They MAY have intended us to take it with a pinch of salt........... and maybe not

Photo from the 1958 excavation

I have received the following from Jon. He makes an interesting point, and it is worth sharing.  

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

The significance -- or insignificance -- of distant stone sources
(an external view of the wording)

Jon Morris

If the builders of Stonehenge wanted stones from everywhere in order to cement a "unification project", why have the stones all come from one narrow compass direction? It's a good question and one I wondered when I read it the first time. But the paper itself has a specific wording in the introductory Abstract: “Such connections may be best explained through Stonehenge’s construction as a monument of island-wide unification, embodied in part through the distant and diverse origins of its stones.” This is a true statement. They may be. That particular use of language indicates a likely outcome in the author's opinion. There's a useful blog about it here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/may-might/

But we have no way of knowing because there is no agreed framework of experts, to which the public can refer, to get an idea of the most likely answer (or answers). One can also substitute other hypotheses into this wording. To take an extreme example, let us say that the alternative hypothesis was that Stonehenge was built by Aliens (possibly with bases in Scotland and Wales). “Such connections may be best explained through Stonehenge’s construction as a monument of Alien origin.”

This is also a true statement. They may be (again in the author's opinion). We have no way of knowing because there is no agreed framework, to which the public can refer, to get an idea of the most likely answer (or answers). One can also substitute other hypotheses into this wording. For another less extreme example, let us say that the alternative hypothesis was that Stonehenge was transported by glaciers).

“Such connections may be best explained through Stonehenge’s construction as a result of happenstance due to glacial transport.” This is also a true statement. But again we have no way of knowing. One can also substitute almost any other hypotheses into this wording.

Moving on to the conclusion:

Finally, the distant origin of the Altar Stone confirms Stonehenge’s unique status as the one stone circle built entirely from non-local stone; a material microcosm projecting at an enormous scale. It is consistent with recent interpretations of Stonehenge as a monument whose builders attempted – ultimately unsuccessfully – to establish some form of political unification and shared identity across much or even all of Britain, bringing together these extraordinary and alien rocks which symbolised and embodied far and distant communities within a complex material and monumental expression of unity between people, land, ancestors and the heavens.

This is also a true statement given the use of “may” in the introductory abstract, (rather than “can” or “is” or other related more definitive verbs), These findings are consistent with a possibility (that may be true) for which no probabilistic evidence is given as to its likelihood.

It's perhaps unfortunate if the paper has given the impression that this hypothesis might be a best explanation. However, it might well be. Nevertheless, the paper doesn't say that it is the best explanation. If the paper had said that it is the best explanation, then it would have to have provided evidence of comparison to other hypotheses.

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

My own view is somewhat less charitable!  Although the word "may" is used in the Abstract, and may pop up here and there in the text (I can't be bothered to check), it is not used in the Conclusion, and that is what matters.  There is little doubt that we are meant to take this narrative seriously.  And MPP and his colleagues know perfectly well that when it comes to press releases and the media, qualifications and reservations tend to disappear without trace, and in no time at all wacky unsupported ideas are taken to be "exciting new discoveries that transform our understanding of Stonehenge." 

In this case the promotion of an unreliable narrative is even more serious than usual, because the press releases and the press coverage all happened before there was any published paper available for anybody to look at.  For over a month journalists and interested members of the public had no article to look at.   That was a disgrace, as I pointed out at the time.

MPP quote in the (extremely premature) press release:

“The similarities in architecture and material culture between the Stonehenge area and northern Scotland now make more sense. It’s helped to solve the puzzle of why these distant places had more in common than we might have once thought.”

 

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/12/the-stonehenge-narrative-becomes-even.html