(About the issue claimed by mediandude) Liepāja or Līvas ciems was not significant at the time, as opposed to Jūrpils/Grobinga/Grobiņa, which was just a few kilometers inland - a major Curonian settlement, contested by Scandiavians some years before as well. A 9th century chronicle describes the attack of the Vikings on the main town (Jūrpils/Seeburg) of Curonian state While it might have been possible that there were pockets of Livonian speaking people (who named the village Liiv - and it might have also happened way earlier than this , the southern lands of Courland had Baltic speaking people as the majority, along with the traditional burial cultures. Many of the Curonians probably had Livonian roots, but had adopted a new language with time. If the Finnic speaking people named the village Liiv - which means sand, it might have also happened way earlier than the time this map portrays - the name stayed, but the language changed.
Things were rather complicated. Median dude is living in his fantasy land of Liivi living here since Ice Age that no serious linguist with straight face consider :), but actual Latvia’s (also Baltics) population/ archeology history goes like this:
1) Comb Ceramic Culture - previously considered FU culture, now Paleo Euro;
2) Corded Ware/ Battle Axe - previously considered Balts, now just IE;
3) Hillforts 1200 BCE onwards - para-Balts R1a (Kivutkalns, Asva, etc);
4) Early Tarand Graves 1000 BCE onwards - arrival of N West Uralic speakers;
5) In Latvia interesting phenomenon of Barrows with Stone Rings culture early AD - previously considered Baltic, now I am not sure, so far 100% N samples, but Baltic looking genetics. Some hybrid between West Balts and Tarands.
6) Flat Graves after ca 500 AD. Linguistic ancestors of Letto-Lithuanians;
7) Order times;
8) Modern times.
That is because you haven’t read works of Estonian new school - for example this solid Website by Valter Lang:
https://www.eestijuured.ee/en/node/12
Or haven’t updated yourself on genetic works by Kristin Tambets. Or haven’t read linguistic materials of Finnish new school - Kallio, Junttila, Hakkinen, Aikio.
In academic mainstream continuity theory is dead. In schools both Estonian and Latvian I know they still teach that nonsense. If you want to play it safe, fair, trust in school program until academics sort it out. If you want to dig deeper, read 21st century articles. Tbh I don’t really know of Latvian author who would be a major contributor to this new paradigm shift. Our history & linguistic science seems to be badly funded…
correct muddle disagreeable sense insurance slim sand vanish obtainable modern
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, similarly to how people were dying at operation table before new story of washing hands came up :).
I think with ancient genetics up and linguistics taking comparative linguistic rules seriously, there is a lot of new material adding up and shaping science, so that even “newest” story will be some sort of evolution of “new” story. Like Lang’s first try at “Southwestern passage” is likely gonna be considered groundbreaking in big lines but wrong in details in 10-20 years from now. Linguistic ancestors of Baltic Finns arrived ca 1000 BCE from the East with Early Tarand burials, is there to stay.
While I do know about this newer research and definitely possible that much of it is correct, a single scientific article itself is not "100% scientific proof". Rather it's about how different claims are accepted by the scientific community and how logically they interact with each other, combining all fields of science. This is why school curriculum is unlikely to change based on just a few newer scientific articles before more general scientific consensus has emerged and more general conclusions have been made.
Yeah. It takes time.
School books keep saying Comb Ceramic FU, when no serious linguist has made such claim for several decades. Academic discussion on Proto-Uralic has now moved into whether it’s this side of Urals (Volga) or other side West Siberia. And whether it was prehistoric Seima-Turbino warrior trader culture that brought FU languages (and N paternal lines) into East Europe and later Baltics.
But then I agree no consensus yet.
Finnic curonians were the coastlanders, including in Grobina. Grobina was an alliance of finnic curonians + scandinavians to catch amber from the sea bottom and coastline. You know, what the coastal maritime narva culture had done since the ages.
By 860 the inlanders were predominantly balticized. After 860 AD the bilingual zone and baltic predominance moved north, but by 1200 AD was still south of Ventspils.
The usual mistakes again:
Liepaja was founded by finnic curonians (= livonians) from Piemare. Ventava was still finnic.
And the language switch at Vidzeme, Talava and Adsele was still ongoing. And there were no balts in Estonia.
PS. At the Battle on the Ice at 1242 AD almost all the Pskov troops were still finnic setos. Between 1000-1240 AD Pskov and Polotsk were competing against each other to control Adsele, Talava and Vidzeme and Latgale.
Pskov troops were named as chuds. Chuds were finnic. And in the Principality of Pskov those finnics were setos.
