Bull. Tohoku Univ. Museum, No. 13, pp. 43–76, 2014
© by The Tohoku University Museum

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)Kaoru Akoshima, Hyewon Hong
Department of Archaeology, Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University

INTRODUCTION
The study of prehistoric lithic artifacts entails threefundamental realms of research, namely, typological,
technological, and functional analysis. All these areas needto establish robust methods of meaning assignment to any
observed patterns in archaeological records, according
to the principle of the Middle Range Theory which was
proposed by Binford (1981, pp.21-30). In the case of
the use-wear analysis, experimental replication plays animportant role for bridging arguments between wear patterns
and human activities, in other words, between the statics
and the dynamics. It is essentially important to constructextensive databases of experimental use-wear formation
for the purpose of reliable interpretation of archaeologicalpatterns.
The present paper introduces essential criteria of microwear interpretation accumulated by TUMRT (that is, Tohoku
University Microwear Research Team) since 1976. The team
was initiated by the late Prof. Chosuke Serizawa and has
been active up to the present (for its history, e.g., Akoshima2008). This is to be the first of a series of presentations
resulting from the TUMRT inferential criteria. We need toapologize for not having presented our inferential standards
due to various circumstances since 1983, although wewere repeatedly requested to publish openly our criteria forfunctional interpretation especially by use-wear analysts
nationwide. The data presented here is a portion of
microflaking (or micro-scale chipping) replication. Although
the inferential method of microflaking was published in asummary fashion (e.g., Akoshima 1987 in English, after
Akoshima 1981 in Japanese), and a number of actual
analysis of excavated artifacts have been conducted widelyin Japan, basic database for interpretation has yet to be fully
presented. We hope the microphotographs presented in
the article will assume a role of standard use-wear chart forfunctional studies in prehistory.

EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
The database presented here is a part of the first series

of TUMRT project directed by Serizawa until his retirementfrom Tohoku University in 1983. Experiments wereconducted mainly by Akoshima and Kajiwara using raw
materials of Shale, Chert, and Obsidian. Microflaking data
were analyzed by Akoshima (Akoshima 1981, 1989) andthe data have been utilized by TUMRT members since then.
Microphotographs were printed and served on file at the
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts and Letters.
For the present publication, the paper photo-micrographs
were scanned (at 600 dpi) and colour digitized for
adjusting gray tones, and representative images wereselected for presentation of “typical microflaking patterns”
which were numerically described in statistical graphs in
Akoshima (1987). The pictures here are, in other words,
the photographic version of inferential criteria. They are
shown as Figure 1 to Figure 28. They are arranged in theorder from working soft materials (meat, rawhide, leather,soft plant) to medium (wood, bamboo), to hard materials(bone, antler). Within the category of similar hardness, they
are sub-divided and arranged by the method of use, fromparallel motions (cutting, sawing) to perpendicular motions(scraping, whittling).
The raw materials presented here are the shale. The
shale in the Japanese terminology of lithic analysis denotes
a type of fine grained sedimentary rock with breaking featureof conchoidal fracture (no laminar breakage feature). They
somewhat look like European flint or American chert, butthey are of different rock type. The shale was in wide use
throughout prehistory in northeastern part of the Honshu
Island of Japan. Out of about 160 experimental artifacts, 80
specimens were selected for the photo presentation. They
are flake tools which were utilized without secondary retouchalong the edge. Thus, the micro-sized scars seen on thesephotos are all produced by utilization only.
The order of arranging these microphotographs are as
follows. Basically, they are arranged so that the general
patterns of groups of microflaking scars are recognizedaccording to the numerical presentation as in Akoshima(1987). The Figures are captioned with the category ofworked materials and working edge motions. From Figure 1,
they are shown in the following order:

