# Mathematics Meets Archaeology: Discovering the Mesolithic Origins of Car Dyke

Contents

## Introduction

In archaeology, theories about ancient structures and sites have traditionally been shaped by subjective interpretations, often constrained by the limited evidence. The lack of precise data, historical bias, and conflicting narratives have left the field somewhat speculative. However, recent advancements in mathematical modelling have introduced new ways to derive data-driven conclusions. We can dig deeper into the ancient past by applying Bayesian and Spatial Analysis, extracting valuable insights with greater certainty. One particularly compelling case study is the re-evaluation of Car Dyke, a linear earthwork historically associated with Roman engineering. Through these combined mathematical approaches, we have uncovered evidence that suggests Car Dyke may have been constructed much earlier than previously thought, potentially dating back to the Mesolithic period. (Mathematics Meets Archaeology: Discovering the Mesolithic Origins of Car Dyke)

**Bayesian Analysis**

Bayesian analysis, a statistical method for updating the probability of a hypothesis as new evidence is introduced, has become a powerful tool in archaeology. Rather than concluding solely on static data, Bayesian analysis allows researchers to adjust their assumptions and probabilities as more evidence becomes available. For example, when archaeologists find artefacts from a particular period, Bayesian analysis helps calculate the likelihood that the site was occupied or used during that time. This method is precious for refining timelines and revising outdated interpretations, as it constantly evolves based on the influx of new data. In archaeology, it has traditionally been applied to analyse when sites were in use rather than when they were constructed.

However, focusing solely on the usage of a site can leave gaps in understanding its origins. This is where Spatial Analysis comes into play. Spatial Analysis examines the geographic distribution of artefacts and features, revealing patterns that might indicate when and how the site was built. By analysing the concentration of artefacts across a landscape, Spatial Analysis can help pinpoint periods of significant activity and uncover the construction date of ancient structures. When combined with Bayesian analysis, this approach offers a more comprehensive understanding of a site’s construction and use, leading to data-driven and contextually rich conclusions. (Mathematics Meets Archaeology: Discovering the Mesolithic Origins of Car Dyke)

**Car Dyke**

Car Dyke is an ideal case study for demonstrating the power of this dual approach. The Dyke stretches across Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, and for years, it has been a topic of debate among archaeologists. Traditionally, scholars have attributed its construction to Roman engineering, primarily due to the presence of Roman artefacts in the broader region. However, our research applied Bayesian and Spatial Analysis to challenge this assumption. By focusing on the distribution of artefacts found specifically along the Dyke, we uncovered evidence suggesting that its origins might be much older, potentially tracing back to the Mesolithic or Neolithic periods.

We began our investigation by applying Bayesian analysis to calculate the likelihood of different periods being associated with the construction of Car Dyke. This required gathering data on all artefacts found across Lincolnshire and using it to calculate the prior probabilities for each period. Given the abundance of Roman artefacts in the region, our initial Bayesian model favoured a Roman construction date. However, as we incorporated new evidence from the area surrounding Car Dyke, a different pattern began to emerge. Spatial Analysis revealed that a significant number of Mesolithic and Neolithic artefacts were clustered in proximity to the Dyke, suggesting that it might have been constructed much earlier than previously believed. (Mathematics Meets Archaeology: Discovering the Mesolithic Origins of Car Dyke)

**Spatial Analysis**

Spatial Analysis allowed us to go beyond the surface-level examination of artefacts. By mapping the geographic distribution of Mesolithic and Neolithic finds, we could see that these early artefacts were concentrated in key areas along Car Dyke, particularly where it intersects with ancient landscapes like river valleys and elevated terrain. This pattern indicated that the Dyke was more than just a Roman infrastructure project—it may have been a significant site for earlier peoples as well. The concentration of Mesolithic artefacts along the Dyke strongly suggests that the site was either constructed or heavily used during that period.

The integration of Bayesian and Spatial Analysis was essential in refining our understanding of Car Dyke’s history. While Bayesian analysis initially supported the Roman origin theory due to the larger body of Roman artefacts across Lincolnshire, the localised data revealed by Spatial Analysis shifted the probabilities significantly. This combination of methods allowed us to challenge the traditional narrative and propose a new hypothesis: Car Dyke may have been constructed during the Mesolithic period and later used or modified by the Romans. This shift in focus—from usage to construction—helped us uncover a deeper history of the site that would not have been apparent through Bayesian analysis alone. (Mathematics Meets Archaeology: Discovering the Mesolithic Origins of Car Dyke)

**Data-Driven Methos of Identification**

This dual approach also highlights a broader shift in archaeology toward more data-driven methods. Traditionally, archaeology has relied on subjective interpretations, with researchers filling in the gaps when evidence was sparse. While this has yielded valuable insights, it has also introduced biases and inconsistencies. By incorporating mathematical models like Bayesian and Spatial Analysis, we reduce the subjectivity inherent in archaeological interpretation and increase the accuracy of our conclusions. These methods offer a more transparent and repeatable framework for analysing archaeological data, allowing researchers to refine their hypotheses as new evidence is discovered.

