Scrutable

A thread on the problems with the recent press releases about the lost Roman Emperor.

https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/statu ... fHPxg&s=19

Nice summary and yes.

Some key things that even an enthusiastic layperson should have picked up on.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:26 am

Nice summary and yes.

Some key things that even an enthusiastic layperson should have picked up on.

Indeed. And people from outside the immediate field often do have things to contribute - and that includes earth scientists in archaeology - but when working in a field that is not one's own field, it's very easy to just miss really important stuff that would be obvious to anyone in that field. It's downright irresponsible for institutions to put out so much press in support of someone when they haven't done the basic due diligence of properly involving people whose primary work is in the field in question.

Also, a minor point of pedantry - there are cast ancient coins, including Thurrock potins from Britain and a whole load of far eastern coins, and even some Roman coins that were probably in-period counterfeits made in the British isles. There's no suggestion that was ever done with gold coins, though, and it's unlikely it would be as the usual goal with coin counterfeiting is to make a counterfeit coin that, when passed off as a real one, is worth more than it costs to make, and that's not the case with gold.

I've just seen that The Economist fell for this one hook, line and sinker.

Not The Economist!!!

discovolante wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 12:07 pm

Not The Economist!!!

The Economist failed to spot fake coins?

*Insert snarky content about crypto here*

I've yet to see a specific response to the identification of wear and soil on the coins that supposedly indicates prolonged burial - only (admittedly well-founded) scepticism.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 2:47 pm

I've yet to see a specific response to the identification of wear and soil on the coins that supposedly indicates prolonged burial - only (admittedly well-founded) scepticism.

Wear and soil can almost certainly be faked pretty quickly - most of the wear will be due to mechanical action at the point of burial and excavation, with some soil movement in-between. I can easily think of ways to accelerate that - e.g. multiple burials and excavations, actively compacting and shifting the soil, etc.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 3:19 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 2:47 pm

I've yet to see a specific response to the identification of wear and soil on the coins that supposedly indicates prolonged burial - only (admittedly well-founded) scepticism.

Wear and soil can almost certainly be faked pretty quickly - most of the wear will be due to mechanical action at the point of burial and excavation, with some soil movement in-between. I can easily think of ways to accelerate that - e.g. multiple burials and excavations, actively compacting and shifting the soil, etc.

Gold's particularly difficult to age, too, and so more vulnerable to fraud.

Barring reasonably solid evidence otherwise, a cast Roman coin is a forgery, and while there are period forgeries that include cast coins, there just isn't a motive to forge a gold coin because it costs as much as it is worth.