Bull. Tohoku Univ. Museum, No. 16, pp. 69–86, 2017
© by The Tohoku University Museum

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)Kaoru Akoshima, Hyewon Hong
Department of Archaeology, Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University

INTRODUCTION
The present paper is the third part of the results of
microwear analysis by Tohoku University Microwear
Research Team (TUMRT). It is an initial part of explanationof standard identification criteria of a category of use-wear
traces, that is, microwear polish. The part 1 and part 2
of TUMRT standard were published in the Bulletin of the
Tohoku University Museum, No. 13 (Akoshima and Hong2014), and also No. 15 (Akoshima and Hong 2016). The
present article is to be utilized with part 1 and 2, which willsoon be available through the Tohoku University Librarywebsite (TOURS). Part 1 and 2 explain analytical frameworkof microflaking (microchipping) analysis by TUMRT, typical
patterns of microflaking scar appearance, variables inexperimental control, and the expanded range of microphotographs to cover various different appearances of
microflaking scar patterns. In part 2, we also explained
in detail the method of analyzing the actual wide rangeof microflaking varieties by counting frequencies andclassifying attributes of chipping scars, for the basis ofstatistical analysis of flaking scar variability, as was alreadysummary published in Japanese (Akoshima 1981) andEnglish (Akoshima 1987).
Here as part 3, we review fundamental classification
systems of microwear polish that have been called as
Tohoku classification since 1981 and were actually widelyused by many Japanese lithic use-wear analysts. The polish
types are presented with typical micro-photographs and theirrange of appearances are shown with a number of sample
micro images. In the present volume, images of microwear
polish produced with soft contact materials are shown
here. Those polish images with medium and hard worked
materials will be presented in our future report.

EXPERIMENTAL DATABASE
The present paper continues to introduce essential criteriaof micro-wear interpretation accumulated by TUMRT since1976. The team was initiated by the late Prof. Chosuke
Serizawa and has been active up to the present (for its

history, e.g. Akoshima 2008). This is to be the third of aseries of presentations resulting from the TUMRT inferential
criteria.
The database presented here is a part of the first series of
TUMRT project directed by Serizawa. Microwear polish data
were analyzed by Kajiwara and Akoshima (Kajiwara andAkoshima 1981, Akoshima 1989) and the data have beenutilized by TUMRT members since then. Micro-photographs
were color printed and served on file at the Department ofArchaeology, Faculty of Arts and Letters.
The procedure of photographic data presentation in thepresent publication is basically the same as our previous
reports (Akoshima and Hong 2014, 2016), so only short
descriptions are repeated here for readers’ reference. The
paper photo-micrographs in the TUMRT file were scanned
at 1200 dpi and color digitized. For the present report,
representative images were chosen for presentation of“microwear polish types” for polish type A to type F2 (Figure
1 to Figure 4). The wider range of microwear polish patterns
are shown for better recognition of overall wear varieties.
By referring the typical polish type photos with image datafrom various worked materials (Figure 5 to Figure 12 for soft
contact materials), the range of microwear polish patterns
are roughly knowable.
From Figure 5 on, experimental micro-photographs arearranged in the order from working soft materials (meat,
rawhide, leather, soft plant) to medium (wood, bamboo), to
hard materials (bone, antler). The latter two categories will
be reserved for our next report, though. Within the categoryof similar hardness, they are sub-divided and arranged by
the method of use, from parallel motions (cutting, sawing) toperpendicular motions (scraping, whittling).
The main raw materials in our experimental project forpolish analysis were the shale collected from the riverbedof the Mogami River in Sagae City, Yamagata Prefecture. It
should be noted that the “shale” in the Japanese rock typeterminology for lithic analysis denotes a sort of fine grained
sedimentary rock with breaking feature of conchoidal
fracture. The rock type was in wide use throughout
prehistory in northeastern part of the Honshu Island of Japan(Tohoku District).

