The Prehistory of Struma
The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon
Praehistoricus Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) & Serres-Amphilpolis (Greece), 27.09-01.10.2004. Edited by
Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich and Georgi Ivanov. Gerda Henkel Stiftung and Museum of History,
Kyustendil. Sofia. 544 p., 29 maps, 9 topographical plans, 779 color photos, 81 b/w photos, 815 drawings, 58 tabl.,
32 diagrams and simplified graphs. 10 reconstruction drawings of houses.
(In process because of non-response of Gerda Henkel Stiftung. In which world does this Foundation live?)
First request for copy of the proposal for this book was send in August. No response till end of December 2009.
Other foundations do publish their winning proposals. Gerda Henkel Stiftung not only does not publish their winning proposal
but does not response on inquiries.
See also Bulgaria and the global society that indicates that there is a political and negative humanistic effect of the generous
sponsorship of the proposal of Henrieta Todorova Vajsova (in fact Henrieta Teodor Blank).
[11-11-09] Unbelievable! We have been still waiting for a response from the Gerda Henkel Stiftung in order first to
compare the proposal sent for the book with the contents. The published papers do not look to fit to usual criteria of
academic book to be sponsored by a Foundation. More curiously, it includes as the key site Topolnitsa, for which I could not
find almost anything online (1) and for which can be found in the book preliminary information only. Why didn't this foundation
sponsor the full publications of so important for Bulgarian prehistory excavations of Drama which was lead by a German
archaeologist, the world recognized archaeologists Jan Lichardus? All the world is waiting for this excavations to be able
finally to have a body of reliable information on prehistory of Southeast Bulgaria, which is really trustful and informative? Don't
this foundation hear about the Dubene-Balinov Gorun affair and how the Bulgarain archaeologists covered up the scandal with
non-respectful and shameful for the 21st century social behavior? What does Gerda Henkerl Stiftung want in fact to tell us?
For all responsible who years and years have been giving vacation packages to Todorova to travel to Germany, some facts:
1. Michael Chokhdazhiev, who is a co-author or a Catalog, died very young.
2. Todorova did not write a review of the big doctor thesis of his brother, Stefan Chokhadzhiev, who passed inner defense.
In this way she had stopped a professional archaeologist and a University Professor from the opportunity to defend his work
3. Todorova tried to stop my public defense years ago my lying to the Academic committee that I had threat her.
4. Todorova tried to stop my academic article from publication in Archaeology without any reason and without any scientific
There are several striking features of this publication:
1. Substitution of academic text with popular narrative descriptions and illustrations of finds without precise stratigraphic
context (2), or super simplified and non-academic writings published as articles.
2. Numerous illustrations instead academic text, and no description even of the whole objects.
3. Statements about uniqueness without reference even to neighbor regions in which there are similar discoveries;
4. Hidden and non-cited important scientific information;
5. Absence of references to most essential works;
6. References to works in which is missing cited text;
7. Publications which are out of the scope of the topic, etc.
The book indirectly recalls the Dubene affair from 2005 when DrHab Vassil Nikolov announced through Guardian that bigger than
Troy treasure was discovered in Bulgaria. We have never seen this treasure, but neither DrHab Henrieta Todorova nor DrHab Mark
Stefanovich publicly asked DrHab Vassil Nikolov where was this treasure. They are in fact the only DrHab in archaeology in
Bulgaria, while in the last years the social biography of Todorova and Stefanovich included preventing from public defence other
DrHab theses in Bulgaria. However, such activities may be not seen on their resumes and in the proposals for funding of that book,
although there are so many professional experts, honest and respectful scholars that badly need funds for most essential books but
do not get such. What does Gerda Henkel Stiftung want to tell the honest world in this case by no responding the questions asked?
