Chapter II

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.