I've got a terrible cold so don't expect me to make any sense. But it does seem to me that if you're living in a pre-urban society, where you're intimately involved in the process of catching or growing your dinner, fetching water etc - you have to be aware of your local environment. And some things in it stand out more than others, purely because they're big. Some stand out because they're unusual. Some because something about them elicits a feeling of fear (or awe). I think these things are beyond argument (though I'm sure somebody will disagree). And the things that stand out are well known amongst the local people, and they discuss them and tell stories about them, or they come to represent certain important things to them. I mean they're landmarks aren't they, physically and also part of people's mental maps and their sense of where they live blah blah blah.

Ok we can't say for sure which natural features were definitely important to a set of people x years in the past. But I think you can generally have a bloody good guess that they were important to someone. If you can recognise them, then why couldn't someone else have done? And if this website has a remit of 4500+BC to the Iron age, that's a long time to have noticed an obvious set of rocks.

Ah I dunno. Just because you can't Prove any particular site, does that mean you shouldn't include any at all??