Archaeological and Grave Dowsing
Psychic archaeology is a larger category of pseudoscientific ways to locate archaeological remains wherein people use alleged psychic powers in order to locate human remains, lost ruins, and even buried treasure. Dowsing is one of these various “ways of knowing.” Advocates of dowsing (which may also be called water-witching, doodlebugging, or rhabdnomancy) describe it as:
- “A form of divination in which a dowser or water witch uses a simple tool or device such as a dowsing rod, dowsing sticks, doodlebug, pendulum, plumb bob, or divining rod to attempt to locate hidden water wells, underground streams, oil reserves, lost septic tanks and leach fields, caves, utility lines, water and gas pipes, buried metals, ores, minerals, gemstones, people, pets, or missing objects for their clients” (Association of Independent Readers and Rootworkers 2011).
Other proponents of dowsing believe that it may also be used for graves (Whittaker 2012) and archaeological ruins (Hillman-Crouch 1999). Dowsing naysayers describe it as, simply, “a method of problem-solving that uses a motor automatism, amplified through a pendulum or similar device” (McCarney, et al. 2002), and outright skeptics describe it as “bollocks” (The Bad Historian 2009a). At its base, however, two questions about dowsing remain: one, is dowsing truly scientific? and two, what proof is there that it works?
Although some believers claim that dowsing was first represented in art dating back to ancient Egypt, the general consensus is that it became common use somewhere in the 15th to 16th centuries (Moreland 2003). In the United States, dowsing has gone through fluctuations of popularity, particularly among rural populations (Barrett and Vogt 1969; Besterman 1926; Hyman and Cohen 1957; Monteiro 1964; Seeley 1971; Vogt 1952; Vogt and Golde 1958), and is still important to practitioners of traditional folklore (Naylor 2008). Even from its outset, however, dowsing has been challenged by the scientific community (1902; Burridge 1955; Feder 1984; Hansen 1982; Holmes 1898; Moorehead 1931). As dowsing has clung stubbornly to science’s side, however, the criticisms have grown more and more vehement, with some scientists either dedicating large portions of their lives to debunking dowsing (Evon Z. Vogt, for example) or becoming aggressively anti-dowsing to the point of mockery (Enright 1999; Randi 1999; 2012; The Bad Historian 2009a; b).
Opponents of dowsing believe that it is lacking scientifically and therefore should not be introduced into a scientific discipline, such as archaeology. William Whittaker offers a systematic examination of Iowa’s archaeological records and their relationship with dowsing. He breaks down his results:
- “Of the 14 archaeological sites in Iowa which have been investigated by both dowsers and archaeologists, none displayed unambiguous evidence that dowsing was able to find graves or other archaeological features. Most, in fact, completely refuted the claims of dowsers. At eight sites dowsing failed completely, either by identifying graves that did not exist or by missing graves that were shown to exist by excavation[…]At Site 13JH593 four of five possible graves were shown to be nonexistent, and a fifth only contained shallow flecks of bone, probably animal, less than a foot below surface and was probably not a grave. Site 13HN314, the possible Menefee Cemetery, remote sensing found no evidence of graves at three of four locations, and at the fourth area it cannot be determined if remote sensing was observing the same anomalies as dowsers, since no map was made of dowsing spots and the area was never tested archaeologically. Of the 94 graves at the Johnson County Poor Farm identified by dowsing only one was tested archaeologically. The apparent confirmation of a grave is tempered by the fact that this grave was within a probable cemetery area and had a surface depression. Site 13CY22 was never tested archaeologically, and sites 13DT110, 132 and 133 were not tested at the location of dowsing finds, with the exception of a possible cabin foundation, which had a large surface depression.” (Whittaker 2012:5)
Furthermore, Whittaker also “perform[ed] some simple experiments to further illuminate the mechanics of dowsing and to test some of the principles of dowsing,” such as “What makes the wires cross?,” “Are dowsing rods attracted to disturbed soil?,” “Are dowsing rods attracted to human bodies or coffins?,” and “Do dowsing rods cross when exposed to magnetic fields?” (Whittaker 2012:5-7). In each case, dowsing was once again shown up. Whittaker’s assessment is one of the most thorough mainstream analyses available—though other scientists may analyze dowsing, most do not perform the dual-nature analyses that Whittaker offers.
