Sponsian? You gotta be kidding me... right?

[Tejas]

This is one of the Probus series. This type was apprently particularly popular.

Weight: 4.68 gr

Found: Near Lublin, Poland

Anohkin No. 91 was struck from the same dies, but in gilded bronze

[Tejas]

Imitation of Probus aureus (RIC 831)

Obv.: Helmeted bust with spear and shield

Rev.: Quadriga

Found: Khmelnitzskaya oblast, Tchemerovetsky raion

Weight: 5.82 g (without the loop)

This coin is no. 249 in the Anokhin catalogue (this coin). However, since the coin was cataloged the loop was removed and the coin was cleaned. The coin has been studied and recorded by numismatists in Kiew, Warsaw and Winnizya.

 

[Tejas]

This is quite a remarkable passage in the new paper:

"The name Sponsian itself is highly peculiar and a far from obvious choice from the point of view of a hypothetical forger. Only one other instance of it is known, from a first century funerary inscription in Rome which names an obscure individual called Nicodemus Sponsian [39]. Here we emphasize the fact that the inscription was excavated in the 1720s [40] so could not have been known to a hypothetical forger, who would therefore have to have invented a peculiar name that later proved genuine."

I thought the name Sponsian, was perhaps known or even common so that an educated forger could pick the name from the written sources. However, the authors show that the forger could not have known the name, but instead would have invented a name that only later turned out to be authentic. I don't know what the chances of this are, but it strikes me as highly unlikely.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Tejas

[John Conduitt]

29 minutes ago, Tejas said:

This is quite a remarkable passage in the new paper:

"The name Sponsian itself is highly peculiar and a far from obvious choice from the point of view of a hypothetical forger. Only one other instance of it is known, from a first century funerary inscription in Rome which names an obscure individual called Nicodemus Sponsian [39]. Here we emphasize the fact that the inscription was excavated in the 1720s [40] so could not have been known to a hypothetical forger, who would therefore have to have invented a peculiar name that later proved genuine."

I thought the name Sponsian, was perhaps known or even common so that an educated forger could pick the name from the written sources. However, the authors show that the forger could not have known the name, but instead would have invented a name that only later turned out to be authentic. I don't know what the chances of this are, but it strikes me as highly unlikely.

Yes there was speculation (earlier on this thread by @Steppenfool) that 'Sponsian' is just a blundering of the legend 'GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG'. That makes sense, as the legend runs only down the right hand side of the coin, as if they were copying another that was incomplete. It's also exactly the legend they would have copied - since one of the other coins was Gordian III, and Sponsian is radiate.

I think if that was true, it counts heavily against it being a real Sponsian coin. As unorthodox as the coins are, they wouldn't start the legend on the right and run it for only half the coin.

The argument that a forger couldn't have made it up (which they wouldn't have needed to do - see above) I also think (as I already mentioned) counts against it being a real Sponsian coin. The extreme rarity of the name Sponsian in the Roman Empire suggests it isn't a Roman name and so emperors, generals and officials wouldn't be called Sponsian.

Barbarous tribes were very likely to copy coins like this.

Edited November 30, 2022 by John Conduitt

[Briac]

I give you here the analysis of Nick Vaneerdewegh (Senior Numismatist near Leu)
 

Quote

 

As most you of you have probably read in the past few days (including on this facebook page), a scientific article was recently published which claims to have authenticated a gold coin of an enigmatic usurper named Sponsian, kept in the Hunterian in Glasgow. Six such coins are recorded, of which four can currently be located (a silver example is mentioned, but has not been located). The coins formed part of a larger assemblage, supposedly discovered in Transylvania in 1713, and were at the time accepted as real, until they were condemned as (poor) fakes in the 19th century. The gist of the article is that, while these coins are highly anomalous, analysis of the deposits on the coin indicate prolonged burial and that the coins are thus a product of Antiquity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274285.g001 (photo of the Hunterian example)

I'll admit that when I first saw articles appear in the media about the 'new' discovery with accompanying photos of the coin in question, I was highly sceptical. Nothing about the coin looked particularly real - it rather seemed like a poor cast fantasy piece barely a cut above your average tourist fake. A trickle of articles soon became a flood, however, and suddenly a new Roman usurper was added to the annals of ancient history.

