Stonehenge 181
Image by Snap

Jah, like you said, I realise we have to take 'their' word, as were not the 'specialists', Not sure how you'd date a crack (hey there, now then, now then!) as over thousands of years all sorts of dirt, debris etc... could have accumulated there. Plus the nature of the stones vertical planes, ice and water ingress into the fractures are likely to have caused significant fall off's and erosion from the original quarried face. Still, I like that they are trying to push our knowledge forward, even if the theory turns out to be hokem. And on the bright side, they found some sort of encampment at least, at least according to the press, and the charred hazelnuts.

As to telling which stones is fer monument building, and which is just clitter. Before the archo's settled on Carn Geodog as one of the bluestone quarries, it was Carn Menin I think they thought the bluestones were quarried from. When I visited many years ago, every 7 foot stone pillar partially buried looked like a possible Stonehenge contender. Still. Had a wonderful day hiking and clambering about, so whatever the outcome, it wasn't wasted.

I'm disappointed to have to read 'the probable date for the extraction from the recess' and then realise the dates come from the Neolithic occupation layer.
It's disingenuous, at best.
Whilst I obviously love the subject, appreciate the effort, experience and passion of the archaeologists involved, and I excitedly consume the reports and enjoy the discussion, I could do with a great deal more objectivity from those involved to help me, the lowly punter, really understand why two small blocks under a large recumbent near a rock face are any indication of removal of that rock for potential transport to SH.
There is a lot of mist, shall we say.