1

Topographical structure plays an important role indetermining the means of travel between different

regions. Ancient societies used routeways that formednatural crossing points through mountains or over rivers,where people, pack animals or carriages were able totravel most easily. Pre-modern highways and railwaysalso run along these natural routes. Study of ancient siteslocated on such a natural routeway can indicate whichperiods the route was in use and the character of itsusage. The presence of fortified sites, for example,suggests a defended military route, whereas the recoveryof imported ceramics within site assemblages indicatesthe existence of a trade route.

The case study of this paper is the upper Kızılırmakregion of the modern province of Sivas within the

transition zone between the central Anatolian highplateau and the eastern Anatolian highlands (fig. 1). Dataregarding the ancient history of this region has beenprovided by surveys and the excavation of small-scalesoundings during the 20th century. Prio to my ownfieldwork, surveys (Ökse 1998; 2005b) were conductedalong the main roads and aimed to explore the ancientcultures of eastern and central Anatolia. These surveysidentified less than 60 ancient sites within the upperKızılırmak region however, and the published material isinsufficient for interpreting the cultural structure of theregion.

The surveys carried out by myself between 1992 and2000 aimed to explore the cultural structure of the regionand the probable interactions between central and eastern

Anatolian Studies 57 (2007): 000−000

Ancient mountain routes connecting central Anatoliato the upper Euphrates region

A. Tuba ÖkseKocaeli University

AbstractField surveys carried out within the upper Halys region have shown that the natural routeways passing through the areahave connected central Anatolia to eastern Anatolia throughout the ages. The route from north-central Anatolia reachesthe Kızılırmak river by passing through the plains of Çekerek, Yıldızeli and Yıldız. The Kızılırmak river can becrossed on horseback where the road ends. A second route connects south-central Anatolia to Sivas by passing throughthe plains of Gemerek and Şarkışla, and leads to eastern Anatolia by passing through the Kızılırmak valley after Sivas.A third route reaches Altınyayla by passing through the Kızılırmak valley, the Şarkışla plain and reaches the plain ofMalatya by travelling through a pass of the Kulmaç mountains running along the Balıklıtohma valley. A fourth routeconnects Sivas with Malatya via Taşlıdere, Ulaş, Kangal and Alacahan. Fieldwork has shown that these routes havebeen almost continuously used since the middle of the third millennium BC.

ÖzetYukarı Kızılırmak havzasında sürdürülen yüzey araştırmaları, bu bölgeden geçen doğal yolların çağlar boyunca OrtaAnadolu’yu Doğu Anadolu’ya bağladığını göstermiştir. Orta Anadolu’nun kuzey kesiminden gelerek Kızılırmaknehrine ulaşan doğal yol, Çekerek, Yıldızeli ve Yıldız ovalarından geçer. Bu yolun Kızılırmak kıyısına ulaştığıbölgede nehir, at sırtında geçilebilmektedir. İkinci bir yol Orta Anadolu’nun güney kesiminden gelen, Gemerek veŞarkışla ovalarından geçerek Sivas’a ulaşan yoldur ve Kızılırmak vadisini izleyerek doğu Anadolu’ya ulaşır. Üçüncüyol Kızılırmak vadisinden başlayan ve Şarkışla ovasını geçerek Altınyayla’ya ulaşan yoldur. Bu yol Kulmaç dağlarınıngeçitlerinden geçer ve Balıklıtohma vadisini izleyerek Malatya ovasına ulaşır. Sivas’ı Malatya’ya bağlayan dördüncüyol Taşlıdere vadisini izleyerek Ulaş, Kangal ve Alacahan’dan geçer. Yüzey araştırmaları, bu doğal yolların MÖ. 3.bin ortalarından itibaren çağlar boyunca kullanılmış olduklarını kanıtlamıştır.

Anatolia. Another goal was to reconstruct the settlementpattern of the study area in various periods, in order toassess continuity and change through time, and to recon-struct interregional relations. The surveys revealed about750 sites within the basins of the upper Kızılırmak riverand the rivers of Tohma and Çaltı, dating from theChalcolithic to the end of the Ottoman period. Recentexcavations at two important cities − Kuşaklı (Müller-Karpe 1998: 93−174) on the high plain of Altınyayla andKayalıpınar (Ökse 2000: 91−92; Müller-Karpe 2000:355−65) on the Kızılırmak river − have highlighted theimportance of this region for the Hittites.

Geographical characteristicsThe region has a steep and broken topography enclosedby high mountain zones (fig. 2). The Çamlıbel andYıldız mountains, and the Akdağ, Çeltek and Kösedağranges enclose the region to the north. These mountainsare the southern extension of Inner Pontic ore-bearingstrata rich in copper, silver, lead and zinc. Some of theore strata have been exploited since the third millenniumBC (de Jesus 1980: 253−54, 275; Kaptan 1995: 191−95).The modern highway from central Anatolia to Sivaspasses through the Çekerek, Yıldızeli and Yıldızırmakvalleys to the south of these mountains. The lowermountain ranges of İncebel and Şamadağ enclose theKızılırmak valley to the south, and the plains of Şarkışla,Kayadibi and Ulaş lie to the south of this zone. Themodern highway from Kayseri to Sivas passes throughthese plains and continues to the east, towards Hafik andZara. These plains and the area of Altınyayla arebordered by the Kulmaç, Tecer and Gürlevik mountainranges which are the northern extension of the Divriği-Kangal-Gürün iron ore-bearing strata. These mountainsseperate the upper Kızılırmak region from the highercatchment areas of the main rivers flowing to the south.Springs flowing from this mountain zone form theZamantı river, which flows into the Seyhan river, and theBalıklıtohma and Kangal tributaries, which drain into theEuphrates river. These river courses create natural passessuitable for travellers.

MethodologyThe study area was explored by both extensive surveysand intensive surveys. The sites were primarilydocumented according to their topographical location,their distances to neighbouring sites, fields, watersources and natural routes, in order to reconstruct theirfunction. Examples of functions identified includestrategic military sites for controlling significant roads,administrative centres, sites for food production (crophusbandry near plains and animal husbandry on plateaus)and sites associated with mining.

The settlement area was estimated according to sherdscatters (Wilkinson 1982; Read 1986), and in some casesthe intramural settlement and districts were examined asseperate units, in order to estimate the settlement area indifferent periods (Ökse 2006: 171−72). Intensivesurveys were also carried out around large sites, in orderto reconstruct administrative units within selectedsections of the survey area. The areas occupied bydifferent sites were assessed together with the distancesbetween site locations, in order to examine the relation-ships between large central sites and smaller satellitesettlements (Christaller 1933: 119; Bernbeck 1997: 153−55).

For the purposes of the case study in this paper, theexistence of a site at a natural passageway throughmountains or at a location where a river could easily becrossed without a bridge was regarded as significant,since use of these locations might indicate the existenceof an ancient caravan route. Sites at such locations mayhave provided protection for those using the routeway ormight have functioned as overnight stops for travellers.

The distances between sites surveyed within theupper Kızılırmak region vary according to period.Distances between Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Agesites varied between 1.5km to 10km (Ökse 2005c: 68; inpress), distances between Middle Bronze Age sites were10km to 15km (Ökse 2003a: 130; 2005c: 69) anddistances between Late Bronze Age sites were 15km to35km (Ökse 2000: 106; 2001: 504−05; 2006: 177-179).The distance which can be covered on foot in one hour isgenerally estimated to be 5km and the distance that canbe walked in one day is thought to be 20km (Christaller1933: 119; Bernbeck 1997: 153−55). The distancecovered by riding could possibly be doubled, but, if thereare mountains to be crossed between two sites, thedistance potentially covered within a day on steep andbroken ground should be reduced accordingly. Withthese factors in mind, it can be seen that most sitesidentified within the survey were within one day’s walkor ride of each other and therefore could have acted asovernight stopping places.

The bridges and stone paved roads examined in thestudy area date from the Roman period onwards. Nopaved roads and bridges dating to the Bronze Age or toearlier periods were recognised during the surveys, butthe settlement distributions suggest that ancient inhabi-tants of the region used the easiest connections throughthe natural topography for travel. Sections of routewaysthat were not suitable for carriages were probably madeaccessible by levelling uneven ground and buildingbridges. Although evidence for this is now lacking, it canbe assumed that prior to the Roman period these struc-tures might have been buit using degradable materials

Anatolian Studies 2007

2

such as wood, or were replaced by later structures.

The road networkWithin the surveyed area, there are four main routes stillfollowed by the modern highways and railways (fig. 1).Two roads connecting central Anatolia to easternAnatolia are oriented east-west. One of these connectsthe northern part of central Anatolia while the other oneleads to eastern Anatolia and connects the southern partto Sivas, where the two roads unite. The two routesconnecting central Anatolia to the upper Euphrates basinare oriented nortwest-southeast: the western route passesthrough Şarkışla and Altınyayla; while the eastern onepasses through Sivas, Ulaş, Kangal and Alacahan. Bothroutes reach the Malatya plain.

The northwest routeThis has two different routes. The Tokat-Sivas routepasses through the valleys of the Çekerek river to thesouth of Yıldızeli, reaching the Kızılırmak river via arouteway passing through the mountain ranges ofÇamlıbel and Yıldız. On the northwest route there arestrategic ancient sites and fortresses facing the roadcrossing the Yıldızeli plain, which are connected to it bynarrow valleys.

The Tokat-Şarkışla route passes through the plateuxwithin the plain of the Yıldızırmak, which connects theÇekerek plain to the Kızılırmak valley. Along thissection, there are points where the Kızılırmak river canbe crossed on foot or by horse. The modern highwayfollows the Kızılırmak valley from the Yıldız plain andcrosses the river bed by a bridge at Harabe byKayalıpınar (figs 5, 6). At this location there is a fortifiedHittite city which was occupied continuously from theEarly Bronze Age to the Hellenistic-Roman period (Ökse2000: 91−92; 2006: 172; Müller-Karpe 2000: 355−65),underlining the importance of this crossing point throughthe ages.

The southwest road The Kızılırmak valley is bordered by the İncebel-Şamadağ mountain zone in the south and the valleynarrows here. Ancient routes and the modern roadstherefore follow the plains of Gemerek, Şarkışla,Kayadibi and Ulaş. Along this road there are severalancient sites on the plateaux to the south and northflanking the Şarkışla plain.

This route is connected to the Kızılırmak valley byroads that follow the small valleys crossing the İncebeland Şamadağ mountainous zone. Along this route thereis a small fortified site at Kahvepınar (figs 5, 6) whichwas settled continuously from the Early Bronze Age tothe Hellenistic-Roman period (Ökse 2000: 97−98). The

site was then abandoned, although a small medievalfortress was situated on the opposite side of the valley.

The eastern roadThe plains to the south of the Kızılırmak valley continueto the east via Sivas, Hafik and Zara. The modernhighway to Erzincan follows this route. On this roadthere are strategic small sites to the south of the riversituated on natural hills facing the road (Ökse 2003a:130; 2005c: 69). These sites were settled from the EarlyBronze Age.

