Archaeological surface survey is the most important tool in studying an archaeological landscape and discovering new sites. Its significance was recognized as early as the mid-20th century when it began to be increasingly applied in rescue archaeology. This paper provides a brief overview of the historical development of field survey and the evolution of methodological approaches from reconnaissance to systematic field survey. Furthermore, it touches upon the importance of geoarchaeology and understanding formational processes that have influenced the formation of archaeological sites, as well as the preservation and positioning of archaeological finds. All archaeological elements undergo numerous human behavioral processes before being discarded, and then go through depositional and post-depositional processes. The understanding of those processes plays a significant role in a quality interpretation of collected archaeological data. In addition to natural processes, it is important to understand the impact of plowing as a modern formational process that has had a significant influence on archaeological surface traces over the past few centuries. Besides enabling the detection of archaeological traces by exposing them, plowing has a major impact on the destruction of archaeological sites. The success of archaeological surface surveys is also influenced by the visibility of archaeological traces on the surface. Five main factors affecting visibility are discussed: formational processes, the nature of the archaeological record, techniques and strategies of methodological approaches, surface and environmental conditions, and human factors. In addition to visibility, the choice of methodology is also influenced by research objectives, the size of the area, topographical and geomorphological characteristics of the landscape, and the financial possibilities. Special emphasis is placed on selecting methodology in areas with poor visibility, within which the application of subsurface surveys is also discussed. Finally, the paper considers the shortcomings of archaeological surface survey, especially in the context of not discovering smaller sites and errors in assessing the size and dating of sites and determining their function.