Aleksandar Burmov, who published them in Plamak magazine. Meanwhile, the plate was transported to the local museum repository. At that time, Bulgaria avoided publicising this information as Belgrade and Moscow had significantly improved their relations after the Tito–Stalin split in 1948. However, after 1963, the official authorities openly began criticizing the Bulgarian position on the Macedonian Question, and thus changed its position. In 1966, a new report on the inscription by Vladimir Moshin, a Russian emigrant living in Yugoslavia, was published. As a result Bulgarian scientists Yordan Zaimov and his wife, Vasilka Tapkova-Zaimova, travelled to Bitola in 1968. At the Bitola Museum, they made a secret rubbing from the inscription. Zaimova claims that no one stopped them from working on the plate in Bitola. As such, they deciphered the text according to their own interpretation of it, which was published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 1970. Finally, the Macedonian researcher Ugrinova-Skalovska published her translation of the inscription in 1975. Text In its current state, the following text is visible on the stone: Text reconstructions Part of the text is missing, as the inscription was used as a step of the Sungur Chaush-Bey mosque and therefore the first row was destroyed. The reconstruction of the Macedonian scientist prof. Radmila Ugrinova-Skalovska is very similar to the reconstruction made by the Yugoslav/Russian researcher Vladimir Moshin (1894–1987), and the Bulgarian Prof. Yordan Zaimov (1921–1987). With some conjectures made by Zaimov to reconstruct the damaged parts, their version of the text reads as follows: Alternative views The professor Horace Lunt, promoted the idea that the plate might have been made during the reign of Ivan Asen II ca. 1230, or that the inscription might be composed of two pieces, lettered at different times. His findings are based on the photos, as well as the latex mold genuine reprint of the inscription, made by the professor Ihor Sevchenko of Dumbarton Oaks, unlike the approach of Zaimovs, that created the re-print copy of the left over text, with special paper and water, when they visited Bitola in 1968. Professor Lunt notes, that the Zaimov's arguments are inaccurate, stating that there are no reliable set of criteria to date early South Slavic Cyrillic. He quotes Moshin, that the date on the inscription is worn away and therefore Moshin and Zaimov "restored" most of the text inaccurately. In order for Moshin and Zaimov to restore the year