The fact that something is not manmade does not, imho, automatically place it outside the realm of the archaeological; if that were the case we would disregard the remains of the flowers recently found in the 4,000 year Bronze Age dig as merely botanical :-)
That is not the case at Slaggyford where what we are talking about are stones in a field , not a monument , that have been mistakenly described as rock art .
It is a common mistake and people who know about the subject have seen , photographed ,photogramytried (have I just made that up ?) and drawn them and concluded that they are natural .To anyone who knows about it it is clear even from the pics that they are natural . I have posted plenty of examples of what the genuine type looks like plus other pics that show the natural types . The Slaggyford examples are just like the natural and nothing like the genuine .