Due to the difficulty in finding controlled, double-blind testing for archaeological or grave dowsing (both of these things border on impossible), one may instead consider the numerous double-blind tests of water dowsing (Enright 1996; Hansen 1982; Walach and Schmidt 1997) or even homeopathic dowsing (McCarney, et al. 2002). For example, J.T. Enright focuses his evaluations on German experiments that were carefully controlled (Enright 1995; 1996; 1999). For the Munich experiment, he explains how the scientists “bent over backward” to accommodate the dowsers; the dowsers were active participants in the planning sessions, the experiments took place indoors so as to allow replication, and the scientists only used, for the final testing, the most “skilled” 43 of the preliminary 500 testers. Moreover:
- “When practitioners of various occult “skills” have, in the past, been unsuccessful under controlled testing, they have at times claimed that the research was conducted in a skeptical (by implication, hostile) atmosphere, which interfered with their performances and invalidated the studies. That potential problem did not arise in the Munich experiments because the principal investigators, from the University of Munich and the Technical University of Munich, had publicly gone on record as thinking that dowsing is probably a genuine phenomenon. No hostility there!” [Emphasis added; this may have influenced the researchers’ results.] (Enright 1999)
This was all done so that afterward, the researchers could say that these “dowsers all freely participated in the carefully controlled final experiments, which they accepted as suitable to their abilities. There could thus be no basis for subsequent claims that the test program was inappropriate or unfair” (Enright 1999).
The German testers determined “some few dowsers, in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven ...” (Enright 1999). Enright, however, believes that they misinterpreted the data, and explains that “half of the results in Figure 2b (5 tests of 10) do indeed resemble an ideal hypothetical outcome (Figure 1a or 1b), but it deserves emphasis that Figure 2 cannot be considered “typical” but instead represents the very “best” results, consisting only of ten tests out of 843, from one test series out of 104. (In 843 spins of a roulette wheel, at least one sequence of 10 results that includes several seemingly exceptional events might be expected to arise by chance alone.)” (Enright 1999)
Enright gives this same treatment to the Scheunen experiments, explaining the methodologies, reporting the results, and reevaluating the data so as to not exclude the vast majority of unsuccessful dowses. He comes to the same conclusion: although if one dissects the data to tease out the most favorable results, the results will be favorable, but unrepresentative (Enright 1995).
Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, the Archaeology Officer for North Hertfordshire District Council, and contributor to the blog “Bad Archaeology” addresses, even going so far as to participate in a dowse himself in search of the Stapleton’s Field henge (Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2012). He, along with ten other members of the Norton Community Archaeology Group, worked with professional dowser Paul Daw in order to discover the rings of the henge. His observations included:
- “There was a circle of flags in roughly the right place, although it was perhaps five metres too far to the south-east: it looked as if it had been put there by someone who knew roughly where the monument was located and roughly how big it was but not the precise location or size. This may be an unfair judgement on my part. However, when we opened up the trenches, it became even less clear what the flags were supposed to be marking: was it the inner ditch, the chalk bank or the outer ditch? The circle of flags corresponded with none of the archaeological features we excavated. Of course, one could always argue that as we haven’t yet excavated down to bedrock, the dowsing has detected a first phase that has not yet shown up. This would be special pleading and is not supported by the results of the geophysical survey or aerial photography” (Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2012).
Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, he states:
- “One of the real issues over the results that were obtained is that they were obtained with foreknowledge of what exists in this part of the field. I first published a plan of my suggested interpretation of the site as a henge in 2009 and there has been a page on the Group’s website giving details since February 2009. This means that anyone has access to information about the site, should they choose to seek it out; it is also the case that everyone who attended the dowsing session on 4 June had seen the site under excavation and had participated in the first season of work there. I could, uncharitably, argue that the dowsing was little more than a test of the memories of those taking part: the circular shape of the monument is known from a variety of sources, while the twentieth-century ditch, which ran roughly parallel with the footpath crossing the field, may have provided the “inspiration” for the linear anomaly. The details of the monument, which only became clear following the 2011 season on the site, were not picked up by the dowsing that preceded it. I wonder why.” (Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2012)
Although Fitzpatrick-Matthews “has no truck with the use of pendula on maps[;] there is nothing that can be tested,” he is, by his own admission, “more open to the idea that dowsing might have some basis in reality. Might it be possible that the dowser is sensitive to gravitational or magnetic gradients in the landscape, such as might be produced by holes in the ground” (Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2012). However, if this is in fact the case, dowsing is even more questionable. He asks:
- “Dowsers relying on changes in the background magnetism should be able to detect hearths, kilns, fired clay and ironwork; indeed, the magnetic signals should be so strong that they could swamp other signals. Yet dowsers generally seem to ignore such things. Why, if magnetism is the source of signals being picked up by the dowser, would the effects of these highly magnetic materials remain hidden? Then, if the dowser relies on an ability to recognise changes in the gravitational background, there ought to be a correlation between the size of a buried feature and the prominence given to in the results of dowsing. At Stapleton’s Field, the outer ditch of the henge – which geophysics indicates is at least 3.5 m wide – ought to be the most prominent ‘anomaly’ to be recognised in dowsing. Why, then, were the strongest responses received from a linear ‘anomaly’ that aligned on the (perfectly visible) tower of Baldock church yet did not have a buried correlate?” (Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2012)
All of his questions are valid; this is potentially the most logical, scientifically-provable explanation for the way that dowsing works—if it works at all. Why, then, does dowsing totally ignore features that show up clearly on magnetometry readings? If dowsers can pick and choose the stimuli to which their rods react, how valid and complete are the results?
