Folia archeologica 27.
István Fodor: Az uráli és finnugor őshaza kérdése (Régészeti áttekintés)
154 I. FODOR these arguments Hämäläinen summarizes his opinion as follows: "Es sieht also schließlich aus, als eigneten sich die von Koppen vorgebrachten Argumente nicht als bündige Beweise für seine Behauptungen über die Lage der Urheimat der finnisch-ugrischen und indoeuropäischen Völker." 3 1 Later the archaeologist L. R. Ky^lasov called the attention to the ancient apiculture of Siberian peoples. 3 2 On Turkish belt mountings from the 6th to 8th centuries e. g. we see bees represented. 3 3 In his lecture held in the Finno-Ugrian Congress of 1960 V. N. Chernetsov pointed to the fact that because the two words mentioned are in Finno-Ugrian languages of Indo-European origin, and the former peoples contacted in the second to first millennia B. C. with the Indo-Europeans on huge areas, stretching from the Volga to the Altai region, these words could have been loaned at this time, they are, consequently, not to be attributed with certainty to the Finno-Ugrian period. 3 4 References to the words "honey" and "bee" were, in spite of evident refutations, continued. E. Itkonen is e. g. of the opinion that the major part of the Uralian original home must have been in Europe, as the bee was native in Asia only on the southern regions, where Finno-Ugrians never got, and Siberia could not have been the scene of Finno-Ugrian - Indo-European connections. 3 5 There can be, on the contrary, no doubt to-day about the fact that Finno-Ugrians had very intensive southern connections — in all probability with Indo-Europeans - during the Neolithic and the Bronze Ages in both eastern Europe and western Siberia. 30 A spectacular evidence for relations connecting remote populations is furnished by bronze objects from the 16th and 15th centuries B. C., of the so-called SeimaTurbino type, which were produced about the area between the rivers Irtis and Ob (roughly corresponding to the region between Omsk and Tomsk), whence they arrived at the East European Finno-Ugrian peoples. 3 7 Relations of the FinnoUgrians are palpable as far as the Altai region at this period. According to the arguments mentioned, the conclusions deduced from the words "bee" and "honey" are to be finally excluded from the scientifical argu3 1 Ibid. 34. 3 2 Ky^lasov, E. R., Tastykskaja epoha v istorii Hakassko-Minusinskoj kotloviny. (Moskva 1960) 175. - On the traditional forest apiculture of the Bashkirs, living on the borderland of Europe and Asia, see: Ri/denko, S. I., Baskiry. Istoriko-etnograficeskie ocerki. (Moskva-Leningrad 1955) 96-100. (The case of the Bashkirs, living on both sides of the Ural, is a good example for the fact that this form of apiculture was not confined only to Europe.) 3 3 Kiseljov, S. V., Drevnjaja istorija Juznoj Sibiri. MIA 9. (Moskva 1949) 301., Pl. L, 21. 3 4 Cernecov, V. N., К voprosu о meste i vremeni formirovanija ural'skoj (finno-ugrosamodijskoj) obscnosti. In: CIFU I. (Bp. 1963) 406. - It is hardly questionable that these are international loanwords, spread over extremely large areas. The word "méz" (= honey, in the form *miet) penetrated from the Tocharian language to the Chinese. See: the report on the lecture oilvanov, V. V., О drevnejsih kontaktah kitajskogo jazyka s indoevropejskim. SE 1974: 6. 143. 3 o Itkonen , E., Zur geographischen Ausdehnung der finnisch-ugrischen Urheimat UAIb 41(1969) 304. 3( 1 Tre/'jakov, P. N., Finno-ugry, baity i slavjane na Dnepre i Volge. (Moskva-Leningrad 1966) 88, 94, 101.; Cernecov, V. AT., Drevnjaja istorija Niznego Priob'ja. MIA 35. (Moskva 1953) 58. 3' Fodor, I., MFMÉ 1971: 2. 176-177. with literature.
