EURASIAN WATERWAYS IN TURKEY 59 



There the double row of pontoons built by Xerxes's engineers in 480 

 B.C. could be moored with less danger of their drifting with the south- 

 erly flowing waters. It is not improbable that the bridge thrown across 

 the Hellespont on this occasion was started near the conveniently sit- 

 uated mouth of the Ehodius Eiver and extended to a point about two 

 and a half miles south of Madytus. 



Half a century later the Hellespont was crossed by a counter human 

 current which was destined to flow to the shores of the Indian Ocean. 

 Macedonian supremacy over Greek states at that time depended largely 

 on the conquest of Asia where ready help against the kingdom be- 

 queathed by Philip to Alexander was always to be found by the states 

 of Thessaly and the Peloponnesus. The bulk of the Macedonian 

 phalanxes were transported from Europe to Asia between Sestus and 

 Abydos in 334 B.C. It is likely that minor contingents crossed between 

 Elacontus and the Achean's cove with Alexander who was proceeding 

 to Ilium. 



The main fording points selected on this occasion lie north of the 

 previous passage. The distance between Sestus and Abydos is also 

 approximately one mile. The advantage of the site, however, is due 

 to the moderation of the current which flows between these points with 

 about half the swiftness characterizing its onward rush through the con- 

 tracted outlet on the south. 



When the convergence of all roads to Rome had become well estab- 

 lished in the first century after Christ, the Bosporus was the shortest 

 watery section of a long highway which began at the Appian way and 

 extending through Ancyra, Tarsus and Antioch, attained Egypt and 

 Mesopotamia by way of branches diverging at the last-named city. 



The easterly spread of the Eoman Empire, however, caused the 

 Bosporus to replace the Eoman Tiber as the hub of spoke-like roads 

 leading to the remotest confines of the Csesars' vast administrative do- 

 main. The evidence afforded by the Peutinger Table and the Antonine 

 Itinerary on this translation of center is conclusive. In the words of 

 Ramsay 4 the map 



was made in the Byzantine period, by a person who was accustomed to the 

 Byzantine system of roads radiating from Constantinople across Asia Minor, 

 and who tried to represent the roads on this idea. . . . But no road which leads 

 across country from the JEgean coast is represented with any approach to 

 completeness: the roads in this direction are given in fragments with frequent 

 gaps. 



The same remark applies to the Antonine Itinerary: the compiler is inter- 

 ested chiefly in the roads to Constantinople. . . .' 



In the early centuries of the Christian era the advantageous location 

 of the waterways favored the development of trade intercourse between 

 Europe and Asia. From the European coast roads led to the great 



* "The Historical Geography of Asia Minor," p. 48. 



