## 2 Contestable Explanation of the Carnivore Origin of the Holes
Measured forces from our experiments with models of various carnivore dentitions reveal that piercing with canine teeth takes one-time greater force than piercing with molars and two-times greater force if the tip of canine tooth is blunt [20]. Such forces are on the verge of the capability of the largest carnivores [41; 42]. The oval shape of one of the holes and possible antagonist canine impression on the opposite, anterior side connected to it are not in line with the grip and occlusion of canine teeth [10; 24], contra [18]. Congruity with the occlusion can be achieved only if the diaphysis is placed lengthwise to the teeth line in the sagittal direction. Such a bite would be highly unlikely, if possible at all. Due to the different shape of teeth tips and shape of the holes (Figure 3) and the unusual longitudinal femur grip considering the only possible dent (pitting after d'Errico [18] (Figure 9 from Reference [18]) of the antagonist tooth [25], cave hyena and the grip with so-called crushing teeth, which is referred to by [PERSON] [16], is not an option. As stated above, there is also no direct and indirect evidence of the presence of hyena at DB. The same as for the bite of a hyena is true for the bite of a wolf, which is the second best represented carnivore at the site, next to cave bear. The latter is represented with several thousand individuals. It is also not possible to make a partial hole and a complete hole one beneath the other and simultaneously an emphasised depression right by hole no. 3 (Figure 3f, Figure 5) with just any tooth [24], contra [16; 18]. Figure 3: Experimental holes on juvenile femur diaphysis of brown bear made by: (**a**) a bear’s canine tooth, hole size 8.2 \(\times\) 8.2 mm; (**b**) a hyena’s lower canine tooth, hole size 6.5 \(\times\) 8.3 mm; (**c**) a hyena’s 3 rd upper premolar, hole size 6.5 \(\times\) 9.0 mm; (**d**) a hole made by a pointed stone tool and bone punch, size 6.0 \(\times\) 7.4 mm (**e**,**f**) complete holes no. 2 (size 8.2 \(\times\) 9.7 mm) and 3 (size 8.7 \(\times\) 9.0 mm) on the femur from DB no. 652 (ZRC SAZU, Archive of Institute of Archaeology). Many juvenile femur diaphyses, and other tubular bones of extremities in DB and elsewhere have a bigger distal or proximal semi-circular notch, which is typical carnivore damage. Such a notch also occurs on the distal metaphysis of femur no. 652 from DB (Figure 1). Considering the circumstances, it can be attributed to a wolf, with which [PERSON] and [PERSON] also agree [14]. Undisputable traces of gnawing on both ends of the diaphysis cannot be linked with certainty to the occurrence of both complete holes and at least one partial hole [10; 24], contra [18]. Since it was possible for carnivores to damage Palaeolithic osseous artefacts and leave traces of teeth on them, which is proven by some of the gnawed osseous points [20] (Figure 20 from Reference [20]), ([43] p. 257, Photo 1), this could have happened to femur diaphysis no. 652 at some later time. Most probably, it was at that time that both V-fractures with the starting point in the hole, from which only a partial hole could have remained both times, could have been made.