Proponents of dowsing claim that it is incredibly accurate and is therefore a vital resource that science is rejecting simply out of fear of something new. There are certain studies that have been done—albeit by dowsers themselves—that indicate that dowsing and psychic archaeology are perfectly functional (Hillman-Crouch 1999; Hollywood Psychics 2011). These supporters are often ostensibly scientists, but their credentials are unclear (Varvoglis 2009).
The most noteworthy advocates are the original researchers from the German experiments and a single responder to Enright’s criticisms. S. Ertel’s reanalysis actually increases the efficacy of dowsers in relation to the original conclusions; he does this by including things like alleged “symmetry errors,” wherein “dowsers sometimes responded at locations opposite to where the pipe had been placed …[Betz] tentatively explained such responses - if they were real - as possibly due to the slanted roof of the barn whose ridge, projected down to the test line, would cross it about halfway. Reflections of rays (if rays were the transmitters) had to be stipulated in that case. In order to avoid generalized doubts in his dowsing study, Betz had omitted this casual and uncertain observation in publications” (Ertel 1996:233). He concludes:
- “Scheunen data have revealed more dowsing skill than that suggested by Betz's original analysis. Further, the dowsers' skill was shown to remain relatively constant within and across experimental periods. Finally, it seems that the dowsers identified a virtual pipe at mirrored distances from the real hidden pipe and that these distances are correlated with some aspect of the barn geometry which thus confused the dowsers. Open field experiments would probably have yielded larger dowsing successes. On the other hand, the deflection of signals as indicated in this study suggests systematically varying the pertinent conditions in future dowsing experiments. The physical mechanisms underlying positive dowsing results as observed in the barn might thus come into focus.” (Ertel 1996:235)
All of Ertel’s suppositions rely on the idea that dowsing works and that alleged “earth rays” control the data received. Without these—one may say overly generous—suppositions, dowsers are right back where they began: unproven.
Betz et al. in their re-review of their own data include not only their original data, but Ertel’s review, unsourced “independent” data, and anecdotal data that they claim is not actually anecdotal because it is too “convincing” (Betz, et al. 1996). This last claim is easily the most frustrating. To wit:
- “Ample evidence exists for the outstanding performance of water dowsers. It happened that dowser #99, who produced significant results in the Scheunen experiment, had been most successful with water dowsing in many foreign aid programs of the German Government. We have closely observed and thoroughly researched his continuing unconventional prospecting activities in arid areas of ten countries; specific scientific tasks were implemented, and the outcome was assessed by a committee composed of geoscience experts. For example, far more than 1000 drillings have shown that his average success rate is better than 80%, far ahead of that provided by modern conventional water-prospecting techniques in similar cases. We like to stress that these examples, like other comparably valuable information, cannot be termed anecdotal and are to be taken seriously; extensive records exist and numerous experts have been involved in the studies, which have gone on for more than 8 years.” (Betz, et al. 1996:274-275)
However, all of these claims are backed by data collected by and papers written by Betz himself. If he were to truly believe in the efficacy of dowsers—and this dowser specifically—it would be prudent, one would think, to refer to results and research by other scientists and on other dowsers. Betz asserts that “many critical scientists have been converted to accepting the facts, though they often claim that unquestionable successes result not from a particular dowsing skill but from prospecting experience” (Betz, et al. 1996:275). Distressingly, this may be a falsehood.
Enright claims that:
- “Professor Betz published a paper in a fringe journal that crossed the ethical boundaries that usually characterize the scientific enterprise. In that article, he asserted that as a result of extensive scientific correspondence, I had conceded the validity of his own analyses and interpretations of the Munich dowsing data.