The benefits of this approach extend beyond just Car Dyke. By applying Spatial Analysis alongside Bayesian calculations, archaeologists can uncover hidden patterns that might go unnoticed. For example, Spatial Analysis considers the broader context of artefacts within the landscape, revealing relationships between artefact concentrations and natural features such as rivers, hills, and valleys. This level of analysis helps archaeologists understand not just when a site was used but also why it was built in a specific location. In the case of Car Dyke, Spatial Analysis allowed us to see that the site’s significance extended far beyond the Roman period, providing a more complete picture of its history and purpose.

**Our Revaluation of Car Dyke**

The re-evaluation of Car Dyke’s construction date demonstrates the power of combining Bayesian and Spatial Analysis in archaeology. Bayesian analysis is invaluable for updating our understanding of site usage, but Spatial Analysis provides critical insights into ancient structures’ construction and broader significance. These methods allow archaeologists to move beyond speculation and embrace a more scientific approach to uncovering the past. Integrating mathematics into archaeology marks a crucial step forward, helping researchers develop more accurate and evidence-based conclusions.

As we refine these techniques and apply them to other sites, the potential for discoveries grows exponentially. The case of Car Dyke is just one example of how mathematical analysis can reshape our understanding of ancient history. By embracing data-driven methods like Bayesian and Spatial Analysis, archaeology is evolving into a discipline that is less reliant on conjecture and more focused on scientific rigour. The future of archaeology lies in this marriage of mathematics and empirical evidence. As we continue to push the boundaries of what we know, we can expect to uncover even more of history’s mysteries with confidence and clarity.

**Conclusion**

The combination of Bayesian and Spatial Analysis has revolutionised our understanding of Car Dyke’s construction date, suggesting that it may have been built during the Mesolithic period rather than the Roman era. This new approach has reduced the subjectivity in archaeological interpretation and allowed us to develop more accurate, data-driven conclusions. As these mathematical models continue to be refined and applied to other archaeological sites, they will undoubtedly pave the way for even more significant discoveries and a deeper understanding of our ancient past.

**The calculations**

**Bayesian Analysis**

To calculate the prior probabilities for each period based on the total number of finds in Lincoln, we first calculate the total number of finds across all periods:

**Step 1: Total Number of Finds**

Total Finds=13,723(Roman)+8,994(Medieval)+5,619(Post Medieval)+1,680(Early Medieval)+2,451(Iron Age)+2,091(Neolithic)+634(Mesolithic)+980(Bronze Age)=36,172\text{Total Finds} = 13,723 (\text{Roman}) + 8,994 (\text{Medieval}) + 5,619 (\text{Post Medieval}) + 1,680 (\text{Early Medieval}) + 2,451 (\text{Iron Age}) + 2,091 (\text{Neolithic}) + 634 (\text{Mesolithic}) + 980 (\text{Bronze Age}) = 36,172Total Finds=13,723(Roman)+8,994(Medieval)+5,619(Post Medieval)+1,680(Early Medieval)+2,451(Iron Age)+2,091(Neolithic)+634(Mesolithic)+980(Bronze Age)=36,172

**Step 2: Calculate Prior Probabilities**

Divide the number of finds for each period by the total number of finds:

P(Roman)=13,72336,172≈0.3794P(\text{Roman}) = \frac{13,723}{36,172} \approx 0.3794P(Roman)=36,17213,723≈0.3794 P(Medieval)=8,99436,172≈0.2487P(\text{Medieval}) = \frac{8,994}{36,172} \approx 0.2487P(Medieval)=36,1728,994≈0.2487 P(Post Medieval)=5,61936,172≈0.1554P(\text{Post Medieval}) = \frac{5,619}{36,172} \approx 0.1554P(Post Medieval)=36,1725,619≈0.1554 P(Early Medieval)=1,68036,172≈0.0465P(\text{Early Medieval}) = \frac{1,680}{36,172} \approx 0.0465P(Early Medieval)=36,1721,680≈0.0465 P(Iron Age)=2,45136,172≈0.0678P(\text{Iron Age}) = \frac{2,451}{36,172} \approx 0.0678P(Iron Age)=36,1722,451≈0.0678 P(Neolithic)=2,09136,172≈0.0578P(\text{Neolithic}) = \frac{2,091}{36,172} \approx 0.0578P(Neolithic)=36,1722,091≈0.0578 P(Mesolithic)=63436,172≈0.0175P(\text{Mesolithic}) = \frac{634}{36,172} \approx 0.0175P(Mesolithic)=36,172634≈0.0175 P(Bronze Age)=98036,172≈0.0271P(\text{Bronze Age}) = \frac{980}{36,172} \approx 0.0271P(Bronze Age)=36,172980≈0.0271

**Summary of Prior Probabilities:**

**Roman**: 0.3794**Medieval**: 0.2487**Post Medieval**: 0.1554**Early Medieval**: 0.0465**Iron Age**: 0.0678**Neolithic**: 0.0578**Mesolithic**: 0.0175**Bronze Age**: 0.0271

**Step 1: Define Prior Probabilities**

Using the prior probabilities:

**Roman**: P(HRoman)=0.3794P(H_{\text{Roman}}) = 0.3794P(HRoman)=0.3794**Bronze Age**: P(HBronze Age)=0.0271P(H_{\text{Bronze Age}}) = 0.0271P(HBronze Age)=0.0271**Neolithic/Mesolithic**: P(HNeolithic/Mesolithic)=0.0753P(H_{\text{Neolithic/Mesolithic}}) = 0.0753P(HNeolithic/Mesolithic)=0.0753

**Step 2: Evidence Likelihoods Based on Local Data**

Given the distribution of finds:

**Roman**: P(ERoman∣HRoman)=24132≈0.1818P(E_{\text{Roman}}|H_{\text{Roman}}) = \frac{24}{132} \approx 0.1818P(ERoman∣HRoman)=13224≈0.1818**Bronze Age**: P(EBronze Age∣HBronze Age)=47132≈0.3561P(E_{\text{Bronze Age}}|H_{\text{Bronze Age}}) = \frac{47}{132} \approx 0.3561P(EBronze Age∣HBronze Age)=13247≈0.3561**Neolithic/Mesolithic**: P(ENeolithic/Mesolithic∣HNeolithic/Mesolithic)=61132≈0.4621P(E_{\text{Neolithic/Mesolithic}}|H_{\text{Neolithic/Mesolithic}}) = \frac{61}{132} \approx 0.4621P(ENeolithic/Mesolithic∣HNeolithic/Mesolithic)=13261≈0.4621

**Step 3: Apply Bayes’ Theorem**

**Posterior Probability for Roman:**

P(HRoman∣E)=0.1818×0.3794P(E)=0.0689P(E)P(H_{\text{Roman}}|E) = \frac{0.1818 \times 0.3794}{P(E)} = \frac{0.0689}{P(E)}P(HRoman∣E)=P(E)0.1818×0.3794=P(E)0.0689

**Posterior Probability for Bronze Age:**

P(HBronze Age∣E)=0.3561×0.0271P(E)=0.0097P(E)P(H_{\text{Bronze Age}}|E) = \frac{0.3561 \times 0.0271}{P(E)} = \frac{0.0097}{P(E)}P(HBronze Age∣E)=P(E)0.3561×0.0271=P(E)0.0097

**Posterior Probability for Neolithic/Mesolithic:**

P(HNeolithic/Mesolithic∣E)=0.4621×0.0753P(E)=0.0348P(E)P(H_{\text{Neolithic/Mesolithic}}|E) = \frac{0.4621 \times 0.0753}{P(E)} = \frac{0.0348}{P(E)}P(HNeolithic/Mesolithic∣E)=P(E)0.4621×0.0753=P(E)0.0348

**Step 4: Normalise the Posterior Probabilities**

Sum of the calculated values for normalisation:

P(E)=0.0689+0.0097+0.0348≈0.1134P(E) = 0.0689 + 0.0097 + 0.0348 \approx 0.1134P(E)=0.0689+0.0097+0.0348≈0.1134

Now, calculate the normalised posterior probabilities:

**Roman**:

P(HRoman∣E)=0.06890.1134≈0.6074P(H_{\text{Roman}}|E) = \frac{0.0689}{0.1134} \approx 0.6074P(HRoman∣E)=0.11340.0689≈**0.6074**

