“Fossil data were then statistically compared with a sample of 898 BSMs of known origin, including: 405 cut marks from a variety of stone tool types and raw materials53; 275 tooth marks from crocodiles and five species of mammalian carnivores54; 130 trample marks produced by cows on substrates including sand, gravel, and soil55; and 88 percussion marks from both anvils and hammerstones56.”
The original study source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56154-9#Sec6
Twenty specimens total exhibit cut marks; of these, 7 display high-confidence cut marks, 12 show probable cut marks, and 1 specimen presents both types of marks (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2–21, Supplementary Data 2); detailed descriptions of all marks can be found in Supplementary Note 5.
I'm not saying that these aren't real cut-marks. And I do hold on to the possibility. I'm just saying I'd like more than 7 to have more certainty.
Cut marks were identified using two methods: 1) qualitative analyses modified from18,19, and 2) quantitative analyses using methods outlined in ref.
Hmmmmm....now this is interesting. We're talking about identifying the cut-marks with "qualitative analyses". I hope you understand that my skepticism meter just ticked up a few notches. Keep in mind that I fell for the Lucy scam and others decades ago.