An article on the BBC website [link] yesterday reported on a recent geophysical survey of the Isle of Iona for archaeological sites.
The BBC’s article begins: Evidence of previously undiscovered historic burial sites may have been found on the Scottish island of Iona.
This intrigued me; what was the BBC unsure about? It seemed that the writer had uncertainty about the discovery of the evidence, not its interpretation, which makes for an odd news story.
Here’s the narrative of the article:
Evidence of previously undiscovered historic burial sites may have been found on the Scottish island of Iona.
NTS said the more interesting result came from Martyr’s Bay where there is a mound beside the road where skeletal remains were excavated in the 1960s.
The trust’s head of archaeology, Derek Alexander, said: “The geophysical survey shows that on the landward side, this mound may have been revetted (walled) by stones and surrounded by a shallow ditch. This could be a sign of burials.” [My emphasis]
Okay, okay, I’m being picky, but grammar and sentence construction is there for a reason, to communicate meaning to the reader. In this case it’s a fail.