I dont follow your logic and dont know what you mean by  split To my knowledge nobody has ever claimed that any type of historical argument is without hazard certainly not this one Youre proceeeding as if the question is whether AFS proves anything and then you point out that most sources say it doesnt prove anything Thats a strawman Given your dishonesty about the Duncan source above and the dictionary of foreign terms I see no reason to swallow whole your statements about a prevalence of sources