Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Nicholas Molinari, post: 10663600, member: 78411&quot;]Personally, I would consider the evidence of encrustations serious new data worthy of publication.&nbsp; Obviously the press (no surprise) blew it out of proportion.&nbsp; 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.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in