Thwarting this practise is an attitude present in all legislations. Nowadays this is still a problem, above all with regard to banknotes and other payment systems (as credit cards). Since ancient times, when money substituted the barter system, many false coins were produced and issued into circulation. The problem of coins and banknotes falsification is particularly widespread all over the world. If it was a fake, it was faked back in the day with the methods they used and then buried in the ground for x number of centuries, which is a pretty elaborate way to commit a hoax the outcome of which one would never live to actually see.The falsification to defraud the circulation It's physically and chemically identical to coins of the period. That's the shittiest line of reasoning I've ever heard a supposed expert spout. I read your comment after reading the last line in the article: The keepers of history get pissed when history doesn't comply with the narratives they've built. Times of chaos leave far, far fewer records to look over and find out the secrets happening on the fringes.Īnd NOT knowing that's what probably happened, or lacking the evidence to prove it, the historians refuse to speculate that they overlooked an emperor of the Roman empire, even if the guy barely merited the title. Given ALL the evidence involved, including what's been confirmed as having happened back then, its well within the realm of probability that there was some minor Roman general who took over a garrison and tried to keep social order by emulating the commercial and transactional methods used by the Roman empire.Īnd all that would naturally go poof when the region was evacuated and, if not quietly executed for what he did, then reintegrated into the legions as a border commander stationed where he couldn't capitalize on his temporary emperor-hood, far away from the chaotic center of government with little surviving of who he was or what happened to him after he lost his lofty position (which, for most roman emperors, was he either died of old age, or was killed by another power faction). If it was a fake, it was faked back in the day with the methods they used and then buried in the ground for x number of centuries, which is a pretty elaborate way to commit a hoax the outcome of which one would never live to actually see. The Sponsian coin on the other hand is not only moderately high in silver (averaging 3.83%) but also high in copper (averaging 3.39%), giving it a distinctive composition unlike any of the others.Ĭlick to expand.That's the shittiest line of reasoning I've ever heard a supposed expert spout. The compositions of these two coins are sufficiently similar, given the levels of heterogeneity in both of them, that their bulk compositions may be the same. The two Philip coins are also relatively low in copper but have significantly higher silver contents (averaging 4.73% and 5.76% respectively). The Gordian III medallion is the purest of the four, with an average gold content of 96.70%, relatively low silver (2.77%) and a little copper (0.78%). The four questionable coins, on the other hand, have measurable silver and copper which varies markedly between coins and also between areas on the same coins.
No copper was detected in either coin and just a little silver (<2%) was detected in two of the four measurements taken on GLAHM:29697. It is evident from this exercise that the two genuine coins from the Rome mint are essentially gold of very high purity.
0 kommentar(er)
