How Avocational Archaeologists Support Discovery and Why Methodology Matters:
Distinguishing Genuine Contributions from Pseudoarchaeology

By David Connolly, January 2026

Contributions by Hana Kdolska

Introduction

Archaeology, a discipline dedicated to the understanding of the humanity’s past through the study of material remains, has long been enriched by the enthusiastic work of the amateur, now more aptly recognised as citizen scientists or avocational archaeologists. These individuals and groups, often operating outside of the formal academic or professional domain, but frequently collaborating with professional archaeologists, have indisputably contributed to the advancement of the discipline. Their valuable input stands in marked contrast to the pseudoarchaeology ‘science’, propagated by a number of writers, such as Graham Hancock, and other self-proclaimed ‘truth seekers’, who are supported by an number of vocal anti-mainstream social media creators. Needless to say, the methodologies of these ‘researchers’ habitually bypass the scientific rigor in favour of sensational narratives to gain wider audience; in a large part motivated by the vision of fame and riches (read more on Pseudoarchaeology). Understanding the distinction between the avocational archaeologist and the pseudoarchaeologist is critical to appreciating the true value of amateur involvement in the discipline of real archaeology! Let not forget that not being a professional archaeologist does not mean not professional in another disciple that can open up new ideas and theories.

The Positive Impact of Citizen Scientists and Avocational Archaeologists

Citizen Scientists and Avocational Archaeologists have been involved in some of the archaeology’s most exciting discoveries over the years. They followed in the footsteps of antiquaries who were instrumental to the birth of Archaeology as a professional discipline. Equipped with both a healthy enthusiasm and a rigorous scientific toolkit, gained by cooperating with professional archaeologists, avocational archaeologists were at the forefront of developing new and exciting avenues of research and approaches; all without resorting to the more controversial practices associated with pseudoarchaeology. 

There are five main ways, frequently interlinked, in which the amateur scientists/archaeologists can contribute to the complex, ever changing and time-consuming process of discovering our shared past.

• Fieldwork Participation: Many research or community archaeological projects, from excavations to surveys, rely on volunteers for tasks such as excavating, cataloguing finds, and sample processing. These activities not only facilitate new, often groundbreaking, discoveries but also foster a mutually beneficial relationship between professional and amateur archaeologists, as well as encouraging a greater public engagement and stewardship of cultural heritage. You can find out more about getting involved here: Archaeological Fieldwork Opportunities Bulletin – Archaeological Institute of America  OR Volunteering Council for British Archaeology.

• Local Knowledge: Amateur archaeologists or citizen scientists characteristically possess a deep knowledge of their local area, from oral histories to the physical terrain. This can greatly facilitate the discovery of new, unrecorded or long-forgotten sites. For example, Mesolithic Deeside in Scotland are a group of over 50 local volunteers who have recovered and recorded countless chert and flint artefacts, with precise locations and identifications. This has reshaped our understandings of the Mesolithic Period in the northeast of Scotland. Consider also the cooperation between professional researchers and the Indigenous Tlingit People, as part of the Yakutat Bay Project, Alaska, which led to the discovery of a 500-year old village, combining scientific methodologies with oral histories and legends.

• Big Data Collection and Analysis: With the rise of digital platforms, citizen scientists contribute to large-scale projects by classifying aerial photos, mapping ancient structures, or transcribing historical records. These crowdsourced efforts generate substantial datasets, which would be largely beyond the scope of any common archaeological project or individual researcher. In consequence, these efforts enabled subsequent data interrogation by or in collaboration with professional practitioners, utilising historic maps, AI, and Earth Observation Data, creating highly accurate data sets of habitats, archaeological features, and ancient monuments. The Heritage Quest project which was launched in 2018 can be highlighted as another highly successful example of harnessing the power of citizen scientists. Using crowdsourcing to identify archaeological features on lidar imagery of the central Netherlands, in four months, 6,500 volunteers helped identify about 1,000 prehistoric burial mounds. On a smaller scale, the Sheepfolds of the Lammermuirs or Deep Time from DigVentures are two more examples of scores of such endeavours.

• Collaboration and Peer Review: Crucially, true citizen science in archaeology is conducted in partnership with professionals. Volunteers help generate hypotheses, collect data, and both interpret and discuss findings with academic supervision, ensuring adherence to scientific standards and professional ethical guidelines.

• The Singular Experts: Despite not having formal qualifications in archaeology or even related heritage disciplines, citizen scientists can often possess or develop an expertise in particular area, which is on the par with that of professional archaeologists. Frequently, individual’s knowledge from their chosen profession or acquired through other means in the course of their life can lead to applying novel approaches or tackling of specific question from a new angle. Examples include the group of amateur divers who formed the South West Maritime Archaeological Group and used their skills to find a Bronze Age shipwreck cargo off the Devon coast. Experiences can also provide an invaluable insight regarding a specific type of the archaeological record, contributing important evidence to the wider picture of the past. For instance, a stone mason or an expert in woodcraft can recognise particular manufacturing techniques and/or types of tools used, which archaeologists may miss.

How Genuine Avocational Archaeology Differs from Pseudoarchaeology

Put simply, while avocational archaeologists and citizen scientists strengthen the discipline, pseudoarchaeology undermines it. Pseudoarchaeologists like Graham Hancock et al, generally propose alternative interpretations of past societies to those put forward by what they call ‘Mainstream’ archaeologists. Their arguments are commonly accompanied by attacks on the integrity of professional archaeologists, including claims of conspiracies and gate-keeping, with ‘lost civilizations’ and ‘hidden truths’, being frequently cited. However, their claims and theories are made without having any substantive science-backed evidence or application of the methodological rigor required of the professional (and avocational) researcher. Their motivation is not to progress the knowledge or the science but to generate a wider audience and hence revenue.  The ‘what if’ questions and demands for ‘an open-minded approach’, particularly favourite among this group, are nothing more than a transparent attempt to hide the glaring holes in their arguments. When their unsubstantiated claims are placed under scrutiny, pseudoarchaeologists frequently resort to hostility, or keep quiet, wait a few weeks and repeat their claims anew.

In brief, the work of pseudoarchaeologists is characterised by:

• Data cherry-picking
• Ignoring contrary findings
• Avoidance of expert scrutiny and aggressiveness if held to account
• Skewing of narratives for entertainment or notoriety
• Self-referencing of evidence
• Overreliance on anecdotal evidence and unsupported speculations
• Deliberate misinterpretation of evidence

Worst of all, the Pseudoarchaeology claims often foster conspiracy theories, which can wholly disregard indigenous perspectives and ingenuity, and can even encourage unintended damage to archaeological sites. By saying indigenous populations are incapable is not just insulting, but dangerous, as it removes any ingenuity and capabilities of past and present societies. Popular pseudo-interpretations of past societies include the claims that the Ancient Egyptians found the pyramids, as opposed to building them; or that the Incas could not be responsible for the polygonal masonry at Cusco; both societies being incapable of such skilled and laborious constructions.

In contrast, the work of Citizen Scientists and Avocational Archaeologists is governed by the same principles as that of professional practitioners. This is characterised by:

• Adherence to Scientific Method: Citizen scientists work within the framework of proven archaeological practice, which emphasizes evidence, peer review, and transparency.
• Verification and Accountability: Genuine contributions are subject to verification through repeated observation and testing, typically documented in academic publications.
• Ethical Considerations: Responsible amateurs respect the legal and ethical frameworks that protect archaeological sites, ensuring that discoveries are properly recorded and preserved.

Why the Difference Matters

The difference between real-deal avocational archaeology and pseudoarchaeology isn’t just that one side reads scientific journals and the other prefers conspiracy forums. It’s about process, accountability, and a willingness to admit when you’re wrong—or, at least, when you’ve misidentified a medieval brooch as a time-travelling microchip. Responsible avocational researchers will carefully document and share their discoveries, invite and encourage scrutiny, and adhere to the rules of evidence and ethics. They help protect sites, respect local communities, and add real value to our shared knowledge. Pseudoarchaeology, on the other hand, often encourages confusion, disrespect, and, occasionally, someone digging up their neighbour’s garden in search of Noah’s Ark (well ok, I may have made that last bit up – but hey, if I was a Pseudoarchaeologist, that would be fine).  Often, the avocational archaeologists can promote archaeology and the past with genuine excitement and discovery.  

A nice thing about the real archaeology is that it is accessible and fun and exciting, all these things; even imagination is allowed, as long as it is supported or checked by the reality and science. Here, in the UK, there are a range of conferences and media shows dedicated to the work of the professional and the avocational archaeologists, such as Digging for Britain or the Festival of Archaeology. Worldwide, every October archaeological organisations from around the world organise archaeological programs and activities for people of all ages and interests on International Archaeology Day, most countries have opened up to archaeology for all.