44

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

1. Meat, 1.1 cattle (beef), 1.2 pig (pork), 1.3 lamb (mutton),
1.4 duck, 1.5 chicken
2. Plant, 2.1 grass, 2.2 wheat crop, 2.3 rice crop, 2.4 reed, 2.5
pampas grass
3. Hide, 3.1 rawhide, 3.2 half dried hide, 3.3 dry hide
4. Wood, 4.1 paulownia, 4.2 cedar, 4.3 pine, 4.4 alder, 4.5
zelkova, 4.6 others
5. Bamboo
6. Gourd
7. Shell
8. Bone, 8.1 raw, fresh, 8.2 wet and boiled, 8.3 boiled
9. Antler, 9.1 soaked, 9.2 dry, 9.3 others
For the third digit of each photo caption number, the typeof motion in use is indicated as follows.
Longitudinal, -1 cutting, -2 sawing
Transversal, -3 whittling, -4 scraping
Varied, -5 chopping, -6 butchering
Incising, -7 graving
Microphotographs were taken using a macro-photo
equipment of Olympus OM-2 camera system. The
magnification shown in the caption is at the time ofphotography. Actual scale bar is shown in each photo image.
In the photo caption, “d” means the dorsal surface, while “v”
means the ventral surface of the working edge.
For the analysis of resultant microflaking scars, a variety
of attributes were recorded and classified. A total of 3840
flaking scars were counted one by one and recorded for
72 specimens. They were statistically investigated andsummary published in Akoshima (1987). Major attributes ofanalytical interests are, the shape of microflaking scar, thesize of microflaking scar, the initiation of microflaking scar
breakage, the termination of microflaking scar breakage,
the density of microflaking scar per centimeter, the degreeof concentration of scars to one face of the tool, ventral or
dorsal.
The summary of conducted experiments is shown in Table
1 to Table 3. Other than the information in the table for eachcontrolled experiment, thirty conditions were recorded on
experiment recording sheets which are on file at Tohoku
University. They are as follows:
1.	Experiment number (SH#)
2.	Worked material
3.	Kind of action (cutting, sawing, whittling, scraping, boring,
chopping, grooving, varied -and reason why)
4.	Number of strokes of tool usage
5.	Place of experiment
6.	Date of experiment
7.	Experimenter
Tool
8.	Shape of the tool, (both ventral and dorsal in illustration)
9.	Edge angle of the tool (measured with a protractor)
10.	Working edge (used portions in red lines in the illustration)

11.	Secondary retouch (the hammer, stone or antler) (methodof retouch, percussion or pressure flaking) (no retouch onedge)
Activity
12.	Direction of activity (indicated in illustration, such as M )
13.	Contact angle 1. (the angle between the edge line andthe worked material) (<20 degrees, 30, 45, 60, >80)
14.	Contact angle 2. (the angle between the ventral surface
and the worked material) (<20 degrees, 30, 45, 60, >80)15.	Method of prehension (bare hand, gloved, hafted –typeand method)
16.	Which hand was used? (right, left)
17.	Duration of experiment (in minutes)
18.	Rate of work (number of strokes of tool use, per minute)19.	Approximate length of each stroke, () cm/1 stroke(distance of tool movement)
Worked Material
20.	Species name21.	W hich part of the worked material was worked?
(descriptive)
22.	Shape, diameter, thickness, etc. of the worked material(descriptive)
23.	D etailed conditions of the worked material, at leastindicating, (dry, wet), (fresh, boiled, seasoned, soaked,
frozen, tanned)
24.	P lace of the experimental work (in detail such aslaboratory or field conditions)25.	Sand, soil, dirt, etc. involved during experiment26.	Water conditions during experiment27.	W hat kind of backing was used under the worked
material? (cutting board, flat stone, for example)
28.	H ow was the tool during experiment? (sharpness,breakage, utilization retouch, fat, etc., descriptive)
29.	Location of the working edge (in 8 division polar coordinate)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8)30.	Which surface was in contact with the worked material?
(ventral, dorsal)
In the figures and tables, the experiment numbers of
KSM# which accompany SH tool numbers mean “theKusumoto experiment number” (carried out by Mr. Masasuke
Kusumoto in Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture). They
were the specimens utilized for the blind test of functional
determination by the method of use wear analysis. The blind
test results are published in Kajiwara and Akoshima (1981).
However, detailed conditions of the blind test experiments
were not disclosed, and some blanks remain in the table.

