Talk:Butaul

List of references

• [1] - In our treasure we find further: Buta-ul 'the son of Buta'
• [2] - This text was analyzed by J. Nemeth (1932) who assumed that the forms ZOA- n\N and ZQAnAN should be read *éaban, so Buta-ul éaban would mean 'son of Bota/ from the breed of/ caban', Bujla-éaban would mean 'Buila/ from thr breed of/ čaban.
• [3] - The second name in the Buyla-inscription is Butaul zoapan, where once more Buta- ul is Turkic (bota « camel-colt », ul is ogul « son ») and zupan. Whatever the origin of the title zupan is, in this form it is a Slavic title
• [4] -
  • Buyla, der Großfürst des Zwei-Geten-Landes von der Theiß
  • Buta-ul, der Taiß(Teiß) -Fürst des Tagro-Landes und des Etzi-Landes
  • G. Supka 1916, 13. - Zupan Buila, Fürst (Taidschi) von Dügetoigi Großzupan Butaul, Taidschi von Tagrogi und Itschigi (Utschugi)
• [5] - Another gives the names of two chiefs, apparently of Bela, Zupan of the Theiss, and Butaul, Zupan of the Jazyges, a people, be it observed, of Medo-Sarmatian stock
• [6] - Another gives the names of two chiefs, apparently of Bela, Zupan of the Theiss, and Butaul, Zupan of the Jazyges
• [7] - Buila-zupan made the cup, (this) cup 'which Butaul-zupan ordered to be adapted for being hung
• [8] - I shall build the castle of Buyla 2upan, Butaul zupan
• [9] - only general agreement that the words pour|Aa ^ocotoiv and poutccou^ ^ coajiav are a combination of Turkic cupan or -most probably- Slavic zupan with the Turkic names/titles Buyla (cf. Protobulg. (3oiXa£, Por|Xa<;, etc)" and Butaul
• [10] - Zoapan is the well known title zupan. The second name in the Buyla-inscription is Butaul zoapan, where once more Buta-ul is Turkic (bota « camel-colt », ul is ogul « son ») and zupan.
• [11] - Hier ist Butaul der Zupan der Ta- groger , Jazyger, der Völker an der Theiss. Die Tagroger sowohl als die Jazyger kommen in Dio Cassius vor im XXI. Buche des Xi- philinus als IàÇ'j'yii und ààxîiyti in derselben Gegend Paunoniens
• [12] - an Bela den Zupan an der Theiss und Butaul den Zupan der Jazygen
• [13] - Zupan, Zupanos -» Butaul (# 1052). — Buyla (# 1053).
• [14] - ohne Zweifel mit Recht, auf Butaul den Zupan der Jazygen bezogen worden, und danach allein ist es einleuchtend, dass alle diese
• [15] - Der Inschrift gemäß war nun dieser Zupan Buüa Fürst (Taidshi) von Dügetoigi, wie der andere Zupan Butaul der Taidshi von Tagrogi und Itshigi war.
• [16] - Dále se objevují v nápisech buela (boéla) zoapan Tese a zóapan Butaul, patrnë pfedstavení na Tise
• [17] - The basileus has recognised and supervised (or: recognises and supervises) Butaul as (the new) zhupan.

OK, I collected now some references related to Buta-ul and I will rewrite article in accordance with data in these references. PANONIAN 10:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From your efforts I only see that you can source the Buta-ul as "son of Buta", and something about Tisza. For both these interpretation due weight applies (e.g. the most common spelling is Butaul, not Buta-ul; and only a handful of scholars read Tisza, some others read about cups, castles or whatever else). What about the map and the lands of Butaul and the treasure buried by him? Daizus (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Let try like this: please do not touch this article in next hour or two while I am rewriting it and then we will discuss things that might remain disputed. OK? PANONIAN 11:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Move forward?

Well, Daizus, I now rewrote article so that it is no longer primarily based on book of Milan Tutorov. Now, please explain your reason for POV, OR and credibility tags. Interpretation of Tutorov is now mentioned only among various other interpretations and I do not understand what problem you have with that. As for map, I will change it too to reflect more exactly what Tutorov is claiming. PANONIAN 12:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a) more than half of that section is dedicated to Milan Tutorov's theory and b) the only map is also about his theory. Since he's only one author making these particular claims, it's not a NPOV presentation: the mainstream assessment is (see the "Inscription" section) that there are no grounds for such theories about Butaul and Buyla. See also WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. "

As for OR, there's a significant difference between the map and the text, as I explained in my edit. Daizus (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

