Featured The legend (?) of SPONSIANUS

From the Wall Street Journal (paywalled for some):

Dr. Green, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the conclusion that the coins are authentic is “a really legitimate hypothesis” but not proof. He called for additional validations of their authenticity. One possibility, he said, would be to examine whether the metal used to make the coins matches metal from mines known to have operated in Dacia during ancient times.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gold-coins-ancient-rome-emperor-sponsian-11669229082

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, this has made our Thanksgiving Day a little more interesting, for sure. LoL



I’ll let the experts at this site determine the significance of this latest research.

Paul: That looks like an interesting book, indeed. I’ll post your findings over at our site.

 

The non-Roman that made that would be laughing at this news of their imitation right now

 

Even if the coins are actually ancient imitations of Roman coins (of the Republic, of Gordian III and Philip I/II) it is not even sure there was ever any local augustus named Sponsian. All the Latin legends are blundered : "PHILIPHVS EIVS[..]AVGG" ; "IMP GORDIANVSDIVSHELTΛVG". Maybe the legend "IMPSPONSIANI" is a big blunder too...

 

I'm going to have to dig deeper into this later, but it's very interesting. My initial feelings are conflicted: the technical analysis seems at least rather convincing in terms of establishing the actual antiquity of the coin, but the fact that it is probably cast is odd. And I agree with @Suarez that stylistically there are some strong similarities to the ancient Indian imitations. Yet, if that is the case, how did it end up in 18th century Romania? Additionally, an unknown but otherwise legible inscription is rather unusual; they tend to be either blundered but recognizable copies, or total nonsense. But at the same time, the positioning entirely on the right is also unusual.

Even if we accept an ancient date, that doesn't prove that Sponsianus existed. However, the fact that it's a legible but otherwise unknown title makes me wonder if there is something to it.

 

Thank you for you posting Suarez. I should state the obvious and reveal that Nefarius Purpus is me, Paul Pearson.

Our paper was mostly aligned at testing the notion that these coins are 1713 forgeries which has been the numismatic consensus since Cohen. The possibility of contemporaneous ‘barbarous’ imitations of Roman was one that we of course considered and briefly mentioned (on p. 33), although not specifically those from India, which however I can assure you we are well aware of. Those coins are generally copies of known emperors and in the weight range of regular aurei or slightly heavier (or lighter), whereas the 1713 pieces are much heavier. Generally the barbarous imitations appear struck rather than cast, although that is not always clear without proper study. Stylistically the barbarous coins vary greatly and none much resemble the 1713 coins in our view, although that is in the eye of the beholder. The 1713 coins were found in Transylvania not India. The metal major element composition is similar to Dacian gold objects from that area (the ancient mines in the Apuseni Mountains) but we do not yet have a precise fingerprint.

We do not like the traditional term ‘barbarous’ but of course these coins were not made in Rome and are of crude style etc., which we discuss, hence propose that they were likely of artisan workmanship from the end days of Dacia when there was no official mint. None of the Indian or other barbarous coins that we know of features Sponsian or any other unknown emperor. It could simply be a random list of letters but it is an actual Roman name, albeit a very rare one, so we think it more reasonable to conclude he existed, and there is certainly scope in the historical record for a secessionist regime in Dacia in the 260s. But our hypothesis for the historical Sponsian is labelled as that (notwithstanding the recent media hype), and we are open to alternative interpretations. So your suggestion is an important one and we would not reject out of hand the notion that they could have been ancient coins minted somewhere else that for some reason got to Transylvania. Fingerprinting the metal more precisely is the best option for clarifying, and we already have plans for that.

I should make clear that we sent early drafts and preprints of our paper to the several leading numismatic experts, including those who have studied ‘barbarous’ productions, and all the museum collections where these coins are housed for comment, so we have followed due diligence in that regard. It was also reviewed by three anonynous reviewers.

BUT following your link I noticed this coin for the first time

https://www.coryssa.org/503767/subc...an_emperor/denom/Aureus/period/roman_emperor/

This is definitely of the same manufacture the 1713 group and would have been included in the overall list in our paper. It is very worn. Most likely it is part of the Transylvanian hoard but it could have an alternative provenance. Unfortunately such details are rarely recorded and usually impossible to determine.

 

There was a Boston coin dealer - Henri Delgar, who sold ancient coins on ebay in the early to mid-2000's and I vaguely recall he had a crude antoninianus of this emperor that was sold. I may have a copy of the coin in one of my loose leafs.

I have always wondered if this was some kind of a joke - someone with very poor judgment having some fun by striking a few coins. If there is no mention of this emperor or usurper in history then it is all speculation, but of course it was likely some general who was raised up by the troops, probably against his will and killed a short time later - but, who knows?

It is an odd name - does anyone know if there is anyone known at any other time with this name?

 

One other recorded example from the 1st century. What is interesting is that a potential forger couldn’t have known about the name since the discovery of the inscription containing the name occurred after the coins were found.

 

And that seems to be one of the strongest arguments for the existence of this figure. It’s very difficult to explain otherwise. And yet… why in the world would it be cast instead of struck? Usurper or not, that’s just not how it was done.