CONCLUSIONS
The databases presented here are to be utilized as basic
reference materials for microflaking interpretation. The
microphotographs are provided for various worked materials

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)from soft to hard, and for various tool use movementsfrom longitudinal to transversal motion. Picture samples
are selected here for representative microflaking types
and disposition, as were reported in the past publications(Akoshima, 1981, 1987). It is emphasized that the actual
appearances of microflaking scars show a wide rangeof variability, in cases where the tools were put to thesame kind of use. The variability of scars is recognizedeven along the same edge of a particular experimental
artifact. Akoshima (1989) adopted a statistical approach to
reduce such points of weakness. The variability in actual
appearances of the groups of microflaking scars will bepresented in our next article to be continued. We wish thephenomenon of micro-scale chipping on the edge of lithic
artifacts will be evaluated as important clues to the studyof human cultural adaptations. Microflaking has been
considered as a major criterion for functional interpretation
since the inception of experimental research (e.g., Tringham,
et al. 1974) in American archaeology (e.g., Odell 1996),
and in Asian countries (e.g., Gao and Chen eds. 2008). We
sincerely hope that also in Japan, this category of use-wear
will play an important role as integrated with other categories
of wears such as microwear polishes and striations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Prof. Hiroshi Kajiwara of Tohoku Fukushi University
conducted many of the replicative experiments together withthe first author while he was at Tohoku University. We are
grateful to Prof. Toshio Yanagida of the Tohoku University
Museum for providing publication pages in its Bulletin
series. The database building of this sort sometimes faces
difficulties to find necessary places to be accommodated interms of the volume. We sincerely hope that in the future

45

Bulletin series, essential parts of TUMRT research standards
may find their places. Additionally, the Bulletin series areavailable for download through the Internet (may be referredto the Tohoku University Museum for current situations).
This article is a result of KAKENHI (2013, number 25370885),
granted to Akoshima.

REFERENCES
Akoshima, K. 1981, An Experimental Study of Microflaking.
Kokogaku Zasshi, (Journal of the Archaeological Society of
Nippon), vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1-27. (in Japanese)
Akoshima, K. 1987, Microflaking Quantification. The Human Usesof Flint and Chert, edited by Sieveking, G. de G., and M. H.
Newcomer, pp. 71-79. Cambridge University Press.
Akoshima, K. 1989, Use-wear of Stone Tools. Archaeological Library
56, New Science Co. (in Japanese)
Akoshima, K. 2008, Emergence of High-power Microwear Analysis
in Japan, 1976 to 1983: Prof. Serizawa’s Legacy and beyond.
Papers in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History, in Memory ofProf. Chosuke Serizawa. Rokuichi Shobo.
Gao, Xing, and Chen Shen, eds. 2008, Archaeological Study ofLithic Use-wear Experiments. Science Press, Beijing. (inChinese with English summary)Binford, L. R. 1981, Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.
Academic Press.
Kajiwara, H., and K. Akoshima 1981, An Experimental Study ofMicrowear Polish on Shale Artifacts. Kokogaku Zasshi, vol. 67,
no. 1, pp. 1-36. (in Japanese)
Odell, G.H. 1996, Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: from
Hunter-Gatherer Camps to Agricultural Villages. International
Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series, 10. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. Whitman
1974, Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A
New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology,
vol. 1, pp. 171-196.

46

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 1.1-1. meat cut 800st (SH26d) 8x

0

0

2mm

(4) 1.2-1. meat cut 1300st (SH54v) 8x2mm(5) 1.2-1. meat cut 1300st (SH54v) 8x2mm(2) 1.1-1. meat cut 800st (SH26v) 8x2mm(3) 1.2-1. meat cut 1300st (SH54d) 8x000(6) 1.2-1. meat cut 1600st (SH55d) 8x

Figure 1. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

47

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 1.2-1. meat cut 1600st (SH55v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 1.3-1. meat cut 500st (SH15d) 8x02mm(5) 1.3-1. meat cut 500st (SH15v) 8x2mm(2) 1.2-4. meat scrape 1100st (SH57d) 8x2mm(3) 1.2-6. meat butcher (KSM5d) 8x00(6) 1.3-1. meat cut 1000st (SH17d) 8x

Figure 2. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

48

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

0(1) 1.3-1. meat cut 1000st (SH17v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 1.4-1. meat cut 700st (SH97v) 8x02mm(5) 1.4-6. meat butcher (SH108d) 8x2mm(2) 1.4-1. meat cut 700st (SH97d) 8x2mm(3) 1.4-1. meat cut 700st (SH97v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(6) 1.4-6. meat butcher (SH108v) 8x

Figure 3. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

49

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 1.5-6. meat butcher 1020st (SH56d) 8x

0

0

2mm

(4) 2.1-1. plant cut 1700st (SH20v) 5x02mm(5) 2.1-1. plant cut 2200st (SH140d) 8x2mm(2) 1.5-6. meat butcher 1020st (SH56v) 8x2mm(3) 2.1-1. plant cut 1700st (SH20d) 8x00(6) 2.1-1. plant cut 2200st (SH140v) 8x

Figure 4. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

50

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 2.2-1. plant cut 15m (SH1d) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 2.2-1. plant cut 25m (SH11v) 8x2mm(5) 2.3-1. plant cut 3000st (SH43d) 8x2mm(2) 2.2-1. plant cut 15m (SH1v) 8x2mm(3) 2.2-1. plant cut 25m (SH11d) 8x000(6) 2.3-1. plant cut 3000st (SH43v) 8x

Figure 5. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

51

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 2.3-1. plant cut 3000st (SH45d) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 2.4-1. plant cut 3000st (SH40v) 8x02mm(5) 2.4-1. plant cut 2650st (SH42d) 8x2mm(2) 2.3-1. plant cut 3000st (SH45v) 8x2mm(3) 2.4-1. plant cut 3000st (SH40d) 8x00(6) 2.4-1. plant cut 2650st (SH42v) 8x

Figure 6. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

52

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 2.5-1. plant cut 800st (SH66d) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 2.5-1. plant cut 2200st (SH141v) 8x2mm(5) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH120A) 8x2mm(2) 2.5-1. plant cut 800st (SH66v) 8x2mm(3) 2.5-1. plant cut 2200st (SH141d) 8x000(6) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH121d) 8x

Figure 7. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

53

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH121v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH123d) 8x2mm(5) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH123v) 8x2mm(2) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH122d) 8x2mm(3) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2200st (SH122v) 8x000(6) 3.1-4. hide scrape 800st (SH124d) 8x

Figure 8. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

54

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 3.1-4. hide scrape 800st (SH124v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH126d) 8x2mm(5) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH126v) 8x2mm(2) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH125) 8x2mm(3) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH125) 8x
000(6) 3.2-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH128d) 8x

Figure 9. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

55

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 3.2-4. hide scrape 2000st (SH128v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 3.2-4. hide scrape 4000st (SH129v) 8x2mm(5) 3.3-2. hide saw 5000st (SH76d) 8x2mm(2) 3.2-4. hide scrape 4000st (SH129d) 8x2mm(3) 3.2-4. hide scrape 4000st (SH129v) 8x000(6) 3.3-2. hide saw 5000st (SH76v) 8x

Figure 10. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

56

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st (SH130) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1000st (SH146d) 8x2mm(5) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1000st (SH146v) 8x2mm(2) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st (SH130) 8x2mm(3) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st (SH131) 8x000(6) 3.3-5. hide chop 306st (SH148d) 8x

Figure 11. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft worked materials)

2mm

57

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 3.3-5. hide chop 306st (SH148v) 8x
02mm(2) 4.1-1. wood cut (KSM12d) 8x2mm

0(3) 4.1-2. wood saw 1000st (SH115d) 3x
0

0

2mm

(5) 4.1-3. wood whittle 1000st (SH114v) 8x2mm(4) 4.1-2. wood saw 1000st (SH115v) 3x0(6) 4.1-4. wood scrape 1000st (SH111d) 8x

Figure 12. Experimental microflaking scars. (soft to medium worked materials)

2mm

58

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 4.1-4. wood scrape 1000st (SH111d) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 4.2-3. wood whittle (KSM20d) 8x2mm(5) 4.2-3. wood whittle (KSM26) 8x2mm(2) 4.1-4. wood scrape 1000st (SH111v) 8x2mm(3) 4.2-3. wood whittle (KSM16Bd) 8x000(6) 4.2-3. wood whittle (KSM26v) 8x

Figure 13. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

59

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)0(1) 4.2-3. wood whittle 1000st (SH96d) 8x02mm(2) 4.2-3. wood whittle 1000st (SH96v) 8x2mm

0(3) 4.2-4. wood scrape 500st (SH150d) 3.5x
0

0

2mm

(4) 4.2-4. wood scrape 500st (SH150d) 3.5x
02mm(5) 4.2-4. wood scrape 500st (SH150v) 8x2mm(6) 4.2-4. wood scrape 1000st (SH151d) 8x

Figure 14. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

60

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 4.2-4. wood scrape 1000st (SH151v) 8x

0

0

2mm

(4) 4.3-3. wood whittle 1500st (SH46d) 8x2mm(5) 4.3-3. wood whittle 1500st (SH46v) 8x2mm(2) 4.3-2. wood saw 2000st (SH44) 3x2mm(3) 4.3-2. wood saw 2000st (SH44v) 5x000(6) 4.3-3. wood whittle 2000st (SH100d) 8x

Figure 15. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

61

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 4.3-3. wood whittle 2000st (SH100v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 4.3-4. wood scrape 500st (SH120Bd) 5x2mm(5) 4.3-4. wood scrape 500st (SH120Bv) 5x2mm(2) 4.3-4. wood scrape 300st (SH90d) 4x2mm(3) 4.3-4. wood scrape 300st (SH90v) 4x000(6) 4.3-4. wood scrape 500st (SH149d) 3.5x

Figure 16. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

62

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 4.3-4. wood scrape 500st (SH149v) 8x

0

0

2mm

(4) 4.3-5. wood chop 700st (SH152d) 5x
02mm(5) 4.3-5. wood chop 700st (SH152v) 4x2mm(2) 4.3-5. wood chop 200st (SH14d) 6x2mm(3) 4.3-5. wood chop 200st (SH14v) 4x00(6) 4.4-1. wood cut 1400st (SH7d) 8x

Figure 17. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

63

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 4.4-1. wood cut 1400st (SH7v) 8x

0

0

2mm

(4) 4.4-1. wood cut 1000st (SH9d) 8x
02mm(5) 4.4-1. wood cut 1000st (SH9v) 5x2mm(2) 4.4-1. wood cut 2500st (SH8d) 8x2mm(3) 4.4-1. wood cut 2500st (SH8v) 8x00(6) 4.4-1. wood cut 2000st (SH10d) 8x

Figure 18. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

64

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 4.4-1. wood cut 2000st (SH10v) 8x

0

0

2mm

(4) 4.4-1. wood cut 3000st (SH12v) 8x
02mm(5) 4.4-2. wood saw 5000st (SH49d) 8x2mm(2) 4.4-1. wood cut 3000st (SH12d) 8x2mm(3) 4.4-1. wood cut 3000st (SH12v) 8x00(6) 4.4-2. wood saw 5000st (SH49v) 8x

Figure 19. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

65

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)0(1) 4.4-3. wood whittle 2000st (SH13d) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 4.4-3. wood whittle 2000st (SH99v) 8x2mm(5) 4.5-3. wood whittle (KSM9d) 8x2mm(2) 4.4-3. wood whittle 2000st (SH13v) 8x2mm(3) 4.4-3. wood whittle 2000st (SH99d) 8x
0

0

2mm

0

(6) 4.5-3. wood whittle (KSM9v) 8x

Figure 20. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

66

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

0(1) 4.6-4. wood scrape 2000st (SH39v) 8x

0

0

2mm

(4) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 4000st (SH80v) 8x2mm(5) 5.0-3. bamboo whittle (KSM21d) 8x2mm(2) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 2000st (SH79v) 8x2mm(3) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 4000st (SH80d) 8x
0

0

2mm

0

(6) 5.0-3. bamboo whittle (KSM21v) 8x

Figure 21. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

67

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)0(1) 5.0-3. bamboo whittle (KSM23d) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 2000st (SH84d) 8x02mm(5) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 2000st (SH84v) 8x2mm(2) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 4000st (SH82) 8x2mm(3) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 4000st (SH82d) 8x

0

0

2mm

(6) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 2000st (SH79d) 8x

Figure 22. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium worked materials)

2mm

68

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

02mm(1) 6.0-2. gourd saw 5000st (SH77d) 8x
02mm(3) 7.0-7. shell grave (KSM16d) 8x
02mm(5) 8.1-2. bone saw 3000st (SH86v) 8x

02mm(2) 6.0-2. gourd saw 5000st (SH77v) 8x
02mm(4) 8.1-2. bone saw 3000st (SH86d) 8x
0(6) 8.1-3. bone whittle 1100st (SH89d) 8x

Figure 23. Experimental microflaking scars. (medium to hard worked materials)

2mm

69

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 8.1-3. bone whittle 1100st (SH89v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 8.2-4. bone scrape 1500st (SH93d) 8x
02mm(5) 8.2-4. bone scrape 1500st (SH93v) 8x2mm(2) 8.1-4. bone scrape 1000st (SH89d) 8x2mm(3) 8.1-4. bone scrape 1000st (SH89v) 8x00(6) 8.3-2. bone saw 500st (SH91) 3x

Figure 24. Experimental microflaking scars. (hard worked materials)

2mm

70

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG00(1) 8.3-2. bone saw 5000st (SH92d) 8x(1) 8.3-2. bone saw 5000st (SH92d) 8x
0
0

0
0

2mm
2mm

(4) 8.3-3. bone whittle 3000st (SH101v) 8x(4) 8.3-3. bone whittle 3000st (SH101v) 8x
0
0

2mm
2mm

(5) 8.3-4. bone scrape 2000st (SH91) 3x(5) 8.3-4. bone scrape 2000st (SH91) 3x

2mm
2mm

(2) 8.3-2. bone saw 5000st (SH92v) 8x(2) 8.3-2. bone saw 5000st (SH92v) 8x

2mm
2mm

(3) 8.3-3. bone whittle 3000st (SH101d) 8x(3) 8.3-3. bone whittle 3000st (SH101d) 8x
0
0

0
0

2mm
2mm

(6) 9.1-2. antler saw 4000st (SH47d) 8x(6) 9.1-2. antler saw 4000st (SH47d) 8x

Figure 25. Experimental microflaking scars. (hard worked materials)
Figure 25. Experimental microflaking scars. (hard worked materials)

2mm
2mm

71

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)0(1) 9.1-2. antler saw 4000st (SH47v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(4) 9.2-2. antler saw 4300st (SH68) 8x
02mm(5) 9.2-2. antler saw 4300st (SH68d) 8x2mm(2) 9.1-2. antler saw 15000st (SH48d) 8x2mm(3) 9.1-2. antler saw 15000st (SH48v) 8x
0

0

2mm

(6) 9.2-2. antler saw 4300st (SH68v) 8x

Figure 26. Experimental microflaking scars. (hard worked materials)

2mm

72

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

0

2mm

0

(1) 9.2-2. antler saw 1100st (SH71d) 5x00(2) 9.2-2. antler saw 1100st (SH71v) 3x2mm(3) 9.2-3. antler whittle 2000st (SH70d) 8x

02mm(4) 9.2-3. antler whittle 2000st (SH70v) 8x2mm(5) 9.2-4. antler scrape 100st (SH153d) 5x2mm

0(6) 9.2-4. antler scrape 100st (SH153v) 8x

Figure 27. Experimental microflaking scars. (hard worked materials)

2mm

73

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)02mm(1) 9.3-1. antler cut 1500st (SH16d) 8x0(2) 9.3-1. antler cut 1500st (SH16v) 8x

Figure 28. Experimental microflaking scars. (hard worked materials)

2mm

74

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG
E�periment�orked�ind of�umber of�olishactionstrokes

