opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae
y,/ '
12
-Eastern Slovenia ^e Early Iron Age
^zhodna Slovenija tarei ši železni dobi
80 O
78
. a
^^^mO m O (P«,
o ® o
i»
8
o
Janez Dular Sneža Tecco Hvala
Zbirka / Series Uredniki zbirke / Editors of the series
opera instituti archaeologici sloveniae 12
Jana Horvat, Andrej Pleterski, Anton Velušček
Janez Dular Sneža Tecco Hvala
SOUTH-EASTERN SLOVENIA IN THE EARLY IRON AGE SETTLEMENT - ECONOMY - SOCIETY JUGOVZHODNA SLOVENIJA V STAREJŠI ŽELEZNI DOBI
POSELITEV - GOSPODARSTVO - DRUŽBA
Recenzenta / Reviewed by
Prevod / Translation
Likovno-grafična zasnova zbirke Graphic art and design
Oblikovanje platnic / Cover design
Računalniški prelom / DTP
Priprava slikovnega gradiva Preparation of illustrations
Izdal in založil Published by
Zanj / Represented by
Glavni urednik / Editor-in-Chief
Tisk / Printed by
Izid knjige so podprli Published with the support of
Ivan Šprajc, Peter Turk Andreja Maver
Milojka Žalik Huzjan Tamara Korošec Mateja Belak
Sneža Tecco Hvala, Drago Valoh, Lucija Lavrenčič, Mateja Belak
Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, Založba ZRC
Institute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU in association with ZRC Publishing
Oto Luthar in / and Jana Horvat
Vojislav Likar
Littera picta d. o. o., Ljubljana
Agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in sponzorji
Slovenian Research Agency and sponsors
Vir prostorskih podatkov © 2003-2005 Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije
Source of geo-data © 2003-2005 Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia
DMV25: Sl./Fig. 1, 6, 15, 19, 20, 22, 76, 80-87, 114, 115, 117, 124, 126-132, 134, 136. nN5: Sl./Fig. 89-109, 138-141, 145-279; Pril./App. 2-9.
CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana
903(497.4-12) "638"
DULAR, Janez, 1948-
South-Eastern Slovenia in the Early Iron Age : settlement, economy, society = Jugovzhodna Slovenija v starejši železni dobi : poselitev, gospodarstvo, družba / Janez Dular, Sneža Tecco Hvala ; [prevod Andreja Maver]. - Ljubljana : Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, Založba ZRC : Institute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU in association with ZRC Publiching, 2007. - (Opera Instituti archaeolo-gici Sloveniae ; 12)
ISBN 978-961-254-000-5 1. Tecco Hvala, Sneža
232487424
© 2007, ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za arheologijo, Založba ZRC
Vse pravice pridržane. Noben del te knjige 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 book may be reproduced in any form without written permission by the publisher.
Janez Dular Sneža Tecco Hvala
SOUTH-EASTERN SLOVENIA IN THE EARLY IRON AGE
SETTLEMENT - ECONOMY - SOCIETY
JUGOVZHODNA SLOVENIJA V STAREJŠI ŽELEZNI DOBI
POSELITEV - GOSPODARSTVO - DRUŽBA
ZALOŽBA Z R C
LJUBLJANA 2007
Natis knjige so podprli:
([^KRKk
L> Trimo
lekarna ^rosuplje
PREDGOVOR
Jeseni 1977, skoraj natanko sto let za tem, ko sta Dragotin Dežman in Ferdinand von Hochstetter obhodila prva gradišča na Kranjskem, sem dobil od profesorja Staneta Gabrovca prijazno povabilo, naj se udeležim manjšega rekognosciranja prazgodovinskih naselij, ki ga je nameraval opraviti z nemškima kolegoma Ottom-Hermannom Freyem in Eckehartom Schubertom. Pridružila se nam je še Biba Teržan in tako smo skupaj skoraj dva tedna lazili po dolenjskih in notranjskih gričih ter si ogledali lepo število gradišč, med katerimi je bilo precej takih, ki jih vse od Dežmanovih časov ni pohodila arheologova noga. Prav to nas je vzpodbudilo k razmišljanju, da bi morali v bodoče posvetiti več pozornosti naseljem, saj za večino gradišč nismo vedeli niti natančnih lokacij, kaj šele, kdaj so bila obljudena, oziroma kakšne so bile njihove strukture. Žal pa so prišle vmes druge obveznosti, zato sem se pričel z naselji resneje ukvarjati šele dobro desetletje kasneje. Na srečo sem del vmesnega časa izkoristil za študij v Nemčiji, kjer sem se v Munchnu pri profesorju Kossacku seznanil z metodami nemške naselbinske arheologije. Koristen je bil tudi obisk inštitutov v Wilhelmshavnu, Schleswigu in Kielu, ki so takrat izvajali obsežen program raziskav prazgodovinske in zgodnjesrednjeveške poselitve pokrajin ob Severnem morju. Obiskal sem vrsto najdišč, izkopavanj in muzejev, kjer so mi povsod radi pokazali rezultate svojega dela. Navdušen nad vsem kar sem videl, sem želel novosti presaditi na domača tla. Žal so bile možnosti skromne. Stara država je razpadala, primanjkovalo je usposobljenih kadrov, že tako pičla sredstva pa je vztrajno načenjala visoka inflacija. Na začetku projekta, ki sem ga poimenoval Utrjena prazgodovinska naselja na Dolenjskem, sem bil pravzaprav sam. Toda vsako leto mi je uspelo pritegniti nove sodelavce, najprej iz Inštituta za arheologijo, nato pa še iz Narodnega muzeja Slovenije v Ljubljani ter Zavoda za spomeniško varstvo in Dolenjskega muzeja iz Novega mesta. Skupaj smo poprijeli za delo. Brez njihove pomoči zastavljene naloge zanesljivo ne bi pripeljal do konca.
Mnogim se moram zahvaliti. Najprej Borutu Križu in Primožu Pavlinu, ki sta sodelovala pri vsakoletnih terenskih pregledih in izkopavanjih. Na rekognosciranjih so nas občasno spremljali tudi dr. Dragan Božič, Danilo Breščak, Janez Dirjec, Marko Frelih, Pavle Kavšek, Ivan Puš, Zdenko Roškar in Boris Vičič. Drago Svoljšak in dr. Phil Mason sta se nam pridružila pri sondiranju gradišč. Terenska dokumentacija izkopavanj je bila v izkušenih rokah Mateje Belak, Polone Bitenc, Barbare Jerin, Tamare Korošec, Irene Lazar, Lucije Lavrenčič in Zvezdane Modrijan.
Makroostanke rastlin, ki smo jih s flotacijo izločili iz sedimentov raziskanih naselij, sta obdelala dr. Metka Culiberg in akademik dr. Alojz Šercelj iz Biološkega inštituta ZRC SAZU, kostno gradivo pa je analiziral kolega dr. L^szlo Bartosiewicz iz Budimpešte.
Pomembno je bilo sodelovanje z Inštitutom za prostorske študije ZRC SAZU. Dr. Zoran Stančič nas je seznanil z novimi metodami in orodji geografskega informacijskega sistema, skupaj z njim pa smo pripravili tudi nekaj pilotnih študij. Po njegovem odhodu v Bruselj se nam je pridružil dr. Tomaž Podobnikar. Prispeval je pomemben delež k prostorskim analizam, ljubeznivo pa nam je dal v uporabo tudi svoj najnovejši digitalni model reliefa.
Tekst so zavzeto pregledali dr. Peter Turk, dr. Ivan Šprajc, dr. Dušan Plut in dr. Špela Goričan in mi posredovali dragocene pripombe in sugestije.
Mateja Belak je naredila računalniški prelom besedila in nekaj zemljevidov, Breda Justin in Dragica Knific Lunder sta sodelovali pri izdelavi tlorisov naselij in grobišč, medtem ko je digitalizacijo načrtov in profilov opravil Drago Valoh.
Na koncu bi se rad zahvalil še sodelavki Sneži Tecco Hvala. Ko se je leta 1990 pridružila ekipi, je takoj prevzela vrsto obveznosti. Bila mi je v največjo oporo, saj je ves čas sodelovala pri terenskih pregledih, meritvah, sondiranjih in izdelavi terenske dokumentacije. Neprecenljiva je bila tudi njena pomoč pri nastajanju pričujoče knjige, ki je pravzaprav najino skupno delo. Njej in vsem ostalim še enkrat prisrčna hvala!
