Trampling vs. Cut Marks

Trampling vs. Cut Marks

Fig. 1. Experimentally produced trampling mark showing two divergent trajectories; the mark also has heterogeneously spaced microstriations (blue bars)
and shallow pseudopits resulting from lamellar flaking (blue arrows) (A). This modern trampling mark compares favorably in morphology to mark D,
a purported butchery mark on the DIK-55–3 fossil (details in Results) (B). Experimentally produced trampling groove showing a winding trajectory and internal
microstriations (red arrows indicate the groove’s inflection points) (C) and a remarkable morphological similarity (in size, shape, and trajectory) to mark
G1, a purported butchery mark on the DIK-55–3 fossil (D). Broad, experimentally produced trampling mark showing two sets of ancillary grooves (red arrows)
abandoning the mark’s main groove and creating a curved trajectory on to the shoulder of the main groove; we infer that each of these ancillary grooves was
created by a single sedimentary particle (E). Mark I on the DIK-55–3 fossil shows an identical ancillary effect of a single abrasive particle leaving the mark’s
main groove (details in Results) (F). The image in A is courtesy of R. Blasco and J. Rosell. The images in B, D, and F are modified from McPherron et al. (1). (Scalebars: 1 mm in A, C, and E.) 2

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

A WordPress.com Website.

Up ↑