Biphase

A biphase ones is a prehistoric lítica tool of very long chronology, but that characterizes, mainly, a stage of the Stone Age: the Achelense (one also is, in addition, in Paleolítico Half e, even, later). Its name comes to him from that the arquetípico model would be a purchase block piece, generally, biface (that is to say, with two faces), of almendrada morphology and directed toward the symmetry according to a longitudinal axis and a plane of crushing. The most common biphases have the terminal zone in end and the cleared base, which gives its so representative form them, that it is added to the biface purchase block that covers both faces total or partially.

The biphases were the first recognized prehistoric tools like such: in 1800 it appears the first representation of a biphase ones, in an English publication of the hand of John Frere. Until then a natural and superstitious origin was attributed to them (was called “stones of the lightning bolt” - or ceraunias- to them, because the popular tradition maintained that they formed inside the Earth when falling a lightning bolt, and that soon left to the surface; in fact still they are used in certain rural areas like amulets against storms). The word “biphase”, biphase in French, is used for the first time in 1920 by the antique dealer Vayson de Pradenne, coexisting this term with the expression “axe of hand” (“coup of poing”), propose by Gabriel de Mortillet long time before, being able to say that, only due to the scientific authority of Fran1cois Bordes and Lionel Balout, the definitive word prevailed.

However, since these first definitions of the biphase ones were based only on pieces ideal (or classic), of not understood so perfect purchase block that they even drew attention of, during years has had a too box-like notion of the object. With time, the deepening in the knowledge of this lítico type has implied an extension of its foundations, distinguishing itself a biface lítica piece enters biphase proper and; in fact, as it is understood nowadays, a biphase ones not always is a biface piece and is multitude of biface pieces that are not absolutely biphases. According to professor Benito of the King, the university of Salamanca: “The name of “biphase” must be reserved for the pieces old, previous to the interestadial Würm II-III”, although, also, it admits that certain later objects can exceptionally be denominated biphases (Benito of the King, op. cit., 1982, page 305 and notice 1).

It does not have either to be identified biphase with axe, unfortunately the word hews with an axe has been, during long time, a word comodín in lítica tipología for a wide range of líticos utensils; mainly at a time at which the real purpose of many of them was unknown. In the particular case of the biphase paleolítico, it hews with an axe is an inadequate term. It was already indicated in years 60: “it is necessary to reject like erroneous interpretation of those objects that are not “axes””. Argument corroborated by later investigations, mainly on the use tracks, as it is possible to be seen more ahead.

Politetismo

It is certain that the biphase more characteristic and repeated model of appears, in his terminal end, a pointed or ogival zone, lateral sharp edges and a base more or less cleared (that is to say, the biphases of lanceolada morphology and the amigdaloides, as well as others of the same “family”). Nevertheless, the biphase ones is an instrument whose form can vary much, there are since them circular, triangular, elliptical, etc. Its so large one half oscillates between 8 and 15 centimeters, there are although them greater and smaller.

Technologically, they are characterized so that they make on song, block or lasca, by means of a biface form, with lascados negatives of that, in general, invade the piece in their two faces. This purchase block can be realized with hard firing pin (of stone), but can be completed, to obtain finer results, with soft firing pin (of cuerna). Nevertheless, in the technological aspect the biphase ones also appears numerous exceptions: for example, the calls monophases are carved by a single face and the partial biphases conserve a great portion of the natural crust of the support, and so sometimes it is easy to confuse them with carved songs; and the “biphases of economy”, when being carvings on very suitable supports (generally lascas), as soon as they are processed with a few adjustments.

In summary, although the biphase ones is a lítico type of personality recognized by multiple tipológicas schools and different archaeological paradigms; even though, also, of being easily recognizable (at least the most characteristic units), it is practically impossible to determine his limits due to his politética personality: that is to say, the ideal model reunites a good series of defined attributes, but no of them is necessary nor sufficient so that a real piece is considered a biphase ones. A few of those attributes are enough for the identification of the useful one, although they lack other so many.

“The purchase block of a biphase ones works like a complicated linking of technical gestures that we only got sometimes to keep awake in its last stages, which complica its study. If that complication of intentions when making we united a biphase ones it to its variety of forms we will give account of which the biphase ones is a useful one of most problematic and complex in the Prehistory”

Benito of the King, op. cit. 1982, pages 314 and 315.

Chronology and geography of the biphase ones

Relying on the biphases of the Paleolítico Inferior and Means, consensus exists enough about the appearance of the biphase ones from the African Olduvayense. Indeed, the known oldest biphases come from Africa, does near million novencientos thousand years (at least, in the deposit of Konso-Gardula and Melka Kunturé, to the south of Ethiopia): first they are coarse reason why more it is adapted to classify them as “protobifaces” (they are rudimentary, heavy and little), although the true biphases of symmetrical contours date, in those same places, of approximately does million two hundred thousand years.

The oldest levels of Dmanisi (Georgia), designated with numbers II, III and IV, have provided near thousand of objects carved, but they do not include any biphase ones. Although in Europe and Asia numerous preachelenses deposits without biphases were known (some of them solidly dated), until the fossils of Dmanisi were discovered (besides those of Atapuerca, something later) could not be questioned the idea defended by certain students who considered that the human beings had left Africa with relatively maneuvered tools, that would include the biphases; since then archaic inferior (preachelense) outside Africa has been able to be spoken with property of a Paleolítico. That is to say, that the first nonAfrican humans did not know the biphases and their industries were based on lascas and songs rudimentarily carved. Certain theories propose exist to explain why in Africa biphases were used during hundreds of thousands of years, whereas outside this continent the technology was much more primitive:

If they left Africa it was because it passed something that made them leave. The humans, if we are well in a place, perpendicularly we remained. And what it made them leave, more likely, it was the competition with other humans. As of the moment at which groups acquired the achelense technology and began to operate the natural appeals of more efficient way, the groups that did not acquire it saw forced to change of impeachment to gain the life. And they had to recently do it more of a million and average one of years, that are the date in which it appeared the Achelense

Eudald Carbonell and Josep Corbella, op. cit., 2000, page 76.

It is stated that, in Europe, and more concretely in France and England, the oldest biphases do not appear until the interglacier Günz-Mindel, more or less, does 750 000 years, in the complex call Cromeriense, although its generalization would in principle take place in the Abbevillense call, considered an independent culture - preceding of the Achelense- and that, nowadays, is had including in this one, like one facies archaic, within the Old Achelense, or as it forms to designate certain biphases coarsely worked.

The apogee of the biphases takes place in one extensísima area of the Old World, especially during the Riss freezing, in a cultural complex of known almost cosmopolitan character like Achelense. In one more a reduced zone, it survives during the Average Paleolítico, being especially important in facies Musteriense call of Achelense tradition, until half-full of the Würm freezing.

(In Europe) “small biphases are from the Achelense superior to the Auriñaciense

Pierre-Jean Texier (page 18)

With regards the Asian continent during the Paleolítico Inferior, the biphases appear in the Indian Subcontinent and the Middle East (to the south of the parallel 40° N), but are absent to the east of the meridian 90° E; in such a way that the American archeologist Hallam L. Movius settled down a border between the cultures with biphases, towards the west, and those that maintain lítica the tradition based on altered the carved songs and lascas, like the industry of Zhoukoudian, the Fen culture and the culture of Ordos in China, or its equivalents of Indochina. Exceptionally the Padjitaniense de Java is the unique one that appears biphases in a so Eastern situation.