Ljubljana, januarja 2007	Janez Dular
CONTENTS
1.	History of research.......................................................................................................................................................13
1.1.	From the beginnings to the end of the 19 th century...................................................................................13
1.2.	Twentieth century.................................................................................................................................................17
2.	Data acquisition............................................................................................................................................................ 22
2.1.	Delimitation of the research area .................................................................................................................... 22
2.2.	Catalogue of sites.................................................................................................................................................24
2.2.1.	Basic register of sites - Arheološka najdišča Slovenije....................................................................24
2.2.2.	Archival records......................................................................................................................................25
2.2.3.	Field surveying........................................................................................................................................26
2.2.4.	Trial trenches...........................................................................................................................................28
2.3.	Publications ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
3.	Evaluation of sources .................................................................................................................................................. 36
3.1.	Data acquisition and frequency........................................................................................................................36
3.2.	Structure of the site database ........................................................................................................................... 37
3.3.	Chronological determinability of sites ........................................................................................................... 39
3.4.	Range of the site database.................................................................................................................................39
4.	Geographic outline ...................................................................................................................................................... 44
4.1.	Landscape features and regional division......................................................................................................44
4.2.	Geology................................................................................................................................................................... 46
4.2.1.	Formation and rock composition............................................................................................................47
4.2.2.	Tectonic composition.................................................................................................................................. 49
4.2.3.	Mineral raw material..................................................................................................................................50
4.3.	Relief.......................................................................................................................................................................52
4.4.	Hidrography and water sources........................................................................................................................58
4.4.1.	Main watercourses.......................................................................................................................................58
4.4.2.	Water supply and use of water sources.................................................................................................. 61
4.5.	Climate ................................................................................................................................................................... 62
4.6.	Soil and vegetation cover...................................................................................................................................63
4.7.	Applicability of the data on the present-day environment in prehistoric studies................................ 64
5.	Chronology..................................................................................................................................................................... 66
5.1.	Short history of the chronological system.....................................................................................................66
5.2.	Terminology........................................................................................................................................................... 68
VSEBINA
1.	Zgodovina raziskovanj.................................................................................................................................................13
1.1.	Od začetkov do konca devetnajstega stoletja................................................................................................13
1.2.	Dvajseto stoletje...................................................................................................................................................17
2.	Zajem podatkov ............................................................................................................................................................ 22
2.1.	Zamejitev raziskovalnega prostora ................................................................................................................... 22
2.2.	Izdelava kataloga najdišč...................................................................................................................................24
2.2.1.	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije..................................................................................................................24
2.2.2.	Arhivski viri..................................................................................................................................................25
2.2.3.	Terenski pregledi..........................................................................................................................................26
2.2.4.	Sondiranja......................................................................................................................................................27
2.3.	Objave.....................................................................................................................................................................34
3.	Kritika virov................................................................................................................................................................... 36
3.1.	Frekvenca in način zajemanja podatkov.........................................................................................................36
3.2.	Struktura najdišč..................................................................................................................................................40
3.3.	Časovna opredeljivost najdišč...........................................................................................................................40
3.4.	Domet kataloga najdišč ...................................................................................................................................... 41
4.	Geografski oris .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
4.1.	Značilnosti pokrajine in regionalna členitev.................................................................................................44
4.2.	Geološka zgradba.................................................................................................................................................46
4.2.1.	Nastanek in zgradba površja.....................................................................................................................46
4.2.2.	Tektonska zgradba.......................................................................................................................................49
4.2.3.	Mineralne surovine......................................................................................................................................50
4.3.	Relief.......................................................................................................................................................................52
4.4.	Rečna mreža in vodni viri..................................................................................................................................57
4.4.1.	Glavni vodotoki............................................................................................................................................58
4.4.2.	Oskrba z vodo in izraba vodnih virov....................................................................................................61
4.5.	Podnebje.................................................................................................................................................................62
4.6.	Prst in vegetacijski pokrov................................................................................................................................. 63
4.7.	Uporabnost podatkov o današnjem okolju za prazgodovinske raziskave...............................................63
5.	Kronologija .................................................................................................................................................................... 66
5.1.	Kratek historiat nastajanja kronologij.............................................................................................................66
5.2.	Terminologija ........................................................................................................................................................ 68
6.	Settlement structures...................................................................................................................................................70
6.1.	Fortified settlements............................................................................................................................................70
6.1.1.	Chronological determination.....................................................................................................................70
6.1.2.	Location.........................................................................................................................................................74
6.1.3.	Typology of fortified settlements.............................................................................................................77
6.1.4.	Fortification structures...............................................................................................................................79
6.1.4.1.	Constructions of earth and wood....................................................................................................82
6.1.4.2.	Constructions of stone.......................................................................................................................84
6.1.5.	Entrances.....................................................................................................................................................101
6.1.6.	Interior layout of settlements..................................................................................................................104
6.1.6.1.	Buildings...............................................................................................................................................104
6.1.6.2.	House construction...........................................................................................................................116
6.2.	Unfortified settlements.....................................................................................................................................119
6.2.1.	Chronological determination..................................................................................................................119
6.2.2.	Location.......................................................................................................................................................121
6.2.3.	Some data on the unfortified settlements...........................................................................................121
6.3.	Cemeteries...........................................................................................................................................................123
6.3.1.	Tumulus cemeteries...................................................................................................................................123
6.3.2.	Flat cemeteries...........................................................................................................................................127
6.3.3.	Flat and tumulus cemeteries...................................................................................................................129
6.4.	Hoards................................................................................................................................................................... 131
7.	Settlement dynamics..................................................................................................................................................132
7.1.	Settlement in the Late Bronze Age................................................................................................................132
7.1.1.	Settlement pattern......................................................................................................................................133
7.1.2.	Settlement characteristics........................................................................................................................134
7.1.3.	Relationship between the upland and lowland settlement...............................................................135
7.2.	Settlement in the Early Iron Age...................................................................................................................136
7.2.1.	Integration process and emergence of centres...................................................................................136
7.2.2.	Settlement pattern in the Early Hallstatt period...............................................................................142
7.2.3.	Settlement pattern in the Late Hallstatt period.................................................................................143
7.2.4.	Settlement outside the hillforts..............................................................................................................146
7.3.	Settlement in the Late Iron Age....................................................................................................................150
7.3.1. Settlement pattern......................................................................................................................................150
8.	Hierarchy of settlements...........................................................................................................................................155
8.1.	Criteria for settlement classification.............................................................................................................157
8.2.	Identification and presentation of significant settlements......................................................................157
8.3.	Hierarchy of the centres...................................................................................................................................191
6.	Poselitvene strukture...................................................................................................................................................70
6.1.	Utrjena naselja......................................................................................................................................................70
6.1.1 Časovna opredelitev......................................................................................................................................70
6.1.2.	Lega.................................................................................................................................................................74
6.1.3.	Tipi utrjenih naselij.....................................................................................................................................76
6.1.4.	Fortifikacije...................................................................................................................................................77
6.1.4.1.	Konstrukcije iz zemlje in lesa...........................................................................................................79
6.1.4.2.	Konstrukcije iz kamna........................................................................................................................84
6.1.5.	Vhodi.............................................................................................................................................................100
6.1.6.	Notranjost naselij.......................................................................................................................................101
6.1.6.1.	Stavbe....................................................................................................................................................104
6.1.6.2.	Gradnja hiš.......................................................................................................................................... 117
6.2.	Neutrjena naselja................................................................................................................................................119
6.2.1.	Časovna opredelitev..................................................................................................................................119
6.2.2.	Lega...............................................................................................................................................................121
6.2.3.	Nekaj podatkov o neutrjenih naseljih...................................................................................................121
6.3.	Grobišča...............................................................................................................................................................123
6.3.1.	Gomilna grobišča.......................................................................................................................................123
6.3.2.	Plana grobišča............................................................................................................................................126
6.3.3.	Plana in gomilna grobišča.......................................................................................................................129
6.4.	Depoji...................................................................................................................................................................130
7.	Poselitvena dinamika.................................................................................................................................................132
7.1.	Poselitev v pozni bronasti dobi.......................................................................................................................132
7.1.1.	Poselitvena slika..........................................................................................................................................133
7.1.2.	Značilnosti poselitve..................................................................................................................................134
7.1.3.	Razmerje med višinsko in nižinsko poselitvijo...................................................................................135
7.2.	Poselitev v starejši železni dobi......................................................................................................................136
7.2.1.	Integracija poselitve in nastanek središč..............................................................................................137
7.2.2.	Poselitvena slika v starejšem halštatskem obdobju...........................................................................142
7.2.3.	Poselitvena slika v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju.............................................................................143
7.2.4.	Problematika izvengradiščne poselitve.................................................................................................145
7.3.	Poselitev v mlajši železni dobi........................................................................................................................150
7.3.1. Poselitvena slika.........................................................................................................................................150
8.	Hierarhija naselij........................................................................................................................................................155
8.1.	Kriteriji za razvrščanje naselij.........................................................................................................................156
8.2.	Identificiranje in predstavitev pomembnejših naselij...............................................................................157
8.3.	Hierarhija središč...............................................................................................................................................191
9.	Settlements and their economic background......................................................................................................196
9.1.	Density of the settlement network.................................................................................................................196
9.1.1.	Site catchment analysis.............................................................................................................................198
9.1.2.	Conflict zones............................................................................................................................................202
9.1.3.	Relationship between centres and peripheral settlements..............................................................203
9.2.	Natural sources...................................................................................................................................................204
9.2.1.	Soil quality and agricultural background.............................................................................................204
9.2.2.	Food supply and consumption .............................................................................................................. 206
9.2.2.1.	Land cultivation.................................................................................................................................207
9.2.2.2.	Stock breeding....................................................................................................................................210
9.2.2.3.	Hunting and fishing..........................................................................................................................212
9.2.3.	Metal ore deposits..................................................................................................................................... 213
9.2.3.1. Metallurgy............................................................................................................................................215
9.3.	Communication and transport.......................................................................................................................217
9.3.1.	River ways....................................................................................................................................................217
9.3.2.	Landways .................................................................................................................................................... 220
9.3.3.	Territorial and communication control...............................................................................................223
9.3.4.	Traffic and exchange................................................................................................................................ 229
10.	Social structure ......................................................................................................................................................... 237
10.1.	Structure of cemeteries ................................................................................................................................... 237
10.2.	Structure of burials.........................................................................................................................................238
10.3.	Warriors.............................................................................................................................................................239
10.4.	Women and children ....................................................................................................................................... 245
10.5.	Social organization .......................................................................................................................................... 247
10.6.	Social and historical turning points...........................................................................................................250
11.	Catalogue of sites....................................................................................................................................................253
12.	Bibliograpy.................................................................................................................................................................354
13.	Indices........................................................................................................................................................................ 369
13.1.	List of places.....................................................................................................................................................371
13.2.	List of sites.......................................................................................................................................................382
9.	Naselja in njihovo gospodarsko zaledje................................................................................................................196
9.1.	Gostota poselitvene mreže...............................................................................................................................196
9.1.1.	Določitev gospodarskih prostorov..........................................................................................................198
9.1.2.	Konfliktnost teritorijev.............................................................................................................................201
9.1.3.	Odnos središč do perifernih naselij......................................................................................................202
9.2.	Naravni viri......................................................................................................................................................... 203
9.2.1.	Kvaliteta prsti in agrarno zaledje..........................................................................................................203
9.2.2.	Pridobivanje hrane....................................................................................................................................204
9.2.2.1.	Poljedelstvo.........................................................................................................................................205
9.2.2.2.	Živinoreja...........................................................................................................................................209
9.2.2.3.	Lov in ribolov.....................................................................................................................................211
9.2.3.	Rudonosna območja..................................................................................................................................212
9.2.3.1. Metalurgija...........................................................................................................................................215
9.3.	Komunikacije in promet................................................................................................................................... 217
9.3.1.	Rečne poti....................................................................................................................................................218
9.3.2.	Kopne poti...................................................................................................................................................221
9.3.3.	Nadzor prostora in komunikacij ........................................................................................................... 223
9.3.4.	Promet in menjava.................................................................................................................................... 229
10.	Družbena struktura.................................................................................................................................................. 237
10.1.	Struktura grobišč..............................................................................................................................................237
10.2.	Struktura pokopov..........................................................................................................................................238
10.3.	Bojevniki...........................................................................................................................................................239
10.4.	Ženske in otroci ............................................................................................................................................... 245
10.5.	Družbena slika..................................................................................................................................................247
10.6.	Družbene in zgodovinske prelomnice........................................................................................................ 250
11.	Katalog najdišč.........................................................................................................................................................253
12.	Literatura....................................................................................................................................................................354
13.	Indeksi........................................................................................................................................................................369
13.1.	Imenik krajev..................................................................................................................................................... 371
13.2.	Imenik najdišč ................................................................................................................................................. 382
1. HISTORY OF RESEARCH
1. ZGODOVINA RAZISKOVANJ
1.1. FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO THE END OF THE 19th CENTURY
1.1. OD ZAČETKOV DO KONCA DEVETNAJSTEGA STOLETJA
The interest in prehistoric settlements dates back to the 17th and 18th centuries, when pioneering historic works appeared also in Slovenia, such as Carniolia antiqua et nova by Johann Ludwig Schönleben, Die Ehre des Hertzogthums Crain by Johannes Weickard Valvasor, and the synthetic Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain by Anton Tomaž Linhart.1 These works contain a wealth of interesting information on prehistoric hillforts. However, the data were not collected in compliance with a deliberate research plan of the pre-Roman colonization of the Slovene lands, since the authors used early settlements merely to underlie their theses on the geographic position of the places mentioned in the ancient written sources.2
Similar motives can be observed in the research in the early 19th century. One of such works was Itin-eraria by Valentin Vodnik in 1809, in which the prehistoric settlement at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični was mentioned for the first time. Another author is Joseph Stratil, who described the accompanying tumulus cemetery. Stratil also measured Cvinger in 1824 and made a precise plan. His exploration undoubtedly represents the initial step in studying the remote past on the territory of Slovenia. Its importance lies mostly in the fact that it took place in a period of poor knowledge on prehistory, and most finds that predated the Classical Antiquity were still shrouded in the mist.
