Neolitičke izrađevine od cijepanog kamena iz Vele peći kod Vranje (Istra)

In this paper we present the results of the analysis of flaked stone artefacts found in post-Mesolithic levels of Vela Cave (Vela pec) in North Istria. We directly link to our paper published in the previous issue of this journal where we described the site in detail, explained its phasing and presented the results of the analyses of the pottery assemblages. We stress that Phase 3, which in the previous paper was not dated to any particular period, is now, after the analyses oflithic artefacts, dated to the Late Neolithic period. A total of 144 flaked stone artefacts were recovered from the secure post-Mesolithic contexts of Vela Cave, mostly from Neolithic Phases 2 and 3. Twenty-eight lithic artefacts (mostly chips) from the context of the Middle/Late Bronze Age Phase 4 are considered to be residual finds from the Neolithic levels. Two main classes of raw material were used in the production of lithic artefacts in Vela Cave. The first class is made up of dark cherts of lesser quality and their termically altered reddish version. The other class is made up of pale and brown cherts acquired from unknown (but probably non-local) sources. The two raw material classes were used for somewhat different purposes. The materials acquired locally were used twice more often, primarily for production of simple, flake-based tools employing ad hoc technologies. In contrast to that, exotic pale and brown cherts were used primarily for production of blades. The most copious technological category is debris, most of which comes as chips, which suggests that flake production was frequent in Vela Cave. These are exclusively small and mostly irregular or completely amorphous core fragments. Prismatic blade cores are represented by one small fragment and one overshot blade. Flakes constitute two thirds of all debitage, while the rest are blades and bladelets. Tools make up 13% of the total assemblage. Almost a third of them are scrapers, always made on flakes. Geometric microliths, backed blades, microburins and retouched blades were all made on blades. Flake-based tools (aside from scrapers) include retouched flakes, scaled pieces and perforators. Two small points represent the only products of bifacial flaking. The Vela Cave and Pupicina Cave flaked stone assemblages show many common characteristics. It is not surprising considering the facts that the two caves are situated close by and were inhabited simultaneously. However, a careful survey of quantitative analyses results shows that there are a number of differences in representation of raw material classes and technological categories of artefacts, as well as different diachronic trends. Already the comparison of Vela and Pupicina Cave pottery assemblages (published in the previous issue of this journal) indicated somewhat different functions of the sites. Considering that Vela Cave yielded small quantity of household waste and with clear evidence of penning, it is much closer to the Grotte Bergerie model i.e. specialized flock-parking site visited seasonally and rarely and shortly occupied by people. While lower frequency of pottery fragments suggests that household activities were carried out at the site (for which earthenware was used), high frequency of lithic artefacts indicates practising other activities related to manufacture and usage of flaked stone tools. Many shepherds' activities suggest usage of sharp-edged tools. In case Vela Cave was mostly used as a pen, high amount of such tools and their on-site production are not surprising. The tools in question need not to be sophisticated, therefore, the characteristics of Vela Cave flaked stone assemblage correspond to this. Exotic raw material such as obsidian is absent; quality raw material from non-local sources is less in use, and two thirds of flaked stone artefacts are made oflocal cherts. Blade technology is partially present and does not become more common during the Neolithic. On the contrary, it seems that the simple ad hoc flaking technology was employed at Vela Cave during this whole period. During the Neolithic, chert flaking is less documented at Pupicina, and more in Vela Cave. While an impressive number of tools made of quality non-local raw materials, imported in their final form, are in use at Pupicina, tools made of local chert are in use at Vela Cave, and, moreover, chert is reduced at the site. The shift from Pupicina to Vela Cave in means of lithic manufacture can indicate clear distinction in functions of two neighbouring caves. Flintknapping is carried out at the site where tools are recurrently necessary, and, at the same time, the space occupied by people is less contaminated with dangerous waste. The results of Vela and Pupicina Cave lithics analysis confirm our hypothesis based on pottery analysis, on simultaneous occupation and functional correlation of both sites. The results are a useful contribution to the larger picture of differences in ways of usage of the two sites.