From the first experiments of purchase block the relative ease could be verified with which it is possible to make a biphase ones: this could be, partly the key of its success. On the other hand, it is not a very demanding instrument with respect to the type of support, nor of rock, whenever the fracture is concoidea. It admits the improvisation and the corrections, on the march, without needing planning excessively and, mainly, a long nor sacrificed learning is not necessary. All uniting, has caused that the objects of biface purchase block are extremely persistent throughout all the Prehistory. To this, its lack of functional specialization is united, being potentially effective in one huge variety of missions, from heaviest, like digging the Earth, destroying a shaft or to break a bone, to most delicate, like cutting the market conditions of a joint, filleting the meat or to perforate diverse materials.

Finally, the biphase ones constitutes a prototípica form that, refining itself, gives rise more to maneuvered, specialized types and falsified, like ends of projectile, knives, hoes, axes, etc.

Analysis

Given the tipológicas difficulties to determine the limits than he is a biphase ones, it is important, in his analysis, to consider the archaeological context from which it comes (geographic location, stratigraphy, other associated elements of the same level, chronology…). Also, to the being a piece of so old origins, is necessary to study its physical state (establishing the natural alterations: pátina, luster, bearing, mechanical alterations - failures, thermal and/or physical chemistries that have suffered, to be able to distinguish them of the scars left by the human hand).

The raw materials are a significant factor in the study of the biphases, not as much by the turn out that can be obtained when working it, but to try to include/understand the economy of supplying of the prehistoric humans and its movements through its surroundings. In the Throat of Olduvai (Tanzania), the next places to supply itself raw materials are about ten kilometers of the fire positions; however, in the fluvial terraces of western Europe, sílex or the quartzite is accessible everywhere; this implies, necessarily, different tactics from supplying and advantage of the appeals available. However, the best or worst response to the purchase block of the raw materials is, compared with the previous thing, a subsidiary factor, since the paleolíticos craftsmen were able to adapt their strategy of work to which they had by hand, obtaining wanted results more or less, even with the rebellious rocks, as they have verified numerous specialists (Wild, Tixier, Balout: in Benito of the King, 1982, op. cit. pages 306-307; Hayden, Carol ET to alter, Jeske, etc.: in Torrence, 1989). In spite of it is important to write down the type of grain, his texture, the presence of diaclasas, veins, impurities, cones of fracture…

In order to cover the study with the use, it is indicated if macrocospic visible plans of use exist: like pseudoadjustments, failures and flections of use, even luster. If the piece were in good state, it would be possible to be prepared for microscopic a trazalógico study, subject that will treat more down. To part of these majorities, common to all carved archaeological piece, the biphases need a technical analysis their form and a morphologic analysis.

Technical analysis

The technical analysis tries to elucidate each one of the phases of the operative imprisonment of a biphase ones, which is very flexible: it can load most of the work in anyone of his links or distribute it in a balanced fashion. This type of examination begins by the strategies of supplying of the raw materials, the manufacture proper, the use, revived or the processing of the utensil throughout its useful life and, finally, its abandonment.

It is possible to take pains in the search of raw materials of more quality, or in a more apt support (thus, more in obtaining a sound basis is reversed, but the work of the purchase block is saved later, that is to say, the effort at the beginning of the operative imprisonment moves); also the craftsman can most of center the work in the form, so that he does not matter if part of a more or less appropriate base, diminishing risks at the cost of one loads major at the end of the operative imprisonment.

Support and reserve

Most habitual it is than the biphases make on songs rollings or nodules, but many of them also had like support great lasca. The biphases on lasca appear from the start of the Achelense and they are become general with time. When the case, the form is simpler, briefer, because occurs the support is not necessary to modify so much, since lascas, often, has a very suitable form, allow an improved performance and a few lascados allow to have the finished tool, is even easier to obtain rectilinear edges. When a biphase ones is analyzed on lasca is necessary to consider the possibility that this one is predetermined (similar Levallois or); in any case, it is necessary to indicate the characteristics that it has: type of lasca, log, direction of percussion.

Reserve: by reserve we understand the natural crust of the lítico support (pebble, small block, nodule, great lasca or plaqueta of stone), that, due to the erosion and to the alterations physical chemistries, that is to say, the meteorización, they cause that the outside of the song is different from the interior. Often it receives the name of córtex or, simply cortical zone, in the case of chert, the quartz or the quartzite, the alteration is basically mechanical and, aside from the color and the bearing, it maintains the same characteristics (hardness, tenacity…). Nevertheless, sílex is surrounded by a limestone, soft crust and without benefit for the lítica purchase block. Upon the case of the biphases, to the being useful nuclear, it agrees to indicate the amount and location of córtex to include/understand better the type of form, or work that has been realized. Although the perpendicular thing is to think that, to greater presence of crust, that is to say, greater raw zones, more archaic it seems the piece, the reserve would not have to be taken like evolutionary or chronological criterion.

Many biphases partially carved are not necessarily archaic, simply is that they did not need more work, are biphases of economy. On the contrary, when a support little is adapted, it needs one more a prolonged form. There are biphases whose support is unrecognizable due to the deep one and completes purchase block that has undergone the piece, which eliminates any original vestige of the same.

The following sections in this field can be differentiated:

• Monophases: (sometimes, also called unifaces) they are only chartted by one of his faces and the reserve occupies the opposite one totally. The monoface purchase block does not prevent to classify this type of pieces like biphases; on the other hand, this one is not any characteristic of archaism either, reason why the presence of monophases is not, for nothing, a chronological indicator.

• Partial Biphases: The reserve affects to the base and the central part. The raw zone that, evidently, is not sharp, reaches up to 2/3 parts of the longitude of the piece.

• Basic Biphases reserved: They only have the reserved base, that is not sharp, but córtex does not surpass a third of maximum length. In some cases, to the basal reserve a lateral reserve can be added, affecting to one of the edges, that would be, then, Rome: it is what “natural back” is denominated. Or in century XIX, Gabriel de Mortillet put the emphasis in the presence of cortical or basal backs that leave a nonsharp zone in the perimeter of the piece: “Some of the pieces better worked are even appraised habitually, times in the base, more often in a lateral one, a small area left without purchase block, raw. It would be possible to be thought about a negligence or a defect. But most frequent, therefore, most reasonable, it is to think that one is something intentional. There is a fair number of biphases with the raw base, without chartting or partially polished… they are pieces in which a zone has been left deliberately of takes hold that log is denominated. This log serves as handle, then, is a zone of easy prensión” (at the moment, this idea does not discard, but it could not have been tried nor have been generalized).

• Biphases with residual reserve in the edge: They are biphases yet the sharp perimeter, except some small partial back or cortical zone (leaving a small zone without edge). That small back can be basal, lateral or oblique. In any case, this back must be small, leaving each side, paths sharp edges.
• Biphases yet the sharp perimeter: In this case all the perimeter of the biphase ones is carved and owns a sharp edge, which does not prevent that they are residual zones of crust in some of the faces, without these affect the effectiveness of the edges.