70

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

The micro-photographs are not presented with a scale
bar for fixed length, but the size of photographs are kept
constant (ca.700 microns from right to left of the photo at
the case of 200 X). Photos with no magnification number
were taken at 200 X when being observed. Photos with thenumber of “400 X” at the end of caption were taken at 400
X when being observed (the width of photo is thus ca.350
microns).
The order of presenting photographic data from Figure
5 on, is as follows. Basically, they are arranged so thatthe general patterns of microwear polish are recognizedaccording to the category of contact materials and the kindof motion, as in Kajiwara and Akoshima (1981). Namely, theFigures are captioned with the category of worked materials
and working edge motions. At the end of the caption,
identified polish type(s) and the experimental specimen
number are shown. Microwear polish often appears
as combination of multiple types (for example, D1 typesurrounded by F1 type), and in those cases, type names are
combined (for the example, D1F1, and so on).
They are shown in the following order (the same orderas Akoshima and Hong 2014, 2016). It is presented here
again for quick reference of the reader. We plan to publish
micropolish photos from worked materials 4.1 to 9.3 (medium
and hard) in our next report.
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 type of
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
Micro-photographs were all taken using a film camera
attachment (before 2003) to the binocular metallurgicalmicroscope of Olympus BHM system. The magnification
shown is at the time of photography. The reversal 35mm
color slides were printed and used as references for
micropolish identification for many years at Tohoku
University Archaeological Laboratory. They were, in asense, “standard polish chart” for Japanese lithic use-wear
analysts. We think it is meaningful for this time to publicize

the standard photos.

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF POLISH IDENTIFICATION
Since the first discovery by Keeley (Keeley 1977) thatvarious microwear polishes reflect the kind of worked
materials, the fact of correlation between the contact
materials and polish attributes was widely admitted among
the scientific circle of lithic analysts. Hence the way of calling
polish varieties with the name of representative worked
materials has become a world standard up to the present.
The names “wood polish”, “bone polish”, “dry hide polish”
and so on bring us some clear imagination in our mind, atleast in case of use-wear analysts. However, from the very
beginning of this discovery, Keeley already recognized thata large variety of polish appearance did exist among theedges of utilized stone tools made of European flint. So,
the nomenclature of polish names originally entailed somediscrepancy in that the same worked materials do produce a
considerable range of differently appeared microwear polish.
Our team, too, noticed the fact that the polish was variable
even from the same worked materials by conducting
independent sets of controlled experimental programs. We
used replicative Japanese lithic raw materials, including“shale” and chert, as well as European flint. The European
flint was brought to Tohoku University from Denmark by thelate Prof. Akira Matsui of Nara National Institute of Cultural
Properties (at that time, a graduate student of Tohoku
University). Dr. Kazuo Aoyama and TUMRT members
conducted supplementary experiments on flint at a later time.
The first recognition of Japanese microwear polish cameup during the final excavation of the Early Palaeolithic siteof Hoshino, in Tochigi Prefecture in 1978. The excavation
was directed by the late Prof. emeritus Chosuke Serizawa,with a government funding (KAKENHI). The history was
introduced by Akoshima (2008), and the reader may refer tothe episodes.
What is to be emphasized here is the research history inwhich our team attempted to carry out the so-called “scientificreproductivity” procedures. Kajiwara and Akoshima repeatedexperiments using the replicated shale tools and foundthat Japanese shale artifacts actually exhibited evident
microwear polishes which were very similar to the publishedphoto images by Keeley (1977). Additional experiments ofchert and obsidian also reconfirmed the fact.
Accordingly, our team first described the appearances of
microwear polishes with the title of the contact materials as
Keeley did. Some documents remain on file at our Tohoku
University Laboratory and there go the lines concerning
polishes on shale as follows (Akoshima 1980, pp.89-91).

