We can get many helpful and useful information in
history form different sciences (multidisciplinary), so this is actually great.
But this different sciences should complement each other and all arguments for and against the own opinion should be published not only what is supporting your position.
Here we seem to have a Geologist who checked the encrustrations, I assume that this encrustrations are minerals and a subject of direction of mineralogy.
His argument seems that the scratches and encrustrations can not be produced artificially, if this is actually true the coins must be authentic
ancient coins, if it is not true and forgers knew and know how to do it, then he lost
his very best arguments for authenticity!
My question is how does he know that the scratches and encrustrations can not be produces artificially, did they try to do so and asked really really
good chemists and mineralogists if it is actually possible, ?(I fear they did not)
Did they compare the encrustrations and scratches with encrustrations and scratches on old
fake (1500-1800)? (why not)
I assume that they only compared the encrustrations and scratches on them with some authentic coins and though that they are similar or identical and so they must be authentic, too.
The idea itself is
good, I look for
patina (for bronze coins most important) and mineral encrustrations too if it
comes to authentication and that will
weight much but at the end I will authenticate the coin as a WHOLE and if the coin looks entirely convincing I will consider it authentic but if the coin looks bad I will not care much for mineral encrustratons and
patina (because I know how
good forgers can be). Some
fakes are for example overstuck on authentic coins so here we have to look at the coin as a whole.
What I am missing is that an expert in the
field of archaeometry checked the gold, when it was melted, from which mines it
comes from, if the
alloy is correct for this time and comparing it with authentic ancient gold artifacts and coins form this time and region.
Maybe an expert in chemistry and mineralogy checking if such mineral encrustrations can be produced artificially and comparing with encrustrations on authentic artifacts and coins from this time and later with old
fakes (1500-1800) and modern
fakes (1800-till nowadays).
Historian checking if there is actually evidence for the existance of
Sponsianus or not and if it is plausible or not that he actually existed.
Numismatist and an expert for old
fakes checking:
Are the coins form a known forger (similar or identical
style and or
fabric and or
alloy or matrixes or die links to
fakes know) ?
If you compare them with authentic coin (officially,unofficially and barbarian) and
fake coins, do they have more in common with
fake coins or authentic coins and what are the differences?
Why did they
cast them, what is the reason for casting them?
Why and how do casted coins have different
flan shape, centering and slippage and double striking, if you make casts that look like struck coins you should stike them? (maybe an experiment of a forger how to make strange but old looking coins)
Is plausible that
Sponsianus has minted coins for himself and for other emperors like Philipp and
Gordianus, if Sponsian is minting coins for himself it is plausible but to
mint coins for other emperors only makes sense if it would
help to himself as emperor for example if they are
his ancestor (dynastic legitimation).
If they are barbarian imitations, then they would try to imitate already existing coins they got in their
hands but I doubt that they really got some official coins from Sponisn in their
hands which they copied so barbarians have invented coins of Sponsian or was Sponsian a barbarian?
Do coins showin
Sponsianus really prove the existance of
Sponsianus?
If barbarians copy coins they can misread legends on bad centered and or bad struck or worn coins, so maybe they misread the
legend of a coin and thougt it was supposed to be from Sponsian?
One problem is that "proving" that "
Sponsianus" actually existed is a sensation and will bring the author fame and publicity (newspaprers etc.).
To prove opposite will not bring you much publicity (no one will cares), because it is alreay consensus for a long time for most numismatists that they are
fake.
So it is more interesting for an author if the result will be that
Sponsianus existed.