The subtle divide
A new method for identifying chop marks on long bone diaphyses using fracture morphology
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19228697 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tiffany Okaluk (0000-0002-5289-8428, Ariel University), Tiffany R Okaluk (Ariel University, corresponding author), Justin Dallmann (University of Winnipeg), Haim Cohen (0000-0002-6613-8710, Ariel University), Itzick Shai (Ariel University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Publication date | 2026-02-11 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2813-432X • E-ISSN: 2813-432X |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fearc.2026.1733292 |
| OpenAlex | W7128490687 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 36 |
Introduction Chop marks provide critical evidence for reconstructing butchery practices, yet their identification criteria are underdeveloped and rely heavily on the presence of sharp force trauma. Sharp force trauma does not occur with every chop, and on long bone shafts in particular, chops can resemble blunt force trauma. Methods This study addresses this issue through controlled experiments comparing chop and bash impacts on Sus scrofa femoral diaphyses. Using an Instron 9440 Drop Tower System, impacts were delivered with copper, bronze, iron, and steel axes, as well as a rounded steel hammer, under standardized energy and orientation. Fracture pattern analysis including surface modifications, and impact area shape were recorded for each impact. Results Statistical analyses, including Fisher's exact tests, hierarchical clustering, and logistic regression, identified straight impact location shape, non-comminuted fractures, and the presence of SFT as the strongest predictors of chopping. Discussion By establishing diagnostic criteria that remain visible even in the absence of SFT, this study provides a robust framework for distinguishing chopping from bashing in archaeological and forensic assemblages, improving our ability to reconstruct tool use, carcass processing, and human behavior from fragmented bone
Blunt · CHOP · Forensic anthropology · Fracture (geology) · Human bone · Identification (biology) · Long bone · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies · Image Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology
Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346
Toward the Definition of Criteria for the Recognition of Artificial Bone Alterations
BRMS
Chop and Change
Macroscopic Chop Mark Identification on Archaeological Bone
The Advent of the Age of Iron in the Land of Israel
A new Ghassulian metallurgical assemblage from Bet Shemesh (Israel) and the earliest leaded copper in the Levant
Archaeometallurgical investigation of thirteenth–twelfth centuries BCE bronze objects from Tel Beth-Shemesh, Israel
The Archaeological Signature of Stews or Grease Rendering in the Historic Period
Sharp Force Trauma and Chop Mark Identification Bias
A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks
Steppe’ mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) remains in their geological and cultural context from Bełchatów (Poland)
On bad terms
Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology
A new experimental study on percussion marks and notches and their bearing on the interpretation of hammerstone-broken faunal assemblages
Experimental patterns of hammerstone percussion damage on bones
M iddle B ronze A ge II Battleaxes from R ishon L e Z ion, I srael
Breaking Bones to Obtain Marrow
Forensic Fractography of Bone
New trajectories or accelerating change? Zooarchaeological evidence for Roman transformation of animal husbandry in Northern Italy
Forensic Fractography of Bone
Analyzing Cut Mark Characteristics on Bone from Chopping/Hacking Tools
Modern analogy, cultural theory and experimental replication
A Quantitative Diagnosis of Notches Made by Hammerstone Percussion and Carnivore Gnawing on Bovid Long Bones
An Experimental Study of the Morphological Characteristics of Tool Marks
| Highly cited | No |
|---|