Zeus : a study in ancient religion - Warburg Institute

The Delphic Omphalos 191
aetiology ^ But it is clear that Kallimachos and Diodoros are
drawing upon a common source. Moreover, since Kallimachos in
his context has been paraphrasing Epimenides with regard to the
tomb of Zeus-, while Diodoros in his sequel mentions Epimenides
as his first authority for things Cretan^, it is legitimate to conclude
that poet and prose-writer alike are indebted to Epimenides. As a
native of Crete^ and a Koures to boot^ he would know the local
myth. And the story, thus vouched for, must be at least as old as
the beginning of the fifth century B.C." That we are on the right
track in attributing it to Epimenides appears from another con-
sideration. Epimenides in a noteworthy couplet denied that the
Delphic omphalos was the central point of land or sea^ Why?
Because he knew the tale told about the Cretan Omphalos, and took
the word to mean '
navel,' not '
central point' So then Knossos,
the metropolis of the Delphian shrine^ had a sacred Omphalos,
which c. 500 B.C. was believed to be the spot hallowed by the navelstring
of Zeus. I submit that a like belief attached to Delphoi, and
that the Delphic omphalos was originally the mound in which the
navel-string of Zeus lay buried. Dare we add that the knife-blade,
actually found by Courby and regarded by him as mere packing
for the wooden pillar of the omphalos-', was the very implement said
to have been used at the primal omphaletomia 1
This explanation of course presupposes an actual custom of
burying the umbilical cord^". But such customs are amazingly fre-
^ K. Hoeck Kreta Gottingen 1823 i. 177.
"^ Supra i. 157 n. 3, 664 n. i.
•* Diod. 5. 80, cp. E. Schwartz in Pauly—Wissovva Real-Enc. i. 2866 f., v. 678.
* H. Diels Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker'-^ Berlin 1912 ii. 185 ff. has a convenient
collection of the sources, which are critically studied by H. Demoulin Epiminide de Crete
Bruxelles 1901 and O. Kern in Pauly—Wissowa Real-Enc. vi. 173— 178.
® Myronianos frag, i {Frag. hist. Gr. iv. 454
Miiller) ap. Diog. Laert. i. 115
Mupwj'iaj'os 5^ fv '0/j.oioLs (prjaiv otl KovpriTa avrbv eKoXovv Kprjres and Plout. v. Sol. 12
*rat KovprjTa f(Ov avrou 01 Tore avdpwTroi Trpocnjyopevov, cp. Diog. Laert. f. iii eiroii)(T€ 8e
KovprjTwv Kai Kopv^avruv yeveaiv.
^ O. Kern in Pauly—Wissowa Real-Enc. vi. 174.
' Supra p. 187 n. 5. 8 Supra p. i8y n. 8.
" Supra p. 175.
^^ W. H. Roscher Omphalos Leipzig 1913 p. 18 :
' Wer bedenkt, dass die Geburt des
Zeus ebenso fiir das Prototyp aller menschlichen Geburten gait wie seine heilige Hochzeit
{iep6s ya.p.o's) ftir das Ur- und Vorbild aller menschlichen Hochzeiten, der wird es doch
wohl mit mir fiir recht wahrscheinlich erkliiren, dass der Mythos von der Nabelschnur des
hochsten Gottes auch eine ahnliche Bedeutung und Behandlung dieses Organes bei den
menschlichen Geburten voraussetzt. Ja, es scheint ni^ht unmoglich, dass man in uralter
Zeit zu Omphalion die Nabelschnur des Zeus ebenso als kostbare Reliquie zeigte und
verehrte, wie in Delphi den Stein, den Kronos nach der Geburt des Gottes ausgespien
haben soUte (Paus. 10, 24, 6) oder zu Tegea die Locke der Gorgo Medusa (Paus. 8, 47, 5)
usw.'