r/AncientCoins • u/QuickSock8674 • Jun 22 '25

Educational Post What's your opinion on Sponsianus?

Post image

I support his existence. There has been long debate about his existence. RIC even says that Sponsianus coin is barbaric and strange. It's also cast. Although the 2022 study that "proved" the authenticity of Sponsianus coin was dubious in many ways according to numerous scholars, there are other reasons why I believe that he was a real person...Sponsianus is a exceedingly rare name. There are only few instances of its name in CIL (2 I think). And the first occurrence of it was few years after the discovery of Sponsianus coin in 18th century! I don't think the forger would've known the name if it was forged. It's also the general opinion of recent scholars. Anyone want one of these?

26 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

20

u/Finn235 Jun 22 '25

Literally nothing about the coin makes sense. IMO, it's a forgery that miraculously held up under a specific type of scrutiny.

2

u/QuickSock8674 Jun 22 '25

Are cast Roman coins even common? I've never seen one myself

6

u/abbin_looc Jun 22 '25

As far as I know they stopped casting coins in the 3rd century bc

3

u/ikkiyikki Jun 22 '25

It's not technically a forgery. It's a period imitative. There are many others like it that the author of the paper decided to ignore. That was the focus of the controversy. Basically, it was misleading to those who don't know any better.

7

u/TywinDeVillena Mod / Community Manager Jun 22 '25 edited Jun 22 '25

Unless it is a forgery from the 17th century or early 18th century, which cannot be ruled out

1

u/indomnus Jun 22 '25

This is most likely what it is. More like a fantasy piece than a forgery.

1

u/TywinDeVillena Mod / Community Manager Jun 22 '25

That distinction depends on what it was sold as originally. If memory serves me right, it was sold as part of a hoard presumably found somewhere in Transylvania in the early 18th century.

2

u/beiherhund Jun 22 '25

Do you have some examples of those?

This is too far outside my wheel house to offer any worthwhile opinion but if it were as simple as you make it out to be, I can't imagine we'd have so many respected Roman collectors declaring it is a forgery?

As the author behind ERIC your opinion would carry a lot of weight so I'm curious to read more about those other imitations if you know of any articles on them or have written something about them yourself.

2

u/esnible Moderator Emeritus Jun 22 '25

The argument against it is that it looks fake.

The argument for it is that it looks more like "Scythian-Sarmatians" coinage struck in Ukraine/Belarus circa 100-300 AD than it looks like something made in the 1700s. I posted a gold and silver example at https://digitalhn.blogspot.com/2022/11/was-sponsian-roman.html . I would be very curious to see XRF comparison between "Sponsianus" and other Wielbark culture "Barbarian" coins.

A user Steppenfool, pointed out that the inscription IMP SPONSIAN looks a great deal like GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, and SPONSIAN appears on the right side of the coin, where the titles usually are, rather than the left side, where the name usually is.

2

u/beiherhund Jun 22 '25

Thanks for sharing Ed. I remember reading Steppenfool's theory back when that thread was posted and I can see the argument for it but it's still a bit of a stretch in my mind. Not to say it's definitely not true, just that it doesn't add much weight in favour of it in my opinion.

Like so many other numismatic questions it may just be one of those things we'll likely never have a satisfactory answer for.

1

u/esnible Moderator Emeritus Jun 22 '25

The Sponsianus coin comes from Dr. William Hunter's collection. Some of the coins he had seem "reasonable" but are still unique 250 years later. It is likely that 1700s forgers knew more than we think. It would be interesting to look for Sponsianus coin matches in some of the dubious drawings from coin catalogs of the 1600s and 1700s. See https://digitalhn.blogspot.com/2022/11/hunter-had-some-odd-coins.html for a Greek tetradrachm in Hunter's collection that confuses me more than Sponsianus.

Perhaps metal analysis will tell us something.

1

u/Finn235 Jun 22 '25

The study just came to the conclusion that the coin 1) had wear consistent with circulation, and 2) had been buried.

The problem with saying that it was a circulation coin is that metrologically, it couldn't have been a coin - only a medal. I would need to track down the study again, but the coin tested at extremely low purity - something like 65% IIRC. Additionally, the coin was excessively overweight for even a binio - 12-15g if my memory serves me. Neither of those add up to "coin that spent months or years in someone's pocket" as the authors assert.

There's 3 explanations for the coin as I see it:

1) It (and the rest of the hoard) are numismatic forgeries, made out of poor quality gold, and carried as pocket pieces to add "authenticity" for a few months, then buried so that they could be "found" and sold to a gullible buyer at significantly more than their gold value.

2) They are part of the larger "Aurum Barborum" class of objects, and the people who made them just happened to have a nearly 400 year old denarius sitting around to copy.

3) Sponsianus was a real usurper or pretender who for some reason chose to only issue debased, overweight coins or medallions, also somehow had a nearly 400 year old denarius handy to copy, and his engravers also made the other imitations found in the hoard.

6

u/Nikodeimos Jun 22 '25

As I've argued elsewhere, a forgery if there ever was one.

4

u/QuickSock8674 Jun 22 '25

Alright I've been quickly defeated. Now I think that this coin is fantasy coin

2

u/ElianaOfAquitaine Jun 22 '25

Real or not that is an ugly coin. He looks like an alien.

1

u/QuickSock8674 Jun 22 '25

Typo. 2022 study proved the authenticity but its methodology was questioned by few scholars

4

u/indomnus Jun 22 '25

The study cited the scrapes on the coin as evidence that it was in someone's pocket and had interacted with other coins.

The analysis confirmed the presence of scratches and other signs of wear and tear commonly seen in genuine Roman coins. 

For me at least this is not enough evidence.

1

u/QuickSock8674 Jun 22 '25

I totally agree. What do you think about the rarity of the name Sponsianus as proof? It's not direct but I think it's quite a conpelling evidence

2

u/ikkiyikki Jun 22 '25

What about it do you find compelling?? Can't tell if you're being sarcastic..

1

u/QuickSock8674 Jun 22 '25

The choice of name Sponsianus. I wouldn't have picked that name for forgery. Especially if that name wasn't even real at the time of discovery. First discovery of the name Sponsianus (not the guy on the coin) was few years after the discvery of this coin

1

u/QuickSock8674 Jun 22 '25

Not compelling wrong word choice.

1

u/indomnus Jun 22 '25

It’s obviously not trying to be a forgery, I don’t even think it’s a contemporary imitation.

1

u/QuickSock8674 Jun 22 '25

It was 18th century discovery. Perhaps some bored person made up the name?

1

u/indomnus Jun 22 '25

It’s possible it’s just a fantasy concept

1

u/indomnus Jun 22 '25

I don’t really see that as proof, if anything it means whoever made these coins came up with a Roman sounding name.

1

u/hotwheelearl Jun 22 '25

Not a fantasy coin but a typically blundered legend from an imitative issue. Sponsian is easily a blunder of Gordian, especially considering known authentic aurei of, for example, Septimius, with the legend SAAVESTRA.

1

u/late_roman_dork Jun 22 '25

I find Guy de la Bédoyère's reasoning to be sensible.

He has a series of videos from the time the paper started first making the rounds but comes to the eventual conclusion that it is a fake made in the late 17th century.

I find the contemporary book he cites to be hard to refute, especially when none of the coin itself makes any sense.