- Email: [email protected]
Handedness data on the European neolithic
0028-3932/84 $3.00+0.00 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd.
Neuropsychalogia, Vol. 22. No,.. 5, pp. 613-615, 1984. Pnnted I” Great Brltam
NOTE HANDEDNESS
DATA ON THE EUROPEAN DIRK R.
SPENNEMANN
Department of Prehistory, Johann Wolfgang Frankfurt am Main, Federal Republic (Accepted
NEOLITHIC
Goethe University, of Germany
2 Maq’ 1984)
Abstract-An analysis of grinding striations on neolithic bone and antler implements yielded a regiona] variation ofthe percentage of left-handed individuals in Southern Germany and Switzerland during the fourth millenium B.C. While the Swiss data show as little as 6.39, to have been left-handed, the Southern German data reveal three times as much.
INTRODUCTION BESIDES the question of a genetic basis to humans’ handedness, the problem of its evolution and representation is of interest to both psychologists and anthropologists. Although a wide variety of theories have been proposed during the past 100 years [S. 61. few data have been published so far. Besides exploiting some well known-and thus often cited-passages in the Bible (Judges XX: 18-19) up to the present one has to rely almost solely on the analysis of Egyptian wall-paintings as published by W. DENNIS [3] in 1958 or on the analysis ofJavanese reliefs as conducted by the current author [ll]. In two burial districts of Upper
Egypt, W. Dennis studied the percentage of left-handed, skilled manual actions as depicted on the tombs’ wall-paintings [3]. The chronologically older sample of Beni Hassan (approx. 2500 B.C.) showed 7.5% left-handed activities (n= 120), while the younger sample of Thebes revealed only 4.76’, left-handed actions (n= 105). Somedata, published almost simultaneously, on the production of neolithic bone harpoon-heads excavated at the site of Ishango at the shores of Lake Edward, Zaire. passed completely unnoticed as they were available in a publication that was, as far as psychologists were concerned, rather obscure. J. DE HEINZELIN DF BRAI~(‘O(!RT[6] was able to show that 5.5% of the harpoon-heads ()I= 191) were products of left-handed workers. The lshango site is dated by the means of 14C to approx. 1500 B.C. In a quite recent article S. COREI*Iand C. PORA~ [I] published an analysis of pictographic sources spanning the time period of the past 5000 years. The partition data supplied by their study vary from 3 to 14”” left-handedness in pre-Christian times. However, their data for prehistoric times rely only on the highly developed Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures and do not reach further back than the first dynasty of Egypt, which is relatively late. The Europeon
dara
The analysis of a series ofneolithic bone implements among the finds of a later neolithic site in Southern Germany (Burgerroth, Ldkr.Wiirzburg, Lower Franconia) otfered the chance to analyse the orientation of grinding striations with respect to the hand causing these marks. As the technique for analysis is described elsewhere in detail [ 10, 141. it is sufficient to state that a continuous grinding movement maintained with the right-hand reveals striations which run from top left to bottom right on the surface of the implement (referring to the longitudinal axis of the artefact). The marks produced by a left-handed individual are a mirror image of the former (i.e. top right to bottom left). Three sites were analysed: Burgerroth (Ldkr.Wiirzburg) and Bodman (Kr. Bodman-Ludwigshafen) in Southern Germany and Twann (Kanton Berne) in Switzerland. These sites belong to two successive cultural horizons of the Southern German/Swiss neolithic, the horizon Neolithic Cl (approx. 4050-3500 B.C., i.e. Pfyn-Culture layer at Bodman and Cortaillod-Culture layer at Twann) and Neolithic C2 (approx. 3500-2900 B.C., i.e. Burgerroth and the Horgen-Culture layers at Bodman and Twann). A differentiated presentation of the archaeological details is given elsewhere [4, 8, 9, 12, 133 and shall be of no concern in this article. The results obtained for the site of Burgerroth show 13”/, of the bone and antler implements (n = 26) exhibiting grinding striations caused by left-handed individuals [7,12]. If the stone axes-ofwhich some show grinding marks 613
614
NOTE
as well--are added the percentage of left-hand produced artefacts Increases to 19.35”,, (!I= 3 I). The bone Implements ofthe total Bodman sample (artefacts originating from both cultural layers, n =51 )exhiblt a representation similar to the latter of the Burgerroth data: 19.6Y,were left-hand produced. While the data for Southern Germany are almost Identical, the SWISS data of Twann differ sIgnificantI\. The Cortaillod sample of Twann, originatmg from the chronologtcally earlier layers. shows that 6.4X”,, of the grindmg striations were produced by left-handed Individuals (n = 555 ). The chronoloplcallq successive Horgen la!erh exhlhit a marked lesser partition: 2.19”,, left-handed produced artefacts could be observed (n=42). The overall total of comparable to the Bodman Twann, comprlsrng the two horizons neolithic Cl and C_7 -and thus chronologically total--shows that 6.3”” ofall artefacts are products ofleft-handed workers. It is likely. that this regional variatl’on IS due to different social systems and pressures being effective on the individuals of the populations. The model supplied by _I. L. M. B. DAMSOX [2] IS illustrative In this context.
