cutting of construction cut 5 and even if it is likely that layers 1 and 4 are probably the same deposit the information can not be guaranteed if the only information we had was this section. However the position of cut 5 and natural layer 11 "ties" the matrix together above and below the split in the matrix. Interpretation Starting at the bottom, the order events occurred in this section is revealed by the matrix as follows. Natural ground formation 11 was followed by the laying down of layers 9 and 10 which "probably" occurred as the same event. Then a shallow pit 8 was cut and then back filled with 7. This pit feature in turn was "sealed" by the laying down of layer 1 which is probably the same event as layer 4. Following this a major change in land use occurs as construction cut 5 is dug and immediately followed by trample off the feet of people 12 working in the construction cut 5 who then build wall 2 after which they backfill excess space between the wall 2 and cut 5 with backfill 3. Finally clay floor 6 is laid down to the right of wall 2 over backfill 3 indicating a probable interior surface. The nature of archaeological investigation and the subjective nature of all human experience means that a degree of interpretive activity obviously occurs during the process of excavation. The Harris matrix itself however serves to provide a check on observable quantifiable physical phenomena and relies on the excavator understanding which way in the sequence is 'up' and the ability of the excavator to excavate and record honestly, accurately and stratigraphically. The process of excavation destroys the context and requires the excavator to be able and willing to make informed (by experience and where necessary collaboration) decisions about which context or contexts lay at the top of the sequence. As long as undercutting is not endemic, in practice onsite errors in judgment should become evident especially if temporary sections are kept for stratigraphic control in areas of a site that are hard to discern. However, archaeological sections, while being useful and valuable, only ever present a slice or caricature of a sequence, and often underrepresent its complexity. The use of archaeological sections when dealing with stratigraphic complexity is limited and their use should be context-sensitive rather than as a running arbiter of sequence.