Sponsianus

Kaiser, Dynastien und Münzstätten

Moderator: Homer J. Simpson

Altamura2
Beiträge: 5203
Registriert: So 10.06.12 20:08
Hat sich bedankt: 0
Danksagung erhalten: 1068 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Altamura2 » Mo 28.11.22 17:46

Amentia hat geschrieben:
Mo 28.11.22 17:07
... Gestauchte Gussformen soll die Erklärung für die unterschiedliche Zentrierung und Rohlingsform stempelgleicher Stücke sein? ...
Von Zentrierung und Rohlingsform hab' ich nicht gesprochen, es geht um die Seitenverhältnisse der Münzbilder ("aspect ratio" im Artikel).
Die Stauchung von ansonsten "stempelgleichen" Münzen zeigt, das sie nicht aus einem Stempel geprägt worden sein können, sondern eben gegossen wurden.
Wie willst Du sonst aus ein und demselben Stempel zwei solche Münzen durch Prägung erhalten :D ?
Euro_beide.jpg
Amentia hat geschrieben:
Mo 28.11.22 17:07
... Und dann noch das unterschiedliche Gewicht bei stempelgleichen Stücken. ...
Das Gewicht hat nichts mit dem Stempel zu tun, das solltest Du aber wissen :? .
Amentia hat geschrieben:
Mo 28.11.22 17:07
... Da ist ja verdammt viel schiefgelaufen, eigentlich fast alles was schiefgehen kann^^ ...
Aus heutiger Sicht mit unseren heutigen Ansprüchen schon :D . Das hatten die Produzenten damals aber nicht :? . Sonst hätten sie, wie oben schon gesagt, diese Münzen alle sofort in die Tonne getreten :D .
Amentia hat geschrieben:
Mo 28.11.22 17:07
... Münzen mit Feuerschaden haben zum Teil auch Bläschen oder Löcher von Gasblasen. ...
Hast Du da mal Beispiele dafür?

Gruß

Altamura


Altamura2
Beiträge: 5203
Registriert: So 10.06.12 20:08
Hat sich bedankt: 0
Danksagung erhalten: 1068 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Altamura2 » Mo 28.11.22 17:52

Amentia hat geschrieben:
Mo 28.11.22 17:07
... Barabaren wollen oder brauchen Münzen den Zahlungsverkehr und kopierne dafür römische Münzen die sie in die Hände bekommen ...
Warum müssen diese Teile denn unbedingt für den Zahlungsverkehr gedacht gewesen sein? Vielleicht hat man die auch einfach nach Gewicht gehandelt.
Amentia hat geschrieben:
Mo 28.11.22 17:07
... Aber warum sollte Sponsian dann auch Münzen von anderen römischen Herrschern herstellen lassen, das erschließt sich mir nicht. ...
Die These ist deshalb ja, dass es diesen Sponsian gar nicht gab :D .

Gruß

Altamura

Benutzeravatar
Amentia
Beiträge: 2040
Registriert: So 28.06.15 10:32
Hat sich bedankt: 723 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 2668 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Amentia » Mo 28.11.22 17:54

Ich warte darauf, dass jemand das in einem praktischen Versuch zeigt, dass man solche Münzen (andere Rohlingsform, Zentrierung, Stempelrutsch) durchs Gießen herstellen kann. Bis dahin ist das eine gewagte Hypothese.

Altamura2
Beiträge: 5203
Registriert: So 10.06.12 20:08
Hat sich bedankt: 0
Danksagung erhalten: 1068 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Altamura2 » Mo 28.11.22 17:58

Amentia hat geschrieben:
Mo 28.11.22 17:54
... Ich warte darauf, dass jemand das in einem praktischen Versuch zeigt, dass man solche Münzen (andere Rohlingsform, Zentrierung, Stempelrutsch) durchs Gießen herstellen kann. ...
Dann warte ich darauf, dass man aus ein und demselben Stempel zwei Münzen mit unterschiedlichen Seitenverhältnissen prägen kann. Das halte ich nämlich für eine gewagte Hypothese :D .

Wir kommen da vermutlich jetzt auf keinen gemeinsamen Nenner mehr :? , vielleicht bringt die Wissenschaft da irgendwann mehr heraus :D .

