This is the second publication of new fragments of Diogenes discovered by participants in the Oenoanda project of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Thirteen of the twenty-three fragments which came to light in 1974 have already been published (Smith H). The present work presents the remaining ten fragments (NF 55, 57, 66, 68, 70, 73, 81, 83, 92, 101) found in 1974, forty-four fragments discovered in 1975, and one fragment (NF 94) recorded in 1976. In 1975 we discovered three more fragments recorded in the nineteenth century (HK fr. 4, 23, 25) and a piece broken off the bottom of HK fr. 42.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge, with sincere gratitude, the debt which we owe to the Republic of Turkey for generously permitting us to continue our work at Oenoanda. We are extremely grateful to Bay Hikmet Gürçay and his colleagues in the Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüǧü for their help in securing the renewal of our permit and for their kind interest in our work. We also thank Bay Salih Kütük, Director of the Fethiye Museum, and the local officials in Muǧla, Fethiye, and Seki for their courteous attention and assistance.

The Museum of Yalvaç contains a large and important collection of Greek and Latin inscriptions, mostly from the adjacent colony of Pisidian Antioch, but including a number from other sites in the region. Among the latter is an important text from the reign of Trajan, which has claimed some attention in the scholarly literature although it has never been fully published. Since it presents some points of difficulty, and contains matters of interest which have not hitherto been discussed, it seems worthwhile to do so now.

The inscription was found at the village of Fele, now called Yassıbel, south of the town of Şarkıkaraağaç in what was once the Cillanian plain, and was brought to the museum in 1966. It is carved on a large rectangular block of yellow/white limestone; Ht. 0·62; width 2·31; depth 0·20. The text is engraved inside an elongated tabula ansata, and the letters measure 0·11 (1. 1), 0·07 (1. 2), 0·06 (1. 3), 0·055 (1. 4), 0·05 (1. 5). The stone has been broken into three pieces but is complete, and except at one point in 1. 4 there is no doubt about the reading. The museum inventory number is A.445.

The rich metal deposits of Anatolia have been, for archaeologists and historians, a matter of much confusion. Small wonder, when we discover that the reporting of the basic geological data through the years has been altered, interpreted and reinterpreted to the extent that the picture no longer resembles its original form. Particularly lacking in the archaeological literature on Anatolian metal resources is an up-to-date account of the metalliferous deposits available in antiquity. Although a number of attempts have been made to give an over-all view of Anatolia's ore deposits, much of the potentially useful data is published in geological journals which, unfortunately, have been routinely ignored for their archaeological importance.

The recent article in this journal by J. Yakar is another of the attempts to interpret the movements of Anatolian peoples with respect to the natural resources of the land, in this case metal resources. However, Yakar's article draws on much out-dated information, and he is a victim of the often rash convictions of Forbes. As a corrective, let us focus on the basic geological data. Yakar suggests that the metal resources of the West and Southwest were the main impetus behind Hittite involvement in the region.

The great bilingual of Karatepe is one of the best understood inscriptions in Hieroglyphic Luwian, though not all problems have yet been solved. On the one hand some readings remain uncertain, since no full set of photographs is available, and on the other hand the grammatical and semantic interpretation is not always clear in spite of the help provided by the Phoenician version. In this paper we propose to tackle some of the problems still open, taking as a starting point the text and interpretation published by Piero Meriggi in his Manuale (II/1, 69 ff.), which at present offers the most complete and up-to-date version of the inscription.

In transliterating we adopt the values listed in Anatolian Studies XXV (1975), 153–5, which we also used in our transliteration and discussion of the last part of KARATEPE (JRAS 1975/2, 124 ff.). We here use the same section and word numbering as in the latter contribution.

The evidence of Minoan and Mycenaean trade with and settlement in Anatolia has never been comprehensively studied. Bittel (1967:5–23), Buchholz (1974:365–8), Cook and Blackman (1959–60:39–50, 1964–5:44–55, 1970–1:39–53), D. French (1969:73–4), Hiller (1975:406–11), Hope Simpson and Lazenby (1973:174–9), Lloyd and Mellaart (1955:81–3), Mellaart (1968:187–90) and Stubbings (1951:22–4 and 88–9) have discussed some of the sites involved but not in depth. Obviously it is only by considering the evidence as a whole that a definitive assessment is possible, so that a further study is not superfluous.

Problems arising from the decipherment of the Boğazköy/Hattusas archives are not considered but I would hope that this study might nevertheless assist those concerned with the political geography of Anatolia in the second millennium.

Wheat, barley and peas, traditional grain-crops of the Western World are, by now, well known to have originated in the Near East. It was the cultivation of the wild ancestors of these crops, beginning soon after the end of the last European Ice Age, that eventually led to an utterly new way of life for most of the population of Europe and Western Asia, a new Neolithic culture based on food production and complete with appropriately adapted tool assemblages and relatively permanent living structures. Soon, from different parts of the Near East, this new pattern of subsistence based on wheats, barleys and pulse crops spread in all directions. One direction led up the Balkan Peninsula and into Central and, eventually, Northern Europe where the Near Eastern, Neolithic, cereal-pulse culture spawned temperate-adapted versions of just the same patterns of subsistence.

Rye, however, has played no part in this story as told to date, this despite the fact that, as Europeans, we automatically associate rye with wheat and barley, the two other providers of our ‘daily bread’.

This short note is here presented as an illustration not only of the material which will be published in the final volumes but also of the aims and methods of the R.E.C.A.M. work.

Four inscriptions form the core of this article. Two are from the area of Ladik (now renamed Halicı), the ancient Laodiceia Combusta; both are unpublished. The remaining two are from Sinop, the ancient Sinope; one has been published previously, the other is a new, unpublished fragment of a known inscription. The full text of these two Sinop documents can now be significantly revised. Of the two Ladik inscriptions, one was seen in the course of my researches on the milestones of Asia Minor (CIL XVII fasc. 5); the other came to light amongst the papers left to the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara by Professor W. M. Calder.

I am grateful to the Ministry of Culture, General-Directorate of Antiquities and Museums for permission to publish this material.