ILLUSTRATION OF THE ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY OF THE CENTRAL PART OF ASIA MINOR.
_Geographical Structure of the Country—Ancient Sites near the
Road from Eski-Shehr to Kónia—Polybotum—Synnada—Docimia—Metropolis—
Julia—Philomelium—Tyriaium—Iconium—Ancient Sites between Iconium
and Mazaca or Cæsareia—Tyana—Castabala—Cybistra—Cilician Taurus—
Archalla—Country called Axylus—Lycaonian Downs—Garsabora—
Coropassus—Sabatra—Lakes Coralis, Trogitis, and Tatta—Germa—
Orcistus—Places in the ancient Itineraries on the Road from
Ancyra to the Pylæ Ciliciæ, Archelais, &c.—Roads in the Peutinger
Table across the Taurus to the southern Coast—Juliopolis or
Gordium—Pessinus—Amorium—Santabaris—Pœmanene—Orcaoryci—Pitnisus—
Caballum—Tolistochora—Sub-divisions of Galatia._
Before we pursue our route beyond the capital of the Greek province
Lycaonia and of the Turkish kingdom Karamán, it may be right to offer a
few remarks upon the general geography of this part of the peninsula, and
upon the situation of some of the opulent and celebrated cities which
anciently adorned it.
From the sources of the Sangarius and Halys on the north and east, to
the great summits of Mount Taurus on the south-west and south, there is
an extent of country nearly 250 miles long and 150 broad, in which the
waters have no communication with the sea. Its southern part consists of
fertile valleys or of extensive plains intersected by a few ranges of
hills, and it is bounded to the southward by the great ridges of Mount
Taurus, from whence are poured forth numerous streams, which, after
fertilizing the valleys, collect their superabundant waters in a chain
of lakes, extending from the neighbourhood of Synnada in Phrygia through
the whole of Lycaonia to the extremity of the Tyanitis in Cappadocia.
In the rainy season these lakes overflow the lower part of the plains,
and would often form one entire inundation 200 miles in length, were
it not for some ridges which traverse the plains and separate them
into several basins. By the structure of the hills, and the consequent
course of the waters, these basins form themselves into three principal
recipients, having no communication with one another, unless it be in
very extraordinary seasons. These are, 1. The recipient of Karahissár
and Ak-shehr. 2. That of Ilgún and Ladik, which receives I believe the
superfluous water of the lake of Karajeli as well as that from the slopes
of the neighbouring mountains. 3. The recipient of Kónia, which collects
the overflowings of the lakes of Sidyshehr and Bey-shehr. 4. The basin
lying between the Cilician Taurus to the south-east and the Cappadocian
mountains in the opposite direction, which mountains are now called the
Hassan Daghi, and give rise to the western branch of the Halys. Were the
bountiful intentions of Providence seconded by a rational government,
the inundations would but prepare the plains for an abundant harvest: at
present they water only an immense extent of pasture land[50], while the
lakes supply the surrounding inhabitants with fish, and with reeds for
the construction of their miserable cottages.
Concerning two of the ancient sites traversed by the modern road leading
from Eski-Shehr to Kónia, there can be little doubt. The modern name
of Ladik is decisive of its being upon the site of Laodiceia Combusta,
and the sound of Πολυβοτόν as pronounced by the modern Greeks, with the
accent on the last syllable, so nearly resembles that of Bulwudún, that
the latter name is probably a Turkish corruption of the former. The
position of Bulwudún, moreover, agrees perfectly with that ascribed to
Polybotum in the narrative of Anna Comnena[51]. Polybotum, however, is
mentioned only in the history of the Lower Empire[52]: and although from
the 6th to the 12th century it appears to have been with Philomelium and
Iconium the chief city of these vast plains[53], its name is not found in
the earlier periods of history, when Synnada, Philomelium, and Iconium
seem to have been the principal places[54]. The position of Polybotum,
therefore, affords us no assistance in tracing the other ancient places
on the main route between Dorylæum and Laodiceia.
Of these places the most important to determine is Synnada, which indeed
is in some measure the key to the ancient geography of the central parts
of Asia Minor. It appears from the Table that Synnada was on the road
from Dorylæum to Philomelium and Laodiceia Combusta,—from Livy, that
it was in the way from the country lying eastward of Apameia Cibotus
towards the frontiers of Galatia,—and from Cicero[55], that it was
in the way or nearly so from Apameia to Philomelium and Iconium. The
crossing of these lines will fall not far from the modern Bulwudún, as
appears from the route of Pococke in his way from the upper valley of the
Mæander to Ancyra. It is highly probable, therefore, that the extensive
quarries which we saw on the road from Khosrukhan to Bulwudún are those
of Docimia, a small town in the plain of Synnada, celebrated for the
marble extracted from thence in large quantities, and sent even to Rome.
This marble was known to the Romans by the name of Synnadic, from the
more important town of Synnada, which was only sixty stades distant from
Docimia[56].
