DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0014
xiv INTRODUCTION.
also the chiefs of the Dardani, Pidasa, Masu, and Maiina (Maeonians).
Khitasar, obviously, was not himself ruler of any of these districts
which supplied him with allies. He must have been ruler of a great
empire ; and he has as inferior allies the lords of the great Syrian cities,
and of the Maeonians and the Dardani. We gather, then, that his
empire was so situated that he could have allies from two widely
severed regions, western Asia Minor, and the extreme east of Asia
Minor with Syria. None of his allies can be assigned to the countries
situated between these two distant regions; and the obvious inference
is that the intermediate region, viz. central and western Cappadocia,
Phrygia (taking both names in their widest sense), and Lycaonia, was
the realm of Khitasar. The confederacy of which he was the head is
thus seen to be a geographical fact; and the empire of Khitasar was
the same empire whose existence has been inferred from the earliest
road-system of Asia Minor1.
This opinion is not stated as being completely proved ; and, in the
following chapters, the rule is observed in regard to it (also in regard
to some other views which seem probable though not fully proved),
never to draw any inferences from it, but only to bring out the force
of reasons that point to it. But it may fairly be said that, unless the
geographical identifications quoted above and now generally accepted
by orientalists (though scoffed at by some of the classical scholars) are
entirely wrong, the conclusion just stated seems to me inevitable.
surely they must be identified with the in M. Maspero's Recueil vols. XIV, XV, on
district of Kiskisos in Tauros, between Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia-
Cappadocia and Cilicia. The name hae Pt. I § 3 and Pt. IV. Hogarth pointed
lasted in all ages, Keshkesh, Kiskisos out this in 1891 (M. Radet in his Lnjdie
(a Byzantine bishopric), now Kisken. p. 101 f. is right in criticizing my former
Lantsheere gives a good analysis of the opinion that the Royal Road passed
facts, and the view taken in the text through the Cilician Gates; but I can-
agrees to a considerable extent with his. not follow him further). The modified
The Egyptian document is translated route does not require any change in the
in Records of the Past II p. 65. reasoning, for the road, as thus mapped
1 See Historical Geography of Asia out, still points to Pteria as the centre
Minor Ch. I, II. The account of the of the system. Herodotus here, as in
' Royal Road ' which is there given several other cases, has put together two
recprires one modification. It went separate and unconnected facts. He has
from Pteria, not to the Cilician Gates, put the guard of the Cilician Gates on
but to the Tokhma Su (Melas), which it the Royal Road, and he has connected
descended to near the Euphrates. This the ' Royal Road' therefore with mari-
view results naturally from the facts time Cilicia (V 49), whereas it crossed
stated in the paper by Hogarth and me Cappadocian Kilikia (V 52).
also the chiefs of the Dardani, Pidasa, Masu, and Maiina (Maeonians).
Khitasar, obviously, was not himself ruler of any of these districts
which supplied him with allies. He must have been ruler of a great
empire ; and he has as inferior allies the lords of the great Syrian cities,
and of the Maeonians and the Dardani. We gather, then, that his
empire was so situated that he could have allies from two widely
severed regions, western Asia Minor, and the extreme east of Asia
Minor with Syria. None of his allies can be assigned to the countries
situated between these two distant regions; and the obvious inference
is that the intermediate region, viz. central and western Cappadocia,
Phrygia (taking both names in their widest sense), and Lycaonia, was
the realm of Khitasar. The confederacy of which he was the head is
thus seen to be a geographical fact; and the empire of Khitasar was
the same empire whose existence has been inferred from the earliest
road-system of Asia Minor1.
This opinion is not stated as being completely proved ; and, in the
following chapters, the rule is observed in regard to it (also in regard
to some other views which seem probable though not fully proved),
never to draw any inferences from it, but only to bring out the force
of reasons that point to it. But it may fairly be said that, unless the
geographical identifications quoted above and now generally accepted
by orientalists (though scoffed at by some of the classical scholars) are
entirely wrong, the conclusion just stated seems to me inevitable.
surely they must be identified with the in M. Maspero's Recueil vols. XIV, XV, on
district of Kiskisos in Tauros, between Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia-
Cappadocia and Cilicia. The name hae Pt. I § 3 and Pt. IV. Hogarth pointed
lasted in all ages, Keshkesh, Kiskisos out this in 1891 (M. Radet in his Lnjdie
(a Byzantine bishopric), now Kisken. p. 101 f. is right in criticizing my former
Lantsheere gives a good analysis of the opinion that the Royal Road passed
facts, and the view taken in the text through the Cilician Gates; but I can-
agrees to a considerable extent with his. not follow him further). The modified
The Egyptian document is translated route does not require any change in the
in Records of the Past II p. 65. reasoning, for the road, as thus mapped
1 See Historical Geography of Asia out, still points to Pteria as the centre
Minor Ch. I, II. The account of the of the system. Herodotus here, as in
' Royal Road ' which is there given several other cases, has put together two
recprires one modification. It went separate and unconnected facts. He has
from Pteria, not to the Cilician Gates, put the guard of the Cilician Gates on
but to the Tokhma Su (Melas), which it the Royal Road, and he has connected
descended to near the Euphrates. This the ' Royal Road' therefore with mari-
view results naturally from the facts time Cilicia (V 49), whereas it crossed
stated in the paper by Hogarth and me Cappadocian Kilikia (V 52).