See internal links
Table of contents
Table of contents with complimentary bibliography
I don't know even one book by Henrieta Todorova, which was not scandalous and a pure example of what we may not need in the
academic life. Even the last - about the jewelry came out after almost identical big published work with other authors, as an example
of professional arrogance and non-ethical approach to science. Most importantly - one can doubt that the level is more than of
specialists with bachelor degree. How would the world of Prehistory of the Balkans look like without books like those? One doest
not need to think long to answer: much more respectful and for sure academic. And most importantly - the science of prehistory in
Bulgaria would be at much higher level. Unfortunately, in the field of archaeology in small countries archaeology depends not on
healthy laws and rules, but on single personalities. And it is possible even one person to damage and badly to harm the science for
The monograph on the Struma valley in Prehistory includes 39 reports of 48 authors on different topics. This region is one of the
main communication routes in the Balkans during the different prehistoric periods and there is abundance literature
during the last decades, which was included in a series of synthetic works. As we will show below, the newly published monograph
follows mostly the traditions of preliminary reports or include very well known from other publications materials.
Four communications even do not cover the region, so they will not be reviewed below. Very important discoveries and research
projects were not included by reports or in the references that in fact create a deformed picture about the real place of Topolnica and
the Struma valley in the prehistoric research of the Balkans.
As we know well, years and years Henrieta Todorova, the co-editor, has been reproducing narrative - illustrated - "sacred"
publications on Bulgarian prehistoric sites, funded usually by Bulgarian government funds of Bulgarian taxpayers or by German
funds. Instead archaeological descriptions, one can see in her publications mostly statements and documentation made by others
(without opportunity for validation). In other words, her excavations raise many questions about their scientific character, as
well as the way they have been published. Todorova for instance, obviously had believed that it was scientific not at least briefly to
have explained the stratigraphy of Golyamo Delchevo and Ovcharovo, to excavate almost the whole cemetery of Durankulak through
the primitive archaeological methods (without being a rescue site), and now to offer as listed on the first place editor a book with
more than 700 color illustrations including in many cases even fragmented finds, and with minimum or no scientific contents. As it is
well-known, color photography is not very suitable for archaeological science, since does not adequately reproduce the real color.
So, none of the pottery illustrations in particular can be considered trustful, when it is without specific description.
In principal, any preliminary report and any shared theoretical thought can help somehow the scholars, but when it is promoted in a
format of richly illustrated book, the questions is why the same funds were not sponsored, for instance, for one catalog with well-
described finds. So many illustrations of such wonderful finds can be seen in this book, but unfortunately, like exotic and “sacred”
objects because of missed scientific character of publication. Or how nice would be if the sponsoring foundation Gerda Henkel
Stiftung had higher criteria and had saved the money for publishing really of book of complete investigations of sites like Topolonica.
Who would not want to see after so many years excavations of that site a complete publication in academic format? Today there are
so highly qualified professional archaeologists that could help with professional publishing and presenting to the academic world
those important records in professional manner and not like in the 19th century publication. Not only this. As the review of the
recent literature clearly shows, Todorova with coauthors about Topolnica have been ignoring so important data coming from eastern
Serbia in order to promote uniqueness of Topolnica as a site.
Waiting for the proposal of Todorova to be submited from the German Foundation, we will limit to notes on the publication:
1. The Henrieta Todorova’s communication (pp. 1-6). (see contents)
In fact it repeats the thesis of climatically determined prehistoric development of Bulgaria – thought shared by that author since
later 20th century at so many Symposia, but unfortunately always without any archaeological arguments that really support this and
not another explanation model. Since Todorova do not have any education related to climatology, we may points to some of the
archaeological theses in this writing. As in many other works, Todorova again states (p.5) (marked with bold) that there are two
periods in Bulgarian prehistory:
Final Copper Age (4200-3750 cal BCE)
Protobronze Age (3750-3200 cal BCE)
The good news it, there is no anymore Transition period which was invertibily turned down with my PhD thesis and followed
monograph. The scientific idea about the end of Eneolithic was promoted in Balkan historiography by P. Roman and S. Morintz. As
clearly was shown "The Balkan in Later Prehistory" (1999), the data on Final Copper Age in the Lower Danube basin are
controversial and any of them require very detailed analysis. It is unbelievable after all that in 2007 it is possible to be published that
the archaeological data in Bulgaria can be organized in two periods Final Copper Age (4200-3750 cal BCE) and Protobronze (3750-
3200 cal BCE) again without single archaeological record. Such statements are not only non-academic, but a very good examples of
the whole arrogance of Todorova as a personality that had always believed that can promote narrative, imaginary and fraud in
science. Because of the communist totalitarian periods in which she issued her publication, and absence of critical thinking among
the archaeologists, such non-academic style has been reproducing more than 35 years.