I've discussed the piece with colleagues and read some comments by scholars who have all expressed extreme scepticism. Since the media and a lot of fellow collectors seem to take the findings of Pearson et al. at face value, I think it appropriate to take a closer look at their arguments.

First of all, the article deals with more than just the Sponsian coins. As mentioned, they formed part of a larger assemblage including types copying or basing themselves on Republican and Roman Imperial coins.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274285.g002 (for the differing types in the assemblage)

1. The authors mention how past researchers saw the assemblage as the product of an early 18th-century fraudster. The current article, on the other hand, stresses that the coins are unlike other more carefully produced fakes from the 'early days' of coin collecting. The coins 'used newly engraved designs as hubs rather than real coins' and the third century supposedly wasn't very popular with collectors. As for the Sponsian, they say the following: 'It also seems odd that Sponsian was given such an involved context of other fake designs, that his coins are numerically in a minority among the known wider assemblage [...], that they are the least impressive of the various designs, and that no special care was taken either in the engraving (especially the obverse legend down one side of the head only) or manufacture [...]. If early price catalogues from 1823 onward are taken as a guide, the Sponsian coins were not especially valued by collectors in comparison to those of well-known emperors.' All of this only seems odd if you assume that every forger is very accomplished or really understands what he's doing (which, considering the many ridiculous fakes out there, is certainly not the case). An assemblage containing what appear to be crude imitations of Roman coins is probably exactly the way I'd go about peddling some unknown usurper. The argumentation is basically turned upside down - the sloppiness of the Sponsian coins is suddenly taken to be indicative of their authenticity rather than the other way around.
2. The authors argue that the name 'Sponsian' was unknown at the time and is only known from a single inscription now (in fact, a total of three are known, two of which were certainly found after the coins, however). The Latin verb 'spondere' (from which Sponsianus is probably derived) means 'to pledge', 'to promise' or 'to assert'. A convenient name for a usurper. While the argument is not completely without merit, it hardly forms conclusive evidence.
3. Since the coin looks like an obvious fake to anyone with some experience in ancient numismatics, the authors turned to (electron) microscopy and spectroscopy to analyze the coins. This all looks and sounds quite impressive. Two authentic third-century aurei were compared with the four coins of the assemblage kept in Glasgow (the Sponsian, a Gordian III 'medallion' and two Philip I/II 'multiples').

3.1) First off, the gold content of all coins was tested. As expected, the genuine aurei had a high gold content, while the other coins had a somewhat lower gold content. The authors themselves admit that 'either they are ‘modern’ forgeries or, if ancient, we suggest they were most likely made from imperfectly refined ore'. In addition, the metal composition of the cast coins fluctuates between the three differing types, i.e. Sponsian, Gordian and Philip I/II. As per the authors: 'the two coins of Philip (Type 4) are sufficiently similar that they may have been made in the same batch although this cannot be known for sure. This might be considered weak evidence in favour of the coins’ authenticity, given that a hypothetical forger would have been likely to have cast all them in one operation.' This is weak evidence indeed, as I don't see why it is so likely that a forger would have cast all differing types in one operation. It is perfectly thinkable he created each group at differing times and/or with different metal before selling the whole.

