Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 9 Viktorj ev spodmol in/and ave a T'-aSfe-f- dfe .. JgV’* Prispevki k poznavanju mezolitskega obdobja v Sloveniji Contributions to understanding the Mesolithic period in Slovenia Zbral in uredil / Collected and edited by Ivan Turk J#? >■ : &m ss v rv || 1 *oTr s , * ** S* ( *> fr* ', ■:■&'■:'■ ..■•...><■■.> ■■. :V~.-'■■■■■■:’'.': .W: 'v -.'.v. ... . .. ■*& rV'-• v-.-.?**« . •:• .lSv>- •' • v.-.- ■;•■'■ ■fi- •'. V.i'c .- •••' V*. :-V v ,^;.7..-: ••• ■. • v.- • ••-;,• •*>■■ J tf. ■Vvi;'w'*'.'-:'' ?i-Ä ST! g ff ' *■ *, «'Mer sawi V 'j — ' ' . 'trii ! i \v * S -.. ■ ■ ■".■■*• '•■• t .• Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 9 Zbirka / Series: OPERA INSTITUTI ARCHAEÖLOGICI SLÖVENIAE 9 Uredniki zbirke / Editors of the series: Jana Horvat, Andrej Pleterski, Anton Velušček VIKTORJEV SPODMOL IN MALA TRIGLAVCA PRISPEVKI K POZNAVANJU MEZOLITSKEGA OBDOBJA V SLOVENIJI VIKTORJEV SPODMOL AND MALA TRIGLAVCA CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDERSTANDING THE MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN SLOVENIA Zbral in uredil/ Collected and edited by Ivan Turk Recenzenta / Reviewed by Katica Drobne, Simona Petru Prevodi/ Translations Martin Cregeen, Boris Krystufek (poglavje 15/Chapter 15), Erika Cvetko (Dodatek / / Annex /), Ivan Turk (besedilo v tabelah / Text in Tables) Jezikovni pregled besedila / Language advisors Sonja Likar (slovenščina / Slovenian), Maja Sužnik (angleščina/English - poglavje 15/ Chapter 15 in /and Dodatek I/Annex I) Likovno-grafičita zasnova zbirke / Graphic art and design Milojka Žalik Huzjan Oblikovanje platnic / Cover design Janja Ošlaj Risbe / Illustrations Matija Turk, Ivan Turk, Dragica Knific Lunder Karta / Map Mateja Belak Oblikovanje tabel in diagramov / Forming of tables and diagrams Ivan Turk Priprava slikovnega gradiva / Preparation of illustrations Drago Valoh, Mateja Belak Izdal in založil / Published by Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, Založba ZRC / Institute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU in association with ZRC Publishing Zanj /Represented by Oto Luthar, Jana Horvat Glavni urednik / Editor-in-Chief Vojislav Likar Tisk / Printed by Collegium graphicum, d. o. o., Ljubljana 2004 Izid publikacije je podprlo Ministrstvo za šolstvo, znanost in šport Republike Slovenije / Published with the support of Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia Fotografija na ovitku / Cover photo: Hipermikrolitski sveder (Viktorjev spodmol) in mikro jagoda (Mala Triglavca) / Hypermicrolithic borer (Viktorjev spodmol) and Micro bead (Mala Triglavca). (Foto/Photo: Franc Cimerman) CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 903(497.4)”633" VIKTORJEV spodmol in Mala Triglavca : prispevki k poznavanju mezolitskega obdobja v Sloveniji = Viktorjev spodmol and Mala Triglavca : contributions to understanding the mesolitic period in Slovenia / s prispevki, with contributions by Maja Bitcnc-Ovsenik ... |ct al.J ; zbral in uredil, collected and edited by Ivan Turk ; [prevodi Martin Cregeen ... |et al.| ; risbe Matija Turk, Ivan Turk in Dragica Knific Lunder; karta Mateja Belak). • Ljubljana : Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU - Institute of archaeology at ZRC SAZU : Založba ZRC = ZRC Publishing, 2004. - (Opera Instituti archaeologici Sloveniae ; 9) ISBN 961-6500-54-6 I. Vzp. stv. nasl. 2. Ovsenik, Maja 3. Turk, Ivan. 1946-215305984 © 2004, ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za arheologijo, Založba ZRC Vse pravice pridržane. Noben del le izdaje ne sme biti reproduciran, shranjen ali prepisan v kateri koli obliki oz. na kateri koli način, bodisi elektronsko, mehansko, s fotokopiranjem, snemanjem ali kako drugače, brez predhodnega pisnega dovoljenja lastnikov avtorskih pravic (copyrighta). All rights reserved. No part of this hook may he reproduced in any form without written permission by the publisher. Knjigo posvečam pionirju slovenske speleoarheologije Francetu Lebnu-Aciju. / dedicate this book to the pioneer of Slovene spe/eoarchaeology France Leben-Aci. I. T. VIKTORJEV SPODMOL IN MALA TRIGLAVCA PRISPEVKI K POZNAVANJU MEZOLITSKEGA OBDOBJA V SLOVENIJI VIKTORJEV SPODMOL AND MALA TRIGLAVCA CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDERSTANDING THE MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN SLOVENIA Zbral in uredil / Collected and edited by IVAN TURK S prispevki / With contributions by MAJA BITENC-OVSENIK METKA CULIBERG ERIKA CVETKO JANEZ D1RJEC DOMINIK GAŠPERŠIČ BORIS KRYŠTUFEK VASJA MIKUŽ MAJA PAUNOVIČ RAJKO SLAPNIK IZTOK ŠI AMFELJ BORUT TOŠKAN IVAN TURK MATIJA TURK ANTON VELUŠČEK ZALOŽBA Z R C LJUBLJANA 2004 N tq&m - °) Vsebina /s I % LJUBLJANA?) 5 -11- 2004 \zjr 1. del: Viktorjev spodmol...................................................................................... 9 1. Uvod (Ivan Turk).............................................................................................. 13 2. Kratka zgodovina raziskav mezolitika v Sloveniji (Ivan Turk).................................................. 15 3. Topografija Viktorjevega spodmola (Ivan Turk)..................................................................21 4. Metodologija arheološkega dela (Ivan Turk).....................................................................24 5. Stratigrafija in sedimentologija Viktorjevega spodmola (Ivan Turk).............................................27 6. Različne arheološke metode - različni rezultati pri raziskavah Viktorjevega spodmola (Ivan Turk)..............32 7. Razlaga orodnih tipov in armatur ter postopkov pri izdelavi orodij in armatur, najdenih v Viktorjevem spodmolu (Ivan Turk in Matija Turk)............................................................................53 8. Primerjave mezolitskih najdb v Viktorjevem spodmolu z izbranimi najdišči (Ivan Turk).....................62 9. Opredelitev najd iz Viktorjevega spodmola (Ivan Turk)..........................................................72 10. Vprašanje izvora in nadaljevanja slovenskega mezolitika (Ivan Turk)...........................................82 11. Najdbe keramike (Ivan Turk in Anton Velušček).................................................................87 12. Makroskopski rastlinski ostanki - semena in oglje (Metka Culiberg)............................................88 13. Holocenski kopenski in sladkovodni polži (Gastropoda) v Viktorjevem spodmolu (Rajko Slapnik)................92 Dodatek: Morski polži in školjke v Viktorjevem spodmolu (Vasja Mikuž).........................................106 14. Ostanki ektotermnih vretenčarjev v Viktorjevem spodmolu (Maja Paunoviči-)................................... 108 15. Ostanki malih sesalcev (Insectivora, Chiroptera, Rodentia) v Viktorjevem spodmolu - z Dodatkom (Borut Toškan in Boris Krystufek)............................................................................ 114 16. Ostanki velikih sesalcev v Viktorjevem spodmolu - z Dodatkom (Borut Toškan in Janez Dirjec)................. 135 17. Človeški ostanki v Viktorjevem spodmolu (Iztok Štamfelj in Ivan Turk)....................................... 168 18. Namesto sklepa (Ivan Turk).................................................................................. 169 2. del: Mala Triglavca......................................................................................... 171 1 Uvod (Ivan Turk).............................................................................................. 173 2. Arheološke najdbe (Matija Turk in Ivan Turk)................................................................. 176 3. Malakofavna (Vasja Mikuž in Ivan Turk).............................„......................................... 197 4. Ostanki ektotermnih vretenčarjev (Ivan Turk)..................................................................200 5. Sesalska favna (Borut Toškan, Janez Dirjec in Ivan Turk)......................................................201 3. del: Sklep (Ivan Turk)........................................................................................205 4. del: Literatura (uredil Ivan Turk)............................................................................211 Dodatek 1 Identifikacija dveh človeških mlečnih sekalcev iz arheoloških najdišč Mala Triglavca in Viktorjev spodmol (Iztok Štamfelj, Erika Cvetko, Maja Bitenc-Ovsenik in Dominik Gašperšič)......................................221 Dodatek 2 l4C datacije Viktorjevega spodmola in Male Triglavce (Ivan Turk).................................................241 Table 1-20.......................................................................................................249 a Contents Part 1: Viktorjev spodmol.............................................................................................9 1. Introduction (Ivan Turk)......................................................................................... 13 2. Brief history of research of the Mesolithic in Slovenia (Ivan Turk).............................................. 15 3. Topography of Viktorjev spodmol (Ivan Turk).......................................................................21 4. Methodology of the archaeological work (Ivan Turk)................................................................24 5. Stratigraphy and sedimentology of Viktorjev spodmol (Ivan Turk)...................................................27 6. Different archaeological methods - different results in investigations of Viktorjev spodmol (Ivan Turk) 32 7. Interpretation of types of tool and armature and technology of production of tools and armatures found in Viktorjev spodmol (Ivan Turk and Matija Turk).................................................................53 8. Comparison of Mesolithic finds in Viktorjev spodmol with selected sites (Ivan Turk)...............................62 9. Classification of Viktorjev spodmol (Ivan Turk)...................................................................72 10. The question of origin and continuation of the Slovene Mesolithic (Ivan Turk)....................................82 11. Finds of pottery (Ivan Turk and Anton Velušček)..................................................................87 12. Plant macro-remains - seeds and charcoal (Metka Culiberg)........................................................88 13. Holocene land and freshwater molluscs (Gastropoda) in Viktorjev spodmol (Rajko Slapnik)....................92 Appendix: Marine gastropods and bivalves in Viktorjev spodmol (Vasja Mikuž).....................................106 14. Remains of ectothermic vertebrates in Viktorjev spodmol (Maja Paunovičf)........................................108 15. Small mammals (Insectivora, Chiroptera, Rodentia) in Viktorjev spodmol - with Supplement (Boris Krystufek and Borut Toškan)............................................................................. 114 16. Remains of large mammals in Viktorjev spodmol - with Supplement (Borut Toškan and Janez Dirjec) 135 17. Human remains in Viktorjev spodmol (Iztok Štamfelj and Ivan Turk).............................................. 168 18. Instead of a conclusion (Ivan Turk)............................................................................ 169 Part 2: Mala Triglavca............................................................................................. 171 1. Introduction (Ivan Turk)........................................................................................ 173 2. Archaeological finds (Matija Turk and Ivan Turk)................................................................ 176 3. Malacofauna (Vasja Mikuž and Ivan Turk)......................................................................... 197 4. Remains of ectothermic vertebrates (Ivan Turk)...................................................................200 5. Mammalian fauna (Borut Toškan, Janez Dirjec and Ivan Turk).......................................................201 Part 3: Conclusion (Ivan Turk)......................................................................................205 Part 4: Bibliography (edited by Ivan Turk)................................................................211 Annex 1 Identification of two human milk incisors from the archaeological sites Mala Triglavca and Viktorjev spodmol (Iztok Štamfelj, Erika Cvetko, Maja Bitenc-Ovsenik and Dominik Gašperšič).......................................221 Annex 2 l4C dating of Viktorjev spodmol and Mala Triglavca (Ivan Turk)......................................................241 Plates 1-2«.........................................................................................................249 Avtorji / Contributors MAJA B1TENC-OVSENIK Katedra za zobno in čeljustno ortopedijo, Medicinska fakulteta, 1000 Ljubljana - Vrazov trg 2, Slovenija METKA CULIBERG Biološki inštitut Jovana Hadžija ZRC SAZU, 1000 Ljubljana - Novi trg 2, Slovenija ERIKA CVETKO Inštitut za anatomijo. Medicinska fakulteta, 1000 Ljubljana - Vrazov trg 2, Slovenija JANEZ DIRJEC Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, 1000 Ljubljana - Novi trg 2, Slovenija DOMINIK GAŠPERŠIČ Katedra za zobne bolezni in normalno morfologijo zobnega organa. Medicinska fakulteta 1000 Ljubljana - Vrazov trg 2, Slovenija BORIS KRYSTUFEK Prirodoslovni muzej Slovenije, 1000 Ljubljana - Prešernova 20, Slovenija VASJA MIKUŽ Oddelek za geologijo. Katedra za geologijo in paleontologijo, 1000 Ljubljana - Aškerčeva 2, Slovenija MAJA PAUNOVIČI' Zavod za paleontologiji! i geologiju kvartara HAZU, 10000 Zagreb - A. Kovačiča 5, Hrvatska RAJKO SLAPNIK Biološki inštitut Jovana Hadžija ZRC SAZU, 1000 Ljubljana - Novi trg 2, Slovenija IZTOK ŠTAMFELJ Katedra za zobne bolezni in normalno morfologijo zobnega organa. Medicinska fakulteta 1000 Ljubljana - Vrazov trg 2, Slovenija BORUT TOŠKAN Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, 1000 Ljubljana - Novi trg 2, Slovenija IVAN TURK Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, 1000 Ljubljana - Novi trg 2, Slovenija MATIJA TURK 1000 Ljubljana - Lunačkova 4, Slovenija ANTON VELUŠČEK Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, 1000 Ljubljana - Novi trg 2, Slovenija 1. del / Part 1 Viktorjev spodmol METKA CULIBERG JANEZ D1RJEC BORIS KRYSTUFEK VASJA MIKUŽ MAJA PAUNOVIČf RAJKO SLAPNIK IZTOK ŠTAMFELJ BORUT TOŠKAN IVAN TURK MATIJA TURK 1. Uvod 1. Introduction Ivan Turk Mezolitik Slovenije je slabo poznan v smislu poselitvene slike, kronologije in pripadnosti. Ne samo daje število najdišč majhno (sl. 1.1) in najdbe večinoma skromne, slabo utemeljene so tudi povezave z bolje raziskanimi mezolitskimi kompleksi zunaj Slovenije. Nova odkritja na Krasu so to stanje izboljšala, še več, odprla so možnost, da se vsaj mezolitik Krasa bolj utemeljeno ovrednoti, tako z arheološkega kot ekološkega vidika, kar je poglavitni namen te knjige. To smo avtorji dosegli na podlagi dveh izredno bogatih najdišč (Viktorjev spodmol ali Podjamca in MalaTriglavca), kjer so arheološke najdbe oplemenitene z najdbami človeških ostankov, ostankov velikih in malih sesalcev, ektotermnih vretenčarjev, mehkužcev in rastlin. Viktorjev spodmol so v letih 1997 in 1999sondažno raziskali V. Saksida, J. Dirjec in I. Turk. The Mesolithic in Slovenia is poorly known in the sense of settlement pattern, chronology and affiliations. It is not just that the number of sites is small (Fig. I. I) and finds relatively modest, links with more fully researched Mesolithic complexes outside Slovenia are also poorly grounded. New discoveries on the Karst have improved this situation, they have even opened possibilities of evaluating at least the Mesolithic of the Karst more thoroughly, both from the archaeological and the ecological points of view, which is the main purpose of this book. The authors have achieved this on the basis of two exceptionally rich sites (Viktorjev spodmol, or Podjamca, and Mala Triglavca), where archaeological finds have been enriched with finds of human remains, the remains of both large and small mammals, ectothermic vertebrates, molluscs and plants. • Špehovka 't \ ' \ WkT "Apnarjeva jamai Jama za skalami ^planina Kašina ^^planina Pretovč* rf's. 'vrv \ \ w \) \ (_Y Mezolitska najdišča v ßj Sloveniji 1936-2004 / ~ N \> \ I \ Mesolithic sites & \ m S/oven/a 1936-2004 najdišče v jami / spodmol cave / rock shelter najdišče na prostem / open air site 20 km Sl. Domnevna in nesporna mezolitska najdišča v Sloveniji. Izdelala M. Belak. Fig. /./: Suspected and indisputable Mesolithic sites in Slovenia. Produced by M. Belak. Sistematske arheološke raziskave v Mali Triglavci (odslej M. Triglavca) je začel F. Leben (1988), nadaljuje pa jih M. Budja. Pri tem so bili med drugimi najdbami odkriti tudi redki mezolitski artefakti. Zato sem I. Turk v letih 1998 in 2001 opravil manjšo kontrolno raziskavo, ne da bi posegel v plasti najdišča. Namen te raziskave je bil pobrati vse drobne arheološke in druge najdbe, ki bi lahko ostale v deponiranem odkopu Lebnovih izkopavanj ti. mezolitske plasti. Zaradi bogatih najdb v sondi Viktorjevega spodmola in v Lebnovem odkopu v M. Triglavci sem se z avtorji te knjige odločili za monografski prikaz obeh najdišč. Pri tem se zavedam, da sta najdišči daleč od tega, da bi bili raziskani, saj je bilo vse gradivo pridobljeno z minimalnim posegom v najdišče oziroma samo s ponovnim pregledovanjem že odkopanih in pregledanih usedlin. Sistematična izkopavanja, do katerih mora prej ali slej priti, bodo, če bodo pravilno načrtovana in izpeljana, bistveno dopolnila tu podani celostni prikaz obeh mezolitskih najdišč. Upam, skupaj s soavtorji, da bo ta knjiga spodbuda in koristen delovni priročnik za bodoče slovenske raziskovalce ‘kraškega mezolitika'. V. Saksida, J. Dirjec and I. Turk researched Viktorjev spodmol on an exploratory basis in 1997 and 1999. F. Leben began systematic archaeological research in Mala Triglavca (hereinafter: M. Triglavca) in 1988, and it was continued by M. Budja. Occasional Mesolithic artefacts were discovered among other finds. I. Turk therefore carried out a small control investigation in 1998 and 2001, without encroaching on the layers of the site. The purpose of this research was to collect all the tiny archaeological and other finds which may have remained in the earth deposited from Leben’s excavation of the so-called Mesolithic layers. Because of the rich finds in the test trench of Viktorjev spodmol and in Leben’s excavation in M. Triglavca, together with the other author’s of this book I decided on a monograph presentation of the two sites. I am aware that the sites are far from having been fully researched, since all the material was obtained with minimum encroachment at the site or only with a re-examination of the already excavated and examined sediments. Systematic excavations, which must be done sooner or later, if properly planned and carried out will add significantly to the overall presentation given here of the two Mesolithic sites. I and my fellow authors hope that this book will be an encouragement and useful working manual for future Slovene researchers of the “Karst Mesolithic". 2. Kratka zgodovina 2. Brief History of RAZISKAV MEZOLITIKA RESEARCH OF THE v Sloveniji Mesolithic in Slovenia Ivan Turk Raziskave mezolitika v Sloveniji segajo v čas zgodnjih izkopavanj S. Brodarja in njegovega odkritja prvih mezolit-skih najdb v jami Špehovki (Brodar S. 1938, 165; t. 10:2-3; Brodar M. 1993, 19, t. 8: H, h). Nazadnje je te raziskave izčrpno povzel D. Josipovič (1992) v svoji magistrski nalogi. Temu je treba danes dodati še nova odkritja planih najdišč v sredogorju in drugje, za katera so zaslužni tudi amaterski iskalci. Pri tem mislim predvsem na Kuk pri Trnovem (gradivo sta zbrala in mi ga pokazala J. Bizjak in P. Jamnik; neobjavljeno) in planino Pretovč nad Tolminom (J. Bizjak in P. Jamnik; neobjavljeno), kjer sta bili med drugim najdeni geometrični armaturi (sl. 2.1), ki z veliko verjetnostjo kažeta na prisotnost mezolitskih lovcev in nabiralcev na teh lokacijah. Mezolitsko je verjetno tudi novoodkrito najdišče na planini Kašina nad vasjo Krn (Jamnik, Bizjak 2003). Višinska najdišča glede na stanje v zahodnih Julijskih Alpah, na Mokrinah in Matajurju na italijanski strani (Guerreschi 1998, 82, sl. 6), če omenim samo lokacije najbližjih podobnih najdišč, niso nikakršno presenečenje in jih lahko v bodoče pričakujemo še več. Zaradi prve vojne so vsa znana višinska najdišča močno poškodovana, kar je za stroko zelo neugodno, saj je njihova izpovedna moč okrnjena. Kot pomembno naključno najdbo naj na tem mestu omenim popolnoma ohranjeno ost z zobci samo na enem robu. Našel jo je M. Potočnik (1988-1989, 391, t. 3: 22) v osemdesetih letih v strugi Ljubljanice (sl. 2.2). Najdbo hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije (inv. št. P 18 405, predmet pridobljen 1. 1989). Zaradi pomanjkanja dodatnih podatkov njena pripadnost mezolitiku ni absolutno zanesljiva, je pa zelo verjetna. Mezolitsko pripadnost bi utrdilo ali omajalo samo WC datiranje. Ost je narejena iz rogovja navadnega jelena. Na zunanji strani se vidi značilna zgradba površine rogovja. Dolga je 23,2 cm, največja širina je 2,5 cm, največja debelina pa 0,7 cm. Na notranji strani je rahlo izbočena. Bazalno in terminalno je prišiljena z vseh strani. Terminalna konica je rahlo zglajena (morda od uporabe). Zobci imajo odlomljene vršičke, razen dveh, ki sta nepoškodovana. Zobci so bili izrezani z ostrim orodjem, verjetno s kremenovim nožičkom. Najdba je domnevno služila kot ost kopja in ne kot harpuna, kije s toporiščem povezana z vrvico. Na predmetu namreč ni nobenega primernega mesta za pritrditev vrvice. Research of the Mesolithic in Slovenia goes back to the early excavations of S. Brodar, and his discovery of the first Mesolithic finds in the cave of Špehovka (Brodar S. 1938, 165; Plate 10; 2-3; Brodar M. 1993, 19, Plate 8; H, h). D. Josipovič (1992) summarised these investigations exhaustively in his master thesis. To these must today be added new discoveries of open air sites in the medium high mountains, for which amateur explorers also deserve credit. Notably there is Kuk near Trnovo (J. Bizjak and P. Jamnik collected the material and showed it to me; unpublished), and the mountain pasture of Pretovč above Tolmin (J. Bizjak and P. Jamnik; unpublished), where geometric armatures were found (Fig. 2.1), indicating a high probability of the presence of Mesolithic hunters and gatherers in these locations. A newly discovered site on the mountain pasture of Kašina above the village of Krn (Jamnik, Bizjak 2003) is also probably Mesolithic. In view of the situation in the western Julian Alps, on Mokrine and Matajur on the Italian side (Guerreschi 1998-1999, 82, si. 6), to mention only the locations of the nearest similar sites, the altitude of the sites are in no way surprising and we can expect more of them in the future. Because of the First World War, all SI. 2.1. Planina Pretovč (1150 m) nad Tolminom: nedokončan trikotnik oziroma klinica s hrbtom in prečno retušo ali samo klinica s hrbtom. Naravna velikost in enkrat povečano. Risal M. Turk. Fig. 2.1: Planina Pretovč (1150 m) above Tolmin: unfinished triangle or backed, truncated bladelet or merely backed bla-delet. Natural size and magnified once. Drawn by M. Turk. Sl. 2.2: Ost z zobci iz struge Ljubljanice tik pod izlivom Ižice. Merilo je podano v cm. Fotografija T. Lauko, risba D. Knific Lunder. Objavljeno z dovoljenjem Narodnega muzeja Slovenije, št. 34/2003. Fig. 2.2: Barbed point from the riverbed of the Ljubljanica immediately below the mouth of the Ižica. Measurements are given in cm. Photograph by T. Lauko, drawing by D. Knific Lunder. Published by permission of the National Museum of Slovenia no. 34/2003. Mezolitske najdbe so znane v Sloveniji od leta 1936, vendar je imelo zbrano gradivo, z izjemo najdišča Pod Črmukljo, majhno izpovedno moč. V gradivu so bile z redkimi izjemami zastopane armature geometrijskih oblik, ki so glavna značilnost mezolitskih inventarjev širom po Evropi. Ker te armature sodijo v skupino mik- the known high altitude sites are greatly damaged, which is very unfortunate for the profession since their informative value is thus greatly curtailed. One important chance find worth mentioning here is a completely preserved barbed point. It was found by M. Potočnik (1988-1989, 391, Plate 3: 22) in the eighties in the riverbed of the Ljubljanica (Fig. 2.2). The find is kept in the National Museum of Slovenia (inv. no. P 18405, item obtained in 1989). Because of the lack of additional data, it is not absolutely certain that it is Mesolithic, but it is very probable. Only l4C dating can confirm or exclude a Mesolithic origin. The point is made from the antler of red deer. The characteristic surface structure of antler is visible on the outside. It is 23.2 cm long, 2.5 cm at its widest and has a maximum thickness of 0.7 cm. It is slightly convex on the inner side. It is sharpened on all sides basally and terminally. The terminal point is slightly polished (perhaps from use). The barbs have broken tips, except for two that are undamaged. The barbs were cut with a sharp tool, probably a flint knife. The find is suspected of having served as the point of a spear and not as a harpoon, which would have been linked to the haft with a line. This item, namely, has no suitable place for the attachment of a cord. Mesolithic finds have been known in Slovenia since 1936, but the material collected, except for the Pod Črmukljo site, had little informative power. With few exceptions, the material represented geometric armatures, which are the main characteristic of Mesolithic inventories throughout Europe. Since these armatures belong in the group of microlithic, often even hypermi-crolithic (pygmy) tools, it was not possible to find them with the then available fieldwork techniques. So the majority of Slovene Mesolithic sites were unable to tell us enough for deductions about their cultural affiliation. D. Josipovič (1992, 60), for example, believed that the majority of sites, including M. Triglavca, could not be defined in more detail. M. Frelih (1986) was the first to classify the site at Breg as Castelnovian. M. Brodar (1992, 29) was cautious in classifying the site at Pod Črmukljo, though he remained convinced of links between our Mesolithic and the Tardenoisian. In connection with M. Triglavca, he wrote that the finds were from a specific Mesolithic culture (Brodar 1995, 17). However, he did not say what type and in what way it was specific. F. Leben (1988, 71) was no clearer, writing that the finds from the deepest archaeological layers ‘indicate some Mesolithic tradition’. He believed that the stone tools ‘show some pre-Neolithic microlithic forms', and although with the possible exception of a single example (Leben 1988, Plate 2. 17), he did not publish any microliths, he correctly found links between finds from M. Triglavca and Mesolithic sites on the Triestine Karst. D. Josipovič (1992, 52) ascribed a ‘Mesolithic habitus’ to stone tools from M. Triglavca. rolitskih, večkrat celo hipermikrolitskih (pigmejskih) orodij, jih s tedanjimi terenskimi tehnikami ni bilo mogoče najti. To je bil poglavitni vzrok za neizpovednost inventarjev večine slovenskih mezolitskih najdišč in s tem povezano ugibanje o njihovi kulturni pripadnosti. D. Josipovič (1992, 60) je na primer menil, da večine najdišč, vključno z M. Triglavco, podrobneje ne moremo opredeliti. M. Frelih (1986) je bil prvi, ki je najdišče Breg opredelil kot kastelnovjensko. M. Brodar (1992, 29) je bil pri opredelitvi najdišča Pod Črmukljo previden, po drugi strani pa je vztrajal pri povezavah našega mezolitika s tardenoazjenom. V zvezi z M. Triglavco je napisal, da gre za najdbe neke specifične mezolitske kulture (Brodar 1995, 17). Ni pa povedal kakšne in v čem je njena specifičnost. Nič bolj jasen ni bil F. Leben (1988, 71), ki je napisal, da najdbe iz najgloblje arheološke plasti v M. Triglavci ‘kažejo neko mezolitsko tradicijo’. O kamnitih orodjih je menil, da ‘kažejo neke pred-neolitske mikrolitske oblike’, čeprav z izjemo morda enega primerka (Leben 1988, t. 2. 17), ni objavil nobenega mikrolita, je pa pravilno ugotovil povezave med najdbami iz M. Triglavce in mezolitskimi najdišči na Tržaškem krasu. D. Josipovič (1992, 52) je kamenim orodjem iz M. Triglavce pripisal ‘mezolitski habitus’. Presenetljivo je, da nobeden od naštetih avtorjev ni pomislil na to, kaj je pravi vzrok za slabo primerljivost našega mezolitika z evropskim, predvsem pa z bližnjim ‘italskim’. Vsi po vrsti so navajali, daje treba odkriti nova, bogatejša najdišča, nihče pa se ni vprašal, kakšne so bile metode, s katerimi je bilo gradivo pridobljeno. Odgovor na to vprašanje poskušamo podati v tej knjigi. Verjetno ni naključje, da je zelo pomembno najdišče Pod Črmukljo, ki je dolgo ostalo neobjavljeno, odkril italijanski amater Mario de Ruiz leta 1964. V tem času so v severni Italiji amaterski iskalci odkrivali prva mezolitska najdišča, in sicer najprej na Tržaškem krasu. Začelo se je s Pečino na Leskovcu - Groiia Azzurra di Samatorza leta 1961 (Radmilli 1963) in nadaljevalo v 60-ih in 70-ih letih z vrsto sedaj že legendarnih spodmolov na Krasu (Canarella 1984). Edina zanesljiva vez med kraškimi najdišči na obeh straneh državne meje so bile dolgo časa najdbe iz najdišča Pod Črmukljo. V zvezi z mezolitskimi raziskavami v Sloveniji moram omeniti tudi prizadevanja, da se najdišča obravnavajo vsestransko, vključno z ostanki favne in flore. Pri tem imajo glavne zasluge V. Pohar (1984, 1986, 1990), M. Culiberg in A. Šercelj. Vendar je bila pobuda za vsestranski potek raziskave vedno na strani odgovornih raziskovalcev najdišč. Podoba našega mezolitika se je temeljito spremenila v letih 1997-2001 na podlagi skromnih, vendar natančnih raziskav v Viktorjevem spodmolu (ali Podjam-ci)1 in z revizijo deponije že pregledanih sedimentov v M. Triglavci. 1 Pri Zazidu je ista ekipa, ki je odkrila Viktorjev spodmol, odkrila It is surprising that none of these authors gave any thought to the real reason for the poor comparability of our Mesolithic with the European, and above all with the nearby “Italic”. Each in turn stated that new, richer sites must be found, but nobody asked what methods were used to obtain the material. We attempt to give an answer to this question in this book. It is probably no coincidence that the very important site Pod Črmukljo, which long remained unpublished, was discovered by an Italian amateur, Mario de Ruiz, in 1964. Amatateur explorers in northern Italy were discovering the first Mesolithic sites, initially on the Triestine Karst. It started with Pečina na Leskovcu {Gratia Azzurra di Samatorza) in 1961 (Radmilli 1963) and continued in the 60s and 70s with a series of then already legendary overhang caves on the Karst (Canarella 1984). The finds from the Pod Črmukljo site were for long the only reliable link between the Karst sites on the two sides of the state border. In connection with Mesolithic research in Slovenia I must also mention attempts to deal with sites in an all-round manner, including remains of fauna and flora. The main credit in this goes to V. Pohar (1984, 1986, 1990), M. Culiberg and A. Šercelj. However, the initiative for the all-round course of research always came from the investigators responsible for the sites. The perception of our Mesolithic thoroughly changed in the years 1997-2001, on the basis of modest but precise investigations in Viktorjev spodmol (or Podjani-ci)1 and with a review of the deposits of already examined sediments in M. Triglavca. In the future, in addition to research of cave sites on the Karst and in the valley of the Reka (especially on escarpments), above all sites on the Ljubljansko barje (Ljubljana moor). Cerkniško jezero (Cerknica lake) and its surroundings (Rakov Škocjan), the Vipava valley including the edges of the mountain plateau from Predmeja to Trnovo, and in Posočje (Soča valley), including lower parts of the Julian Alps, will affect our knowledge of the Mesolithic. We can expect a denser network of Mesolithic sites in all of the mentioned areas (in the open, in rockshelters, beneath overhangs and beside boulders). Viktorjev spodmol dealt with here has a very short but complex history of research. In the archaeological sense, it was discovered by Viktor Saksida (henceforth Viktor), the founder and for many years head of the archaeological section of the Caving Society in Sežana, who was also responsible for the discovery of other cave ar- 1 At Zazid, the same learn that had discovered Viktorjev spodmol, discovered another important site with a similar name. This is Viktorjeva pečina alias Jama pred Senico, which has unfortunately remained unstudied because of a variety of unfavourable circumstances. V bodoče bodo poleg raziskav jamskih najdišč na Krasu in v dolini Reke (zlasti v reliefnih stopnjah) na vedenje o mezolitiku vplivale predvsem raziskave najdišč na Ljubljanskem barju, Cerkniškem jezeru z okolico (Rakov Škocjan), v Vipavski dolini, vključno z robom planote od Predmeje do Trnovega, in v Posočju, vključno z nižjimi predeli Julijskih Alp. Na vseh omenjenih področjih lahko pričakujemo gostejšo mrežo me-zolitskih najdišč (na planem, v spodmolih, pod previsi in ob balvanih). Tukaj obravnavani Viktorjev spodmol ima zelo kratko in zapleteno zgodovino raziskav. V arheološkem smislu ga je odkril Viktor Saksida (odslej Viktor), ustanovitelj in dolgoletni vodja arheološke sekcije Jamarskega društva v Sežani, kije zaslužen tudi za odkritje drugih jamskih arheoloških najdišča na Krasuvletih 1985-1997 (Turk 1987; Saksida, Turk 1988; Pavlin, Dirjec, Saksida 1990; Turk, Saksida 1990; Dir-jec, Turk, Saksida 1991). Avgusta 1997 je skupaj z Ludvikom Husujem, članom istega društva, v južnem delu spodmola izkopal približno lx 2 m veliko in približno meter globoko sondo. Potem ko je na celotni površini sonde naletel na velike podorne bloke, je končal izkopavanje in o najdbah obvestil Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU v Ljubljani ter Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije v Novi Gorici. Najdbe in najdišče sta si v naslednjih dneh ogledala J. Dirjec in 1. Turk. Slednji je prevzel najdbe, ki jih je nabral Viktor, in se odločil, da preseje in natančno pregleda nekaj odkopanega sedimenta iz Viktorjeve sonde. V ta namen je sediment pripeljal na dom in ga spral na sitih, pripeljanih z Divjih bab I, kjer so tedaj potekala večja izkopavanja s spiranjem vseh odkopanih sedimentov. Pozitiven rezultat pregleda, kije dal nekaj zanesljivo mezolitskih mikrolitov, ki jih je Viktor vse do zadnjega spregledal, je I. Turka spodbudil, da je s pomočjo J. Dirjeca septembra istega leta spral na sitih in natančno pregledal še več sedimentov iz Viktorjeve sonde (sl. 2.3). Spiranje sta kljub tehnični zahtevnosti, ki jo je predstavljala napeljava vode iz oddaljenega vira, opravila na samem najdišču v dveh dnevih, pregled spranega sedimenta pa na Inštitutu za arheologijo. Uspeh ni izostal in postalo je jasno, da je Viktor pomagal odkriti zelo bogato mezolitsko najdišče. Zato je I. Turk za naslednja leta (1999-2001) načrtoval sistematično raziskavo najdišča in prijavil leta 1998 ustrezen projekt s šifro K6-1319-0618-99 pri Ministrstvu za znanost in tehnologijo Republike Slovenije. Vendar projekt ni bil sprejet.z utemeljitvijo, da se ne more uvrstiti na nacionalni seznam projektov za leto 1999 zaradi prenizke uvrstitve v evalvacijskem postopku. To je od- še eno pomembno najdišče s podobnim imenom. To je Viktorjeva pečina ali Jama Pred senico, ki je ostalo, žal, neraziskano, zaradi spleta neugodnih okoliščin. chaeological sites on the Karst from 1985-1997 (Turk 1987; Saksida, Turk 1988; Pavlin, Dirjec, Saksida 1990; Turk, Saksida 1990; Dirjec, Turk, Saksida 1991). In August 1997, together with Ludvik Husu, a member of the same society, he excavated a I x 2 m and approximately one metre deep test trench in the lower part of the rocks-helter. When he came across a large fallen rock over the entire area of the test trench, he ended the excavation and informed the Institute of Archaeology ZRC SAZU in Ljubljana and the Institute for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Slovenia in Nova Gorica about the finds. The finds and the site were examined in the following days by J. Dirjec and I. Turk. The latter took over the finds that Viktor had collected and decided to sieve and carefully examine some of the excavated sediments from Viktor's test trench. For this purpose, he brought the sediment home and washed it on a sieve brought from Divje babe 1, where major excavations with wet sieving of all excavated sediments were currently taking place. SI. 2.3: Spiranje sedimentov iz Viktorjeve sonde v najdišču. Spiranje opazujeta Viktor Saksida (drugi z leve) in Ludvik Husu (tretji z leve). Foto I. Turk. Fig. 2.3: Wet sieving sediments from Viktor’s test trench at the site. The washing is being watched by Viktor Saksida (second from left) and Ludvik Husu (third from left). Photo I. Turk. ločilno vplivalo na nadaljnji potek raziskav, saj zanje ni bilo na voljo posebnega denarja, zaradi česar tudi predstavitev izsledkov ni bila obvezujoča, toda interes je ostal in pripravljenost, da se zadeva reši na neformalen način in z minimalnimi sredstvi tudi. Na pobudo J. Dirjeca je bil leta 1999 sistematično izkopan ozek pas profila (20 x 200 x 100 cm) Viktorjeve sonde z namenom, ugotoviti stratigrafijo najdb (sl. 2.4). Akcija (dovoljenje Ministrstva za kulturo RS, št. 617-18/98), pri kateri sta sodelovala samo J. Dirjec in I. Turk, je trajala tri dni, nakar sta sondo zasula. Ves odkopan sediment sta pripeljala v Bistro pri Vrhniki in ga s pomočjo sodelavca D. Valoha v petih dneh sprala na sitih (sl. 2.5). Sledilo je dolgotrajno pregledovanje izpranih sedimentov na Inštitutu za arheologijo in iskanje sodelavcev za obdelavo različnih najdb zunaj formalnih raziskovalnih programov. Zaradi vsega tega so se dela zelo zavlekla. Vzporedno z raziskavami Viktorjevega spodmola je potekal neformalni program revizije dela odkopanih sedimentov M. Triglavce. Pobudo zanj je dal I. Turku pokojni France Leben, kije vodil izkopavanja v M. Trig-lavci v letih 1980-1985 (Leben 1988). Prvo uspešno sondiranje v M. Triglavci je pod njegovim vodstvom opravil prav I. Turk leta 1979. Leta 1998 je vzel z deponije približno 270 kg odkopanih sedimentov domnevne mezolitske plasti, ki jih je že suho presejala in pregleda- The positive results of the examinations, which gave some reliable Mesolithic microliths that Viktor had overlooked, encouraged I. Turk, assisted by J. Dirjec, in September of the same year to sieve wash and carefully examine additional sediments from Viktor’s test trench (Fig. 2.3). Despite the technically demanding nature, caused by the need to lead water from a distant locality, the wet sieving was carried out at the site itself over the course of two days, and the washed sediments were examined at the Institute of Archaeology. There was no lack of success and it became clear that Viktor had helped to discover a very rich Mesolithic site. The following year (1999-2001), I. Turk planned systematic investigation of the site and in 1998 prepared a suitable project with reference number K.6-1319- 0618-99 at the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia. However, the project was not accepted, on the grounds that it had gained too few points in the evaluation procedure to be placed on the national list of projects for 1999 because of too low a ranking. This had a decisive influence on the further course of the research, since special funds were not available for it, because of which even a presentation of the results was not mandatory, although interest remained and a willingness to resolve the matter in an informal way and also with minimal funds. At the initiative of J. Dirjec, in 1999 a narrow band SI. 2.4: Sistematiemo izkopavanje ozkega pasu profila Viktorjeve sonde. Foto I. Turk. Fig. 2.4: Systematic excavation of a narrow band of the profile of Viktor's test trench. Photo I. Turk. Sl. 2.5: Spiranje in pregledovanje sedimentov iz profila Viktorjevega spodmola v Bistri pri Vrhniki. Foto J. Dirjec. Fig. 2.5: Wet sieving and examining sediments from the profile of Viktorjev spodmol in Bistra by Vrhnika. Photo J. Dirjec. la Lebnova ekipa v zadnjem letu sistematičnih izkopavanj. Te sedimente je naslednje leto mokro presejal in natančno pregledal na Reki pri Cerknem, ker drugje to ni bilo mogoče. Tako je poleg drugih najdb našel 56 kamenih orodij (11 praskal, 14 trapezov, 2 klinici, 9 razno-straničnih trikotnikov in 2 mikrokonici) in tehnoloških kosov (18 mikro vbadal). Zato je leta 2001 vzel še več sedimenta (1.407 kg), ga dal na Planini pri Rakeku mokro presejati in natančno pregledati na Inštitutu za arheologijo. Tako ustvarjena zbirka spregledanih mezolit-skih artefaktov je bila kompatibilna z zbirko v Viktorjevem spodmolu in je lahko brez pomislekov služila za primerjavo med najdišči. of the profile (20 x 200 x 100 cm) of Viktor’s test trench was systematically excavated in order to establish the stratigraphy of the finds (Fig. 2.4). The action (permit of the Ministry of Culture RS, no. 617-18/98), in which only J. Dirjec and I. Turk took part, lasted three days, and the trench was then filled in. All the excavated sediments were brought to Bistra by Vrhnika and with the help of a colleague, D. Valoh, sieve washed in five days (Fig. 2.5). A lengthy examination of the washed sediments then followed at the Institute of Archaeology, together with a search for collaborators for processing the various finds outside formal research programmes. Because of all this, the work dragged on considerably. In parallel with investigation of Viktorjev spodmol, an informal programme of review of part of the excavated sediments of M. Triglavca was also taking place. The late France Leben, who led the excavations in M. Triglavca in 1980-1985 (Leben 1988), gave the inititive for it to I. Turk. The first successful test trench in M. Triglavca had been dug under his leadership by I. Turk in 1979. In 1998, he took from the deposits approximately 207 kg of excavated sediments of suspected Mesolithic layers which Leben’s team had dry sieved and examined in the last year of systematic excavations. These sediments were wet sieved and carefully examined the following year at Reka near Cerkno, because it was not possible elsewhere. Thus, in addition to other finds, he found 56 stone tools (11 endscrapers, 14 trapezes, 2 blades, 9 scalene triangles and two micropoints) and technological pieces (18 micro burins). Even more sediments were therefore taken in 2001 (1407 kg), wet sieved at Planina near Rakek and carefully examined at the Institute of Archaeology. The collection of overlooked Mesolithic artefacts thus created was compatible with the collection froni Viktorjev spodmol and could without hesitation serve for comparison between the two sites. 3. Topografija 3. Topography of Viktorjevega Viktorjev Spodmol spodmola Ivan Turk Viktorjev spodmol je lociran pod Vremščico (1027 m) v dolini reke Reke1. Gre za geografsko pomembno lego ob reki, ki v komunikacijskem smislu povezuje ožji Kras z Ilirskobistriško in Pivško kotlino ter Tržaški in Reški zaliv. Verjetno ni naključje, da na tej trasi ležijo vsa pomembnejša mezolitska najdišča pri nas: M. Triglavca, Viktorjev spodmol. Pod Črmukljo, Dedkov trebež. Geografsko zaledje Viktorjevega spodmola je zelo pestro (Geografski atlas Slovenije 1998). Proti zahodu se razprostira nizka planota klasičnega krasa z ravniki, v vseh drugih smereh pa visoka planota, za katero so značilni zaobljeni vrhovi, visoki do 1056 m, hribovska in gričevska slemena, ozke in široke rečne doline, slepe doline, reliefne stopnje, udornice, jame in brezna. Glavni kamnini sta apnenec in fliš. Slednjega najdemo tudi v dolini reke Reke in v gričevnatem svetu Brkinov. V apnencu se je izoblikovalo površje visokega in nizkega dinarskega krasa z dvema izrazitima reliefnima stopnjama, ki se vlečeta v dinarski smeri, ena od Črnega Kala in druga od Ilirske Bistrice. V obeh stopnjah so se izoblikovale številne jame in previsi s številnimi arheološkimi in paleontološkimi najdišči. Na apnencu so nastale pokarbonatne prsti in rend-zine, na flišu pa kisle rjave prsti. Podnebje je zaledno submediteransko (Kras in dolina reke Reke do Ilirske Bistrice) in zmerno celinsko (visoka planota in Brkini). Na leto pade povprečno 1.400-1.600 mm padavin, povprečna letna temperatura je 8-12° C, na Vremščici 6-8 ° C. V zmerni klimi, kakršna je značilna za holocen, lahko pričakujemo na širšem območju Viktorjevega spodmola naslednjo potencialno naravno vegetacijo. Na nizki kraški planoti in kraškem ravniku nizki gozd ali grmišče puhastega hrasta in gabrovca (Oslryo-Quercelum pubescens). Na območju doline Reke in okolnega gričevja z Brkini kisloljubni gozd bukve, kostanja in hrasta (Cas-taneo-Fagetum). Na visoki planoti z Vremščico submedi-teransko-predalpski podgorski gozd bukve in pirenejskega ptičjega mleka (Ornithogalo pyrenaici-Fagelum). Omenjeni model potencialne vegetacije lahko zelo 1 Natančnejše podatke o legi najdišča hrani arhiv Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU. Viktorjev spodmol is located below the mountain of Vremščica (1027 m) in the valley of the river Reka1. It is a geographically important position by the river which in the communication sense links the narrower Karst with the Ilirska Bistrica and Pivka basins and Bays of Trieste and Rijeka. It is probably no coincidence that all the more important Mesolithic sites here are situated on this line: M. Triglavca, Viktorjev spodmol. Pod Črmukljo, Dedkov trebež. The geographic hinterland of Viktorjev spodmol is very diverse (Geographic Atlas of Slovenia 1998). Towards the west spreads a low plateau of classical karst with karst plain, polje, and in all other directions high plateau characterised by rounded peaks up to 1056 m high, hilly and undulating ridges, narrow and wide river valleys, blind valleys, escarpments, collapsed doli-nes, caves and abysses. The main rocks are limestone and flysch. The latter is also found in the valley of the river Reka and in the hilly landscape of the Bi kini. A surface of high and low Dinaric karst has been created in the limestone with two pronounced escarpments stretching towards the Dinarids, one from Črni Kal and the other from Ilirska Bistrica. In both escarpments have been formed numerous caves and overhangs with a number of archaeological and palaeontological sites. Rendzinas have formed on the limestone, and acidic brown soils on the flysch. The climate is hinterland submediterranean (Karst and valley of the river Reka to Ilirska Bistrica) and moderate continental (high plateau and Bikini). An average of 1400-1600 mm of precipitation falls annually, the average annual temperature is 8-12° C, on Vremščica 6-8 0 C. In a moderate climate such as was characteristic of the Holocene, the following potential natural vegetation can be expected in the wider area of Viktorjev spodmol. On low karst plateaus and karst plain, low forest or scrub of downy oak and hornbeam (Ostryo-Quercetum pubescens). In the area of the Reka valley and the surrounding hills with the Brkini, acidophylous forest of More precise data on the site location is preserved in the archive of the Institute of Archaeology ZRC SAZU. odstopa od dejanske paleovegetacije, ki jo ugotavljamo predvsem na podlagi paleobotaničnih analiz na arheoloških najdiščih. Takšne analize pa so na obravnavanem področju šele v začetni fazi. V širši okolici najdišča so bila domnevno različna naravna okolja z različnimi habitati, ki so bila porok za zanesljivo oskrbo lovsko-nabiralnih skupnosti, ki so nekoč živele na tem območju. Razdalje med različnimi okolji so bile kot danes majhne, kar je samo še dodatna prednost za vse, ki so v takšnem okolju živeli in bili odvisni od njegovih naravnih bogastev. Viktorjev spodmol seje tako kot M. Triglavca izoblikoval v plastnatih rudistnih apnencih. Ostanke rudistov smo v večjem številu našli med jamskim gruščem. Spodmol je ostanek zelo starega, danes porušenega jamskega sistema reke Reke (sl. 3.1). Od nekdanje beech, chestnut and oak (Castaneo-Fagetmn). On the high plateau with Vremščica, submediterranean-preal-pine forest of beech and bath asparagus (Ornithogalo pyrenaici-Fagetum). The aforementioned model of potential vegetation may differ considerably from the actual palaeovegeta-tion which is ascertained mainly on the basis of palaeo-botanical analyses at archaeological sites. Such analyses are only in the early stages in this area. There were presumably various natural environments in the wider environment of sites, with various habitats guaranteeing reliable provision of the hunter-gathe-rer communities that formerly lived in this area. The distances between different environments, like today, were small, which is merely another advantage for all who lived in such an environment and were dependent on its natural resources. Viktorjev spodmol Sl. 3.1: Tloris Viktorjevega spodmola z vrisano sondo. Črtkana linija označuje kap, polne linije so plastnice z označeno relativno višino pod mersko točko 0. Izmeril in posnel J. Dirjec ml., narisal J. Dirjec st. Fig. 3.1: Ground plan of Viktorjev spodmol with the test trench outlines. The broken line marks the drip line, the full lines are contour lines of relative heights below the datum. Measured and realised by J. Dirjec jun., drawn by J. Dirjec sen. jame seje ohranil samo kratek rov v severnem delu spodmola, v katerega pridemo skozi majhno odprtino pri tleh severne niše spodmola. Spodmol ima še eno nišo na jugu, ki se domnevno prav tako nadaljuje v danes popolnoma zasut rov. Obe glavni niši, ki ju loči ogromen podorni blok in povezovalni prostor med njima, tvorijo kakšnih 30 m2 velik, pokrit, koliko toliko raven prostor, primeren za bivanje. Ta prostor se odpira proti J-JV in je večji del dneva lepo osončen, hkrati pa dobro zavarovan pred burjo. Tla spodmola so precej ravna in posuta z velikimi podornimi bloki, ki so se odkrušili s previsa. Podorno skalovje je delno zasuto s holocenskimi sedimenti. Pod spodmolom se odpira široka dolina z rahlo nagnjenim dnom. Severno od spodmola se vleče skalni rob, ki ga kmalu prekine majhna, nagnjena dolinica, odprta na dve strani, na drugih dveh pa omejena s skalnim robom. Ta dolinica je domnevno ostanek podrtega velikega jamskega rova. Viktorjev spodmol, like M. Triglavca, was formed in bedded rudist limestone. The remains of rudists were found in large numbers among the cave rubble. The overhang cave is a remnant of the very old, today collapsed cave system of the river Reka (Fig. 3.1). Of the former cave only a short tunnel in the northern part of the overhang cave has been preserved, which is entered through small openings in the floor of the northern niche of the overhang cave. The overhang cave has another niche to the south which presumably similarly continues in a today completely blocked tunnel. Both main niches, which are separated by a huge fallen block, and the connecting space between them, create a covered, more or less level space of some 30 m2, suitable for habitation. This space opens towards the south-southeast and is pleasantly sunny for the greater part of the day and, at the same lime, well protected from the 'burja' (north wind). The floors of the rocksheiter are fairly level and sprinkled with large fallen blocks that have broken off the overhang. Below the rocksheiter opens a wide valley with a slightly inclined bottom. North of the rockshel-ter stretches a rocky cliff, which is soon broken by a small, sloping valley, open on two sides, with the other two bounded by rocky cliffs. This little valley is presumably the remains of a collapsed large cave shaft. 4. Metodologija 4. Methodology of ARHEOLOŠKEGA DELA THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL Work Ivan Turk Metodologija se deli na terensko in poterensko. Pri tem je jasno, da so izsledki druge odvisni od prve. Zato so pri arheologiji ključne terenske metode. Med drugim tudi zato, ker se njihovi rezultati ne dajo več popraviti ali izboljšati z uporabo drugih metod, kot to lahko storimo pri izsledkih poterenskih metod. Pri raziskovanju Viktorjevega spodmola sta bili na terenu uporabljeni dve različni metodi. Prvo metodo, odstranjevanje sedimenta s pomočjo 20-30 cm debelih vodoravnih režnjev in sproten pregled sedimenta pri kopanju in po njem brez sejanja, je uporabil Viktor. To metodo smo uporabljali pri paleolitskih izkopavanjih in sondiranjih z redkimi izboljšavami vse do leta 1986 (Turk 2003). Drugo metodo, odstranjevanje sedimenta s pomočjo 5 cm debelih vodoravnih režnjev na površini 200 x 20 cm in pregled celotnega sedimenta po izkopavanju s pomočjo mokrega sejanja na sitih z velikostjo luknjic 3 mm in 1 mm (oziroma 0,5 mm) ter z uporabo lupe, smo uporabili na Inštitutu za arheologijo (IzA). To metodo smo uvedli in preizkusili med drugo fazo izkopavanj v Divjih babah I v letih 1990-1999, le da so bili režnji tam debeli 12 cm (Turk 2003), najbolj drobno sito pa je imelo premer luknjic 0,5 mm. Posamezne elemente druge metode je vsebovala tudi metoda izkopavanj mezolitskih najdišč Pod Čr-mukljo leta 1965 in M. Triglavce leta 1985, kjer so bili sedimenti, ki so vsebovali mezolitske artefakte, suho presejani na sitih z velikostjo luknjic 10 mm in 5 mm in sproti pregledani brez lupe. Debelina režnjev se v nobenem od obeh primerov ne navaja. Globine režnjev (sl. 5.1) smo v Viktorjevem spodmolu merili z nivelirjem od stalne točke, tako da predstavljajo relativne vrednosti. Tudi na geodetskem posnetku (sl. 3.1), ki smo ga naredili z laserskim teodolitom1, so pri plastnicah navedene samo relativne višine. Prednosti in pomanjkljivosti obeh metod bosta nazorno podani v nadaljevanju. Zato smo ločeno, kot dve različni zgodbi istega najdišča, obdelali gradivo Viktorjevega izkopavanja in drugih terenskih faz, ki so bile izključno v pristojnosti Inštituta za arheologijo. Na ta način smo hoteli opozoriti na relativnost rezultatov in 1 Teodolit nam je posodil Milja Guštin, za kar se mu lepo zahvaljujemo. The methodology is divided into fieldwork and post-fieldwork. It is clear that the results of the second depend on the first. So fieldwork methods are crucial in archaeology. Among other things because results can no longer be repaired or improved with the use of other methods, as can be done with the results of post-fieldwork methods. In investigating Viktorjev spodmol, two different methods were used in the field. The first method, removing the sediment by means of 20-30 cm thick horizontal spits and concurrent examination of the sediments during excavation and afterwards, without sieving, was used by Viktor. This method was used in Palaeolithic excavations and test excavations, with few improvements, until 1986 (Turk 2003). The second method, removing the sediment by means of 5 cm horizontal spits on an area of 200 x 20 cm and examination of the entire sediments after excavation with the aid of wet sieving on sieves with holes 3 mm and 1 mm (or 0.5 mm) and with the use of a magnifying glass, was used at the Institute of Archaeology (IzA). We introduced and tested this method during the second phase of excavations at Divje babe I in 1990-1999, except that there we used a thickness of spit of 12 cm (Turk 2003), and the finest sieve had a hole diameter of 0.5 mm. The method of excavating the Mesolithic sites Pod Črmukljo in 1965 and M. Triglavca in 1985, contained individual elements of the second method, where sediments containing Mesolithic artefacts were dry sieved on sieves with a size of hole of 10 mm and 5 mm and simultaneously examined without a magnifying glass. The thickness of the spit is not stated in either case. We measured the depth of spit (Fig. 5.1) in Viktorjev spodmol with a level from a permanent point, so that they represent relative values. In the geodetic record (Fig. 3.1), too, which we made with a laser theodolite1, only relative heights are stated with the contour lines. The advantages and disadvantages of the two methods are carefully given below. We thus distinguished the processing of the material of Viktor’s excavation, and other fieldwork phases which were exclusively within the competence of the Institute of Archaeology, as 1 The laser theodolite was loaned by Mitja Guštin, for which we are very grateful. METODOLOGIJA METHODOLOGY razlag, ki so odvisni od metode in od tega, kako metodo izvajamo. Rezultati in razlage so med drugim odvisni od reda velikosti napake, ki nastane pri ugotavljanju določenega stanja. Navajanje napake, ki jo dobimo s kontrolo kakovosti lastnega dela, v arheologiji doslej ni bilo običajno, čeprav je nujno za objektivno reševanje arheoloških in drugih vprašanj (glej Turk 2003). To se je pokazalo tudi pri M. Triglavci, kjer se je takratni vodja izkopavanj France Leben pozneje odločil, da da še enkrat pregledati suho presejane sedimente t. i. mezo-litske plasti na enak način kot pri Divjih babah I in Viktorjevem spodmolu. Nalogo je zaupal I. Turku, kar seje bogato obrestovalo. Poterenske metode so bile bolj ali manj standardne, vendar z nekaj več statistike, kot je običajno, če je bilo to le mogoče. Zaradi skrajno omejenega obsega izkopavanj so bili vzorci različnih najdb majhni in komaj primerni za statistično proučevanje. Najdbe kamnitih artefaktov sem razdelil na izdelke in odpadke. Oboje sem obravnaval enakovredno, čeprav so odpadki v določenih pogledih manj povedni kot izdelki. Pri klasifikaciji izdelkov sem uporabil zlasti izkušnje Rozoya (1978a, I978b), pa tudi drugih avtorjev (G.E.E.M. 1969, 1972, 1975; Lapalace 1964). Namenoma sem se naslonil na tipologije, ki so bile narejene predvsem na gradivu, pridobljenem v najdiščih južno in zahodno od Alp, ker menim, da se vpliv geografske lege v času ne spremninja in da zahodna Slovenija od nekdaj pripada Sredozemlju in sredozemski tradiciji. V primeru tu obravnavanih najdišč to jasno dokazujejo številne najdbe morskih školjk in polžev, ki so značilne za vse sredozemske kulture. Povezovanje zahodne Slovenije s svetovi severno od Alp se mi ne zdi primerno (glej Jo-sipovič 1992 in tam predlagano nemško tipologijo me-zolitskih artefaktov). Za posamezne tipe in skupine kamenih izdelkov ter kamnoseških odpadkov navajam največjo, najmanjšo in povprečno težo. Na podlagi teže sem priložnostno razmejil kline od klinic in druge makrolite od mikroli-tov. Meja je ena desetinka grama. Vse, kar je lažje od 0,1 g so klinice oz. mikroliti. Teža je nov kriterij za mikroli-tizacijo, saj se sicer kot kriterij uporablja predvsem velikost (prim. Rozoy I978a, 212 s). Mislim, da so razlike v velikosti in teži mikrolitov po starem kriteriju prevelike, saj so najmanjši mikroliti (t. i. hipermikroliti) tudi do 5-krat manjši in do 20-krat lažji od zgornje dopustne meje za mikrolite, ki je 50 mm za dolžino in 4 mm za debelino oz. 2 g (Rozoy 1980, II), pri klinicah pa 50 mm za dolžino in 12 mm za širino. Sama meja med mikroliti in makroliti je lahko sporna (Brodar 1992, 27), ker je odvisna od vrste dejavnikov, ki se spreminjajo v času in prostoru. Po mojem kriteriju je praviloma vsaj ena mera klinic in mikrolitov manjša od 3 mm. To pomeni, da se del teh najdb lahko zmuzne skozi sito z velikostjo luknjic 3 mm in več. two different stories from the same site. We wanted thus to draw attention to the relativity of the results and explanations, which depend on the method and how the method is carried out. The results and explanations depend among other things on the order of size of error that occurs in establishing a specific situation. Stating the error that we obtain with quality control of our own work has not been the custom to date in archaeology, although it is crucial for the objective solution of archaeological and other questions (see Turk 2003). This was also demonstrated with M. Triglavca, where the then leader of the excavations, France Leben, later decided to have the dry sieved sediment, i.e., the Mesolithic layers, examined again in the same way as with Divje babe I and Viktorjev spodmol. The task was entrusted to I. Turk, and it provided rich results. Post-fieldwork methods were more or less standard, but with some more statistics than is normal, whenever this was possible. Because of the extremely limited extent of excavations, specimens of various finds were very few, and barely adequate for statistical study. I divided the finds of stone artefacts into products and debris. I treated both the same, although from a certain point of view debris are less valuable than products. In the classification of products, I used in particular the experience of Rozoy (1978a, 1978b), as well as other authors (G.E.E.M. 1969, 1972, 1975; Lapalace 1964). 1 deliberately relied on the typologies that had been made mainly on material obtained in sites south and west of the Alps, because I believe that the influence of geographic location does not change over time, and that western Slovenia has long belonged to the Mediterranean and the Mediterranean tradition. In the case of the sites dealt with here, this is clearly shown by the number of finds of marine gastropods and bivalves that are typical of all Mediterranean cultures. Linking western Slovenia with the world north of the Alps does not seem to me to be appropriate (see Josipovič 1992 and the German typology of Mesolithic artefacts proposed there). For individual types and groups of stone products and stone-working debris, I state the largest, smallest and average weight. On the basis of weight, I arbitrarily divided blades from bladelets, and other macroliths from microliths. The boundary of this is a tenth of a gram. Everything lighter than 0.1 g is a bladelet or microlith. Weight is a new criterion for microlithisation, since size has primarily been used as the criterion (see Rozoy 1978a, 212 p.). 1 think that the differences in size and weight of microliths according to the old criteria are too great, since the smallest microliths (so-called hyper-microliths) are also up to 5-times smaller and up to 20-times lighter than the upper permissible boundary for microliths, which is 50 mm length and 4 mm thickness or 2 g (Rozoy 1980, 11), and with bladelets 50 mm length and 12 mm width. The boundary itself between micro- Klasifikacijske težave povzroča velika fragmentarnost vseh kamenih najdb. Zato je napaka pri opredelitvi posameznih skupin kamenih najdb lahko moteča. Število mikro lusk in odkruškov sem ocenil na podlagi števila in teže mikro lusk in odkruškov v vzorcu ali pa sem jih preštel tako kot vse druge najdbe. Na podlagi vzorca sem ocenil tudi število kostnih drobcev v frakciji sedimenta 1-3 mm. Vse druge najdbe sem stehtal in preštel podobno kot kamene artefakte. Kameni izdelki so bili najprej z obrisavanjem narisani v 6-kratni povečavi s pomočjo stereo mikroskopa, nato pa pomanjšani na 2-kratno in naravno velikost. Ta metoda se je izkazala za najprimernejšo pri risanju mi-krolitskih izdelkov. V tabelah so mikrolitski artefakti prikazani dvakrat: v naravni velikosti in enkrat povečani. Metodologija, uporabljena pri obdelavi paleonto-loških najdb je opisana v ustreznih poglavjih zbornika, zato je tu ne navajam. liths and macroliths can be disputable (Brodar 1992, 27), because it depends on a range of factors, which change in time and space. According to my criterion, at least one of the measurements of bladelets and micro-liths is less than 3 mm. This means that part of these finds can slip through a sieve with a diameter of hole of 3 mm or more. The great fragmentariness of all stone finds cause classification difficulties. So the error in defining individual groups of stone finds can be troublesome. I estimated the number of microflakes (retouch flakes) on the basis of the number and weight of microflakes and chips in the sample or counted them as with all other finds. On the basis of the sample, I also estimated the number of bone fragments in the sediment fraction 1 -3 mm. 1 counted and weighted all other finds, as with stone artefacts. Stone artefacts were initially drawn in outline increased by a factor of 6 with the help of a stereo-micros-cope, and then reduced to 2-times and natural size. This method has proved to be the best for drawing micro-lithic products. Microlithic artefacts are shown twice in the tables: natural size and twice natural size. The methodology used in processing palaeontological finds is described in the relevant chapter of this book, so I do not give it here. 5. Stratigrafija in SEDIMENTOLOGIJA VlKOTRJEVEGA SPODMOLA Ivan Za kraško področje je značilna majhna debelina mezo-litskih sedimentov. Ti so tudi drugje redko debelejši od 1 m, kar je razumljivo glede na dolžino trajanja mezoli-tika. Viktorjev spodmol v tem pogledu ni izjema. Stratigrafija najdišča je zato enostavna. Nad velikimi podornimi bloki so tri plasti zemlje, pomešane z bloki in drugimi klasti rudistnega apnenca, v katerem seje izoblikoval spodmol. Nad zadnjo od treh plasti je tenka plast umetnega nasutja, ki je domnevno nastala v času Viktorjevega sondiranja, lahko pa tudi kdaj prej (sl. 5.1). Meje med tremi glavnimi plastmi so zabrisane, tako da celoten profil deluje zelo homogeno. Značilnosti plasti so na podlagi profila in vzorcev sedimentov naslednje: • Plast 1 in 2 obravnavam kot eno plast, čeprav je bila plast 1 v profilu omejena na eno polovico profila, plast 2 pa je obsegala ves preostali del profila. To je močno zemljata plast s primesjo humusa. V njej je malo debelega grušča in majhnih blokov (10-15 cm). Vsi bloki in grušč so ostrorobi. Slednja ugotovitev velja tudi za vso plast 2 in vso plast 3. Klasti apnenca, večji od 3 mm, so bodisi ostrorobi bodisi korozijsko zaobljeni. Vsi imajo črne obloge. Klasti apnenca, manjši od 3 mm, imajo močne korozijske razjede. Kljub majhni volumenski masi frakcije 1-3 mm je v njej sorazmerno malo agregatov, njihovo vlogo pa so prevzeli številni organski ostanki (kosti, les ipd.). Teh je veliko tudi v frakciji večji od 3 mm. Močno prevladujoča komponenta plasti 1 in 2 je frakcija, manjša od 1 mm, ki predstavlja večinski delež osnove, medtem ko grušč in bloki predstavljajo neizrazit skelet. Frakcija, manjša od 1 mm, prevladuje tudi v globljem delu plasti 2 in v plasti 3, kjer je te frakcije še več kot v plasti I in 2. Prav tako je v globljem delu plasti 2 in v plasti 3 več klastov, večjih od 3 mm, več grušča in več blokov (razpredelnica 5.1). • Plast 2 ie sestavljena iz močno zemljenega sedimenta z malo humusa, pomešanega z malo debelega grušča in z majhnimi (10-15 cm) do velikimi bloki (> 15 cm). Blokov je bilo več v spodnjem delu plasti. Glavno komponento predstavlja zemljena osnova. V frakciji 1-3 mm prevladujejo korozijsko zaobljeni klasti apnenca. Poleg teh so še redki, sferoidni in poliedrični agregati, drobci oglja, lesa, lupinic mehkužcev, kosti... in posamezni alohtoni prodniki. Vsebnost grušča (klasti, večji 5. Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of Viktorjev Spodmol Turk The Karst area is typified by a small thickness of Mesolithic sediments. These are also rarely thicker than 1 m elsewhere, which is understandable in view of the duration of the Mesolithic. Viktorjev spodmol is no exception from this point of view. The stratigraphy of the site is, therefore, simple. There are three layers of earth above large collapsed blocks, mixed with blocks and other clasts of rudist limestone in which the overhang cave has been created. Above the last of the three layers is a thin layer of artificially redeposited material, presumably created at the time of Viktor’s test trench although it could also have been some time previously (Fig. 5.1). The boundaries between the three main layers are blurred, so that the whole profile appears very homogeneous. On the basis of the profile and sediment samples, the characteristic layers are the following: • Lavers I and 2 have been treated as a single layer although in the profile, layer 1 was limited to half of the profile and layer 2 embraced the entire remainder of the profile. This is a strongly earthy layer with an admixture of humus. There is little coarse rubble and small blocks in it (10-15 mm). All blocks and rubble are sharp edged. This last finding also applies for the whole of both layer 2 and layer 3. Limestone clasts larger than 3 mm are either sharp edged or corrosion rounded. All have a black coating. Limestone clasts smaller than 3 mm are strongly corroded. Despite the small volumetric mass of the 1-3 mm fraction, there are relatively few aggregates in it, and their role has been taken by numerous organic remains (bones, wood etc.). There are also a lot of these in the fraction larger than 3 mm. The greatly predominating component of layers 1 and 2 is the fraction smaller than 1 mm, which represents the major share of the matrix while rubble and blocks represent an unremarkable skeleton. The fraction smaller than I mm also predominates in the deeper part of layer 2 and in layer 3, where there is even more of this fraction than in layers 1 and 2. Similarly, in the deeper part of layer 2 and in layer 3 there are more clasts larger than 3 mm, more rubble and more blocks (Table 5.1). • Laver 2 is composed of strongly earthy sediment with little humus, interspersed with a little coarse rubb- y -4 m z = -2 m disturbed layer z = -3 m Sl. 5.1: Profil x = + 0,50 m. Vrisani so režnji 1-19 kot osnovne stratigrafske enote. Risal 1. Turk. Fig.5.1: Profile x = + 0.50 m. The spits 1-19 are drawn as the basic Stratigraphie unit. Drawn by I. Turk. od 3 mm) se v spodnjem delu plasti podvoji (razpredelnica 5.1). Grušč postaja z globino vse manj korodiran, vse manj je tudi črnih oblog, dokler ni ves grušč ostro-rob in brez črnih oblog. V frakciji, večji od 3 mm, so poleg grušča tudi koščki lesa in kosti. V režnju 12 ( gl. -309 cm) so bile najdene kalcitne konkrecije (siga) v obliki cvetače, kijih razlagam kot avtigene tvorbe. • Plast 3 je zadnja odkopana plast. Leži na velikem podoru in sega še v pore med podornimi bloki. Vrh podora upada proti severozahodnemu vogalu sonde. Sediment plasti 3 je še vedno močno zemljen, vendar brez primesi humusa. V spodnjem delu plasti je zemlja rahlo ilovnata in rjavo obarvana za razliko od zgornjega dela in drugih plasti, ki so temno sive barve. Blokov in debelega grušča je bilo več v zgornjem kot v spodnjem delu plasti. Glavno sedimentno komponento, če odmislim velike podorne bloke, še vedno predstavlja osnova, ki je sestavljena predvsem iz frakcije, manjše od 1 mm. V frakciji 1-3 mm prevladujejo korozijsko zaobljeni in razjedeni klasti apnenca nad poliedričnimi in poroznimi agregati. Porozni (luknjičavi) agregati so značilni izključno za plast 3. Nekateri agregati vsebujejo tudi drobce oglja. Pri dnu plasti (reženj 19) so bile v tej frakciji tudi kalcitne konkrecije, na katere so se v posameznih primerih prilepili agregati. V frakciji 1-3 mm so poleg klastov, agregatov in konkrecij tudi redki kostni drobci. V frakciji, večji od 3 mm, prevladuje ostrorobi grušč, ki ima pogosto rdeče kalcitne obloge. Poleg grušča so v tej frakciji tudi rdeče obarvane kalcitne konkrecije v obliki cvetače. Oblika konkrecij kaže, da gre za avtigene tvorbe. Frakcije 1-3 mm in frakcije, večje od 3 mm, je v le and with small (10-15 cm) to large blocks (> 15 cm). There were more blocks in the lower part of the layer. The main component is the earthy matrix. In the 1-3 mm fraction, corrosion rounded limestone clasts predominate. In addition there are occasional spheroid and polyedric aggregates, fragments of charcoal, wood, shells of molluscs, bones etc., and individual allochthonous pebbles. The content of the rubble (clasts larger than 3 mm)'is duplicated in the lower part of the layer (Table 5.1). The rubble becomes increasingly less corroded with depth, and there is ever less black coating, until all the rubble is sharp edged and without a black coating. In the fraction larger than 3 mm, in addition to the rubble, there are also bits of wood and bone. In spit 12 (depth -309 cm) calcite concretions (flowstone) were found, in the shape of cauliflowers, which can be explained as autogenic formations. • Laver 3 is the last excavated layer. It lies on a large rockfall and further extends into the spaces between the fallen blocks. The top of the rockfall dips towards the northwest corner of the test trench. The sediment of layer 3 is still strongly earthy but without an admixture of humus. In the lower part of the layer the earth is slightly clayey and brown, in contrast to the upper part and other layers which are dark grey in colour. There were more blocks and coarse rubble in the upper than the lower part of the layer. The main sedimentary component, if we ignore large fallen blocks, is still represented by the matrix, consisting mainly of the fraction smaller than 1 mm. Corrosion rounded and corroded limestone clasts predominate over polyedric plasti 3 nekoliko več kot v krovnih plasteh (razpredelnica 5.1). Odkopane sedimente je brez pedološko-sedimentološke analize, ki bo morda predmet bodočih, bolj sistemskih raziskav, težko ovrednotiti. Zato se bom omejil na nekaj zelo splošnih hipotetičnih sklepov na podlagi grobe ocene teksture in diageneze sedimentov ter topografske lege najdišča. Zgornji del profila je manj gruščnat in vsebuje tudi manj blokov kot spodnji del (razpredelnica 5.1). Kaže, da imajo podobno zgradbo tudi holocenski profili v nekaterih jamah in spodmolih na bližnjem Tržaškem krasu (glej Cremonesi el al. 1984). Zaradi pomanjkanja strukturnih agregatov v vseh plasteh profila ne moremo potrditi večje starosti in razvitosti tal, ki so nastala na robu spodmola ali bila tja presedimentirana s pobočja nad spodmolom. Svoje pove tudi velikost agregatov, ki nikjer v profilu ne preseže 3 mm. V mezolitski plasti M. Triglavce so strukturni agregati precej večji in tudi pogostejši (sl. 5.2.). Podobno velja za nekatera mezolitska jamska najdišča na Tržaškem krasu (Cremonesi et al. 1984). Volumenska masa peščene frakcije sedimenta, ki je med drugim odvisna predvsem od količine agregatov, ki je lahko dober kazalec vlažne klime (Turk et al. 2002), se v profilu giblje med 0,98 g/cm’ in 1,18 g/cm'(razpredelnica 5.1). V M. Triglavci ima peščena frakcija volumensko maso 0,87 g/cm1, kar se ujema z večjim številom strukturnih agregatov v sedimentu. V pleistocen-skih plasteh Divjih bab I je volumenska masa peščene frakcije 0,82-1,54 g/cm’. Holocenska plast v Divjih ba- Sl. 5.2: Večji agregati v sedimentih Male Triglavce. Foto I. Turk. Fig. 5.2: Large aggregates in the sediments of Mala Triglavca. Photo I. Turk. and porous aggregates in the fraction 1-3 mm. The porous (perforated) aggregates are characteristic exclusively of layer 3. Some of the aggregates also contain fragments of charcoal. On the floor of the layer (spit 19) there were also calcite concretions in this fraction, to which in individual cases aggregates were attached. In the 1-3 mm fraction, in addition to clasts, aggregates and concretions, there were also occasional bone fragments. In the fraction larger than 3 mm, sharp edged rubble predominates, which often has a red calcite covering. In addition to the rubble there are also red calcite concretions in the shape of cauliflowers in this fraction. The shape of the concretions shows that they are an autogenic creation. There are rather more of the 1-3 mm fraction and the fraction larger than 3 mm in layer 3 than in the covering layers (Table 5.1). Without a pedological-sedimentological analysis, which will perhaps be the subject of future, more systematic research, it is difficult to evaluate the excavated sediment. I will therefore restrict myself to some very general hypothetical conclusions on the basis of a rough assessment of the texture and diagenesis of the sediments and the topographic position of the site. The upper part of the profile is less gravelly and also contains fewer blocks than the lower part (Table 5.1). It appears that Holocene profiles in some caves and overhang caves in the nearby Triestine Karst have a similar texture (see Cremonesi et al. 1984). Because of the lack of structural aggregates in all layers of the profile, we cannot confirm a greater age and level of development of the soil created at the edge of the overhang cave or re-sedimented there from the area above the overhang. The size of the aggregates, which do not exceed 3 mm anywhere in the profile, also tells its own tale. In the Mesolithic layer of M. Triglavca, the structural aggregates are considerably larger and also more frequent (Fig. 5.2.), as in some Mesolithic cave sites on the Triestine Karst (Cremonesi et al. 1984). The volumetric weight of the sand fraction, which among other things depends on the quantity of aggregates, which can be a good indicator of a damp climate (Turk et al. 2002), ranges in the profile between 0.98 g/ cm' and 1.18 g/cm'(Table 5.1). In M. Triglavca, the sand fraction has a volumetric weight of 0.87 g/cm1, which corresponds to the larger number of structural aggregates in the sediment. In the Pleistocene layers of Divje babe I, the volumetric weight of the sand fraction is 0.82-1.54 g/cm1. The Holocene layer of Divje babe I, which contains prehistoric and other pottery, has a volumetric weight of the sand fraction of 1.09 g/cm ’. In the whole profile of Viktorjev spodmol, there are at least two, poorly developed accumulation horizons. The first is in the lower part of layer 2 (depth -309 cm), and the other on the bottom of layer 3 (depth -334 to -353 cm). Both are characterised by a calcite covering Razpredelnica 5.1: Zgradba sedimenta Viktorjevega spodmola. Table 5.1: Texture of sediments of Viktorjev spodmol. « - a S ~ S o. E o u o 3 5« V IG JT" C5 CU j o -r S > >J 2 j* u o> o T5 « U £ , a» Tl ■** !_ rt c "C a> Ü S ob — &> "O L« O Cl, ^ — i» — a S ^ lis I E E E ^ m * e » :=> § w *S ’-S rt « *- rU Un e E E o g fO ^ .ts jh A a " -o rt e 2 ° :—s s c +-•r o £ 5 >N 0£ CJ 0> .ir rt ^ o u 3 j: h u. w 'S E E E E rr, ^ ~1 " M n c ^ #o -—- u ■i £ rt rt 2 rU Uh b I i > - C C O cu _ _ u, •*- rt c O T3 •F-5 0 C ^ ® U tTV y *■£ >n .2® O ZJ OJ rt « ti > u u, 3 Um w _ _ .« S 5 rt Ece *? "? « H I- i rt C c iz? o a» rt a» E 5 ■g'S» ■“ XL .z? o a> g • ■* y I s "§) * «i j2 -r J? > > 3 .° u- u> 254 259 nasutje disturb. 264 269 274 279 284 289 294 299 304 309 314 319 324 329 334 339 353 99 I in 2 I and 2 0 21 30 53 102 46 60 59 77 117 137 138 145 I 19 142 142 I 14 I 16 50 1668 20 60 80 80 80 80 80 80 60 60 60 60 70 60 70 60 60 30 20 1170 0,38 0,99 0,88 1.1 1,72 2.19 2,16 1,56 1.35 1,82 2.1 2.35 3,43 3.19 3,48 3,17 3.69 2,14 1.75 39,45 0,38 0,33 0,22 0,28 0,43 0,55 0,54 0,39 0,45 0,61 0,70 0,78 0,98 1,06 0,99 1,06 1,23 1,43 1,75 0,18 0,48 0,43 0.44 0,52 0,63 0,79 0.7 0,56 0,68 0,65 0.8 1,07 1.03 1.04 I 1,06 0,82 0,46 13,34 0,18 0,16 0.11 0,11 0,13 0,16 0.20 0,18 0.19 0.23 0,22 0,27 0,31 0,34 0,30 0,33 0,35 0,55 0,46 1,00 0,98 1,05 1.09 1,18 1,14 1,1 I 1.10 1,11 1,17 1,09 bah I, ki vsebuje prazgodovinsko in drugo keramiko, ima volumensko maso peščene frakcije 1,09 g/cm3. V celotnem profilu Viktorjevega spodmola sta vsaj dva, slabo razvita akumulacijska horizonta. Prvi je v spodnjem delu plasti 2 (gl. 309 cm), drugi pa v dnu plasti 3 (gl. 334-353 cm). Za oba so značilne kalcitne prevleke na klastih in arheoloških najdbah ter kalcitne kon-krecije. V plasti 1 in 2 so samo težko odstranljive “blatne” prevleke, ki glede na temno sivo barvo vsebujejo precej organske snovi (morda humusa). Spodnji del plasti 2 in celotna plast 3 sta genetska mešanica regosola, ki sodi v kategorijo nerazvitih tal, in koluvijuma (materiala spranega s pobočja nad spodmolom). Za regosol se sicer zahteva podlaga z zrnasto teksturo, kar pa rudistni apnenec ni, vendar zrnavost do neke mere nadomeščajo klasti, ki so nastali z razpadanjem spodmola in podornih blokov, ki so predstavljali ‘substrat’ plasti 3. Zaradi počasne sedimentacije seje s časom mineraliziral ves humus, ki gaje v regosolu že tako manj kot 1 % , v koluvialnih tleh pa gaje tudi malo (Čirič 1986). To je lahko pomembna ugotovitev, saj so v tej zemlji mezolitske najdbe, ki so v bližnjem najdišču Pod Črmukljo sicer v humusu (Brodar 1992). Humus se pri tem razlaga kot značilen holocenski sediment, kar avtomatično določa starost najdb in časovno mejo med me-zolitikom in paleolitikom po pravilu, da v pleistocen- on clasts and archaeological finds and calcite concretions. In layers 1 and 2, there are “mud” coatings that are difficult to remove, and in view of the dark grey colour contain considerable amounts of organic substances (perhaps humus). The lower part of layer 2 and the whole of layer 3 are genetically mixed regosols, which are in the category of undeveloped soils, and colluvium (material washed from the slopes above the overhang cave). Regosols require a substrate of grainy texture, which rudist limestone is not, but the graininess is to some extent replaced by clasts created with the collapse of the overhang and fallen blocks that represent the “substrate” of layer 3. Because of the slow sedimentation, all the humus was mineralised, being already less than 1% in the regosol, and in the colluvial soil there is also only a little (Čirič 1986). This may be an important finding, since the Mesolithic finds, which in the nearby site of Pod Črmukljo are in humus, are in these soils (Brodar 1992). I lumus is thus explained as a typical Holocene sediment, which automatically defines the age of the finds and the temporal boundary between the Mesolithic and Palaeolithic based on the rule that there is no humus in Pleistocene sediments. This is certainly true, but Holocene cave sediments without humus also exist (see Cremone-sietal. 1984; Turk et al. 1993). STRATIG RAFIJA IN SEDIMENTOLOGIJA STRATIGRAPHY AND SEDIMENTOLOGY skih sedimentih ni humusa. Zadnje popolnoma drži. Vendar obstajajo tudi holocenski jamski sedimenti brez humusa (glej Cremonesi el al. 1984; Turk el al. 1993). Plast 1 in 2 ter zgornji del plasti 2 so genetska mešanica rendzine in koluvijuma. Zaradi hitrejše sedimentacije vsebujejo več humusa, ki se je zunaj horizonta A (vrh profila) ohranil v pogrebenih tleh oziroma se je s pomočjo bioturbacije dodajal v globlje horizonte. V tej zemlji je bila večina keramičnih najdb, ki so bistveno mlajše od mezolitskih ostankov. Zato lahko predvidevam med eno in drugo vrsto zemlje precejšnjo sedimentacij-sko vrzel. Keramični drobci, najdeni v plasti 1 in 2 ter v zgornjem delu plasti 2, so bili vsi močno zaobljeni, kar nakazuje izdatno premikanje v obdobju pred dokončno vključitvijo v sediment. Iz pedološkega vidika je zaradi verjetne prekinitve profil zelo zapleten, tako da bi ga lahko uvrstil tudi v skupino poligenetskih tal (Čirič 1986). Layers 1 and 2 and the upper part of layer 2 are genetically mixed rendzinas and colluvium. Because of the faster sedimentation, they contain more humus, which outside horizon A (top of the profile) has been preserved in buried soil or has been added to deeper horizons by means of bioturbation. The majority of pottery finds, which are essentially more recent than the Mesolithic remains, were in this soil. So we can envisage a considerable sedimentational gap between the two types of soil. Pottery fragments found in layers 1 and 2 and in the upper part of layer 2 were all strongly rounded, which indicates substantial movement in the period prior to final inclusion in the sediments. From a pedological point of view, the profile is very complex because of the probable sedimentation gap, so that it could also be classified in the group of polygene-tic soils (Čirič 1986). 6. Različne arheološke METODE - RAZLIČNI REZULTATI PRI RAZISKAVAH Viktorjevega spodmola Ivan Ker smo pri arheoloških raziskavah Viktorjevega spodmola uporabili različne metode, se je ponudila idealna priložnost, da te metode ovrednotim in nazorno pokažem, kako tudi v arheologiji metoda vpliva na rezultat. To je seveda splošno znano, vendar se mi dozdeva, da se tega v arheologiji premalo zavedamo in da na to kaj radi pozabimo pri analizi drobnih arheoloških in drugih najdb (glej Payne 1972 b). Terenske raziskave v Viktorjevem spodmolu so potekale v treh fazah, ki sem jih imenoval faza Viktor, faza Viktor in IzA ter faza IzA. Faza Viktor predstavlja izsledke in razlago Viktorjevega sondiranja. Faza Viktor in IzA predstavlja izsledke in razlago ponovnega pregledovanja sedimenta iz Viktorjeve sonde, potem ko smo ves sediment sprali in presejali skozi sita. Faza IzA predstavlja izsledke in razlago stratigrafskega izkopavanja profila Viktorjeve sonde. 6.1 Arheološke najdbe iz Viktorjeve sonde (faza Viktor) (razpredelnice 6.1.1-6.1.4; sl. 6.1.1; t. 1-2) Viktor ni beležil globin, na katerih so ležale posamezne najdbe, in je vse odkopane sedimente in najdbe v sondi veliki, I x 2 x 1 m, razdelil v dve stratigrafski enoti (sl. 6.1.1): zgornjo in spodnjo plast, pri čemer je meja potekala nekako po sredini celotne višine profila. Za zgornjo plast je bila značilna prisotnost prazgodovinske keramike (37 odlomkov ali 0,81 kg), spodnja plast pa je bila brez nje. V obeh plasteh so bili kamniti artefakti. V zgornji plasti smo našli en sam retuširan odbitek, in še ta le z uporabno retušo, 6 jeder in 62 odpadkov (razpredelnica 6.1:1-6.1.2). Poleg tega sta bila tu še dva brusa iz peščenjaka. V spodnji plasti je bilo 5 praskal, en retuširan odbitek, 2 odbitka s prečno retušo, 11 jeder in 85 odpadkov (razpredelnica 6.1.1-6.1.2). Poleg tega smo našli še en brus in dva odlomljena jelenova parožka, od katerih je bil eden oblikovan v šilo. 6. Different Archaeological Metods - Different Results in Investigations of Viktorjev Spodmol Turk Since various methods were used in the archaeological investigation of Viktorjev spodmol, it is an ideal opportunity to evaluate these methods and show clearly how in archaeology, too, the method affects the result. This is, of course, generally known, but it seems to me that we are too little aware of it in archaeology and that we tend to forget it in the analysis of small archaeological and other finds (see Payne 1972 b). Investigations in the field at Viktorjev spodmol took place in three phases, which 1 have called the Viktor Phase, the Viktor and IzA Phase, and the IzA Phase. Viktor Phase represents the results and interpretations of Viktor’s test trench. Viktor and IzA Phase represents the results and interpretations of a re-examination of the sediments from Viktor’s test trench, when all the sediments were washed and sieved. The IzA Phase is the results and interpretations of the Stratigraphie excavations of the profile of Viktor’s test trench. 6.1 Archaeological Finds from Viktor’s Test Trench (Viktor Phase) (Tables 6.1.1-6.1.4; Fig. 6.1.1; Plates 1-2) Viktor did not record the depth at which individual finds lay, and divided all the excavated sediments and finds in the test trench, 1x2x1 m, into two Stratigraphie units (Fig. 6.1.1): the upper and lower layer, whereby the boundary is roughly along the centre of the total depth of the profile. The presence of fragments of pre-historic pottery (37 fragments or 0.81 kg) is characteristic of the upper layer, and the lower layer was without them. There were stone artefacts in both layers. In the upper layer, we found only one retouched flake, with use wear, 6 cores and 62 items of debris (Table 6.1.1-6.1.2). In addition, there were two sandstone whetstones here. In the lower layer, there were 5 endscrapers, one retouched flake, 2 truncated flakes, 11 cores and 85 items of debris (Table 6.1.1-6.1.2). In addition, we found an- Sl. 6.1.1: Vse arheološke in paleontološke najdbe iz Viktorjeve sonde: zgornja in spodnja plast. Foto I. Turk. Fig. 6.1.1: All archaeological and palaeontological finds from Viktor’s test trench: upper and lower layers: Photo I. Turk. Zgornja plast je vsebovala nekaj zanimivih, majhnih jeder (t. 1: 1), ki so specificirana v razpredelnici 6.1.4. Med odpadki so prevladovale razbitine in odbitki s korteksom, tj. deli prodnikov (razpredelnica 6.3). Na dveh odbitkih s korteksom so bili negativi, nastali pri oblikovanju predhodnih jeder ali prenukleusov (t. 2: 11-12). Med odpadom sta bili tudi dve neretuširani klini, ena cela in en srednji del kline z odlomljeno bazo in koncem. Spodnja plast je dala več gradiva. Predvsem so bila v njej 4 cela in eno fragmentirano praskalo na odbitku, other whetstone and two broken-off prongs of deer antler, one of which had been shaped into an awl, or borer. The upper layer contained some interesting, small cores (Plate 1: 1), which are specified in Table 6.1.4. Shatter fragments and cortical flakes prevailed among the debris, i.e., parts of pebbles (Table 6.3). On two cortical flakes there were removal scars, created during the making of pre-nucleuses (Plate 2: 11-12). The debris also included two unretouched blades, one whole, and one the medial part of a blade with broken base and tip. od katerih je eno na retuširanem odbitku (t. 2: 17). Dalje sta bila tam en retuširan odbitek oz. kratka klina s prečno, rahlo vbočeno retušo in en odbitek s prečno, rahlo vbočeno retušo (t. 2: 19). Potem je bilo tam več zanimivih majhnih jeder in njihovih odlomkov (t. 1: 2, 4, 5; 2: 10; razpredelnica 6.1.4). V odpadu (razpredelnica 6.1.2) so še vedno prevladovale razbitine in odbitki s korteksom. Med odpadki je bilo tudi 9 neretuširanih klin, od katerih so bile nekatere tako majhne, da bi bile lahko že klinice. Ena klina je bila cela, 2 skoraj celi, 3 so imele ohranjen samo bazalni del, 3 samo srednji del in ena samo končni del. Drugi deli so bili odlomljeni. V spodnji plasti so bili tako redki izdelki kot odpadki krakelirani. Viktorjev nabor najdb je omogočal nekaj sklepov. Jedra in odpadni kosi s korteksom so kazali na in situ proizvodnjo kamenih izdelkov. Prav tako jedra, razbitine in odbitki s korteksom. Prodniki so bili lokalnega izvora, iz naplavin reke Reke ali iz izdankov kamnin v njenem zgornjem toku, ki vsebujejo kremenove prodnike. Krakelirani izdelki in odpadki so bili bodisi posledica zmrzovanja bodisi termične obdelave kremena v procesu izdelave izdelkov in polizdelkov. Kamene najdbe iz Viktorjeve sonde se niso dale zanesljivo časovno opredeliti. Zgornja plast z najdbami keramike je kazala največ eneolitsko starost, če izhajamo iz predpostavke, da sta obe vrsti najdb sočasni, ker se nahajata v isti plasti. Spodnja plast, ki je bila brez keramike, bi bila lahko, glede na veliko podobnost sedimentov obeh plasti in majhno razliko v globini kvečjemu nekoliko starejša od zgornje plasti. Najdbe same niso dokazovale zanesljivo večje razlike v starosti obeh plas- The lower layer gave more material. Above all, in it were 4 whole and one fragmented endscrapers on flakes, one of which on a retouched flake (Plate 2: 17). Furthermore, there were one retouched flake or short blade with slightly concave truncation and a flake with slightly concave truncation (Plate 2: 19). There were also a number of interesting small cores and flakes from them (Plates 1: 2. 4, 5; 2: 10; Table 6.1.4). Shatter fragments and cortical flakes still predominate in the debris (Table 6.1.2). Among the debris were also 9 unretouched blades, some of which were so small that they could already be considered bla-delets. One blade was whole, two almost whole, 3 had only the proximal part preserved, 3 only the medial part and one only the terminal part. Other parts were fractured. There were both artefacts and debris in the lower layer, occasionally thermally cracked. Viktor’s collection of finds enabled some conclusions. Cores, shatter fragments and cortical pieces of debris indicated the in situ production of stone artefacts. The pebbles were of local origin, from the alluvial deposits of the river Reka or from outcrops of conglomerate in its upper course, which contain chert pebbles. Thermally affected products and debris were a result either of freezing or the thermal processing of the chert in the process of making the products and semiproducts. The stone finds from Viktor’s test trench could not be reliably determined temporally. The upper layer with the finds of pottery indicated at most Eneolithic age, if we accept the premise that both types of find are contemporary because they were located in the same layer. Razpredelnica 6.LI: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: specifikacija izdelkov. Table 6.1.1: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: specification of products. Globina Depth (cm) Plasti Praskala na odbitku Endscrapers on tlake Odbitki retuširani Kctouchcd Ha kes Odbitki s prečno retušo Truncated Hakes Layers Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g max k min Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) 300 Zgornje Upper 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 360 Spodnje Lower 5 9,2 4,2 0.7 1 14,4 2 1.3; 1,5 110 Združene All 5 9,2 4.2 0,7 2 17,4 2 2,8 Razpredelnica 6.1.2: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: odpad. Table 6.1.2: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: debris. (flobina Depth Plasti Layers Odpadki < 3 mm Debris < 3 111111 Odpadki > 3 mm Debris > 3 mm Jedra Cores SKUPAJ TOTAL (cm) Kosov Count Teža («) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos , , g max g/piece g min Kosov Teža (g) g/kos Count Weight (g) g/piece g max g min Kosov Pieces 300 Zgornje Upper 0 0 0 62 678,5 2,49 137 0.4 6 49 8,17 19,3 3,9 68 360 Spodnje Lower 0 0 0 85 489,8 2,42 139 0,1 11 65 9,85 8,3 3,1 96 110 Združene Ali 0 0 0 147 1 168,3 7,95 139 0,1 17 114 6,71 19,3 3,1 164 Razpredelnica 6.1.3: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: specifikacija odpada > 3 mm. Table 6.1.3: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: specification of debris > 3 mm. Globina Depth (cm) Razbitine* Shatter fragments* Odbitki navadni Non-cortical Hakes Plasti Layers Kosov brez. korteksa Count non-corlical Kosov s korteksom Count cortical Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g mill Kosov Count Teža (g) g/kos Weight (g) g/piece g max g mill 300 Zgornje Upper 6 22 598.7 99.78 137 1,3 9 13,3 1,48 2,9 0,4 360 Spodnje Lower 1 10 312,7 4,70 139 2.6 22 41,3 1.88 7,5 0,2 110 Združene All 7 32 911,4 23,37 139 1,3 31 54,6 1,76 7,5 0,2 nadaljevanje / continuation Globina Plasti Odbitki s korteksom Odbitki laminarni Depth (cm) Cortical Hakes Laminar Hakes Layers Kosov Count Teža (g) g/kos Weight (g) g/piece R max g mill Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos , . g max g/piece g mill 3(H) Zgornje Upper 21 O' NJ to 8,2 0.4 2 3 1,50 2,4 0,6 360 Spodnje Lower 40 124 3,10 13,5 0,4 3 7,4 2,47 4 1.2 1 10 Združene All 61 185,2 6.01 13,5 0,4 5 10,4 2.08 4 0,6 nadaljevanje / continuation Globina Depth (cm) Plasti Kline neretuširane Unretouched blades Klinicc neretuširane Unretouched bladelets SKUPAJ TOTAL Layers Kosov Count Teža (g> g/kos , 7 • H max Weight (g) g/piece g mill Kosov Count Teža (g) g/kos . . . , , , . g max g nun Weight (g) g/piece Kosov Pieces 300 Zgornje Upper 2 2,3 1,15 1,3 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 360 Spodnje Lower 10 4.4 0,44 1,3 0,1 0 0 0 0 0 76 1 10 Združene All 12 6,7 0.56 1,3 0,1 0 0 0 0 0 148 * V tej kategoriji so tudi testirani prodniki. / This category includes also tested pebbles. Razpredelnica 6.1.4: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: specifikacija jeder. Table 6.1.4: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: specification of cores. Globina Depth (cm) Plasti Layers Jedra Cores Neizoblikovana Teža (g) Amorphous Weight Ig) Knopolarna Teža (g) Unidirectional Weight (gl Piramidalna Teža (g) Pyramidal Weight (g) Prizmatična Teža (g) Prismatic Weight (g) 300 360 Zgornje Upper Spodnje Lower 1 3,9 3 8,3; 3,7; 3,1 1 6,5 0 0 1 19,3 2 5,5; 5,4 1 7.1 0 0 110 Združene All 4 19 1 6,5 3 30,2 1 7,1 nadaljevanje / continuation Globina Depth Plasti Layers Jedra Cores (cm) Navzkrižna With crossed blank removals Teža tg) Weight (g) Kroglasta Spherical Teža(g) Weight (g) Diskasta Discoidal Teža (g) Weight (g) Posebna* Various* Teža (g) Weight (g) 300 Zgornje Upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8,2; 4 360 Spodnje Lower 1-2 6,9; 6,6 0 0 1 6,5 3 8,3; 8,4; 2,3 110 Združene Ali 2 13,5 0 0 1 6,5 5 31,2 * Med posebnimi jedri so: eno jedro na odbitku, eno "bifacialno" jedro in 3 fragmenti jeder (od tega en fragment prizmatičnega kotnega jedra). / “Various" includes: one flake core, one "bifacial” core and 3 core fragments (including one prismatic core fragment). ti. Razlaga najdb je tako ostala problematična, prav tako povezovanje z drugimi najdišči. 6.2 Arheološke najdbe v ponovno PREGLEDANEM SEDIMENTU Viktorjeve sonde (faza Viktor in IzA) (razpredelnica 6.2.1-6.2.7; sl. 6.2.1; t. 2-4, 7) Kamene in druge najdbe, zbrane pri ponovnem pregledu že pregledanih sedimentov, niso stratificirane. Zato sem jih obravnaval kot celoto, pri čemer sem izgubil pomemben del informacije. Med kamenimi izdelki so zastopani naslednji značilni kosi: 6 praskal na odbitku, 8 retuširanih odbitkov, 8 retuširanih klin, 3 odbitki s prečno retušo, 2 klini s prečno retušo, 2 klini z izjedo, 1 kljun, I trapez, 30 retuširanih klinic, 12 mikro konic, 22 trikotnikov, 15 fragmentov makrolitov, 3 fragmenti mikrolitov in 10 tehnološko zanimivih odpadkov (sl. 6.2.1) (razpredelnica 6.2.1). Praskala so, razen enega (t. 2: 16), precej površno izdelana in komaj zaslužijo to ime. Med njimi je eno na retu-širanem odbitku in eno fragmentirano in močno poškodovano v ognju. Med rctuširaninii odbitki je 5 fragmentov, od katerih ima po eden strmo, polstrmo in stopnjevito retušo. Poleg omenjenih vrst retuš je prisotna še uporabna retuša. Retuširane kline so bile vse razen ene fragmentira-ne. Štirje fragmenti so pripadali bazi, eden sredini in dva nedoločenemu delu kline. Retuša je uporabna, pol-strma in strma. Dva primerka imata plitke izjede, ki v enem primeru dajejo vtis nazobčanosti. Odbitki s prečno retušo niso najbolj prepričljivi. Med njimi sta dva mikrolitska primerka in en retuširan odbitek z vbočeno prečno retušo. The lower layer, which was without pottery, could be at most slightly older than the upper layer in view of the great similarity of the sediments of the two layers and small difference in depth. The finds themselves do not reliably prove greater difference in the age of the two layers. Interpretation of the finds thus remains problematic, as does linking with other sites. 6.2 Archaeological Finds in the Re -examined Sediments of Viktor’s Test Trench (Viktor and IzA Phase) (Tables 6.2.1-6.2.7; Fig. 6.2.1; Plates 2-4, 7) Stone and other finds collected during the re-examination of the already examined sediments were not stratified. I have therefore treated them as a whole, by which I have lost an important part of the information. The following characteristic pieces are represented among the stone products: 6 endscapers on flakes, 8 retouched flakes, 8 retouched blades, 3 truncated flakes, 2 truncated blades, 2 notched blades, I bee, 1 trapeze, 30 retouched bladelets, 12 micropoints, 22 triangles, 15 fragments of macroliths, 3 fragments of micro-liths and 10 technologically interesting items of debris (Fig. 6.2.1) (Table 6.2.1). Kndscrapers, with the exception of one (Plate 2: 16), are fairly superficially worked and barely deserve the name. They include one on a retouched flake and one fragmented and powerfully damaged in a fire. Among the retouched flakes there are 5 fragments, of which one each has abrupt, semi-abrupt and stepped retouch. In addition to the aforementioned types of retouch, there is also use wear present. The retouched blades were all fragmented except Razpredelnica 6.2.1: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: specifikacija izdelkov. Table 6.2.1: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: specification of products. Praskala na odbitku Enscrapers on flake Odbitki retuširani Retouched flakes Kline retuširane Retouched blades Kosov Count Teža(g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g min Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g min Kosov Count Teža 5 nun Debris > 5 mm Kosov Teža (g) g/kos Count Weight (g) g/piece g max g nun Jedra Cores SKUPAJ TOTAL Kosov Teža (g) g/kos Count Weight (g) g/piece g max g nun Kosov Count 1276 714 0,56 13,1 <0,1 13 78,1 6,01 27,6 0,3 2386 Razpredelnica 6.2.5: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: specifikacija jeder. fable 6.2.5: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: specification of cores. Neizoblikovana Amorphous Teža (g) Weight (g) Enopolarna Unidirectional Teža (g) Weight (g) Piramidalna Pyramidal Teža (g) Weight (g) Prizmatična Prismatic Teža (g) Weight (g) 5 6,5; 3,9; 4,2; 4,6; 1,5 1 27.6 0 0 0 0 ~yaijcvan,ie' continuation Posebna* Teža (g) Various* Weight (g) Navzkrižna With crossed blank removals Teža (g) Weight (g) Kroglasta Spherical Teža (g) Weight (g) Diskasta Discoidal Teža (g) Weight (g) 5 10.9:6.3:4.6:3:0.6 + M...I T—:——— 0 0 0 0 2 4,1; 0,3 Mod posebnimi jedri so: I jedro na odbitku. I ponovno uporabljeno jedro in 3 fragmenti jeder. / Various cores include: 1 flake core, 1 reutilized core and 3 core fragments. Nekatere razbitine s korteksom so lahko testirani prodniki. Neretuširane kline in klinice so skoraj vse fragmentirane (razpredelnica 6.2.7). Med fragmenti močno prevladujejo bazalni deli. Med odpadom je bilo tudi veliko lusk in odkruškov, manjših od 5 mm (razpredelnica 6.2.5), kijih Viktor pri sondiranju ni našel. Krakeliranih kosov, večjih od 5 mm, je 57 ali 4,4 %. Sledovi krakeliranja so tako na skorji jeder kot odbitkov kot tudi na ventralni in dorzalni strani klin, klinic in odbitkov. Poleg kamenih najdb so bili v ponovno pregledanih sedimentih iz Viktorjeve sonde odkriti še naslednji predmeti: lamela merjaščevega čekana, dva medialna fragmenta koščenega šila ali igle, en končni (terminalni) fragment koščene konice ali igle in dva fragmenta nedoločenih koščenih izdelkov (t. 7: 114/15, 115/9, 116-118). Pri ponovnem pregledu sedimenta Viktorjeve sonde sem se dokopal do vrste novih podatkov in ugotovitev. Poleg nepomembnih drobcev in fragmentov keramike (38 kosov ali 0,32 kg) so bile pri sondiranju spregledane predvsem kamene, pa tudi nekatere druge redke najdbe. Glavnino vsekakor predstavljajo kamene najdbe: 98 izdelkov in 2.386 odpadkov. Sum o in situ izdelavi kamenih izdelkov je potrdil droben odpadek, ki nastaja predvsem pri retuširanju iz- in the Palaeolithic, but we also come across it in Mesolithic sites in nearby Italy and elsewhere in Europe. Because of the more careful collection of finds, the ratios between pieces with cortex and pieces without cortex in Viktor’s test trench and the re-examined sediments from Viktor’s test trench were completely changed. While previously there were twice as many pieces with cortex, after re-examination there were twice as many without cortex. The predominance of proximal parts of unretouched blades and bladelets over other parts of blades and bladelets shows that they were intentionally fragmented (segmented) so that they served as blanks for geometric tools, such as trapezes. Geometric tools were probably made mainly from the medial and distal parts of blades and bladelets. So there are few of these parts. Fracturing blades and bladelets without the use of microburin techniques, judging from the debris, was more widespread than fracturing with the aid of these techniques. Since there are almost no trapezes at the site, they used fracturing to make blanks for other geometric tools, such as triangles, or they made trapezes somewhere else. New finds of thermally treated pieces confirm the suspicion of the heating of pebbles and cores in a fire as part of the technological procedure. Analysis of the stone finds allows the conclusion that all procedures connected with the working of stone were carried out at the site: from collecting suitable raw materials, of predominantly local origin, testing raw Razpredelnica 6.2.6: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: specifikacija odpada > 5 mm. Table 6.2.6: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: specification of debris > 5 mm. Razbitine / Shatter fragments Odbitki navadni / Noil-cortical Hakes Kosov brez korteksa Count lion-cortical Kosov s korteksom Teža (g) g/kos Count cortical Weight (g) g/piece g max g min Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g min 100 57 344.9 2,2« 13,1 0,1 638 152,1 0,24 3,7 0,1 nadaljevanje / continuation Odbitki s korteksom / Cortical Hakes Odbitki liiminarni / Laminar flakes Kosov Count Teža (g) g/kos Weight (g) g/piece g max g min Kosov Count Ieza(g) g/kos 7 ■ g '»ax Weight (g) g/piece g mill 276 184,2 0,67 9,5 0,3 4 1,6 0,40 0,9 0,1 nadal jevanje / continuation Neretuširane kline/ Unretouched blades Neretuširane klinice / Unretouched bladelets SKUPAJ/TOTAL Kosov / Count Kosov Teža (g) g/kos ,, . 7 . g max g mm Count Weight (g) g/piece Kosov Teža (g) Count Weight (g) g/kos 7 . g max g/picce g min 137 29,3 0,21 1.7 0,1 64 2,3 0,04 < 0,1 <0,1 1276 Razpredelnica 6.2.7: Viktorjev spodmol, sonda: specifikacija neretuširanili klin in klinic. Table 6.2.7: Viktorjev spodmol, test trench: specification of unretouched blades and bladelets. Neretuširane kline (kosov) / Unretouched blades (count) Neretuširane klinice (kosov)/ Unrctouchcd bladelets (count) Cela Baza Complete Basal Sredina Medial Konec Terminal SKUPAJ TOTAL Cela Complete Baza Basal Sredina Medial Konec SKUPAJ Terminal TOTAL 2 97 24 14 137 1 1 42 7 4 64 delkov in pri pripravi jeder. Ker se nismo preveč trudili s pobiranjem, je njegova količina podcenjena, vendar dovolj velika, da ne dopušča nobenega dvoma o in situ proizvodnji. Veliko število kosov s korteksom dopušča zanesljiv sklep o povprečni velikosti uporabljenih prodnikov. Kaže, daje bila večina prodnikov v velikosti lešnika do oreha. V glavnem gre za rožence. Pomemben prispevek ponovnega pregleda sedimentov so redke najdbe odlomkov kristalov kamene strele. Ta redka surovina seje uporabljala že v paleolitiku, nanjo pa naletimo tudi v mezolitskih najdiščih v bližnji Italiji in drugje po Evropi. Zaradi natančnejšega pobiranja najdb so se popolnoma spremenila razmerja med kosi s korteksom in kosi brez slednjega v Viktorjevi sondi in ponovno pregledanem sedimentu iz Viktorjeve sonde. Medtem ko je bilo prej enkrat več kosov s korteksom, jih je bilo po ponovnem pregledu enkrat več brez korteksa. Prevladovanje bazalnih delov neretuširanih klin in klinic nad drugimi deli klin in klinic kaže, da so bile namenoma fragmentirane (segmentirane), da so služile kot nastavek za geometrična orodja, kot so npr. trapezi. Geometrična orodja so se verjetno izdelovala predvsem iz srednjega in končnega dela klin in klinic. Zato je teh delov malo. Lomljenje klin in klinic brez uporabe mik-rovbadalne tehnike je bilo sodeč po odpakih bolj razširjeno kot lomljenje s pomočjo te tehnike. Ker v najdišču skoraj ni trapezov, so z lomljenjem izdelovali nastavke za druga geometrična orodja, kot so npr. trikotniki, ali pa so trapeze izdelovali kje drugje. Nove najdbe krakeliranih kosov potrjujejo domnevo o segrevanje prodnikov in jeder v ognju kot delu tehnološkega postopka. Analiza kamenih najdb dopušča sklep, da so se v najdišču opravljali vsi postopki, povezani z obdelavo kamna: od zbiranja primerne surovine, pretežno lokalnega izvora, testiranja surovine do izdelave končnih izdelkov, in to preko vseh vmesnih faz do popravil in opustitve izrabljenih izdelkov. Tisto, kar se nam je v celoti ohranilo, so nedvomno nerabni odpadki. Nabor značilnih izdelkov, ki so ostali, jasno dokazuje, da najdišče pripada neki mezolitski razvojni stopnji. Kateri, je na podlagi zbranega gradiva in stratigrafske informacije za zdaj težko ugotoviti. 6.3 Arheološke najdbe stratigrafskega IZKOPAVANJA PROFILA VIKTORJEVE SONDE (faza IzA) (razpredelnice 6.3.1-6.3.8: t. 3, 5-7) Glavni namen stratigrafskega izkopavanja je bil, ugotoviti položaj posamičnih najdb v profilu najdišča do 5 cm natančno. Zato je bil ob profilu izkopan blok sedimentov veli- materials, to the manufacture of final products, through all the intermediate phases to the repair and abandonment of used products. Those that have been fully preserved are undoubtedly unused debris. The collection of characteristic products that remained clearly shows that the site belongs to a Mesolithic development level. It is difficult to ascertain which on the basis of the material collected and the Stratigraphie information. 6.3 Archaeological Finds of the Stratigraphic Excavation of the Profile of Viktor’s Test Ttrench (Phase IzA) (Tables 6.3.1-6.3.8; Plate 3, 5-7) The main purpose of the stratigraphic excavation was to establish the position of individual finds in the profile of the site to an accuracy of 5 cm. So a block of sediments of size 0.2 x 2 x 1 m was excavated along the profile. All finds were collected with the same thickness of horizontal spits which I (I.T.) later coordinated with layers, visually determined in the profile. Since the profile was 2 m long, the finds were collected separately by spits for its left (marked in the field “/ 1 ”) and right parts (marked in the field "12"), in order to establish any possible concentration of finds. Since the finds were equally distributed in all spits in both parts of the profile, in the end I treated both parts as a single spatial unit, and the finds stratigraphically by spits. Since the majority of objects were found during washing on sieves, they are without individual coordinates. A survey of all archaeological finds is given in Table 6.3.1. It is clear from the survey that at least two archaeological levels are represented at the site, as Viktor properly established. Pottery and stone finds and some new age metal objects are characteristic of the upper level, which embraces layer 1 and the upper part of layer 2. The lower level, embracing the lower part of layer 2 and layer 3 is characterised by stone and bone finds and finds of sea molluscs, among which predominate the dove shell ColumbeUa rustica (Linne, 1758) typical of Mesolithic sites, as well as finds of the edible thorny oyster Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819. Stone artefacts are present in large numbers in all layers and at all depths, but they increase near the boundary between layers 2 and 3 (spits 12-16). The pottery, with few exceptions, is prehistoric. However, characteristic pieces that could be linked ty-pologically with pottery found in the test trench were not found. Stone artefacts deserve detailed treatment. Similarly, there are some individual finds that I will mention at the end. The following characteristic pieces are represented among the products: 2 endscrapers, 7 retouched flakes, Razpredelnica 6.3.1: Viktorjev spodmol, profil: arheološke najdbe. Navedeno je število kosov. Table 6.3.1: Viktorjev spodmol, profile: archaeological finds. The number of pieces is stated. Reženj Spil Globina Depth (cm) Plast Layer Kovinski predmeti Metal Keramika drobci Pottery Keramika večji fragm. Pottery large fragments Kamene najdbe Stone Koščene najdbe Bone Morski polži Marine Morske školjke Bivalve sea objects fragments artifacts artifacts gastropods shells 1 254 nasutje 0 2 0 173 0 0 0 2 259 disturbed 0 5 0 278 0 0 0 3 264 1 5 0 299 0 0 0 4 5 269 274 1 and 2 0 3 9 10 2 3 318 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 279 1 1 I 3 368 0 0 1 7 284 0 8 2* 637 0 0 2 8 289 0 5 3 634 0 0 1 9 294 0 0 0 507 1 0 0 10 299 2 0 1 0 626 0 0 4 11 304 0 1 0 603 1 1 5 12 309 0 0 0 874 0 2 0 13 314 0 0 0 1 167 0 1 6 14 319 0 1? 0 716 0 2 0 15 324 0 0 0 981 1 0 3 16 329 0 0 0 746 0 0 1 17 334 3 0 0 0 445 0 0 0 18 339 0 0 0 277 0 0 0 19 353 0 0 0 189 0 0 2 19 99 3 5 57 13 10.158 3 6 25 * I fragment glazirane keramike. / One sherd of glazed ware. kosti 0,2 x 2 x 1 m. Vse najdbe so bile zbrane po enako debelih vodoravnih režnjih, ki sem jih (I. T.) pozneje uskladil s plastmi, vizualno določenimi v profilu. Ker je bil profil dolg 2 m so bile najdbe zbrane ločeno po režnjih za njegov levi (terenska oznaka “/1”) in desni del (terenska oznaka "12”), da bi ugotovili morebitne koncentracije najdb. Ker so bile najdbe v vseh režnjih enakomerno razporejene v obeh delih profila, sem nazadnje oba dela obravnaval kot prostorsko celoto, najdbe pa stratigrafsko po režnjih. Ker je bila večina predmetov najdena pri spiranju na sitih, so brez individualnih koordinat. Pregled vseh arheoloških najdb je podan v razpredelnici 6.3.1. Iz nje je razvidno, da sta na najdišču zastopana vsaj dva arheološka nivoja, kot je pravilno ugotovil že Viktor. Za zgornji nivo, ki obsega plast 1 in zgornji del plasti 2 so značilne keramične in kamene najdbe ter nekaj novodobnih kovinskih predmetov. Za spodnji nivo, ki obsega spodnji del plasti 2 in plast 3, so značilne kamene in koščene najdbe ter najdbe morskih polžev, med katerimi prevladuje za mezolitska najdišča značilna golobica Columbella rustica (Linne, 1758), kot tudi najdbe užitne klapavice MytUusgaUoprovincialis Lamarck, 1819. Kamniti artefakti so množično prisotni v vseh plasteh in v vseh globinah, vendar se pomnožijo na prehodu plasti 2 v plast 3 (režnji 12-16). Keramika je razen redkih izjem prazgodovinska. Čeprav tokrat niso bili najdeni značilni kosi, jo lahko tipološko povežem s keramiko, najdeno v sondi. Kamniti artefakti zaslužijo podrobno obdelavo. Prav tako nekatere posebne najdbe, ki jih bom omenil na koncu. 5 retouched blades, 3 trapezes, 22 retouched bladelets, 5 micropoints, 15 triangles, 8 fragments of microliths and 30 pieces of technologically interesting debris (Table 6.3.2). The endscrapers are fairly unusual, oval-shaped and made on retouched flakes (Plate 5: 75/10, 76/13). The retouched flakes, in addition to use wear retouch, haye also abrupt retouch. One flake has a shallow notch. The retouched flakes also include those with cortex. The rctouchcd blades were all fragmented. Four fragments belonged to the proximal, one to the medial and two to proximal and medial parts. The retouch is either use wear or marginal. Small notches on the edges of the blades are characteristic, so that at least one of the blades is similar to blades of the Montbani type (Plate 6: 83/6). Two blades have concave formed parts where the butt would have been (Plate 6: 85/12; 86/16), in a way that is characteristic for trapezes, though differently from the majority of trapezes found in Mesolithic layers of M. Triglavca. The bulbar end and butt are shaped with the aid of a Clacton notch, but the notch was probably made with pressure and not with a blow. Only one of the trapezes is whole. A fragment of a microtrapeze stands out (Plate 5: 80/16), which was found at the deepest level of all the trapezes and microburins. The presumed bulbar end of two trapezes is concave shaped with a Clacton notch. Distally, there are the remains of a deep notch and fracture plane beside it (Plate 5: 78/10, 79/12). The question is whether the bulbar end was also fractured in a similar way to the distal part of the trapeze. Razpredelnica 6.3.2: Viktorjev spodmol, profil: specifikacija izdelkov. Razpredelnica 6.3.2: Viktorjev spodmol, profile: specification of products. Reženj Globina Depth (cm) Plast Praskala Endscrapers Odbitki Flakes Kline Blades Klinice rctuširane* Mikro konice* Micro points* Spit Layer Na odbitku Teža (g) On flake Weight (g) Retuširani Teža (g) Retouched Weight (g) Rctuširane Teža (g) Retouched Weight (g) Retouched bladelets* 1 2 254 259 nasutje dist. 3 4 5 264 269 274 1 in 2 1 and 2 1 1,2 1 2 6 279 2 0.7; 1.6 2 0,5; 0,3 2 7 284 1 3,3 1 0,1 2 8 289 1 1,5 9 294 2 10 299 2 1 1,3 2 0,71 0,9 1 0,7 1 1 304 2 1 12 309 1 0,1 1 13 314 1 1,6 1 0,1 2 14 319 1 0,6 1 1 15 324 3 16 329 5 2 17 334 3 IS 339 19 353 19 99 3 2 2,9 7 5,1 7 3,3 22 5 nadaljevanje / continuation Reženj Globina Depth (cm) Plast Trikotniki* Triangles* Mikroliti* fragmenti Trapezi Mikro vbadala Microburins Tehnični primerki Technological pieces SKUPAJ TOTAL Spit Layer Raznostran. Knakokr. Scalene Isocele Mieroliths* fragments Trapezes Kosov Pieces 1 2 254 259 nasutje disturbed 2 3 3 2 3 4 5 264 269 274 1 in 2 1 and 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 6 279 1 7 7 284 2 1 1 7 8 289 1 2 9 294 1 1 4 10 299 2 1 2 1 1 9 11 304 1 1 5 12 309 1 3 6 13 314 1 1 1 6 14 319 1 1 6 15 324 2 1 1 7 16 329 2 2 1 1 13 17 334 3 2 1 3 18 339 1 1 19 353 0 19 99 3 14 1 8 3 5 15 89 * Te/a posameznega kosa je < 0,1 g, razen redkih izjem. / Weight of single piece is < 0.1 g excluding some exceptions. Med izdelki so zastopani naslednji značilni kosi: 2 praskali, 7 retuširanih odbitkov, 5 retuširanih klin, 3 trapezi, 22 retuširanih klinic, 5 mikro konic, 15 trikotnikov, 8 fragmentov mikrolitov in 20 tehnološko zanimivih odpadkov (razpredelnica 6.3.2). Praskali sta precej neobičajni, prisiljeni in izdelani na retuširanem odbitku (t. 5: 75/10, 76/13). Retuširani odbitki imajo poleg uporabne retuše še strmo retušo. En odbitek ima plitko izjedo. Med retuši-ranimi odbitki so tudi taki s korteksom. Microburins are technologically connected with trapezes, of which, like trapezes, there are surprisingly few. All were found in the upper part of layer 2. There are only two typical microburins, of which one has a very shallow notch (Plate 5: 81/6, 82/10). One specimen has a retouched Clacton notch instead of the normal one. One further fragment of a microburin and one fragment of a stemmed piece (Plate 6: 84/8) remain, which I classified among microburins because of the similar technology, although strictly speaking it is not such. Razpredelnica 6.3.3: Viktorjev spodmol, profil: specifikacija retuširanih klinic. Table 6.3.3: Viktorjev spodmol, profile: specification of retouched bladelets. Cela Complete Baza Basal Pecelj Stemmed Sredina Medial Konec Terminal Hrbet Backed Hrbet in drobtinčasta retuša Backed and marginal retouch Drobtinčasta retuša unilateralna Marginal retouch unilateral Drobtinčasta retuša bilateralna Marginal retouch bilateral 0 10 0 1 1 1 11 4 4 3 Rctuširane kline so bile vse fragmentirane. Štirje odlomki so pripadali bazi, eden sredini in dva bazi s sredino. Retuša je ali uporabna ali pravilna drobtinčasta. Značilne so majhne izjede na robovih klin, tako daje vsaj ena klina podobna klini tipa Montbani (t. 6: 83/6). Dve klini imata konkavno oblikovan predel, kjer naj bi bil talon (t. 6: 85/12; 86/16), na način, kot je značilen za trapeze, vendar drugače kot pri večini trapezov, najdenih v mezolitski plasti M. Triglavce. Baza in talon sta oblikovana s pomočjo klektonske (clacton) izjede, vendar je bila izjeda verjetno narejena s pritiskom in ne z udarcem. Med trapezi je samo en cel. Izstopa fragment mikro trapeza (t. 5: 80/16), ki je bil najden najgloblje od vseh trapezov in mikro vbadal. Domnevna baza dveh trapezov je konkavno oblikovana s klektonsko izjedo. Distal no je ostanek globoke izjede in prelomne ploskve ob njej (t. 5: 78/10, 79/12). Vprašanje je, ali je bila tudi baza lomljena na podoben način kot distalni del trapeza. S trapezi so tehnološko povezana mikro vbadala, ki jih je tako kot trapezov presenetljivo malo. Vsa so bila najdena v zgornjem delu plasti 2. Značilni mikro vbadali sta samo dve pa še od teh ima eno zelo plitko izjedo (t. 5: 81/6, 82/10). En primerek ima namesto običajne retuširane izjede klektonsko. Obstaja še en fragment mikro vbadala in en fragment peclja (t. 6: 84/8), ki sem ga zaradi podobne tehnologije uvrstil med mikro vbadala, čeprav strogo vzeto to ni. Najštevilnejše in najpomembnejše najdbe so mik-roliti. Med temi so številčno najbolj zastopane klinice. Predstavljajo jih izključno fragmenti klinic, ki so bile različno retuširane (razpredelnica 6.3.3). Poleg strme retuše, pravih hrbtov, kije prevladujoči način retuširan-ja klinic, se pojavlja tudi manj strma (semiabruptna) in drobtinčasta retuša na enem ali obeh robovih (t. 6: 88/15, 89/14, 90/16). Posebnost je izmenična strma retuša (hrbet) na širokem fragmentu srednjega dela klinice (reženj 5). Možno je, daje ta fragment pripadal konici (t. 6: 91/5). Neobičajen je tudi bazalni fragment klini- Bladelets are numerically the best represented of mi-croliths. They are exclusively fragments of bladelets which were variously retouched (Table 6.3.3). In addition to abrupt retouch, which is the predominant way of retouching bladelets, semi-abrupt and marginal retouches also appear on one or both edges (Plate 6: 88/15, 89/14, 90/16). A particularity is the alternating abrupt retouch (back) on a wide fragment of the medial part of a bladelet (spit 5). It is possible that this fragment belongs to a point (Plate 6: 91/ 5). The proximal fragment of a bladelet backed at the bulbar end and one of the edges, and marginally retouched on the other edge (spit 7) is also unusual. The niicropoints were all found in the lower part of layer 2 and the upper part of layer 3. All have been preserved more or less fragmentarily and were produced exclusively with the aid of an abrupt retouch (Plate 7: 108/16-113/14). The retouch can be alternating, in which two variants appear: on the same edge or on both edges. Although the points can have two points, because of the abrupt retouch we cannot speak of typical Sau-veterrian points but at most of a variant of these. Microlithic triangles sensu lato (Table 6.3.4) are the second most numerous product at the site. Their number may be underestimated, since some of the medial fragments of micro bladelets could also be parts of triangles. All triangles are scalene except for one, which is isosceles (Plate 7: 105/13). The majority of specimens belong to the type with retouched hypotenuse. The retouch on the hypotenuse can be partial (limited to the distal or proximal part) or complete, direct or inverse, marginal or abrupt. The last named is on the proximal part on two specimens and creates a kind of stemmed piece (Plate 6: 94/16; 7: 107/10). The latter and the marginal retouch (including denticulates) at the end of the hypotenuse would indicate that the lower part of the triangles was helved. Fragments of triangles found which, because of the damage, may have been rejected during the exchange of parts of armatures, also points in this direction. One triangle has the hypotenuse entirely ab- Razpredelnica 6.3.4: Viktorjev spodmol, profil: specifikacija trikotnikov. Table 6.3.4: Viktorjev spodmol, profile: specification of triangles. Trikotniki raznostranični Triangles scalene Cel Complete Baza Basal Sredina Medial Konec Terminal Hrbet in drobtinčasta retuša Backed and marginal retouch Hrbet in strma retuša Backed and abrupt retouch Pecelj in drobtinčasta retuša Stemmed and marginal retouch 4 1 1 8 7 1 2 ce s strmo retušo na bazi in enem od robov in drob-tinčasto retušo na drugem robu (reženj 7). Mikro konice so bile vse najdene v spodnjem delu plasti 2 in zgornjem delu plasti 3. Vse so ohranjene bolj ali manj fragmentarno in izdelane izključno s pomočjo strme retuše (t. 7: 108/16-113/14). Retuša je lahko izmenična, pri čemer nastopata obe izvedbi: na istem robu ali na dveh robovih. Čeprav so konice lahko imele dvojno konico, zaradi strmega retuširanja ne moremo govoriti o značilni sovterski konici, temveč kvečjemu o njeni različici. Mikrolitski trikotniki sensu lato (razpredelnica 6.3.4) so drugi najštevilnejši izdelki na najdišču (t. 6: 92/13-101/7; 7: 102/15-107/10). Njihovo število je lahko podcenjeno, saj so lahko nekateri središčni odlomki mikro klinic s hrbtom tudi deli trikotnikov. Vsi trikotniki so raznostranični razen enega, kije enakokrak (t. 7: 105/ 13). Večina primerkov pripada tipu z retuširano najdaljšo stranico. Retuša na najdaljši stranici je lahko delna (omejena na konec ali bazo) ali popolna, direktna ali inverzna, lahko je drobtinčasta ali strma. Zadnja je v dveh primerih na bazi in tvori nekakšen pecelj (t. 6: 94/16; 7: 107/10). Slednje in pa drobtinčasta retuša (z zobci vred) na koncu najdaljše stranice bi kazalo na to, daje bil spodnji del trikotnikov nasajen. V to smer kažejo tudi najdeni fragmenti trikotnikov, ki bi bili lahko zaradi poškodb zavrženi pri zamenjavi delov armatur. En trikotnik ima najdaljšo stranico v celoti topo retuširano (t. 6: 92/13). To ponovno postavlja pod vprašaj namembnost teh izdelkov oziroma enoznačno razlago njihove uporabe. Ni izključeno, da so se tudi trikotniki, podobno kot veliko kamenih orodij, uporabljali za različne namene. Največ trikotnikov je bilo najdenih v spodnjem delu plasti 2 in v zgornjem delu plasti 3. Ker so trikotniki skupaj z morskimi polži, ki so bili vsi najdeni v spodnjem delu plasti 2 (glej razpredelnico 6.3.1), značilni za mezolitik, lahko lociram mezolitski horizont v bližino meje med plastjo 2 in 3. V Viktorjevi sondi so bili najdeni tudi štirje majhni peclji (t. 3: 32-35), ki sem jih začasno opredelil kot fragmente mikro klinic, čeprav bi lahko pripadali tudi trikotnikom. Med fragmenti mikrolitov so primerki, ki bi lahko, glede na kombinacijo hrbet-hrbet in hrbet-drobtinčas-ta retuša pripadali bodisi konicam bodisi trikotnikom. Zanimiv je fragment izdelka s hrbtom, kije bil poškodovan pri udarcu na njegov konec (t. 7: 110/11). Domnevam, da je fragment pripadal izstrelku, npr. puščici s kameno konico. Tehnološko zanimivim primerkom pripadajo mikro vbadala in drugi tehnološki kosi. Med temi so deli tipološko nedoločenih jeder, ki lahko pomagajo razumeti tehnološke procese, povezane z njihovim pridobivanjem in izrabo. Dalje so tu vba-dalni odbitki, čeprav je presenetljivo, da med vsem zbranim gradivom ni niti enega vbadala. Pa en odbitek ruptly or semi-abruptly retouched (Plate 6: 92/13). This again raises a question of the purpose of these products, or a uniform explanation of their use. It cannot be excluded that triangles, too, as with many stone tools, were used for various purposes. The most triangles were found in the lower part of layer 2 and the upper part of layer 3. Since triangles, together with sea molluscs, which were all found in the lower part of layer 2 (see Table 6.3.1), are typical of the Mesolithic, the Mesolithic horizon can be located in the vicinity of the boundary between layers 2 and 3. Four small stemmed pieces were also found in Viktor’s test trench (Plate 3: 32-35), which for the moment I have classified as fragments of micro bladelets, although they could also belong to triangles. Among fragments of microliths are specimens which, in view of the combination abrupt-abrupt retouch and abrupt-marginal retouch, could belong to either points or triangles. The fragment of a backed piece is interesting, which was damaged by a blow at its tip (Plate 7; 110/11). I suspect that the fragment belongs to a projectile, e.g., an arrow with a stone point. Technologically interesting specimens include microburins and other technological pieces. Among them are parts of unidentified cores, which could help in understanding the technological processes connected with obtaining and using them. Furthermore, there are burin spalls here, although it is surprising that among all the collected material there is not a single burin. Although there are one flake of Kombewa type (spit 13) and thin flakes with negative bulb of percussion (contre-bulbe), found in spits 12-18 (Plate 5: 74/15). Paper thin flakes with negative bulb and butt in the shape of a flattened curve of normal distribution could only have been made with pressure on the point, and probably one immediately after another. Good cores were thus exploited to the maximum. The understanding of thrift by the makers of the stone products is also demonstrated by the cores on flakes (Plate 5: 71/12) and the Kombewa flake. As in Viktor’s test trench, there were quite a number of thermally treated pieces in the stratigraphically excavated sector. Among the debris larger than 3 mm, at least 23, or 2%, were thermally cracked. Among the products, 5 or 5.6% were thermally cracked. It is interesting in this that both in the test trench and in the stratigraphically excavated sector there were no major remains of hearths. On the other hand, there were a lot of burned and also calcified bone fragments and some scattered fragments of charcoal. I associate thermally cracked pieces with deliberately thermally prepared raw materials and blanks for further processing. The majority of stone finds represent debris, which is normal with the working of stone (Table 6.3.5). Cores are among the technologically more interesting debris (Plate 5: 69/10-73/15; Table 6.3.6). As in the test trench, small ones predominate in the profile. Razpredelnica 6.3.5: Viktorjev spodmol, profil: odpad. Table 6.3.5: Viktorjev spodmol, profile: debris. Izkop Globina Depth (cm) Plast Odpadki < 3 mm Debris < 3 mm Odpadki > 3 mm Debris > 3 mm Spit Layer Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g min 1 254 nasutje 162 0.7 0,0043 10 5,1 0,51 0,8 <0,1 2 259 disturb. 261 1,9 0,0073 16 4,7 0,29 1.5 <0,1 3 264 261 1,8 0,0069 35 16,4 0,47 5,1 <0,1 4 269 1 and 2 284 2,2 0,0077 31 15,3 0,49 2,0 <0,1 5 274 290 1.6 0,0055 26 12.5 0,48 2,0 <0,1 6 279 335 2,4 0,0072 33 34,1 1,03 7,5 <0,1 7 284 576 3,7 0,0064 59 16 0,27 2,0 <0,1 8 289 551 3,2 0,0058 79 50,8 0,64 7,7 <0,1 9 294 434 2,4 0,0055 73 42,3 0,58 10,3 <0.1 10 299 2 505 3,1 0,0061 117 58,5 0,50 6,5 <0,1 11 304 518 3,1 0.0060 80 31,4 0,39 7,8 <0,1 12 309 752 4,5 0,0060 120 53,6 0,45 5,9 <0,1 13 314 1021 5,9 0,0058 141 81,5 0,58 8,5 <0,1 14 319 604 3,5 0,0058 109 51,3 0.47 6,5 <0,1 15 324 876 5.6 0,0064 98 29,4 0,30 3,1 <0.1 16 329 666 4,2 0,0063 79 24,4 0,31 4,0 <0,1 17 334 3 421 2.4 0,0057 24 2,7 0,1 1 0,7 <0,1 18 339 259 1.5 0,0058 18 2,5 0,14 1,5 <0,1 19 353 182 1 0,0055 7 0.8 0,11 0.2 <0,1 19 99 3 8958 54.7 0,0(161 1155 533,3 0,46 10,3 <0,1 nadaljevanje / continuation Izkop Globina Depth (cm) Plast Razbitine prodnikov* Shattered pebbles Jedra Cores SKUPAJ TOTAL Spit Layer Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g min Kosov Teža (g) g/kos Count Weight (g) g/piece g max g min Kosov Count 1 254 nasutje 1 3 3,00 3,0 3,0 0 0 0 0 0 173 2 259 dist. 1 1 1,00 1,0 1,0 0 0 0 0 0 278 3 264 1 in 2 1 and 2 3 108.4 36,13 73.6 5,5 0 0 0 0 0 299 4 269 3 15.1 5,03 6,2 4,1 0 0 0 0 0 318 5 274 2 6,8 3,40 4,1 2,7 2 8,6 4,30 4,4 4.2 320 6 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 368 7 284 1 11.9 11,90 11,9 11,9 1 38.2 38,20 38,2 38.2 637 8 289 3 73,4 24,47 66,0 2,r 1 9,9 9,90 9,9 9,9 634 9 294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 507 10 299 2 2 29,5 14,75 18,3 11,2 2 32,9 16,45 26,6 6,3 626 11 304 4" 50,2 12,55 29,9 2,0 1 7 7,00 7,0 7,0 603 12 309 1" 7,6 7.60 7,6 7,6 1 4,5 4,50 4,5 4,5 874 13 314 5” 38,1 7,62 15,0 0,8 0 0 0 0 0 1167 14 319 2 27,8 13,90 25,9 1,9 1 12,7 12,70 12,7 12,7 716 15 324 3" 21.8 7.27 13,9 3,0 4 35,2 8,80 21,8 3,5 981 16 329 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,4 0,40 0,4 0,4 746 17 334 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 445 18 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277 19 353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 19 99 3 31 394,6 12,73 73,6 0,8 14 149,4 10,67 38,2 0.4 10158 * Med razbitinami prodnikov so tudi štirje komaj načeti prodniki. Označeni so z ( They are signed with ("). nongst shattered pebbles are four almost complete. tipa Kombewa (reženj 13) in tenki odbitki z negativom bulbusa (contre-bulbe), najdeni v režnjih 12-18 (t. 5: 74/ 15). Papirnato tenki odbitki z negativom bulbusa in talonom v obliki sploščene krivulje normalne porazdelitve so bili lahko narejeni samo s pritiskom na točko, in to verjetno tik eden za drugim. Tako so bila dobra jedra maksimalno izkoriščena. Na gospodarno vedenje izdelovalcev kamenih izdelkov kažejo tudi jedra na odbitkih (t. 5: 71/12) in odbitek Kombewa. One pyramidal core is a real miniature (Plate 5: 77/16). One prismatic core (Plate 5. 70/10; 72/15), a core with crossed blank removals (Plate 1. 9/5) and a spherical core (Plate 5: 69/10) are novelties. A further core on a flake was additionally found (Plate 5: 71/12). Unidirectional cores (Plate 5: 15) and pyramidal cores are already known from Viktor’s test trench. Among special cores is one on a flake, one completely exploited core and a fragment of a unidirectional (?) core. Finally, for Razpredelnica 6.3.6: Viktorjev spodmol, profil: specifikacija jeder. Table 6.3.6: Viktorjev spodmol, profile: specification of cores. Izkop Spit Globina Depth (cm) Plast Layer Neizoblikovana Amorphous Teža (g) Weight (g) Enopolarna Unidirectional Teža (g) W'eight (g) Piramidalna Pyramidal Teža (g) Weight (g) Prizmatična Prismatic Teža (g) W eight (g) Navzkrižna Crossed* Teža (g) Weight (g) Kroglasta Spherical Teža (g) Weight (g) Posebna** Various** Teža (g) Weight 8g) 1 254 nasutje 2 259 dist. 3 264 4 269 1 in 2 1 and 2 5 274 1 4,2 1 4.4 6 279 7 284 1 38,2 8 289 1 9.9 9 294 10 299 2 1 6,3 1 26,6 1 1 304 1? 7 12 309 2 4,6; 5,1 13 314 14 319 1 12,7 15 324 1 21,8 1 4,1 1 5,8 1 3,5 16 329 1 0,4 17 334 3 18 339 19 353 19 99 3 2 34,5 3 46,5 3 16,1 1 6,3 I 4,4 1 33,6 3 9,7 * Cores with crossed blank removals. ** Med posebnimi jedri so: 1 jedro na odbitku, 1 povsem izrabljeno jedro in 1 fragment jedra. / Various cores include: 1 flake core, 1 totally exploited core and 1 core fragment. Podobno kot v Viktorjevi sondi je bilo tudi v strati-grafsko izkopanem sektorju kar nekaj krakeliranih kosov. Med odpadki, večjimi od 3 mm, je bilo vsaj 23 krakeliranih ali 2 %. Med izdelki je bilo 5 krakeliranih ali 5,6 %. Pri tem je zanimivo, da tako v sondi kot v stratigrafsko izkopanem sektorju ni bilo večjih ostankov ognjišč. Po drugi strani pa je bilo veliko zažganih in tudi kalciniranih kostnih odlomkov ter nekaj razpršenih drobcev oglja. Krakelirane kose povezujem z namensko termično pripravo surovine in nastavkov za nadaljno obdelavo. Večino kamenih najdb predstavlja odpadek, kar je običajno za obdelavo kamna (razpredelnica 6.3.5). Med tehnološko zanimivejšimi odpadki so jedra (t. 5: 69/10-73/15; razpredelnica 6.3.6). Podobno kot v sondi tudi v profilu prevladujejo majhna. Eno piramidalno jedro je prav miniaturno (t. 5: 77/16). Novost je po eno prizmatično (t. 5. 70/10; 72/15), navzkrižno (t. 1. 9/5) in kroglasto jedro (t. 5: 69/10). Najdeno je bilo še eno jedro na odbitku (t. 5; 71/12). Enopolarno (t. 5; 15) in piramidalno jedro poznamo že iz Viktorjeve sonde. Med posebnimi jedri je eno na odbitku, eno povsem izrabljeno jedro in en fragment enopolarnega(?) jedra. Z jeder so bili nazadnje odbiti večinoma odbitki in le v dveh primerih kline. Med odpadki, večjimi od 3 mm, močno prevladujejo odbitki, ki jim sledijo razbitine (razpredelnica 6.3.7). Razbitine sem razdelil na tiste s korteksom in tiste the most part flakes were knapped from cores and only in two cases blades. Among debris larger than 3 mm, flakes greatly predominate, followed by shatter fragments (Table 6.3.7). I divided shatter fragments into those with cortex and those without. As with Viktor’s test trench, there were almost twice as many shatter fragments without cortex as those with cortex. The size of pebbles used could be visually assessed on the basis of their shatter fragments, which I give individually here (Table 6.3.5), and of shatter fragments with cortex and flakes with cortex. Most pebbles, as in Viktor’s test trench, were of the size of walnuts to hazelnuts. I divided flakes into ordinary, i.e., without cortex, and flakes with cortex. I found that the ratio between ordinary flakes (without cortex) and flakes with cortex changed in comparison with Viktor’s test trench. The number of ordinary flakes this time almost doubled, which is an unexpected result that could be ascribed to the great spatial variability of the finds. Unretouched blades and bladelets are for the most part Iragmented (Table 6.3.8). Proximal parts, which are exceptionally concave, greatly predominate among the fragments. This is in complete agreement with the picture in Viktor’s test trench. It is therefore difficult to doubt the deliberate fracturing of blades and bladelets and ascribe the fragments to the operation of natural forces. Razpredelnica 6.3.7: Viktorjev spodmol, profil: specifikacija odpada > 3 mm. Table 6.3.7: Viktorjev spodmol, profile: specification of debris > 3 mm. Izkop Spit Globina Depth (cm) Plast Layer Razbitine Shatter fragments Odbitki navadni Non-cortical Hakes Kosov brez korteksa Count non-cortical Kosov s korteksom Count cortical Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g min Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/ptoe . H max g niin 1 254 nasutje 3 1 1.8 0,45 0,8 0,3 0 0 0 0 0 2 259 nasutje 6 3 2,2 0,24 1,3 0,2 5 2,5 0,50 1,5 <0,1 3 264 1 in 2 12 2 4 0,29 1,8 <0,2 12 6,4 0,53 5,1 <0,1 4 269 1 in 2 10 7 15,8 0,93 2,0 0,1 8 2,5 0,31 1.4 <0,1 5 274 1 in 2 3 2 4,2 0,84 2,0 0,2 17 4,2 0,25 0,9 <0,1 6 279 2 9 3 9,1 0,76 7,1 <0,1 11 4,6 0,42 1,9 <0,1 7 284 2 13 6 6 0,32 2,0 <0,1 31 8,0 0,26 1,5 <0,1 8 289 2 14 7 30,6 1,46 7,7 <0,1 48 7,4 0,15 0,8 <0,1 9 294 2 9 4 17,8 1,37 10,3 <0,1 32 4,2 0,13 2,4 <0,1 10 299 2 24 10 28,8 0,85 4,2 <0,1 64 9,8 0,15 3,2 <0,1 11 304 2 16 6 15 0,68 7,8 <0,1 47 7,0 0,15 1,0 <0,1 12 309 2 16 2 7,8 0,43 5,9 <0,1 74 18 0,24 2,9 <0,1 13 314 2 18 1 11,2 0,59 3,3 <0,1 94 32,9 0,35 4,0 <0,1 14 319 2 12 0 10,5 0,88 5,5 <0,1 71 12,3 0,17 1,8 <0,1 15 324 3 12 0 4,9 0,41 1,6 <0,1 66 15,1 0,23 3,1 <0,1 16 329 3 17 1 4,6 0,26 2,0 <0,1 39 13,8 0,35 4,0 <0,1 17 334 3 4 0 0,2 0,05 0,7 <0,1 12 1,0 0,08 0,6 <0,1 18 339 3 5 0 0,3 0,06 0,1 <0,1 11 2,1 0,19 1,5 <0,1 19 353 3 3 0 0,4 0,13 0,2 0,1 4 0,4 0,10 0,1 <0,1 19 99 3 206 55 175,2 0,67 10,3 <0,1 646 152,2 0,24 5,1 <0,1 nadaljevanje / continuation Odbitki s korteksom Cortical (lakes Odbitki laminarni Laminar (lakes Kline nerctuSirane I Inretouched blades Klinicc neretuširane Unretouched hladclcts SKUPAJ TOTAL Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piece g max g min Kosov Count Teža(g) Weight (g) g/kos g/piecc g max g min Kosov Count Teža (g) g/kos Weight (g) g/piecc g max g min Kosov Count Teža (g) Weight (g) Kosov Count 0 0 0 0 0 4 1,2 0,30 0,7 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0,00 <0.1 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 6 5,5 0,92 2,1 0,3 2 0.1 0,05 <0.1 <0,1 1 0.4 0,40 0,4 0,4 0 0 35 4 1 0,25 1,9 <0,1 1 0.4 0,40 0.4 0,4 1 0,4 0,40 0.4 0,4 1 0 32 4 4,1 1,03 1,5 0,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 10 20,4 2,04 7,5 <0.1 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 4 1,2 0,30 0,7 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0,8 0,40 0,6 0,2 3 0,1 59 9 17,9 1,99 6,6 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0,2 0,10 0,1 0,1 0 0 80 10 6,1 0,61 3,2 <0,1 5 1,2 0,24 0,6 0,1 II 7,4 0,67 2,6 0,1 2 0 73 17 18,8 1.11 6,5 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,1 1.10 1,1 l.l 1 0 117 5 7.1 1,42 3,6 0,1 1 0,4 0,40 0,4 0,4 5 1,8 0,36 0,8 0,1 0 0 80 19 22,2 1,17 2,9 <0,1 5 4,7 0,94 1.6 0,8 2 0,8 0,40 0,7 0,2 2 0,1 120 24 37,1 1,55 8,5 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,2 0,20 0,2 0,2 3 0,1 141 23 27,3 1.19 6,5 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1,2 0,60 0,9 0,9 1 0 109 12 7,4 0,62 2,4 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1,9 0,38 0,6 0,2 3 0.1 98 12 5 0,42 0,3 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0,9 0,23 0,4 0,1 6 0,2 79 2 0,8 0,40 0,1 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0,6 0,20 0,3 0,1 3 0,1 24 2 0,1 0,05 0,1 <0,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 163 182 1.12 8,5 <0.1 20 8 0,40 1,6 <0.1 4(1 17.7 0,44 2.6 0,1 25 0,7 1155 brez njega. Razbitin brez korteksa je tako kot v Viktorje- vi sondi približno enkrat več. Velikost uporabljenih prodnikov lahko vizualno ocenim na podlagi njihovih razbitin, ki sem jih tokrat navedel posebej (razpredelnica 6.3.5), ter razbitin s korteksom in odbitkov s korteksom. Največ prodnikov je bilo tako kot v Viktorjevi sondi v velikosti oreha do lešnika. Odbitke sem razdelil na navadne, tj. brez korteksa, in na odbitke s korteksom. Ugotovil sem, da seje spremenilo razmerje med navadnimi odbitki (brez korteksa) in odbitki s korteksom v primerjavi z Viktorjevo son- One medial fragment of unretouched blade has the shape of a trapeze (Plate 6: 87/4). Chips smaller than 3 mm make up the great majority of debris (Table 6.3.5). Their distribution in the spits is interesting. In the first and last two spits, their number quickly falls, which suggests that the deposit of these finds, which are connected with the activity of working stone, was somewhere in between. In fact, the majority of finds are on the boundary of layers 2 and 3, where 1 envisaged the Mesolithic horizon to be, on the basis of microliths and sea molluscs. Razpredelnica 6.3.8: Viktorjev spodmol, profil, specifikacija neretuširanih klin in klinic. Table 6.3.8: Viktorjev spodmol, profile, specification of unretouched blades and bladelets. Neretuširane klino (kosov) Unretouched blades (count) Neretuširane klinice (kosov) Unretouched bladelets (count) Cela Skoraj cela’" Ita/.a Sredina Konec SKUPAJ Cela Skoraj cela* Baza Sredina Konec SKUPAJ Complete Almost complete* Basal Medial Terminal TOTAL Complete Almost complete* Basal Medial Terminal TOTAL 1 2 27 7 3 4» 6 2 ||4 2 25 * V tej skupini so primerki, ki imajo odlomljen samo konec. / This category includes only terminally broken blades and bladlets. do. Število navadnih odbitkov seje tokrat skoraj podvojilo, kar je nepričakovan rezultat, ki ga lahko pripišem veliki prostorski variabilnosti najdb. Neretuširane kline in klinice so večinoma fragmen-tirane (razpredelnica 6.3.8). Med fragmenti močno prevladujejo bazalni deli, ki so izjemoma konkavno oblikovani. To se popolnoma ujema s sliko v Viktorjevi sondi. Zato bi težko podvomil o namenskem lomljenju klin in klinic ter fragmente pripisal delovanju naravnih sil. En medialni fragment neretuširane kline ima obliko trapeza (t. 6: 87/4). Veliko večino odpada predstavljajo luske in odkruški, manjši od 3 mm (razpredelnica 6.3.5). Zanimiva je njihova porazdelitev v režnjih. V prvih in zadnjih dveh režnjih se njihovo število hitro zmanjša, kar kaže na to, daje bilo ležišče teh najdb, ki so povezane z dejavnostjo obdelave kremena, nekje vmes. Dejansko je največ najdb na meji plasti 2 in 3, kjer sem na podlagi mikrolitov in morskih polžev predvidel mezolitski horizont. Kamenim najdbam seje v stratigrafsko izkopanem sektorju pridružilo še nekaj drugih, redkih najdb, ki jih ni bilo v Viktorjevi sondi. Predvsem sta to dve preluknjani in dve fragmentirani hišici morskega polža Colum-bella rustica in po ena hišica morskega polža Nassarius cuvieri ter Fossarus sp. (razpredelnica 6.3.1). Potem je to odbitek (reženj 3), ki ima na ventralfii strani več nepravilnih vrezov. Enkratna najdba je obroček (reženj 2), ki v premeru meri samo nekaj več kot 1 mm. Reženj 5 je vseboval odlomek brusa iz peščenjaka, reženj 9 fragment koščene igle, reženj 11 in 15 pa po en odlomek uporabljenega parožka (t. 7: 114/15). Glavni izsledki stratigrafskega izkopavanja so poleg osnovnega cilja - stratigrafije - naslednji: Kljub relativno majhnemu volumnu odkopanih sedimentov (približno 0,35 m') je bilo najdenih 89 izdelkov in 10.158 odpadkov. V primerjavi s sondo je vseh najdb več kot trikrat toliko, ker je bil ves sediment večkrat in natančneje pregledan. Kamene najdbe ponujajo dober vpogled v najdišče kot celoto. Tipološka opredelitev najdb v mezolitik ni sporna. Znani so tudi tehnološki vidiki obdelave kamna od surovinske baze, preko priprave in izkoristka jeder do nastavkov in končnih izdelkov. Izbor izdelkov in tehnik se bi z večjimi izkopavanji sicer nekoliko povečal (odvisno od natančnosti dela), povečala bi se tudi zanesljivost stratigrafskih in drugih skupkov, vendar se ne bi bistveno spremenila splošna slika vseh najdb. Stone finds are associated in the stratigraphically excavated sector with some other occasional finds which were not in Viktor’s test trench. Above all these are two perforated and two fragmented shells of the dove shell Columbella rustica and one shell each of the seashells Nassarius cuvieri and Fossarus sp. (Table 6.3.1). Then there is a flake (spit 3) with a number of irregular cuts on the ventral side. A unique find is a small band (spit 2) measuring only slightly more than 1 mm in diameter. Spit 5 contained a fragment of whetstone from sandstone, spit 9 a fragment of a bone needle, spits 11 and 15 each a fragment of used tine (prong of an antler) (Plate 7: 114/15). The main results of the Stratigraphie excavation, in addition to the basic aim - stratigraphy - are the following: Despite the relatively small volume of the excavated sediments (approx. 0.35 nr1), 89 products and 10,158 pieces of debris were found. In comparison with the test trench, there are more than three times as many of all finds, because the whole sediment was very carefully examined several times. The stone finds provide a good insight into the site as a whole. The typological classification of the finds into the Mesolithic is not in doubt. The technological aspects of working stone from the raw material base, through preparation and exploitation of cores to blanks and final products, are also known. The selection of products and techniques would be somewhat increased with a larger excavation (depending on the precision of the work), and the reliability of the stratigraphy and other groupings would also be increased, but the general picture of all the finds would not essentially change. 6.4 Comparison of the Results of Individual Phases of the Excavations (Tables 6.4.1 -6.4.3) Comparison of the individual phases of the excavations, connected with various fieldwork methods, is very instructive since it has a great analogy to archaeological practice in general. Viktor's classical excavations (Viktor phase) gave relatively few stone finds, which were all larger than 3 mm. The weight of finds ranged between 139 g and 0.1 g, and on average they were 7.95 g. 6.4 Primerjava rezultatov posameznih FAZ IZKOPAVANJ (razpredelnice 6.4.1-6.4.3) Primerjava posameznih faz izkopavanj, povezanih z različnimi terenskimi metodami, je zelo poučna, saj ima veliko analogij v splošni arheološki praksi. Viktorjeva klasična izkopavanja (faza Viktor) so dala relativno malo kamenih najdb, ki so bile vse večje od 3 mm. Teža najdb seje gibala med 139 g in 0,1 g, povprečno pa so bile težke 7,95 g. Med njimi razen praskal in odbitkov s prečno retu-šo ni bilo posebnih tipov. Številna jedra so bila tipološko zelo raznolika. Njihova teža seje gibala med 19,3 g in 3,1 g, povprečno pa so bila težka 6,71 g. Med odpadki (kosi brez vidnih sledov uporabe) so prevladovali neretuširani odbitki, tem so sledile razbitine, na zadnjem mestu pa so bile neretuširane kline. O kakšni mikrolitizaciji proizvodov ni bilo ne duha ne sluha. Pregled dela izkopanih sedimentov na Inštitutu za arheologijo (faza Viktor in IzA) je radikalno spremenil sliko najdb, dobljeno na podlagi Viktorjevega sondiranja. Število kamenih najdb se je povečalo od 173 na 2.484 (razpredelnica 6.4.1), temeljito sta se spremenila tudi kakovost in sestav zbirke (razpredelnica 6.4.2). Teža novih najdb se je gibala med 13,1 g in manj kot 0,1 g, povprečno pa so bile težke samo 0,34 g, kar pomeni, da seje zelo povečalo število mikrolitov in drugih majhnih najdb. Med njimi so se, poleg že znanih izdelkov, pojavili številni novi tipi, vključno z mikroliti (izdelki, lažji od 0,1 g). Pri jedrih ni bilo novosti. Njihova teža se je gibala med 27,6 g in 0,3 g, povprečno pa so bila težka 6,01 g. Med odpadki, večjim od 5 mm, so prevladovali neretuširani odbitki. Približno enako so bile zastopane razbitine in neretuširane kline. Mikrolitizacijo proizvodnje so kazale številne neretuširane klinice in mikroliti, ki jih je Viktor spregledal. Pomemben delež so imele mikro luske in odkruški, ki so nastali pri retuširanju. Tudi te je Viktor spregledal. Stratigrafsko mini izkopavanje članov Inštituta za arheologijo (faza IzA) je še bolj povečalo število najdb, zlasti najmanjših, pridobljenih na podlagi Viktorjevega sondiranja in pregledovanja sedimentov iz sonde (razpredelnica 6.4.1). Kljub petkrat manjšemu volumnu izkopanih sedimentov v primerjavi z volumnom Viktorjeve sonde je število najdb naraslo od 2.484 na 10.227, predvsem zaradi zelo natančnega, trikratnega pregleda sedimentov. Takšen način delaje omogočil oceno napake v metodi, ki sicer velja za zelo zanesljivo, čeprav to vedno ne drži. Kakovostna podoba zbirke seje zopet bistveno spremenila (razpredelnica 6.4.2), vendar to ni spremenilo There were no special types among them, except endscrapers and truncated flakes. The numerous cores were typologically very varied. Their weight ranged between 19.3 g and 3.1 g, with an average of 6.71 g. Among the debris (pieces without visible traces of use) unretouched flakes predominated, followed by shatter fragments, and in last place, unretouched blades. There was no trace at all of any microlithisation of products. The review of part of the excavated sediments at the Institute of Archaeology (Viktor and IzA phase) radically changed the picture of the finds obtained on the basis of Viktor’s exploratory excavation. The number of stone finds increased from 173 to 2484 (Table 6.4.1), and the quality and composition of the collection also fundamentally changed (Table 6.4.2). The weight of the new finds ranged between 13.1 g and less than 0.1 g, and the average was only 0.34 g, which means that the number of microliths and other small finds greatly increased. Among them, in addition to already known products, appeared a number of new types, including microliths (products lighter than 0.1 g). There were no novelties among cores. Their weight ranged between 27.6 g in 0.3 g, with an average of 6.01 g. Among debris larger than 5 mm, unretouched flakes predominated. Shatter fragments and unretouched blades were almost equally represented. Microlithisation of production was indicated by numerous unretouched bladelets and microliths that Viktor overlooked. Micro chips created during retouching also formed an important share. Viktor overlooked these, too. The Stratigraphie mini-excavation by members of the Institute of Archaeology (IzA phase) increased the number of finds even more, especially the smallest, obtained on the basis of Viktor’s exploratory excavation and re-examination of the sediments from the test trench (Table 6.4.1). Despite the volume of excavated sediments being five times smaller, in comparison with the volume from Viktor’s test trench, the number of finds rose from 2484 to 10,227, mainly because of the very precise, triple examination of the sediments. Such a method of working enabled an assessment of error in the method, which is considered very reliable, although this is not always the case. The quality image of the collection again essentially changed (Table 6.4.2), although this did not alter the typological interpretation that the review of the sediments from Viktor’s test trench had already enabled. The weight of the new finds ranged between 73.6 g and less than 0.1 g, on average only 0.11 g. The weight of the new cores (without their shatter fragments) ranged between 38.2 g and 0.4 g, with an average weight of 10.67 g. tipološke razlage, ki jo je omogočil že pregled sedimentov iz Viktorjeve sonde. Teža novih najdb se je gibala med 73,6 g in manj kot 0,1 g, povprečno pa so bile težke samo 0,11 g. Teža novih jeder (brez njihovih razbitin) seje gibala med 38,2 g in 0,4 g, povprečno so bila težka 10,67 g. Med odpadki, večjimi od 3 mm, so še vedno prevladovali neretuširani odbitki, sledile so razbitine, zelo malo pa je bilo neretuširanih klin (razpredelnica 6.4.3). Mikrolitska komponenta je bila še vedno močna, čeprav seje zmanjšalo število neretuširanih klinic v primerjavi z drugimi najdbami. Izredno seje povečalo število mikro lusk in odkruškov (od 1.097 na 8.958 ali za 716 %), kar gre pripisati večkratnemu in zato natančnejšemu pregledu spranih usedlin. Če povzamem izsledke vseh faz sondiranj Viktorjevega spodmola, ugotovim, kar zadeva arheološke najdbe, dva gradienta. Prvega predstavlja skokovito naraščanje števila najdb, zlasti drobnih, kot posledica bolj natančnega dela. Drugega predstavlja skokovito zmanjševanje velikosti najdb, prehod iz makroskopske dimenzije v mikroskopsko, kar je razvidno iz povprečne teže najdb. Najdbe Viktorjeve faze so povprečno težke 7,95 g, najd- Razpredelnica 6.4.1: Viktorjev spodmol: vsi kameni proizvodi. Table 6.4.1: Viktorjev spodmol: all stone products. Faze izkopavanj Excavation phases Izdelki Tools Odpadek (ves) Debris (total) Odpadek (< 3 oz. 5 min) Debris (< 3 or 5 mm) SKUPAJ TOTAL Viktor 9 164 0 173 Viktor IzA 98 2386 1(197 2484 1/A 69 10 158 8958 10 227 SKUPAJ TOTAL 176 12 708 10055 12 884 Razpredelnica 6.4.2: Viktorjev spodmol: specifikacija izdelkov. Table 6.4.2: Viktorjev spodmol: specification of products. Among debris larger than 3 mm, unretouched flakes still predominated, followed by shatter fragments, and there were very few unretouched blades (Table 6.4.3). The microlithic component was still strong, although the number of unretouched bladelets fell in comparison with other finds. The number of micro chips increased enormously (from 1097 to 8958, or by 716%), which can be ascribed to the multiple and thus more precise examination of the washed sediments. If I summarise the results of all phases of the exploratory excavations of Viktorjev spodmol, I find, as far as the archaeological finds are concerned, two gradients. The first represents the enormous increase in the number of finds, especially small ones, as a result of the more careful work. The other represents the enormous decrease in the size of finds, the transition from macroscopic dimensions to the microscopic, which is clear from the average weight of the finds. The finds from Viktor phase have an average weight of 7.95 g, the finds from the next phase 0.34 g and the last phase 0.11 g. The largest jump (from 7.95 g to 0.34 g) is a result of the changed method of work, the smaller jump (from 0.34 g to 0.11 g) is connected with the error of the working method. This can still be very large. With the average weight of finds we can often assess how accurately the work has been carried out in the field and later in the laboratory. Comparison of the various phases of excavations, in which different techniques and methods were used, clearly shows that an interpretation of sites which is based on finds is very dependent on the method (and accuracy) of work in the field and later in the laboratory (see Payne 1972 b). The classical method of concurrent examination of sediments in the field without wet sieving (Viktor Faze izkopavanj Excavation phases Praskala na odbitku Endscrapers oil flake Odbitki s prečno retušo Truncated flakes Odbitki retuširani Retouched Hakes Kline retušuširane Retouched blades Kline s prečno retušo Truncated blades Kline z izjedo Notched blades Viktor 5 2 2 0 0 0 Viktor IzA 6 3 8 8 2 2 IzA 2 0 7 7 0 0 SKUPAJ TOTAL 13 5 17 15 2 2 nadaljevanje continuation Faze izkopavanj Excavation phases Kljun Bee Klinice retuširanc Retouched hladelets Mikro konice Micro points Trikotniki Triangles Trapezi T rapezes Mikroliti fragmenti Microliths fragments SKUPAJ TOTAL Viktor 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Viktor IzA 1 30 12 22 1 3 98 IzA 0 22 5 15 3 8 69 SKUPAJ TOTAL 1 52 17 37 4 11 176 Razpredelnica 6.4.3: Viktorjev spodmol: specifikacija odpadka. Table 6.4.3: Viktorjev spodmol: specification of debris. Faze izkopavanj Excavation phases Jedra Cores Razbitine brez korteksa Shatter fragmnets noil-cortical Razbitine s korteksom Shatter fragments cortical Odbitki navadni Flakes noil-cortical Odbitki .s korteksom Flakes cortical Odbitki laminarni Makes laminar Viktor 17 7 32 31 61 5 Viktor IzA 13 100 57 638 276 4 I/.A 14 206 86 646 163 20 SKUPAJ TOTAL 44 313 175 1315 500 29 nadaljevanje / continuation Faze izkopavanj Excavation phases Kline neretuširane Blades unretouched Klinice neretuširane Bladelets unretouched Mikro vbadala Microhurins Mikro luske Micro scars SKUPJ TOTAL Viktor 1 1 0 0 0 164 Viktor IzA 137 64 9 1088 2386 IzA 40 25 5 8953 10 158 SKUPAJ TOTAL 1X8 89 14 10 041 12 744 be naslednje faze 0,34 g in zadnje faze 0,11 g. Največji skok (od 7,95 g na 0,34 g) je posledica spremenjene metode dela, manjši skok (od 0,34 g na 0,11 g) pa je povezan z napako delovne metode. Taje lahko še vedno zelo velika. S povprečno težo najdb lahko velikokrat ocenimo, kako natančno je bilo delo izvedeno na terenu in pozneje v laboratoriju. Primerjava rezultatov različnih faz izkopavanja, v katerih so bile uporabljene različne tehnike in metode, jasno kaže, da je interpretacija najdišča, ki temelji na najdbah, zelo odvisna od načina (in natančnosti) dela na terenu in pozneje v laboratoriju (prim. Payne 1972 b). Klasična metoda sprotnega pregledovanja usedlin na terenu brez spiranja (faza Viktor) je dala najslabši rezultat. Spregledane so bile vse najdbe, ki so ključne za solidno ‘kulturološko’ opredelitev najdišča. Spiranje in rutinsko pregledovanje že odkopanih usedlin (faza Viktor in IzA) je dalo vsestransko boljši rezultat, s tem da so bile zbrane vse najdbe, ki so ključne za interpretacijo najdišča. Še boljši rezultat je dalo mini stratigrafsko izkopavanje, spiranje in večkratno pregledovanje spranih usedlin (faza IzA), ki je na majhnem prostoru omogočilo enako interpretacijo najdišča kot izkopavanja na petkrat večjem prostoru z manjšo natančnostjo. Če se natančnost izkopavanja (beri zbiranja najdb) še bolj zmanjša, je treba raziskati izredno velik prostor, da dobimo rezultat enakovreden raziskavi v fazi IzA. Kaj hitro se lahko zgodi, da ni zadosti celotno najdišče in da je pri reševanju arheoloških vprašanj treba raziskati še podobna najdišča. V ne tako daljni preteklosti je bil takšen način dela pri nas pravilo, po katerem sem se tudi sam slepo ravnal. Danes mi je jasno, da takšno ravnanje ne pelje nikamor. phase) gave the worst results. All the finds which are crucial for a solid “culturological” definition of the site were overlooked. Wet sieving and routine re-examination of already excavated sediments (Victor and IzA phase) gave allround better results in that all finds crucial for the interpretation of the site were collected. The mini Stratigraphie excavation, wet sieving and multiple examination of the washed sediments (IzA phase) gave even better results, enabling in a small space the same interpretation as excavations on a space five times bigger with lesser accuracy. «■ If the accuracy of the excavation (read retrieving of finds) is even more reduced, it is necessary to investigate an extremely large space in order to obtain the result of equal value to investigations in the IzA phase. What can quickly happen is that the entire site does not suffice and in solving archaeological questions it is necessary additionally to excavate similar sites. In the not so distant past, such a method of work was the rule here, according to which I myself also blindly behaved. Today it is clear to me that such behaviour leads nowhere. 7. Razlaga orodnih TIPOV IN ARMATUR TER POSTOPKOV PRI IZDELAVI ORODIJ IN ARMATUR, NAJDENIH V Viktorjevem spodmolu Ivan Turk & Vprašanje, ki se pogosto zastavlja v zvezi s kamenim orodjem, je, kje je bilo izdelano. Od tega naj bi bila med drugim odvisna razlaga vrste najdišča, ki je lahko bilo ali stalno bivališče (bazno taborišče) ali občasno zatočišče (bivak). O tem, da so v Viktorjevem spodmolu izdelovali orodja, ni dvoma. To dokazujejo tako najdbe jeder in večjih odpadkov, ki so neposredno povezani z njimi, kot zelo številne drobne luske in odkruški, ki so nastali pri oblikovanju izdelkov. Razen tega so med najdbami zastopani tudi številni polizdelki in nastavki, ki niso bili uporabljeni v nadaljnjem postopku izdelave orodij. Odločilnega pomena za odgovor na zastavljeno vprašanje so nedvomno odpadki vseh velikosti, ki smo jim doslej posvečali premalo pozornosti. Odpadki so namreč zanesljivo ostali na kraju, kjer so se opravljale določene dejavnosti, medtem ko so bili izdelki lahko odneseni in uporabljeni drugje. Tehnologija: Pri obdelavi surovine so bili uporabljeni trije posebni postopki, ki se pri nas pred mezolitikom niso prijeli, čeprav so bili domnevno znani že v poznem paleolitiku, kot npr. segmentiranje nastavkov in toplotna obdelava surovine za izdelovanje kamenih orodij v Ciganski jami (glej inv. št. 842: medialni segment kline, 945: krakelirana gravetka, 980: krakeliran bazalni segment kline). • Prva posebnost je toplotna obdelava surovine v ognju. Dokaz zanjo so številni krakelirani kosi, od jeder preko polizdelkov in nastavkov do orodij. Pomembno je, da je v redkih primerih krakeliran tudi korteks, kar vsekakor potrjujeje tezo o toplotni obdelavi surovine prodnika z namenom, da se izbolj- 7. Interpretation of Types of Tool and Armature and Technology of Production of Tools and Armatures Found in Viktorjev Spodmol Matija Turk A question that is often raised in connection with stone tools is where it was made. On this would depend, among other things, the interpretation of the type of site, which could be either a permanent residence (base camp) or occasional shelter (bivouac). There is no doubt that tools were made in Viktorjev spodmol. This is proved both by the finds of cores and major debris directly connected with them, and the number of tiny chips which are created in shaping products. In addition, among the finds are represented numerous semi-products and blanks which were not used in the further process of making tools. Debris of all sizes is undoubtedly of decisive importance for the answer to the question raised, to which we have to date devoted too little attention. Debris, namely, certainly stayed in the place where specific activities took place, while products could be carried off and used elsewhere. Technology: In the working of raw materials, three individual procedures were used that before the Mesolithic were not grasped here, although they were presumably already known in the late Palaeolithic, such as segmenting blanks and thermal treatment of raw materials for making stone tools in Ciganska jama (see inv. no. 842: medial segment of a blade, 945: thermally cracked backed bladelet, 980: thermally cracked proximal segment of a blade). • The first particularity is the thermal treatment of raw materials in fire. Evidence of this is provided by numerous thermally cracked pieces, from cores through semi-products and blanks to tools. It is important that cortex is also cracked on a few thermally cracked pieces, which certainly confirms the thesis of the thermal treatment of raw pebbles for the šajo njene fizikalne lastnosti za potrebe mehanske obdelave. • Druga posebnost je obdelava surovine s pritiskanjem namesto z običajnim udarjanjem ali s pomočjo koščenega vmesnika. Dokaz zanjo so zelo tenki odbitki in kline, včasih ne dosti debelejši kot papir. Talon v obliki zelo sploščene krivulje normalne porazdelitve in kontrabulbus (contre-bulbe) kažeta na to, da so bile kline narejene ena za drugo, ne da bi se izdelovalec premaknil levo ali desno na udarni ploskvi jedra. • Tretja posebnost je segmentiranje (lomljenje) klin(ic). Dokaz zanjo so številni fragmenti klin(ic) (t. 6: 84/8, 85/12, 87/4, 86/16). Nekatere kline imajo na talonu izjedo (t. 6: 85/12, 86/ 1), druge izjedo lateralno tik nad talonom (t. 6: 84/8). Čemu so te izjede služile, nama ni znano. Vsekakor gre za posebnost, ki bi jo morda lahko povezala z izdelovanjem trapezov. Pri trapezih je krajša prečna retuša večkrat usločena (t. 5: 79/12). Usločeno prečno retušo na klini zasledimo že v poznem paleolitiku (glej Ciganska jama, inv. št. 955). Kline z izjedo na talonu se v Italiji (najdišče Romagnano III) povezujejo s kastelnovjenom (Broglio 1971, sl. 18, 1-2; Broglio 1984, sl. na str. 286: 44-45). Kline z obema načinoma umeščanja izjede so znane tudi v Franciji, med drugim v najdiščih s kastelnovjenom (Rozoy I978b, 290, t. 204: 16, 230: 6). Med odbitki je posebej zanimiv en odbitek tipa Kombewa (odbitek, narejen na odbitku, tako da ostane predhodni bulbus). Tovrstni odbitki nama z naših paleolitskih in mezolitskih najdiščih niso znani. Surovina (sl. 7.1): Prebivalci Viktorjevega spodmola so se oskrbovali s surovino za izdelavo kamenih orodij v bližnji okolici. Surovinska osnova so bili predvsem manjši roženčevi in tufski prodniki, velikosti oreha, iz nanosa reke Reke, saj so večji prodniki v produ in izdankih delno kremenovih konglomeratov v povirju Reke redki. Samo izjemoma so bila uporabljena tudi stara (morda paleolitska) jedra (t. 1: 6). Najbližja ležišča takšnih prodnikov so v Vremski dolini. Prvotno izvorno področje kremenovih in drugih prodnikov so eocenski konglomerati v zgornjem toku reke Reke in njenih pritokov (sl. 7.1). Na izdanke teh konglomeratov naju je prvi opozoril A. Mihevc z Inštituta za raziskovanje krasa v Postojni. Ti prodniki so se odložili skupaj s flišem. V flišni bazen so bili transportirani iz predgorja Julijcev in izvirajo iz kamnin, ki so nastale v triasu in juri (ustni podatek S. Buserja). K. Drobne naju je opozorila, da so lahko podobni prodniki tudi v flišnih konglomeratih v spodnjem toku Reke na pobočju Vremšice in v vznožju Brkinov. Vsekakor ni dvoma, da gre predvsem za surovino lokalnega izvora. Prisotnost večjega števila vodnih polžev purpose of improving their physical properties for the needs of mechanical processing. • The second particularity is the working of raw materials with pressure instead with the normal striking with a hammer or with the aid of a bone intermediary. Evidence of this is the very thin flakes and blades, sometimes not much thicker than paper. A butt in the shape of a very flattened curve of normal distribution and a contre-bulbe indicate that the blades were made one after another, without the maker moving left or right on the striking platform of the core. • The third particularity is the segmented (fragmented) blade(let). Evidence of this is provided by the numerous fragments of blade(let)s (Plate 6: 84/8, 85/12, 87/4, 86/16). Some blades have a notch on the butt (Plate 6: 85/12, 86/ 1), others a notch laterally immediately above the butt (Plate 6: 84/8). We do not know for what these notches served. It is certainly a particularity which may perhaps be linked with the making of trapezes. With a trapeze, the shorter truncation is often convex (Plate 5: 79/12). A convex truncation on a blade can already be traced in the late Palaeolithic (see Ciganska jama, inv. no. 955). Blades with notches on the butt in Italy (Romagnano III site) are connected with the Castelnovian (Broglio 1971, Fig. 18, 1-2: Broglio 1984, fig. on p. 286: 44-45). Blades with both methods of inserting a notch are also known in France, among others from a site with Castelnovian finds (Rozoy 1978b, 290, Plate 204: 16, 230: 6). Among flakes, of particular interest is one flake of the Kombewa type (flake made on a flake so that the previous bulb of percussion remains). Such flakes are not known in our Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites. Raw material (Fig. 7.1): The inhabitants of Viktorjev spodmol supplied themselves with raw materials for making stone tools in the near vicinity. The raw material bases were mainly small chert and tuff pebbles, the size of walnuts, from the alluvium of the river Reka, since larger pebbles in the gravel and outcrops of partially calcified conglomerates at the Reka source are rare. Only exceptionally were old (perhaps Palaeolithic) cores also used (Plate 1: 6). The nearest beds of such pebbles are in the Vreme valley. The original source of chert and other pebbles are Eocene conglomerates in the upper course of the river Reka and its tributaries (Fig. 7.1). A. Mihevc, from the Institute of Karst Studies in Postojna, first drew attention to the deposits of these conglomerates. These pebbles were deposited together with flysche. They were transported to the flysche basin from the foothills of the Julian Alps and originate from rocks of the Triassic and Jurassic age (oral data from S. Buser). K. Drobne drew attention that there could be similar pebbles in flysche SI. 7.1: Eocenski konglomerat s kremenovimi prodniki. Ilirska Bistrica. Foto I. Turk. Fig. 7.1: Eocene conglomerate with chert pebbles. Ilirska Bistrica. Photo I. Turk. v mezolitskih režnjih (glej Slapnik, ta zbornik), lahko razloživa z nabiranjem prodnikov v rekah in potokih. Polži, ki so v vodi prilepljeni na prodnike, bi na ta način lahko prišli nepoškodovani v najdišče, v katerem v holo-cenu zanesljivo ni bilo tekoče vode. Kamenih artefaktov mineraloško in geokemijsko nisva mogla analizirati. Zato ne podajava običajnega surovinskega sestava, kije podlaga za sklepanje o stikih, trgovanju ipd. Določanje različnih kremenov na oko, kot je v navadi v arheoloških krogih, se nama zdi preveč tvegano. Zato sva se mu raje odpovedala. Kot zanimivost naj omeniva 5 fragmentov kamene strele in en fragment nožička s hrbtom iz kamene strele, vse iz mezolitske plasti (sl. 6.2.1). Kamena strela, ki velja za ‘eksotično’ surovino, se prvič pojavi že v mlajšem paleolitiku. V mezolitiku je dokaj običajna. Njen izvor se pogosto išče v Alpah, kar bi v tem primeru pomenilo povezavo z alpskimi predeli in trgovanje z bolj oddaljenimi kraji. Vendar je treba poudariti, da so nahajališča kamene strele praktično po celi Sloveniji (Žorž, Rečnik 1998). Zato gre lahko tudi v tem primeru le za lokalno surovino. Najbližja dobro znana nahajališča kamene strele so v okolici Cerknice in Idrije, medtem ko na Krasu za zdaj niso poznana. conglomerates in the lower course of the Reka on the slopes of Vremšica and on the flanks of the Brkini. There is certainly no doubt that it is mainly raw material of local origin. The presence of large numbers of water snails in Mesolithic spits (see Slapnik, this volume) can be explained by the collection of pebbles in rivers and streams. The snails, which were attached to pebbles in the water, could thus have been brought undamaged to the site, in which there was certainly no running water in the Holocene. We have not been able to analyse the stone artefacts minerologically and geochemically. So the normal raw material composition, which is the basis for conclusions about contacts, trade etc. is not available. Identifying different cherts by eye, as is the custom in archaeological circles, seems to us too risky. We would therefore rather not reach conclusions. As a curiosity, let us mention 5 fragments of rock crystal and one fragment of a backed bladelet from the same rock, all from the Mesolithic layer (Fig. 6.2.1). Rock crystal, which is an ‘exotic’ raw material, first appears in the Late Palaeolithic. It is fairly common in the Mesolithic. Its origin is often sought in the Alps, which in this case would mean a link with Alpine areas and trade with more distant places. However, it must be stressed that rock crystal can be found practically throughout Slovenia (Žorž, Rečnik 1998). It, too, could therefore be of local origin. The nearest well-known sites for rock crystal are in the vicinity of Cerknica and Idrija, while they are not for the moment known on the Karst. Cores (Plates 1: 1-7, 8/5,9/5; 2: 10-12,5:69/10, 70/ 10, 71/12, 72/15, 73/15): The cores are almost all small because the pebbles used were also small. Very small potential cores are a peculiarity (Plates I: 7; 5: 77/16). There are few cores with visible blade or bladelet scars. This does not accord with the large number of blades and bladelets. However it could be interpreted as meaning that the majority of the cores belong to the last phase of use, when only flakes could still be obtained from them. Occasional remains of all phases of use of cores are present at the site. There are practically no whole pebbles. There are many shatter fragments of pebbles, which appeared unusable and were thus immediately rejected. Exceptionally, there were used old cores (Plate I: 6). There were no prenucleuses, but flakes with traces of the initial working of the pebbles were preserved (Plate 2: 11-12; Plate 5: 74/15). Eight fragments were also found which had been created in rejuvenating existing cores (Plate 2: 10). A large number of cortical flakes or flakes with cortex also exist. All this indicates a workshop for stone tools which was in the overhang cave and not elsewhere. Jedra (t.l: 1-7, 8/5,9/5; 2: 10-12, 5: 69/10, 70/10, 71/ 12, 72/15, 73/15): Jedra so skoraj vsa majhna, ker so bili majhni tudi uporabljeni prodniki. Posebnost so zelo majhna potencialna jedra (t. 1: 7; 5: 77/16). Jeder z vidnimi negativi klin in klinic je malo. To se ne sklada z velikim številom klin in klinic. Vendar se da razložiti s tem, da večina jeder pripada zadnji fazi izrabe, ko so bili od njih lahko odbiti samo še odbitki. V najdišču so prisotni redki ostanki vseh faz izrabe jeder. Celih prodnikov praktično ni. Veliko je razbitin prodnikov, ki so se izkazali za neuporabne in so bili kot taki takoj zavrženi. Izjemoma so bila uporabljena stara jedra (t. 1: 6). Predhodnih jeder (prenukleusov) ni, pač pa so se ohranili njihovi odbitki s sledovi začetne obdelave prodnikov (t. 2: 11 -12; t. 5: 74/15). Najdenih je bilo tudi vsaj 8 odbitkov, ki so nastali pri popravljanju obstoječih jeder (t. 2: 10). Obstaja tudi veliko robnih odbitkov oz. odbitkov s korteksom. Vse to kaže na delavnico kamenih orodij, ki je bila v spodmolu in ne drugje. Jedra so vseh mogočih oblik: enopolarna (t. 1: 6, 8/5; 3: 73/15), piramidalna (t. 1: 2; 5: 77/16), prizmatična (t. 1: 1; 5: 70/10, 72/15), navzkrižna (nucleus r enlevements croises) (t. 1: 5, 9/5), kroglasta (t. 3: 69/10), diskasta (t. 1: 3, 4, 7), na odbitku (t. 3: 71/12) in druga posebna jedra. Veliko je neizoblikovanih jeder, ki se ne dajo umestiti v nobeno poznano skupino. Med najpogostejšimi so piramidalna jedra. Neobičajna so jedra brez prave udarne ploskve, pri katerih to ploskev nadomešča rob izbočene površine jedra. Rob, namenjen odbijanju, imajo predvsem navzkrižna jedra in jedra na odbitku. Neretuširane kline in klinice: Neretuširane kline in klinice so predstavljale pomemben del nastavkov za izdelavo orodij. V nasprotju z odbitki je bila večina klin in klinic domnevno uporabljena v nadaljnjem postopku obdelave nastavkov. Zato in zaradi drugih razlogov je njihovo število v primerjavi z neretuširanimi odbitki majhno. Velika večina klin in klinic je fragmentiranih, domnevno namenoma. Segmentiranje (lomljenje) večjih kosov je bilo v mezolitiku splošno in pogosto (t. 6: 87/4). Izvajalo seje tudi in predvsem brez predhodne izjede (t. 5: 81/6, 82/10), kije omogočala bolj nadzorovano lomljenje s tako imenovano “mikrovbadalno" tehniko. Večina najdenih fragmentov pripada bazalnemu delu klin in klinic, kar lahko pomeni, da so bili sredinski (medialni) in končni (terminalni) deli uporabljeni za izdelavo orodij in lovskih pripomočkov. Bazalni in drugi deli klin in klinic so praviloma zelo tenki. Talon je gladek ali fasetiran in ima zaradi kontra-bulbusa pogosto obliko zelo sploščene krivulje normalne porazdelitve. The cores are all possible types: unidirectional (Plates 1: 6, 8/5; 3: 73/15), pyramidal (Plates I: 2; 5: 77/16), prismatic (Plates 1: 1; 5: 70/10, 72/15), cores with crossed blank removals (nucleus a enlevements croises) (Plate 1:5, 9/5), spherical (Plate 3: 69/10), discus shaped (Plate 1: 3, 4, 7), on flakes (Plate 3: 71/12) and other special cores. There are a lot of unformed cores which cannot be placed in any known group. Pyramidal cores are among the most frequent. There are unusual cores without a real striking platform, by which this platform is replaced by the edge of the convex surface of the core. Cores with crossed blank removals and cores on flakes mainly have edges intended for striking. Unretouched blades and bladelets: Unretouched blades and bladelets represented an important part of blanks for the making of tools. In contrast with flakes, the majority of blades and bladelets were presumably used in the further process of modifying blanks. For this and other reasons, there are few of them in comparison with unretouched flakes. The large majority of blades and bladelets are fragmented, presumably intentionally. Segmenting (fragmenting) larger pieces was general and common in the Mesolithic (Plate 6: 87/4). It was also mainly carried out without a previous notch (Plate 5: 81/6, 82/10), which enabled better control of the fracturing with the so-called “microburin” technique. The majority of fragments found belong to the proximal part of blades and bladelets, which means that the medial and distal parts were used for the manufacture of tools and hunting devices. Proximal and other parts of blades and bladelets are generally very thin. The butt is plane or faceted and because of the negative bulb of percussion (contre-bul-be) often has the shape of a very flattened curve of normal distribution. The style of blades and bladelets is important, but is very difficult to judge because of the great fragmentation. The general impression is that blades and bladclets were fairly irregular. Specimens with straight, parallel edges and ridges or ridge are rare. Seventy-five percent of blades and bladelets have two dorsal scars, 25% have three. It is significant that also among blades there are a considerable number with three dorsal scars. “Microburins” (Plates 2: 21; 5: 81/6, 82/10): Microburins, just like cores and unretouched flakes, represent debris in the process ol working the raw materials. In addition to ordinary shapes (Plates 2: 21; 5: 81/6, 82/10), of various sizes, small fragments diagnostic of the microburin technique were also found. There were no burins of the Krukowski type among them, Pomemben je stil klin in klinic, ka pa ga je zaradi velike fragmentarnosti težko oceniti. Splošen vtis je, da so bile kline in klinice precej nepravilne. Primerki z ravnima, vzporednima robovoma in grebenom oz. grebeni so redki. Klin in klinic z dvema dorzalnima ploskvama je 75 %, takšnih s tremi pa 25 %. Pomembno je, da je tudi med klinicami kar precej takšnih, ki imajo tri dor-zalne ploskve. “Mikro vbadala” (t. 2: 21; 5: 81/6, 82/10): Mikro vbadala predstavljajo tako kot jedra ter nere-tuširani odbitki in kline odpadek v procesu obdelave surovine. Poleg običajnih oblik (t. 2: 21; 5: 81/6, 82/10) različnih velikosti so bili najdeni tudi majhni odlomki, diagnostični za mikrovbadalno tehniko. Med njimi ni nobenega vbadala tipa Krukowski, morda z izjemo enega atipičnega (Rozoy 1978b, 66). Razumljivo je, daje mikro vbadal (odpadkov) več kot trapezov (izdelkov). Vbadala: Presenetljivo je dejstvo, da v Viktorjevem spodmolu ni vbadal, pa tudi vbadalni odbitki so prej izjema kot pravilo. Če izločiva t. i. mikro vbadala, so vbadala redkost tudi v bljižnjem najdišču Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, 25, t. 3-4). Isto velja za M. Triglavco, ne pa tudi za Breg (Frelih 1986, 27). Splošno gledano so vbadala v mezolitiku redka in malo pomembna (G.E.E.M. 1972, 33 ls). Izjede in zobci (t. 6: 83/6, 84/8, 85/12): Kline z izjedami in/ali zobci so prava redkost. Posebej morava omeniti en primerek klinice tipa Montba-ni (t. 6: 83/6). V dveh primerih je izjeda na odbitku. V enem primeru so na odbitku zobci. Pogostna posebnost je izjeda na talonu ali tik ob talonu kline (t. 6: 84/8, 85/ 12). Misliva, da slednje ne smemo zamenjati z izrobo. Kljun (t. 2: 23): Kljun je en sam, narejen na odbitku s kombiniranjem prečne retuše in izjede (t. 2: 23). Praskala (t. 2: 13-17; 5: 75/10, 76/13, 77/16): Praskala so najbolj variabilna skupina orodij, ki lahko šteje več sto oblik. Značilno za naša praskala je, da so narejena na odbitkih in da imajo nizko čelo (t. 2: 13-17; 5: 75/10, 76/13). Samo eno praskalo je gredljas-to oziroma z visokim čelom. Med praskala z visokim čelom bi lahko uvrstila tudi eno mini praskalo v obliki jedra (t. 5: 77/16). Zanj ni popolnoma jasno, ali je jedro ali praskalo. Prav tako ni jasno ali je en primerek nazobčano praskalo ali jedro. with the possible exception of an atypical one (Rozoy 1978b, 66). It is understandable that there are more microburins (debris or by-products) than trapezes (products). Burins: The fact that there were no burins in Viktorjev spodmol is surprising. Even burin spalls were more the exception than the rule. If we exclude so-called microburins, burins were also an exception in the nearby site of Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, 25, Plates 3-4). The same applies for M. Triglavca, but not also Breg (Frelih 1986, 27). In general, burins are rare and of little importance in the Mesolithic (G.E.E.M. 1972, 331s). Notches and dcnticulatcs (Plate 6: 83/6, 84/8, 85/12): Blades with notches and/or denticulates are a real rarity. One specimen of a Montbani type bladelet must be mentioned individually (Plate 6: 83/6). In two cases, there is a notch on a flake. In one case, there are denticulates on a flake. A common peculiarity is a notch on the butt or right beside the butt of a blade (Plate 6: 84/ 8, 85/12). We believe that the latter cannot be mistaken for a shoulder. Bee (Plate 2: 23): There is only one bee, made on a flake with a combined truncation and notch (Plate 2: 23). Endscrapers (Plates 2: 13-17; 5: 75/10, 76/13, 77/16): Endscrapers are the most variable group of tools, with more than a hundred shapes. It is characteristic of our endscrapers that they are made on flakes and have a low frontal end (Plates 2: 13-17; 5: 75/10, 76/13). Only one endscraper is carinated or with a high frontal end. One mini endscraper in the shape of a core could also be ranked among endscrapers with a high frontal end (Plate 5: 77/16). It is not entirely clear whether it is an endscraper or a core. It is similarly unclear whether one specimen is a denticulate endscraper or core. There are no explicit types among the endscrapers, so that in certain cases we can only talk about similarities with “ungiform" (Plate 2: 16) and nosed endscrapers (Plates 2: 13; 5: 75/10, 76/13). Generally speaking, endscrapers are not an important part of the inventory of Viktorjev spodmol, nor do they have particular importance for the chronological and typological classification of the entire material, since they belong in the group of general tools. Med praskali ni izrazitih tipov, tako da lahko v določenih primerih govoriva le o podobnosti z nohtastim (t. 2: 16) in gobčastim praskalom (t. 2: 13; 5: 75/10, 76/ 13). Splošno vzeto praskala niso ravno pomemben del inventarja Viktorjevega spodmola, niti nimajo posebnega pomena za kronološko-tipološko opredeljevanje celotnega gradiva, saj sodijo v t. i. skupino splošnih orodij. Retuširani odbitki (t. 2: 18-19): Retuširani odbitki predstavljajo tako kot retušira-ne kline neznaten in nepomemben delež v kamenem inventarju najdišča. Med njimi so tudi mikrolitski primerki, domnevno opremljeni s prečno retušo. V skupino retuširanih odbitkov se uvrščajo tudi strgala (G.E.E.M. 1975, 327). Štirje odbitki so prečno retuširani (t. 2: 18-19). Vsaj dva izmed njih bi lahko uvrstila tudi med orodja vrste “skrobacz” (t. 2: 19), kar v poljščini pomeni strgalo, strgačo (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, 105, sl. 8: 1-5). V italskem mezolitiku so retuširani odbitki številnejši, razen tega se jim pripisuje določena vloga pri kro-notipološkem opredeljevanju mezolitskih inventarjev (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, 121, sl. 26). Retuširanc kline in klinice (t. 2: 24, 26-31; 3: 32, 34, 35; 6: 89/14, 90/16): Enih in drugih ni veliko. Skoraj vse so fragmentira-ne. Posamezni fragmenti lahko pripadajo tudi geometričnim oblikam. Prevladujejo primerki s hrbtom (strma retuša). Vendar so tudi drugače retuširani kosi: z uporabno retušo (redki), drobtinčasto retušo na enem robu, običajno skupaj s hrbtom (pogosti) in polstrmo retušo. Dve fragmentirani klini sta rahlo poševno prečno retuširani v ravni črti. Ni izključeno, da sta pripadali nekemu geometrijsko oblikovanemu orodju. Klinice s hrbtom, ki imajo drugi rob drobtinčasto retuširan (enostavna marginalna retuša), ali neretuširan, so med pogostejšimi orodji (t. 2: 24, 26-31; 6: 89/14, 90/16). Ker so vse fragmentirane, je oznaka klinica s hrbtom izhod v sili. Dejansko gre lahko za dele različnih mikrolitskih orodij. Posebna skupina so klinice z dvojnim hrbtom in z izrobo (t. 3: 32, 34, 35) ali s pecljem (t. 3: 33, 36). Takšna mikrolitska orodja nama niso znana s tujih in naših mezolitskih najdišč. Vsekakor pa niso povsem neznana v povečani obliki na naših in drugih najdiščih poznega paleolitika (Brodar 1991, t. 18: 26-35; 1995, t. 6: 18, 156). Trapezi (t. 2: 20; 5: 78/10, 79/12, 80/16): Trapezi sodijo med redke najdbe v Viktorjevem spodmolu. Razdeliva jih lahko na asimetrične (neena-kokrake) dolge (t. 2: 20; 5: 79/12) in asimetrične kratke (t. 5: 78/10). Skoraj vsi so bili narejeni z “mikrovbadal- Retouchcd flakes (Plate 2: 18-19): Retouched flakes, like retouched blades, represent an unremarkable and unimportant share of the