P&G wrote:
>> I hope you are kidding, otherways we have to burn all the ancient
>> sources since they are useless:-)
>
> Hurray! Now you are making sense! They are useless at telling us
> about dinosaurs, and men on Mars, and how to programme your mobile
> phone. They are also useless at telling us about things a thousand
> years before their time. They are only useful for telling us how
> people of a certain time thought and wrote at that time. You also
> seem unable to distinguish fiction, such as Virgil, from fact
>
> Peter
You have your part of rightness. But you forget that the macro-hydronimy
for instance preserved itself for long long time. And that means there
is something which we have to count on it. It is hard to believe in a
geographical description as Strabo's there are "fictions". Strbo's even
shows how the old names have been, under which circumstances they
changed, how now ( now = his time) they are calling and so on.
Of course he could not know what exactly could have been 1000 years
before him. But from here until to the point of negating everything is a
long way which should be argued very good " why negate".
Just regarding the Troj and Thrace you can deny any connection between
thracians and Trojans, I have nothing against this .
But you cannot deny that in the territory of Thrace and in the territory
of Troj, in the time of Strabo, there have been similar toponym and
hydronims. This aspect cannot be denied.
If you argue that these toponyms and hydronims have been "Greek" you
should show why they are Greek.
What is wrong in how I try to see these thing?Honestly now, where do I
make a failure when I put these questions?