A Reflection on Passionate Discovery versus Outlandish Claims

We all have the innate ability to ask questions about the world we inhabit and the things or phenomena within it. This is driven by the curiosity of who we are and what came before or even what the future may hold. For some individuals this curiosity can become a passion and a spark for the deeper pursuit of knowledge about the past human societies. However, while some (the avocational archaeologists) choose to base their studies and conclusions on scientific methodologies and evidence, others (guess who?) prefer to wildly speculate and just guess about ancient lost civilisations and ‘leyser-rock-scoop-o-matic‘ ™ technologies, without any supporting evidence. While the possibility of as yet undiscovered civilization(s) is, still, arguably, on the cards, the involvement of ancient aliens or survivors of a lost advanced civilisation in the progress of human societies is hardly a credible interpretation, given the lack of any evidence, and currently I mean zero. Instead, there are multiple examples of exciting discoveries, many made by avocational archaeologists, which time and again show the ingenuity of our shared ancestors; admittedly, some of these as alien to us today as any extra-terrestrial being would be. Welcome to the world of the avocational archaeologist—where curiosity meets the evidence and hard work, not Atlanteans or travellers from Mu! 

Some examples to consider and inspire

Its just dots and line

Ben Bacon, a British furniture restorer, drew wider attention in 2023 by proposing the theory that lines and dots, frequently found in the Ice Age cave art, represent a lunar calendar used to track animal behaviour—a view published in the peer-reviewed Cambridge Archaeological Journal. Collaborating with academics, Ben showed that well-researched amateur work can have a significant impact on the discipline and provide novel ideas for understanding past societies. Ben’s interpretation is only one on the subject of prehistoric symbology; for more on cave art symbols, see for example Genevieve von Petzinger’s work: Geometric Signs & Symbols in Rock Art.

Journalist turns Palaeolithic sleuth

Alexander Marshack, a journalist from New York became a research associate at Harvard’s Peabody Museum in 1963 and focused on prehistoric bone and ivory artefacts marked with scratches and notches. He theorized that these represent a lunar-based numbering system, drawing on practices from recorded First Nation Americans and other tribal societies. Though his work blurred lines between evidence and speculation, it contributed pioneering ideas about how ancient cultures tracked time, especially during the crucial shift from palaeolithic cultures to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. For further reading, see Michael Hudson’s chapter in P.G. Bahn (ed.) An Enquiring Mind: Studies in Honor of Alexander Marshack.

Avocational archaeologists help ensure UNESCO World Heritage designation of Poverty Point

Clarence Webb, was a paediatrician and collector from Shreveport, Louisiana, he found and recorded over 100,000 artifacts from a number of Poverty Point culture sites in the 1930s and 40s (Gibson 1992:14). Webb’s work resulted in a co-authored two-volume work on artefact typology: Poverty Point Culture and the American Formative (Webb et al. 1970, 1971).  His and his colleague’s meticulous documentation of the artefacts provenience served as the solid basis for the research designs and subsequent investigations at the site (read more here: connolly_saa_record_nov20151.pdf)

Archaeoastronomy comes to its own: from magic to the science

Archaeoastronomy too has evolved from a marginal field to a recognised academic discipline, thanks to the recent application of interdisciplinary methods and technological advances. Modern approaches rely on scientific surveys, statistical analysis, and digital reconstructions to provide evidence for interpreting prehistoric monuments and art in relation to the sky. Although its development dates back to at least the late nineteenth century, the discipline gained momentum after the 2014 TAG Conference in Manchester and the founding of the Journal of Skyscape Archaeology by Liz Henty and Fabio Silva. Initial concerns about methodological bias were due to misunderstandings rather than flaws. To promote awareness and practical use within archaeology, BAJR partnered with Dougie Scott to produce BAJR Guide 43. This allows anyone to examine sites and monuments with a view to understanding any archaeoastronomy elements, such as the Yadlee Stone circle in southeast Scotland.  

The work of Dougie Scott on Scottish Prehistoric monuments

Dougie Scott has conducted extensive fieldwork across Scotland over the past 40 years and created a massive resource featuring data and images of celestial events. His main research focuses on Scotland, including at Tomnaverie circle in Aberdeenshire, where he found possible alignments with Orion’s Belt around the winter solstice (c. 2580 BCE). Dougie’s study on the connection between prehistoric monuments and lunar or solar events at Kilmartin Glen was published in the Antiquity Journal in 2010.  He is now looking further afield, examining the origins of celestial alignments, using the same careful collection of data to build a hypothesis.

Teamwork is the key: How Citizen Scientists Keep It Real

Real archaeologists, whether professional or avocational, don’t just wander the countryside with shovels and an overactive imagination. Apart from the required ingredient of healthy enthusiasm, and a dose of curiosity, the avocational experts can bring local knowledge, experience from other professions and a dash of humility. Whether volunteers painstakingly transcribing Roman tax records from thousands of preserved wax tablets, or a group of field workers, regularly scouring the freshly ploughed fields for material remains of a long-lost settlement, their shared superpower is teamwork. This is paired with a healthy respect for the evidence and the proven scientific method matched with desire to learn and to share/publish. 

Celebrate the Curious, Beware the Bizarre

So, should you be inspired by Ben Bacon’s triumphs or the thousands of dedicated avocational archaeologists and local societies and heritage enthusiasts out there? Absolutely! The world of archaeology is richer and far better for their contributions. But let’s keep our feet firmly on the ground: the line between a scientific breakthrough and balderdash is evidence and ethics, and sometimes a sense of humour about it all. It is collegiate, cooperative and hugely satisfying to be part of discovering the past story of our shared global and local heritage.

After all, in the grand adventure of uncovering our past, it’s the curious, critical, and collaborative spirit that makes the journey worthwhile—and keeps the ancient Atlanteans at bay.

To round-up:

Citizen scientists and avocational archaeologists, whether working independently, or, preferably, in collaboration with professionals, are an invaluable asset to archaeology. Their contributions further the discovery of our shared heritage and the development of the archaeological science. The critical difference lies in the citizen scientists’ commitment to evidence-based practice and ethical responsibility, setting them apart from pseudoarchaeology’s speculative and sometimes harmful storytelling, based on nothing more than ancient myths and wishful thinking. As public interest in the past continues to grow, the proven fruitful collaboration between professional and avocational archaeologists should be encouraged and nurtured, thereby insuring the discipline’s continued flourishing and indeed its credible existence.

---

If you want to know more:   

Bacon B., Khatiri A., Palmer J., Freeth T., Pettitt P. and R. Kentridge 2023. ‘An Upper Palaeolithic Proto-writing System and Phenological Calendar’. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 33(3):371-389.
An Upper Palaeolithic Proto-writing System and Phenological Calendar | Cambridge Archaeological Journal | Cambridge Core

Bourgeois Q, Kaptijn E, Verschoof-van der Vaart W, Lambers K. (2024) Assessing the quality of citizen science in archaeological remote sensing: results from the Heritage Quest project in the Netherlands Antiquity doi: 10.15184/aqy.2024.127

Bradford, B., Connolly, D., Hawker-Yates, L., Kdolska, H., Paice, C., Scott, G., & Wiseman, R. 2020. Archaeology on Furlough: Sheepfolds of the Lammermuirs. Apollo – University of Cambridge Repository. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/197fb16c-7f6c-4aa4-bad7-a9102e734dfe

Connolly, D. 2015. ‘Cosmologies in Transition: Continuity and Transformation in the Material Record: Full day session at the 36th Annual Conference of the Theoretical Archaeology Group, TAG 2014, Manchester (United Kingdom), 15th–17th December, 2014’, Journal of Skyscape Archaeology, 1(1), 142–149. https://journal.equinoxpub.com/JSA/article/view/10596

Connolly, D. 2016. BAJR Guide 43: Archaeoastronomy for Archaeologists – A Basic Guide. https://www.bajr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Archaeoastronomy-for-Archaeologists-2024.pdf

Connolly, D. 2025. Raiders of my Lost Mind: A deep dive into the whacky world of Pseudoarchaeology. Where real archaeology gets buried and myths dig their way out fighting and a hollering!, BAJR article, September 2025. https://www.bajr.org/raiders-of-my-lost-mind-a-deep-dive-into-the-whacky-world-of-pseudoarchaeology/

Connolly, Robert 2015. Avocational Archaeologists and the Designation of a World Heritage Site. SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):20–23.  https://www.academia.edu/18319713/Avocational_Archaeologists_and_the_Designation_of_A_World_Heritage_Site

Gardner, T.H., Vogelaar, C., Westra, A.J.D & A. J. Wood, 2014. Yadlee Stone Circle & Environs: A Student Survey of an Integrated Landscape. Unpublished Report.

Hudson. M. 2009. ‘After the Ice Age: How Calendar-keeping shaped Early Social Structuring’, in Bahn, P. (ed.) An Enquiring Mind: Studies in Honor of Alexander Marshack. American school of prehistoric research monograph series, Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books:149-53.

Ronn, P. and R. Wiseman 2020. Archaeology on Furlough: Accessing Archaeological Information Online: A Survey of Volunteers’ Experiences. Apollo – University of Cambridge Repository. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/009a976b-404e-4e4d-975f-ddf4548610e0

Scott, D. 2010. ‘Recent astronomical observations at Kilmartin Glen, Argyll, Scotland’, Antiquity Project Gallery, 84 (324). https://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/scott324

Von Petzinger, G. 2017. The First Signs: Unlocking the Mysteries of the World’s Oldest Symbols. New York: Atria Books.

Avocational Archaeology Research Papers – Academia.edu

---

If you would like to become involved in the UK archaeology:

Local archaeology societies across UK can be viewed here: local archaeology groups – BAJR – British Archaeology Jobs and Resources