THE

HEADLESS
PILLAR
THE IMAGE OF A MAN WITHOUT A HEAD

PILLAR 43 - ENCLOSURE D - GOBEKLI TEPE

“... when I was spending a considerable time in Crete, I noticed an extraordinary festival being
celebrated there in which they exhibit the image of a man without a head, and relate that this
used to be Molus, father of Meriones, and that he violated a young woman; and when he was
discovered, he was without a head.”1

Plutarch here describes a festival that celebrated the image of a man without a head. It is evident that
even at his time the origins of this ritual were lost in the mists of antiquity. Despite this the reference to
Molus provides a clue to the concepts behind the ritual as this entity is associated with Deucalion.
Therefore, by extension, the festival of the man without a head is associated with the most ancient
human myths that describe the great flood.

The concept of the image of a man without a head can be traced back to the earliest evidence of human
civilization. At Gobekli Tepe, on Pillar 43 Enclosure D, at the base of the shaft of the T-shaped pillar, is the
clear representation of a man without a head. The headless figure is ithyphallic (displays an erection)
and this contradiction adds to the mystery that envelops Gobekli Tepe.

Adjacent to the figure are representations of birds and a large scorpion. The tail of the scorpion has
phallic connotations not only in the obvious phallic shape but also because of the potent capacity to
sting an opponent. This characteristic extends throughout human history forming part of the myths
surrounding the constellation of Orion as an example. Orion was killed by a giant scorpion and
subsequently placed among the shining stars by Latona.

Birds depicted on the pillar are characterized by their long necks. The vulture is obviously phallic with a
long extended neck and bulbous head that conforms with the exact image of an idealized phallus. A bird
that has been identified as a vulture forms part of the upper section of the pillar and holds a round
object that may be the decapitated head from the figure below.

The phallic nature of long-necked birds is extensively documented in the myths of antiquity. Leda and
the Swan is a famous example of a myth that deploys the phallic form of the swan’s neck to emphasize
the sexual act. In the myth that describes the abduction of Ganymede the deity assumes the form of an
eagle to achieve this act of deified homoeroticism.

In Egyptian myth Thoth is depicted as having the extended neck and head of the ibis. By being identified
with the Greek god Hermes the Egyptian deity carries a panoply of phallic associations. Not the least of
these are the herms which were ubiquitous in antiquity and usually featured a carved phallus in the
centre of a pillar. The herms traditionally featured a head but many had no head and were thus the pure
expression of a phallic pillar.
These boundary markers had their equivalence in the boundary pillars of Babylon. The stele on which
the Code of Hammurabi is inscribed takes the phallic shape of these pillars in order to express the power
of the god and the king that was acting as his legal representative. The current orthodoxy of describing
this stele as being in the shape of a finger makes no sense in the context of an intent to express deified
power.

The association of a code of laws with the phallus is explained in the Bible. In one instance Abraham
commands his servant to “‘Put your hand under my thigh. I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of
heaven and the God of earth’ … So the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and
swore an oath to him concerning this matter …”2

The biblical translators euphemistically used the term ‘thigh’ to obscure the archaic act of holding the
phallus in order to make a phallic oath. Legal weight was given to an oath that incorporated the phallus
in the same way that the Bible is used in court today. Ironically the original concept of giving an oath is
lost but is still preserved within the text of the Bible itself.

The eastern central pillar of Enclosure D at Gobekli Tepe exhibits a phallus that is incorporated into the
structure of the side of the pillar rising to the full height of the pillar. On either side of the pillar incised
representations of human arms stretch down towards the base of the phallus. In a sophisticated use of
the structure the hands bend at the knuckles on the sides of the pillar in order to hold the phallus. A
prominent belt traverses the pillar at the base of the phallus.

There is therefore ample evidence in these pillars at Gobekli Tepe to suggest that the headless ithyphallic
man is part of a wider phallic universe. The depictions tend to reinforce each other in a play of phallic
associations. The depiction of the giant scorpion is especially conspicuous in this regard in that the
scorpion’s tail points down towards the headless man’s erection.