Gruß

Altamura

Benutzeravatar
Amentia
Beiträge: 2040
Registriert: So 28.06.15 10:32
Hat sich bedankt: 723 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 2668 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Amentia » Mo 28.11.22 18:01

Die Stauchung kann nicht nach dem Prägen entstanden sein?
Gold ist sehr weich und verformt sich extrem leicht.

Altamura2
Beiträge: 5203
Registriert: So 10.06.12 20:08
Hat sich bedankt: 0
Danksagung erhalten: 1068 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Altamura2 » Di 29.11.22 22:09

Folgende Benutzer bedankten sich beim Autor Altamura2 für den Beitrag:
Steffl0815 (Di 29.11.22 22:27)

Benutzeravatar
Zwerg
Beiträge: 6389
Registriert: Fr 28.11.03 23:49
Wohnort: Wuppertal
Hat sich bedankt: 300 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 1320 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Zwerg » Di 29.11.22 23:38

Einem m.E. ausgezeichneten Artikel hat Nick Vaneerdewegh (werkelt bei Leu) bei facebook geschrieben
Er positioniert sich recht eindeutig auf Fälschung
https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=n ... neerdewegh

Ich hoffe, der Link funktioniert irgendwie

Grüße
Klaus
Folgende Benutzer bedankten sich beim Autor Zwerg für den Beitrag (Insgesamt 2):
Lucius Aelius (Mi 30.11.22 05:31) • rosmoe (Mi 30.11.22 18:20)
ΒIOΣ ΑΝЄΟΡΤAΣΤΟΣ ΜΑΚΡΗ ΟΔΟΣ ΑΠΑNΔΟKEYTOΣ
Ein Leben ohne Feste ist ein langer Weg ohne Gasthäuser (Demokrit)

Benutzeravatar
Lucius Aelius
Beiträge: 1395
Registriert: Mo 25.09.17 11:16
Hat sich bedankt: 795 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 1183 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Lucius Aelius » Mi 30.11.22 05:31

Sehr gut
Gruss
Lucius Aelius

Altamura2
Beiträge: 5203
Registriert: So 10.06.12 20:08
Hat sich bedankt: 0
Danksagung erhalten: 1068 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Altamura2 » Mi 30.11.22 08:49

Zwerg hat geschrieben:
Di 29.11.22 23:38
... Ich hoffe, der Link funktioniert irgendwie ...
Bei mir nicht :( . (Ich hab' mein Gesicht aber auch nicht in diesem Buch :D .)

Wie argumentiert er denn?

Gruß

Altamura

Benutzeravatar
Zwerg
Beiträge: 6389
Registriert: Fr 28.11.03 23:49
Wohnort: Wuppertal
Hat sich bedankt: 300 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 1320 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Zwerg » Mi 30.11.22 09:20

Ich nehem an, daß Nick nichts dagegen hat, ihn hier zu zitieren - ist etwas länger :D
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)
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.
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.
Since the coin looks like an obvious fake to anyone with some experience in ancient numismatics, the authors turned to microscopy and chemical analysis of 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 'aurei').
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.
Folgende Benutzer bedankten sich beim Autor Zwerg für den Beitrag (Insgesamt 2):
Steffl0815 (Mi 30.11.22 10:54) • Furius (Mi 30.11.22 16:06)
ΒIOΣ ΑΝЄΟΡΤAΣΤΟΣ ΜΑΚΡΗ ΟΔΟΣ ΑΠΑNΔΟKEYTOΣ
Ein Leben ohne Feste ist ein langer Weg ohne Gasthäuser (Demokrit)

Altamura2
Beiträge: 5203
Registriert: So 10.06.12 20:08
Hat sich bedankt: 0
Danksagung erhalten: 1068 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Altamura2 » Mi 30.11.22 16:30

Zwerg hat geschrieben:
Di 29.11.22 23:38
... Einem m.E. ausgezeichneten Artikel hat Nick Vaneerdewegh (werkelt bei Leu) bei facebook geschrieben ...
Besten Dank fürs Reinkopieren :D .
Für ausgezeichnet halte ich das aber nicht, dafür ist es schon zu sehr aufs Runterputzen von Pearson et al. angelegt, das hätte nicht sein müssen :? .

