Talk:Sponsianus/Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sponsianus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040311215349/http://salve5.salve.edu/~romanemp/Koerner.htm to http://salve5.salve.edu/~romanemp/Koerner.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Two coins

 Done The BBC article makes it clear that there are two known coins (one at the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow University, and one at the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu in Transylvania) rather than the single one stated in the current page content. -Stelio (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

We should use the actual source, which is at [1]. And sort out his name somehow.[2]. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact there appear to be seven total extant coins which depict Sponsianus: Here's an image from the Pearson study (which also seems to extensively catalogue the coins from the hoard and list their provenances) which clearly indicates there are six type 5 Sponsianus coins and one type 6 Sponsianus coin (see above in the paper for what the types look like). The BBC and most other news sources are pretty vague about how many coins exist, for example the BBC mentions two coins (the one in Brukenthal and the one in the Glasgow) but also mentions "all four coins." Pearson himself in his book states pretty unequivically that "a handful of gold coins [...] at least five[,] possibly six or seven, appear to have been dug up from a single deposit." Winthrop23 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but an important caveat: Of the seven coins which are known to depict Sponsianus, the authors of the study only known the whereabouts of four of them: "We know the current whereabouts of only four coins of Sponisan–two in Vienna and one each in Glasgow and Sibiu." On the other hand, the authors did not analyze all four of the known Sponsianus coins--they analyzed one Sponsian coin, one Gordian III and two Philip I/II (alongside two control coins from the period). I'll edit the article accordingly. Winthrop23 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

First Line of Article.

The very first line of the article : 'Sponsianus is believed to have been a Roman usurper, who attempted to seize the throne during the 240s, likely during the rule of Philip the Arab.' I cannot find any historiographical basis for this assertion. No solid reference or reliable historiography. Was he a 'usurper'? Did he 'attempt to seize the throne'? Who 'believes' this? From fragmentary accounts, it appears he was surrounded by tribal incursions during the period and simply assumed command before the area was re-integrated back into the Empire by Aurelian. If somebody can post a reliable reference to substantiate these assertions, I will happily remove this section.77.86.63.166 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The PLOS ONE paper by Pearson et al. concludes that Sponsianus was not a usurper but was forced to assume command of Dacia when it was cut off from central Roman rule; This BBC news article also talks a little about this suggestion. The Pearson et al. paper characterises the view of Sponsianus as a usurper as one held in the 19th century, before the idea that he was not a historical figure at all gained currency. (Of course, the paper is not by classicists so we should use appropriate caution regarding their analysis of the third century crisis!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. The paper of Pearson et al also suggests that Sponsianus was in command of the region in the 260s in the reign of Gallienus and not, as given in the article, 240s during the reign of Gordian III or Philip. And did he proclaim himself 'Emperor'? I suspect - and, of course, I reserve the right to be wrong - that he was simply doing the Emperor's bidding as a regional commander until the time the region could be re-occupied. Could the Crown on the coins simply symbolise the continued rule of the Emperor over the region through his proxy, Sponsianus? 77.86.63.166 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Date

The first (BBC) source mentions an expert giving the probably dates of his reign in the 270s. The second source (“Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian”) gives the probable dates in the 260s. The Wikipedia article gives the 240s. Could we clarify this, or at least mention that the sources give different dates but all during the Crisis of the 3rd Century? Harsimaja (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Bogus new study

It’s bogus for reasons I gave in my change summary a minute ago. I should have proposed deleting that stuff here first, sorry I got over eager. 64.67.105.248 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The study is reported in a very reliable source (BBC) and the study's authors seem reputable. Your reasoning for rejecting it seems like original research. I would say it should stay unless you can find equally reliable sources that argue that the study is flawed. We certainly can't remove it based on one editor's opinion. CodeTalker (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Also I don't understand your comment There were no actual coin experts involved in the writing of this study. According to the BBC article, one of the people who worked on this research was Jesper Ericsson, the curator of coins at the Hunterian Museum. CodeTalker (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Pearson et al are very reputable research scientists. Pearson is based at UCL and the rest of the researchers are University of Glasgow. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I read the BBC story before coming here, then checked around and found similar reports at other reputable news outlets. While some of the writing could be more precise—for instance, saying that wear marks prove that the coin was circulated 2,000 years ago, when the person commemorated is only thought to be around 1750 years old—the basic thrust of the argument is straightforward and logical: the coin has wear marks that match those of coins from actual circulation, and which aren't consistent with forgeries. Technically these marks don't prove that the coin circulated 2,000 years ago, or even 1,750 years ago. But these wear marks must have been on the coins when they were discovered, long before the science of numismatics could have used them to distinguish forged Roman coins from the genuine article, or the technology to verify their presence and quality existed. The coins couldn't have been forged with wear marks that nobody would have known to look for or been able to evaluate, and they certainly could not be medieval—so they must have circulated in Roman times. Someone must have made Sponsian's coins in Roman times, and even if we know nothing more about him—yet—we can at least infer that he was a real person who must have been declared emperor, even if only by his own troops or in a single province. Unless you can prove the flaw in this chain of inferences, you can't really argue with its inclusion in the article; and even then you would need to acknowledge it. P Aculeius (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Was this study peer reviewed? If not then all this information should be stated to just be speculation in the article Imho.★Trekker (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is listed as being peer reviewed. It's being reported in reputable news outlets, and looks superficially plausible to me. As it's a single very recent study we should obviously be cautious in reporting its findings as fact, but simply removing all mention of it as the IP did yesterday does not seem like a helpful response. If there are (as claimed in this edit summary) experts who have criticised the study and its findings then we probably should report on that too – in which case, IP, it would be helpful for you to cite them rather than just simply asserting they exist. I have not been able to find the claimed arguments by either Barry Murphy or "numismatists from the British Museum". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why the peer review question is being asked. See PLOS One. Probably a good idea to check the publisher first. I wouldn't consider using it if it hadn't been peri reviewed. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Legend "Imp(erator) Sponsian(us) // C(aesar) Aug(ustus)"

I am not a coin expert so prepare yourself for a possible silly question. Where is the C AUG on the legend? I am assuming it is the two letters (top right) on the other side of the coin? If so, why isn't it on the same side as the rest of the legend as we usually find in other Roman coins? Just taking a closer look at the design on the reverse and I am wondering if the 'C' is merely an extension of the design itself and not actually a letter. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, the C AVG is on the reverse side of the coin. The reverse is actually an imitation from the Republican era, minted by Caius [Gaius] Minucius Augurinus, so the C AVG is C[AIVS] AVG[VRINVS]! Here's a picture of a well-preserved and better-made versoin: [3] It is a full C, it's just a badly made coin. The scene is made to depict Marcus Minucius Augurinus, a distinguished ancestor of Caius'. Winthrop23 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. You have clarified that for me after studying the image you have posted. The aureus 'has dropped' so to speak. These two visible letters are a V and G as the end letters of 'C AVG' so it is the C and A which are missing to the left of the top central figure? Why would this coin have Republican iconography on the reverse 300 years after the fall of the Republic? Was he appealing to the Senate in Rome for support? Pearson et al state that the coin was cast in a mould and not struck. I think I can see the beginnings of the formation of a 'C' to the left of the central top figure but very little sign of an 'A'. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Look at the reverse next to the Republican original from which it's copied. It's clearly not a "duplicate" in the sense of using the original as a mold, but a "copy" in the sense that the sculptor modeled it explicitly on his original. It may have been that the sculptor just thought it was a good model to use, and perhaps mistook "C. AVG" for "Caesar Augustus" instead of "Gaius Augurinus"—whom he had probably never heard of—or else did not care what it originally meant, because he just needed to put something on the reverse—something that would not be readily identified with a potential rival of Sponsian; and for this purpose the reverse of an old coin, perhaps itself heavily worn, would have been ideal. There is certainly nothing about the image that would have been controversial in the third century, unlike French royal imagery on coins of 2093—assuming that the monarchy hasn't been restored by then, and that coins are still being made. P Aculeius (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know what the different parts and figures of the iconography would have represented on the original Republican coin? 77.86.63.166 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Following typical Republican practice, the coins of Gaius Minucius Augurinus would have depicted one of his illustrious ancestors, as mentioned (and linked) above in this discussion, presumably Marcus Minucius Augurinus, consul in 497 and 491 BC. He dedicated the Temple of Saturn, which was also the treasury of Republican Rome. Presumably the reverse depicts this event, with the consul represented by the figure on the left, while the figure on the right represents a priest (note that his head is covered, and the object he holds resembles a sickle, associated with Saturn as an agricultural deity). I'm not sure what the plants at the base of the pillar are, but presumably they represent the worship of Saturn as well. The pillar at center holds a balance, which was used for the weighing of metals at the Temple of Saturn, and possibly a figure of Saturn stands atop the balance. P Aculeius (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Also File:C. Minucius Augurinus, denarius, 135 BC, RRC 242-1.jpg - Wikipedia 77.86.63.166 (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Plants : this link suggests that they are wheat ('grain-ears') https://brewminate.com/populares-faction-of-the-people-in-ancient-rome/

That's the same file that everyone's been talking about, and which is linked above. I wasn't sure if those were meant to be wheat, as they look a bit odd compared with conventional representations. But in any case, they're symbols of Saturn. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This inscription

This inscription seems to attest that the name "Sponsian" seems to have been a genuine name at least. Not super relevant but I thought it was interesting. ★Trekker (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, there are at least three inscriptions including the name, all dating from the first half of the first century. Nicodemus Sponsianus is at CIL VI, 3959, another less certain example (probably a different person, since the preceding word ended in 'r') at CIL VI, 4188, and at CIL VI, 5263 we have the tomb of a young man. P Aculeius (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

New hypothesis

It is possible a new hypothesis among several other: emperor Sposianus was the ruler of Dacia after the retreat of Roman administration during Aurelian, including the goldsmiths. As a result, the coin has multiple curiosities, the new Daco-Roman emperor knowing little about minting coins. Sponsianus did not know the Latin language properly and thus "Sponsiani" appeared on the coins. Likewise, the text appears strangely only to the right of the effigy... Being isolated, the chronicles of the time did not mention it.Mestter (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's unlikely that anyone claiming to be the rightful emperor—even of a single, breakaway province—was personally involved in the design of his coinage, beyond perhaps the minter showing him some examples for his approval. But more to the point: whose hypothesis is this? It would need to be suggested by a scholarly source in order to go in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Something which I have been pondering (or perhaps 'mispondering'). My understanding is that we only have the coins and the recent paper by Pearson et al as the basis of any hypotheses, projections, thoughts, etc. Why *should* or *must* this indicate that Sponsian was actually living in Dacia in the mid 3rd century? After all, coins have been found of many different emperors and "usurpers" all over within (and outside) the boundaries of the empire? We have Roman coins dug up in China, for example. Obviously because of Silk Road trade conditional on proven stratigraphy. But that does not mean that those on the coins ruled a Roman province in China. We have no definitive archaeological or historiographical evidence to assert that he lived in Dacia just because the coins were found in that region. There could be many reasons why the coins were located where they were found. Moreover, do we have any information on the stratigraphy at the time the coins were excavated at the beginning of the 18th century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.63.166 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Presumably the assumption is that as all of the known coins of Sponsian were apparently found in one particular place, he is most likely to have been active in that place. It is true that some Roman coins have been found in China, but far far more have been found in places which actually were part of the Roman empire. But again, it is not on Wikipedia's editors to speculate about Sponsian; the reliable sources all seem to put him in Dacia, so we should follow them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How many coins have been found and specifically where were they found? Presumablies, assumptions and possibilities should always be treated with a certain degree of scepticism and contingency. If you look at the content of the article, much of it is actually 'speculation' and not known historical fact. "Reliable sources"? Could you give links to these "reliable sources" and actually enrich the main article? And by "sources" I mean *primary* sources. I know of only the coins and the recent paper. And I have done an extensive literature search of those writers in Antiquity who covered the period. And found nothing which even indicates his existence. Hence I cannot find any primary sources. Even old man Gibbon does not mention him. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources; see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources; that is what secondary sources do. CodeTalker (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources are the basis of secondary sources. Otherwise they are conjecture if there is no reference to these primary bases. It is not a case of "interpretation" but merely of citing the primary source which is usually closer to the actual historical events. Most secondary sources on Caesar's wars in Gaul, for example, refer to or are backed up by his own writings on the campaign. Quite frankly, I find it bizarre that Wikipedia "prefers secondary sources to primary sources". I would have thought that a more nuanced approach by an online encyclopaedia would have been more appropriate. And especially in this case where a direct reference (or several references) by a writer in Antiquity to Sponsian and his status and locality would have tended to preclude unnecessary speculation in certain respects.77.86.63.166 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Like it or not its how it is.★Trekker (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Like it or not, anything asserted without reference, directly or indirectly, to a primary source is mere conjecture if articulating what is asserted as a putative form of 'knowledge'. Actually, it is belief, not a form of knowledge. And this especially applies in matters of human history. How blockheaded is that? An encyclopaedia that permits the use of secondary sources where there are no references whatsoever to primary historiographical sources because they simply do not exist or have not, as yet, been discovered. It would be interesting to know the basis of this "preference" and a total absence of nuance in such matters. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:Identifying and using primary sources for more information on this policy. Reliable secondary sources will of course be based on primary sources, but secondary sources are assumed to have done analysis and contextualization of primary sources which is beyond the ability of wikipedia editors. In any case, reliance on secondary sources is a wikipedia policy, and it's kind of pointless to argue about it here. If you think the policy should be changed, you can open a discussion in WP:VPP. CodeTalker (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Like it or not, this "preference", when stated formally and unequivocally, is clearly an incorrect maxim to guide the construction of an encyclopaedia. Surely there must be contingencies and conditionalities in the application of such a principle. If a 'secondary source' has no 'primary source' on which to base itself, either directly or indirectly, then objectively it is not a 'secondary source'. It's kind of pointless to use a so-called 'secondary source' when it is not really a 'secondary source'. It's an idiotic policy because in this particular article on Sponsian, Wikipedia is accepting so-called 'secondary sources' which are not really as described. And this must logically be the case because there are no primary historiographical primary sources in existence for 'Sponsian'. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you read the secondary sources cited in this article you will learn the answers to a lot of your questions. If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on sourcing, you could make suggestions at WT:V, WT:RS, or WP:VPP. If you have specific actionable suggestions for improving Sponsianus, that's what this talkpage is for. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have read them. All of them. They do not address what I have raised. My "actionable suggestions" are implicit in what I have already written in this section but I will spell them out at the end of this reply. 'Secondary sources' simply cannot exist where there is no reference, directly or indirectly, to a primary source or to more than one primary source. It is as simple as that. That is the dictionary definition of a secondary source. You cannot have a secondary source without primary source/s. My suggestion is that all assertions in the article which are not rooted in genuine secondary (and therefore more deeply in primary) sources should simply be removed. We only have the coins and their physical scientific analysis. All pre-conceptions and pre-suppositions about Sponsian should be deleted. Any minimal interpretation should be strictly correlated with what we *know* on the basis of this scientific analysis and not with what we *believe* or with what we *want to believe*. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This is my final contribution to this page. I will not participate in a 'Conjecturefest'. I will leave that to those who, for whatever reason, feel the need to do so. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's relatively common practice in the study of Rome to make substantial conjectures on the basis of sometimes unreliable numismatic evidence. To give just two examples: (1) Anthony Barrett argues (pretty convincingly imo) on the basis of numismatic evidence that Caligula never actually went to Britain. (2) Many many authors writing about the shadow emperors in the late Roman West talk about the "Ricimer monograph," and the papers interpreting it and drawing large conclusions from it number in the dozens. So it's not really surprising that scholars are drawing large conclusions from this handful of coins.

As to whether Wikipedia ought to include these conjectures/conclusions, the answer is clearly yes if we want Wikipedia to accurately reflect the state of current scholarship. Every single source that allots him more than a single sentence draws some kind of conclusion about him--in Dacia, in Pannonia, proclaimed Augustus, mintage of convenience, etc.. If you feel that in the case of Sponsianus Wikipedia is drawing conclusions that are too large, your issue is with common practice in the field, not Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is by its nature not able to challenge this practice: WP:OR is just straight up a Core content policy. If you want this to be otherwise, you'll need to convince a large portion of the editors that this core policy should change, but, in my opinion, it seems more likely that you've just misunderstood what Wikipedia is doing, as a project. In topics like this, it's here to reflect the state of the field. Winthrop23 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not common at all to make assertions in the absence of guiding and informing root primary sources and related secondary sources whether they are material or historiographical. This is what we are witnessing on this page. Most researchers are very circumspect indeed about what they write in their fields because they know the reputational damage which can arise. So I beg to differ. Most scholars of the period would accept on historiographical evidence that Caligula never stepped ashore in Britain. But if analysis of coins could confirm that, then, of course, that must be grasped within the whole context of our detailed knowledge of Caligula's life compared to this 'Sponsian' about whom we know virtually nothing. Ditto the Ricimer Monograph.

Conjecture which is not rooted as mentioned above should clearly not be included in Wikipedia. It is simply assertion without any real grounding. It is pure conjecture. It is the accuracy of the content of "current scholarship" which really needs to reflected and not the "state of current scholarship per se. My issue is not with common practice in the field because it clearly diverges from practice in Wikipedia. It is academically more rigorous and peer-reviewed for a start. Wikipedia is miles away from this. Some of the articles I have read on Wikipedia are based on 19th century conceptions. Wikipedia needs to bring its practices up to the same standards as academics and researchers outside Wikipedia. For example, take a look at Mary Beard's position on Sponsian on her TLS blog. I simply do not have the time to convince many editors of what I am asserting. Most people on this talk page have not addressed what I have said anyway. They have ignored it and are carrying on regardless. It's a core policy which would never be deployed by researchers writing theses or books in their field. "Reflecting the field" in academia clearly means something different from "reflecting the field " at Wikipedia. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I think that the approach you suggest is difficult to justify.

