stellarchaser wrote:
First of all, I'm not saying you are wrong. But at this stage of excavations, you're neither right. In other words, we don't know what, if anything, will be discover at Visochica Hill. Or you maybe know that allready? Will you tear your Diploma as geologist Nukic, if they find for example huge prehistoric site there? Thank you very much.
That fact hasn't stopped believers from coming in here and making fantastic claims they KNOW they can't support.
stellarchaser wrote:Secondly, you're not the only one who suffers with photos that tell nothing. It's not my fault. I can't recognise anything reasonable from them too, because obviously there's a close-up maniacal freak in charge of camera, and it would be tremendeous step for the mankind if someone would take that camera from his hands
I agree.
stellarchaser wrote:And further on about pictures: don't tell me that none of you could established link with Visoko Museum in order to get reliable photos or written materials
Feel free to do it yourself; I won't criticise this time.
stellarchaser wrote: Why nobody from any archeology association worldwide didn't go there to make quality pictures and collect data
In the other thread, I explained THREE times why archaeologists can't just drop everything and go to the latest dig.
stellarchaser wrote: But I'm affraid that only reason that no one contacted them regarding this, is nothing else but your ego. Like Harding: "I'm on a top of the world, Ma! I know everything, Ma!"
There you go again; you only seem able to insult everyone who doesn't see it YOUR way.
stellarchaser wrote:As president of European Archeology Association, he could easily arrange everything with Visoko Museum. But no, he even didn't say hallo to people there. So now all of us should be clapping to him? At least he could arrange reliable flow of data for you and for us. And send few "real archeologists" as you say, to supervise the excavations at the spot. And whole story would be different.
And how do YOU know that he DIDN'T try?
stellarchaser wrote:please what archeological methods are usually used in assessment of some potential archeological site.
Is there anything else apart of experience?
Are there any other scientific methods of assesing potencial archeological site?
1) You research written records/ previous excavation notes for the prospective site.
2)A team goes out to survey the site, using geophysical equipment to get a radar picture of what's below the surface.
3)They report back, and if there is enough to justify excavation, funding is applied for.
4)If successful in that, licenses to dig are applied for
5)The excavating team is assembled, with experts in particular fields depending on what is hoped to be found.
6)On arrival on site, the team decides how best to investigate the site. More geophys is used to get a broader picture, and trenches planned according to what is deemed a priority.
7)Each trench is excavated by a dedicated team, with no-one else being allowed in while digging progresses.
8 ) Soil from each trench is sieved, to find any tiny artefacts that may have been missed first time round.
9)Once experts have agreed on what has been found, they are recorded using a grid system, photography, and then recovered and individually bagged for further investigation later.
10) Photography usually includes a tower, to give an overall picture of the site and trenches in context.
11) Any further equipment/expert advice is brought in as needed.
12) In Britain at least, any discovery of human remains requires the Police to be notified to rule out a crime scene.
stellarchaser wrote: why Mr.Harding didn't used those methods? I'm asking these questions because I feel that Mr.Harding didn't do his assessment properly. Maybe I'm wrong, it's only my feeling.
Because of the amount of time and paperwork that's usually needed.
stellarchaser wrote:Is anybody here teaching archeology at University perhaps? If yes, please tell us what you say to your students about assessment of the potential archeological site.
I
used to, and made a point of drilling all the above into them. But
sometimes, there's just no substitute for a gut feeling that comes from experience. I've a feeling that's what Tony Harding used.
stellarchaser wrote:I don't blame you for anything. And I must laugh now, because you're claiming now that few Bosnians, amateurs, can influence your proffessional point of view?
I said nothing of the kind. I'm making the point that we seem to have had a sudden influx of new members from Bosnia over the last few weeks, and they all seem determined to defend this project to the death. That suggests either they suffer from a dangerous level of national pride, or that they're project insiders playing a double game.