> How's about 'it looks the part' !

But really, it doesn't. It looks like a partially shaped boulder. More of an 'L' shape than the usual elongated thing one would expect. I'm not saying that standing stones have to be long, but if you had the generalise...

I've seen stones that even the archaeologists are prepared to consider as (potentially) prehistoric boundary markers (as oppossed to standing stones), but they weren't shaped like that. I've never seen anything quite like that before in a (UK) prehistoric context. Has anyone else?