The knowledge of the archaeological sites was summarized in the mid 19th century by Peter Radics in Archaeologische Karte von Krain.^ This was the first archaeological map of central Slovenia that contained
1	Schönleben 1681; Valvasor 1689; Linhart 1788.
2	An exhaustive overview of the research history of prehistoric settlements, cemeteries and the settlement pattern in central Slovenia in general is given by J. Dular (Dular 1992; Dular 2003, 13 ff). Only the main results of the above-mentioned works are given here. See also Novakovic 2003, 203 ff.
3	Radics 1862.
Začetki zanimanja za prazgodovinska naselja segajo v 17. in 18. stoletje, ko so tudi na Slovenskem nastala prva večja zgodovinska dela. V mislih imamo Janeza Ludvika Schonlebna in njegovo knjigo Antična in sodobna Kranjska, Janeza Vajkarda Valvasorja s Slavo vojvodine Kranjske ter sintezo Antona Tomaža Linharta Poskus zgodovine Kranjske.^ V omenjenih delih je obilica zanimivih podatkov o prazgodovinskih gradiščih, ki pa niso bili zbrani kot rezultat zavestnih proučevanj pred-rimske poselitve naših krajev. S starimi naselji so skušali avtorji zgolj podkrepiti svoje teze pri lociranju tistih poselitvenih točk, ki jih omenjajo antični pisani viri.2
Podobne motive opažamo tudi pri raziskavah z začetka 19. stoletja. Omeniti velja Valentina Vodnika in njegov Itinerar iz leta 1809, v katerem je prvič omenjeno naselje nad Virom pri Stični, ter Josepha Stratila, ki je opisal tamkajšnjo gomilno nekropolo. Stratil je leta 1824 virski Cvinger celo izmeril in izdelal njegov natančen načrt. Njegove raziskave predstavljajo brez dvoma začetni korak pri proučevanju naše najstarejše preteklosti. Pomembne so predvsem zaradi tega, ker je deloval v času, ko je bilo o prazgodovini znanega zelo malo in je večina najdb, ki so bila starejša od antike, lebdela v nepregledni megli.
Vedenje o arheoloških najdiščih je sredi 19. stoletja zaokrožil Peter Radics v Arheološki karti Kranjske.^ To je prvi arheološki zemljevid osrednje Slovenije, na katerem so poleg rimskih najdišč in cest vrisane tudi srednjeveške utrjene cerkve. Karta je značilen odraz takratnih raziskovalcev, ki sta jih zanimali predvsem epigrafika in antična zgodovina. Proučevanje predrimske poselitve namreč še ni prodrlo v zavest, zato se ne sme-
1	Schonleben 1681; Valvasor 1689; Linhart 1788.
2	Izčrpen pregled zgodovine raziskovanj prazgodovinskih naselij, nekropol in poselitve v osrednji Sloveniji daje J. Dular (Dular 1992; Dular 2003, 13 ss.). Iz omenjenih del povzemamo glavne poudarke. Glej tudi Novakovič 2003, 203 ss.
3	Radics 1862.
Roman sites and roads as well as medieval fortified churches. The map is a typical product of contemporary scholars, whose primary interest lay in epigraphy and classical ancient history. Pre-Roman colonization was not yet present in the consciousness of the researchers at that time and it is therefore not surprising that all settlements on the map were marked as Roman. The only exception was the barrows near the village of Vir pri Stični.
The turning point in the advance of the prehistoric archaeology occurred in the 1S70s. In this period, the Anthropologische Gesellschaft was established in Vienna (1870), followed shortly by the Anthropologisch-Prähistorische Abteilung at the Naturhistorisches Museum (1876) and the Prähistorische Kommission at the Akademie der Wissenschaften (1878).4 All three institutions were closely connected with the research of archaeological sites in Carniola, where the first important prehistoric discoveries occurred in the 1870s: remains of pile dwellings were found at Ig in 1875, and the first graves at Vače were uncovered two years later (1877). The excavations, successfully organized by Dragotin Dežman, the curator of the Landesmuseum of Carniola, provided the latter institution with its first systematically obtained finds.
The mid-1870s period also witnessed the first surveys of archaeological sites. This achievement is to be credited to Alfons Müllner, the curator at the k.u.k. Zentralkommission. He undertook an extensive examination across Styria in 1876 that proved very useful in his further investigation. By 1892, he had collected evidence on more than 300 hillforts in the area of the present-day Slovenia and attempted to classify them typologically. His scheme was based on chronological differences. He distinguished between pre-Roman and Roman hillforts, the former were further divided into hillforts with pile-dwelling pottery (Copper Age), hillforts with the Ruše type pottery (Late Bronze Age), hillforts of the Etruscans (Hallstatt period) and hillforts with a Celtic population (La Tène period). Hillforts with cult places were set apart as a special category.5 Müllner intended to publish his findings in a synthesis on fortified settlements; the publication was announced several times but failed to see the light of day.6
It has been said above that the programme of the Prähistorische Kommission included research into the sites in Carniola. For that reason, Ferdinand Hochstet-ter, president of the commission, and Dragotin Dežman, curator at the Landesmuseum in Ljubljana, travelled together through a large part of central Slovenia in 1878. The visit resulted in an important work on the prehistoric settlements and cemeteries in Carniola, published
4	Dular 2003, 17 ff.
5	Müllner 1892, 8 f.
6	Müllner 1879, 103, n. 1; Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879, 3, n. 1; Müllner 1892, 8.
mo čuditi, da so vsa najdišča na Radicsevi karti označena kot rimska. Edina izjema so gomile blizu vasi Vir pri Stični.
Bistvena prelomnica za razvoj prazgodovinske arheologije so bila sedemdeseta leta devetnajstega stoletja. To je bil čas, ko je bilo na Dunaju ustanovljeno Antropološko društvo (1870), kmalu za tem pa še Antro-pološko-prazgodovinski oddelek Naravoslovnega muzeja (1876) in Prazgodovinska komisija Akademije znanosti (1878).4 Vse tri inštitucije so bile tesno povezane z raziskovanjem arheoloških najdišč na Kranjskem, kjer je prišlo v sedemdesetih letih do prvih pomembnih prazgodovinskih odkritij: 1875 so našli ostanke kolišč pri Igu, dve leti kasneje (1877) pa so zadeli na prve grobove na Vačah. Z izkopavanji, ki jih je uspešno organiziral kustos Kranjskega deželnega muzeja Dragotin Dežman, je dobila ustanova prve načrtno pridobljene najdbe.
Sredi sedemdesetih let so se razmahnili tudi prvi obhodi arheoloških terenov. Zasluge za to ima Alfons Müllner, konservator c. k. Centralne komisije, ki je že leta 1876 na Štajerskem in Kranjskem opravil obsežno anketo, ki mu je bila v dragoceno pomoč pri nadaljnjih rekognosciranjih. Do leta 1892 je na območju današnje Slovenije zbral podatke o več kot 300 gradiščih, ki jih je skušal tudi tipološko razčleniti. Njegova shema je temeljila na časovnih razlikah. Gradišča je namreč ločil na predrimska in rimska, prva pa še podrobneje na gradišča s koliščarsko keramiko (bakrenodobna), gradišča s keramiko ruškega tipa (poznobronastodobna), gradišča Etruščanov (halštatskodobna) in gradišča s keltskim prebivalstvom (latenskodobna). Kot posebno kategorijo je izdvojil še gradišča s kultnimi mesti.5 Müllner je nameraval svoja dognanja objaviti v večkrat napovedanem sintetičnem delu o utrjenih naseljih, ki pa ni nikoli izšlo.6
Rekli smo že, da je Prazgodovinska komisija pri dunajski Akademiji znanosti v svoj program vključila tudi raziskovanje kranjskih najdišč. Tako sta poleti 1878 predsednik komisije Ferdinand Hochstetter in kustos Deželnega muzeja Dragotin Dežman skupaj prepotovala dobršen del osrednje Slovenije, rezultat teh obhodov pa je bilo pomembno delo o prazgodovinskih naseljih in grobiščih na Kranjskem, ki je izšlo v poročilih Akademije.7 V članku je opisanih osemnajst najdišč. Najobsežneje so predstavljene Vače, saj so v poročilo vključili tudi rezultate izkopavanj, ki jih je še isto jesen opravil preparator ljubljanskega muzeja Ferdinand Schulz. Poleg Vač so takrat obhodili še Tržišče pri Dolenji vasi, Šmihel pod Nanosom, Vir pri Stični, Moravče pri Ga-brovki in okolico Šmarjete, da omenimo le najpomembnejše točke. Opisi najdišč so precizni, napisani z nara-
4	Dular 2003, 17 ss.
5	Müllner 1892, 8 s.
6	Müllner 1879, 103, op. 1; Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879, 3, op. 1; Müllner 1892, 8.
7	Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879.
in the reports of the Akademie J The article describes eighteen sites. The most comprehensively presented is Vače, which included the results of the excavation conducted that autumn by Ferdinand Schulz, the conservator at the museum in Ljubljana. Besides Vače, the report includes also Dolenja vas, Šmihel pri Nanosu, Vir pri Stični, Moravče pri Gabrovki and the surroundings of Šmarjeta, to mention only the most important ones. The descriptions of the sites are precise, written with scientific meticulousness and furnished with plans and maps, with all, in fact, that later humanistic treaties usually lack. The article also provides the first evaluation of the material from the typological and also chronological and ethnic points of view. This is particularly important for the local historiography, since most finds were previously ascribed to the Romans.
The above-mentioned reconnaissance incited also the first systematic excavation of cemeteries (1878: Dolenja vas, Vače, Moravče pri Gabrovki; 1879: Šmarjeta, Jagnenica, Gradišče pri Pijavi Gorici) and settlements (1879: Kopa near Trnjava, Sv. Gora near Rovišče). Most were conducted by Ferdinand Schulz under the guidance of Dežman. The 1870s therefore really represent the beginning of systematic research into the prehistoric (Iron Age) colonization in south-eastern Slovenia.
The results were encouraging. It is therefore not surprising that, in 1879, Austrian anthropologists and prehistorians chose Ljubljana for their first meeting, a city that became - thanks to Dežman - an important centre of archaeological activity. The meeting was also used to present the state of the research in Slovenia. Dežman, for example, reported on the excavations around Šmar-jeta, Müllner on the exploration and the making of an archaeological map of Styria and Carniola, while Schey-er briefly described the finds from the barrows at Dobrava near Šmarčna and at Jagnenica near Radeče.8
Dežman succeeded in gaining the collaboration of Jernej Pečnik for his research in 1883.9 This self-learned excavator, to whom the archaeological profession wrongly attributed the mortal sin of destroying Slovenia's earliest heritage, dug most of the important cemeteries of Dolenjska in his excavating career that spanned three decades and filled the two museums in Ljubljana and Vienna. Only the Duchess of Mecklenburg, who was active in Carniola in the decade prior to World War I, can compare with him in the extent of excavations conducted.10
However, Pečnik did more than just digging; he tirelessly sought new archaeological sites. The central commission for the research and protection of art and historic monuments in Vienna recognized the value of Pečnik's information and therefore asked him to record
7	Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879.
8	Much 1880.
9	For Pecnik's biography see Dular 1996b.
10	Dobiat 1982; Dular 2003, 71 ff.
voslovno akribijo, dodani so načrti in zemljevidi, skratka vse tisto, kar pri kasnejših objavah, ki so jih pisali humanisti, običajno manjka. V članku je podano tudi prvo ovrednotenje gradiva in sicer tako s tipološkega kot tudi kronološkega in etničnega vidika, kar je bilo še posebej pomembno za lokalno zgodovinopisje, saj so pred tem večino najdišč in najdb pripisovali Rimljanom.
Omenjena rekognosciranja so vzpodbudila tudi prva načrtna izkopavanja grobišč (leta 1878: Tržišče pri Dolenji vasi, Vače, Roje pri Moravčah; 1879: Šmarjeta, Jagnenica, Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico) in naselbin (leta 1879: Kopa nad Trnjavo, Sv. Gora nad Roviščem). Večinoma jih je pod Dežmanovim vodstvom vodil Ferdinand Schulz. Sedemdeseta leta devetnajstega stoletja pomenijo zato resnično začetek sistematičnih raziskovanj prazgodovinske (železnodobne) poselitve v jugovzhodni Sloveniji.
Rezultati so bili vzpodbudni, zato ni čudno, da so si leta 1879 avstrijski antropologi in prazgodovinarji za kraj svojega prvega zborovanja izbrali prav Ljubljano, ki je postala po Dežmanovi zaslugi pomembno središče arheoloških dejavnosti. Na posvetovanju so bila predstavljena tudi dognanja raziskav v Sloveniji. Tako je Dežman poročal o izkopavanjih v okolici Šmarjete, Mullner o rekognosciranjih in izdelavi arheološke karte Štajerske in Kranjske, medtem ko je Scheyer na kratko opisal najdbe iz gomil v Dobravi pri Šmarčni in v Jag-nenici pri Radečah.8
Leta 1883 je Dežmanu uspelo pritegniti kot sodelavca k svojim raziskavam Jerneja Pečnika.9 Ta samouki starinokop, ki mu je arheološka stroka po krivici pripisala naglavni greh uničenja naše najstarejše dediščine, je v svoji skoraj tri desetletja dolgi izkopavalni karieri prekopal večino pomembnejših dolenjskih grobišč in z najdbami dodobra napolnil ljubljanski in dunajski muzej. Po obsegu izkopavanj se lahko z njim primerja le vojvodinja Mecklenburška, ki je na Kranjskem delovala v desetletju pred prvo svetovno vojno.10
Vendar pa Pečnik ni le izkopaval, ampak je ves čas neumorno iskal nova arheološka najdišča. Na Centralni komisiji za raziskovanje in varstvo umetnostnih in zgodovinskih spomenikov na Dunaju so se dobro zavedali, kako dragoceni so Pečnikovi podatki, zato so ga zaprosili naj svoja spoznanja vnese na topografske karte. Tako je 1889 nastalo šest arheoloških zemljevidov, ki so zaobjeli celotno območje Dolenjske in Bele krajine, deloma pa so segli tudi na Štajersko in del Notranjske. Žal Pečnikove karte niso doživele objave.11 Kako velik korak je bil narejen s tem delom, pa lahko vsak presodi
8	Much 1880.
9	Za Pečnikov življenjepis glej Dular 1996b.
10	Dobiat 1982; Dular 2003, 71 ss.
11	Karte hrani Arhiv Republike Slovenije: fond AS 1100, C. kr. spomeniški urad, K 59/11, K 59/117, K 61/14, K 61/15, K 61/110; fond AS 38, Deželni zbor in odbor za Kranjsko, IX-5, 1889/1596, 1892/9595; fond AS 965, Pečnik Jernej, fasc. 3.
his findings onto topographical maps. Six archaeological maps were thereby made in I889, including the whole areas of Dolenjska and Bela krajina, and partly extending onto Štajerska and a part of Notranjska. Unfortunately, Pecnik's maps were never published.11 The value of these maps can readily be assessed, one needs only to look at the archaeological map by Globocnik and compare it with earlier maps.12 The number of sites is substantially increased, whereby most of the new discoveries have to be ascribed to the efforts of none other than Pečnik.
He continued with the visits to the archaeological sites even after 1889. Towards the end of his life, he summarized his knowledge of the prehistoric sites in Carniola in an article, again written at the incentive of the Zentralkommission.^^ The article represents a basic list of archaeological sites in central Slovenia, and all the field surveys that followed its publication were in most cases merely intended to verify and supplement the data that it gave.
Pečnik's primary interest lay, throughout his work, in cemeteries, though he accorded much attention to settlements as well. He did little excavation there, but he did write a short article about them already in 1894, which may be defined as a second attempt at a typology of the hillforts of Carniola.14 This work reveals Pecnik's poor education. However, it would be unfair not to point out his acute powers of observation; he formed the typological groups solely based on his field-walking and his observations still stand largely uncorrected today.
The prehistoric sites of Carniola were visited on several occasions also by Josef Szombathy.15 He excavated some sites and recorded his findings conscientiously in his diaries that are now held at the Prehistoric Department of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna. Simon Rutar also published a great number of topographical notes in various periodicals. These are mostly short reports based on Pecnik's information. Rutar was the conservator at the Zentralkommission and as such watched over Pecnik's work. He personally visited most sites excavated by Pecnik. The subject of prehistoric colonization, however, did not greatly interest him. His work on Roman topography is of greater significance, since he carried out an important study, together with Premerstein, on the route of the itinerary road between Emona and Siscia.16
11	The maps are held at the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia: fond AS 1100, C. kr. spomeniški urad, K 59/11, K 59/117, K 61/14, K 61/15, K 61/110; fond AS 38, Deželni zbor in odbor za Kranjsko, IX-5, 1889/1596, 1892/9595; fond AS 965, Pecnik Jernej, fasc. 3.
12	Globocnik 1889.
13	Pecnik 1904.
14	Pecnik 1894.
15	For biography see Heinrich 2003.
16	Premerstein/Rutar 1899.
sam. V roke mora vzeti le Globočnikovo arheološko karto in jo primerjati s starejšimi zemljevidi.12 Število najdišč je bistveno večje, večino novih odkritij pa moramo pripisati prav Pečnikovemu trudu.
Po letu 1889 je Pečnik nadaljeval z obhodi arheoloških terenov. Proti koncu svojega življenja je svoja spoznanja strnil v članku o prazgodovinskih najdiščih na Kranjskem, ki ga je prav tako napisal na pobudo Centralne komisije.13 Članek je temeljni seznam arheoloških najdišč za območje osrednje Slovenije. Vsi kasnejši terenski pregledi so ga v glavnem le preverjali in dopolnjevali.
Ves čas svojega delovanja je Pečnik precej pozornosti namenjal tudi naseljem. Čeprav jih v glavnem ni kopal, saj so ga zanimala bistveno manj kot grobišča, je o njih že leta 1894 napisal krajši prispevek, ki ga lahko označimo kot drugi poskus tipologije kranjskih gradišč.14 Delo sicer kaže na Pečnikovo pomanjkljivo izobrazbo, vendar pa ne bi bili pošteni, če ne bi poudarili njegovega izrednega občutka za opazovanje. Pečnik je namreč svoje skupine izoblikoval zgolj na podlagi terenskih obhodov in priznati moramo, da so njegova opažanja v glavnem pravilna.
Kranjska prazgodovinska najdišča si je večkrat ogledal Josef Szombathy.15 Nekatera je tudi kopal, svoja opažanja pa je vestno beležil v dnevnike, ki jih hrani Prazgodovinski oddelek Naravoslovnega muzeja na Dunaju. Obilico topografskih notic je v raznih revijah priobčil tudi Simon Rutar. To so večinoma kratka poročila, ki so nastala na podlagi Pečnikovih podatkov. Rutar je namreč kot konservator Centralne komisije bdel nad njegovim delovanjem, zato si je večino najdišč, ki jih je Pečnik kopal, tudi osebno ogledal. Resneje pa ga problematika prazgodovinske poselitve ni zanimala. Pomembnejše je njegovo delo na področju antične topografje, kjer je skupaj s Pre-mersteinom ustvaril pomembno študijo o poteku itine-rarske ceste med Emono in Siscijo.16
Ob terenskih pregledih se je seveda pojavila tudi potreba po sondiranjih. Ker pa izkopavanja naselij še zdaleč niso bila tako atraktivna kot kopanje nekropol, jim raziskovalci konec devetnajstega stoletja niso posvečali večje pozornosti. Nekaj manjših kopanj pa lahko vseeno omenimo: na primer tisto, ki ga je opravil Szombathy na Kučarju nad Podzemljem (1891), Pečnik na Magdalenski gori pri Zgornji Slivnici (1892) in Pečnik pod Szombathyjevim nadzorom na Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (1898-1899).17 Drugače je bilo z gomilnimi grobišči, ki so jih večinoma prekopali že ob koncu devetnajstega in na začetku dvajsetega stoletja.18
12	Globočnik 1889.
13	Pečnik 1904.
14	Pečnik 1894.
15	Za življenjepis glej Heinrich 2003.
16	Premerstein/Rutar 1899.
17	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 11 ss; Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 16; Dular/Križ, 2004, 212 ss.
18	Dular 2003, 79 ss.
Field surveying brought about the need for trial trenching. The researchers at the end of the 19th century found excavating cemeteries far more exciting than uncovering settlements and, consequentially, not much attention was paid to them. Nevertheless, some small-scale investigations did take place: Szombathy, for example, excavated at Kučar near Podzemelj (1891), Pečnik at Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (1892) and, under the supervision of Szombathy, also at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (1898-1899).17 Tumulus cemeteries, on the other hand, were dug through already at the end of the 19th century.18
1.2. TWENTIETH CENTURY
The first two decades of the 20'h century were marked by the activity of the Duchess of Mecklenburg. She began excavating in Carniola in 1905 and her interest was directed exclusively towards the cemeteries. She worked all over Dolenjska and also in Bela krajina, with most of her time being dedicated to two key sites: Magdalenska gora and Stična.19 She excavated over twenty barrows on these two cemeteries alone and brought to light extraordinary material that constituted the bulk of her valuable collection.20 She was forced to stop her work only in the summer of 1914, at the outbreak of World War I.
An important step forward in the research of the prehistoric settlement archaeology was the work of Walter Schmid. As curator at the Landesmuseum in Ljubljana, he undertook rescue excavations of two barrows at Novo mesto already in 1905. After his departure for Graz, he dedicated the next thirty years of research to the hillforts of Dolenjska.21 He excavated at Zgornja krona near Vače, Kučar near Podzemelj, Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice, Križni vrh near Beli Grič, Stari grad near Sela pri Šumberku and at Sv. Marjeta on Lib-na, to mention only those in south-eastern Slovenia.22 Schmid's research concept was an important novelty at the time. Following the paradigm of the German settlement archaeology, he shifted the centre of attention from the cemeteries to the settlements, without which a proper colonization history could not be written. His work was pioneering in many respects. He was primarily interested in the interior of settlements, that is in the evolution of houses and outbuildings, while he devoted much attention also to the historic interpretation of the prehis-
17	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 11 ff; Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 118; Dular/Križ, 2004, 212 ff.
18	Dular 2003, 79 ff.
19	Hencken 1978; Wells 1981.
20	For the history of the Mecklenburg Collection see Gabrovec 1978; Dobiat 1982; Polizzotti Greis 2006.
21	Dular 2003, 69 ff.
22	Dular 1999b, 132, fig. 2.
1.2. DVAJSETO STOLETJE
Prvi dve desetletji dvajsetega stoletja sta bili zaznamovani z delovanjem vojvodinje Mecklenburške. Na Kranjskem je pričela izkopavati leta 1905, njen interes pa je bil usmerjen izključno h grobiščem. Delovala je po vsej Dolenjski in tudi v Beli krajini, največ časa pa je posvetila prav dvema ključnima najdiščema in sicer Magdalenski gori in Stični.19 Samo na teh dveh grobiščih je prekopala čez dvajset gomil in spravila na dan izjemno gradivo, ki je predstavljalo glavnino njene dragocene zbirke.20 Z delom je bila primorana prekiniti šele poleti 1914, ko je izbruhnila prva svetovna vojna.
Pomemben korak pri raziskovanju prazgodovinske poselitve pomenijo raziskave Walterja Schmida. Že leta 1905 je kot kustos Deželnega muzeja v Ljubljani zaščitno izkopal dve gomili v Novem mestu, po odhodu v Gradec pa se je v tridesetih letih posvetil predvsem raziskovanju dolenjskih gradišč.21 Kopal je na Zgornji kroni nad Vačami, Kučarju nad Podzemljem, Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah, Križnem vrhu nad Belim Gričem, Starem gradu nad Seli pri Šumberku in pri Sv. Marjeti na Libni, da omenimo le tista naselja, ki ležijo v jugovzhodnem delu Slovenije.22 Schmidov raziskovalni koncept je bil v tistem času pomembna novost. Po vzoru nemške poselitvene arheologije je prestavil težišče raziskav od nekropol k naseljem, brez katerih ni mogoče pisati solidne poselitvene zgodovine. Njegovo delo je bilo v marsičem pionirsko. Najbolj ga je zanimala notranjščina naselij, se pravi razvoj hiš in gospodarskih poslopij, veliko pozornosti pa je posvečal tudi historični interpretaciji prazgodovinske poselitve.23 Žal Schmid svojih raziskav večinoma ni objavil. Izjema je razprava o pohorskih gradiščih, ki je izšla že pred prvo svetovno vojno, ter članka o naseljih na Ulaki nad Starim trgom pri Ložu in Zgornji kroni nad Vačami.24 O drugih izkopavanjih, ki jih ni bilo tako malo, pa se lahko seznanimo le iz kratkih časopisnih poročil. Ker so jih pisali drugi, večinoma nimajo znanstvene vrednosti. Schmi-dovo delo je ostalo zato nedorečeno. Zbral je sicer veliko novih podatkov, hkrati pa je ostala za njim kopica površnih opisov in odprtih vprašanj, ki so jih deloma pojasnila šele novejša izkopavanja.
Bežno se je s prazgodovinskimi naselji ukvarjal tudi Balduin Saria. Kopal je na Gradišču pri Velikih Malen-cah, kjer je pod poznoantičnimi objekti naletel na prazgodovinske ostaline.25 Saria je napisal tudi krajšo razpravo, v kateri je skušal podati historično ozadje fenomena
19	Hencken 1978; Wells 1981.
20	Za zgodovino Mecklenburške zbirke glej Gabrovec 1978; Dobiat 1982; Polizzotti Greis 2006.
21	Dular 2003, 69 ss.
22	Dular 1999b, 132, sl. 2.
23	Prim. Pick/Schmid 1922-1924, 179 ss.
24	Schmid 1915; Schmid 1937; Schmid 1939.
25	Saria 1929; Saria 1930.
toric settlement.23 Unfortunately, he left his research mostly unpublished, with the exception of a treaty on the hillforts of the Pohorje - published already before World War I - as well as two articles on the settlements at Ulaka near Stari trg pri Ložu and at Zgornja krona near Vače.24 Other excavations, actually not so few in number, can only be assessed from short newspaper reports. Since these were written by others, they are mostly of no scientific significance. Though Schmid collected much new data, he left behind many cursory descriptions and unanswered questions that have been partly explained only by recent excavations.
Prehistoric settlements were, for a brief period, of interest also to Balduin Saria. He excavated at Gradišče near Velike Malence, where he came upon prehistoric remains underneath Late Antiquity buildings.25 He also wrote a short treaty, in which he attempted to give a historical background of the phenomenon of Dolenj-ska's hillforts.26 Unfortunately, the article is no more than a superficial topographical overview, although it does bring some new evidence on the sites of the northern outskirts of the Ljubljana basin.
The research of prehistoric sites continued after World War II. First we should mention France Stare and his trial trenches at Gradišče near Vintarjevec, where interesting Iron Age remains were found in 1951.27 Ofgreater importance was the project of the National Museum in Ljubljana that was directed towards the surroundings of Stična. The project foresaw the excavation of one of the largest barrows there, which was then successfully conducted by Stane Gabrovec between 1960 and 1964. For the first time, excavations revealed the structure of a barrow as well as the customs of burial and time span.28 The obtained data greatly helped Gabrovec in establishing the chronological as well as the cultural and historical concept of the Hallstatt Culture in Slovenia.29
The excavations of the accompanying settlement at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični were of equal importance. These lasted eight years (1967-1974), during which time 22 trial trenches were made at the settlement.30 This undoubtedly large-scale project, that included the cooperation of foreign specialists, was in many respects an interesting experience for the Slovene prehistoric archaeology. The first is surely professional, since the excavations at Stična offered the first information on the construction technique of Hallstatt defensive walls, revealed
23	Cf. Pick/Schmid 1922-1924, 179 ff.
24	Schmid 1915; Schmid 1937; Schmid 1939.
25	Saria 1929; Saria 1930.
26	Saria 1956.
27	V. Stare 1999.
28	Gabrovec 1974; Gabrovec 2006.
29	Gabrovec 1964-1965; Gabrovec 1966c; Frey/Gabrovec 1971; Gabrovec 1987.
30	Gabrovec/Frey/Folthiny 1969; Gabrovec/Frey/Folthiny
1970; Frey 1974a; Gabrovec 1994.
dolenjskih gradišč.26 Žal je članek le površen topografski pregled, ki pa vendarle prinaša nekaj novih podatkov o najdiščih na severnem obrobju Ljubljanske kotline.
Po drugi svetovni vojni se je raziskovanje prazgodovinskih najdišč nadaljevalo. Najprej moramo omeniti Staretovo sondiranje Gradišča nad Vintarjevcem, kjer so že leta 1951 našli zanimive železnodobne ostaline.27 Veliko pomembnejši je bil projekt Narodnega muzeja iz Ljubljane, ki je bil usmerjen v okolico Stične. Program je predvidel izkop ene od tamkajšnjih največjih gomil, ki jo je v letih 1960-1964 uspešno raziskal Stane Gabro-vec. Prvič je bila v podrobnostih ugotovljena njena zgradba, način pokopa in časovni razpon.28 Podatki so bili Gabrovcu v dragoceno pomoč pri postavljanju kronološkega in kulturnohistoričnega koncepta halštatske kulture v Sloveniji.29
Enako pomembna so bila izkopavanja pripadajočega naselja na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični. Trajala so osem let (1967-1974), v tem času pa so v naselju izkopali 22 sond.30 Ta nedvomno velikopotezen projekt, pri katerem so sodelovali tudi tuji strokovnjaki, je bil za slovensko prazgodovinsko arheologijo zanimiv z več plati. Prva je gotovo strokovna, saj so dala stiška izkopavanja prve podatke o načinu gradnje halštatskih obrambnih zidov, razgrnila so pestro paleto naselbinske materialne kulture, prav tako pa so omogočila tudi preverjanje kronoloških korelacij med naseljem in pripadajočimi nek-ropolami. Po drugi strani je bil stiški projekt pomemben zaradi metod. Te so izhajale iz nemške arheološke šole in so pri nas predstavljale pomembno novost. Prvič so bila izpeljana stratigrafska izkopavanja, z njimi pa smo dobili jasen vpogled v zaključene naselbinske komplekse, s pomočjo katerih je bilo mogoče rekonstruirati razvoj gradišča. Končno je bila Stična pomembna tudi kot šola. Tu so se učili in preiskušali številni mladi kadri, ki so kasneje vodili nekatera velika izkopavanja, na primer na Kučarju nad Podzemljem in Mostu na Soči. Stiški projekt je bil zanesljivo velik in odločilen korak k modernemu proučevanju železnodobnih naselij in poselitve na širšem območju jugovzhodnih Alp.
Žal ostala izkopavanja zaradi pomanjkanja finančnih sredstev niso bila več načrtna, ampak so imela izključno zaščitni značaj. Med njimi velja najprej omeniti Novo mesto, kjer so že med drugo svetovno vojno prišle na dan dragocene najdbe, kasnejše širjenje mesta pa je zahtevalo vedno nove zaščitne posege.31 Do njih prihaja na različnih koncih mesta še danes. Raziskane so bile
26	Saria 1956.
27	V. Stare 1999.
28	Gabrovec 1974; Gabrovec 2006.
29	Gabrovec 1964-1965; Gabrovec 1966c; Frey/Gabrovec 1971; Gabrovec 1987.
30	Gabrovec/Frey/Folthiny 1969; Gabrovec/Frey/Folthiny 1970; Frey 1974a; Gabrovec 1994.
31	Za zgodovino raziskovanj v Novem mestu glej Knez 1990, 11 ss.
a varied assemblage of the settlement material culture and enabled the chronological correlations between settlements and their cemeteries to be verified. The second is methodological. The methods used in the excavation procedure originated in the German archaeological school and represented an important novelty in Slovenia. The stratigraphic method was applied for the first time. This offered a clear identification of settlement contexts, which in turn enabled the development of the settlement to be reconstructed. Finally, Stična was important also as a training ground for many young archaeologists who went on to manage some of the larger excavations in Slovenia, for example at Kučar near Podzemelj and Most na Soči. The Stična project undoubtedly represents a great and decisive step towards a modern study of the Iron Age settlements as well as the settlements pattern in a wider area of the south-eastern Alps.
Other excavations were, due to the lack of financial support, no longer of planned but exclusively of rescue character. The latter include explorations at Novo mesto, where valuable finds were brought to light already during World War II, while the expansion of the modern city demanded - and still demands today - further rescue interventions.31 It was mostly the cemeteries of Novo mesto that were researched, and only small trial trenches were made at the two settlements of the city (Marof and Kapiteljski hrib). After more than thirty years of rescue excavation, Novo mesto ranks among the best researched sites in Dolenjska and is undoubtedly renowned also due to the numerous publications with modern presentations of the excavated material.32
Extensive rescue intervention was carried out also at Kučar near Podzemelj.33 The excavations concentrated on the Early Christian buildings, though rich Iron Age remains were uncovered underneath their foundations. The latter include several houses in ground-plans, storage pits and even an ironworking structures. The importance of the archaeological activities at Kučar lies mostly in that they were conducted in the settlement's interior. This yielded first data on the architecture as well as rich contents of the prehistoric houses that were relevant for the understanding of the residential culture of the Iron Age society.
The third hillfort excavated on a large scale is Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Regional Office Novo mesto, headed by Borut Križ, dug six trial trenches there between I986 and I99I. Five of them were placed on the enclosure of the settlement and one in its interior.
31	For the history of research at Novo mesto see Knez 1990, 11 ff.
32	Knez 1986; Knez 1992; Knez 1993; Križ 1995; Križ 1997a; Križ 1997b; Križ 2000; Križ 2001a.
33	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995.
predvsem nekropole, medtem ko sta bili na obeh naseljih (Marof in Kapiteljski hrib) opravljeni le manjši sondaži. Po več kot tridesetih letih zaščitnih izkopavanj sodi Novo mesto med najbolje raziskana najdišča na Dolenjskem. K njegovi prepoznavnosti so nedvomno prispevale tudi številne objave, v katerih je bilo na moderen način predstavljeno izkopano gradivo.32
Obsežna zaščitna dela so bila opravljena na Kučar-ju nad Podzemljem.33 Čeprav so bile raziskave osredotočene v izkop zgodnjekrščanskih stavb, pa so bili pod njihovimi temelji odkriti tudi bogati železnodobni ostanki. Med njimi naj omenimo več tlorisov hiš, hrambe-ne jame in celo objekt za predelavo železa. Izkopavanja na Kučarju so bila pomembna predvsem zaradi tega, ker so segla v notranjost naselja. Z njimi smo dobili prve podatke o stavbarstvu, na dan pa so prišli tudi bogati inventarji prazgodovinskih hiš, ki so bili pomembni za razumevanje bivalne kulture železnodobne družbe.
Tretje gradišče, ki je bilo raziskano v nekoliko večjem obsegu, je Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Tu je med leti 1986-1991 Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine iz Novega mesta pod vodstvom Boruta Križa izkopal šest sond, od katerih je bilo pet postavljenih na obod naselja, ena pa v njegovo notranjost. S sondiranji so želeli ugotoviti časovni razpon gradišča, način gradnje obzidja in morebitne ostanke stavb v notranjosti naselja.34
Več manjših raziskovalnih posegov v naseljih so opravili tudi sodelavci lokalnih muzejev in zavodov za varstvo kulturne dediščine. Mednje sodijo sondiranja Sv. Marjete na Libni,35 Starega gradu nad Podbočjem,36 Gradišča pri Valični vasi,37 Šumenja pri Podturnu,38 Gradca nad Mihovim, Camberka nad Cerovim Logom, Marofa in Kapiteljskega hriba v Novem mestu, Mestnega trga v Metliki in Sv. Duha v Črnomlju. Raziskano je bilo tudi nekaj gomil, na primer pri Velikih Malencah,39 Sajevcah,40 Velikem Gabru, Revi, Otočcu in Družinski vasi. Gradivo večinoma še ni objavljeno, predhodna poročila o teh posegih pa so omenjena v katalogu najdišč na koncu knjige.
Zadnje velike arheološke raziskave so potekale ob gradnji jugovzhodnega kraka slovenskega avtocestnega križa.41 Z njim je bila počez presekana cela Dolenjska, z izkopavanji pa je prišlo na dan tudi več prazgodovinskih naselij in grobišč. Železnodobnih je bilo razmeroma malo. Večinoma so bila odkrita v neposredni bližini že znanih halštatskih središč.
