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.
I agree with your comments Adrian, and am wondering, further, about the use of the concept of 'San' as well as the discussion of cultural continuity and variability in this hallmark paper. 'San' is a historically contingent concept that is not as easily transported back in time as this paper suggests. It has linguistic, socio-political and ethno-historical roots that cannot be divorced from the modern cultural landscape in which it was created. The paper in general seems to assume a uni-linear trend towards progression and development in the later part of the Pleistocene archaeological record and headed into the Holocene. For example, "The Border Cave record clearly indicates that after 56 ka technology started to take a different direction from the MSA traditions," assumes that Border Cave can be taken as an indicator of much larger cultural patterns occurring across southern Africa (and eastern Africa as the authors draw a parallel with Mumba Cave in Tanzania). What we need to recall here is that very little about the archaeological record is simple and straightforward and that the post 56 ka record in southern Africa is anything but a slow and steady progression. At the other end of the scale the assumption that a uniform 'Later Stone Age' existed in the past, and that the Border Cave ELSA material marks the beginning of it is problematic, although perhaps unavoidable in terms of the use of the terminology. The Later Stone Age in southern Africa encompasses significant technological variability, and not all of it is microlithic. The author's statement that "The post-20,000 year record shows the continued success of those [Later Stone Age-like] technologies" [at Border Cave] perhaps reflects this uncertainty about exactly what the Later Stone Age is? I think this paper has touched on a number of key points that are going to become crucial research areas in the next few years in southern African archaeology as we shift our focus to the more recent periods of the Stone Age.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment Justin. Exciting times ahead.
Delete