DISCUSSION When relying on evidence supplied either by iconographic sources or bb analyses ofhuman‘smaterial culture one has to be aware ofcertain pitfalls. Among iconographic sources this ia the Issue of a probably occurrmg symmetr> jeopardizing the results. However. this can be excluded for the grinding data. The maJor pomt ofcritlcism may focus on whether it IsJustified to extrapolate from the numberoftools made by left-handers or the number ofdepicted lefthanders to the “real” number of left-handed individuals in a population. While this crttlcism seemsJustified on the issue ofpictographic-based handedness data (which will be discussed at length elsewhere). it certainly does not appl? to data gathered by manufacture analysis. As it IS generally accepted by the scholars of prehistory that the specializations of individuals for producing one type of goods only (pottery, bone Implements. stone artefacts etc.) do not occur earlier than the Bronze Age and that bone artefacts are generally accepted as artefacts that are produced ad hoc. we can exclude the bias of tracing one single left-handed worker or a left-handed worker farnil!. The one and only likely bias may be constituted by the fact that the bo,le implements mtght be produced by the male members of the population only. This bias, however, does not jeopardise the usefulness of these data at all. as the percentage of female left-handers is almost identical or minimally less than left-handedness among males. The data presented in this note implicate two potnts for further discussion and research. (I) A greater regional variation can be observed within archaeologico-culturally. chronologically and socioeconomically comparable ethnic groups living in neighbouring areas. The socio-regional factor should be analysed on a larger scale. both by archaeological as by ethno-psychological means. (2) II could be shown that archaeological science is able to supply data on humans handedness other than those originating from plctographic sources. An assessment of all accessible data on prehistoric handedness is in progress by the current author.
Acknow/edgPmmr.\ - I have to express sincere thanks to Professor G. Smolla and to Professor J. Chavaillon who read and commented upon an earlier draft of this paper. The responsibility for the contents. however. lies entlrel) with the author.
REFERENCES I. C’ORW. S. and PORAC, C. Fifty centuries of rlghthandedness: the historlcal record. Scic~nc~ 198,63 I-632. 1977. 1 DAWSOY. J. L. M. B. Temne-Arunta hand-eyedominanceandcogmtivestyle. /!I/. J. P.vrc.hol.4.219 233. 1972. 5: DENNIS. W. Early graphic evidence of dextrality rn man. Percept. Mot. Skills 8, 147 149, 1958. 4. FLIR(;FR, A. R. Die Kletnfunde aus den Horgener Schlchten. IIic, ncv//lh/schrtt C ‘ti,r.\rc,c//lrlr[/c,~~ rou T~onn. Vol. 13. Lehrmtttelverlag. Bern. 1981. 5. HARRIS. L. J. Lefthandedness: early facts and fancies. In N~,rrro~~.s~c,ho/o~/~, q/ Lc,lihrr,~clr,cl,lc,ss. J. HERROX (Edttor). pp. 3-~7X. Acddemlc Press. New Haven. 19X0. 6. DI: HFIN~FI IN DFBRAIITOIIRT, J. Expforariondu pnrc Narional AIhert. Vol. 2: Lrs Foui//r.~d’lshar~yo. lnstltut des Parts Nationeaux de Congo Belge, Bruxelles, 1958. 7. OI’Pt.Nt~~IM~R.J. M. Studies of bram assymmetry: historlcal perspective. An?!. N. 1’. .-lccr[/. SC,/. 299,4 17. 1977. 8. SAI,FR, S. Die Artefakte aus Knochen und Geweih aus den Pfahlbaustationen van Bodman am Bodensee. Unpubhshed M.A. thesis, Universny of Frankfurt. 9. S(‘HII(HLTR. J. Typologlsche Untersuchungen der cortaillodzelthchen Knochenartefakte. I11c ,~c~olirhrsc/te,~ (‘/c,r.v,cr//rr,lv~,~? (OH~‘I\,u!I!I. Vol. 17. Lehrmittelverlag. Bern. 198 I. 10. SPI.NNI.MANX. D. R. Rechts-und Linkshsndtgkeit-ein Benrag aus der Sicht emes ArchBologen. S~.l~~~~c,r/~rr/~X~~i~~,~li~~~t 6. 55 56. 19X3. 11. %‘I-NNl MAW D. R. Right- and Left-handedness in Early South-East Asia: the graphic evidence of the Borobudar. Bijdr. Taal- Land- Volkenkuttde 140, 163-166. 1984.
NOTF
615
12. SPENNFMANN, D. R. Burgerroth. Eine sp5tneolithlsche Hlihensledlung III Unterfranken. Brir. Arch. Rep.. 1984 (m press). I3 SUTER. P. J. Die Hlrschgeweihartefakte aus den Cortaillodschlchten ~Iw ~~olir/~r.vc~hc~~ ( /~,r.\,c,c//u,~c,r,, I ~1 Twanr~.Vol. 15. Lehrmlttelverlap. Bern. 19XI. 14. UCRPMANPI. H.-P. Zur Technologle neollthlscher Knochenmelssel. .4rc~/1oo/ Irtforr~r. 23, I37 140. 1974
Neuropsychalogia, Vol. 22. No,.. 5, pp. 613-615, 1984. Pnnted I” Great Brltam
NOTE HANDEDNESS
DATA ON THE EUROPEAN DIRK R.
SPENNEMANN
Department of Prehistory, Johann Wolfgang Frankfurt am Main, Federal Republic (Accepted
NEOLITHIC
Goethe University, of Germany
2 Maq’ 1984)
Abstract-An analysis of grinding striations on neolithic bone and antler implements yielded a regiona] variation ofthe percentage of left-handed individuals in Southern Germany and Switzerland during the fourth millenium B.C. While the Swiss data show as little as 6.39, to have been left-handed, the Southern German data reveal three times as much.
INTRODUCTION BESIDES the question of a genetic basis to humans’ handedness, the problem of its evolution and representation is of interest to both psychologists and anthropologists. Although a wide variety of theories have been proposed during the past 100 years [S. 61. few data have been published so far. Besides exploiting some well known-and thus often cited-passages in the Bible (Judges XX: 18-19) up to the present one has to rely almost solely on the analysis of Egyptian wall-paintings as published by W. DENNIS [3] in 1958 or on the analysis ofJavanese reliefs as conducted by the current author [ll]. In two burial districts of Upper
Egypt, W. Dennis studied the percentage of left-handed, skilled manual actions as depicted on the tombs’ wall-paintings [3]. The chronologically older sample of Beni Hassan (approx. 2500 B.C.) showed 7.5% left-handed activities (n= 120), while the younger sample of Thebes revealed only 4.76’, left-handed actions (n= 105). Somedata, published almost simultaneously, on the production of neolithic bone harpoon-heads excavated at the site of Ishango at the shores of Lake Edward, Zaire. passed completely unnoticed as they were available in a publication that was, as far as psychologists were concerned, rather obscure. J. DE HEINZELIN DF BRAI~(‘O(!RT[6] was able to show that 5.5% of the harpoon-heads ()I= 191) were products of left-handed workers. The lshango site is dated by the means of 14C to approx. 1500 B.C. In a quite recent article S. COREI*Iand C. PORA~ [I] published an analysis of pictographic sources spanning the time period of the past 5000 years. The partition data supplied by their study vary from 3 to 14”” left-handedness in pre-Christian times. However, their data for prehistoric times rely only on the highly developed Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures and do not reach further back than the first dynasty of Egypt, which is relatively late. The Europeon
dara
The analysis of a series ofneolithic bone implements among the finds of a later neolithic site in Southern Germany (Burgerroth, Ldkr.Wiirzburg, Lower Franconia) otfered the chance to analyse the orientation of grinding striations with respect to the hand causing these marks. As the technique for analysis is described elsewhere in detail [ 10, 141. it is sufficient to state that a continuous grinding movement maintained with the right-hand reveals striations which run from top left to bottom right on the surface of the implement (referring to the longitudinal axis of the artefact). The marks produced by a left-handed individual are a mirror image of the former (i.e. top right to bottom left). Three sites were analysed: Burgerroth (Ldkr.Wiirzburg) and Bodman (Kr. Bodman-Ludwigshafen) in Southern Germany and Twann (Kanton Berne) in Switzerland. These sites belong to two successive cultural horizons of the Southern German/Swiss neolithic, the horizon Neolithic Cl (approx. 4050-3500 B.C., i.e. Pfyn-Culture layer at Bodman and Cortaillod-Culture layer at Twann) and Neolithic C2 (approx. 3500-2900 B.C., i.e. Burgerroth and the Horgen-Culture layers at Bodman and Twann). A differentiated presentation of the archaeological details is given elsewhere [4, 8, 9, 12, 133 and shall be of no concern in this article. The results obtained for the site of Burgerroth show 13”/, of the bone and antler implements (n = 26) exhibiting grinding striations caused by left-handed individuals [7,12]. If the stone axes-ofwhich some show grinding marks 613
614
NOTE
as well--are added the percentage of left-hand produced artefacts Increases to 19.35”,, (!I= 3 I). The bone Implements ofthe total Bodman sample (artefacts originating from both cultural layers, n =51 )exhiblt a representation similar to the latter of the Burgerroth data: 19.6Y,were left-hand produced. While the data for Southern Germany are almost Identical, the SWISS data of Twann differ sIgnificantI\. The Cortaillod sample of Twann, originatmg from the chronologtcally earlier layers. shows that 6.4X”,, of the grindmg striations were produced by left-handed Individuals (n = 555 ). The chronoloplcallq successive Horgen la!erh exhlhit a marked lesser partition: 2.19”,, left-handed produced artefacts could be observed (n=42). The overall total of comparable to the Bodman Twann, comprlsrng the two horizons neolithic Cl and C_7 -and thus chronologically total--shows that 6.3”” ofall artefacts are products ofleft-handed workers. It is likely. that this regional variatl’on IS due to different social systems and pressures being effective on the individuals of the populations. The model supplied by _I. L. M. B. DAMSOX [2] IS illustrative In this context.
DISCUSSION When relying on evidence supplied either by iconographic sources or bb analyses ofhuman‘smaterial culture one has to be aware ofcertain pitfalls. Among iconographic sources this ia the Issue of a probably occurrmg symmetr> jeopardizing the results. However. this can be excluded for the grinding data. The maJor pomt ofcritlcism may focus on whether it IsJustified to extrapolate from the numberoftools made by left-handers or the number ofdepicted lefthanders to the “real” number of left-handed individuals in a population. While this crttlcism seemsJustified on the issue ofpictographic-based handedness data (which will be discussed at length elsewhere). it certainly does not appl? to data gathered by manufacture analysis. As it IS generally accepted by the scholars of prehistory that the specializations of individuals for producing one type of goods only (pottery, bone Implements. stone artefacts etc.) do not occur earlier than the Bronze Age and that bone artefacts are generally accepted as artefacts that are produced ad hoc. we can exclude the bias of tracing one single left-handed worker or a left-handed worker farnil!. The one and only likely bias may be constituted by the fact that the bo,le implements mtght be produced by the male members of the population only. This bias, however, does not jeopardise the usefulness of these data at all. as the percentage of female left-handers is almost identical or minimally less than left-handedness among males. The data presented in this note implicate two potnts for further discussion and research. (I) A greater regional variation can be observed within archaeologico-culturally. chronologically and socioeconomically comparable ethnic groups living in neighbouring areas. The socio-regional factor should be analysed on a larger scale. both by archaeological as by ethno-psychological means. (2) II could be shown that archaeological science is able to supply data on humans handedness other than those originating from plctographic sources. An assessment of all accessible data on prehistoric handedness is in progress by the current author.
Acknow/edgPmmr.\ - I have to express sincere thanks to Professor G. Smolla and to Professor J. Chavaillon who read and commented upon an earlier draft of this paper. The responsibility for the contents. however. lies entlrel) with the author.
REFERENCES I. C’ORW. S. and PORAC, C. Fifty centuries of rlghthandedness: the historlcal record. Scic~nc~ 198,63 I-632. 1977. 1 DAWSOY. J. L. M. B. Temne-Arunta hand-eyedominanceandcogmtivestyle. /!I/. J. P.vrc.hol.4.219 233. 1972. 5: DENNIS. W. Early graphic evidence of dextrality rn man. Percept. Mot. Skills 8, 147 149, 1958. 4. FLIR(;FR, A. R. Die Kletnfunde aus den Horgener Schlchten. IIic, ncv//lh/schrtt C ‘ti,r.\rc,c//lrlr[/c,~~ rou T~onn. Vol. 13. Lehrmtttelverlag. Bern. 1981. 5. HARRIS. L. J. Lefthandedness: early facts and fancies. In N~,rrro~~.s~c,ho/o~/~, q/ Lc,lihrr,~clr,cl,lc,ss. J. HERROX (Edttor). pp. 3-~7X. Acddemlc Press. New Haven. 19X0. 6. DI: HFIN~FI IN DFBRAIITOIIRT, J. Expforariondu pnrc Narional AIhert. Vol. 2: Lrs Foui//r.~d’lshar~yo. lnstltut des Parts Nationeaux de Congo Belge, Bruxelles, 1958. 7. OI’Pt.Nt~~IM~R.J. M. Studies of bram assymmetry: historlcal perspective. An?!. N. 1’. .-lccr[/. SC,/. 299,4 17. 1977. 8. SAI,FR, S. Die Artefakte aus Knochen und Geweih aus den Pfahlbaustationen van Bodman am Bodensee. Unpubhshed M.A. thesis, Universny of Frankfurt. 9. S(‘HII(HLTR. J. Typologlsche Untersuchungen der cortaillodzelthchen Knochenartefakte. I11c ,~c~olirhrsc/te,~ (‘/c,r.v,cr//rr,lv~,~? (OH~‘I\,u!I!I. Vol. 17. Lehrmittelverlag. Bern. 198 I. 10. SPI.NNI.MANX. D. R. Rechts-und Linkshsndtgkeit-ein Benrag aus der Sicht emes ArchBologen. S~.l~~~~c,r/~rr/~X~~i~~,~li~~~t 6. 55 56. 19X3. 11. %‘I-NNl MAW D. R. Right- and Left-handedness in Early South-East Asia: the graphic evidence of the Borobudar. Bijdr. Taal- Land- Volkenkuttde 140, 163-166. 1984.
NOTF
615
12. SPENNFMANN, D. R. Burgerroth. Eine sp5tneolithlsche Hlihensledlung III Unterfranken. Brir. Arch. Rep.. 1984 (m press). I3 SUTER. P. J. Die Hlrschgeweihartefakte aus den Cortaillodschlchten ~Iw ~~olir/~r.vc~hc~~ ( /~,r.\,c,c//u,~c,r,, I ~1 Twanr~.Vol. 15. Lehrmlttelverlap. Bern. 19XI. 14. UCRPMANPI. H.-P. Zur Technologle neollthlscher Knochenmelssel. .4rc~/1oo/ Irtforr~r. 23, I37 140. 1974