Geography

​And he appears not only to fail in examining Ephorus’s statement adequately, but also to confuse and misrepresent the poet’s words. For he ought first to have demanded this of Ephorus: why indeed he places the Chalybians inside the peninsula, when they are so far distant both from Sinope and from Amisus towards the east? For those who say that the isthmus of this peninsula is the line from Issus to the Euxine, positing this as a kind of meridian line, some believe it to be the one to Sinope, others the one to Amisus, but no one the one to the Chalybians; for it is completely oblique. For the meridian through the Chalybians would be drawn through Lesser Armenia and the Euphrates, enclosing inside the whole of Cappadocia, Commagene, Amanus, and the Gulf of Issus. But if, at any rate, we should concede that even the oblique line defines the isthmus, most of these territories, and especially Cappadocia, would be enclosed inside, as well as what is now specifically called Pontus, which is the part of Cappadocia near the Euxine; so that if the Chalybians are to be placed as a part of the peninsula, much more so both the Cataonians and Cappadocians, and also the Lycaonians, whom he himself also omitted. And why did he place among the inland peoples the Chalybians, whom the poet called Halizones, as we also have demonstrated? For it would have been better to make a division and to say that some were on the sea and others in the interior; which ought to be done also in the case of Cappadocia and Cilicia. But he has not even named the former, and has mentioned only the Cilicians on the sea. What position, then, should those under Antipater of Derbe, and the Homanadeis, and many others who border on the Pisidians, receive—men “who know not the sea, nor eat food mixed with salt”? Moreover, he has mentioned neither the Lydians nor the Meonians, whether they are two peoples or the same, and whether they exist by themselves or are included under another tribe. For it is impossible to conceal so famous a nation, and would not one who says nothing about it seem to omit one of the most important things?

​And who are the mixed peoples? For we would not be able to name, besides the regions mentioned, other peoples either named by him or omitted whom we shall assign to the mixed peoples, nor indeed any of those whom he either mentioned or omitted. For even if they were mixed, still the dominant element has made them either Greeks or barbarians; and we know of no third, mixed race.

​And how are there three tribes of Greeks inhabiting the peninsula? For if it is because in ancient times the Ionians and the Athenians were the same, let the Dorians and the Aeolians also be called the same, so that there would be two nations; but if they must be divided according to later customs, just like the dialects, then the nations also would be four, just like the dialects. And there inhabit this peninsula, and especially according to Ephorus’s definition, not only Ionians but also Athenians, as has been shown in the detailed accounts. Such are the difficulties which it is reasonable to raise against Ephorus; but Apollodorus cared nothing for these things, and to the sixteen nations he adds a seventeenth, that of the Galatians—which is useful to be mentioned for other reasons, but is unnecessary for the examination of what was said or omitted by Ephorus; and he himself has stated the reason, namely, that all these things are more recent than Ephorus’s time.