O wiarygodności wielocechowych odległości biologicznych w antropologii: krytyka i polemika

Janusz Piontek

doi:10.18778/1898-6773.50.2.16

Authors

Janusz Piontek Zakład Antropologiż UAM

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.50.2.16

Abstract

The work contains a response to the views of M. Henneberg (published in Przegląd Antropol. 1984, 50, 65-80) on (1) cognitive value of the measures of geometrical distance, (2) the application of Penrose's method in anthropological studies, (3) testing the significance of differences between groups specified when Penrose's method is. used, (4) dependence between Penrose's distance and the number of samples, The present work contains also an answer to M. Henneberg's objections stating that the author of this polemics obtained research results by ‘manipulating’ with the empirical material.

The present work criticizes and polemizes with the views of M. Henneberg. It states that M. Henneberg analyzed the views of different authors in a too onesided way, and regarding hte work of the present author he did not indicate any adequate facts evidencing the presumed ‘manipulation’ with the empirical material.

In the conclusion, the work criticizes and polemizes with the views concerning the definition of biological distance. M. Henneberg believes that the distance should reveal the similarity in all possible features and he introduces the notion of a ‘general biological similarity’. On the other hand, the author of the polemics believes that anthropological studies consist in searches for similarities regarding a given class of features according to theoretical bases of biological taxonomy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bach A. 1978, Neolithische Populationen im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet, Zur Anthropologie des Neolithikums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bandkeramiker, Weimaner Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Weimar.

Bach H. A. Bach, 1971, Anthropologische Untersuchungen, (w:) Bach H., S. Dusek, Slawen in Thüringen, Weimar.

Chojnicki Z. T. Czyż, 1973, Metody taksonomii numerycznej w regionalizacji geograficznej, PWN, Warszawa.

Cesnys G. 1976, Craniological Characteristic of the 14th -17th c, Populationen in Lithuamia, I. Male Crania, Przegląd Antropologiczny, 42, 233 - 243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.42.2.04

Henneberg M. 1984, Wiarygodność wielocechowych miar odległości geometrycznej ze szczególnym. uwzględnieniem odlegiości Penrose'a, Przegląd Antropologiczny, 50, 1, 65 - 80.

Henneberg M, J. Piontek, J. Strzałko, 1978, Natural Selection and Morphological Variability: The Case of Europe from, Neolithic to Modern Times, Current Anthropology, 19, 67 - 82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/202005

Knussmann R. 1967, Penrose-Abstand und Diskriminanzanalyse, Homo, 18, 134 - 140.

Mayr,E., 1974, Podstawy, systematyki zwierząt, PWN, Warszawa.

Parysek J. J. 1982, Modele klasyfikacji w geografii, UAM, Poznań.

Penrose L. S., 1954, Distance size and shape, Annals of Eugenics, 18, 337 – 343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1952.tb02527.x

Piontek J. 1979, Procesy mikroewolucyjne w europejskich populacjach ludzkich, UAM, Poznań.

Piontek J, M. Kaczmarek, 1981, Badania etnogenetyczne w antropologii: Próba nowego spojrzenia, Przegląd Antropologiczny, 47, 129 - 143.

Roth-Lutra K. H. 1970, Vergleichend-statistische Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie des Friih- und Hochmittelalters in Europa I. Homo, 21, 104- 117.

Roth-Lutra K. H, 1971, Vergleichend-statistische Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie des Früh-und Hohmittelalters in Europa II., Homo, 22, 84-87.

Rösing F. W. I. Schwidetzky, 1977, Vergleichend-statistische. Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie des frühen Mittelalters (500 - 1000 mn. d.Z.), Homo, 28, 65 - 115.

Schwidetzky I, 1967, Erfahrungen mit dem Penrose-Abstand, Homo, 18, 140 - 230.