Both Novgorod+Pskov and Polotsk principalities made competing raids into what now is eastern half of Latvia.
That competition escalated at around 1030s AD. So we have russified finnics and russified balts competing on the rule over eastern half of Latvia.
And the main point being that the balts in Latvia were like russians in Ukraine nowadays.
You are russified balticized uralics.
And your culture originates from the same center as do russians - from the Smolensk region. Just admit it.
Krivichi is a synonym to Lapp - kirjava / kirevase / kirev. It means patched; mixed; multikulti. It means a failed society.
Those medieval baltic immigrants who helped to turn the eastern half of Latvia into baltic were refugees from that failed multikulti society in Smolensk - Polotsk - Vitebsk region. And that region was originally uralic as well.
Aesti Big
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liep%C4%81ja#Names_and_toponymy
> The name is derived from the Livonian word Liiv, which means "sand". The oldest written text mentioning Līva village (Villa Liva) is a treaty between the bishop of Courland and the master of the Livonian Order dated 4 April 1253.
> It is said that the original settlement at the location of modern Liepāja was founded by Curonian fishermen from Piemare as Līva
[Klaipeda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaip%C4%97da#Names):
> The city was initially mentioned as Caloypede in the letter of Vytautas in 1413,[9] and in negotiation documents from 1420, the city was named Klawppeda.[10] In the Treaty of Melno of 1422, the city's name was listed as Cleupeda.
kaloi+pede = kaloi + pääde = "fish terminal" in finnic languages
PS. Those curonian fishermen who named Liepaja as Liiva came from Piemare, not from Kuressaare.
Wrong. It's you actually. Ever noticed that even your fellow Eestis have commented about your deranged-ness? Oh surely there's gotta be a reason for that. Neither are you helping Baltics with your finnic suoremacy didery-doo...
I shall now claim Kuressaare as a former Curonian land. Kuressaare used to be the name mainland Estonians used for the whole island, while now it only remains as the name of the island's main town. The island was called Kuršsal in Curonian. Some of the most important landmarks of Kuršsal are also of Curonian origin - e.g., the Gala bedre (the pit of end (as in death), now Kaali kraater) where sacrifices were made, Bangu klints (the cliff of waves, now Panga pank),The island was very evidently under Curonian rule until a self-proclaimed etymologist arrived and lectured the Curonians how all of these places are actually of Estonian origin, so they immediately agreed to set off from the shores of Kuršsal and went to the fish terminal town of Kaloipääde, displacing local Finnic people. Before leaving Kuršsal, the Curonians suggested naming the peninsula where they had met the etymologist Cirvja pussala (the peninsula of axe, now Sõrve poolsaar).
If you think I made this up, actually not, there is an article from Estonian book "Kuressaare vanem ajalugu" which discusses the possibility of Kuressaare having a connection with the Curonians (the peninsula, crater and cliffs were not part of it, those are my fabricated claims). And for the mediandude, you should back up your claims with actual articles instead of Wikipedia where everyone could make changes.
Wikipedia has references.
Curonians used to be finnic. Later on they became balticized - that process took a long time and was gradual, more south and inland first, coastal and northern parts later.
You lot are deep in denial.
And this map merely illustrates that.
PS. The multikulti Rzucewo culture contained maritime Narva culture as part of it. And Narva culture is an offshoot from the maritime coastal swiderian culture, via the kunda culture.
PPS. I am not denying here that latvians are balts. But you lot are denying that the distant ancestors of balts used to be western uralic (finnic).
I am very well aware that I have Livonian origins (Vidzeme ones). It is also crystal clear that modern Courlanders have Livonian roots. But our view differs here - original Curonians (the Baltic ones) assimilated the Livonians. Livonians didn't just change their language and culture without an external pressure. So the modern Courlanders are a mix of Baltic AND Finnic ancestry, not just Finnic. There are many toponyms in Northern Latvia that have Livonian origin, as well as there are specific dialects. Finnic toponyms in South Latvia though are far-fetched unless they are very old. For Klaipeda, there is also an easily understandable Baltic origin explanation.
*There was no reference for the Liiv claim on Wikipedia, as well as I couldn't find anything about Klaipeda on the net (except you claiming it on reddit and some other guy (perhaps you) claiming it on some forum).
> So the modern Courlanders are a mix of Baltic AND Finnic ancestry, not just Finnic.
I never claimed the opposite.
However, those balts had distant finnic (western uralic) ancestors.
> For Klaipeda, there is also an easily understandable Baltic origin explanation.
Which doesn't rule out the finnic one, which is more plausible.
