13417 P1060319

156 JANUSZ OSTOJA-ZAGÓRSK I

PlASfOCI. E.

1975    Próba cbarakterystyk I stmktmy wieku z Kom Et-Dikka w Aleksandrii w A7//-A7 V w. na

podstawie danych o populacjach szkieletowych. "Mateiiiily 1 Prace Antropologiczne", oo.89.pp. 117-146

RlClłAKDs' J. A.

•939 land, Lobom and Diet la Northern Rodesia Skarżyńska, k.

1967 Zmarnowanie bada* pakohydrohgieznych w archeologii, "Archeologia Polski”. VOl. 12. pp. 7-1»

Stmauo, J. M. Hennebekg. J. Piontek

1976 Wstęp do ekologii populacyjnej człowieka. Poznań

Strzałko. J.. J. OmuA-ZAOóftsci

1974    W sprawie badań paleodemograficznych w Polsce. Uwag! polemiczne, ”Slavia Antigua", vol. 21. pp. 167-176

1975    Ze seudbw mad ssrmktmą zabawienia północno zachodnie/ strefy dorzecza Odry! Il'isły w schyłkowych fazach epoki brązu I *r okrasie halsztackim. "Sprawozdania Archeolo-tśczne-. «oL 27, pp. 271-278

Sn na ii. hi.

1964    V»agi ogólne o przemianach środowiska geograficznego Polski Jako Ha przyrodniczego

rozwoju rolnictwa, (m Ą Zarys historii gospodarstwa wiejskiego w Pobce. vol. 1. pp. 9-28

Tttscnńwi. S.

voL 9. _Pp. 131-148

des soebtes barbares en Europę centrale. “Archacologia Polona".

Topolski. 1.

1968 Metodologia historii. Warszawa Woźniak, Z.

197° Osadnictwo cahyckie w Pobce. Wrocław- Warszawa-Kraków

POkki". >x>l. 16. pp. 178-209

1971 Z problematyki badań zanika kultury łużyckiej w Pobce południowej. -Archeologia

Miki- mI ■<__---

Unconttniionai Arctecology ISBN 8J-04«00304-X

Maciej Hcnneberg, Jan Strzałko

Main Methodological and Mcthodical Problems in Studies of Biological Hlstory of Haman Populations

Introduction

It is woli known that culture has cmergcd as a rcsult of biological cvoluiion and by means of fccdback intenclaiions stimulatcd cwlutionary changes. Hcnce, system constitutcd by man and his cnvironmcnt cannot be studied cffectwely with the scopo of invcstigations limited to biological or to cultural phcnomcna only. It seans uscfui to cxp!ain in detail how aforemaitioncd unity of biological and cultural studies should be comprehcndcd. sińce cultural anthropołogists freąuently use biological Information as a mero illustrative materiał contributing to a background of described cultural phcnomcna, but this is not the proper approach. Biological and cultural cvcnts arc intcrconncctcd so closely that wilhout sound knowkdge of both domains it is impossiblo to explam how and why human groups aro function-mg.

The purposc of the present paper is to prove the reality of the above statements and to show the neoessity of not simply multidisciplinary, but interdiscrpłrnaiy approach to the studies of our spccies.

At the beginnmg of further considerations we would likc to pose two, seemingly, simplc qucstions which cvcryone for the first glanoe is ready to answer rmmcdiatdy: 1. Why can 1 cali myself a man? and 2. What is the origin of my kind? These ąuestions look so banał that it seans unsuitabk to pose them in the artido of this sort. Howcvcr, after first attempts to answer the ąuestions they wiU not look so simplc. The ansrar to the first ąuestion is usually given by describing firstly morphological fcalures— shape of the body and its components, their proportions etc., then ąuotmg sooe dcmcnts of individuąPs behavior—locomotion, speech, symbołic retsomng and at iast enumerating rarious sorts of social (collectivo) bchnvior—stryeturo of groups, co-opcration and the likc. Soch description is usually cooduded by a statement that man is the master of natural foroes i.c. he is ablc to direct eonsaously his own history. Ali ąuotcd attributes of humanity are uncquivocal and elear at their upper limiis, but it would be very difficult todedde what, or wbo. cannot be awardcd a narne of man becauso of doficienoy in one of characteristics or a łąck of it. Uncertamty