3.2) Secondly, it was determined that the real aurei were struck, all other coins were cast (for the Sponsian this is visible at a glance). They note that the cast coins are all relatively crude in design. A reference is made to 'Aurum Barbarorum', gold (and silver) coins struck north of the Danube imitating Roman designs, but the authors state that AB is not cast like our coins (not entirely true, cast AB is attested) and that the weights are much lower (the known Sponsian coins all weigh between 9 and 11 g., while AB usually weigh between 5 and 7 g.) In other words, the authors do not believe the Sponsian coins should be grouped with Aurum Barbarorum. Furthermore, the cast coins show no sign of being plated and their peculiar designs make it unlikely that we are dealing with ancient forgeries. To quote the authors: 'We are forced to conclude that either they are outright fakes made to deceive the antiquities market in the eighteenth century or they comprise a unique category of ancient coin'. Yes, which could it be?

3.3) Thirdly, Pearson et al. decided to investigate wear. This is a curious choice for one seeking to investigate third-century gold coinage as gold in particular was generally rapidly hoarded. Oh well. The wear patterns under high magnification are similar between the two groups. Pearson et al. admit that modern scientific literature is limited when it comes to the study of wear on coins. Some comparisons are made with other coins (notably, 19th-century gold coins), but I'm left to wonder whether it makes a difference that the Sponsian is cast. At any rate, the authors themselves admit that wear can be simulated and that 'a detailed comparative study of microscopic wear patterns on a range of historical fakes of different types and ages is clearly desirable, but beyond the scope of this investigation. Pending such information, we must view the evidence from wear alone as inconclusive as regards authenticity'. Wonderful.

3.4) Not deterred by all the previous points, Pearson et al. finally find some real hard evidence by studying the deposits on the real coins and on the cast assemblage. A Hail Mary at just the right moment if I've ever seen one. Or is it? We're on even shakier ground here than with the wear, since now we have no comparable studies. In other words, we don't know how a long a coin should be left in the ground for it to acquire the deposits the cast coins show. All the authors have proved is that all coins were at some point buried, dug up and cleaned. They conclude as follows:

'In principle, the Sponsian group coins could have been manufactured at any time between the accession of the Emperor Philip in 244 CE and the first historical record of their existence in 1713. We must, however, allow time for the wear and burial described above. We are unable to devise any remotely plausible scenario that can account for the wear patterns, overlain by cemented earthen deposits, other than that they are products of antiquity. The previous consensus among coin specialists that they were faked in the eighteenth century is clearly untenable.'

Except, they've already admitted that wear can be simulated and their study of deposits on Roman coins, itself an apparent novelty, is based on a sample size of a mere two aurei. Again, the authors write 'How long the questionable coins were buried for is difficult to estimate given the lack of comparative data. Study of coin finds from secure archaeological contexts of different ages and environments may one day help constrain the rate of silica neosynthesis on gold surfaces.' I.e. they have no clue what the deposits exactly indicate, and it is merely their belief that the Sponsian coins are ancient that makes this evidence conclusive in their eyes. Plain confirmation bias.

To sum 3) up. The Sponsian coins are much heavier than the regular gold coinage struck during the third century (and heavier than Aurum Barbarorum too). In other words, if real, they were special coins of heavy weight, not unlike a ceremonial or donative coinage. But what a shoddy donative it was. The gold content falls below that of the gold coinage of the era and the coins are crudely made and cast rather than struck. I cannot stress enough that Roman gold coins were struck, not cast, and that certainly goes for (rare) gold multiples. The authors continuously stress how everything about these coins is unlike anything else known in Roman numismatics. I'd say that's a very bad sign. As for the wear and deposits, the authors themselves admit that they have little to no comparable data. In other words, they're grasping at straws.

4) Next comes a contextualization of the coinage.

Right off the bat, the authors mention that the case used in the obverse legend, 'IMP SPONSIANI', is the genitive case, not nominative or dative, as is standard on Roman coins. Our 'unique' coins just became even more unique! About the reverse they say the following: 'Curiously, we note that the reverse design from a Republican-era denarius features the legend C AVG which in the original model denotes the moneyer Caius Augurinus, but which would likely have been interpreted by most people in the third century as ‘Caesar Augustus’. It is possible that this was a deliberate act to associate Sponsian with these titles, but more likely just coincidence.' The latter is definitely more likely.

