Geographical Journal (Journal of the Royal Geographical Society): Volume VIII, No. 5 [‎29r] (60/154)

A JOURNEY IN THE VALLEY OF THE UPPER EUPHRATES.
463
Artemidorus. From Melitene a road ran north to Satala, and south in two branches
across the Taurus to Samosata, these three points being the stativa of the three
legions stationed on the upper Euphrates. From Melitene another road led in a
north-westerly direction to Sebastea, and from Sebastea another went eastwards to
Nicopolis and Satala, from which point it was continued through Armenia Major
to Artaxata. From Nicopolis another road ran south to cut into the road Satala—
Melitene, according to Kiepert at Analibla, according to Ramsay at Carsagis.
From Satala the road from Melitene was prolonged to Trapezus on the Black Sea,
which was also a station of Roman troops.
The Roads Melitene — Samosata.
The roads given in the authorities are—
I. Antonine Itinerary : Melitene, XII.; Miasena, XXVIII.; Lacotena, XXVI.;
Perre, XXIV.; Samosata.
II. Peutinger Table : Melentenis, VIII.; Corne, XIV.; Metita, XII.; Glaudia,
XLVI.; Barsalium, VIII.; Heba, XXX.; Charmodara, XII.; Samosata.
Melitene is at Malatia (Eski Shehr), Samosata at Samsat. Of the sites of the
other stations on these two roads very little is known, but we have one fixed point
in Perre which is near Adiaman (vide, p. 322). Corne, Metita, Claudias * (Glaudia),
Barzalof (Barsalium), Cholmadara (Charmodara) of road II. are placed on the
river by Ptolemy, and Laudias (Claudias) and Barzalo are mentioned in a passage
of Ammianus Marcellinus (XVI1L, 7. 11), in which it is implied that they were
forts on the Euphrates. A Greek inscription exists at Gerger, and has been
published in Humann and Puchstein’s book, from which it appears that the place
was called Arsameia in the first century b.c. But, unfortunately, this name does
not occur either in the roads of the Tables or in Ptolemy. No milestones have as-
yet been found in the country which lies between Samosata and Melitene, and the
only other piece of positive evidence pointing to the course, taken by either of the
two roads which joined the camps, is the great bridge of Kiakhta.
In view of the fact that no one of the stations mentioned in two lists of the
Tables is common to both, it seems highly probable that the two roads must have
taken wholly divergent routes. Moreover, it appears, from the testimony of
Ptolemy and the passage of Ammianus Marcellinus, that road II. kept more or less
closely to the river-bank. Hence there is no reason to depart from the arrange
ment which has been adopted with regard to this road in all the most recent maps
of the ancient world, making it follow the course of the river. The precise route
taken by the road can only be laid down when further exploration has been carried
out along the river above Gerger.
With regard to road I., Ramsay X has suggested that it is probably represented
by the modern route by Elemenjik, Khan Bunar, Viran Shehr, and Adiaman. But at
the time when his work was published, the existence of a Roman bridge at Kiakhta
had only just been made generally known, and if the situation of this bridge, which.
* Claudias seems also to be the same as the Claudiopolis of Pliny (V. 24. 85), and
Claudiana, a station of the Notitia Dignitatum. It is twice mentioned by Barhebrseus
(‘ Hist. Dynast.,’ trans. Pococke, pp. 140 and 333). The name seems to have survived
into the last century, as Otter (‘ Voyage en Turquie et Perse,’ vol. ii. p. 284) speaks of
Arcloudieh as an important fortress near Malatia. However, it is not to be found in
the modern maps.
f Barzalo is placed by Ainsworth (‘ Travels in A. M.,’ vol. i. p. 203) at Bersel, a
village near Tokariz.
X ‘ Hist. Geogr.,’ p. 280. • ' *
2 i 2