Pork chop
type of meat cut

A pork chop is a thick slice of meat cut from the domestic pig, particularly one adjacent to a rib and usually served with it. It may be cooked in many ways, the simplest being fried or grilled, plain or coated with flour and dipped in egg and breadcrumbs. Numerous combinations of vegetables, fruits, spices and herbs are cooked with pork chops in the cuisines of many countries, including Austria, Britain, China, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the US.
Although pork was favoured in classical and medieval times it was not until the nineteenth century that pork chops became popular. Modern breeding techniques mean that it is no longer necessary on food hygiene grounds to cook pork, including chops, for as long as used to be recommended, with the result that a juicier result can be obtained.
Definition and history
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines a pork chop as "A thick slice of pork, esp. one adjacent to a rib and usually served with it".. The first use of the term cited in the OED dates from c. 1752, but the cut has been familiar for considerably longer: the Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française dates the French term for it, Côtelette de porc, back to the fourteenth century. In her 1954 Food in England, Dorothy Hartley wrote of the Anglo-Saxons enjoying a grilled pork chop with apple sauce and ale, but although pork was a favoured meat in classical and mediaeval times it was not until the nineteenth century that pork chops became widely popular. Hanna Glasse (1747) makes no mention of pork chops in The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy, but Mrs Beeton (1861) gives two recipes for pork chops in Beeton's Book of Household Management.
The public source identifies “Pork chop” as type of meat cut. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Pork, chop and type.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Pork chop”, the useful work is to connect “type of meat cut” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q860985. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1752, 1954, 1747 and 1861.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Pork chop”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Pork chop primary sources, Pork chop archive and Pork research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pork chop”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Pork chop” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.