In the first place I'm not sure I follow your primary source argument elsewhere on this thread--the sources cited here are all arguing based on the coins, which you admit are primary. Now, you argue that the conclusions they draw are inaccurate, but there's no problem of secondary-ness: they draw inferences from primary material i.e. they are secondary.

Second, you say above that your issue is not with common practice in the field, but looking over the list of cited sources (which is pretty comprehensive, at least in terms of print material), again, almost all the scholars make these kinds of inferences. So in short you want Wikipedia to dismiss almost all the print material on Sponsianus as spurious. At the very least this would require consensus (which there doesn't seem to be)--but more to the point, the inferences you're dismissing outright aren't so ludicrous: most of them follow the simple pattern of (1) There are coins reading IMP SPONSIANI (2) the coins were found in Dacia, therefore (3) there was probably a military commander who revolted in Dacia named Sponsianius. It might not be the only objection you're making, but it seems clear that you are objecting to the current state of Sponsianus scholarship. That's fine, but if we're claiming to be a tertiary source we can't totally neglect every printed word ever written about Sponsianus, which brings me to,

Third, if someone is coming to this page to learn about Sponsianus and they don't come out of it learning that many scholars suggest he was a usurping Dacian general, we haven't done our job right. On the other hand, if he/she comes out of it learning that he was a usurping Dacian general, we also haven't done our job right. It's a balancing act. We want to inform people about the state of scholarship--in fact it's all we can do. The state of scholarship is largely inferential, so the article is going to contain scholars' inferences (if we do our job right, clearly marked as such).

You make some claims about Wikipedia in general being academically backward. I can only say that, at its best, Wikipedia runs alongside current experts' understanding. Sometimes it falls behind, but this isn't such a case. The experts are credible; we mirror the experts. Winthrop23 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if your actionable suggestion boils down to "we should ignore one of the most longstanding and widely-supported Wikipedia policies" then that's not going to happen. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's incorrect. And extremely dogmatic. Accepting something that is clearly flawed does not an encyclopaedia make. Obviously. Whoever has formulated this maxim does not understand the relationship between primary and secondary sources. That is just plain ignorance. It is rather like a docile congregation accepting the pronunciamento of a messianic chief priest without questioning any of it at all. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If so-called 'secondary sources' have no basis (an indirect connection is adequate, btw) whatsoever in 'primary sources', then they are not, by definition, secondary sources. They are conjecture, belief. Can you not see that? 77.86.63.166 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You have been on about this for a while now, what exact content of the article is it that you think should be removed?★Trekker (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have already made clear what should be removed 77.86.63.166 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You really havn't.★Trekker (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have. You have to read what I have written and draw the obvious inferences. Then you will see what needs to be erased. I will not insult your intelligence by spelling it out. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So you pretty much think all of the article should be removed because you don't like scholars doing speculation and hypotheses.★Trekker (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Speculation and hypotheses are fine but they must be rooted in reliable sources. If I were to write (in the article) that "Sponsian may have been a Roman Senator who had ambitions to take the purple", would you find that acceptable or would you revert it? I think I could go through two-thirds of that article and critically expose problems with it simply because there are no primary historiographical sources for this Sponsian. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the real source of the problem here is. Primary sources may of course be used on Wikipedia—although what constitutes a primary source is not always clear in the field of history. When Tacitus writes about what happened during the reign of Nero, he is not reporting what he himself witnessed or events in which he participated. There is no reason to avoid quoting Tacitus or citing to him—but generally we also want to have sources that evaluate what he said, and compare it with what we find in other writers, i.e. an encyclopedia or a book about Nero that discusses Tacitus' account vs. those in Suetonius, Cassius Dio, etc.

In the case of Sponsian, there are no primary sources to speak of—nothing written about him during his lifetime, or even in the centuries after that, is known from the corpus of classical literature. The only thing that might be considered a primary source is a handful of coins with his name on them—which tell us nothing more than that someone by this name was depicted in the manner of a Roman emperor, and that the reverse of his coins are copied from a Republican original that is unlikely to have had anything to do with Sponsian, other than some imagery that he or his minter thought attractive or appropriate for reasons that require an expert to speculate about—i.e. on a talk page anyone can speculate, but to state something—even speculation—in the article, we need a qualified scholar in some published source. Everything published about Sponsian in reliable sources—i.e. scholarly articles, news from reputable sites, like the BBC—and speculating about who he might have been and why his coins are so unusual, can be included in an article such as this, although we need to use good judgment to avoid needless repetition without adding anything of value. P Aculeius (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This does not really address what I am raising. If I proceeded like this in the presentation of a PhD, I would fail the viva. A primary source did not have be in the Praetorian Guard. Tacitus was born in the reign of Nero. I would say all researchers in the field would consider Tacitus to be a primary source of Roman History prior to 120 CE. With all due respect, it is sophistry to assert otherwise. Where there is no Tacitus, we cannot quote him as a primary source. The fundamental problem here is that there is no historiographical record of Sponsian. We cannot evaluate a primary source if it does not exist. This means we have to be *extremely* careful and not *cavalier* in what we write when people will be reading this article. The coins are the only material source and the scientific analysis of the coins also holds the status of a primary source in terms of its scientific findings.

Assuming Sponsian's existence as a real historical personage, we do not really know if the design on the reverse of the coin was significant or not. It was most certainly politically significant in its 2nd century Republican context so it may well have been so in this later context as well. It is pure conjecture to suggest that it was not.

Any source which is not directly or indirectly related to a primary source is "unreliable". This makes most of the sources which comment on Sponsian as unreliable. This talk page and the actual article is full of "speculation". The only forms of knowledge relate to the coins' discovery and physical scientific analysis. A page on a so-called encyclopaedia which is mostly speculation. For example, the very first sentence states "Sponsian is the name of an obscure military commander". Really? Says who? Was he a "military commander"? He could have been a senator based in Rome for all we know. "Reliable sources"? Pure speculation.

This statement has the same 'truth status' as "Julius Caesar was a genocidal, inhuman, paedophilic, Schizophrenic with a personality disorder who dribbled his wine at banquets"

The coins. Pearson et al state that wear and microscopic soil deposits on them indicate that they have been in the ground since Antiquity. But does that preclude the possibility of them being forgeries in antiquity? We do not have a comprehensive knowledge of the status of these coins and the stratigraphic layers and context in which they were found in the 18th century.