The southeastern roadThe road from the Şarkışla plain to Altınyayla passesthrough the Acısu valley and over the plateau. The roadgoes to the south by passing through the Kulmaçmountains. Another fortified Hittite site commands thispass at Aşağı Kalaca (fig. 6). The site was later re-usedin the Hellenistic and Roman periods and faces therouteway following the Balıklıtohma valley to Havuzköy,a plateau settlement on the northern edge of the basaltplateau of Karakesi Düzü. The road then passes throughthe Tohma valley before reaching the Malatya plain.

The modern highway and railway from Sivas toMalatya pass through the Taşlıdere canyon and reachesthe Ulaş plain. The highway then goes to Kangal. Theroad then leads to the south and reaches Malatya byfollowing the Kuruçay and the Eskiköprü valleys viaAlacahan and Hekimhan. An alternative route followsthe valleys of the Kangal and Çaltı rivers, both tributariesof the Euphrates river, to reach Elazığ. A large settlementat Koçköprü (fig. 5) is a strategic site lying on the samerouteway as the modern railway and was occupied fromthe Chalcolithic to the Roman periods. So, this routewayseems to have been used continuously from the earliestperiods identified in the survey.

The Chalcolithic routesThe surveyed region demonstrates two different culturalstructures during the Chalcolithic period (Ökse 2003b:179). The upper Kızılırmak region is part of the areainfluenced by central Anatolian Chalcolithic cultures(fig. 3). A fragment of Hacılar painted pottery was beenfound at Gerdekkaya on the Yıldızeli plain and a jarfragment from the Konya plain was found at ŞarkışlaKalesi (Ökse 2003b: 177−78, fig. 8), but monochromepottery was found at all sites to the north of the Kulmaçand Tecer zones. The site pattern around the upperKızılırmak region shows that the northwestern and south-western roads connecting the region to central Anatoliawere in use. Connections between the Şarkışla plain,Altınyayla and the Ulaş plain existed in this period.

The distribution area of Chalcolithic pottery of the

Ökse

3

upper Kızılırmak region is bordered to the south by theKulmaç and Tecer mountain zone. The area to the southof this zone is watered by the Tohma and Çaltı tributaries,both of which flow into the Euphrates river. In this area,only Ubaid plain and painted sherds of the northMesopotamian Late Chalcolithic period were found. Theplain sherds show the same characteristics as the paintedsherds: all vessels are hand-made and light brown incolour. In contrast, all Chalcolithic sherds belonging tothe central Anatolian tradition are red, reddish brown andbrown in colour (Ökse 2003b: 177).

According to the distribution of both pottery types,the upper Kızılırmak region and the upper Euphratesregion do not seem to have been in contact. So the south-eastern road was not connected with the Kızılırmakregion and the mountain pass of the Kulmaç and Tecerzone was not used as a trade route in these early periods.

The Early Bronze Age routesThe distribution of painted wares dating to the late thirdmillennium BC indicates that a road network existedfrom the Early Bronze Age (Ökse in press). Importedsherds of intermediate ware (Orthmann 1963: 21−23,34−37; Mellaart 1966: 180; Öktü 1973) have beencollected at eight sites in the surveyed area, and suggesta trade route passed through the upper Kızılırmak region(fig. 4).

The sherds collected on the Yıldız plain and thosefrom the Kızılırmak valley indicate that the northwesternroute was used in this period. The Kızılırmak river canbe crossed by horse at the section around Harabe atKayalıpınar. Other sites with sherds of intermediate wareare located along the southwestern route. The sherdsfrom Sıçan Höyük and Koçköprü Kalesi from the regionto the south of the Kulmaç and Tecer mountain zoneindicate that the roads to the south, passing through theZamantı valley, were used from the Early Bronze Age, inaddition to the southeastern route passing through theKangal plain. Sherds of Malatya painted ware (Marro,Helwing 1995: 376−80; Rothman 2003: 109) found atTatlıcak Höyük, to the west of Sivas, and at KoçköprüKalesi, in the Çaltı valley, indicate that these routesreached the upper Euphrates basin. Therefore, the regionaround the city of Sivas has been a crossing point for themain roads connecting central Anatolia to the upperEuphrates region since the mid third millennium BC. Achange in the road pattern from the Chalcolithic period tothe Early Bronze Age can therefore be determined.

The distribution of depa and related forms, which aretypical for western and central Anatolia, across a widegeographical area from Greece to the middle Euphratesregion is frequently interpreted as a proof of an inter-regional trade network (Mellink 1998; Şahoğlu 2005).

The existence of ‘syrian bottles’, which are typical for themiddle Euphrates region, as imported vessels fromsouthern Mesopotamia to central and western Anatoliaindicates another interregional trade network dating tothe second half of the third millennium BC (Özgüç 1986;Conti, Persiani 1993: 363−67, 387, fig. 12; Kontani1995; Emre 1999; Hauptmann 2000: 242, Abb. 7,11;Ökse 2005a; Zimmermann 2005: fig. 3).

The existence of a trade network between north-western Syria and central Anatolia is known from thestate archives of Ebla, through mention of the name ofKanišu/Kaneša (Pettinato 1979: 106, 226; Matthiae1981: 176, fig. 47; Klengel 1992: 26, 29). The city isregistered in a school text under 17 countries [thissection does not make sense to the non-specialist.Please re-write to clarify use of the terms ‘school text’and ‘countries’] within the territory controlled by theKingdom of Ebla. However, no cuneiform archivesdating to the Early Bronze Age were found at Kaneš.This trade was focused on the distribution of silver andtin reserves from the Taurus mountains and extendedfrom Syria to the Aegean (Şahoğlu 2005). Themountainous zones of the Sivas region are also rich inlead, silver and copper (de Jesus 1980: map 1; Kelly-Buccellati 1990: 119−22), thus, the region might alsohave produced goods for this international trade. Thepresence of Akkadian kings in the second half of thesecond millennium BC in central Anatolia (van deMieroop 2000: 136−38) shows their interest incontrolling this trade network after the collapse of thecommercial empire of Ebla.