It is difficult to ascertain the name of the ancient city which occupied
the remarkable position of Karahissár, which is distinguished from some
other towns of the same name by the epithet of Afiom, in reference to
its abundant produce of opium. D’Anville supposed it to be the site
of Apameia; but the waters of Karahissár, instead of running into the
Mæander, of which the principal sources were at Apameia, flow to the lake
of Bulwudún. Pococke asserts that he found an inscription at Karahissár,
which proves it to be the site of Prymnesia; but upon referring to his
_Inscriptiones Antiquæ_, it appears that the inscription to which he
alludes is nothing more than the memorial of a man whose name ends in
ΜΕΝΝΕΑΣ, and who with his wife had constructed a tomb for themselves
and their only daughter. A few miles southward of Karahissár are the
fountains of a branch of the Mæander; it is probably the Obrimas, whose
sources according to Livy were at Aporis[57]. As the Consul Manlius
entered the plain of Metropolis from Aporis, and marched onward to
Synnada and Beudos vetus in his way towards Galatia, there is some reason
to think that Karahissár stands on the site of Metropolis.
If we suppose the Beudos vetus of the Latin historian to have been at
Beiad, from the similarity of name and the proximity of Beiad to the
site of Synnada (for Beudos, according to Livy, was only five Roman
miles from Synnada), we shall find that the distance from Karahissár to
Beiad, which is twenty G. M. direct, agrees very exactly with the march
of two days and five miles by the Consul Manlius, according to the mean
rate of armies reduced a little in consequence of the plunder which, as
the historian tells us, impeded the movement of the Romans. It will be
found, moreover, that the situation of Metropolis at Karahissár, accords
extremely well with the description given by Artemidorus of the road
through Asia from Ephesus to Mazaca or Cæsareia in Cappadocia, which,
after ascending the valley of the Mæander to its sources at Apameia,
proceeded by Metropolis and through Phrygia Paroreius to the termination
of that district at Tyriaium; and thence through Lycaonia to Garsabora
and Mazaca[58]: for although the distances on that road in our copies
of Strabo from Apameia as far as Laodiceia Combusta will not bear
examination,—and although Karahissár does not fall in the direct line
from Ephesus to Mazaca,—neither of these objections can be considered of
much weight: the inaccuracy of numbers in the ancient MSS. is too common
an occurrence to overthrow other testimony; and the divergence of the
ancient road to the northward at Karahissár, was evidently occasioned
by the projection of that part of Mount Taurus which is now called the
Sultan-dagh, and which causes so many of the modern routes to pass
through Karahissár.
Though the proportionate distances do not exactly agree with the numbers
in the Table, it may be inferred from the remains of antiquity at
Ak-shehr and Ilgún, that these were the Jullæ and Philomelium named in
that itinerary. Strabo describes Philomelium as being in the midst of a
plain on the north side of the hills of Paroreia; his description[59]
of which district agrees exactly with the Sultan-dagh and the plain on
its northern side. Its position no less accords with the testimony of
Artemidorus cited in the preceding page, according to whom the road
from Apameia to Mazaca led through the Paroreia. And the territory of
Philomelium appears from the narrative of Anna Comnena[60] to have
been at no great distance from that of Iconium; for as soon as the
Emperor Alexius had taken Philomelium from the Turks, his troops spread
themselves over the country round Iconium. The lake of the Forty Martyrs
mentioned in this narrative corresponds also with that of Ilgún, so that
it will probably be found that Ilgún stands upon the site of Philomelium.
The Jullæ of the Table seems to be a false writing for Julia, a name
which became common in every part of the Roman world under the Cæsars;
and it is probably the same place as the Juliopolis placed by Ptolemy[61]
in the part of the country where stood Synnada, and Philomelium. But
there can be little doubt that so fine a situation as that of Ak-shehr
was occupied, before the time of the Cæsars, by some important place,
which on its being repaired or re-established may have assumed the new
name of Julia or Juliopolis.
Of the cities mentioned by Xenophon on the route of Cyrus through Phrygia
into Lycaonia, Tyriaium and Iconium are the only two which occur in later
authors. Tyriaium, which is named by Hierocles as well as by Strabo (from
Artemidorus), is shown by the latter to have been between Philomelium
and Iconium. It must consequently have been at no great distance from
Laodiceia, although this situation is quite incompatible with the
distance which Xenophon has stated between Tyriaium and Iconium[62].
In following the march of Cyrus onwards from Iconium towards the Ciliciæ
pylæ of Mount Taurus, we find the distances of Xenophon rather more
reconcileable with the reality. It is agreed that Dana, which he places
at nine marches or fifty-five parasangs from Iconium, was the same
place as Tyana, otherwise called Eusebeia ad Taurum, and which under
Archelaus and the Romans was the chief town of one of the præfectures of
Cappadocia[63]. It was the only place in that province, except Mazaca,
which Strabo thought deserving to be called a city; and under the
Byzantine empire it was the capital of the second Cappadocia, and the see
of a metropolitan bishop until the Turkish conquest.
There can be little doubt that the site of Tyana is now occupied by
Kílisa Hissár, or the Castle of Kílisa near Bor[64]. This place is
acknowledged by the Greek clergy as the site of their episcopal see
of Tyana; it is situated, as Strabo describes Tyana to have been, in
a fertile plain not far from the entrance of the Pylæ Ciliciæ, or the
easiest and most frequented pass leading over Mount Taurus into Cilicia
Pedias and Syria,—and midway in the road to that pass from Mazaca[65].
