ELTE BTK Magyar Nyelvtudományi és Finnugor Intézet

Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans in Hungarian Finno-Ugrian research

nyomtatható változat

The three major language families – Uralian, Indo-European and Altaic – are linked by an ancestral and, as yet, uncharted linguistic relation. This issue has been continuously researched since the golden age of comparative linguistic research in the 19th century. Linguists have hypothesized both a Finno-Ugrian–Altaic and Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European linguistic affinity, and the assumption that the parent languages of these three language families can be derived from a single, ancestral proto-language still holds very strong. I shall here focus only on contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. Owing to the general development of Finno-Ugrian studies this problem was first studied by linguistics; however, archaeologists too soon turned their attention to relations between Finno-Ugrian groups and the Indo-European tribes living to their south.

The history of the research into contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European has been reviewed in great detail by Aulis Joki in his monograph (Joki, A. J. 1973). In the first part of my paper I shall concentrate and – to a lesser extent – comment on material which he has collected and which has some relevance on Hungarian.

In their investigation of possible relations between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European, Hungarian scholars of Finno-Ugrian research primarily focused their attention on the east. Very little evidence of Hungarian prehistory has survived in the medieval chronicles which, however, all agree on one point: namely that the ancestral homeland of the Hungarians lay somewhere on the Pontic littoral, and that during their migrations, the ancient Hungarians marched past Kiev and through the Carpathian passes before occupying their present homeland. Scholars of the 18th century re-discovered the account of the Eastern Hungarians written by Julianus, the Dominican friar. This account again confirmed the eastern ancestry of the Hungarians as set down in the chronicles. Prior to the general acceptance of the Finno-Ugrian linguistic affinity, Hungarian scholarship made repeated attempts to prove Hunnic–Hungarian and Scythian–Hungarian contacts. In 1770 György Kalmár published a list of Hungarian–Iranian word correspondences (Kalmár, Gy. 1770) and Pál Beregszászi Nagy too argued in favour of the linguistic affinity between Hungarian and the eastern languages, again citing Hungarian–Iranian correspondences (Beregszászi Nagy, P. 1796). Fascinated by descriptions of Klaproth’s Caucasian travels, József Erdélyi devoted a lengthy study to the Caucasian cognate languages of Hungarian in 1826 and also published a list of correspondences (Erdélyi, J. 1826). In the later 19th century this picture changed when protagonists of the Finno-Ugrian linguistic affinity appeared on the academic scene, and soon there emerged a lively debate with the proponents of the Hunnic–Scythian ‘theory’. Both were greatly interested in contacts with Indo-European. Although he rejected the Finno-Ugrian linguistic affinity, Flórián Mátyás (1856) nonetheless studied this issue with much the same intensity as Bernát Munkácsi, who devoted several studies to the linguistic and historical background of contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European (Munkácsi, B. 1895, 1901/a, 1901/b). Munkácsi proposed that the ancestral Finno-Ugrian homeland be located in the Caucasus. And even though this hypothesis was eventually rejected, linguists continued to be fascinated by the eastern groups of Finno-Ugrian: the Volgaic, Permian and Ugrian languages.

Most linguists concentrated on contacts between the ancient Finno-Ugrians and other ethnic groups, and their research of the linguistic dimension of these contacts eventually directed their attention to the extensive Eastern European and Western Siberian territories. Traditional views on the location of the ancestral homeland in the Volga–Kama region basically substantiated this concept, and neither did the ancestral homeland in Western Siberia and on the European side of the Northern Urals as reconstructed and proposed by Péter Hajdú from his study of linguistic palaeontology contradict this (Hajdú, P. 1964.). In fact, Péter Hajdú combined the ancestral homeland reconstructed on the basis of Finno-Ugrian linguistics (i.e. the diffusion of a small community speaking the parent language from a confined territory) and linguistic palaeontology with the newest findings of related disciplines. The greatest advantage of his method was that he could define both the geographical location of the ancestral homeland and the chronological boundaries of its latest period. Hajdú’s theory represented the maximum of what could be achieved in the reconstruction of the ancestral homeland using traditional methods. Most scholars of Finno-Ugrian linguistics accept Hajdú’s theory, which does not contradict the traditional view that contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European should be placed somewhere in Eastern Europe.

