The main contradictions, between hypotheses posed by physical anthropologists or geneticists, and the hypotheses put forward by archaeologists or historians, regarding the origin and spread of the Slavs, concerned and still concern the following: (a) the state and biological dynamics of Slavic populations (the capacity for population expansion) , (b) diversity and biological similarity of various groups living in Central Europe at the end of antiquity and in the early Middle Ages, (c) migration movements and their intensity, (d) directions of migration and their importance in the formation of Slavic “ethnos”. On the basis of the results of anthropological research, it can be concluded that: (a) both in the late antiquity period and in the early Middle Ages, the regional diversity of the populations inhabiting the Odra and Vistula basins was maintained, (b) there was a geographical gradient in the variability of morphological features of the skull from west to east of Europe, (c) populations belonging to the Germanic population and populations living in Scandinavia in the Middle Ages clearly differed in terms of morphological features of the skeleton from the population of Western Slavs inhabiting the Odra and Vistula basin. On the other hand, the emergence of a clear geographical gradient in the variability of morphological features of the skeleton, in late antiquity and in the Middle Ages, in Central Europe, allows to conclude that there were no intense migratory movements and the population exchange between late antiquity and the early Middle (d) results of the skeletal morphological features and state and biological dynamics of the population from the Roman period and the Middle Ages indicate a similar level of adaptation of these groups of people to living conditions. This result does not confirm the thesis put forward by some archaeologists and historians that the cultural system of the Slavs was characterized by poverty and a low level of material culture.

Scientists are increasingly specializing in narrower fields, and communication is often difficult between physicists researching elementary particles and those studying semiconductors, not to mention between physicists and biologists or doctors. This makes interdisciplinary work difficult. And yet sometimes they succeed. One thread of work underway at the PAS Institute of High Pressure Physics offers a good example.