At Kílisa Hissár are found very considerable ruins of an ancient city,
among which are those of an aqueduct upon arches, designed to convey
water to the town from the hills to the southward, which are connected
with the last slopes of Mount Taurus. Aqueducts of this description are
indubitable signs of an ancient place which flourished under the Romans,
and such we know to have been the condition of Tyana.
Strabo remarks that Castabala and Cybistra were not far from Tyana; that
they were nearer than that city to the heights of Taurus; that they
belonged to the Cilician præfecture of Cappadocia, and that Cybistra was
situated at a distance of three hundred stades from Mazaca[66]. We learn
also from the Table, that Cybistra was on the road from Tyana to Mazaca,
sixty-four Roman miles from the former. These data seem sufficient to fix
the site of Cybistra at Karahissár[67], where are considerable remains
of an ancient city; and they render it probable that the position of
Castabala is now occupied by Nigde, where we find similar evidences of an
ancient site.
The situation of Cybistra at Karahissár illustrates the interesting
account which Cicero has left us of his military operations, in defending
Cilicia and Cappadocia against a threatened attack of the Parthians[68],
when he fixed his camp at Cybistra, because it was on the frontier of the
two provinces, but nearer to the great plains of Cappadocia lying to the
eastward of Mount Taurus. These plains (he remarks) afford an easy access
to Cappadocia from Syria, while nothing can be stronger than Cilicia on
the side of Syria. In the end, however, the Parthians having advanced
towards Antioch, Cicero was obliged to cross Mount Taurus from Cybistra
to Tarsus, from whence he proceeded to clear Mount Amanus of the enemy.
In order thoroughly to understand the reason of one of the præfectures
of Cappadocia being called Cilicia by the Romans, it is to be observed
that more anciently both the sides of Taurus belonged to the
Eleuthero-Cilices, or independent Cilicians; and that the whole range
from the plains of Lycaonia to the Antitaurus was called the Cilician
Taurus[69]. Archelaus the last king of Cappadocia, having added all the
country on the northern side of the mountain to his kingdom, together
with a large portion of Cilicia Tracheia, Tiberius, who put him to
death at Rome, included it all, except the maritime parts, in the Roman
province of Cappadocia; and he added to the ten præfectures of the late
kingdom of Archelaus an eleventh, composed chiefly of his Cilician
conquests: and hence called the Cilician præfecture of Cappadocia. Its
chief town was Mazaca; it comprehended Cybistra and Castabala, and
extended along the mountains on the south side of the Tyanitis as far
as Derbe inclusively[70]. The inconvenience, however, of a division
which included in the same district two such distant places as Mazaca
and Derbe, seems to have been soon felt: for we find that in the time
of Hadrian, Derbe, Laranda, and a neighbouring region of Taurus
containing the town of Olbasa, formed a separate district called the
Antiochiana[71]; and that the Cilician præfecture was confined to the
parts about Mazaca and Cybistra.
The name of Erkle so much resembles the Turkish corruption of Heraclia,
as instanced in two cities of that name on the coasts of the Euxine and
Propontis, that it has often been supposed that the Erkle on the road
from Kónia to the Cilician Pylæ occupied the site of a Heraclia; and
Hadji Khalfa even asserts that it was so. No Greek or Latin authorities,
however, hint at the existence of a Heraclia in this situation. I have
little doubt therefore that Erkle occupies the site of Archalla, named as
one of the cities of the Cilician præfecture of Cappadocia[72], which,
as we have already seen, comprehended Erkle. Erkle, it may be added, is
precisely the softened sound which Turks would give to the word Ἄρχαλλα
pronounced in the Greek manner with the accent on the first syllable.
To the northward of the region of lakes and plains, through which leads
the road from Afióm Karahissár to Kónia and Erkle, lies a dry and naked
region, anciently called Axylus, which extends as far as the Sangarius
and Halys. Pococke, who crossed a part of this dreary country, describes
it exactly in the same manner as Livy[73], though apparently without
having adverted to that historian.
The southern part of this open country consists of a range of mountains
running parallel to Mount Taurus, and bordering the great valleys of
Philomelium, Iconium and Tyana on the northern side. The western part of
this range is a summit called Emír-dagh, which rises to a considerable
elevation from the lakes of Bulwudún and Ak-shehr, slopes gradually
into the open champaign to the eastward, and to the north is bounded by
a very broad naked valley, which is included on the opposite side by
the hills in which originate some of the branches of the Sangarius. To
the N.W. this valley opens into the great _axylous_ plains of Phrygia,
extending to Dorylæum; and to the S.E. into those of Galatia or Lycaonia.
The ridges lying to the northward of Kónia and Erkle form the district
described by Strabo as the cold and naked downs of Lycaonia, which
furnished pasture to numerous sheep and wild-asses, and where was no
water, except in very deep wells. As the limits of Lycaonia are defined
by Strabo, and by Artemidorus, whom he quotes[74], to have been between
Philomelium and Tyriaium on the west, and Coropassus and Garsabora on the
east,—which last place was 960 stades from Tyriaium, 120 from Coropassus,
and 680 from Mazaca,—we have the exact extent of the Lycaonian hills
intended by the geographer. Branching from the great range of Taurus,
near Ilgún (Philomelium), and separating the plain of Laodiceia from
that of Iconium, they skirted the great valley which lies to the
south-eastward of the latter city, as far as Erkle; comprehending, to the
north of Erkle and Bor, a part of the mountains of Hassan Daghi. It would
seem that the depopulation of this country, which rapidly followed the
decline of the Roman power, and the irruption of the Eastern barbarians,
had left some remains of the vast flocks of Amyntas, mentioned by Strabo,
in undisturbed possession of the Lycaonian hills to a very late period:
for Hadji Khalfa, who describes the want of wood and water in these
hills, adds, that there was a breed of wild sheep on the mountain of
Fudul Baba, above Ismil, and a tomb of the saint from whom the mountain
receives its name: and that sacrifices were offered at the tomb by all
those who hunted the wild sheep; and who were taught to believe that they
should be visited with the displeasure of heaven, if they dared to kill
more than two of these animals at a time[75].
At the back of the Lycaonian hills was Soatra, or Sabatra, situated in
a part of the country so desolate, that water was sold in the streets.
Sabatra was at a distance of 55 Roman miles from Laodiceia Combusta, and
of 44 from Iconium[76].
There is some difficulty in understanding to which of the lakes at
the foot of the Lycaonian hills we are to apply the names Coralis and
Trogitis. Stephanus mentions a city of Carallis, or Caralleia, which he
ascribes to Isauria. About the same period of time there was a Caralia
belonging to the consular government of Pamphylia, and a bishopric of
that province; but which had ceased to be an episcopal see in the ninth
century[77]. If these notices refer to one and the same place, it is
probable that the lake of Karajeli is the ancient Coralis, or Caralis;
and that the ruins which are found near its shore are those of the town
Caralleia[78]. In this case, the lake of Ilgún is probably the Trogitis
of Strabo; for it is difficult to suppose that he meant the lake of
Iconium by either of those which he names. As to the difference of size
which he remarks between them, our information is so imperfect, and the
lakes themselves differ so much in size, according to the seasons, that
no certain inference can be drawn from this distinction of the geographer.
One of the most remarkable features of this part of Asia Minor is the
lake Tatta; which, according to Strabo, produced salt in such abundance,
that any substance immersed in it was very soon entirely covered with
the crystal; and that birds were unable to fly, if they had dipped their
wings in it. The lake still furnishes all the surrounding country with
salt, and its produce is a valuable royal farm in the hands of the Pasha
of Kir-shehr. In 1638, Sultan Murad the Fourth made a causeway across
the lake, upon the occasion of his army marching to take Bagdad from the
Persians. The road from Ak-serai and Khoja Hissár to Haimane and to the
north-westward, passes across the lake.
The numerous places noticed in ancient history in the country round
the lake Tatta, and from thence north-westward as far as Dorylæum,
prove that, however naked and disagreeable, it was not unfruitful. The
natural landmarks, however, are so few, and the mention of the towns by
the ancients is so slight, that it will be difficult for travellers to
identify any ruins which may exist, unless where they are assisted by
the preservation of the ancient appellations, either in inscriptions or
in the modern names. At present, Germa and Orcistus are the only two
places whose sites are exactly determined; the former by the modern
name of Yerma, the latter by means of a Latin inscription which Pococke
copied at the modern village of Alekiam[79]. Germa was a Roman colony,
and probably flourished after the decline of the neighbouring city of
Pessinus. Of Orcistus we know nothing, except that its bishop subscribed
to the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, and that it continued to
be a see of the ecclesiastical province of the Second or Pessinuntine
Galatia until a late period of the Byzantine Empire[80].
The documents which chiefly assist in placing the ancient cities of these
parts of Lycaonia, Galatia, and Phrygia, are the Antonine and Jerusalem
Itineraries, and the Peutinger Table. It is to be regretted that we
can seldom place entire confidence in the distances contained in these
authorities—flagrant instances of discrepancy and inaccuracy being so
frequent as to make one very cautious in trusting implicitly to them,
without some corroborating evidence.
The following is a comparative view of the distances in Roman miles, in
the three Itineraries, between the several places on the great Roman
road from Nicæa, by Juliopolis and Ancyra to Tyana, omitting such of the
mere changing- or halting-places[81] as are found only in one of the
itineraries, and correcting the orthography of some of the names from the
better authority of Strabo, Ptolemy, &c.
_It. Anton._ _It. Hierosol._ _Tab._
Itinerary of Itinerary of Peutinger
Antoninus. Jerusalem. Table.
From Nicæa to Tottaium 44 40 40
Dablæ 28 29 23
Dadastana 45 22 40
Juliopolis 26 25 28
---------------------------------
Total from Nicæa to Juliopolis 143 116 131
---------------------------------
Laganeos (Agannia in It. Heiros.) 24 24 50
Minizus 23 16
Ancyra 52 25 + the last 66 from
stage Lagania.
---------------------------------
Total from Juliopolis to Ancyra 99 about 75 116
---------------------------------
Total from Nicæa to Ancyra 242 about 191 247
=================================
Ancyra to Corbeus 20 21
Rosologiacum 12 12
Aspona 31 31 73 from
Parnassus[82] 24 35 Ancyra.
---------------------------------
Total from Ancyra to Parnassus 87 99
---------------------------------
Ozzala (Iogola in Hieros.) 17 16
Nitazus (Nitalis in Hier.) 18 18
Colonia Archelais 27 29
---------------------------------
Total from Parnassus to Archelais 62 63
Total from Ancyra to Archelais 149 162 118[83]
=================================
Nazianzus (Nantianulus in Anton.,
Anathiango in Hieros.) 25 24
Sasima 24 24
Andabalis 16 16 27[84]
Tyana 16 deest.
---------------------------------
Total from Archelais to Tyana 81 64 + the 68[85]
last stage
---------------------------------
Total from Ancyra to Tyana 230 242[86] 186
=================================
The Antonine and Jerusalem proceed together as far as Mopsucrene[87],
56 M. P. from Tyana in the former and 63 in the latter. From thence
the Antonine proceeds by Ægæ to Baiæ and Alexandria ad Issum—and the
Jerusalem to the same points by Tarsus and Adana.
Between Tyana and the Pylæ was situated Faustinopolis, probably not far
from the camp of Cyrus[88]; for it can hardly be doubted that Curtius,
in stating the Pylæ to have been only fifty stades from the camp of
Cyrus, alluded to the beginning of the passes. The narrowest part, which
was particularly called the Pylæ, was towards the southern side of the
mountain, as the Jerusalem Itinerary[89] and modern travellers concur in
showing.
Of the places contained in the preceding extract from the Itineraries,
Andabilis is the only one of which the position is determined by the name
in actual use. But there is a strong presumption that Ak-serai stands
on the site of Archelais, as well from the agreement of its position on
a line drawn from A´ngura to Bor with that which the distances in the
Itineraries give to Archelais on the same line, as from the remark of
Pliny, that this colony of Claudius stood on the Halys; for Ak-serai by
all accounts is watered by the stream which forms the western branch of
that river. As no traveller, however, has yet described Ak-serai, we
are still uninformed whether it stands on the exact site of the ancient
colony, or only near it.
Upon comparing together the distances from Nicæa to Tyana in the three
itineraries, it is obvious that the Antonine is most to be depended
upon; for in some of the important points in which it differs from the
Jerusalem it is confirmed by the Table; and in one instance, where it
differs from the Jerusalem, and where the Table fails us, it is confirmed
by itself in another passage. We may conclude, therefore, in taking
the road distance in Roman miles between Nicæa and Ancyra at 242, and
from Ancyra to Tyana at 230. Both these measured on my construction in
distances of half a degree along the general direction of the route give
150 geographical miles or a rate of 62/100 of a G. M. to the M. P. on
the former road, and of 65/100 on the latter; both somewhat below the
correct rate of the Roman mile on level ground (and such is by far the
greater part of this road), but sufficiently near the truth to give
a strong presumption of accuracy both to the ancient numbers and to
my construction. It must be confessed, however, that the ancient road
which branched to Mazaca from the road Ancyra-Tyana, compared with the
map, does not give a similar result. The distance of 114 M. P. between
Parnassus and Mazaca in the Antonine Itinerary, compared with the 85 G.
M. of the map, gives a rate to the M. P. of not much less than 75/100 or
3/4 of a G. M. Future geographers will determine whether my construction
is in fault or the Itinerary, which unfortunately on this route we have
no means of checking by any other authority.
There are five routes in the Table across Mount Taurus, from the
interior plains to the southern coast. The easternmost is not connected
at either end; but the word Paduando shows its real position. The Pylæ
Ciliciæ was also called the pass of Podandus, which place was about
midway between Tyana and Tarsus: this route of the Table, therefore, is
evidently intended for that from Tyana to Tarsus; and should be connected
accordingly[90]. Next to this is a road from Iconium, unconnected at its
southern extremity, and without any places named on it, except “the
boundaries of Cilicia” and “Mount Taurus[91].” It is evidently intended
for the road from Iconium to Tarsus. The third route leads from Iconium
by Tetrapyrgia to Pompeiopolis: the sum of its distances from “ad fines”
(the boundary of Cilicia) to Pompeiopolis is 54 M. P., or very nearly the
same as the distance from the “boundaries” to Tarsus in the former road,
and from the “hot waters” to Tarsus, in the first road. It gives us the
line of Tetrapyrgia[92]; a town, therefore, which cannot be the same as
that placed by Ptolemy in the Garsauritis of Cappadocia. The fourth road
led from Iconium by Taspa, Isaura, and Crunæ to Seleuceia, with a branch
leading from between Isaura and Crunæ to Anemurium. It gives us the line
of Isaura, but its distances are imperfect[93]. The fifth road across the
Taurus led from Iconium to Side, with a branch to Antiocheia of Pisidia.
The distance in the Table seems to be 80 M. P. to Side, which is about
half the reality.
Having drawn upon the map the several routes of the three Itineraries,
inserting the names of the principal places at their proportional
distances, and correcting occasionally their orthography from better
authorities, it remains only for me, in reference to the central region
immediately under consideration, to offer some remarks upon a few of the
chief points on which the Itineraries are assisted by other authorities.
It is hoped that by these several means the future traveller will be
furnished with an approximation that may assist him in ascertaining the
real sites.
The most important places in the northern part of the country under
consideration were (after Ancyra), Juliopolis, Pessinus, and Amorium.
1. Juliopolis.—We learn from Strabo that this city stood on the
Sangarius, on the site of the ancient Gordium[94], and that it received
its name from Cleon, a native, who after having exercised the profession
of robber with great success in Mount Olympus, Phrygia Epictetus, and the
adjacent districts, had the good fortune to make himself useful, first to
Marcus Antonius and afterwards to Julius Cæsar: for these services he was
acknowledged by the Romans as an independent prince, and was honoured
with the priesthood of Comana in Pontus, and of Jupiter Abrettenus in
Mysia: in gratitude to Cæsar, he gave the name of Juliopolis to his
native town, which had greatly declined from its former importance until
he made it his capital[95].
It appears from an existing coin of Juliopolis[96] that it was situated
at the confluence of the Sangarius and Scopas, and from Procopius that it
stood about ten miles to the west of the Siberis[97]. The latter seems
to have been the same stream which Pliny calls Hiera, for he makes no
mention of the Siberis, but names the Hiera next to the Scopius[98];
and the Jerusalem Itinerary places the river Hierus at 13 M. P. to the
eastward of Juliopolis[99]. The respective distances of Juliopolis
from Nicæa and from Ancyra in the Antonine Itinerary fall precisely at
the point, where the stream named Aladan by Paul Lucas unites with the
Aialá or Sakaría not far to the westward of Sarilár. The character,
also, of being subject to inundation, which Procopius shows to have
been that of the Siberis[100], agrees with a remark of Lucas in regard
to the Kirmir, which he crossed between Beybazar and Aiás, and which
falls into the Sakaría about ten miles to the eastward of the junction
of the Aladan. From all these considerations it appears that the Aladan
is the Scopas, and the Kirmir the Siberis or Hierus; and that some
vestiges of Juliopolis would probably be found at or near Sarilár at the
junction of the Scopas or Aladan with the Sangarius. Pliny remarks that
the Hierus was the boundary of Bithynia and Galatia, thus agreeing with
Ptolemy[101], who places Juliopolis the last town in Bithynia, after
Dablæ and Dadastana. At a later period, however, Dadastana, where the
Emperor Jovian died, was considered the frontier town[102].
That Juliopolis stood exactly at the junction of the two rivers Sangarius
and Scopas, may be inferred as well from the coin as from Procopius,
who informs us that Justinian erected a dyke to defend the walls of
Juliopolis from the ravages of a river flowing on the western side of the
city[103]: a remark which shows also, that the city was on the eastern
side of the junction.
The advantages which twice made this site the capital of the surrounding
country were not entirely those of its position, at the confluence of two
perennial streams in the centre of the fertile valley of the Sangarius,
near the southern foot of the Olympene range, and at a favourable point
for commanding the open country to the southward, though all these must
have had a powerful influence on its prosperity. They were in part
derived from its situation relatively to the sea-coasts of Asia Minor;
its central position, and the facility of its communication as well with
the Euxine and Ægæan as with the Pamphylian sea, having made it one of
the most frequented commercial marts in the peninsula[104].
2. Pessinus.—It unfortunately happens, that the only two ancient
places in this country, the positions of which are deduced from the
superior though not always infallible evidence, of a preservation of
the ancient name, Orcistus and Germa, afford us very little assistance
in a determination of the neighbouring sites. Orcistus does not occur
in the itineraries or in the march of Manlius; its position at Alekiam
serves, therefore, only to show where those roads did _not_ pass. As to
Germa, its position at Yerma is in total disagreement with the itinerary
of Antoninus, according to which, Germa was 16 M. P. on the road from
Pessinus to Ancyra[105]; whereas Pessinus being by the consent of
Polybius, Livy, and Strabo on the Sangarius[106], and Yerma being about
15 miles to the S.W. of that river, Pessinus should rather have been on
the road from Germa to Ancyra, if Germa was at Yerma. We are under the
necessity, therefore, either of doubting the identity of Yerma, or of
rejecting the evidence of the Antonine as to the site of Pessinus. I am
the more inclined to adopt the latter part of the alternative, because
that itinerary is liable to great suspicion in this place, from its total
disagreement with the Peutinger Table in its distance from Dorylæum to
Germa, while the Table on the other hand is confirmed by the actual
construction. The Table gives 77 M. P. from Dorylæum to Pessinus[107],
which agrees very accurately with the 56 G. M. of direct distance on
the map; whereas the Antonine has only 50 M. P. from Dorylæum to Germa,
although according to that itinerary Germa ought to be still further than
Pessinus from Dorylæum. It is probable, therefore, that there is some
error in this part of the Antonine itinerary, and that the Roman remains
which Mr. Kinneir observed at Yerma are really those of the Roman colony
of Germa.
