AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DELINEATE

THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD

IN ANATOLIA
Mahnaz SADEGHIPOUR and Farshid Iravani GHADIM*

Abstract
The Achaemenid Royal Road was one of the crucial aspects of the Achaemenid
imperial governance through which the affairs of this great empire were carried
out. This major thoroughfare which on account of Herodotus’ reference
extended from Sardis to Susa, was only one component of a more extended
route network and allowed the Achaemenids to access and control conquered
cities. Anatolia by the greatest number of the satrapies has played an important
role in the center of this dominion. So far, determination of the actual course
of the “Royal Road” has been subject to much discussion due to ambiguities
and discrepancies of historical explanations. Moreover, there has been little
focus for archaeological research about the course of the “Royal Road” in Ana-
tolia. The purpose of this article is to reappraise and delineate the course of the
“Royal Road” in Anatolia during 550-330 BC concentrating mainly on the
archaeological sites. To introduce a model for designating this road, the
approach assumes that successive Achaemenid settlements are associated with
this road. Therefore, the itinerary is retraced by recording the Achaemenid
settlements based on the gamut of archaeological evidence, geographical fea-
tures, diverse precursors to the “Royal Road”, and historical records where avail-
able. A new prospect is proposed, according to which the Achaemenid Royal
Road extends more westward than what has been assumed before. An appreci-
ation of this trunk line presents not only an invaluable opportunity to identify
Achaemenid political and administrative might but also a proper understanding
of the Achaemenid settlements in Anatolia.

* Author: Mahnaz Sadeghipour, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Conservation, Art University of

Isfahan, [email protected]; corresponding author: Farshid Iravani Ghadim, Associate Professor,
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Conservation, Art University of Isfahan, [email protected].

Anatolica XLVI (2020), 67-101. doi: 10.2143/ANA.46.0.3288920

© Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten / Peeters. All rights reserved.
68 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

INTRODUCTION

Literature review
Anatolia – the land that equates to most of modern Turkey in Asia – is a peninsula that
is encircled by seas on three sides and separated from the rest of the Near East by high
mountains. Intricate geological phenomena have created regional individualities suitable
for living. Therefore, Anatolia has been taken into consideration from ancient times on
account of rich natural resources, strategic places, fertile soil and easy access to riparian
boundaries and water bodies. According to classical sources the ethnic groups inhibited
Anatolia were varied during the first millennium BC and equally at the time of Cyrus’
arrival in 546 BC. The major traditional regions were Lydia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, Cilicia,
Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lycia, Caria, Ionia, Mysia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus (Steadman and
McMahon 2011: 16).
Based on the geographical and administrative units of the Achaemenid Empire called
satrapies, referring to the Behiston inscription (Sharp 2009) and the carvings on the east-
ern staircase of the Apadana at Persepolis, and historical texts, in particular Herodotus’ list
of provinces (Hdt. 3.90-94), Anatolia was one of the most dominated landmass in the
second half of the first millennium BC at the latest phase of the Late Iron Age. When
Anatolia was incorporated to the Achaemenid Empire, it was divided to satrapies in order
to be administrated more aptly. The whole empire was more integrated through regional
formations interlinked by trans-regional and interregional relations. Therefore, the network
of roads was required to accelerate royal communication. The “Royal Road” appears to
have been a designated thoroughfare for couriers between main centers.
As it is well known, the only historical text which has directly introduced the “Royal
Road” is Histories. Herodotus quoted that it was a well-equipped road which traversed
prosperous places and was measured on the quantitative scale of ‘parasang’1. In detail he
described only one of the roads which connected Ephesus and Sardis with Susa at 90 days’
distance and 450 ‘parasangs’; Ctesias in the lost close of his Persian history gave similar
details for the road to Bacteria and India (Nichols 2008: 109). The “Royal Road” passed
from Sardis (ancient capital of Lydia) to reach the Halys River (modern Kızılırmak), then
passed through the Cilician Gates, thence ran eastwards to the Euphrates River and con-
tinued towards Susa (the Achaemenid administrative official capital). There were 110
posting stations and inns at intervals of about four ‘parasangs’; and at certain strategical
points there were garrisons: of these Herodotus mentions four between Sardis and Susa
– one at the Halys, and two on the boarders of Cilicia. The larger rivers which were not
bridged were crossed by pontoons (Hdt. 5.52-54). At posting stations along the routes
couriers mounted on swift horses stood always in readiness to carry forward the king’s

1 Greek authors often gave distances in terms of ‘parasangs’ when describing distances within the Persian

Empire. Herodotus regards the ‘parasang’ as a unit of road measurement, and states the equation 1 ‘parasang’
= 30 ‘stades’. Many believe ‘parasang’ represents the distance covered in an hour, which would vary according
to topography and season (Tuplin 1997: 404).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 69

decrees, and whereas travelers normally took nearly three months from Sardis to Susa, the
king’s dispatches may have passed over the same road in a week (Hdt. 8.98).
Two major hypotheses of alternative routes have been proposed for intrinsic ambiguities
in Herodotus’ description which are northern and southern hypotheses. The possible reasons
for the discrepancies are as follows; few topographical details, meager toponyms, disputable
river passes, the long distance between the Cilician Gates and the Euphrates River, dispro-
portion of the recapitulated total and detailed list of the number of royal stations and
intervals, and nebulous concept of measurement unit. Ordinarily, the knowledge of
the topography and historical records relevant to this road have been used to delineate
the course of the road. In addition, as the intervals have been recorded, the succession of
the earlier or later routes has also been considered.
The “northern hypothesis” suggests that the “Royal Road” should pass through arable
northern area of the Tuz Gölü, the salt lake located in the central Anatolian region, rather
than southern area of barren salt-steppe. Earlier Assyrian and Hittite routes are also men-
tioned as substructures of the “Royal Road”. The general itinerary continues northeast
of Sardis before crossing the Halys River; however, two alternative routes are suggested
afterwards. The first one runs southeast through the highland of Kayseri or Mazaca, and
the other one goes directly southwards crossing the Cilician Gates and then crossing over
the Euphrates at Zeugma (Kiepert 1857; Ramsay 1890; Hogart 1895; Dillemann 1962;
Young 1963; Landle 1987; Graf 1994; Muller 1994; Debord 1995) (Fig. 1).
The “southern hypothesis” concentrates on the shortest way due to the administrative
purpose of the “Royal Road”. The Halys River assumed as an ornamental touch is over-
looked (Ramsay 1920: 90). The itinerary is delineated either by reference to Cyrus’ march
eastwards from Sardis in 401 BC (Xen. An. 1.2), which was identified entirely with the
“Royal Road” (Calder 1925), or the later Roman road described by Strabo (14.2.29),
which postulated to overlay on the Achaemenid Royal Road (French 1998) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Map of alternative routes for the “northern hypothesis” (authors).

70 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

Fig. 2. Map of alternative routes for the “southern hypothesis” (authors).

Although, some archaeological researches have been carried out in particular with
limited scopes, the identified routes have been either secondary roads or not placed in
Anatolia. For instance, those successive sites identified as royal stations in Iran (Wright
and Neely 2010; Askari Chaverdi et al. 2010), the settlement pattern classified as major
and secondary administrative cores in Palestine (Roll and Tal 2008), hieroglyphic graffiti
used during the reign of Darius the Great in Upper Egypt (Di Cerbo and Jasnow 1996),
and the hollow ways identified as roads dated to the Neo-Assyrian period in northern
Mesopotamia (Wilkinson et al. 2005) show signs of the route network under Achaemenid
authority.

Factual evidence that supports the course of the road

The disintegration of Anatolian political units did not mean the complete elimination
of all roads. Moreover, the Achaemenid administrators never seemed to have had enough
time and laborers to construct the whole course of a new road by their own due to
a somewhat rapid transition of political power. Forasmuch as a road is principally defined
a communication way between two or more centers of human activities, its information
can be gleaned from the surrounding terrains. Those sites which witness prolonged period
of settlement occupation may be considered not only as major network cores for economic,
political and religious influence but also the main centers to control significant roads.
If the sites have been occupied constantly, it is viable to presume that the course of the
roads linking them may have remained fairly steady.
Generally speaking, a relatively earlier presence of strong administrative and economic
interactions and military conflicts suggest the presence of older routes. On this account,
the “Royal Road” could have relied on earlier routes which have linked significant former
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 71

