The bluestone papers -- some available, some inaccessible and invisible

Dialogue and dispute -- a good idea, in principle..... but often blocked in practice by the 

inaccessibility of key documents.  If only one of these splendid fellows has read them, and the other feels excluded, then we have a problem.

As faithful readers of this blog will know, over the years we have published scores of comments from a mysterious geologist (let's call him Dr X) on the matter of peer-reviewed publications.  He has often suggested, under one pseudonym or another, that the only "publications" that have any value are those that appear in peer-reviewed specialist journals.  Because of that, he suggests, my publications that appear online on the Researchgate and Academia web sites are not worthy of serious academic attention.  In effect, he tells me, nobody is going to take me seriously until my evidence and interpretations appear in proper archaeological journals, so I should "put up or shut up".............

Now of course I fully acknowledge that Dr X has a point.  Learned journals are reputed to be the "gold standard" routes for the dissemination of scientific (and humanities) research, since peer review and editorial scrutiny supposedly guarantee quality, shutting off rubbish that might otherwise appear in the public domain and cause mayhem.  That's the theory, anyway. In reality, nonsense articles do appear with frightening regularity in learned journals, since the researchers who submit articles are nowadays allowed to recommend -- or even choose -- their own referees, and since editors who want things published will always find a way, regardless of the quality of the material being considered. This is why fraudulent articles have to be retracted with alarming regularity. 

But things are not that simple.  As we have seen, "Antiquity" journal, which sees itself as one of the top-ranked journals, deserves praise for making its articles genuinely open access  -- but not from the date of publication.  So those who want to read them as soon as they are published are frustrated.  Their editorial standards are appalling too, and they have been responsible for publishing the three papers from MPP and his associates which have done most to disseminate the new mythology of the bluestones.  Not only have they published these articles that should never have seen the light of day; but they have been closely involved in high-pressure media campaigns (in print and in the broadcast media) designed to promote assumptions and even wild speculations as the truth.  That's unforgivable.  Remember the highly orchestrated launch of the "lost circle" nonsense on the telly, with Alice Roberts being astonished by MPP in the rain? 

1. Parker Pearson, M. et al. 2015. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89: 1331–52.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.177

2. Parker Pearson, M. et al. 2019. Megalith quarries for Stonehenge's bluestones. Antiquity 93: 45–62.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.111 

3. Pearson, M. et al. 2021. The original Stonehenge? A dismantled stone circle in the Preseli Hills of west Wales. Antiquity, 95(379), 85-103.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.239

(not accessible?)

If you click on those links you should be able to read two of the three articles on the Cambridge journals web site.  So let's be grateful for small mercies..........

For other journals, things get even more complicated.  Sometimes the CrossRef and Google Scholar links work, and sometimes they don't.  Some journals advertise themselves as "open access", but what they mean is "open access to researchers who are affiliated to approved academic institutions."   So if you are not an approved reader, you either get to see nothing at all, or just a title and an abstract, or maybe some selected snippets from an article with an invitation to buy access to the whole thing for £30 or whatever. So genuine knowledgeable researchers or members of the public who want to scrutinize articles and contribute to debates  are frequently simply shut out of the system.  That's just not good enough, especially if academics who are inside the system start to tell the rest of us that we must believe what they say because they are the experts and we are not.

Some journals operate a system whereby the authors of an article get access to an early (pre-publication) PDF version which they are at liberty to circulate to their friends, colleagues and opponents.  Others give their authors a hyperlink to the article, which can be distributed via Email and which works for a limited period of time.  Once that time period has elapsed, the article disappears behind a paywall and we are back to square one.  I acknowledge that Dr X has sent me many such links over the years, and I thank him for that.

But where journal articles are not freely available to be read by non-affiliated academics, members of the public and journalists, the default source materials for articles and even TV programmes are the press releases from university press offices  -- and almost without exception these inflate the importance of the "discoveries" reported upon, looking for maximum "impact" and making outrageous claims about conclusions that are often not at all supported by the evidence cited.  Over and again we have seen this with respect to journal articles written by Parker Pearson, Ixer, Bevins and others.