The general acceptance of an ancestral homeland in the Urals and Western Siberia was further corroborated by new archaeological findings from Russia. Following Gyula László, it was István Fodor who became the leading scholar of Finno-Ugrian prehistory. Fodor claimed that Péter Hajdú’s location of the ancestral homeland basically coincided with the distribution of Neolithic cultures in the Ural–Kama region. Archaeologists associated this culture with the Finno-Ugrians and it seemed as if the findings of the two disciplines confirmed each other.

The archaeological implications of Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European contacts gained wider familiarity in Hungary from István Fodor’s works (Fodor, I. 1973). The intrusion of new groups into the forest belt inhabited by the Finno-Ugrians can be demonstrated between the late 3rd millennium and the mid-2nd millennium BC. These newcomers can archaeologically be associated with the Fatjanovo, the Balanovo and the Abashevo culture. These population groups were engaged in stockbreeding and their more developed culture no doubt influenced the Finno-Ugrian groups. The influence of the Srubna (Timber-grave) culture of the Lower Volga region on the Finno-Ugrians can also be demonstrated. However, the extent of these cultural influences varied considerably. The Fatjanovo culture appears to have had the least influence, while the mass graves from the Abashevo distribution territory seem to reflect clashes with the local population. Balanovo and Srubna (Timber-grave) influences were considerably more extensive. The archaeological record suggests an ethnic mingling between these cultures and the ancestors of the Finno-Ugrians. The stockbreeeding population groups of southern origin can be definitely identified with Indo-Europeans, even if they probably represent different Indo-European groups. The Fatjanovo culture can be derived from the Battle Axe culture which is generally associated with the Proto-Balts, while the other groups can most likely be identified with Proto-Iranian speaking communities. Their archeological finds indicate contacts with the Northern Caucasus, the Pontic and the Middle Dnieper region.

In the 1970s and the 1980s Finno-Ugrian linguists in Hungary agreed that the ancestral homeland lay somewhere in the Urals and Western Siberia, and that contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European could be dated to the Bronze Age, with these contacts taking place somewhere on the border between the Eastern European steppe and the forest zone. In the late 1980s there occurred a gradual shift of emphasis. In 1986 Károly Rédei published a book in which he discussed the relationship between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. In the introduction to his book Rédey voiced his critique that the Uralian–Western Siberian homeland theory lacked a sound definition of the geographic and chronological dimensions of the contacts between Uralic (Finno-Ugrian) and Indo-European (Rédey, K. 1986, 9). Sometime later, János Makkay, an archaeologist too began to study this problem, and his different approach made it clear to Finno-Ugrian linguists that Finno-Ugrian prehistory and the problem of the ancestral Finno-Ugrian homeland cannot be divorced from the history of Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European contacts. Another point that emerged clearly was the need for a thorough re-evaluation of all previous hypotheses, irrespective of the approach used for solving the problem of the ancestral Finno-Ugrian homeland and the parent language. If contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European are studied within the context of the generally accepted Uralian–Western Siberian homeland theory, it is painfully evident that these language contacts cannot be reconciled with this ancestral homeland concept. If the Uralian–Western Siberian ancestral homeland is linked to Finno-Ugrian­–Indo-­European language contacts, the result is basically the same: the place of these language contacts and the location of the ancestral homeland cannot be reconciled with each other. I am probably not mistaken in assuming that we have gathered here in order to resolve this problem. Hungarian scholarship has much to learn from the new approaches and perspectives offered by Finn prehistorians, as far as the new localization of the ancestral Finno-Ugrian homeland is concerned.

An interesting relation has sprung up between Hungarian scholarship and Finnish–Estonian prehistoric studies. Even though the new findings of Finnish and Estonian scholarship were well known and Hungarian scholars showed a lively interest in the work of their colleagues, a genuine reaction was nonetheless lacking. Knowing that the situation was basically identical even before World War 2, this lack of reaction cannot be explained by political reasons.

The essentially differing findings of Hungarian and Finnish (as well as Estonian) research can only be explained in part by invoking Hungarian ethnic consciousness and its deeply embedded belief of an eastern origin which long predated the emergence of linguistic scholarship and which diverted interest from North-East Europe and still directs attention to Eastern Europe and Western Siberia.

