A problem from which both the raw material and reduction models suffer is the absence of information on process. Both models use the manufacturing process as explanators for the final outcome. The two models also concur on the notion that points and ovates have been subjected to different amounts of reduction (differently defined) and that this contrast is conditioned by local contingencies; however, they diverge in see- ing this process as, respectively, either a single event or a continuous process. Neither model has found completely adequate ways by which these processes can be studied. A study of biface manufacturing process would help resolve the issue of whether nodules are initially knapped into pointed forms, and then into ovates through resharpening, or whether nodules are knapped in a single sequence (that may be spatially separated) into either pointed or ovate forms, dependent on the raw material. It could be argued that if McPherron is correct, any early evidence of the process of biface manufacture should reflect the production of pointed forms, and that only after resharpening would evidence of ovate manufacture be present. In contrast, if Ashton, McNabb, and White are correct, then the early stages of biface production would reflect the differing shapes of the raw material and their modification into both ovate and pointed forms, not just pointed forms. Evidence of process can be looked at from two different angles: the first through a study of biface roughouts; the second through refitting and debitage analysis. The sim- 114 Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies
plest approach is the examination of biface roughouts from a range of ovate-dominated assemblages. It should be apparent from the shape of the roughouts whether a pointed or ovate biface was intended as the final form.There are of course problems in the defi- nition of what constitutes a roughout, although these problems are no greater than in what defines a biface. For the purposes of this study, the distinction between bifaces and biface roughouts lies in the recognition of a functional cutting edge that forms a signifi- cant part of the artifact.To quantify this would remove significant pieces from the equa- tion, such as nodular bifaces, which might only be worked on less than 50% of their cir- cumference, but the areas that are flaked nonetheless form a clear functional cutting edge. The distinction between roughouts and cores is also not without problems. However, refitting has shown that in the Lower Paleolithic, at least, core and flake tech- nology is rarely undertaken through discoidal flaking (Ashton 1992;Ashton and McNabb 1996;Ashton 1998), whereas this is the method that is used for the initial stages of biface manufacture (Bradley and Sampson 1978;Austin and Roberts 1999; Bergman and Roberts 1999). Through the recognition of these rather different techniques, it seems possible with some degree of certainty to identify the difference between biface roughouts and core working, particularly where refitting has been identified.
Unfortunately, in Britain very few assemblages contain sufficient quantities of rough- outs to make valid comparisons. One exception, however, is the assemblage from the recent excavations at Boxgrove (Roberts and Parfitt 1999). Using Roe’s methods of analy- sis and his tripartite diagrams (1968), the shape of the roughouts can be directly com- pared to finished bifaces (Figure 5.3a). This demonstrates convincingly that roughouts have the same range of shapes as the bifaces and suggests that it is the shape of the orig- inal nodule that influences the form of the biface.A further comparison can be made by combining the assemblages from the sites of Bowman’s Lodge, Caddington, Gaddesden Row, Round Green, and High Lodge. Although it is not ideal to combine assemblages in this way, they do form a cohesive group: all have more than 70% ovates; all show the pre- dominant use of fresh nodular flint; and together provide a larger number of roughouts. Again a similar picture emerges that the biface roughouts reflect the shape of the final bifaces (Figure 5.3b). By analyzing the process of biface manufacture, it is clear that there are problems with McPherron’s interpretation when applied to the British Isles. Other sites need to be examined, however, before this can be used as a more general argument. The site of Boxgrove also contributes evidence on process through technological analysis of the debitage and refitting.These show that the final stages of knapping were not part of a resharpening process in the reduction from points to ovates, but stages in a single production line from nodules to ovates (Bergman and Roberts 1999). This is demonstrated, for example, in site GTP17, in which virtually all stages of production are represented from roughouts and roughing-out flakes to finishing flakes, although not the final ovates interestingly. Refitting has clearly demonstrated, however, that ovates were the finished product. Importantly, they have also been interpreted as a single-episode knapping event, directly associated with horse butchery that took place over ‘several hours’ (Roberts 1999).This type of pattern is reflected in other areas of the site, although rarely as a single-episode knapping event. A similar pattern is evident at Caddington (Smith 1894), where partly complete refitting sequences clearly demonstrate that the knappers had either aimed to produce an ovate from the outset or adjusted their knap- ping strategy in response to the chosen blank, thus producing a variety of shapes (see Bradley and Sampson 1978).