Sponsianus, also known in English as Sponsian, may have been a Roman usurper during the third century. His existence is implied by a series of coins bearing his name, ostensibly part of a hoard 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. However, 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. The study's methodology and conclusions have been criticized by a number of scholars.
Scholars who accept the historicity of Sponsianus date his activity to the Crisis of the Third Century, often locating him in the particularly unstable province of Dacia. More precise dating is a matter of controversy: some scholars have conjectured that he may have proclaimed himself emperor in the 260s, after Dacia was cut off from the rest of the Empire, or in the early 270s after it was formally abandoned by Aurelian. Others contend he may have been active earlier, during the reign of Philip the Arab or his son, Philip II.
The sole evidence for the existence of Sponsianus is his name on a few double-aurei reportedly uncovered in a coin-hoard in Transylvania in 1713, and subsequently dispersed among several collections. [note 1] One was kept in the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow University, alongside three coins depicting other figures also claimed to have been from the hoard. [2] [3] Another entered the bequest of Baron Samuel von Brukenthal, a Habsburg governor of Transylvania. [2]
The aurei are highly unusual for the period. Firstly, the obverse of the coin features unusual lettering and gives Sponsianus' name in the genitive case (instead of the usual nominative). Second, the reverse of the coin is a copy of a Republican denarius struck in 135 BC with an apparently corrupted inscription. [1] The coins are also unusually heavy, [note 2] and appear to have been cast, rather than produced using the more usual stamping process. [4]
The traditional consensus among numismatists has been to regard the coins as modern forgeries. As early as 1828, Eckhel noted the strangeness of the coins and concluded against the historicity of Sponsianus. [5] In 1868, the French numismatist Henri Cohen dismissed them as "very poor quality modern forgeries," [2] [6] and Rudolf Münsterberg's 1923 analysis, concluding that the coins were modern forgeries, is considered definitive by many numismatists. [7] [8] [9] More recently, the coins were described as "strange and barbaric" in Roman Imperial Coinage , [10] a British catalogue of Roman Imperial currency, and some numismatists have objected to their inclusion in the catalogue altogether. [8] [9] Other scholars concur with the RIC, and classify the coins as third-century imitations of Roman coinage, [11] [10] while still others contend that the coins can be ascribed to a historical usurper Sponsianus. [12] In general, ancient historians have been more willing to accept the historicity of Sponsianus and the authenticity of the coins. [1]
In 2022, a group of scientists led by Paul Pearson of University College London argued that scratch marks on one coin bearing Sponsianus' name and image, visible under an electron microscope, proved that the coin circulated in antiquity. [2] [3] The group also conducted a chemical analysis, concluding the earth deposits found in the coin's recesses showed that the coins had been buried in soil for hundreds of years. [2] [13] The study attracted significant scholarly and media attention, and led the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu to reclassify another coin bearing Sponsianus' image as genuine. [2]
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. [14] Richard Abdy, the curator of the collection of Roman coins at the British Museum, condemned the study, stating "they've gone full fantasy." [15] In the Journal Antigone, Alfred Deahl argued that the coins are forgeries, drawing attention to the unusual features of the coins as well as the oddness of the other coins purportedly found in the same hoard. [16] [note 3] 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. [17] 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." [17]
Pearson's study has 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. [18] Petac notes that the legend irregularly excludes his praenomen and cognomen, or whose son or grandson he is. [note 4] [19] 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. [20] 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. [18]
The name Sponsianus is an authentic, but exceedingly rare, Roman name, derived from the Latin word spondere, to solemnly promise. [21] Pearson notes only one instance, from a funerary inscription naming an obscure person called Nicodemus Sponsianus, dating from the early first century. [22] This inscription was not published until 1726, several years after the supposed discovery of Sponsian's coins, and Pearson regards this as an argument for their authenticity: a forger would not have known of the name. Two other instances appear in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum , a catalogue of known Latin inscriptions, all dating from the same period, [23] while a further two inscriptions give the abbreviated form Sposianus; [24] all five inscriptions are from Rome. One of the latter was published by Jan Gruter well before the first known appearance of the coins, [25] and other examples are known besides these, so a forger might still have been aware of or guessed at the existence of such a name. [26]
Scholars who accept the historicity of Sponsianus have proposed several possibilities for when and where Sponsianus would have been active. One explanation, based upon the other coins found with the aurei, would date Sponsian's activity to the 240s, [27] during the rule of Gordian III (AD 238–244) or Philip the Arab (AD 244–249). [28] Based upon the location of his aurei, some scholars posit that he may have staged a revolt in Pannonia. [29] 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). [30]
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. [2] [4] 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. [2]
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. [31] 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. [32] No other evidence has been found of Sponsianus' rule, and if he did exist, this would seem to indicate that Sponsianus was either uninterested or unsuccessful in expanding his territory. [31]
The Battle of Abritus, also known as the Battle of Forum Terebronii, occurred near Abritus in the Roman province of Moesia Inferior in the summer of 251. It was fought between the Romans and a federation of Gothic and Scythian tribesmen under the Gothic king Cniva. The Roman army was soundly defeated, and Roman emperors Decius and Herennius Etruscus, his son, were both killed in battle. It was one of the worst defeats suffered by the Roman Empire against the Germanic tribes, rated by the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus as on par with the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, the Marcomannic invasion of Roman Italy in 170, and the Battle of Adrianople in 378.
Philip the Arab was Roman emperor from 244 to 249. He was born in Aurantis, Arabia, in a city situated in modern-day Syria. After the death of Gordian III in February 244, Philip, who had been Praetorian prefect, achieved power. He quickly negotiated peace with the Persian Sassanid Empire and returned to Rome to be confirmed by the Senate. During his reign, the city of Rome celebrated its millennium.
