I certainly didn't mean that it is more "anthropological" to accept dowsing,
and, although I've seen dowsers be successful, I wouldn't necessarily
recommend it as a method to be used in archaeology.  I also wouldn't expect
any remote sensing method be used without being complimented by other
methods (such as excavation or archival research).  Certainly if one is
using a metal detector, it would be poor methodology to ignore areas where
the metal detector didn't show anything.  My comment on perspective was
directed more towards the tone of the responses rather than the content.
Calling a dowser self-deluded or referring to it as voodoo is probably not
rooted in cultural relativism.

Voodoo works through a combination of pharmacology and belief.
Phamacologically, a practitioner can put a victim into a coma that appears
to be death.  To a scientist, the victim is simply in a chemically induced
coma, but to the participants, the victim has died and is brought back.
That is a distinction created by the belief system of the observers.

While all archaeologists apply scientific methods to their work, some are
more prone to cultural relatavistic thinking in their work and in their
daily lives.  The discussion of dowsing reminded me of the current debate in
the SAA Bulletins between those supporting integration of Native American
perspectives and oral history in archaeology and those who attribute little
or no value to that perspective.

Your comments below show that you are clearly approaching the issue from a
scientific perspective.  Unfortunately, when phenomena are not easily
explained scientifically, science offers a poor, and often unscientific
explanation, which is required by the belief system.  Shamanic healing seems
to work.  From a cultural relativist perspective, it works because the
shaman has healed the patient, or induced healing through spirit guides.
Scientifically, explanations are offered that rely on the patient believing
that it works, so their immune system benefits from a positive attitude.  If
the simplest explanation is the correct one, which explanation is simpler
depends upon one belief system.

Maybe dowsing works, maybe it doesn't.  If an investigator is out to prove
that something doesn't work, he'll likely be able to do so.

Michael Striker
ASC Group, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Michael Conner
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: dowsing


on 1/22/01 9:34 AM, SouthArc at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Given the general abuse being transmitted on this subject, I'm a little
> hesitant to put forth our experience with dowsing but here goes anyway.>
snip
> So dowsing does seem to do something.  But why I can't tell you.  And it
> seemed to yield the same results for even the most skeptical of users.  In
> any event, it certainly isn't going to hurt anything to play with it and
see
> what happens.  What happened to having an open mind?


I haven't seen much abuse on this subject, except an early red-neck jibe
that was explained. The main abuse I see is the abuse of the scientific
method. Most archaeologists want to be considered scientists, but science
isn't supposed to rely on anecdotal evidence like "dowsing seems to do
something." Yuri Gellar seemed to bend spoons with his mind and fix watches
over the TV, but he didn't.  I don't think most dowsers are frauds, just
self-deluded. This is an unscientific assertion, but I bet anybody with a
brain and normal eyesight could do as well as a dowser in finding utility
lines, water lines, etc. based on surface indications. I found a gray-water
drain in my backyard based on differential grass growth and I didn't need a
dowsing rod. Again see http://www.randi.org/research/challenge/dowsing.html
for James Randi's take on dowsing. If you don't know him, he is a magician
who offers a cash award to people who can prove the paranormal.

on 1/22/01 9:24 AM, Robert L. Schuyler at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> P.S. You people are really a bunch of "scientific" bigots. Think about
> hypnosis - if you did not know about it and someone described it to you.

If asking for controlled, repeatable experiments showing that dowsing works
makes me a scientific bigot, I wear that label proudly.

on 1/22/01 9:57 AM, Michael Striker at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> I find it interesting to see a clear division among the historical
> archaeologists on the list.  There are those who look at this question
from
> a perspective that slants towards the scientific, and those with a
> perspective that slants towards the anthropological.  I'm not criticizing
> either perspective, just making an observation.  Equating dowsing to
voodoo
> is a great example.  Mircea Eliade would be delighted.

I hope you don't mean that accepting dowsing is more anthropological than
not accepting it. As an anthropologist, I know people's belief systems will
define their reality. But how do I use that in archaeology? Do I use dowsing
without a firm demonstration that it works? Do I ignore parts of a site
where dowsing doesn't show anything?

Mike Conner