Zumal seine eigene Argumentation auch nicht immer ganz hasenrein ist. Zwei Beispiele:
... Nothing is right about the Sponsian coins - they look wrong, the metal content and the weights are wrong ...
Wenn man von richtig oder falsch spricht, dann braucht man einen Bezugsrahmen, anhand dessen man das bewertet. Es sind sich alle einig, dass die Objekte keine original römischen Münzen sind, daran kann ich sie also nicht bewerten. Was genau diese Teile sind, weiß aber derzeit letztlich niemand, auch darum geht die Diskussion ja. Also haben wir auch keinen Bezugsrahmen für solche Bewertungen und derartige Bemerkungen sind nur Stimmungsmache :? .
... 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. ...
Wenn man lang und breit versucht, die Autoren da zu diskreditieren, wo sie der eigenen Ansicht widersprechen, dann kann man sie nicht plötzlich als Kronzeugen heranziehen, wenn sie mal gleicher Meinung sind wie man selbst :D . Das passt irgendwie nicht :| .
... The authors want the coins to be real, and any and all evidence will do. ...
So ganz werde ich den Eindruck also nicht los, dass dieses mit umgekehrten Vorzeichen ein kleines bisschen auch für Nick Vaneerdewegh gilt :wink: .


Mir ist aber inzwischen aufgefallen, dass es unter den Autoren wohl gar keinen "richtigen" Archäometallurgen gibt 8O (und unter den vielen Diskutanten vielleicht auch nicht :D ). Die vier Techniker können vermutlich virtuos ihre Messgeräte bedienen, haben aber, soweit man das ergoogeln kann, keine Erfahrung mit antiken Metallobjekten. Bei Jesper Ericsson vom Hunterian sieht es da ähnlich dünn aus.
Heißt: Aus den gemessenen Phänomenen irgendwelche Rückschlüsse auf die Objekte und deren Lebenslauf ziehen, können die eigentlich nicht, zumindest fehlt eine Basis an Erfahrung :( . Das stärkt mein teilweise noch vorhandenes Vertrauen in diesen Artikel auch nicht gerade :? .

Gruß

Altamura
Folgende Benutzer bedankten sich beim Autor Altamura2 für den Beitrag (Insgesamt 2):
Steffl0815 (Mi 30.11.22 16:45) • harald (Mi 30.11.22 16:48)

Benutzeravatar
Zwerg
Beiträge: 6389
Registriert: Fr 28.11.03 23:49
Wohnort: Wuppertal
Hat sich bedankt: 300 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 1320 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Zwerg » Mi 30.11.22 16:58

Mittlerweile tendiere ich sehr zu Münsterbergs Meinung von 1923.
Hat es jeh einen Fund gegeben?
Screenshot 2022-11-30 165419.jpg
Grüße
Klaus
Folgende Benutzer bedankten sich beim Autor Zwerg für den Beitrag:
rosmoe (Mi 30.11.22 18:20)
ΒIOΣ ΑΝЄΟΡΤAΣΤΟΣ ΜΑΚΡΗ ΟΔΟΣ ΑΠΑNΔΟKEYTOΣ
Ein Leben ohne Feste ist ein langer Weg ohne Gasthäuser (Demokrit)

Benutzeravatar
richard55-47
Beiträge: 5085
Registriert: Mo 12.01.04 18:25
Wohnort: Düren
Hat sich bedankt: 5 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 406 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von richard55-47 » Do 01.12.22 16:07

Sponsianus wurde jetzt auch von Berenike aufgegriffen:
https://muenzenwoche.de/sponsianus-kais ... ngespinst/
Folgende Benutzer bedankten sich beim Autor richard55-47 für den Beitrag:
Steffl0815 (Do 01.12.22 17:13)
do ut des.

Benutzeravatar
Lucius Aelius
Beiträge: 1395
Registriert: Mo 25.09.17 11:16
Hat sich bedankt: 795 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 1183 Mal

Re: Sponsianus

Beitrag von Lucius Aelius » Fr 02.12.22 09:42

Interessant auch die Diskussion hier:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-le ... us.364019/
Gruss
Lucius Aelius

Antworten

Wer ist online?

Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 5 Gäste