This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
A fact from Buyla inscription appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The writing style is poor to very poor. Reads like it's written by a non-native English speaker, also it's written more like a blog entry; the tone is too informal for example "it is above all the largest, fullest, correct as to its formal content and even exquisitely beautiful, specific and (for the time being) the only known coherent text in the language of Asparukh’s Bulgarians, or, in a nutshell, this inscription, as well as the Treasure itself, is unique." That reads like someone's trying to advertise the thing to sell it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, and I couldn't find support for the translations even on Google(!), let alone in books. I've totally rewritten the intro and added referenced translations. -sche (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A little rant: This is a golden drinking cup and it is very likely a gift from one of the names in the inscription to the other. Why would a gold drinking cup be missing a buckle if you are mostly on a horse back and the drinking cup is made of gold? My guess is that Buyla and Butaoul are two generals and the inscription says "one pours the other drinks" (Buyla Zopan tası tüketti, Butaul Zopan toğrugu içki tası.) One of the decipherments says Buyla made the cup and Butaoul made the buckle. If that is the case, Butaoul must also put the inscription on it. This also means that Butaoul owns the cup since it is worn on a belt thus a personal item. Why would Butaoul inscribe in the cup that Buyla forgot to put a buckle on the cup?
For monumental inscription it is normal to have two names contributing to the artifact: one dictates the other inscribes or erects the monument. When we use the same template for an inscription on a personal item we end up with such odd scenarios. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
