Folia archeologica 27.

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

168 I. FODOR scarcer, though this territory was not totally uninhabited, either, as at this time abouth the beginning and middle of the Middle Holocene - climatic conditions were much more favourable than to-day: under the influence of a warmer climate the tundra almost totally disappeared from the Ural region.) This contradiction is, however, in my opinion, not so sharp, as not to allow possitilities for linking these two notions. Archaeological finds suggest, however, a much more complicated picture of the ethnic connections and migrations of the Uralians, as it was formed on the basis of a linguistic family tree model. This latter gives e. g. no place for early connections, seemingly very likely, between the Ural region and the Baltic territory. Latterly Meinander and Gurina called the attention to this possibility, starting from different angles.

11

1 The abovesaid would not mean, naturally a negation of the existence of an original home and the gradual dispersion of the Uralians, as this has been proved more and more distinctly and unanimously also by archaeology. It seems, though, as if there were possibilities for investigating beyond the most important links of this process, some questions as well, having been rather neglected hitherto because of a lack of data. We must not, naturally, expect a total harmony of archaeological and linguistic data, as the evolution of material cultures and languages is subject to different laws. Deductions valid for prehistorical reconstructions are to be accomplished by specialists of both disciplines with the utmost cautiousness. The place of the Uralian and Finno-Ugrian original home, mentioned before, allows a location of the single Finno-Ugrian ethnic groups as well; in the span stretching roughly from 3000 to 2000 B. C. Finno-Permians lived in the Kama valley, while Ugrians on the eastern side of the Ural, in West Siberia. This latter area, somewhat south of the Uralian original home, in the West Siberian wooded steppe zone, we may indicate as the scene of an Ugrian co-existence, embracing the distant ancestors of Ob-Ugrians and Hungarians; here the Pro to-Hungarian ethnogenesis took place as well. In outlining this territory we may rely also on data, yielded by archaeology, the survey of which I should like to give otherwhere.

11

2 11

1 Meinander, С. F., Probléma . . . 19.; Gnrina N. N., К voprosu . . . 17.; Ead., Nekotorye obscie voprosy izucenija neolita lesnoj i lesostepnoj zony Evropejskoj casti SSSR. In: MIA 172. 21. 11

2 Fodor, I., A finnugor régészet fő kérdései. In: Uráli népek. Red. P. Hajdú. (Bp. 1975) 60-61.; Id: The main issues of Finno-Ugric archaeology. In: Uralic peoples. Red. P. Hajdú. (Bp. 1976)

in press;

Id., Verecke hires útján. . . A magyar nép őstörténete és a honfoglalás. Magyar História. (Bp. 1975) 87-128. The volume of this study did not allow to enumerate the literature of the problems discussed, aiming even at a relative completeness; I tried, however, to refer to the more recent studies containing a further ample literature.