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)Characteristics of Polishes.
1) Wood polish (Plate numbers are omitted here).
A typical wood polish is bright and smooth. Inner and outer
contrasts are high. Few pits are observed on polished area.
It is smooth especially on elevated portions, and sometimes
looks even slippery or domed. It first develops on elevatedportions according to microtopography. But the depressions
are not easily polished. Heavily polished area sometimes
undulates, accompanying a kind of striation of “troughs andcrests”.
Working bamboo and gourd produced similar type ofpolish, which can be included in wood polish. They arebright, smooth, with high contrast.
In some cases, wood polish is atypical with rugged orrough characteristics.
2) Corn gloss (“Nonwoody plant polish” according to Keeley).
The characteristics of corn gloss observed on our
experimental flakes are almost nearly the same as thosedescribed by Witthoft (1967) and Keeley. It is very brightand smooth, shining even to the unaided eye. “Filled in”
striations are observed running in the direction of activity.
Polish covers elevated portions first and invades over the
depressions. It looks like, as it were, the surface painted
with viscous liquid. The contrast is extremely high. The
fluid appearance of the affected area is quite distinctive.
However, clear “comet shaped pits” were not observed on
our experimental specimens.
3) Bone polish and antler polish.
Bone and antler often produce bright but rough polish.
They are sometimes as bright as wood polish. The contrast
is high. A lot of tiny pits in various shapes are found. The
pitted surface gives battered appearances to the alteredarea. The pits are even found on very bright portions thatwere heavily polished. The heavily polished area that is
usually the tip of the edge becomes smoother than the restof affected area, but it can be distinguished from wood polishin that slightly polished area remains rough. Soaked antler
often produces smoother bright polish than bone. Rugged
polish is also produced by bone or antler working.
4) Meat polish.
The polish produced by working meat is usually very
dull. Sometimes it is quite faint and hardly recorded on
photographs. Contrast (both inner and outer) is very low.
Polish is not necessarily restricted to the elevated portionsof micro-topography. Depressions of the original surface
are similarly affected by polish. Meat polish sometimes has“greasy” luster which looks like as it were, oiled or lubricatedsurface. Tiny pits are not found. Sometimes rugged polish isalso found.
5) Hide polish.
Hide polish of rawhide sometimes resembles meat polish:
dull, low contrast, greasy luster. But various polishes are

71

produced in case of hide. There are both bright and dull, highcontrast and low contrast, and rugged. Pits are sometimes
found. The surface becomes heavily “pitted” when soil is
involved in the experiment. Both smooth and rough polishdeveloped, but in some cases, elevated portions becamesmoother.
6) Soil polish and natural polish.
There are polish types characteristic of soil involvements
and developments on naturally patinated surface. (Inhindsight, these types (Type X and Type Y) were initialrecognition of PDSM (post depositional surface modification)and “soil sheen” phenomena.)
As our team was convinced that these polish characters
were almost identical to the polishes produced on
European flint and described by Keeley (1977), Akoshimabrought photograph prints to SAA (Society for American
Archaeology) held in San Diego, California in April 1981 todiscuss with Dr. Keeley himself. Our conclusion was that thedata on the Japanese shale would support his hypothesis ofcommon polish characteristics among various CCS rocks.
The reason why we reiterate the original description is that
the Tohoku polish classification basically followed the firstrecognition of polish on shale, but that the “in-exclusiveness”
of polish and contact material correlation turned out to be toolarge to retain the original “contact material nomenclature”(Serizawa, Kajiwara, Akoshima 1982). The fact of relative
correlation was also graphically included in French
explanation (Akoshima 1995).

DESCRIPTION OF MICROWEAR POLISH TYPES
Actual appearances of microwear polish are rich invariety even along one working edge, but there are portions
which are evaluated as representing typical types. TUMRT
originally classified the polishes into 11 types (Kajiwara
and Akoshima 1981). The classification was recognized
as standard types among many microwear analysts inJapan, and since very widely adopted and applied to actual
artifacts nationwide. However, the original presentation ofpolish types was not necessarily exhaustive in that only
representative sample pictures were published. Actually,
personal communications for experimental specimens withteam members spread the criteria in the country. The lithic
raw materials were limited to “shale” for early programs,
but other lithic materials such as chert, obsidian, rhyolite
and other CCS (crypto-crystalline silica materials) werealso included as well as European flint. It was revealed thatmost lithic raw materials developed basically similar types of
microwear polish.
The Tohoku classification was briefly published in English
in a report of the Mill Iron site, Montana, USA (Akoshima
and Frison 1996). In French language, the classification