A fundamental difference in research methods can be cited as another explanation. In Hungary linguistic palaeontology was revered as the almost exclusive method for defining the ancestral homeland. As I mentioned earlier, this approach culminated in the Uralian–Western Siberian ancestral homeland theory proposed by Péter Hajdú. Linguistic palaeontology could emerge as the single acceptable approach in Hungary because prior to the 1960s–1970s Finno-Ugrian scholarship remained the exclusive domain of linguists. In Finland, however, the situation was not so. Finnish prehistory was an integral part of Finno-Ugrian prehistory and Finn archaeologists were able to demonstrate the links between successive archaeological cultures. In other words, the search for the ancestral homeland evolved on an archaeological basis. In contrast, this path could not be followed in Hungary: not even the direct antecedents of the 9th century archaeological heritage of the Hungarian Conquest period are known, not to speak of contacts from several centuries or millennia earlier. In other words, the search for the ancestral homeland remained the concern of linguists in Hungary, while in Finland (and Estonia) that of archaeologists. The time now seems ripe for integrating the findings of these two disciplines.

In the 1980s we can witness the gradual ‘updating’ of the Uralian–Western Siberian homeland theory. I have not yet mentioned Péter Veres to whom we can attribute the first tentative steps in this direction. Based on a comparison of the distribution of elm as reconstructed from the findings of pollen analyses with the Uralian–Western Siberian homeland theory he concluded that the theory needs to be revised since in the Middle Holocene elm thrived in the refuges in the Southern Urals, the implication being even within the framework of linguistic palaeontology, the ancestral Uralian homeland should be located to a more southerly region (Veres, P. 1985). A series of studies published by János Makkay, János Pusztay and myself in the late 1980s and early 1990s outlined the new ancestral homeland concept. János Makkay addressed problems of Indo-European prehistory from the perspective of Neolithic archaeology and eventually also began to study certain problems in Finno-Ugrian prehistory. He was the first to quote Milton Nuńez’s article published in the 1987 issue of Fennoscandia Archaeologica (Makkay, J. 1990, 63, 78 and note 28). From his research into the possible models of Uralian language development, diffusion and uniformization, János Pusztay challenged one tenet of the traditional ancestral homeland concept according to which the parent language emerged in a single linguistic centre (Pusztay, J. 1990). I myself approached the problem of the ancestral Uralian homeland and parent language from a historical perspective, noting that the ancestral homeland model defined exclusively on the basis of linguistic research – namely that the ancestral homeland was a confined territory from where the various Finno-Ugrian peoples migrated to their present homeland – can no longer be accepted. I called for the elaboration of a linguistic model which would accommodate the emergence of a basically uniform parent language over a larger homeland (Klima, L. 1996).

It seems to me that Hungarian scholarship has a genuine interest in the new findings of Finnish prehistoric research and that we are now capable of a more rational evaluation of its merits and mistakes. Still, as far as the polemic among Finnish prehistorians is concerned, Hungarian scholarship still tends to concentrate on the possible implications for Uralian prehistory. This interest can in part be explained by a book on Uralian prehistory written by Gyula László, one of the most creative scholars of Hungarian archaeology, in which he elaborated a highly original ancestral homeland theory (László, Gy. 1961). He located the ancestral Uralian homeland to the western part of the Eurasian forest zone, to the area between modern Poland and the Oka river. Gyula László suggested that in the Mesolithic the Uralian homeland lay in the western part of this area and that the Uralian community could be identified with the Swiderian culture. Even though Gyula László’s theory was later challenged on several counts, the study of the role of the Swiderian culture in Uralian prehistory is perhaps more timely than ever. It seems that Gyula László’s fertile imagination anticipated the new findings of prehistoric research pretty much in the same way as Jules Verne foresaw the main trends of technical development a century ago.

There are three disciplines – linguistics, archaeology and physical anthropology – which play a decisive role in the elaboration of new approaches to the problem of contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. However, what must be borne in mind is that the findings of one particular discipline cannot be regarded as being universally valid and that the results of the other two disciplines can be used to a limited extent only for confirming its results. To quote an obvious example: the genetic makeup of the Finnish population is not a valid argument for claiming that the Finno-Ugrian linguistic affinity is a fundamentally misleading theory. This does not follow from a dogmatic acceptance of Finno-Ugrian linguistic affinity, but rather from the rationale that a linguistic theory can only be refuted by another linguistic theory. The genetic ancestry of a population group does not necessarily coincide with the origins of its tongue. Caution must also be exercised in the evaluation of archaeological assemblages. Although the continuity of cultures can be often demonstrated using archaeological methods, archaeological continuity does not necessarily imply the linguistic continuity of the population of the archaeological culture. These are problems which constantly bedevil the scholars of Hungarian prehistory. When the ancient Hungarians occupied their new Carpathian homeland, their material culture was basically identical with that of other steppean peoples, while their language originated from an entirely different environment. Their anthropological makeup reflected this dual origin already at the time of the Conquest. The investigation of the anthropological finds from the first centuries following the foundation of the Hungarian state reflect a considerable mingling between the ancient Hungarians of the Conquest period and 9th century population of the Carpathian Basin. The debate over the exact date of the Hungarian Conquest – fuelled in part by national pride – and the „dual Conquest” theory which has by now become acceptable also in scholarly circles has gradually been channelled onto a more scholarly plane. (Although it must in all fairness be added that the dilettante approach continues to thrive and captivate the imagination of the layman.) We can now witness an increased interest in prehistory also in Finland.

