<<<OPPPS! Apologies I seemed to have started a new thread whilst meaning to reply to Roberts on the Biface - Admin, please move>>>
Robert,
For another take on the purpose of the biface see Tony Bakers excellent website, especially
http://www.ele.net/acheulean/handaxe.htmPersonally, I am yet to be convinced for the argument that a biface was a universal tool like a "Swiss Army" knife. Flake production does appear to be a far more credible explanation.
This of course does not address the 'apparent' indulgence seen in the production of some Acheulean tools, notably the creation of three-dimensional symmetries (a sophisticated skill).
The reason(s) for the tendency toward symmetry remains to be explained. There could be a historic reason for this lack of explanation and discussion, linked to the influence of the African Eve theory and denial of the cognitive capabilities of our ancestors. For instance, the dominance of the Franco-Cantabrian cave art has perpetuated a myth that it was Homo sapiens sapiens who were responsible for the sudden "explosion" of cave art around 40,000 bp which is for the most part either from the Holocene or most likely attributable to robust (read Neanderthal) hominids.
The ability to produce symmetry of this nature is of course entirely in accord with the production of geometric marks and the creation of simple iconographs and contemporaneous with expansion of the skull in H. heidelbergensis, demonstrating yet again that the short-range model falls far short of explaining the known archaeological record.
Regards Richard