Pessinus was situated on the Sangarius, at the foot of mount
Dindymum[108]. It appears from Livy[109] to have been on the right bank
of the river; for he states that Manlius coming from the southward, after
having constructed a bridge and crossed the river, was met by the priests
of Pessinus as he marched along the bank; and that having accepted the
omen of their predictions in favour of the Romans, he halted for the day
in the same place where he met them, which appears to have been very near
to Pessinus. As he arrived on the next day at Gordium, which we have
already seen was only ten or thirteen miles from the river Hierus; and
as his march in direct distance could hardly have been more than 14 G.
M.—it is evident that Pessinus was not very far above the junction of the
Hierus with the Sangarius. It is not improbable that it may have stood
exactly at the junction of these two streams, and that the Hierus may
have received that name as partaking of the sacred character of Pessinus.
This position of Pessinus, it may be observed, is in exact agreement
with the account which Ammianus gives of the march of Julian from Nicæa;
who, after having followed the great road of the Itineraries as far
as the confines of Gallogræcia (near Gordium), turned to the right to
Pessinus[110]. The traveller, therefore, who after discovering the site
of Gordium should turn out of the great road to A´ngura about Sarilár,
and follow the right bank of the Sangarius, could hardly fail in finding
some indications of the site of a place which is described by Strabo[111]
as a great mart of commerce, and which flourished as a metropolitan
bishopric until the Mussulman conquest[112]. It is not impossible that
he might discover some remains of the very ancient and celebrated temple
dedicated to Angistis, the Great Goddess, or Phrygian Cybele, which had
been sumptuously adorned with porticos of white marble by the Pergamenian
kings, and which was the object of the visit of the apostate emperor.
The only evidence of ancient history militating against the position of
Pessinus here supposed, is the assertion of Strabo that the sources of
the Sangarius were only 150 stades distant from Pessinus, for this short
interval does not very well agree with the description of the Sakaría
given by Pococke and Kinneir, who crossed it considerably above the
supposed site of Pessinus[113],—a better knowledge of the country will
show whether the error is in the numbers of Strabo, or in my conjecture
as to the site of Pessinus: or, perhaps, it may be found that the sources
of the Sangarius alluded to by Strabo were, in the same manner as those
of the Mæander and of several other Grecian rivers, not the natural or
most distant springs of the river; although, from something remarkable in
them, they may have been the reputed sources.
3. Amorium chiefly flourished under the Byzantine empire. It was the
metropolitan see of the Second Galatia, and was taken and cruelly
plundered by the Caliph Motasem, in the year of the Christian æra
837[114]. Under the Saracens it rose to be the chief town of all the
surrounding country; and continued to be so in the eleventh century,
when Idrisi wrote his geographical work[115]. The Turkish conquest,
however, effected so complete a change in the political arrangement and
geographical nomenclature of Asia Minor, that we find no trace of the
name of Amorium in the Turkish Geographers; and future travellers will
perhaps find the best evidence of its site in its Saracenic vestiges,
combined with such slender data as the Greek authors have left us.
Strabo, and Stephanus who follows him, place Amorium in Great Phrygia;
and Strabo clearly describes it[116] as being in the country which lay
southward of Cotyaeium, Dorylæum, and Pessinus; westward of Lycaonia,
and in the parts near Phrygia Paroreius and Synnada. And this situation
of Amorium serves to explain, and at the same time receives confirmation
from, a part of the Peutinger Table which is rather obscure. We find in
this Table a road from Pessinus to Amorium by Abrostola, and from thence
to Laodiceia Combusta; it then returns from Amorium to Abrostola, and
from the latter is carried to join the great route from Ancyra to Tyana,
at Salaberina (the Salambria of Ptolemy) 20 M. P. beyond Archelais. Hence
it seems evident, upon placing these routes upon the map, that Amorium
must have been to the southward of Abrostola; a situation which agrees
very well with that described in the words of Strabo.
The princess Anna Comnena[117] relates that her father Alexius, in
his expedition against the Turks in the year 1116, after moving from
Dorylæum, sent forward detachments of his army from a place called
Santabaris, towards Polybotum in one direction, and in another towards
Pœmanene and Amorium. This seems to place Santabaris at or near
Seid-el-Ghazi, and Pœmanene between that place and Amorium.