What is 4200 cal BCE, according to the radiocarbon dates? – Isn’t it flourishing Karanovo VI? Why at once it came Final Copper
Age in 4200 cal BCE? Or we just need to believe that Bulgarian prehistory is still in the devastating change of totalitarism and
corruption and we need probably one more century until the science begins to matter for everybody, even for those who may have
their scientific titles because of corruption and totalitarian ideology and devastating everyday visible and invisible behavior! I don’t
need to cite other Todorova’s works, because in the page before the cited chronology, one can read
that the Copper Age is 4750 – 4200/4000 cal BCE? So, what is true?
To finish with this communication, I would just point to the fact that Todorova promotes 4750 cal BCE for the beginning of
Copper Age – in fact a period of flourishing of Early Copper Age in the Balkans. The date is given without any argumentation. The
arrogance of that author goes so far that she even does not point to the different opinion of Boyadzhiev in the same book (p. 311).
And this is a publication claiming to be scientific sponsored by German funds!
2. The second published communication includes a group of authors (see Table of contents) who tried to collect data to prove that
archaeological record infers an abrupt climate forcing during Early Neolithic in South Europe and Near East (pp. 7-21).
In the focus are in fact 8 well known sites – Khirokitia and Kalavasos Tenta (Cyprus), Çatalhöÿük, Hacilar and Hoça Çesme
(Turkey), Nea Nikomedeia, Argissa Magula and Achilleion (Greece). The small sample of data itself raises the question whether it is
reasonable to try to resolve non-archaeological problem with selected data based on few sites. But even when you look through the
conclusions for the different sites, you may strongly disagree. For instance, I cannot read Figure 4 (in the text Fig 4A that does not
exist) favor of the authors’ conclusions that Khirokitia was deserted during the 8200 cal BP event (p. 11). As it is very well known
to date one archaeological site in terms of absolute chronology, we must correlate the radiocarbon dates with stratigraphic and
typological data. There is no direct correlation between the radiocarbon date and calendar dates and there are so many instances
when in fact radiocarbon dates do not point to the correct chronology even using the largest calibrated span. Also, the samples (16)
come from different structures that need initially and separately analysis in order first to reconstruct the inner life of the village and
then to construct more general conclusions. In other words, I cannot accept the conclusion about Khirokitia as valid – there is
neither analysis nor mentioned data that can even make us thinks whether the statement id true or wrong. Similar is the conclusion
for the other sites (pp. 11-16) since there is neither critical analysis of the samples in their archaeological context nor the figure 4
make me conclude that the period of abt 6300 is well represented as something homogeneous that leads to well-argued hypothesis.
Also, I don’t see any reason radiocarbon dates which are available online to be republished without any sufficient critical analysis
3. What one would expect to be the key of publication – Topolnica/Promachon, unfortunately appears as a most elementary
preliminary report. Most curiously, even the brief stratigraphy is in narrative style (p. 48). Traditionally, where is Todorova, there is
phobia of any depths and precise stratigraphic information. We can learn that at the site were distinguished four occupation level at
depth between 0.5 and 1.70 m (p. 70), but in figure 39 shows the profile of phase II-IV which is 8.35 m, according to the text
under the photo (p. 70).
The upper layer (IV) was destroyed. According to the text, few pits were documented, while one figure (32) shows that Struma
was very important region of interaction of the Vinča and Maritsa (Karanovo V) ceramic style. The ambiguous
synchronization with Sitagroi II, Dikili Tash II, Slatino and Maritsa I-II (p. 48) makes unclear whether the archaeological material
was from one or more destroyed levels.
It is missing stratigraphic description of phase III. In narrative-illustrative styles are mentioned timber framed/wattle and daub
architecture including a house 8 x 5 m (roughly E-W). Because of absence of correlation between text and illustrations, one
needs to use them complimentary and to learn that the house was from phase IIIB. In previous literature it was interpreted as
sanctuary. The arguments are three relief protomes of female figures and clay figurines around the house interpreted as votive
offerings. Unfortunately, neither female protomes in houses nor clay figurines are themselves a record about a sanctuary. In late
Neolithic as we know from other sites, the flourishing households in the Balkans developed a variety of symbolic systems
of expressing of increasing of wealth and respectively of differences between the families. B. Tripković based on the Banica case
study introduced for the Vinča culture the idea of competition, so we need to wait for eventual full publication of this
house to model eventual function. But even the data about excavated bulls’ skulls from Topolnica located on floors being plastered
with yellowish clay together with figurines, tools and jewelry (p. 52) and the floors with numerous abandoned material (Fig. 12)
demonstrate that the households were flourishing and their everyday life was rich in symbols and expressive material culture.
That preliminary narrative report includes also information about copper smelting with traces of heavy burning (p. 48). There is a
narrative description and ye observation of some structures, but absence of published architectural plan makes impossible
neither analytically not critically to follow the text (52-63). One can read about level 33 (p. 56), but it is unclear what does it mean.
There is also a reconstruction of a house (Fig. 27), but again without scientific explanation of the documented archaeological
Beyond the popular text, this communication includes some discovered finds. Of special interest are the fragment of ornamented
basket and pieces of bark that indicate rich handcraft of organic material in this village. They were discovered in the deep pits where
was preserved the moisture (p. 56).
Most of the information about Topolnica comes from the illustrations, although the illustrated finds are without given at least depth
of discovering. It can be distinguished a huge difference in the material between phase II and III that explain the radiocarbon dates
which date phase III to Early Copper Age. The very impressive ceramic shard is published in Fig 34 that together with the
radiocarbon dates (Fig 6) date without doubt this layer to Early Copper Age and Topolnica group. So, the material from phase II and
III shows the different directions of interaction of Topolnitsa and the beginning of formation of the horizon of the graphite painted
pottery in the Balkans known as Karanovo V - Sitagroi III - Slatino - Gradeshnitsa cultural horizon, to which we can add Topolnitsa
III. It is a question of paradigm whether Topolnica will be early phase of Sitagroi III - Slatino culture in the Struma valley or an
The themes of mother and child (Figs. 56, 58) and the human syncretism demonstrated by a figurine which one side is female and
the other – male (Fig. 61, phase III), show that in later Neolithic – Early Copper Age the family and gender identity were
extremely important topics in the enculturation of the Paleo-Balkan communities. The bird-like head may indicate mythological motifs
(Figs 56-57) as metaphors of the human everydayness. Some of the human heads are individualized (Figs. 62, 70) while the so-
called phallomorphic sculpture looks at least on the photos a baby (Figs. 69, 71) that may relate to the tradition of burying babies
under house floor and had a symbolic function to help in grieving after the lost of a child, by recalling or/and substituting died baby.
It should be stressed on the fact that a total of 1 figurine (a female figurine with a child with a missing head) was published from the
Bulgarian excavations (Fig. 58) while the Greek team acknowledged the sponsored publication with 18 figurines (Figs. 54-57, 59-
71). Where are the figurines from the Bulgarian excavations, then?
4. I expected to learn more about the absolute chronology of Topolnitsa and turned to the article of Yavor Boyadzhiev (pp. 309-316).
There is Dates list (pp. 314-316) following the text, which is not cited in the text as references to the dates by the author and creates
big confusions. In this list there are important updates from the previously published by the same author information – for instance,
Horizon I from Gulubnik in Görsdorf & Bojadziev 1996 is now Horizon II, but Boyadzhiev does not mention the corrections.
