So how do we actually try to assess hand preference in past populations or individuals? Traditionally this has simply been undertaken by looking at the lengths, breadths and cross-sectional morphologies of the long bones in the arms. Where the right side was bigger \/ longer \/ wider \/ had more muscle attachment development than the left side, this was assumed to mean that the individual was a right-hander. But is it as simple as this? Whereas the main focus of previous research on asymmetry and hand preference\u00a0was\u00a0on the bones of the upper limb, rather than those of the hand, we decided to study the bones of the hands (the metacarpals and phalanges). To start this research,\u00a0a method of actually assessing\u00a0musculoskeletal stress marker (MSM) development in hand bones had to be developed.\u00a0\u00a0During her PhD working with me, Lisa Cashmore developed\u00a0a presence\/
\nabsence scoring system was developed for twelve sites of muscle origin and insertion in the metacarpals\u00a0and phalanges, which was then used to determine bilateral asymmetry in the hands. When we then compared these scores of hand preference\u00a0with MSM scores from the upper arm bones (humeri) of the same individuals clear differences in the expression of\u00a0MSM development and asymmetry could be seen between these two parts of the upper limb. Our results suggest that we should not simply continue to\u00a0use measurements or scores from the humerus as a proxy for the upper limb as a whole and imply\u00a0that important information regarding\u00a0behavioural asymmetry in the hands is being lost because of the continual exclusion of this anatomical\u00a0unit from such\u00a0research. Instead we need to look at the hands too! Maybe we will find more lefties out there in the bioarchaeological record. \u00a0 #lefthandersday<\/p>\n
![\"EcijaHand2223\"](\"http:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/archaeology\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/sites\/20\/2015\/08\/EcijaHand22231.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n