i don't follow your logic and don't 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 you're proceeeding as if the question is whether afs proves anything and then you point out that most sources say it doesn't prove anything that's 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