Gaius Pescennius Niger was a Roman usurper from 193 to 194 during the Year of the Five Emperors. He claimed the imperial throne in response to the murder of Pertinax and the elevation of Didius Julianus, but was defeated by a rival claimant, Septimius Severus, and killed while attempting to flee from Antioch.
Philip I Epiphanes Philadelphus was a Hellenistic Seleucid monarch who reigned as the king of Syria from 94 to either 83 or 75 BC. The son of Antiochus VIII and his wife Tryphaena, he spent his early life in a period of civil war between his father and his uncle Antiochus IX. The conflict ended with the assassination of Antiochus VIII; Antiochus IX took power in the Syrian capital Antioch, but soon fell in battle with Antiochus VIII's eldest son Seleucus VI.
Seleucus VI Epiphanes Nicator was a Hellenistic Seleucid monarch who ruled Syria between 96 and 94 BC. He was the son of Antiochus VIII and his Ptolemaic Egyptian wife Tryphaena. Seleucus VI lived during a period of civil war between his father and his uncle Antiochus IX, which ended in 96 BC when Antiochus VIII was assassinated. Antiochus IX then occupied the capital Antioch while Seleucus VI established his power-base in western Cilicia and himself prepared for war. In 95 BC, Antiochus IX marched against his nephew, but lost the battle and was killed. Seleucus VI became the master of the capital but had to share Syria with his brother Demetrius III, based in Damascus, and his cousin, Antiochus IX's son Antiochus X.
Legio III Italica was a legion of the Imperial Roman army founded in 165 AD by the emperor Marcus Aurelius for his campaign against the Marcomanni tribe. The cognomen Italica suggests that the legion's original recruits were drawn for the defence of Italy. The legion was still active in Raetia and other provinces in the early 5th century.
Legio II Parthica was a legion of the Imperial Roman army founded in AD 197 by the emperor Septimius Severus, for his campaign against the Parthian Empire, hence the cognomenParthica. The legion was still active in the beginning of the 5th century. The legion's symbol was a centaur.
Barbarous radiates are imitations of the antoninianus, a type of coin issued during the Roman Empire, which are so named due to their crude style and prominent radiant crown worn by the emperor.
Silbannacus was an obscure Roman emperor or usurper during the Crisis of the Third Century. Silbannacus is not mentioned in any contemporary documents and his existence was forgotten until the 20th century, when two coins bearing his name were discovered, the first in the 1930s and the second in the 1980s. His unusual name suggests that he might have been of Gallic descent.
The Carpi or Carpiani were a tribe that resided in the eastern parts of modern Romania in the historical region of Moldavia from no later than c. AD 140 and until at least AD 318.
The so-called Free Dacians is the name given by some modern historians to those Dacians who putatively remained outside, or emigrated from, the Roman Empire after the emperor Trajan's Dacian Wars. Dio Cassius named them Dakoi prosoroi meaning "neighbouring Dacians".
The Arch of Claudius was a triumphal arch in Rome built in honour of the emperor Claudius's successful invasion of Britain in AD 43. It was dedicated in AD 51 but had already been anticipated in commemorative coins minted in AD 46–47 and 49, which depicted it summounted by an equestrian statue between two trophies. However, the real structure was a conversion of one of the arches of the Aqua Virgo aqueduct at the point where it crossed the Via Flaminia, the main road to the north, just north of the Saepta.
Ulpia Severina was Roman empress as the wife of Roman emperor Aurelian from c. 270 to 275. Severina is unmentioned in surviving literary sources and known only from coinage and inscriptions and as a result, very little is known about her. Her nomen Ulpia suggests that she may have been related either to Emperor Trajan or the usurper Laelianus, as they share the same nomen, and perhaps from Dacia, where the name was common. It is not known when she married Aurelian, but it might have been before he became emperor. She was probably proclaimed Augusta in the autumn of 274.
Caecilia Paulina was a Roman Empress and consort to Emperor Maximinus Thrax, who ruled in 235–238.
Bar Kokhba revolt coinage were coins issued by the Judaean rebel state, headed by Simon Bar Kokhba, during the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire of 132–135 CE.
Legio VI Hispana may have been a legion of the Imperial Roman army. Only a few records attesting a "VI Hispana" were known in 2015. Seyrig (1923) argued that this unit was created in AD 68 and disappeared before 197. Another theory is that VI Hispana was created after 197 and was destroyed in the turmoil of the Empire's Third Century Crisis.
Edward Emery was an English numismatist, responsible for the creation of forged coins.
Roman Imperial Coinage, abbreviated RIC, is a British catalogue of Roman Imperial currency, from the time of the Battle of Actium (31 BC) to Late Antiquity in 491 AD. It is the result of many decades of work, from 1923 to 1994, and a successor to the previous 8-volume catalogue compiled by the numismatist Henry Cohen in the 19th century.
Agnes Baldwin Brett was an American numismatist and archaeologist who worked as the Curator at the American Numismatic Society from 1910 to 1913. She was the first paid curator at the American Numismatic Society. She made important contributions to the study of ancient coinage, medals, and sculpture, whose work was used by later archaeologists. Brett was also a visiting lecturer of archaeology at Columbia University in 1936.
The gens Opellia, also spelled Opelia and Opilia, was a minor family of imperial Rome, which briefly emerged from obscurity when Marcus Opellius Macrinus was proclaimed emperor following the murder of Caracalla in AD 217. The only members of this gens who appear in history are the emperor and his son, Marcus Opellius Diadumenianus, who ruled briefly as co-emperor in 218, but other Opellii are found in inscriptions, particularly from Dacia.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)