Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
16th November 2005, 12:30 AM
would be great for keeping tapes in place. D'ya reckon you can get steely high heels anywhere?
Maybe I should write "specialist: please ask my opinion" on my hard hat, or on a three foot length of material tied round my throat...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
16th November 2005, 01:53 PM
Quote:quote:Stand back and study people who have convinced themselves that they`re self importance is clearly expressed in a child-like dress-code.
Oh dear oh dear[xx(]. Is it really any wonder that field archaeologists are blanked at site meetings by developers etc with attitudes like the one displayed above?
As a former long-standing field archy and now a consultant, I've come to appreciate the view from the other side of the fence. Unbelieveable that dressing in an appropriate way for an office environment should be seen as child-like. Why should office-based peeps visiting site dress any different if they're not going to play around in the mud?
Us and them attitudes? Highly exaggerated. Many of the suits you'll see on site are managers who've come into that position from specalist backgrounds, which formerly involved their fair share of fieldwork. Any ignoring of field staff from suits on site visits comes about from them being too busy to stop and talk to staff anyway (project time and money is accountable for). Besuited types have to talk to site staff all the time, many probably just feel that as archaeology is outside their specialism and there probably isn't that much to talk about other than deadlines and budgets etc, which is what they're primarily concerned with, for very real practical reasons.
Please no more of this "digging heroes" attitude and the "snooty suits" lording it over them. Caricatures.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th November 2005, 02:59 PM
This childish attitude to dress codes works both ways.
Archaeologists typically despise people in suits, interpreting the suits as symbols of a self-important attitude. People in suits typically despise archaeologists, because they look like a bunch of 'new age travellers'. Both of them miss the point completely.
The point is nothing to do with either self-importance or hippy attitudes. It is about two things:
1. dressing appropriately for the work you are going to do, and
2. helping other people to recognise your role.
If you are going to spend your day wielding a trowel/mattock/shovel etc., you dress appropriately for that role. If you are going to attend a meeting with other profesional people, then it is only sensible to dress appropriately for that role too.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
16th November 2005, 06:52 PM
Guys-calm down!Was meant to be tongue in cheek.If we really do feel the need to warm up on this one-here goes....
Please don`t make the mistake of assuming that all field archs are pig ignorant diggers. Please also don`t assume that they have always been in that job.Plenty of us have come from "grown-up" jobs in archaeology and found the desperately pitiful office politics/pantomime way too much to bear. My outburst was related to yet another scenario where the tiny fragile emotional make-up of suited types overides the clear need to consult a site specialist. It`s not always non-archs who behave in this manner.For people who work as professional archaeologists-I`m constantly bemused/amused by just how little some know about people/behaviour and even themselves. Seeing as I`m on a roll here.....I have seen too many examples of bad practise where individuals ego is put before the archaeology. Again and again.So Roy-thank you for your response-have`nt heard from you in a while and it`s good to hear from you but,my "attitude" as you call it is my business.I`m not so shallow as to make judgements on appearences-thats the role of bad consultancies when writing method statements. And it`s "child-like"-not "ish". 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
16th November 2005, 08:47 PM
roy, I understand fully that suits are often too busy to talk to site staff, but my point was that as I was the only one who was dressed (and sexed) differently, I seemed to be ignored. I was asked to be at the meeting because of my specialism and its relevance to the site, but that seemed to be totally ignored because of what I looked like. That was what annoyed me. If I hadn't been asked to be at the meeting, I wouldn't have cared less if the suits didn't want to talk to me, probably wouldn't have wanted to talk to them either...
oh, and 1man, I had been out on site mattocking and shovelling all day, are you suggesting that I should carry a suit around with me in case of sudden site meetings so I can magically look like a "professional"?
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
16th November 2005, 09:40 PM
See new thread " pantomimes and farce: costumes and competence"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
16th November 2005, 09:54 PM
All I am asking for is this...specialists in different arms of the heritage profession be involved in the work they are so qualified to do.Clumsy grammar I know but hey-due another fag. From my little perspective, field archaeologists are largely used as qualified labourers.Get real grown-ups-you have a site full of archaeologists.Use them.It`s the 21st Century.Aint it time we moved towards a coherent approach to our endeavours? There are plenty of very talented and knowledgable people out there.Assets no less.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
17th November 2005, 09:20 AM
Quote:quote:oh, and 1man, I had been out on site mattocking and shovelling all day, are you suggesting that I should carry a suit around with me in case of sudden site meetings so I can magically look like a "professional"?
- posted by Sniper
Not at all Sniper. I have been in a similar position myself, digging most of the day but also attending a meeting. What I did wa dress for site, but with a shirt. When time came for the meeting I put on a tie, and straight afterwards I took it off.
If you look at my original post, I was not actually suggesting a suit - just a shirt and tie (not sure what the female equivalent would be). As things stand now, I probably would wear a suit - but then, I wouldn't be digging, just visiting from an office where a suit is compulsory.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
17th November 2005, 09:25 AM
Troll,
I don't judge by appearances, and I don't think that dress code indicates the professional value of anyone. However, I know that others (especially non-archaeologists) do judge that way, and it helps me to get my job done more effectively if I go along with their dress code, which I see as being no skin off my nose.
In taking that attitude, I generally bear in mind that the non-archaeological suits usually include the people paying for the archaeological work.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
17th November 2005, 01:38 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Guys-calm down!Was meant to be tongue in cheek.If we really do feel the need to warm up on this one-here goes....
Please don`t make the mistake of assuming that all field archs are pig ignorant diggers. Please also don`t assume that they have always been in that job.Plenty of us have come from "grown-up" jobs in archaeology and found the desperately pitiful office politics/pantomime way too much to bear. My outburst was related to yet another scenario where the tiny fragile emotional make-up of suited types overides the clear need to consult a site specialist. It`s not always non-archs who behave in this manner.For people who work as professional archaeologists-I`m constantly bemused/amused by just how little some know about people/behaviour and even themselves. Seeing as I`m on a roll here.....I have seen too many examples of bad practise where individuals ego is put before the archaeology. Again and again.So Roy-thank you for your response-have`nt heard from you in a while and it`s good to hear from you but,my "attitude" as you call it is my business.I`m not so shallow as to make judgements on appearences-thats the role of bad consultancies when writing method statements. And it`s "child-like"-not "ish".
Understood Troll, but I have to agree with 1man1desk, in that juvenile attitudes work both ways. I've seen my fair share of digging staff having temper tantrums and prima donna-like moments on and off site. Fragile egos are not the preserve of the besuited classes and should not be equated with office-based staff, whether archaeologists or not. I was a field archaeologist until the summer and encountered an inordinate amount of chest-beating machismo and ego-driven idiocy from field staff. I'm afraid there are unpleasant tempermental people everywhere, the issue of whther they wear a suit or not is just irrelevant.
Personally I don't think suits, as a "class", make asumptions about anyone who is a non-suit, for the reasons I mentioned in my last post.
That is just my attitude.
|