- “That statement is absolutely and categorically false. My only correspondence with Professor Betz (or anyone in his laboratory) since the publication of my original critique (Enright 1995) consists of an e-mail message sent him in July 1997, which dealt only with my request for documentation of an apparently implausible assertion about statistical procedures that had been attributed to him. He did not respond to that message, and so I re-sent the same message in August 1997, and again he did not respond. Two unanswered e-mail messages from me clearly do not constitute an “extensive scientific correspondence.” And I have never, in publication, in correspondence, or in casual conversation even hinted that I accept Betz’s analyses and interpretations of the Munich dowsing data. The results presented here as well as in the formal scientific literature (Enright 1995, 1996) provide such a clear demonstration against real dowsing skill that to assert that I had retracted my critique is both a false and an insulting assertion.” (Enright 1999)
This alleged attempt in the journal Wetter-Boden-Mensch (Zeitschrift für Geobiologie)—unverified by the author, due to language barrier—casts shade on the entire process that Betz has put forth. If he believes whole cloth his own data, there would be no need to falsify support.
Some scientists believe that dowsing is not particularly harmful. Cornelius Holtorf, for example, states that “Even modern society might benefit from inquiring minds more than from passive students to whom factual knowledge is taught, however much that knowledge consists of 'pure truth'. We are thus well advised to encourage any inquiries about the world and not just those that resemble the methods and practices favoured by the scientists of our time. I therefore advocate a commitment to multiple approaches and values simultaneously brought to bear on archaeological landscapes, sites and objects, whether by professional archaeologists or others” (Holtorf 2005:548).
Some even defend it as a folkloric activity (Massie 1971). Overall, however, their support is lukewarm—most supporters simply advocate leaving the dowsers alone and allowing them to continue dowsing without being “bullied” by mainstream science.
Further attempts to verify or disprove dowsing are often thwarted due to unclear qualifications or heavy biases; this is especially true with regard to many web resources. Though, for example, the aforementioned “Bad Archaeology” seems sourced and credentialed, and the arguments set forth are well-sourced and reasoned (Doeser 2012; Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2011). Others are angry at the continued inclusion of dowsing in the archaeological realm (The Bad Historian 2009a; b), and make no attempt to be professional about what they say. Although entertaining, and in this case informative, there are clear and heavy biases which make it a non-ideal resource.
Many advocates of dowsing are either anonymous (Hollywood Psychics 2011; Zack et al. 2012) or questionably qualified (Hillman-Crouch 1999; Varvoglis 2009). Hillman-Crouch is a dowser himself, offering what he calls “dowsing days” (Hillman-Crouch), and, as such, may not be able to offer a truly scientific viewpoint. His 1999 report on “Dowsing Archaeological Features; an Empirical Study at Cressing Temple, Witham, Essex” was published by himself in a non-peer-reviewed place. It is secondarily published on his website—right next to the offer to teach laypersons how to dowse.
There is little to no evidence that dowsing is anything more than coincidence. Multiple studies, anecdotes, and tests have proven that dowsing is ineffective. Why, then, does it persist? One may suggest that part of the responsibility lies not with the dowsers themselves, but in the fact that the scientific community tends to do as Holtorf advises—allowing them relatively free reign over the idea that dowsing is perfectly legitimate and, in fact, real science. One may then ask what the harm is in this—the harm is that dowsers, armed with dowsing rods and a scientific blind eye, may irreparably harm archaeological sites, desecrate graves, or simply waste people’s time and money on their flights of fancy. If, as in Fitzpatrick-Matthews’s henge, the dowser had suggested that the circle was in a different place, or if they had followed the line blindly, they could have destroyed that site for good, and for no reason. In this, dowsing much resembles pot hunters—they may know the general area in which to search, but they may ruin a lot of the past to get there.
Admittedly, I am biased towards disbelief—simply because I have yet to see sufficient proof, and particularly sufficiently repeated proof. An experiment means nothing if it is not replicable by different people in different places. As of yet, none of these experiments, even the allegedly successful Munich and Scheunen studies, have been repeated, successfully. Simply stating that dowsing works is not probative—I, for my own intellectual curiosity’s sake, require more.
- 1902 Water Divining and Its Consequences. The British Medical Journal 1(2152):793.
- Association of Independent Readers and Rootworkers
2011 Dowsing, Doodlebugging, and Water Witching. Web Page, http://www.readersandrootworkers.org/wiki/Category:Dowsing,_Doodlebugging,_and_Water_Witching, Accessed March 15, 2012.
- Barrett, Linda K., and Evon Z. Vogt
1969 The Urban American Dowser. The Journal of American Folklore 82(325):195-213.
- Besterman, Theodore
1926 The Folklore of Dowsing. Folklore 37(2):113-133.
- Betz, H. D., et al.