The form

The form is the manufacture proper. Most perpendicular it is than this one is the most important phase in the manufacture of a biphase ones, although not always it happens thus, since it has been indicated in the case of the biphases on lasca or a pebble very adapted. When one studies the processing of a biphase ones is necessary to identify the type of firing pins that have intervened in her. If there are several types of firing pin, they are essential to indicate the order and the result of each. Of course, there will be cases in which is not possible to appreciate the type of firing pin, but the most habitual options are:

• The biphases carved exclusively with hard firing pin, without later rectification of edges. The use of a stone firing pin is most habitual in the form of a biphase achelense; the result is, the majority of the times, very characteristic since it provides heavy pieces and with irregular edges, because the negatives of the lascados ones have a very sharp contraconcoide. The lascados ones are little, wide and short (very deep), that take, in the log, great details of edge: the concavity so accentuated of the lascados ones causes winding edges. The section is irregular, often sub-losángica; the intersection between the two faces of the piece generates a abierto angle, of the order of 60° to 90° sexagesimal. Since, in these biphases, the irregularities of the purchase block are not ground, its aspect is similar to the one of the cores, in fact, lascas obtained was taken advantage of in the productive sequence. It is common that this type of form provides “partial biphases” (that is to say, with the incomplete purchase block, leaving vast areas of the original surface of the support), “monophases” (biphases carved by a single face), “nucleiformes biphases of Abbevillense style” and “biphases”. Generally, this type of form is a arcaismo symptom, but it cannot be taken like a chronological indicator, unless the lítico assembly goes accompanied of contextual archaeological data that allow to date the industry.

• The biphases carved with hard firing pin and edges also ground with hard firing pin have an aspect something more balancing, since the rectification consists, indeed, in one second (or third) series of lascados, also like tenth, with hard firing pin, that regularizes the imperfections and provides more correct finishing. The rectification is, often, also called builds ledges in and, times is realized by means of lascados invading and, other times, are smaller, marginal blows, applied only in the marked sinuosities more, and, often, reflected, leaving marks escaleriformes. The rectification of edges with hard firing pin occurs from the start of the Achelense, and even persists until the Musteriense, reason why it cannot either be taken like chronological indicator (to be able to consider it like an evolutionary signal, it must go accompanied of other complementary and independent archaeological data). In any case, the resulting biphases usually have a less heavy, more classic silhouette, of “almendrada” or “oval” form, directed toward the symmetry and with smaller proportion of crust (that is to say, of the original surface of the support). He is not safe, like it happens in the cases that are mentioned next, builds ledges in that it always must like target attenuate the sinuosity of the edges and to eliminate irregularities; in fact, it is possible to verify convincingly that in to certain it builds ledges in it cases has as purpose of reviving an edge dulled by the use or a aggravated end.

• The biphases polished with hard firing pin, until obtaining a preform and finished with soft firing pin: they are those in which he is reasonable to differentiate lascados wide and short, with deep contraconcoides (tails of the initial phase of the form, this is the polished one), and soon have been sharpened with soft firing pin (of cuerna or hard wood) leaving scars smoother, with a hardly visible contraconcoide, with less deep marks, but more expanded, invading and, sometimes, with small and abundant waves of fracture. It turns out complicated, often, to distinguish the realized lascados ones with both firing pin, since the hard firing pin, if he is small and it is applied suitably, can provide very similar marks, confused. The biphases thus obtained usually are balances, symmetrical and, sometimes, relatively even flattened. Of any way, the purchase block with soft firing pin appears in the total achelense, reason why it is, at least, a direction post quem, but it does not allow to majors precisions. Its greater advantage with respect to the hard firing pin is in which it allows to extract lascas more invaders, but also finer and with a log as soon as developed, which allows to maintain, or to even improve, the effectiveness of the edge, with a minimum cost of raw materials. The disadvantage is that he is very demanding with the raw materials, requiring highest quality rocks. Nevertheless, not yet studies exist that do not allow to contrast it builds ledges in if it with soft firing pin increases the yield of the raw materials by kg, either exist data on the difference in energy expenditure in one or the other firing pin, although there is one that considers that the soft firing pin requires more effort, a greater curve of learning, more, in counterpart offers more lascas with a smaller cost in raw materials.

• The biphases carved and ground exclusively with soft firing pin are much more rare. In fact it is than possible more that also initially they have been polished with hard firing pin, but the cubriente, regular and invading purchase block of the soft firing pin has erased all vestige of the same. The soft firing pin cannot directly attack any rig of percussion and absolutely it is not adapted for certain raw materials, both must be accessible to this technique; for that reason, it is needed, either, a previous purchase block with hard firing pin, or, or, to begin with one lasca like support, since its edge is fragile (also they serve songs very flattened and plaquetas). That is to say, that, although all the form of a biphase ones has taken control of soft firing pin, he is reasonable to suppose that also a phase of polished exists to prepare a preform, and one or several phases of rectification, to finish the piece; what it is not clear is the separation of both phases (it could be that all the work was realized in a single operative cycle). The form with soft firing pin allows a greater control on the purchase block, and, in addition, it spends less raw materials, so that longer edges are obtained, acute, more uniform, and the useful life of the piece is extended. The biphases carved totally with soft firing pin usually are extremely harmonious, symmetrical and flat, with very rectilinear edges or torsas and lascados negatives of very subtle, whose contraconcoides are diffuse, extended, with concrete undulations and so smooth nerves that it is difficult to distinguish where begins lascado and where another one finishes. The section is generally to regulate and biconvex, the intersection of the expensive ones forms an edge with an acute angle, often around 30°. They are pieces of great masters reason why it is perpendicular that they are aesthetically attractive. For that reason, usually they are associated to industries maneuvered like the final phases of the Achelense (v.g.: the Micoquiense) or the Musteriense. Nevertheless, it is necessary to be cautious, because the form with soft firing pin cannot date any lítica industry by itself.

It is necessary to consider that a biphase ones was not the target of the prehistoric craftsmen, but means, a tool and, like so, were worn away, it was deteriorated or it was broken during his use; for this reason, when they arrive at the hands of the paleolitista archeologist or from the tipólogo, is a piece that can have undergone drastic exchanges throughout its useful life. He is habitual to detect revived edges, reconstructed ends and silhouettes deformed by a purchase block destined to continue taking advantage of the piece until this one is left. The pieces can later, even, be recycled, in this sense, Fran1cois Wild explains sometimes that the biphases “are in the Paleolítico Superior. This presence, that is without a doubt perpendicular in Perigordiense I, often must, in the other levels, to a collection of musterienses or achelenses biphases.” .

The detailed study of the form of a subpopulation of biphases pertaining to a given lítica industry serves to establish a description precise of the manufacturing process of the biphase ones and to carry out statistical comparisons with other groups of biphases (what technically E.D.A is called. - exploratory dates English analysis in or “exploratory analysis from data”.

Morphologic analysis

Traditionally, the biphase ones has been oriented with the narrowest part upwards (estimating that this one would be its more active part, which is not preposterous considering the enormous amount of “basic biphases reserved” that appear). The center line that divides in two the biphase ones calls morphologic axis, and as expensive main usually it is selected most regular and better chartted. These are simple tipológicos conventionalisms to be understood enters specialistic. For the same ratio, when describing the morphology of a biphase ones (and of any carved lítico object) is necessary to reject terms that talk about to concepts technicians purely. In this particular case, it is necessary to reject the term log to talk about to the base of the biphase ones, because this word, in lítica tipología, already is fitted to a very concrete part of lasca (that nothing has to do with the base of a biphase ones). Also, it would be an error to use the expression distal zone, to talk about to the terminal zone or apex of the biphase ones.

The Terminal Zone of a biphase ones is, generally the part narrowest and opposed the base, its more common form is the aimed one - more or less acute, and more or less ogival, also there are biphases with the cleared or polygonal terminal zone - not pointed and, finally, espatulados biphases of cross-sectional terminal edge to the morphologic axis of the piece, that is to say bifaces-hendidor and biphases…

The Basal Zone, opposed the terminal zone (that usually is wider or heavier), can be described front: reserved, chartted partial or totally, but nonsharp, or, finally, it bases sharp. Of profile it is indicated if it is cleared (polygonal), flat or aimed; etc.

The Edges: They are described morphologically front, in which case they can be convex, rectilinear or concave; aside from that they can be more or less regular. Special cases are those of denticular edges - festooned or with notches. In this section the existence of nonfilosos cortical backs has to indicate itself, if necessary. Observed of profile, the edges can have a delineation without irregularities (rectilinear or torsas, that is to say, in the form of smooth S) or to be, from slightly winding to very winding (always referring us to the sharp zones). Other data important to consider in this section are the own development of the edge, that is to say, if it occupies all the perimeter of the biphase or only certain zones and which.

The Section is taken in the central part from the biphase ones or a sector near the apex; this allows to include/understand how each part of the piece works, is even possible to discern you build ledges in or reconstructions of zones aggravated of the edge. We distinguish the following types of section: triangular (triangular and triangular with back), rhombic (rhomboid and rhombic with back), tapered (trapezial and tapered with back), pentagonal (pentagonoides and pentagonal with back), polygonal, biconvex or biconvex (subbiconvex)…

The Silhouette: By definition, the biphase ones must have, seen a contour more or less balanced front, with a morphologic axis that serve, also, like bilateral center line and a plane of crushing that serves like plane of biface symmetry. This does not mean that all the biphases are perfectly symmetrical. First of all, the symmetry is a profit obtained after millenia of technological improvement, reason why it is no wonder disimétricas the most archaic pieces are something. Secondly, the symmetry is a tipológico criterion, but not necessarily aid to create more effective pieces. It is necessary to come off themselves presentistas esthetic prejudices and not to forget that the biphases were used in hard and variable workings: they were deteriorated, they were worn away and they were broken; reason why, often “they were repaired”, building ledges in its edges, recovering its ends or refabricando them completely. In the particular museums, and collections, exceptionally beautiful and modélicas pieces usually are exposed, which is very didactic, but in an archaeological excavation, most than arrives at the prehistorians are despoliation, probably rejected pieces after one long and complex life like tools: they have had to adapt to particular circumstances, to concrete needs that we do not know and that, without a doubt, altered the original piece; for that reason, the symmetry - connatural to the classical concept and ideal of biphase not always one stays in real archaeological pieces.

Avoiding the problem that finishes exposing, for practical ratios, the silhouettes of the biphases are classified in the following categories:

Dimensions and coefficients

The measures of a biphase ones must be taken suitably having like reference the morphologic axis from the same and orienting it. Aside from the three basic dimensions (longitude, width, thickness), the specialists have proposed other magnitudes, that can get to be very diverse, having been most habitual those than they indicate to Fran1cois (1961) and Lionel Balout Wild (1967):

• Maximum length (l)
• Maximum width (m)
• Maximum thickness (e)
• Distance of the base to the zone of maximum width (a)
• Width to the 3/4 of the longitude (o)

The two last, that is to say, the zone of maximum width (a) and the located one to the 3/4 of the longitude (o), are places very adapted to delineate the contour of the section of the biphase ones and to measure the angles of the edge (in case it was not a reserved zone). These angular measures of the edges are taken with a goniometer.

In addition, other measures like the longitude from the edge (with an elastic tape measure or of canvas), the weight, the chord of the edge (in case of being a biphase ones of cross-sectional terminal bevel), etc. can be taken All these measures, besides being used in the E.D.A.s serve to establish diverse as much morphologic coefficients as technicians (for example, the report between the weight and the longitude of the sharp edges, or the report between the firing pin and the obtained angle…

But the coefficients more commonly used are the Indices that Wild proposed for their morphologic-mathematical classification than it denominated “classic biphases” (Balout proposed others, but they are very similar, reason why it is not necessary to backslide in the subject):

• Index of redondeamiento of the base: that it serves to separate the three great families of classic biphases (triangular, almendrados and oval): one settles down with the L/a coefficient that provides the following thresholds of separation:

• Index of blade aspect ratio: that it separates the common biphases of the short ones (and, occasionally, of the extended ones). For example, in the family of oval Biphases it serves to separate the discoides biphases of the other types; in the family of almendrados Biphases it is used to recognize the lanceolados and micoquienses biphases. The operation is realized with L/m and the thresholds are:

• Sectional index or of levelling: that it separates the heavy biphases of the planes and that is only used in particular types. Ela family of almendrados Biphases (combined with the blade aspect ratio index), serves to separate the amigdaloides biphases (heavy) of the cordiformes (flat). The coefficient is used m/e and the thresholds are:

Other indices exist, besides which it is necessary to insist on that these must be applied to which Wild denominates biphases classic, which outside leaves a good amount of unit (partial biphases, basic reserved, bifaces-hendidor biphases, espatulados, of style Abbevillense, nucleiformes, diverse…).

Use

From the first moments, the pioneers of the study of the paleolíticas tools attributed biphase to the paper of axe or, at least, the heavy taking of steps. Soon the idea that arose the biphase ones was a tool of multiple functions, not only each biphase ones was useful a multifunctional one, but the different forms and sizes from the diverse units what is called made of the type in himself colloquially “the Swiss knife” of the Achelense.

As we finished indicating, the biphase ones is destined to heavy workings, works of great hardness; also, each of them was used for several different missions; he is more, since the biphases could be recyclings, reafilados and, even, refabricados by means of the purchase block, throughout his useful life could serve for very unequal assignments. For that reason, it does not agree to use the word hews with an axe to talk about to them, then, without a doubt, served to dig, to cut, to scrape, to hendir, to perforate, to strike… Also, the biphase ones - given his mass it could be, occasionally, profiteer like core, and, being useful builds ledges in grinder or repairer, obtain lascas that could be used like knives or be transformed into equipment specialized by means of the adjustment.

• The trazalógicos analyzes: The studies of tracks of use of paleolíticos biphases have been realized in emblematic deposits of almost all the European West, being Semenov and, especially, Keeley the pioneers in this type of specialty. Lawrence H. Keeley affirms the following thing: “The morphology of the biphases typical, suggests an activity range potential much greater than lascas”. But, at the same time it bords a number of problems: first it resides in the difficulty to observe the microscope pieces of great size, reason why, in spite of knowing million unit, very few could have been studied suitably. The second great unknown quantity arises from the convincing demonstration of which the same missions were realized with utensils on lasca, with increased effectiveness, even:

The question considers: why to make biphases, whose production is more complicated and expensive, if lascas can do the same work with the same effectiveness? The answer could be that the biphases generally (excluding certain specialized types…) they were not conceived in particular for a function, not only they were carved for a main mission, but they included a general intention much more.

Keeley, op. cit., page: 136.

Keeley, from its observations in several English deposits, proposes that on the fire positions it bases, where would exist more forecast and control on the routine activities, the favorite equipment were the raederas, the knives of back, the scrapers, the drills, etc. (that is to say, equipment on lasca specialized). However, in the seasonal shipments and campings, in which the possibility fitted of having to undertake unexpected works, the biphases saved better the situation, thanks, indeed, to their lack of specialization and its capacity to adapt to the eventualities. A biphase ones owns a long edge with different curvatures, diverse angles, more sharpened, more resistant others, ends, notches, etc. Everything combined in a single piece and, if the circumstance occurred, of him they would be possible to be extracted lascas beneficial. In the same work, Keeley indicates that several of the biphases that have been able to study used like knives to cut meat (as much in the deposit of Hoxne, like in the one of Caddington); the same author has identified in another biphase ones, this one coming from the famous deposit of Clacton-on-Be (all in the east of England), plans in the end own of to be used as it drill, turning with him in sense of the compass of the clock. Similar conclusions the American Nicholas Toth with some units reached from the Spanish deposit of Ambrona (Soria); the certain thing is that no of the 37 pieces with use tracks had been applied to vegetal matters, all were destined to work meat and furs of animals. But perhaps the most recent analyzes, paradoxicalally, on the oldest biphases, are realized by the Spanish Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo and his collaborators in the very primitive achelense deposit of Peninj (Tanzania). There, a series of pieces of this type, dated in more than 1.5 M.s a. they knew a clearly microwearing down produced by the fitolitos of the plants, which invites to think that such biphases were used to work the wood.

