Bull. Tohoku Univ. Museum, No. 17, pp. 115–138, 2018
© by The Tohoku University Museum

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)Kaoru Akoshima, Hyewon Hong
Department of Archaeology, Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University

INTRODUCTION
The present paper is the number 4 of the results of
microwear analysis by Tohoku University Microwear
Research Team (TUMRT). It constitutes the second part of
explanation for standard identification criteria of microwear
polish. The part 1, 2, and 3 of TUMRT standard were
published in the Bulletin of the Tohoku University Museum,No. 13 (Akoshima and Hong 2014), No. 15 (Akoshima andHong 2016), and also No.16 (Akoshima and Hong 2017).
The present article is to be utilized with part 1 to 3, which will
be available through the Tohoku University Library website(TOURS). Part 1 and 2 presented a wide range of macrophotograph database by TUMRT to explain the analyticalframework of microflaking scar patterns and their variability,
for the basis of statistical analysis as had been summary
published in Japanese (Akoshima 1981) and English(Akoshima 1987).
The part 3 of our reports reviewed fundamental
classification systems of microwear polish, named “Tohoku
classification” and widely used by many Japanese analysts
since 1981. The polish types were presented with typicalmicro-photographs and their range of appearances wereshown with a number of sample micro images. In theprevious volume, images of microwear polish produced with
soft contact materials were included. Here in the present
report, the polish images produced with various medium andhard worked materials are presented.
.

EXPERIMENTAL DATABASE
Here at No.4 report, we continue to introduce fundamental
criteria of microwear interpretation accumulated by TUMRT
since 1976. The team was initiated by the late Prof. Chosuke
Serizawa of Tohoku University at the Faculty of Arts andLeters (now the Graduate School of Arts and Letters). For its
initial history, please refer to Akoshima (2008) in English.
The database is from the first series of TUMRT project
directed by Serizawa. Microwear polish data were analyzed
by Kajiwara and Akoshima (Kajiwara and Akoshima 1981,
Akoshima 1989). Micro-photographs were color printed

and served on file at the Department of Archaeology during
1980s. More recent results of experimental archaeology at
Tohoku University will be introduced in our future reports.
The procedure and order of photographic data
presentation here is basically the same as our previous
reports (Akoshima and Hong 2014, 2016, 2017), so wewould avoid redundancy. Representative images werechosen for presentation of “microwear polish types” for polish
type A to type F2 in Akoshima and Hong (2017) in Figure
1 to 4. And the wider range of microwear polish patterns
was 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 forsoft contact materials, that is, meat, rawhide, leather, andsoft plant), the overall ranges of microwear polish patterns
are recognized. The initial series of controlled experiments
covered basic framework of use-wear interpretations(Kajiwara and Akoshima 1981, Akoshima 1989).
Here from Figure 13 on, experimental micro-photographs
are arranged in the order from working medium (wood,bamboo), to hard materials (bone, antler). Within the
category of similar hardness, they are sub-divided andarranged by the method of use, from parallel motions (cutting,sawing) to perpendicular motions (scraping, whittling). The
main raw materials in our experimental project for polishanalysis were the shale as in our previous report. The
method of data presentation is the same as before, andwe begin with the worked material category 4 (wood) to 9
(antler), from Figure 13, to Figure 30.
The Figures are captioned with the category of worked
materials and working edge motions. At the end of thecaption, identified polish type(s) and the experimental
specimen number are shown. Microwear polish often
appears as combination of multiple types (for example, D1
type surrounded by F1 type), and in such cases, type names
are combined (D1F1, and so on). Micro-photographs areshown in the same order as in Akoshima and Hong (2014,2016, 2017), with the same worked material and motion
category number. For quick reference of the reader, therelevant experimental coding is reproduced here.
4. Wood, 4.1 paulownia, 4.2 cedar, 4.3 pine, 4.4 alder, 4.5

116

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

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
The sizes of micro-photographs are mostly kept constant,the same as our previous report (ca.700 microns fromright to left of the photo in the case of 200 X). Photos withno magnification number were taken at 200 X when being
observed. Photos with the number of “400 X” at the endof caption were taken at 400 X when being observed (thewidth of photo is thus ca.350 microns). These numerous
photographs can be utilized as “standard polish chart” forlithic use-wear analysts. We believe it is meaningful topublicize the standard photos, with polish type classificationfor each image. A use-wear analyst of course needs to
conduct controlled experiments for the purpose of reliableinterpretation, but the type of database presented here willserve as broader reference materials.

