Folia archeologica 27.

István Fodor: Az uráli és finnugor őshaza kérdése (Régészeti áttekintés)

THE URALIAN AND FINNO-UGRIAN ORIGINAL ПОМЕ 151 At this period Hungarian archaeologists did not yet partake in the investigation of the "original home" problem. On his Russian study-tour B. Posta looked primarily for Oriental parallels to Hungarian relics of the Conquest period.

11 Hungarian linguists and historians referred to the archaeological find material but casually, using principally the works of Tallgren for a basis. (So Z. Gomboc M. Zsirai,

1

3 B. Hómat

г.

1

4) On the results of Tallgren were also the investigations of I. Zichy based, who, among the Hungarian archaeologists, paid the greatest attention in his time to the prehistorical find material of Russia.

1

5 Contrary to the Finnish scholar he did not consider the population of the Ananino and the following Pianobor cultures as Finno-Ugrians but as Bulgaro-Turcs, the ancestors of the later Volga Bulgarians.

1

0 He placed the Finno-Ugrian original home also to the Volga-Kama region. "The science of the spade" became only in the last two or three decades the "full-grown companion" of linguistics. The large-scale archaeological excavations, carried out in the Soviet Union, yielded a wealth of find material while specialist enriched our knowledge with many new observations. The dating of finds became much more exact than ever before. In this point we are indebted to up-to-date scientific methods. Settlements and cemeteries, excavated systematically, give almost a complete cross-section of the life of the one-time population. Archaeology may often give a fuller and chronologically more exact picture of prehistory, than linguistics.

1

7 Archaeologists cannot, however state it merely with the aid of their own discipline, which language the ancient population of the area investigated were speaking. For making conjectures he needs primarily the aid of linguistics, further that of ethnology and anthropology. This many-sided prehistorical investigation process is named, by special literature, the cott/plex method, where archaeology plays a more and more important role, being the one prehistorical discipline able to enlarge its source material from year to year in a significant way. It is not an exaggerated statement when we assert that to-day only the notion of an original home has justification, which can be co-ordinated with the results of archaeology. With the words of P. Hajdú: ". . .archaeology 1

1 Posta, В., Régészeti tanulmányok az oroszföldön. - Archaeologische Studien auf russischem Boden. (Bp.-Leipzig 1905); Nagv, G., Arch.Ért. 26(1906) 392-393. 1

2 Gombocz, Z., TtK 57(1925) 369-374.; A finnugor őshaza . . . 308-315. 1

3 Zsirai, M., Finnugor rokonságunk. (Bp. 1937) 124-125. - The relation of Hungarian linguists of that time to archaeological data is characterized well by the words of G. Barcsi: "The evidence of archaeological finds can be considered only after other documentations, in the second or third instance, so to say for their corroboration; it is much more archaeology, which needs at every turn the results of other sciences, in order to find somehow its way among its finds." MNy 39(1943) 285. 1

4 Hornau, B.-S%ekfii, Gy., Magyar történet. I. (Bp. n. d.) 12-16. 1

5 Zichy, /., A magyarság őstörténete és műveltsége a honfoglalás koráig. MNyK 1/5. (Bp. 1923); Id., Magyar őstörténet. (Bp. 1939) 1

6 Ibid. 43. 1

7 "There can be no doubt to-day about the fact, that archaeological chronology, especially as for the stratigraphy of the different cultures, but as for absolute chronology as well, is much more reliable than the chronological evidence of linguistics," - writes Gy. Ldsz/ó, continuing as follows: "The picture of a material culture, emerging from the words as well as that of on intellectual life become more full if we do not make an acquaintance with them merely through their symbols, the words, but are in the position studying them through a contemporaneous evidence by the means of archaeology." See: A magvar őstörténet kérdései. Red. К. Czeglédy and P. Hajdú. NyÉ 5. (Bp. 1955) 39.