I've taken this post down for the time being whilst some of the content is under review for publication. Sorry!
UPDATE
This piece was published in PNAS and can be viewed for free there:
It was quite nice to get it published. Since it was a critique of some questionable work the authors of that original work had the opportunity to reply. This reply can be found here. The conversation really stops there since I have decided not to reply - their reply speaks for itself in many ways.
I can't help but put in the most basic terms how I would respond to their reply if I could see that it doesn't really need it - I think academics reading the reply can see it for what it is but that doesn't stop me continuing to write about it here. In essence they don't accept the criticism and maintain their interpretation. The deflect by questioning my arbitrary line of ethnographic evidence saying that the tribe I cited was from a different region. This doesn't matter since the point was that castor oil can and has been used in different ways that are not poison. The also challenge medicinal use of castor oil which, given that there is strong evidence for this, and it is sold in pharmacies today, is puzzling. They then bang on about my comment on heating and change how there were discussing this originally and note that it could be post-depositional - I agree but this was kind of what I was getting at before since they used the possible evidence for heating as something special.
At this point the only line of "solid" evidence they have for it being a poison applicator is that it looks like one. Literally, this is it.
I'm glad that's sorted out. I'm off on my search for the oldest cricket ball. Plenty of round rocks out there so I should be publishing in PNAS about that any day now.