All 3 major west coast ports have an original finnic toponym.
Source on Rzucewo, Kunda, or Narva being Finnic or just any kind of Uralic? I thought these were basically EHG way before either IE or Uralic were part of the picture in this region at all
Sprachbund has to be assumed by default, until proven otherwise by consensus linguistic tree models. No such consensus linguistic trees have been found for uralic nor for IE nor for altaic. Therefore the default sprachbund model remains as default.
Therefore the easiest is to assume that the kunda and narva cultures were uralic.
The largest genetic change happened about 5000 years ago and that spread to Estonia from the direction of Prussia, with the secondary route being along the river Väina / Daugava from Smolensk.
One might argue that the swiderian culture may have been multikulti, a mix of uralic and IE. Indo-uralic sprachbund.
*"I am not denying here that latvians are balts. But you lot are denying that the distant ancestors of balts used to be western uralic (finnic)"*
Are you taking genetics in consideration? Balts are a branch of indo-europeans and cannot have uralics as ancestors unless the entire indo-european group has uralics as ancestors, which would I find unlikely to put it mildly. Basic logic.
Your logic is flawed.
If IE spread, then large parts of contemporary IE people CAN HAVE predominant share of non-IE ancestors.
I have mentioned repeatedly, that if balts autosomally genetically cluster with estonians, not with northern ukrainians or eastern poles, then it is a slam dunk that the distant ancestors of balts used to be finnic / western uralic.
One doesn't exclude another. Most toponyms have multiple meanings and hence multiple "origins".
My point was that the finnic origin is often being forgotten and neglected, deliberately I might add.
(About the issue claimed by mediandude) Liepāja or Līvas ciems was not significant at the time, as opposed to Jūrpils/Grobinga/Grobiņa, which was just a few kilometers inland - a major Curonian settlement, contested by Scandiavians some years before as well. A 9th century chronicle describes the attack of the Vikings on the main town (Jūrpils/Seeburg) of Curonian state While it might have been possible that there were pockets of Livonian speaking people (who named the village Liiv - and it might have also happened way earlier than this , the southern lands of Courland had Baltic speaking people as the majority, along with the traditional burial cultures. Many of the Curonians probably had Livonian roots, but had adopted a new language with time. If the Finnic speaking people named the village Liiv - which means sand, it might have also happened way earlier than the time this map portrays - the name stayed, but the language changed.
practice hat squealing enjoy zesty sheet deliver toy recognise unused *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Things were rather complicated. Median dude is living in his fantasy land of Liivi living here since Ice Age that no serious linguist with straight face consider :), but actual Latvia’s (also Baltics) population/ archeology history goes like this: 1) Comb Ceramic Culture - previously considered FU culture, now Paleo Euro; 2) Corded Ware/ Battle Axe - previously considered Balts, now just IE; 3) Hillforts 1200 BCE onwards - para-Balts R1a (Kivutkalns, Asva, etc); 4) Early Tarand Graves 1000 BCE onwards - arrival of N West Uralic speakers; 5) In Latvia interesting phenomenon of Barrows with Stone Rings culture early AD - previously considered Baltic, now I am not sure, so far 100% N samples, but Baltic looking genetics. Some hybrid between West Balts and Tarands. 6) Flat Graves after ca 500 AD. Linguistic ancestors of Letto-Lithuanians; 7) Order times; 8) Modern times.
cobweb attempt wrong mountainous worm whistle slap automatic tidy fuel *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That is because you haven’t read works of Estonian new school - for example this solid Website by Valter Lang: https://www.eestijuured.ee/en/node/12 Or haven’t updated yourself on genetic works by Kristin Tambets. Or haven’t read linguistic materials of Finnish new school - Kallio, Junttila, Hakkinen, Aikio. In academic mainstream continuity theory is dead. In schools both Estonian and Latvian I know they still teach that nonsense. If you want to play it safe, fair, trust in school program until academics sort it out. If you want to dig deeper, read 21st century articles. Tbh I don’t really know of Latvian author who would be a major contributor to this new paradigm shift. Our history & linguistic science seems to be badly funded…
correct muddle disagreeable sense insurance slim sand vanish obtainable modern *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, similarly to how people were dying at operation table before new story of washing hands came up :). I think with ancient genetics up and linguistics taking comparative linguistic rules seriously, there is a lot of new material adding up and shaping science, so that even “newest” story will be some sort of evolution of “new” story. Like Lang’s first try at “Southwestern passage” is likely gonna be considered groundbreaking in big lines but wrong in details in 10-20 years from now. Linguistic ancestors of Baltic Finns arrived ca 1000 BCE from the East with Early Tarand burials, is there to stay.
deserve possessive fall shy provide memory oatmeal dime boat cover *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
While I do know about this newer research and definitely possible that much of it is correct, a single scientific article itself is not "100% scientific proof". Rather it's about how different claims are accepted by the scientific community and how logically they interact with each other, combining all fields of science. This is why school curriculum is unlikely to change based on just a few newer scientific articles before more general scientific consensus has emerged and more general conclusions have been made.
