george knysh wrote:
>
> ******GK: There's no problem with any of these sources
> as long as you don't try to make them say more than
> they imply. I suspect that the "trouble" stems from
> certain 21rst century perspectives (:=)).****
As you observed I did not used them since I don't care for them . Given
the opportunity to discuse about them, I showed themm too. Now for their
value, I can say just as follow:
-therer are some sources which are against the theory of a migration.
The thoery of the migration -as per your answer- has been given because
of no mention in the sources.
We have here a false problem or a real one. If there is a real one ,
then the only answer is " the sources are false".
If the problem is false, there is no problem thus the theory of
migration was an academical joke. For my own curiosity , the big
question remains why Prophyrogenetsu do not records the valahs within
his empire.
As for the rest, I suspect the whole juise of valahians in the North of
Danube started with some shcolars of the XIX century. The basis of all
the stuff seems to be less of scientific but but more of politicaly
nature.
alex