• The macrocospic tracks of use: The microscopes are not the unique ones that give landing fields on the use of biphases: some were put under so hard workings, that the marks are evident at first or, can be induced by means of the scars of builds ledges in repairer whom they were put under since, sometimes, it is possible to distinguish it of the primary form. One of the extended cases more is the failure of the end, observed by several investigators in deposits, European as African and as much Asian. One of those deposits is the Basalito (Salamanca), whose excavation provided fragments of biphase with flections in the end whose characteristics seemed to respond to a strong measure like of wedge, putting under the object strong torsions that broke the apex. The fracture, or the deterioration on a large scale, not only affected the end, but to any part of the biphase ones. But, often, this one was reconstructed by means of one builds ledges in secondary, since it has commented previously. In some cases this reconstruction is perfectly identifiable, and can take control by means of as concrete techniques as the call “coup of tranchet” (blow of trincheta in French), or simply of flaky or escaleriformes adjustments, that alter to the symmetry and the trajectory of the edges.

Some types of biphases

The biphases are types so varied that they do not have, in fact, a unique common characteristic… … its study does not adapt to any entirely satisfactory tipológica list

Gabriel Camps

Considering the previous thing, this a section must be considered orientative, be based on traditional concepts, strongly ingrained in the Wild call “method” (it is a basically morphologic classification, for some schools, possibly out of phase) but can be useful by the generalized thing of its use. This classification is quite reliable when we spoke of the denominated classic biphases, that are, exactly, those that can be defined and be catalogued by the system of the dimensions and mathematical indices, without, as soon as, it is necessary no subjective criterion. Nevertheless, this supposed objectivity is still a conventionalism adopted by its author, being based on its scientific experience and, the certain thing, is that, in the majority of the cases, it complied to established types previously (redefining them slightly). Of same way, it is possible to find a similar attempt in the work of Lionel Balout.

Nonclassic Biphases

In spite of the attempts of diverse the specialists to process a tipología on the biphases based on data targets - especially Fran1cois Bordes and Lionel Balout, that used the dimensions like criterion, numerous units have escaped, until the moment, to all classification other people's in considerations or personal opinions of the investigator, or who does not need one long professional experience that allows to distinguish the most relative shades. For that ratio Wild the group of the denominated “nonClassic Biphases”, that is to say, those created to which the mathematical indices cannot be applied.

• Biphases Nucleiformes: It is a type of biphase of very delicate definition, then, is difficult to determine if one is true biphases or, simply, are cores with ground edges and that, occasionally, can be used like equipment. Also it could be about biface preforms, or accidental pieces.
  In spite of their coarse appearance, the nucleiformes biphases appear as much in the Achelense as in the Musteriense.

• Bifaces-hendidor: One is biphases whose apex is neither pointed nor cleared, but own a relatively wide, cross-sectional terminal edge to his morphologic axis. This edge usually is more or less subrectilinear, but concave or also slightly convex. In spite of being incompatible biphases with the mathematical indices, sometimes they are included within the well finished classic types since one is balanced ways and. The bifaces-hendidor was defined by Jean Chavaillón in 1958 under the Biphase terminal bevel denomination “” (terminal biphase à biseau), whereas Wild simply it called “hendidores” (hachereaux); the current term was proposed for France by Guichard in 1966 (biface-hachereau). In the case of Spain, in 1982 the biphase-hendidor expression seted out, understanding “biphase” like noun referred to the tipológico group to which it belongs, by its biface purchase block, and “hendidor” like adjective by its morphology; that is to say, that technically is a biphase ones and morphologically it remembers the hendidor, although its personality is completely different:

To some they describe them authors as hendidores (F. Wild, 1961, p 63), thing with which, following J. Chavaillon, I cannot agree; the technique of purchase block to obtain a biphase ones does not have anything to do with the manufacturing process of the hendidores

Alimen, 1978, op. cit. page 121.

Indeed, in this case the general politetismo of the biphase ones, even the one of this variant, hits the technological monotetismo of the hendidor, no matter how hard their morphology and its function can agree in.

• Biphases of Abbevillense style: This biphase ones takes their name from the French municipality of Abbeville, in a quarry of marls of the highest terrace of the valley of the Somme river and, in principle was associated to the Abbevillense culture, of which he would be his fossil director (although, paradoxicalally, in the deposit of Abbeville the biphases are particularly little). The Abbevillense was considered, until recently, the European predecessor of the Achelense, although now it has been integrated like an initial stage, archaic, of this one - if not always he appears in the registry estratigráfico- well. In the same way, it was verified that archaic biphases as those of Abbeville could occur throughout all the Paleolítico Inferior, without they implied no type of chronological nor cultural reference, for that reason, the biphase expression of abbevillense style seted out. Such biphases were carved exclusively with hard firing pin, without rectification of no class on the edges, reason why these are extremely winding. Its form clearly asymmetric, is varied and irregular, determined generally by the pebble form that serves as support (it is impossible to find two equals); they have the reserved base, besides great cortical zones, and are very heavy.

• Partial Biphases: One is briefly carved biphases, without the form affects more than to one tiny part of the support. However, with a few blows the morphology of the biphase ones is obtained, almost always at the cost of choosing a suitable support. They are units that, often, are in the limit of the carved songs, but their general aspect and finished his induce to classify them like biphases.
  Sometimes it has been indicated that the ratio to be of these biphases is the archaism of the industry to which they belong; other times, speech of objects without finishing; there are some, however, that respond to a clear economy of gestures:

A so partial form, but so taken care of, added to the morphology of the support, allows to say us that it is a biphase ones finished, to which did not carve more because it did not need it, saving, thus, effort.

Benito of King and Benito Alvarez, page 175.

Equipment that sometimes have been associated to the biphases

Within which it is the panoply of the Paleolítico Inferior and, more concretely, of the Achelense, the biphases form an important group, mainly in the deposits outdoors (then, apparently, in the deposits in cave, such objects were littler, at least according to the hypotheses of L.H. Keelley). Often, the biphases, due to their size and to its technological conception, are had radically separated of the useful ones on lasca (for example, raederas, scrapers, drills, etc.), is why a distinction usually becomes between which group of utensils denominates itself on lasca and group of nuclear utensils. The carved biphases, songs and the triédricos tips would be nuclear utensils, because it is common to make them on pebbles, blocks or nodules of rock; nevertheless, this grouping is problematic, because all those types were made, often, also on lascas, although, is certain, larger well. Another habitual proposal is to speak of the useful ones on lasca like “microindustry”, by opposition to the general size of the denominated “macroindustry” - that is the same mentioned types previously, plus hendidores-. Again we ran into with problems, because they exist raederas as great as biphases or, if it is wanted, as small biphases as raederas (and, the same happens with the other mentioned types). Besides what has been said, to associate the biphases with carved and hendidores songs is, from any budget, a problem.

• First of all, it is certain that the carved songs more processed and the partial biphases seem to interlace themselves, being, even, difficult, to put limits between both. But the concept of carved song not only is based on the lack of formal standardization (own of the biphases), but includes the possibility that it is not equipment, but of brief cores, unthinkable thing in the biphases (except for the nucleiformes).

