Ancient Roman coin of the Emperor Sponsian declared authentic

WillieBoyd2

An ancient Roman coin of the Emperor Sponsian (Sponsianus) sitting in a Scottish museum has been declared authentic.

The sole evidence found for the existence of Sponsian is his name on two aurei. One was found in 1713 in Transylvania and has been lodged in a Scottish museum for years. The other is in a museum in Transylvania. For a long time the coins were believed to be fakes.

After further study in 2022, scientists reported that scratch marks on the Scottish coin, visible under an electron microscope, proved that it was in circulation about 2,000 years ago.

Researchers now consider that Sponsian was a real person who ruled briefly over the Roman province of Dacia around time of CE 240.

Roman coin of Sponsian - Glasgow University

BBC Link:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63636641

Weiss

My knowledge of ancients is tiny. Basic. I'm entirely uneducated in the field.

That looks fake as hell.

Rexford

Not convinced.

Sapyx

I might be convinced that the coins are old - they claim to have measured convincing evidence of this. But to be convinced of the "Emperor Sponsian" theory, I'd need to see some evidence other than these coins... like, perhaps, a second find of coins, or some written record of his existence. As believers in "Emperor Domitian II" found out, you can't (or shouldn't) re-write history based on the find of a single artifact, or a single hoard of artifacts. Domitian II needed two (and now three) independent coin finds, for proof of his existence to be accepted. So does Sponsian. And all the existing Sponsian coins come from the same single hoard find.

Let's suppose there really was a goldsmith in third-century Dacia, casting (not striking) fake coins (since the other gold coins in the hoard are all fake). Why would the "Sponsian" coins be any more genuine than the other fake coins he made? If anybody in third century Dacia was named "Sponsian", it might have been the goldsmith, or some wealthy local landowner, making these coins on a lark and putting their own names on them just for funsies. Dacia fell in and out of being part of Roman territory at the time; if they were "out" when the coins were made, there wouldn't have been any fear of Roman retribution for making "fake coins".

They claim these coins are evidence of a viable economy on the Imperial fringe, using gold coins at the time. If that were so, there should be plenty more of these coins out there to find.

When archaeologists a thousand years from now discover an Emperor Norton note, will they come up with some weird new hypothesis of a short-lived American monarchy in the mid-1800s? Or will they (correctly) assume that some crazy guy made the notes, putting his own name and picture on them, just for fun?

1984worldcoins

It was cast, weird design, unknown emperor...your guess is as good as mine.

Abuelo

Read the paper, it is interesting

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274285

I think it is quite plausible. It is a coin likely made by a military governor for local circulation during a time of crisis. Nothing unusual there I think.

Abuelo

Based on the feedback I got elsewhere it looks as if the majority of numismatic experts on ancient coins believes these coins are fishy. Cheers!

OnlyGoldIsMoney

I am no expert but this coin just feels all wrong.