This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illyria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illyria and Illyrians 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.IllyriaWikipedia:WikiProject IllyriaTemplate:WikiProject IllyriaIllyria articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It is a mere conjecture that the LAIAI coins (of otherwise Derronian types) are actually the coins of the Laiaians...The theory was advanced by SVORONOS in his 1919 work.-Getas75 (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
As one who is not completely on the who's who of the academia of Paionian history. Who is Svoronos? Before dismissing something as mere conjecture we should answer the following. Is he authoritative enough that his views to definitely guide academic consensus? In that case the conjecture should be sourced to the work you refered to. Is he authoritative enough that we should take his views seriously? But either not as authoritative as above, or likely to be biased on this subject. In that case the conjecture should be sourced and we should make it explicit who stated it. Is he a crackpot that any serious researcher would dismiss, in that case we should not include the conjecture unless it is corroborated. Taemyr (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}