Pugio Questions

[Matt Lukes]

Absolutely- not odd that a museum would acquire such a wonderful piece with no provenance at all. It's just a shame they don't know more, but the object is preserved for public consumption...

[Crispvs]

It sounds to me as if the man from the museum does not know much about pugiones himself and simply knows (or has read on a card) that there is some information in B & C1 and Ulbert 71. He is obviously not aware of either Scott or Obmann.
He also seems unaware that the inlaid manufacturer's mark (which is of great interest in itself) must be slightly more involved than simply 'Honillivs made it', as '_ O N L L I V S E C _ _ _ I E R F E C I T' quite clearly includes at least one further word, as shown by the 'EC_ _ _IER' which precedes the word 'Fecit'.
I would agree with Peronis that this dagger would be early to mid first century AD. I would guess a manufacturing date of somewhere in the late first quarter or early second quarter of the first century AD but as the decoration has few parallels that would have to count as little more than a guess, although a similary decorated sheath fragment was found at Richborough, which strongly supports the idea of a manufacturing date prior to the AD40s. It is certainly reasonable to think it may have remained in service into the third quarter of the 1st century but I would be very hesitant about blythely stating that it would go as late as the early second century, when it would be nearly a hundred years old.

Crispvs