They continue: 'The large variation in weight, both between coins of the same type and between the different types, suggests that they could not have a meaningful face value and hence they must have been traded (as the extent of wear indicates they were) as bullion.' Or, as is more likely, the forger cared little for correct weights, as he was relatively incompetent. Are we really to believe that gold multiples were struck with no fixed weight standard?

The iconography of the assemblage as a whole also poses a problem: 'The most difficult problem to explain about the wider assemblage is why some of the design elements were in faux-Republican style.' If you insist on their authenticity this is certainly a problem. The explanation they offer is complete fantasy. To me, it merits no further discussion.

5) The final part of the article discusses Sponsian as a historical figure. Since the coins are fake, this is a piece of historical fiction. It does make for a good laugh from time to time. The article claims that '[...] to develop the hypothesis, we suggest that the Sponsian series coinage was used to pay senior soldiers and officials in gold and silver by weight and then traded down at a high premium for regular imperial coins that were already circulating in the province from before the time of crisis.' Behold, the crappiest donative coins ever produced. That is not all, the authors 'predict that at some point a Sponsian group coin will be discovered in a secure archaeological context. Indeed it is surprising that no well-attested find of this type has been made in modern times (one of the more compelling reasons they have been regarded as fakes).' Compelling indeed.

To sum it all up, the article is mainly an exercise in confirmation bias. The authors want the coins to be real, and any and all evidence will do. Nothing is right about the Sponsian coins - they look wrong, the metal content and the weights are wrong and they do not match the context of the time period. The authors' study of wear patterns and deposits gives the article a veneer of solid science, but it is based on flimsy evidence. On a side note, some collectors have suggested the coins are, in fact, Aurum Barbarorum coins. I find that unlikely (based on weight and manufacture), and do note that not even the authors of the article believe the coins to be Aurum Barbarorum.

The authors thought they struck gold, but sadly, it was fool's gold.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Briac

[singig]

12 hours ago, Tejas said:

................ I guess we have to wait for the discovery of a third piece in the context of an archaeological excavations to have certainty. Until that time, this is likely to remain a contentious issue. 

According to the study(Fig 3- provenance trails) there are six known Sponsian specimens , I have summarized them below:

specimen #1  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #2  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #3  The Hunterian, University of Glasgow (UK)

specimen #4  Paris ?  lose track 1830

specimen #5  Brukenthal National Museum (Romania)

specimen #6  Herzogenburg Monastery ? (Austria)   lose track 1923

Vienna Münzkabinett has a excellent online catalog , but unfortunately I was unable to find photos with them  , using Forgeries tag or Gold tag  https://www.ikmk.at/tag_search?lang=en

You can find below an old image with specimens #1 , #2 and  #6 , the image was posted by the user Nefarius Purpus in a similar thread on CoinTalk:

https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-4-18_11-41-12-png.1290273/

Edited December 1, 2022 by singig

[DLTcoins]

Earlier this evening, I happened upon this photo of the 'Nicodemus Sponsian" inscription.

http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=4263

I am reminded of the "infinite monkey theorem". Mathematics dictates that if a monkey is allowed to bang away at the keys of a typewriter for long enough, the monkey will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare, purely by random chance. I wonder if we compared all the blundered inscriptions known from the vast array of "barbarous" Roman coins that have come to light with all known Roman names from all sources, how many "lost emperors" we would discover? Dozens? Hundreds?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Edited December 1, 2022 by DLTcoins

[seth77]

Considering the weight and the radiate crown, what if this was supposed to be a 'binio'?

[NewStyleKing]

"Emperor Sponsianus" and the crisis of Roman Studies

On academia.edu now     

Csaba Szabó

University of Szeged,  Department for the Academic Study of Religion,  Post-Doc +2

[Tejas]

12 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

Yes there was speculation (earlier on this thread by @Steppenfool) that 'Sponsian' is just a blundering of the legend 'GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG'. That makes sense, as the legend runs only down the right hand side of the coin, as if they were copying another that was incomplete. It's also exactly the legend they would have copied - since one of the other coins was Gordian III, and Sponsian is radiate.

I think if that was true, it counts heavily against it being a real Sponsian coin. As unorthodox as the coins are, they wouldn't start the legend on the right and run it for only half the coin.

The argument that a forger couldn't have made it up (which they wouldn't have needed to do - see above) I also think (as I already mentioned) counts against it being a real Sponsian coin. The extreme rarity of the name Sponsian in the Roman Empire suggests it isn't a Roman name and so emperors, generals and officials wouldn't be called Sponsian.

Barbarous tribes were very likely to copy coins like this.

So the argument is: illiterate barbarians blundered a Roman legends to the extent that a new legend emerged, that contained a valid Roman name and title? I guess that is theoretically possible, but I would think that this is highly unlikely. 

I can't follow your second point either. You are saying that because the name Sponsian is rare, it cannot be that a real Roman emperor, general or official bore that name? In the 3rd century, emperors could originate from humble origins. This must be even more true for generals and officials. I am not certain, but my guess is that names like Iotapian and Pacatian were also not among the typical names of Roman emperors.

 

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

So the argument is: illiterate barbarians blundered a Roman legends to the extent that a new legend emerged, that contained a valid Roman name and title? I guess that is theoretically possible, but I would think that this is highly unlikely. 

I can't follow your second point either. You are saying that because the name Sponsian is rare, it cannot be that a real Roman emperor, general or official bore that name? In the 3rd century, emperors could originate from humble origins. This must be even more true for generals and officials. I am not certain, but my guess is that names like Iotapian and Pacatian were also not among the typical names of Roman emperors.

 

No, that they may have been literate but couldn't read the legend on the coin they copied. Which happens to most people even today.

Yes. I'm saying that being so rare as to not actually be a Roman name, the likelihood that it was a Roman (rather than simply mistranscribed) is reduced.

I think, to say it is a real person, an explanation is needed for why the legend starts at 1 o'clock and ends at the bottom. For it to be a copy, this is exactly what you might expect.

Edited December 1, 2022 by John Conduitt

[Tejas]

7 hours ago, singig said:

According to the study(Fig 3- provenance trails) there are six known Sponsian specimens , I have summarized them below:

specimen #1  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #2  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #3  The Hunterian, University of Glasgow (UK)

specimen #4  Paris ?  lose track 1830

specimen #5  Brukenthal National Museum (Romania)

specimen #6  Herzogenburg Monastery ? (Austria)   lose track 1923

Vienna Münzkabinett has a excellent online catalog , but unfortunately I was unable to find photos with them  , using Forgeries tag or Gold tag  https://www.ikmk.at/tag_search?lang=en

You can find below an old image with specimens #1 , #2 and  #6 , the image was posted by the user Nefarius Purpus in a similar thread on CoinTalk:

https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-4-18_11-41-12-png.1290273/

 

Thanks for the summary. 

I stumbled on the coin below in the Vienna Münzkabinett. I have to check later, but I think I have a die-identical piece in my collection:

MK-ATW-KHM | Probus (Imitation) ab 276–282 n. Chr. (ikmk.at)

Mine still has a loop and I think on the Vienna coin the loop was removed.

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Tejas

[Tejas]

11 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

No, that they may have been literate but couldn't read the legend on the coin they copied. Which happens to most people even today.

Yes. I'm saying that being so rare as to not actually be a Roman name, the likelihood that it was a Roman (rather than simply mistranscribed) is reduced.

I think, to say it is a real person, an explanation is needed for why the legend starts at 1 o'clock and ends at the bottom. For it to be a copy, this is exactly what you might expect.