POLISHES ON DIFFERENT CCS ROCK TYPES
We would like to discuss the relationship of micro-polishformation between the two major raw materials in northeast
Japan and Europe, that is, between Shale and Flint. During
decades of use-wear research, the problem of polishdifferences among different rock types has also been an
important topic. Our team began experimental work with
Shale artifacts because the raw material was in prevalent
use throughout the Paleolithic and the Jomon period innortheastern Japan. As was mentioned in our previous report(2017, pp.70-71), first discovery of micro-polish formation
on shale was in 1978 during the Early Paleolithic excavation
at the Hoshino site (Akoshima 2008), and the polish wasclassified into Tohoku Univ. types by 1980 in Kajiwara andAkoshima (1981). Then similar polish was recognized onchert and other CCS (crypto-crystalline) rock types. The
micro-polish types were almost identical in their appearance
to those on flint rocks which had been already publisheda few years before by Keeley (1977). After Akoshima
and Keeley met at SAA in 1981, Akoshima attempted toclassify photo images of polish on flint (on publications)
into the Tohoku Univ. types with a degree of success. It is
our own re-classification according to the Tohoku system,
independent of Keeley method of calling polishes with thename of the worked materials (wood polish, etc.).
In this early stage of polish identification, it was alreadywell confirmed that the correlation between the polishappearances (or types) and the type of the worked materials
was not exclusive. The relationship was rather probabilistic
between the two. Most reports were written in the Japanese
language at that time, so this fact was only recognizedlater in the global research community in indirect fashion,
especially by the time of the “polish type controversy” inthe late 1980s which was initiated by the London University
group (Grace et al. 1985). The relationship was, however,very positive and the micro-polish classification was adopted
as one of important criteria for identification of the worked
material(s), at least in Japan.
We take the position that micro-polishes should be
described and classified first and then their relations to
the worked materials should be investigated. In the global
scene of micro-polish analysis, still the influence of the“Keeley method” has been very strong in many analysis
reports, probably from the historical factors. We present
the classification of micro-polishes in Keeley’s book andVaughan’s book, according to the Tohoku criteria here.
Keeley’s book (1980) has many microphotographs and they
were recognized in a sense the global historical standard.
Table 1 indicates our Tohoku classification types andparticular micro-photographs in his volume, with their plate
numbers. The reader might be familiar with the traditional
polish nomenclature and aware of the existent variability,
for example, the range of “antler polish”. The table is not,however, the result of consultation with Dr. Keeley, but therelationship is from the TUMRT view, the responsibility beingours.
We would like to present Table 2, which is the relationshipbetween the Tohoku classification and numerous microphotographs in the book by Vaughan (1985). The volumeentails a number of extremely clear and fine-grained
micro-photographs of polishes, both experimental andarchaeological, observed on the surface of European flint
tools. Dr. Vaughan visited Japan in 1984 for the purposeof academic exchange with Tohoku University, Professors
Serizawa and Suto who was conducting a shell midden
excavation, and also made a short stay at Akoshima’s
residence in Shiroishi. We had very intensive discussions
about the directions of use-wear analysis. He observed
TUMRT experimental specimens and we agreed that thestandard metallurgical microscope should be the main tool
for mircowear analysis. He also made a short visit to Tokyo
University to see the late Prof. Fujimoto who wrote a generalreview of use-wear analysis in Japanese in 1976 (Fujimoto1976). Regrettably, it was years later that we heard thesad news of his passing away. Many micro-photographs
in Vaughan (1985) are still one of the best set of use-wearStandard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)polishes in our opinion. (Table 1 and Table 2 are adaptedfrom Akoshima 1993, pp.56-57).
It is indicated that the varieties of micro-polishes exhibit
close similarities between two major lithic raw materials,
Shale and Flint. The micro-photographs presented in thisarticle and those in the previous volume, mostly represent
the entire range of polish varieties produced in theexperimental framework. Typical type specimens of polishwere also presented. The type classification of TUMRT,
typical micro-photographic images, actual relationships withthe worked materials, and related methodological problems
were partially discussed in Japanese (e.g., Kajiwara andAkoshima 1981, Serizawa, Kajiwara, and Akoshima 1982,
Akoshima 1989), in English (Akoshima 1993, 2010a with
Korean summary, Akoshima and Frison 1996), in French(Akoshima 1995), and in Chinese (Akoshima 2010b). The
detailed data-base in this volume would help to better
understand the nature of polish analysis. There are still
many problems including cases with other CCS rock such as
Chert, Post depositional processes, Multiple stage surface
alteration, Multiple stage edge abrasion, and more objective
measures of polish description and classification, especiallymeasures by attribute level analysis of micro-polishes. We
would like to discuss these issues in our next report.

