Would the real emperor please stand up?

[Imperial Dave]

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/23/coins-study-suggests-fake-emperor-sponsian-was-real-say-scientists?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIKAGwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16692441808197&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fscience%2F2022%2Fnov%2F23%2Fcoins-study-suggests-fake-emperor-sponsian-was-real-say-scientists

Well well well....

[Andreas Johansson]

BBC's also got an article about it.

[Jim Webster]

Strikes me that the coins are of the period, rather than later fakes, and circulated.
So whilst Sponsian may not have existed, somebody in the correct sort of time frame seems to have produced coins in his name 

[Ian61]

The evidence sounds good and well beyond 18century fakers. I liked the very modern phrase: "If we allow Roman emperors to self-identify, he was a Roman emperor." but as they also say at the time  "the bar for being an emperor was very low". I would trust the science more that a French (OK Dutch born) expert, we have seen too many of them on fake or fortune - their mantra seems to be "Dis juste non!" (just say no?!) on anything that they didn't discover. The against argument seems more subjective than real. A style from an isolated area could surely be notably different to the norm of the time especially if the mint has been set up from scratch.

[DBS]

The evidence sounds good and well beyond 18century fakers. I liked the very modern phrase: "If we allow Roman emperors to self-identify, he was a Roman emperor." but as they also say at the time  "the bar for being an emperor was very low". I would trust the science more that a French (OK Dutch born) expert, we have seen too many of them on fake or fortune - their mantra seems to be "Dis juste non!" (just say no?!) on anything that they didn't discover. The against argument seems more subjective than real. A style from an isolated area could surely be notably different to the norm of the time especially if the mint has been set up from scratch.

Much as I dislike the term "The Crisis of the Third Century," there is at least a reason why it was coined (sorry for the pun).  There are so many "usurpers" about whom we know damn all, sometimes barely their name, that one should never rule out any evidence unless you have very good reasons to think it is truly fake.  In similar fashion, Peter Heather (whose work I respect deeply) and others were made to look a little foolish after years of saying that there never was an Ostrogotha as an eponym for certain hairy Germanic types... until a fragment of Dexippus turned up a few years ago proving that there was an Ostrogotha terrorising the Balkans and Greece.

Also, worth noting that Rule No 1 of usurpation always was to mint one's own coins, a) to assert your claim, b) to pay the troops who have just acclaimed you imperator, before they start looking for another candidate.

[Nick Harbud]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence?