Folia archeologica 27.
István Fodor: Az uráli és finnugor őshaza kérdése (Régészeti áttekintés)
162 I. FODOR ically well-explored area — much more so than the eastern side of the Ural — the phenomena mentioned cannot be explained with a scantiness of archaeological research. Early Neolithic remains have been unearthed only about the mouth of the Kama and the neighbouring Volga regions.' 6 In the fourth millennium B. C. this area did not belong, however, to the Ural Neolithic culture, being connected with stronger links to the find material of the western regions. 7 7 The tool assemblage of the Ural culture was made on the basis of a production, following earlier, Mesolithic traditions. The next parallels to these objects are known from the area of the Lake Aral and the Caspian Sea, mainly from the area of the Kelteminar culture of the Aral region 7 8 Form and decoration of the pottery point, besides the similarities of the stone implement, also to a close affinity. It cannot be doubted that the earliest Uralian pottery is rooted in the southern regions. 7 9 It is, furthermore, a remarkable fact that in the environment of Sverdlovsk a house with a round ground plan was excavated, similar to those of the Kelteminar culture, to be dated with a great probability to the fourth millennium B. C. If the house is dated correctly, it would be the earliest dwelling excavated on the area of the Ural Neolithic culture and we may assume on its basis that at the beginnings the Uralians built their houses also after southern prototypes. 8 0 Later, in the third millennium B. C., both sides of the mountain were occupied by the Uralian or Ural-Kama culture, which, as mentioned, is already closely connected with later archaeological cultures, determinable as Finno-Ugrian. The major part of specialists of Finno-Ugrian archaeology has no doubts about the fact any longer, that the Ural-Kama archaeological culture of the third millennium В. C., embracing both sides of the Ural, is to be brought in connection with the Finno-Ugrians (P. N. Tretiakov, A. N. Khalikov, O. N. Bader, V. N. Chernetsov.) 8 1 As for the location of this ancient population in the fourth millennium В. С., we find several opinions. According to V. N. Chernetsov the Uralian people moved during the Mesolithic Age, roughly about the period between 6000 and 5000 B. C., to the area between the Ural mountain and the rivers Ob and Irtis from the South, the environment of Lake Aral and the eastern coasts of the Caspian Sea. 8 2 (The thesis of a migration from the South is corroborated also by recent investigations of G. N. 7 0 Halikov, A. H., op. cit. 67. « Bader, O. N., MIA 166. 166. 7 8 Tolstov, S. P., Po sledam drevnehorezmijskoj civilizacii. (Moskva 1948) 72-74.; Id., Az ősi Chorezm. (Bp. 1950) 69-78.; Massen, V. M., Neoliticeskie ohotniki i sobirateli. In: Srednjaja Azija v epohu kamnja i bronzy. (Moskva —Leningrad 1966) 133—145.; Vinogradov, A. V., Neoliticeskie pamjatniki Horezma. МНЕ 8. (Moskva 1968) — A. A. Formo^ov considers the influence from the Caspian region as the more important one: О roli zakaspijskogo i priaral'skogo mezolita i neolita v istorii Evropi i Azii. SA 1972: 1. 22 — 35. 7 9 Cernecov, V. N., К voprosu о slozenii . . . 51-53.; Bader, O. N., MIA 1966. 159 8 0 Ibid. 161.;— The house was uncovered at the settlement of Niznaja Makusa, excavated by E. M. Bers; its dating is, though, not unambigous for the time being. V. F. Starkov, for example, classed it not to the early Kozlov but to the second period: К voprosu о periodizacii zaural'skogo neolita. /».-Problemy hronologii i kul'turnoj prinadleznosti arheologiceskih pamjatnikov Zapadnoj Sibiri. (Tomsk 1970) 3. 8 1 Cf. Fodor, I., Skizzen ... 4-8. with literature. 8 2 Cernecov, V. N., On the problem of ancient substratum in the cultures of the circumpolar region. Trudy VII. MKAEN, 10. (Moskva 1970) 262.
