The Peribolos with Temple Coins of Zeugma

[Roman Collector]

While revisiting this provincial coin of Zeugma in Commagene, I note that the literature about these coins is inconsistent with regard to the portrait on the obverse. I also note that the interpretation of the scene depicted on the reverse is inconsistent as well. I advise the collector to heed the advice of @dougsmit and not assert more than we really know about who and what the coin depicts. The description of the coin represents my own interpretation of its design, based upon the numismatic and archaeological literature.

Philip I, 244-249 CE.
Roman provincial Æ 28.0 mm, 14.93 g, 12 h.
Syria: Commagene, Zeugma.
Obv: AVTOK K M IOVΛI ΦIΛIΠΠOC CЄB, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust, right.
Rev: ZЄYΓMA-TЄΩN, sanctuary of Zeus Katabaites in Zeugma: tetrastyle temple containing statue of Zeus seated, with peribolos containing grove and comprised of colonnades at the sides and portico of two stories in front; in exergue, capricorn (symbol of Legio IIII Scythia), swimming right.
Refs: RPC VIII, — (unassigned; ID 8189); CRS 31a; GrMW III, 861; Sear GIC, 4142; BMC 42.

About the Obverse

The identity of the figure on the obverse is variously described as Philip I or his son. The British Museum describes four specimens attributed to Philip I (BMC 20.127,29-32), but also describes 13 similar specimens attributed to Philip II (BMC 20.128-129,35-47). Similarly, Manasaryan's Sylloge Nummorum Commagenum attributes some of these coins to Philip I and some to Philip II, without apparent distinguishing features. David Sear (GIC, p. 379, 3954) attributes it to Philip I. The Yale University Art Gallery attributes the coin to Philip I, whereas the Harvard Art Museum attributes it to Phillip II. My notes, written in 2020 shortly after RPC VIII went online, read, "RPC VIII attr. to Ph. II"; however, RPC VIII currently attributes the figure to Philip I, and it appears that the editors of RPC have changed their mind. I think the confusion arises because the obverse figure is clean-shaven (an attribute we think of with regard to Philip II), but all of the varieties of the temple type issued under Philip I have a beardless bust, inconsistent with the British Museum's notion that some depict Philip I and others depict Philip II. I'm inclined to attribute them all to Philip I, because it's unlikely that such an issue would have been struck for Philip II alone and not for his father.

There are several bust varieties known. The bust is usually right-facing and laureate, draped and cuirassed, but may be depicted seen from the front or from the rear. A left-facing bust struck in orichalcum features a radiate crown. This may represent a different denomination, but it is struck on the same-sided module as all the other coins of this series. 

All nine varieties of this reverse type listed at RPC VIII bear the same obverse inscription, AVTOK K M IOVΛI ΦIΛIΠΠOC CЄB.

About the Reverse

Zeugma began striking coins in the Roman provincial series during the reign of Antoninus Pius and this peribolos and temple design appears among the coins issued under him. The series runs through the reign of Philip I, after which the city appears to have ceased coin production altogether.

The reverse design features what Warwick Wroth (BMC vol. 20) describes as a peribolos, which is "an enclosed court especially about a temple of classical times," which contains a tetrastyle temple and a grove, flanked by colonnades at the sides and with a portico or panelled wall in front. This scene is depicted in perspective, and perhaps intended to be viewed with the coin at an oblique angle. To me, the coin clearly depicts a rectangular enclosure, and I think RPC's interpretation of the reverse image as a "rocky hilltop with buildings at the base and steps or colonnades on either side" is extremely unlikely given the presence of the colonades. Those aren't rocks; they are trees. That's not a hill; it's a peribolos seen in perspective. RPC isn't even consistent! In their description of the reverse on a coin issued for Elagabalus, they state it depicts the "sanctuary of Zeus Katabaites with temple with four columns and peribolos containing grove of trees." Yes, yes it does! 

