Featured The legend (?) of SPONSIANUS

Perhaps. But I think the real meat of the argument is the encrustations. If an author can demonstrate that such encrustations can be easily faked with 18th century technology, or is able to find that such encrustations can form on a coin that has only been buried for a year or so, that would be sufficent evidence. Or, perhaps they can examine some 17th century gold coins that have dirt on them from 300 years ago that have now formed into encrustations. None of those require further analysis of the actual coins.

Another option would be just a general (professional) response to all the authors' points. One need not prove that the theory is false, but add to the conversation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

numismatic is a science, science doesn't need friends or kindness, science needs facts, rigor, and objectivity

I don't care about what you are thinking of me

 

Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy that have no place in science.

 

1/ Our hypothesis is that these coins were manufactured in Dacia at a time (260s-early 270s) when the area became cut off from reliable communication with the empire. The old mint, making local bronze, had closed a few years earlier but there was (presumably) a supply of gold from the mines and artisan jewellers who knew how to cast. The idea is that these odd objects were bullion from that time. It is a hypothesis - something to shoot at - and it's in the paper.

2/ Yes we think the mould adhesions remained firmly attached because the metal surface was cracked and it got kind-of baked in. That's what it looks like under microscope. We are not metallurgists but we did consult with a practising repro artist / artisan (see acknowledgments).

Big special thanks to those trying to keep this respectful!! We did our best, with no other motive except that this 'unsolved mystery' (Mattingly et al. 1948, RIC Vol IV) is cool.

 

I'm still here (on behalf of my brilliant co-authors) and have a thick skin. The media frenzy is truly something to behold but it is now over. The academic debate has hardly started and scrutiny, scepticism, precision is good, so long as there's an open mind attached.

We stand by our study and our hypothesis about a historical Sponsian is still looking good.

 

There are coins from this assemblage in Glasgow, Sibiu, Vienna, Bologna, Paris and Gotha. Anyone is welcome to ask these institutions for access, just like I did.

 

Further to the above, the different metal compositions indicate the coins were made in different batches which could signify different molds, hence the different flan sizes.

 

Now I - Nefarius Purpus - am signing off for now. This is a discussion forum for everyone and I don't want to inhibit y'all with the idea that the authors are looking over your shoulders. Go for it, but be nice, peace and love to all.

If you want to contact me personally wit new ideas do it via the email on the publication and I'll try to reply!

Big thanks to Ocatarinetabellatchitchax for rolling the ball on this topic, and all other contributors.

Now I will share with you my peronal fave coin, bought from the local junk shop with my first ever pay packet earned from the paper-round in 1977. Dug up, southern England. Know who it is?

 

I am not a metallurgist but our suggestion is that every coin had its own unique clay mould, broken upon cooling. These moulds were made from common hubs. Every mould would have its own shape. As for separation of metals from the complex ore, this was done by local industry. Separation of gold and silver was difficult (see Pliny, and archaeological discussion of 'litharge rolls' in our cited literature). A bit of copper could have been added at any time.

As for the filling line I suspect it was above the coins and cleared up later, but none of us are experts and we woud welcome input from anyone who knows about casting gold.

 

Numismatics is NOT a science. It may use science in research, but is not,of itself, a science. BTW...are YOU a scientist?

 

Science is a specific and rigorous method of inquiry. Numismatics is a field of study. Numismatic inquiry approached with scientific rigor is science. Numismatics, therefore can be a science but all too often falls short. Or so it seems to me.

 

Thank you very much for your reply. If my understanding is correct, the coins minted in Dacia were issued to pay the army. So the question is what happens after 257, during the reign of Gallienus, when the mint is closed and the coin circulation in Dacia drops visibly.
Are the coins made by jewellers enough to explain the hypothetical regime of a Roman usurper.? One can argue these coins were to pay the high-ranking officers. Ok, but what about the other soldiers? How were they paid and where are the money they spent?

Perhaps these doubts make more sense if I ask the following question: what are the arguments that suggest these "barbarous" coins were produced in the 260s or 270s as opposed to, let's say, 4th or 5th century AD, when Dacia was indeed barbarous? There are many gold objects from the so-called Age of Migration, so why not these coins too, if they are authentic? In this scenario, at least, we won't be bothered so much by their anomalies.

On one hand, the (literary) historical sources are few, and even so, only Jordanes claims that Aurelian moved the legions south of the Danube. He is a controversial author writing in the 6th century (so later than all the others), blending fact and fiction in many of his accounts. On the other hand, historians use many other sources. Scholars working on Roman Dacia suggested that the province was practically abandoned during the reign of Gallienus, doubling the historical sources with observations on poor coin circulation, archaeological evidence (wall repairs, abandoned or reused buildings etc.), lack of inscriptions in Dacia after ca. 260, the two legions being faithful to Gallienus in 260, and inscriptions attesting units from the Dacian army elsewhere during the 260s. And there's even more. For example, the coins of Victorinus, an usurper from the Gallic Empire, from ca. 269 (after the death of Gallienus). Some examples in RIC V Vict. 16, 19, 20 and see below the reverse of Vict. 20 with the legend LEG XIII GEMINA P F (according to your hypothesis, this legion was rebellious in Dacia but hailed as pia fidelis at the other end of the empire):



So if the paper suggests otherwise, that the bulk of the Dacian army was in the province supporting an usurper, it has to address the modern literature and the available evidence. Perhaps this can be improved in a future study, or at least, the existence for Sponsianus should be moved to a more obscure period.

