (or the benefit) of having its sites defined by the limits of the intended development.

It can also involve digging, according to the Archaeological Institute of America,[2] "archaeologists actively search areas that were likely to support human populations, or in places where old documents and records indicate people once lived."

Geophysics is a branch of survey becoming more and more popular in archaeology, because it uses different types of instruments to investigate features below the ground surface.

It uses electromagnetic radiation in the microwave band of the radio spectrum and detects the reflected signals from subsurface structures.

Ecofacts, biological materials (such as bones, scales, and even feces) that are the result of human activity but are not deliberately modified, are also common at many archaeological sites.

In the cases of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic eras, a mere scatter of flint flakes will also constitute a site worthy of study.

The precepts of landscape archaeology attempt to see each discrete unit of human activity in the context of the wider environment, further distorting the concept of the site as a demarcated area.

Furthermore, geoarchaeologists or environmental archaeologists would also consider a sequence of natural geological or organic deposition, in the absence of human activity, to constitute a site worthy of study.

In jungles and other areas of lush plant growth, decomposed vegetative sediment can result in layers of soil deposited over remains.