Folia archeologica 27.

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

156 I. FODOR Tingling) mentioned in Chinese sources, was identical with the Ugrians.

4

3 The number of counter-arguments against the above notion could be, however, increased. No wonder that this theory has found almost no followers among archaeologists, or specialists of akin disciplines. (It was supported only by T. M. Garipov and R. G. Kusçetev.y* Perhaps it would not be entirely without interest mentioning that the hypothesis of B. Munkácsi, according to which "... the ancient home of the FinnoHungarian peoples was situated in the woodland and open country north of the Caucasus, rich in rivers and pastures. . . "

4

5 was accepted, to my knowledge, by no prominent archaeologist. 4. Among Hungarian archaeologists the theory of an original home about the Kama or Volga-Kama region found the most adherents, not only in former times but - sporadically - even to-day. This notion, based on bio-geographical data, was first supported by archaeological arguments - as said before - by Tallgren. His theory - according to which the Pianobor culture, lasting till 600 A. D. and vanishing about this time from the Kama region, can be brought in connection with the Hungarians, who probably started their long migrations about this time - proved in Hungary very fertile. As the Pianobor culture originated from the Early Iron Age Ananino culture and this latter from the Bronze Age culture of East Russia, Tallgren connected thiw whole chain of cultures with the ProtoFlungarians.

4

0 Gy. Lás^/ó supposed that the distance between the Pianobor culture and the remains of the Hungarians of the Conquest Period could be surmounted by an increase of new data, pointing to a number of remarkable parallels.

47 I. Dienes called the attention to similarities, if rather remote ones, of the costume of the conquering Hungarians.

4

8 Missing links, connecting the two cultures, were, however, not produced by recent research. On the contrary: there are more and more reliable data contradictory to a genetic connection. Considering all these the conclusion can be drawn that the Pianobor and Ananino cultures, as well as the previous Kama Bronze Age culture, are by no means to be connected with the 4

3 C%eglédy, К., Nomád ncpek vándorlása Napkelettől Napnyugatig. Körösi Csorna Kiskönyvtár 8. (Bp. 1969) 150. 4

4 Garipov, T. M.—Ktapev, R. G., „Baskiro-mad'jarskaja" probléma. (Kratkij obzor osnovnyh istocnikov) AEB I. (Üfa 1962) 342. - Based on this the negative opinion of Németh, Gy., ActaLing 16(1966) 6.; Id., Vengerskie plemennye nazvanija u baskir. AEB IV. (Ufa 1971) 252.; In his new book R. G. Kn^eev does not accept the theory of Kyzlasov any longer: Proishozdenie baskirskogo naroda. (Moskva 1974) 400. 4

5 Munkácsi, В., A magyar őshaza kérdése. In: A finnugor őshaza. . . 219. To his linguistical critic see: Zsirai, M., Finnugor rokonságunk. 130.; Hajdú, P., A magyarság kialakulásának előzményei. 68-69. 4

0 tallgren, A. M., L'époque dite d'Ananino dans la Russie orientale. SMYA 31(1919) 184. 4

7 László, Gy., Őstörténetünk ... 19.; Id., In: A magyar őstörténet ... 40.; Id., FA 7(1955) 122. - E. Moór to professed the identity of the Pjanobor people with the Ancient Hungarians: Acta Ethn. 2(1951) 134-136.; Id., ActaLing 10(1960) 390-391. From an archaeological point of view his works are, though, unserviceable, as they are based in almost all instances on a misinterpretation of archaeological data. The Hungarian character of the Ananino and Pjanobor cultures was rejected previously by J. Deér: A magyarság a nomád kultúrközösségben. In: Magyar Művelődéstörténet. I. (Bp. n. d.) 40. 4

Я Dienes, I., Arch. Ért. 96(1969) 117.