Folia archeologica 27.

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

THE URALIAN AND FINNO-UGRIAN ORIGINAL ПОМЕ 161 5. A considerable part of specialists of Finno-Ugrian archaeology accept the notion of linguists,

7

2 according to which the oldest dwellings of the FinnoUgrians are to be found in the Neolithic remains.

7'

5 Linguists base their theory on the fact that the word-stock of the Uralian - Finno-Ugrian basic language (sledge, bow, arrow, drill, snow-shoes, needle, awl, glue; to spin, to paddle) reflects Neolithic circumstances. Archaeologists support their theories primarly with the argument, that it is this period, from which the earliest find material, quantitatively significant, is at our disposal, the comparative analysis of which is already sufficient for ethnohistorical deductions. The retrospective investigation of the Late Finno-Ugrian find material gives, on the other hand, the same period, i. e. the Uralian Neolithic culture. The Uralian Neolithic culture, found on both sides of the mountain, is to be dated to the fourth to third millennia B. C. Its characteristic features are as follows: houses dug in the earth, of a square ground-plane; pointed-based pots with comb-marks on their surface; bone harpoons and arrowheads; settlements exclusively on riversides and lake-shores; burials sprinkled with red ochre; rock engravings, etc. In the find material of the eastern and western sides of the Ural there are, though, besides evidences for a unity also remarkable differences: for the eastern side small, microlithic blades are characteristic, with one side retouched; the clay of the essels was often mixed with pulverized steatite, the surface covered, in many cases, with the so-called tacking stitch decoration (lines of unequal depth, made with small sticks), though wave-lines occur quite often, while westward from the mountain ridge the mantle of the pots being decorated almost exclusively with comb impressions; tool-making traditions were also different: macrolithic implements (burins, scrapers, axes) being characteristic for this area.'

4 Besides the ones mentioned the most important difference between the two areas is, that the earliest Neolithic remains are, for the time being, known only from the eastern side of the Ural, the western slopes of the mountain, together with the great part of the Kama valley, having been at this time for the most part uninhabited.

7

5 As the latter region, especially the Kama valley, is an archaeologUgrians would be in the Upper Palaeolithic, and Mesolithic, about the Volga-Oka region and the Kunda and Sigir cultures, originating from these, are to be regarded as the heritage of Proto-Lapps and Proto-Samoyedes (Arch.Ërt. 94(1967) 215-216.) has not been proved. 7

2 See e. g. Hajdú, P., Néprajz és Nyelvtud. 12(1968) 5-6. 7

3 See e. g. Tret'jakov, P. N., Finno-ugry, balty . . . 37-38.; Krifyvskaja, F. Ja., Neolit Juznogo Urala i probléma etnokul'turnvh obscnostej. In: V. Ural'skoe arheologiceskoe sovescanie. (Syktyvkar 1967) 27. 7

4 Bader, О. N., MIA 166. 157-171.; Fodor, I., Skizzen . . . 7-12. 7

5 Bader, О. N., MIA 166.; Krifyvskaja, F. Ja., Neoliticeskie poselenija na severo-vostoke Baskirii. SA 1962: 2. 110.; Ead., Neolit Juznogo Urala. MIA 141. (Leningrad 1968) 115-116.; Cernecov, V. N., Naskal'nye izobrazenija ... II. 110.; Id., Opyt vydelenija etnokul'turnyh arealov v Severo-Vostocnoj Evrope i Severnoj Azii. In: Proishozdenie aborigenov Sibiri. (Tomsk 1969) 115.; Matjusin, G. N., Puti razvitija Juznogo Urala v epohu mezolita i neolita. AEB IV. (Ufa 1971) 86-87. - The division of the Ural Neolithic according to V. N. Cernecov: 1.) Kozlov period: 4000-3300 B. C.; 2.) Yurino-Gorbunovo period: 3300-2700 B. C.; 3.) CeStyjag period: 2700-2200 B. C. (K voprosu о slozenii ... 41.) - O.N. Bader modified the terminology of the second one to Poludjonka, that of the third one Sosnovyj Ostrov period. (MIA 166.158-159.) 11 Folia Archaeologica 1976