72

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

and typical photo images of types were published in the
excavation and research report of a Magdalenian rockshelter site of Abri Dufaure compiled by Straus (Akoshima
1995).
It is true that great difficulties exist in explaining thecharacteristics of observed and/or photo images by verbal
words. We found that language differences (English andJapanese) also prevent from precisely translating thesubtle nuances of description. For example, the Japanese“kadobatta” does not equal to “angular” or “rugged”. We
chose to present as many actual microphotos as possible
instead of cumbersome explanation sentences. Due to some
limitations, we divide the photo contents into 2 separate
articles, this report and the next. We apologize for theinconveniences but we hope the reader would understand.
The following is supplementary to explanation of polishcharacteristics. They were influenced by Keeley (1977,1980), but based on the TUMRT initial series of experimental
results (Akoshima 1980).
“Bright” and “dull” are used in terms of “brightness” ofpolish. It relates to the reflection of light.
“Contrast” is used in terms of the difference of “brightness”
between two areas. “Inner contrast” means the difference ofbrightness between brighter part and duller part of polishedarea. “Outer contrast” means the difference of brightness
between polished area and unaltered area neighboring thepolished area.
“Smooth” and “rough” are used in terms of the evennessof the texture of polished area.
“Rugged” means a distinctive appearance of polishedarea. The surface is very uneven, preserving the original
micro-topography, shining with very fine-grained differenceof brightness, with some “greasy” luster. It looks like, as it
were, a boiling liquid of high viscosity.
“Coarse” and “fine-grained” is used in terms of the surface
texture of shale.
“Pitted” is used when these “pits” do not seem to be theoriginal depressions of micro-topography, but seem to beplucked off pits.
The explanation (Akoshima 1995, Akoshima and Frison
1996) is summarized here. The word order is approximately:
contrast and texture, extension, other characteristics, andrelated worked materials (in the parenthesis, less common
but related materials).
Type A [Figure 1(1), (2), (3)].
Ve r y b r i g ht a nd s mo o th . C o v e rs w i d e a rea rathe revenly. “Filled-in” striations, “comet-shaped” pits; when
underdeveloped, resembles Type B. Non-woody plants,(bamboo).

Type B [Figure 1(4), (5), (6)]Bright and smooth. Round and “domed” appearance. welldefined patches develop on high portions, clear striations.
Wood, bamboo, (bone, non-woody plants).
Type C [Figure 2(1)]Relatively bright but rough. Covers wide area rather evenly
with flat patches; patches are ill-defined. With numerous pits
of various size/shape, depressions, striation; often surrounds
Types D1 and D2. Sawing soaked antler (and bone).
Type D1 [Figure 2(2), (3), (4)]Bright and smooth; very flat and lacks “roundness”; includes“melted snow” type. Flat polish patches are well-defined.
Directional undulations often constitute wide striatedfeatures. Bone, antler, (wood).
Type D2 [Figure 2(5), (6)]Bright but less smooth than D1. Polish patches are welldefined. Patch surface undulates with numerous parallel,
sharp striations. Bone, antler, wood, (bamboo).
Type E1 [Figure 3(1), (2)]Dull and relatively rough. Polish patches are small andconfined. Numerous tiny pits and very minutely rugged(“rugose”); usually accompanies Types E2, F1, F2. Hide,meat, (wood).
Type E2 [Figure 3(3), (4), (5)]Dull and relatively rough, “matte” texture. Patches are lessconfined and sometimes flat; when developed, patches growand “roundness” increases. Numerous tiny pits and very
minutely rugged (“rugose”); usually accompanies Types E1,
F1, F2. Hide, meat.
Type F1 [Figure 3(6), Figure 4(1)]Dull and rough, sometimes “greasy luster”. Patches are
not well-defined; polish follows micro-topography (on both
elevations and depressions). Coarse “rugged” appearance;
And Type F1 often develops into Type D1 on antler/bone.
Dry antler, bone, hide, meat, wood.
Type F2 [Figure 4(2), (3), (4)]Very dull, weak. Polish follows micro-topography. Often
accompanies other types. Generic polish, hide, meat, (wood,bone).
Type X (Kajiwara and Akoshima 1981, figure 3-18)
Dull, “battered” appearance. Extends widely. Very “rugged”;
full of pits, depressions; striations everywhere. Soil (digging,etc.) or any other material in contact with soil.