The T-shaped columns in their very structure symbolize the phallus. There appears to have been an
association in antiquity between the T symbol and the form of the human male genitalia with the shaft
in the centre and the testicles on either side. This equivalence can be perceived in Egyptian temple
depictions of the deities. “... from under the body of the serpent springs the lotus or water lily … The
figures of Isis, upon the Isiac Table, hold the stem of this plant, surmounted by the seed-vessel in one
hand, and the cross, representing the male organs of generation, in the other; thus signifying the
universal power, both active and passive, attributed to that goddess.” 3

This ithyphallic quality is mirrored in the Egyptian creation myths and depictions of Min-Amun show the
god with an erection in the temple complexes of Karnak. Plutarch states that everywhere the Egyptians
worshipped Osiris with emphasis on his phallic manifestation. “Everywhere they point out statues of
Osiris in human form of the ithyphallic type, on account of his creative and fostering power; and they
clothe his statues in a flame-coloured garment, since they regard the body of the Sun as a visible
manifestation of the perceptible substance of the power for good. In the sacred hymns they call upon
him who is hidden in the arms of the Sun.” 4

Diodorus Siculus explains the veneration that the ancients accorded the phallus. His reference to “the
ancients” would in this context mean the archaic existence that preceded the great civilizations of
antiquity. Archaeological evidence of the process of fermentation and the possible production of alcohol
has been discovered in the vicinity of Gobekli Tepe which informs our understanding of the rituals that
were performed there.

“Now the ancients record in their myths that Priapus was the son of Dionysus and Aphrodite and they
present a plausible argument for this lineage; for men when under the influence of wine find the
members of their bodies tense and inclined to the pleasures of love. But certain writers say that when
the ancients wished to speak in their myths of the sexual organ of males they called it Priapus. Some,
however, relate that the generative member, since it is the cause of the reproduction of human beings
and of their continued existence through all time, became the object of immortal honour.” 5

The ithyphallic man on the Gobekli Tepe pillar is without a head and this aspect indicates that deeper
archetypes are being referenced. A headless god features in the original creation myths of Babylon that
have survived in the text of Eusebius of Caesarea.

Eusebius transcribes the text of Alexander Polyhistor who is himself quoting from the lost texts of the
Babylonian writer Berossus. Consequently the sources are at several stages removed from the original
texts but are in essence supported by the cuneiform tablets that relate the creation myths of the Enuma
Elish and the Atrahasis Epic.

Berossus states, according to Eusebius and Alexander Polyhistor, that “this story is an allegory about
nature; for when everything was wet and creatures were born in it, this god cut off his own head. The
other gods took the blood that flowed from him and by mixing it with earth they created men. Therefore
men are intelligent and have a share of divine reason.” 6

Thus there exists in these primordial myths a headless figure except that it represents a god and not a
man. The blood that gushed from the decapitated god was used to create humans and all the other
beasts or creatures that are depicted at Gobekli Tepe.

“When Belus saw that the land was empty and fertile, he ordered one of the gods to cut off his own
head, and by mixing the blood which flowed from him with earth, to create men and wild beasts who
could endure the air.”7

These concepts are supported by the cuneiform tablets of two primary sources - the Enuma Elish and
the Atrahasis Epic. Both of these support the concept that humans were created from the blood of a
slaughtered god although they do not define the method of slaughter.
In these myths the gods create humans to perform the menial tasks on earth thus freeing the deities of
these burdens. A god is selected to be sacrificed to enable the creation of humans. According to the
Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Epic of Creation, humans were originally formed from the blood of this god.
The Babylonian epic retains elements of the more ancient Sumerian version especially in the central role
played by the Sumerian deity Ea.

“When Marduk heard the god’s speech

He conceived a desire to accomplish clever things.
He opened his mouth addressing Ea,
He counsels that which he had pondered in his heart,
‘I will bring together blood to form bone,
I will bring into being Lullu, whose name shall be ‘man.’
I will create Lullu-man
on whom the toil of the gods will be laid that they may rest.” 8

The gods assemble and decide which of their number must be executed in order to perform this sacrifice
that gives birth to humans. Quingu is selected as punishment for his role as a warmonger among gods.
The role that this god had played by inciting warfare amongst the gods suggests that decapitation could
have been an appropriate method of execution.

“Quingu is the one who instigated warfare,

who made Tia-mat rebel and set battle in motion.
They bound him, holding him before Ea,
they inflicted the penalty on him and severed his blood-vessels.
From his blood he (Ea) created mankind,
on whom he imposed the service of the gods, and set the gods free.” 9

This creation myth is supported by the Epic of Atrahasis thus further emphasising the primordial nature
of this original creation myth. The oral transmission of these myths would have preceded the physical
evidence of the cuneiform tablets by millennia. It is clearly apparent that the scribes of Babylon saw
these myths as surviving through oral transmission from the dawn of human existence. This is evident in
the attempt to confer legitimacy on their pantheons of deities by demonstrating their role in the creation
of the earth and subsequently of humans.

In the Atrahasis the blood and flesh from the slaughtered god is mixed with clay to form humans. This
process of creation is seen in the context of a ritual of purification.

“Enki made ready to speak,

and said to the great gods:
‘On the first, seventh, and fifteenth days of the month,
let him establish a purification, a bath.
Let one god be slaughtered,
then let the gods be cleansed by immersion.
Let Nintu mix clay with his flesh and blood.
Let that same god and man be thoroughly mixed in the clay.
Let us hear the drum for the rest of the time.
From the flesh of the god let a spirit remain,
let it make the living know its sign,
lest he be allowed to be forgotten, let the spirit remain.” 10

Thus the human retains part of the original substance of the god from which he was created. The original
blood and flesh of the slaughtered god remains within the individual human as a spirit that will not let
humans forget their origin. In this version of the myth the deity that communicated the original
inspiration was the god that was slaughtered. These concepts, conveyed originally through oral
transmission, reappear thousands of years later in the Christian crucifixion.

“They slaughtered Aw-ilu, who had the inspiration, in their assembly.

Nintu mixed clay with his flesh and blood.
That same god and man were thoroughly mixed in the clay.
For the rest of the time they would hear the drum.
From the flesh of the god the spirit remained.
It would make the living know its sign.
Lest he be allowed to be forgotten, the spirit remained.” 11

Like the myths of the great flood that are also transcribed on these tablets the concepts that define the
crucifixion of Christ derive their inspiration from these ancient creation myths. The concepts are thus
projected forward thousands of years into the present by being contained in the Judeo-Chrstian religion.

By reversing this process the concepts contained in the Sumerian/Mesopotamian/Babylonian creation

myths would be antedated by many millennia to form a primordial creation myth that can be perceived
from the depictions on the pillars of Gobekli Tepe.

The confluence of these myths reinforces the concept that humans are formed from the blood of a
decapitated or slaughtered god and suggests that this creation myth has primordial roots.

The headless man, according to this creation theory, is not a man but the representation of a god. The
blood from his decapitation mixes with the dust to create humans and all the other creatures that are
depicted at Gobekli Tepe.

“The male organs of generation are sometimes found represented by signs of the same sort, which
might properly be called the symbols of symbols. One of the most remarkable of these is a cross, in the
form of the letter T, which thus served as the emblem of creation and generation, before the church
adopted it as a sign of salvation; a lucky coincidence of ideas, which without doubt, facilitated the
reception of it among the faithful. To the representative of the male organs was sometimes added a
human head, which gives it the exact appearance of a crucifix …” 12

1. Plutarch - Moralia - The Obsolescence of Oracles 14

2. Genesis 24:2-9
3. Richard Payne Knight - A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus
4. Plutarch - Isis and Osiris 51
5. Diodorus Siculus - Library of History 4.6
6. Eusebius of Caesarea - Chronological Canons
7. Ibid.
8. Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation
9. Ibid.
10. The Epic of Atrahasis
11. Ibid.
12. Richard Payne Knight - A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus