DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0134
118
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
[CHAP. VI.
Shattered condi-
tion of extant
remains.
The spring
‘ Bathyllus’
has probably
disappeared.
The Tumulus.
to justify the expression, or in positions which one would naturally describe as ‘behind the Stoa
Philippeios.’ Curtius42 supposed the remains marked ‘ 47 ’ in my map and ‘ X ’ in that of the French
Expedition to belong to the shrine of Hera Teleia. These remains have proved on examination
to consist of better materials (conglomerate and limestone) than those at ‘ 45 ’; but they are mere
foundations, and in so fragmentary a condition that it is impossible to say to what sort of
building they belonged. To associate them with the shrine of Hera Teleia is mere guesswork.
Curtius’s reason for doing so was probably the existence of a small stream, not far beyond it,
which he called the ‘ Bathyllus ’ ; but it will appear later that his identification of this stream
was probably wrong; nor, even had it been right, could the stream be correctly
described as flowing beneath the hill on which the remains in question are situated.
There is indeed, to judge from the shattered condition of nearly everything wdiich has
hitherto been excavated upon these hills, little chance of determining the position of the two
sites of which we are in search. By far the best piece of wall yet discovered in this region is
that marked ‘ 44,’ by a large and conspicuous oak-tree which crowns the slope. The position
was first suggested by Mr. Penrose, in 18.91, as a likely one for a temple, though no remains
were then visible above ground. I have since found there some very good conglomerate
foundations, and have traced them for a distance of some 60 feet. This site appears to
me the least unpromising upon these hills : but even here I shall be surprised if good results are
obtained by excavation. At best only foundations can be expected, and it will probably be
impossible to identify them.
The mention of the spring ‘ Bathyllus/ which should help us to the identification of
the shrine of Hera Teleia, is only an additional element of difficulty. Pausanias says that it
was ‘ beneath ’ the hill on which the shrine was situated, and that it contributed its waters to
the Helisson. Now the hills to north and east of the Stoa Philippeios are bounded on either
side by streams which flow into the Helisson, but do not contain a single spring
which is worthy of the name. The eastern stream, marked by Curtius as the Bathyllus,
consists mainly of surface-water, and in dry weather runs almost (if not entirely) dry; and
even apart from this it is situated too far east to be described as running ‘ beneath ’ any hill
‘behind the Stoa Philippeios.’ And its branch (not marked by Curtius), which runs close to
the remains ‘47,’ is a mere torrent, having its origin in the middle of the footpath, and
running only after heavy rain. The western stream, already mentioned in connexion with
the gymnasium and the enclosure of the Great Goddesses, and identified by Ross43 with the
Bathyllus, contains (it is true) a small spring which renders it perennial; but this spring is
in its northern branch, which lies so far away that any temple built upon the ground which
overhangs it (as, for example, near the remains ‘41’) would be invisible from the Agora, and
this seems inconsistent with Pausanias’s expressions.
On the whole we must, I think, conclude that the spring Bathyllus has entirely
disappeared; and I, for my own part, should not be at all surprised if every trace of the two
buildings seen (both, be it remembered, in ruins) by Pausanias, has disappeared likewise.
Before passing to the other side of the river, I must say a few words about the Tumulus
(cf. Chap. II. §.3. D), though, as it lies outside the city walls, I am obliged to desert
Pausanias’s order for the sake of doing so.
This Tumulus has been commonly identified with the χώμα, ’Αριστοδήμου τάφο? men-
tioned by Pausanias44 as being passed on the route from Megalopolis to Maenalus. Though
this identification is very tempting, and though I cannot at present point to any other mound
as corresponding more exactly to Pausanias’s description, I think it must be admitted that the
probabilities are rather against than for its correctness. In the first place, our excavation of the
Tumulus brought to light no traces of any tomb appropriate to a tyrant’s burial. The gold
ornament discovered was of the slenderest kind, and was found in a small stone vessel quite
close to the surface, and obviously not belonging to the principal burial. And the only trace of
a burial in the centre of the Tumulus was a plain sarcophagus of the coarsest earthenware and
absolutely empty. Secondly, while the Tumulus is situated on the right bank of the river,
Pausanias’s route, in the course of which he passed the tomb of Aristodemus, followed the left
bank. This is evident, both from the list of places through which he went without crossing
42 Pelop. i. 288, and Pl. V.
43 Reisen im Peloponnes, p. 76.
44 Paus. viii. 36. 5.
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
[CHAP. VI.
Shattered condi-
tion of extant
remains.
The spring
‘ Bathyllus’
has probably
disappeared.
The Tumulus.
to justify the expression, or in positions which one would naturally describe as ‘behind the Stoa
Philippeios.’ Curtius42 supposed the remains marked ‘ 47 ’ in my map and ‘ X ’ in that of the French
Expedition to belong to the shrine of Hera Teleia. These remains have proved on examination
to consist of better materials (conglomerate and limestone) than those at ‘ 45 ’; but they are mere
foundations, and in so fragmentary a condition that it is impossible to say to what sort of
building they belonged. To associate them with the shrine of Hera Teleia is mere guesswork.
Curtius’s reason for doing so was probably the existence of a small stream, not far beyond it,
which he called the ‘ Bathyllus ’ ; but it will appear later that his identification of this stream
was probably wrong; nor, even had it been right, could the stream be correctly
described as flowing beneath the hill on which the remains in question are situated.
There is indeed, to judge from the shattered condition of nearly everything wdiich has
hitherto been excavated upon these hills, little chance of determining the position of the two
sites of which we are in search. By far the best piece of wall yet discovered in this region is
that marked ‘ 44,’ by a large and conspicuous oak-tree which crowns the slope. The position
was first suggested by Mr. Penrose, in 18.91, as a likely one for a temple, though no remains
were then visible above ground. I have since found there some very good conglomerate
foundations, and have traced them for a distance of some 60 feet. This site appears to
me the least unpromising upon these hills : but even here I shall be surprised if good results are
obtained by excavation. At best only foundations can be expected, and it will probably be
impossible to identify them.
The mention of the spring ‘ Bathyllus/ which should help us to the identification of
the shrine of Hera Teleia, is only an additional element of difficulty. Pausanias says that it
was ‘ beneath ’ the hill on which the shrine was situated, and that it contributed its waters to
the Helisson. Now the hills to north and east of the Stoa Philippeios are bounded on either
side by streams which flow into the Helisson, but do not contain a single spring
which is worthy of the name. The eastern stream, marked by Curtius as the Bathyllus,
consists mainly of surface-water, and in dry weather runs almost (if not entirely) dry; and
even apart from this it is situated too far east to be described as running ‘ beneath ’ any hill
‘behind the Stoa Philippeios.’ And its branch (not marked by Curtius), which runs close to
the remains ‘47,’ is a mere torrent, having its origin in the middle of the footpath, and
running only after heavy rain. The western stream, already mentioned in connexion with
the gymnasium and the enclosure of the Great Goddesses, and identified by Ross43 with the
Bathyllus, contains (it is true) a small spring which renders it perennial; but this spring is
in its northern branch, which lies so far away that any temple built upon the ground which
overhangs it (as, for example, near the remains ‘41’) would be invisible from the Agora, and
this seems inconsistent with Pausanias’s expressions.
On the whole we must, I think, conclude that the spring Bathyllus has entirely
disappeared; and I, for my own part, should not be at all surprised if every trace of the two
buildings seen (both, be it remembered, in ruins) by Pausanias, has disappeared likewise.
Before passing to the other side of the river, I must say a few words about the Tumulus
(cf. Chap. II. §.3. D), though, as it lies outside the city walls, I am obliged to desert
Pausanias’s order for the sake of doing so.
This Tumulus has been commonly identified with the χώμα, ’Αριστοδήμου τάφο? men-
tioned by Pausanias44 as being passed on the route from Megalopolis to Maenalus. Though
this identification is very tempting, and though I cannot at present point to any other mound
as corresponding more exactly to Pausanias’s description, I think it must be admitted that the
probabilities are rather against than for its correctness. In the first place, our excavation of the
Tumulus brought to light no traces of any tomb appropriate to a tyrant’s burial. The gold
ornament discovered was of the slenderest kind, and was found in a small stone vessel quite
close to the surface, and obviously not belonging to the principal burial. And the only trace of
a burial in the centre of the Tumulus was a plain sarcophagus of the coarsest earthenware and
absolutely empty. Secondly, while the Tumulus is situated on the right bank of the river,
Pausanias’s route, in the course of which he passed the tomb of Aristodemus, followed the left
bank. This is evident, both from the list of places through which he went without crossing
42 Pelop. i. 288, and Pl. V.
43 Reisen im Peloponnes, p. 76.
44 Paus. viii. 36. 5.