 

Are there ancient cast counterfeits from this time period?

someone on another forum (I can’t remember which) thinks they are struck.

 

Remind me of AURUM BARBARORUM COLLECTION but with a readable legend…

https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=sale&sid=3158&cid=94206

 

I didn't see any contemporary 3rd century cast forgeries, but I did find some earlier ones, and they are pretty prolific in the 4th century. So it stands to reason that they existed contemporary to this coin.

But why would a would-be usurper produce his coins this way? And why would a forger use a real, legible but fake name, as opposed to either a real copied inscription or 'barbarous' gibberish?

Any idea what the reasoning on them being struck was? The edge of this coin doesn't scream cast at me, and I could buy the rough surfaces being due to corrosion, but I'm inclined to trust the people who looked at it with a microscope.

 

Thank you for sharing this article. It is a compelling piece of work that should open up some new discussion around these coins. If I were to have been a reviewer of this manuscript, this is what I would have written:

1. The range of scientific techniques employed is impressive, given the historically non-scientific literature around numismatics. Optical microscopy, SEM, EDX, and spectral reflectance are appropriate, complementary techniques.

2. The method of comparing the surface abrasions and mineralogical deposits of the Sponsian to the known-authentic Gordian III and Philip I aurei is sound. But in the context of the other coins of the “wider assemblage” the article loses focus and becomes confusing. Is the purpose of the article to determine the age/provenance of all four of the available coins from the wider assemblage? If so, the coins other than the Sponsian are not treated as thoroughly in the text and more about these should be added (in particular, the section “The historical Sponsian”). If not, and Sponsian is the real subject of the article with the other three coins being merely window-dressing, those coins should be substantially removed to allow a more focused argument.

3. The title “Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian” is intentional hyperbole. Placing ‘quotation marks’ does not absolve the authors from making responsible statements, especially in the title. The title is clearly intended to lead those who do not perform close reading of the text (i.e., the vast majority of the public) to the conclusion that the authors have discovered and authenticated a new emperor. The title should be modified to something like: “Determining the provenance of coins in the Transylvanian Horde” which is what the data scientifically supports. Further, even if Sponsian was an historical personage, the authors do not provide any supporting data that Sponsian held the title of Emperor of Rome in a historically meaningful way.

4. Figure 2 should be substantially reworked. The purpose of the article is about the age/provenance/authenticity of the four coins subjected to test. Images of the other coins in Fig. 2 add no scientific value. Further, it creates confusion because Fig. 2 presents images of Gordian III and Philip I aurei which are not clearly distinguished from the known-authentic examples. The figure should image only the four “in question” and two known-authentic coins measured in this work, all clearly labelled.

5. Table 1 and Figure 3 should be moved to Supplementary Information. All the other coins of the wider-assemblage not measured in the current work do not advance the authors argument in a meaningful way.

6. EDX is very surface sensitive (in the context of numismatics) with a sampling depth of approximately 1 micron. As such the results are very susceptible to surface oxidation, contamination, and preferential loss of different elements. The authors should state these limitations in the Methods section.

7. The authors seem to interpret EDX data as “bulk composition” data. This is manifestly incorrect (see previous comment). Unless depth profiling by laser ablation or ion milling was performed, the text should be clarified that the authors are assuming that the surface measurements are reflective of bulk composition.

8. The presentation of data in Figure 4 is well done.

9. “In particular we were interested in detecting signs of deliberate manual abrasion which we would expect to show uneven spatial distribution and deeper scratches of more consistent length and orientation than occur in natural wear.” All of these coins were presumably prepared (cleaned) as numismatic objects long ago. Thus the surfaces are in no way original. Given that, would not one expect all of these coins to have similar surface abrasions regardless of the wear history?

10. Interpretation of the UV fluorescence data is unclear. One coin appears to have wax, another shellac, but the relevance to the authors conclusions is not stated.

11. Plos One is an odd journal, in a sense they publish most of what they receive under some concept of academic freedom. It is not likely this journal has professional numismatists in their virtual Rolodex of reviewers, compared to, say, biologists. For more scholarly acceptance, submission to a numismatic or archaeological journal is recommended.

 

I think it was someone on Forvm who said he thinks it is struck. There are a couple threads there.

 

First off, my apologies not realizing you were active here. I tried reaching the BBC with a detailed email outlining my problems with how this paper was published as some sort of revelation sweeping numismatics and asking to include at least the mildest, sotto voce disclaimer - no response. I hope you will consider passing along the objections outlined here to show that this is far from an uncontested position.

First off, I now regret adding the "Indian" provenance as this becomes an irrelevant distraction. Fully agreed that attribution to Dacia for this coin is more appropriate, if not a much wider regional origin in this general area of the map.

It's too bad that we don't hear more of their opinions. I get the sense that the main drive of the argument is constructed around pulling apart Cohen's dismissiveness and establishing the 'ancientness' of the coin. I saw that as a bit of a strawman; who are these experts and what objections, if any, did they raise? To me at least, establishing the genuiness at this point in time is secondary to sussing out whether this Sponsian is a historical figure or not.

