Talk:Tauroctony

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article notes that the astrological interpretation of the tauroctony has reached the status of scholarly consensus. The source for this statement is nearly 20 years old, and the view of Ulansey and others who argue for the astronomical/astrological understanding is by no means the present-day consensus. My knowledge of Mithraism research is not good enough to fix this article, which needs the attention of an expert on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohammer (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was little consensus when Ulansey published The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. Ulansey's arguments were briefly taken to pieces at the time of publication in the review by Alan C. Bowen in Isis 82.2 (June 1991:359-360). J. Gwyn Griffiths in The Classical Review, N.S. 41.1 (1991:122-124) admired Ulansey's ingenuity but remained unconvinced. N. M. Swerdlow, a historian of science, reviewed Ulansey in Classical Philology 86.1 (January 1991:48-63); extraordinarily contemptuous of Mithraism in general, he gave an annotated survey of the literature even before Cumont in an extended, article-length review, with a long excursus on

Charles François Dupuis, that concludes Ulansey had piled hypothesis upon hypothesis in an act rather of faith than reason that amounts to a "cautionary tale": "This is not a happy situation, for few delight in confessing to ignorance where once there was knowledge" (p.62) Swerdlow's most important observation: "It is not that the cult is not astrological— almost everything in its period is atrological, and some, perhaps all, Mithrea were decorated with zodiacal signs— but the evidence is lacking for anything that is not superficial and ubiquitous, which is all the astrological content may be, as Cumont long ago surmised". (p62f). I too am not competent in the Tauroctony except to quote authorities. --Wetman (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a comment or two on the images used in this article: It might be wise to use haut-relief/bas-relief examples rather than sculptures in-the-round. Haut-relief/bas-relief sculptures are far and away the most common form. (The tauroctony is essentially a two dimensional image.) Also, the two sculptures in-the-round that you present have almost certainly been restored improperly. According to the Mithraic bull-slaying ‘canon,’ Mithras should be looking back over his shoulder, up to Sol. Both these examples do not present him this way. Another point: a note under one of the images says that frescos are the common form of the tauroctony. Not true; frescos are rare. Bas-relief sculptures are the more common form. - Eric Pijeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.166.155 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Mithras bull-slaying looks very similar to Enkidu slaying Gugalanna, the "bull of heaven". 18 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.39.18 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks similar to a painting of bull fighting scene, seen in many Mexican restaurants. Kortoso (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following text from the article:

David Ulansey finds astronomical evidence from the mithraeum itself.^[1] He reminds us that the Platonic writer Porphyry wrote in the 3rd century AD that the cave-like temple Mithraea depicted "an image of the world"^[2] and that Zoroaster consecrated a cave resembling the world fabricated by Mithras^[3] The ceiling of the Caesarea Maritima Mithraeum retains traces of blue paint, which may mean the ceiling was painted to depict the sky and the stars.^[4]

Aside from the fact that its Ulansey who is being (ad-nauseum) pumped here, this has absolutely nothing to do with the tauroctony.

Similarly:

If the author were familiar with Beck's later works, or has read the article, he/she might have found that Beck no longer goes down that path.

Then,...

Scholar	Identification
Bausani, A. (1979)	TM associated with Leo, in that the tauroctony is a type of the ancient lion-bull (Leo-Taurus) combat motif.
Beck, R.L. (1994)	TM = Sun in Leo
Insler, S. (1978)	bull-killing = heliacal setting of Taurus
Jacobs, B. (1999)	bull-killing = heliacal setting of Taurus
North, J.D. (1990)	TM = Capella (Alpha Aurigae) setting.
Rutgers, A.J. (1970)	TM = Sun, Bull = Moon
Sandelin, K.-G. (1988)	TM = Auriga
Speidel, M.P. (1980)	TM = Orion
Ulansey, D. (1989)	TM = Perseus
Weiss, M. (1994, 1998)	TM = the Night Sky

already existed in the article, in compact form.

And the dump from someone's clipboard...

Ulansey has proposed that Mithras seems to have been derived from the

Gorgon and the tauroctony, both figures being associated with underground caverns and both having connections to Persia as further evidence.^[7]

Michael Speidel associates Mithras with the constellation of Orion because of the proximity to Taurus, and the consistent nature of the depiction of the figure as having wide shoulders, a garment flared at the hem, and narrowed at the waist with a belt, thus taking on the form of the constellation.^[8]

Beck has criticized Speidel and Ulansey of adherence to a literal cartographic logic, describing their theories as a "will-o'-the-wisp" which "lured them down a false trail."^[9] He argues that a literal reading of the tauroctony as a star chart raises two major problems: it is difficult to find a constellation counterpart for Mithras himself (despite efforts by Speidel and Ulansey) and that unlike in a star chart, each feature of the tauroctony might have more than a single counterpart. Rather than seeing Mithras as a constellation, Beck argues that Mithras is the prime traveller on the celestial stage (represented by the other symbols of the scene), the Unconquered Sun moving through the constellations.^[9] But again, Meyer holds that the Mithras Liturgy reflects the world of Mithraism and may be a confirmation for Ulansey's theory of Mithras being held responsible for the precession of equinoxes.^[10]

The TM identifications are summarizable in one or two words, and were summarized as such, and then again in table form, so what on earth is all this? Seriously people. Someone having fun with Google Books? Clipboard ran out of memory? And what is it with Meyer "The Mithras Liturgy", as if the so-called "Mithras liturgy" were even really accepted to have anything to do with Mithras, leave alone with the tauroctony?

Good grief. -- 89.14.253.158 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]