As for myself, I fully accept that I could and should have published more in learned journals.  I have offered to submit one or two things to archaeology journals over the years, but you will not be surprised to learn that editors (with rare exceptions) will not touch anything from me with a bargepole. They won't even look at a manuscript.   I wonder why?  Maybe certain powerful individuals may get upset?  Maybe the archaeology establishment itself may feel more than a little threatened by the evidence that I might present?  Anyway, the practicalities of making submissions are also very difficult nowadays.  The larger journals (ie the ones with high ratings) have highly convoluted submission procedures and formatting requirements which are very difficult to negotiate if you are not affiliated to an academic organization or university. Most of them charge publication fees of £1000 or more, even if they promote themselves as "open access".  And some of those who do not charge publication fees impose "hidden fees" instead, for example for colour reproductions in the printed versions of their journals.  

I am not blaming Dr X and his colleagues for any of this  -- they did not create the system.  But they might perhaps be a bit more understanding of the problems faced by "non-academics" who want to contribute to academic debate.

So by default I have taken to using Academia and Researchgate as my publishing platform.  I like the latter best, because it is so efficient and simple to use.  Onto it I have placed not only my papers published in reputable journals but also various "working papers", interim reports, itemised supplementary materials and so forth.  It's all there, accessible to anybody who wants to look at it, with an invitation to all and sundry to get in touch, raising any academic or other points they might think appropriate. Of course this "peer discussion" material may not be deemed worthy by some who sit in ivory towers, but the system utilises the democratising power of the web and it encourages open debate.  On that basis, some of my articles on Researchgate -- for example, on Carn Goedog, Waun Mawn, the Newall Boulder and the Limeslade erratic -- have been revised many times in response to constructive comments received, new published research and new field observations.  I take Dr X's point that you can't cite something that keeps on changing -- but by and large this open and fluid publishing platform has a lot going for it, and I enjoy using it.  It's also perfectly appropriate in a world of changing technology.  Old-fashioned journal publishing is now dominated Springer, Wiley, Elsevier, and Taylor and Francis; maybe it has had its day, since most libraries do not buy hard copies of journals any more, and neither do individual subscribers, and the publishers are playing with various "access" models as they attempt to remain commercially viable.

There we are then.  I'm not criticising anybody here -- but I encourage Dr X and his colleagues to please ensure that ALL of their publications are genuinely open access as soon as they are published.  Journal editors do not have a problem if PDF versions of their published articles are reproduced on Academia and Researchgate.  It is the work of just a few minutes for a PDF to be uploaded by an author on the appropriate website.  Just think how much goodwill can be created from such minimal effort!!

=============

Some of the key bluestone papers -- mostly accessible, but others behind paywalls

Bevins, R.E. & Ixer, R.A.. 2013. Carn Alw as a source of the rhyolitic component of the Stonehenge bluestones: a critical re-appraisal of the petrographical account of H.H. Thomas. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 3293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.017 CrossRef | Google Scholar

(not accessible?)

Bevins, R.E., Lees, G.J. & Roach, R.A.. 1989. Ordovician intrusions of the Strumble Head-Mynydd Preseli region, Wales: lateral extensions of the Fishguard Volcanic Complex. Journal of the Geological Society of London 146: 113–23. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.146.1.0113 CrossRef | Google Scholar

(not accessible?)

Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G. & Ixer, R.A.. 2011. Stonehenge rhyolitic bluestone sources and the application of zircon chemistry as a new tool for provenancing rhyolitic lithics. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 605–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.014 CrossRef | Google Scholar

(not accessible?)

Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A., Webb, P.C. & Watson, J.S.. 2012. Provenancing the rhyolitic and dacitic components of the Stonehenge Landscape bluestone lithology: new petrographical and geochemical evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 1005–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.11.020 CrossRef | Google Scholar

(not accessible?

Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A. & Pearce, N.J.G.. 2014. Carn Goedog is the likely major source of Stonehenge doleritic bluestones: evidence based on compatible element discrimination and principal component analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 42: 179–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.11.009 CrossRef | Google Scholar

(not accessible?)

