Who were they?

>Unetice migration
Unetice was formed on Proto-Balto-Slavic homeland.

I think there's fair reason to include a part of eastern Poland inside it(Lublin) but certainly not Germany and Czech republic.

That's just some insane revisionist nonsense pushed by Polish nationalists.

we wuz everythang
t: slav

There is no reason to believe that original Lusatian Culture was Germanic.

This seems to be the correct answer. But Slavs will never stop wewuzzing.

True, Lusatian language probably had some relation to Celtic.

Europe had a huge diversity in languages back then.

>But Slavs will never stop wewuzzing.
Oh no. It's not like Western Europeans we-wuzed for majority of their history about everything.

>True, Lusatian language probably had some relation to Celtic.
Source?

>The Lusatian culture developed as the preceding Trzciniec culture experienced influences from the middle Bronze Age Tumulus Bronze Age, essentially incorporating the local communities into the socio-political network of Iron Age Europe.[2] It forms part of the Urnfield systems found from eastern France, southern Germany and Austria to Hungary and the Nordic Bronze Age in northwestern Germany and Scandinavia.

Maybe they had a pre-proto-Balto-Slavic language heavily influenced by proto-Celtic. Slavic languages don't fit into that mold.

Trzciniec and Unetice can't both be proto-Balto-Slavic by the way. You can pick only one.

It was already established that Unetice was multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic.

>and perhaps to Balto-Slavic

Nothing has been established. Balto-Slavic languages are not closely related to NW Indo-European ones. They have more to do with Indo-Iranian.

They were French most likely. Just like majority of Europe then.

They were about as French as they were Slavic or American.

They were their own thing and it's massively retarded to try to force ethnic identities which are only a thousand years or some centuries old on them.

Did someone do it? You got triggered like a little girl.

Serbs

WE

bump

Yes. Trying to link West Slavs and French, which in no way existed 2000 years ago with a culture from 4000 years ago is retarded.

Uneticians were Unetician and spoke Unetice. The end.

>pre-slavic and pre-germanic invasions

duurrr

Germanics and Slavs are the only people that ever existed!
It's impossible there existed other languages in the region. Where are they now?

>Germanics and Slavs are the only people that ever existed!
Indeed. they cover the most of relevant Europe.

Yet, Germanics originate in Scandinavia while Slavs originate in Belarus.

The people who lived in Central Europe before them were neither.

>glottochronology
shaking my head

>Yet, Germanics originate in Scandinavia while Slavs originate in Belarus.
Speculation at best.

>The people who lived in Central Europe before them were neither.
Source?

>Balto-Slavic languages are not closely related to NW Indo-European ones. They have more to do with Indo-Iranian
Balto-Slavic is closest to Germanic.

>Balto-Slavic is closest to Germanic.
source?

Urnfield and Hallstatt are linked to Celts.

Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian belong in the Satemic branch of Indo-European.
Germanic languages are considered to be more related Italo-Celtic, being Centum.

>Urnfield and Hallstatt are linked to Celts.

>linked
Source? There are people from Unetice that are no different than modern Poles and Czechs.

Feel free to provide a source on that.

ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

Three samples from Unetice with Y-DNA belong to I2.

I did consider the possibility that Slavic I2 might be of Unetice origin but this wouldn't necessarily mean the language came with I2 to Belarus with Lusatians. The language probably was there already but only acquired some minor western influence.

pic rel, polish user from maciamopedia

The North Slavic here is a substitute for Corded Ware which directly predated Unetice in much of it's territory, yet had R1a instead of I2.

Corded Ware must have spoken various Satemic dialects over it's massive extent as Indo-Iranians are also of Corded Ware origin.

It's always a bad idea to analyze ancient individuals with calculators calibrated for modern individuals.

>yet had R1a instead of I2.
Globular Amphora was mostly l2, so it's not really a surprise.

See pic.