• In the case of the hendidores the annexation is questionable (if it fits) - to weighing of which Fran1cois Wild in its popular tipología of 1961 puts all in the same coat for ratios that already have been discussed more above. Nobody denies that, occasionally, biphases and hendidores could have been used for similar missions, but its technological concept diametrically is opposed (like, on the other hand, numerous specialists have declared).

• The triédricos tips, during certain time were considered like a specialized variant of biphases. However, since at great length they were studied and classified, it was clear that they required the consideration of independent category.

Another type of partnership of the biphases is the one of the other biface foliáceos equipment of the Paleolítico Inferior and, mainly, of the Average Paleolítico of the Old World, the difference is in fine his finished much more and much more light, realized systematically with soft firing pin, and in one more a specialized morphology than it suggests, also, a specific function, perhaps, as end of projectile or like knife. As example we took utensils known by specialized classic Literature enough:

The term foliácea piece must be put in front to the one of foliácea end, since many of them are not pointed. These occur sporadically in diverse French musterienses deposits, but, mainly, they abound in the Musteriense of central Europe and the African final Ateriense

Edges, 1961, op. cit., page 41

• The foliáceos biface equipment of central Europe receive the specific name of Blattspitzen. One treats, without a doubt, of ends own of the Average Paleolítico with foliácea form, often aimed and very flat, as much that they remember the leaves of laurel of the Solutrense, and it is only possible to differentiate them thanks to the archaeological context in which they appear. They blattspitzen them survive in some culture of the Paleolítico Superior and, as Denise de Sonneville-Edge gives notice, the pieces of the Eastern European Szeletiense (as much they blattspitzen like micoquienses biphases) could be the link that connects the tradition of the biface objects of the Paleolítico Inferior and Means with those of the following Paleolítico Superior and.

• In Africa we as much found biface pieces in the Ateriense of the north like in the Stillbayense of the mid-eastern zone of the continent. In both cases one is cultures of musteroide tradition, although with a strong personality and relatively delayed: at the end of the call Middle Stone African Age. In both cases we found objects of diverse forms, triangular, oval times and other foliáceas, of to same are them way with invading biface purchase block, but also monoface.

The importance of the biphase ones

As we know, when, centuries back, arose the debate on the evolution, and mainly, on the origin of the human being, many they refused to accept our kinship with beings inferiors. The first human fossil findings, like the neandertales or the pitecántropos (clumsily interpreted), seemed to corroborate that we descended from devoid savages of intelligence, who had survived only thanks to their brute force. The biphase ones played a role more important than it thinks to break this prejudice. The publications of John Frere, in England, and, mainly, of Boucher de Perthes, in France, throughout century XIX (comparable pioneering work to which by those dates it would realize Juan Vilanova i Piera in Spain; followed by Jose Perez de Barradas and Casiano of the Prado, already in the beginnings of century XX), they showed pieces of excellent invoice, balanced, full of symmetry and an amazing formal purity. Such tools only could have arisen from intelligent minds - and even numinosas-, with certain sense of the esthetic one:

The art ran long time by a formative period before being beautiful; but for that reason it is still sincere and huge an art, more sincere and sometimes huge than the same beauty; then in the man there is a creative nature that pronounces as soon as it has assured his existence. As soon as it does not have preoccupations nor fears, this active demigod in the tranquility, looks for the matter his around to insufflate his spirit.

Goethe, Colloquies with Eckermann.

As André Leroi-Gourhan explains, for so remote periods it agrees to ask itself what is what it is understood by Art, mainly, considering the psychological differences between the humans “nonmodern” and we. The archaeological documentation that handles, takes to this author to be astonished before to the fast advance towards the symmetry and the balance, in such a way that recognizes in many prehistoric equipment the beauty in the strictest sense, than appears in a moment - according to him during the Achelense, that is to say:

It seems very difficult to admit that beings not have experimented certain satisfaction esthetic, because they were excellent workers who knew to choose their matter, to fix their defects, to orient the fractures accurately total, to remove from the gross core of sílex a form that corresponded exactly to its desire. Its work was not automatic; guidance by series of gestures of a rigorous linking, constantly mobilized the reflection and, certainly, the sandbank to create a beautiful object.

Leroi-Gourhan, 1977, op. cit. pág 35.

Nevertheless, we do not have to lose the perspective: many authors only talk about exceptional pieces; the majority of the biphases tends to the symmetry, certain, but not necessarily they wake up an esthetic sense. In the majority of the cases we are speaking of selected series with the most showy pieces, mainly those that were realized in century XIX, or at the beginning of the XX, when the deep ignorance of the prehistoric technology did not allow to clearly recognize the human action in the coarsest objects; other times are fan collections, whose interests are not scientists, reason why gather only the cream, which considers more remarkable, left the elements humbler than, sometimes, they are the key of the interpretation of a deposit. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, there are deposits studied by specialists of strict methodology, where the biphases abundant and are skillfully carved, which takes to express the admiration that produces such works:

So is perfection of purchase block of some biphases, that, really, it gives the printing that the artist delights in her Rep, then, at least apparently, does not add no effectiveness to him to those pieces. Anyway, we donot can pronounce ourselves here, if it were the art or the utility of the biphases which they so finely looked for when carving them; although, about our interior, we thought that they looked for the beauty, the esthetic one, then, really, with coarser pieces was possible to be obtained, perhaps, the same effectiveness.

The discovery, in 1998, of biphase an oval one, of excellent invoice, in the Sima of the Bones of Atapuerca, mixed with the tails of fossils of Homo heidelbergensis intensified this controversy. Since one were the unique lítico vestige of this section of the deposit (that, perhaps, could be a cemetery), together with the qualities of the piece, they caused that it received a special treatment, was even baptized as Excalibur and became piece-stars. Some are had bold to consider it an offering funeral, which can be certain (or not), but, scientifically it is impossible to contrast and not even it would have to be a valid hypothesis (at least at the moment). Nevertheless, the symbolic consideration of this unit, in particular, and of the biphases, generally, has multiplied in the last years, having fed the debate and Literature, not always scientists.

Like counterpoint, the opinion of professor Martín Almagro Basch is offered here, that was university professor of the University of Alcala of Madrid:

The art is always the same, and artist to whom knows to create, within the limits only can be called targets, an equivalent to the individually undergone and expressed numínico complex of right way in relation to the company in which she lives.
Thus the essentially artistic work can be differentiated from the useful tool, although also she is beautiful. When a prehistoric man managed to obtain the wonder that is those axes of Achelense, it did not make work of art; nor he either did not make primitive when constructing with ability and the experience his house or when adapting the rock harbor or the cave for house or sanctuary.

Martín Almagro

What it seems to be clear of this controversy, at least, is that the biphase ones could be interpreted as an intelligence sign. But, the paradoxical thing, is that, within the Achelense panoply, the biphase ones is one of the equipment simplest to make and does not require as much planning as another type of objects, on lasca, generally much less showy, but, without doubt, more falsified.

One has been commenting, more above, the typical biphases appear for more of a million years. Although now which is known that they are patrimony of several human species, of Homo to ergaster seems to be first; until 1954 there were no solid evidence on whom it made the biphases: that year, in Ternifine (Algeria), Camille Arambourg discovered tails than I call Atlántropo, next to some biphases. All the species associated to biphases (from Homo to ergaster to neanderthalensis) show to an intelligence outpost that in some cases go accompanied of as modern characteristics as a relatively sophisticated technology, systems of defense against the climatic inclemencies (construction of cabins, dominion of the fire, clothes of harbor), certain testimonies of spiritual thought (the first artistic evidences, as the corporal adornment, the engraving of bones, the ritual processing of corpses, the development of the articulated language), etc. The biphase ones does not have to be considered more than one more of the many symptoms of the intellectual development of the primitive humans.

