Site Types and Attributes
Two main approaches to categorizing prehistoric archaeological sites are based on assigning them to site types and on enumerating their significant attributes. Some site types are based on clusters of empirical attributes, while others consist of interpretations of site function. Each approach may have advantages and drawbacks in the interpretation of regional archaeological landscapes and in cultural resource management (cf. Schaefer and Laylander 2014).
Advantages to using site types include the following:
- Using a site type name conveys information about the site more concisely than listing its major attributes.
- Assigning sites to types conforms to a widespread practices in the local archaeological literature.
- Functional site types directly suggest interpretations of regional settlement patterns.
Disadvantages to the use of site types may also be suggested:
- The distinctions between site types are often more vaguely defined and therefore less replicable than the definitions of attributes.
- Site types have been labelled or defined with less consistency than site attributes in the archaeological literature.
- The interpretations that are implied by the assignments to functional site types may not be justified. Site area, quantity of remains, and diversity of functions have frequently been taken as defining attributes for some site types, such as “villages” or “habitation sites.” However, it has rarely been determined whether the extent, density, and diversity were the result of essentially simultaneous activities at the location, or of successive occupations over extended periods of time.
- In landscape analyses, using site types may obscure the distribution of interpretively significant features within sites, such as rock art, human burials, lithic quarrying activity, lithic workshops, and trails. Regionally, some of these features occur most frequently at sites that contain multiple attributes and would be assigned to such types as “temporary camps” (Schaefer and Laylander 2014). Reliance on site types may obscure information on the regional frequency and patterning of these attributes.
Here is a sample of site typologies applied in the San Diego County region:
| Source | Site Types |
| Cook and Fulmer 1980 | Temporary Camp; Large Sherd/Lithic Scatter; Small Sherd/Lithic Scatter; Large, Light Lithic Scatter; Small, Dense Lithic Scatter; Small, Light Lithic Scatter; Isolated Chipped Stone; Ground Stone, Sherds; Ground Stone Only; Sherd Scatter; Isolated Sherd; Roasting Pit with No Artifacts or One Artifact; Roasting Pit with Rubs and/or Sherds; Rock Shelter with Sherds, Lithics, Milling; Rock Shelter with Sherds or Lithics; Rock Shelter with Ceremonial Functions; Pictograph; Rock Wall Feature; Ground Stone, Chipped Stone; Cupules; Rock Circle Feature |
| Graham 1981 | Habitation Site; Extraction Site; Processing Site |
| May 1987 | Permanent Village; Campsite; Flaking Station; Workshop; Roasting Pit; Quarry |
| Laylander and Christenson 1988a | Large Habitation Site; Small Habitation Site; Milling Station; Rock Ring; Lithic Scatter; Cairn; Ceramic Scatter; Rock Wall |
| Christenson 1990 | Large Habitation Site; Small Habitation Site; Large Processing Site; Small Processing Site; Large Lithic Scatter; Small Lithic Scatter; Rock Alignment; Quarry; Rock Shelter; Rock Art Site; Cache Site |
| Tsunoda 2006 | Village; Small Camp; Temporary Camp; Seed Grinding Station; Artifact Scatter; Quarry; Special Task Site; Cache |
| Noah 2012 | Habitation Base; Temporary Camp; Travel Camp; Biotic Resource Extraction/Processing Site; Lithic Quarry and/or Workshop; Milling Implement Quarry and/or Production Site; Spiritual/Ceremonial Site; Trail; Cleared Circle/Rock Ring Site; Artifact Scatter; Pot Drop |
PROSPECTS
Future archaeological analyses of the growing regional site record database, particularly through the use of GIS, may be able to refine regional site typologies and shed additional light on the relative effectiveness of settlement analyses based on types, attributes, or both.