¹ The others were Bubon, Balbura, and Cibyra itself. See Figure 1, drawn by Mr Andrew Slade.

² Termessus Minor claimed to be a colony (ἄποικος) of Termessus Maior (Steph. Byz. p. 650), but by Roman times it appears to have been wholly united with Oenoanda. Both communities used the site of Oenoanda for their official dedications, although retaining a separate identity. For details, see Ruge's, W. excellent article, “Oinoanda” in P.W. (1937Google Scholar). R. Heberdey gives the wrong location for Termessus Minor in his P.W. article, “Termessus 3)”. It is correctly identified by Bean, G.E. in BSA 51 (1957), p. 142Google Scholar, and now in the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976), p. 897Google Scholar.

³ The modern Seki Çayı. The administrative centre is the bucak of Seki, which lies in the foothills at the eastern end of the valley.

⁴ Strabo, 13.4.17. For Murena, see Broughton's, T.R.SMagistrates of the Roman Republic, Vol. II. p. 61–2Google Scholar, with references to the ancient sources. On Oenoanda as a member of the Koinon, abundantly illustrated by its inscriptions, see Ruge's article.

⁵ See Figure 2, produced by Dr James Coulton of the University of Edinburgh, on the basis of the work by surveyors from the Department of Land Surveying, North-East London Polytechnic (N.E.L.P.)

⁶ For a clear account of nineteenth century work, see the article by Robert, L., “Un Oracle gravé à Oinoanda”, in C.R.A.I. (1972) p. 597–619 especially p. 597-601Google Scholar.

⁷ Travels in Lycia, Milyas, and the Cibyratis, (1847), Vol. 1, p. 273–275Google Scholar. The plan is reproduced as Plate 2 in Chilton's, C.W.Diogenes of Oenoanda. The Fragments (1971Google Scholar), and the account of their visit by Spratt and Forbes is given in his Introduction, p. xxx-xxxi. It is a matter for regret that the Austrian expeditions of 1895 and 1902 did not undertake a topographical survey with the same thoroughness which was directed to the discovery of more fragments of Diogenes' inscription, since subsequent discussion of the problems posed by the blocks on which the inscription is carved, and of the relationship between Diogenes' stoa and other public buildings, has been vitiated by the lack of a good town plan. Dubious reconstructions of the inscribed wall(s) from the known fragments, combined with unreliable calculations of the length of the original inscription, have underlain the efforts to see the Agora as the original site of the stoa, although not a single fragment has been found there.

⁸ The best general account of the inscription and of its author is given by Chilton (see note 7).

⁹ BSA 51 (1957), p. 142–3Google Scholar, “Notes and Inscriptions from Cibyratis and Caralitis”; Denkschrift Akad. Wien, philos.-hist. Klasse, Vol. 104 (1971Google Scholar) “Journeys in Northern Lycia 1965-1967”, p. 20-22.

¹⁰ A convenient bibliography of Smith's earlier published work is contained in his Thirteen New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda, Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris (Vienna 1974Google Scholar).

¹¹ “…38 new fragments bearing more than 1,200 words of text.” (Private communication).

¹² The 1974 party of surveyors from N.E.L.P. was led by Andrew Slade, and consisted of Maureen Healy, Graham Cooper, John Rowland and David Stephens. M.F. Smith and the Director dealt with epigraphical material. The Turkish Government's representative was Bay Osman Özbek of the Karaman Museum.

¹³ Illegal digging on the site in recent years has done some damage, and a number of monuments recorded in the past are now destroyed or partly concealed.

¹⁴ The surveyors in 1975, again from N.E.L.P., were Peter Hughes, David Howarth, Peter Ross and Martyn Swain. M.F. Smith and Professor Diskin Clay, of Haverford College, Pa., dealt with Diogenes material. Dr J.J. Coulton, of the University of Edinburgh, in addition to giving guidance to the surveyors, studied the architecture of the site. Bay Sirri Özenir, of the Diyarbakir Museum, represented the Turkish Government.

¹⁵ A number of fragments which had been recorded in the nineteenth century were rediscovered, including HK 4 (= Fr. 57 Chilton) from the Treatise on Old Age.

¹⁶ The tombs have suffered most from recent plundering. Fortunately, they were well recorded by earlier travellers, and the Vienna schedae preserve much of what has been lost.

¹⁷ The master-plan, at the scale of 1:500, is not published here.

¹⁸ These two names were adopted by the nineteenth century travellers as convenient labels for the two open spaces in the northern part of the site. They are not misleading; one of them must be an Agora.

¹⁹ See IGR III, 500Google Scholar

²⁰ Figure 3 was wholly the work of the N.E.L.P. surveyors.

²¹ To this number must be added a block discovered by the author in August 1976, lying in a late building below the colonnaded street, in square Nn of Figure 2. This is the furthest south that a fragment has so far been discovered.

²² See below under Section 3 of the main text. The continued use of the term “Great Wall”, to describe that part of the city-wall which cuts off the Esplanade, is thoroughly misleading.

²³ The consensus of views among Diogenes' specialists has in the past dated the inscription around the year 200 A.D. (cf. Chilton, op. cit. Introduction p. xx.). Mr Smith favours an earlier date, for reasons which I must leave him to express elsewhere. We cannot assume that the stoa which carried the inscription was built by Diogenes himself. The maximum period during which the inscription was on public view may have been a hundred years—c. 160-260 A.D.; perhaps much less, as little as fifty years—c. 200-250 A.D.

²⁴ Well discussed by Petersen, and von Luschan, in Reisen in Lykien Milyas und Kibyratien (Wien, 1889), p. 177–8Google Scholar.

²⁵ By Jim Coulton, to whose keen observations I am deeply indebted.

²⁶ See note 6 above.