Classical Numismatic Group, LLC
Electronic Auction 320 12 February 2014
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
PONTUS, Uncertain mint. Late 1st century BC. Æ (20mm, 7.97 g). Bare male head right / Two figures sacrificing a pig; EETIA below. RPC I 2156 (same obv. die as ilustration); Imhoof-Blumer, GRMK 281; Leypold, "Schwurszene (Fetia) auf einer unbekannten römischen Bronzemünze," MÖNG Vol. XX, no. 10 (1978), pp. 78-79 = SNG Leypold 69 (same obv. die). VF, dark green and brown patina, rough obbverse. Rare.
Making sense of this rare issue is plagued with difficulties. Imhoof-Blumer placed it at Amisus, where Leypold acquired his specimen, but while this is not unlikely it is far from secure. In addition, the dating is problematic, with Leypold preferring a date of 100-50 BC, while the authors of RPC placed the issue toward the late 1st century BC, although admitting (p. 361) that there is "no good evidence for its date." These two uncertainties make identifying the individualized portrait on the obverse even more difficult. A client king would seem logical, but the head lacks a diadem.
Turning to the reverse, we find an unusual legend in the exergue. It was first read by Imhoof Blumer as ΓETIA. Leypold read it as FETIA, putting forward the argument that the scene refers to a fetial ceremony - the sacrifice of a pig to sanctify a treaty - although what treaty this issue should be associated with is uncertain. Adding to the confusion, the legend on many specimens clearly begin with an "E" rather than an "F". Finally, as the authors of RPC appropriately note (p. 361): "Indeed, the use of Latin might perhaps be a problem for almost any attribution, as the fetial ceremony would not be appropriate in the case of a colony."
Making sense of this rare issue is plagued with difficulties. Imhoof-Blumer placed it at Amisus, where Leypold acquired his specimen, but while this is not unlikely it is far from secure. In addition, the dating is problematic, with Leypold preferring a date of 100-50 BC, while the authors of RPC placed the issue toward the late 1st century BC, although admitting (p. 361) that there is "no good evidence for its date." These two uncertainties make identifying the individualized portrait on the obverse even more difficult. A client king would seem logical, but the head lacks a diadem.
Turning to the reverse, we find an unusual legend in the exergue. It was first read by Imhoof Blumer as ΓETIA. Leypold read it as FETIA, putting forward the argument that the scene refers to a fetial ceremony - the sacrifice of a pig to sanctify a treaty - although what treaty this issue should be associated with is uncertain. Adding to the confusion, the legend on many specimens clearly begin with an "E" rather than an "F". Finally, as the authors of RPC appropriately note (p. 361): "Indeed, the use of Latin might perhaps be a problem for almost any attribution, as the fetial ceremony would not be appropriate in the case of a colony."