Ok, so the barbarians were literate, but misread the official legend and instead of reading GORDIANVS came up with SPONSIANI. I am  not aware of such a case in the corpus of Ukrainian imitations (aurum barbarorum). There is the case were the barbarians added Germanic runes, but I have never seen any treatment of the Latin legend that would suggest that they were literate or that the Latin inscription held any meaning for them.

I don't understand the argument with the legend starting at 1 o'clock. The coins are highly irregular to start with. Why would you expect anything but an irregular legend? But you are right, in the corpus of Ukrainian imitations you find cases were the legend is only in front of the portrait (cf. Anokhin no. 79).

 

 

[Tejas]

13 hours ago, Briac said:

To sum it all up, the article is mainly an exercise in confirmation bias. The authors want the coins to be real, and any and all evidence will do. Nothing is right about the Sponsian coins - they look wrong, the metal content and the weights are wrong and they do not match the context of the time period. The authors' study of wear patterns and deposits gives the article a veneer of solid science, but it is based on flimsy evidence. On a side note, some collectors have suggested the coins are, in fact, Aurum Barbarorum coins. I find that unlikely (based on weight and manufacture), and do note that not even the authors of the article believe the coins to be Aurum Barbarorum.

The authors thought they struck gold, but sadly, it was fool's gold.

The assessment by Nick Vaneerdewegh is interesting. Above is his conclusion. I think his allegations against the authors of the technical study are very serious. He accuses them of "confirmation bias" and overinterpreting "flimsy evidence". He basically implies that they are themselves fraudsters that used unscientific methods by producing a study to confirm a preconceived opinion ("The authors want the coins to be real").  Again, these are extremely serious accusations, which could damage the reputations of the authors of the study.

I think it would have been better for Mr. Vaneerdewegh to attack the technical arguments of the authors, instead of attacking their reputations.  I just hope, that Mr. Vaneerdewegh has more than just his reference to "style" and "weight" to back up his allegations of "scientific wrong-doing".

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Tejas

[Al Kowsky]

On 11/30/2022 at 6:11 AM, Tejas said:

The Brukenthal coin is very interesting. Thanks for posting the picture. So if the reverse of the Glasgow coin is the result of a die slippage, we are saying that the coins were struck and not cast, right?

Struck or possibly pressed while the metal was still in a molten state 🤔.

[John Conduitt]

34 minutes ago, Tejas said:

Ok, so the barbarians were literate, but misread the official legend and instead of reading GORDIANVS came up with SPONSIANI. I am  not aware of such a case in the corpus of Ukrainian imitations (aurum barbarorum). There is the case were the barbarians added Germanic runes, but I have never seen any treatment of the Latin legend that would suggest that they were literate or that the Latin inscription held any meaning for them.

I don't understand the argument with the legend starting at 1 o'clock. The coins are highly irregular to start with. Why would you expect anything but an irregular legend? But you are right, in the corpus of Ukrainian imitations you find cases were the legend is only in front of the portrait (cf. Anokhin no. 79).

No, the proposal by @Steppenfool was that 'Sponsian' is a blundering of the legend '(GORDIANV)S PIVS FEL AVG' (see above). This fits with the location of the legend and the date of the other coins.

If you're given a coin to copy, in ancient or modern times, and the legend isn't clear, you have to make something up.

Edited December 1, 2022 by John Conduitt

[Tejas]

30 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

No, the proposal by @Steppenfool was that 'Sponsian' is a blundering of the legend '(GORDIANV)S PIVS FEL AVG' (see above). This fits with the location of the legend and the date of the other coins.

Got it, thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. 

 

31 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

If you're given a coin to copy, in ancient or modern times, and the legend isn't clear, you have to make something up.

As far as I can see, the barbarians never made up a new Roman name with a title, when they could not decipher a legend. They just imitated as many letters as they wanted on the coin to make it look like a Roman coin to other untrained and illiterate eyes.

[NewStyleKing]

As far as I know on  a single historical name without precedent and nothing else and never again is ...AESILLAS.

