Delphi (7 page)

The emergence of myths that push the origins of Delphi much farther back, to the time of the pre-Olympian gods, and make the succession a fraught one, has been associated with the development in Greek thought of a clearer genealogy of the divine (following Hesiod's
Theogony
), and subsequently of that genealogy describing a move from darker primordial forces toward a more civilized order, which Apollo's battle with the serpent comes to represent.
²⁵
In so doing, at a time when Delphi's position in Greek society has come, as we shall see in later chapters, to be associated with the establishment of law, order, and good relations between human and divine, the myths surrounding its origins come to mold that role as one for which Delphi was predestined and has been performing since its inception; indeed the very act of its inception enabled Apollo to establish order over chaos. Similarly, the myths surrounding the lineage of Apollo's temple (built of laurel, then of beeswax, then of bronze by gods, then of stone by heroes, and finally by men) have been argued to articulate a continuing transition from the work of Nature, to that of the gods, of the heroes, and then of man, underscoring both Delphi's key position in the traditional framework of the mythic history of the Greek world's development, and also, as a result, justifying Delphi's later central role in the ancient Greek world.
²⁶

At the same time, the emergence of stories that prioritize the longevity of Delphi and the tendency for there to be conflict over its ownership have also been argued to reflect the fact that Delphi was the subject of numerous conflicts during its archaic, classical, and Hellenistic existence. Conflict about the origins of Delphi and about the violent seizure of its sanctuary by Apollo mirror a series of fights for Delphi both in myth and history over its ancient lifetime, as it came time and time again to be the subject of hostile takeover.
²⁷
Equally, the importance of longevity and conflict in Delphi's origins has been attributed to the developing competition for authority between different oracular sites in the ancient Greek world during the archaic and classical periods.
²⁸
The emergence and dominance of origin myths, which push Delphi's origins back to the gods before Zeus and the Olympians, like Gaia, could be seen as part of the later propaganda game between oracular sanctuaries competing for business through a stress on longevity and thus importance.
²⁹
Pausanias (5.25.13), in the second century
AD
, informs us that Delphi was not the only oracle to play this game; the oracle of Zeus at Olympia also claimed descent from Gaia.

It is not only the hotly contested hierarchy of oracles (and their gods) that the varying stories surrounding Delphi's origins illuminate, but also the more particular nature of Apollo as he was worshiped at Delphi (Apollo Pythios). How the site became known as Delphi, the oracle as the Pythia, and Apollo at Delphi as Apollo Pythios are all issues to which the many origin stories give conflicting answers.
³⁰
Yet despite the difference in detail, these stories all construct Apollo as the god who brought knowledge to mankind, as well as the one who imposed order over chaos. In the
Homeric Hymn to Apollo
, as soon as Apollo is born on Delos, he announces his interest in music, shooting with a bow, and divination. His privileged position among the gods as the only one who knows Zeus's mind is underscored in the
Homeric Hymn to Hermes
, when Hermes tries to trick his brother into giving him the gift of divination (
Hom. Hymn Hermes
533–38). It is this position of power and the responsibility entailed in knowing the future, along with his interests in “cultural” activities like music, that associate Apollo, and particularly his worship at Delphi as Apollo Pythios, with the forces of order and lawful action.
³¹
These qualities are also reflected in several other epithets under which he was worshiped at different sanctuaries around the Greek world: Apollo Prostaterios (protector); Delphinios (protecting and mediating the relationship between seafarers and the oceans, but also in terms of relations between cities especially in Asia Minor); Epikourios (protector of mercenaries); and Maleatas (associated with healing).
³²

Yet his warlike activities (particularly his brutal slaying of the serpent and his forceful taking of the oracular site from Gaia/Themis), his love of the bow, and perhaps even the etymology of the name Apollo, also call attention to a darker side to his character, as one who punishes those who cross the line he guards (see his threat to punish the Cretan priests if they commit hubris in the
Homeric Hymn to Apollo
).
³³
This duality of order and violence in the character of Apollo Pythios at Delphi, as expressed through the sources relating to Delphi's origins, is an important feature of the way the Greeks conceptualized the role of Delphi and Apollo Pythios in their world, and it
mirrors the duality of centrality and conflict that is the mainstay of Delphi's story in ancient history.
³⁴

As such, the different emerging stories surrounding Delphi's origins all seem to have been oriented toward explaining, justifying, and mirroring its later, central position in the Greek world, the dual nature of the site and its god, and even perhaps toward defending and buttressing that position in the face of increasing competition from other oracular shrines. It is even more fascinating that this process does not seem to have occurred only in ancient literature, but also on the ground at Delphi itself. The emergence of the importance of a lineage dating back to Gaia, particularly in literature from the fifth century
BC
onward, is evidenced in the archaeological development of the sanctuary at that time. In fact, our earliest solid datable evidence for an actual cult of Gaia at Delphi comes from the fifth century
BC
; statues to Gaia and Themis dating from the period have been found, not in the Apollo sanctuary, but near the Castalian fountain (see
plate 1
,
fig. 0.2
).
³⁵
However, we also know from the accounts of the Apollo temple reconstruction in the mid-fourth century
BC
that there was a sanctuary of Gaia inside the main Apollo sanctuary at Delphi by this time, and its continued presence in the first century
AD
is confirmed for us by Plutarch.
³⁶
Is this archaeological evidence of a cult beginning only in the fifth century
BC
(by the Castalian fountain and later being transferred into the Apollo sanctuary), or is it simply that evidence for a much older cult survives only from the fifth century
BC
onward? We can't be sure. But it is an intriguing coincidence that, just as Gaia's presence at Delphi in the ancient literature emerges from the fifth century
BC
onward, so too, in the physical space of the sanctuary and the local landscape, does Gaia's worship at Delphi come into focus.

The many, often conflicting, stories regarding Delphi's beginnings have in the past been taken as a way of filling in the blank canvas of the site's early history and, by the first archaeologists of Delphi, as a guide to the identification of its earliest structures (see the following chapter). Few scholars would be prepared to use these myths in the same way today. Instead, the myths are considered products of their own time, a
time by which Delphi was already an incredibly successful phenomenon (late seventh–fifth centuries
BC
) that required an origin to match, an origin that could in turn be used not only to reinforce the natural order and succession of the cosmos, but also the particular importance of Delphi in comparison to other oracular sanctuaries, the details of its location, the dual nature of Apollo Pythios, and conflicting notions of Delphi's history. The gods, which were supposed to be its earliest masters, may well have become the object of worship in its sanctuaries from only the fifth century
BC
onward, because, by the later periods of Delphic history, particularly of Plutarch and Pausanias in the first–second centuries
AD
, all these tales were part of the rich tapestry of stories that could be used to evoke, realign, and even reframe the place of Delphi, and indeed of Greece, in the ancient world.

So if the literary representations of Delphic beginnings tell us rather more about the mindset, needs, and desires of the periods in which they were developed than about Delphi's origins, what can we know about how, when, and why Delphi developed? For this, we must turn to the archaeological investigation of Delphi and the surrounding landscape, which has transformed our understanding of Delphi's early years.

Delphi's earliest history was, however, by no means the prime focus of its initial excavators. During the first major excavation of the sanctuary, known as the “big dig” (1892–1901; see the final chapter), the landscape was rarely excavated to below archaic period levels, and most of the original excavation was focused on exposing the sanctuary as the Greco-Roman tour guide Pausanias had seen it during his visit in the second century
AD
. It is ironic that the oldest object to have so far been found in the sanctuary of Apollo was discovered during the big dig, but aroused no interest from the excavators at the time. It is now recognized as a lion's muzzle, which formed the lower decorated edge of a Minoan rhyton drinking vessel, dated to between 1600 and 1450
BC
.
³⁷
It bears signs of being repaired in antiquity, but, given the lack of context for its discovery, there is no way of knowing whether it came to the site shortly after its creation, or indeed many centuries later.

It was only during subsequent excavation seasons from the 1920s onward, spurred by an increasing awareness and interest in the possibility of finding significant material from much earlier cultures (cf. to Sir Arthur Evans's excavation at the Minoan palace of Knossos beginning in 1900) that the French excavators actively sought to excavate lower levels at the site. Since that time, as the focus has expanded from the main sanctuary site to the wider Delphic landscape, a much more complex picture of Delphi's earliest origins has begun to appear.

In the Corycian cave, 1,400 meters above sea level, and 800 meters above Delphi, traces of Neolithic occupation have been discovered dating to 4300–3000
BC
. This cave (see
map 3
;
figs. 0.2
,
1.2
), which will in later times be closely linked with the Delphic sanctuary by a processional path that still today can be followed as it clings to the sheers cliffs of Parnassus, seems to have been used for occasional habitation. The pottery remains have been argued to be similar to Thessalian ceramic from the same period.
³⁸
This is interesting because of the links that many scholars have claimed between the Delphic region and that of Thessaly to the north during the ninth and early eighth centuries
BC
. The similarity in the Neolithic ceramic may suggest a much longer-term connection between these two areas.

Throughout the early and middle Helladic periods (c. 2800–1550
BC
), there is material evidence for the development of settlement in different parts of the (modern-day) Itean plain below Delphi. Yet, despite the lion-muzzle rhyton find, there is no evidence for consistent settlement in the actual region of the Delphic sanctuary until a period known as late Helladic III (part of a system of chronology based on pottery styles), which equates to c. 1400–1060
BC
. At this time, the Corycian cave seems to have been out of fashion (very few finds dating to this period have been discovered there), in contrast to the plethora of objects discovered among the nascent community at Delphi.
³⁹
Most of the settlement from this early period covers the later Apollo sanctuary's eastern side, stretching up the hillside from the area of the temple of Apollo to the lesche of the Cnidians. The impression is of a lot of poor housing and a particular fondness for terra-cotta animal figurines. Yet we also
know of at least one rich dromos tomb in the area, along the later road leading from Delphi to Arachova, which contained a large number of vases and even a bronze sword (see
map 3
).
⁴⁰

None of this is evidence for cult practice, for an actual practicing sanctuary. Indeed, archaeologists have a hard time agreeing what, if any, archaeological material can definitively be declared as votive (that is, associated with cult practice) prior to the latter parts of the seventh century
BC
. But this has not stopped many from becoming very excited by Mycenaean period finds in the later Athena sanctuary (see
plates 1
,
3
). For here, in the 1920s excavations, groups of female figurines (so called
Phi
and
Psi
figurines because their stance echoes those Greek letters of the alphabet) were unearthed. Coupled with the facts that no traces of habitation could be found in this area and that the later literary stories associated with Delphi claimed the site was held originally by the female Earth goddess Gaia, many scholars advocated that the later Athena sanctuary was the earliest site of cult worship of Gaia at Delphi, confirming the historicity of the literary myths. Today, it has been recognized that the collection, and burial, of these Psi and Phi figurines happened at a later time, perhaps associated with later reconstructions of the Athena sanctuary in the archaic period.
⁴¹
But does this mean they should not still be associated with an early cult of a female divinity (perhaps Gaia-like) at the site? The debate remains open, although it has also been suggested, following comparison between these figurines and Mycenaean cult figurines from other sites, that the Delphic ones should be associated with funerary, rather than cult use.
⁴²