type

Details�triation�o�material

1

plant

fresh wheat

cut

15m, 120min

BF1

○

7

wood

fresh alder

cut

1400

BB

○

8

wood

fresh alder

cut

2500

F2F2

×

9

wood

fresh alder

cut

1000

D2D2

○

10

wood

fresh alder

cut

2000

BF2

○

11

plant

fresh wheat

cut

25m, 30min

BB

○

12

wood

fresh alder

cut

3000

D2F2 BF2

○

13

wood

fresh alderwhittle

2000

BF2

○

14

wood

seasoned pine, no bark

chop

200

BF2

○

15

meat

half-frozen mutton

cut

500

F1E1

○

16

antler

cut

1500

F1F1

○

17

meat

half-frozen mutton

cut

1000

D2F1

○

20

plant

weed

chop-cut

1700

AA

○

26

meat

fresh cattle

cutover 800

F1F2

○

39

wood

seasoned soft wood

scrape

2000

BF2

○

40

plant

reed

cut

3000

AA

○

42

plant

reed

cut

2650

AA

○

43

plant

fresh rice

cut

3000

AA

○

44

wood

fresh pine

saw2

2000

BB

○

45

plant

fresh rice crop

cut

about 3000

AA

○

46

wood

fresh pine

whittle

1500

BF2

○

47

antlersoaked

saw2

4000

CC

○

48

antlersoaked

saw2

15000

CC

○

49

wood

seasoned alder

saw2

5000

BB

○

54

meat

fresh pig

cut

1300

F2E1

○

55

meat

fresh pig

cut

1600

F2E1

○

56

chickenhalf-frozen chicken

butcher

1020

F1F2E1

○

57

meat

fresh pig

scrape

1100

F1F2

66

plant

pampas grass

cut

800

AA

○

68

antler

dry

saw

4300

D1F1

○

70

antlerdrywhittle

2000

F1F1

○

71

antler

dry

saw

1100

D2F1

○

Table 1. List of experiments by TUMRT for microflaking analysis. (1)75Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1)E�periment�orked�umber of
Details�ind of action

�olish type

�triation

5000

D1F1

○

saw

5000

AB

○

seasoned

saw

2000

BF1

○

bamboo

fresh

saw

4000

BB

○

82

bamboofresh

scrape

4000

BB

○

84

bambooseasoned

scrape2000

BB(atypical)

○

86

bone

fresh pig

saw

3000

D2C

○

89

bone

fresh pig

whittle/scrape

2100

D1F1

×

90

wood

seasoned pine

scrape

300

F1F2

×

91

bone

boiled pig

scrape/saw

2000/500

D1F2

○

92

bone

boiled pig

saw

5000

D1C

○

93

bone

wet and boiled pig

scrape

1500

D1D1

96a

wood

fresh cedar

whittle

1000

BF1

97

meat

fresh duck

cut

700

E1E2F1F2

99

wood

seasoned alderwhittle2000

BB(atypical)

100

wood

seasoned pine

whittle

2000

BB

101

bone

boiled pig

whittle

3000

D2F1

108a

duck

butcher3 ducks

E1E2F1

111

wood

fresh paulownia

scrape

1000

F1F2

114

wood

fresh paulownia

whittle

1000

BF1

○

115

wood

saw

1000

BF1

○

F2F2

�o�

material

strokes76

hide

dry cattle

saw

77

plant

seasoned gourd79

bamboo80○○

fresh paulownia,
outside wet, inside dry
120aleatherpig

scrape

2000

120b

wood

pine

scrape500

121leatherpig

scrape

2000

E1E2

○

122

rawhidepig

scrape

2000

E2E1

○

123

rawhidepig

scrape

2000

X

○

124

rawhidepig

scrape

800

X

○

125

rawhidepig

scrape

2000

X

○

126

rawhidepig

scrape

2000

E2F1

○

128

rawhidepig

scrape

2000

F1E1

○

129

rawhidepig

scrape

4000

F2F2

○

Table 2. List of experiments by TUMRT for microflaking analysis. (2)76

Kaoru AKOSHIMA and Hyewon HONG

E�periment�orked�umber of
Details

Kind of action

�olish type

Striation�o�material

strokes130

hide

dry pig

scrape

1500

E2E2

131

hide

dry pig

scrape

1500

E1E2

○

140

plant

fresh

cut

2200

AA

×

141

plant

wet and fresh pampas grass

cut

2200

AA

○

146

hide

pig

scrape

1000

E2F1

○

148

hide

pig

chop

306

F1F2

○

149

wood

seasoned pine

scrape

500

F2F2

×

150

wood

fresh cedar

scrape

500

F1F2

○

151

wood

fresh cedar

scrape

1000

D2F2

○

152

wood

seasoned pine

chop

700

D1F1

○

153

antlerdryscrape

100

F1F1

○

180 (KSM5)

meat

fresh pigcut

not counted

184 (KSM9)

woodzelkova

whittlenot counted

187 (KSM12)

plant

fresh sedge

cut

not counted

191 (KSM16a)

shell

grave

not counted

191 (KSM16b)

wood

cedar

whittlenot counted

195 (KSM20)

wood

cedar

whittlenot counted

196 (KSM21)

bamboowhittlenot counted

198 (KSM23)

bambooseasoned

whittlenot counted

201 (KSM26)

wood

cedar

whittlenot counted

Table 3. List of experiments by TUMRT for microflaking analysis. (3)