trading, religious or power centers. Moreover, enclosed or fortified areas act as attractors,
and corresponding unstable points act as repellers. It is very probable, however, that the
Achaemenids used those routes, which covered the outmost inchoate satrapies, to control
divergent regions. Meanwhile appointing Satraps, who were normally chosen amongst
elites, resulted in ensured administrative activities which facilitated the crossroad services.
The so-called royal stations and post guards supposedly once stood inside the settlements
or between them along the roadway.
Tumuli may point to the existence of settlements situated in peripheral zones (Roosevelt
2006: 71). Therefore, it is conceivable that tumuli consisting either Achaemenid style
objects or architectural characteristics, specify a nearby Achaemenid settlement. Further-
more, looking at how topographic barriers funneled movement, the presence of a stable
network of successive settlements may have demarcated the course of the “Royal Road” in
Anatolia.
However, enjoying a hardheaded archaeological approach, it is indispensable to indicate
the substantial evidence supporting the Achaemenid presence in the regions under discus-
sion. Pottery remains are invaluable for ascertaining the occupation of the region by Achae-
menid communities, with prevalent clay cups without handles and with flaring rims, which
were found all across the satrapies and grouped as shallow or deep bowls or as the “Achae-
menid bowl”, being in direct connection with the Achaemenid settlements (Dusinberre
1999: 76, 101, 103). Besides and accompanying “Achaemenid bowls”, further evidence
such as the objects, seals, and seal impressions which reflect imperial Achaemenid iconog-
raphy, small monuments such as fire altars, and the architectural style and stone cutting
techniques which characterize this period, give exclusive access to the settlements as resi-
dencies or fortresses (Sumner 1986: 4, 7; Dusinberre 2003: 75-76; Dusinberre 2010: 333,
328-329).
Up until now, no cultural material that can be clearly defined as Achaemenid have been
found in the upper Tigris region. However, this may not be indicating their lack of
presence in this area but the complexities of the Achaemenids’ political outlook with little
interest in this area or a probable use of available local ceramics. The spread of the
“Triangle Ware”, which is considered to be a mark of the “Post Assyrian” period in the
upper Tigris region (Matney et al. 2007: 43; Laneri 2016: 103), overly supports this
assumption. As a consequence, the Achaemenids probably controlled and followed the road
of communication but not the areas far apart from the Tigris River (Sagona 2004: 89).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The method, which we have applied to determine the course of the road, concentrates
on identification of major successive Achaemenid settlements which are assumed to be link
to each other by a road. The information and location of the sites have been drawn from
the published archaeological research, historical records, and certain visual cartographic
materials, including the topographical map of modern Turkey, and also using remote
sensing methods.
72 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Daskylion
Location: 2 km west of Ergili village near Manyas Lake on the district of Bandırma.
It is equates with Hisar Tepe.
Periods occupied: From the eight century BC to the Byzantine period.
Daskylion identified as the satrapy of “Tayaiy Drayahya” was mentioned on inscriptions
DB, 6; DPe, 2; XPh, 3, from which access to Sakae over the sea was probable (Schmitt
1972: 526). The city was the center of the Persian satrapy, from which the demesne of
Hellespontine Phyrgia was ruled over (Xen. Hell. 4.1.15).
Hundreds of seal impressions (the corpus of bullae) (Fig. 3) strengthen the presence of
an Achaemenid administrative archive (Kaptan 2007: 281, 287-288). The mortuary stelae
(Hanfmann 1966: 10) (Fig. 4), bronze arrows, lead bullets, and harnesses which resemble
those at Persepolis, infrastructure of a great edifice as the satrap’s residence inside the set-
tlement surrounded by fortification walls, the sanctuary place with a Persian style fire altar
(Bakir 2003: 1-12), one segment of northwestern-southeastern road interpreted as a cult
way of a 19 m length and a 6 m width under the Hellenistic layer (Coşkun 2005: 64)
(Fig. 5), an Achaemenid bowl found in the burnt layer before Alexander invasion (Coşkun
2006: 53) attest Daskylion as a fortified Achaemenid period settlement.
Conclusive archaeological evidence shows that Daskylion has been a multicultural city
for the trade activities during both the Lydian and Achaemenid periods and connection
with Lydia has continued without interruption (Bakır 1995: 273). A cylinder seal in the
name of Artimas, a Lydian satrap, found in Daskylion (Abe 2012: 8) could have increased
the interaction through the possible extension of the mentioned excavated road. Although
Herodotus proposed Ephesos as the other terminal by three days walk from Sardis, it seems
as if he remarked that part of the road which directly concerned him.
The geographical location of Daskylion adjacent to the Sea of Marmara and Bosphorus
strait also makes it a communicative gateway towards the western part of Anatolia.

Fig. 3. Daskylion seal

impressions. 1: Composite
drawing of DS 3; 2, 3: DS 3;
4: Composite drawing of
DS 4; 5, 6: DS 4,
“the enthroned king”
(Kaptan 2007: 287-288).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 73

Fig. 4. Fragmentary stone relief from

Daskylion (Abe 2012: 17).

Flourishing over so long a period, Daskylion could have reasonably been considered as a
pivotal station along the Royal Road not only for communication with eastern part of
Anatolia but also for further connection to western areas. In all probability, those western
Achaemenid period settlements relevant to Granicus tumuli such as Dedetepe, Kızöldün
and Çan (Brian Rose 2013: 127) could have been connected with Daskylion via a second-
ary route where the Thracians as a courtesy to Xerxes’ army avoided cultivating (Hdt. 7.115).

Fig. 5. Cultic road in

Daskylion (İren 2010: 259).
74 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

Şahankaya
Location: in the high basin of the district of Gördes in the western Turkey.
Periods occupied: From the Achaemenid period to the Byzantine period.
The fortification site of Şahankaya situates on a section between the two peaks of a rock
in a relatively uninhabited basin. It predominates the landscape in northern Lydia by
its height and provides a visual catchment of the entire surrounding. Its panorama with
Sardis and many other areas makes it a very strategic place. A peculiar cubic pedestal,
propping a rounded stone projection topped by a shallow tub on the top of the stronghold
has been known as a Persian-style fire altar (Fig. 6) (Dusinberre 2013: 85, 103). Roughly
similar stone depressions have been observed around Rahmat Mountain in the province
of Fars in Iran (Malekzade 1971: 19). These may have applied to be used as braziers for

Fig. 6. Fire bowl at Şahankaya

(Dusinberre 2013: 103).

Fig. 7. Selected items from Gökçeler tumulus. Fig. 8. Lead sling bullet of Tissaphernes
MM 4611-16, 5288-90 (Dusinberre 2013: 151). with inscription (Foss 1975: Pl. 5).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 75

visual communication. In conformity with Behiston inscription (DB 6), Darius laid
emphasis on carrying out his orders day and night (Sharp 2009). He indicates obliquely
on broadcasting service in the depth of night.
The Persian style objects of the deceased from Gökçeler tumulus (Fig. 7) at the base of the
stronghold signify the Achaemenid presence in this location (Dusinberre 2013: 150-151).
The appropriate situation of Şahankaya at 20 km east of Gördes (ancient Julia Gordus),
where a lead sling bullet inscribed in Latin with the name of Tissaphernes as the satrap of
Achaemenid Empire was found (Fig. 8) (Foss 1975: 30, Pl. 5), increases the protective
function of this watchtower via the mountain route as a part of the “Royal Road” from
Daskylion to Sardis.

Lale Tepe
Location: The tumulus is one of 17 tumuli around the modern city of Ahmetli, 11 km
west of Sardis.
Periods occupied: Achaemenid period, perhaps in the early 5th century BC.
In spite that the tumulus has been plundered, the composition and general construction
are similar to Bin Tepe tumuli of the 6th and 5th century BC. The technical and decorative
details relevant to Klinai, together with ceramics and bones from 7 contexts attest this
Achaemenid tomb as a family mausoleum with burial ceremonies were repeatedly con-
ducted (Roosevelt 2008: 1-2, 12-15). Taking the road from Daskylion to Sardis into
consideration, an Achaemenid period settlement relevant to Lale Tepe can be highly
expected around west of Sardis.

Sardis
Location: At the foothills of the Mount Tmolus about 90 km east of Izmir and 4 km
from Hermus River (modern Gediz).
Periods occupied: From the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period.
Bilingual inscriptions (Lydian/Aramic-Lydian/Greek) show that Lydian, Achaemenid,
and west Aegean dignitaries have settled in this multi period site. Moreover, the locally
produced Achaemenid bowls (Fig. 9) from eight separate deposits between the Hellenistic
and Lydian levels near the east of the city wall (Dusinberre 1999: 74-75, 78, 103), affluent
stamp and cylinder seals (Fig. 10) made of gold and chalcedony reveal an important
Achaemenid occupation where cohesion of the Achaemenid elites between the satrapal and
central capitals could be possible (Dusinberre 2010: 323).
Fortification tablets of Persepolis (PFT 1321/1401) (Dusinberre 1999: 73) and histor-
ical documents mention travel from Sardis to Susa and vice versa. Two Achaemenid kings,
Darius the Great and Xerxes, sojourned at Sardis, and two satraps, Artaphernes and Cyrus
the younger, were kings’ brothers (Steadman and McMahon 2011: 1121). In all probabil-
ity, a major communication route may have linked Sardis and Hattusha/Boğazköy (the
capital of the Hittite empire) as both centers had been old capitals and crucial trading
centers (Garstang 1943: 41). The mentioned route could have been a part of the “Royal
Road” during Achaemenid period (Starr 1963: 632).
76 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

Fig. 9. Drawings of
Achaemenid bowls from
deposit 1, Sardis
(Dusinberre 1999: 103).

Fig. 10. Signet seal from Sardis. IAM 4523,

lion and bull combat (Dusinberre 2003: 278).

The Tumuli at Uşak-Güre

Location: 25 km west of Uşak and 100 km east of Sardis.
Periods occupied: 6th century BC.
Recovered items from four looted tumuli bear the stamp of the Achaemenid art (Özgen
and Öztürk 1996: 48-53). The finds comprise mostly jewelry from Top Tepe (ibid. 52),
metal artifacts (ibid. 88-89), and the seals from İkiz Tepe (Dusinberre 2013: 72), the
paintings of the kline of Ak Tepe (Baughan 2008: 30), and a metal vessel from Basmacı
(Akbıyıkoğlu 1991: 22), which support routine or administrative activities in the area. The
tumuli might have overlooked the nobles’ estates and nearby settlement along the “Royal
Road” whereas they are arranged in a linear way adjacent to the Hermus River on the cusp
of Lydia and Phrygia (Roosevelt 2006: 72). Furthermore, they would be noted as land-
marks along a route for communication at the night.
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 77

Seyitömer Höyük
Location: 25 km northwest of Kütahya.
Periods occupied: From the Early Bronze to the late Roman period.
Excavations reveal that an early fortification system had been constantly used over
during the later periods. The Achaemenid bowl shreds (both deep and shallow types)
(Fig. 11) (Coşkun 2011: 65, 79) and four clay tags with Achaemenid seal impressions
found at two contexts at the third layer of Seyitömer Höyük (Bilgen et al. 2009: 342-343)
(Fig. 12) attest an Achaemenid period settlement on the mound. Fifteen storage jars had
been excavated earlier at the same place where the seal impressions were found.
The seal impressions are believed to be tokens for service provision at a warehouse
(Kaptan 2005: 362-364). The approximately equal distance of the mound to both satrapal
centers of Daskylion and Sardis, increases the presence of a significant midway station
along the “Royal Road” and a possible secondary road from Daskylion.

