More from me. (More professional suicide)

OK, so I admit I was rather surprised to find out on my first day on site, some several months ago now, that as part of the single context system, we do not dig or record sections.
Me: What!?
Them: This is single context archaeology.
Me: But!
Them: Silence heretic!
(Well that’s how I remember the conversation going anyway…)

So having got over the initial shock and horror, I have come to terms with this rather bizarre notion, and several months down the line I find myself coping well, and even getting used to the idea. Well, sometimes my excavations can get a bit sketchy part way through, you know that vague bit before everything starts to come together when self doubt arrives on the scene and announces that you haven’t a clue what you’re doing.

But, and here I am being me again, I do sometimes wonder if the section doesn’t still have a place in this single context system of ours. (Shh!). Take today for example, happily digging out a feature to find half way down that it was in actual fact two pits, one cutting the other. And now it could well be anybody’s guess, because that vital information as to which cuts which has now been removed. Now a section, or at least a cleverly placed partial excavation would have been beneficial here. Just from an investigative point of view you understand, I just think you can’t beat chopping a slot through something sometimes to confirm or inform your initial perceptions. Is it just me or does attempting to investigate a three dimensional object through an ongoing two dimensional process seem to be making things more difficult than they should be. There, I said it. End of rant.

Next time…real archaeology as David digs a burial.