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.
But if you look at the images it is obvious. These marks look exactly like butchering marks from later periods. And they are on the right places that would be required to cut main muscle attachment points. I have seen a LOT of these and they fit the bill.