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.

Michael Striker
ASC Group, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
SouthArc
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: dowsing


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.

Several years ago while working in a small Georgia town (yes, very redneck)
we observed that the most common method used by the local utilities to
identify underground lines (and there were many unrecorded lines of various
ages) was dowsing rods.  Being completely skeptical we laughed at the idea.
However, when I was recounting the method to my husband, an engineer, he
insisted on trying it.  We ran it around our yard and did (after digging in
the indicated locations) find various underground disturbances, particularly
water and power lines--and no we did not have prior knowledge of the
locations.  Intrigued, he took the rods to a friend who is a physicist.  He
also got similar results but neither could come up with a rational
explanation.

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?

                                Lucy Wayne