CONCLUSIONSIn the present article, the standard use-wear charts of
microwear polish on shale artifacts are shown for medium tohard worked materials. The varieties of polish appearances
are recognizable with these micro-photographs. Relevanceof microwear on shale materials to that on European flint
materials are also shown with tables which is related to“classic” achievements by Keeley (1980) and Vaughan(1985). We plan to continue the publication of standard
use-wear criteria including cases of chert and other rockmaterials and recent controlled experiments.
From the very beginning of our research in 1980s,
we took a consistent strategy that both the “low power”
approach (e.g., Tringham, et. al. 1974), and the “high power”
approach (e.g., Keeley 1977) need to be integrated intoa synthetic methodology of “traceology” (e.g., Semenov1964). In the history of Japanese use-wear analysis,
however, it is only recently that the potential of the low
power approach has been fully recognized (e.g., Sano, et.
al. 2016). This tendency of over-emphasis on microwear
polish observation using the metallurgical microscope has
been a peculiar phenomenon, considering the global trendsof use-wear analysis especially in both America and Europe.
Keeley himself paid careful attention to the phenomena of
microchipping (Keeley 1980). We began the presentation of
TUMRT identification criteria from the microflaking database,

117

partially because of this reason of research history in Japan.
On the other hand, there was a serious controversy
among microwear analysts, on the reliability of polish typeidentification with worked materials differentiation. The
controversy was initiated at London University and spreadworldwide, projecting dark skepticism on the potential powerof the high power approach. In hindsight, the debate (Grace,
et al. 1985, Moss 1987) was considered serious becauseof the strategic direction of use-wear approach in which
behavioral reconstruction was aimed at for its objective. Witha more synthetic approach with the low power method andalso theoretical refinements such as introduction of conceptsof “technological organization” into use-wear analysis(Akoshima and Kanomata 2015), this sort of pessimistic
perspective can be overcome. Actually, during 1990s,
accumulation of steady case studies led to re-evaluation ofuse-wear analysis (in Japan, Akoshima 1989, Midoshima
2005, Yamada 2007, for general review and methodologicaldevelopments).
Use-wear on every working edge of stone tools is in asense the palimpsest traces from repeated use episodes byhuman activities. They are often overlapped, and overwritten
traces. However, the organized nature of human activities atleast from the advent of modern man behavior on the earth
certainly retained structural traces which can be detected.
There are also a lot of factors which intervene between
activities and traces, such as, post-depositional processes.
Yamada (2008) points out difficulties in the case of the Early
Paleolithic chert artifacts in the North Kanto area (known as“Keigan-sei Kyusekki”) for surface alteration phenomena
from active geological processes and the long duration oftime passed since their deposition. Yamada (1993) also
discusses the attritional processes of micro-polish formation.
Rock differences, accumulation of traces, postdepositional processes, and a number of other factors
might prevent from precise identification of use-wear traces.
However, one of the most fundamental measure of analysis
is conducting “actualistic studies” as Middle Range Researchin the sense of Binford (e.g., 1981), that is, in this realm ofstudy, open publication of results of controlled experiments.
Here we are convinced that data bases such as this would
be one meaningful addition to our archaeological knowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Prof. Hiroshi Kajiwara of Tohoku Fukushi University
actually conducted many of the replicative experimentswith the first author while he was at Tohoku University. His
collaboration with Akoshima virtually placed the founding
blocks for early research history of use-wear in Japan. We
are also grateful to Prof. Atsushi Fujisawa of the Tohoku
University Museum for continuing support for publication of

