Back from Florida so I have a little time to post while the baby sleeps! It's quite the shock going from 80 degrees to 20 degrees in just a few hours!
Here are some of the arguments put forth for the identity of the
man-faced bull, which might be useful for the discussion. These are excerpts from the draft of a chapter I'm working on with Nico (Taras), but I haven't included the many footnotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Minotaur:We learn from
Eckhel that the very first scholars to deal with the problem of the
man-faced bull’s identity, namely, Gorius, Spanheim, and Beger, chose the
Minotaur. Their
identification is based on the error of not recognizing the difference “between a man-headed
bull and a
man with the
head of a
bull”, or, in the case of Spanheim and Beger, as
Eckhel also notes, choosing not to go against tradition, despite the contrary evidence. In any event, in no case is the
Minotaur ever described as having the body of a
bull with the
head of a
man, and despite how tempting it might be to assume it is just an artist’s variation on the same theme, the two are clearly different. There is a
gem published by Gorius that shows the
man-faced bull within a labyrinth, but its authenticity is questionable (I checked, and it's actually a
centaur within a labyrinth, not a
man-faced bull as described by
Eckhel). It is interesting to note, however, that upon showing the image of a man-headed
bull to people totally unfamiliar with the iconography, they often call it “the
Minotaur”. Try it out with someone and let me know if your results are the same as mine!
The Agricultural Allegory:The notion of the
man-faced bull as an agricultural allegory is straightforward: the
bull in ancient times was often a symbol for agricultural production and so naturally the
man-faced bull represents this.
Eckhel cites Carrera, Pighius, Hardouin, Wachterus, and la Chau and le Blond as holding this view. Ultimately, the view that the
man-faced bull is an agricultural allegory is unsatisfying, because an agricultural connotation is common for most of the other identities of the
man-faced bull, with the exception of perhaps the
Minotaur. As an example, Ignarra’s argument that the
man-faced bull is
Achelous begins with a preliminary argument that it is an agricultural allegory (I think, Nico is working
his way through the Latin!).
Neptune:Eckhel cites only Mazochius as espousing this view and claims that no other scholars were convinced of it. I haven't read
his argument yet, but it has something to do with the cult of Poseidon Taureos, presumably.
Jupiter:Two gems, one in the Florence cabinet and the other published by Gravellius, and both reproduced on plates included in
Eckhel’s Doctrina, appear to show
Jupiter in the guise of a
man-faced bull as he carries off
Europa. The plates were posted on another
thread:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=92708.0Dionysos Hebon:Eckhel, following Matthaeus Aegyptius, argues that the
man-faced bull of
Italy and
Sicily is probably
Dionysos Hebon, although the primary purpose of
his argument, as he inform us, is to demonstrate that it is definitely not a
river god,
Achelous or the local variety.
His argument in favor of it being
Dionysus Hebon is based on the following: (1)
Dionysus Hebon was often depicted as a
bull, (2) a coin of
Gela seems to portray
Dionysus approaching a woman who offers him a
wreath, as Plutarch’s account illustrated, (3)
Jupiter is represented as a
bull with a
man’s
face on two gems (see citation above) so
Dionysus could be displayed this way too, in order to distinguish him from a regular
bull, (4) he interprets a coin of
Silenos in the following way: it shows on the
obverse Proserpine, who was a daughter of
Jupiter and also impregnated her in the form of a
serpent, also shown on the
obverse, and the
reverse depicts their child, the
man-faced bull,
Dionysus, (5)
Dionysus was highly honored in
Campania because of the wine produced, (6)
Dionysus invented the diadem, and that is why he is frequently seen in the guise of a
man-faced bull with a
Victory crowning him with a diadem, and finally, (7) this theory is compatible with the “agricultural allegory”
identification because
Dionysus was believed to be the first to submit bulls to the yoke, which is why he is depicted with horns.
Representation of Harmony between Ceres and Dionysus:Eckhel mentions this only in passing, but explains as follows:
Dionysus and
Ceres are the two principle deities of
agriculture, and the horned
head might represent
Dionysus while the
bull represents
Ceres, since the
bull was her favorite animal.
