Recently published works by the Poznan anthropologists J. Piontek (2006) and R. Dabrowski (2007) have provoked archaeologist to join the debate on the potential of anthropological research for studies on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. As an archaeologist the author finds it of foremost importance that anthropology 'verifies or falsifies hypotheses and theories formulated by other disciplines (of science)', that is, archaeology included. Since the history of different human groups, including the biological diversity of different populations, can be studied based on a differentiated set of skull morphological traits, one cannot but hope for the opportunity to verify the 'allochthonous' theory of Slav origin. Janusz Piontek has written that 'the archaeologists' visions of the process of Slav ethnogenesis are but one of several propositions competing with ideas either suggested or put forward by representatives of various other disciplines of general anthropology'. Assuming the same concerns physical anthropology, one should ask a number of questions and voice certain doubts formed after a careful perusal of the works of the above mentioned scholars. Results presented by J. Piontek are inspiring, but leave the field open to further questions. Why the small biological distance between people buried in the 13th century in Norwegian Bergen and those laid to rest in graves in Kolobrzeg from the 14th through the 18th century? Why is the 'Cedynia II' population closer to the 'Przeworsk culture' group than to 'Cedynia I' population, which comprises a series of skulls from an adjacent part of the same cemetery? Is it not because the comparison is partly based on the 'Przeworsk culture series' consisting of just nine skulls? Why is the 'Cherniakhov culture' population so similar to the 'Konskie' group, that is, individuals buried in inhumation graves of the 10th and 11th century in central Poland? The two populations are separated not only by thousands of kilometers, but also by six or seven hundred years in time! The reservations formulated above justify a basic question: is the method applied by J. Piontek actually capable of demonstrating real genetic ties between populations or is the effect of this proceeding merely a determination of morphological resemblance without the possibility of explaining the reasons behind it? The method presented by J. Piontek and R. Dabrowski demonstrate a big potential in studies of prehistoric populations. The determinations of both researchers, well grounded in anthropological material, are their important contribution to a discussion of the biological picture of Polish territories in the past. Nonetheless, a prerequisite of this kind of research is a close association between the physical anthropologist and archaeologist. Otherwise, it leads to interesting results, but worse than potentially possible. The hazards are well reflected by R. Dabrowski's study, where no such collaboration can be observed. Moreover, the limitations in the application of the demographic method to investigations of fossil sources, discussed several years back by E. Piasecki (1990), should also become a field of discussion for archaeologists, anthropologists and demography experts alike.