 However, in 1983 his case study was analysed by two archaeologists, Tom Williamson and Liz Bellamy, as part of their work "Ley Lines in Question", a critical analysis of the evidence for ley-lines.They highlighted that Michell had erroneously included medieval crosses and natural features under his definition of late prehistoric monuments, and that arguments for ley-lines more widely could not be sustained.The impact of their work on the ley-hunting community was substantial, with one section moving in a more fully religious direction by declaring that leys could only be detected by intuition, and the other renouncing a ley line belief in favour of a more ethnographically-rooted analysis of linear connections in the landscape.