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

118

our TUMRT results in its Bulletin series. Otherwise, databasereports of this size would face difficulties to find their space
to be printed. Lastly, this article is a result of KAKENHI(Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research) by the Japanese
government (JSPS), which was granted to Akoshima (2017,
number 17K03204).

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. 1993, Microwear Patterns and Distributional Variability
in Terminal Palaeolithic Site Structue. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of New Mexico, Department of
Anthropology. U.M.I. No.9424834.
Akoshima, K. 1995, Analyse Traceologique d’Artefacts en Silex. Les
Derniers Chasseurs de Rennes du Monde Pyreneen, L’Abri
Dufaure: Un Gisement Tardiglaciaire en Gascogne, edited by L.
G. Straus, pp.147-164. Memoir 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. 2010a, Lithic Use-wear Analysis: Method andTheory Now and Then. The 15th International Symposium:
SUYANGGAE and Her Neighbours, edited by Yung-jo Lee andJong-yoon Woo, pp.99-115. Institute of Korean Prehistory andDanyang County Office. (English with Korean summary)
Akoshima, K. 2010b, Recent Developments of Micro Use-wear
Studies on Stone Tools in Japan. Southeastern ArchaeologicalStudies, vol.4, pp.73-87. Xiamen University Press. (in Chinese)
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.
Akoshima, K., and H. Hong 2017, Standard Use-wear Chart of

TUMRT (3): Microwear Polish (1). Bulletin of the Tohoku
University Museum, No.16, pp.69-86.
Akoshima, K. and Y. Kanomata 2015, Technological Organizationand Lithic Microwear Analysis: An Alternative Methodology.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol.38, pp.17-24.
Binford, L. R. 1981, Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.
Academic Press.
Fujimoto, T. 1976, Technology and Function. Palaeolithic Cultures inJapan, vol.5, pp.71-145. Yuzankaku. (in Japanese)
Grace, R., I.D.G. Graham, and M.H. Newcomer 1985, The
Quantification of Microwear Polishes. World Archaeology,
vol.17, pp.112-120.
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)
Midoshima, T. 2005, The Study of Use-wear on Stone Tools.
Doseisha. (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)Moss, E.H. 1987, A Review of ‘Investigating Microwear Polisheswith Blind Tests’. Journal of Archaeological Science, vol.14,
pp.473-481.
Sano, K., Y. Denda, and M. Oba 2016, Experiments in Fracture
Patterns and Impact Velocity with Replica Hunting Weapons
from Japan. Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone
Age Weaponry, edited by K. Sano and R. Iovita, pp.29-46.
Springer.
Semenov, S.A. 1964, Prehistoric Technology, translated by M.W.
Thompson. Moonraker Press.
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.
Vaughan, P. C. 1985, Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools, The
University of Arizona Press.
Yamada, S. 1993, The Formation Process of “Use-wear Polishes”.
Traces et Fonction: les gestes retrouves. Colloque Internationalde Liege, Edition ERAUL, vol. 50. pp.433-445.
Yamada, S. 2007, Chapter2 Functions of Stone Tools. Seminar
Palaeolithic Archaeology, edited by H. Sato, pp. 32-49.
Doseisha. (in Japanese)
Yamada, S. 2008, Keigan-sei Kyusekki (Paleolithic chert tools) anduse-wear. The Archaeological Journal, No.618, pp.7-11.(inJapanese)Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)Table 1. Tohoku University Polish Classification and Keeley’s Polish Types
TOHOKU UNIVERSITY CLASSIFICATIONKEELEY’S(1980) PHOTOGRAPHS(PLANT/WOOD VARIETY)
A