The new directions in Finnish prehistory call for a fresh look at the contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. In the archaeological record the problem of Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European relations are reflected in the interaction between chronologically and spatially well defined cultures. In contrast, the definition of the time and place of contacts is considerably more problematic in the case of anthropological and linguistic contacts. Linguistic contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European is documented by the common ancestry of certain morphological elements and by various words which have a common etymology. Many studies have been devoted to this common stock of words, to establishing the chronology of the various layers within this vocabulary and to associating these layers with population groups or archaeological cultures. Aulis Joki’s monograph offers a detailed overview of research until the 1970s. Joki lists 222 Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European etymologies, and even if some of these have since been rejected, the order of magnitude of the vocabulary has remained essentially unchanged.

For me, one of the most intriguing aspect of language contact is how approaches to this issue have changed over time, what new sources and research methods have appeared. Numerous examples can be quoted from various historical periods for the linguistic interaction of neighbouring ethnic groups and populations. Even brief and less strong language contacts can lead to linguistic borrowings, while a longer co-existence does not necessarily result in strong linguistic interaction. Ethnographic analogies suggest that linguistic interaction depends also on the political hierarchy of the communities speaking different tongues, as well as on the nature and level of their economy. The first phase of linguistic interaction is characterized by borrowings. In certain cases, words can be adopted from one language into another even without particularly close ethnic ties. However, a closer economic and cultural interaction between two ethnic communities or peoples speaking different tongues triggers a process of linguistic merging, and increasingly more individuals in both communities become bilingual, using both languages in day-to-day contact. At this point metaphrases appear, and various expressions, figures of speech find their way from one language to the other. Good examples for this process can be quoted from Hungarian–Turkic contacts (Bereczki, G. 1983). Only after this phase can we speak of „linguistic encounters of the third type”, when morphological elements are also borrowed from one language into another. Examples for this latter can also be cited from Finno-Ugrian languages. As a result of secondary Permian contacts, the use of personal genitive markers in a determinant function appeared in Cheremis, and the sequence of case suffixes and personal genitive markers also changed. Cheremis also had strong contacts with Chuvash. Cheremis adopted case endings and formants, copied the Chuvash and in part the Tartar past tense system and also adopted their present/past participial structures. A comparison of these morphological correspondences with the number of borrowings is very instructive. Cheremis has 71 Permian loanwords, and about 2500 Tartar and Chuvash borrowings (Bereczki, G. 1996, 9–11). It is quite possible that in the case of cognate tongues the adoption of morphological elements can involve fewer borrowings, while in the case of more distant languages – as indicated by the 2500 Chuvash and Tartar loanwords – a more intensive contact is needed. There are about five times as many Turkic loanwords in Cheremis than root-words of Finno-Ugrian ancestry. A comparison of this ratio with the ratio in Hungarian – which has twice as many Finno-Ugrian root-words as Turkic loanwords – provides an adequate explanation for the lack of Turkic morphological borrowings in Hungarian, even though written sources from the mid-10th century explicitly state that the ancient Hungarians spoke two distinct tongues.

What are the implications of these analogies for contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European, and Finno-Ugrian and Altaic? Most linguists agree that contact was between the parent languages, but how should we visualize this extremely strong language contact which resulted in these correspondences among communities which lived over large areas?

