I think GP is calling out the sweeping characterization of the headline posted here. Your full quote provides the important context included in the original st

I think GP is calling out the sweeping characterization of the headline posted here. Your full quote provides the important context included in the original statement, “most important…to be found in Britain”. Is it more important than the 30,000+ yo mammoth carving recently found in Swabia? Debatable, but the article never claimed it was contending for such a designation.