Folia archeologica 27.

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

THE URALIAN AND FINNO-UGRIAN ORIGINAL ПОМЕ 165 cultural unity, embracing, besides the said regions, western Siberia to the Yenisey. This was the Uralian original home, where - on the eastern slopes of the Ural - a population group, related to the Kelteminars, penetrated about 3500 B. C., curring the Proto-Samoyeds, the remotest branch of the Uralians living towards the East, from the Finno-Ugrians, dissolving hereby the unity of the Uralians. The earliest remains of the Uralians are, according to the notion of Khalikov, very close to the Dnieper-Donets Neolithic culture, situated towards the West, and it is not impossible that at this region a branch of the Uralians lived. (This notion is, according to him, corroborated by allegedly Finno-Ugrian place-names in the valleys of the Dnieper, Sozh and Desna.) Khalikov considers the evident southern influences, provable in the earliest history of the Uralians, as secondary ones and regards instead the western links as having an ethnical character.

1"

0 Recent investigations, aiming to throw light on the earliest connections between the Ural region and the Baltic area, are also of a great importance. According to N. N. Gurina, about the end of the fourth millennium B. C. an eastern (Uralian) population arrived to the territory of Karelia and the Sperrings type pottery, decorated with comb-markings, would be the products of their potters.

101 G. A. Pankrusbev is, on the other hand, of the opinion, that the Uralian population groups, held by him for Proto-Lapps, arrived here as early as the Mesolithic producing later, about the middle of the forth millennium В. С., the Neolithic culture characterized by the Sperrings pottery.

10

2 According to Yu. V. Titov, however, the Sperrings pottery cannoth be brought in connection with that of the Ural region, being the product of a local population, living there since the Mesolithic Age.

10

3 In the investigation of southern connections of the Ural Neolithic culture besides G. N. Matyusbin, mentioned above, particularly L. Ya. Kri^bevskaya brought new notions. According to her in the Neolithic Age both the southern Ural and Kazahstan are to be classified to the same culture, the ethnic background of which might have been also uniform. About the Central Ural region, having many common traits with the southern areas, a different population lived. According to her remarkable statement, in the southern Ural, the Ufa valley, a migration of significant population groups from the eastern side of the mountain to he Kama valley is demonstrable by archaeological finds.

10

4 1(

i" Halikov, A. H., op. cit. 381-385.; Id., Neoliticeskie plemena Srednego Povolz'ja. MIA 172. (Moskva 1973) 116-117.; Id., A középső Volga-vidék és a finnugor őstörténet. In: A vízimadarak népe. Red. J. Gulya. (Bp. 1975) 163-191. ' 10

1 Gurina, N. N., К voprosu ob etnokul'turnyh oblastjah lcsnoj i lesostepnoj zony Evropejskoj casti SSSR v epohu neolita. Trudy VII. MKAEN 5. (Moskva 1970) 316. 10

2 Pankrusev, G. A., Plemena Karelii . . . 95-96.; Id., Neoliticeskie plemena Karelii. MIA 172. (Moskva 1973) 74. 10

3 Titov, ]u. V., О kul'ture Sperrins. In: Arheologiceskie issledovanija v Karelii. (Lenin-« grad 1972) 42. ' IM Krifyvskaja, L. Ja., Neolit Juznogo Urala. 114-115.; Ead., Neoliticeskie plemena Juznogo Predural'ja. In: MIA 172. 129.; Ead., Juznye svjazi ural'skih kul'tur v epohah pozdnego kamennogo veka. CIFU IV. Pars 1. (Bp. 1975) 178-179.