 

Not to get too deep into semantics, but science is a tough word with different meanings in different cltures, and that is historically true too. I remember being really taken aback when Nico Sisci and I were studying the iconography of Acheloios and he kept using the word in a context that had nothing to do with the 'scientific method' we associate it with here in the states. For some (and presumably Briac) it is more of a 'rigorous investigation' that isn't tied to a specific methodology based on testing/ experimentation (falsification and/or verification). The problem I see with being overly "rigurous, objective, and fact-based" is that it misses the essential role of speculation in the pursuit of knowledge. That is the most fun part!

 

You are not metallurgist, I know it that's why I provide you example.

1 matrix used to make 3 moulds will give 3 times exactly the same mould.

to get 3 different moulds, you have 2 possibilities

1) use 3 matrix
2) use 1 matrix but correct/change the shape of moulds

What should be the interest in IIIrd century to change shape of moulds? obviously non

what should be the interest in XVIIIth century? obvioulsy to mislead collectors and curators who would have noticed the excessive resemblance and would have immediately understood that it was the work of a forger

I'm totally agree with you, separation of Gold ans silver was hard in IIIrd century, that's exactly why your results give evidences of the modern forgery. it was impossible to separate gold and silver leaving copper.
either we withdrew everything, or we withdrew the copper but we could not leave the copper while withdrawing the silver.

the postulate "A bit of copper could have been added at any time." is just a way to keep your head out of water but if it's the case, the guy who made those tokens was just trying to deceive people... it's typicaly what should do a faker...

in all points you only have ideological answers, you don't have any evidences of the genuiness ot those tokens and now that you have analyzed gold to try and confirm your theory, you say you need someone with knowledge of gold metallurgy... but then why did you publish?

 

Science is the way to proof speculations with "rigurous, objective, and fact-based" datas.

When you want tu publish in a scientific revue, it's because you have rigurous, objective ans fact based datas.

publishing dreams or ideology can be done in novels.

about "sponsian" tokens, the only "rigurous, objective, and fact-based" are those tokens have been cast with about 95% of gold but there is no actual evidences about their age

 

Yes, I understand that, but I think you're missing my point. Sometimes science--rigorous, objective, and fact-based --opens up new questions, such as "Is Sponsian actually real?". That is the best part of science. In this case the authors' reopened the debate about Sponsian. Perhaps someone will later close it.

 

reopen a debate can be a good thing if you have serious new datas to correct/compleet the actual knowledges.

in this case the authors say themselves on several occasions that their results are not proof but that they cannot imagine another situation because they somehow want the pieces to be antique.

but tokens to celebrate a wedding in the 16th century (the reverse side of Sponsianus' tokens could be interpreted as a wedding), the desire to make a minister look like an idiot or even the desire to make a profit by selling new coins a wealthy collectors are all theories that may justify a recent manufacture

 

Personally, I would consider the evidence of encrustations serious new data worthy of publication. Obviously the press (no surprise) blew it out of proportion. Did the authors overstep in claiming that the evidence it was a forgery was “untenable” based on the new evidence? A little—I would have said it is “seemingly untenable” or something less concrete—but personally I don’t think it is a big deal since in other areas they are clear about the study’s shortcomings and areas for improvement. And, since they have offered reasonably reasonable explanations for every anomaly, that combined with the new evidence means they have produced the most comprehensive account of the Sponsian coins and offered a plausible theory about who Sponsian was. That doesn’t mean they are correct or that it proves Sponsian was real, but now it is up to someone else to either disprove their theory, support it, or offer a new alternative.

 

I agree that fault, if any is to be found, rests largely with the public media who publish click-bait stories for revenue generation. However, the authors do have a responsibility to keep that sort of thing in-check by writing responsible manuscripts. It is important to consider that this work was submitted for publication to a scientific journal, which casts an aura of scientific credibility, and “justifies” the above click-bait. I see three questions the article proports to answer, only one of which belongs in a science journal:


1. Was the Sponsian coin produced in the 3rd century or is it a relatively recent 17/18th century fantasy piece?

This is a very good question and it can be tested against the scientific data. Materials analysis may not be up to the task of arriving at a definitive answer but it can certainly add to stylistic, literary, and other forms of evidence to allow one to draw a conclusion.


2. Was Sponsian a real historical figure?

This is not a good question to ask of the science data. Maybe if you had ancient DNA on the coin or something like that, but not a coin by itself devoid of archaeological context. Here the authors leave the scientific arena and move into a different realm. Arguments on either side of this question belong in a book, a blog, a forum, or a humanities journal where scientific support is not assumed. Alternatively I suppose one could argue that PLOS One is not a scientific journal but they seem to advertise that they hold to scientific standards.


3. Is Sponsian a lost Roman Emperor?

Again this cannot be answered by the science data available and doesn’t belong in a science journal with its perceived aura of credibility. My personal feeling is that even if the coins were produced in the 3rd century and Sponsian was a real person, he was not a Roman Emperor in a meaningful let’s-alert-the-BBC sense but instead a military official of minor consequence on the outskirts of the Roman world. Others may hold a different view, which is fine. But either way PLOS One did no favors to its scientific credibility by publishing that conclusion drawn from the reported evidence.


In my opinion using materials analysis as employed in this paper is wholly appropriate for the first question, but given the limitations of the material evidence it degrades into pseudo-science for the latter two.

 

the 1st fault have been made by the authors when they refered in title "roman emperor" this mention tells us directly that the authors believe in the existence of Sponsianus and do not make the difference between an emperor (authority recognized by the senate) and a usurper who only ruled a tiny part of the empire for a very short time

you did perfectly resume the situation, there is no scientifical evidences for the existence of Sponsianus.