54, 55

B

18, 19, 21(B-F1), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 49, 56(B-F1), 58(B-F1), 70, 78, 80, 82, 92,
96, 97(BONE/ANTLER VARIETY)
C

30, 34, 53

D1

26, 29(D1-F1), 33(D1-F1), 35(D1-F1), 50, 51, 52(D1-F1), 67, 114

D2

64(RAWHIDE/MEAT/DRY HIDE VARIETY)
E1

36, 41, 42, 43(edge E1, interior F2), 45, 46, 48, 60, 63, 72, 84(E1-E2), 89

E24, 37, 38(E2-E1), 39, 40, 83, 100, 106, 115(INDETERMINATE/GENERIC TYPES)
F1

20, 31, 32, 49, 61, 71, 74, 86, 94

F2

44, 47, 81(POSTDEPOSITIONAL SURFACE ALTERATION)
SS (Soil Sheen)

11, 16, 17, 87(?)

X

14, 65

BS (Bright spot)

8, 10, 75, 110

119

120

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

Table 2. Tohoku University Polish Classification and Vaughan’s Polish Types
TOHOKU UNIVERSITY CLASSIFICATIONVAUGHAN’S(1985) PHOTOGRAPHS(PLANT/WOOD VARIETY)
A

52, 54, 64, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 103

B

37(edge B, interior F1), 43(left B, right F1), 44, 45, 46, 47(edge B, interior F1),49(elevated parts B, depression F1), 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58(55 through 58 arebamboo-type variety of B), 60, 63, 66(left B, right D1), 72(BONE/ANTLER VARIETY)
C

21

D1

22, 28(edge D1, interior F1), 29(D1-D2), 32, 33, 34, 35(edge D1, interior F1),
36, 38, 61(D1-B), 62(D1-B), 67, 99(D1-F1)

D2

12, 13, 24(edge D2, interior F1), 25, 26, 27(edge D2, interior F1), 30, 39, 40,
41(edge D2, interior F1), 42(RAWHIDE/MEAT/DRY HIDE VARIETY)
E1

15(E1-F2), 94(E1-F1), 95, 96, 97(E1-F2), 98

E287, 89(elevated parts E2, depression F1), 90, 91, 92(INDETERMINATE/GENERIC TYPES)
F1

16(interior F1, edge E1), 17(interior F1, edge B), 18, 31, 117(interior F1)

F2

Undeveloped portion of “Generic Weak Polish”(e.g., 15-interior part, 17-right end)

(POSTDEPOSITIONAL SURFACE ALTERATION)
SS (Soil sheen)

109, 119(SS-F1), 123, 124, 125, 130, 131, 132(interior SS, edge D2), 133(interior
SS, edge D2), 134, 135, 140

X

102(X-E2), 136, 137, 138, 141

BS (Bright spot)

23, 68, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 4.1-2. wood saw 1000st. type B. (SH115) 400x(2) 4.1-3. wood whittle 500st. type BF1. (SH114) 400x(3) 4.1-3. wood whittle 500st. type F1. (SH114)(4) 4.2-3. wood whittle 1000st. type BF1. (SH96)(5) 4.2-4. wood scrape 1000st. type B. (SH151)(6) 4.3-4. wood scrape 1000st. type F1. (SH20) 400x

