Iota-Chi or Chi-Rho?

[Matteo]

Hi, my name is Matteo. I'm an Italian ancient coins collectors. I'm working on an article about early christian symbol and I'm trying to explain their political use and their evolution on coins.

One of the first christian symbol is in these VIRTVS EXERCIT:

The symbol is similar to a star, but it isn't a star because exists a coin with the star and this symbol together. It is a christian symbol; but which symbol? Roman Imperiale Coinage writes that it is a Chi-Rho in a simply form (RIC VII, page 62). Others think that it is a Iota-Chi, but I wasn't able to find other Iota-Chi in christian art with a Iota with a "point" on the top.

What do you think about this symbol?

Thanks,
Matteo.

[Matteo]

RIC VII Siscia 138 is described with the "normal" Chi-Rho, but it is a mistake: indeed the photo of this coin shows a Chi-Rho in a simply form or a Iota-Chi; the same symbol of the coins in the first post.

So there aren't other "little" Chi-Rho in 319-320 to compare it.

Is the name of Jesus, in greek, written with a "point" over the Iota? I have found these: Ἰησοῦς and Ỉησοῦς.

[Jochen]

Here are 2 links where the Iota-Chi is discussed:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=94746.0
http://www.lateromanbronzecoinforum.com/index.php?topic=283.0

Best regards

[Matteo]

Here are 2 links where the Iota-Chi is discussed:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=94746.0
http://www.lateromanbronzecoinforum.com/index.php?topic=283.0

Best regards

Hi, thanks for the answer I've already read these links but I think that there isn't an answer to my questions in them

[77HK77]

Is your question --Does RIC incorrectly describe the symbols as a CHI -Rho Rather than an Iota-chi?

It is a matter of opinion

I fall into the category that the images shown here are an six pointed star. The general image, it's palacement and history of use for my belief make the star the most probable.

the Iota chi seems out of context relative to it's use as a christian symbol. The CHI Rho is possible but I'm not seeing them on these examples

[Victor C]

I fall into the category that the images shown here are an six pointed star. The general image, it's palacement and history of use for my belief make the star the most probable.

Then you must ignore the issue with star in right field...a nice example is posted in the topic Jochen linked to.

[Matteo]

Is your question --Does RIC incorrectly describe the symbols as a CHI -Rho Rather than an Iota-chi?

Thanks for your answer

I think that this symbol is a Chi-rho and I agree with the description of RIC at pag.62. But I'd like to know other opinions because others think that it is a Iota-Chi and I don't know their reasons

 

I fall into the category that the images shown here are an six pointed star.

I doubt it, because exists a coin that have a star and this particular symbol: so it isn't possible that coin has two stars...It is the RIC VII Ticinum 129.

I agree with you that Iota- Chi is out of context, but I'm not sure...

Sorry for my bad English,
Matteo.

[77HK77]

I find it difficult to see why the you would call one version an Iota - chi and another a star

Why would you not believe them to both be a star. there is nothing contextually christian about the coin image. In fact in all of the coins shown in this thread the context is not a christian message but about military prowess. the only connection is the obverse ruler has a christian leaning. As the only connection the use of Iota seems out of context in coin imagery leading up to this period

As far as two stars- In the examples shown in the late roman bronze thread the VLPP have two stars on the obverse helmet.
if we can have two stars on a helmet why are two stars excluded in the field. Are two stars more improbable than the very early use of Iota with a star?

Given the nature of the coin's overall message why would the Iota make more sense than a star?

[Matteo]

there is nothing contextually christian about the coin image.

Early christian symbols appear in a subordinate position, used as mark control. The first coin with a christian message on the reverse was the SPES PVBLIC in 327, but before 327 there are other symbols.

These symbols aren't a star because the image of the star is different: in this "Iota-Chi" or " simplified Chi-Rho" we have a "point" at the top of the vertical letter. In the stars we haven't this "point". And this different is clear in the coin RIC VII Ticinum 129. I have no image of this coin of Ticinum, but this is the description of RIC.

[77HK77]

it's only christian symbols if you believe it to be a Iota

If you believe it to be a star than you statement does not apply

we have examples where the small rounded end appears on different points, or not at all, here and in the other threads listed.

Why do you believe it to be an Iota rather than a star?

[Matteo]

Why do you believe it to be an Iota rather than a star?

In my opinion the reason is because there is a coin in Ticinum with a Star and this symbol; but the two symbols are different because one is a star and the other is something else. If they were two stars, I think they would be identical: aren't you agree?
In the helmet of VLPP the two stars are identical, for example.

Do you have images of coins with a star with a "point" in this position? I have never seen one, but it would be interesting for me!

 

[quadrans]

It is also the another post when we discussed this...

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=95773.0

Best regards
 Q.

and this is my example


https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-109555

[Matteo]

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-109555

Great coin!:) thanks for the link.

[77HK77]

Point was a bad description to use - blub or dot would have been more appropriate.

Below are two example pulled from threads referenced here
 
On Constantine's helmet are two stars stylized with "dots" on the ends one better preserved than the other

In the second picture the reverse is a another stylized star with "dots" on the rays

In the five examples you present
the first appears to have the "Dot" top and bottom
The second and fourth are your best case- but I'd like to see it in hand - might be a weak Chi-rho or a die break - the picture is to small to tell
Three and five to my eye are inconclusive

The early examples of the Iota in christian art are somewhat inconclusive until much later than the period were discussing.

[77HK77]

Thought this one from Victor's excellent site on Constantine might help explain my reluctance to accept the coins shown as Iota rather than stars

 Vrbs with two stylized stars and a Chi-Rho

The stars resemble those used on your example with the "dots" on the end, but clearly cannot be intended as a redundant Iota to the Chi -Rho.




I don't think you can build a case from one Ticinum coin with either an Iota/star or two stars. Even if the the coin shows an Iota I don't believe you can push the symbol onto the other coins cited here. 

[Matteo]

Point was a bad description to use - blub or dot would have been more appropriate.

Thanks for the correct word: it was difficult for me talk about these symbols. I'll use the term "dot"

On Constantine's helmet are two stars stylized with "dots" on the ends one better preserved than the  
In the second picture the reverse is a another stylized star with "dots" on the rays

If you have more coiNs in good condition to study, you will be able to see that in Virtvs Exercit there is only one dot in The vertical "ray". It isn't a my thought, but there is a "big" bibliography about these symbols. In this bibliography there are three ways of thought: star, iota-Chi, chi-Rho. But the theory of star is Now over.

The problema is this: iota-chi or chi-Rho...in my opinion it is chi rho ad suggested by RIC because the reasons I have tried to explain in first and second posts.

For me, in my photos, the dot is always clear. I'm happy to read other theories, I'm only trying to explain the other interpretations of these symbols:)

[Matteo]

Then you must ignore the issue with star in right field...a nice example is posted in the topic Jochen linked to.

Hi Victor I know you have studied early christian symbols...What do you think about this symbol on VIRTVS EXERCIT?

[77HK77]

The Iota-Chi is formed with all protrusions equal with or without “dots”, at least outside of numismatic use.  

The six point star is stylized similarly with or without adornment on the ends

However the star has a greater history and more general usage than the Iota which draws it’s only numismatic reference from the religious leanings of the ruler.

The Iota-Chi is an obscure symbol at this time understood by far less of the population than the Chi-Rho, which at least could be understood by the non-Christian population as having a relation to Constantine’s god.

We can see the form you refer to as an Iota Chi used with a Chi-Rho lending credence to the form being a star rather than a Iota

To the virtus coin the big dot above is the Achilles heal. To be properly formed the Iota-chi is uniform at all points. That makes it’s form a mistake not an example of proof

Your building your case on a very few coins that might be poor executions of star and basing the case on one outlier coin with a star and possible Iota-chi.

I just don’t see substantial evidence for using an Iota but rather an abundance of evidence against.
- historical use of the star
- star in use with chi-rho
-Iota chi is an obscure symbol at this time
- Similarly formed “Iota” used on coins of Lincinius and Lincinius II (reverse example I gave) who are not Christian rulers- see example attached

[Matteo]

I think that because my poor English we aren't able to understand each other. Sorry, it is my fault.

You think it isn't a Iota-Chi, but you think it is a star.
I think it isn't a Iota-Chi, but I think it is a simplified Chi-Rho.

So, when you explain why for you this symbol isn't a Iota-Chi, I agree with you! And these sentences are what I was looking for: "To the virtus coin the big dot above is the Achilles heal. To be properly formed the Iota-chi is uniform at all points. That makes it’s form a mistake not an example of proof" and "The Iota-Chi is formed with all protrusions equal with or without “dots”, at least outside of numismatic use."

My first question was: Is it a Iota-Chi or a Chi-Rho? You have explained in a great way to me why it isn't a Iota Chi.

But I don't agree with you when you explain that it is a star. After I have excluded that it is a Iota-Chi, for me it is a simplified Chi-Rho. I think it is normal that there are different ways of thought about the same topic And I don't want to try to make you change your mind.

I'd like to explain why I'm not surprise to see an "ipotetical" christian symbol on coins of Licinius I and II, but it is difficult and it would be off topic. There was a "political" use of these symbols and they don't reflect the real conversion of the ruler...

It was a good exchange of opinions and I am happy for it. I hope that it was the same for you. And thanks to have tried to understand my English

[77HK77]

A Very enjoyable exchange Matteo

We do agree in principle. The idea of a poorly formed Chi- Rho is possible but tough to accept

perhaps someday we can share a glass ( I prefer scotch but your choice) and leisurely discuss the possibility the Chi-Rho represents Constantine rather than Christ- at least numanisticly

HK

[Matteo]

perhaps someday we can share a glass ( I prefer scotch but your choice) and leisurely discuss the possibility the Chi-Rho represents Constantine rather than Christ- at least numanisticly

Of course! it would be an interesting discussion! In my opinion Chi-Rho was an important symbol: it was the symbol of the victorious emperor. It was not only a simple Christian symbol, but an important message of power; the power that emperor received directly from the "New" God