"Qualified scholars"? Does one need to be a "qualified scholar" (whatever that is) in order to contribute to Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia only for "qualified scholars"? I am not a university teacher or researcher but I would state that I probably know more about my own specific field of interest than most, if not all, of them individually. Am I a "qualified scholar"? I am published but not associated with any university or research institution. Some of the greatest contributions in human thought have been made by people who would not consider themselves to be officially recognised "qualified scholars". If so, perhaps I should not contribute to Wikipedia. Some will not believe this, but there are people who are 'more expert' than the 'experts'. It is just that they don't shout about it or have university chairs.

"Speculation about who he might have been" is literally anybody's guess. You don't need an expert for that when there is nada in the historiographical record. He may have been a Senator in Rome or a landowner in Gaul or a wealthy merchant in Syria, etc, etc. Or even a military commander in Dacia. Coins with a name 'Sponsian' on them could have ended up in Transylvania for a virtually unlimited series of reasons and the events which mediated their deposition in the ground. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, the majority does not agree. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING.★Trekker (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not "my personal opinion". Rather it is your personal opinion that it is. Stop trying to bully. It will not wash with me. I will not accept which I consider to be academically and intellectually unacceptable. If you do not wish to discuss these matters productively then please do not reply to my posts. If you do, I will simply ignore them. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided. It can also be an attempt to silence somebody, to prohibit their voice, when you are having problems and difficulties with their discourse. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Its not a false accusation, pretty much everyone has already made it clear that your point of view is not supported by pretty much anyone else. You're clearly not changing anyone's mind.★Trekker (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I can accept that I may not be supported by the majority who have created this page. I can live with that. There is no point in denying that. But you are the only one accusing me of using a bludgeon. I have read the link on bludgeoning and it is an unpleasant activity on Wikipedia, But what I am doing is not unpleasant. I am simply following a narrative and my discourse in addressing what others are posting. That is more than I can say for some who are simply ignoring the content of my replies to them which is discourteous to say the least. My point is not to "change anybody's mind" but rather to make them think about sourcing and the relationship between primary and secondary sources. It appears that some think that there is no relationship between the two. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that ancient writers ought to be cited and quoted, where they are available. I distinguish between these and "primary sources" because Wikipedia's guidelines and cautions about primary sources are concerned chiefly with neutrality and independence, particularly with regard to the biography of living persons. This is not usually a concern with history articles; ancient chroniclers are rarely persons who were directly involved in the events they describe, and as you correctly observe, whatever their sources of knowledge, they are the chief sources upon which secondary sources depend; it would make no sense to exclude them, within reason.

But the fact that we do not know what was said about Sponsian in antiquity does not make modern sources that attempt to describe or contextualize him based on the available facts unreliable. Can their hypotheses be proven? No, not at this stage. But they are the best guesses of experts in their fields, and are published in reliable sources that we can cite to without substituting our own opinions and ideas for theirs. Like it or not, no matter how little faith you have in their opinions, or how much you have in your own, the only sources that can be used in analyzing the data are those of published specialists—not you or me or anyone else editing Wikipedia, with the possible exception of one or two of us who are published scholars in the field of classics, and even these would have to be cited with great caution.

The fact that a source is speculating does not make it unreliable; we are not stating as fact that Sponsian was a military leader in Dacia who was proclaimed emperor in the mid-third century. We are stating that he was probably such a person, because this is the general opinion of the scholars who have considered the question, following the premise that the coins are authentic.

Your question about "forgeries in antiquity" can be answered with simple reason. First, these are gold coins with considerable intrinsic value then and now. They would possess this value irrespective of whose portrait appears on them. There would be no reason for a Roman to mint gold coins in the name of a non-existent emperor, as doing so would add no value to them, although it could be considered treasonous. In modern times there might be reasons for doing so—finding something rare or unique would add value; the discovery of evidence of a previously unattested emperor or usurper could be prestigious for the supposed discoverer. This of course is how the coins were viewed prior to the recent scientific examination. Whether the authenticity of the coins becomes generally accepted in the wake of this study has yet to be determined, but if the study is valid and stands up to peer review, then the existence of these coins would seem to demonstrate that a person named Sponsianus either claimed to be or was proclaimed emperor in antiquity. P Aculeius (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Aculeius, There are still holes in your argument here and I could elaborate. However, Johnbod (who may be a 'Big Cheese' on Wiki) has told us to shut up. And I don't wish to be blocked by Central Control. I am just an insignificant, rookie minion who likes to ask awkward questions and make a contribution from time to time. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, enough already! On the morning of 22 November this talk page was 1805 bytes (and had not been edited for 5 years). Now it is 47K, and the last 40+K have been wholly unproductive. Just all stop it please, and find more useful things to do. Johnbod (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The Re-Write