In my earlier comments on the problem of the ancestral Finno-Ugrian homeland I suggested that language development in the central region of Eurasia – the existence of language families and the reconstruction of their parent languages – can be traced to lifeways closely associated with a tundra climate. Tundra type flora and fauna were characteristic over the larger part of Eurasia at the time of the formation of the Uralian, Indo-European and Altaic parent languages. A tundra lifeway can still be observed among the Samoyed and Palaeo-Siberian peoples whose economy is based on reindeer breeding and, less frequently, on reindeer hunting. Owing to the harsh climate, both the animal herds and the herdsmen have to migrate over extensive areas in order to eke out a livelihood. Tundra peoples rarely had permanent settlements: packing their belongings and tents onto sledges they often moved to new, unexplored territories. This lifeway resulted in frequent contact between various human communities and it was these contacts which led to emergence of the first, more or less uniform sign system, the parent language of the communities living in the same geographic-climatic zone. I therefore consider the Uralian, Indo-European and Altaic parent language to be the first language of these population groups. There could hardly have evolved dialect differences under the climatic conditions of the tundra which would have prevented them from understanding peoples living under different climatic conditions and pursuing different lifeways. One case in point is that the tongue spoken by the Nenets – a group of the northern Samoyeds – is basically uniform, while almost all of the Obi-Ugrian communities living on the taiga tend to speak a different dialect in each river valley. This observation allows certain inferences concerning the earliest phase of contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. I would assign to this phase morphological correspondences (such as pronouns, ablative suffixes, etc.) since these reflect a far stronger link than the extent of contact which can be documented in the archaeological record between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European in the Neolithic. In my opinion contact between the Finno-Ugrians – who by that time lived in the forest zone – and the Indo-Europeans at the most resulted in borrowings by the time of the Neolithic. The contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European is traditionally characterized as ‘areal’; however, this is only acceptable insofar as these contacts are not kinship-like in nature. In terms of the contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European (as well as Finno-Ugrian and Altaic), the contacts which I jokingly described as ‘linguistic encounters of the third type’ affected the deep structure of these languages and could therefore hardly have occurred in the interaction between languages in the present sense of the word; on the contrary, they should be seen as the very first chronological phase, the historic moment when certain Homo sapiens communities in Eurasia began the slow shift from the use of sign systems to the creation of a language. I would therefore suggest that the emergence of this common Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European language layer predates the emergence of the three parent languages. And at this point you may well ask what is the difference between this suggestion and the Nostratic theory of a common Uralian–Indo-European–Altaic parent speech?

The weak point of the Nostratic theory is basically identical with the main deficiency of traditional linguistic theories, namely that it disregards the historic reality of the linguistic model. Linguists are generally reluctant to define the chronological boundaries of the parent languages they reconstruct, claiming that only the linguistic phenomena characteristic of the last phase of the parent language period can be reconstructed from the modern languages. The definition of the chronological boundaries of this period thus remains the task of archaeologists and historians. The chronology of the parent language period was mostly based on educated guesses. More recent research would suggest that the Finno-Ugrian, Indo-European and Altaic parent languages emerged sometime in the Mesolithic, while their dissolution can be dated to the Neolithic. It seems obvious that the parent speech of these parent languages must have existed for at least as long a time in an earlier, more primitive phase of human evolution – in the Palaeolithic –, and we may also assume that if such a parent speech had in fact existed, it probably developed at a much slower pace than the three parent languages did a few thousand years later. And should we wish to discuss Palaeolithic languages, we can hardly disregard the debate among anthropologists over whether Neanderthal man was capable of speech at all.

In view of the above assumptions, I would say that the earliest Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European contacts predated the emergence of the Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European parent language, i.e. the emergence of languages in the modern sense of the word. What I am speaking of is a language condition in which minimal linguistic elements (the embryos of the morphological elements of modern languages) were associated with a minimal vocabulary, and both this vocabulary and the determinant elements were incidental and strongly dependent on the communicating person. On this level of linguistic communication, concomitant gestures were extremely important for making communication unambiguous. At this pre-language level the boundaries between grammatical categories were not clear-cut and communication was not ordered into successive sentences. The signs from this linguistic condition evolved into words of different grammatical categories and determinant morphological elements during the formation of the first languages – the Finno-Ugrian, Indo-European and Altaic parent language – of this region. These rudimentary language contacts can indeed be defined as areal contacts: in this period, when only the pre-language condition of language existed, the undeveloped, unformed and incidental nature of the proto-language used by these communities resulted in that borrowed elements penetrated the deeper layer of the sign systems which had just begun the slow transformation into languages.

