Waun Mawn -- one standing stone and two recumbent. Photo credit: HoratioI noticed that the reads for my Waun Mawn paper -- first written in 2021 and revised since then in Sept 2022 -- have now gone over the 6,600 mark. That's remarkable, and it means that the article is being read by a great number of archaeologists who are less than convinced by the complex narrative woven by MPP on the telly and in other media.
Truth will out, and I will soon do another update to take account of recent research. Of course, the research team which did the excavation and associated lab analyses for Waun Mawn have already been forced to go on the record and acknowledge that their original speculations and pronouncements were -- shall we say -- premature and indeed foolhardy.
Of course, this article of mine is not peer reviewed in the conventional sense, and might be deemed to be less reliable than it might have been. Fair enough. On the other hand, as readers of this blog will know, many researchers now have a somewhat jaundiced view of the peer review process, which is often corrupt. Reviews are often biased and at best subjective, and I have learnt over many years that reviewers can sometimes tell us more about their own belief systems than about the merits or demerits of the document in front of them! But reviewing is a thankless task, and I sympathise with editors who nowadays find it very difficult indeed to find reviewers ready to tackle even the most significant of submitted articles, let alone the worthy but boring ones that hardly anybody is ever going to read.
I wouldn't mind betting that if my Waun Mawn article had been published in a journal, it would not have had anything like the same number of reads from specialists and non-specialists........