1996 Dowsing Reviewed — the Effect Persists. Naturwissenschaften 83(6):272-275.
- Burridge, Gaston
1955 Does the Forked Stick Locate Anything? An Inquiry into the Art of Dowsing. Western Folklore 14(1):32-43.
- Doeser, James
2012 Psychic Archaeology? Blog, http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=1016, Accessed 2012.
- Enright, J. T.
1995 Water Dowsing: The Scheunen Experiments. Naturwissenschaften 82(8):360-369.
1996 Dowsers Lost in a Barn. Naturwissenschaften 83(6):275-277.
1999 Testing Dowsing: The Failure of the Munich Experiments. Skeptical Inquirer 23(1).
- Ertel, S.
1996 The Dowsing Data Defy Enright's Unfavorable Verdict. Naturwissenschaften 83(5):232-235.
- Feder, Kenneth L.
1984 Irrationality and Popular Archaeology. American Antiquity 49(3):525-541.
- Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith
2011 Sticks, Wires, and Pendula: Dowsing in Archaeology. Blog, http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/sticks-wires-and-pendula-dowsing-in-archaeology/, Accessed 2012.
2012 Dowsing in Archaeology (Part 2). Blog, http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/dowsing-in-archaeology-part-2/, Accessed 2012.
- Hansen, George P.
1982 Dowsing: A Review of Experimental Research. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 51(792):343-367.
- Hillman-Crouch, Barry
Dowsing Days. Web Page, http://www.dowsingarchaeology.org.uk/BJHC%20website/Dowsing/Dowsings_Days.htm, Accessed April 1, 2012.
1999 Dowsing Archaeological Features; an Empirical Study at Cressing Temple, Witham, Essex. Pp. 37.
- Hollywood Psychics
2011 What Is Psychic Archaeology? Web Page, http://www.ancientdigger.com/2011/07/what-is-psychic-archaeology.html, Accessed April 1, 2012.
- Holmes, T. V.
1898 On the Evidence for the Efficacy of the Diviner and His Rod in the Search for Water. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 27:233-259.
- Holtorf, Cornelius
2005 Beyond Crusades: How (Not) to Engage with Alternative Archaeologies. World Archaeology 37(4):544-551.
- Hyman, Ray, and Elizabeth G. Cohen
1957 Water-Witching in the United States. American Sociological Review 22(6):719-724.
- Massie, Lewis E.
1971 In Support of Dowsing. Science News 99(16):260.
- McCarney, R., et al.
2002 Can Homeopaths Detect Homeopathic Medicines by Dowsing? A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 94(4):189-191.
- Monteiro, George
1964 Water Witching. Western Folklore 23(1):54-55.
- Moorehead, Warren K.
1931 The Divining Rod and Fakers. Science 74(1906):42-43.
- Moreland, Carl W.
2003 The Question of Dowsing. Web Page, http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/question.dat, Accessed April 20, 2012.
- Naylor, Peter
2008 Discovering Dowsing and Divining: Shire.
- Randi, James
1999 The Matter of Dowsing. Swift 2(3/4).
2012 The Dowsing Delusion Is Still with Us. Blog, http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1655-the-dowsing-delusion-is-still-with-us.html, Accessed 2012.
- Seeley, Walter J.
1971 With the Sticks. Science News 100(3):36.
- The Bad Historian
2009a Archaeological Dowsing (Part One) – Divining Bad Archaeology. Blog, http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/archaeological-dowsing/, Accessed 2012.
2009b Archaeological Dowsing (Part Two) – ‘Non-Sense of Place’. Blog, http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/archaeological-dowsing-part-two-or-non-sense-of-place/, Accessed 2012.
- Varvoglis, Mario
2009 Psychic Archaeology. Web Page, http://archived.parapsych.org/psychic_archeology.htm, Accessed April 1, 2012.
- Vogt, Evon Z.
1952 Water Witching: An Interpretation of a Ritual Pattern in a Rural American Community. The Scientific Monthly 75(3):175-186.
- Vogt, Evon Z., and Peggy Golde
1958 Some Aspects of the Folklore of Water Witching in the United States. The Journal of American Folklore 71(282):519-531.
- Walach, Harald, and Stefan Schmidt
1997 Empirical Evidence for a Non-Classical Experimenter Effect: An Experimental, Double-Blind Investigation of Unconventional Information Transfer. Journal of Scientific Exploration 11(1):59-68.
- Whittaker, William E.
2012 Grave Dowsing Reconsidered. Pp. 11: Office of the State Archaeologist of Iowa.
- Zack et al. 2012 How to Use Dowsing or Divining Rods. Web Page, http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Dowsing-or-Divining-Rods, Accessed April 3, 2012.
Please clickhereto return to the Dowsing page.