Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?  (Read 887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Luuk S

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 65
New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« on: November 05, 2022, 03:55:28 am »
Hi all

Yesterday i received this nice follis of Licinius I, struck in Aquileia.
It is very interesting as it has a IX monogram on the reverse, corresponding to the Greek letters for 'Iesous Christos'.
The  :Chi-Rho_noP: symbol is a lesser known Christian symbol compared to the  :<a href='http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=810&pos=0' target='_blank'>Chi-Rho</a>:, but Christian nonetheless. And the coin was struck only ~8 years after Constantines conversion (or so it is claimed) to Christianity!
Moreover, Licinius was never a confirmed Christian, although he did support them and co-authored the Edict of Milan.

However, i noticed that my coin deviates from the literature reference (RIC 59), as the standard in the middle reads 'VOT X' instead of 'VOT XX'.
Could the be a new variant? Let me now what you think,

gr Luuk

Obverse: IMP LI-CINIVS AVG, helmeted bust to right
Reverse: VIRTVS EXERCIT, standard inscribed with VOT X in the middle surrounded by two captives, IX monogram in left field.
Mintmark: AQS
Struck: 320 AD at Aquileia mint
Weight: 3.01 gram
Die axis: 1200h



Offline Merinda

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2022, 04:13:28 am »
Yes, unlisted in RIC. 2 more examples are listed on the excellent and comprehensive ‘not in RIC’  website- https://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/7aqu-58.html

Offline Luuk S

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2022, 05:25:46 am »
thanks! nice website indeed

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2022, 06:50:34 am »
Hi Luuk,

your coin is from [REMOVED BY ADMIN], right? Nice example of this rare variety.

But I must disappoint you, the  :Chi-Rho_p: sign has nothing to do with Christianity. It is simply part of the mint mark. As you can see on the first picture, this mark appears on coins even before the birth of Christ. And most importantly, this coin was struck by Constantine around the year 320, when he had no reason to depict Licinius as a Christian. Licinius himself at that time was minting in his domain a whole series of coins with Jupiter (second picture), and I think you will admit that this is difficult to reconcile with Christianity.


Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2022, 09:24:09 am »
Yesterday i received this nice follis of Licinius I, struck in Aquileia.

Very nice - I was one of the under bidders!

Quote
It is very interesting as it has a IX monogram on the reverse, corresponding to the Greek letters for 'Iesous Christos'.
The  :Chi-Rho_noP: symbol is a lesser known Christian symbol compared to the  :<a href='http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=810&pos=0' target='_blank'>Chi-Rho</a>:, but Christian nonetheless. And the coin was struck only ~8 years after Constantines conversion (or so it is claimed) to Christianity!

I'm pretty sure this is meant either as, or alluding to, the Chi-Rho, not Iota-Rho. Note the blob at the top of the "I" - much more prominent at some mints than others. There is also a rare variant from Siscia where it is an actual Chi-Rho.

Quote
Moreover, Licinius was never a confirmed Christian, although he did support them and co-authored the Edict of Milan.

I don't think this should be read as making any kind of statement about Licinius, any more than Constantine appearing on Licinius' coinage juxtaposed with Jupiter is making any statement about Constantine. Both emperors recognized each other and so the normal pattern is for them to include each other on the coins they issued. Constantine's use of the CHi-Rho here is just a reflection of Constantine's religious direction (and it's certainly not just part of the issue mark, as Ticinum makes clear).

Quote
However, i noticed that my coin deviates from the literature reference (RIC 59), as the standard in the middle reads 'VOT X' instead of 'VOT XX'.

Yes, and interesting that it's from same reverse die as the London Coin Galleries specimen, but a different obverse die. The use of the Chi-Rho on this type was coordinated across four mints, and this is the only die I'm aware of from any mint where we see it paired with "VOT X" rather than "VOT XX", so I'd regard it as an error. It is useful in confirming the sequencing.


Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2022, 10:09:59 am »
(and it's certainly not just part of the issue mart, as Ticinum makes clear).

Could you please explain this in more detail?

It has always seemed to me that it is the Ticinum that shows clearly that this mark is part of the mint mark. Just for more variants of sub-issues mint marks.