Bauslaugh in his "Silver coinage with the types of Aesillas the Quaestor" ANS 2000, amongst others, deCallatay, MacDonald say that Aesillas is NOT a Roman name, although they never say its from anywhere ! But he must have been a big cheese to have even once been a   Quaestor. A fiduciary Roman Rank and position of great importance.Where he came from and where did he go to is a mystery! Unknown except for this coinage which Bauslaugh generally solves the mystery surrounding the minting of this coin without any useful speculation! (Shame).

Sponsian is similar as a name almost from, (almost) nowhere!

https://www.moneymuseum.com/en/focus/stories/macedonia-90-bc-388?slbox=true

 

Aesillas Macedonian Tetradrachm c 80 BC

Obv: Head of Alexander the Great with horns of Ammon behind Θ mint of Thessaloniki MAKEΔONΩN below Rev: AESILLAS ; below Q (Quaestor) Left ;Money Chest ; middle, Club of Hercules, ; right, Quaestor's Chair All surrounded by a wreath Obs 37 Reverse not in plates Bauslaugh group VI c 80 BC 29mm 17.02gm

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by NewStyleKing

[Tejas]

Despite his ad hominem attacks, I think Mr. Vaneerdewegh raises a good point about the motivation why some people regard these coins as ancient while others dismiss them as 17th/18th century forgeries. For my part, I am not invested in these coins being genuine or not. Unsurprisingly, I don't own such a coin and I should be of indifferent to whether or not the coins are ancient or not.

However, I realize that I do have a bias in favour of Sponsian: It was some 20 years ago, when I was offered the first Ukrainian gold imitation. Given my interest in imitations in general, I was intrigued, but very skeptical. I showed pictures of the coin to several highly reputable auction houses and a numismatist at the British Museum. The unison verdict was that the coin was a ridiculous, i.e. laughable and obvious fake.

Fortunately, at the same time I was interested in so called "coins of the unkown people", better called Taman imitations from southern Russia on which I wrote a short article. Hence, I was familiar with Russian numismatic literature of the 19th century that refered to strange looking imitations of Roman gold coins from southern Russia, which were, however, unknown in the west.

I decided to buy the coin (at a surprisingly low price) and it is now an undisputed and particularly attractive part of the corpus of Ukrainian imitations. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that Mr. Vaneerdewegh would have been one of those who dismissed the coin as obvious and laughable fake on the basis of style and weight.

So I guess this story gives me a certain bias towards "wanting" the Sponsian coins to be ancient. However, I do realise that the debate will only be settled if and when a Sponsian coin is unearthed  in a controlled excavation.   

 

 

 

[John Conduitt]

27 minutes ago, Tejas said:

However, I do realise that the debate will only be settled if and when a Sponsian coin is unearthed  in a controlled excavation.

I think this is the point. The debate has been going on for years with no conclusion, and the only new evidence is the deposits, which are claimed to show the coins are old. Yet this is not proof, since (as the authors admit) no study has ever been conducted to show how these deposits form (on gold or anything else) and what they might prove. So their paper has no new proof, it just re-opens the debate.

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, John Conduitt said:

I think this is the point. The debate has been going on for years with no conclusion, and the only new evidence is the deposits, which are claimed to show the coins are old. Yet this is not proof, since (as the authors admit) no study has ever been conducted to show how these deposits form (on gold or anything else) and what they might prove. So their paper has no new proof, it just re-opens the debate.

I agree, the paper's findings are not proof that the Sponsian coins are ancient, but the findings are certainly evidence for the antiquity of the coins. Unless somebody can show that their evidence is wrong or has been mis-interpreted it adds weight to the hypothesis that the coins are ancient.

Likewise, their evidence cannot be disputed with reference to the wrong style or the wrong weight. Anybody wanting to dispute their findings has to tackle the evidence head on and produce technical counter evidence that shows that the deposits have been produced artificially or could have resulted in a way other than by long-term burial in the soil. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Tejas

[Briac]

12 hours ago, singig said:

According to the study(Fig 3- provenance trails) there are six known Sponsian specimens , I have summarized them below:

specimen #1  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #2  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #3  The Hunterian, University of Glasgow (UK)

specimen #4  Paris ?  lose track 1830

specimen #5  Brukenthal National Museum (Romania)

specimen #6  Herzogenburg Monastery ? (Austria)   lose track 1923

Vienna Münzkabinett has a excellent online catalog , but unfortunately I was unable to find photos with them  , using Forgeries tag or Gold tag  https://www.ikmk.at/tag_search?lang=en

You can find below an old image with specimens #1 , #2 and  #6 , the image was posted by the user Nefarius Purpus in a similar thread on CoinTalk:

https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-4-18_11-41-12-png.1290273/

the Paris specimen was stolen in 1831 with a lot of gold coins and was melted down, when they were arrested, the burglars confessed to having melted down the gold coins and hid the ingots in the Seine where they were found.

For the sepcimens in Vienna you can find them in the google drive I gave 

[Tejas]

51 minutes ago, Nick said:

I think the debate would be settled if the encrustations can be replicated with 18th century technology, given all the other evidence of forgery.

I think to prove that something could have been done is no prove that it actually has been done. If I understand correctly, the authors of the new study have shown that the Glasgow coin shows wear that is consitent with or typical for circulation. And, on top of this wear they found  encrustrations, which they claim is consistent with the coin having been buried in the soil for a long time. At the same time, they found no artificial substances or glues. 

So even if we could show that these encrustations could be replicated with 18th (or better 17th century technology) this still leaves the question open of how likely it is that a forger of that period would go through the processess required to produce the wear and tear and the encrustations. 

I think to prove conclusively that the coins are 18th or 17th century fakes, we would need a second technical examination, which disproves the present one, by showing the presence of artificial substances ( or other kind of glues) or by demonstrating that the wear and tear occured after the formation of the encrustations.

Since style, manufacture and weight are of no use in a case like this, it is down to technical evidence. At present the available technical evidence says that the Glasgow coins had seen circulation and was buried in the ground for an extend period of time before coming to a public collection in 1713. This evidence has to be dealt with on its own terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Conduitt]

2 hours ago, Tejas said:

Anybody wanting to dispute their findings has to tackle the evidence head on and produce technical counter evidence that shows that the deposits have been produced artificially or could have resulted in a way other than by long-term burial in the soil. 

If this was the case, you could claim anything as long as there was no proof either way. The point with the deposits is that no-one has looked at how easily these form on the surface of a gold coin, or under what circumstances (given gold is easily cleaned of its deposits). The authors say they cannot imagine how, but their lack of imagination isn't proof. (They tried hard enough when they needed a reason for the Republic reverse). To be fair, if someone does this study, then we don't need another Sponsian to show up to prove they're ancient, since the deposits will then be proof.

 

20 minutes ago, Tejas said:

If I understand correctly, the authors of the new study have shown that the Glasgow coin shows wear that is consitent with or typical for circulation. And, on top of this wear they found  encrustrations, which they claim is consistent with the coin having been buried in the soil for a long time. At the same time, they found no artificial substances or glues. 

This circulation wear is more of a question than evidence. Why would an overly-heavy gold coin circulate? If they did, how is it that this group of coins, all made 'from the same hand', ended up tucked away together in the same spot, while no other example has ever been found? Of course, it's easy to fake circulation wear. Their authenticity relies on the deposits. For which there is no evidence.

Edited December 1, 2022 by John Conduitt

[Tejas]

15 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

If this was the case, you could claim anything as long as there was no proof either way.

Of course, anybody can make any unfounded claims, but the thing is that the authors have conduced scientific examinations and their claims are based on their findings. So any counter claim will have to be based on similar scientific examinations. Otherwise they are just unfounded claims.