References

1. ↑ Definition of biphase in the Dictionary of the SAR, has to emphasize itself that neither the locution Axe of hand nor the barbarism Biphase are recognized by this institution.
2. ↑ Frere, John: “Account of Flint Weapons Discovered AT Hoxne in Suffolk”, in Archeologia, vol. 13. London, 1800. Pages 204-205
3. ↑ Vayson de Pradenne, André: “The extra ancienne trains of Saint-Acheul”, in L'Anthropologie, volume XXX. Publications Elsevier, Paris, 1920. ISSN: 0003-5521. Pages 441-496.
4. ↑ Gabriel de Mortillet (1883), Him Préhistorique. I took off of l'homme, Bibliothéque DES Sciences Contemporaines. Paris. Page 148.
5. ↑ In English stays the expression hand axe (hand axe) like equivalent of our biphase ones, whereas the word biphase is used for any piece carved by the two invading or cubrientes lascados faces with, including biphases (Andefsky, William Jr: “Biphase analysis”, in Lithics. To Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 13-978-0-521-61500-6. Pages 177-199).
   In German the faustkeil expression is used, that could be translated freely as hand axe, also; but that in strict sense means “fist wedge”. In the same sense the expression used in Dutch goes: vuistbijl: “axe of fist” and the same happens with some other languages.
6. 'Biphases in Sagua, Cuba'). The certain thing is that Sagua the Great one is a clear case of a distorted notion due, perhaps, to a bad interpretation of the concept or, perhaps, by the British linguistic contamination: as it is explained in a previous note, in English biphase it is not just like in French (biphase), or Spanish (biphase); what can originate not few misunderstandings. The all the Neolithic and Calcolítico usually goes accompanied of carved tools of grubbing - bifacely very similar to the biphases, sometimes Heminettes calls or, simply, chip axes (a economic substitute of the polished axes). The present native towns of the Sepic river, in New Guinea continue using identical pieces virtually biphases to clean parts of the forest.
7. ↑ Benito of the King, Luis (1982): “Contribution to a tecnomorfológico study of the biphase ones”, in Studia Zamorensia, vol. III, Nº Editings of the University of Salamanca, University School of Zamora. ISSN 0211-1837. pages 305-323.
8. ↑ Balout, Lionel (1967): “Procédés ensembles d'analyze ET questions of terminologie dans l'étude DES industriels du Paléolithique inférieur in Afrique du nord”, Background to Evolution in Africa, vol. The University of Chicago Press, Nº Published by Walter W. Bishop and J. Desmond Clark. Pages 701-735 (the appointment is of page 707).
9. ↑ On an alternative definition can consult Biphase in the Dictionary of use for description of líticos objects by Doctor Giovanna Winchkler.
10. ↑ Cavaillon, J.; Chavailloin, N.; Hours, F.; and Piperno, M. (1994): “Him début ET the aim of l'Acheuléen à Melka-Kunturé: méthodologie pour l'étude DES chagements of civilization”, in Bulletin of the Société Préhistorique Française, vol. It takes 72, Nº pages 134-138. ISSN 0249-7638
11. ↑ Dmanisi: Lithic assemblage: “Biphases or developed Oldowan artefacts have do not been found”.
12. ↑ Bonifay, Eugène and Vandermeersch, Bernard (directeurs) (1991), Them premiers européens, Editions du C.T.H.S., Paris. Actes du 114 Congrès National DES Sociétés Savantes (Paris, 3-9 avril 1989).
13. ↑ Carbonell, Eudald and Corbella, Josep: “The Humans: The great migration”, in Sapiens. The long way of the homínidos ones towards intelligence. Editings Peninsula, Barcelona, 2000. ISBN 84-8307-288-2
14. ↑ Bourdier, F.: “You train paléolithiques to Them anté-wurmienses dans him Nord-Ouest”, in the Préhistoire française, Takes I (them civilizations paléolithiques ET mésolithiques of the France). Sous direction of Henri de Lumley. CNRS, Paris., 1976. Pages 956-963.
15. ↑ Brézillon, Michel (1985), Dictionnaire of the Préhistoire, Librairie Larousse, Paris. ISBN 2-03-075437-4. Pages 18-19.
16. ↑ Jacques Tixier, coordinator (1984), Préhistoire ET Techologie lithique, Éditions du Center National of the Recherche Scientifique, Paris. ISBN 2-222-02718-7.
17. ↑ Semenov, S.A. (1957), prehistoric Technology, publishing Akal, Madrid. ISBN 84-7339-575-1. Page 82.
18. ↑ Hayden, Brian: “From to chopper to celt: the evolution of resharpening techniques”, in Time, Energy and stone tools (Edyted by Ronin Torrence). Cambridge University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-521-25350-0. Pages 11-12.
19. ↑ Torrence, Robin (ed.) (1989), Time, Energy and stone tools, Cambridge University Press, London. ISBN 0-521-25350-0.
20. ↑ Orientanado the biphase ones according to its morphologic axis, indicates the position of the log (if it does not exist, so that purchase block has suppressed the later it, determines by means of the marks of the face inferior of the support) using a wind rose: a log in the base of the biphase ones would have a South position; if it is in a lateral one it denominates position this or west; if the log were where now it is the end of the biphase ones, this one necessarily has to be suppressed (North position); also there are intermediate positions (south-east, the northwest, etc.).
21. ↑ Gabriel de Mortillet (1883), Him Préhistorique. I took off of l'homme, Bibliothéque DES Sciences Contemporaines. Paris. Page 139. (the term log no longer is used in the basic biphases reserved, refirendo itself exclusively to an particular area of lasca).
22. ↑ Alimen, Marie-Henriette (avec collaboration of Jose Zuate and Zuber): “Them biphases: considerations morphologiques ET technologiques”, in L'évolution of l'Acheuléen au nord-western Sahara. National of the Recherche Scientifique, Meudon centers, France, 1978. Pages 120-121.
23. ↑ For Jacques builds ledges in it to Tixier, sometimes, must like target reafilar the edge, for that reason reprise uses the term (repair); however Lionel Balout uses the expression secondary adjustment or builds ledges in, indifferently; whereas Fran1cois Wild prefers parabra regularización: in Alimen, 1978, op. cit., page 121.
24. ↑ Tixier, Jacques: “You train lithiques to Them d'Aïn Fritissa (Eastern Maroc)”, in Bulletin d'Archéologie marocaine, volume 3. Pages 107-244, 1960. Page 119.
25. ↑ Wild, Fran1cois: “Considérations générales South them biphases”, in Typologie du Paléolithique ancien ET moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux, 1961. Pages 49-55. The appointment is of page 53 and the figure on the dimensions is in page 51.
26. ↑ Would be the Index of blade aspect ratio, the sectional Index, the Index of horizontal asymmetry and the Index of convergence (op. cit. 1967)
27. ↑ Existen as diverse hypotheses as the one of professor William H. Calvin, of a university of Washington, in Seattle, that proposes the use of achelenses biphases as “fighter aircraft projectiles” (although the English expression is, certainly, more colorful: “to killer frisbees”). This assertion is inspired by the findings of the African deposit of Olorgesailie (Kenya), but has not been accompanied by no type of solid evidence, reason why it lacks scientific basis: Calvin, William H. (2001), How they think the brains, Editorial Debate, Madrid. ISBN 84-8306-378-6.