The Middle Bronze Age routesThe Anatolian trade network was under the control ofAnatolian, Syrian and Mesopotamian merchants at thebeginning of the second millennium BC (Özgüç 1972;Mellaart 1982; Nashef 1987; Oguchi 1999). Accordingto cuneiform texts from Kültepe-Kaneš, Anatolia wasdivided into feudal kingdoms (Larsen 1976; Veenhof1995: 865−66; Dercksen 2002: 35−37). Major citiesoften had a karum or wabartum in the lower city, whichoperated as a trading post. There are 48 sites (Ökse2003a) where the characteristic Middle Bronze Agewheel-made pottery with red burnished slip was found(Orthmann 1963; Fischer 1963: 109; Özgüç 1986: 54−56). Additionally, a few sherds of Alişar III ware wasfound at 18 sites within the surveyed area (fig. 5).According to the location of the sites examined, the roadfrom the main market place at Kaneš to the east seems tohave followed the southwestern route. The potteryassemblages recovered at Karayün and Kül Höyük showthat this road also extended to the east, through the smallplains to the south of the Kızılırmak valley.

Anatolian Studies 2007

4

There are seven small sites on the plains of Yıldızeliand Yıldız and a large site at Kalkankaya. These sites arelocated along the northwestern route. The ceramicassemblages at Harabe near Kayalıpınar indicate that theroad probably crossed the Kızılırmak river there. Thefortified site at Kahvepınar (Ökse 2000: 97−98) on theİncebel pass shows that this route was also used duringthe Middle Bronze Age to reach the Şarkışla plain.Occupation dating to this period at Hanlı Höyük, twosites in the Acısu valley, Kül Höyük in Altınyayla, smallsites at Mancılık and Davul Höyük in the highlands to thewest of the Balıklıtohma valley show that this routereached as far as the Malatya plain. The existence ofAlişar III ware and characteristic Middle Bronze Age redburnished sherds at Koçköprü Kalesi might define analternative southeastern route passing through the Kangalplain.

The results of the field surveys confirm earlier recon-structions of several trade routes (Özgüç 1972; Larsen1976; Mellaart 1982; Nashef 1987; Roaf 1990; Beitzel1992: 44−54; Astour 1995: 1410−11; Veenhof 1995:865−66; Oguchi 1999; Dercksen 2002: 35-37; Marro2004) and added new roads to the known total throughthis mountanous region. The road passing through themountanous part of the upper Kızılırmak region mighthave been used as an alternative to the main trade roads,because of the silver mines of these mountains (de Jesus1980: map 1) and part of the silver exported to Assurmight have been obtained from this region.

The Late Bronze Age routesThe collapse of the Assyrian trade colonies and feudalstates in the 16th century BC, and the rise of the HittiteKingdom as a central power in Anatolia changed theadministrative system, and several Middle Bronze Agecities lost their importance or were abandoned (Ökse1998: 362−64, Tab. 3−4). The Hittites controlled a largeempire (Forlanini 1992; Bryce 1998). Several new citynames appear in cuneiform sources (Beckman 1999:167−69; Yakar 2000: 265−66, 269), which appear to havebeen local administrative centres with control overhappiriya; store house cities within the state’s agricul-tural supply network, which were located in rural areas.

The Late Bronze Age settlements (fig. 6) within thesurveyed region were identified by sherds of mass-produced Hittite pottery (Ökse 2000: 99−106) whichshow strong parallels with the ceramic assemblages ofmajor Hittite sites (Fischer 1963; Müller-Karpe 1988;Parzinger, Sanz 1992). All the sites were fortified andsituated on mountain flanks facing the main plains. Thelocations of the sites overlooking the Yıldızeli and Yıldızplains, Gerdekkaya and Kalkankaya, and the largefortified city at Kayalıpınar on the northern bank of the

Kızılırmak river indicate that the northwestern route wasof importance during the Hittite period. All these sitesare ca 15km apart, meaning the distance from one site toanother can be covered on foot in about three hours. TheKızılırmak river can be crossed on horseback at theHittite city located at Harabe near Kayalıpınar. Aftercrossing the river, the Hittite site at Kahvepınar on themountain route passing through the Şamadağ zone can bereached in about four hours. The existence of this smallfortified site indicates a route existed from the Kızılırmakriver to the Şarkışla plain.

From Kahvepınar, one can reach the Hittite city ofKuşaklı on the plain of Altınyayla within six hours andfrom there the mountain pass through the Kulmaçmountains at Aşağı Kalaca can be reached within acouple of hours. From there, the Malatya plain can bereached by following the Balıklıtohma valley toHavuzköy. The route from Kuşaklı to Havuzköy can bewalked within six hours. The southwestern road fromKayseri to Sivas passes by Kızılcakışla Kalesi and SurTepesi, each around three hours travel apart. From therethe road crosses the plateau to the north and reaches theKızılırmak valley opposite Topraktepe at the city ofSivas.

