then inserted a bone punch into the pit and struck it with a wooden hammer to pierce the bone cortex, creating a hole that exactly matched that of the flute. The holes made with this technique have a pronounced funnel-shaped fracture around the inner edge and show no conventional tool marks. Computed-tomography analysis Computed micro-tomography confirmed that there are scores on the surface of the Neanderthal flute that could have been made by stone tools. Some of the damage on the bone, interpreted by some scientists as teeth marks, turned out to be the result of chemical weathering. It was confirmed that a crack on the posterior side of the femur, which zigzags longitudinally from one end to another is superficial and thus not related to piercing. Such cracks often occur on limb bones during fossilization. Given its course, the crack on the flute is significantly different from continuous, rectilinear in-depth cracks that occurred during experimental piercing when compressing fresh young bear femurs with metal casts of carnivore dentition. Criticism and rejection after the excavation Whether the artifact is actually a flute created by Neanderthals was a subject of a long debate. A critical issue at the time of excavation was uncertainty about if the holes in the flute are of artificial origin. Slovenian archeologist Mitja Brodar argued in 2008 that the flute was made by Cro-Magnons as an element of Central European Aurignacian culture. Others suggest it was altered by animals. Claus-Stephan Holdermann, Jordi Serangeli, Philip G. Chase, April Nowell, and French-based Italian taphonomist Francesco D'Errico have all supported a carnivore origin. Hole-spacing, alignment and shape The probability that four randomly placed holes would appear in line in a recognizable musical scale is very low according to a 2000 analysis made by Canadian musicologist Bob Fink. Responding to the D'Errico carnivore-origin hypothesis, Turk pointed out that the features "common" between the carnivore-origin artifact and other chewed bones studied by D'Errico (see Hole shape below) do not include the alignment of the holes. There is also no evidence that the two holes could have been bitten at the same time. The tooth spans were analyzed by all taphonomists concerned to see if any animals could bite two or more such holes at once. No match could be found to any known animals. If a match had been found, it could have been cited as prima facie evidence that the holes