In my opinion, as a numismatist versed in the nomenclature in vogue, you should have noted the oddity of the title "IMP SPONSIANI" minus the expected terminal AVG. The media outlets rushed to announce the entry of a new emperor based on your summary when the only explicit title, short for IMPERATOR, was bestowed on a Roman general who won a battle. The layman can be forgiven for equating imperator for emperor; an expert failing to mention it is at best to be faulted for negligence.

In the convention of the times, a coin featuring an IMP without an AVG is unprecedented and illogical - literally, a rebel without a cause. It would have been perceived as a cowardly and traitorous act to engrave your name and face without having the cojones to confront the boss you were formerly loyal to. What soldier in his right mind would support this criminal? The coin would have functioned as an admission of guilt with none of the possible upside of going it alone. You're not the rightful emperor, not even the new gegenkaiser, just a general who quit, so you'd have no legion to head, legally speaking. So from Sponsian's point of view what would be the point of this exercise?

You also mentioned that Sponsianus is a rare but known name. Can you say more about this? Critically, where it would have really helped is to find it mentioned in the "Thirty Tyrants" chapter of Historia Augusta. It was the right time period and its author(s) revels in the exhaustiveness of its listings, so this omission is very problematic.

The link doesn't work, it is https://www.coryssa.org/503767. The more salient point to note here is that it's a die match though beyond that I fail to see the relevance either way.

I think the biggest gripe I have is seeing good science (your methodology is truly impressive) go to support personal convictions. Someone like this Pallab Ghosh of the BBC is wowed at the careful setup, the expensive instruments and the use of micro-photography and it all adds up to an immediately convincing picture. Let's publish this on the front page - readers will love it! Worse, it's irresponsible to make a perfunctory mention of imitation coinage, which this piece so clearly belongs to, and not connect it in any meaningful way which conveys to the publisher, to say nothing of the public at large, that it's not a point of importance. You must have known that this is the Achille's Heel here.

Rasiel

 

I have to add another observation. Do you not find that the styles of this and the Gordian are really quite similar? Almost... like they could have been engraved by the same person?

 

Dear Nefarius Purpus, I'm happy to find you because I have a few question about your recent publication...

could you give us some explain on those points?


1) metal analysis show that "sponsianus" coinage have been made with a poorly purified gold, and with 2 different sources of gold
to get 2 different sources of native gold, Sponsianus had to controle 2 mines!
How can he get 2 mines and didn't let any traces in history?

2) how can you explain this

"widespread reddish-brown residues on the same coin in and around these cracks that are interpreted as the mould adhering in places (Fig 5A)"

for you, part of the mould could stay on the coin for 1800 years, resist to weather, water, circulation... ?

3) the realy few ancient cast coins finded in same hoard and made with same original matrix are exactly the same, (see D. Hollard 2001 Sesterces coulés de Gordien III et Postume dans un trésor de l'Oise) I have picture of 3 so called "gordian gold medallions (Paris, Vienna, Glasgow), they are all different, 4 "sponsiani" all different, 4 "Philippus" all different.

but in the 3 cases, only 1 "pair of die" was used. and your theory about the manufacturing can't explain this situation

by the way this is typicaly what a modern faker would do to deceive the vigilance of a collector/expert but it have no meaning for circulation coins.

4) the manufacturing theory...

"Building on these observations, we suggest that the manufacture involved a minimum of six stages:
-engrave obverse and reverse designs in negative relief on a hard material such as bronze;
-impress a soft substance, possibly pre-prepared clay tablets, into the engraving to produce positive relief hubs;
-trim, then harden the hubs by firing;
-impress the ceramic hubs into soft clay tablets;
-align and assemble the obverse and reverse tablets in a frame, creating one-time moulds, leaving voids in between and channels to the outside, then harden by firing;
-cast in molten metal, cool, extract the coins and clean up irregularities and spillage."
they also say
" irregular edges to some features indicating incomplete filling of the mould, especially on GLAHM:29820"

I have such moulds in my collection, if filling is uncomplete, you will get a plane part molten gold is like water in a glass, fill level is horizontal, not round... where is that filling line on the coin?

Thanks in advance for answers

Briac Michaux

 

I also would know, why didn't you use the U-Th-He analysis to date when the gold was last melted?

https://journals.openedition.org/ar...x54GGYryeHvDpHFEbV5v9Z8yunRrTeiC7nvQSz1S8npbs

 

Thanks for all your sensible remarks. I also would have expected comparison with the existing literature and websites comprising imitations of Roman coins, in the first place the book by Andrei Sergeev: 'Barbarian Coins on the Territory Between the Balkans and Central Asia', especially his article about Imitations of Roman Gold Coins on p. 217-218.

A coin is never alone! But the emperor Sponsian's is treated as if it is a single.

And the website 'Barbaric Imitations of Roman Coinage', that contains finds from Ukraine and Moldova.

 

I can see possible stylistic similarities with some of these, but it’s also very interesting to note that, so far as I can tell, the inscriptions tend to be gibberish. At best some have a few letters that are recognizable from the coin they imitate, but none seem to feature new and legible Latin inscriptions. I’m not committed to the existence of Sponsian per se, but that is a strong part of the argument.