Clive Bonsall, are you right?

21st century science is about serious science. We are tired of pseudoscience, misconducts, gray literature, mislead students, playing with funds money,
playing with past, misinterpreting past, not understanding our ancestors, destroying our ancestors’ culture instead researching it, allowing students
believe that science is not about honesty, but about intrigue making and practicing even psychopath behavior. We are like newborn who have been
mostly waiting something crucial to happen but making usually a little attempt that to happen. And who to make it? Probably aliens? The Americans have
been resolving the problems in the best way: education, crossing disciplines, studying and knowing. This is the reason many American Universities to be
on the top of the world education nowadays. There is a corruption but it looks it will go soon away. This is America than means freedom, honesty, integrity
and love. However, internal and external connections matter much more than knowledge in many other parts of world: integration becomes coalitions and
not academic exchange of information.
     It showed up an article by Maria Gyurova in Documenta Prehistorica (2008). Probably nobody even would mention this article if the author is not now
on the list of leaders of the National Archaeological Institute and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. This is a very important institution for
archaeology for the Balkans. Bulgaria, one of the richest in archaeology countries, keeps a centralized system of regulation of archaeology and in fact
almost everything depends on the National Archaeological Institute. Among the leading Bulgarian archaeologists scientific secretaries of the NAIM are
Alexander Bonev who in fact became disable and passed away because of abnormal stress in his work. Lately before the last election in 2010, Scientific
secretary was Diana Gergova who a fact almost the only leading representative worldwide non-compromised Bulgarian archaeologist nowadays. Diana
Gergova received one vote for Director of NAIM in 2010 that means something totally is wrong at the National Archaeological Institute and Museum at the
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Such conclusion is confirmed by the fact that Scientific secretary became Mariya Gyurova who acknowledged during the
election meeting of the Institute that Diana Gergova had the best program but other would realize it. Where in other places in the world can such things
happened?
     To be a Scientific secretary you need to rely somehow on science. Alexander Bonev and Diana Gergova are known as respectful scholars. What about
the new Scientific secretary?
     The article in Documenta Prehistorica should be representative. The draft was read and obviously approved by Clive Bonsall. So my respond is to him
since he was thought as a leading researcher on Balkan prehistory. As a rule, the editor of Documenta Prehistorica series that includes the prehistoric
seminars, Miha Budja, seems does not edit the contents of the articles, as many nowadays (including the author).
     In the cited article Gyurova wrote that the Bulgarian archaeology did not answer the questions how and why? Further she refers to absence of
processual and post-processual archaeology but this reference is meaningless in the context of the article since few pages later she gives an example
with Thsoni Thsonev who used this methodology. Then, the author even does not know what wrote and obviously does not have any scientific
background for serious research. But what about Clive Bonsall? How many Bulgarian articles did he read to think that Bulgarian archaeology does not ask
questions “how and why”?
     Bulgarian archaeology is not very intellectual but on the whole, a serious field of research. From the perspectives of prehistory, it is the Bulgarian
archaeology that offers the Karanovo chronological column as one of the greatest world discoveries in the world anchored to Georgi I. Georgiev. And it
does answer itself the question how and why - through continuity and because of the favorable environmental and human conditions. Many
archaeological discoveries answer themselves the most important questions in they were really well documented and correctly interpreted. Georgi I.
Georgiev, the icon of Bulgarian prehistory, is such example of answering the most important question through precise work in the field and correct
interpretation. There are many reasons why he did not published the material but the most likely is the abnormal atmosphere created by Henrieta
Todorova in the Archaeological Institute. This person was able even the strongest to make think that probably the best is only to think to remain alive on
this earth. Therefore, Georgi I. Georgiev, quite, intelligent and wonderful person, cannot be blamed for unpublishing the material from Karanovo. He, like
many others, was a victim of the poisoning visible and invisible environment created by Henrieta Todorova. Her ambitious and social practices have been
not directed not toward expressing herself but making world believe that she has been only working by using terrifying methods and means.
Because of Karanovo chronology column, connected with the name of moral, honest and wonderful person Georgi I. Georgiev, Bulgarian archaeology
cannot be bit by any other country in Europe from the top place in archaeological discoveries and research. It is another questions that it has been using
and abusing nowadays by some individual archaeologist for personal prosperity and glory and there are people who work in this field who make feel that
science is the most dangerous place in the world.
     I don’t think Clive Bonsall is right to believe that Bulgarian archaeology does not answer questions how and why. It can be answered any sort of how
questions, for instance how Maria Gyurova became a scientist. Everybody can recall her attending a course of Nikola Sirakov at the University of Sofia on
Paleolithic and how a year later at the Archaeological Institute there was a concourse for PhD post-graduate study in Moskow where Gyurova was almost
the only candidate. It is really even difficult such procedure to be named concourse. Then, can we try to answer why Gyurova was attending the course of
Sirakov? Is it possible to believe that she knew about this concourse? For leaking information some people go even to the prison. But in the systems of
science everything is possible.
     So, Clive Bonsall, regarding Bulgarian archaeology, the questions how and why are among the most popular regarding Bulgarian and global
archaeology nowadays. But the answers are hard to answer in some cases. For instance, how to make Bulgarian archaeology trustful if the former chair of
Prehistory Department Maria Gyurova connected with the Balinov Gorun affair now became Scientific secretary even after resignation of Bozhidar
Dimitrov. How many secrets will be kept again in the Archaeological Institute not because it is not asked questions how and why but because the answers
that reflect in the social practices of Archaeological Institute again scare about trustful, respectful and optimistic future.
     For now, it looks wise to answer how by keeping attitude, moral and principal position despite any attempts of disbalancing by NAIM and to answer why
because everybody needs to feel safe in this society and everybody hopes that if the world has been moving toward better, soon NAIM will become the
institution with social practices that will be respected by the good part of the world.
     Today science is integrity of technology and human abilities, social practices (including research and writing) and personalities. The problem of
archaeology is that its quality depends completely on high technology but it is not financed since it does not returns to society the amount of spending as
a quality culture helping to move the humankind toward better society. The archaeologists have been often developing as paycheck technicians and non-
ethical career seekers, while the gifted and honest have been working under huge pressure and made to depart from this field. It is a fact that old
generations, providing an ocean of negative examples, have been able to find young archaeologists that continue their line of corrupted to criminal
social behavior. To break this tread means to change the image of archaeology and its framework, in other works to change archaeology as a science and
profession which will not give anymore food to corrupted, aggressive and non-ethical people. One of the means for such change is to give right answer
to how and why: How to change – by answering correctly, why – for the future of archaeology.

Clive Bonsall, are you right?