According to my count, it is just half of the section. Anyway, it is obviously because of the fact that book of Tutorov contains much more info about this subject than other cited sources. If you find other source that contains more info than Tutorov then you are free to expand article with that info. As for NPOV issue, I now moved statements of Tutorov to one single paragraph in whole article - what else should I do that you say that this way of presentation is not POV? Do you have any concrete suggestions here or not? You just speaking about problems but not about solutions. As for "mainstream assessment", it is simply not true that it states that "here are no grounds for such theories about Butaul and Buyla". It only states that "there is no consensus about the meaning of the inscription", but historians are free to provide their own translations and theories about that subject. Clearly, claims of Tutorov are not something that contradicts to "mainstream assessment". Also to say that book of Milan Tutorov was recommended for reading by Serbian academician Dr Vasilije Đ. Krestić, thus there is a solid scientific credibility behind that work. PANONIAN 14:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And for the record: I also slightly modified map: changed location of buried treasure, removed two disputed names and specified that map is created according to Milan Tutorov. I do not see what other improvements to this article could be made. PANONIAN 17:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I already suggested solutions: delete or merge. Tutorov's theory deserves no mention ("generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.") and if however you decide to include it in an article then you "should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". And yet Tutorov's view is the most detailed view (half of the section + a map = more than half)!

As for the "biography", some of the sources claim the inscription is undeciphered (Alemany: "its decipherment remains a challenge in spite of many attempts"), thus there are no grounds for interpretations such as the one currently favored by this article. Daizus (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We should first define what exactly is "Tutorov's theory" here. First of all, I would not use word "theory", but rather "interpretation". From other sources, it is quite clear that various authors provided various interpretations about meaning of inscription and interpretation provided by Tutorov is not of different nature than other interpretations. I do not see how his interpretation represents a "view of tiny minority" - all used authors are providing quite different interpretations of the inscription and I do not see there anything that might look as "majority view". Also, info from Tutorov's book contains two very different things: 1. interpretation of inscription and 2. speculation about historical events related to interpretation of inscription. While there are various interpretations of the inscription, there is no other source that says something that contradicts to these speculations which were provided by Tutorov. Therefore, his speculations are not representing "a minority view" since we do not have "an majority view" that opposing this. In fact, I can separate Tutorov's interpretation and Tutorov's speculation one from another and then we will not have something that you can describe as "Tutorov's theory". As for map, I do not see why we cannot have map that represents any of the provided interpretations of the description. I draw that map in accordance with Tutorov's interpretation because of simple reason that he provided clear geographical references that could be included into map. Other sources are not saying where exactly Butaul's domain was located, so I do not know how to draw a map that would present these interpretations. Personally, I do not think that Tutorov's interpretation is most correct, and my own translation of the inscription would be that "there were two rulers, župan Buyla, who ruled Tisa and two Getae lands, and župan Butaul, who ruled Tagroge, Etzige (what ever these are) and Tisa". However, I am only an Wikipedia user and I am not allowed to present my own opinions in the article by the "no original research" policy. Instead, I presented an published opinion of an known Serbian author. I do not see how possible I violated any Wikipedia policy, rule or guideline by that. And now I hope that you will stop with accusations that "I am forcing "Tutorov's theory" here" - when I created this article, I had only Tutorov's book as a source and I was not aware of other sources. Anyway, I clearly stated that I do not think that "Tutorov's interpretation is most correct" and, therefore, I am certainly not "forcing it". By my opinion (and due to data from various sources) this article should contain all possible interpretations and claims about that inscription from all available sources and Tutorov's claims should be mentioned only among the other. However, I do not see why info about Tutorov's claims should be shortened to satisfy some weird criteria about percentage limit above which we should not speak about one interpretation. PANONIAN 09:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This digression is irrelevant. Tutorov is only one author, thus he's "tiny minority" almost by definition (let's note I already cited two references in the treasure article for the fact there's no consensus in decipherment). And we don't need a "majority view" but "widely held views". Since in this article the widely held views are expressed in few words, no minority view should be given that much, and certainly not more, per policies. Much if not all of Tutorov's theory must be thus removed.