**Bronze Age**:

P(HBronze Age∣E)=0.00970.1134≈0.0855P(H_{\text{Bronze Age}}|E) = \frac{0.0097}{0.1134} \approx 0.0855P(HBronze Age∣E)=0.11340.0097≈**0.0855**

**Neolithic/Mesolithic**:

P(HNeolithic/Mesolithic∣E)=0.03480.1134≈0.3069P(H_{\text{Neolithic/Mesolithic}}|E) = \frac{0.0348}{0.1134} \approx 0.3069P(HNeolithic/Mesolithic∣E)=0.11340.0348≈**0.3069**

**Analysis and Interpretation:**

**Neolithic/Mesolithic**: The higher frequency of finds in this period significantly increases its posterior probability to approximately 30.69%, which is quite substantial.**Roman**: Despite having fewer finds in this area, the Roman period still has a high posterior probability due to its higher prior, but it is now only about 60.74%.**Bronze Age**: The probability for the Bronze Age period remains lower at approximately 8.55%.

**Conclusion:**

The calculated probabilities show a more balanced view, with the Roman period still favoured but with a much stronger case for the Mesolithic/Neolithic period. This suggests that while Roman use of the Dyke is still **likely, the Mesolithic/Neolithic period also holds significant importance, potentially indicating earlier use or occupation before the Romans.**

**Langdon Mathematics**

While Bayesian theory often yields definitive results, its accuracy can be compromised due to its dependence on subjective prior assumptions, which may only sometimes reflect reality. If these priors are not well-chosen or are based on incomplete or biased information, the resulting analysis might be misleading.

Therefore, relying solely on Bayesian methods without considering the variability and complexity of archaeological data could lead to conclusions that only partially capture the nuances of the actual distribution of artefacts. My method, which focuses on Spatial Analysis and empirical data, addresses these limitations.

My approach to calculating finds would differ significantly. First, I would define the area where artefacts could be discovered—using Lincolnshire as a reference due to its comprehensive archaeological data. By doing so, we can estimate the expected number of artefacts per square meter of Lincolnshire land, offering a more objective and spatially grounded method for understanding artefact distribution.

**As IA reports:**

To calculate the percentage likelihood of finding an artefact from each period in a single square meter of Lincolnshire, we can follow these steps:

**Step 1: Determine the Area of Lincolnshire**

- Area of Lincolnshire: Approximately 6,959 square kilometres (6,959,000,000 square meters).

**Step 2: Calculate the Find Density**

For each period, calculate the density of finds per square meter by dividing the total number of finds by the area of Lincolnshire.

**Step 3: Calculate the Likelihood for Each Period**

**Roman:**

Likelihood: 0.000156%

**Neolithic:**

** **

Likelihood: 0.000011%

**Mesolithic:**

Likelihood: 0.000004%

**Bronze Age:**

Likelihood: 0.000003%

**Summary of Likelihoods in order of expectation:**

- Roman: 0.000156%
- Medieval: 0.000129%
- Post Medieval: 0.000081%
- Early Medieval: 0.000024%
- Iron Age: 0.000021%
- Neolithic: 0.000011%
- Mesolithic: 0.000004%
- Bronze Age: 0.000003%

These percentages represent the likelihood of finding an artefact from each period in a square meter of Lincolnshire. Given the extensive activity during that time, the highest is for the Roman period, just marginally ahead of the Medieval period.

We now need to look at the search area (63 miles of the Northern End of Car Dyke) as listing on the LiDAR maps in the previous section of the book. We must first calculate the total search area in square metres, count the number of finding within this area, and then compare against the expected number.

**Summary of Expected Finds:**

**Roman**: 15.83 artefacts**Medieval**: 13.07 artefacts**Post Medieval**: 8.19 artefacts**Early Medieval**: 2.44 artefacts**Iron Age**: 2.17 artefacts**Neolithic**: 1.07 artefacts**Unknown**: 0.59 artefacts**Modern**: 0.50 artefacts**Mesolithic**: 0.36 artefacts**Bronze Age**: 0.34 artefacts

**Summary of Items Found:**

**Mesolithic/Neolithic**: 61 finds**Bronze Age:**47 finds**Roman:**24 finds

**Calculate the Odds of This Kind of Find**

For each period, the odds ratio of finding this many artefacts compared to the expected finds:

**Step 4: Interpret the Results**

- Mesolithic/Neolithic: A massive
**5589.72%**increase and an odds ratio of**57.01**suggest significant activity during this period, far beyond what was expected. - Bronze Age: An even higher increase of
**13723.53%**and an odds ratio of**138.24**indicate the area was very important during the Bronze Age. - Roman: A modest
**51.60%**increase with an odds ratio of**1.52**suggests Roman activity, but not as dominant as the earlier periods.