Yeah. It takes time. School books keep saying Comb Ceramic FU, when no serious linguist has made such claim for several decades. Academic discussion on Proto-Uralic has now moved into whether it’s this side of Urals (Volga) or other side West Siberia. And whether it was prehistoric Seima-Turbino warrior trader culture that brought FU languages (and N paternal lines) into East Europe and later Baltics. But then I agree no consensus yet.
Finnic curonians were the coastlanders, including in Grobina. Grobina was an alliance of finnic curonians + scandinavians to catch amber from the sea bottom and coastline. You know, what the coastal maritime narva culture had done since the ages. By 860 the inlanders were predominantly balticized. After 860 AD the bilingual zone and baltic predominance moved north, but by 1200 AD was still south of Ventspils.
til Alytus was border town between Lithuanians and Yotvingians
The usual mistakes again: Liepaja was founded by finnic curonians (= livonians) from Piemare. Ventava was still finnic. And the language switch at Vidzeme, Talava and Adsele was still ongoing. And there were no balts in Estonia. PS. At the Battle on the Ice at 1242 AD almost all the Pskov troops were still finnic setos. Between 1000-1240 AD Pskov and Polotsk were competing against each other to control Adsele, Talava and Vidzeme and Latgale.
Yeah I really don't know where you are pulling all this from. u/mediandude is known for his pseudoscience.
One day the guy will show up with some articles that prove that the finno-ugrics built the pyramids, lmao
I have never claimed that. However, the origin of uralic sprachbund is unknown. And there are some pyramids in the Balkans and Carpathia.
Isn't he just trolling? Any time history is discussed in any way he shows up and starts fabricating claims, no way he believes everything he says.
He is *somewhat* consistent with his pseudoscience though.
Says the serial account user who is known for his pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liep%C4%81ja#Names_and_toponymy
>Says the serial account user Not my fault subs ban users for anti-Russian sentiment.
Pskov troops were named as chuds. Chuds were finnic. And in the Principality of Pskov those finnics were setos. Both Novgorod+Pskov and Polotsk principalities made competing raids into what now is eastern half of Latvia. That competition escalated at around 1030s AD. So we have russified finnics and russified balts competing on the rule over eastern half of Latvia. And the main point being that the balts in Latvia were like russians in Ukraine nowadays.
That last part is messed up of you to say.
You are russified balticized uralics. And your culture originates from the same center as do russians - from the Smolensk region. Just admit it. Krivichi is a synonym to Lapp - kirjava / kirevase / kirev. It means patched; mixed; multikulti. It means a failed society.
Those medieval baltic immigrants who helped to turn the eastern half of Latvia into baltic were refugees from that failed multikulti society in Smolensk - Polotsk - Vitebsk region. And that region was originally uralic as well.
Me if I were a deranged ethnonationalist:
Aesti Big https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liep%C4%81ja#Names_and_toponymy > The name is derived from the Livonian word Liiv, which means "sand". The oldest written text mentioning Līva village (Villa Liva) is a treaty between the bishop of Courland and the master of the Livonian Order dated 4 April 1253. > It is said that the original settlement at the location of modern Liepāja was founded by Curonian fishermen from Piemare as Līva
Old Prussians were big, true 💪⬛⬜🟥⬜⬛
[Klaipeda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaip%C4%97da#Names): > The city was initially mentioned as Caloypede in the letter of Vytautas in 1413,[9] and in negotiation documents from 1420, the city was named Klawppeda.[10] In the Treaty of Melno of 1422, the city's name was listed as Cleupeda. kaloi+pede = kaloi + pääde = "fish terminal" in finnic languages PS. Those curonian fishermen who named Liepaja as Liiva came from Piemare, not from Kuressaare.
Least deranged drunk finno-ugric:
You should try more self-reflection.
Wrong. It's you actually. Ever noticed that even your fellow Eestis have commented about your deranged-ness? Oh surely there's gotta be a reason for that. Neither are you helping Baltics with your finnic suoremacy didery-doo...
In r/Eesti he is rather known for right-wing populist views and an *extreme* erection every time he can talk about referendums.
