On my first visit to Turkey, in 1955, I was kindly allowed to copy and photograph a number of dedications to the god Mên which are now housed in the Classical Museum, Konya ; they would have been brought from the hieron on Kara Kuyu hill, just outside the colony of Pisidian Antioch, probably after the excavations conducted by Sir W. M. Ramsay in 1912. (In his article “Studies in the Roman Province Galatia, II : Dedications at the Sanctuary of Colonia Caesarea”, JRS. VIII (1918), 107 ff., he refers by number to a list of inscriptions which he seems never to have published.) Eleven of these stones, with three uninscribed monuments, have since been published by Mr. E. N. Lane in the first part of his work on “A Re-study of the God Men”, Berytus XV (1964), 36 ff. Mr. Lane writes : “It [the unpublished material] was all found ostensibly in the course of the excavations which D. M. Robinson carried out in 1924 on the site of the forum of Antioch”.

The three inscriptions published here were all shown to me on 7th August, 1969, in the course of a brief visit to the village of Ayasören, near Kula, Turkey. To my knowledge, all three are previously unpublished.

1. A grave-stele now built into the pavement of the courtyard behind the house of Mustafa Koyuncu, on the right of the road that leads out of the village in the direction opposite that of the road from Kula (Plate VIa).

Dimensions: height, 1·22 m.; width at bottom, 0·47 m.; letters, 0·025 m.; thickness undeterminable.

Since the stone is now in a position where it is constantly being walked on, the letters are faint, and it was necessary to rub them with charcoal and then splash water on the surface in order to get a photograph.

The pediment of the stele bears a circular decoration in the centre, and a leaf-like decoration in each lower corner.

Although Beycesultan III; the Late Bronze Age is in the course of preparation, it would appear from a number of reviews of Beycesultan II, London, 1965, that some of our colleagues still maintain the erroneous view that Beycesultan was uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age. It is the purpose of this article to show that this view is not supported by the evidence; on the contrary Beycesultan has a rich and well stratified sequence of Late Bronze Age building-levels (III–IA), that run parallel to the Hittite New Kingdom deposits of Central Anatolia.

In the absence of epigraphic material or radiocarbon dates, the dating evidence from Beycesultan consists primarily of a stratified pottery sequence, for which occasional typological parallels can be found at other sites in Anatolia.

The state of Commagene, a hilly country of the upper Euphrates, bounded to the southeast by the river and to the northwest by high mountain ranges, was known earlier to the Assyrians by its name in the unhellenized form of Kummuh. It appears in their records as one of the Late Hittite states which resisted their westward expansion and were ultimately annexed by them. Due to its position as the Euphrates state between Meliddu (Malatya) and Carchemish, it must naturally have occupied an important position in any anti-Assyrian coalition. The Assyrians, however, seem to have been shy of launching a frontal assault upon it, preferring no doubt the easier terrain and river-crossings to the south, where at Carchemish the Euphrates emerges from the hills into the plain.

Assyrian records have left us the names of four kings of the land, Qatazilu ( = Shalmaneser III, years 1 and 2), Kundašpi ( = Shalmaneser III, year 6), Kuštašpi ( = Tiglath-pileser III, years 3, 6, 8, 14), and Mutallu ( = Sargon II, years 10 and 14). Of these, only one, Mutallu, is indisputably Hittite, while another is possibly so (Qatazilu; see below, p. 78 f.). The other two have a distinctly Iranian look about them, and are usually accepted as such.

This text is one of a number of first millennium compilations that reflect a certain philosophical and religious outlook of those times. The compilers sought to find evidence of current theology in the physical universe, which, viewed dispassionately, had only little relevant to show. Whereas “primitive” man had observed the forces of nature and had worshipped them with anthropomorphic attributes, more sophisticated man imagined signs of divine ordering where certainly none exist. This text is based on birdcalls. The sounds were interpreted as Babylonian phrases of mythological content, and the bird in question was thus “the bird of” the deity to whom the phrase applied. Of course one does not know if in fact the connexion of god and bird preceded or followed the interpretation of the call, and the answer need not be the same in every case.

The origins of agriculture and domestication have long been identified, in theory, with the beginning of permanent settlements; the beginning of the Early Neolithic Period is known, in fact, to be synchronous with the ending of the Last Ice Age. To some scholars, fact and theory have suggested that this synchronism implies a causal relationship between certain assumed climatic changes and the beginnings of food production; for others, this synchronism is not more than a misleading coincidence. It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss the validity of these assumptions except to indicate that opinion seems to be hardening that food production may have had a more complicated and lengthy history than these assumptions suggest. There has grown up over the last 25 years a considerable body of literature expressing the most varied opinion about the causes for the origins of food production, and its variety has not narrowed with the emergence of new evidence. In my opinion, the basis for the solution of this problem will be derived essentially from palaeoecological analyses of selected areas and regions in various parts of the world, and not only in the Near East. This paper is intended to open such a study for the region of south central Anatolia. As might be expected in an ecological study, the evidence derives from a number of disciplines, and, accordingly, several colleagues have contributed to the formulation of the suggested ecological pattern. That pattern itself, however, is the responsibility of the writer.

Mr. Cohen has proposed, above, the hypothesis that the formation, in the earliest Holocene, of the alluvial soils of the Konya basin, was an influential factor in the appearance of settlement-sites which may have played some role in the history of early domestication of plants and animals. In order that the hypothesis may be fully tested this article presents the basic evidence for a chronological analysis of the high concentration of mounds on or around the alluvial plain of Çumra by means of maps which combine distributions of ancient sites and modern soil conditions.

In AS. XIV, 1964, Michael Ballance published in “Derbe and Faustinopolis” not only the decisive evidence for the identification of Faustinopolis at Başmakçı but also a useful summary of the evidence for the Roman routes leading towards the Cilician Gates. In the same volume I published a prosopographical study of Aradius Paternus, a previously unknown governor of Cappadocia commemorated on a milestone of Severus Alexander (illustrated on Pl. XXIa) found at Soğukpınar, three miles south of the modern town of Pozantı. I present here the results of survey work done in the ilçe of Pozantı, in the summer of 1964, as part of a wider survey of Roman Cappadocia undertaken as Institute Scholar and with the benefit of a survey permit obtained for me by the General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums, Ankara.

This piece was shown in Ankara some years ago to the present writer, whose copy of it is reproduced overleaf. It contains most of what corresponds to lines 2–14 of column III of the best preserved text (Bo. 2019, KUB. XIII, 4, Sturtevant's A) of the instructions to priests and temple officials published, with supplements from six fragmentary duplicate pieces, by E. H. Sturtevant in JAOS. 54 (1934), 363–406 (at pp. 380–1, 402–3), and, with improvements but with omission of some fragmentary passages, by Sturtevant and G. Bechtel in A Hittite Chrestomathy (1935), 127–74 (at pp. 137, 156–7, 172); five more fragments have been published as KUB. XXXI, 92–5; XL, 63.

None of these eleven fragments contains the part of the instructions surviving on the present piece, though what appears to be a similar double vertical ruling at the right of the fragment Bo. 3914 (KUB. XXVI, 31, Sturtevant's F, belonging also to column III and beginning at a point a little after the point at which the text of the present piece ends) permits the suggestion that that fragment may have belonged to the same tablet as the present piece. But the condition in which Bo. 2019 itself has survived in the passage partly covered by the present new fragment leaves little room for completion or improvement of the text; most of the variants now offered, and listed below the following transliteration, are orthographic.