Talk:Omphalos of Delphi

"Recent studies by French archaeologists"

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)

Dog's breakfast

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)