Orcaoryci, which the passage of Strabo cited in the preceding note tends
to place to the northward of Lycaonia, towards Pessinus, is shown by
the geographer’s description of Galatia to have been between that city
and the lake Tatta, on the confines of the Tectosages[118]. A third
mention of Orcaoryci by the same author, seems to imply that it was not
to the northward of Tatta[119]. Not far from these places was a town
called Pitnisus, or Pitnissa[120], or Petenessus[121]. Ptolemy, who
considers this country a part of Lycaonia, names Petenessus next to
Daumana, or Ecdamua, or Ecdaumana—the same, undoubtedly, as the Egdaua
of the Table, which places it at 71 M. P. from Abrostola, on the road to
Tyana. This position, therefore, of Petenessus, and consequently of the
neighbouring Orcaoryci, agrees perfectly with that which is deducible
from the observations of Strabo. Orcaoryci and the neighbouring places
formed a part of the _axylous_ country described by Livy, through which
the consul Manlius marched his army in proceeding from Synnada to cross
the Sangarius near Pessinus[122]. I am unable to trace his route,
because none of the names of the intermediate places mentioned by him
are found in any other author. In any such attempt it will be necessary
to recollect that the boundaries of the Asiatic provinces followed by
Strabo, were not established until long after the time of Manlius, by
Augustus and Tiberius,—that the Gauls had not long before conquered
the greater part of Asia Minor, and that the Consul’s expedition was
for the purpose of reducing them. Hence we find that he arrived at the
limits of the Tolistobogii only in three days’ march from Beudos; he
then moved, in four days, to Alyatti; from thence crossed the _Axylus_
to Cuballum, where he was attacked by the Galatian cavalry; and from
thence, in several days’ continued march (continentibus itineribus), he
arrived at the Sangarius. It is evident that the Consul was not marching
in any regular line during these days, but was overrunning the country
of the Tolistobogii, while waiting for an answer from the king of the
Tectosages: it seems not at all improbable, therefore, that he may have
advanced as far southward as the Caballucome placed in the Table at 23
M. P. from Laodiceia, and at 32 from Sabatra; and consequently, that the
Caballucome of the Table may be the same as the Cuballum of Livy.
There can be little doubt that the Tolosocorio marked in the Table at
24 miles from Abrostola, in the road to Tyana, and which by Ptolemy
is written Τολαστόχωρα, ought to be Tolistochora, “the town of the
Tolistobogii”; who being the southern and western division of the
Galatians, must have precisely occupied the part of the country in
which the direction and distances of the route in the Table place
Tolistochora[123]. It has already been remarked, that the Egdaua of this
road in the Table is the Ecdaumana of Ptolemy; in like manner Congusso
may be corrected from him into Congustus; Petra into Perta, which
writing is confirmed by the Notitiæ Episcopatuum[124]; and Salaberina
into Salambria, at which place the road fell into that from Archelais to
Tyana.
_Additional note to page 51._
The existence of a large district in the interior of Asia Minor, in
which the waters do not flow to the sea, and that much larger tract on
the frontier of Persia, and Caubul, which is watered by the Elmend,
(Etymander) terminating in a lake subject to periodical inundations, seem
sufficient without other examples to render it probable that a great
part of the still larger continent of North Africa may have a physical
construction of the same kind, and that its interior may be a system of
oases, formed by rivers ending in lakes which vary in size according to
the season of the year. The mode in which Nature fertilizes low lands in
countries so situated as to climate that rain seldom falls, except in the
mountains or their vicinity, is exemplified in Egypt; and it is obvious
that the same end may be produced, whether the inundating river has a
delta and a communication with the sea, or whether it terminates in a
lake which overflows large plains around its banks after the season of
rain in the high lands. In some instances, as in the small district of
Taka, which is situated in the midst of the Desert, between the Astaboras
and the Red Sea, the inundation which descends from the mountains of
Abyssinia previous to the season of vegetation, is afterwards totally
dried up. (Burckhardt’s Nubia, p. 387.) But it more frequently happens
that the recipient preserves a part of its water all the year; and this
seems to be the condition of the lakes of Fitré and Bornou. From the
southern slopes of the African mountains bordering on the Mediterranean
Sea, several considerable rivers run southward into the great Desert,
which cannot terminate otherwise than in fertilized sands, or lakes, or
inundations. The lake Dibbie, or Tybe, which was crossed by Alexander
Scott in the course of his captivity, we know from Park to be an
inundation derived from the Niger. It is not impossible that the lake
of Bornou may originate, in part at least, from the same stream; for
as Nature generally economizes her means, it is evident that in the
case of an interior river the greatest effect will be produced by the
spreading of its waters as its course advances, instead of their being
collected into one bed, as occurs in rivers which flow into the sea. In
proportion, therefore, as the information of travellers may show the
impossibility of a junction of the Niger with the Nile (and Browne and
English seem to have furnished the strongest evidence to this effect), it
will become more probable that the Niger, by branching and by expanding
into lakes and inundations, is the great fertilizing cause throughout
the low countries of North Africa which lie just without the reach of
the tropical rains. Thus spread out and exposed to the rapid evaporation
of an African sun, the Niger may be as large, or perhaps even larger
where Park saw it as Sego, than in any subsequent part of its course. In
several rivers of Spain, Italy, and particularly of Greece, artificial
derivations alone have caused a similar effect; so that the quantity of
water in the bed of the river diminishes instead of increases from the
foot of the mountains to the sea. Even the Nile carries very little of
its water to the sea, except during the inundation; and in ancient times
when the Mæris and other smaller lakes were annually filled to a great
extent, and when three or four times as much land was watered by the
overflowing of the river as in the present day, the quantity of water
discharged by the mouths of the Nile must have been still smaller than it
is at present.