This collection of papers presented at a conference held in Bad Homburg marks a revived interest in the biological studies of Aristotle. The intention of the organizers was to approach the subject from various angles, and the papers are thematically arranged in four sections. The first section contains studies dealing with Aristotle's methods of definition and demonstration in his scientific works. M. Wilson discusses the Speusippan model of the natural world, arguing that division is employed by Speusippos to dispel confusion (which W. rightly recognizes as the opposite of knowledge), and exploring the analogy between mathematical and natural realms. D. Charles, by concentrating on fish and their subspecies, points out several difficulties in Aristotle's discussion of the unity of biological kinds and the nature of their essential features, and proposes a line of interpretation, according to which Aristotle has modified in his biological works the assumptions made in the Analytica Posteriora. According to C.'s thesis, although the teleological cause remains central in the biological works in determining the common nature of fish, other explanatory models can be connected with it. The position of W. Kullmann, who sees the Analytica Posteriora as a Propädeutik for the students of the biological works, is stated along similar lines. K. stresses that the theory of Demonstration (Beweistheorie) as presented in the Analytica Posteriora is not exhaustive, and explores the methodological function of ο τ α as a supplement to the abovementioned theory. W. Detel, in an article which the non-expert reader might find difficult to follow, tries a full syllogistic reconstruction of the explanation why all animals have a stomach from the starting point that 'Aristotle wanted scientists to present explanations that may not explicitly exhibit, but are at least puttable into, such (sc. syllogistic) form'. A. Gotthelf discusses the explanation of the elephant's nose by employing a similar model of analysis and concludes that this analysis 'shows how incredibly rich the logical structure of explanation is in Aristotle's biology, and how worth systematic study, from a philosophical point of view, the biological treatises are'. G.'s conclusion summarizes in a few words one of the main purposes of this collection, and one may hope that it will encourage further study of Aristotle's biological works. R. Bolton explores thoroughly the relationship between teleological explanation and material cause from a number of angles; however, many might disagree with the author's overconfident conclusion that Aristotle proves his teleology. The second section contains studies on cause and necessity. A. Code considers the priority of final causes over efficient causes in natural science and the priority of the knowledge of the ο τ α, before one could state the function of the efficient cause. M. L. Gill explores material necessity with reference to Meteorologica 4.12. The author sees this passage as 'a bridge between Aristotle's works on inorganic m...

The Roman–Lycian notable and ex-procurator of Sicily, C. Julius Demosthenes of Oenoanda, who flourished under the Flavian Emperors, under Trajan and under Hadrian, is now well-known, following the publication of the richly-detailed Demostheneia Festival inscription by M. Wörrle. New investigation in 1994 into the archaeological context of Demosthenes' statue base (YÇ 1024), found on the site of Oenoanda in 1895 and published by Heberdey and Kalinka, has revealed that it was not re-used as stated by Hall and Milner, but shaped specifically for its original construction as the western anta of a semicircular exedra. In this article we trace the location, design and decoration of the exedra and discuss the inscriptions which adorned it.

In the course of the survey of the surface remains of the North Lycian city of Balboura, our attention was drawn to three small buildings near the southwest corner of the agora (Fig. 1), because their association with a series of inscriptions casts an interesting light on the society of the city. Most of these inscriptions have long been known, although three are unpublished, but their significance cannot be fully appreciated without some knowledge of the buildings and statue bases with which they are associated. Our aim, therefore, is to consider the architectural and epigraphic evidence together.The buildings concerned (Figs. 2–4) are, from west to east, an exedra set up by Onesimos the city slave (demosios), with statues of the Demos and Boule of Balboura; a temple of Nemesis, also built by Onesimos; and a second exedra, set up by the wealthy Meleager, son of Castor. All three buildings face southward onto a paved street, and turn their backs to the agora, which was set at a lower level to the north.

The results of a survey in the territory of Oinoanda led by Stephen Mitchell in 1994 are presented. A number of lost Hellenistic and Roman settlements could be identified through ancient cemeteries and cult furniture such as images, symbols and footings for stelai. A clear association between tombs and cults permitted the term ‘cemetery cults’. Other types of settlement included traces of an ancient village near Patlangiç Yayla, a fortified hill-top site at Düǧer, and a puzzling planned complex on an island in Girdev Gölü. Architectural fragments at Çukurceylan, Kinik and Girdev told of vanished Byzantine churches, and their associated settlements of later date.

The following inscription was found at Oenoanda, an antique city in north Lycia, by the late Alan S. Hall in 1974. The text (inv. no. YÇ 1014) is inscribed on the short face of a large grey limestone statue base, found lying on its left side at the northern margin of the Upper Agora (the “Esplanade”), directly before the outer edge of the portico of the north stoa (cf. Figs. 1 and 2). Its position suggests that it has fallen forward, with other bases beside it to the west, from its original situation on the pavement of the Upper Agora, immediately fronting the podium of the stoa. There was no evidence that it had been re-used, as originally thought by Hall. Its dimensions are h. 0·73 m.; w. 0·74 m. (slightly broken to the left); th. 1·50+ m. (buried behind). Since it is unmoulded and there are no foot-holes in the top, it is probable that top and bottom sections have become detached. The large base beside it to the west, measuring h. 1·25 m.; w. 2·10 m.; th. 0·60+ m., has two sets of foot-holes and a moulded top; a connection between this and our base is perhaps not unlikely—possibly they formed part of a family monument. On architectural grounds it has been argued that the north stoa was built in either the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. Since it is reasonable to suppose that the base, which we date to the 90s B.C. for reasons that will become clear shortly, was erected after its construction, the stoa should probably be dated no later than second century B.C.