Balto-Slavic is also lexically closest to Germanic, and to Italic and Celtic next.

centum/satem isn't very useful for phylogeny. The changes happened independently in different daughter languages well after the breakup of PIE. Balto-Slavic also isn't fully satemized. Greek and Indo-Iranian are also generally closest to each other despite one being centum and the other being satem (see: Graeco-Aryan)

>For a long time it was thought that the distinction between centum and satem languages reflected an old dialectal division within IE, particularly since the two groups appeared not to overlap geographically: the centum branches (Greek, Italic, Celtic, Germanic) are more westerly than most satem branches (Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic; exceptional is Albanian if satem, but see 19.9). However, a closer look at the material and some recent discoveries complicate things. Tocharian, located farther to the east than any other branch, is centum (if it can be called anything – ultimately all three series fell together as k, but the labiovelars were kept distinct until late in its prehistory; see 17.9). The Anatolian language Luvian has now been shown to preserve distinct reflexes of all three velar series in some phonetic environments (see 9.48). In three satem branches or subbranches, there is evidence that the plain velars and labiovelars were still distinct in some environments well into their later prehistories, meaning the eventual merger was a separate development in each: Indic (10.37), Armenian (16.12), and especially Albanian (19.10). In a fourth, Balto-Slavic, many words actually show centum developments (see 18.5). It is therefore much more likely that each branch became centum or satem independently, although this view adds complications of its own. In any case, the terms centum and satem remain a useful descriptive shorthand.

If we assume that the language of Corded Ware Scandinavia/Denmark was more akin to Balto-Slavic this makes sense.

Still, Germanic still originates in the Bell Beakers of Denmark despite lexical borrowing from CW. There's proof of them spreading to Sweden as well.

>Nothing has been established.

anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8408-Unetice-culture-was-clearly-multi-ethnic

Their genomes varied very differently some drift populations like Scotland/Germany while others to Balto Slavs.

Corded Ware contributed more to Slavs and Balts than Western Europeans(some of whom have almost no CW ancestry).

It's nothing special that parts of Unetice were significantly more Corded Ware. It can't be used to support a Slavic homeland there or linguistic stratification.

Of course you can't argue for Slavic homeland and neither for Celtic/Germanic whatever at such date.

Balto-Slavic languages originate in at least the eastern part of Trzciniec culture. That's a very safe bet to make.

>eastern part of Trzciniec culture
and they've found R1a in Western part of it.

R1a isn't necessarily Slavic, though.

Z280 is. West Slavs cluster also with Hungarian Bronze Age.

Nah, BR1 had too much farmer admixture so he clustered with French.

ZZ80 is older than Slavs.

Nevermind, I didn't actually click on the image.

>Corded Ware spreads over most of northern Europe in 2800 BC
>The central part of it develops into Trzciniec
>western part becomes Unetice'd into Lusatians
>Lusatians influence Trzciniec and give some western features(and genes) to Balto-Slavs or just Slavs
>Slavs spread westward from the 6th century onwards

If you object to this, you're probably a delusional Polish ultranationalist

early Lusatians had nothing to do with Celts, but with proto Balto-Slavs. the later version of it got influenced by eastern germanics.

>nothing to do with Celts
>closely linked to Hallstat and La Tene

>Eastern Europe
>Relevant

>le all of hallstat and la tene were celts!!1111
lmao

>Finland not colored
ayyyy LMAO

You're right man, it's Slavs all the way down.

We should rangeban Poles and French on Veeky Forums.

>nothing to do with Celts
>NOTHING

Sure thing. I guess Tumulus and Urnfield were both completely unrelated to Celts too, then?

not unrelated, but surely not 100% celtic like you want them to be.
you should shut up since you have nothing to say anyway.

>a fucking Pole telling to shut up

zez

>pole
proofs? i see nothing but rants on poles and slavs in general for a few weeks now. either done by the french guy or some other low-life. where is the proof that there are actual polacks itt?

I don't "want" them to be Celts. It's simply a fact that they were not Balto-Slavic. It can therefore be concluded that Lusatian culture was not Balto-Slavic since it was part of the non-Balto-Slavic Urnfield culture.

Vinciids.

people itt said that urnfield and unetice were both multi-ethnic. so it's possible they had celtic, proto-germanic and proto-baltic speakers in their homeland.
nothing wrong with it. czechs to this day have a lot of r1b and not of germanic origin, but rather celtic.

In my opinion, they might have been influenced by both but that explicitly disqualifies them from being _the_ proto-Balto-Slavs. Is Russian full of Celtic loanwords? Nope.

Well yeah I'm not saying that there was absolutely no Proto-Balto-Slavic presence. Basically I agree with and