28. ↑ Keeley, Lawrence H.: “Microwear Analysis of Lithics”, in The Lower Palaeolithic site AT Hoxne, England. The University of Chicago Press, London, 1993. ISBN 0-226-76111-8. Pages 129-149.
29. ↑ Keeley, Lawrence H.: “The Uses of Handaxes”, in Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. The University of Chicago Press, London, 1980. ISBN 0-226-42889-3. Pages 160-165.
30. ↑ González Echegaray, Joaquin and Freeman, Leslie Gordon (1998), Him Paléolithique inférieur ET moyen in Espagne, Éditeur: Jérôme Millon. Collection L'homme DES you originate, Série “Préhistoire d'Europe”, nº 6. ISBN 2-84137-064-X. Page 134.
31. ↑ Domínguez-Rodrigo, M.; Serrallonga, J.; Juan-Tresserras, J.; Alcala, L. and Luque, L. (2001): “Woodworking activities by early humans: to plant residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania)”, in Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 40, Nº no. 4. Publisher: Academic Press. Pages 289 - 299
32. ↑ Benito of King Luis and Benito Alvarez, Jose-Manuel: “The functional analysis of prehistoric líticos artefacts: the Trazalogía”, in Methods and instrumental matters in Prehistory and Archeology (the Age of the Carved Stone older). Volume II: Technology and tipología. Graphs Cervántes, Salamanca, 1998. ISBN 84-95195-05-4
33. ↑ Camps, Gabriel: “Them Biphases”, in Manuel of recherche préhistorique. Doin Éditeurs, Paris, 1981. ISBN 2-7040-0318-1. Page 59.
34. ↑ Wild, Fran1cois: “Biphases DES types classiques”, in Typologie du Paléolithique ancien ET moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux, 1961. Pages 57-66. With respect to the hendidores and the bifaces-hendidor, the tipología of Wild fails fully, showing a concept of both types of equipment, especially of the hendidores faced the proposed one shortly before in the classification of Jacques Tixier, more coherent than the one of its French colleague: Tixier, Jacques (1956): “Him hachereau dans l'Acheuléen nord-africain. You notice typologiques”, in Congrès Préhistorique of the France, vol. XV Session, Nº pages 914-923. Poitiers-Angouleme.
35. ↑ “Between diverse types of biphases the separation not always is easy. Often there is no place for hesitations, nevertheless, exist numerous cases where the difficulty is real.” (Wild, op. cit., 1961, page 49).
36. ↑ Breuil, H. and Koslowski, L. (1934): “Études of stratigraphie paléolithique dans him nord of the France, Belgique ET l'Angleterre”, in L'Anthropologie, vol. It takes 42, Nº page 27-47. ISSN 0003-5521
37. ↑ Ficron is an extracted word of the tongue of the farmers of the Somme. Ficron is the iron end, invested in the end of a pole, that allows the market gardeners to push its boats by the channels of its flooded kitchen gardens (Wild, 1961, op. cit., page 58, note 1).
38. ↑ sets out like examples, aside from the European deposits (valley of the Apple orchards, in Madrid, Spain; the one of Swanscombe, in England or the Micoque in France), Oum-Qatafa and Tabún in Asia and Sidi-Zin in Africa, among others: Brézillon, Michel (1969), Dictionnaire of the Préhistoire, Éditeur Larousse, Paris. ISBN 2-03-075437-4. Page 156.
39. ↑ Benito Alvarez, Jose Manuel (2002), Contributions to the knowledge of the Achelense in the North Plateau, University of Salamanca (Doctoral, unpublished Thesis). Page 558.
40. ↑ Wild, Fran1cois: “Biphases non classiques, you dial, boules polyédriques ET balls”, in Typologie du Paléolithique ancien ET moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux, 1961. Pages 67-69
41. ↑ Benito of the King, Luis (1982): “Commentaries on hendidores in Spain, equipment of Paleolítico Inferior and Means”, in Galaecia, vol. Volume 7/8, Nº publication of the Department of Prehistory and Archeology of the Faculty of Geography and History, University of Santiago de Compostela. Page 17.
42. ↑ Benito of King Luis and Benito Alvarez, Jose-Manuel: “The tipológico analysis: the biphases”, in Methods and instrumental matters in Prehistory and Archeology (the Age of the Carved Stone older). Volume II: Technology and tipología. Graphs Cervántes, Salamanca, 1998. ISBN 84-95195-05-4
43. ↑ Leroy-Prost, Christiane; Dauvois, Michel and Leroy, Jean-Pierre (1981): “Projet pour a F.T.A du groupe DES trièdres of l'Acheuléen nord-africain”, in Préhistoire Africaine., vol. Melanges offerts au doyen Linel Balout, Nº even Réunis Colette Roubet, Henri-Jean Hugot ET the Georges Souville. Editions ADPF, Paris.
44. ↑ Wild, Fran1cois: “Pièces foliacées biphases”, in Typologie du Paléolithique ancien ET moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux, 1961. Page 41
45. ↑ Sonnevile-Edge, Denise (1961), L'áge of pierre, Éditeur P.U.F., collection Qu sais-je? , Paris. Page 106.
46. ↑ Leroi-Gourhan, André: “The Average Paleolítico”, in the Prehistory. Publishing Work, Barcelona, 1980. ISBN 84-335-9309-9
47. ↑ Leroi-Gourhan, André: “Outline of the Art”, in the Art and the Man, Volume 1. Fournier, S.A., Vitoria, 1977. ISBN 84-320-2001-X
48. ↑ Benito of the King, Luis and Benito Alvarez, Jose Manuel: “Salamanca Paleolítica”, in Congress of History of Salamanca 1989, Volume 1. Gráficas Ortega, S.A., Salamanca, 1992. ISBN 84-604-3130-4. Page 160.
49. ↑ Almagro Basch, Martín: “The Prehistory”, in General History of the Art, Volume 1. Montaner y Simón, S.A., Barcelona, 1958. Page 16.
50. ↑ Certain investigators, like the Chavaillon (op. cit., 1994) (Ethiopia) has evidence of biphases with 1 200 000 years of age in Melka Kunturé, but most primitive, of Konso-Gardula, in that same country, 900 000 years can reach 1: Corbella, Josep; Carbonell, Eudald; Moyà, Salvador and Room, Robert (2000), Sapiens. The long way of the homínidos ones towards intelligence, Barcelona: Ediciones Península S.A. ISBN 84-8307-288-2. Page 68.
51. ↑ Arambourg, Camille (1957): “Récentes découvertes of paléontologie humaine réalisées in Afrique du Nord française (L'Atlanthropus de Ternifine - L'Hominien de Casablanca)”, in Third Panafrican Congress on Prehistory, Livingstone 1955, vol. London, Chatto & Windus, Nº Clark, J.D ET Cole, S., Eds. Pages 186-194.

External Links

• Wikimedia Commons lodges content multimedia on the biphase ones. Commons

Wikcionario

• Wikcionario has an entrance on biphase.
• 'What Was the Acheulean Hand Axe?' by Eileen M.O'Brien (in English)
• Rediscovery and the cognitive aspects of toolmaking: Lessons from the handaxe, by William H. Calvin (in English)
• '“The Stone” by Jose-Luis Rodriguez Beltrán an' imaginary, but real story, on our historic heritage (2º Premium of the Board of Castile and Leon in the contest of the world-wide Day of environmental pollution, year 2004)
• Types of biphases.

Outstanding articles | Prehistoric technology | Paleolítico