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)Type Y (Kajiwara and Akoshima 1981, figure 3-19)
Relatively bright but no contrast (even brightness), variable
texture. Entire surface is covered. Random striations;various pits. “Patination” polish, polish on naturally worn
surface.
The Tohoku classification system has spread also throughdirect personal communications among lithic analysts.
Independent experimental works by the analysts contributed
to reliable inferential criteria. In Japan, the Palaeolithic
period, the Jomon period, and the Yayoi period respectively
have maintained their traditions of stone tool research.
The scientific community was not so huge in the country
and there were also networks through legal administration
system of the cultural properties protection, including
mandatory site excavation and site report publication andsocial circulation. The foci of the Palaeolithic period research
included spatial distribution and human behavior, and thoseof the Yayoi period research included studies of agriculturalequipments such as leaping knives.
Although the microwear analytical techniques wereregarded as standard research procedure, there wasa certain degree of skepticism about the objectivity offunctional determination. The “Palaeolithic fake scandal”
committed solely by Mr. Fujimura which was exposed on
November 4, 2000 as a scoop of the Mainichi Shimbun
newspaper seriously deepened this skepticism. In sucha social atmosphere, the disciplinary organization of“the Society for Lithic Use-Wear Studies” headed by Dr.
Midoshima and Dr. Harada launched a joint research projectof use-wear analysis in 2003.
In the joint project, a communal experimental program
was carried out to strengthen the methodological objectivityof use-wear analysis. One of the main themes has been the
problem of polish classification and their attribute analysis.
The final results of the joint project are in preparation for
publication, so we cannot discuss the relations of the joint
project and Tohoku University polish analysis here. Tohoku
classification is “explanatory description”, while the Society
tactics is “attribute analytical characterization”. We plan to
discuss their similarities and differences the next time.

CONLULUSIONS
Microwear polish is a minute scale phenomenon of
surface alteration, but its mechanism, that is, physicalprocesses of formation is not clearly determined. There
were theories of additive substance explanations as well
as abrasive explanations (e.g., Yamada 1986, 1993), or
complex combination of both. Our team has been in aposition to morphologically observe and classify its wide
variation and attempt to correlate the formal phenomena to73

actual functions of tool use.
Classification of microwear polish tends to ignore
diversity. Each micro-polished working edge has individual
characteristics that would not be accommodated into typeclassifications. In order to alleviate this missing feature ofdiversity, micro-photographs were repeatedly taken andcompared. Of course these micro-photographs do notnecessarily represent all the variation of surface morphologythat occurred on the edge of flakes used in a particular work.
However, within the framework of controlled experimental
program of TUMRT, relationships between micro-polish
identification and contact materials were clearly discovered.
The polish photo database presented here will serve fora means of fundamental pattern recognition of the categoryof use-wear which can be observable with a standard
equipment of high magnification optical microscope. Wevery affirmatively keep the methodological position that eachcategory of use-wear, namely micro-polish (or microwear
polish), striation, micro-edge-damage (microflaking, e.g.,
Tringham et. al. 1974), and even macro-wear patterns which
are often observable with a hand magnifier, has its own
potential. We need to integrate various different categories
of use-wear for a more reliable method of interpretation.
Our fundamental direction is again based on the theoreticalstandpoint of the “middle range research” in the senseof Binford (1981, pp.21-30), where all the archaeologicalrecords as data are integrated together with data sets in
actualistic situations such as experimental archaeology.
Microwear polish is often difficult to identify when heavy
patination, or “post-depositional phenomena” affected theworking edge of the tool. Another restriction of micro-polishis the quality of raw materials. Relatively coarse-grained
lithic materials such as andesite, or extra-hard materials
prevent from reliable identification of micro-polishes. In caseof relatively soft but fine-grained materials such as rhyolite,
or acidic volcanic rocks, surface alteration and abrasionof the edge often makes polish identification difficult.
However, once polish types are identified, the inference ofcontact materials can be more detailed. We reiterate ourconclusion (Akoshima and Hong, 2016) that all types ofuse-wear should be paid enough attention as long as they
are observable along the working edge. Proper sets ofequipment should be applied to observe the target use-wear
traces. More problem oriented methodological thinking isfundamental for the establishment of standard procedures ofuse-wear analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Prof. Hiroshi Kajiwara of Tohoku Fukushi University
actually conducted many of the replicative experiments
together with the first author while he was at Tohoku