Figure 13. Experimental microwear polishes. (medium worked materials)

121

122

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 4.3-4. wood scrape 1500st. type F1. (SH158)(2) 4.3-4. wood scrape 1500st. type F1. (SH158)(3) 4.4-1. wood cut 500st. type B. (SH12)(4) 4.4-2. wood saw 5000st. type B. (SH49)(5) 4.4-2. wood saw 5000st. type B. (SH49)(6) 4.6-1. wood saw 1000st. type B. (SH36)

Figure 14. Experimental microwear polishes. (medium worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 4.6-1. wood cut 1000st. type B. (SH36)(2) 4.6-1. wood cut 2500st. type B. (SH102)(3) 4.6-1. wood cut 2000st. type F1. (SH105) 400x(4) 4.6-1. wood cut 2000st. type F1. (SH105)(5) 4.6-3. wood whittle 500st. type B. (SH147) 400x(6) 4.6-3. wood whittle 500st. type B. (SH147)

Figure 15. Experimental microwear polishes. (medium worked materials)

123

124

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 4.6-3. wood whittle 1000st. type B. (SH147) 400x(2) 4.6-. wood shave 2000st. type F1. (SH39)(3) 4.6-4. wood scrape 2000st. type F1B. (SH69)(4) 4.6-4. wood scrape 2000st. type F1B. (SH69)(5) 4.6-4. wood scrape 1000st. type BF1. (SH73)(6) 4.6-4. wood scrape 500st. type BF1. (SH110)

Figure 16. Experimental microwear polishes. (medium worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 4.6-4. wood scrape 1000st. type F1D1. (SH110)(2) 4.6-4. wood scrape 2000st. type BD1. (SH110)(3) 4.6-5. wood chop 5600st. type BF1. (SH144)(4) 4.6-7. wood grave 1000st. type D1. (SH36)(5) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 4000st. type B. (SH80)(6) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 4000st. type B. (SH80)

Figure 17. Experimental microwear polishes. (medium worked materials)

125

126

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 4000st. type B. (SH80)(2) 5.0-2. bamboo saw 4000st. type B. (SH80)(3) 5.0-3. bamboo whittle 1000st. type F1. (SH84)(4) 5.0-3. bamboo whittle 1000st. type B. (SH84) 400x(5) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 4000st. type B. (SH82)(6) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 1000st. type B. (SH83)

Figure 18. Experimental microwear polishes. (medium worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 1000st. type B. (SH83)(2) 5.0-4. bamboo scrape 2000st. type B. (SH84) 400x(3) 5.0-7. bamboo grave 1000st. type F1. (SH81)(4) 6.0-2. gourd saw 3000st. type B. (SH77)(5) 8.1-2. bone saw 3000st. type C. (SH86)(6) 8.1-2. bone saw 3000st. type C. (SH86)

Figure 19. Experimental microwear polishes. (medium to hard worked materials)

127

128

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 8.1-2. bone saw 3000st. type D2. (SH86)(2) 8.1-2. bone saw 3000st. type D2. (SH92)(3) 8.1-3. bone whittle 1000st. type F1. (SH19) 400x(4) 8.1-3. bone whittle 2100st. type D1. (SH89) 400x(5) 8.1-4. bone scrape 2000st. type D1F1. (SH87)(6) 8.1-4. bone scrape 2000st. type D1. (SH87)

Figure 20. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 8.1-7. bone grave 1000st. type F1. (SH37) 400x(2) 8.1-7. bone grave 1000st. type F1. (SH37)(3) 8.1-7. bone grave 1000st. type D1. (SH38) 400x(4) 8.1-7. bone grrave 1000st. type D1. (SH38) 400x(5) 8.1-7. bone grave 2000st. type D1. (SH88) 400x(6) 8.1-7. bone grave 2000st. type F1D1. (SH88)