The Re-Write

Sponsian

[[Sponsian is a name found on coins allegedly uncovered in a coin-hoard in 1713 in Transylvania and gradually dispersed among several collections. The highly accurate procedures today of recording archaeological details regarding the stratigraphic location of coins found in deposits were not available when they were supposedly excavated in 1713. Sponsianus is not mentioned in any ancient documents. The name is only known through coins which were discovered in the early 18th century. Scholars have made conjectures regarding his actual existence and, if he existed, who he was. Most conjecture places him in the middle of the 3rd century where, as the generalised crisis of the century unfolded, power vacuums in various regions were filled by 'tyrants' who ruled in place of the Emperor and his governors. But there is no historiographical evidence for 'Sponsian' being part of this in the record. It is mere conjecture. Some researchers and scholars have rejected the authenticity of the coins bearing the name of Sponsian, and hence his historical reality. In 2022, a new study led by Paul Pearson argued that the coins were ancient. He then made the assertion that Sponsian was probably a real historical character on the basis of his group's physical scientific findings alone. Sponsian is a name found on the legend of a few double-aurei with an image of 'Sponsian'. The reverse contains an image taken from the coins of the 2nd century Republican era which may or may not be politically significant. One was kept in the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow University, which also held three other coins from the original hoard. Another entered the bequest of Baron Samuel von Brukenthal, a Habsburg governor of Transylvania. The hoard included other coins bearing the names of Philip the Arab and Gordian III. Many numismatists today continue to regard the coins as fakes. In 1868, the French numismatist Henri Cohen dismissed them as "very poor quality modern forgeries". The problems with the aurei are twofold: firstly, the obverse (face) side of the coin is "barbaric and strange" according to the findings of the Roman Imperial Coinage (a British catalogue of Roman Imperial currency), and the reverse (tail) side of the coin appears to be a copy of a Republican denarius struck in 135 BC. The coins are also unusually heavy (10.02g, compared to Philip's 4.30), have been cast instead of the more usual stamping process, as noted by Pearson et al in their paper, and the inscriptions themselves do not follow the conventions of the time. However, according to the numismatist Wayne Sayles, as the usurpers and emperors of the time were often ephemeral, the lack of further coins and the unusual qualities of those that are extant should not be seen as evidence that Sponsian did not actually exist. Yet his actual historical existence remains conjecture. There is insufficient evidence to assert that he undeniably existed. The lack of coins could also indicate that he did not exist and that the coins are fakes. After further study in 2022, a group of scientists reported that scratch marks on this coin, visible under an electron microscope, proved that it was in circulation 2000 years ago. But most in the field have speculated that 'Sponsian' was circa 240-270 CE. Paul Pearson of University College London led the research and said that he was astonished by the confirmation that the coin had been used. Jesper Ericsson stated that a chemical analysis of the earth deposits found in the coin's recesses showed that the coins had been buried in soil for 'hundreds of years'. On the basis of the above physical analysis alone, and on any available information which may have come down from the original excavation, another coin bearing the name of Sponsian, in the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu in Transylvania, has also been reclassified as genuine. Scholars have conjectured as to when and where Sponsianus, if he existed, was active. All give his location in the 3rd century at the time of the generalised crisis in the Roman Empire. On the obverse of the coins, 'Sponsian' is depicted wearing a radiate or sol crown which is typical for the emperors and tyrants of the period. Dacia and Pannonia are the preferred contenders for his specific geographical location but there is no concrete evidence to suggest the facticity of this. The Romans eventually evacuated Dacia between 271 and 275. Jesper Ericsson, who was one of the scientists who did the physical research on one of the coins along with Pearson, conjectures that... 'Our interpretation is that he was in charge to maintain control of the military and of the civilian population because they were surrounded and completely cut off. In order to create a functioning economy in the province they decided to mint their own coins.' No other archaeological or historiographical evidence has been found for the actual existence of Sponsian or his rule in any region of the Roman Empire or in an external client state. We only have the coins and the recent physical analysis of them which are open to various interpretations.]]

Dixi et salvavi animam meam 77.86.63.166 (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Pearson et al.

Criticism of Pearson et al.'s paper has begun to emerge, but it's not immediately clear to me how best to balance the article, so I'm dumping it all on the talkpage for now.

• The Guardian article from 23 November quotes Richard Abdy, curator of Roman and Iron Age coins at the British Museum, as calling the paper "full fantasy", but I haven't yet been able to find anything substantial from him on the topic, just that single quote.
• Mary Beard in the TLS discusses the new development at length, concluding that "it is possible that this is all the work of some very inefficient Roman minters. It is more likely that it is the work of some very inefficient eighteenth-century forgers".
• An article in the online classics publication Antigone by Alfred Deahl argues forcefully that Pearson et al. are wrong and the coin is a modern forgery. However I don't know that Antigone yet has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires, and the author is an undergraduate so doesn't count as an expert in his own right.
• An article by Csaba Szabo. This is an English translation of an article published in "the local journal Szabadság"; I assume that means "local newspaper" but have not been able to track down the original online yet. The author does have a PhD in Roman archaeology in Dacia, though they seem to specialise in religion rather than numismatics; they again strike a sceptical note but do not go as far as explicitly making the claim that the coins are 18th century forgeries.

Unfortunately there's not yet a single strong response to Pearson et al. striking a note of caution, and the paper is too recent for academic consensus on its validity to have developed. Beard is probably the best we have so far – perhaps a simple addition saying something like "despite Pearson's analysis, Mary Beard suggests that the coin is better explained as an eighteenth-century forgery" is okay, but balancing an academic paper with an opinion column in TLS (no matter how respected its author!) seems dangerous. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we can use Mary Beard. Others may disagree. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue using all to some extent, if they all rise similar points we can just note that many scholars agree on criticisms and list them.★Trekker (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Pearson's paper : 'The ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian is known only from an assemblage of coins allegedly found in Transylvania (Romania) in 1713.' Please note : "allegedly found". Something else to note. With Pearson, imo, the problems arise not in the actual physical science done (which, speaking as a physical sciences graduate, looks sound to me) but rather in his venture into somewhat tangential and hyperbolic hermeneutics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.63.166 (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The key evidence in both Beard and Deahl would seem to be the context in which the coins were found, and the additional information about the improbability of the casting. Mary Beard does not dispute that the coins were dug up as part of an alleged hoard; but she notes that the other coins found alongside it are also suspiciously cast, rather than die-struck. Part of the reason for accepting Pearson's verdict was the assumption that the other coins with whom Sponsian's coins were found were genuine, but it sounds like that may be incorrect. Other parts of Pearson's argument are cast into doubt—literally as well as figuratively, by the Deahl analysis. I'm not in a position to evaluate Alfred Deahl's expertise as a graduate student, but his article brings together a number of relevant facts cogently.

Deahl calls into question the number of coins constituting the "hoard", implying that there were only eight coins, of which two—one now lost—depicted Sponsian, and that these were of two different types, one gold and one silver, while another coin from the alleged hoard was bronze, and that one of the coins was, if authentic, far older than the rest—all circumstances highly atypical of hoarded coins. So where do the other numbers of coins given come from? One post here I believe claims there were seven, but perhaps that results from confusion with the total number of coins other than the gold Sponsian.