74

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

University. We are grateful to Prof. Atsushi Fujisawa of
the Tohoku University Museum for recommending our
publication in its Bulletin series. The database publicationof this page size sometimes faces difficulties to find places
to be accommodated. We hope that the Bulletin series
will continue to publicize TUMRT research standards forbasic reference purposes nationwide. Lastly, this article isa result of KAKENHI (Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research)
by the Japanese government (JSPS), which was granted to
Akoshima (2016, number 25370885).

REFERENCES
Akoshima, K. 1980, An Experimental Study of Microwear Traces on
Shale Artifacts. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Document on fileat Dept. of Archaeology, Graduate School of Arts and Letters,
Tohoku University.
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. 1995, Analyse Tracéologique d’Artefacts en Silex. Les
Derniers Chasseurs de Rennes du Monde Pyrénéen, L’Abri
Dufaure: Un Gisement Tardiglaciaire en Gascogne, edited by L.
G. Straus, pp.147-164. Mémoir S.P.F., Tome 22.
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, pp.189-207. Rokuichi Shobo.
Akoshima, K., and G. C. Frison 1996, Lithic Microwear Studiesof the Mill Iron Site Tools. The Mill Iron Site, edited by G. C.
Frison, pp.71-86. University of New Mexico Press.
Akoshima, K., and H. Hong 2014, Standard Use-wear Chart of
TUMRT (1): Microflaking (1). Bulletin of the Tohoku University
Museum, No.13, pp.43-76.
Akoshima, K., and H. Hong 2016, Standard Use-wear Chart of
TUMRT (2): Microflaking (2). Bulletin of the Tohoku University
Museum, No.15, pp.127-193.
Binford, L. R. 1981, Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.
Academic Press.
Keeley, L. H. 1977, The Function of Paleolithic Flint Tools. Scientific
American, vol.237(5), pp.108-126.
Keeley, L. H. 1980, Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses.
University of Chicago 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)
Serizawa, C., H. Kajiwara, and K. Akoshima 1982, Experimental
Study of Microwear Traces and Its Potentiality. Archaeology
and Natural Sciences, No.14, pp.67-87. (in Japanese)
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.
Witthoft, J. 1967, Glazed Polish on Flint Tools. American Antiquity,
vol.32, pp.383-388.
Yamada, S. 1986, The Formation Process of Use-Wear Polishes.
Archaeology and Natural Sciences, No.19, pp.101-123. (inJapanese)
Yamada, S. 1993, The Formation Process of “Use-wear Polishes”.
Traces et Fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Colloque Internationalde Liège, Édition ERAUL, vol. 50. pp.433-445.

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)(1) polish type A. grass cut 2200st (SH140d)(2) polish type A. grass cut 2200st (SH141) 400x(3) polish type A. rice cut (SH45)(4) polish type B. wood cut 4000st (SH103)(5) polish type B. wood saw 5000st (SH49)(6) polish type B. wood scrape 5000st (SH110) 400x

Figure 1. Experimental microwear polishes.

75

76

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) polish type C. antler saw 4000st (SH47)(2) polish type D1. bone scrape 1500st (SH93)(3) polish type D1. bone scrape 1500st (SH93)(4) polish type D1. antler cut 4000st (SH106) 400x(5) polish type D2. bone saw 5000st (SH92)(6) polish type D2. bone saw 5000st (SH92) 400x

Figure 2. Experimental microwear polishes.

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)(1) polish type E1. hide cut 1000st (SH113)(2) polish type E1. hide scrape 500st (SH132) 400x(3) polish type E2. hide scrape 2000st (SH35)(4) polish type E2. hide scrape 10000st (SH28) 400x(5) polish type E2. hide saw 2000st (SH76)(6) polish type F1. bone whittle 1000st (SH19)

Figure 3. Experimental microwear polishes.

77

78

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) polish type F1. antler 2000st (SH72) 400x(2) polish type F2. meat cut 800st (SH26) 400x(3) polish type F2. hide scrape 2000st (SH122)(4) polish type F2. hide scrape 2000st (SH112)

Figure 4. Experimental microwear polishes.

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)(1) 1.1-1. meat cut 800st. type F2E1. (SH26)(2) 1.2-1. meat cut 1100st. type F2. (SH57)(3) 1.4-6. meat butcher. type E1D1. (SH107)(4) 1.4-6. meat butcher. type E1. (SH103) 400x(5) 1.4-6. meat butcher. type E1 (SH108)(6) 1.5-6. meat butcher. type E1D1. (SH56)

Figure 5. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)

79

80

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 2.1-1. plant cut 2200st. type A. (SH140)(2) 2.1-1. plant cut 2200st. type A. (SH140)(3) 2.3-1. plant cut 3000st. type A. (SH43)(4) 2.4-1. plant cut 3000st. type A. (SH40)(5) 2.5-1. plant cut 2200st. type A. (SH141) 400x(6) S2.5-1. plant cut 2200st. type A. (SH141)

Figure 6. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)(1) 2.5-1. plant cut 2200st. type A. (SH141)(2) 2.5-1. plant cut 1000st. type B. (SH155)(3) 3.1-1. hide cut 250st. type F2. (SH32)(4) 3.1-1. hide cut 1000st. type E1F2. (SH113)(5) 3.1-1. hide cut 1000st. type E2E1. (SH113) 400x(6) 3.1-4. hide scrape 1000st. type E1. (SH24)

Figure 7. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)

81

82

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 3.1-4. hide scrape. type E1. (SH28)(2) 3.1-4. hide scrape 3000st. type E2. (SH29)(3) 3.1-4. hide scrape 3500st. type E2. (SH29) 400x(4) 3.1-4. hide scrape 3500st. type E2E1. (SH29)(5) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E2. (SH35)(6) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E1. (SH112)

Figure 8. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)(1) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. (SH116)(2) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E1. (SH117)(3) 3.1-4. hide scrape 1000st. type E1. (SH118)(4) 3.1-4. hide scrape 1000st. (SH119)(5) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E2. (SH120) 400x(6) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E2. (SH120)

Figure 9. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)

83

84

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E1F2. (SH120)(2) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E1. (SH120)(3) 3.1-4. hide scrape 1000st. type E1E2. (SH121)(4) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E1E2 (SH121)(5) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E1E2. (SH123)(6) 3.1-4. hide scrape 800st. (SH124)

Figure 10. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1)(1) 3.1-4. hide scrape 2000st. type E2. (SH125)(2) 3.2-4. hide scrape 2000st. type F2. (SH128)(3) 3.3-2. hide saw 5000st. type D2. (SH76)(4) 3.3-2. hide saw 2000st. type E1. (SH76)(5) 3.3-4. hide scrape 5000st. type F2. (SH74) 400x(6) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st. type E2E1. (SH130)

Figure 11. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)

85

86

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st. type E2. (SH131) 400x(2) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st. type F2. (SH131) 400x(3) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st. type E1E2. (SH131)(4) 3.3-4. hide scrape 1500st. type E2. (SH131)(5) 3.3-4. hide scrape 500st. type E1. (SH132) 400x(6) 3.3-4. hide scrape 500st. type E1. (SH132)

Figure 12. Experimental microwear polishes. (soft worked materials)