Geographical Journal (Journal of the Royal Geographical Society): Volume VIII, No. 5 [‎29v] (61/154)

464
A JOURNEY IN THE VALLEY OF THE UPPER EUPHRATES.
lies in a direct line between Perre (Adiaman) and Melitene, and the easy nature of
the country between Perre and Kiakhta, are taken into consideration, the conclusion
seems to be inevitable that road I. must have used the bridge. The distance, too,
of the route which he selects for the road, seems to be far too great, it the distances
are correctly given in the Itinerary.*
If then, as seems fairly certain, the bridge at Kiakhta belongs to road I., the
question remains still to be answered: What route did road I. take over the high
Taurus between Kiakhta and Malatia ? f
The best authority on the roads across this part of the Taurus is undoubtedly
Von Moltke. In 1838 he was stationed with the Turkish army at Malatia, and
was in great degree responsible for moving the troops across the mountains from
Malatia to the plain of Samsat. He crossed the mountains several times, and must
naturally have sparea no trouble in obtaining information as to the different passes.
He says that there are only three routes practicable for troops,$ one of these being
the waterway of the river, down which he travelled on a raft. The other two are
(a) the route by Surghu Erkenek and Pelwere, which he describes as practicable
for artillery. This route follows, after leaving Malatia, the Sultan Su, a tributary
of the Tokhma Su, and is the same as that thought by Ramsay to represent road I:;
(b) a route along another tributary of the Tokhma Su by Abdul Kharab over high
mountains, and practicable only for infantry and cavalry. It is improbable, as has
been shown above, that route (a) can be the same as the road of the Itinerary, and
route (b) keeps a long way to the west of the line which we should expect a road
using the bridge of Kiakhta to take. It is possible, however, that the Roman road
which crossed the Bolam Su at Kiakhta may have followed that stream to its
source, which, according to the maps, is close to Abdul Kharab, and from this
point to Malatia may have coincided with route (b). A further possibility remains
that it took a line up the basin of the Gerger Chai to the east of the mountain path
which we followed from Kiakhta to Malatia. We were told of the existence of such
a route at Kiakhta, but were assured that it was considerably longer than the one
by which we travelled—in fact, thirty-two hours as compared with eighteen and a
half.
Thus, in the present state of our knowledge of the passes through this part of the
Taurus, there is but little evidence to show which one was chosen for road I., and
it is probable that the old road has not yet been trodden by any European traveller.
It seems not unlikely that it may have kept along the valley of the Bolam Su,
* The ruins on this road at Viran Shehr (vide ‘ Ainsworth Travels in A. M’.,’
vol. i. p. 258) correspond well enough in position to the site of Zibatra, an important
fortress in late Byzantine times. Its position is fairly accurately defined in the Arab
geographers as lying between Malatia, Samsat, and Hisn Mansur (Adiaman), and close
to the source of the Jihan (I’Estrange, ‘ Palestine under the Moslems,’ pp. 554 and 562).
1’Estrange, however, in his notes on Ibn Serapion, just published in J.R.A.S., 1895,
pp. 739 ff., is inclined to adopt a suggestion by Hogarth, that Zibatra might possibly
be Derendeh.
f Very strong arguments have been brought together by Hogarth in Macan’s new
edition of Herodotus, to prove that the Royal Road of Persian days, and subsequently
the koivt] 6Sbs of Artemidorus, took a route from Malatia across the Taurus by Kiakhta
to Samsat. It this theory holds good, it is highly probable that road I. followed the
same route across the mountains.
£ Briefe a. d. T urkei, p. 316. The value of Moltke’s statements, however, is to some
slight extent discounted by the fact that in his time Kiakhta and Gerger were
occupied by rebellious Kurds. This may have led him to choose routes avoiding these
two places.