Distances between the Hittite sites vary between15km to 35km (Ökse 2000; 2001; 2006: 177−79) and theaverage occurance of one-day journey times betweenthese sites suggests that caravans and armies (Faist 2001:57−63) might have used these sites as overnight stoppingplaces. Previous suggestions regarding Hittite routewayswere partly confirmed by the surveys. The northwesternand southwestern routes connecting central Anatolia withthe Sivas region had already been identified (Garstang1943; Cornelius 1955; Garstang, Gurney 1959; Forlanini1992). All Hittite sites were located in the region to thewest of Sivas. Thus, this region seems to have been theeastern boundary of the Hittite Empire, as suggested byseveral scholars (Ünal 1981−1983; Yakar 1992; Gurney2003: 121, 123).

The northwestern and southeastern roads werecontrolled by fortified sites, indicating their strategicimportance; however the mountainous eastern part ofSivas is rich in iron. Cuneiform texts mention that black-smiths smelted iron in Kizzuwatna, ancient Cilicia(Muhly, et al. 1985; Maxwell-Hyslop 1974: 139−42). Itis possible that smelted iron from Kizzuwatna was trans-ported to central Anatolia via these roads, and thus theymight have been used both for military purposes andtrade (Faist 2001: 57, 60−63).

The Iron Age routes and routes of later periodsThe surveys suggest that some of the routes were stillused after the collapse of the Hittite Empire, as already

Ökse

5

suggested by Birmingham (1961). Sites with paintedwares (Ökse 1999: 107−09, 112−16) dating to the 11th tofifth centuries BC (Sams 1994; Genz 2004) (fig. 7)indicate that the northwestern, southwestern and easternroutes were used during this period. A few sherds of thecentral Anatolian painted pottery groups were collectedat four sites along the southeastern route showing that thesoutheastern route connecting central Anatolia to theupper Euphrates region was also important during theIron Age. The New Assyrian king Salmanassar III foughtagainst Anatolian states in the ninth century BC and theAnatolian states built a coalition against Sargon IItowards the end of the eighth century BC.

The frequent distribution of fortifications along thenatural routes shows their further importance during theHellenistic (Gill 2003: 102−03) and Byzantine (Hild1977: map 5, 8, 9, 13) periods. The northwestern routefrom central Anatolia to Sebastia (Sivas) passed throughBathyrryax (Yıldızeli), crossing the Kızılırmak over aRoman bridge. The southwestern route from Kaisareia(Kayseri) to Sebastia passes through Malandara(Şarkışla). The southeastern route passes over theKarakuş bridge on the Kızılırmak river and follows theİncebel pass. A small watchtower in the middle of thepass indicates the significance of this road in themedieval period. The road reached Melitene (Malatya)via Malandara and Tonosa (Altınyayla). The secondsoutheastern route from Sebastia to Komana passedthrough the Taşlıdere canyon, like the modern highway. The Roman and Byzantian bridges were repaired orrebuilt in the Seljukid period. The remains of fortressesand caravansarays on the routes indicate that the traderoutes continued to pass through the region in the 13thcentury (Erdmann 1961; İlter 1969; İlter 1978: 27; Ünal1978). The ‘Silk Road’ also utilsed these routes. In the16th century, the ‘Anatolian Central Road’ (Täschner1924; 1926; Acun 1994) connected Istanbul withMalatya, following the northwestern and southeasternroutes; caravansarays, as well as bridges, were built alongit (Erdmann 1961; İlter 1978: 27; Acun 1994). In the16th and 18th centuries Sivas became a significantcommercial centre. The highway network was repairedand expanded in the early 19th century and the railwayconstructed on the same routes. Both networks stillsupport transportation.

Concluding remarksThe earliest trade routes passing through the upperKızılırmak region date back to the mid third illenniumBC. Although no cuneiform texts dating to this periodare available from Anatolian archives, the distribution ofpottery supports the existence of a trade network betweencentral Anatolia and northern Syria. The distribution of

the so-called intermediate ware at some sites of the upperKızılırmak region (Ökse in press), located along naturalrouteways connecting central Anatolia with the upperEuphrates region, also points to a probable commercialusage.

The distribution of Alişar III ware at some siteswithin the upper Kızılırmak region (Ökse 2003a: 124;2005c: 69−70) indicates the continuing significance ofthese natural routes in the early second millennium BCfor local people and merchants. In the Old Assyrianperiod, the route passing through the mountanous part ofthe upper Kızılırmak region might have gained impor-tance because silver was mined in the area (de Jesus1980: map 1) for export to Assur.

In the Late Bronze Age the Hittites controlled thesenatural routes and appear to have used them for bothmilitary purposes and trade (Faist 2001: 57, 60−63). Theexport of silver from the eastern part of the Sivas regionceased in the Hittite period, but demand for iron from themines between Sivas and Malatya was created by Hittiteblacksmiths in Kizzuwatna, ancient Cilicia (Muhly, et al.1985; Maxwell-Hyslop 1974: 139−41). The transport ofiron to Kizzuwatna might have taken place along theroads passing through the surveyed region, which in theHittite period were also protected with fortified sites.

The surveyed region is located in a geographicaltransitional zone between central Anatolia andmountainous eastern Anatolia, and also acted as acultural boundary between the central Anatolians and the‘barbarian tribes’ of the eastern mountanious regions(Ünal 1981−1983; Yakar 1992; Gurney 2003: 121, 123).The region’s terrain made the foundation of largemetropolei difficult, but Assyrian merchants and Hittitesseem to have used routeways in the region to accessCilicia, northern Syria and the Euphrates region as analternative to the major routes though the Cilician Gates,Kahramanmaraş and the Gaziantep plains.

BibliographyAcun, H. 1994: ‘Sivas-Kangal-Alacahan Menzilhanı’ X.

Türk Tarih Kongresi. 22−26 Eylül 1986, Türk TarihKurumu. Ankara: 2369−89

Astour, M. 1995: ‘Overland trade routes in ancientwestern Asia’ in J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations ofthe Ancient Near East 3. New York: 1401−30

Beckman, G. 1999: ‘The city and country in Hatti’ in: H.Klengel, J. Renger (eds), Landwirtschaft im AltenOrient (Berliner Berträge zum Vorderen Orient 18).Berlin: 161−69

Beitzel, B.J. 1992: ‘The Old Assyrian caravan road in theMari Royal Archives’ in D.G. Young (ed.), Mari inRetrospect. Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies.Winona Lake: 35−57

Anatolian Studies 2007

6

Bernbeck, R. 1997: Theorien in der Archäologie.Tübingen, Basel

Birmingham, J.M. 1961: ‘The overland route acrossAnatolia in the eighth and seventh centuries BC’Anatolian Studies 11: 185−95

Bryce, T.R. 1998: The Kingdom of the Hittites. LondonChristaller, R. 1933: Die zentralen Orte in

Süddeutschland. JenaConti, A.M., Persiani, C. 1993: ‘When worlds collide.

Cultural developments in eastern Anatolia in theEarly Bronze Age’ in M. Frangipane et al. [addnames of all editors] (eds), Between the Rivers andOver the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica etMesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Rome:361−413

Cornelius, F. 1955: ‘Hethitische Reisewege’ RevueHittite et Asianique 57: 49−62

Dercksen, J.G. 2002: ‘Kultureller und WirtschaftlicherAustausch zwischen Assyrern und Anatoliern(Anfang des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr)’ in H.Blum et al. [add names of all editors] (eds),Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität undModi des Kulturaustausches zwischen Anatolienund seinen Nachbarn. Tübingen: 35−43

Emre, K. 1999: ‘Syrian bottles from Karum of Kanish’Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Cultural Center inJapan 11: 39−50

Erdmann, K. 1961: Das Anatolische Karavansaray des13. Jahrhunderts. Berlin

Faist, B. 2001: ‘Die Handelsbeziehungen zwischenAssyrien und Anatolien in der zweiten Hälfte des 2.Jts. V. Chr. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung desMetallhandels’ in H. Klinkott (ed.), Anatolien imLichte Kultureller Wechselwirkungen. Akkultura-tionsphänomene in Kleinasien und seinen Nachbar-regionen während des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends v.Chr. Tübingen: 53−66

Fischer, F. 1963: Die Hethitische Keramik von Boğazköy.Berlin

Forlanini, M. 1992: Kleinasien. Das hethitische Reich im14.-13. Jh. v. Chr. Wiesbaden

Garstang, J. 1943: ‘Hittite military roads in Asia Minor.A study in imperial strategy’ American Journal ofArchaeology 47: 35−62

Garstang, J., Gurney, O.R. 1959: The Geography of theHittite Empire. London

Genz, H. 2004: Büyükkaya I. Die Keramik der Eisenzeit.Mainz

Gill, D. 2003: ‘Kommunikation und Handel’ in P.G.Bahn (ed.), Der Neue Bildatlas der Hockkulturen.München: 102−03

Gurney, O. R. 2003: ‘The upper land, mātum elītum’ inG. Beckman et al. [add names of all editors] (eds),

Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr.Winona Lake: 119−29

Hauptmann, H. 2000: ‘Zur Chronologie des 3.Jahrtausends v. Chr. Am Oberen Euphrat Aufgrundder Stratigraphie des Norşuntepe’ in C. Marro, H.Hauptmann (eds), Chronologies des Pays duCaucase et de L’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires.Paris: 419−38

Hild, F. 1977: Das Byzantinische Straßensystem inKappadokien. Wien

İlter, F. 1978: Osmanlılara Kadar Anadolu TürkKöprüleri. Ankara

İlter, İ. 1969: Tarihi Türk Hanları. Ankarade Jesus, P.S. 1980: The Development of Prehistoric

Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia (British Archae-ological Reports International Series 74). Oxford

Kaptan, E. 1995: ‘Anadolu’da Eski Madencilik’ in A.Erkanal et al. [add names of all editors] (eds),Studies for Ancient Near Eastern Cultures inMemoriam İ. Metin Akyurt and Bahattin Devam.Istanbul: 189−96

Kelly-Buccellati, M. 1990: ‘Trade in metals in the thirdmillennium: north eastern Syria and easternAnatolia’ in P. Matthiae et al. [add names of alleditors] (eds), Resurrecting the Past. A Joint Tributeto Adnan Bounni. Leiden: 117−31

Klengel, H. 1992: Syria. 3000 to 300 BC. A Handbook ofPolitical History. Berlin

Kontani, M. 1995: ‘Relations between Kültepe andnorthern Syria during the third millennium BC’Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo) 16:109−42

Larsen, M.T. 1976: Old Assyrian City State and ItsColonies. Copenhagen

Marro, C. 2004: ‘Upper Mesopotamia and the Caucasus:an essay on the evolution of routes and roadnetworks from the Old Assyrian Kingdom to theOttoman Empire’ in A. Sagona (ed.), A View Fromthe Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour ofCharles Burney (Ancient Near Eastern Studies,Supplement 12). Herent: 91−120

Marro, C., Helwing, B. 1995: ‘Vers une chronologie descultures du Haut-Euphrate au troisième millénaire /Untersuchungen zur bemalten Keramik des 3. Jt.Am oberen und mittleren Euphrat’ in U. Finkbeineret al. [add names of all editors] (eds), Beiträge zurKulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift fürRainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz/Rhein: 341−84

Matthiae, P. 1981: Ebla. An Empire Rediscovered. NewYork

Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. 1974: ‘Assyrian sources of Iron’Iraq 36: 139−54

Mellaart, J. 1966: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze

Ökse

7

Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut⎯ 1982: ‘Archaeological evidence for trade routes

between Syria and Mesopotamia and Anatoliaduring the Early and the beginning of the MiddleBronze Age’ Studi Eblaiti 5: 15−32

Mellink, M.J. 1998: ‘Anatolia and the bridge from east towest in the Early Bronze Age’ TÜBA-AR 1: 1−8

van de Mieroop, M. 2000: ‘Sargon of Agade and hissuccessors in Anatolia’ Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42(1): 133−59

Muhly, J.D. Maddin, R., Stech, T., Özgen, E. 1985: ‘Ironin Anatolia and the nature of the Hittite ironindustry’ Anatolian Studies 35: 67−84

Müller-Karpe, A. 1988: Hethitische Töpferei derOberstadt von Hattusa. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnisspät-großreichszeitlicher Keramik und Töpferbe-triebe. Marburg

⎯ 1998: ‘Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 1997’ Mitteilungender Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 130: 93−174

⎯ 2000: ‘Kayalıpınar in Ostkappadokien. Ein neuerhethitischer Tontafelplatz’ Mitteilungen derDeutschen Orientgesellschaft 132: 355−65

Nashef, K. 1987: Rekonstruktion der Reiserouten zur Zeitder altassyrischen Handelsniederlassungen.Beihefte tum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen OrientsB/83. Wiesbaden

Oguchi, H. 1999: ‘Trade routes in the Old Assyrianperiod’ Al-Rafidan 20: 85−106

Orthmann, W. 1963: Die Keramik der Frühen Bronzezeitaus Inneranatolien. Berlin

Ökse, A.T. 1998: ‘Siedlungsgeschichte des oberenKızılırmak-Gebietes von der Frühbronze- bis zurMitteleisenzeit’ Belleten 62 (234): 299−390

⎯ 1999: ‘Orta Anadolu’nun Doğusunun DemirçağKültür ve Yerleşim Dokusu’ 1998 Yılı AnadoluMedeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları: 85−116

⎯ 2000: ‘Neue hethitische Siedlungen zwischen MaşatHöyük und Kuşaklı’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50:85−109

⎯ 2001: ‘Hethitisches Territorium am Oberen Maras-santia: Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch’ in G. Wilhelm(ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses fürHethitologie. Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 45.Wiesbaden: 499−510

⎯ 2003a: ‘Assur Ticaret Kolonileri Çağında Sivas’Cumhuriyetin 80. Yılında Sivas SempozyumuBildirileri. Sivas: 123−31

⎯ 2003b: ‘Kalkolitik Çağda Sivas’ in M. Özdoğan et al.[add names of all editors] (eds), Studies Presentedto Ufuk Esin. From Village to Cities 1. Istanbul:171−90

⎯ 2005a: ‘Suriye Şişelerinin Taşınma Biçimlerineİlişkin Yeni Bir Bulgu’ Belleten 68(253): 599−612

⎯ 2005b: ‘Kızılırmak ve Fırat Havzalarını BirbirineBağlayan Eski Kervan Yolları’ Bilig 34: 15−32

⎯ 2005c: ‘Sivas’da Hitit Çağı Öncesi Yerleşim Sistem-lerinde Devamlılık ve Değişim’ HacettepeUniversity, Journal of Faculty of Letters 22 (1): 63−72

⎯ 2006: ‘Hethiterforschung anhand von Geländebege-hungen: Darstellung der Probleme undMöglichkeiten der Auswertung’ in D.P. Mielke etal. [add names of all editors] (eds), Structuringand Dating in Hittite Archaeology. Byzas 4.Istanbul: 167−84

⎯ in press [still in press?]: ‘Early Bronze Agesettlement pattern and cultural structure of the Sivasregion’ Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran undTuran [add volume number page numbers, ifpublished]

Öktü, A. 1973: Die Intermediate-Keramik in Kleinasien.München

Özgüç, T. 1972: ‘An Assyrian trading outpost’ in [addeditor] Old World Archaeology: Foundations ofCivilization, Scientific American. San Francisco:243−49

⎯ 1986: ‘New observations on the relationship ofKültepe with southeast Anatolia and north Syriaduring the third millennium BC’ in J.V. Canby etal. [add names of all editors] (eds), AncientAnatolia. Aspects of Change and Cultural Devel-opment. Essays in Honor of M.J. Mellink. Madison:31−47

Parzinger, H., Sanz, R. 1992: Die Oberstadt von Hattusa.Hethitische Keramik aus dem ZentralenTempelviertel. Berlin

Pettinato, G. 1979: The Archives of Ebla. An EmpireInscribed in Clay. New York

Read, D.W. 1986: ‘Sampling procedures for regionalsurveys: a problem of representativeness and effec-tiveness’ Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 477−91

Roaf, M. 1990: Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and theAncient Near East. Oxford

Rothman, M.S. 2003: ‘Ripples in the stream: Transcau-casia-Anatolian interaction in the Murat/Euphratesbasin at the beginning of the third millennium BC’in A. Smith, K. Rubinson (eds), Archaeology in theBorderlands. Investigations in Caucasia andBeyond. Los Angeles: 95−110

Şahoğlu, V. 2005: ‘The Anatolian trade network and theIzmir region during the Early Bronze Age’ OxfordJournal of Archaeology 24(4): 339−61

Sams, J.K. 1994: The Early Phrygian Pottery. TheGordion Excavations, 1950−73: Final Reports IV.Pennsylvania