Bevins, R.E., Atkinson, N., Ixer, R.A. & Evans, J.A.. 2017. U-Pb zircon age constraints for the Fishguard Volcanic Group and further evidence for the provenance of the Stonehenge bluestones. Journal of the Geological Society of London 174: 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2016-042 CrossRef | Google Scholar

Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.E.. 2010. The petrography, affinity and provenance of lithics from the Cursus Field, Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 103: 1–15. Google Scholar

Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.E.. 2011a. Craig Rhos-y-felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant source of the Stonehenge rhyolitic debitage. Archaeology in Wales 50: 21–31. Google Scholar

Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.E.. 2011b. The detailed petrography of six orthostats from the Bluestone Circle, Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 104: 1–14. Google Scholar

Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.E.. 2013. Chips off the old block: the Stonehenge debitage dilemma. Archaeology in Wales 52: 11–22. Google Scholar

Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.E.. 2016. Volcanic Group A debitage: its description and distribution within the Stonehenge Landscape. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 109: 1–14. Google Scholar

Ixer, R.A., Bevins, R.E. & Gize, A.P.. 2015. Hard ‘volcanics with sub-planar texture’ in the Stonehenge Landscape. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 108: 1–14. Google Scholar

Ixer, R.A., Turner, P., Molyneux, S. & Bevins, R.E.. 2017. The petrography, geological age and distribution of the Lower Palaeozoic sandstone debitage from the Stonehenge Landscape. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 110: 1–16. Google Scholar

Parker Pearson, M. 2016a. The sarsen stones of Stonehenge. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 127: 363–69. CrossRef | Google Scholar

Parker Pearson, M. 2016b. Secondhand Stonehenge? Welsh origins of a Wiltshire monument. Current Archaeology 311: 18–22. Google Scholar

Pearson, Parker, M., Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham, K., Chan, B., Edinborough, K., Hamilton, D., Mcphail, R., Schlee, D., Schwenninger, J.-L., Simmons, E. & Smith, M.. 2015. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89: 1331–52. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.177 CrossRef | Google Scholar

Parker Pearson, M., Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A., Pollard, J., Richards, C. & Welham, K.. 2020. Long-distance landscapes: from quarries to monument at Stonehenge, in Mataloto, R. (ed.) Megaliths and geology: proceedings of a conference in memory of Rui Boaventura. Mega Talks 2, Redondo: Centro Cultural do Redondo. pp 151-169.  Google Scholar 

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/34408/1/Long-distance%20landscapes_megaliths_geology_portugal_2015.pdf

Pearce, N.J.G., Richard E. Bevins, and Rob A. Ixer. 2022. Portable XRF investigation of Stonehenge -- Stone 62 and potential source dolerite outcrops in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 44 (2022) 103525.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X22001882
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361417309_Portable_XRF_investigation_of_Stonehenge_Stone_62_and_potential_source_dolerite_outcrops_in_the_Mynydd_Preseli_west_Wales

(inaccessible?)

Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Parker Pearson, M., Ixer, R.A. 2022. Identification of the source of dolerites used at the Waun Mawn stone circle in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales and implications for the proposed link with Stonehenge. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 45 (2022) 103556.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 362119860_Identification_of_the_source_of_dolerites_used_at_the_Waun_Mawn_stone_circle_in_ the_Mynydd_Preseli_west_Wales_and_implications_for_the_proposed_link_with_Stonehenge

(inaccessible?)

Parker Pearson, M., Richard Bevins, Nick Pearce, Rob Ixer, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards, & Kate Welham. 2022. Reconstructing extraction techniques at Stonehenge’s bluestone megalith quarries in the Preseli hills of west Wales, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 46, 2022, 103697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103697

(inaccessible?)

Bevins R.E., Pearce N.J.G., Ixer R.A., Hillier S., Pirrie D. and Turner P. 2022. Linking derived debitage to the Stonehenge Altar Stone using portable X-rayfluorescence analysis. Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 86 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 688 - 700
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2022.22

Note:  The Journal of Archaeological Science, and some mainstream geology journals,  does not routinely make articles available to anybody who wants to read them.  This is a matter of regret.