> Of course it is, "Not strictly historical" by which I mean; not only used as a historical region. So if it is still used to refer to the modern region in som

> Of course it is, "Not strictly historical" by which I mean; not only used as a historical region. So if it is still used to refer to the modern region in some cases (?), then it can be misleading in the same way that one uses "Turkey" to refer to that region; it can be misunderstood to refer to this modern region, while in fact one is talking about a time where that place had nothing to do with modern Turkey. (whew!) > And the relevant linguistic hypothesis: Who cares what linguists call it? This is presumably meant for a more general audience, an audience that probably knows where Turkey lies but may not have heard of Anatolia. Anatolia is only slightly smaller than modern Turkey, and is subsumed by it. I don't think it is misleading.