We are running into an issue in Pausanias wherein he frequently references historical personages without sufficient specificity. For example, in 1.55:

"These are the Athenian eponymoi who belong to the ancients. And of later date than these they have tribes named after the following, Attalus the Mysian and Ptolemy the Egyptian."

There are several dynastic leaders by these names, and the scholarly note in our translation states there is no way of knowing which Egyptian king Pausanias is actually referring to. My best guess for now, based on the wording, is that he is referring to the founding patriarchs of their respective dynasties, but this kind of ambiguous name-dropping is a recurring problem and usually occurs without much, if any, context.

This problem is adjacent to the secondary issue of Pausanias contradicting his own information. As an example, this occurs in sections 1.5.3 - 1.5.4, wherein Pausanias goes to some lengths to delineate two different but related figures named Pandion, only to conflate them in the following paragraph by attributing the children of the grandfather to the grandson.

It is possible that this is an issue of content expertise, and that there is scholarly insight available that we simply haven't encountered yet. A potential way of approaching the issues in the interim would be to create new character entries that serve as generalized catchalls: i.e. "Pandion is the name of several legendary kings of Athens; to which one Pausanias refers is uncertain."

A further challenge is the markup and role of groups. Pausanias makes frequent reference to various groups, some of which we already have entries for: e.g. Greeks, Egyptians, Athenians. However, given that those entries were written for use with The Iliad and this text is coming to us from an entirely different time and context, they aren't especially analogous. The question then becomes, do we create new entries for these groups tailored to their different context in Pausanias? If so, how do we want to approach it in terms of reflecting their inherent value shifts, such as changing concepts of national identity?