Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 27 December 2022

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Sponsianus, also known in English as Sponsian, may have been a Roman usurper during the third century. His existence is implied by the discovery of a series of coins bearing his name, ostensibly excavated in the eighteenth century. No corresponding figure named Sponsianus is mentioned in any ancient sources, and the coins are widely believed to be the work of modern forgers. A study of wear marks on the coins published in November, 2022 concluded that the coins were authentic, supporting Sponsian's existence as a historical figure. However, the study's methodology and conclusions have been criticized by a number of experts.

If there were a historical Sponsianus, he may have been active during the Crisis of the Third Century, most likely in the province of Dacia. He might have proclaimed himself emperor in the 260s, after Dacia was cut off from the rest of the Empire during the reign of Gallienus. Another possibility is that he was active earlier, during the reign of Philip the Arab or his son.

Discussion

The sole claim for the existence of Sponsianus is his name on a few double-aurei and a silver coin reportedly uncovered in a coin-hoard in Transylvania in 1713, and subsequently dispersed among several collections. 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, among others.

The traditional opinion of numismatists has been to regard the coins as non-authentic: 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 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 of the coin is a copy of a Republican denarius struck in 135 BC. The coins are also unusually heavy, appear to have been cast (instead of the more usual stamping process), and the inscriptions themselves do not follow the conventions of the time. However, according to the ancient 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 Sponsianus did not actually exist.

After further study in 2022, a group of scientists argued that scratch marks on one coin bearing Sponsianus' name and image, visible under an electron microscope, proved that it circulated in antiquity. 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 analysis, another coin bearing Sponsianus' name, in the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu in Transylvania, has also been reclassified as genuine.

In the aftermath of Pearson's analysis, several researchers have criticized the study and its conclusions. In an article for the Times Literary Supplement, Mary Beard suggests that the unusual features of the Sponsianus coin are better explained by its being an eighteenth-century forgery. Richard Abdy, the curator of the collection of Roman coins at the British Museum, condemned the study, stating "they've gone full fantasy." In the Journal Antigone, Alfred Deahl also argues that the coins are forgeries: he cites the unusual weight of the Sponsianus coins, the poor lettering and use of the genitive instead of the usual nominative case, the highly irregular casting process used to produce them, the imitation of a republican reverse, and the oddness of the other coins purportedly found in the same hoard. These doubts are echoed by Aleksander Bursche and Kyrylo Myzgin, who add that the very early finding and low gold content may count against the coins' authenticity. Alice Sharpless from the American Numismatic Society summarized criticism of the Pearson study by writing "the evidence of wear and of surface deposits cannot be shown conclusively not to have occurred in the modern period... Unless further study can provide more certain answers, it seems that these coins should continue to be regarded as modern forgeries."

Pearson's study has also attracted significant attention from Romanian numismatists and classicists. Emanuel Petac, President of the Romanian Numismatic Society, stated that the coin "has nothing to do with the Roman world." On the basis of the design, which he characterizes as rudimentary and bizarre, and the inscription, he concludes that the coin could not have been minted by an emperor. Petac notes that the legend irregularly excludes his praenomen and cognomen, or whose son or grandson he is. Another Romanian academic, Florian-Matei Popescu, highlighted the lack of written attestations of Sponsianus or his name—though the name Sponsianus is attested in the Roman world in inscriptions, these are very rare. Popescu argues that if the coins are real, which he deems unlikely, they date to the reign of Philip the Arab, who opened a mint in Dacia making low-value bronzes to pay the army.

Explanations

Scholars have put forward several explanations as to when and where Sponsianus was active. One explanation, based upon the other coins found with the aurei, would date Sponsianus' activity to the 240s. It is thought that this would have taken place within the rule of Gordian III (238–244 AD) or Philip the Arab (244–249 AD). Based upon the location of his aurei, some scholars posit that he may have staged a revolt in Pannonia. Ilkka Syvänne places the revolt early in Philip's reign, and identifies Sponsianus with the obscure Severus Hostilianus mentioned in later Byzantine histories (though he notes the evidence is circumstantial).

Another explanation is that he was a military commander who crowned himself as emperor when Dacia was cut off from the rest of the empire around 260. With an ongoing pandemic and civil war, and the empire being fragmented at the time, Sponsianus may have assumed supreme command to protect the military and civilian population of Dacia until order was restored. The Romans eventually evacuated Dacia between 271 and 275. According to Jesper Ericsson:

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.

The Roman Empire in this period was highly unstable; many peripheral areas were left to fend for themselves. Dacia in particular was abandoned in the 270s by Aurelian after it was deemed too difficult to defend. Sponsianus may have found himself responsible for thousands of people, without support from the central regime of the empire, and surrounded by hostile tribes; in this context, Sponsianus taking the title of emperor has been characterized as an attempt to maintain order. He would have had access to a military force consisting of two legions there and their associated auxiliary personnel, totalling tens of thousands of soldiers. No evidence has been found of Sponsianus' rule in Dacia or elsewhere, and, if he did exist, this would seem to indicate that Sponsianus was not interested, or not successful, in expanding his territory.

See also

• Silbannacus
• Ingenuus
• Regalianus
• Censorinus (usurper)

Notes

1. (Pearson et al. 2022) catalogues the provenance of the coins found in the hoard: there appear to have been seven coins depicting Sponsianus, but only four are now extant; the study included only a single coin depicting Sponsianus alongside others found in the same hoard.
2. The coins bearing Sponsianus' name and image weigh 10.02g on average; for comparison those of Philip found in the same hoard weigh 4.30g on average.
3. Deahl also notes that eighteenth-century forgers were sophisticated enough to add wear marks to their coins, which they created by placing them in bags with other coins, and handling them to simulate normal usage.
4. Son: filius, f, fil; grandson: nepos, n, nep.

References

1. ^ Ghosh 2022.
2. ^ Pearson et al. 2022.
3. Cohen 1868, p. 254.
4. Vagi 2000, p. 331.
5. ^ Pearson 2022.
6. Sayles 2007, p. 121.
7. Pearson 2022, p. 227.
8. Beard 2022.
9. Devlin 2022.
10. Deahl 2022.
11. ^ Sharpless 2022.
12. ^ Nicolae 2022.
13. ^ Vig 2022.
14. CIL VI, 3959 (as originally drawn by Piranesi)
15. Hartmann 1982, p. 121.
16. Mennen 2011, p. A1.
17. Goldsworthy 2009, p. 427.
18. Syvänne 2021.
19. ^ Knapton 2022.
20. Georgiou 2022.

Sources

• Beard, Mary (2022). "When is a Roman emperor not a Roman emperor?". Times Literary Supplement. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
• Cohen, Henri (1868). Description historique des Monnaies frappées sous l'Empire romain, communément appelées Médailles impériales. Vol. 7 supplément.
• Devlin, Hannah (2022-11-23). "Coins study suggests 'fake emperor' was real, say scientists". The Guardian. Retrieved 2022-11-25.
• Ghosh, Pallab (2022-11-24). "Gold coin proves 'fake' Roman emperor was real". BBC News. Retrieved 2022-11-24.
• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2009). How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300155600.
• Hartmann, Felix (1982). Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise : Untersuchungen zu den Ursachen und Konsequenzen der Herrscherwechsel im Imperium Romanum der Soldatenkaiserzeit (3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.). P. Lang. ISBN 978-3820461954.
• Knapton, Sarah (2022-11-23). "Long lost Roman emperor revealed as coins give up their secret". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2022-11-24.
• Mennen, Inge (2011). Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD 193–284. Brill. ISBN 9789004203594.
• Pearson, Paul N.; Botticelli, Michela; Ericsson, Jesper; Olender, Jacek; Spruženiece, Liene (2022-11-23). "Authenticating coins of the 'Roman emperor' Sponsian". PLOS ONE. 17 (11): e0274285. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274285. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 36417346.
• Pearson, Paul N. (2022). The Roman Empire in crisis, 248-260. Barnsley, England: Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-39909-097-1.
• Sayles, Wayne G. (2007). Ancient Coin Collecting III: The Roman World. KP. ISBN 9780896894785.
• Syvänne, Ilkka (2021). Gordian III and Philip the Arab: The Roman Empire at a Crossroads. Great Britain. ISBN 9781526786753.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Vagi, David L. (2000). Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, c. 82 B.C.- A.D. 480. Fitzroy Dearborn. ISBN 9781579583163.
• Nicolae, Adrian (2022-11-25). "Monedele cu chipul împăratului roman din Dacia, Sponsianus, un fals ridicol din toate punctele de vedere - opinia specialiștilor" [Coins with the face of the Roman emperor of Dacia, Sponsianus are ridiculously fake from all points of view - opinion of experts]. HotNews (in Romanian).
• Georgiou, Aristos (2022-12-01). "Lost Roman Emperor Long Thought to Be Fake Was Real Leader in Time of Chaos". Newsweek.
• Vig, Emese (2022-11-26). "Román szakértők a Sponsianus-érméről: az aranypénz hamisítvány, a császár meg nem létezett" [Romanian experts about the Sponsianus coin: the gold coin is fake and the emperor didn't exist]. Transtelex (in Hungarian).
• Sharpless, Alice (2022-12-06). "Is Sponsian real? Further Considerations". American Numismatic Society. New York City.
• Deahl, Alfred (2022-11-27). "Sponsian: another lost emperor". Antigone Journal.
• Szabó, Csaba (2022-11-28). Újvári, Ildikó (ed.). "„Emperor Sponsianus" and the crisis of Roman Studies". Szabadság. Cluj-Napoca.
• Schöpe, Björn (2022-12-01). "Sponsian – Emperor or Fantasy?". CoinsWeekly.

• 3rd-century Roman usurpers
• Romans from unknown gentes
• People whose existence is disputed