Sponsianus was a real historical figure

So is the coin found in Transylvania 1713....

In my coin news/ the Hunterian museum declared after carefull analysis/ that the aureus is geniune.
1/ it was discovered over 300 years ago.
2/ detailed examination showed it was heavily circulated back 1700 years ago/ plus has evidence of deposits.

So/ hopefully they will find more....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow, well they do not have everybody convinced and there has been huge number of well-rationed criticism of their opinions. See for example the interesting opinions laid down by Guy de la Bedoyere, formerly of Time Team and at least 4 postings on YouTube.
Basically, he disputes that such a coin is evidence of an actual "Sponsianus" existing but concedes it possibly the work of a counterfeiter of the time or later. Very interesting discussion that delves into metal, legend issues, the bust, the pirated reverse (evidently from a Roman Republican design of about 135 BC!).

 

I haven't been keeping up with all the chatter about it. Just skimming here and there when I have had time. Lots of discussions everywhere about it. I don't think it's legit myself.

 

Kind of my thoughts as well.

 

Sure looks cast, and the eye is amateurishly done, but https://www.newsweek.com/roman-emperor-thought-fake-real-leader-sponsian-1761059

 

That's just typical hype from the media. The actual facts of the matter are more convoluted than that article makes them appear.

There's a huge thread about it over on NumisForums if you want to dive into it. From what I've read, the evidence from the recent examinations doesn't offer terribly much, certainly not enough to "prove" the coin, or Sponsian himself, was real and genuine.

 

One thing is clear and undisputed: this coin was not minted by professional Roman coin minters. It is a gross imitation of a Roman aureus.
Ancient or modern imitation? Let's leave this question aside, and just consider the fact it is a numismatic monster. Why should us see this "Sponsiani" as an actual "imp." and not a fantasy, like everything else on this coin?
No such name as Sponsianus or Sponsius is known from any other document. A coin, especially a gold one, is supposed to inspire trust and be immediately accepted at face value, that is to say nobody must doubt it is pure gold. The first thing a Roman, even half-barbarian, would think when looking at this coin would have been "WTF is that?". It looks more like a Roman equivalent of Monopoly money. Nobody would have accepted it.
Even if this thing was actually ancient, it is a fantasy, perhaps made for jewellery for example. There is no reason to take it as evidence that a 3rd c. rebel military commander named "Sponsianus", somewhere on a forgotten limes, ever claimed to be an emperor.

 

Indeed. Also, besides it making sense, other rebel emperors put out silver/washed lower denomination coins because more could be made and got out to publicize the putative emperor. Also as above, what good is such a terrible image to get his image out? Many more points, but IMHO this was no real emperor based on what evidence was presented...

 

Well, one thing is certain its not a modern forgery, since it was found in Transylvania in 1713 when Karl VI was Holy Roman Emperor. So/ the debate continues. I wonder if it can be accurately carbon dated to precise time it was made. This is what makes this hobby so great....

 

Consider that the barbarians are known for bungling names. It’s not hard to see how GORDIANVS PIVS got garbled into SPONSIANI

 

That is where I am at with the discussion, most likely a crude barbarian copy. Even 300 years ago fakes were MUCH better done than this. Its so laughably crude a limes or barbarian issue seems much more likely. Look at all of the other limes issues and this piece has much more in common with them than real Roman coins. Sure, it might be from the third century. Sure, it could have circulated in some small remote towns based on gold value. But to say this "proves" some new emperor is a laughable conclusion by non-coin collecting scientists.

 

In another thread there was shown an aureus of rather good style of septimius, but the legend read “SAAVESTRA,” and I don’t think anybody is convinced that Saavestra is a new emperor completely unknown to history…

 

Discussed ad nauseum here:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-legend-of-sponsianus.364019/

 

also discussed here

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=129964.0

and here

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-legend-of-sponsianus.364019/

 

You have to wonder/ back in 1713....
This part of the World had been a "Ottoman" vassal state. The last Prince Michael Apafi struck some coinage that would be regarded as "collector coins" He struck awesome 100 Dukaten/ some were in star/ moon shapes. After 1689 the HRE Leopold I took over the Principality/where it became part of the HRE.
So were other coins found and melted down? Transylvania struck tons of AV coins from One Dukat upto 40/60/ 100 Dukats. The coin in question was heavily circulated shown by worn condition. Collectors want perfect MS coins if possible/ so why would a fake coin be made in 1713 in that horrible quality? It can only be an original imitation produced by Dacians to pay their warriors/ or some Roman usurper in order to pay his loyal soldiers. So these crude coins were struck by amateur moneyers??????

 

Could these aurei be contemporary Indian imitations?
After all, there is no real evidence they were actually found in Transylvania...

 

I have read that Philip the Arab put down rebellions along the Danube and Rhine rivers- led by Silbannacus and Sponseanus, so is Sponseanus the same Sponsianus on the so be coin?

 

you didn't read it in any ancient sources

 

I read it in the world history encyclopedia

 

The "Sponsiani" coins have been discussed since the 18th c., some numismatists thought they were modern forgeries while others thought they were actually ancient semi-barbarous imitations minted in the 240s. We shall find books and articles in which Sponsianus is mentioned as an usurper under Philip the Arab, but we shall also find other books or articles not mentioning him, depending on wether the authors followed historians believing the coin was ancient or not. On CT, @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix wrote a good history of numismatic literature about Sponsianus: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-legend-of-sponsianus.364019/

The "Sponseanus" mentioned by Donald L. Wasson in 2014 in the online World History Encyclopedia is just probably a misprint, for there is no source for spelling -eanus instead of -ianus. Excerpts from this online article were copied-pasted by other people posting on other websites or discussion forums, this is why the results of a googling of "sponseanus" are all the same sentence copied from Wasson 2014, or its translation in Portuguese for ex. If you narrow the search in just the book section, you'll find zero result: as far as Google knows, the name "Sponseanus" with an E was never printed on a paper page.