Figure 21. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

129

130

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 8.1-7. bone grave 2000st. type D1. (SH88)(2) 8.1-7. bone grave 2000st. type F1. (SH88)(3) 8.3-2. bone saw 5000st. type D2. (SH92)(4) 8.3-4. bone scrape 2000st. type D2. (SH91)(5) 8.3-4. bone scrape 2000st. type D2. (SH91)(6) 8.3-4. bone scrape 1500st. type D1. (SH93)

Figure 22. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 8.3-4. bone scrape 1500st. type D1. (SH93)(2) 9.1-1. antler cut 4000st. type D1. (SH106)(3) 9.1-2. antler saw 15000st. type C. (SH48)(4) 9.1-2. antler saw 4300st. type C. (SH68)(5) 9.1-2. antler saw 1100st. type D1. (SH71)(6) 9.1-2. antler saw 1100st. type E2. (SH71)

Figure 23. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

131

132

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 9.1-2. antler saw100st. type F1. (SH229)(2) 9.1-2. antler saw 100st. type F1. (SH229)(3) 9.1-2. antler saw 500st. type F1. (SH229)(4) 9.1-2. antler saw 500st. type F1D1. (SH229)(5) 9.1-2. antler saw 1000st. type BD1. (SH229)(6) 9.1-2. antler saw 1000st. type D1F2. (SH229)

Figure 24. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 9.1-2. antler saw1500st. type D1B. (SH229)(2) 9.1-2. antler saw 1500st. type D1D2. (SH229)(3) 9.1-0. antler unused. (SH157)(4) 9.1-4. antler scrape 100st. type F1. (SH157)(5) 9.1-4. antler scrape 2000st. type D1F1. (SH157)(6) 9.1-4. antler scrape 2000st. type D1. (SH157)

Figure 25. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

133

134

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 9.1-4. antler scrape 3000st. type D1F1. (SH157)(2) 9.1-4. antler scrape 3000st. type D1. (SH157)(3) 9.2-2. antler cut 2000st. type F1D1. (SH72)(4) 9.2-3. antler whittle 2000st. type F1. (SH70)(5) 9.2-3. antler whittle 2000st. type F1. (SH70)(6) 9.2-4. antler scrape 2000st. type F1. (SH70)

Figure 26. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 9.2-4. antler scrape. type F1. (SH70)(2) 9.2-4. antler scrape 1000st. type F1. (SH72)(3) 9.2-4. antler scrape 1000st. type F1. (SH72)(4) 9.2-4. antler scrape 2000st. type F1. (SH72)(5) 9.3-1. antler cut 1500st. type F1. (SH16)(6) 9.3-1. antler cut 1000st. type D1. (SH21) 400x

Figure 27. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

135

136

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 9.3-1. antler cut 1000st. type D1. (SH21)(2) 9.3-1. antler cut 500st. type F1D1. (SH22)(3) 9.3-1. antler cut 500st. type F1D1. (SH22)(4) 9.3-1. antler cut 500st. type F1. (SH94)(5) 9.3-1. antler cut 4000st. type D1. (SH106)(6) 9.3-1. antler cut 1000st. type D1. (SH109) 400x

Figure 28. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT (4): Microwear Polish (2)(1) 9.3-3. antler whittle 4000st. type D1. (SH106)(2) 9.3-7. antler grave 500st. type F1. (SH50)(3) 10.0-. soil polish. (SH64)(4) 10.0-8. soil dig. (SH61) 400x(5) 10.0-8. soil dig. (SH61)(6) 10.0-8. soil dig 1000st. (SH135) 400x

Figure 29. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)

137

138

Kaoru AKOSHIMA, Hyewon HONG

(1) 10.0-8. soil dig 1000st. (SH142)(2) 10.0-8. soil dig 1000st. (SH142)(3) 10.0-8. soil dig 1000st. (SH145)(4) 11. natural polish. (SH142)(5) 11. natural polish. (SH142) 400x

Figure 30. Experimental microwear polishes. (hard worked materials)