His goal, according to his own description, is to define the chronology of the different archaeological cultures and to clarify the
dynamics of the fundamental ethno-cultural processes in the valley of Struma in the “late prehistory” – the end of 7th – 3rd
millennium BC (p. 310). According to the author, the explanation of those processes depends on “the state of the archaeological
research in the region” (p. 310), but it should be strongly added that according to the theory of the humanitarian disciplines the
interpretations depend of methodology and theory. Archaeology is not absolutely empirically determined and the microregional
analysis usually has been included in broader cultural context since archaeology destroyed the past and the goal of the humanistic
scholars is not a vandalous search for records, but preserving the past. Then the author’s attempt for fundamental research of ethno-
cultural microregional processes looks non-scientific from the beginning because there is neither a formulation of problem nor
explained methodology – How does Boyadzhiev plan to clarify the dynamics of the fundamental ethno-cultural processes in the valley
of Struma? As a matter of fact, he even does not mention a word further on this objective with except of the ambiguous statement
that “the process of neolithization runs from southwest” (p. 310).
Boyadziev believes that the upper valley of the Struma was settled first during the Neolithic. The phrase “at present state of
research” is unclear since it looks the author closed the region in a box and has been trying to make sense of records that by nature
are interrelated with neighbor close and distant regions. The then is coming the nightmare with Gulubnik interpretation. First is
missing reference to who divided the 4 meters thick cultural layer into 10 horizons. Who discovered that the lowest 6 horizons are
characterized by white painted pottery? The author insists that the dates for horizons II-VI are similar (7150-7000 BP). However, in
his publication from 1995 (Boyadziev, 1995: 161) “the series from the Gulubnik settlement (the lower half of the layer with white
painted ware) … the dates vary between 7220 ± 80 (Bln-3579H) and 6790 ± 80 bp (Bln-3581)”. So, which statement is correct? The
author states that the earliest horizon is not dated, but does not mentions that the dates from the second horizon were listed as
horizon 1 in 1996 (Görsdorf & Bojadziev, 1996: 122). Curiously, after so many years experience in the field Boyadziev continues to
insist like in his PhD dissertation that he established an average duration of the early Neolithic “horizons” – 40-60 years (p. 310)
which is based on non-scientific childish arithmetic account of the accumulation of the cultural levels (Boyadziev, 1995: 161). This is
a cancer thick statement for science since makes archaeology dependable on non-historical and non-archaeological presumptions.
For everybody is clear that one and the same thickness of the cultural level can be due to different reasons, as well as the difference
of thickness does not mean automatically difference in the chronological span.
So, learning nothing about Gulubnik and being in fact moved to a created mythology of this site by an author with a scientific title,
we finally learned that Gulubnik is not the earliest and there are two sites of the Monochromic pottery – Krainici and Slatina-Gradini
(p. 310). Logically, the author refers to absolute dates from out-of-Struma regions, that only confirms my methodological suggestion
at the beginning that there is no microregional archaeology of closed box, and microregional archaeology is about interactions and
similarity and differences with the neighbor closed and distant regions. However, the author does not include a series of new works
on the absolute chronology of the beginning of the Neolithic in the Balkans including my work from 1998 in which before him
extensively was discussed the chronology of Hoça Çesme (Nikolova 1998). Should we spend a big part of our life to document a
pattern of academic fraud on Balkan Prehistory? And this is in a book with editors who received HabDr titles in Bulgaria. Most
curiously, Boyadziev does not cite even the work of his colleagues and collaborator in Topolnitsa project, I. Vajsov (see Vajsov 1998)
Regarding Kovachevo, Boyadziev again prefers mythological thoughts – according to him, the archaeomagnetic dating and 14C from
the upper horizons of Kovachevo were indicative that the beginning of this site was abt 5900 cal BC (pp. 310-311). Without
discussion in details, just to pint to the fact that again it is missing even one publication of Kovachevo cited, again Boyadziev believes
that can date without a detailed analysis of stratigraphy and pottery sequences and most important – again he believe that 14C dates
give the beginning and not the end of the occupation of the given village. There is no wondering why many archaeologists began to
believe that absolute chronology is a very easy filed of archaeological science. Most regretfully for those optimists, this is one of the
Further, Boyadziev continues with an archive reference to Bogdanovic to make us aware of his absurd in light of the archaeological
data statement, that when in the Struma valley dominated white painted pottery, on the territory of present Serbia was still Proto-
Starčevo (p. 311). Well. How did the process of neolithization run from southwest then? For the reader at least becomes clear why
Boyadziev continues to insist that the dark-painted pottery appears earlier in Southwest Bulgaria than in Serbia and Upper Struma is
one of the main centers of origin of the Stračevo culture (p. 311).
