Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Suarez, post: 9705747, member: 99239"]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 <a href="https://www.coryssa.org/503767" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.coryssa.org/503767" rel="nofollow">https://www.coryssa.org/503767</a>. 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[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches