Biface

[Robert Henvell]

Martin Porr contends that the tasks,which were preformed by bifaces,can be done by other tools,that can be produced with much less effort.The production of bifaces forced hominids into a much more complicated chain of operations,which necessitated the investment of more time and endeavour.
Is this assessment widely accepted or is it equivocal?

The Hominid Individual in Context,Routledge,2005,M Porr,chapter 5.

[trehinp]

Robert,

I've seen a few papers saying that the exceptional symmetry of biface tools was probably not necessary to their efficiency... I don't have the time right now to look up the references...

The idea behind those papers was that there was an aesthetical purpose in making those tools so perfectly symmetrical. In one of the papers, the authors hypothesized that those exceptional tools may have been more geared to ceremonies than for work. 

Michel Lorblanchet, in his wonderful book  “La naissance de l’art, Genèse de l’art préhistorique ”, Editions Errance 1999, gives example of even more decorative bifaces, definitely showing a sense  and research for aesthetical shapes and colours.

I hope this was answering your question...

Paul

[Robert Henvell]

Thanks a tonne for the help,Paul.You have answered my query.