Talk:Buckquoy spindle-whorl

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scottish Islands Mid‑importance

	Scottish islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

All links in the references are broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.145 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those that remain are fixed. Ben Mac Dui 18:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds is it 'famous'? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is famous because of its Ogham inscription. It is the only known example of a spindle whorl with such an inscription. BabelStone (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not known south of the Wall :). 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Its claim to fame is, (I beleive) more to do with its role in understanding language development. Prior to Forsyth's 'interpretation' it was widely assumed that either Pictish or some pre-Pictish relict language spoken in Orkney may have been non-Indo-European. This was based on the apparently unintelligible nature of the Ogham. See also the Lunnasting stone. Ben Mac Dui 16:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would something along the lines of 'It is significant for showing how language developed in the locality' be appropriate (and perhaps an indication of what proportion of spindle whorls have 'actual phrases and texts' and 'nice designs that someone calls letters' (ie there was no significance in the selection of letters - as with the pseudo-Arabic inscription coins in England in Dark Ages/Early Medieval England) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something along the former lines (appropriately cited) would be fine. I am afraid I don't have any notion of the number or percentages you are asking about re spindle whorls. Ben Mac Dui 10:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going by [1] a 'fair proportion' of spindle whorls were decorated 'in some manner' but the use of script (whether 'meaningful text' or 'decorative symbols) is uncommon. A very rough 'back of the envelope' calculation, but will have to do until 'the proverbial someone else's' to do list has reduced somewhat. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]