Unfortunately, it is impossible to cover critically the whole text of Boyadziev in a review format, but the analysis of the next epochs
– late Neolithic and Eneolithic have the same declarative style, absence of references to a basic literature and not-well grounded
hypotheses. Among the statements of the authors are:
1. The transition Neolithic – Eneolothic is in the span 5000-4900 cal BCE. My understanding is that this statement is correct, but
there are missing specific archaeological arguments. He refers to Bulgarchevo IIIB, Strumsko Iia-b and Sitagroi II (p. 311).
2. The origin of the graphite pottery was in the region of the Middle Struma valley (pp. 311-312).
3. There are series of local anomalies of concentration of the atmospheric 14C that influence the 14C dates. This statement is well
known from his dissertation but unfortunately it has been reproduced without development of understanding of the archaeological
material that may help to resolve the absolute chronology through a detailed exploration of the archaeological data. It is missing even
cited the extensive work of Lilyana Perniceva on Kolarovo (Pernicheva 2000), that means Boyadzhiev believes that can date
absolutely prehistoric sites without deep knowledge on the archaeological material. This does not seam a scientific method.
4. It is unclear what is for Boyadziev (p. 312) Transition period between the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in the region of
Struma to which is attributed Kolarovo II. The cited publication of L. Pernicheva includes a few shards with a broad chronological
span. If he has other reference, why it was not cited?
5. It is unclear why he includes a section of Bronze Age which is oversurface and in fact is on the place of the expected conclusions
for the absolute chronology of Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures from the valley of Struma (such just are missing).
Boyadziev, Y. (1995). Chronology of prehistoric cultures in Bulgaria. In: Bailey, D. & I. Panayotov (Eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria (pp.
149-191). Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.
Glumac, P. & Tringham, R. (1990). The Exploration of Copper Minerals, with Appendix 15.1: Province and Identification of Copper
Samples. In: Tringham R. & Krstic D. (Eds.), Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia (pp. 549-563). Los Angeles. University of
California, Los Angeles.
Görsdorf, J. & Bojadziev, J. (1996). Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Berliner 14C-Datierungen von
bulgarischen archäologischen Fundplätzen. Eurasia Antiqua 2, 105-172.
Nikolova, L. (1998). Neolithic Sequence: The Upper Stryama Valley in Western Thrace (with Appendix: Radiocarbon Dating of the
Balkan Neolithic). Documenta Praehistorica 25, 99-131.
Nikolova, L. (1999). The Balkans in Later Prehistory. BAR International series 791. Oxford: BAR.
Park, R. (2000). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. New York: Oxford University Press. (books.google.com)
Perniceva, L. (2000). The Final Copper Settlement of Kolarovo in Southwest Bulgaria. In L. Nikolova (Ed.), Technology, Style and
Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory (pp. 133-171). BAR International Series
854. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Thomas, J.C. & Rosqvist, J. (2003). Introduction: Science in the Service of Practice. In: Thomas, J.C. & Hersen, Michael (Eds.),
Understanding Research in Clinical and Counseling Psychology (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Vajsov, I. (1998). The Typology of the Anthropomorphic Figurines from Northeastern Bulgaria. In: M. Stefanovich, M., H.
Todorova & H. Hauptmann (Eds.), In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul (pp. 107-141). Vol. 1. James Harvey Gaul in Memoriam.
Sofia: James Harvey Gaul Foundation.
