[kadykchanskiy.livejournal.com]
You'll have to use a web translator to read the text, but it's well worth it.
![]()
"Looking at the photographs presented in chunks, which are imbedded in the stone "sarcophagus", you can confirm that they resemble olistostromes. It is clear, and their origin - they fell from subthrust zone, which is very characteristic of ultramafic rocks and is located somewhere up the slope. Of course, to prove this, we need detelnye geological investigations on the ground. But the alternative to such a point of view of small - it can be a modern cement or historical debris flows, in the first case, it is unclear what is built and what to build into cement stone boxes. In the second case, it is not clear why the debris flow is presented in the form of separate blocks. So olistostromnaya hypothesis remains the main working version. In this case, the stone "sarcophagus" may be Cretaceous (145-66 million. Years ago) olistoliths."
You'll have to use a web translator to read the text, but it's well worth it.
"Looking at the photographs presented in chunks, which are imbedded in the stone "sarcophagus", you can confirm that they resemble olistostromes. It is clear, and their origin - they fell from subthrust zone, which is very characteristic of ultramafic rocks and is located somewhere up the slope. Of course, to prove this, we need detelnye geological investigations on the ground. But the alternative to such a point of view of small - it can be a modern cement or historical debris flows, in the first case, it is unclear what is built and what to build into cement stone boxes. In the second case, it is not clear why the debris flow is presented in the form of separate blocks. So olistostromnaya hypothesis remains the main working version. In this case, the stone "sarcophagus" may be Cretaceous (145-66 million. Years ago) olistoliths."