If there was any idea behind this sign, why at the same time so many similar issues were minted without it? For me, it is just another mark - like star or crescent. On some sub-issues there is star, on some not etc.

Nb. there are so many crescents in Ticinum that someone who doesn't know what era these coins are from might think they were minted by Muslims :-)
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2022, 10:32:11 am »
Could you please explain this in more detail?

There are three issues from Ticinum that include the Chi-Rho

1) PT/ST/TT
2) PT  :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: in field/ST  :crescent: in field/TT  :dot: in field
3) P :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: T/S :crescent: T/T :dot: T

(This seems to be the order since the last of these, only, includes right facing LDCR busts for Licinius II, while all other busts for the caesars are left facing.)

The important point here is that the augusti and caesars appear on all three issues, but the augusti without CHi-Rho and the caesars with Chi-Rho. It's seems pretty clear therefore that the issue marks are as above, and that the Chi-Rho is something additional being added for the caesars.

You can see the same thing at Siscia which also had multiple issues with Chi-Rho (first unlisted ASIS, then ASIS :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: ), with Crispus participating in both issues but without the Chi-Rho.



Offline Jan P

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2022, 10:33:31 am »
This is what one can find on Wikipedia under "Chi Rho":

"In pre-Christian times, the Chi-Rho symbol was also used to mark a particularly valuable or relevant passage in the margin of a page, abbreviating chrēston (good).[3] Some coins of Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–222 BC) were marked with a Chi-Rho."

So, initially "chreston" and later "Christos".

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2022, 12:32:07 pm »
There are three issues from Ticinum that include the Chi-Rho

I agree that there is some kind of order/pattern. But why we should see in these signs something more than purely formal distinctions? If this "chi-rho" was an important symbol, it should rather be expected on coins minted for Augusti.

RIC lists issues with chi-rho only for Licinius II and Constantine II, but ther is also known coin for Crispus with chi-rho



so he has coins with and without chi-rho. Why?

In Siscia chi-rho is attested for Licinius II and Constantine II but also for both Augusti, so connection Caesar - "chi-rho" is not rigorous.

(This seems to be the order since the last of these, only, includes right facing LDCR busts for Licinius II, while all other busts for the caesars are left facing.)

Right facing busts for Caesars are actually much more than noted in RIC.



Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2022, 12:58:55 pm »
Quote
Right facing busts for Caesars are actually much more than noted in RIC.

I was talking about the Chi-Rho issues (and specifically Ticinum).

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2022, 01:11:23 pm »
I was talking about the Chi-Rho issues (and specifically Ticinum).

So was I. Examples above are from Ticinum chi-rho issues.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2022, 01:32:13 pm »
I forgot about that Licinius Jr coin, so I agree we can't use that as basis of the issue order. The ( :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: :crescent: :dot: ) symbol in field issue is much more scarce so perhaps that one comes last.


Offline Luuk S

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2022, 03:38:58 pm »

your coin is from Zeus Numismatics, right? Nice example of this rare variety.


Yeah it was from that Auction. I was quite glad i won it :) i love coins 'with a story', and the Chi-Rho / IX monogram surely has sparked that  ;D
I didn't know that the Chi-Rho was allready used in pre-Christian times, thanks for sharing these coins.
I agree with Heliodromus that this coin was struck by Constantine (as Aquileia was under his control) for Licinius.
Therefore, i think it's highly plausible that the monogram reflects Constantine's Christian connection, even though Licinius likely was a pagan as reflected by his hordes of Jupiter coins.

gr Luuk

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2022, 05:01:56 pm »
Therefore, i think it's highly plausible that the monogram reflects Constantine's Christian connection

But then, doesn't it seem strange to you that it is easier to get coins of Licinius I and his son with chi-rho mark than coins of Constantine I. If this mark was so important to him he should use it mainly on his coins and mint them in large numbers.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2022, 07:34:19 am »
Quote
But then, doesn't it seem strange to you that it is easier to get coins of Licinius I and his son with chi-rho mark than coins of Constantine I.

I've got reference photos of ~200 of these, and that's not true as far as I can see.

Thessalonica is a special case, and if you still believe the Chi-Rho was an issue mark, then it'd be interesting to hear your theory why Constantine excluded himself from this Thessalonica Chi-Rho "issue", or why he excluded Crispus from most issues, etc, etc.

Quote
If this mark was so important to him he should use it mainly on his coins and mint them in large numbers.

Tell that to Constantine. He didn't issue a lot of types with Chi-Rho, and the ones that he did were either low mintage or withdrawn (SPES PVBLIC).

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2022, 08:30:27 am »
Quote
But then, doesn't it seem strange to you that it is easier to get coins of Licinius I and his son with chi-rho mark than coins of Constantine I.

I've got reference photos of ~200 of these, and that's not true as far as I can see.

Well, I would like to see your statistics. Remember, we are talking about VIRTVS EXERCIT issues from:

- TICINUM: AFAIK, 0 for Constantine I and Licinius I, but relatively many types/specimens for Licinius II; ; so Licinius I + Licinius II > Constantine I

- AQUILEIA: both Constantine I and Licinius I similar level of rarity; but Licinius II also present; so Licinius I + Licinius II > Constantine I

- SISCIA: in RIC noted only Licinius I and Licinius II; but later also coins of Constantine I came out to light, so we can declare a draw in this competition :-)

- THESSALONICA: AFAIK, 0 for Constantine I, but relatively many coins of Licinius I (listed in RIC) and of Licinius II; ; so Licinius I + Licinius II > Constantine I

Crispus is present in TICINUM (unlisted in RIC) and in AQUILEIA (4 ex. on NB II, only 2 ex. for Constantine I).

I did not count all specimens but probably most common are coins of Licinius II and Constantine II, then Licinius I, Constantine I and Crispus.

If chi-rho is not a part of mintmark, i.e. something like star, crescent etc., what was in your opinion the message behind it?

If you know about unlisted varieties from these emissions I would be more than happy when you give me chance to include them to Not in RIC.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2022, 09:57:08 am »
Quote
TICINUM: AFAIK, 0 for Constantine I and Licinius I, but relatively many types/specimens for Licinius II; ; so Licinius I + Licinius II > Constantine I

AQUILEIA: both Constantine I and Licinius I similar level of rarity; but Licinius II also present; so Licinius I + Licinius II > Constantine I

Why would you include Ticinum numbers for Licinius Jr, but not Constantine Jr ?

Why would you include Aquileia numbers for Licinius Jr, but not Constantine Jr and Crispus ?

Rhetorical question.

Anyway, FWIW, if you look at a big enough sample of these there is no emphasis on the Licinii. The numbers on Nummus are too small to draw conclusions from (e.g. I have 14 CR + 15 C1 from Aquileia, vs the 4 + 2 you say they have).


Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2022, 10:25:50 am »
Quote
TICINUM: AFAIK, 0 for Constantine I and Licinius I, but relatively many types/specimens for Licinius II; ; so Licinius I + Licinius II > Constantine I

AQUILEIA: both Constantine I and Licinius I similar level of rarity; but Licinius II also present; so Licinius I + Licinius II > Constantine I

Why would you include Ticinum numbers for Licinius Jr, but not Constantine Jr ?

Why would you include Aquileia numbers for Licinius Jr, but not Constantine Jr and Crispus ?

Rhetorical question.

Because I earlier wrote: "it is easier to get coins of Licinius I and his son with chi-rho mark than coins of Constantine I."

and you questioned exactly that claim, although there was not a word about Constantine Jr.

I am still curious what is the possible message behind this "chi-rho". Without any identifiable message it is just formal detail, i.e. part of a mintmark.

Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2022, 10:34:52 am »
Quote
Without any identifiable message it is just formal detail, i.e. part of a mintmark.

No, just because you don't know what it means doesn't make it part of the mintmark. That's not how numismatics works.

...and we're done.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: New variant of very early christian Licinius I coin?
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2022, 10:47:07 am »
No, just because you don't know what it means doesn't make it part of the mintmark. That's not how numismatics works.

Of course, this is not one hundred percent certain (because only few things in numismatics are 100% certain). But it's much more probable than the "I don't know what it means, but it's definitely not a mintmark" thesis. Why not? There is not a single argument against it.

...and we're done.

OK.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity