Talk:Omphalos of Delphi

The final paragraph under "Description" states "Recent studies by French archaeologists have demonstrated that the omphalos and the columns are connected and interlocked...", and it goes on to provide three sources. Unfortunately, all three of the sources are in Greek. This is troubling because French archaeologists aren't generally known to publish their findings in Greek. Furthermore, of the three sources, only one is on-line, and I can find no mention of the French archaeologists' names in it. I would appreciate it if the editor who added this information would provide their names and if possible, links to sources that they themselves published, or relevant extracts from it. As it stands, the assertions do not meet WP:RS. Bricology (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

This article quite confused me.

There is a photo of an orate stone with the caption "The omphalos in the museum of Delphi.

There is a photo a of a simple cone (looks like concrete to me, but could be stone) that apparently sits at the actual site where the omphaplos used to sit and/or was found? Unclear if this copy is a recent one to mark the spot of the original, or a Hellenistic or Roman one to mark the spot of the original. It is labeled "The omphalos stone displayed outside at Delphi, Greece" and not described as a copy.

In Wikimedia Commons there is a photo of a third stone, intermediate in detailing, looks like a beehive, labeled "Antalya Archaeological Museum. Omphalos of Delphi.". (This could be mislabeled and is not from Delphi, I suppose, or be one of the "Many more copies" found at Delphi (see below)).

Text in the article: "In the 2nd century AD, Pausanias traveled to the area of Delphi and has provided us with rare evidence through his work. The stone of the omphalos seems to have been decorated in high relief and had an oval shape". This matches the stone in the Delphi museum, not the plain on at the site. (Why "seems to have been" rather than "was" I don't know, perhaps Pausanias's description was vague.)

Text in the article: "The marble-carved stone that constituted the omphalos in the monument with the tripod and the dancers troubled the excavators, because they could not decide if it was the original or a copy from Hellenistic and Roman times". I suppose "marble-carved" would refer to an ornate one, not the current simple cone.

Text in the article: "Recent studies by French archaeologists have demonstrated that the omphalos and the columns are connected and interlocked. In other words, the stone navel was mounted on the bronze tripods supported by the three dancers, at the top of the column." Use of present tense conflicts with past tense in the next sentence, I think, and is confusing. Is it in the same state now as was found? Don't see any obvious interlocking of anything in the photo.

Followed by article text: "This is the spot where the omphalos is thought to have been placed until today, as a cover of the column, in order to reinforce the meaning and importance of the Athenian votive offering symbolically. The Athenians, wanting to placate and honor the god of light, offered him this copy of the original stone, which combined both Delphic symbols as a gift from the hands of the three priestess figures of Athenian origin". "Is thought to have been", so current placement is a guess? It does cover a column I guess. Apparently it is a copy, but neither recent nor Hellenistic/Roman, but contemporary: "The Athenians, wanting to placate and honor the god of light, offered him this copy of the original stone..." It's not clear why they offered a copy; was the actual original destroyed in an ancient time? Why offering a copy would "reinforce the meaning and importance" of the symbolic offerings or placate Apollo I don't know.

The one ref I can access and read says the ornate versions is indeed a Hellenistic or Roman "representatiom" and may been what Pausanias saw; it's decoration depicts (not 'may depict') the appearance of the original stone. How this would be known I don't know. The ref also says "Many more copies of the omphalos, in various materials, existed in Delphi." which is a whole nother complication (not mentioned in the article), and why these many copies would have been maide I can't say.

Finally, the section in Omphalos which discusses the stone (describing the oranate one) says it "may be a copy" and says that "most accounts" place it in the adyton, so I guess its its original modern discovery may not have found it in the its original location?

All in all I can't tell at all what the deal is here. Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Good questions @Herostratus, not an oracle myself but my recent edits were intended in part to address what you questioned. The idea of an "original" stone raises the question of whether we are talking about the mythical (imagination required) or historical (documented) plane. That's why I replaced the word "original" in the lead with "a version ... once used in the temple" - that's what seems verifiable. I borrowed another article's reference to Hesiod's version of the omphalos myth, and brought out another editor's contribution that mentioned the stone's key role in the Rhea-Cronos myth and linked to the omphalos article, which contextualizes the origin story and development of the omphalos concept. I did notice that the Delphi museum's wiki page barely mentions the omphalos; is that significant? I did start to wonder if this article would be more accessible and useful folded into the main omphalos article as a strong section.

Have you happened across any reliable sources that answered any of your questions? I left the "confusing" template because the article still needs work. -Minerviades (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't, no. It seems a somewhat obscure entity. Herostratus (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought that the the article in el.wikipedia might illuminate but it seems not. Google translate offers:

This particular rock was the subject of extensive study as researchers could not conclude whether it was the original or a copy from the Hellenistic or Roman era. Ultimately, the study led to the second version.

The navel stone appears to have been decorated in relief and had an oval shape. It is possible that in ancient times it was covered by a network of woolen bands that held it in the sanctuary , next to the tripod and the laurel, the other sacred symbols of God. As Pausanias describes , among the bands that were tied around the navel there were precious stones designed in the shape of a mermaid and on its top were fixed two solid gold eagles.

Recent studies by French archaeologists have shown that the navel and the column are connected and joined together. That is, the stone navel was placed on the bronze tripod carried by the three dancers, at the top of the column. The navel is placed there to this day, as a cover for the column in order to symbolically complete the essence and meaning of the Athenian votive offering. The Athenians, wanting to appease and honor the god of light, presented him with this effigy that combined both Delphic symbols as an offering from the hands of the three female figures of Athenian origin.

Was the en.wikipedia article copied from this, or the other way round?

The only possible unique citation is Πάνος Βαλαβάνης, Ιερά και Αγώνες στην Αρχαία Ελλάδα. Ολυμπία – Δελφοί – Ίσθμια – Νέμεα – Αθήνα, Αθήνα, 2004, 244. [Panos Valavanis, Sanctuaries and Games in Ancient Greece. Olympia – Delphi – Isthmia – Nemea – Athens , Athens, 2004, 244.]

which is not a lot to go on. Good money time after bad? Just gut it? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@JMF @Herostratus Thanks for responding so fast! I will try to help make this article less confusing and more verifiable when I get a chance to search for strong sources. By the way: I forgot to note that I actually didn't totally remove the word original from the article. I moved it up higher in the lead, to emphasize the distinction between the Delphi omphalos and the concept/copies (?) of omphalos. But in doing so, I shifted the identification of the navel to Delphi itself, which may not be accurate and still begs/sidesteps the question of what the omphalos meant over time and means to archeologists now. Please don't hesitate to improve on my edits or revert if they take us in the wrong direction. -Minerviades (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It was bothering me so I went ahead and added "as site of" to hopefully be more accurate. Regarding your suggestion @JMF, your call if you think anything should go immediately. I'm not attached. (; -Minerviades (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

By keeping original does it keep the same problem? What about...

as the site of the stone selected by Zeus, known as the omphalos - the navel of the Earth";

either way as is, the "since then, Greeks consider" part needs a WP:reliable source, I think.

-Minerviades (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

To answer the summary for my last edit: maybe not. "I went ahead and added some language to try and clarify that Delphi is not itself the omphalos - Do I have that right?"

According to Michael Scott, author of Delphi: centre of the ancient world (2014) Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400851324., "The 'oracle and sanctuary of the Greek god Apollo at Delphi were known as the “omphalos”–the “center” or “navel”–of the ancient world for more than 1000 years." (https://michaelscottweb.com/publications/delphi-a-history-of-the-center-of-the-ancient-world)

The challenge is always getting one's hands on the actual book... Minerviades (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That looks good enough to me to be used as is. Getting the actual book is ideal of course but not essential. It does not seem controversial and if Princeton is publishing it, it is unlikely to be pseudoscience mysticism nonsense.

But cite the book not his website. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)