Super Yoder II, summary

I accordance with Chris' wishes, I'll give my take on Dave's presentation. I was not the only FoF there though, and I encourage Brad, Molly, or Scott to throw in their observations as well. Also, if I'm way off base with my summary Dave, please correct me.

Also, I need to mention that I was not at Dave's lecture to the Anthro. 110 class, so this summary only covers what was said at the faculty/grad student presentation.

Dave's presentation covered a wide selection of his projects. As Dave himself said, he likes to keep his fingers in many pies.

First, he discussed his soft radiography research, showing several interesting x-rays of Anasazi sandals and other perishable items. I am still impressed at the innovation behind this idea. Dave has made some significant strides in perishable analysis. In addition to his discussion on the benefits of radiography, Dave talked about the cultural implications for different weaving patterns. He discussed the application of this data for his dissertation, the main hypothesis being that different groups can be identified with different weaving patterns on their sandals.

I found his discussions on active and passive style very interesting and beneficial to my interests in Parowan Valley.

After the sandals, Dave moved on to other research projects including North Creek Shelter.
His discussion of North Creek was straight forward, and since most of us already know a lot about the site, I'll avoid further discussion. Dave's discussion on North Creek demonstrated to the faculty that he is capable of working with students and other faculty in a multi-year project similar to a field school. In my opinion, this is a skill set that every faculty member should possess.

Ultimately, I enjoyed the presentation. I could tell that Dave struggled to create a concise presentation and that several of his other research interests had to be culled in the interest of time, but the content he did present was very informative.

I think that his presentation was well received by the faculty, but some of the questions coming from David Crandall were frustrating. Especially when Crandall asked Dave to define stratigraphy and to interpret a basic profile drawing. It seems unfair that anthropology doesn't go both ways. In other words, why do Socos like Crandall and Hawkins beat their drums of sexual innuendo and kinship, while knowing nothing of basic archaeological concepts? How can they refer to themselves as anthropologists if they have no understanding of how the human past is investigated?

I digress. Sorry.

Dave, it was a great presentation. I continue to be amazed at your work ethic and the important research you are doing.