Ancient Minoan Circular Structure Discovered in Crete: A Unique Ritual Site

A 4,000-year-old maze-like circular structure was found on a hilltop in western Crete. It immediately brings to mind the famous labyrinth, but its exact nature is unclear, although it is evidently from the Minoan period. The structure was used for ritual purposes, as indicated by numerous animal bones suggesting community feasts involving food, wine, and other offerings. The building consists of eight stone rings intersected by small walls forming various rooms, with a diameter of 157 feet. Inside, there is a central circle surrounded by radial walls. Minoan monuments are typically square, so this kind of architecture is previously unknown, except in tombs.

The Dragon Slayer Archetype

In the Aarne-Thompson Motif Index, motif number 300 is “The Dragon Slayer” which involves a hero who defeats a fearsome dragon and cuts off its head. Sometimes, the hero doesn’t kill the dragon but only neutralizes it. Since the dragon has magical powers that allow it to rise from its ashes or strengthen in other ways, it remains a threat and will one day return, needing to be defeated again. The one who will defeat it will be the same hero, a reincarnation, or one of his descendants. In the “Motif-Index of Folk-Literature”, Stith Thompson expands on the character of the dragon, its hatching from an egg, being a hybrid with terrifying elements from various animals, having multiple heads (usually three), its appearance resembling a snake and perhaps even being a snake itself, and so on.

I am currently reading the new book by our group member Sarah Kugel, “Iranian Mythology”, while also browsing Thamar Eilam Gindin’s book “Heroes, Kings, and Dragons”. Both books deal with Iranian mythology, and one of the central stories is about the evil king “Zahhak” who turned into a dragon or, alternatively, grew two man-eating snakes from his shoulders after being kissed by the devil. This king was wicked and represented Iran’s enemy, and only after a thousand years did the national hero, Fereydun, manage to depose him. Fereydun is a later iteration of the original Avestan word Traitaunas, meaning “possessor of three powers”. Zahhak is a later iteration of the Avestan word “Azi Dahaka,” meaning “man resembling a dragon,” and perhaps even “the laughing dragon”. Perhaps he laughs because he is invincible, and even when defeated, he is not truly dead and always has more strength, at least until the final victory, which no one knows when it will come.

It’s easy to see that this story is essentially a prototype of the “Whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation, who will only be defeated at the end of days. It’s no coincidence that Babylon is mentioned since, in these Iranian stories, Zahhak is originally Babylonian or at least built a fortress in Babylon. Gindin mentions that in one version, he misled the Babylonians into believing in sacred scriptures he wrote called “Oritā” (from the Aramaic ‘Oraiyta’, the Torah) as if he were a reincarnation of Ahriman himself, posing as the good god, for Ahriman once tempted the first humans, infiltrated their thoughts, and made them worship demons. Such is also the Antichrist. The Gnostics (as well as the Manicheans who incorporated Zoroastrian elements into Gnosticism) claim that the God of the Jews is the god who created the material world, so it’s clear why his sacred texts are referred to as the Jewish sacred texts. By the way, the Gnostics worshiped a being called Hermes Trismegistus, which means “the three times greater”, or “the three times stronger”. The fact that Megistus mentions the Zoroastrian Magus or Magi is very welcoming.

The deeds of Fereydun are based on another hero whose name is derived from the number three: Trita, an Indian hero (mentioned in the Vedas) who is also credited with killing a three-headed dragon named Trisiras. This story is an iteration of another story attributed to the god Indra, who killed a dragon named Vritra. Indra also fought with Varuna, the guardian of immortality, and took his place—a myth that reminds us of Yahweh’s battle with Leviathan or Marduk’s with Tiamat.

So much for comparative mythology. From here on, I will mention that Indra’s favorite drink was soma, an intoxicating beverage he consumed before the battle with the dragon-serpent. This dragon was the leader of the “Asura”, who were actually “Devas,” gods who fell and became demons. They pretended to be benefactors, though they were power-hungry and deceitful. Three Devas—Varuna, Soma (Chandra), and Agni—who were initially on the dragon’s side and called him “our father,” were eventually bewitched and helped Indra defeat him.

The Indo-European warriors would drink soma to get the war frenzy, and Zarathustra did not like the uncontrolled way they consumed the sacred drink because it led to chaos and bloodshed. Alternatively, the priests of the false gods consumed haoma (which is the same as soma, just in Avestan) and through it worshipped demons, something Zarathustra despised. He called those demons daêva, and their worshippers “daêvan.” Indra himself was called daêva. Zarathustra detested the haoma cult, and one of his reforms was to replace the intoxicating substance with ephedra, whose psychoactive effect is much lower. Some say he did not prohibit the use of the intoxicating drink but merely restricted its consumption because irresponsible people would have a “bad trip” or simply lose their inhibitions because of it.

At this point, I will mention, as Lewis Ungit already pointed out, that the dragon-serpent symbol they fight is essentially a personification of the psychedelic experience. Some people drink the intoxicating drink and get lost with it, fighting and being defeated by the dragon. Conversely, some people defeat it and cut off its head, but this does not make them immune later because the severed head will grow back, and the dragon will always be strong enough to attack the next time. Only at the end of days will that dragon, who disguises himself as a beautiful woman, truly die, and the one who defeats him will win the grand prize, perhaps even marry the princess—more and more elements recurring in Stith Thompson’s index, which are probably now better understood.

The color of the tefillin wasn’t an issue

The Talmud states that tefillin must be square and black, and this commandment is considered a law given to Moses at Sinai (i.e no reason but still a law). However, new research (published today at PLOS One) proves that the tefillin found at Qumran were not dyed at all, and certainly not black. Although some of them were found to be black in color, this blackness was not the result of intentional dyeing but rather the opposite—natural weathering and decay of the leather, likely due to moisture that seeped into the caves. That is, chemical examination of the tefillin eliminates the possibility that they were originally dyed black. Dyeing can be identified in one of two ways: using carbon-like materials such as charcoal or using tannin and iron oxides. Neither of these was found on the tefillin. Professor Yonatan Adler concludes from this that the color of the tefillin was not originally significant in Jewish law, and it is likely that the tradition of black tefillin developed at a later period.