Featured Is Elagabalus Really Wearing a Desiccated Bull Phallus on his Head?

One of these Elagabalus with “horn” coins has been on my want list for years. I was very happy to pick up a wonderful example from AMCC 3. This coin has great centering, toning, detail and a very respectable provenance that is made all the nicer by its connection to a fellow CTer (@Shea19).

But what really makes this coin interesting is a question:

What is Elagabalus wearing on his head?


Roman Empire
Elagalabus (218-222)
AR Denarius, Rome mint, struck AD 221.
Dia.: 19 mm
Wt.: 2.84 g
Obv.: IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG; draped and “horned” bust right
Rev.: PM TR P IIII COS III PP; Emperor standing left, sacrificing over altar, standard on either side
Ref.: RIC IVB 51
Ex Shea19 collection, Ex CNG E-Auction 465, Lot 722 (part of), Ex Mike Vosper FPL 112 (11 March 2000), no. 35a


Answer #1: It’s a horn.
This interpretation was first put forward by Henry Cohen in 1859 based on the fact that Hellenistic kings were sometimes shown in art with two horns on their heads. This view was also shared by the writers of RIC (Mattingly, Sydenham & Sutherland)[1]. The convention of a king sporting horns goes at least all the way back to Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC), who was famously told by an oracle that his father was the ram-horned god Zeus-Ammon.

The theory posits a fairly straightforward connection with the coins of Elagabalus: Elagabalus was from the east (Emesa) where rulers were commonly shown with horns and so he brought this convention to Rome and introduced it onto his coins. The connection of horns with kingship, religious authority and even divinity in the eastern Mediterranean lasted into the period of the Renaissance which can be seen in the below depiction of Moses by Michelangelo [3].



Top Left to Top Right: Ptolemy Soter, Alexander III (struck for Lysimachus), and Demetrios Poliorketes - All depicted with horns (Photos courtesy of CNG). Bottom Left: head of a Hellenistic ruler with holes where horns would have originally been (3rd-2nd centuries BC, currently in the The MET). Bottom Right: a horned sculpture of Moses by Michelangelo ca AD 1512-1515 (Wikipedia)

There are a few possible drawback to this theory:

1. In Hellenistic art there are usually two horns. Even on the Hellenistic coin portraits that show only one horn by necessity, they are always shown on the side of the head and it is clear that another horn on the other side of the head is implied. In the case of Elagabalus, the “horn” appears to be centered above the head and it is not clear if two are intended.
2. The “horn” appears to be attached to the laurel or crown in the case of Elagabalus but are shown as a physical part of the head in Hellenistic art.
3. The shape of the “horn” on the coins of Elagabalus also shows a bend or kink on some examples which is inconsistent with the shape of a horn.
4. The horn is not present on all portraits of Elagabalus, even on some with the same reverse types. Why would this type of symbolism be so inconsistent?

Overall, I think that there may be perfectly valid answers to the above drawbacks and so I still think that this theory is quite plausible.

Answer #2: It’s a dried bull’s penis.
As crazy as this theory sounds at first glance, a compelling case was made for it by the very knowledgeable numismatist, Elke Krengel in 1997 [2]. The article is widely available online but is written in German so I took some time to translate it as best as I could in order to understand and summarize the theory here.

The theory is that a bull penis was dried and attached to the headgear worn by Elagabalus during sacrificial rites. It is assumed that a new specimen would have been needed for each sacrifice. During the research on this theory tests were carried out to determine if a dried bull penis could explain the size and shape variations seen on the coins and it was determined that it could (you can go to the original research photos [2] or else just trust me on this one! ).

The connection of wearing the object as part of a sacrifice seems very strong to me. On the earliest issues showing the object as part of the portrait the reverse sacrifice scene also clearly shows the emperor with it on his head. Rarely the reverse will not show a sacrifice scene but the obverse will have the object (bull penis). Even in these cases it can be argued that the reverse always shows the emperor in a function of state that a sacrifice would have followed.


Left: INVICTVS SACREDOS AVG reverse showing the emperor clearly wearing the object on his head during a sacrifice [2] Right: Same reverse type (Photo courtesy of CNG)

Possibly the least compelling component of this theory is the somewhat weak connection between cult practices of Elagabal and known instances of the use of a phallic headdress. Even so, Krengel makes a case that it was a known phenomenon in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean at the time. Krengel points to figurines of Jupiter Heliopolitanus with a phallic shaped object on his head as well as bronze figurines of a male head topped with male genitalia that have been found in Syria and across the empire.


Jupiter Heliopolitanus Figurine - Divine figure from the eastern Mediterranean possibly showing a phallic object on the head (Photo courtesy of the Louvre) Krengel shows an example of a figurine from the Berlin Museum that seems to more closely resemble a phallic symbol.

This theory is the only one I’m aware of that explains why the object shows up on some portraits and not others (at least on the denarii). Based on dating made possible by the progression of the beard, it can be shown (according to Krengel) that almost all denarii struck in 221 had the object [2]. The vast majority of the denarii dated to 222 do not include the object. To understand why this might be we need to consider some background.

When Elagabalus entered Rome in 219 he did not immediately begin to institute his most infamous religious reforms. It seems that the Elagabalium temple was probably not dedicated until 220/221 so some of his more scandalous actions could not have occurred before then [6]. At the end of 220 he took the title SACERDOS AMPLISSIMUS DEI INVICTI SOLIS ELAGABALI [2]. Therefore it was probably near the beginning of 221 that Elagabalus started to press a more radical system of religious reform. It seems apparent that the soldiers and the people turned against him quickly after this. Dio tells us he was compelled to adopt his cousin Severus Alexander in the summer of 221. When he changed his mind and tried to kill Severus Alexander the soldiers rioted and Dio tells us Elagabalus was forced to negotiate with them and hand over some of his most unpopular supporters [4]. When he once again tried to murder his cousin the soldiers rioted again in March of 222 and in the aftermath Elagabalus and his mother were killed, dragged through the streets and thrown in the Tiber.



Top: Location of the Elagabalium Temple on the Palatine Hill in Rome. Coin reverse of Severus Alexander showing the temple complex during its conversion to a temple to Jupiter after the death of Elagabalus (Coin photo courtesy of CNG). Bottom: Timeline showing some of the events of the reign and how they relate to the minting of coins with the horn/phallus/object on denarii.

If the object is in fact a bull phallus associated with a religious reform that was started at the beginning of 221, it would make sense that it would be included on issues associated with sacrifice. Whether or not this would have been objectionable to the soldiers is uncertain. Because denarii were used to pay the soldiers, it makes sense that if the object was offensive to them it would be quietly removed once it became apparent that Elagabalus was in danger. This would have happened between July 221 and March 222. This leaves some time at the end of the reign where coins were struck with sacrifice related scenes but the offending object was being phased out.

Overall this theory is very well thought out. The weak connection between Elagabal and phallic head imagery is a drawback, but the conclusion is certainly not a major stretch in my opinion. Overall, this theory seems entirely plausible.

Answer #3: It’s an embellishment of the Laurel wreath.
This theory suggests that the object is a part of the laurel wreath, perhaps even a laurel leaf that was aggressively rendered by the die engraver. It is fair to point out that sometimes the laurel leaves can protrude almost to the forehead on other laureate portraits of the imperial period.

However, I think it would be a stretch to associate the long (and particularly the “kinked”) examples of the object with a laurel leaf or any other typical part of the laureate headwear. This theory takes another major hit due to the fact that the object appears, not only on the laureate examples, but also (rarely) on the radiate portraits [2].

Answer #4: It’s an Amulet.
This answer doesn’t necessarily exclude Answer #2 (i.e. bull penis = amulet) but I though it was worth mentioning here under its own heading because there have been various theories put forward as to the nature of the amulet.

First, it is worth noting that Elagabalus was directly said to have worn amulets and charms as part of his sacrificial rituals by one of the primary sources on his life: Cassius Dio. In a passage that accuses the young emperor of making human-child sacrifices, Dio says that there were:

“secret sacrifices that he [Elagabalus] offered to him [Elagabal, the god], slaying boys and using charms, in fact actually shutting up alive in the god's temple a lion, a monkey, and a snake, and throwing in among them human genitals, and practising other unholy rites, while he invariably wore innumerable amulets.” [4]​

Whether or not any of these amulets were worn on the head is unclear. I am aware of at least three suggestions:

1. A human finger. This was suggested by Martin Frey in 1989
2. The toe of a rooster. This was suggested in an unpublished manuscript by Henry Baldus [2].
3. A piece of jewelry. This suggestion relies partly on the testimony of Herodian, who said that Elagabalus wore diadems and other jeweled headwear.

Based on the testimony of Cassius Dio this theory seems plausible to me.

References
[1] RIC Vol. IV Part II

[2] Krengel. E; Das sogenannte „Horn“ des Elagabal - Die Spitze eines Stierpenis. Eine Umdeutung als Ergebnis fachübergreifender Forschung; Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 47, 1997, pp 53-72; Berlin, 1997

Online: https://www.bngev.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1997-Band-XLVII.pdf

[3] https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Elagabalus

[4] https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/80*.html

[5] https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/xml...A-CLAS-August-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[6] https://www.livius.org/articles/person/heliogabalus/heliogabalus-religion-1/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's a great addition, seems like your "bull" was strong.

My poor "bull" was limp


ELAGABALUS (218-222 A.D.)
AR Denarius
Rome mint. Struck 220-222 AD.
O: IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG, laureate and draped bust right, horn on head.
R: SACRED DEI SOLIS ELAGAB, Elagabalus standing right, holding branch (?) and sacrificing from patera over lighted altar; star in right field.
RIC IV 131; BMCRE 225 note; RSC 246
19mm
3.5g

 

I think it's just a cowlick. He had a bad hair day when he was modeling for the die engraver.
You all need to get your minds out of the gutter. Though to be fair, that is where Elagabalus liked to hang out most of the time.

 

I buy the theory!

Here's mine:

Elagabalus AR Denarius, 221-222 AD, Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate & draped bust right, bearded, with horn (or bull phallus) extending above laurel wreath, IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG/ Rev. Elagabalus standing left, sacrificing from patera over lit tripod altar, holding branch, star in field left, SVMMVS SACERDOS AVG. RIC IV-2 146, RSC III 276 (bearded), Sear RCV II 7549. 17.71 mm., 3.97 g.

 

The "horns on Moses" thing...the Hebrew word for "rays of light" and "horns" are either very similar or the same.

 

Curtis, You raise an interesting question . I've had a few denarii of Elagabalus that depict this strange object on his head, & must admit it never appeared to me to be a horn of an animal . I've never seen a bull's penis in action or dried, but would think it to be larger than what appears on these coins . Knowing that the young prince was a homosexual, could this object be a male penis ? To add weight to this theory, ancient writers reported that Elagabalus wanted to be castrated to enhance his evening cross-dressing . His very early coinage doesn't depict this strange object on his head.

 

I just checked...and my lone Elagabalus is phallus free!


Elagabalus
Denarius
Rome
218 AD
Obverse: IMP CAES M AVR ANTONINVS AVG, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right
Reverse: VICTOR ANTONINI AVG, Victory running right, holding wreath and palm over left shoulder.

 

Unfortunately, this mistranslation -- interpreting "rays of light" as "horns" -- is the source of one of the more long-standing anti-Semitic myths. Even today, there are still people who seriously believe that Jews have horns. The association is not with kingship, but with the Devil.

 

Stunning coin my man!
And what a great read
Naw, I don't buy it. Much of the wild stories and rumors about the spoiled little kid pervert (btw, who wasn't weird and confused at his age. And imagine your gammy giving you control of the world then!) , much like Nero thanks to the Flavians, was a hit job by those after him.
That said, you cannot tell me there is a coin rust might possibly be a kid emperor wearing a bull's dork on his head and me not have to get one!
Mine has a semi

 

That's the best laugh I've had in a long time, thanks.

 

Lol Still a great coin. I like the examples that include Elagabal by name.

Haha Indeed! In fact I bet he would be upset with us all if history had denied him his reputation as a next level freaky-deaky dude!

Nice example! I agree. Despite the strangeness of the theory I think it is absolutely possible. The ancient world was an interesting place.

