If I was there and able to show you the differences between types of attacks used with a metal sword, when you are trained for using such, and a wooden weapon, with the different training, and the types of wounds they make. You are using 'VERY' Modern stuff which just in it's composition of alloys is miles better than the older material, in order to have the same strength, for the era, it had to be a Lot Thicker than we have them today.
You say only the steel blade does the trick. May I suggest that is all you know the use of? That and Modern tools? Swords and Machetes are Similar, but not exactly the same, Machete is a specific tool that is made thin and wide to cut plants. It is only similar to sword in being a long cutting item. The Balance and Tuning, the positioning of the percussion and repercussion points in the blade had a lot to do with the dynamics and use. A machete is balanced closer to a hatchet, with the weight at the tip, rather than a balanced and tuned mass distribution able to be used for defense as well as attack, and not go breaking after the first couple of swings. A machete is not made for that, it is a cutting tool.
The ironwood throwing sticks, hardened in fire, actually come very close to metal strengths and is better than copper as far as hardness and bending goes, it was better than copper. The only benefit copper had was being able to take a very fine edge, which wood does not. But, at high speed, it does not NEED to be razor sharp to remove spalls of bone like that, and that IS what that was, a spalling event, just like the shoulder. Even steel spalls if you hit it hard enough, bone does so fairly easy, and that is how you are getting triangular chunks, as that is Not slicing.. it could Not possibly be slicing at the degree that the fracture shows, and be a shallow angle cut from the extreme left, it does not make sense as far as positioning of bodies and combat would have to be.
What does make sense is a heavy overhead attack aiming at the eye socket in an attempt to crush it, and the victim turned with the impact and thus being hit fairly straight on, the flake would have then cleaved to the left (the victim's right) and possibly sent said piece spinning into the dirt.
For it to be a slice it would have been cutting from left to right, which would Not have given that up-down crush to the eye socket and notch the bottom of the socket as well, it was more than just on the top of the eye socket, it went all the way thru the eye and into the cheekbone after glancing off the front of the brow. That is part of why I say it is not steel, as it would have carried further into the skull, and the direction for it to be a slice is off unless the attacker was left handed, and it Still would not have left that kind of wound.
And your sarcasm with the chisel is not actually appreciated, as you were trying to use the fine edged keen tool to conflate with a brutal battlefield weapon and very different wound types even if it HAD been a steel sword, the marks made would look totally different. It shows that you have little if any real tool use training nor likely the actual weapons use training, let alone any sort of training or experience in the making and use of wooden tools, implements and weapons.
It DOES sound like you have money to be able to spend on the testing materials, but if you are not using REAL wooden implements made by the person trained in it and Used by their maker...it is a very different thing, they do not just go and buy their throwing sticks from the local walk in mart. But why are you throwing that kind of money at this?
I do have to wonder WHY you are doing this? Are you trying to disprove the theory that it had to have been a Native Weapon? If so, why? Supposed lack of tech? There is a lot more to a real, properly made too of wood, the grain type, the type of wood, what it is treated with, how it was seasoned, fire and sand hardening, are all facets of it, and they were EXPERT at it, especially 600 years ago, before Colonization destroyed their cultures. Look at Utzi in the Swiss Alps, his backpack, weapons and tools were copper are, but there were several different types of wood used just in the making of the pack, wood that would not split and was light for the uprights, light and strong wood for slats, wood from the crotch of a branch as his adze handle, all very carefully set and cured, hardened etc. Very high tech.
Where the Aussie Natives had their woods, they are dense and strong and with fire hardening and proper shaping, in the hands of a trained professional they will easily make such wounds. I would love to be able to show you show you how and why certain woods make decent weapons if the right materials are properly selected and masterfully made into the weapon. It just seems that you seem to be using a misguided set of metrics to do your testing with, using very modern items which are even ahead of the sword you are trying so desperately to prove had to be what caused the wound.
It also appears that you have been pushing this for over 2 years now, and are only up to conflating modern medical chisels with sword tech of 800 yrs ago. You keep denying the answer that YES, WOOD CAN AND WILL MAKE SUCH WOUNDS AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE METAL.
I suggest the mods close the article to further comments as the initial author is rehashing points from over 2 years and actually has no real new data other than he can only get that shaped wound with modern equipment and whatever way he is using to try to get that slice. Note, not to replicate the way the original cut had to have happened, but to replicate the Supposed Slice to get just that precise shape wound. when it appears to be a spall and shatter rather than a slice at all. It sounds like your 'science' is being warped to fit the idea, rather than to take the data and fir the ideas to the data. THAT is why you keep getting told that Yes, it Was a WOODEN Weapon (note, 'wood' does Not means 'soft') that did that damage, and that is part of why archaeologists were excited about it being a non-metal weapon wound, even though it Looks SIMILAR, steel swords often caused spalling, and very RARELY actually 'sliced pieces of skull off'. Usually crushed it along a line and spalled pieces off along that line.
And you are asking "Where did I see it", I have that from real world experience and DOING. I was a Professional Arms maker for Historical Recreation Groups and actually have people quote me as far as certain points of sword construction. I had to go through CIA investigation when I sold and sent swords to Canada, because that made me an 'International Arms Dealer'.
I strongly suspect testing bias because you plain do not believe in the wooden blade idea. Scientific bigotry towards the Aboriginals? You make it sound like they were too stupid to come up with a weapon that could do that with their limited means. I make the point that the damage is inconsistent with a steel sword (SWORD, not a Machete) due to lack of follow through and deeper wound and that a modern boomerang is NOT going to be a quality, professionally hand made for real hunting vs quick crap to sell to tourists who do not know any better? And is Certainly not a properly crafted Fighting Boomerang, built for actual combat if you got it for under a couple hundred dollars. I doubt they will let go of 'Real' Weapons due to the Souls they hold. If they sell it, it will have no soul to it, and it is just tourist trash.