(1) After abt 3 hours search online, I found 4 photos from Promachonas and 0 from Topolnica/Topolnitsa (8-3-09). It is just
shocking - what was the reason Gerda Henkel Stiftung to give such luxury grant for this volume? Is it for stimulating sacred
knowledge and obtaining copyrights for publishing finds that belong to Bulgaria and Greece? And even more. I found one table of
contents of a book dedicated to Henrieta Todorova and edited by Mark Stefanovich and Christina Angelova (see bibliography). In this
file was especially mentioned that Todorova has the first Dr Hab in Prehistory in Bulgaria. How did Mark Stefanovich also miss to
mention that she was invited to express an academic opinion at an inner defense of Dr Hab and she even did not have an academic
language which was substituted by a sort of gesture language? How did he also miss to mention that he (together with Todorova)
voted against this dissertation without even expressing opinion (he was not allowed to speak in English in a country, a member of the
European Union, which official language is English)? Before or after the mentioned published volume, there was a Dr Hab thesis
which was even allowed to be defended before public and Todorova did not write a review preventing the public defense. Do all
these facts of no interest for the Gerda Henkel Stiftung? What can we expect in future?
After all, although full with mistakes, don't at least my brother, my father, all my relatives all over the world and all Bulgarians desire
to see for free online what was discovered at Topolnitsa as a part of the Bulgarian national treasure? Can we extend the same
question about the Greek population? Why do a handful archaeologists who we may expect to be with the most public oriented
behavior and one foundation have rights to prevent all of us at least to enjoy these richly illustrated finds with more than 700 color
photos? Whom do they belong in fact? Why did the Gerda Henkel Stiftung first not look online and in the academic records of the
applicants for grants before acting? Why didn't it first sponsor the museums to build websites and to show the national heritage and
then the illustrations? There is such a wonderful sponsored website for scientific publications like Aegeo-Balkan Prehistory? If Gerda
Henkel Stiftung was interested really in scientific knowledge, why didn't it collaborate with that website to help to expand the free
publication even of monographs but decided to assist a sort of family business of money makers (together with main editor
Todorova, in Struma's book her son, Ivan Vajsov, occurs as an illustrator)? Did the Gerda Henkel Stiftung send an agent to Sofia to
research the stage of prehistoric publications and to learn that there was whole monograph about prehistory of Struma by Lilyana
Pernicheva which remained unpublished because of missing fund? Doesn't the world need science and respectfulness but not money
makers and just color illustrations in the academic life? Why didn't Gerda Henkel Stiftung also check all prehistoric archaeological
excavations in the Balkans in the recent years and really wisely to sponsor a book on all most important discoveries? The Balkan
prehistoric archaeology has been for years depending on German funding when it comes for publications and funding some results
while ignoring others with equal and even greater importance is harmful for the whole academic Balkan life since give privilege of
people who may practice inside their countries the most devastating visible and invisible power. Most curiously, when in neighbor
Serbia Vinča-Gradac is dated to Early Copper Age, through the German funds it is promoted in 2007 Late Neolithic in the Central
Balkans till 4750 cal BCE richly color illustrated. Who will sponsor the new results from Plocnic for instance to be in the same way
richly illustrated like Topolnica. Or probably they are less important? To the extend of my knowledge, Germany is leading in
prehistoric science and I personally know such leading prehistorians. So, what would like to tell us Gerda Henkel Stiftung with this
publication? Wouldn't be a wonderful publication like Vinča - Plocnik - Bulgarcevo/Topolnica in light of new discoveries? I think that
it is time not the foundations to wait for proposals, but to have their agents and they to go and invite for publications, if they really
have honest money for just helping Balkan prehistoric science. To make my argument stronger I can refer even to one publication
from 2006 on archaeometallurgy published online on problem that for some reasons were avoided by the team of Topolnica (http:
(2) In other words it is missing the requirement of the research - including the dissemination of results so that others can study,
evaluate, and contest or use them" (Thomas & Hersen 2003: 12). The narrative-illustrative publication are typical of Henrieta
Todorova. They are disable products that in turn disable the dissemination of results. In the totalitarian political period this fact
resulted in reproducing of unproved statements by references to illustrations or to the author who was famous for some as
"giving bread to the archaeologists", while for other mostly as a woman who can make bad things on people and divorced
from a member of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party. It is still without any explanation how this woman
had so many years such generous support of German scientific funds for "scholarly" vacations and publishing disable scholarly
works (see generally for irreparable damages on science Thomas & Rosqvist 2003: 13 with reference to Park 2000).