**Conclusion**

The very high percentage increases and odds ratios for the Mesolithic/Neolithic and Bronze Age periods strongly suggest that the Car Dyke area was occupied and actively used during these times, with significant archaeological activity that exceeds what would be expected based on general Lincolnshire data. While still represented, the Roman period is less prominent in this area compared to the earlier periods.

This confirms other Dyke surveys such as Offa’s and Wansdyke that also show design (wibbly-wobbly) in construction attributed to the builders seeking natural springs rather than a direct line of route to maintain water levels which were achieved at a later date in history by locks.

**Further Reading**

For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports. This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.

Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.

Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:

**Other Blogs**

1

a

- Alexander the Great sailed into India – where no rivers exist today
- Ancient Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum
- Ancient Secrets of Althorp – debunked
- Antler Picks built Ancient Monuments – yet there is no real evidence
- Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?
- Archaeological Pseudoscience
- Archaeology in the Post-Truth Era
- Archaeology in the Post-Truth Era
- Are Raised Beaches Archaeological Pseudoscience?
- ATLANTIS: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked
- Avebury Ditch – Avebury Phase 2
- Avebury Post-Glacial Flooding
- Avebury through time
- Avebury’s great mystery revealed
- Avebury’s Lost Stone Avenue – Flipbook

b

c

- Caerfai promontory fort – archaeological nonsense
- Car Dyke – North Section
- CASE STUDY – An Inconvenient TRUTH (Craig Rhos Y Felin)
- Case Study – River Avon
- Case Study – Woodhenge Reconstruction
- Chapter 2 – Craig Rhos-Y-Felin Debunked
- Chapter 2 – Stonehenge Phase I
- Chapter 2 – Variation of the Species
- Chapter 3 – Post Glacial Sea Levels
- Chapter 3 – Stonehenge Phase II
- Chapter 7 – Britain’s Post-Glacial Flooding
- Cissbury Ring through time

d

- Darwin’s Children – Flipbook
- Darwin’s Children – The Cro-Magnons
- Dawn of the Lost Civilisation – Flipbook
- Dawn of the Lost Civilisation – Introduction
- Digging for Britain – Cerne Abbas 1 of 2
- Digging for Britain Debunked – Cerne Abbas 2
- Digging Up Britain’s Past – Debunked
- DLC Chapter 1 – The Ascent of Man
- Durrington Walls – Woodhenge through time
- Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101
- Dykes Ditches and Earthworks
- DYKES of Britain

g

h

- Hadrian’s Wall – Military Way Hoax
- Hadrian’s Wall – the Stanegate Hoax
- Hadrian’s Wall LiDAR investigation
- Hayling Island Lidar Maps
- Historic River Avon
- Hollingsbury Camp Brighton
- Hollows, Sunken Lanes and Palaeochannels
- Homo Superior – Flipbook
- Homo Superior – History’s Giants
- How Lidar will change Archaeology

l

m

- Maiden Castle through time
- Mathematics Meets Archaeology: Discovering the Mesolithic Origins of Car Dyke
- Mesolithic River Avon
- Mesolithic Stonehenge
- Minerals found in Prehistoric and Roman Quarries
- Mining in the Prehistoric to Roman Period
- Mount Caburn through time
- Mysteries of the Oldest Boatyard Uncovered
- Mythological Dragons – a non-existent animal that is shared by the World.

o

p

- Post Glacial Flooding – Flipbook
- Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain
- Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum
- Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke
- Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Antonine Wall
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Great Chesters Aqueduct (The Vallum Pt. 4)
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Hadrian’s Wall Vallum (pt 1)
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Maiden Way
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Offa’s Dyke (Chepstow)
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Offa’s Dyke (LiDAR Survey)
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Offa’s Dyke Survey (End of Section A)
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Roman Military Way
- Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke (4)
- Prehistoric Canals Wansdyke 2
- Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology

r

s

- Sea Level Changes
- Section A – NY26SW
- Section B – NY25NE & NY26SE
- Section C – NY35NW
- Section D – NY35NE
- Section E – NY46SW & NY45NW
- Section F – NY46SE & NY45NE
- Section G – NY56SW
- Section H – NY56NE & NY56SE
- Section I – NY66NW
- Section J – NY66NE
- Section K – NY76NW
- Section L – NY76NE
- Section M – NY87SW & NY86NW
- Section N – NY87SE
- Section O – NY97SW & NY96NW
- Section P – NY96NE
- Section Q – NZ06NW
- Section R – NZ06NE
- Section S – NZ16NW
- Section T – NZ16NE
- Section U – NZ26NW & NZ26SW
- Section V – NZ26NE & NZ26SE
- Silbury Avenue – Avebury’s First Stone Avenue
- Silbury Hill
- Silbury Hill / Sanctuary – Avebury Phase 3
- Six years ago archaeology made an astonishing discovery (Einkorn Wheat)
- Somerset Plain – Signs of Post-Glacial Flooding
- South Cadbury Castle – Camelot
- Stone me – the druids are looking the wrong way on Solstice day
- Stone Money – Credit System
- Stone Transportation and Dumb Censorship
- Stonehenge – Monument to the Dead
- Stonehenge Hoax – Dating the Monument
- Stonehenge Hoax – Round Monument?
- Stonehenge Hoax – Summer Solstice
- Stonehenge LiDAR tour
- Stonehenge Phase I (The Stonehenge Landscape)
- Stonehenge Solved – Pythagorean maths put to use four thousand years before he was born
- Stonehenge Stone Transportation
- Stonehenge Through Time
- Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection
- Stonehenge: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked
- Stonehenge’s Location -The Stonehenge Hoax
- Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed – DEBUNKED

t

- Ten thousand year old boats found on Northern Europe’s Hillsides
- Ten thousand-year-old boats found on Northern Europe’s Hillsides
- The Ancient Mariners – Flipbook
- The Ancient Mariners – Prehistoric seafarers of the Mesolithic
- The Bluestone Enigma
- The Dolmen and Long Barrow Connection
- The Durrington Walls Hoax – it’s not a henge?
- The First European Smelted Bronzes
- The Fury of the Past: Natural Disasters in Historical and Prehistoric Britain
- The Giant’s Graves of Cumbria
- The Giants of Prehistory: Cro-Magnon and the Ancient Monuments
- The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?
- The Great Hadrian’s Wall Hoax
- The Great Iron Age Hill Fort Hoax
- The Great Offa’s Dyke Hoax
- The Great Prehistoric Migration Hoax
- The Great Stone Transportation Hoax
- The Great Stonehenge Hoax
- The Great Wansdyke Hoax
- The Henge and River Relationship
- The Logistical Impossibility of Defending Maiden Castle
- The Long Barrow Mystery
- The Long Barrow Mystery: Unraveling Ancient Connections
- The Lost Island of Avalon – revealed
- The Maths – LGM total ice volume
- The Old Sarum Hoax
- The Oldest Boat Yard in the World found in Wales
- The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis – Flipbook
- The Post-Glacial Flooding Theory
- The Problem with Hadrian’s Vallum
- The Rise of the Cro-Magnon (Homo Superior)
- The Rivers of the Past were Higher – an idiot’s guide
- The Silbury Hill Lighthouse?
- The Stonehenge Avenue
- The Stonehenge Avenue
- The Stonehenge Code: Unveiling its 10,000-Year-Old Secret
- The Stonehenge Enigma – Flipbook
- The Stonehenge Enigma: What Lies Beneath? – Debunked
- The Stonehenge Hoax – Bluestone Quarry Site
- The Stonehenge Hoax – Flipbook
- The Stonehenge Hoax – Moving the Bluestones
- The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes
- The Stonehenge Hoax – Station Stones
- The Stonehenge Hoax – The Ditch
- The Stonehenge Hoax – The Slaughter Stone
- The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer
- The Stonehenge Hoax – Totem Poles
- The Stonehenge Hoax – Woodhenge
- The Stonehenge Hospital
- The Troy, Hyperborea and Atlantis Connection
- The Vallum @ Hadrian’s Wall – it’s Prehistoric!
- The Woodhenge Hoax
- Three Dykes – Kidland Forest
- Top Ten misidentified Fire Beacons in British History
- Troy Debunked
- TSE – DVD Barrows
- TSE DVD – An Inconvenient Truth
- TSE DVD – Antler Picks
- TSE DVD – Avebury
- TSE DVD – Durrington Walls & Woodhenge
- TSE DVD – Dykes
- TSE DVD – Epilogue
- TSE DVD – Stonehenge Phase I
- TSE DVD – Stonehenge Phase II
- TSE DVD – The Post-Glacial Hypothesis
- TSE DVD Introduction
- TSE DVD Old Sarum