Täschner, F. 1924: Das Anatolische Wegenetz nach

Anatolian Studies 2007

8

osmanischen Quellen I. Leipzig⎯ 1926: Das Anatolische Wegenetz nach osmanischen

Quellen II. LeipzigÜnal, A. 1981−1983: ‘Orta ve Kuzey Anadolu’nun MÖ

2. Binyıl İskân Tarihiyle İlgili Sorunlar’ Anadolu22: 17−37

Ünal, R.H. 1978: ‘Osmanlı Öncesi Devirden Yayınlan-mamış Birkaç Han Üzerine Bir İnceleme’ AtatürkÜniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi.Prof. Albert Louis Gabriel Özel Sayısı: 453−83

Veenhof, K.R. 1995: ‘Kanesh: an Assyrian colony inAnatolia’ in J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of theAncient Near East 1. New York: 859−71

Wilkinson, T.J. 1982: ‘The definition of ancient manuredzones by means of extensive sherd-samplingtechniques’ Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 323−333

Yakar, J. 1992: ‘Beyond the eastern borders of the HittiteEmpire: an archaeological assessment’ in H. Ottenet al. [add names of all editors] (eds), Hittite andOther Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies inHonour of Sedat Alp. Ankara: 507−20

⎯ 2000: Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia. Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Jerusalem

Zimmermann, T. 2005: ‘Perfumes and policies. A ‘Syrianbottle’ from Kinet Höyük and Anatolian tradepatterns in the advanced third millennium BC’Anatolica 31: 161−69

Ökse

9

Anatolian Studies 2007

10

Fig. 1. Location of the survey area. 1: Ankara; 2: Çorum; 3: Yozgat; 4: Tokat; 5: Amasya; 6: Sivas; 7: Kayseri; 8:Adana; 9: Gaziantep; 10: Kahramanmaraş; 11: Şanlıurfa; 12: Diyarbakır; 13: Malatya; 14: Elazığ; 15: Erzincan

Ökse

11

Fig. 2. Geography of the survey area

Fig. 3. The Chalcolithic period. 1: Yıldızeli/Selamet-Gerdekkaya (Hacılar painted pottery); 2: Şarkışla Kalesi(Canhasan painted pottery); 3: Kangal/Çetinkaya-Koçköprü Kalesi (Ubaidian painted pottery)

Fig. 4. The Early Bronze Age. Findspots of intermediatepainted pottery. 1: Yıldızeli/Argaz-Dolma Tepe; 2:Merkez/Sivas-Köroğlu Mağaraları; 3: Merkez/Çallı-Küllük Tepesi; 4: Merkez/Tatlıcak-Höyük; 5: Yıldızeli/Kayalıpınar-Harabe; 6: Şarkışla/Lisanlı-Kül Höyük; 7:Kangal/Yukarı Höyük-Sıçanhöyük; 8: Kangal/Çetinkaya-Koçköprü Kalesi

Anatolian Studies 2007

12

Fig. 5. The Middle Bronze Age. Findspots of Alişar IIIpainted pottery and red slipped burnished wheel-madepottery. 1: Yıldızeli/Selamet-Gerdekkaya; 2:Yıldızeli/Bayat-Kalkankaya; 3: Yıldızeli/Kayalıpınar-Harabe; 4: Şarkışla-Kahvep?nar; 5: Şarkışla/Lisanlı-Kül Höyük; 6: Gemerek/Yeniçubuk-Höyük; 7:Merkez/Tatlıcak-Höyük; 8: Merkez/Sivas-Pulur; 9:Merkez/Karayün-Höyük; 10: Zara/Kadriye-Kül Höyük;11: Merkez/Hanlı-Höyük; 12: Merkez/Çallı-KüllükTepesi; 13: Altınyayla/Başören-Külhöyük; 14:Altınyayla/Yeşilyurt-Karatepe; 15: Ulaş/Yapalı-KayanınUcu; 16: Kangal/Çetinkaya-Koçköprü Kalesi; 17:Kangal/Mancılık-Küçük Tepe; 18: Gürün-Davul Höyük

Fig. 6. The Late Bronze Age. Findspots of Hittitestandard pottery. 1: Yıldızeli/Selamet-Gerdekkaya; 2:Yıldızeli/Bayat-Kalkankaya; 3: Merkez/Sivas-Topraktepe; 4: Yıldızeli/Kayalıpınar-Harabe; 5:Şarkışla-Kahvepınar; 6: Şarkışla/Kızılcakışla-Kale; 7:Altınyayla/Başören-Kuşaklı; 8: Merkez/Eski Apardı-SurTepesi; 9: Kangal/Aşağı Kalaca; 10: Kangal-Havuzköy

Fig. 7. The Iron Age. Findspots of Anatolian Iron Agepainted pottery. 1: Yıldızeli/Güneykaya-Pulur; 2:Yıldızeli/Selamet-Gerdekkaya; 3: Yıldızeli/Argaz-DolmaTepe; 4: Yıldızeli/Bayat-Kalkankaya; 5: Şarkışla-Kahvepınar; 6: Şarkışla-Merkez Höyük; 7:Gemerek/Karagöl-Külüyığın Tepesi; 8: Merkez/Beypınarı-Büyükkale; 9: Merkez/Karayün-Höyük; 10:Zara/Tekke-Kül Höyük; 11: Zara/Kadriye-Kül Tepesi;12: Altınyayla/Serinyayla-Kuşaklı Tepe; 13:Altınyayla/Gümüşpınar-Karataş; 14: Kangal/Kavak-Höyük Değirmeni; 15: Divriği-Yalnızsögüt-Höyük; 16:Kangal/Mancılık-Küçük Tepe