So this signals the end of the lost circle hypothesis, and shows that there is no link of any sort with Stonehenge. Mind you, the authors still insist there was a giant circle here, with 8 missing stones, but that's just a last-ditch attemp to save some face in what must be a very embarrassing retreat. We told them that the stones were local, years ago, but they refused to listen to anybody else or to do any proper geological fieldwork in the area. So this huge piece of work was not really necessary at all -- it was a hugely expensive and wasteful attempt to add credibility to a narrative that has been hyped in a manner that brings no credit to anybody involved. Perhaps we can now get some common sense into this debate, and just accept that it is a possible stone setting in an area full of features that are actually of much greater interest than the "lost circle"?
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road