 

I really don't get what's funny about it. The stupidity is tragic, not humorous.

 

Whaaat? I have honestly never heard that.

 

Elagabalus Denarius Syrian Priest
Silver, 21 mm, 3.76 gm, Catalog: RIC 46
Struck: AD 221 Rome

The star with the elongated tail is believed to be Halley's Comet which made an appearance in AD 218.

Is our lad wearing a headpiece representing the tail of the comet?

 

How strange it is that some symbols take on almost opposite meanings depending on the context. My guess is the devil with horns developed from one of the horned Greco-Roman gods (Pan?). Though some of the positive connotation seems to have lasted at least as long as the Renaissance if the Michelangelo statue is any indication.

I linked to the original article where they did experiments and determined the scale would have been accurate to the coin depictions. The theory is that they used the end piece... it’s all very gross.

As to being a human penis the article touches on that indirectly as well. Cassius Dio says that Elagabalus used human genitals in some of his secret rites (see OP quote). If there is any truth to this (which there may not be), the article points out that the use of a bull phallus could have been meant as a more palatable substitute.

The object is almost always associated with a sacrifice scene or with a state function that would have included sacrifice. This strengthens the argument for it being related to the worship of Elagabal in some way.

It’s true that Dio and Herodian were not above exaggerating but it seems enough of their testimony is verifiable that the rest should at least be looked at as plausible. Even the crazy stuff. (After all, would we believe the crazy Hercules stories about Commodus without the coins and statue?).

For instance we know he did lead a rock around on a chariot (coin evidence), he did build a massive temple to Elagabal (it’s still there) he did break the laws associated with the Vestals and he was murdered by his soldiers before that kind of thing was really in vogue... I think his reign is a fascinating period!

Great example btw!

 

See https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/anti-semitic-stereotypes-of-the-jewish-body/

A widespread medieval negative image of the Jew was based upon a misinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Moses was often depicted with two horns on his head as a result of the Latin mis-rendering of the verb “sent forth beams” (karan) in Exodus 34:35 as “grew horns.” (A horn is a keren.) This image, which was widely portrayed in art of the Middle Ages by artists including Michelangelo and Donatello in Italy, led to the widespread notion that all Jews had devilish horns.

**

I have more than one Jewish friend who, in traveling around the USA back in the 1970s and 1980s, encountered people in the rural South and Midwest who said they had never met a Jew before and (apparently seriously) asked where their horns were. My friends definitely did not get the impression that these people were trying to be funny, or to give them a hard time.

At least the stereotype that Jews have hooves instead of feet -- and, therefore, shouldn't be allowed in the military because they wouldn't be able to march long distances -- seems to have died out several hundred years ago. Same with the so-called Foetor Judaicus, the special unpleasant odor that Jews were believed to have.

 

LOL, wow, I grew up and lived most my career in the South (AR, TN, NC, FL), and the Midwest (IN, IL, WI). All rural area. Born ‘59, grew up 60’s & 70’s. Never discussed Horned Folk.

 

Glad to hear it!

 

A story I heard from a fellow student at college in the early 90s: She is Jewish and grew up in Minnesota. When she was about 12, another girl asked her in complete seriousness if she could feel her head, to see if there were horns. So, this rumor was still current in some areas in the US at least as late as the mid-80s. (1)

On a lighter note, this also shows up in the Woody Allen movie "Love and Death", which is a spoof of "War and Peace" and other 19th century Russian novels. (Yeah, sounds either pretentious or goofy, but trust me, it's hilarious.) Anyway, in one scene, the boy Boris is talking to a Russian Orthodox priest:

Boris: Father, what's a Jew?
Priest: You mean you don't know? Fortunately, I have some engravings. (Pulls out some drawings, which Boris views excitedly.)
Boris: Wow, do all Jews have these horns?
Priest: No, that's only the German Jew. See, the Russian Jew has stripes.


(1) Yes, in a courtroom this would be rejected as hearsay evidence. It's also only one data point. But I think it at least confirms the rumor survived until quite recently.

 

I've only heard of the horn thing from the movie "Borat". I assumed it was still pretty widespread if he was using it in his movie.

Edit: I forgot to add that people are stupid.