## 5 Discussion and Conclusions  
Our study has revealed the potential of coupling high-resolution ALS and GPR data for the identification and description of rather ephemeral archaeological structures (namely feature 8 and 10) with unprecedented accuracy. The results obtained confirm the first attribution given to these contexts; to a protohistoric burial mound and a small fortified settlement, respectively [23]. The building technique used by the community who settled in the area back in the Bronze Age probably involved mixing together dry-stone walls made of limestone extracted from the substratum and earth deposits. Feature 8 consists of an inner stone cap covered by earthen deposits which originate with a circular bump of about 12 m in diameter and 80-90 cm in height. Shape and dimension are comparable with similar tumuli-like protohistoric structures, generally dated to the Early Bronze Age, which have been found elsewhere in the north-eastern Adriatic region, particularly in Istria and Friuli [36]. To our knowledge, the best comparisons for building technique and size come from the tumulus n. 6 of Musego and the burial mound of Barbariga [37; 38]. Both structures, of about 11 and 15 m in diameter, respectively, and less than 1 m in height, present a stone core in which the rectangular stone slab tomb is inserted, surmounted by an earthen and stone mound. As suggested for feature 8, the perimeter of the stone cairn is marked by a single row dry-stone line. Feature 10 is a small hillfort with a roughly rhomboid shape whose ramparts are embedded into a thin soil layer. The overall depth of the archaeological stratigraphy consisting of buried structures and associated earth deposits is about 50 cm. On the southern side, the fortification presents an entrance featured by a narrow and winding passage easily visible on GPR data. Another possible gateway, sided by two associated structures (e.g., towers or lookouts), has been detected on the western side. Figure 8: GPR slices of feature 10 at different depths from the ground level (22 to 98 cm depth range): fortification wall (F); limestone layering (OC); the two yellow brackets indicate the area of the southern gateway. See text for the meaning of numbers 1 to 7. It is not possible to determine whether these structures were built at the beginning of occupation of the area or resulted from the later restorations of the fortification wall. However, this evidence recalls the complex entrance system documented at other larger protohistoric hillforts of the Istrian peninsula, such as Monkodonja [39; 40], Urcin ([41] with refs.) and Brjuni [42; 43]. This type of entrance might have been replicated on a smaller scale by the community which erected the Vizintini hillfort, probably with similar defensive purposes. Considering their limited size and the strategic position on a slope overlooking the narrow valley, it is likely that both features 9 and 10, as well as site 7 (Figure 1, n. 8-9), functioned as small villages and outposts under the control of a major long-lasting fortified settlement hillfort, e.g., Kukuj, located northward. As regards feature 8, the volumes of both the stone core and the whole mound give us a rough idea of the labour involved in the erection of the burial mound. Several ethnological and archaeological studies have proposed different working day coefficients for the construction of dry-stone walls and ditches. In our attempt, we used the working day coefficients proposed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [44] for the erection of the dry-stone fortification of the protohistoric hillfort of Coppa Nevigata (Apulia) and that proposed by [PERSON] [45] for the excavation of ditches in the Tavoliere Neolithic villages. According to these studies and depending on the raw material used, a single man was capable of transporting and putting in place 1 to 1.25 cubic meters of earth and stone per day. In our case, due to little information about these prothistoric communities, no assumption can be made on the total number of people involved in the work.