A number of Hungarian scholars share the above view. Gábor Vékony has claimed that the earliest contact between Uralian and Indo-European (Indo-German) cannot be interpreted as contact between the Uralian and Indo-European parent language, but should be linked to an earlier language condition (Vékony, G. 1997, 265–266). According to János Pusztay certain Uralian morphological phenomena which do not characterize the entire language family predate the Uralian period, and in his view there existed at this time several language formations in the Northern Eurasian zone which can be interpreted as parent languages (Pusztay, J. 1997, 416). The historical analogies mentioned in the foregoing suggest to me that once the entire structure of a language had evolved, it could have only marginal contact with other languages because if it surrendered its structure, the language basically ceased to exist. I would therefore suggest that the term ‘earlier language condition’ be used for the period preceding the Uralian (as well as Indo-European and Altaic) parent language. It is also quite possible that this earlier language is not reflected in the structure of the language (in other words, the language of the period preceding the parent language was perhaps a language already in the present sense of the word), and that the extraordinarily important role of language in human communication had not yet evolved. This language may therefore have been considerably more flexible than the Uralian, Indo-European and Altaic parent language. The point in time when language became indispensable in the life of human communities and a vital medium of transmitting and receiving information can be placed in the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition. This also implies that the place of the earliest contact between Uralian and Indo-European can hardly be located to the present Eurasian forest zone.

The above are obviously no more than a brief outline of the problem. I can hardly claim to have the necessary linguistic training for analyzing the earliest contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. The above train of thought was merely the illustration of a problem which can only be resolved by the combined research of several disciplines. Primary contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European can be dated to earliest phase of language evolution, and thus this problem needs to be examined by ethologists, anthropologists and linguists. We must search for new approaches if we wish to gain a better understanding of the early phases of Finno-Ugrian prehistory.

 

______________________

References

  • Bereczki, G. 1983: Mivel gyarapította nyelvünket a török hatás? Forrás 1983/7. Kecskemét, 73–77.
  • Beregszászi Nagy P. 1796: Über die Ähnlichkeit der hungarischen Sprache mit den Morgenländischen. Leipzig, 1796.
  • Erdélyi, J. 1826: Sprache der Stammverwandten der Hungarn im Kaukasus in 490 Wörtern dargestellt und mit hungarischen verglichen. Ausgehoben aus Julius von Klaproth's Reise in den Kaukasus und dessen Beschreibung des Östlischen Kaukasus. Pressburg, 1826.
  • Fodor, I. 1973: Vázlatok a finnugor őstörténet régészetéből. Régészeti Füzetek II/15. Budapest, 1973.
  • Hajdú, P. 1964: Über die Alten Siedlungsräume der uralischen Sprachfamilie. Acta Linguistica Hungaricae 14 (1964.) 47–83.
  • Joki, A. J. 1973: Uralier und Indogermanen. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 151. Helsinki, 1973.
  • Kalmár, Gy. 1770: Prodromus idiomatis Scythico-Magorico-Chuno (seu Hunno) -Avarici, sive Adparatus Criticus ad linguam Hungaricam… Posonii, 1770.
  • Klima, L. 1996.: On the uralian homeland (in general and in particular). Historia Fenno-Ugrica I:1. Congressus Primus Historiae Fenno-Ugricae. Oulu 1996, 489–496.
  • László, Gy. 1961: Őstörténetünk legkorábbi szakaszai. Budapest, 1961.
  • Makkay, J. 1990: New aspects of the PIE and the PU/PFU homelands: contacts and frontiers between the Baltic and the Ural in the neolithic. CIFU 7/1A, 55–83.
  • Mátyás, F. 1856: Magyar–árja nyelvhasonlatok. Magyar Nyelvészet I. (1856.)
  • Munkácsi, B.1895: Iráni elemek finn-ugor nyelvekben. NyK 25. (1895.) 377–387.
  • Munkácsi, B. 1901/a: Árja és kaukázusi elemek a finn–magyar nyelvekben. Budapest, 1901.
  • Munkácsi, B. 1901/b: Árja hatás a finn–magyar nyelvek számneveiben. Budapest, 1901. Keleti Szemle I. 241–258.
  • Pusztay, J. 1990: Zur Herausbildung des Protouralischen. Specimina Sibirica T. III. Quinqueecclesiae (Pécs)
  • Pusztay, J. 1997: Az uráli őshaza rekonstruálásának egy lehetséges nyelvészeti modellje. Életünk 1997/3, 410–420.
  • Rédei, K.: Zu den indogermanisch–uralischen Sprachkontakten. Veröffentlichungen der Komission für Linguistik und Kommunikationsforschung, Heft 16. Wien, 1986.
  • Vékony, G. 1997: A magyar etnogenezis szakaszai. I-II. Életünk 1997/2, 1997/3. I. 260–276., II. 384–408.
  • Veres, P. 1985: K voprosu finno-ugorskoj prarodini i etnogeneza vengrov v svete novejših palinologičeskih dannih. CIFU 6. Studia Hungarica. Budapest, 1985. 9–17.