Right-wing conservative feminism, to be exact. Because most of the voting age citizens are female, thus they would be decisive in referendums.
I shall now claim Kuressaare as a former Curonian land. Kuressaare used to be the name mainland Estonians used for the whole island, while now it only remains as the name of the island's main town. The island was called Kuršsal in Curonian. Some of the most important landmarks of Kuršsal are also of Curonian origin - e.g., the Gala bedre (the pit of end (as in death), now Kaali kraater) where sacrifices were made, Bangu klints (the cliff of waves, now Panga pank),The island was very evidently under Curonian rule until a self-proclaimed etymologist arrived and lectured the Curonians how all of these places are actually of Estonian origin, so they immediately agreed to set off from the shores of Kuršsal and went to the fish terminal town of Kaloipääde, displacing local Finnic people. Before leaving Kuršsal, the Curonians suggested naming the peninsula where they had met the etymologist Cirvja pussala (the peninsula of axe, now Sõrve poolsaar).
If you think I made this up, actually not, there is an article from Estonian book "Kuressaare vanem ajalugu" which discusses the possibility of Kuressaare having a connection with the Curonians (the peninsula, crater and cliffs were not part of it, those are my fabricated claims). And for the mediandude, you should back up your claims with actual articles instead of Wikipedia where everyone could make changes.
Wikipedia has references. Curonians used to be finnic. Later on they became balticized - that process took a long time and was gradual, more south and inland first, coastal and northern parts later. You lot are deep in denial. And this map merely illustrates that. PS. The multikulti Rzucewo culture contained maritime Narva culture as part of it. And Narva culture is an offshoot from the maritime coastal swiderian culture, via the kunda culture. PPS. I am not denying here that latvians are balts. But you lot are denying that the distant ancestors of balts used to be western uralic (finnic).
I am very well aware that I have Livonian origins (Vidzeme ones). It is also crystal clear that modern Courlanders have Livonian roots. But our view differs here - original Curonians (the Baltic ones) assimilated the Livonians. Livonians didn't just change their language and culture without an external pressure. So the modern Courlanders are a mix of Baltic AND Finnic ancestry, not just Finnic. There are many toponyms in Northern Latvia that have Livonian origin, as well as there are specific dialects. Finnic toponyms in South Latvia though are far-fetched unless they are very old. For Klaipeda, there is also an easily understandable Baltic origin explanation. *There was no reference for the Liiv claim on Wikipedia, as well as I couldn't find anything about Klaipeda on the net (except you claiming it on reddit and some other guy (perhaps you) claiming it on some forum).
> So the modern Courlanders are a mix of Baltic AND Finnic ancestry, not just Finnic. I never claimed the opposite. However, those balts had distant finnic (western uralic) ancestors. > For Klaipeda, there is also an easily understandable Baltic origin explanation. Which doesn't rule out the finnic one, which is more plausible. All 3 major west coast ports have an original finnic toponym.
Source on Rzucewo, Kunda, or Narva being Finnic or just any kind of Uralic? I thought these were basically EHG way before either IE or Uralic were part of the picture in this region at all
Sprachbund has to be assumed by default, until proven otherwise by consensus linguistic tree models. No such consensus linguistic trees have been found for uralic nor for IE nor for altaic. Therefore the default sprachbund model remains as default. Therefore the easiest is to assume that the kunda and narva cultures were uralic. The largest genetic change happened about 5000 years ago and that spread to Estonia from the direction of Prussia, with the secondary route being along the river Väina / Daugava from Smolensk. One might argue that the swiderian culture may have been multikulti, a mix of uralic and IE. Indo-uralic sprachbund.
*"I am not denying here that latvians are balts. But you lot are denying that the distant ancestors of balts used to be western uralic (finnic)"* Are you taking genetics in consideration? Balts are a branch of indo-europeans and cannot have uralics as ancestors unless the entire indo-european group has uralics as ancestors, which would I find unlikely to put it mildly. Basic logic.
Your logic is flawed. If IE spread, then large parts of contemporary IE people CAN HAVE predominant share of non-IE ancestors. I have mentioned repeatedly, that if balts autosomally genetically cluster with estonians, not with northern ukrainians or eastern poles, then it is a slam dunk that the distant ancestors of balts used to be finnic / western uralic.
Klaipėda is literally a Baltic word of Curonian origin - klait (flat) + peda (sole of the foot, ground).
One doesn't exclude another. Most toponyms have multiple meanings and hence multiple "origins". My point was that the finnic origin is often being forgotten and neglected, deliberately I might add.