Fig. 11. Achaemenid bowls from Seyitömer Fig. 12. Cylinder seal impressions from
Höyük (Coşkun 2011: 79). Seyitömer Höyük, Kütahya Museum.
a: SHS 3.1 on Kt 9401; b: SHS 3. 2 on
Kt 9401 (Kaptan 2005: 363-364).

Gordion
Location: 100 km southwest of Ankara and 10 km northwest of Polatlı.
Periods occupied: From the Middle Bronze Age to the Medieval period (Steadman and
McMahon 2011: 1074).
78 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

The form and size of the mound is typical for long-term settlements, consisting of the
monumental fortifications protecting a citadel, a lower town beside it, an outer town to
the west and a scattering of tumulus mounds to the north and east (ibid. 1069-1070).
Gordion may have founded on an Anatolian military road which possibly functioned
already during both in the 3rd millennium BC, according to the Assyrian annals (Young
1963: 351), and during the time of the Hittite Empire (Birmingham 1961: 185-195).
Historical texts also represent Gordion as a significant stop along the Royal Road.
Pharnabazos, the satrap of Hellespontine Phyrgia, wintered at Gordion in 407 BC (Xen.
Hell. 1.4), Agesilaos besieged the city unsuccessfully in 395 BC (McKechnie and Kern
1988: 16.6), and Alexander the Great cut the Gordion knot while following the “Royal
Road” in 333 BC (Arrian Anab. 2.3.1-8).
The findings from excavations indicate that Gordion was an important center during
Achaemenid Period as well. The Achaemenid bowls (Toteva 2009: 380), the seal and seal
impressions (Fig. 13), two splendid administrative constructions adjacent to a drainage
(Dusinberre 2010: 328-333), the glass vessels which seem to imitate the ceramic proto-
types (Fig. 14) (Kealhofer 2005: 108-113), and the track winding round Phrygian tumuli,
which is attributed to the Achaemenid period (Young 1963: 350) (Fig. 15), are linked to
an Achaemenid period settlement along a well-frequented road.

Fig. 13. Left: Gordion, cylinder seal 100, Fig. 14. Molded glass phial with petal
“Achaemenid hegemonic”. Right: Seal decoration (Kealhofer 2005: 108).
impression 100 (Dusinberre 2010: 329-331).

Fig. 15. Gordion, ancient

road (Young 1957: Pl. 87).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 79

Büklükale
Location: 60 km southeast of Ankara opposite the modern village of Köprüköy in
Karakeçili, exactly on the left bank of the Halys River.
Periods occupied: From the Early Bronze Age to the Ottoman period (Matsumura
2016: 58-60).
As rivers have been often impediments for communication, the geographical location of
Büklükale at the narrowest part of the Kızılırmak makes it an important place. The oldest
information about crossing the Halys explains that King Croesus wended his way to Pteria
through a road that was followed subsequently by Cyrus the Great in his pursuit (Hdt. 1.75).
There are grounds for supposing that the “Royal Road” may have passed through this
place. The section of a cobbled road on the western side of the site, which runs toward
the remnants of a Roman bridge beside a Seljuk one, some synthetic holes in the rock
along the river that could have been applied to support a type of mechanism for crossing
the river (Matsumura 2016: 59-60), and a construction with military function dated to
the Late Iron Age (Matsumura 2010: 412), which could have been the post guard men-
tioned by Herodotus, highly attest the extension of the Gordion track towards the Halys
River, which was the natural border of Phrygia in the east.

Oluz Höyük
Location: 2 km northwest of the village of Gözlek and 3 km of the Amasya-Çorum
highway in north central Turkey.
Periods occupied: From the Early Bronze Age to 14th century AD (Dönmez 2013:
363-364).
The systematic archaeological excavations confirmed the existence of an Achaemenid
period settlement including the remains of a roughly quadrangular structure in the 2nd, 3rd,
and 4th layers of the Late Iron Age (Dönmez 2014: 61), abundant Achaemenid bowls
(Fig. 16), a hollow shaped structure defined as a fire altar, the part of a SW-NE paved road
(Fig. 17) (Dönmez and Yurtsever Beyazıt 2014: 124), and lead slings and ingots which
reflect the martial prowess of the settlement (Dönmez and Yurtsever Beyazıt 2013: 192).

Fig. 16. An Achaemenid bowl, Oluz Höyük Fig. 17. South of the Persian Road extension,
(Dönmez 2014: 63). 2B architecture layer, Trench A, Oluz Höyük
(Dönmez and Yurtsever Beyazıt 2014: 124).
80 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

The favorable environment of Oluz Höyük near the fertile Geldingen plain and a
tributary of the Yeşilırmak, the Çekerek (Zuliya in Hittite texts), carries implications of
considerable interest (Dönmez 2014: 63). The area is not only suitable for an Achaemenid
garden, a ‘Paradise’, but also to deploy and purvey huge groups of people. It may be
speculated that Oluz Höyük played an important role in Xerxes’ campaign of 480 BC
towards Phrygia after recruiting at Critalla (Hdt. 7.26). The archaeological finds of the
later period also indicate the military significant of the road in the Roman times (Winfield
1977: 153), when the army was dispatched against the Mithridatic Kingdom of Pontus.
The proximity and the accessibility of Oluz Höyük to the temple of Zela (modern Zile)
is noteworthy for religious affiliation. The Achaemenids built a temple in Zela for the
goddess Anahita in memory of their victory over Scythians who invaded Zela (Strabo 11,
8, 4). A similar temple and fire altar existed in Amasya and were depicted on a Roman
bronze coin (Fig. 18) (Dönmez 2007: 109, 114). Moreover, the Achaemenid settlement
sites situated on the Black Sea Basin (Beikzadeh and Iravani Ghadim 2017: 144) could
have been connected with Oluz Höyük via Erzincan through bypass roads. By the same
token secondary roads probably passed further northwest of Oluz Höyük to Paphlagonia
through the Terme and Eldivan plains to connect the Achaemenid sites in the area (Johnson
2010: 368).

Fig. 18. Depiction of the fire altar in Amasya

on the reverse of a Roman coin
(Dönmez 2007: 114).

Uşaklı Höyük
Location: On the southern bank of the Eğri Öz Dere, northwest of the Kerkenes Dağ.
Periods occupied: From the Late Chalcolithic to the Byzantine period.
A long sequence of occupation at Uşaklı Höyük reveals its strategic importance in the
area to the east of Yozgat. On the one hand, it is a proper candidate for Zippalanda, the
Hittite ceremonial center; on the other hand it lays on the way connecting Bronze Age
sites of Alişar Höyük and Kültepe. Today it is situated on a pivotal communication place
on the Ankara-Sivas road (Mazzoni et al. 2011: 317-318).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 81

Geophysical surveys have revealed the plan of an enormous structure under the ground
that is consisted of a courtyard surrounded by small rooms, and which reflects similarities
with the Achaemenid architecture known from Tille Höyük in eastern Turkey (ibid. 326).
The Achaemenid bowls served as a key element to reveal that the major Hittite period of
occupation, which included a citadel fortification, was followed by later occupations
including the one during the Achaemenid period (Mazzoni et al. 2010: 118, 121, 158).

Tilkigediği Tepe
Location: On the northeastern arm of Kerkenes Dağ, and west of the junction of the
Şahmuratlı Köy road with the Mehmetbeyli-Sorgun road.
Periods occupied: Late Iron Age.
Nearly all pottery found on Tilkigediği Tepe belong to Achaemenid bowls that restrict
the occupation to the Achaemenid period. The mound seems to be circumvallated by the
remnants of stone glacis on the northwestern side (Summers et al. 1995: 46). The dimen-
sion of stones, their gradient and the orderliness of fit are similar to those known from
Sümerin Sivri Hisar, the paved slope of Göz Baba tumulus near the Tilkigediği Tepe
(Summers 2001: 50) (Summers et al. 1995: 53), and Çeşka Kale in the heights around
the city of Yozgat, where it looks down on the ancient road to Tavium.
These sites may be representing a regional integrated system of defense, and in fact,
Tilkigediği Tepe may be a royal station or a guard post from which the nearby road was
controlled (ibid. 46). The trajectory of the visible route stretching from the east of the
village of Şahmuratlı to Keykavus Kale on Kerkenes Dağ (Summers 2001: 48) supports
this view.

Çadır Höyük
Location: 16 km south of Sorgun in the Yozgat province of north-central Turkey, near
the village of Peyniryemez in the Kanak Su Basin (Steadman and McMahon 2015: 69).
Periods occupied: From the Middle Chalcolithic Age to the 12th century CE (Steadman
et al. 2019: 371, 374).
Cultural material, together with architectural and ceramic evidence from the Chalco-
lithic to Byzantine periods reveal a lengthy occupational sequence at Çadır Höyük (Stead-
man et al. 2017). Similarities in terms of material culture with Alişar Höyük signify an
uninterrupted relationship with this settlement (Gorny et al. 2002: 121-122); which
points to the presence of a route between them. A fortification system from the second
millennium BC seem to suggest the substantial Hittite presence at the site dating to this
period (Steadman et al. 2017: 224). The fortification walls from the Byzantine Period
provide a much stronger chronology of occupation for this period (Steadman et al. 2015:
106). Most of the Late Iron Age levels at the site are associated with the workspaces
perhaps for textile manufacturing (Steadman and McMahon 2015: 76). The Achaemenid
bowls found near the probable gate of the fortification wall (Gorny 2004: 21) are an
indication of the presence of an Achaemenid period settlement with an economic function
probably located along the “Royal Road”.
82 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

Kınık Höyük
Location: In the province of Niğde at the foothill of Melendiz Mountain at the eastern
edge of the Konya Plain (Steadman and McMahon, 2015: 98).
Periods occupied: From the Early Bronze Age to the Ottoman Period (ibid. 103).
Kınık Höyük is the largest identified site on the Bor-Ereğli plain with significant surface
ceramics (ibid. 99). Southern Cappadocia had played an important role since ancient times
in the control of the congested road via the Cilician Gates. The main roads passing through
the area were disrupted by environmental changes occurring over the centuries as some
regional water resources decreased (ibid. 123).
However, a continuity of occupation at Kınık Höyük reveals the long-lasting prominence
of the location of this site along a well-trodden route which connected central Anatolia to
southern Cilicia. An Achaemenid period settlement is attested at Kınık Höyük in conform-
ity with the Achaemenid bowl sherds, kitchenware, terracotta animal figurines, zoomorphic
vessels in the citadel fortification and in the intramural occupation (ibid. 101-106).

Zeyve Höyük (Porsuk)

Location: North of the Taurus Mountains near the town of Ulukışla adjacent to the
Cilician Gates (Beyer 2010: 47).
Periods occupied: From the Late Bronze Age to the Late Roman period (Beyer et al.
2013: 201).
The site, which probably corresponds to the Assyrian city of Tunna, is situated nearby
both the Cilician Gates and the silver and lead mines of the Taurus Mountains (Beyer
2010: 47). The strategic position of this mountainous passage as a crossroads on the way,
through which the central Anatolian plateau connects to the Cillian plain, has always been
worthy of remarks. According to Herodotus’ description the “Royal Road” passed through
the Cilician Gates.
Excavations revealed the existence of a compartmental fortification system that functioned
throughout the Hittite period which was reconstructed during the Iron Age (ibid. 50-51).
A good illustration of archaeological finds is a stamped ceramic sherd found immedi-
ately under the Hellenistic strata at the northeast part of the mound (Beyer et al. 2006:
219). Two bearded men both wearing trousers and cowls (Bashlyk) and one of them
hanging a dagger (Akinakes) on his left side are depicted face to face near the rim (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19. Zeyve Höyük, drawing on pot sherd

with painted and stamped decoration
(Beyer et al. 2006: 228).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 83

The iconography, fabric, and slip are concomitant with Achaemenid period examples
(Casabonne 2007: 68). Although no other Achaemenid evidence has been found, it may
well be accepted that the stamped ceramic sherd yields some information about royal
communication. Accepting Zeyve Höyük to be a reference point at the entrance of the
major corridor through the Taurus Mountain, the presence of a demolished royal station
is feasible.

Tatarlı Höyük
Location: 85 km east of the provincial capital of Adana and about 10 km west of
Toprakkale in the fertile plain of Ceyhan in Cilicia.
Periods occupied: From the Chalcolithic to the Byzantine periods (Girginer et al. 2014:
433-437).
The long duration of settlement attests to the strategic role of the site near the Belen
Pass on the Amanus Mountain and in middle of trading routes. Based on finds uncovered,
Tatarlı Höyük is speculated to be Luhuzatia or the city of seven spring waters, which was
a Hittite sanctuary site in Kizzuwatna (Girginer and Cevher 2014: 38). An uncovered
cobbled road, which the excavator defines at the Hittite caravan route, was in use all
through the first millennium BC. The Iron Age architecture around the periphery of the
road has been severely destroyed during the Hellenistic period.
A broken piece of a relief, which depicts Achaemenid guard’s foot wearing a garment,
and a fire altar can be seen south of the road (Girginer et al. 2014: 434-436). An Achae-
menid period settlement was decisively attested after Achaemenid bowls were found at the
third layer of the mound (Novak 2017: 175). Prior and recent surface surveys in the
Cilician plain have determined the presence of a stable network of sites enjoying the
Achaemenid bowls. Yeşil Höyük (Seton Williams 1954: 172), Ada Tepe 2 (ibid. 147),
Sirkeli (ibid. 168), Avşar, Çatal Höyük, Mustafalı, Taşıl Höyük 1, and Taşıl Höyük 2
(Tülek and Öğüt 2013: 60, 66-67) are all situated along the west-east axis of the plain and
may be coherent within a substantial network of roads, not least the “Royal Road”.

Zincirli Höyük
Location: 100 km west of the Euphrates River. It is surrounded on the north by the
Taurus Mountains, on the west by the Amanus range, and on the east by Kurt Dağ hills.
Periods occupied: From the Early Bronze to the Late Iron Age.
The site is located in a narrow rift valley, which varies 10 km to 20 km in width and
forms a natural aisle. As this geographical area separates regions of north Syria from the
Mediterranean Sea and the Cilician plain, it has been considered to be a crucial passageway
of travel from the ancient times onwards. The coniferous trees in the Amanus Mountains
near the site were the major source of timber and resin which were transported to Meso-
potamia.
Archaeological findings, Assyrian texts, and local inscriptions indicate that the area
surrounding Zincirli was a part of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout the 9th and
8th centuries BC. A royal citadel, an enormous gate, and two circular outer walls around
84 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

Fig. 20. Plan of Zincirli Höyük

(Schloen and Fink 2009: 208).

the site (Fig. 20) from the late 9th century BC confirm the importance of the settlement
along a route. The Achaemenid pottery and some artifacts found in the southern citadel
and in the highest part of the eastern citadel, which may be a royal seat or a small fortress,
reveal the Achaemenid occupation of the site (Schloen and Fink 2009: 204-212).

Dülük Baba Tepesi

Location: 10 km north of Gazientep, between the Euphrates River and the Taurus
Mountains, and nearby the ancient city of Doliche (Blomer and Winter 2006: 185).
Periods occupied: From the Early First Millennium BC to the massive destruction in
AD 253-236 by the Persian King Shapur I.
Outstanding finds such as small Syro-Phoenician grotesque figures, amulets, and pearl
beads consecrations, Levantine scarabs, stone and glass cylinder or stamp seals with
Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid motifs, and fragments of black figure Attic ceramics
reflect the cosmopolitan nature and importance of Dülük Baba Tepesi as a holy place with
a multitude of cultural material. As the votive offerings fill the historical lacunae between
the rituals of the Late Bronze and the Iron Ages gods Teshub-Hadad and that of god
Jupiter Dolichenus in the Roman times, the site seems to be a communication gateway
close to the intersections of important roads that connected Dülük Baba Tepesi with other
destinations in Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia, Greece, and Rome (Blomer and Winter 2013: 365).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 85

Fig. 21. Dülük Baba Tepesi,

Achaemenid period bull head
capital (Blomer and Winter
2006: 189).

The Late Iron Age level is marked by a stone capital in the shape of a bull’s head
(Fig. 21) similar to examples at Persepolis (Blomer and Winter 2006: 189) and a defensive
wall section with the Achaemenid architectural technique in the east area of the hill
(Blomer and Winter 2013: 362).Therefore, it can be suggested that high ranking persons
or elites lived at Dülük BabaTepesi for administrative connectivity and social networking
as they were hospitable to the practices of other people and their beliefs due to the policy
of tolerance for cultural diversity.

Şaraga Höyük
Location: 10 km east of Karkamış, and 800m east of the village of Keleklioğlu in the
province of Gaziantep on the west bank of Euphrates River (Sertok et al. 2004: 282).
Periods occupied: From the Late Uruk to the 13th century CE (Greaves and Helwing
2003: 85).
The late Hittite inscriptions found around the mound and the forged limestone molds
and pottery kilns indicate the political and cultural importance of the place particularly in
connection with Carchemish during the Iron Age. The pottery kiln from the Achaemenid
period shows the continuity of pottery activities over centuries. The parts of a road from
periods preceding the Achaemenid period continued to be used after being refurbished
(Sertok et al. 2004: 282-284), and as a consequence, it may well be the extension of the
“Royal Road” towards the Euphrates River. The ‘Anahita’ gypsum tablets, like the ones
from Tilbeş Höyük (Briant and Boucharlat 2013: 304), appear to confirm the presence of
an Achaemenid settlement at the final geographical point before crossing the river.

Mezraa Teleilat
Location: 5 km south of Birecik on the east bank of the Euphrates River, and west of
the village of Mezra (Özdoğan et al. 2000: 166).
Periods occupied: From the Neolithic to 3000 BC, and during the Iron Age (Karul et al.
2001: 68).
86 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

An Assyrian governor’s residence or an administrative building, which consists of

a central courtyard surrounded by numerous magazines with storage jars (Karul et al.
2002: 160), affirms geographical significance of the site along the earlier Assyrian road
to Carchemish. Subsequently, Neo-Babylonian tablets recovered from the floor of the
structure attest the incorporation of the region to the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom after
Nebuchadnezzar’s assault in 605 BC (Özdoğan et al. 2004: 239).
Excavations revealed that Assyrian complex ruined by the Achaemenid invasion was
occupied after being refurbished. Although the Achaemenid layer has not been well-
preserved due to the effects of tillage, the remains of a building and a stone wall which
display Achaemenid architecture techniques, together with figurines of clay horses and
heads of riders ascribed to the Achaemenid period (Karul et al. 2001: 68) clearly attest
the presence of an Achaemenid period settlement along an earlier well-trodden route.

Sur Tepe
Location: 4 km northwest of modern city of Birecik, and at the east bank of the
Euphrates River near the Syrian border.
Periods occupied: Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, and Late Iron Age (Greaves and
Helwing 2003: 84).
The Achaemenid pottery, royal style glass seals, a stone tablet inscribed in Aramaic from
the time period between 5th and 4th centuries BC, large storage jars imprinted with the
royal symbol, the ‘Farvahar’, and horse bones excavated from the Assyrian large-scale
administrative structure, which corresponds with the monumental building at Mezraa
Teleilat, witness the reoccupation of the site during the Achaemenid period (Fuensanta
and Civelli 2010: 67-69). Sur Tepe may have come to be regarded as a settlement enjoy-
ing a food storage depot located on the “Royal Road” to supply the nearby Achaemenid
garrison at Hacınebi Tepe (Stein 2014: 284), which is approximately 2 km away, through
a secondary road.

Tilbeş Höyük
Location: 22 km north of the modern city of Birecik on the left bank of the Euphrates
River’s bend (Fuensanta and Mısır 1998: 228).
Periods occupied: From the late Chalcolithic to the Islamic period (Fuensanta et al.
1999: 156).
The location of the site overlooking the fertile lands near the Euphrates River is quite
remarkable and the rich cultural sequence makes Tilbeş Höyük a likely important site.
Considering the discovered materials dated to earlier periods, a high population density in
is estimated for the region. In addition to this, ancient seals verify that Assyrian trade
routes passed through Tilbeş Höyük (ibid. 161)
Achaemenid findings consist of storage silos, a fire altar, and ‘Anahita’ molded
plaquettes, which are evidence for the use of the site both as a storage place and a sacred
location. Furthermore, most of the grave goods show consistencies with the corresponding
women and riders figurines found at Hacınebi Tepe, Mezraa Teleilat, and Deve Höyük
(ibid. 160).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 87

Küllük Tepe (site 5)

Location: 2 km of southwest of Kurban Höyük (now flooded) at the south bank of the
Euphrates River. The catchment of Küllük Tepe is shared by the Yaslıca district 1 km
southwest, both lie within the Urfa-Gaziantep plateau (Wilkinson 1990: 5-6, 151).
Periods occupied: First Millennium BC.
The site (now flooded) was situated upon a colluvium and abutted the slopes surround-
ing the tributaries of the Euphrates. Distinguished by the plentiful supply of limestone
fragments representing eroded stone foundations, Küllük Tepe could have been originally
a defensive site overlooking one of the narrowest spots of the Euphrates River Valley
(ibid. 151-152).
The Achaemenid pottery assemblage suggests a mid-first millennium BC date for the
site (ibid. 113). There are two ancient routes on the Urfa-Gaziantep plateau, one of which
runs southeast towards the Harran plain and eventually into Mesopotamia, the second one
leads southwest towards the Mediterranean coast. The latter is attested by a road that
linked Birecik and Samsat via the Roman Severan fortlet at Eski Hisar and a watchtower
at Uzunburç (ibid. 8). Since Küllük Tepe is situated in area with Roman roads (ibid. 6,
111), the routes may have been developed earlier through interplays between Samsat and
the İncesu corridor during the Achaemenid period.

Lidar Höyük
Location: 5 km north of Samsat in the province of Adıyaman at the east bank of the
Euphrates River.
Periods occupied: From the Late Bronze Age to the 13th century CE.
The Late Iron Age was identified through 9 layers of the now flooded site of Lidar
Höyük. Level 6A was dated to 600-500 B.C. on the basis of the pottery assemblage and
a large official structure (Muller 1999: 123). A cist burial similar to those found at Deve
Höyük and Hacınebi Tepe, containing an oval bronze bathtub coffin and the skeleton of
an adult male, has been discovered at level 6A. The grave goods consist of a gold signet
ring, a bronze candlestick embellished with a statuette of a man wearing the Persian style
clothing (conceivably a scepter depicting a Magus), pilgrim flasks, and perfume bottles.
(Stein 2014: 279). On the opposite side, across the Euphrates River, Gritille, which is now
flooded, was a significant way station along the Urfa-Malatya road during later periods
(Redford 1986: 106-108). Therefore, in all probability, Lidar Höyük, which was a larger
twin settlement at this crossing point, could have been situated along a road existing in
earlier period.

Tille Höyük
Location: 50 km north of Samsat in the province of Adıyaman at the west bank of
the Euphrates River (Blaylock 2009: 1).
Periods occupied: From the Late Bronze Age to the 13th century AD (ibid. 17).
The Iron Age period, which was composed of 10 layers, was a prolonged period of
settlement occupation at Tille Höyük (now flooded). This was a significant settlement
88 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

Fig. 22. Tille Höyük, block

plan of level 10
(Blaylock 2009: 182).

Fig. 23. Tille Höyük, drawings

of Achaemenid bowls from
level 10 (Blaylock 1999: 286).

during the Middle Iron Age when the Neo Hittite Kingdom of Kummuh was incorpora-
ted to the Neo-Assyrian Empire based on the discovered reliefs (Blaylock 1999: 264). The
palatial construction and courtyard dating to the Neo-Assyrian period must have been
rehabilitated at later times (Blaylock 2009: 23-35). The Achaemenid period settlement was
identified on the basis of the presence of a structure, which finds close parallel in Persepo-
lis (French 1986: 205) (Fig. 22), but also with the help of Achaemenid bowls and jars
(Fig. 23) (Blaylock 1999: 271, 286).

Ziyaret Tepe
Location: 60 km east of Diyarbakir at the south bank of the Tigris River (Matney and
Bauer 2000: 120).
Periods occupied: From the Late Bronze Age to the Islamic period (Matney et al. 2007: 301).
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 89

The mound is strategically situated in a fertile area that controls the east-west traffic
on the Tigris River. Based on historical geography and details provided in Assyrian annals,
Ziyaret Tepe was equated with Tushan, which was an Assyrian fortress that guarded the
borderline of the empire near the Tigris River during the late second and first millennia
BC (Matney and Bauer 2000: 121). The results of the excavations demonstrated the
significance of the site all through Neo-Assyrian period. A remarkable administrative
construction with wide-spreading courtyards and a gate, large pithoi, perhaps attesting to
additional storage in the area, and contemporary tablets for administrative accounts,
which mainly belonged to the late 7th century BC, have been revealed during the exca-
vations.
The segments of cobbled roads have been identified at the lower town by geophysical
investigation (Yıldırım and Gates 2007: 302). The third layer of the citadel mound (pit
level) was defined as “Post-Assyrian” due to the existence of Triangle Ware pottery repre-
sented with handled jars, and painted or undecorated inverted rim bowls. The pottery
dates to the same period with the drainage channels and a structure with two rooms con-
taining tandoors (Matney et al. 2007: 43). As the excavations revealed that Ziyaret Tepe
was one of the important Middle and Neo-Assyrian border military and administrative
centers on the bank of the Tigris River between Diyarbakır and Batman, it is possible
to claim that the route, which was extended there, was also being used during the “Post-
Assyrian” period by the Achaemenids.

Hirbemerdon Tepe
Location: 40 km east of Bismil in the Ilısu Dam area at the west bank of the Tigris
River.
Periods occupied: From the Late Chalcolithic to the Ottoman period (Laneri 2016: 11).
The late third millennium BC to the Middle Iron Age levels consisted of pottery
examples corresponding to those known from northern Mesopotamia and the Khabur
valley in Syria, showing signs of increasing trans-regional linkages between Mesopotamia
and other political entities of the upper Tigris River region (Laneri 2004: 65-67). Assyr-
ian annals have recorded that Shamshi-Adad’s sons had traversed towards north to cross
the Tur ‘Abdin Mountains in the second millennium BC (Laneri et al. 2009: 215).
Moreover, with the intention of oppressing local powers and creating a new political
legacy, several Assyrian kings launched campaigns towards the land of Nairi near the
upper Tigris River all through the first millennium BC (ibid. 216).
The fifth layer, which was occupied during 600-300 BC, has been ascribed to the
Late Iron Age. This phase follows the succeeding Late Assyrian level and precedes the
Hellenistic layers. The archaeological remains uncovered from numerous pits consist of
sherds belonging to Triangle Ware pottery in the forms of storage jars, and many examples
of craniate bowls similar to those found at Ziyaret Tepe were found (Laneri 2016: 103-104).
The excavator calls this level “Post-Assyrian” and places it under the period of Achaemenid
hegemony (ibid. 105). Therefore, Hirbemerdon Tepe can be assumed to be the next
sequential transit settlement on the route during the Achaemenid period along the west
bank of the Tigris River.
90 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Utilizing the map of Turkey and online database of remote sensing data, an epitome
of geographical characteristics of 26 successive Achaemenid settlements and approximate
distances that were created is given in table 1. The locations of the successive settlements
currently recorded within the study as fortified or residencies are plotted on the map to
predict the course of the Achaemenid Royal Road (Fig. 3). The fortified nature of recorded
long-life settlements invigorates their strategic roles along a linear sequential way.
Analysis through study reveals two settlements pertaining to the vicinity of tumuli, Lale
Tepe and the tumuli at Uşak-Güre, which may be the residences of Achaemenid period
high rank occupants. Moreover, the settlement associated with Gökçeler tumulus might
have served as the domicile of the settlor for the isolated watchtower of Şahankaya over
the mountainous way.
Among evidence supporting the existence of a thoroughfare are six discernible sections
of cobbled road discovered at Daskylion, Gordion, Büklükale, Oluz Höyük, Tatarlı
Höyük, and Ziyaret Tepe, which we identified as possible parts of the “Royal Road”.
Whereas cobbled paths would seem to lead down inside the settlements, unpaved sections
of the “Royal Road” move along the intervals.
The only single period settlement, Tilkigediği Tepe, accompanied by Çeşka Kale and
Sümerin Sivri Hisar represent a regional integrated system of defense along the “Royal
Road”. Fortified sites revealing the Achaemenid presence are Daskylion, Sardis, Seyitömer
Höyük, Gordion, Uşaklı Höyük, Tilkigediği Tepe, Çadır Höyük, Zeyve Höyük, Tatarlı
Höyük, Zincirli Höyük, Dülük Baba Tepesi, Ziyaret Tepe, and Küllük Tepe.
A more detailed description in this paper represents that the “Royal Road” presumably
started from Daskylion, which was a pivotal administrative terminus at the northwest
corner of Anatolia. The road continues towards Şahankaya and Lale Tepe in the Aegean
region, and passes Sardis, which was the satrapal center of Lydia. Then it turns its course
to the northeast towards the tumuli at Uşak-Güre and Seyitomer Höyük, in which the
presence of a royal station is assumed.
However, addressing many Achaemenid material remains from Gordion, the satrapal
center of Phrygia, the “Royal Road” must have continued towards Büklükale, where the
military outpost mentioned by Herodotus is proposed to have existed at a location near
the Halys River crossing. The road then bends northwards towards Oluz Höyük, which is
equated with Critalla, and provides communication with the most distant regions. Stret-
ches of the “Royal Road” across the Uşaklı Höyük, Çadır Höyük, Kınık Höyük, Zeyve
Höyük, Tatarlı Höyük, Zincirli Höyük, and Dülük Baba Tepesi seem to be coincident
with major earlier routes. The road reaches Şaraga Höyük, which was an Achaemenid
settlement at the last point before crossing the Euphrates River, after it proceeds on a west-
east axis through the Cilician plain, intervening sites such as Yeşil Höyük, Ada Tepe 2,
and Sirkeli.
From Şaraga Höyük onwards, the course of the “Royal Road”, more or less follows the
alignment of the Euphrates River, passing through Mezraa Teleilat, Sur Tepe, Tilbeş
Höyük, Küllük Tepe, Lidar Höyük, and Tille Höyük. It must have been practicable in the
Achaemenid period to stay on the eastern side of the Euphrates to avoid excess crossing
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 91

