Ziemowit
30 Dec 2014
History / Origins of Polish Slavs [139]
Such an argument is irrelevant. According to many specialists, those names are of Indoeuropean origin. If they are so old, we may say they may have been formed in a language which is now called the Proto-indoeuropean language. This language had splitted over time into many language groups, one of which was Proto-slavic (and earlier Balto-Slavic). If the Proto-slavic group (and language) has evolved in situ, that is on the territory of the present Poland or Ukraine or Belarus, their people may have retained the older Proto-indoeuropean names of rivers of that territory, while their own language has changed so much that none of those name resemble any word in any of the Slavic languages at present. Thus, "former inhabitants" may well had been the ancestors of the Slavic people themselves.
This is only partly true. That source identifies them as Slavs beyond doubt, though as far as I can remember it does not even use a name similar to "Slav/Slavic" (if you can quote this source precisely, I shall be grateful). Yet, ancient chroniclers name people living in Central and Eastern Europe befor 550 AD, but the problem is we cannot say for sure they were Slavs, neither we can say for sure they were not Slavs.
the names of the majority of Polish rivers don't mean a thing in Polish
Such an argument is irrelevant. According to many specialists, those names are of Indoeuropean origin. If they are so old, we may say they may have been formed in a language which is now called the Proto-indoeuropean language. This language had splitted over time into many language groups, one of which was Proto-slavic (and earlier Balto-Slavic). If the Proto-slavic group (and language) has evolved in situ, that is on the territory of the present Poland or Ukraine or Belarus, their people may have retained the older Proto-indoeuropean names of rivers of that territory, while their own language has changed so much that none of those name resemble any word in any of the Slavic languages at present. Thus, "former inhabitants" may well had been the ancestors of the Slavic people themselves.
but if Slavs had been in Central Europe all along then why are they not mentioned in any written sources until 550 AD?
This is only partly true. That source identifies them as Slavs beyond doubt, though as far as I can remember it does not even use a name similar to "Slav/Slavic" (if you can quote this source precisely, I shall be grateful). Yet, ancient chroniclers name people living in Central and Eastern Europe befor 550 AD, but the problem is we cannot say for sure they were Slavs, neither we can say for sure they were not Slavs.