stone inventory of the site. There are also microlithic specimens among them, presumably fitted with a truncation. Scrapers also belong in the group of retouched flakes (G.E.E.M. 1975, 327). Four flakes are truncated (Plate 2: 18-19). At least two of them could also be classified among tools of the “skrobacz” type (Plate 2: 19), which means scraper in Polish (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, 105, Fig. 8: 1-5). Retouched flakes are more numerous in the 'Italic’ Mesolithic, and they have a specific role in the chrono-typological classification of‘Italic’ Mesolithic assemblages (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, 121, Fig. 26). Retouched blades and bladelets (Plates 2: 24, 26-31; 3: 32, 34, 35; 6: 89/14, 90/16): There are not many of either. Almost all are fragmented. Individual fragments may also belong to geometric forms. Backed specimens predominate. However, there are also differently retouched pieces: with use wear (rare), marginal retouch on one edge, normally in combination with an abrupt retouch (frequent) and semi-abrupt retouch. Two fragmented blades are slightly obliquely truncated in a straight line. It cannot be excluded that they belonged to some geometrically designed tool. Backed bladelets, which have a simple marginal retouch on the other edge, or unretouchcd, are among the commonest tools (Plates 2: 24, 26-31; 6: 89/14, 90/ 16). Since they were all fragmented, the term backed blatfelet is used in extremis. Actually, they could be parts of various microlithic tools. Double backed bladelets with a shoulder (Plate 3: 32, 34, 35) or a stem (Plate 3: 33, 36) are a special group. Such microlithic tools are unknown to us from foreign and our own Mesolithic sites. However, they are not unknown in enlarged form in Slovene and other sites from the Late Palaeolithic (Brodar 1991, Plate 18: 26-35; 1995, Plate 6: 18, 156). Trapezes (Plates 2: 20; 5: 78/10, 79/12, 80/16): Trapezes are among occasional finds in Viktorjev spodmol. They can be divided into elongated asymmetric (non-isosceles) (Plate 2: 20; 5: 79/12) and asymmetric short (Plate 5: 78/10). Almost all were made with the “microburin” technique. The piquant-triedre on the longer truncated side is often fractured. Despite a review of all the micro debris, we did not find the broken piquant-triedre. The shorter, truncated side could have been made in a similar way to the longer one, i.e., with a notch and fracturing (Plate 2: 20), although this is not usual, since a great deal of data suggests retouch along a snap fracture. The shorter, truncated side is always convex. no” tehniko. Triroba konica (piquant-triedre) na daljši prečno retuširani stranici je večkrat odlomljena. Odlom-jenih trirobih konic kljub pregledu vseh mikro odpadkov nisva našla. Krajša, prečno retuširana stranica je bila lahko narejena na podoben način kot daljša, tj. z izjedo in prelamljanjem (t. 2: 20), čeprav to ni običajno, saj veliko podatkov govori za retušo ob navadnem prelomu. Krajša, prečno retuširana stranica je vedno usločena. Vsi trapezi so relativno veliki, vendar je med njimi tudi en zelo majhen primerek, ki žal ni cel (t. 5: 80/16). Glede na usmerjenost daljše prečne retuše razlikujeva leve (t. 2: 20) in desne trapeze (t. 5: 79/12). Levi trapezi prevladujejo nad desnimi, kar je značilno za južno Evropo (Löhr 1994). Podobno je v M. Triglavci, kjer razpolagamo s trenutno največjo zbirko trapezov v Sloveniji. Klinice s hrbtom in prečno retušo (dos et troncatures) (t. 3: 37-50; 6: 92/13-101/7; 7: 102/15-104/17): Klinica s hrbtom in prečno retušo (skrajšano: hrbet in prečna retuša) sodi med najpomembnejša mezo-litska orodja v Viktorjevem spodmolu (t. 3: 37-50; 6: 92/13-101/7; 7: 102/15-104/17), Mali Tiglavci in verjetno tudi v najdišču Pod Črmukljo. Klinice s hrbtom in prečno retušo zaradi enostavnosti nisva ločevala od trikotnikov. Zato jih v razpredelnicah običajno navajava skupaj z njimi, podobno kot je to storil M. Brodar (1992). S tipološkega stališča to ni ravno pravilno, je pa praktično, saj je zlasti pri fragmen-tiranih kosih težko potegniti mejo med trikotnikom ter hrbtom in prečno retušo. To je še toliko težje, ker pri nas najdeni primerki klinic s hrbtom in prečno retušo niso tipični, razen ene izjeme v M. Triglavci (glej Turk et al., ta zbornik). V tabelah sva trikotnike orientirala drugače kot hrbte in prečne retuše, ki imajo prečno retušo vedno zgoraj (glej tudi objave italijanskih avtorjev, ki tudi niso vedno enotni). Hrbet je praviloma enojen, tj. samo na enem robu. Samo v enem primeru je hrbet dvojen, tj. na obeh robovih (t. 6: 92/13). Sodeč po nedoločljivih fragmentih z dvojnim hrbtom (t. 6: 91/5), bi lahko bilo kosov z dvojnim hrbtom in prečno retušo celo več. V to skupino bi lahko sodil tudi nenavaden primerek št. 44 na t. 3, ki ima namesto drugega hrbta naraven rob. Rob nasproti hrbta je bodisi neretuširan (t. 3: 39, 43, 46; 6: 95/15, 96/7, 100/169) bodisi delno ali v celoti retuširan z direktno drobtinčasto (t. 3: 37, 40-41, 48; 6: 93/2, 97/2, 98/14, 99/11) ali polstrmo retušo (t. 6: 94/16). Drob-tinčasta retuša ne prizadene ostrine roba. Prečna retuša je vedno bolj ali manj poševna, vendar ne toliko, da bi lahko govorila o konici. Primerki z vodoravno prečno retušo niso znani. Prečna retuša se dviguje vedno od leve proti desni, razen v enem primeru, ko je obratno (t. 7: 104/17). To se dobro ujema z daljšo All trapezes are relatively large, although there is one very small specimen among them, which is unfortunately not whole (Plate 5: 80/16). Depending on the orientation of the longer truncation, we distinguish left (Plate 2: 20) and right trapezes (Plate 5: 79/12). Left trapezes predominate over right ones, which is characteristic of southern Europe (Löhr 1994). It is similar in M. Triglavca, from where we have available currently the largest collection of trapezes in Slovenia. Backed and truncated bladelets (dos et troncatures) (Plates 3: 37-50; 6: 92/13-101/7; 7: 102/15-104/17): Backed and truncated bladelets are among the most important Mesolithic tools inViktorjev spodmol (Plates 3: 37-50; 6: 92/13-101/7; 7: 102/15-104/17), Mala Tiglavca and probably also Pod Črmukljo. Backed and truncated bladelets, because of simplification, have not been distinguished from triangles. So they are normally given in the tables together, as M. Brodar (1992) did. From a typological point of view, this is not really correct, but it is practical since, especially with fragmented pieces, it is difficult to draw the boundary between triangles and backed and truncated bladelets. This is even more difficult here because the specimens of backed and truncated bladelets found are not typical, with the exception of one from M. Triglavca (see Turk et al., this volume). In the tables, we oriented triangles differently from backed and truncated bladelets, which always have the truncation upwards (see also publications of Italian authors, which are also not always uniform). The abrupt retouch is generally unilateral, i.e., only on one edge. Only in one case is the abrupt retouch bilateral, i.e., on both edges (Plate 6: 92/13). Judging by unidentified double backed fragments (Plate 6: 91/5), there could be even more double backed and truncated pieces. No. 44 in Plate 3 is an unusual specimen, having a straight naturally blunt edge instead of a second back, and could also belong in this group. The edge opposite the back is either unretouched (Plates 3: 39, 43, 46; 6: 95/15, 96/7, 100/169), or partially or even entirely retouched with direct marginal retouch (Plates 3: 37, 40-41, 48; 6: 93/2, 97/2, 98/14, 99/11) or semi-abruptly retouched (Plate 6: 94/16). The marginal retouch does not affect the sharpness of the edge. The truncation is always more or less oblique, though not so much that it is possible to talk of a point. Specimens with a horizontal truncation are not known. The truncation always rises from left to right, except in one case, when it is the reverse (Plate 7: 104/17). This is well captured by the longer truncation on trapezes. Such an orientation of the truncation is the only sign of standardisation of products, which otherwise vary considerably in shape. Unfortunately, we did not prečno retušo na trapezih. Takšna usmerjenost prečne retuše je edini znak standardizacije izdelka, ki po obliki sicer precej variira. Za ugotavljanje variabilnosti hrbtov in prečne retuše s pomočjo tipometrije žal nimava dovolj velikega homogenega vzorca (glej Barbazae/a/. 1991, 171 ss). Zato to prepuščava bodočim raziskovalcem Viktorjevega spodmola. Nekateri hrbti so narejeni s pravo gravetno retušo in se od gravetjenskih izdelkov razlikujejo samo po natančnejši izdelavi retuše in po obliki izdelkov. Če gre za fragmente, se ne dajo ločiti od gravetjenskih izdelkov. Trikotniki (t. 4: 52-58; 7: 105/13, 106/15, 107/10): Trikotniki sodijo poleg trapezov in krožnih segmentov med najbolj značilna mezolitska orodja iz skupine geometrijskih orodij (armatur). Viktorjev spodmol se ravno ne odlikuje po številu trikotnikov v ožjem pomenu besede, saj jih je presenetljivo malo. Večinoma gre za dvomljive fragmentirane primerke in redke cele kose. Raznostranični trikotniki močno prevladujejo nad enakokrakimi. To je v Italiji značilno za mlajši mezolitik (kastelnovjen). Med enakokrake trikotnike lahko zanesljivo umestiva en sam primerek (t. 7: 105/13). Značilni so hipermikrolitski primerki trikotnikov (t. 4: 53, 57, 58, 7: 107/10). Nekateri trikotniki imajo delno ali v celoti retušira-no tretjo stranico. Retuša je bodisi drobtinčasta, (t. 7: 106/15) bodisi polstrma marginalna (t. 4: 57-58). Pri prvi ostrina roba ni prizadeta, pri drugi pa je. Segmenti (t. 4: 51): Krožni segmenti so v Viktorjevem spodmolu zastopani samo domnevno. Pripada jim lahko en sam fragment, za katerega ni jasno, ali gre za segment ali za hrbet v povezavi s prečno retušo (t. 4: 51). Mikro konice (t. 4: 59-68; 7: 108/16, 109/16, 110/11, 111/11, 112/12, 113/14): Mikro konice so značilen mezolitski inventar. V Viktorjevem spodmolu so dokaj bogato zastopane, in sicer tako po številu kot po oblikah. Kaže, da prevladujeta dve obliki: čolničasta (t. 4: 59-61) in igličasta (t. 4: 62, 65, 67). Potem je tu še enojna (enokoničasta) in dvojna (dvokoničasta) konica z enojnim ali dvojnim hrbtom. Dvojna konica z dvojnim hrbtom je zelo podobna sovterski konici (point de Sauveterre), ki ima glede na retušo vrsto različic (G.E.E.M. 1972). Dvojna konica z dvojnim hrbtom je ena sama (t. 4: 62). Več je enojnih konic z dvojnim hrbtom (t. 4: 65-67; 7: 111/11). Med konicami so tudi hipermikrolitske (t. 7: 113/ have a large enough homogenous sample to establish the variability of backed and truncated bladelets with the aid of typometry (see Barbaza et al. 1991, 171 ss). We therefore leave this to future researchers of Viktorjev spodmol. Some of the backed pieces are made with a real gra-vette retouch and differ from Gravettian products only by the more precise retouching and its shape. Fragments cannot be distinguished from those of Gravettian origin. Triangles (Plate 4: 52-58; 7: 105/13, 106/15, 107/10): Triangles, together with trapezes and circular segments are among the most typical Mesolithic tools from the group of geometric tools (armatures). Viktorjev spodmol is not distinguished in terms of the number of triangles in the narrower sense of the word, since there are surprisingly few. The majority are suspected fragmented specimens, with only occasional whole pieces. Scalene triangles greatly predominate over isosceles ones. In Italy this is typical of the Late Mesol-tihic (Castelnovian). Only one specimen can be reliably placed among isosceles triangles (Plate 7: 105/13). Hypermicrolithic specimens of triangles are characteristic (Plates 4: 53, 57, 58, 7: 107/10). Some triangles have a partial or entirely retouched third side. The retouch is either marginal (Plate 7: 106/ 15), or semi-abrupt marginal (Plate 4: 57-58). With the former, the sharpness of the edge is not affected, with the latter it is. Segments (Plate 4: 51): Circular segments are only putatively represented in Viktorjev spodmol. One fragment only may belong to them, for which it is not clear whether it is a segment or a backed piece in connection with a truncation (Plate 4: 51). Micropoints (Plates 4:59-68; 7: 108/16, 109/16, 110/ II, Ill/ll, 112/12, 113/14): Micropoints are characteristic of the Mesolithic inventory. They are fairly richly represented in Viktorjev spodmol, in terms of both number and shape. Two shapes appear to predominate: navicular (Plate 4: 59- 61) and elongated (Plate 4: 62, 65, 67). Here there are additionally microunipoints and microbipoints, with uni-or bilateral abrupt retouch. A micro double-backed bipoint is very similar to a Sauveterrian point (point de Sauveterre), which has a series of variants in relation to the retouch (G.E.E.M. 1972). There is only one double-backed bipoint (Plate 4: 62) and more numerous double-backed points (Plate 4: 65-67; 7: 111/11). There are also hypermicroliths among the points 14) in takšne, ki imajo poškodbe, značilne za izstrelke (t. 7: 110/11). Domnevava, da je dvojna igličasta mikro konica služila za trnek, tako da je bila na sredini pritrjena na vrvico. Domneva je podprta z ostanki sladkovodnih rib, najdenih v plasteh spodmola (glej Paunovič v tem zborniku). S konicami sva izčrpala repertoar mezolitskih kamenih orodij, najdenih v Viktorjevem spodmolu. Neopredeljeni mikroliti (sl. 7.2): V to skupino sva uvrstila številne fragmente mikrolit-skih orodij, ki se niso dali podrobneje zanesljivo opredeliti. Koščena orodja (t.7: 114/15. 115/9, 116-118): Koščena orodja so vsa fragmentirana. V štirih primerih gre za odlomke zelo majhnih orodij, morda šivank ali igel (t. 7: 114/15. 115/9, 116-118). Del orodja sta lahko bila tudi en odlomek močno zglajenega parožka jelena in en odlomek parožka srnjaka. Med pregledanim osteološkim materialom je bilo med določljivimi ostanki navadnega jelena 15 % majhnih fragmentov rogovja. Takšen delež ostankov rogovja kaže na to, daje bilo rogovje pomembna surovina za izdelovanje različnih orodij. Orodja iz rogovine so bila skupaj z majhnimi odpadki najdena v večjem številu v M. Triglavci (Leben 1988 in Turk I. &Turk M., Toškan & Dirjec v tem zborniku). Razne najdbe: Med raznimi najdbami sta dva podolgovata brusna kamna iz peščenjaka. Eden je bil najden v Viktorjevi sondi, drugi v režnju 5. Od režnja 7 navzdol so bili najdeni posamezni koščki surove okre. V režnju 2 je bil en obroček (lahko naraven), premera 1 mm. V režnju 3 je bil I cm velik kortikalni odbitek, ki ima na ventralni strani šest vzporednih globokih zarez, po tri in tri skupaj. Odbitek je odlomljen vzdolž zadnje zareze. Zato bi bili urezi, ki se običajno razlagajo kot okras, lahko namenjene tudi segmentiranju. V različnih režnjih je bil en cel morski polž in nekaj naluknjanih, ki so obdelani posebej (glej Mikuž, ta zbornik). (Plate 7: 113/14) and those that have damage charactis-tic of projectiles (Plate 7: 110/11). We suspect that the elongated microbipoint served as a hook, in such a way that it was attached to a line in the centre. The suspicion is supported by the remains of freshwater fish, found in layers of the overhang cave (see Paunovič in this volume). With points we have exhausted the repertoire of Mesolithic stone tools found in Viktorjev spodmol. Undetermined microliths (Fig. 7.2): We have included in this group numerous fragments of microlithic tools that cannot be determined reliably in more detail. Bone tools (Plate7: 114/15. 115/9, 116-118): All the bone tools are fragmented. In four cases they are fragments of very small tools, perhaps needles or pins (Plate 7: 114/15. 115/9, 116-118). One fragment of strongly polished red deer antler tip and a fragment of roe deer antler tip may also be parts of tools. Among the osteological material examined, 15% of the identifiable remains of ordinary red deer, were fragments of antlers. Such a share of the remains of antlers indicates that antlers were an important raw material for the manufacture of various tools. Tools from antler, together with small debris, were found in largest number in M. Triglavca (Leben 1988 and Turk I. & Turk M„ Toškan, Dirjec in this volume). Various finds: Among the various finds are two longitudinal whetstones from sandstone. One was found in Viktor’s test trench, and the other in spit 5. From spit 7 downwards, individual pieces of raw ochre were found. There was a band in spit 2 (perhaps natural) with a diameter of 1 mm. In spit 3 there was a 1 cm cortical flake that had four parallel cuts on the ventral side, in groups of three. The flake is broken across the ultimate cut. The cuts, which are normally interpreted as decoration, may therefore have served for segmentation. In various spits there was one whole shell of a marine gastropod and several perforated ones, which are treated separately (see Mikuž, this volume). SI. 7.2: Odlomek domnevnega hipermikrolitskega svedra. Foto F. Cimerman. Fig. 7.2: Fragment of supposed hypermicrolithic borer. Photo F. Cimerman. 8. Primerjave MEZOLITSKIH NAJDB V Viktorjevem spodmolu z IZBRANIMI NAJDIŠČI Ivan Primerjalna metoda je standardna pri arheološki obdelavi gradiva. Zato sem glavne sklope mezolitskih najdb iz Viktorjevega spodmola primerjal s podobnimi sklopi najdb v domačih najdiščih (Breg, Pod Črmukljo in M. Triglavco) ter bljižnjimi in bolj oddaljenimi italijanskimi najdišči (Pečina na Leskovcu - Grotta Azzurra, Ste-našca - Grotta dell’Edera, obe na Tržaškem krasu in Romagnano III v Trentski kotlini). Pri tem sem se oprl na geografski prostor (v danem primeru je to mediteransko in submediteransko območje), ki predstavlja močan povezovalni dejavnik ne glede na čas. Primerjave z najdišči severno od Alp se mi ne zdijo smiselne, ker gre tam očitno za drugačna kulturna okolja, ki so izšla iz drugačnih osnov, razen redkih izjem, ki se lahko razlagajo tudi kot vplivi iz Sredozemlja, tj. sov-terjenskega kompleksa (Kozlowski 1981). Takšna je npr. t. i. skupina Sered’ na Slovaškem, ki jo je J. Barta (1972, 1980) najprej povezoval s tardenoazjenom, pozneje pa s sovterjenom. Mikrolitske armature te skupine so dejansko zelo podobne mikrolitskim armaturam v slovenskih in italijanskih mezolitskih najdiščih, zlasti mlajših, pa tudi armaturam v sredozemskem delu Francije, vse do Atlantika med Centralnim masivom in Pireneji. Na vseh primerjanih najdiščih so bile odkopane in obdelane majhne površine (0,4 m2-8 m2). Razlike med raziskanimi površinami in posledično med prostornino sedimentov, ki so vsebovali najdbe, so dovolj velike, da lahko vplivajo na mednajdiščno variabilnost posameznih sklopov najdb. Prostorsko variabilnost najdb sem natančneje proučil na primeru iz Divjih bab I, kjer imam za takšno proučevanje ustrezno zbrane podatke. Ti se sicer nanašajo na različne najdbe jamskega medveda, vendar je vprašanje prostorske variabilnosti podobno kot pri arheoloških ostankih. Krivulje porazdelitve posameznih najdb, dobljene z enakomernim večanjem raziskanega volumna sedimentov in njegove površine, imajo različne oblike in se med seboj križajo (sl. 8.1 a). Vse to vpliva na to, da se razmerja med posameznimi najdbami spreminjajo, odvisno od raziskanega volumna in površine sedimentov (sl. 8.1 b). Primerjavo med mezolitskimi najdišči sem izvedel 8. Comparisons of Mesolithic Finds in Viktorjev Spodmol with Selected Sites Turk The comparative method is standard in the archaeological treatment of material. I therefore compared the main complex of Mesolithic finds from Viktorjev spodmol with a similar group of finds at Slovene sites (Breg, Pod Črmukljo and M. Triglavca) and nearby and more distant Italian sites (Pečina na Leskovcu - Grotta Azzurra, Stenašca - Grotta dell’Edera, both on the Triestine Karst and Romagnano 111 in the Trento basin). In this, 1 relied on the geographic region (in this case the Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean area), which represents a powerful linking factor, irrespective of time. Comparison with sites north of the Alps did not seem to me to make much sense, since that is a completely different cultural environment, deriving from different foundations, with rare exceptions which could also be interpreted as influences from the Mediterranean, i.e., the Sauveterrian complex (Kozlowski 1980). Such, for example, is the so-called Sered’ group in Slovakia, which J. Barta (1972, 1980) first linked with the Tar-denoisian, and later with the Sauveterrian. Microlithic armatures of this group are actually very similar to microlithic armatures in Slovene and ‘Italic’ Mesolithic sites, especially Late Mesolithic, as well as armatures in the Mediterranean part of France, as far as the Atlantic between the Central Massif and the Pyrenees. In all comparative sites, small areas have been excavated and processed (0.4 irr-8 nr). The differences between the investigated areas and, consequentially, between the volumes of sediments containing finds are sufficiently large that they could have an impact on the inter-site variability of individual groups of finds. I studied the spatial variability of finds more carefully in the case of Divje babe I, where I have adequate data collected for such study. These relate to various finds of cave bear, but the question of spatial variability is similar as with archaeological remains. The distribution curves of individual finds obtained with the gradual increase in the studied volume of sediments and their area, have different shapes and mutually intersect (Fig. 8.1 a). All this causes the ratio between individual finds to change, depending on the volume and area of sediments investigated (Fig. 8.1 b). 16 l4 l2 lO 8 6 4 -> 5 7 9 II 13 15 17 19 21 10 12 14 16 18 20 povrSina / area (m2) 5/. 8.1: Prikaz odvisnosti izsledkov od obsega raziskanih sedimentov na podlagi izbranih podatkov iz najdišča Divje babe 1. a) Absolutne vrednosti, b) Razmerji dveh absolutnih vrednosti. Vse iz 12 cm debelega sedimentacijskega nivoja plasti 7, ki je vsebovala največ fosilnih ostankov. Fig. 8.1: Presentation of the dependence of results on the extent of sediments studied on the basis of selected data from the Divje babe I site, a) Absolute values, b) Ratio of two absolute values. All from a 12 cm thick sedimentation level of layer 7, which contained the most fossil remains. med najdbami iz celotne ali delne prostornine sedimentov iz vseh mezolitskih nivojev (blok sedimentov v najdišču, sestavljen iz režnjev in/ali plasti) in med najdbami iz najbogatejšega mezolitskega nivoja (režnja, ki obsega celotno raziskano površino) najdišča. Za takšno primerjavo sem se odločil iz naslednjih razlogov: Pri najdbah v bloku vpliva na njihovo variabilnost bogastvo/revščina posameznih mezolitskih nivojev, pri čemer v praksi zelo težko razlikujemo med naravnimi in umetnimi sedimentacijskimi nivoji sensu strictu (glej Turk 2003). Število in sestav najdb (količina in kakovost) sta odvisna predvsem od trajanja in jakosti poselitve v času formiranja mezolitskega sedimentacijskega nivoja (ki ga enačim z režnjem) ter od dejavnosti, ki sojih ljudje izvajali na najdišču. Šele nato nastopi za arheologijo tako zanimiv in pomemben razvoj oziroma sprememba tradicije, ki lahko poteka izohrono ali diahrono v prostoru. Za ugotavljanje vseh vzrokov, ki privedejo do variabilnosti predmetov arheološkega proučevanja, pa je ključnega pomena časovna ločljivost dogodkov, ki je premo sorazmerna s hitrostjo sedimentacije. Časovna ločljivost je v stratigrafsko nedeljivem bloku sedimentov običajno majhna, v stratigrafsko deljivem pa velika. Pri sedimentacijskem nivoju (režnju) z najbogatejšimi najdbami je vpliv tistih dejavnikov, ki niso povezani z razvojem in tradicijo, na variabilnost najdb minimalen, saj takšen reženj predstavlja bodisi zelo dolgo bodi- I made the comparisons between Mesolithic sites between finds from the entire or partial volume of sediments from all Mesolithic levels (block of sediments in a site composed of spits and/or layers) and between finds from the richest Mesolithic level (spit covering the entire investigated area) of the sites. I decided on such a comparison for the following reasons: With finds in a block, the richness/poverty of individual Mesolithic levels influences their variability, whereby in practice it is very difficult to distinguish between natural and artificial sedimentation levels sensu strictu (see Turk 2003). The number and composition of finds (quantity and quality) depend mainly on the duration and intensity of settlement at the time of formation of the Mesolithic sedimentation level (which is equated with spit) and on activities that people carried out at the site. Only then does development or change of tradition that can occur isochronously or diachronously in the rate, appear that is interesting and important for archaeology. For establishing all the causes that lead to variability of objects of archaeological study, the temporal division of events, which corresponds to the rate of sedimentation, is of crucial importance. The temporal resolution in a stratigraphi-cally undivided block of sediments is normally small, but large in stratigraphically divided ones. With the sedimentation level (spit) with the richest finds, the influence of the factors that are not connec- -o- Mctacarpus o Talus —♦— Humerus dist. a Izlužene kosli Ltched bones Ožgane kosti Burned bones I 3 5 7 9 II 13 15 17 19 21 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 povrSina / area (m2) si zelo močno poselitev v okviru najdišča ali določenega dela najdišča. Časovna ločljivost je pri posameznem režnju nedvomno večja kot pri bloku sedimentov. 8.1 Primerjava s slovenskimi najdišči Primerjavo med domačimi najdišči (razpredelnica 8.1) otežuje uporaba različnih terensko-laboratorijskih metod: nepresejanje usedlin z najdbami (Breg), suho sejanje na situ s premerom odprtin 5 mm (Pod Črmukljo) in mokro sejanje na situ s premerom odprtin 0,5 mm (M. Triglavca) in 1 mm (Viktorjev spodmol). Razmerje med izdelki in odpadki je od najdišča do najdišča zelo različno, kar je nedvomno povezano s teren-sko-laboratorijsko metodo in z natančnostjo, s katero se je ta izvajala. O tem ni smiselno izgubljati besed, ker je to jasno razvidno na podlagi obeh vzorcev iz Viktorjevega spodmola (glej Turk, ta zbornik). Viktorjeva sonda je bila pregledana bistveno manj natančno kot izkop po režnjih. ted with development and tradition is minimal, since such a spit represents either very long or very intense settlement in the framework of the site or a specific part of the site. Temporal resolution is undoubtedly greater with an individual spit than with a block of sediments. 8.1 Comparison with Slovene Sites Comparison among Slovene sites (Table 8.1) is made difficult by the use of various fieldwork and laboratory methods: unsieved sediments with finds (Breg), dry sieving on sieves with 5 mm diameter holes (Pod Črmukljo) and wet sieving on sieves with 0.5 mm (M. Triglavca) and 1 mm (Viktorjev spodmol) diameter holes. The ratio between products and debris is very different from site to site, which is undoubtedly connected with fieldwork and laboratory methods and with the accuracy with which these are carried out. It is not worth wasting words on this, since it is clearly evident on the basis of the two samples from Viktorjev spodmol (see Turk, Razpredelnica 8.1: Kvantitativno-kvalitativna primerjava med slovenskimi mezolitskimi najdišči in Viktorjevim spodmolom (V. s.). Table 8.1: Quantitative and qualitative comparison between Slovene Mesolithic sites and Viktorjev spodmol (V. s.) Na jdišče, blok, reženj Site, block, spil Opredelitev Phase Odpadki Debris Izdelki Tools Jedra Cores Praskala Endscrapers Sovt. konice Sauvt. points Vir Source Breg (8 m’) Kastelnovjen Castelnovian 2525 148 12 61 0(1) Frelih 1986 (Turk) Pod Črmukljo (2 m1) Kastelnovjen Castelnovian 2750 298 25 8 0 Brodar 1992 (Turk) M. Triglavca (1,5 m3) Kastelnovjen Castelnovian 21 809 274 65 35 17 Turk V.s. sonda (2 m3) V.s. test trench (2 m3) Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? 2550 107 30 11 12 V.s. režnji 1-19 (0,3 m3) V.s. spits 1-19 (0,3 m3) Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? 10 158 89 14 2 5 Nadaljevanje continuation Najdišče, blok, reženj Site, block, spit Opredelitev Phase Trikotniki Triangles Segmenti Segments Trapezi Trapezes Mikro vbadala Microburins Vir Source Breg (8 m3) Kastelnovjen Castelnovian 0 4(2) 12 0 Frelih 1986 (Turk) Pod Črmukljo (2 m3) Kastelnovjen Castelnovian 10 0 8 (13) ? (16) Brodar 1992 (Turk) M. Triglavca (1,5 m3) Kastelnovjen Castelnovian 45 2? 38 68 Turk V.s. sonda (2 m3) V.s. test trench (2 m3) Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? 22 0 1 9 V.s. režnji 1-19 (0,3 m3) V.s. spits 1-19 (0,3 nr’) Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? 15 0 3 5 OPOMBE: Trikotniki združujejo dva tipa orodij: klinice s hrbtom in prečno retušo ter trikotnike. Pri sovterskih konicah so skoraj izključno takšne, ki imajo dvojen hrbet, pomaknjen daleč proti sredini klinice. Pri trikotnikih prevladujejo raznostranični nad enakokrakimi v razmerju 22:1 v M. Triglavci in 36:1 v Viktorjevem spodmolu. NOTES: Category triangles includes truncated backed bladlets and triangles. Category sauvelerrian points includes almost exclusively double backed points with deep abrupt retouch. Triangles are mostly scalene and scalene-isocele ratio is 22:1 in M.Triglavca and 36:1 in Viktorjev spodmol. Vendar se vpliv metode na variabilnost arheoloških sestavov običajno ne upošteva. Lep primer takšnega ravnanja je ‘konstruiranje’ mezolitskih skupin na Balkanu in odnosov z drugimi mezolitskimi skupinami (Kozlowski, Kozlowski 1983). Navedel bi lahko še vrsto podobnih primerov, saj je to splošna arheološka praksa. Pri večjih izdelkih (praskala, trapezi) in odpadkih (jedra, mikro vbadala) razlike med najdišči niso toliko povezane z metodami terenskega dela kot s preteklo tradicijo in posameznimi preteklimi tradicionalnimi dejavnostmi. Praskala, jedra in mikro vbadala so povezana z različnimi dejavnostmi in njihovo intenzivnostjo. Trapezi (predvsem izdelani z mikrovbadalno tehniko) so zelo verjetno del kastelnovjenske tradicije, saj jih sovterjen skoraj ne pozna. To je stratigrafsko in/ali kronometrično potrjeno na več najdiščih v Italiji in drugje. Trapezi so tako edini zanesljivi razpoznavni znak kastelnovjena (glej Broglio 1984, 311; Spataro 2002, 21). Pojavili naj bi se na prelomu 9. in 8. tisočletja pred sedanjostjo (BP) na območju od severne Afrike do srednje Evrope (Löhr 1994, 20), v severni Italiji pa med 7800 in 7500 BP (Broglio 1984, 287) oziroma okoli 8000 BP (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, 13). Seveda lahko podvomim o metodologiji, na podlagi katere so bili narejeni takšni sklepi. Pri tem mislim na povezovanje tipologije in kronometrije, ki je sicer nujno, vendar ne bi smelo biti krožno, temveč speljano na drugačen, bolj objektiven način, tj. temeljiti bi moralo na konvergenci rezultatov analiz več različnih, med seboj nepovezanih podatkov (glej Turk 2003). Drugače povedano, analizirani podatki se ne smejo podvajati, da tudi tako ne pride do krožnega argumentiranja. Pomembno je tudi, da se primerja izsledke več kot dveh povsem različnih metod. Zanimivo je razmerje med trapezi (izdelki) in mikro vbadali (odpadki), ki so nastali pri izdelavi trapezov. Običajno je odpadkov precej več kot izdelkov. Zato me preseneča, da na Bregu poleg trapezov ni bilo najdeno nobeno mikro vbadalo. To si lahko razlagam s tem, da najdeni trapezi niso bili izdelani na mestu najdbe, ampak drugje, ali da trapezi niso bili narejeni s pomočjo, mik-rovbadalne tehnike. Slednje je bolj verjetno kot prvo, saj noben trapez nima trorobega trna, značilnega za mikrovbadalno tehniko. Izjema je en sam fragment trapeza iz plasti 1 -2 in morda še en trapez iz teh plasti, ki ima retu-širan domnevni trorobi trn (Frelih 1986, t. 1.4; 2: 9). Kastelnovjenska tradicija trapezov je najmočnejša v M. Triglavci (glej Turk el al., ta zbornik) in najšibkejša v Viktorjevem spodmolu. Ra/.likc v mikrolitskih orodjih (dvojne konice z dvema hrbtoma, trikotniki, segmenti) med najdišči so povezane predvsem z različnimi terensko-laboratorijskimi metodami in z natančnostjo izvajanja teh metod, v primerih ko gre za isto metodo. Zato se jih ne upam povezati z določeno preteklo tradicijo. Edino gotovo pa je. this volume). Viktor’s test trench was examined essentially less carefully than the excavation by spits. However, the influence of the method on the variability of the archaeological components is not normally taken into account. A good example of such behaviour is “constructing" Mesolithic groups in the Balkans and their relations with other Mesolithic groups (Kozlowski, Kozlowski 1983). A series of similar examples could be cited, since this is general archaeological practice. With larger products (endscrapers, trapezes) and debris (cores, microburins), differences between sites are not so much connected with methods of fieldwork as with past tradition and individual past traditional activities. Endscrapers, cores and microburins are connected with various activities and their intensities. Trapezes (mainly made with microburin technique) are very probably part of the Castelnovian tradition, since they are almost unknown in the Sauveterrian. This is stratigraphically or chronometrically confirmed in a number of sites in Italy and elsewhere. Trapezes are thus the only reliable mark of recognition of the Castelnovian (see Broglio 1984, 311; Spataro 2002, 21). They are thought to have appeared at the turn of the 9th and 8th millennium BP over an area from northern Africa to Central Europe (Löhr 1994, 20), and in northern Italy between 7800 in 7500 BP (Broglio 1984, 287) or around 8000 BP (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, 13). We can, of course, suspect the methodology by which such conclusions were reached. I am thinking here of connecting the typology and chronometry, which is necessary but should not be rounded but drawn in a different, more objective manner, i.e., it should be based on convergences of results of analysis of a number of different, mutually unconnected data (see Turk 2003). Put another way, analysed data should not be redundant, so that it does not thus achieve a circular argument. It is also important that the results of more than two completely different methods are compared. The ratio between trapezes (products) and microburins (debris) that were created in the manufacture of trapezes is also interesting. There is normally considerably more debris than products. It therefore surprises me that in Breg, in addition to trapezes, no micro burins were found. This could be explained by the fact that the trapezes were not made at the place of the finds, but elsewhere, or that the trapezes were not made with the aid of a microburin technique. The latter is more probable than the former, since none of the trapezes have a piquant-triedre, typical of the microburin technique. The only exception is a fragment of trapeze from layers 1-2 and perhaps a trapeze from these layers which has a retouched piquant-triedre (Frelih 1986, Plate I. 4; 2: 9). The Castelnovian tradition of trapezes is strongest in M. Triglavca (see Turk et al., this volume) and weakest in Viktorjev spodmol. da so segmenti z večine domačih mezolitskih najdišč redki. V tem pogleduje nerazumljivo odstopanje Brega od drugih najdišč. Nasploh je Breg problematično najdišče, ki kliče po novih raziskavah. To je edino radiome-trično opredeljeno mezolitsko najdišče v Sloveniji. Njegova l4C starost (6830 ±150 BP (Pohar 1984, 19; Frelih 1986, 31) oz. 6490 ±150 BP (Frelih 1985) se ne ujema s paleobotanično oceno starosti (Pohar 1984, Frelih 1986) in z arheološkim inventarjem. Radionietrično določanje starosti zasluži nekaj kritičnih pripomb (glej tudi Turk, ta zbornik). V tuji literaturi se za Breg stalno navaja napačno preračunana l4C letnica iz koledarske letnice BC (po novejšem dogovoru BCE namesto BC), kot jo je objavil Frelih ( 1986, 31, 35) v l4C letnico BP kot jo podajajo V. Pohar (1984) brez vsake oznake BP ali BC, D. Josipo-vič (1992) in sedaj Turk, oba z oznako BP. Ta napačna letnica je 6630 ±150 BP (Müller 1994, 351; Mlekuž 2001; Spataro 2002, 20). Če je najdišče resnično tako mlado, ima dosti premalo trapezov. M. Triglavca, kjer se nedvomno stikajo mezolitske in neolitske plasti, ima npr. bistveno več trapezov in tudi niikro vbadal, v kolikor ne gre za umetno ustvarjeno mešanico mezolitske in neolitske tradicije. Enako velja za italijanska najdišča iz približno istega kronološkega odseka. Nadaljnja še neobjavljena izkopavanja na novi lokaciji na Bregu, ki jih je vodil M. Budja, so dala za spodnji del mezolitskega horizonta, ki se nahaja 0,5 m pod glavnino kastelnovjenskih najdb in keramike, 14C sta-rost 9180 ±50 BP (Mlekuž 2001, 47, sl. 4). Nova datacija in nov profil sta pokazale na težave, ki jih povzročata l4C kronometrija in koreliranje najdb v prostoru. Sam menim, da je prva l4C letnica Brega (6830 BP) bistveno pomlajena in kot takšna nepravilna. Na podlagi te letnice je lahko Breg uvrščen v čas prehoda iz mezolitika v neolitik, čas t. i. neolitizacije na območju celotne Jadranske obale, s Tržaškim krasom vred (glej Improta, Pes-sina 1998-1999). Vendar so odnosi med poznim mezo-litikom in zgodnjim neolitikom v za nas zanimivem območju severovzhodne Italije precej nejasni (prav tam), za kar je po mojem treba iskati vzrok predvsem v nezanesljivosti radiometričnih datumov in v popolnoma nekritičnem enačenju arheologije in kronometrije (arheoloških in kronometričnih podatkov). Večini arheologom, pa tudi drugim se zdi, daje kronometrija trenutno edina zanesljiva in vsemogočna kronološka metoda, kar pa še zdaleč ni res. 8.2 Primerjava z italijanskimi najdišči Primerjava Viktorjevega spodmola z bližnjimi najdišči Tržaškega krasa in z bolj oddaljenim referenčnim najdiščem Romagnano III (razpredelnica 8.2 in 8.3) je lažja zaradi podobnih terenskih metod (mokro sejanje na si- Differences in microlithic tools (double-backed bipoints, triangles, segments) between sites are mainly connected with different fieldwork and laboratory methods, and the accuracy with which these methods were implemented in cases when the same method was used. I do not therefore hope to connect them with a specific past tradition. The only certainty is that segments from the majority of local Mesolithic sites are rare. From this point of view, the deviation of Breg from other sites is incomprehensible. Breg is in general a problematic site which calls for new research. This is the only radiome-trically defined Mesolithic site in Slovenia. Its l4C age (6830 ±150 BP (Pohar 1984, 19; Frelih 1986, 31) or. 6490 ±150 BI’ (Frelih 1985) does not conform to the palaeobotanical assessment of age (Pohar 1984, Frelih 1986) and the archaeological inventory. Radiomctricall.v determined age deserves some critical comments (see also Turk, this volume). In the foreign literature, a wrongly calculated l4C date from the calendar date BC (by new agreement BCE instead of BC) is constantly cited for Breg, as published by Frelih (1986, 31, 35) in l4C date BP as given by V. Pohar (1984) without any kind of sign BP or BC, D. Josipovič (1992) and now Turk, both with the sign BP. This wrong date is 6630 ±150 BP (Müller 1994, 351; Mlekuž 2001; Spataro 2002, 20). If the site is really that recent, it has considerably too few trapezes. M. Triglavca, where there is undoubtedly contact between Mesolithic and Neolithic layers, has for example, more trapezes and also microburins, insofar as it is not an artificially created mixed Mesolithic and Neolithic tradition. The same applies to Italian si-tes-from approximately the same chronological section. Furthermore, as yet unpublished excavations at a new location in Breg, lead by M. Budja, gave for the lower part a l4C age of 9180 ±50 BP (Mlekuž 2001, 47, Fig. 4). The new dating and new profile have shown the difficulties which l4C chronometry and correlating finds in the space cause. I myself believe that the first l4C date of Breg (6830 BP) is essentially too recent and as such incorrect. On the basis of this dating, Breg can be placed at the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, a time of neolithisation in the area of the entire Adriatic coast, including the Triestine Karst (see Improta, Pessina 1998-1999). However, Ihe relations between the late Mesolithic and the early Neolithic in the for us interesting area of northeast Italy are fairly unclear (ibid), for which in my opinion it is necessary to seek Ihe reasons mainly in unreliable radiometric dating and a completely uncritical equating of archaeology and chronometry (archaeological and chronometrical data). To the majority of archaeologists, and it appears to others, too, chronometry is currently the only reliable and omnipotent chronological method, which is far from being true. tih s premerom luknjic 1 mm). Otežujejo jo edino razlike v površinah in prostorninah raziskanih sedimentov. Kako raziskana površina in volumen sedimentov vplivata na razmerja med posameznimi sklopi najdb je razvidno na primeru Pečine na Leskovcu - G. Azzurra (razpredelnica 8.2). Analiza podatkov iz tega najdišča je lahko problematična zaradi velikega vpada plasti, ki je na površini 1 m2 sicer nepomemben, pridobi pa veljavo na večji površini (glej Cremonesi el al. 1984, sl. 2). Žal ni jasno, ali je A. Ciccone (1992) v svoji analizi celotnega mezolitskega gradiva po (menda vodoravnih) režnjih upoštevala vpad plasti in če gaje, kako je to storila (za rešitev podobnega vprašanja glej Turk 2003). Razlike v razmerju med odpadki in izdelki med najdišči so predvsem posledica natančnosti pri izvajanju terensko-laboratorijske metode (npr. tega, ali je bila pri pregledovanju spranih sedimentov uporabljena lupa ali ne). Razlike med večjimi izdelki in odpadki med najdišči so skoraj izključno povezane s preteklo tradicijo in z različno močnimi preteklimi dejavnostmi na posameznem najdišču (sl. 8.2). Trapezi so tako evidentno del kastelnovjenske tradicije in njen razpoznavni znak (Broglio 1984, 311). To pomeni, da je en sam trapez lahko odločilen za opredelitev najdišča. V Viktorjevem spodmolu so redki trapezi v treh nivojih (režnjih), večina mikro vbadal pa je nad njimi. Če sledim aktualnim tipološko-kronološkim shemam, ni dvoma, da je v Viktorjevem spodmolu prisoten kastel-novjen. Seveda se lahko vprašam, kakšni izdelki so bili narejeni v drugih najdiščih na podlagi redkih mikro vbadal v sovterjenu in celo epigravetjenu (npr. v Pečini pri Bjarču in v Riparu Tagliente), ki naj bi bil popolnoma brez trapezov. Odgovor je znan: trikotniki, segmenti ipd. 7500 i 5000 j? 2500 S O 43 č 3 250 «n £ § 75 ° 50 25 Viktorjev spodmol (0,3 m’) Riparo (iaban (0,7 mJ) Cores Grotta Azzurra (0,2 m3) S/. 8.2: Razmerje med odpadki, jedri in izdelki v različnih mezolitskih najdiščih. Fig. 8.2: Ratio between debris, cores and tools in various Mesolithic sites. * I |46%1 j Eä Odpadki Debris ti Izdelki Tools ■I Jedra 8.2 Comparison with Italian Sites A comparison of Viktorjev spodmol with nearby sites on the Triestine Karst and with the more distant reference site Romagnano 111 (Table 8.2 and 8.3) is easier because of similar fieldwork methods (wet sieving on sieves with diameter of hole of 1 mm). It is only made difficult by differences in the areas and volumes of the sediments examined. How the examined area and volume of sediments affect the ratio between individual groups of finds is clear in the case of Pečina na Leskovcu - G. Azzurra (Table 8.2). Analysis of the data from this site can be problematic because of the large inclination of layers, which is unimportant on an area of I m2, but gains validity on a larger area (see Cremonesi et al. 1984, Fig. 2). Unfortunately, it is not clear whether A. Ciccone (1992), in her analysis of the entire Mesolithic material by (probably horizontal) spits took into account the dip of layers and if she did, how it was done (for the solution of a similar question see Turk 2003). Differences in the ratios between debris and products between sites are mainly the result of accuracy in the implementation of fieldwork and laboratory methods (e.g., whether a magnifying glass was used or not in examining washed sediments). Differences between larger products and debris between sites are almost exclusively connected with past tradition and with different strong past activities at an individual site (Fig. 8.2). Trapezes are thus evidently part of the Castelnovi-an tradition and diagnostic of it (Broglio 1984, 311). This means that a single trapeze can be decisive in classifying the site. In Viktorjev spodmol, trapezes on three levels (spits) are rare, and the majority of microburins are above them. If 1 trace the actual typological and chronological scheme, there is no doubt that Castelnovian is present in Viktorjev spodmol. I can of course ask what kind of products were made at other sites, on the basis of occasional microburins in the Sauveterrian and even Epigravettian (e.g., in Pečina pri Bjarču or in Riparo Tagliente), which are supposed to be completely without trapezes. The answer is known: triangles, segments etc. However, it is known that the number of microburins increases mainly proportionately to the number of trapezes and falls in inverse proportion to the number of triangles. The question of the microburin technique is especially pressing if microburins from various periods do not differ among themselves. The possibility that in distinguishing Sauveterrian from Castelnovian we are turning in the circle of chro-nometry and archaeological typology in my view cannot be excluded, so I will discuss this further. In order to break the circle, we would have to replace the simplified method of connecting archaeological typology with Razpredelnica 8.2: Kvantitativno-kvalitativna primerjava med Pečino na Leskovcu - Grotta Azzurra (G. A.) in Viktorjevim spodmolom (V. s.). Table 8.2: Quantitative and qualitative comparison between Pečina na Leskovcu - Grotta Azzurra (G. A.) and Viktorjev spodmol (V. s.). 1 E J o 'i pj ° ca > S :=, 2 -o & — r~ m .E ! ~ O. -S . -o (U «u -r; -ö 6 o rfS ° 'S o X3 — > _ cd -r" .O -o p 7Z‘ •2 E o S 'C S C > 'S CJ rt C O cd :zr 5 c 3 >a C •= £ o o — sz ^ «“* O X) C a> n 11 E S ” S x E O S .2 E .ti o u oo 'i? w 2 H £ O > z cx ‘55 c B •g » fc u OJ *T* =J c ^ c/l •ti rt ž U g ä c o 'o 3 C "O R C o ^ &. — t/i vSSs ü cd 00 u ‘C c w> .2 c ^ «- "o ° 00 >, t/1 t/) TD rt o, E -u _ TD a> c a) "O C (fi TD ^ k O) JU ^ ^ O D, W) o 2 ‘C S >* rO - 01 O O O Segmenti Segments o- O O ON ro 00 3(4?) r- Trikotniki Triangles 35 •n 22 169 49 156 84 325 Sovt. konice Sauv. points 1 co •n (N 60 ON 48 (N 108 Praskala Endscrapers nO (N - 53 22 64 38 r- Jedra Cores 50 "■f ro O- ON C*-* 169 380 Izdelki Tools nO 68 107 1197 263 935 423 2132 Odpadki Debris 4284 10158 2550 C*- 7417 O- 11701 41601 Opredelitev Phase Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Sovterjen Sauveterrian Sovterjen Sauveterrian Najdišče, blok. reženj Site, block, spit G. A. režnji 1—4 (0,2 m’) G. A. spits 1-4 (0,2 m3) V. s. režnji 1-19(0,3 m3) V. s. spits 1-19 (0,3 m3) V. s. sonda (2 m3) V. s. test trench (2 m3) G. A. režnji 1-4. (0,7 m3) G. A. spits l^t. (0,7 m3) G. A. režnji 5-17 (0,8 m3) G. A. spits 5-17 (0,8 m3) G. A. režnji 5-17 (2,1 m3) G. A. spits 5-17 (2,1,m3) G. A. režnji 1-17 (1,0 m3) G. A. spits 1-17 (1,0 m3) G. A. režnji 1-17 (2,8 m') G. A. spits 1-17 (2,8 m3) CQ CQ — O O CJ M M Cremonesi et al. 1984 Ciccone 1992 Turk Cremonesi et al. 1984 Ciccone 1992 Turk Cremonesi et al. 1984 Ciccone 1992 Turk (N C** O - O- O - ’ - r- <>• - 23 c- - •n c*** ro 38 c- ro 45 O' ro «n «n r- c^* 746 1056 c*-* 746 947 O’ NO •'t r- Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Sovterjen Sauveterrian Sovteijen Sauveterrian Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Sovterjen Sauveterrian Sovterjen Sauveterrian Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? G. A. reženj 4 (1 m2) G. A. spit 4 (1 m:) G. A. reženj 4 (3,5 m2) G. A. spit 4 (3,5 m2) V. s. reženj 16 (0,4 m2) V. s. spit 16 (0,4 m2) G. A. reženj 7 (1 m2) G. A. spit 7 (1 m2) G. A. reženj 7 (3,5 m2) G.A. spit 7 (3,5 m2) V. s. reženj 16 (0,4 m2) V. s. spit 16 (0,4 m2) G. A. reženj 9 (1 m2) G. A. spit 9 (1 m2) G. A. reženj 9 (3,5 m2) G. A. spit 9 (3,5 m2) V. s. reženj 16 (0,4 m2) V. s. spit 16 (0,4 m2) OO OC e p ž O <= o r*“, O 43 o Trikotniki Triangles 299 43 - 22 ■/-. «O 40 55 fN Sovt. konice Sauv. points 139 2(4) r< n V. o 35 Praskala Kndscrapers 214 OC 25 - (N 27 o 40 O Jedra Cores O' 26(41) -T n c*~. oc OC c*~. - 12 II 1777 210 ~t 89 589 r*-, r-~ r- r*', r^i Odpadki Debris C^* 5063 5150 2550 10 158 8681 2064 C“• 746 Opredelitev Phase Srednji sovterjen Middle Sauvelerrian Starejši kastelnovjen Early Castelnovian Mlajši kastelnovjen Late Castelnovian Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Sovterjen Sauvelerrian Sovterjen Sauvelerrian Srednji sovterjen Middle Sauvelerrian Kastelnovjen? Castelnovian? Najdišče, blok. plast, reženj Site, block, layer, spit R. Ill plasti AC3-AC 9 (?5 nv’) R. Ill layers AC3-AC 9 (?5 rn'l R. Gaban plast FA (0.7 m1) R. Gaban layer FA (0.7 nr) R. Gaban plast E (1,3 m1) R. Gaban layer E (1.3 m’) V. s. sonda (2 m1) V. s. test trench (2 nv ) V. s. režnji 1-19 (0,3 nr') V. s. spits 1-19 (0,3 m3) G. E. režnji 6-12 (2,7 nr) G. E. spits 6-12 (2,7 m3) G. E. reženj 9 (3 nr) G. E. spit 9 (3 nr) R. Ill plast AC7 (6 m:) R III layer AC7 (6 nr) V. s. reženj 16 (0.4 nr) V. s. spit 16 (0,4 nr) o o *«/S .9* 3 ■S S T S ' OJ ^ u- — o. .£• c . JI £i *~ E S > ’’S o o 4> sO ri. "O . . .O O w -O .2 .° rt 'c? *2 'EP «J *N o. E . -o ^ N CM • — 5 "o o o o x> rt oo - « rt ^ -O E ca O 3 I S š £ £ NJ 2, £ 00 CQ 1 Ü o rt O oi c ■-ZD C3 u zz Cl C3 •— O JO .2 E c* .ü (/)«-;_ i2 15 u- rt > ° č 3 •* 5 ? -rti o o -g C . t/5 S os > £ > Jä c 9! :° c Ja.' rt* »3 <= ti: . o C3 C fC w- C 4> ca — -o 5/5 U JJ V > - c: — rt c; o > o "° H —• • K/» 1°| > — 9 •— (/i C. 2 c > _ rt ■a n § £ O S g * 2 « u. c o. »_ 00 . l> rt 3 > E c E c — -o >1 I :§ ^ E c i w w r^j > O « ^ 3 -C? 'C 'IT1 O *■' « tS •— C — g N > g s > S =* i- 2P e ^ 0.5 .£ > rt ^ X) 7^ r- *-■ ^ C — o rt E c o ^ 1/1 .b g .rt :=. - öo ■o •-« c •■/) u c E 00 N O o c 00 rt 1/5 E o T3 O M ? a ° 0 C 22 £ c .C -- m rt: *H 2 'E* rt *“ O > 1 'i? o. i I-S 00 ■— 1 s •& D. rt •- — C •2 'S S. rt C rt 50 rt E .. o uu o' 1 2 'g O 0C 00 c. rt — 1 ° r3 ^ rt rt a> _ rt O. oj « - « Q T3 X3 —1 C _. , rt ~ u o <“* */> rt = -1 o oo rt C c « ^ .2 U T3 ^ w — rt o C O .H £- ir. r— J= ^ ^ s “ fe c - 2 .2 5 u c ^ p « I E £ p o JU ^ r- »P *a d c E u O J S -i U v£> _aj o X) rt O O O a> — n g l_ U U o. !/) >> “3 — oo rt rt ,u- w J/) (— . TD C OC c ° C ^ VI •— ■O o £= c v O a. ^ o w "3 rt c s " « c ^ 'U •- W ^ o : o. o. — P u i— c ■a w rt • b •en l_ W (U 3 C - ^ S «« > —. c 3 - rt rt ^ x> c/2 ~ rt •o .O o rt — OC JO w rt ^ t -° 9 P o o o 1/5 O Ü C 60 rt I I S E 0 o oc c o .= c a> — 3- ^ 1 «/5 4J R z o rt rn OO «Ü s: S o. 2 S (/3 W o 4 N rt o rt 2 E 00 ' o " T3 rt (U 'C NJ O •— 'G S ® o. o 2 o- c. o, __ jj r^, 5 1 .i “ 5 f S. 7 1 o J2 S i: — rt X • — 4> — C « C. ■ rt ^ 00 — O 11.1 .2 a) rt i: != > E 0 01 >3 ~ C 00 > Z c/) oi c c rt O c *5 ft, o 00 u- L” rt o -a it: C Q. «2 1/1 1 s| a v a 3 u s .2 ^ r-I "° 5 UJ 0\ i- —■ u I o ^ ° S OJ CTv Vendar je znano, da število mikro vbadal narašča predvsem premo sorazmerno s številom trapezov in upada obratno sorazmerno s številom trikotnikov. Vprašanje mikrovbadalne tehnike je zlasti pereče, če se mikro vbadala iz različnih obdobij med seboj ne razlikujejo. chronometry with a more complete method of linking sites and data. In view of the number of trapezes in the earlier and later Castelnovian levels of the site, R. Gaban (Table 8.3), I would classify Viktorjev spodmol in the ear- Možnost, da se pri razlikovanju sovterjena od kas-telnovjena vrtimo v krogu kronometrije in arheološke tipologije, po mojem ni izključena, zato bom o tem še razpravljal. Da bi krog presekali, bi morali poenostavljen način povezovanja arheološke tipologije s kronome-trijo zamenjati z bolj dodelanim načinom za povezovanje najdišč in podatkov. Glede na število trapezov v starejšem in mlajšem kastelnovjenskem nivoju najdišča R. Gaban (razpredelnica 8.3) bi Viktorjev spodmol lahko uvrstil v starejšo fazo kastelnovjena, M. Triglavco pa v njegovo mlajšo fazo pod pogojem, da trapezi v M. Triglavci ne pripadajo neolitski plasti oz. neolitiku. S takšno umestitvijo se ujema tudi število mikro vbadal, preračunano na število trapezov. Mikroliti so del sovterjenske in kastelnovjenske tradicije in so ključni za ugotavljanje razvojnih trendov mezolitskih inventarjev. Na različna razmerja med posameznimi tipi mikrolitov med najdišči nedvomno vpliva že omenjena prostorska variabilnost. Zato tukaj ne pridemo daleč. Kakšna je vloga segmentov in enakokrakih trikotnikov, ki močno prevladujejo v sovterjenskih plasteh najdišča Romagnano III, bi težko sodil samo na podlagi enega ali dveh najdišč. Razumljivo bi bilo, če bi enakokraki trikotniki sčasoma prešli v raznostranične ali obratno, vendar temu ni tako (glej Barbaza er a/. 1991, 224). Po drugi strani pa kaže, da proti koncu mezolitika povsem izginejo enakokraki trikotniki (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, sl. 32; Barbaza et al. 1991, 241, sl. 2). Vprašanje zase so hipermikroliti, ki se v Italiji pojavljajo predvsem v mlajšem mezolitiku (kastelnovjenu), tj. v atlantski dobi. V Franciji je hipermikrolitizacija segmentov (tudi asimetričnih, ki spominjajo na trikotnike) značilna že za starejši montadjen (Montadien ancien), tj. drijas (dryas) III (Rozoy 1978b, t. 68, 70) in se nadaljuje tudi v srednjem sovterjenu (Sauveterrien move n), tj. v borealu (Barbaza et al 1991, 236, 240s, 251, slike). Viktorjev spodmol se, kar zadeva mikrolite, v nekaterih pogledih razlikuje od italijanskih najdišč, če upoštevam prostornino raziskanih sedimentov. Kaže, da ima rahlo več dvojnih konic z dvema hrbtoma, medtem ko imajo italijanska najdišča več trikotnikov. Med njimi so tudi takšni, ki jih v Viktorjevem spodmolu ni (npr. tip Montclus). Za ustrezno rešitev takšnih in podobnih vprašanj bi morali najprej rešiti vprašanje odnosa med časom in prostorom. Če bi hoteli ugotoviti npr. zanesljiva razmerja med konicami in trikotniki v najdiščih in med njimi, bi morali povečati raziskano površino do mere, ko bi presegli prostorsko variabilnost najdb. Namreč: stvari variirajo v prostoru vse do tedaj, dokler ne zajamemo celotnega osrednjega področja njihove razprostranjenosti ali drugače povedano, dokler ne preidejo v ravnotežno stanje (‘steady state’). Ko zajamemo tudi obrobno področje razprostranjenosti, se variabilnost umiri. lier phase of the Castelnovian, and M. Triglavca in its later phase, provided that the trapezes in M. Triglavca do not belong to the Neolithic layers, or the Neolithic. The number of microburins, calculated by the number of trapezes, conforms to such a classification. Microliths are part of the Sauveterrian and Castelnovian tradition and are crucial for establishing development trends of the Mesolithic inventory. The already mentioned spatial variability undoubtedly influences the different ratios between individual types of microliths between sites. We will not therefore go further here. What the role is of segments and isosceles triangles, which greatly predominate in Sauveterrian layers of the Romagnano III site, would be difficult to judge on the basis of one or two sites, only. It would be understandable if isosceles triangles gradually transformed into scalene triangles or the reverse, but it is not so (see Barbaza et al. 1991, 224). On the other hand, it appears that towards the end of the Mesolithic, isosceles triangles completely disappear (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, Fig. 32; Barbaza et al. 1991, 241, Fig. 2). Hypermicroliths are a question in themselves, which appear in Italy mainly in the later Mesolithic (Castelnovian), i.e., in the Atlantic period. In France, hypermicrolithisation of segments (including asymmetric ones reminiscent of triangles) is already characteristic of the Early Montadien (Montadien ancien), i.e., Dryas III period (Rozoy 1978b, Plate 68, 70) and also continues into the middle Sauveterrian (Sauveterrien moyen), i.e., into the Borreal period (Barbaza et al 1991, 236, 240s, 251, figures). Viktorjev spodmol, as far as microliths are concerned; differs in some points of view from Italian sites, if I take into account the volume of examined sediments. It appears that il has slightly more double-backed bipoints, while Italian sites have more triangles. They include those that are absent from Viktorjev spodmol (e.g. type Montclus). For a suitable solution of this and similar questions we would first have to solve the question of the relation between time and space. If, for instance, we wanted to establish a reliable ratio between points and triangles within sites and between them, we would have to increase the investigated area to the extent that it exceeded the spatial variability of finds. Namely: things vary in space right up until they embrace the entire central area of their distribution, or put another way, until a ‘steady state’ is achieved. When we also embrace the marginal areas of their distribution, the variability reduces. All processes and things connected with man, namely, have a specific distribution in space (and time) and are concentrated somewhere; they have a centre or a number of centres. So burned bone fragments are created in a hearth or hearths and are spread from there into space. When Vsi procesi in stvari, ki so povezani s človekom, imajo namreč določeno razprostranjenost v prostoru (in času) in se nekje zgostijo; imajo svoj center ali več centrov. Tako so ožgani kostni drobci nastali v kurišču ali kuriščih in se od tam razširili v prostor. Ko prostor povečujem, število ožganih kostnih drobcev eksponencial-no (ali linearno ali kako drugače) narašča, vse dokler ne zajamem vsega osrednjega dela njihove razprostranjenosti. S prehodom na periferni del razprostranjenosti se krivulja izravna in doseženo je ravnotežno stanje (sl. 8.1). Od tod naprej je vzorec ožganih kostnih drobcev prostorsko in posledično kronološko reprezentativen. Vse razlike, povezane z drugimi prostorsko reprezentativnimi vzorci, bi bile odslej predvsem kronološke narave. Vprašanje razvojne stopnje, ki se mi ne zdi rešeno, je, ali pripadajo mezolitske najdbe s Tržaškega krasa in iz Viktorjevega spodmola kastelnovjenu ali sovterjenu, ne glede na možne l4C datacije (glej tudi Turk, ta zbornik), ki običajno odločilno vplivajo na odločitev o (razvojno kulturni) opredelitvi najdb. Če posnemam italijanske kolege in primerjam najdbe iz omenjenih najdišč z najdbami iz plasti AC9-AC3 v Romagnanu III, ki sta jih A. Broglio in J. K.. Kozlowski umestila v srednji sovterjen, ugotovim pomembnejše razlike v skupini mikrolitov. V Romagnano III je bistveno več segmentov in nič trapezov, in to tako v bloku sedimentov kot v najbogatejšem režnju (razpredelnica 8.3). Pri trikotnikih ni razlike razen te, da so v Romagnanu III precej bolj pogosti enakokraki primerki. Vsa obravnavana kraška najdišča bi glede na zastopanost segmentov in trapezov težko uvrstil v sovterjen tipa Romagnano III. Vendar lahko pripadajo krajevni različici ali posebni kronološki fazi sovterjena, saj jih na podlagi redkih trapezov ni mogoče brez pomisleka uvrstiti v kastelnovjen. Za kastelnovjen so po navedbah italijanskih kolegov poleg številnih trapezov značilne tudi pravilnejše kline (npr. Montbani) in močnejša koščena obrt kot v sovterjenu. Vse to je razvidno v M. Triglavci, na Bregu in v najmlajši plasti Pečine pri Bjarču. Tipično kastelnovjen-sko najdišče, ki združuje vse te znčilnosti in bogato umetnost v plasti nad sovterjenom pa je spodmol Ga-ban v Trentski kotlini (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000). the space is increased, the number of burned bone fragments exponentially (or linearly or in some other way) rises until I embrace the entire central part of their distribution. With transition to the peripheral part of the distribution, the curve flattens and achieves a steady state (Fig 8.1). From then on, the sample of burned bone fragments is spatially, and consequently chronologically, representative. All differences connected with other spatial representative samples would henceforth be mainly of a chronological nature. The question of development level, which seems to me unsolved, is whether the finds from the Triestine Karst and from Viktorjev spodmol belong to the Castel-novian or Sauveterrian, regardless of possible l4C dating (see also Turk, this volume), which normally has a decisive influence on the decision about the (developmental cultural) classification of the finds. If I imitate Italian colleagues and compare the finds from the aforementioned sites with finds from layers AC9-AC3 in Romagnano III, which A. Broglio and J. K. Kozlowski placed in the middle Sauveterrian, I find more important differences in the group of microliths. In Romagnano III there are essentially more segments and no trapezes, both in the block of sediments and in the richest spit (Table 8.3). There is no difference in triangles except that in Romagnano III isosceles specimens are considerably more common. In view of the representation of segments and trapezes, it would be difficult to classify all the Karst sites discussed into Sauveterrian of the Romagnano III type. However, they could belong to a local variant or special chronological phase of the Sauveterrian, since on the basis of occasional trapezes it is not possible unhesi-tantly to classify them in the Castelnovian. According to claims of Italian colleagues, in addition to numerous trapezes, more regular blades (e.g. Montbani) and stronger bone craftwork than in the Sauveterrian are also characteristic of the Castelnovian. All this is evident in M. Triglavca, in Breg and in the youngest layer of Pečina pri Bjarču (Riparo di Biar-zo). Gaban rocksheiter (Riparo Gabun) in the Trento basin (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000) is a typical Castelnovian site which unites all these charcteristics and rich art in the layers above the Sauveterrian. 9. Opredelitev najdb 9. Classification of iz Viktorjevega Viktorjev Spodmol spodmola Ivan Turk Pri opredelitvi najdišča je pomembna njegova časovna in kulturno tehnološka pripadnost. Pri časovni umestitvi najdišča je na voljo več možnosti, od katerih nobena ni bolj zanesljiva od drugih, je pa glede na okoliščine najprimernejša za takšno umeščanje samo ena Te možnosti nam ponujajo litolo-gija oziroma sedimentologija, paleontologija, arheologija in kronometrija. Zaradi okrnjenega profila, ki v časovnem intervalu, dolgem več tisoč let (o tem ni dvoma na podlagi arheoloških najdb), ponuja le slab meter debele sedimente, so vse možnosti za temeljito opredelitev najdišča omejene na zelo splošne ugotovitve z majhno časovno in drugo ločljivostjo. Stvar je še toliko bolj zapletena, ker v bližnji okolici ni dobrega referenčnega najdišča za vse naštete raziskovalne panoge skupaj, ampak kvečjemu za vsako posebej, pri čemer izstopata arheologija in kronometrija. Za dobro referenčno najdišče je osnovni pogoj velika gostota najdb in dobra časovna ločljivost, ki je povezana z debelino sedimentov (in hitrostjo sedimentacije). Ta pogoj izpolnjujejo le redka najdišča, med katerimi je npr. precej oddaljeno najdišče Romagnano III, Trento, Italija (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983) z 8 m debelimi sedimenti, ki vsebujejo najdbe od vključno mezoliti-ka do železne dobe, in bližnje najdišče Podmol pri Kastelcu (Turk et at. 1993) s 7 m debelimi sedimenti, ki vsebujejo najdbe od vključno neolitika do srednjega veka. Vendar Podmol ne izpolnjuje večine drugih pogojev, ki se nanašajo na analizo gradiva; Romagnano III jih izpolnjuje, a ne v celoti, sploh pa ne v smislu, da bi imel ustrezno naravi kompleksne kronološke problematike izpeljane analize (glej dalje in Turk 2003) in neodvisno preverjene izsledke različnih raziskav celotnega gradiva. Začasna terenska analiza sedimentov Viktorjevega spodmola je pokazala, da sta v najdišču vsaj dva sedi-mentacijska dogodka, ki se ne ujemata s plastmi, tako kot sem jih določil v profilu. Meja med obema dogodkoma je nekako na sredini plasti 2. Za sedimente, ki pripadajo starejšemu dogodku, je značilna večja vsebnost klastičnega materiala vseh velikosti (razpredelnica 5.1), kar lahko povežem z močnejšim preperevanjem in/ali hitrostjo sedimentacije. Teh dveh dogodkov za zdaj ne morem argumentirano povezati s klimo. Več možnosti In classifying a site, its temporal and cultural technological affiliation is important. With the chronological classification of a site, various possibilities are available, of which none is more reliable than another, but in relation to the circumstances only one is most suitable for such classification. These possibilities are provided by lithology or sedimen-tology, palaeontology, archaeology and chronometry. Because of the curtailed profile which, over a period of time several thousand years long (there is no doubt about this on the basis of archaeological finds), only rather less than a metre thick sediment is offered, all the possibilities for a thorough classification of the site are limited to very general findings with small chronological and other resolution. The matter is even more complicated because there is no good reference site in the near vicinity for all the enumerated research branches together, but at most for each individually, in which archaeology and chronometry stand out. The basic condition for a good reference point is a high density of finds and good temporal resolution, which is connected with the thickness of sediments (and rate of sedimentation). Only a few sites fulfil that condition, which include, e.g., the fairly distant sites of Romagnano III, Trento, Italy (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983) with 8 m thick sediments that contain finds from Mesolithic to Iron Age inclusive, and the nearer site of Podmol pri Kastelcu (Turk et al. 1993) with 7 m thick sediments, containing finds ranging from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages. However, Podmol does not meet the majority of other conditions relating to the analysis of material; Romagnano III fulfils them but not in entirety, and not at all in the sense of having had analyses performed appropriate to the nature of the complex chronological problem (see below and Turk 2003) and independently verified results of different studies of the entire material. Preliminary fieldwork analysis ol'sediments of Viktorjev spodmol showed that there had been at least two sedimentation events at the site, which are not in conformity with the layers as I determined them in profile. The boundary between the two events is somewhere in the middle on layer 2. For sediments belonging to the older event, a larger content of clastic material is cha- za takšne povezave ponujata oba akumulacijska horizonta: v spodnjem delu plasti 2 in v dnu plasti 3. Z njima so povezane tudi prevleke sige na arheoloških najdbah, predvsem na kamenih artefaktih, kar kaže na to, da so arheološke najdbe starejše od klime, v kateri so bili podani pogoji za izločanje sige v omejenem obsegu. Seveda je nemogoče ugotoviti, v kateri vlažni holocenski klimatski fazi je nastal posamezen akumulacijski horizont, v kolikor oba horizonta sploh lahko povezujem s spremembo vlažnosti. Kar zadeva paleontologijo, ugotavljam naslednje: Analiza ostankov velikih sesalcev ne ponuja realnih možnosti za spremljanje sprememb v okolju in za posredno časovno umestitev najdišča: je pa pomembna za opredelitev ekonomije skupnosti, ki so živele v najdišču (glej Toškan, Dirjec v tem zborniku). Analiza ostankov majhnih sesalcev teoretično dopušča možnost za spremljanje okoljskih sprememb in za posredno časovno umestitev najdišča (glej Toškan, K.ryštufek v tem zborniku). B. Toškan (2002) je ugotovil zanesljive in velike razlike med režnji 1-7 (vrh plasti 2, plast I in 2) in režnji 8-19 (večinski del plasti 2 in plast 3), ki temeljijo predvsem na zastopanosti gozdnih vrst. Teh je v spodnjem delu profila na splošno več kot v zgornjem delu. Med njimi so tudi take, ki živijo izključno v listnatih gozdovih. Vendar najdbe hrčka v režnju 11 (plast 2) in 18 (plast 3) kažejo tudi na možen obstoj stepe, najdbe dinarske voluharice v režnju 15 in 18 (plast 3) pa na prisotnost kamnišč. Povečevanje travnih površin na račun gozdnih v zgornjem delu profila B. Toškan in B. Kryštufek (ta zbornik) razlagata z vplivom človeka na naravno okolje, ne pa s klimatskimi spremembami. Na podlagi ostankov malih sesalcev tako ni mogoče zanesljivo sklepati o spreminjanju klime, niti ni mogoče najdišča časovno umestiti. Analiza ostankov cktotcrmnih vretenčarjev dopušča približno enake teoretične možnosti za spremljanje sprememb v okolju in za posredno časovno umestitev najdišča kot analiza ostankov malih sesalcev (glej Paunovič, ta zbornik). Precej zanesljiv paleoekološki kazalec so zelo številni ostanki slepca, ki ves čas odlaganja sedimentov kažejo na obstoj bližnjih vlažnih travnikov in gozda. Preostali ektotermni vretenčarji posredno dokazujejo mešanico različnih okolij v bližini najdišča: listnatega gozda in zaplat odprtih kamnišč ter vlažnih predelov. Analiza ostankov mehkužcev za zdaj ni dala paleoe-koloških in kronoloških rezultatov (glej Slapnik, ta zbornik) navkljub potencialu, ki naj bi ga te najdbe imele (Ložek 1967). Drugih paleontoloških najdb s pelodom na čelu, ki bi pripomogle k opredelitvi najdišča, ni bilo oziroma jih nismo uspeli vzorčiti. Izjema so redki ostanki semen in oglja, ki smo jih zbrali pri sejanju sedimentov (glej Culiberg, ta zbornik). racteristic, of all sizes (Table 5.1), which I could link with stronger weathering and/or higher rate of sedimentation. 1 cannot for the moment argue the connection of these two events with climate. The accumulation horizons offer more possibility for such a linkage: in the lower part of layer 2 and on the bottom of layer 3. The calcite coating on archaeological finds are also connected with them, mainly on stone artefacts, which indicates that the archaeological finds are older than a climate in which conditions were given for the precipitation of calcite in a limited extent. It is of course impossible to establish in which damp Holocene climatic phase an individual accumulation horizon was created, insofar as two horizons can in general be connected with changes of humidity. As far as palaeontology is concerned, I find the following: Analysis of the remains of large mammals does not offer real possibilities of monitoring changes in the environment and for indirect chronological classification of the site; but it is important for defining the economy of the communities that lived at the site (see Toškan, Dirjec in this volume). Analysis of remains of small mammals theoretically allows the opportunity of monitoring environmental changes and indirect chronological classification of the site (see Toškan, Krystufek in this volume). B. Toškan (2002) established reliable and major differences between spits 1-7 (top of layer 2, layer 1 and 2) and spits 8-19 (majority of layer 2 and layer 3), which are based above all on the representation of forest species. There are in general more of these in the lower part of the profile than in the upper part. They also include those that live exclusively in deciduous forests. However, finds of grey hamster in spit 11 (layer 2) and 18 (layer 3) also indicates the possible existence of steppe, and finds of Martino’s vole in spits 15 and 18 to the presence of a stony environment. B. Kryštufek and B. Toškan (this volume) explain the increasing area of grassland at the expense of forest in the upper part of the profile by the influence of man on the natural environment, and not climatic changes. On the basis of the remains of small mammals, it is thus not possible reliably to reach conclusions about climatic changes, nor is it possible to place the site in time. Analysis of the remains of cctothcrma! vertebrates allows approximately the same theoretical possibilities of monitoring changes in the environment and indirect chronological classification of the site as analysis of the remains of small mammals (see Paunovič, this volume). Very numerous remains of slow-worms are a fairly reliable palaeological indicator, which demonstrate the existence of nearby damp meadows and forest for the entire time of deposition of sediments. Remaining ectother-mal vertebrates indirectly indicate a mixture of various environments in the vicinity of the site: deciduous forest and patches of open stonefields and damp areas. Vendar se je pozneje pokazalo, da so vsaj semena izključno novodobna in tako bistveno mlajša od plasti, v katerih so bila najdena. To opozarja na možnost, da tudi druge drobne najdbe, razen artefaktov, niso vedno sočasne s sedimentacijo. Arheološke najdbe so trenutno najprimernejše za časovno in druge opredelitve najdišča, pri čemer je časovna opredelitev osnova za vsa nadaljnja sklepanja o najdišču. Iz stratigrafskega pregleda vseh arheoloških najdb in najdb samih je razvidno, da sta v najdišču vsaj dve časovno ločeni arheološki fazi: mezolitska (spodnji del plasti 2 in plast 3) in poneolitska prazgodovinska (plast 1 in zgornji del plasti 2). Fazi ni mogoče stratigrafsko ostro razmejiti, saj so najdbe v obeh na določenem stra-tigrafskem odseku (režnji 6-11) premešane. Mešanje najdb bi bilo lahko posledica zastoja ali vrzeli v sedimentaciji, kar je pričakovati glede na majhno debelino sedimentov. Do tod je rezultat raziskave popolnoma zanesljiv. Od tod dalje pa je veliko negotovosti. Glede na številčnost in pestrost najdb je zanimiva predvsem mezolitska faza, ki jo bomo z morebitnimi novimi izkopavanji, ki bodo povečala število najdb in popestrila njihov izbor, morda lahko razdelili na dve samostojni razvojni fazi (starejšo in mlajšo). V zvezi z mezolitskimi najdbami se postavlja vprašanje, kateremu večjemu mezolitskemu kompleksu pripadajo. Glede na geografske, geomorfološke in ekološke povezave z ozemljem bližnjega Tržaškega krasa, pride v poštev samo kompleks sovterjena - (sauvelerrien, starejši mezolitik) ali kastelnovjena - (castelnovien, mlajši mezolitik). Oba kompleksa sta bila razširjena na istem velikem območju, zlasti južno in jugozahodno od Alp, tako da ni razloga, da ne bi segala tudi v zahodno Slovenijo. Tardenoazjenski (tardenoisien) kompleks ne pride v poštev, čeprav ga M. Brodar na primer predvideva za zahodno Slovenijo in je v najdišču Pod Črmukljo dva trapeza celo zmotno opredelil kot tardenoajski - (tarde-nois) konici (Brodar 1992, 26, t. 5: 13-14). Prav tako ne pride v poštev noben drug znan mezolitski kompleks in za zdaj tudi ne nova avtohtona skupina. Ko govorim o mezolitskih kompleksih in povzemam francoske oznake, jih v podrobnostih ne enačim s kompleksi v francoskih loci lipici, tako kot jih ne enačijo italijanski kolegi. Ugotavljam samo splošno podobnost in pripadnost. Zato bi lahko govoril tudi o sovteroidnih, kastelnovoidnih in tardenoaidnih najdbah. Če relativno majhno število trapezov in mikro vbadal ni zgolj naključno, lahko mezolitske najdbe iz Viktorjevega spodmola pripišem sovterjenu. Za kastelnov-jen je namreč značilno veliko število asimetričnih trapezov in mikro vbadal (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, tab. 11 in 13), ki so dosti pogosti tudi v starejšem neolitiku. Neolitika pa v Viktorjevem spodmolu, sodeč po keramičnih najdbah, zanesljivo ni, zato ni moglo priti do mešanja mezolitskih in neolitskih najdb kamene obrti. Analysis of the remains of molluscs has not for the moment given any palaeoecological or chronological results (see Slapnik, this volume) despite the potential that such finds could have (Ložek 1967). Other palaeontological finds, above all of pollen, which could contribute to defining the site, have not been sampled, or we have not succeeded in sampling. Occasional remains of seeds and charcoal are an exception, which we collected during the sieving of the sediments (see Culiberg, this volume). However, it later appeared that at least the seeds are exclusively of the new age and thus essentially more recent than the layers in which they were found. This draws attention to the possibility of other small finds, too, except for artefacts, not always being contemporary with sedimentation. Archaeological finds are currently the most suitable for chronological and other classification of the site, whereby chronological classification is the basis for all further conclusions about the site. From a Stratigraphie point of view of all the archaeological finds and the finds themselves, it is clear that there are at least two chronologically distinct archaeological phases: the Mesolithic (lower part of layer 2 and layer 3) and post-Neolithic prehistoric (layer 1 and upper part of layer 2). It is not possible sharply to delineate the phases, since the finds in specific Stratigraphie sections (spits 6-11) are mixed. The mixture of finds may be a result of a halt or gap in sedimentation, which is to be expected in view of the small thickness of the sediments. To this point, the results of research are completely reliable. From here on, there is great uncertainty. In view of the number and diversity of finds, the Mesolithic phase is primarily of interest, which we will perhaps be able to divide into two development phases (older and younger) with possible new excavations that will increase the number of finds and vary their selection. In connection with Mesolithic finds, the question is raised of which major Mesolithic complex they belong to. In view of the geographic, geomorphologic and ecological connections with the territory of the nearby Triesti-ne Karst, only the Sauveterrian (Early Mesolithic) or the Castelnovian (Late Mesolithic) complexes enter into consideration. Both complexes were widespread in the same large area, especially south and southwest of the Alps, so that there is no reason for them not to have also extended to western Slovenia. The Tardenoisian complex does not enter into respect, although M. Brodar, for example, envisages it for western Slovenia and at the Pod Črmukljo site, two trapezes were even wrongly ascribed as Tardenoisian points (Brodar 1992, 26, Plate 5: 13-14). Similarly, no other known Mesolithic complex can be considered and for now also no new auchthonous group. When I speak of Mesolithic complexes and adopt French designations, I do not equate them in details with complexes in French loci tipici, just as Italian colleagues Ko sem napisal to in vsa druga poglavja, nisem imel kronometričnih podatkov o Viktorjevem spodmolu. Ker v sondi nismo naleteli na zaključeno celoto oglja v ognjišču, temveč samo na razpršene (zelo mobilne) drobce, se zaradi slabih izkušenj z disperznim ogljem v Divjih babah I nisem odločil za 14C datiranje oglja. Druge najdbe (kosti, semena) se mi iz enakega razloga kot tudi iz drugih (fizikalno-kemijske lastnosti) niso zdele najprimernejše za datiranje. Možnost, da bi prišlo do večje napake pri datiranju, se mi je zdela precej velika. Zato sem menil, da bi bil za eventualno določanje 14C starosti še najprimernejši na kost in/ali artefakt prisigan dovolj velik drobec oglja. Pri opredeljevanju mezolitskih najdišč ne moremo mimo radiometričnih podatkov, natančneje l4C kronologije. Izbor 2279 do vključno leta 1989 objavljenih l4C letnic za pozni paleolitik, mezolitik in zgodnji neolitik iz vse Evrope (Gob 1990) predstavlja dobro osnovo za (globalno) kronologijo mezolitika. Obenem ta izbor, analiziran po navedenih obdobjih (Gob 1990, 203 ss in sl. 3-5) zelo nazorno pokaže, koliko in kakšnih napak lahko pričakujemo pri l4C datiranju, saj je znano, da so vse l4C letnice pomlajene, nekatere bolj druge manj. V poznem paleolitiku je bila po seznamu, ki ga navaja A. Gob, napačna (beri evidentno premlada) približno polovica datacij, v mezolitiku kakšnih 13 % in v zgodnjem neolitiku praktično nobena. Red pomladitve l4C letnic (vse letnice so BP) je lahko tako velik, da padejo posamezna paleolitska najdišča v mezolitik in nekatera mezolitska v kovinska obdobja. Starejša ko so najdišča, bolj pereča je nevarnost pomladitve dejanske starosti zaradi različnih vzrokov (Nelson 1997, 55). Vzrok za napake v datiranju je zelo težko ugotoviti. Ugotavljanje vzroka se mi niti ne zdi pomembno. Pomembno je vedeti, daje neka letnica napačna. Za čas zadnjih 13-14 let, ko je bilo nedvomno narejenih še veliko l4C datacij mezolitskih najdišč, mi ni znana nobena podrobna statistična analiza teh datacij, ki bi dopolnila temeljno študijo A. Goba. Za italijanska najdišča v pokrajini Trentino Alto Adige se po stanju leta 1998 navaja več kot 100 radiometričnih datumov za obdobje od konca paleolitika do začetka neolitika (Dal-meri, Lanzinger 2001, 15), kar vsekakor ni ravno velika številka glede na število najdišč. Prepričan sem, da kronometrija ne ponuja enostavne rešitve v smislu enačenja mezolitskih kompleksov in/ ali skupin s kronometričnimi enotami, konkretno radio-metričnimi podatki, ali z biostratigrafskimi enotami, konkretno pelodnimi zonami kot so:... drijas 111, prebo-real, boreal, atlantik ... Tako kot podobni kompleksi in skupine najdb niso nujno sočasni, tudi približno enake datacije različnih kompleksov in skupin najdb še ne pomenijo, da so ti sočasni, in obratno različne datacije podobnih kompleksov in skupin nujno ne pomenijo, da so ti različno stari. Vendar lahko temu navzlic dovolj do not equate them. I find only general similarities and affiliation. So I can also speak of Sauveterroid, Castel-novoid and Tardenoid finds. If the relatively small number of trapezes and microburins is not merely coincidental, we can ascribe the Mesolithic finds from Viktorjev spodmol to the Sauveter-rian. The Castelnovian, namely, is characterised by a large number of asymmetric trapezes and microburins (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000. Plate II and 13), which are also common enough in the early Neolithic. However, judging by pottery finds, there is certainly no Neolithic in Viktorjev spodmol, so there could not have been a mixing of Mesolithic and Neolithic finds of stone craftware. When I wrote this and all other chapters, I did not have chronological data about Viktorjev spodmol. Since in the test trench we did not come across any closed find of charcoal in a hearth but only scattered (very mobile) fragments, because of bad experience with scattered charcoal in Divje babe 1,1 decided not to l4C date the charcoal. Other finds (bones, seed) did not seem to me very suitable for dating for the same reason, as well as others (e.g. physical and chemical properties). The possibility of there being a major error in dating seemed to me too great. I therefore believed that for possible determination of the l4C age, a large enough piece of charcoal attached to bone and/or artefact would be much more suitable. In determining Mesolithic sites, we cannot overlook radiometric data, more precisely the ,4C chronology. The selection of 2279 l4C dates published up to and including 1989 for the Late Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the whole of Europe (Gob 1990) provides a good basis for a (global) chronology of the Mesolithic and, at the same time, this selection, analysed for the cited periods (Gob 1990, 203 ss and Fig. 3-5) very eloquently shows how many and what kind of mistakes can be expected in 14C dating, since it is known that all l4C dates are too recent, some more than others. According to the list cited by A. Gob, approximately half the dates in the late Palaeolithic were wrong (clearly too recent), some 13% in the Mesolithic and in the early Neolithic practically none. The order of ‘rejuvenation’ of l4C dates (all dates are BP) can be so big that individual Palaeolithic sites are put into the Mesolithic and some Mesolithic into the Iron Age. The older the site, the greater the danger of‘rejuvenating’ the actual age, for various reasons (Nelson 1997, 55). The cause of the error in dating is very difficult to establish. Finding the cause does not seem to me important. It is important to know that some dates are wrong. For the period of the last 13-14 years, when far more l4C datings of Mesolithic sites have been done, no detailed statistical analysis of these data is known to me that would supplement the thorough study of A. Gob. More than 100 radiometric dates for the period from zanesljivo ocenimo globalno l4C starost mezolitskih kompleksov, ne glede na vprašljivost posamičnih starosti, če imamo za to dovolj radiometričnih podatkov. Sovterjen(ski kompleks) se umešča na podlagi številnih radiometričnih datacij med 9600 BP in 7800 (ali 7600) BP (Gob 1990, 37). To pomeni da pade v ta časovni interval tudi mezolitski nivo v Viktorjevem spodmolu, če ga na podlagi tipološko-tehnoloških kriterijev opredelim kot sovterjenskega. Neposredno datiranje najdišča bi lahko takšno umestitev ovrglo, vendar ne bi nikoli vedel ali je (so) datacija(e) pravilna(e). V primeru nižje l4C določene starosti, ki bi jo sprejel kot pravilno po zgledu ustaljene arheološke prakse, bi moral najdišče opredeliti za kastelnovjensko. S tem dejanjem pa bi vstopil v začarani krog kronometrije in arheološke metodologije, kjer se, pri najdiščih brez prave stratigrafske ločljivosti tipološko-tehnološke značilnosti, ki opredeljujejo arheološke komplekse in skupine, kompromisno podrejajo kronometriji. Brez prave stratigrafske ločljivosti je velika večina mezolitskih najdišč južno od Alp, primer kompromisnega in tveganega ravnanja pa sem zasledil že v naši neposredni soseščini pri opredeljevanju najdišč na Tržaškem krasu (glej Guerreschi 1998, 84). Od uvedbe metod radiometričnega določanja starosti je takšno ravnanje, žal, postalo del splošne arheološke prakse. Če je kastelnovjen, sodeč po redkih trapezih, zastopan tudi v Viktorjevem spodmolu, potem ga lahko nedvomno povežem s kastelnovjensko skupino Tržaškega krasa v ožjem smislu in z mediteranskim jedrom kastel-novjena v širšem smislu. Kastelnovjen seje razmahnil po celi Evropi med 8000 BP in 7800 BP (glej tudi Broglio, Kozlowski 1983; Brog-lio 1984, 287; Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, 13). Teh dvesto let predstavlja mejnik med starejšim in mlajšim mezoli-tikom (Gob 1990, 50). V mlajšem mezolitiku se prične tudi neolitizacija Evrope, ki se z redkimi izjemami konča konec 7. tisočletja BP (prav tam). Kastelnovjen je v Franciji in Italiji trajal na podlagi številnih l4C datacij od 8140 do 6020 BP (Gob 1990, 39). Širše gledano je sestavljen iz več regionalno omejenih skupin, podobno kot sovterjen (Broglio 1984, 291). Metodologija, kije bila podlaga za osnovanje skupin, in od katere je odvisno ugotavljanje podobnosti/različnosti mezolitskih inventarjev, je po mojem vprašljiva. Če italijanski avtorji imenujejo svoj sovterjen in kastelnovjen ‘italski’ (Bagolini et at. 1983; Alessio et at. 1983; Broglio 1984, 291), kakšen je potem naš mezolitik, če se v splošnem in podrobnostih razlikuje od ‘italskega’ in od najdišča do najdišča? Tukaj prevzeti radiometrični datumi za mezolitik južno od Alp se ne ujemajo povsem z datumi za posamezna t. i. referenčna najdišča v Italiji, kar je statistično gledano popolnoma razumljivo. Večja razhajanja so zlasti pri the end of the Palaeolithic to the start of the Neolithic are given for Italian sites in the province of Trentino Alto Adige according to the state in 1998 (Dalmeri, Lanzinger 2001, 15), which is not actually such a large number in view of the number of sites. I am sure that chronometry does not offer a simple solution in the sense of equating Mesolithic complexes and/or groups with chronometric units, specifically radiometric data or with biostratigraphic units, specifically pollen zones such as: ... Dryas III, Preboreal, Boreal, Atlantic... Just as similar complexes and groups of finds are not necessarily contemporary, even approximately the same dating of similar complexes and groups does not mean that these are contemporary and, conversely, different datings of similar complexes and groups of finds does not necessarily mean that these are of different ages. However, in spite of that, we can sufficiently reliably assess the global l4C age of Mesolithic complexes, regardless of the questionable nature of individual ages if we have sufficient radiometric data for this. The Sauveterrian (complex), on the basis of numerous radiometric datings, is placed between 9600 BP and 7800 (or 7600) BP (Gob 1990, 37). This means that the Mesolithic level in Viktorjev spodmol also falls within this time interval, if we classify it as Sauveterrian on the basis of typological and technological criteria. Direct dating of the site could overthrow such a placing, but we could never know whether the dating(s) is/are accurate. In the case of a lower l4C determined age, which we would accept as accurate on the example of established archaeological practice, the site would have to be defined as Castelnovian. With that act we would enter the charmed circle of chronometry and archaeological methodology, by which with sites without real Stratigraphie differentiality, we compromise subordinate typological-technological characteristics by which archaeological complexes and groups are defined, to chronometry. Without real Stratigraphie differentiality, the great majority of Mesolithic sites south of the Alps are a case of compromise and risky behaviour that I have already outlined in our immediate vicinity in classifying sites on the Triestine Karst (see Guerreschi 1989-1999, 84). Since the introduction of methods of radiometric dating, such behaviour has unfortunately become part of general archaeological practice. If Castelnovian, judging by the few trapezes, is represented in Viktojev spodmol, then we can undoubtedly link it with the Castelnovian groups of the Triestine Karst in the narrower sense and with the Mediterranean core of the Castelnovian in the wider sense. The Castelnovian flourished throughout Europe between 8000 BP and 7800 BP (see also Broglio, Kozlowski 1983; Broglio 1984, 287; Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, 13). These two hundred years represent the boundary between kastelnovjenu, katerega začetek je 400-500 let mlajši od začetka, ki ga navaja A. Gob (glej Bagolini etat. 1983; Biagi, Spataro 1999-2000). To bi vsaj ponekod lahko kazalo na daljšo poselitveno vrzel (glej Biagi, Spataro 1999-2000). O kronometričnili vrzelih bom spregovoril v nadaljevanju. Ko sem tako arheološko opredelil najdbe in posredno določil njihovo starost, mi ostane še kronostratigrafska opredelitev plasti z mezolitskinii najdbami. Pri tem si lahko pomagam samo s kronometrijo, pri čemer se dobro zavedam vprašljivosti enačenja kronostratigrafskih oziroma biostratigrafskih enot s kronometričnimi enotami, v kolikor to ni podprto s statistično analizo resnično velikega števila podatkov. Meja med pleistocenom (konec pelodne zone dri-jas III) in holocenom (začetkom pelodne zone prebore-al) je 10 000 BP in ni sporna. Za preboreal, boreal in atlantik se navajajo različni kronometrični mejniki. Vendar se starejši mezolitik (sovterjenski kompleks) splošno postavlja v preboreal in predvsem v boreal, mlajši mezolitik (kastelnovjenski kompleks) pa v starejši del atlanti-ka. Kakšen je bil razvoj vegetacije, predvsem gozdne, v omenjenih kronostratigrafskih odsekih v Sloveniji, je ugotovil A. Šercelj (1996), zato ga na tem mestu ne bom ponavljal. Moram pa poudariti, da se rezultati vseh pa-leontoloških analiz v Viktorjevem spodmolu ujemajo z ugotovitvami A. Šerclja o širjenju in sestavu gozda v obravnavanem obdobju. V dosedanjem izvajanju ni bil govor o tardenoazjenu, ki se v naši literaturi večkrat omenja v zvezi z mezolitikom v Sloveniji. Tako je M. Brodar (1979, 27) več let po izkopavanju Pod Črmukljo napisal, da so naša mezolitska najdišča tardenoazjenskega značaja. Pri objavi najdb iz Pod Črmuklje je to izjavo nekoliko dopolnil, češ da je bil mišljen tardenoazjen v širokem smislu (Brodar 1992, 29). Kako trdno je bila zakoreninjena misel o tardenoazjenu dokazuje dejstvo, da je v isti objavi pomotoma opredelil dva trapeza s trorobim trnom (piquant-triedre), izdelana z mikrovbadalno tehniko, kot tardenojski konici (Brodar 1992, t. 5: 13-14). Oblika in retuša obeh primerkov, da ne govorim o načinu izdelave artefakta, nikakor ne ustrezata značilnostim tardenojske konice (glej Rozoy I978a, 233, sl. I: 17-21; G.E.E.M. 1972, 370 s, sl. 6-7). O tardenoidni komponenti v Jami na Sedlu - Grot-lu Benussi na Tržaškem krasu in tardenoidnem kompleksu v Romagnano III je nekoč razmišljal tudi A. Broglio (1971), vendar je pozneje to misel opustil (Broglio 1984). Podlaga za takšno in podobna razmišljanja bi bili lahko trapezi, izdelani v mikrovbadalni tehniki, ki so dejansko bogato zastopani tudi v tardenoazjenu (G.E.E.M. 1969), vendar so sočasno močno razširjeni v različnih kulturnih sredinah od začetka 8. tisočletja pred sedanjostjo naprej (Löhr 1994). Zato sami po sebi ne predstavljajo the Early and Late Mesolithic (Gob 1990, 50). The Neolithisation of Europe also started in the Late Mesolithic, which with few exceptions was completed by the end of the 7th millennium BP (ibid). The Castelnovian in France and Italy, on the basis of numerous l4C datings, lasted from 8140 to 6020 BP (Gob 1990, 39). Seen more widely, it is composed of a number of regionally restricted groups, similar to the Sau-veterrian (Broglio 1984, 291). The methodology that was the basis for founding groups and from which depends the finding of similarities/differences in the Mesolithic inventory, is in my opinion dubious. If Italian authors call their Sauveterrian or Castelnovian “Italic” (Bagolini et al. 1983; Alessio et al. 1983; Broglio 1984, 291), what kind is therefore our Mesolithic, if in general and in details it differs from the “Italic” and from site to site? The radiometric dates for the Mesolithic south of the Alps taken here do not entirely conform to the dates for individual, so-called reference sites in Italy, which is entirely understandable seen statistically. There are greater disagreements especially with the Castelnovian, whose start is 400-500 years later than the start cited by A. Gob (see Bagolini et al. 1983; Biagi, Spataro 1999-2000). This could at least in part indicate a longer settlement gap (see Biagi, Spataro 1999-2000). We will discuss chronometric gaps below. When I thus defined the finds archaeologically and indirectly determined their age, I was left with a ehronostra-(i graphic determination of layers with Mesolithic finds. Only chronometry can assist, in which I am well aware of the dubiousness of equating chronostratigraphic or biostratigraphic units with chronometric units insofar as this is not supported by statistical analysis of a seriously large amount of data. The boundary between the Pleistocene (end of the Dryas III pollen zone) and the Holocene (start of the Preboreal pollen zone) is 10,000 BP and is not disputed. Various chronometric boundaries are stated for the Preboreal, Boreal and Atlantic. However, the earlier Mesolithic (Sauveterrian complex) is generally placed in the Preboreal and above all in the Boreal, and the later Mesolithic (Castelnovian complex) is the earlier part of the Atlantic. What the development of vegetation, mainly forest, was in the limited chronostratigraphic sections in Slovenia was established by A. Šercelj (1996), so I will not repeat it here. But I must stress that the results of all palaeontological analyses in Viktojev spodmol conform with A. Sercelj's findings on the spread and composition of forest in the period under discussion. There has not been any discussion here of the Tardenois-ian, which is often mentioned in Slovene literature in connection with the Mesolithic in Slovenia. M. Brodar (1979, 27) thus several years after excavating Pod Cr- najdbe z diagnostičnim kronološkim in posredno ‘kulturološkim’ predznakom. Gradivo najdišč, ki gaje proučil M. Brodarje osiromašeno z mikrolitskimi armaturami, saj te komaj presegajo 10 % vseh ugotovljenih orodij (Breg II %, Pod Črmukljo 6 % ali 8 %) , medtem ko se deleži mikrolit-skih armatur v Viktorjevem spodmolu od 26 % do 33 % in v M. Triglavci 41 % (glej razpredelnico 8.1). J,- G. Rozoy (1978 b, 15) navaja vrednosti 15-25 %, vendar je treba poudariti, da imajo tuja najdišča bistveno več retu-širanih odbitkov kot Viktorjev spodmol in M. Triglavca. Na Bregu in Pod Črmukljo prevladujejo večje armature, predvsem trapezi, ki lahko delujejo zavajajoče pri opredeljevanju gradiva. Vendar med armaturami ni oblik, ki so značilne izključno za tardenoazjen (Galiri-ski 1997, sl. 23). Najdbe iz Viktorjevega spodmola in nove najdbe iz M. Triglavce so dopolnile podobo, znano iz Pod Črmuk-lje, in tudi spremenile razmerje med mikroliti in drugimi orodji v prid mikrolitom. Splošen značaj teh najdb je sovterjensko-kastelnovjenski, ne pa tardenoazjenski. Celo trapezi so bolj podobni sovterjenskim kot tardenoazjen-skim oblikam (glej Galinski 1997, sl. 15-22 in 23-38 in Rozoy 1978b, t. 138c za tardenoazjenske trapeze). Podobnost z italskim sovterjenom in kastelnovjenom je tako velika, da bi bila vsakršna drugačna razlaga v nasprotju z ugotovitvami naših sosedov, ki so domnevno preverjene v številnih najdiščih severne Italije. Kar zadeva koščene izdelke in umetnost pa samo tole. Tardenoazjen ima morda več koščenih izdelkov kot sovterjen (Galinski 1997, sl. 15-22 in 23-38). Po tej plati bi lahko bila nekatera slovenska najdišča na neki način povezana s tardenoazjenom. Vendar nas je v zadnjem času tudi kastelnovjen presenetil z bogato koščeno obrtjo in umetnostjo (Kozlovvski, Dalmeri 2000). Mislim, daje za razlikovanje med sovterjensko-kas-telnovjenskim in tardenoazjenskim kompleksom poleg tipološkega kriterija najzanesljivejši geografski. Alpe predstavljajo mejo med obema kompleksoma (glej Galinski 1997, karta 1) kot tudi področje, kjer so se lahko mešali vplivi, ki so od severa prodirali z ozemlja tarde-noazjena in od juga z ozemlja sovterjena in kastelnovj-ena (Broglio 1984, 305). Na koncu moram s kronostratigrafskega vidika analizirati še referenčno najdišče Roniagnano III. ki je služilo pri opredeljevanju mezolitskih najdišč na Tržaškem krasu (Broglio 1980) in v Dolomitih (Broglio 1984, 296) in bi ga glede na to lahko uporabil tudi za opredelitev mezolitskih najdb v Viktorjevem spodmolu. Vendar menim, da to ne bi bila primerna rešitev. Namreč. Romagnano III je resnično izjemno bogato najdišče, ima pa kot referenčno veliko pomanjkljivost, ki jo italijanski avtorji ne upoštevajo. A. Broglio in S. K. Kozlovvski (1983) sta z analizo mezolitskega gradiva ugotovila v najdišču več razvojnih faz. Prepričana sta, mukljo wrote that our Mesolithic sites have a Tardenois-ian character. In publishing the finds from Pod Črmukljo, he slightly enlarged on this statement, that he had been thinking of the Tardenoisian in the wide sense (Brodar 1992, 29). How firmly the idea of the Tardenoisian was rooted is shown by the fact that in the same publication, two trapezes with piquant-triedre, produced with a microburin technique, were mistakenly identified as Tardenoisian points (Brodar 1992, Plate 5: 13-14). The form and retouch on both specimens, to say nothing of the way of making the artefacts, in no way corresponds to typical Tardenoisian points (see Rozoy 1978a, 233, Fig. I: 17-21; G.E.E.M. 1972, 370 s, Fig. 6-7). A. Broglio (1971) formerly also considered Tardenoisian components in Jama na Sedlu - Grotta Berms-si on the Triestine Karst and a Tardenoisian complex in Romagnano III though he later abandoned this idea (Broglio 1984). The basis for such and similar thinking may have been trapezes made with a microburin technique which are actually richly represented also in the Tardenoisian (G.E.E.M. 1969), although they are contemporaneously strongly widespread in various cultural centres from the beginning of the 8th millennium BP onwards (Löhr 1994). So they do not in themselves represent finds with diagnostic chronological and, indirectly, “culturological” significance. The material of sites that M. Brodar studied is impoverished of microlithic armatures, since they barely exceed 10% of all established tools (Breg II %, Pod Črmukljo 6 % or 8 %), while the share of microlithic armatures in Viktorjev spodmol is from 26% to 33 % and in M. Triglavca 41 % (see Table 8.1). J.- G. Rozoy (1978 b, 15) states values of 15-25 %, but it must be stressed that * foreign sites have essentially more retouched flakes than Viktorjev spodmol and M. Triglavca. Larger armatures predominate at Breg and Pod Črmukljo, mainly trapezes, which could be more binding in classifying material. However, there are no shapes among armatures that are characteristic exclusively for the Tardenoisian (Galinski 1997, si. 23). The finds from Viktorjev spodmol and new finds from M. Triglavca have supplemented the picture, known from Pod Črmukljo, and also changed the ratio between microliths and other tools in favour of microliths. The general character of these finds is Sauveterrian-Castel-novian, and not Tardenoisian. Even the trapezes are more similar to Sauveterrian that Tardenoisian in shape (see Galinski 1997, Fig. 15-22 and 23-38 and Rozoy 1978b, Plate 138c for Tardenoisian trapezes). The similarity with ‘Italic’ Sauveterrian and Castelnovian is so great that any kind of other interpretation would be in conflict with the findings of our neighbours, which have presumably been checked in numerous sites in northern Italy. As far as bone products and art are concerned, only this. Tardenoisian has perhaps more bone products than Sauveterrian (Galinski 1997, Fig. 15-22 and 23-38). da so bile vse razvojne faze, razen tiste v plasti AC5, neprekinjene (prav tam, 144 in op. 10). Vse mezolitske plasti so kronometrično opredeljene s 17 radiometričnimi datumi (Alessio et.al. 1983, 249), ki se dobro skladajo s stratigrafijo. Večje odstopanje je opaziti v plasti Ab 1-2, kjer so bili izjemoma datirani trije vzorci. Eden od njih odstopa za 350 do 300 l4C let od drugih dveh. To potrjuje možnost za obstoj prikritih napačnih (pomlajenih) datacij in nikakor ni osamljen primer v datiranih večplastnih mezolitskih najdiših v Italiji in drugje (glej Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, tab 2; Spataro 2002, 21). Če predpostavljam, da so drugi datumi pri najdišču Romagnano III vsaj približno pravilni, ugotovim med njimi pet časovnih vrzeli, ki si takole sledijo od spodaj navzgor (sl. 9.1). • 1. Med plastjo AE 1-4 (starejša faza sovterjena) in AC 8-9 (srednja faza sovterjena) je vrzel, dolga 400 l4C let. V tem času seje odložila (interstratificirala) aluvialna plast AD med obe datirani plasti s sovter-jenskimi najdbami. Aluvialna plast AD zelo verjetno predstavlja ‘trenutni' dogodek v smislu ločljivosti l4C metode. Na časovno vrzel torej ni mogla vplivati, razen če je bila s tem dogodkom povezana erozija neznane debeline sedimentov, ki so ali niso vsebovali sovterjenske najdbe starejše faze. • 2. Med plastjo AC 5-6 (srednji sovterjen) in AC 4 (srednji sovterjen) je vrzel, dolga 350 l4C let. A. Brog-lio in S. K. Kozlowski (1983, 124) na podlagi analize mezolitskega gradiva ugotavljata v plasti AC 5 ‘nepravilen značaj sovterjena’. Vzrok za nepravilnost bi lahko bila po mojem časovna vrzel. • 3. Med plastjo AC 2 (mlajši sovterjen) in AC 1 (mlajši sovterjen) je vrzel, dolga 440 l4C let. V sestavu sovterjenskega inventarja so na tem kronološkem odseku, podobno kot na prejšnjem, vidni večji ali manjši odmiki (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, sl. 26-33), ki pa jim A. Broglio in S.K. Kozlowski tokrat ne posvečata posebne pozornosti. • 4. Med plastjo AB 3 (pomešan sovterjen in kastel-novjen) in AB 1-2 (starejši kastelnovjen) je vrzel, dolga 290-640 l4C let. V mezolitskem inventarju so na tem kronološkem odseku opazni večji ali manjši odmiki (prav tam, sl. 26-33), ki jih A. Broglio in S.K. Kozlowski ne omenjata. Mezolitske najdbe v plasti AB 3 so po njunem mnenju pomešane, na kar ju je napotil rezultat klasterske analize zastopanosti posameznih mezolitskih najdb (prav tam, sl. 35 in 36). Pomešanost najdb razlagata z vrzeljo med plastjo ACI in AB 1-2 (prav tam, op. 9). Glede na l4C datacije in domnevno pomešanost najdb v plasti AB 3 menim, da je takšna stratigrafska umestitev vrzeli napačna. Vrzel je kvečjemu med plastjo AB 3 in AB 1-2. • 5. Med plastjo AB 1-2 (starejši kastelnovjen) in AA1-2 (mlajši kastelnovjen) je vrzel, dolga 320- From this aspect, some Slovene sites could have been in some way connected with the Tardenoisian. However, recently the Castelnovian has also produced surprises, with a rich bone craft and artistry (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000). I think that for distinguishing between Sauveterri-an-Castelnovian and Tardenoisian complexes, geographic criteria in addition to typological are the most reliable. The Alps represent the boundary between the two complexes (see Galiriski 1997, map 1) as well as an area in which influences could have mixed, which would have advanced from the north from the territory of Tardenoisian and from the south from the territory of Sau-veterrian and Castelnovian (Broglio 1984, 305). Finally, I must analyse from a chronostratigraphic point of view the reference site Romagnano 111. which served in defining Mesolithic sites on the Triestine Karst (Broglio 1980) and in the Dolomites (Broglio 1984, 296) and in view ofthat could also be used for classifying Mesolithic finds in Viktorjev spodmol. However, I believe that this would not be a suitable solution. Namely: Romagnano III is really an exceptionally rich site, but as a reference has a great many deficiencies which Italian authors do not take into account. A. Broglio and S. K. Kozlowski (1983) found with the analysis of the Mesolithic material in the site a number of phases. They are sure that all development phases, except those in layer AC5, were unbroken (ibid, 144 and op. 10). All Mesolithic layers are chronometrically defined with 17 radiometric dates (Alessio et al. 1983, 249), which accord well with the stratigraphy. Greater deviation can be seen in layer Ab 1-2, where three samples were exceptionally dated. One of them deviates by 350 to 300 l4C years from the other two. This confirms the possibility of the existence of hidden errors (rejuvenation) of the dating and is by no means an isolated example in dating multi-layer Mesolithic sites in Italy and elsewhere (see Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, Tab 2; Spataro 2002, 21). If a presume that other dates at the Romagnano III site are at least approximately correct, 1 find among them five time gaps, which follow from below upwards (Fig. 9.1): • 1. Between layer AE 1-4 (earlier phase of the Sau- veterrian) and AC 8-9 (middle phase of the Sauve-terrian) there is a gap 400 14C years long. During this time, the alluvial layer AD was deposited (interstratified) between the two dated layers with Sauve-terrian finds. The alluvial layer AD probably represents a ‘momentary’ event in the sense of the distinguishing capacity of the l4C method. It could not have influenced the time gap, therefore, unless the erosion of an unknown thickness of sediments, which did or did not contain Sauveterrian finds of the earlier phase, was connected with this event. O OD I I Hiatus X E Hiatus Hiatus Sl. 81: Romagnano 111: mikrolitske armature (N-R) in hiati. Prirejeno po Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, sl. 27. Fig. 8.1: Romagnano 111: Microlithic armatures (N-R) and hiatuses. Modified after Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, Fig. 27. 2. Between layers AC 5-6 (mid-Sauveterrian) and AC 4 (mid-Sauveterrian) is a gap of 350 l4C years. A. Broglio and S. K. Kozlowski (1983, 124), on the basis of analysis of Mesolithic material, find an ‘irregular character of Sauveterrian’ in layer AC 5. The cause of the irregularity may the the time gap. 3. Between layers AC 2 (later Sauveterrian) and AC I (later Sauveterrian) is a gap of 440 l4C years. In the composition of the Sauveterrian inventory, in this chronological section, as in the previous one, greater or lesser shifts are visible (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, Fig. 26-33), but to which A. Broglio and S.K. Kozlowski do not devote particular attention. 4. Between layers AB 3 (mixed Sauveterrian and Castelnovian) and AB 1-2 (earlier Castelnovian) is a gap of 290-640 l4C years. Greater or lesser shifts are visible in the Mesolithic inventory in this chronological section (ibid, Fig. 26-33), which A. Broglio and S.K. Kozlowski do not mention. The Mesolithic finds in AB 3, in their opinion, are mixed, to which the result of cluster analysis of the representation of individual Mesolithic finds (ibid, Fig. 35 and 36) pointed. They interpret the mixture of finds by gap between layers AC1 and AB 1-2 (ibid, op. 9). In view of l4C dating and the suspected mixture of finds in layer AB 3, 1 believe that such a Stratigraphie placing of the gap is mistaken. The gap is at the most between layers AB 3 and AB 1 -2. 5. Between layers AB 1-2 (earlier Castelnovian) in AAI -2 (later Castelnovian) is a gap of 320-370 l4C years. In the Castelnovian inventory in this chronological section larger or smaller shifts are similarly visible (ibid. Fig. 26-33). 370 l4C let. V kastelnovjenskem inventarju so na tem kronološkem odseku prav tako vidni večji ali manjši odmiki (prav tam, sl 26-33). Zaradi možnosti številnih vrzeli v mezolitskih plasteh najdišča Romagnano III, ki obsegajo od 54-66 % časa, v katerem so se odložile vse mezolitske plasti (9830-6480 BP), je nesmiselno deliti sovterjenske in kastelnov-jenske inventarje na faze kot jih predlagata A. Broglio in S. K. Kozlowski. Takšna delitev je lahko popolnoma umetna, kajti v profilu najdišča so lahko še najmanj tri plasti, ki imajo podobne lastnosti, kot sta jih avtorja razvojnih faz ugotovila v plasti AB 3. To pa je plast, ki jo pri delitvi na faze ne upoštevata zaradi domnevne pome-šanosti najdb iz dveh različnih časovnih obdobij. Podobna zgodba o kronometričnih vrzelih in krožnih dokazih se ponovi pri bližnjem najdišču Gaban (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000) in verjetno še kje. Jasno je, da ni edini vzrok za variabilnost mezo-litskega inventarja razvoj, ki bi časovno potekal povsod enako. Res pa je, daje tesno povezan s časom. Zato sta Because of the possibility of numerous gaps in the Mesolithic layers of the Romagnano 111 site, which could cover from 54-66 % of the time span in which all Mesolithic layers were deposited (9830-6480 BP), it is senseless to divide the Sauveterrian and Castelnovian inventories into phases as A. Broglio and S. K. Kozlowski propose. Such a division would be completely artificial, since in the profile of the site there could be at least three more layers having similar properties to those the authors find for the development phases in layer AB 3. But they do not take this layer into account in the division into phases because of the suspected mixture of finds from two different time periods. A similar story of chronometric gaps and circular evidence is repeated in the nearby site of Gaban (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000) and probably elsewhere. It is clear that development which is supposed to have taken place temporally everywhere the same is not the only cause of the variability of the Mesoltihic inventory. It is true that it is closely linked with time. Successive events and their temporal separability are therefore extremely important for understanding the development. zaporedje dogodkov in njihova časovna ločljivost izredno pomembna za razumevanje razvoja. V najdišču Romagnano III vse kategorije mezolit-skih najdb bolj ali manj variirajo, kar je običajno. V bližnjem najdišču Predestel, ki ima skoraj 4 m debele mezolitske plasti, podobne kategorije primerljivih me-zolitskih najdb, ki so l4C datirane v isti časovni interval, variirajo drugače (Alessio 1983, 248) in tako naprej. Če bi hoteli dobiti kolikor toliko zanesljive razvojne faze mezolitika v neki regiji, bi morali ravnati tako, kot sem nakazal na primeru Divjih bab I (Turk 2003). Potrebovali bi torej vsaj 20-30 podobnih najdišč kot je Romagnano III. ki bi morala biti tudi sedimentološko primerno obdelana, kar Romagnano III zanesljivo ni. Treba bi bilo tudi marsikaj spremeniti v glavah tistih, ki so dejavni na terenu, kajti vsakršna problematika se začne reševati na terenu in se tam tudi konča, če stvari niso zastavljene tako, kot to zahteva problem. Na to so posamezniki opozarjali že pred več kot 30 leti (Payne 1972 b), a so ta opozorila bore malo zalegla. Kljub pomanjkljivostim referenčnega najdišča Romagnano III, so (lahko) v inventarju sovterjenskih in kastelnovjenskih plasti naslednje razlike: • V kastelnovjenu je več retuširanih klin kot odbitkov (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, sl. 26), kar je lahko povezano s povečano proizvodnjo klin (prim. Broglio 1984, 287). • V kastelnovjenu je manj segmentov, trikotnikov, sovterjenskih konic in veliko trapezov (prav tam, sl. 27). Z izdelavo trapezov so povezana mikro vbadala. Zato bi moralo biti v kastelnovjenu njihovo število večje, kar je vidno v najdišču Gaban (Kozlowski. Dalmeri 2000, tab. 11). • V kastelnovjenu je manj enakostraničnih trikotnikov (prav tam, sl. 32). Vprašanje je, koliko se te razlike ponavljajo pri drugih najdiščih iz istega časa, ki imajo profile sestavljene iz več plasti. V najdišču Gaban, ki je blizu Romagnana III, gornje navedbe nesporno veljajo samo za razmerje retuširane kline/odbitki in za trapeze, manj za druge mikrolite (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, tab. 12-13). Zato bi bilo metodološko zgrešeno, če bi mezolitska najdišča, ki imajo tako kot Viktorjev spodmol omejeno število plasti, kronološko opredelil samo na podlagi radiome-trije in podobnosti/različnosti z mezolitskim inventarjem najdišč, kot sta na primer Romagnano III in Gaban, ne da bi se prej na ustrezen način prepričal, kako zanesljive so faze razvoja v ‘referenčnem’ profilu, in tako posredno preveril tudi radiometrične datacije. At the Romagnano III site, all categories of Mesolithic finds more or less vary, which is normal. In the nearby site of Predestel, which has a Mesolithic layer almost 4 m thick, similar categories of comparable Mesolithic finds that have been l4C dated to the same time interval, vary differently (Alessio 1983, 248) and so on. If we wanted to obtain a more or less reliable development phase of the Mesolithic in a particular region, we would have to behave as I indicated in the case of Divje babe 1 (Turk 2003). We would thus need at least 20-30 similar sites as Romagnano III, which would also have to be sedimentologically processed suitably, which Romagnano III is certainly not. It would also be necessary to change a fair amount in the heads of those who are active in the field, since any kind of question starts to be resolved in the field and also ends there, if matters are not posed as the problem demands. Individuals already drew attention to this more than 30 years ago (Payne 1972 b), but this warning had little impact. Despite the deficiencies of the Romagnano III reference site, there are (could be) the following differences in the inventory of Sauveterrian and Castelnovian layers: • In the Castelnovian, there are more retouched blades than flakes (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983, Fig. 26), which can be connected with the increased production of blades (see Broglio 1984, 287) • There are fewer segments, triangles, Sauveterrian points and large trapezes in the Castelnovian (ibid, Fig. 27). Microburins are connected with the making of trapezes. So their number should be greater in the Castelnovian, which is evident at the Gaban site (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, Plate 11). • There are fewer isosceles triangles in the Castelno- vian (ibid. Fig. 32). How do these differences appear at other sites from the same time, which have a profile composed of a number of layers? In the Gaban site, which is close to Romagnana III, the above statement indisputably applies only for the ratio of retouched blades/flakes and for trapezes, less for other microliths (Kozlowski, Dalmeri 2000, Plate 12-13). It would therefore be methodologically deficient if Mesolithic sites which have a limited number of layers, like Viktojev spodmol, were to be chronologically classified only on the basis of radiometry and similarities/differences with the Mesolithic inventory of sites such as Romagnano III and Gaban, without in a suitable way previously checking how reliable are the evolutionary phases in the ‘reference’ profile and thus indirectly also checking the radiometric dating. 10. Vprašanje izvora IN NADALJEVANJA SLOVENSKEGA MEZOLITIKA Ivan V Sloveniji ni nobenega najdišča, kjer bi bile v strati-grafskem zaporedju najdbe iz poznega paleolitika, ki ga v naši bližnji in daljni okolici predstavlja epigravetjen -(epigravettien), in (zgodnjega) mezolitika, ki ga predstavlja sovterjen - (sauveterrien). Prav tako ni najdišč, v katerih bi lahko našli lokalne razvojne faze gravetjena, sovterjena in kastelnovjena - (castelnovien), ker imajo vsa najdišča eno, največ dve arheološki plasti. Med njimi so samo redka kronometrično opredeljena (Ovčja jama, Lukenjska jama, Breg). Med posameznimi najdišči lahko pričakujem tudi velike časovne praznine. Vse to povzroča težave v kronologiji, ki je osnova za sklepanje o tem, kako je potekal razvoj. Dodatne težave povzročajo neustrezne terenske metode. Zato se lahko vprašam, ali je razprava o izvoru in nadaljevanju mezolitika v Sloveniji sploh smiselna. Smiselna je samo toliko, da z njo podam svoja teoretska izhodišča za bodoče delo. V vprašanju razvoja bi se lahko naslonil na domneve italijanskih kolegov, vendar ne bi imel zagotovila, da je razvoj pri nas potekal podobno kot v severni Italiji. Najbližje najdišče s stratificiranimi najdbami iz epigravetjena in mezolitika (sovterjena) je Pečina pri Bjarču v dolini Nadiže - Riparo di Biarzo (Guerreschi 1996). Plasti s paleolitskimi in mezolitskimi najdbami so debele približno 1 m. Končni epigravetjen Bjarča je kronološko določen z l4C datacijo in s paleobotanični-mi podatki. A. Guerreschi je na podlagi primerjav z že opredeljenimi najdišči sovterjenske najdbe domnevno pripisal srednji fazi (italskega) sovterjena. Zanje so značilni redki segmenti in številni raznostranični trikotniki, podobno kot za kraška najdišča. Razmerje med segmenti in trikotniki je približno 1:5, v bolj oddaljenem Romagnanu III pa je to razmerje 1:2. Trapezov v Bjarču ni, so pa mikro vbadala. Vendar so trapezi prisotni v mlajših plasteh skupaj s keramiko. Povezava italskega mezolitika s končnim epigrave-tjenom je precej močna pri nekaterih vrstah mikrolit-skih orodij, ki vključujejo tudi geometrične oblike, pri mikrovbadalni tehniki in še kje. A. Guerreschi (1983) je zato zagovarjal domnevo o neposrednem izvoru mezolitika iz lokalnega končnega epigravetjena. A. Broglio (1984, 310) je bil v tem pogledu previdnejši, vendar takšne možnosti razvoja ni v celoti zavrnil. Določene povezave lahko obstajajo tudi z neoliti- 10. The Question of Origin and Continuation of the Slovene Mesolitic Turk There is no site in Slovenia in which finds from the late Paleolithic, which is represented in our near and distant surrounding by Epigravettian, and (early) Mesolithic represented by the Sauveterrian, are in Stratigraphie sequence. Similarly there is no site in which one could find local development phases of the Gravettian, Sauveterrian and Castelnovian, because all sites have one or at most two archaeological layers. Only a lew of them have been chronometrically defined (Ovčja jama, Lukenjska jama, Breg). Major chronological gaps can also be expected between individual sites. All this causes problems in chronology, which is the basis for concluding how development progressed. Inappropriate fieldwork methods also cause difficulties. I can therefore ask whether discussion on the origin and continuation of the Mesolithic in Slovenia makes any sense. It is only sensible insofar that 1 use it to provide my own theoretical starting points for future work. In questions of development, I can rely on the conjectures of Italian colleagues, but I would have no assurance that development here took place similarly as in northern Italy. The nearest site with stratified finds from the Epigravettian and Mesolithic (Sauveterrian) is Pečina pri Bjarču {Riparo di Biarzo) in the Nadiža valley (Guerreschi 1996). The layers with Palaeolithic and Mesolithic finds are approximately 1 m thick. The final Epigravettien in Bjarč is chronologically determined with l4C dating and with palaeobotanical data. On the basis of comparison with already defined sites of Sauveterrian finds, A. Guerreschi putatively assigned the finds the middle phase of the (‘Italic’) Sauveterrian. It is characterised by occasional segments and numerous scalene triangles, similarly as for Karst sites. The ratio between segments and triangles is approximately 1:5, and in more distant Romagnanu III, this ratio is 1:2. There are no trapezes in Bjarč but there are microburins. However, there are trapezes present in later layers, together with pottery. The link of the ‘Italic’ Mesolithic with the final Epigravettian is fairly strong with some types of micro-lithic tools, which also include geometric forms, with microburin technique and other things. A. Guerreschi (1983) therefore argued a presumption on the direct kom (Broglio 1984, 311), čeprav jih na podlagi novejše primerjalne analize kamenih artefaktov v italijanskih najdiščih naj ne bi bilo (Biagi el al. 1993, 58, 64). Nanje kažejo npr. trapezi, mikrovbadalna tehnika, ravne dolge kline in še kaj. Za zgodnji neolitik so ponekod značilni trapezi z ventralno ploskovno (paralelno) retušo ob krajši prečni retuši (Löhr 1994, 20 s). Takšnih trapezov ni niti v Viktorjevem spodmolu niti v M. Triglavci. Pri slovenskih mezolitskih najdiščih je težko govoriti o izvoru in nadaljevanju mezolitika predvsem zaradi domnevno velikih časovnih vrzeli med najdišči, ki pripadajo poznemu paleolitiku, celotnemu mezolitiku in zgodnjemu neolitiku. Potem so tu že omenjene težave, povezane s terenskimi metodami in njihovo ustreznostjo, in skromna raziskanost večine najdišč, posledica česar je pomanjkanje podatkov, ki dopolnjujejo podobo najdišč in njihovega časa, vključno z radiometričnimi podatki. Domnevne povezave med poznim paleolitikom in mezolitikom je kljub vsemu smiselno iskati predvsem pri dveh paleolitskih najdiščih: Ciganski jami in Polj-šiški cerkvi. M. Brodar (1991, 38) je uvrstil Cigansko jamo v gravetjen, ne čisto na konec poledenitve, Poljši-ško cerkev pa v pozni paleolitik nekje proti koncu poznega glaciala (Brodar 1995, 13, 16). Glavno vez med našim epigravetjenom in mezolitikom predstavljata mikrolitizacija orodij in strma retuša (hrbet), vključno s t. i. "gravetjensko ali gravetno retušo”, ki ima svoje nadaljevanje v mezolitiku. Zato sama mikrolitska orodja, opremljena s takšno retušo, niso zanesljiv kronološki kazalec. V podrobnejši primerjavi moram, žal zaradi neustreznih terenskih metod po mojem kriteriju postaviti v drugi plan mikrolite in hipermi-krolite in se osredotočiti na orodja, ki merijo v dolžino in širino vsaj 10 mm. Domnevno obstaja več povezovalnih oblik, ki se bodo dale v bodoče potrditi in razvrstiti glede na pomembnost (sl. 10.1). Kot prvo omenjam praskala posebnih oblik (noh-tasta, krožna), izdelana na kratkih nastavkih. Potem so tu konice s poševno prečno retušo, ki veljajo drugje za zelo mlado paleolitsko pridobitev. Močno razširjene naj bi bile šele v mlajši dobi drijasa (dryas), prav na koncu paleolitika (G.E.E.M. 1972, 367). Podobne konice so bile najdene v Ciganski jami (Brodar 1991, t. 19: 16,21:20: 15). M. Brodar (1991, 37) jih je označil kot gravetirano orodje, ki nima ravnega, ampak konveksno usločen hrbet, ki se konča s konico. Zato predlaga zanje poimenovanje upognjena konica. Vendar M. Brodar te konice ne omenja v povezavi z “znanilci prihodnjega kulturnega razvoja", s čimer misli različne mezo-litske komplekse (prav tam). Konice s poševno prečno retušo, predvsem kratke, so zastopane tudi v inventarju Poljšiške cerkve (Brodar 1995, t, 2: 365: 5: 434 in 465). M. Brodar (1995. 14) jih je označil kot “primerke z gra-velno retušo”, medtem ko celoten značaj najdb po njegovem odstopa od gravetjena. V naših mezolitskih naj- origin of the Mesolithic from the local final Epigravetti-an. A. Broglio (1984, 310) was more cautious from that point of view, although he did not entirely reject such a possibility of development. There could also be specific links with the Neolithic (Broglio 1984, 311), although on the basis of more recent analyses of stone artefacts in Italian sites, such is not thought to be the case (Biagi et al. 1993, 58, 64). It is indicated by, for example, trapezes, microburin technique, straight, long blades and other things. The early Neolithic is characterised in places by trapezes with ventral parallel retouch together with short truncation (Löhr 1994, 20 s). There are no such trapezes in either Viktorjev spodmol or M. Triglavca. With Slovene Mesolithic sites, it is difficult to speak of the origin and continuation of the Mesolithic, mainly because of the suspected large time gaps between sites belonging to the Late Palaeolithic, the entire Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic. There are then the already mentioned difficulties connected with fieldwork methods and their suitability, and the modest investigation of the majority of sites, a consequence of which is a lack of data, including radiometric data, which supplement image of the sites and their times. Suspected links between the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic can nevertheless be sensibly sought mainly at two Palaeolithic sites: Ciganska jama and Poljšiška cerkev. M. Brodar (1991, 38) classified Ciganska jama into the Gravettian, not quite at the end of the Last Glacial, and Poljšiška cerkev into the Late Palaeolithic, somewhere towards the end of the Late Glacial (Brodar 1995, 13, 16). Microlithisation of tools and backed pieces, including so-called "gravettian or gravette (crossed) retouch", which has its continuation in the Mesolithic, provide the main link between our Epigravettian and the Mesolithic. So microlithic tools fitted with such a retouch arc not a reliable chronological indicator. In a more detailed comparison, unfortunately because of unsuitable fieldwork methods by my criteria, I must put microliths and hypermicroliths in the background and focus on tools that measure at least 10 mm in length and width. Presumably a number of linking forms exist that will in the future allow confirmation and classification in relation to importance (Fig. 10.1) First of all. I cite endserapers of special shapes (e.g. ungiform, circular), made on short blanks. Then there are points with oblique truncation, which are considered elsewhere to be a very late Palaeolithic advance. They are only thought to be widespread in the younger Dryas period at the end of the Palaeolithic (G.E.E.M. 1972, 367). Similar points were found in Ciganska jama (Brodar 1991, Plates 19: 16, 21: 20: 15). M. Brodar (1991,37) characterised them as Gravettian tools which do not have a straight but convex back ending in a point. He therefore proposes calling it a curved point. However, M. Brodar does not mention these points in 16/17 16/22 16/29 19/21 19/16 18/26 18/31 19/26 19/19 19/20 434 424 396 465 365 Sl. 10.1: "Protomezolitske" oblike orodij v slovenskih poznopaleolitskih najdiščih. Risbe in oznake risb po M. Brodarju (1991 in 1995). Fig. 10.1: “Protomesolithic” forms of tools in Slovene Late Palaeolithic sites. Drawings and signs on drawings according to M. Brodar (1991 and 1995). diščih je takšna konica precej redka. Po en primerek je morda znan v previsu Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, t. 4: 23) in na Bregu (Frelih 1986, t. 2: II). Nekoliko spremenjena sta dva analogna primerka z Brega (prav tam, t. 3: 6, 15). Tretja povezovalna oblika je (mikrolitska) konica z ravnim hrbtom (G.E.E.M. 1972, 367, sl.3 ), ki je v bistvu popolnoma enaka kot gravetjenska konica. To pomeni, da ima lahko tudi gravetjensko retušo. Zato je M. Brodar (1992, 26) šest mikrolitov iz najdišča Pod Črmukljo connection with “characterisers of future cultural development” by which he is thinking of various Mesolithic complexes (ibid). Points with an oblique truncation, mainly short, are also represented in the inventory of Poljšiška cerkev (Brodar 1995, Plates 2; 365; 5: 434 and 465). M. Brodar (1995, 14) characterised them as “specimens with a gravette retouch”, while the overall character of finds in his opinion deviates from the Gravett-ian. Such a point is fairly rare in our Mesolithic sites. There is perhaps one specimen each known from the uvrstil med gravetirane klinice, pri čemer dopušča možnost, da gre pri enem ali dveh primerkih za fragment trikotnika. V Ciganski jami so konice z ravnim hrbtom (gravetjenske) relativno pogoste (Brodar 1991, 36). V Poljšiški cerkvi je ena sama (Brodar 1995, t. 5: 424), ki jo je M. Brodar (1995, 14) opredelil kot nožiček s hrbtom. Pod Črmukljo ni bila najdena nobena mikro-litska konica. V Viktorjevem spodmolu in M. Triglavci mikrolitske konice sicer so, vendar med njimi ni konic z ravnim hrbtom. Vse konice imajo namreč dvojen hrbet. Pri tem je zanimivo, daje bil en medialni odlomek mik-rolita z dvojnim hrbtom (inv. št. 837) najden tudi v zgornji gravetjenski plasti v Ciganski jami (Brodar 1991, t. 18: 17). M. Brodar ga posebej ne obravnava, saj gaje pripisal skupini nožičkov s topim hrbtom (Brodar 1991, 36). V Ciganski jami prevladujejo relativno veliki mikroliti. Majhni so redki, vendar dajo slutiti, da je bila mikroliti-zacija celo večja od ugotovljene. Spiranje deponiranih sedimentov Brodarjevih izkopavanj bi nedvomno obogatilo naše vedenje o vlogi mikrolitov in morebitnih hiper-mikrolitov v tem ključnem najdišču. Četrta povezovalna oblika je čolničasta konica (G.E.E.M. 1972, 367 ss, sl. 4). V Ciganski jami je možnih kar nekaj primerkov (Brodar 1991, t. 16: 17, 22, 29). V Poljšiški cerkvi je en sam primerek, ki gaje M. Brodar (1995, t. 2: 396) opredelil za koničasto klinico. Redki takšni primerki so bili najdeni tudi v Viktorjevem spodmolu in M. Triglavci. Peta povezovalna oblika je klinica s hrbtom in prečno retušo. To geometrijsko orodje prištevam med raz-nostranične trikotnike, da se izognem težavam pri razlikovanju med pravimi trikotniki ter klinicami s hrbti in prečno retušo. Dve klinici s hrbtom in prečno retušo sta bili najdeni v Ciganski jami (Brodar 1991, t. 19: 19-20). M. Brodar (1991,37) je eno umestil med izrabljene kose, o drugi (inv. št. 574) pa pravi, daje blizu iztegnjenega trikotnika in daje ‘znanilec prihodnjega kulturnega razvoja', tako kot segment (inv. št. 1460) in primerek, ki ‘spominja na konico tardenois’ (Brodar 1991. 37, t. 19: 17, 26). Mislim, da slednji primerek niti malo ne spominja na tardenojsko konico, saj mu manjkajo vsi za to konico značilni elementi (glej Rozoy 1978, 233; G.E.E.M. 1972, 370 ss). V Poljšiški cerkvi ni nobene klinice s hrbtom in prečno retušo, kar je glede na časovno umestitev najdišča precej nenavadno. So pa takšni primerki relativno pogosti Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, t. 5: 27-28, 30-31, 33-34, 37-38, 43) in predvsem v Viktorjevem spodmolu in v M. Triglavci (t. 8: 7-11, 18-20; 9: 21-22, 27-30 idr.), kjer so, kot rečeno, umeščeni v skupino raznostraničnih trikotnikov. Sedanja podoba Viktorjevega spodmola in M. Triglavce je odsev terenske metode, saj so se klinice s hrbti in prečno retušo od paleolitika do mezolitika izrazito pomanjšale (mikrolitizi-rale), tako da lahko v posamičnih primerih govorimo o mezolitskih hipermikrolitih. V vprašanju mikrolitizacije v slovenskih najdiščih overhang cave of Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, Plate 4: 23) and in Breg (Frelih 1986, Plate 2: 11). Two analogous specimens from Breg are slightly altered (ibid, Plate 3: 6, 15). The third linking form is a (microlithic) point with a straight back (G.E.E.M. 1972, 367, Fig.3 ), which is in essence entirely the same as a gravette point. This means that it can also have a gravette retouch. So M. Brodar (1992, 26) classified six microliths from Pod Črmukljo among gravette bladelets, in which he allowed the possibility that one or two specimens were actually fragments of triangles. In Ciganska jama, points with straight backs (gravettian point) are relatively common (Brodar 1991, 36). In Poljšiška cerkev there is only one (Brodar 1995,Plate 5:424), which M. Brodar (1995, 14) defined as a backed bladelet. No microlithic points were found in Pod Črmukljo. Although there are microlithic points in Viktorjev spodmol and M. Triglavca, none of them are points with a straight back. All the points, in fact, are double backed. It is interesting in this that one medial fragment of a microlith with a double back (inv. no. 837) was also found in the upper Gravettian layer in Ciganska jama (Brodar 1991, Plate 18: 17). M. Brodar does not deal with it individually, since he ascribed it to the group of bladelets with semi-abrupt retouch (Brodar 1991, 36). In Ciganska jama, relatively large microliths predominate. There are a few small ones, and they give rise to the suspicion that microlithisation was even further advanced than has been established. Wet sieving deposited sediments of Brodar’s excavation would undoubtedly enrich our knowledge of the role of microliths and possible hypermicroliths at this key site. The fourth linking form is a navicular point (G.E.E.M. 1972, 367 ss, si. 4). There are several possible specimens in Ciganska jama (Brodar 1991, Plate 16: 17, 22, 29). In Poljšiška cerkev there is only one specimen, which M. Brodar (1995, Plate 2: 396) classified as a pointed bladelet. Occasional such specimens were also found in Viktorjev spodmol and M. Triglavca. The fifth linking form is a backed and truncated bladelet. I include this geometric tool among scalene triangles in order to avoid difficulties in distinguishing between real triangles and backed and truncated bladelets. Two backed and truncated bladelets were found in Ciganska jama (Brodar 1991, Plate 19: 19-20). M. Brodar (1991, 37) placed one among shouldered pieces, and says about the other (inv. no. 574) that it is close to an extenuated triangle and that it is ‘a harbinger of future cultural development’, just as a segment (inv. no. 1460) and a specimen that is ‘reminiscent of a Tardenoid point’, (Brodar 1991, 37, Plate 19: 17, 26). I think that the last example is in no sense reminiscent of a Tardenoid point, since all the characteristic elements of such a point are missing (see Rozoy 1978, 233; G.E.E.M. 1972, 370 ss). No backed and truncated bladelets were found in Poljšiška cerkev, which is very surprising considering the se ne strinjam z razmišlanjem M. Brodarja (1995, 16), ki ni upošteval vpliva terenske metode na ugotovljeno stopnjo mikrolitizacije. Šesta povezovalna oblika so izrobljene kline. Te so pogoste v Ciganski jami (Brodar 1991,38,t. 18:26-35), manj pogoste v Poljšiški cerkvi (Brodar 1995, 15, t. 6: 18, 156) in Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, 26, t. 5: 9, 12). V Viktorjevem spodmolu jih ni, razen na mikrolitskih armaturah, so pa prisotne v M. Triglavci (t. 18: 181, 183— 184). Kot zadnjo povezovalno obliko moram ponovno omeniti krožne segmente, ki pa so, kot trenutno kaže, v Sloveniji zelo redki tako v poznem paleolitiku (Brodar 1991, t. 19: 26) kot v celotnem znanem mezolitiku (Frelih 1986, t. 5:1-4; Brodar 1995, t. 2: 163, 5: 470). Zmanjševanje deleža krožnih segmentov je sicer značilno za mlajše faze italskega mezolitika (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983), vendar mislim, da v Sloveniji in naTržaškem krasu to ni povezano s časom, temveč gre prej za značilnost tega prostora. Krožni segmenti se tu enostavno niso prijeli. time setting. However, such specimens are fairly common in Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, Plate 5: 27-28, 30-31, 33-34, 37-38, 43) and above all in Viktorjev spodmol and in M. Triglavca (Plates 8: 7-11, 18-20: 9: 21-22, 27-30 etc.), where, as has been said, they are placed in the group of scalene triangles. The present appearance of Viktorjev spodmol and M. Triglavca is a reflection of the fieldwork method, since backed and truncated bladelets became significantly smaller from the Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic (microlithisation) so that in certain cases we can talk about Mesolithic hy-permicroliths. On the question of microlithisation at Slovene sites, 1 do not agree with the thinking of M. Brodar (1995, 16), which does not take into account the influence of fieldwork method in establishing the level of microlithisation. Shouldered blades are the sixth linking form. These are frequent in Ciganska jama (Brodar 1991, 38, Plate 18: 26-35), less frequent in Poljšiška cerkev (Brodar 1995, 15, Plate 6: 18, 156) and Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, 26, Plate 5: 9, 12). There are none in Viktorjev spodmol, except microlithic armatures, but they are present in M. Triglavca (Plate 18: 181, 183-184). As the last linking form, I must again mention circular segments, which at the moment appear to very rare both in the Late Palaeolithic (Brodar 1991. Plate 19: 26) and in the entire known Mesolithic (Frelih 1986, Plate 5:1-4; Brodar 1995, Plates 2: 163, 5: 470). A reduction of the share of circular segments is however characteristic of the later phases of the Italic Mesolithic (Broglio, Kozlowski 1983), but I think that in Slovenia and on the Triestine Karst this is not connected with time but is rather a characteristic of this region. Circular segments simply did not take hold here. 11. Najdbe kreamike 11. Finds of Pottery Ivan Turk & Anton Velušček Najdbe keramike sicer ne sodijo v mezolitik, ki je predmet te knjige, vendar vseeno zaslužijo nekaj stavkov. Dejstvo je, da je bilo najdišče občasno poseljeno ali vsaj obiskano tudi v pomezolitskem obdobju. Iz razpredelnice 6.3.1 je razvidno, da se keramične najdbe gostijo v zgornjem delu plasti 2. Plast 3 (mezolitik) je popolnoma brez ostankov keramike. Količina najdene keramike je majhna (145 kosov ali 1,5 kg, vse manjši fragmenti). Skoraj vsa keramika je nedvomno prazgodovinska. Podrobneje kronološko-tipo-loško se ne da opredeliti, čeprav sva ugotovila nekatere elemente kaštelirske keramike. Takšna keramika je glede na bližino kaštelirja pričakovana (glej Novakovič, Turk 1991). Nekaj kosov keramike ni prazgodovinskih. En fragment pološčene novodobne ali antične keramike je bil najden v režnju 7, kar kaže na določeno mešanje najdb iz različnih obdobij. Arheološka stratigrafija je tako lahko nadvse podobna tisti z najdišča Pod Črmukljo (Brodar 1992, 25). The finds of pottery do not belong to the Mesolithic, which is the subject of this book, but they nevertheless deserve a few sentences. The fact is that the site was occasionally settled or at least visited also in the post-Mesolithic period. It is clear from Table 6.3.1 that the pottery finds are denser in the upper part of layer 2. Layer 3 (Mesolithic) is completely without remains of pottery. The amount of pottery found is small (145 pieces or 1.5 kg, all smaller fragments). Almost all the pottery is undoubtedly prehistoric. It cannot be defined in more detail chronologically-typologically, although we identified some fragments of Iron Age castellieri pottery. In view of the proximity of settlement from this period, such pottery is to be expected (see Novakovič, Turk 1991). Some pieces of pottery are not pre-historic. One fragment of glazed new era or Roman pottery was found in spit 7, which indicates a certain mixing of finds from various periods. Archaeological stratigraphy may be thus above all similar to that at the Pod Črmukljo site (Brodar 1992, 25). 12. Makroskopski 12. Plant Macro- RASTLINSKI OSTANKI - REMAINS - SEEDS SEMENA IN OGLJE AND CHARCOAL Metka Culiberg V analizo smo sprva dobili makroskopske rastlinske ostanke, ki so bili poleg arheološkega in kostnega materiala zbrani iz nestratificiranega sedimenta sonde Viktorjevega spodmola (faza Viktor in IzA). Rezultati analiz so navedeni ločeno v razpredelnici 12.1, kjer sta podana le seznam in število vseh ugotovljenih vrst semen ter seznam z antrakotomsko analizo ugotovljenih drevesnih vrst in številom analiziranih primerkov oglja. Ponovno sondiranje profila iz Viktorjevega spodmola, ki sta ga izvedla J. Dirjec in I. Turk (faza IzA), je bilo izpeljano strati-grafsko po režnjih, debelih 5 cm. Poleg večjega števila koščic, pešk, oreškov in zrn različnih plodov, smo v sedimentu našli tudi precej manjših koščkov lesnega oglja.V razpredelnici 12.2 so navedeni rezultati analiziranih rastlinskih ostankov po posameznih režnjih. Pri identifikaciji semen oziroma lesnega oglja smo uporabljali določe-valne ključe po Bertschu (1941), Katzu et al. (1965), Schweingruberju (1978) in zbirko recentnih semen in recentnega oglja Biološkega inštituta Jovana Hadžija. 12.1 Semena in plodovi Prevladujejo koščice t. i. koščičastih plodov, za katere je značilno, da imajo zunanji del sočen, omesenel, osrednji del pa je trda koščica, ki se v ugodnih edafskih razmerah lahko dalj časa ohrani tudi nezoglenela. Take plodove imajo rumeni dren {Comus mas L.), rdeči dren (Cor-missanguinea L.), češnja {Prunusavium L.) in sliva {Prunus domestica L.). Tudi plod robide {Riibus fruticosus L.) sodi med koščičaste plodove, le da so pri njem številni majhni koščičasti plodiči zrasli v t. i. birni plod. Navidezno podobni, morfološko pa drugačni plodovi so jagode vinske trte (Vitis vini/era L.) in črnega bezga (Sam-bucus nigra L.). Tudi jagode imajo omesenelo oplodje v katerem pa je navadno več semen. Poleg naštetih semen večinoma užitnih plodov so bili med najdbami še plodiči javorja {Acer sp. L.), vendar brez krilc, in semena robinije {Robinia pseudoacacia L.), ki so se iztresla iz strokov. We first obtained for analysis macroscopic plant remains that had been collected together with archaeological and bone material from unstratified sediment of the test trench of Viktorjev spodmol (Viktor and IzA phase). The results of analysis are given separately in Table 12.1, in which only a list and the number of all identified species of seed are given, a list with tree species identified by anthracoto-mic analysis and numbers of analysed specimens of charcoal. A new investigation of a profile of Viktorjev spodmol, which was done by J. Dirjec and I. Turk (IzA phase), was carried out stratigraphically by spits 5 cm thick. In addition to a large number of small bones, pips, nuts and seeds of various fruits, we also found in the sediment a fair number of small pieces of wood charcoal. Table 12.2 gives the results of the analysed plant remains by individual spits. In the identification of seeds or wood charcoal, we used the identification key according to Bert-sch (1941), Katz et al. (1965), Schweingruber (1978) and the collection of recent seeds and recent charcoal of the Jovan Hadži Biological Institute. 12.1 Seeds and fruits Stones of so-called stone fruits predominated, which are characterised by the outer parts being soft, pulpy, and the central part being a hard stone which, under favourable edaphic conditions, can also be preserved uncarbonised for extended periods. Cornelian cherry (Cor-nus mas L.), dogwood {Cornus sanguinea L.), cherry (Primus avium L.) and plum {Prunus domestica L.) have such seeds. The fruit of blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L.) also belongs among stone fruits, except that in its case, numerous small stone fruits grow into a aggregate fruit. The berries of grape (Vitis vinifera) and elder (Sambu-cus nigra L.) are apparently similar, but morphologically different fruits. Berries, too, have a pulpy fruit in which there are normally a number of seeds. In addition to the aforementioned seeds of mainly edible fruits, among the finds were the seeds of maple (Acer sp. L.), but without the wings, and even the seeds of false acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), which had been shaken from the pods. Razpredelnica 12.1: Viktorjev spodmol, rastlinski ostanki iz nestratificiranega sedimenta sonde (faza Viktor in IzA). Table 12.1: Viktorjev spodmol, plant remains from unstratified sediments of the test trench (Viktor and Viktor and IzA phases). Semena Seeds Oglje Charcoal Cornus mas Cornus sanguined Sambucas nigra 74 Rubus fruticosus 13 Robinia pseudoacacia 24 Pinus sp. 1 Carpinus sp. 3 Fraxinus sp. 6 Quercus sp. 3 Tilia sp. 1 Populus sp. 1 listavec / caducifol. indet. 21 iglavec / conif. indet. 3 12.2 Charcoal The specimens of charcoal were for the most part small, from 0.5 to 1 cm and even smaller. Seventy specimens were examined. The largest shares of all the analysed pieces of charcoal have the anatomic characteristics of manna ash (Fraxinus ornus L.), maple (Acer sp.) and oak (Quercus sp.). Pine (Pinus sp.), hornbeam (Carpinus sp.), hop hornbeam (Ostrya carpinijolia Scop.) were also represented, and there was one specimen each of charcoal with the characteristics of the wood of lime (Tilia sp.), poplar (Populus sp.) and spruce (Picea sp.). Some specimens had a strongly damaged internal structure, so that it was not possible to identify a distinct tree species. Razpredelnica 12.2: Viktorjev spodmol, stratigrafsko opredeljene najdbe rastlinskih ostankov (faza IzA). Table 12.2; Viktorjev spodmol, stratigraphically defined finds of plant remains (IzA phase). Reženj / Spit Semena / Seeds Oglje / Charcoal 2 Cornus mas 40+17 poškodovanih / damaged Cornus sanguinea 8 + Vi Prunus avium 2 Prunus domestica 2 Robinia pseudoacacia 9 Acer (campestre) 13 3 Cornus mas 48 Cornus sanguinea 6 + Vi Prunus domestica 2 + '/2 Vitis vinifera 4 Acer 2 Vi Robinia pseudoacacia 8 Acer 2 4 Cornus mas 18 Cornus sanguinea 3 Vitis vinifera 2 Acer 3 Ostrya carpinifolia 1 Fraxinus ornus 1 5 Cornus mas 5 Cornus sanguinea '/2 Vitis vinifera 1 Robinia pseudoacacia 3 Fraxinus 2 Pinus 1 Kalcificirano lesno oglje / Calcinated charcoal -nedoločljivo / unidentifiable 1 6 Cornus mas V2 Cornus sanguinea 1 Prunus avium 1 Vitis vinifera 1 Robinia pseudoacacia 3 Ostiya carpinifilia 1 Quercus 2 Fraxinus ornus 2 7 Cornus mas 3 + fragm. Acer 1 Robinia pseudoacacia 2 Acer 3 Quercus 1 Fraxinus 1 Picea 1 Pinus 2 8 Cornus mas 2 Robinia pseudoacacia 1 Acer 1 9 Cornus mas 19 Cornus sanguinea 1 Robinia pseudoacacia 1 Fraxinus 1 10 Carpinus 1 1 1 Quercus 2 Fraxinus 2 12 Quercus 1 14 Acer 3 Pinus 1 15 Cornus mas 1 listavec / caducifol. indet. 1 16 Quercus sp. 12.2 Oglje Primerki oglja so večinoma manjše velikosti, od 0,5 do 1 cm in celo še manjši. Pregledanih je bilo 70 vzorcev. Največji delež od vseh analiziranih koščkov oglja ima anatomske značilnosti malega jesena (Fraxinus ornus L.), javorja (Acer sp. L.) in hrasta (Quercus sp. L.). Zastopani so še bor (Pinus sp. L.), gaber (Carpinus sp. L), črni gaber (Ostrya carpinifolia Scop.), po en primerek oglja pa ima lastnosti lesa lipe (Tilia sp. L.), topola (Populus sp. L.) in smreke (Picea sp. A. Dietr.), nekaj pa jih je imelo tako močno poškodovano notranjo strukturo, da jim ni bilo mogoče določiti pripadnosti drevesni vrsti. 12.3 Razprava in sklepi Semena, zbrana iz sedimenta v Viktorjevem spodmolu, so po našem mnenju recentna oziroma subrecentna. Vsa brez izjeme so namreč nepooglenela. Na takšno opredelitev pa je še močneje vplivala njihova vrstna sestava. Koščice plodov in druga semena se v posebnih talnih razmerah res lahko ohranijo zelo dolgo, tudi če so ne-zoglenela, kar potrjujejo podobne najdbe iz eneolitskih koliščarskih najdišč na Ljubljanskem barju. Koščice drnulj, plodov rumenega drena (Cornus mas L.), robide in maline (Rubusfruticosus L., Kubus idaeus L.) ter peške vinske trte (Vitis vinifera L.), so se tam ohranile več tisoč let (Culiberg, Šercelj 1980, Jeraj 2002). Toda ta semena so bila ugotovljena le v arheoloških plasteh in tako že bolj ali manj kronološko opredeljena. Iz razpredelnice 12.2 pa je razvidno, daje koncentracija semen v profilu v Viktorjevem spodmolu največja prav v zgornjih režnjih, v globino pa upada. Tako je tudi s koščicami drnulj, ki jih je med vsemi semeni največ, saj jih najdemo v vseh stratumih skupaj z drugimi semeni. Da smo rastlinske ostanke opredelili za recentne oziroma subre-centne, je v veliki meri odločalo tudi seme robinije (Robi-nia pseudoacacia L.), ki je pri nas sicer že zelo razširjena drevesna vrsta, vemo pa, da sojo v Evropo prinesli iz Severne Amerike šele v začetku 17. stoletja. In prav seme robinije je ugotovljeno tudi v devetem režnju. Tam se najdbe semen tudi nehajo in potemtakem ne morejo biti starejše od 300 do 400 let. Izjemi sta bili le še ena koščica drena v petnajstem režnju in zelo majhen, nedozorel hrastov želod (Quercus sp.) v šestnajstem režnju. Večina drevesnih in grmovnih vrst, katerih semena so bila ugotovljena, uspeva v gozdu, ob robu gozda ali na odprtih površinah bližnje okolice najdišča. Tudi semena sadežev gojenih vrst (sliva, vinska trta) zaradi bližine naselij niso nič nenavadnega. Najverjetneje je, da so bili ti sadeži hrana raznih živali, ki so jih tudi zanesle do najdišča in najbrž tudi v nižje plasti sedimenta, plodove javorja in robinije pa je lahko prinesel veter. Iz nestratificiranega sedimenta sonde Viktorjevega spodmola (razpredelnica 12.1) so bile po mokrem 12.3 Discussion and conclusions The seeds collected from the sediment in Viktorjev spodmol are in our opinion recent or sub-recent. All, without exception, namely are uncarbonised. The species composition further strongly influenced such a conclusion. In particular soil conditions, the stones of fruit and other seeds can in fact be preserved very long, even if they are not carbonised, as is confirmed by similar finds from Eneolithic pile-dweller sites on the Ljubljana barje (Ljubljana moor). Stones of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.), blackberry and raspberry (Rubusfruticosus L„ Rubus idaeus L.) and the pips of grape (Vitis vinifera), have been preserved there for several thousand years (Culiberg, Šercelj 1980, Jeraj 2002). However, these seeds were only found in archaeological layers and so more or less chronologically defined. It is evident from Table 12.2 that the concentration of seeds in the profile of Viktorjev spodmol is the highest precisely in the upper cuts and it decreases with depth. It is also the same with the fruit stones of dogwood, of which there are the most of all the seeds, since they are found in all strata, together with other seeds. The reason that we identified the plant remains as recent or sub-recent was also the large number of seeds of false acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), which is a very widespread tree species here but we know it was only brought from North America at the beginning of the 17th century. The seeds of Robinia were found in the ninth spit, as well. Seeds also stop there, and accordingly they cannot be older than 300 to 400 years. There were only two exceptions, the stone of a cherry in the fifteenth spit and a very small unripe oak * acorn (Quercus) in the sixteenth spit. The majority of the tree and shrub species whose seeds were identified thrive in forest, at forest margins or in open spaces in the vicinity of the site. Even the seeds of cultivated fruit species (plum, grape), because of the proximity of settlements, are in no way unusual. It is very probable that the fruits were food for various animals, which brought them to the site and probably also to the lower layers of the sediment, and the seeds of maple and false acacia could have been carried by the wind. From the unstratified sediment of the test trench of Viktorjev spodmol (Table 12.1) the fruit stones of blackberry (Rubusfruticosus L.) and elder (Sambucus nigra L.) were additionally found after wet sieving, while with the later Stratigraphie excavations not a single specimen of either species was found. It may have been that these seeds were carried into the sediment or even only onto the surface of the sediment later, even after the excavations, perhaps with bird excrement. The wood charcoal was diffusely spread throughout the sediment. According to the anatomical characteristics, we determined for each specimen the affiliation of the tree species and identified a relatively large variety of species. However, all the species that we found also izpiranju najdene še koščice plodov robide (Rubus fruti-cosus L.) in črnega bezga (Sambucus nigra L.), medtem ko pri poznejših stratigrafskih izkopavanjih ni bil ugotovljen niti en primerek ene ali druge vrste. Lahko da so ta semena prišla v sediment ali celo le na površino sedimenta še pozneje, celo že po izkopu, morda s ptičjimi iztrebki. Lesno oglje je bilo difuzno razpršeno po sedimentu. Po anatomskih značilnostih smo vsakemu vzorcu določili pripadnost drevesni vrsti in ugotovili relativno veliko pestrost vrst. Vendar vse vrste, ki smo jih ugotovili, tudi danes sestavljajo gozdove tega območja, prav tako pa so lahko tu uspevali tudi v bližnji in celo daljni preteklosti, celo že v mezolitiku. V stratificiranih režnjih profila ni zaznati posebno razločne sukcesije v razvoju gozdne vegetacije, gotovo pa je v tako dolgem obdobju bila prisotna. Hrast (Quercus) in jesen (Fraxinus) ter javor (Acer), ki prevladujejo od II. do 15. režnja morda kažejo tudi na fazo nekoliko okrnjenega primarnega mešanega hrastovega gozda (Quercetum mixtum), v katerem je bil še bor (Pinus) (Šercelj 1996). Takšno vegetacijo bi kronološko lahko postavili v začetek atlantika, kar bi ustrazalo mlajšemu mezolitiku, vsekakor pa bi za nadaljnjo diskusijo bile potrebne 14C datacije oglja zlasti iz teh, kot tudi iz drugih režnjev. V zgornjih plasteh se vsebinska sestava oglja bistveno ni spremenila, vse te vrste so še vedno zastopane, le da se jim od 6. režnja navzgor pridruži še črni gaber (Oslrva carpinifolia), kije značilen za močno presvetljene degradirane gozdove zaraščajočih se pašnikov. Zanimivo je tudi, da med najdenim ogljem ni bilo nobenega primerka bukve (Fagus L.), saj bi to pričakovali vsaj v starejših plasteh. Tudi v primeru, da oglje ni bilo presedimentirano, bi zaradi majhnega števila vzorcev težko govorili o tipskih gozdnih združbah oziroma njihovih sukcesijah, in še teže bi jih časovno opredelili brez radiokarbonske datacije in arheoloških najdb. compose the forests of this region today, and they could similarly have thrived here in the near and even distant past, even in the Mesolithic. In the stratified spits of the profile there is no particularly marked distinguishing succession in the development of forest vegetation, though certainly it was present over such a long period. Oak (Quercus) and ash (Fraxinus) and maple (Acer), which predominate from the 11th to the 15th spits perhaps also indicate a phase of somehow degraded primary mixed oak forest (Quercetum mixtum), in which there was also pine (Pinus) (Šercelj 1996). Such anthropozoi-cally induced vegetation could be placed chronologically at the beginning of the Atlantic period, which would correspond to the Late Mesolithic, but certainly 14C dating of the charcoal, especially from these but also from other spits, would be required for further discussion. In the upper layers, the content composition of the charcoal did not essentially change. All these species are still represented, except that from the 6th spit upwards they are joined by hop hornbeam (Oslrva carpinifolia), which is characteristic of over-lighted degraded forest of overgrowing pastures. It is also interesting that among the charcoal found there was no specimen of beech (Fagus), which one would have expected, especially in the older layers. Even in the case of the charcoal not having been re-deposited, because of the small number of specimens it would be difficult to reach any conclusions about types of forest associations or their successions, and still more difficult to define them chronologically without radiocarbon dating. 13. Holocenski KOPENSKI IN SLADKOVODNI POLŽI (Gastropoda) v Viktorjevem spodmolu Rajko Viktorjev spodmol se nahaja v vznožju Vremščice (1027 m) v dolini reke Reke na robu Parka Škocjanske jame. Izoblikoval se je v plastnatih rudistnih apnencih. Spodmol je ostanek porušenega jamskega sistema reke Reke. Odpira se proti J-JV in je večji del dneva lepo osončen, hkrati pa dobro zavarovan pred burjo. Polži se pogosto zatekajo v vhodne dele jam in spodmolov, kjer je zračna vlažnost relativno visoka. V večjem številu se zadržujejo na stenah, kjer jih veliko tudi pogine (Girod 2001). Prazne hišice padejo na tla in nekatere med njimi ostanejo nepoškodovane in lepo ohranjene v plasteh. Ločevanje in zbiranje malakološkega materiala iz presejanih in posušenih vzorcev je bilo tokrat pri tovrstnih raziskavah v Sloveniji prvič natančno izvedeno. Z uporabo lupe z enkratno povečavo so bili odbrani vsi še tako majhni delci polžjih hišic. Interpretacija dobljenih rezultatov (Boato, Bodon, Giovanelli, Mildner 1989; Bole et al. 1990: Fechter, Falkner 1989; Kerney, Cameron, Jungbluth 1983) temelji na primerjavi z rezultati dobljenimi v izkopaninah v najbližjih jamah v Italiji (Pečina pri Bjarču - Riparo di Biarzo, ob Nadiži in Stenašca -Grotta dell’Edera, na Tržaškem krasu) (Giovanelli, 1996; Giovanelli, Rizzi Longo, Štolfa, Zucchi Štolfa 1986; Girod 1996; 2001; 2001-2002), recentnemu materialu, nabranemu v neposredni okolici spodmola, in malako-favni v Parku Škocjanske jame, kije bila natančno raziskana v zadnjih letih (Bole, Slapnik 1998; Čarni et al. 2002; Slapnik, 2002). 13.1 Metode dela Leta 1999 je bil sistematično izkopan ozek pas profila (20 x 200 x 100 cm) Viktorjeve sonde v istoimenskem spodmolu (faza IzA). Vodoravni režnji debeline 5 cm so bili posamično odstranjeni. Sledilo je mokro sejanje na sitih z velikostjo luknjic 3 mm in 1 mm ali 0,5 mm. Ostanki hišic Helix pomada so bili izločeni in niso posebej obravnavani v statistični analizi. Na Biološkem inšti- 13. Holocene Land and Freshwater Molluscs (Gastropoda) in Viktorjev Spodmol Slapnik Viktorjev spodmol is located in the foothills of Vremščica (1027 m) in the valley of the river Reka on the edge of Škocjanske jame (Škocjan Caves) Park. It was formed in bedded rudist limestone. The overhang cave is the remains of a collapsed cave system of the river Reka. It opens towards to S-SE and is sunlit for most of the day, as well as being well protected from the ‘burja’, or north wind. Snails often wander into the entrance part of caves and overhang caves, where the humidity is relatively high. They cling in large numbers to the walls, where many of them also die (Girod 2001). The empty shells fall to the ground and some of them remain undamaged and well preserved in the layers. Separating and collecting malacological material from sieved and dried samples was carefully carried out for the first time in Slovenia in such research. With the use of a magnifying glass with double magnification, even small particles of snail shells were collected. The interpretation of the results obtained (Boato, Bodon, Giovanelli, Mildner 1989; Bole el al. 1990; Fechter, Falkner 1989; Kerney, Cameron, Jungbluth 1983) is based on comparison with results obtained in excavations in the closest caves in Italy (Pečina pri Bjarču - Riparo di Biarzo. by the river Nadiža - Natisone and Stenašca - Grotta dell’Edera, in the Triestine Karst) (Giovanelli, 1996; Giovanelli, Rizzi Longo, Stolfa, Zucchi Stolfa 1986; Girod 1996; 2001; 2001-2002), recent material collected in the immediate vicinity of the overhang cave, and malacofauna in Škocjanske jame Park, which has been carefully studied in recent years (Bole, Slapnik 1998; Čarni et al. 2002; Slapnik, 2002). 13.1 Methods of Work In 1999, a narrow band of the profile was excavated (20 x 200 x 100 cm) in Viktor’s test trench in Viktorjev spodmol (IzA phase). Horizontal spits 5 cm thick were removed individually. Wet sieving on sieves with a diameter tutu ZRC SAZU smo ostanke hišic in hišice najprej namakali 2 x po 15 min v močno razredčenem kalijevem hidroksidu (KOH), jih nato sprali z vodo in posušili. Sledila je determinacija izločenih celih in polomljenih hišic polžev in školjk iz posameznih režnjev. Na osnovi primerjav ostankov hišic s celimi hišicami smo določili vse polomljene in juvenilne hišice. Pri statistični obdelavi smo ostanke hišic (ohranjena manj kot polovica hišice) in polomljene hišice (ohranjena več kot polovica hišice) obravnavali enakovredno s celimi hišicami. 13.2 Rezultati Rezultati analize so podani v razpredelnicah 13.1-13.3 in sl. 13.1. 13.2.1 PREGLED VRST (razpredelnici 13.1, 13.2, sl. 13.1-13.3) Sadarji (Cochlostomatidac) so polžki z razmeroma majhnimi, do 1 cm visokimi, ozko stožčastimi hišicami. Večinoma živijo samo na apnencih, zato jih najlažje najdemo ob vlažnem vremenu, ko lazijo po skalah. Najpogostejša in najbolj razširjena vrsta je sedmerospiralni sadar (Coclostoma septemspirale), kije severno dinarska vrsta. V Parku Škocjanske jame so bile ugotovljene tudi nekatere druge vrste tega rodu (tržaški sadar (C. tergesti-num), okrašeni sadar (C. gracile) in stopničasti sadar (C. scalarinum), zato lahko upravičeno predvidevamo, da nedoločljivi ostanki hišic pripadajo tudi nekaterim tem vrstam. V Viktorjevem spodmolu je sedmerospiralni sadar v vseh režnjih prevladujoča vrsta. V 2. in 3. plasti v režnjih od 6 do 18 smo našteli več kot 200 hišic in njihovih ostankov v posameznem režnju. Več kot polovico vseh hišic (56,29 %) v izkopu pripada sedmerospiral-nemu sadarju, ki je dominantna vrsta tudi v Stenašci (4321 hišic oz. 36 %). V Pečini pri Bjarču pa je prevladoval sivi stolpičasti sadar (Coclostoma henricae) z 52,36 % do 85,25 %. Lepa okrogloustka (Pomatias elegans) iz družine okrogloustk (Pomatiasidae) je mediteranska in zahod-no-evropska vrsta. Pri nas je splošno razširjena na Primorskem, v notranjosti pa na toplih prisojnih pobočjih. Do 1,5 cm visoka stožčasta hišica ima izrazita spiralna rebrca in prek njih še radiarna, tako je površina hišice mrežasta. Ustje je skoraj okroglo in ga zapre z močnim apnenim pokrovčkom. Ugotovljena je bila v izkopih v vseh treh jamah: v Viktorjevem spodmolu (0,76 %), v Stenašci (34 %) in v Pečini pri Bjarču (0,28 % do 34,25 %). V Viktorjevem spodmolu je bilo najdenih več ostankov hišic v režnjih od 8 do 16. Drobne in valjaste hišice ima kopenska družina konic (Aciculidae). Iz rodu Acicula sta pri nas najpogostejši dve vrsti. Gladka, rjava in do 3 mm visoka je vitka of holes of 3 mm and 1 mm or 0.5 mm followed. The remains of shells of Helix pomatia were separated and were not dealt with individually in the statistical analysis. We first soaked the remains of the shells twice for 15 minutes each at the Biological Institute ZRC SAZU in greatly diluted potassium hydroxide (KOH), and then washed them in water and dried them. A determination of the separated whole and broken shells of snails from individual spits followed. On the basis of comparison of the remains of shells with whole shells, we identified all broken and juvenile shells. In the statistical processing, we treated the remains of shells (less than half of the shell preserved) and broken shells (more than half the shells preserved) the same as whole shells. 13.2 Results The results of analysis are given in Tables 13.1-13.3 and Fig. 13.1. 13.2.1 REVIEW OF SPECIES (Tables 13.1, 13.2, Figs. 13.1-13.3) Cochlostomatidae are snails with relatively small, up to 1 cm high, narrow coniform shells. The majority live only on limestone, so it is easiest to find them in damp weather when they are lying on rocks. The commonest and most widespread species is Coclostoma septemspirale, which is a northern Dinarid species. Certain other species of this family have been found in Škocjan Caves Park (C. tergestinum, C. gracile and C. scalarinum), so we can justifiably expect that undetermined remains of shells also belong to some of these species. In Viktorjev spodmol, Coclostoma septemspirale is the predominant species in all spits. In layers 2 and 3 in spits from 6 to 18, we counted more than 200 shells and their remains in individual spits. More than half of all shells (56.29%) in the excavation belong to Coclostoma septemspirale, which is also the predominant species in Stenašca (4321 shells or 36 %). In Pečina pri Bjarču Coclostoma henricae predominated with 52.36 % to 85.25 %. Pomatias elegans from the family Pomatiasidae is a Mediterranean and western European species. It is generally widespread here in Primorska, and in the interior on warm, sunny slopes. The up to 1.5 cm high coniform shell has pronounced spiral ribs and radials so that the surface of the shell is reticulate. The mouth is almost circular and it closes it with a strong operculum. It was found in excavations in all three caves: In Viktorjev spodmol (0.76 %), in Stenašca (34 %) and in Pečina pri Bjarču (0.28 % to 34.25 %). In Viktorjev spodmol more remains of shells were found in spits 8 to 16. The family of the land snails Aciculidae has tiny, cylindrical shells. Two species from the Acicula family Razpredelnica 13.1: Geografska razširjenost vrst in njihova prisotnost v izkopih v Viktorjevem spodmolu (VS), Pečini pri Bjarču - Riparo di Biarzo (RB) in Stenašci - Grotta dell'Edera (GE) (?=velika verjetnost, da se vrsta pojavlja). (alp., ju. evr.=alpska, južnoevropska; alp., zah. evr.=alpska, zahodnoevropska; alp„ karp.=alpska, karpatska; alp., med.=alpska, mediteranska; centr., vzh. evr.=centralna, vzhodnoevropska; endemit=endemična; evr.=evropska; evr., m. az.=evropska, maloazijska; holarkt.=holarktična; jadr.=jadranska; ju. alp., ju. evr.=južnoalpska, južnoevropska; ju. alp.=južnoalpska; ju. evr. “južnoevropska; ju. vzh. alp.=južnovzhodno alpska; ju. vzh. alp., din.=južnovzhodno alpska, dinarska; ju. vzh. evr.=južnovzhodno evropska; med.“mediteranska; med. vzh. evr.=mediteranska vzhodnoevropska; sev. zah. din.=severnozahodno dinarska; sr. evr.=srednjeevropska; sr. ju. evr.=srednje južnoevropska; sr. vzh. evr.=srednje vzhodnoevropska; vzh. alp.=vzhodno alpska; vzh. alp., balk.“vzhodnoalpska, balkanska; vzh. alp., din.“vzhodnoalpska, dinarska; zah. evr.“zahodnoevropska; zah. med.= zahodno mediteranska; zah. palearkt.= zahodno palearktična). Table 13.1: Geographical distribution of species and their presence in excavations in Viktorjev spodmol (VS), Pečina pri Bjarču - Riparo di Biarza (RB) and Stenašca - Grotta dell’Edera (GE) (?=great probability that the species appears). (alp., jug. evr.=Alpine, southern European; alp., zah. evr.=Alpine, western European; alp., karp.=Alpine, Carpathian; alp., med.“Alpine, Mediterranean; centr., vzh. evr.=central, eastern European; endemit=endemic; evr.=European; evr., m. az.=European, Near East; holarkt.=holarctic; jadr.=Adriatic; ju. alp., ju. evr.“southern Alpine, southern European; ju. alp.=southern Alpine; ju. evr.=southern European; ju. vzh. aIp.=south-east Alpine; ju. vzh. alp., din.“south-eastern Alpine, Dinarid; ju. vzh. evr.=south-eastern European; med.“Mediterranean; med. vzh. evr.=Mediterranean eastern European; sev. zah. din.“north-western Dinarid; sr. evr.=Central European; sr. ju. evr.=central southern European; sr. vzh. evr.=central eastern European; vzh. alp.=eastern Alpine; vzh. alp., balk.“eastern Alpine, Balkan; vzh. alp., din.“eastern Alpine, Dinarid; zah. evr.=western European; zah. med.“western Mediterranean; zah. palearkt.“western Palearctic). Vrste / Taxa Areal VS RB GE GASTROPODA : P R O S O B R ANCHIA Cochlostoma tidac Cochlostoma septemspirale (Razoumovsky, 1789) ju. evr. + + Cochlostoma henricae (Strobel, 1851) vzh. alp. ? + Pomatiasidae Pomatias elegans (O.F. Mtiller, 1774) med. zah. evr. + > • Aciculidae Acicula lineata banki Boeters & Gittenberger, 1989 vzh. alp. + Renea spectabilis (Rossmässler, 1839) ju. vzh. alp. din. + Hydrobiidae Sadleriana fhtminensis (Küster, 1852) ju. vzh. alp. + PULMONATA: STYLOMMATOPHORA Cochlicopidae Cochlicopa lubrica (O.F. Müller, 1774) holarkt. + + + Pvramidulidae Pyramidula rupestris (Draparnaud, 1801) alp. med. + + Vertiginidae Truncatellina cl austral is (Gredler, 1856) ju. evr. + Vertigopusilla O.F. Miiller, 1774 evr. m. az. + + Orculidae Odontocyclas kokeili (Roßmäßler, 1837) ju. evr. + Walklea rossmaessleri (Roßmäßler, 1838) endemit + Sphyradium doliolum (Bruguiere, 1792) ju. evr. + + + Orcula dolium (Draparnaud, 1801) alp. karp. + + Pagodulinidac Pagodulina subdola (Gredler, 1856) ju. alp. + + Pupillidac Argna biplicata (Michaud, 1831) ju. vzh. alp. + Agardhiella truncatella (L. Pfeiffer, 1846) vzh. alp. din. + Spelaeodiscus Iwuffeni (F. Schmidt, 1855) endemit + Chondrinidae Granaria illvrica (Roßmäßler, 1837) ju . alp., ju .evr. + + + Chondrina avenacea (Bruguiere. 1792) zah. evr. alp. + + Vallonidae Acantliinula aculeata (O.F. Müller. 1774) zah. palearkt. + Vallonia pulchela (O.F. Miiller, 1774) holarkt. + + Buliminidae Cliondriila tridens (O.F. Müller, 1774) ju. vzh. evr. + + + V rste / Taxa Areal VS RB GE Clausiliidae Cochlodina fragm. + Cochlodina laminata (Montagu, 1803) evr. + + + Cochlodina costata (Pfeiffer, 1828) ju. vzh. alp. + + Cochlodina dubiosa (Clessin, 1882) v/.h. alp. + + + Cochlodina triloba (Boettger, 1877) med. + Macrogastra fragm. + Macrogastra plicatula (Draparnaud, 1801) sr. evr. + + + Macrogastra ventricosa (Draparnaud, 1801) sr. evr. + + Macrogastra attenuata (Roßmäßler, 1835) sr. evr. + + Ruthenica filograna (Roßmäßler, 1836) vzh. evr. + + + Erjavecia bergeri (Roßmäßler. 1836) v/.h. alp. + J ulica schmidti (L. Pfeiffer, 1841) ju. v/.h. alp. + ClausHia dubia Draparnaud, 1805 sr. evr. + Ferussaciidae Cecilioides acicula (O.F. Müller, 1774) zah. evr. + Oleacinidae Poiretia cornea (Brumati, 1838) jadr. + + + Testacell idae Testacella scutulum Soverby, 1823 med. + Punctidae Punctum pygmaeum (Draparnaud, 1801) holarkt. + Discidav Discus perspectivus (Megerle von Miihlfeldt, 1816) vzh. evr. + + Vitrinidae Vitrinobrachium breve (Ferussac, 1821) sr. vzh. evr. + + Zonitidae Vitrea fragm. + Vitrea diaphana erjaveci (Brusina, 1870) sev. zah. din. + Vitrea subrimata (Reinhardt, 1871) alp. ju .evr. + Aegopis fragm. + Aegopis verticillus (Lamarck, 1822) v/.h. alp. balk + + + Aegopis gemonensis kusceri A.J. Wagner, 1912 endemit 7 + Aegopis gemonensis gemonensis (A. Ferussac, 1832) ju. vzh. alp. 7 Aegopinella sp. + + Aegopinella minor (Stabile, 1864) centr. vzh.evr. + Oxychilus sp. + + Oxvchilus cfr. Draparnaudi (Back, 1837) zah. med. + Limacidae Umax sp. + + + Lehmannia sp. + Brady Inienidae Fruticicola fruticum (O.F. Müller, 1774) evr. + + Hygromiidae Trichia hispida (Linnaeus, 1758) evr. + + Tricliia leucozona leucozona (C. Pfeiffer, 1828) ju. v/.h. alp. + + Monachoides incarnatus (O.F. Müller, 1774) sr. ju. evr. + Monacha cartusiana (O.F. Müller, 1774) med. vzh. evr. + + + Helicodonta obvoluta (O.F. Müller, 1774) sr. evr. + + + Helicidae Campylaea fragm. + Cainpvlaea illyrica (Stabile, 1864) ju. vzh. alp. din. + + + Kosicia intermedia (A. Ferussac, 1832) ju. vzh. alp. + + + Cepaea nemoralis (Linnaeus, 1758) ju. evr. + + + Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 1758 sr. ju. evr. + + Helix cincta O.F. Miiller, 1774 med. •) + konica (A. gracilis), ki je precej razširjena. Le v zahodni Sloveniji pa najdemo črtasto konico (A. lineata banki) z drobnimi, žlebičastimi in neenakomerno razporejenimi are most common here. A. gracilis is smooth, brown and up to 3 mm high and is fairly widespread. A. lineata banki, with tiny, grooves and unequal distribution of lines Razpredelnica 13.2: Viktorjev spodmol: število hišic in ostankov hišic določene vrste v posameznem režnju, vsota in odstotek hišic posamezne vrste v odvisnosti od vseh hišic. Table 13.2: Viktorjev spodmol: number of shells and remains of shells of specific species in individual spits, total of all shells and percentage of shells of individual species in relation to all shells. Vrste/Režnji Taxa/Spits Nasutje Disturbed Plast 1 in 2 Layer 1-2 Plast 2 Layer 2 Plast 3 Layer 3 SKUPAJ TOTAL 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 1» II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Št. hiš. Shell count % Cochlostoma septem. 49 102 41 65 91 244 329 351 162 216 219 400 576 404 526 486 400 281 104 5046 56,29 Pomatias elegans 1 1 1 1 4 6 13 7 7 10 5 5 6 1 68 0,76 Acicula linčata banki 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,12 Sadleriana fluminensis 8 6 0 43 19 34 2 62 7 181 2.02 Cochiicopa lubrica 1 1 2 0,02 Pyramiduia rupestris 1 3 2 6 0,07 Truncatellina elaustralis 2 2 0,02 Vertigo pusilla 5 8 1 1 2 9 2 1 2 31 0,35 Sphyradium doliolum 1 1 3 5 7 12 6 25 1 1 6 1 78 0,87 Orcula dolitini 1 13 3 1 18 0.20 Pagodi/lina subdola 1 1 0,01 Agardliiella Irimcalelia 3 1 2 2 1 7 4 1 2 2 1 26 0,29 Speiaeodiscus hauffeni 1 1 0.01 Granaria illyrica 1 7 5 10 6 17 64 53 21 15 12 15 1 1 14 13 22 14 27 8 335 3,74 Chondrina avenacea 4 5 2 1 2 24 12 3 7 1 2 4 9 3 1 1 81 0,90 Aeanthinuia actdeata 2 14 11 5 1 4 6 5 1 1 1 51 0,57 Vallonia pulcheia 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 22 0,25 Chondrula Iridens 2 2 0,02 Cochlodina fragm. 11 7 6 5 8 9 28 70 27 80 24 151 174 143 209 82 141 25 64 1264 14,10 Cochlodina laminata 0 8 6 3 8 2 27 2 56 0,62 Cocldodina costata 4 1 4 6 25 8 4 52 0,58 Cochlodina dubiosa 19 1 20 0,22 Macrogastra fragm. 1 5 2 3 4 2 24 33 18 42 1 18 79 163 212 52 130 10 898 10,02 Macrogastra plicatula 1 5 3 5 14 31 5 7 20 10 3 4 108 1,20 Bulgarica vetusta 2 2 0,02 Ruthenica filograna 2 3 5 1 2 52 3 8 12 27 68 15 14 5 217 2 42 Cecilioides acicula 1 4 3 1 4 12 7 8 3 4 5 1 53 0,59 Poiretia cornea 1 * 1 0,01 Punctum pygmaeum 2 1 3 0,03 Discus perspectivus () 0 0 1 3 2 0 8 5 10 10 18 24 3 3 4 91 1.02 Vitrea fragm. 1 1 1 3 0,03 Vitrea diaphana erjaveci 2 4 1 7 0,08 Vitrea subrimata 1 3 2 2 7 4 1 2 1 23 0,26 Aegopis fragm. 2 2 0,02 Aegopis verticiiius 1 3 1 5 0,06 Aegopis gemonensis g. 3 3 0,03 Aegopinella fragm. 1 2 4 13 9 17 4 3 12 4 2 71 0,79 Umax sp. 1 5 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 5 29 0,32 Fruticicola fruticum 3 2 8 1 2 16 0.18 Trichia liispida 1 1 3 2 1 8 0,09 Trichia leucozona 1 1 0,01 Monacha cartusiana 1 0 2 1 4 0.04 Helicodonla obvoluta 1 6 2 9 0,10 Campylaea fragm. 3 1 4 4 6 3 1 3 25 0.28 Campylaea illyrica 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 0.13 Cepueu nemoraiis 1 1 1 3 0,03 črtami na površini. V talnem vzorcu okrog spodmola smo našli obe vrsti v približno enakem razmerju, medtem ko je bila v izkopih ugotovljena le črtasta konica z 0,12 %. Nobena od konic ni bila ugotovljena v obeh italijanskih jamah. Sadlerijana (Sadleriana) (Hydrobiidae) je izvirski rod s tremi vrstami, ki jih najdemo v izvirih in hladnih potokih v zahodni in južni Sloveniji. Najbolj razširjena on the surface is only found in western Slovenia. Both species were found in roughly the same proportion in soil samples around the overhang cave, while in the excavations, only A. linčala banki was found, with 0.12 %. Neither species was found in the two Italian caves. Sadleriana (Hydrobiidae) is a spring water genus with three species, found in springs and cold streams in western and southern Slovenia. S. fluminensis is most Plast Reženj Globina (cm) Število vrst Število hišic Indeks 1 Layer Spit Depth (cm) Taxa count Shell count Index 1 nasutje 1 254 6 68 11,33 disturbed 2 259 13 159 12,23 3 264 10 81 8.10 1 in 2 1 and 2 4 269 10 97 9,70 5 274 9 121 13,44 6 279 13 311 23,92 7 284 12 456 38,00 8 289 15 500 33,33 9 294 13 267 20,54 2 10 299 16 379 23,69 11 304 17 383 22,53 12 309 18 677 37,61 13 314 22 1066 48,45 14 319 26 764 29,38 15 324 27 1100 40,74 16 329 26 1021 39,27 3 17 334 24 744 31,00 18 339 16 541 33,81 19 344 14 213 15,21 SKUPAJ / TOTAL 8948 Razpredelnica 13.3: Primerjava posameznih plasti v odvisnosti od števila vrst in števila hišic. Table 13.3: Comparison of individual layers in relation to number of species and number of shells. je rečna sadlerijana (S. fhuninensis), ki ima do 5 mm visoke, stožčaste hišice. V režnju 5 in režnjih od 11 do 18 je bilo ugotovljenih 181 (2,01 %) ostankov hišic rečne sadlerijane. Njena prisotnost in visok delež postavljata Viktorjev spodmol na posebno mesto. Mlakarji (Lymnaeidae) so, kot pove ime, prebivalci mlak in stoječih ter počasi tekočih vod. Ker niso zahtevni, jih najdemo tudi v vodah, kjer so življenjske razmere zelo neugodne. Dokaj razširjen in za neugodne razmere odporen je mali mlakar (Galba truncatula), ki zraste do 1 cm. Pogosto lazi ob vodah po blatu in rastlinah. V 15. izkopu je bil najden ostanek hišice, kar kaže na nekakšno povezavo z vodo. Družina polžic (Cochlicopidae) ima le tri vrste rodu polžica (Cochlicopa). To so polži s podolgovatimi ovalnimi in bleščečimi hišicami, visokimi le do 7 mm. Gladka polžica (Cochlicopa hibrica) meri do 7 mm. Je vrsta, ki živi na razmeroma vlažnih mestih. Najdemo jo v nižinah, zlasti v naplavinah pa tudi v tanatocenozah v studencih. Le po 2 hišici sta bili najdeni v Stenašci in v Pečini pri Bjarču ter tudi v Viktorjevem spodmolu, in to v 10. in 15. režnju. Iz družine piramidic (Pyramidulidae) pri nas živi skalna piramidica (Pyramidula rupestris), ki je ekološko posebno zanimiva, ker jo najdemo na skalah od morja pa tja do najvišjih vrhov v Alpah. Vrsta je majhna, nizko piramidaste hišice merijo komaj 3 mm. Nekaj hišic je bilo najdenih v plasteh v Stenašci (6) in v Viktorjevem spodmolu (6 oz. 0,07 %). Zelo drobni so polži iz družine vertiginid (Vertigi-nidae). Zelo pogostne so vrste rodu Veri igo. Hišice so majhne, merijo le do 2,5 mm, so zaobljene in imajo v ustju 3 do II zobcev. Levozaviti vrtenec (Vertigopusilla) je «ajpogostejši v listnatih gozdovih, vendar na manj widespread, which has a coniform shell up to 5 mm high. In spit 5 and spits II to 18, 181 (2.01 %) remains of shells of this species were found. Its presence and high share put Viktorjev spodmol in a special place. Pond snails (Lymnaeidae), as the name suggests, are inhabitants of ponds and standing and slow moving waters. Since they are not demanding, they can also be found in waters in which living conditions are very unfavourable. Galba truncatula, which grows up to 1 cm, is fairly widespread and resistant to unfavourable conditions. It often creeps along mud and plants beside water. The remains of shells were found in spit 15, which indicates some kind of link with water. The Cochlicopidae has only three species of the genus Cochlicopa. These are snails with longish oval glittering shells up to 7 mm high. Cochlicopa lubrica measures up to 7 mm in height. It is a species that lives in relatively damp places. It is found in the lowlands, especially on alluvia but also in tanatocenoses in springs. Only two shells each were found in Stenašca and in Pečina pri Bjarču and also in Viktorjev spodmol, in spits 10 and 15. Only Pyramidula rupestris from the Pyramidulidae family lives here. Ecologically it is especially interesting, since it is found on rocks from the sea to the highest peaks of the Alps. The species is small, the low pyramidal shells measure barely 3 mm. Some shells were found in layers of Štenašca (6) and in Viktorjev spodmol (6 or 0.07 %). Snails from the Vertiginidae family are very tiny. Species of the genus Vertigo are very common. The shells are small, measuring only up to 2.5 mm, they are rounded and have 3 to 11 teeth in the mouth. Vertigo pusilla is commonest in deciduous forest, but in less damp places. It was present in Viktorjev spodmol in spits 2 to 8 and also in spits 12 and 16. Its share is 0.35 %. It is Sl. 13.1: Cochlostoma septemspirale (1), Pomalia elegans (2), Sadleriana fluminensis (3), Vertigo pusilla (4), Sphyradium doliolum (5), Agardhiella truncateUa (6), Granaria illyrica (7) in Chondriana avenacea (8). Merila so podana v mm. Foto M. Grm. Fig. 13.1: Cochlostoma septemspirale (1), Pomatia elegans (2), Sadleriana fluminensis (3), Vertigo pusilla (4), Sphyradium doliolum (5), Agardhiella truncateUa (6), Granaria illyrica (7) and Chondriana avenacea (8). Measurements are given in mm. Photo M. Grm. vlažnih mestih. V Viktorjevem spodmolu je bil prisoten v režnjih 2 do 8 ter tudi v 12. in 16. režnju. Njegov delež je 0,35 %. Precej manj je značilen v Stenašci kjer je bila najdena le ena hišica. Ozke, stolpičaste in le do 2 mm visoke hišice ima rod debelnic (Truncatellina). Samo 2 hišici svetle debel-nice (Truncatellina claustralis) sta bili najdeni v 6. režnju. V talnem vzorcu okrog spodmola je vrsta zelo pogosta in je z deležem 15,07 % na drugem mestu. Majhnost hišic pogojuje njene redke najdbe v Viktorjevem spodmolu in njeno odsotnost v Stenašci in v Pečini pri Bjarču. Med sodčkastimi polži (Orculidae) je najpogostejša vrsta mali sodčkasti polž (Sphyradium doliolum). Višina hišic je do 5,5 mm. Zanimivo pa je, da imajo hišice zaobljen vrh in so pod vrhom razširjene, proti ustju pa se svitek nekoliko zoži. Pojavlja se v plasteh v vseh 3 jamah. V Viktorjevem spodmolu pa je reden v režnjih od 11 do 19. Njegov delež ni zanemarljiv saj z 78 ostanki hišic predstavlja 0,87 %. V 15. režnju s 13 hišicami izstopa veliki sodčkasti polž (Orcitla dolium) ki je bil tudi najden le v Viktorjevem spodmolu (0,2 %). much less characteristic in Stenašca, where only one shell was found. The genus Truncatellina has a narrow spiral, only up to 2 mm high shell. Only 2 shells of Truncatellina claustralis were found in spit 6. The species is very common in soil samples around the overhang cave and has a share of 15.07 % in other places. The smallness of the shell conditions the rarity of finds in Viktorjev spodmol and its absence in Stenašca and in Pečina pri Bjarču. Among Orculidae, the species Sphyradium doliolum is most common. The shell is up to 5.5 mm high. It is interesting that the shells have rounded tops and widen below the top, and the coil narrows slightly towards the mouth. It appears in the layers in all three caves. In Viktorjev spodmol it is regular in spits II to 19. Its share is not negligible, since with 78 remains of shells it represents 0.87%. In spit 15, Orcula dolium stands out with 13 shells, and this species was also found only in Viktorjev spodmol (0.2 %). The genus Pagodulina, from the family Pagodiilini-dae contains considerably smaller species, measuring Precej manjše vrste ima rod pagodice (Pagodulina), iz družine Pagodulinidac merijo le do 3,5 mm. Rebraste hišice so zaobljeno valjaste in se svilnato svetijo. Globoko v ustju imajo za sistematsko razdelitev pomembne zobce in gube. Živijo v stelji in rahli zemlji. Vil. režnju je bila najdena le polomljena hišica južne pagodice (Pagodi/lina subdola). V družini pupilid (Pupillidae) sta bila najdena Agard-liiella truncatella s 26 polomljenimi hišicami, ki so bile razporejene z 1 do nekaj primerkov po večini režnjev, in jamski plošček (Spelaeodiscus hauffeni) z I hišico v 11. režnju. Iz družine ovsark (Chondrinidae) se na apnenih skalah običajno pojavlja bolj zašiljena temno rdečkasto-rjava ovsarka (Chondrina avenacea) s 7 gubami v ustju. Najštevilčnejša je bila v 6. in 7. režnju. Razen v 11., 12. in 19. režnju se pojavlja v vseh drugih izkopih. Njen delež je 0,9 %. V Stenašci so bile najdene le 3 hišice. Na toplih, prisojnih legah v notranjosti Slovenije, in povsod v Primorju živi ilirska sirotica (Granaria illyrica) z zelo spremenljivimi, svetlo rjavimi, 6-11 mm visokimi hišicami, ki so valjaste, vrh svitka pa je obokano stožčast. V ustju je 8 gub. Pojavlja se vseh 3 jamah in je precej pogosta. V Viktorjevem spodmolu po številu najdenih hišic dominirata 7. in 8. reženj. S 3,72 % deležem sodi med vrste, ki označujejo posamezne režnje. Ilirska sirotica je skromno zastopana v Pečini pri Bjarču. Precej več hišic je bilo najdenih v Stenašci. Zelo razširjene vrste so iz družine travnih polžev (Valloniidae). Rod Vallonia ima nekaj zelo razširjenih vrst, kijih zlasti v naplavinah najdemo množično. Hišice so sploščene, imajo širok popek in zaokroženo ustje z odebeljenim ustnim robom. Premer hišic je do 2,7 mm. Najpogostejši je gladki travni polž (Vallonia pulchella). Najdemo ga od nižin do visokih gora. Pogostejši je bil v režnjih 14 do 17 (0,25 %). V Pečini pri Bjarču so našli 3 hišice, v Stenašci pa ni bila evidentirana. Družina požrešnikov (Enidae) ima v Sloveniji 5 rodov in le 6 vrst. Po toplih prisojnih legah, še posebej na Primorskem, je razširjen trizobi požrešnik (