As for the inscription, most of these translations are pseudoscientific (linguists analyze languages, not historians, nor other authors). For example dygetoigē in a Turkic language would rather be read dügetögi/dügetügi and not dy getoi gē ("two Getic lands" - this languge is not Greek, nor Turkic, just an ill-assorted combination of ... stuff) Daizus (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: there is no evidence that there is any "majority view" or "widely held view" that contradicts to claims of Tutorov and I see no any reason why his claims should not be mentioned here. I even do not understand which of his claims you consider problematic: claim about area ruled by Butaul, claim about time period when treasure was buried or claim about Frankish conquest of Avar state? Please try to say which of Tutorov's claims you consider wrong and which other source is contradicting to these claims. Also, presented sources from google books are showing that Tutorov was not the only author who used term "two Getic lands", which is further evidence against your claim that claims of Tutorov are contradicting to "widely held views". PANONIAN 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have provided evidence in our discussions several times already. Repeat what you want, I'll move this discussion elsewhere. Daizus (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not see where these evidences are. Can you please provide them here? PANONIAN 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read my last reply. You exhausted my patience, let's see if some other editors have the same opinions on which views should be represented (and if they should). Daizus (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(out) I've just copied some paragraphs using Google Snippets from Robert Göbl, András Róna-Tas, Die Inschriften des Schatzes von Nagy-Szentmiklós (1995):

p. 13-14 Hampel widmete den Inschriften ein besonderes Kapitel. Das -γη am Ende einiger Wörter der Buyla-Inschrift identifizierte er mit dem griechischen -γη „Land, Provinz" so ist die Rede über Dugetoi-Land, Tagro-Land, Etzi-Land. Es handelt sich, so Hampel, um die Geten (du-getoi-gé) und so ist auch das τεση, ταιση getisch. Die Namen der zwei Zoapane könnten nach ihm gotisch oder auch gepidisch sein. Eine genauere Zeitbestimmung könnte die griechische Paläographie geben, so z.B. die Münzinschriften der Städte von Moesien bis zur Krim. Der Schreibtypus könne nicht älter sein als die letzten Jahrzehnte des 3. Jahrhunderts. Hampel sieht hier noch kein Grund, den Schatz viel später zu datieren. Es ist ihm klar, daß die älteste Erwähnung des Titels Zupan aus dem Jahr 777 stammt, aber Miklosich hat diesen Titel mit einem gotischen Zoapan verglichen (unerwähnt bleibt, daß dieser eben nur in der Buyla-Inschrift vorkommt), also könne die Form in der Nagy-Szentmiklós- Inschrift die Urform des späteren sein. Alles zusammenfassend meinte Hampel, daß die Inschriften in das 4. oder 5. Jahrhundert zu datieren sind. Der Namensgebrauch Geten ist eine Übertragung auf Gepiden „... wahrscheinlich von gepidischen Teilfürsten christlichen Glaubens" (1885/86 S.58)

p. 17: Während Debreczenyi und andere Dilettanten keine orientalistische Kenntnisse hatten, kann man das von Gyula Meszáros nicht behaupten. Er hatte nicht nur gute Kenntnisse des modernen Türkeitürkischen, sondern beherrschte nach einer längeren Forschungsreise auch das Kasantatarische und das Tschuwaschische. Leider aber waren wissenschaftliche Methodik und Kritik nicht starke Seite. In einem 1915 erschienen Aufsatz versuchte er die nicht-griechischen Inschriften aus dem Türkischen zu deuten. In der Deutung der Buyla-Inschrift ist er nicht weitergekommen als Hampel, dessen Erklärung er im großen und ganzen übernahm. Seine Resultate zusammenfassend meinte er, daß der Schatz einem awarischen Häuptling gehörte. Die griechischen und die nicht-griechischen Inschriften seien nach 567 n. Chr. entstanden. Noch im gleichen Jahr 1915 nahm Gyula Németh, der spätere Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Turkologie in Budapest, den Aufsatz von Meszáros unter die Lupe. In einer vernichtenden Kritik zeigte er, daß Meszáros grobe Fehler gemacht hat und Wörter rekonstruierte, die im älteren Türkischen nicht vorhanded und auch unmöglich sind.

Here's the chapter on inscriptions by Hampel. So now we know that:

• originally the "Getic lands" were read as a reference to Gepids by József Hampel
• Hampel's interpretation was used uncritically by Gyula Meszáros, who claimed they were not Gepids, but Avars
• this prompted criticism from contemporary scholars and experts in Turkic languages pointing out the gross mistakes in this interpretation
• today the consensus is this language is most likely a Turkic language. Daizus (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

