KINGS OF PONTOS. Mithradates V Euergetes, circa 150-120 BC. Tetradrachm (Silver, 36 mm, 17.00 g, 12 h), Sinope. Diademed head of Mithradates V to right. Rev. BAΣIΛEΩΣ / MIΘPAΔATOY - EYΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ Apollo, nude, standing left, holding the Three Graces in his right hand and a bow in his left. F. de Callataÿ: The First Royal Coinages of Pontus (from Mithradates III to Mithradates V), in: J. M. Højte (ed.): Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus 2009, p. 78 (unlisted dies) = HGC 7, 330 = C. Michels: Kulturtransfer und monarchischer "Philhellenismus". Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in hellenistischer Zeit. Göttingen 2009, p. 218, fig. 25. Of the highest rarity, the second and by far the finest known coin of this ruler, and the only one in private hands. Struck in very high relief and with an incredibly naturalistic portrait crafted by a Hellenistic master engraver. Minor marks and with very light doubling and a small die break on the reverse, otherwise, extremely fine.



In the uniformly very rare coinage of Pontus before Mithradates VI, that of Mithradates V holds a special place. It was not until 1978 that this king was recognized as having his own coinage, following the reattribution of a long-known, poorly preserved, unique tetradrachm in Athens. With the emergence of our magnificent piece, we now encounter only the second known coin of Mithradates V, and since the other resides in a museum, this marks the first time collectors have the opportunity to acquire a coin of this hitherto unavailable Pontic king, offering fresh insights into the early numismatic history of his kingdom. Moreover, its exquisite, unidealized portrait ranks among the finest achievements of Hellenistic die engraving.

The often stark realism of Pontic royal portraits before Mithradates VI, which contrasts sharply with the heavily idealized images of Greek kings, has frequently been criticized by earlier scholars, reflecting cultural prejudices and, undoubtedly, racism towards this Iranian, and thus non-Greek, dynasty. In 1950, Jean Babelon dismissed Pharnakes I (see lot 79 above) as possessing only ‘intelligence rudimentaire’ based on his portrait, and as late as 1990, Peter Green remarked, ‘The early kings of Pontus resemble nothing so much as a family of escaped convicts: Pharnakes I has the profile of a Neanderthal, and Mithradates IV that of a skid-row alcoholic.’ Such judgments are, of course, baseless. Coin portraits are always crafted with a deliberate representation of rulership in mind, and the simplistic dichotomy between realism and idealism fails to capture their true intent - a point clearly demonstrated, for instance, by the many iconographic shifts within Roman imperial coinage, even within a single dynasty. In any case, it is stylistically evident that the Pontic kings employed Greek artists for their dies, and given the exceptional quality of the work, they clearly spared no expense.

Fortunately, we do have some information on the lengthy reign of Mithradates V, who ruled from approximately 150 to 120 BC. For instance, we know that he actively supported the Roman Republic in its war against Carthage from 149 to 146 BC and in the suppression of the Aristonikos uprising from 133 to 129 BC. In Delos and Athens, epigraphic evidence suggests that Mithradates V presented himself as a benefactor to a Panhellenic audience. Like his father before him, he likely resided in Sinope rather than Amisos - this too was a clear symbol of the kingdom's increasing openness and integration with the broader Hellenistic world. It was also in Sinope, in the late 130s BC, that his son, the future menace of Rome, Mithradates VI, was born.

Based on the Delian inscriptions of Mithradates V, L. Robert proposed that the depiction of Apollo on the then unique Athenian tetradrachm represented the Delian Apollo. However, as de Callataÿ rightly pointed out, this is almost certainly incorrect; it more likely depicted a local cult form of the god, possibly the Apollo of the new Pontic capital, Sinope. Notably, from the time of Mithradates IV onward, epithets began to appear on Pontic coins, with Mithradates V appropriately bearing the title of Εὐεργέτης (‘Benefactor’). As D. Hunter has recently shown, the coinage of Pontus up to Mithradates V was heavily influenced by Seleukid models; Mithradates may have particularly drawn inspiration from Antiochos IV and from his contemporary, Antiochos VII.

One of the great mysteries of Pontic numismatics is why the kings before Mithradates V struck so few coins - by 2009, Callataÿ knew of fewer than 100 examples across five kings and queens. The answer likely lies in reframing the question: the critical issue is not why so few coins were struck, but for what purpose. The complete absence of local coinage in the Pontic heartland before Mithradates VI suggests that this mountainous region was scarcely monetized, with barter dominating economic life. The minting of small series of valuable gold staters and tetradrachms was thus not intended to meet the needs of the local economy or administration, but arguably rather served the primary function for which money so often existed in antiquity: the payment of soldiers, or more precisely, the recruitment of mercenaries. We even know from Strabo the name of an officer of Mithradates V who recruited mercenaries for the king in Thrace, Greece, and Crete: Dorylaos, Strabo's great-great-grandfather. Indeed, the idea that this ancestor of the great historian and geographer carried with him such magnificent tetradrachms of his king is not merely romantic fancy, but a pragmatic and plausible speculation.