but recent reservoirs have changed the face of the region which makes it harder to make an
assumption. Thence, the road connects the settlements of Ziyaret Tepe and Hirbemerdon
Tepe at the south bank of the upper Tigris River, which were border defensive sites during
the preceding Assyrian period. It could be reasonably assumed that for the rest of the route,
the Achaemenid Royal Road continued along the west bank of the Tigris River, following
the line of the earlier Assyrian roads going into Mesopotamia.
It seems that the proposed direction of the road staring from the Aegean region and
going east to the central plateau, the Black Sea basin, the Mediterranean region, and
southeastern Anatolia reinforces the idea of the existence of a second alternative route for
the northern route hypothesis. The result of the calculations suggests that the journey from
Daskylion to Hirbemerdon has a length of some 2,451 kilometers and shows that the road
may not be the shortest or the easiest path as what frequently invoked in history, but cover
progressively a more extensive area, providing easier access. However, accurate historical
comparison of distances not only demands clear implication of ‘parasang’, which would
require considering an additional distance between Daskylion and Sardis, but is also
beyond purview of this article.
The Achaemenid Royal Road facilitated several crucial aspects of Achaemenid imperial
governance, including communication, trade, and military movement. Archaeological
materials and certain documents like the Persepolis Fortification tablets sometimes contain
information about these functions. However, although this study mainly focuses on the
course of the “Royal Road”, it should be added that archaeological findings from a few
settlements including Daskylion, Gordion, and Çadır Höyük provide evidence of trade,
whereas some sites like Daskylion, Şahankaya, Sardis, Seyitömer Höyük, Gordion, Zeyve
Höyük, Dülük Baba Tepesi, Sur Tepe, and Lidar Höyük indicate that the function of the
“Royal Road” were of the widest in administrative activities. Sites including Daskylion,
Şahankaya, Gordion, Büklükale, Oluz Höyük, and Tilkigediği Tepe reveal that the func-
tion of the road was wide also in martial matters.

Fig. 24. Map of the proposed course of the Achaemenid Royal Road (authors).
 92 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

Table 1. Geographical characteristics of the settlements (authors).

Distance Geographical Coordinates

(A: Starting point, B: Destination) Region Province
(km) (UTM)
A: Daskylion 40.135116 N 28.065633 E Marmara Bursa
186
B: Şahankaya
A: Şahankaya 38.855437 N 28.087024 E Aegean Manisa
59
B: Lale Tepe
A: Lale Tepe 38.516085 N 27.937738 E Aegean Manisa
11
B: Sardis
A: Sardis 38.493592 N 28.044204 E Aegean Manisa
109
B: Uşak-Güre tumuli
A: Uşak-Güre tumuli 38.649374 N 29.153080 E Central Anatolia Uşak
152
B: Seyitomer Höyük
A: Seyitomer Höyük 39.617720 N 29.884972E Central Anatolia Kutahya
220
B: Gordion
A: Gordion 39.653575 N 31.995578 E Central Anatolia Ankara
148
B: Büklükale
A: Büklükale 39.587705 E 33.428178 E Central Anatolia Kırıkkale
251
B: Oluz Höyük
A: Oluz Höyük 40.556092 N 35.598585 E Black Sea Amasya
164
B: Uşaklı Höyük (via Çeşka Kale)
A: Uşaklı Höyük 39.800885 N 35.027722 E Central Anatolia Yozgat
18
B: Tilkigediği Tepe
A: Tilkigediği Tepe 39.762315 N 35.108168 E Central Anatolia Yozgat
10
B: Çadır Höyük
A: Çadır Höyük 39.690903 N 35.141081 E Central Anatolia Yozgat
B: Kinik Höyük 230
(via Sümerin Sivri Hisar, Göz Baba)
A: Kınık Höyük 37.997944 N 34.371146 E Central Anatolia Niğde
68
B: Zeyve Höyük
A: Zeyve Höyük 37.533469 N 34.565466 E Mediterranean Niğde
B: Tatarlı Höyük 200
(via Yeşil Höyük, Sirkeli, Ada Tepe 2)
A: Tatarlı Höyük 37.124368 N 36.052726 E Mediterranean Adana
90
B: Zincirli Höyük
A: Zincirli Höyük 37.103336 N 36.682377 E Southeastern Anatolia Gaziantep
73
B: Dülük Baba Tepesi
A: Dülük Baba Tepesi 37.162577 N 37.357958 E Southeastern Anatolia Gaziantep
79
B: Şaraga Höyük
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 93

Distance Geographical Coordinates

(A: Starting point, B: Destination) Region Province
(km) (UTM)
A: Şaraga Höyük 36.919509 N 38.001012 E Southeastern Anatolia Gaziantep
12
B: Mezraa Teleilat
A: Mezraa Teleilat 36.984404 N 37.982747 E Southeastern Anatolia Şanlıurfa
11
B: Sur Tepe
A: Sur Tepe 37.055323 N 37.948186 E Southeastern Anatolia Şanlıurfa
10
B: Tilbeş Höyük
A: Tilbeş Höyük 37.100458 N 37.895209 E Southeastern Anatolia Şanlıurfa
68
B: Küllük Tepe
A: Küllük Tepe 37.466363 N 38.411831 E Southeastern Anatolia Şanlıurfa
23
B: Lidar Höyük
A: Lidar Höyük 37.591030 N 38.566616 E Southeastern Anatolia Adıyaman
54
B: Tille Höyük
A: Tille Höyük 37.719324 N 38.921269 E Southeastern Anatolia Adıyaman
179
B: Ziyaret Tepe
A: Ziyaret Tepe 37.801527 N 40.794194 E Southeastern Anatolia Diyarbakır
26
B: Hirbemerdon Tepe 37.773988 N 41.015658 E Southeastern Anatolia Diyarbakır
2451

CONCLUSIONS

The current study is concerned with the delineation of the course of the relevant part
of the Achaemenid Royal Road located in Anatolia. Exploration of ancient roads, if some-
times perplexing, provides an integrated perspective for spatial patterns of movement
which could emerge consequential contacts amongst people. The Achaemenid Royal Road,
which is described as a major line of communication between crucial cores, could conceiv-
ably pass through those places which had been occupied earlier, and later by the Achae-
menid occupants during 550-330 B.C. In Anatolia, most of these sites experienced high
degrees of settlement continuity; hence it is feasible to assume that also the path of the
main road connecting them may have remained relatively stable. Therefore, in the light of
the Achaemenid archaeological evidence, historical texts, and geographical constraints,
invaluable information can be gleaned to build a linear sequential model of settlements.
The archaeological evidence would seem to suggest that the presence of Achaemenid
bowls, Achaemenid style seals and impressions, architectural constructions and small mon-
uments that are attributed to Achaemenids can be used to identify Achaemenid presence
at fortified settlements or at peripheral zones around tumuli. On the basis of our present
work, it is clear that archaeological sites include one stronghold, 2 tumuli, and 23 settle-
ments, which in 6 of them sections of the road were discovered.
94 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

The Achaemenid Royal Road, which was the main artery of a network that traversed
along the mentioned sites, permeated the empire not only to serve the royal dispatches and
used for the movement of the royal troops, but also for trade. As the research has demon-
strated the Achaemenid Royal Road, which at one time was one of the longest roads
connecting the Achaemenid territories, overlaid former roads such as the ones built by the
Assyrians and Hittites in Anatolia and inspired later Roman roads.
To conclude, as the proposed course of the “Royal Road” relatively corresponds to the
“northern hypothesis”, it commences from the center of the north-westernmost satrapy in
Anatolia, namely Daskylion.
The importance of this study is that the delineation of the proposed course for the
“Royal Road” has a focus of arrangement based on the locations of Achaemenid settle-
ments in Anatolia for the first time. Moreover, Daskylion has been introduced as a pivotal
terminal along the Achaemenid Royal Road. Admittedly, further excavations will bring
new evidence; but the locations of a succession of excavated settlements make it feasible
to reassess the picture of the course of this thoroughfare. However, delineation of the
extension of the “Royal Road”, which is not discussed in this paper, should also be prof-
fered for further studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABE, T.
2012 Dascylium: An Overview of the Achaemenid Satrapal City. The Kyoto Journal of
Ancient History 12: 1-17.
AKBIYIKOĞLU, K.
1991 Güre Basmacı Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazısı. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 1:
1-23.
ARRIAN ANAB.
Arrian. The Anabasis of Alexander. Transl. E.I. Robson, 1967. London: William
Heinemann.
ASKARI CHAVERDI, A., A. KHOSROWZADEH, B. MCCALL, A.P. CAMERON, T.D. POTTS, K. ROUSTAEI, M.
SEYEDIN, L. WEEKS and M. ZAIDI
2010 Archaeological Evidence for Achaemenid Settlement within the Mamasani Valleys,
Western Fars, Iran. In: J. Curtis and S.J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid
Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London:
I.B. Tauris, 287-297.
BAKIR, T.
1995 Archäologische Beobachtungen über die Residenz in Daskyleion. Pallas 43: 269-285.
2003 Daskyleion (Tyaiy Drayaha) Hellespontine Phrygia Bölgesi Akhaemenid Satraplığı.
Anadolu/Anatolia 25: 1-26.
BAUGHAN, E.P.
2008 Persian Riders in Lydia? The Painted Frieze of the Aktepe Tomb Kline. In: Proceed-
ings of the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology: 24-36.
BEIKZADEH, S. and F. IRAVANI GHADIM
2017 Achaemenid Architecture in South Caucasus and the Black Sea Cultural Basin.
TÜBA-AR 20: 129-145.
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 95