More on Hampel from a book by Vilhelm Thomsen (1918), p. 17: Il voit dans le terminaison -γη, trois fois occurente, le grec γῆ = »pays«: »Es ist in der Inschrift die Rede von der Ländern oder Provinzen Dygetoiland, Tagroland und Etziland«. A l'aide de rapprochements assez hardis, auxquels il est inutile de nous attarder, il trouve des relations entre ces mots et des noms gétiques ou daciens de l'antiquité classique, et de même pour le pays de »Taise«. Il identifie Bouela ou Bouila avec le nom ostrogothique de Baduela ou Baduila ou plutôt avec le nom du Gépide Οὺίλας, et enfin Boutaoul avec des noms germaniques en »aulf« ou en »ulf«. D'après l'opinion qu'il a prononcée dans son ouvrage cité ci-dessus l'inscription remonterait à des chefs de tribus gépides des IVe ou Ve siècles, opinion qu'il a cependant abandonnée plus tard en faveur de celle qu'elle daterait du temps du régime des Avares ou plutôt des Bulgares dans ce parages, c'est-à-dire entre le VIIIe et le Xe siècle. Son interprétation elle-même ne sera sans doute plus approuvée par aucun savant scrupuleux.

So here we have a direct statement that no "scrupulous scholar" can approve this interpretation. I was right all along: we have a fringe theory here, about one or two rulers of the "Getic", Tagro and Etzi lands. Daizus (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to Robert Göbl and András Róna-Tas, on Thomsen's work (1918, 1922), p. 18: Die Frage schien damit für einige Zeit abgeschlossen zu sein. Thomsen, der geniale Entzifferer der osttürkischen „Runen"-Schrift, war die höchste Autorität. Meszäros, Supka und andere versuchten noch ihre Zeugnisse zu erklären, fanden aber keinen Widerhall. Damit läßt sich die erste Periode der Geschichte der Erforschung der Inschriften abschließen.

It's also worth a mention that for Robert Göbl and András Róna-Tas, this inscription is also known as "der Buyla-Inschrift". Daizus (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I will say only one thing: many words, but still no evidence that there is "majority view" about interpretation of the inscription. For example, the view of Vilhelm Thomsen is only a view of Vilhelm Thomsen and not a view of "majority of authors" as you want to present here. And by the way, Vilhelm Thomsen did not said that "no scrupulous scholar can approve this interpretation". He said that it "probably would not be approved by most scrupulous scholar". Notice the word "probably" in the sentence - clearly, your "evidence of majority view" is nothing more but opinion of a single author. PANONIAN 09:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Milan Tutorov

Milan Tutorov is apparently authoring both history and fiction. The book was published in 2001 by Aurora publishing house in Novi Sad. I couldn't any further information to confirm the author or the publishing house per WP:RS. Daizus (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"History and fiction"? Excuse me, but belletristic is not "a fiction". Also what further information about author you want? I can send you scaned pages from that book on your email if you want. PANONIAN 14:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence that book is a WP:RS. Evidence Aurora is an academic publishing house. Evidence the author is a scholar. And in particular about the book: recognition, reviews, citations in other works. Daizus (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How you want to receive these evidences? Give me your email and I will send you pages scaned from book. Is that OK? PANONIAN 14:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't need those pages, I need something like this. Reading that web page I have no doubt V. Đ. Krestić is a scholar or that his books published by Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti are WP:RS. I could not find such information about Milan Tutorov, also "recommended read" means so little (moreover that Krestić has apparently no works on the Avar period, Avar archaeology, etc.) Daizus (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tutorov's book is not about Avar period, but about general history of Banat from prehistoric times to the 19th century. Krestić has works about history of Vojvodina, and history of Banat is within that scope. Also, biography of Milan Tutorov that comes with the book says that he was director of historical archive in Zrenjanin. That means that he have enough professional expertize to write an historical book. Also note that his book have 547 pages and that it contains 9 pages with list of used literature. I am sorry, but I do not understand why you trying to discredit this author. I know very well names of Serbian authors who providing fringe historical theories (like Jovan Deretić, Draško Šćekić, Olga Luković-Pjanović, etc) and Milan Tutorov is simply not one of them. I am bibliophile and I also have some books written by these discredited authors, but I never used them in Wikipedia. As I said, I am ready to send scaned pages from Tutorov's book to you or to anybody else via email. Just say so. PANONIAN 10:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All I've said he's a not a WP:RS and you failed to prove the contrary. So what he was a director? Does he have a relevant PhD (e.g. Early Medieval (East) European History)? Has he studied epigraphy? Greek language? Turkic languages? Anything remotely relevant to our topic? Daizus (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Please quote exact sentence in WP:RS from which you concluded that Tutorov is not an reliable source. PANONIAN 13:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tutorov and his book apparently do not qualify. Please note this is a scholarly topic (mainly archaeology, epigraphy, linguistics) and we do have scholarly sources for it. Daizus (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In another words: you cannot provide exact quotations from Wikipedia policies and guidelines that confirming your statements, right? PANONIAN 14:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I did provide the exact reference which needs no further quote. There are six paragraphs, paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 are of direct relevance. Daizus (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I still do not see how work of Tutorov could be qualified as unreliable source in accordance with these paragraphs. PANONIAN 04:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(out) Let's see:

• Is Banatska rapsodija - istorika Zrenjanina i Banata a "article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community"? Apparently not. No reviews, no citations.
• Has it " been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses"? Again, apparently not. There's no information about Aurora publishing house.
• Is it a "completed dissertation or thesis written as part of the requirements for a PhD"? Not sure, but very unlikely. The author was born in the 1920s.
• Can we "confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations"? No, we have no scholarly citations available.
• Is it an "isolated study"? Yes, as there's no other author supporting that interpretation. Was "undue weight" avoided? Most certainly not, as pointed above (and acknowledged by you), this interpretation enjoys the most detailed presentation (also because many others are just skeptical, so there's nothing much to say).

So, again, how is this book a WP:RS? Please refer to the criteria I have just listed. Daizus (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The book have 547 pages and speaks about entire history of Banat, from prehistory to Habsburg times (Butaul, on the other hand, is mentioned only on 2 pages of the book). The book in general is accurate, does not contradict to other sources, has 9 pages of used bibliography, and it is recommended for reading by respected Serbian academician Dr Vasilije Krestić. This is obviously nothing else but your attempt to discredit an author and whole book of 547 pages, only because you personally do not agree with a single info that is mentioned on 2 pages in that book. PANONIAN 09:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Name

In my last edit I mistakenly hit "enter" so here's the thing: virtually all sources use Nagyszentmiklós (not sure about Tutorov, but I can see the Google Books links), so per WP:NOR and WP:V that's the name we should use. Daizus (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What sources? Hungarian language was not official in Habsburg Monarchy in 1799. Nagyszentmiklós is modern name and is completely anachronistic if we speak about year 1799. PANONIAN 13:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR thus irrelevant. See the sources you linked and see how they refer to the place. The modern name is Sânnicolau Mare. Daizus (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You have serious problem with understanding of naming issues. Do you want to say that Hungarian town name was somehow official before 1867? There is no single source that can confirm that Hungarian name was officially used for that town in 1799 and therefore there is no any historical basis that Hungarian name is used for the town in this article. As for name of treasure itself, I do not deny that some sources using name "Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós", but other sources are using name "Treasure of Sânnicolau Mare". Since both these names (Nagyszentmiklós and Sânnicolau Mare) are modern ones and were not used in 1799, can you tell me why you forcing name Nagyszentmiklós instead Sânnicolau Mare? You behave very strange for one Romanian user, you know. PANONIAN 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Because most of the sources say the treasure was found in Nagyszentmiklós, not in any other location (Nakovo, Groß Sankt Nikolaus or any other). I also expect some apologies for your insulting remarks concerning my "Romanian behavior". Daizus (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As for naming issues, for example for Islamic Spain do we use in English Cordoba or Qurṭubah? I welcome the tendency to give name forms in various languages relevant to the context, but that should not detract us from reporting the widespread use. I have no idea what was the most used name in 1799 and for the scope of these articles I really don't care, I just want neutral materials based on reliable sources. Daizus (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is evidence that "most of the sources say the treasure was found in Nagyszentmiklós"? Anyway, even if that claim is correct, do you imply that Nagyszentmiklós and Groß Sankt Nikolaus are not same places? These are two names of one single place and the whole point is that we should use name that was used in 1799. Name "Nagyszentmiklós" was obviously introduced by Hungarian authors decades after treasure excavation and was adopted as such by other authors who used these Hungarian sources. This is certainly not an evidence that this name was officially used for that town in 1799. Since town was part of Habsburg Monarchy in that time, we should use German name. And where exactly I mentioned "your Romanian behavior"? I only mentioned your "strange behavior which one might not expect from one Romanian user". I did not implied whether such behavior is good or bad, I only said that it is strange and I do not see how that could be insulting statement. You said much worse things against me with your accusations for original research. PANONIAN 14:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To suggest that as a "Romanian user" I must adhere to a specific behavior (expected from Romanians) is an insult and an ethnic stereotype. Original research is a valid concern about your edits, it says nothing about your persona. Daizus (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What ever, let discuss serious things instead. PANONIAN 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:KunsthistorischesMuseumSanNicolauMareTreasure10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KunsthistorischesMuseumSanNicolauMareTreasure10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear

Really ? If our sources are saying that there were Gepids and Iazyges in 796 AD, then we really are in trouble Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources are only providing possible translations of the inscription from archaeological findings. I do not see what problem one might have with that? PANONIAN 09:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)