DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0422
752 XVIII. LINE OF TRADE-ROUTE TO THE EAST.
cleft, between two spurs, at the mouth of which lay the village Atly-
Hissar. It was obviously impossible that a road suited for traffic
could have been engineered up the steep sides of the cleft; and the
view from that point showed me how skilfully the road along which
we had been rising by a gentle, continuous slope had been chosen by
the Eoman engineers1. The discovery of this road caused me to
discard the view which I had previously held, derived from my
journeys of 1881, 1883, and 1884—a view which is expressed in CB
(map and § xxxv)2—that the Roman road followed the line of the
modern waggon-road between Synnada and Metropolis, going round
by Oinan-Ova. In 1881 we traversed that road; and rejected the
direct road across the mountains as impossible 3. But I now can see
no reason for such a carefully engineered road as that which passes by
Baljik-Hissar, unless it were made by the Romans to carry at least
the lighter trade from Dokimion and Synnada to Metropolis.
I was eager to verify this view by going the whole way to the
Metropolitan valley along this road. But, unhappily, shortly after
passing out of sight of Atly-Hissar, I was tempted away from the
road towards the right up the mountains to see a reported inscr.;
and, after wasting much time among trackless rocks at a great eleva-
tion, we descended to the Metropolitan valley by a different route.
The reported inscr. could not be found; but I now recognize from the
description that it was probably a boundary stone similar to no. 693.
This unfortunate detour spoiled my exploration, and leaves the road
uncertain. M. Radet (En Phrygie p. 123) has recently returned to my
first view that the Roman road went through Oinan-Ovai; and the
line must remain a matter for a future explorer to determine certainly.
It may well be that my first view was right; and if M. Radet had
examined the evidence for both routes, and then preferred one,
I should accept his conclusion; but, as he has traversed only one, and
has given an erroneous and exaggerated account of the other, drawn
from a lively fancy and not from actual experience, the difficulties
1 Below Baljik-Hissar, the road has * His map distinguishes his road,
been washed away or covered up by soil which goes past a ' Fontaine,' from mine,
from above. which goes by Uzun-Bunar. The error
2 JHS 1887 p. 481. is with M. Radet : his Fontaine is iden-
3 JHS 1. c. ' No straight road is pos- tical with Uzun-Bunar. The road passes
sible from .... Metropolis to Synnada : a little N. of Atly-Hissar. Kiepert places
only a difficult mountain path leads Uzun-Bunar and Gtazuk-Keui wrong,
from Metropolis to Atly-Hissar.' But, [For clearness I use in this section
as I have now found, there is this levelled the customary name Baljik-Hissar; but
and built road by Baljik-Hissar. Baghche-Hissar is the true form.]
cleft, between two spurs, at the mouth of which lay the village Atly-
Hissar. It was obviously impossible that a road suited for traffic
could have been engineered up the steep sides of the cleft; and the
view from that point showed me how skilfully the road along which
we had been rising by a gentle, continuous slope had been chosen by
the Eoman engineers1. The discovery of this road caused me to
discard the view which I had previously held, derived from my
journeys of 1881, 1883, and 1884—a view which is expressed in CB
(map and § xxxv)2—that the Roman road followed the line of the
modern waggon-road between Synnada and Metropolis, going round
by Oinan-Ova. In 1881 we traversed that road; and rejected the
direct road across the mountains as impossible 3. But I now can see
no reason for such a carefully engineered road as that which passes by
Baljik-Hissar, unless it were made by the Romans to carry at least
the lighter trade from Dokimion and Synnada to Metropolis.
I was eager to verify this view by going the whole way to the
Metropolitan valley along this road. But, unhappily, shortly after
passing out of sight of Atly-Hissar, I was tempted away from the
road towards the right up the mountains to see a reported inscr.;
and, after wasting much time among trackless rocks at a great eleva-
tion, we descended to the Metropolitan valley by a different route.
The reported inscr. could not be found; but I now recognize from the
description that it was probably a boundary stone similar to no. 693.
This unfortunate detour spoiled my exploration, and leaves the road
uncertain. M. Radet (En Phrygie p. 123) has recently returned to my
first view that the Roman road went through Oinan-Ovai; and the
line must remain a matter for a future explorer to determine certainly.
It may well be that my first view was right; and if M. Radet had
examined the evidence for both routes, and then preferred one,
I should accept his conclusion; but, as he has traversed only one, and
has given an erroneous and exaggerated account of the other, drawn
from a lively fancy and not from actual experience, the difficulties
1 Below Baljik-Hissar, the road has * His map distinguishes his road,
been washed away or covered up by soil which goes past a ' Fontaine,' from mine,
from above. which goes by Uzun-Bunar. The error
2 JHS 1887 p. 481. is with M. Radet : his Fontaine is iden-
3 JHS 1. c. ' No straight road is pos- tical with Uzun-Bunar. The road passes
sible from .... Metropolis to Synnada : a little N. of Atly-Hissar. Kiepert places
only a difficult mountain path leads Uzun-Bunar and Gtazuk-Keui wrong,
from Metropolis to Atly-Hissar.' But, [For clearness I use in this section
as I have now found, there is this levelled the customary name Baljik-Hissar; but
and built road by Baljik-Hissar. Baghche-Hissar is the true form.]