BEYER, D., I. CHALIER, F. LAROCHE-TRAUNECKER and S. LEBRETON

2006 Zeyve Höyük (Porsuk): Rapport sommaire sur la campagne de fouilles de 2005.
Anatolia Antiqua 14: 205-244.
BEYER, D.
2010 Zeyve Höyük-Porsuk: bilan des recherches sur les niveaux du Bronze et du Fer. In:
O. Henry (ed.), Premières Rencontres d’Archéologie de l’Institut Français d’Études
Anatoliennes – Archéologies et espaces parcourus. Istanbul: Institut Français
d’Études Anatoliennes Georges Dumézil, 45-56.
BEYER, D., F. LAROCHE-TRAUNECKER, J. PATRIER and A. TIBET
2013 Zeyve Höyük (Porsuk): Rapport préliminaire sur la campagne 2012. Anatolia
Antiqua 21: 201-234.
BILGEN, A.N., G. COŞKUN and Z. BILGEN
2009 Seyitömer Höyüğü 2008 Yılı Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31(1): 341-354.
BIRMINGHAM, J.M.
1961 The Overland Routes across Anatolia in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B.C.
Anatolian Studies 11: 185-195.
BLAYLOCK, R.S.
1999 Iron Age Pottery from Tille Höyük, South-Eastern Turkey. In: A. Hausleiter and
A. Reiche (eds.), Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, North Syria and
South-Eastern Anatolia. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 263-286.
2009 Tille Höyük 3.1: The Iron Age. Introduction, Stratification and Architecture.
London: British Institute at Ankara.
BLOMER, M. and E. WINTER
2006 Der Dülük Baba Tepesi bei Dolich und das Heiligtum des Iupiter Dolichenus 2.
Vorbericht (2004-2005). Istanbul Mitteilungen 56: 185-205.
2013 2011 Yılında Gaziantep’teki Dülük Baba Tepesi’nde Kazı Çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 34(3): 361-368.
BRIAN ROSE, C.
2013 The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BRIANT, P. and R. BOUCHARLAT
2013 L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide: nouvelles recherches. In: E. Sangari and
A. Vahdati (eds.), Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par le Réseau
international d’études de recherches achéménides, 21-22 novembre 2003. Tehran:
Parseh. (in Persian)
CALDER, W.M.
1925 The Royal Road in Herodotus. The Classical Review 39(1/2): 7-11.
CASABONNE, O.
2007 Remarques à propos d’une empreinte achéménide de Zeyve Höyük-Porsuk
(Cappadoce Meridionale). Anatolia Antiqua 15: 67-70.
COŞKUN, G.
2005 Daskyleion’da Orta Akhaemenid Dönem. PhD dissertation, Izmir University.
2006 Daskyleion’dan Bir Akhaimenid Kase. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 122: 51-62.
2011 Achaemenid Bowls from Seyitomer Höyük. OLBA 19: 57-81.
DEBORD, P.
1995 Les routes royales en Asie Mineure occidentale. Pallas 43: 89-97.
DI CERBO, C. and R. JASNOW
1996 Five Persian Period Demotic and Hieroglyphic Graffiti from the Site of Apa Tyrannos
at Armant. Enchoria 23: 32-38.
96 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

DILLEMANN, L.
1962 Haute Mésopotamie orientale et pays adjacents: contribution à la géographie histo-
rique de la région, du Ve s. avant l’ère chrétienne au VIe s. de cette ère. Paris:
Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner.
DÖNMEZ, Ş.
2007 The Achaemenid Impact of the Central Black Sea Region. In: I. Delemen (ed.),
The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth-
Fourth Centuries B.C.). Istanbul: Turkish Institute of Archaeology, 107-116.
2013 Oluz Höyük: Preliminary Results for the Hellenistic Period and Iron Age Layers.
In: G.R. Tsetskhladze, S. Atasoy, A. Avram, Ş. Dönmez and J. Hargrave (eds.),
The Bosporus: Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium B.C.-
5th Century A.D). Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Black Sea
Antiquities. Oxford: Archaeopress, 363-371.
2014 Oluz Höyük: A Multicultural Settlement in Pontic Cappadocia. In: F. Özdem (ed.),
M. Çakmak (transl.), Amasya: Maid of the Mountains. Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayın-
ları, 51-71.
DÖNMEZ, Ş. and A. YURTSEVER BEYAZIT
2013 Oluz Höyük Kazısı Altinci Dönem (2012) Çalışmaları: Değerlendirmeler ve
Sonuçlar. Colloquium Anatolicum 12: 165-192.
2014 Oluz Höyük Kazısı Yedinci Dönem (2013) Çalışmaları: Değerlendirmeler ve
Sonuçları. Colloqium Anatolicum 13: 103-131.
DUSINBERRE, E.R.M.
1999 Satrapal Sardis: Achaemenid Bowls in an Achaemenid Capital. American Journal of
Archaeology 103(1): 73-102.
2003 Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2010 Anatolian Crossroads: Achaemenid Seals from Sardis and Gordion. In: J. Curtis and
S.J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in
Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I.B. Tauris, 323-335.
2013 Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in Achaemenid Anatolia. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
FOSS, C.
1975 A Bullet of Tissaphernes. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 95: 25-30.
FRENCH, D.H.
1986 Tille. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 8(1): 205-212.
FRENCH, D.
1998 Pre-and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor: The Persian Royal Road. Iran 36:
15-43.
FUENSANTA, J.G. and A. MISIR
1998 Excavations at Tilbeş Höyük: The 1996 Season. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 19(1):
227-244.
FUENSANTA, J.G., M.S. ROTMAN and E. BUCAK
1999 Salvage Excavations at Tilbeş Höyük (Birecik, Urfa), 1998. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
21(1): 157-166.
FUENSANTA, J.G. and E.A. CRIVELLI
2010 Late Iron Age “Post-Assyrians” and Persians in Turkish Euphrates: An Archaeo-
logical or “Historical” Approach? In: P. Matthiae et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the
6th International Congress on the Archaeology of Ancient Near East, Vol. 1. Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 65-77.
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 97

GARSTANG, J.
1943 Hittite Military Roads in Asia Minor: A Study in Imperial Strategy with a Map.
American Journal of Archaeology 47(1): 35-62.
GIRGINER, K.S. and M. CEVHER
2014 A new Excavation at Kizzuwatna: Tatarlı Höyük (Adana/Turkey). In: Z. Eres and
B. Ar (eds.), 20th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists.
Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications, 38.
GIRGINER, K.S., Ö.O. GIRGINER, H. AKIL, M. CEVHER, I. AKLAN and M.C. FIRAT
2014 2013 Yılı Tatarlı Höyük Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 36(2): 431-446.
GORNY, R.L.
1995 The Alişar Regional Project (1993-1994). The Biblical Archaeologist 58(1): 52-54.
GORNY, R.L., G. MCMAHON, S. PALEY, S.R. STEADMAN and B. VERHAREN
2002 The 2000 and 2001 Seasons at Çadır Höyük in Central Turkey: A Preliminary
Report. Anatolica 28: 109-136.
GORNY, R.L.
2004 Alişar Regional Project: Excavation at Çadır Höyük. The Oriental Institute 2003-
2004 Annual Report. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
13-24.
2007 Çadır Höyük. The Oriental Institute 2006-2007 Annual Report. Chicago: The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 18-33.
GRAF, D.F.
1994 The Persian Royal Road System. In: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt and
M.C. Root (eds.), Continuity and Change, proceedings of the last Achaemenid
History Workshop (Achaemenid History VIII). Leiden: The Netherlands Institute
for the Near East, 167-189.
GREAVES, A.M. and B. HELWING
2003 Archaeology in Turkey: The Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, 2000. American Journal
of Archaeology 107(1): 71-103.
HANFMANN, G.M.A.
1966 The New Stelae from Daskylion. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
184: 10-13.
HDT.
Herodotus. The Histories. Transl. R. Waterfield, 2008. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
HOGARTH, D.G.
1895 The Royal Road from Susa to Sardis. In: R.W. Macan (ed.), Herodotus – the
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books, Vol. 2. London: Macmillan, 299-301.
İREN, K.
2010 A New Discovery in Dascylium: the Persian Destruction Layer. In: P. Matthiae
et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 249-263.
JOHNSON, P.
2010 Landscapes of Achaemenid Paphlagonia. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsyl-
vania.
KAPTAN, D.
2005 Clay Tags from Seyitömer Höyük in Phrygia. In: J. Curtis and S.J. Simpson (eds.),
The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient
Near East. London: I.B. Tauris, 361-368.
98 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

2007 A Channel of Communication: Seals in Anatolia during the Achaemenid Period.

In: I. Delemen (ed.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures
in Anatolia (Sixth-Fourth Centuries B.C.). Istanbul: Turkish Institute of Archaeo-
logy, 275-291.
KARUL, N., A. AYHAN, and M. ÖZDOĞAN
2001 2000 Yılı Mezraa – Teleilat Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 23(2): 63-74.
2002 2001 Yılı Mezraa – Teleilat Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 24(1): 159-170.
KEALHOFER, L.
2005 The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
KIEPERT, H.
1857 Über die Persische Konigstrasse durch Vorderasien nach Herodotos. Monatsberichte
der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: 123-140.
LANDLE, O.
1987 Herodot 5.52/53 über die “Persische Königstrasse”. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die
Altertumswissenschaft 13: 25-36.
LANERI, N.
2004 Hirbemerdon Tepe 2003: A Preliminary Report. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26(2):
63-72.
2016 Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project 2003-2013 Final Report: Chronology
and Material Culture. Bologna: Bradypus.
LANERI, N., M. SCHWARTZ, S. VALENTINI, A. D’AGOSTINO and S. NANNUCCI
2009 The Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project: The First Five Seasons of Archae-
ological Work at a Site in the Upper Tigris River Valley, Southeastern Turkey.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies 46: 212-276.
LAURICELLA, A.J., S. OFFUTT and T.E. ŞERIFOĞLU
2019 Landscape Heritage at Çadır Höyük: From Cartography to Digital Imagery. Journal
of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 7(3): 368-378.
MALEKZADE, F.
1971 A Fire Altar of the Median and Achaemenid Periods at Cappadocia (Asia Minor).
Historical Reviews 31: 1-32. (in Persian)
MATNEY, T. and A. BAUER
2000 The Third Season of Archaeological Survey at Ziyaret Tepe, Diyarbakır Province,
Turkey, 1999. Anatolica 26: 119-128.
MATNEY, T., L. RAINVILLE, K. KÖROĞLU, A. KESKIN, T. VORDERSTRASSE, N. ÖZKUL FINDIK and
A. DONKIN
2007 Report on Excavation at Ziyaret Tepe, 2006 Season. Anatolica 33: 23-74.
MATSUMURA, K.
2010 Büklükale Kazısı 2009. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32(4): 411-420.
2016 Excavations of 2009-2014 at Büklükale. Kırşehir Arkeolojik ve Paleoantropolojik
Çalışmalar: 55-85.
MAZZONI, S., A. D’AOSTINO and V. ORSI
2010 Survey of the Archaeological Landscape of Uşaklı/Kuşaklı Höyük (Yozgat). Anatolica
36: 111-163.
2011 Uşaklı 2010 Survey Season (Yozgat). Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 29(2): 317-
469.
MCKECHNIE, P.R. and S.R. KERN
1988 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 99

MÜLLER, D.
1994 Von Kritalla nach Doriskos. Die Persische Königstrasse und der Marschweg des
Xerxesheeres in Kleinasien. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 44: 17-38.
MÜLLER, U.
1999 Die eisenzeitliche Stratigraphie von Lidar Hoyuk. Anatolian Studies 49: 123-131.
NICHOLS, A.
2008 The Complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus: Translation and Commentary with
an Introduction. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
NOVAK, M.
2017 A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia. Altorientalische Forschungen 44(2): 150-186.
ÖZDOĞAN, M., N. KARUL and A. AYHAN
2000 Mezraa – Teleilat 1999 Yılı Çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 22(1): 165-180.
ÖZDOĞAN, M., N. KARUL and E. ÖZDOĞAN
2004 Mezraa – Teleilat Höyügü 4. Dönem Çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 25(2):
235-244.
ÖZGEN, I. and J. ÖZTÜRK
1996 The Lydian Treasure: Heritage Recovered. Istanbul: Uǧur Okman for Republic of
Turkey, Ministry of Culture, General Directorate of Monuments and Museums.
RAMSAY, W.M.
1890 The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London: William Clowes and Sons.
1920 Military Operations on the North Front of Mount Taurus. Journal of Hellenic
Studies 40(1): 89-112.
REDFORD, S.
1986 Excavation at Gritille (1982-1984): The Medieval Period. A Preliminary Report.
Anatolian Studies 36: 103-136.
ROLL, I. and O. TAL
2008 The Route Network of Persian Period Palestine. In: K. Hartmut, R.M. Czichon
and F.J. Krepprier (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 219-227.
ROOSEVELT, C.H.
2006 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey: Determining
Lydian- and Persian-Period Settlement Patterns. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(1):
61-76.
2008 Lale Tepe: A Late Lydian Tumulus near Sardis 1. Introduction, Excavation and
Finds. In: N.D. Cahill (ed.), Love for Lydia: A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presen-
ted to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
SAGONA, C.
2004 Literary Tradition and Topographic Commentary. In: A. Sagona and C. Sagona
(eds.), Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, I: An Historical Geo-
graphy and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province (Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Supplement, 14). Louvain: Peeters, 25-96.
SERTOK, M.K., F. KULAKOĞLU and F.F. SQUADRONE
2004 Salvage Excavations at Şaraga Höyük. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26(2): 281-290.
SETON WILLIAMS, M.V.
1954 Cilician Survey. Anatolian Studies 4: 121-174.
SCHLOEN, D. and A.S. FINK
2009 Searching for Ancient Sam’al: New Excavations at Zincirli in Turkey. Near Eastern
Archaeology 72(4): 203-219.
100 M. SADEGHIPOUR AND F.I. GHADIM

SCHMITT, R.
1972 Die achäimenidische Satrapie “tayaiy drayahya”. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte
Geschichte 21(4): 522-527.
SHARP, R.N.
2009 The Inscriptions in Old Persian Cuneiform of the Achaemenian Emperors, Tehran:
Pazine. (in Persian)
STARR, F.S.
1963 The Persian Royal Road in Turkey. In: American Philosophical Society Yearbook:
629-632.
STEADMAN, S.R. and G. MCMAHON
2011 The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000-323 B.C.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
2015 The Archaeology of Anatolia: Recent Discoveries (2011-2014) Vol. 1, 2. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
STEADMAN, S.R., G. MCMAHON, J.C. ROSS, M. CASSIS, T.E. ŞERIFOĞLU, B S. ARBUCKLE,
S.E. ADCOCK, S. ALPASLAN ROODENBERG, M.V. BAEYER and A.J. LAURICELLA
2015 The 2013 and 2014 Excavation Seasons at Çadır Höyük on the North Central
Plateau. Anatolica 41: 87-123.
STEADMAN, S.R., T.E. ŞERIFOĞLU, G. MCMAHON, S. SELOVER, L.D. HACKLEY, B. YILDIRIM,
A.J. LAURICELLA, B.S. ARBUCKLE, S.E. ADCOCK, K. TARDIO, E. DINÇ and M. CASSIS
2017 Recent Discoveries (2015-2016) at Çadır Höyük on the North Central Plateau.
Anatolica 43: 203-250.
STEIN, G.J.
2014 Persians on the Euphrates? Material Culture and Identity in Two Achaemenid
Burials from Hacinebi, Southeast Turkey. In: C.E. Jones, C. Woods, M. Kozuh
and W.F.M. Henkelman (eds.), Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of
Matthew W. Stolper (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 68). Chicago: The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 265-287.
STRABO
The Geography of Strabo. Transl. H.L. Jones, 1924. London: Loeb Classical
Library.
SUMMERS, G.D.
2001 Keykavus Kale and Associated Remains on the Kerkenes Dağ in Cappadocia,
Central Anatolia. Anatolia Antiqua 9: 39-60.
SUMMERS, G.D., M.E.F. SUMMERS and K. AHMET
1995 The Regional Survey at Kerkenes Dağ: An Interim Report on the Seasons of 1993
and 1994. Anatolian Studies 45: 43-68.
SUMNER, W.M.
1986 Achaemenid Settlement in the Persepolis Plain. American Journal of Archaeology
90(1): 3-31.
TOTEVA, G.D.
2009 Phrygian Gordion in Achaemenid Context. In: Çiğdem Özkan Aygün (ed.), SOMA
2007: Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Istanbul
Technical University (BAR international series, 1900). Oxford: Archaeopress, 380-
386.
TUPLIN, C.J.
1997 Achaemenid Arithmetic: Numerical Problems in Persian History. In: Topoi. Orient-
Occident. Supplément 1. Recherches récentes sur l’Empire achéménide: 365-421.
 THE COURSE OF THE ACHAEMENID ROYAL ROAD IN ANATOLIA 101

TÜLEK, F. and B. ÖĞÜT

2013 The Iron Age in East Plain Cilicia – A First Assessment of the Iron Age Pottery
from the Osmaniye Survey. TüBA-AR 16: 57-79.
WILKINSON, T.J.
1990 Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia, Vol. 1: Settlement and Land Use
at Kurban Höyük and Other Sites in the Lower Karababa Basin. Chicago: The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
WILKINSON, T J., J. UR, E.B. WILKINSON and M. ALTAWEEL
2005 Landscape and Settlement in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 340: 23-56.
WINFIELD, D.
1977 The Northern Routes Across Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 27: 151-166.
WRIGHT, H.T. and J.A. NEELY
2010 Elamite and Achaemenid Settlement on the Deh Luran Plain: Towns and Villages
of the Early Empires in Southwestern Iran (Memoirs of the Museum of Anthro-
pology, 47). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
XEN. AN.
Xenophon, The Anabasis. Transl. E. Spelman, 1839. New York: Harper and Brothers.
XEN. HELL.
Xenophon, Hellenica. Vol. 1, Books 1-4. Transl. C.L. Brownson, 1918. London:
Loeb Classical Library.
YILDIRIM, B. and M.H. GATES
2007 Archaeology in Turkey, 2004-2005. American Journal of Archaeology 111(2): 275-
356.
YOUNG, R.S.
1963 Gordion on the Royal Road. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107(4):
348-364.