But if all or most of them were cast, which seems to be the case, then there is little probability of their being authentic. Casting doesn't seem to have been a normal process for producing coinage in antiquity, but even if we were to imagine, as Pearson seems to, that these could be a one-off, how would the other coins, allegedly produced at different times and places, out of different materials, also be cast? Only two explanations occur to me: 1) they're fakes, all produced about the same time by the same forger or forgers; or 2) they were all collected by an ancient numismatist who separated them from the rest of his collection due to the fact that they were cast, an unusual circumstance that clearly marked them as a special case. This does not seem particularly likely.

Deahl deals with another hypothesis concerning just the Sponsian issues. Some of their irregularities could potentially be explained if they were only ever pseudo-coins made in imitation of authentic Roman coinage, intended to fill the gap left by a shortage of the same. That might also explain why so few of them have survived. But, as Deahl points out, such issues were inevitably of base metals, since they were intended to be low-value coins produced for everyday use. Here we have gold and silver issues—and the gold coin is unusually heavy for the period, which is the opposite of what we would expect of improvised coinage. Added to which, the impurities are highly atypical of other gold coins of the period. Pearson explains this by saying that the gold came from a source outside the Empire's normal sources of gold; Deahl says this is more likely an indication that the source was unknown in antiquity.

Deahl also notes that the Republican original from which the reverse is copied was not a particularly common coin, and is unlikely to have been known to someone minting coins in Dacia in the mid-3rd century. For the moment I will imagine that there is at least a small probability of an old Republican coin having been kept as a family heirloom or a good luck charm—but this still seems less probable than that an 18th century forger borrowed the design so that there would be something on the reverse, and perhaps chose this particular model, as Deahl suggests, because he mistook the "C. AVG" for an abbreviated "Caesar Augustus".

I previously supposed that Pearson's analysis of the wear marks was, as he said, a strong indication of actual circulation. Deahl seems to correct this impression, by explaining that 18th century forgers were surprisingly good in their techniques, and would in fact handle their coins in such a way as to give the false impression of age and wear. We cannot prove when the wear marks analyzed by Pearson came to be, but the fact that they could appear just as easily on a modern forgery undercuts the strongest evidence of the coin's authenticity.

I am not as convinced by Deahl's epigraphic argument: as he puts it, Pearson thinks that the choice of an obscure, almost unknown Roman name favours the coin's authenticity: why would a forger choose a name that did not sound authentic? Perhaps I skimmed this part of Deahl's paper too quickly—I did see an illustration of the Augustan-era inscription with the name, which might have been available or known to an 18th-century forger. But I still think that a forger would probably have chosen a more typical name.

On balance, this additional context—particularly the fact that the whole "hoard" was composed of coins that ought not to have been found together, due to their varying ages and types, as well as the fact that several, perhaps all of them, were cast rather than struck—and perhaps also the fact that the irregularities cannot be explained away as typical of the improvised issues of the period, which would not have been made of gold, along with the rather important fact that 18th century forgers were much more sophisticated than Pearson seems to have assumed, weigh heavily against the authenticity of the coins. Deahl is very convincing in his analysis, even if one or two of his points might be debatable. I would say that this shifts the probability of Sponsian being a genuine military commander depicted as emperor on this coin distinctly to the negative. We cannot absolutely prove that he did not exist, due to the still minimal evidence, but it now seems much more probable that the coins are, as suggested by other experts, a fantasy created by an 18th century forger. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to make it exactly clear what the physical evidence is:

In the early 18th century a coin hoard was found, but no first-hand documents survive relating to the discovery or subsequent handling of the coins. We only know of this hoard from the second-hand account of Carl Gustav Heraeus, who bought eight of them from Hapsburg finance minister Johann David von Palm in March 1713. So we don't know how many coins were in the hoard or when they were found precisely. Other than these eight no other coins are known to have come from this hoard.

Those eight coins contain five different design types which I'll call: Alexander, Plautius, Gordian, Philip, and Sponsian (Pearson's types 1-5 resp.). On the basis of stylistic/material similarity (provenance allowing), coins matching these types have been found in smaller number in various other collections across Europe and grouped with these original eight.

In total, there are 24 additional coins that Pearson groups with these original eight. That's not to say that they definitely came from the same hoard, but they have the same design and are of similar make. He also includes two coins that are more dubious, and known only from drawings or written reference: a silver Sponsian and a large silver Gordian. Of those 32 in total, ten have been lost. The surviving coins that match the designs of the 1713 acquisition number: five Plautinus, five Gordian, eight Philip, four Sponsian. Those that have been lost (but can be grouped with the others based on reliable description) number: one Alexander, one Plautius, two Gordian, two Philip, two Sponsian. 32 coins in total have been identified with those original eight that came from the hoard (including the original eight themselves) 22 of which survive (including all but the Alexander of the original eight).

Basically the contents of the hoard are unknown. It's impossible to draw any conclusions based on what is missing from the hoard because we are almost completely ignorant about what it contained. Of course to us it looks like it only had weird coins--von Palm only bought the weird ones. All the information here is taken from Pearson's study, the first section of which is in large part a description of the provenance of the coins.

[Above in another comment I said that there were once seven Sponsians: this is counting the dubious silver Sponsian + 2 lost + 4 surviving] Winthrop23 (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The name Sponsianus is attested in inscriptions from the 1st century so while it does derive from the word for engagement is also seems to have been a genuine (but very rare) cognomen. The points brought up by Aculeius from Deahl are all great tho.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. "Sponsianus" was still a name.★Trekker (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

All excellent stuff, but Deahl and other do seem to be missing a point. They discuss the options of eighteenth-century forgeries, or normal Roman minting. Neither quite seems to fit, for all the reasons above. I hope to see a reliable source discussing a third possibility: abnormal Roman minting, maybe in a province cut off from supply and from expertise in coining, but desperate to produce some coinage in a hurry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this was missed. The fact that the Sponsian—or Sponsians—were cast is highly unusual, but could as you suggest be explained by atypical practices being carried out by inexpert minters. This could, theoretically, also account for the unusual design features, including the marriage of an imperial-era obverse to a Republican-era reverse. However, there are several objections to this hypothesis: first, the gold Sponsian is unusually heavy for aurei of its time; an improvised gold coin would probably be lighter, not heavier than its genuine counterparts (after all, gold was a precious resource—all the more so if the usual supply was cut off). But the typical improvised coinage found on the outskirts of the Roman world isn't gold at all; what was needed was small change for everyday transactions, not massive gold coins for luxury goods.