Dionysos Zagreus:It was
Gardner who argued that the
man-faced bull of
Neapolis is
Dionysos Zagreus.
Rutter quotes the appropriate lines, “ ‘we have no sufficient proof that streams were objects of special worship in
Campania,’ and, second, ‘…we have…ample proof that the cultus of
Dionysus, especially
Dionysus Zagreus, was there quite at
home, and that the god was frequently worshiped in the form of a horned
youth or a human-headed
bull.”
Rutter argues against this, stating that there is at least one example of a river being worshiped in
Campania and placed on a coin (the Sebethos), and that the monuments recording the worship of
Dionysus Zagreus in
Campana are too late, coming from Hellenistic and
Roman times. However, just because the monuments recording the worship of
Dionysus Zagreus appear at a later date does not mean that he was not worshiped there earlier, and the theory of
Dionysus Zagreus as the true identity of the
man-faced bull deserves further consideration.
Local River Gods:The Learned Prince of Turris MuciaFirst, we paraphrase the Prince’s argument as summarized by
Eckhel: (1) The ancients accorded divine honors to rivers, (2) Ancient rivers were depicted as bulls, (3) Rivers were also depicted as a human
face with horns (here he is referring to later coinages that display the
head and neck of a
man, but with tiny horns of a
bull) and (4) The Akarnanians and Ambracians certainly used a man-headed
bull to depict their rivers, so it follows that other cities depicted their
river god this way too.
The Man-Faced Bull of GelaSecond, we examine the argument that the
man-faced bull of
Gela represents the local
river god Gelas. At the outset, it should be noted that there is literary evidence that the
river god of the Gelaians was named Gelas, as we learn from Timaios of Tauromenion, when he discusses the Phalaris
Bull in the first Pythian Ode. However, some, including
Eckhel, have
still doubted this
attribution. Carina
Weiss points out that the
inscription ΓΕΛΑΣ serves to acknowledge precisely that it is a local god and not
Achelous, since the Gelaian tetradrachms are the earliest coins to show the
man-faced bull in the
West. But the most convincing argument might come from an overview of the inscriptions, again provided by
Weiss. As she explains, the
legend ΓΕΛΑΣ must be linked to the
man-faced bull, because the
Jenkins Group
VII tetradrachms, which show a youthful horned
river god, do not have the
inscription ΓΕΛΑΣ, but instead on the
obverse ΓΕΛΩΙΩΝ. Yet in the same series, when the
man-faced bull reappears on the
reverse, the
inscription ΓΕΛΑΣ also returns. In addition,
Jenkins notes that the later bronze units (420-405 BC) which have a horned human
river god on the
obverse and a regular
bull on the
reverse most likely indicate the dual nature of the
river god.
Weiss also makes note of the fact that the
man-faced bull reappears when
Gela re-founded itself after the Carthaginian invasion c. 405-339 BC. Ultimately,
Weiss believes that the
man-faced bull of Gelas borrowed its iconography from
Achelous, but later changed to a depiction of the
river god as a horned
youth.
The Man-Faced Bull of AgyrionThird, we examine Carina
Weiss’ argument that the
man-faced bull depicted on the bronze coins of Agyrion represents the local
river god Palagkaios. It is worth noting that
Eckhel mentions in the Doctrina that, “If I ever see the man-headed
bull type labeled not with these ambiguous names [i.e. Gelas]…but with a name such as Amenanos…I will become an immediate convert to the theory of the learned Prince.” Palagkaios of Agyrion might be such a name.
Weiss argues first that the nominative Palankaios does not correspond to the later forms of Agyrion magistrate legends, but her evidence is from after 241 BC, when
Sicily was a
Roman province. Secondly,
Weiss argues that it is probably not an artist’s signature, since such signatures are usually tiny
abbreviations, not large banners directly over the illustration. She also questions why an artist would sign a substandard bronze die in such away, to which I would agree save the idea that the dies were “substandard”! Finally, she cites a coin from the period 339-300 BC in which a male
head in
laurel wreath carries the
inscription XEUS ELEYQERIOS (EDIT: the Greek didn't paste properly, I'll fix this later) , a clear label of the illustration. She then concludes that PALAGKAIOS must also refer to the illustration, and therefore name the
man-faced bull.
The Man-Faced Bull of Campania Finally, we examine Rabun
Taylor’s argument that the Neaopolitan
man-faced bull represents Sebethos, and as such, he argues that the
man-faced bull is a symbol of synoecism, or the cohabitation of two or more different peoples in one geographic
area, which in the case of
Neapolis would be
Neapolis and Parthenopē.
Taylor’s argument for identifying the
man-faced bull as Sebethos rests on the fact that the Sebethos river was probably the river that divided ancient
Neapolis from Parthenopē, and the
river god as
man-faced bull is therefore the appropriate synoecistic image. In addition, he notes a coin minted c. 400-380 BC, in which a youthful horned
river god on the
obverse of a coin is surrounded by the
inscription Sepeithos, naming the horned
man as the
river god outright.
Taylor argues, just as the Geloians adopted
Achelous’ iconography to represent their river as a
man-faced bull, and later that
river god appeared as a youthful horned male, so too did the Neapolitans adopt the
man-faced bull iconography to represent their local river, and later replaced it with the youthful, horned
river god.
Taylor also cites an
inscription from the island of Kōs that claims the Neapolitans “were using as an emblem for their civic identity ‘a figure of a male animal’”. However, this
inscription dates to 242 BC, and as we will see below, there are convincing arguments that support the notion that the Campanian
man-faced bull is not a local
river god.
Achelous:While it is not disputed that the
man-faced bull of Akarniania and the surrounding
area is
Achelous, others have extended this theory to apply beyond
Akarnania. Ignarra was the first to do this, arguing that all depictions of the
man-faced bull are
Achelous, since
Achelous represents rivers and water in the general sense and we can, as
Eckhel recounts, refer to them as “Acheloici”. Unfortunately,
Eckhel does not give this theory the credit it deserves, and instead dismisses it as a problem of overextending an example of an iconography and applying to all examples of an iconography.
Eckhel’s dismissal, however, does not take into account that some examples of such iconography might in fact be
Achelous without the implication that all examples of the
man-faced bull are definitely
Achelous. For example, it could be a depiction of
Achelous on the coins of
Akarnania and
Campania (as
Rutter will argue, see below), but not on the coins of Tauromenion and Agyrion, etc.
Rutter’s argument that the
man-faced bull of
Neapolis (and by extension, all of
Campania) is
Achelous is the most convincing and the most widely held view today. It should be mentioned that
Rutter agrees with most scholars that the
man-faced bull on south
Italian and Sicilian coinage represents local
river gods. However, in the case of
Neapolis he questions whether we see the Sebethos or
Achelous.
His argument that it is probably
Achelous is as follows: (1) there are iconographic parallels that display a very similar iconography and are certainly
Achelous, (2) there is definitive proof of a cult of
Achelous that was established in south
Italy by the time
Neapolis was founded, and (3) the
obverse most likely shows
Parthenope,
Achelous’ daughter, whose tomb is allegedly in
Neapolis and who
had games held in her
honor, hence the
reverse shows her father and, on some issues,
Victory crowns him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'm
still undecided. I'm leaning towards
Achelous for
Neapolis, but I somewhat disagree with my
good friend Nico that all man-faced bulls are
Achelous, mostly because of the examples from
Gela and Agyrion. I won't venture a guess on the identity of the
man-faced bull in the various locations in which he appears until we have finished our research for the chapter on the man-faced bull's origins (the first
man-faced bull in ancient art is from Old Europe, c. 5th Millenium (!) BC).
I think David is on to something in suggesting the MFB could mean different things to different people, and perhaps this mystery is as old as the
man-faced bull himself!