The temple is quite likely the temple of Zeus Katabaites, because archaeological excavations have found a "wider central intercolumniation on the temple reveals a seated male holding a spear or staff, identified as Zeus Katabaites."

The capricorn in the reverse is thought to refer to Legio IV Scythia (the capricorn was their official symbol), which had been stationed in the area since the time of Marc Antony to defend against the Parthians. 

Let's see your periobolos and temple coins of Zeugma, particularly if they depict emperors other than Philip!

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Here is an example of mine procured from @JAZ Numismatics. Note the peribolos on the reverse. I always thought that it was a scene seen from perspective rather than a hill. Also, it was listed as Philip I or II. My personal conclusion, like yours, was that Philip I is depicted. One of the more interesting coins in the collection as far as reverse types go. You mentioned that the city ceased to strike coins soon after. Note that within 5 years the city was sacked by the Persians and razed to the ground. 

Edited March 31 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[O-Towner]

Here's one from the wife of Philip I, Otacilia Severa:

[Orange Julius]

An informative snippet from Monumental Coins Buildings & Structures on Ancient Coinage by Marvin Tameanko:

[Jims,Coins]

Bronze coin (AE 30) minted at Commagene, Zeugma during the reign of PHILIP I between 244-249 A.D. Obv. AYTOK.K.M.IOYAI.0IAINNO.C.CEB, laureate, draped bust r. from behind. Rev. ZEY1M-ATEZEY1M-ATuN, Tetrastyle temple with peribolos enclosing the sacred grove of trees, statue of seated Zeus within temple, Capricorn left in ex; GIC #3954. BMC #29

 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

It's a type which I've admired, but it appears I've never gotten around to getting (unless there's one in the bulk provincials bag).  I will have to change that in an upcoming buy.

[Ancient Aussie]

I have a few of this type, but the A/Pius is the most interesting as it shows a winding path through the trees?

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Hopefully I'm not jinxing myself.  This thread inspired me to pick up an example.  I wanted one with a nice patina.

Philip I AE28 Commagene, Zeugma. Tetrastyle temple with statue of Zeus 

 

AYTOK K M IOYΛI ΦIΛIΠΠOC CEB, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust r.,

 

Rv. Tetrastyle temple with statue of Zeus seated, holding sceptre peribolos below containing grove below, capricorn leaping right. ZεYΓM - ATεΩN.

 

SNG Cop. 32.  AD 244-249.  14.93g.

[JAZ Numismatics]

9 minutes ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

Hopefully I'm not jinxing myself.  This thread inspired me to pick up an example.  I wanted one with a nice patina.

Philip I AE28 Commagene, Zeugma. Tetrastyle temple with statue of Zeus 

 

AYTOK K M IOYΛI ΦIΛIΠΠOC CEB, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust r.,

 

Rv. Tetrastyle temple with statue of Zeus seated, holding sceptre peribolos below containing grove below, capricorn leaping right. ZεYΓM - ATεΩN.

 

SNG Cop. 32.  AD 244-249.  14.93g.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that buys a coin just because someone started a thread about it!

[ominus1]

38 minutes ago, JAZ Numismatics said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one that buys a coin just because someone started a thread about it!

...hehehe..no, you ain't alone....i bet half my coins came from other Peeps coin i liked a lot...^^  (andi i'mma hearin' ya @Nerosmyfavorite68)

Edited March 31 by ominus1

[Marsyas Mike]

Very interesting thread and coins.  These also come with countermarks - the star countermark is regularly encountered on these (32 in RPC), but like most ancient countermarks, the reason why is unknown (as far as I can tell).  The countermark does seem to be targeting this particular issue (see RPC countermark notes below), which is bit unusual, countermarks being usually found on a wide array of hosts in the Roman East (for instance Antioch).  These are the small, dumpy flan types, so the peribolos and temples are not very clear:

Antoninus Pius  Æ 20  Zeugma, Commagene  (138-161 A.D.)       [ΑΥΤΟ] ΚΑΙ ΤΙΤ [ΑΙΛ ΑΔΡΙ(Α) ΑΝΤωΝΙΝΟϹ ϹΕ(Β) (ΕΥ)] laureate head right / [ΖƐΥΓ]ΜΑΤƐωΝ, tetrastyle temple fronted by peribolos with grove of trees; Γ upper left. (11.08 grams / 20 x 17 mm) eBay Dec. 2023 RPC IV.3 8532; BMC 8-11; Butcher 6; SNG Copenhagen 28.

Countermark:  Star within a star-shaped punch, 5 mm., obv. Howgego GIC 453; RPC Countermark 573. Note:  32 examples of this countermark on RPC; all but two are on RPC 8532.

Here's another one: 

Antoninus Pius  Æ 19  Zeugma, Commagene  (138-161 A.D.) [ΑΥΤ...ΚΑΙ(Ϲ)... ΤΙ ΑΙΛΙ ΑΔΡΙΑ] ΑΝ[ΤωΝΙΝΟΝ ϹƐ], laureate head right / ΖƐΥ[ΓΜΑΤƐωΝ], [A or B in right field?], tetrastyle temple atop colonnaded peribolos containing grove (7.18 grams / 19 mm) eBay Dec. 2022  $5.00  

Attribution: Numeral letter is probably in right field, based on visible spacing, which would be: RPC IV.3 5752 (temporary)

RPC IV.3 5752 (letter in r. field);

RPC IV.3 8532 (letter in l. field);

Countermark:  Star within a  star-shaped punch, 5 mm., obv. Howgego GIC 453; RPC Countermark 573. Note:  32 examples of this countermark on RPC; all but two are on RPC 8532.

 

 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

When did the town switch from Seleucia to Zeugma?

[Valentinian]

The difficulty with attribution to a Philip is because both Philip I and Philip II used the same legend. It is true for many imperial coins and it is true for some provincial coins.

IMP PHILLIPPVS AVG can be on an imperial coin of Philip II:




or on a coin of Philip I:



You tell them apart by the portrait, unbearded or bearded, not by the legend.

I see this one as unbearded and therefore Philip II. 

Butcher, Coinage in Roman Syria, has it for both Philip I and II. Page 465-6 (and plate 30) types 31a for Philip I, 31 c for Philip II, and 31b for Otacilia Severa, next::



I'd like to see one where the beard of Philip I is evident. 

[Roman Collector]

6 hours ago, Valentinian said:

I'd like to see one where the beard of Philip I is evident. 

I have yet to see one. At the RPC online site, all of the varieties of the temple type issued under Philip I have a beardless bust.

[dougsmit]

I know nothing but believe all are Philip I.  I had the foresight to buy mine in 1993 from Fred Shore and avoid the rush caused by this thread.  I hope everyone appreciates the rarity not of the coin but of the perspective drawing on it.  There are rather few ancients with good perspective.  

[Sulla80]

I enjoy this one not only for the perspective and for the eagle countermark

Roman Provincial Coins, Commagene. Zeugma. Philip I the Arab (244-249). Ae 30mm, 15.22g

Obv: AVTOK K M IOVΛI ΦΙΛΙΠΠOC CЄB, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right; c/m: eagle standing right(?), head left within incuse oval.
Rev: ZЄVΓMATЄΩN, tetrastyle temple atop hill, containing seated figure facing, with structures at base of hill and up either side; in exergue, capricorn right.
Ref: RPC - (unassigned; ID 8189); Butcher 34; BMC 42; for c/m: Howgego Greek Imperial Countermarks 340.

Butcher also notes: "Like most of the other coinages of northern Syria during this period, the issues for Philip at Zeugma probably had their origin at Antioch. A larger and more complete range of denominations is known than for the other cities of northern Syria with which Zeugma shares dies. Zeugma shares obverse dies with Antioch, Samosata, Cyrrhus, Hierapolis, and Philippopolis in Arabia. "

 

Butcher, Coinage of Roman Syria

Edited April 6 by Sulla80