Then, it was ostensibly found among other coins, both of different types—including low-value bronze coins—and belonging to different eras, i.e. including a Greek stater of Alexandrian design, if I remember correctly. Now, in a very large hoard it might be possible to find a few coins that are dissimilar to the majority, but this was supposedly a small hoard consisting mostly of mismatched coins—a few gold and silver coins belonging to the mid-3rd century, the rest entirely dissimilar. This is also very unusual. But the clincher is probably the fact that several of the other coins were also cast—coins that were supposedly produced at different times and places, out of different materials, but all using the same highly unusual technique, for some reason being found together.

So unless we have a late Roman numismatist's collection of irregular cast issues, the obvious explanation is that they were not, as they appear to be, produced at different times and places, but all at the same time, out of different materials and with different designs—something no Roman minter would have reason to do. If he were trying to promote Sponsian, then he would have produced many Sponsiani—all of gold or silver, or if for general circulation on the edge of the empire, out of bronze or some other base metals—not a random mixture of gold, silver, and bronze, using different models from several centuries, which would not likely be found together. If I recall correctly, Deahl discusses these problems at some length. P Aculeius (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

We really don't know anything about the size of the hoard. We only know that someone bought a set of unusual coins claimed to have been found in a hoard in Transylvania. The hoard could have been very large, and contained a whole lot of normal coins and a few strange cast ones--there is no evidence either way (see my long post above on the material evidence). Also as far as I know no one is suggesting that the non-Sponsian coins were made at different times and places: the people who think they're authentic usually argue that they were cast in the same low-output, possibly improvised provincial mint around the same time. If Sponsian is a usurper it wouldn't be unusual to mint coins of past emperors, or even living emperors if he's trying to ally with them. Magnentius did the same thing with coins of Constantius II in the 350s. As to whether they were for general circulation, Pearson argues that they were traded as bullion, which might account for their unusual weight. I think Deahl's analysis is interesting but he implies that there is only a single Sponsian coin in existence, which is just not true--there are at least four. Might be harsh but I'm not convinced he fully understands the material evidence he's questioning the authenticity of. Winthrop23 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Deahl seems to be discussing the eight coins purchased from the alleged hoard soon after its discovery. Rereading his paper, he does not state that the others were cast, nor does he say that any of them were bronze—so I misstated his reasons for rejecting the Sponsian's authenticity above. However, he does say that it would be unusual to find hoards consisting of coins of different materials, and that it makes no sense for a third-century issue to have been hoarded alongside a Republican issue (Lucius Plautius Plancus, 47 BC) and a gold stater of Alexander (fourth century BC), as the Sponsian is supposed to have been. There is nothing suspicious about its occurrence alongside coins of Gordian and Philip. Another detail which I overlooked previously is that the Gaius Minucius Augurinus denarius upon which the reverse was modeled was almost certainly no longer in circulation by the third century; it was not a common coin to begin with, and all of the known examples appear to come from deposits dating from the first century BC. A modern forger could have known of it; it is unlikely a minter in the third century would have. It's true that Pearson claims to have an answer for everything—but each of these answers is less probable than the simple explanation than that the Sponsians are modern forgeries, and all of them must be true in order for the coins to be genuine. Which leads inevitably to the conclusion that they are probably not. P Aculeius (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Adrian Nicolae article in Romanian

You can get an approximative translation from Google and it clearly shows that it is of no value. Ther are three references to it but most probably nobody will take the trouble to look closely. 79.100.200.28 (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you post a link to this? I cannot find anything on the net 77.86.63.166 (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Presumably this article. 79.100.200.28, simply saying "it is of no value" is not very helpful – what specifically is wrong with it? It is published by HotNews, an apparently mainstream Romanian news site, and quotes the opinions of two Romanian ancient historians; it seems a perfectly fine source for the uses this article makes of it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Google translation. https://science-hotnews-ro.translate.goog/stiri-interviuri-25926089-monedele-chipul-imparatului-roman-din-dacia-sponsianus-fals-ridicol-din-toate-punctele-vedere.htm?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc 77.86.63.166 (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it is better to reread the Plos article: the Romanian experts do not say anything significant that has not already been addressed. The first of them starts talking from authority, he's a numismatist and "of the British investigators, none is a numismatist" (falsely translated below by Google). "Everything is tightly controlled", yes that's how it usually is, but the case is obviously unusual. Also, Ref.60 concerns elucidating the gold's provenance.

In making a fake, a forger would expect to get more than the value of the gold used, so producing a double aureus is not a rational strategy, imho. 79.100.200.28 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If he would expect to get more than the value of the gold, is that not a pecuniarily 'rational' strategy? Or perhaps I have misunderstood what you have written or mean? If we take any authentic gold aureus, is it not worth more than the value of the gold used to make it regardless of its period of production in antiquity? 77.86.63.166 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

For antiques the collector's value is much higher than the material value, so two gold coins will fetch you probably more than just one with double weight.

Btw it seems that there is some confusion between fake_new, fake_ancient and genuine_ancient: if Sponsianus did not exist, a coin with his name is a fake either way. At present it seems the coin is decidedly ancient and infering the existence of Sponsianus saves us from a gratuitous hypothesis (fake_ancient). 79.100.200.28 (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

First sentence in the article should now be deleted, imo. It is standing there in opposition to a rising howling wind of evidence to the contrary. Or at least utterly and completely modified to become consonant with this growing evidence or perhaps growing informed assertion. A total re-write of the whole article is now required methinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.63.166 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Evidence? First sentence of second section of article : 'The sole evidence found for the existence of Sponsianus is his name on a few double-aurei. The coins were uncovered in a coin-hoard 1713 in Transylvania....' Hmmmm....the coin is increasingly looking like a fake so, by definition, can it be classified as "evidence" for the historical existence of Sponsian? Pearson himself remarks that the coins were "allegedly" uncovered in the hoard.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.63.166 (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)