Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;savitale, post: 9614723, member: 95284&quot;]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:</p><p><br /></p><p>1.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>2.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>3.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>4.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>5.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>6.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>7.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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 <u>assuming</u> that the surface measurements are reflective of bulk composition.</p><p><br /></p><p>8.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The presentation of data in Figure 4 is well done.</p><p><br /></p><p>9.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; “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?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>10.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>11.&nbsp; 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.[/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