Fig 1.
Map of Swabian Alb showing all Paleolithic cave sites mentioned in the text.
Fig 2.
Excavation grid of Hohle Fels (left) with quadrants 30 and 25 highlighted; Stratigraphic profile (right) with correlated geological horizons (GH) and archaeological horizons (AH) and cultural periods.
Table 1.
List of species and primary habitat preference used for the indicator species analysis of the Hohle Fels Cave small mammal assemblage.
Table 2.
List of species identified at Hohle Fels Cave and their weighted habitat preferences.
Table 3.
Skeletal element representation as expected in one small mammal individual (E) and by geological horizon (GH) and the tally of identified taphonomic modifications from Hohle Fels Cave.
Table 4.
Number (NSP) and proportion (%) of long bones by geological horizon at Hohle Fels Cave.
Table 5.
Number (NSP) and proportion (%) of maxillae and mandibles including proportion of specimens exhibiting various breakage categories and comparative breakage indices (both following Andrew, 1990) from Hohle Fels Cave.
See the text for interpretation.
Fig 3.
Skeletal element relative abundance (R) by geological horizon at Hohle Fels Cave.
Only horizons showing a strong correlation (τ = > 0.600) with modern prey samples (from Andrews, 1990) are included. We include the pattern produced by barn owls (Tyto alba) at the top for comparison, as this low modifying predator approximates the pattern expected if perfect preservation of all elements were to occur.
Table 6.
Kendall’s Tau (τ) correlation results by geological horizon at Hohle Fels Cave showing all significant correlations > 0.600.
Table 7.
Number (N) and proportion (%) of digested incisors out of all incisors by geological horizon divided by area of modification from Hohle Fels Cave.
Table 8.
Digestion of isolated Arvicolid dental elements by geological horizon and etching intensity from Hohle Fels Cave.
Includes all molars to allow comparability with Andrews 1990.
Table 9.
Digestion of in situ Arvicolid dental elements by geological horizon and etching intensity from Hohle Fels Cave.
Includes all molars to allow comparability with Andrews, 1990.
Table 10.
Number and percentage of proximal femurs exhibiting digestive corrosion damage by geological horizon from Hohle Fels cave.
Table 11.
Number and percentage of distal humeri exhibiting digestive corrosion by geological horizon from Hohle Fels cave.
Fig 4.
Scanning Electron Microscopy photos of digestive modification on dental elements from Hohle Fels Cave.
Top left: lightly digested arvicolid incisor; Top right: moderately digested arvolid incisor; Bottom left: lightly digested arvicolid molar; Bottom right: heavily digested arvicolid molar.
Table 12.
Categories of predators according to digestive modification (modified from Andrews, 1990).
Fig 5.
Scanning electron microscopy photographs of digestive modification on post-cranial specimens from Hohle Fels Cave.
Top left: lightly digested proximal femur; Top right: heavily digested proximal femur; Bottom left: lightly digested distal humerus; Bottom right: heavily digested distal humerus.
Table 13.
Small mammal predators indicated by the different taphonomic indices applied to the Hohle Fels cave assemblage divided by geological horizon.
Fig 6.
Rarefaction curves of species richness by geological horizon at Hohle Fels cave.
Left) the Aurignacian geological horizons 7, 7a/7aa, and 8. Right) the Middle Paleolithic geological horizons 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Table 14.
Taxonomic list of the small mammals identified in the Hohle Fels Cave assemblage by geological horizon.
NISP: number of identified specimens, %: proportion of total material from geological horizon, MNI: minimum number of individuals.
Fig 7.
Relative proportion of individuals by habitat types at Hohle Fels Cave by geological horizon.
Fig 8.
Relative proportion of weighted habitats by geological horizon at Hohle Fels Cave.
O. Wood = open wood; O. Humid = open humid; O. Dry = open dry.