32	Knez 1986; Knez 1992; Knez 1993; Križ 1995; Križ 1997a; Križ 1997b; Križ 2000; Križ 2001a.
33	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995.
34	Dular/Križ 2004.
35	Guštin 1976, 13 ss; Guštin 1977b, 139 ss.
36	Guštin/Cunja/Predovnik 1993, 15 ss.
37	Dular/Breščak 1996.
38	Breščak/Dular 2002.
39	Guštin 1996a.
40	Guštin/Preložnik 2005b.
41	Djurič 2003a.
The purpose of these trenches was to establish the time span, the construction technique of the fortification walls and the possible building remains in the settlement's interior.34
Small-scale research interventions in settlements were conducted also by the collaborators of local museums and institutes for the protection of the cultural heritage. Such was the nature of the trial trenches at: Sv. Marjeta on Libna,35 Stari grad near Podbočje,36 Gradišče near Valična vas,37 Šumenje near Podturn,38 Gradec near Mihovo, Camberk near Cerov Log, Marof and Kapiteljski hrib at Novo mesto, Mestni trg in Metlika and Sv. Duh in Črnomelj. The research extended also to several barrows, for example near Velike Malence,39 Sajevce,40 Veliki Gaber, Reva, Otočec and Družinska vas. The material is mostly unpublished. Preliminary reports of the interventions are mentioned in the catalogue at the end of this publication.
The last large-scale archaeological research took place prior to the construction of the south-eastern section of the highway cross in Slovenia.41 The section traversed Dolenjska and uncovered, among other discoveries, also several prehistoric settlements and cemeteries underneath its route, though relatively few that date to the Iron Age. Most sites were uncovered in the immediate vicinity of the already known Hallstatt centres.
The field work also generated the first syntheses. One of these is undoubtedly Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, a basic register of the archaeological heritage that assembled the data on the prehistoric locations known up to that point.42 The publication was predominantly based on the available information from the literature, but included also some field findings. The importance of the publication lies, furthermore, in two contributions that Gabrovec wrote on the settlement history during the Hallstatt and the La Tene periods in Slovenia. The articles remain, together with his later studies, the best overviews of the subject so far.43 They are focused on the cultural aspects of the settlement, while environment and economic bases are less present, since the state of research did not allow for such analyses to be made. Dular presented Bela krajina in a similar manner a decade later.44
The subject of the Hallstatt settlements was touched upon also by Otto-Hermann Frey and Mitja Guštin in
34	Dular/Križ 2004.
35	Guštin 1976, 13 ff; Guštin 1977b, 139 ff.
36	Guštin/Cunja/Predovnik 1993, 15 ff.
37	Dular/Breščak 1996.
38	Breščak/Dular 2002.
39	Guštin 1996a.
40	Guštin/Preložnik 2005b.
41	Djuric 2003a.
42	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.
43	Gabrovec 1975a, 55 ff. and 60 ff; Gabrovec 1975b; Gabrovec 1987.
44	Dular 1985, 41 ff.
Ob terenskih delih so pričele nastajati tudi prve sinteze. Mednje nedvomno sodijo Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, temeljni register arheološke dediščine, v katerem so zbrani tudi podatki o vseh do tedaj znanih prazgodovinskih lokacijah.42 Delo sicer temelji na podatkih iz literature, vendar pa so bila vanj vključena tudi nekatera terenska dognanja. Knjiga je pomembna še zaradi tega, ker je Gabrovec v njej objavil prispevka o naselitveni zgodovini Slovenije v halštatskem in latens-kem obdobju, ki sta poleg nekaterih njegovih kasnejših študij še vedno najboljša pregleda te problematike.43 Avtor se je v člankih omejil na kulturne vidike poselitve, manj pa je upošteval okolje in gospodarske osnove, saj mu stanje raziskav takšnih analiz še ni omogočalo. Na podoben način je desetletje kasneje Dular predstavil Belo krajino.44
V sedemdesetih letih sta se problematike halštats-kih naselij dotaknila tudi Otto-Hermann Frey in Mitja Guštin.45 Zanimala ju je zlasti tipologija gradišč, pri čemer je prvi pri analizi upošteval podatke o velikosti, drugi pa tudi lego, sistem obzidij ter obliko vhoda. Razpravi sta odsev tistega časa. Njuna vrednost namreč ni toliko v ugotovitvah, ki so zaradi slabe raziskanosti večkrat problematične, temveč v spoznanju, da je raziskovanje naselbin in poselitve kompleksen proces, ki zahteva ustrezna, sistematično opravljena preddela. Guštin je kasneje o prazgodovinskih naseljih v Sloveniji prispeval še dva krajša pregleda.46 Članka sta v bistvu povzetek dognanj, ki so jih o svojih raziskavah prazgodovinskih naselij objavili posamezni raziskovalci.
42	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.
43	Gabrovec 1975a, 55 ss in 60 ss; Gabrovec 1975b; Ga-brovec 1987.
44	Dular 1985, 17 ss.
45	Frey 1968-1969; Guštin 1978a; Guštin 1978b.
46	Guštin 1996c; Guštin 2004.
the 1970s.45 They were particularly interested in the typology of the hillforts, whereby Frey considered in his analysis the size, and Guštin also the location, the defence system and the form of entrance. The treaties reflect the period in which they were written, their value being not so much in their findings - which are often problematic due to the simplified approach and poor state of research - but rather in the recognition that the research of particular settlements and settlement pattern is a complex process that demands an appropriate, systematical approach. Guštin later wrote two short overviews on the prehistoric settlements in Slovenia.46 They are basically summaries of the findings that individual researchers published on their research into the prehistoric settlements.
45	Prey 1968-1969; Guštin 1978a; Guštin 1978b.
46	Guštin 1996c; Guštin 2004.
2. DATA ACQUISITION
2. ZAJEM PODATKOV
Gathering data for a catalogue of sites is the first step of any project aimed at studying settlement structures. A site is thereby defined as a closed context of finds of any size and type (individual find, settlement, cemetery, hoard and others) that is spatially located. To give an example: a settlement and a cemetery of the same period represent two sites although they are located on the same lot in the immediate vicinity to each other. The next classification criterion is time. To give an example: a Bronze Age settlement and an Iron Age cemetery represent two sites although one covered the other and they were uncovered during the same excavation. Settlements and cemeteries with continuity, i.e. sites used uninterruptedly during several periods, represent an exception. A site is therefore considered as the smallest spatial and chronological unit. Such a definition is widely accepted across Europe and is more or less consistently used in all recent settlement pattern studies.47
2.1. DELIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH AREA
The study-area was south-eastern Slovenia, which includes Posavje in the north and the east, Bela krajina in the south and Dolenjska in the west. This area was chosen for several reasons. The first is undoubtedly a cultural-historical one, since this area was occupied by the so-called Dolenjska group that formed part of the south-eastern Hallstatt Culture. This group was defined decades ago by Stane Gabrovec, mostly on the basis of attire and burial customs.48 The second reason is the state of research. It should be kept in mind that southeastern Slovenia is an area with the highest number of registered Iron Age sites.49 Many of them, particularly
Zajem podatkov za katalog najdišč je začeten korak vsakega projekta, katerega cilj je raziskovanje poselitvenih struktur. Kot najdišče razumemo zaključen najd-beni kompleks ne glede na velikost in zvrst (posamična najdba, naselje, grobišče, depo itd.), ki je prostorsko lociran. Primer: naselje in nekropola iz istega obdobja sta dve najdišči, čeprav ležita na isti parceli v neposredni bližini drug drugega. Naslednji kriterij za razvrščanje je čas. Primer: naselje iz bronaste dobe in grobišče iz železne dobe sta prav tako dve najdišči, čeprav je drugo prekrivalo prvo in so ju odkrili v okviru istega izkopavalne-ga posega. Izjema so naselja in grobišča s kontinuiteto, torej primeri, kjer je bila ugotovljena nepretrgana poselitev skozi več obdobij. Najdišče torej razumemo kot najmanjšo prostorsko-kronološko enoto. Takšna definicija je v srednji Evropi splošno sprejeta in jo bolj ali manj dosledno uporabljajo vse novejše poselitvene študije.47
2.1. ZAMEJITEV RAZISKOVALNEGA PROSTORA
Prostor naših raziskav je bila jugovzhodna Slovenija. Za to območje, ki ga sestavljajo Posavje na severu in vzhodu, Bela krajina na jugu in Dolenjska na zahodu, smo se odločili iz več razlogov. Prvi je gotovo kulturnozgodovinski, saj je v železni dobi tu živela tako imenovana dolenjska skupina, ki je bila sestavni del ju-govzhodnoalpske halštatske kulture. Skupino je že pred desetletji definiral Gabrovec, pri čemer sta mu kot glavna kriterija služili noša in način pokopa.48 Drugi vzrok za našo odločitev je bila raziskanost območja. Ne smemo namreč prezreti, da je bilo prav v jugovzhodnem delu Slovenije doslej registriranih največ železnodobnih najdišč.49 Mnoga med njimi, zlasti nekropole, so bile v
47
40 f.
E. g. Saile 1998, 33; Venzlova 2001, 3 f; Schefzik 2001,
48	Gabrovec 1964-1965, 25 f; Gabrovec 1966c, 5 ff; Gabrovec 1987, 29 ff; Gabrovec 1993-1994, 76 f.
49	See Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975, suppl. map Halštatsko obdobje.
47	Npr. Saile 1998, 33; Venzlova 2001, 3 s; Schefzik 2001, 40 s.
48	Gabrovec 1964-1965, 25 s; Gabrovec 1966c, 5 ss; Gabrovec 1987, 29 ss; Gabrovec 1993-1994, 76 s.
49	Glej Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975, pril. Halštatsko obdobje.
Fig. 1: Delimitation of the research area. Sl. 1: Meje raziskovalnega prostora.
cemeteries, were dug already in previous centuries and yielded a great amount of valuable material. Finally, the third reason lies in a well-defined chronological scheme, which, after numerous improvements, came to be generally accepted. All of the above provided points of departure for an advance study, being much more favourable for this than for other less researched areas.
The boundaries of the Hallstatt group, also the boundaries of the research area in this publication, are more or less known (fig. 1). The area extended to the outskirts of the Ljubljansko barje to the north-west, to the Zasavje Anticline (mountain range on the left bank of the Sava River) to the north and to the present-day border between Slovenia and Croatia to the east. The area included the Gorjanci and the whole of Bela kraji-
prejšnjih stoletjih že izkopane, s temi posegi pa je prišlo na dan ogromno dragocenega gradiva. Končno moramo omeniti tudi dobro razčlenjeno kronološko shemo. Po številnih izboljšavah je bila splošno sprejeta, vse to pa je nudilo dosti ugodnejša izhodišča, kot če bi za projekt izbrali slabše raziskano območje.
Meje dolenjske halštatske skupine, ki bodo hkrati tudi meje našega raziskovalnega prostora, so bolj ali manj znane (sl. 1). Na severozahodu je segala do obronkov Ljubljanskega barja, na severu do zasavske antiklinale (venca vzpetin na levem bregu Save) in na vzhodu do sedanje slovensko-hrvaške meje. K njej so zanesljivo spadali Gorjanci in vsa Bela krajina, možno pa je, da se je širila tudi na desni breg Kolpe, saj so bila na Hrvaškem registrirana nekatera najdišča z enakimi
na. The area probably extended to the right bank of the Kolpa River, since there were some sites with similar characteristics registered also in Croatia.50 The western boundary was drawn along the ridges of the Mala gora and the Kočevski rog.
Chronologically, the project was limited to the first millennium BC with the main stress on the Iron Age, while the transitory period - that is the Bronze Age - was included only so as to better explain the changes of the settlement pattern.
značilnostmi.50 Na zahodni strani smo mejo potegnili po grebenih Male gore in Kočevskega roga.
Časovno smo projekt omejili na prvo tisočletje pr. Kr. Glavni poudarek je veljal starejši železni dobi, medtem ko smo predhodno obdobje, torej pozno bronasto dobo, vključili le do te mere, da smo lažje pojasnili potek poselitvenih dogajanj.
2.2. IZDELAVA KATALOGA NAJDIŠČ
2.2. CATALOGUE OF SITES
The initial step in making the catalogue of sites was to verify old data. These were mostly compiled in the Arheološka najdišča Slovenije publication, the importance of which leads us to briefly present it below.
Začetni korak pri izdelavi kataloga najdišč je bil usmerjen k preverjanju starih podatkov. Večinoma so zbrani v knjigi Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, ki jo moramo zaradi pomembnosti na kratko predstaviti.
2.2.1. ARHEOLOŠKA NAJDIŠČA SLOVENIJE
2.2.1. BASIC REGISTER OF SITES -ARHEOLOŠKA NAJDIŠČA SLOVENIJE
As can be discerned from the previous chapter on the history of research, serious interest in prehistoric sites increased in the mid 19th century, when the first archaeological maps were made also in Slovenia. The development in this field then proceeded in a more or less unsystematic fashion and without a pre-conceived plan. The situation changed only after World War II, when the newly organized Slovene archaeology made it one of its priorities to produce an archaeological map of Slovenia. Gathering data was mainly conducted by excerpting all the available published material, while verifications through fieldwork were only made in a few areas. The gathered evidence was presented in a special publication, issued by the Institute of Archaeology of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.51
The Arheološka najdišča Slovenije publication represents the basic register of the immovable archaeological heritage of Slovenia known up to 1965. After this year, registering new data did not cease, but was reorganized through the project of archaeological topography of Slovenia. This was also organized and coordinated by the Institute of Archaeology, with the participation of mostly the young Slovene archaeologists. The purpose was to collect new information with the very important task of locating old, already known sites. Unfortunately, the project was not brought to its conclusion, since only three volumes were published. One of them was dedicated to Bela krajina, the area included into our project.52
50	Cf. Balen-Letunic 1981; Balen-Letunic 1986; Škoberne 2004.
51	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.
52	Dular 1985.
Kot lahko razberemo iz zgodovine raziskav, se je resnejše zanimanje za prazgodovinska najdišča začelo sredi devetnajstega stoletja, ko so tudi pri nas nastale prve arheološke karte. Razvoj na tem področju je nato potekal bolj ali manj stihijsko in brez vnaprej izdelanega koncepta. Stanje se je spremenilo šele po drugi svetovni vojni, ko si je na novo organizirana slovenska arheološka veda za enega od svojih prioritetnih ciljev zadala izdelavo arheološke karte Slovenije. Pridobivanje podatkov je v prvi vrsti potekalo z ekscerpiranjem vse razpoložljive literature, medtem ko so bila terenska preverjanja opravljena le na nekaterih območjih. Zbrano gradivo je izšlo v posebni publikaciji, ki jo je izdal Inštitut za arheologijo SAZU.51
Arheološka najdišča Slovenije predstavljajo temeljni register nepremične arheološke dediščine Slovenije, ki je bila znana do leta 1965. Po tem letu beleženje novih podatkov ni zamrlo, ampak se je reorganiziralo skozi projekt arheološke topografije Slovenije. Tudi to delo je organiziral in koordiniral Inštitut za arheologijo SAZU, vanj pa so se vključili predvsem mlajši slovenski arheologi. Namen topografije je bil pridobivanje novih podatkov, zelo pomembno pa je bilo tudi natančno lociranje starih, že znanih najdišč. Žal projekt ni zagledal konca, saj so izšli le trije zvezki. Eden od njih je bil posvečen Beli krajini, torej območju, ki ga zaobjema tudi naš projekt.52
Dotok novih podatkov je zahteval preureditev registra arheoloških najdišč Slovenije, za katerega je ves čas skrbel Inštitut za arheologijo SAZU. Zbirka je bila reorganizirana tako, da je bil dosledno uveden teritorialni princip razvrščanja najdišč, ki ga v objavi Arheolo-
50	Za najdišča na Gorjancih ter v okolici Karlovca in Ozlja glej Balen-Letunic 1981; Balen-Letunic 1986; Škoberne 2004.
51	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.
52	Dular 1985.
The influx of new data required the register of the archaeological sites of Slovenia (kept throughout by the Institute of Archaeology) to be rearranged. The collection was reorganized so as to consistently apply the territorial principle of site classification, which could not be efficiently put into practice in the publication of Arheološka najdišča Slovenije in 1975 due to incomplete data. Standards were set that clearly defined notions such as name, location, type and date of a site. The collection was also given a new name: Archaeological Cadastre of Slovenia (ARKAS).
The data from this cadastre thus constituted the basis for producing the catalogue of sites. Unfortunately, most of the data were unverified and exact coordinates of locations were also missing. The basis therefore needed to be improved, which was done in three steps: with a precise study of archival records, with field surveying and with the aid of trial trenches at selected sites.
2.2.2. ARCHIVAL RECORDS
Pečnik, Schulz, Szombathy and others who excavated barrows in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century in Dolenjska left behind not only valuable finds, but also a multitude of letters, reports and journals, which are of a great importance in studying structures of settlement pattern.53 One of the main sources that contains thousands of items of information is Pečnik's correspondence with Dežman, Szombathy and the Zentralkommission, but there are also Schulz's letters to Dežman, Szombathy's journals as well as personal archives of Pečnik, Müllner, Rutar and Kušljan. Until the start of this project, this material was largely unused and even unknown, even though it was being kept at the very institutions that received the archaeological objects after the excavations. The main stock for our project is the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, the National Museum of Slovenia and the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia.
To facilitate the task, most material was photocopied and stored in the Archives of the Institute of Archaeology of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. This was followed by a transcription and production of regesta in digital form, which involved much time and patience, since most documents were written in German and often in poorly legible handwriting. Fortunately, part of Pečnik's letters and Szombathy's journals, held at the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, had already been transcribed by the employees of the National Museum in Ljubljana in the 1960s.
53
Cf. Dular 2003, 91 ff.
ških najdišč Slovenije leta 1975 zaradi pomanjkljivih podatkov še ni bilo mogoče učinkovito uveljaviti. Postavljeni so bili standardi, ki so jasno opredelili pojme, kot so ime, lokacija, tip in datacija najdišča, s čemer je bil storjen pomemben korak k poenotenju podatkov. Zbirka je dobila tudi novo ime Arheološki kataster Slovenije (ARKAS).
Kot osnovo za izdelavo kataloga najdišč smo torej uporabili podatke iz Arheološkega katastra Slovenije. Žal je bila večina nepreverjenih, manjkale pa so tudi natančne koordinate lokacij. Bazo je bilo potrebno izboljšati, kar smo storili v treh korakih: z natančnim študijem arhivskih virov, s terenskimi pregledi in s sondiranjem izbranih najdišč.
2.2.2. ARHIVSKI VIRI
Za Pečnikom, Schulzem, Szombathyjem in drugimi, ki so v devetnajstem in na začetku dvajsetega stoletja na Dolenjskem izkopavali gomile, niso ostale le dragocene najdbe, ampak tudi množica pisem, poročil in dnevnikov, ki so zelo pomembni za proučevanje poselitvenih struktur.53 Med glavne vire, ki vsebujejo na tisoče podatkov, uvrščamo Pečnikovo korespondenco z Dež-manom, Szombathyjem in Centralno komisijo, Schulzeva pisma Dežmanu, Szombathyjeve dnevnike ter osebne arhive Pečnika, Mullnerja, Rutarja in Kušljana. Gradivo je bilo do začetka našega projekta v pretežni meri neizkoriščeno in celo nepoznano, čeprav so ga večinoma hranile prav tiste inštitucije, v katere so po izkopavanjih prišli arheološki predmeti. Glavni fondi se nahajajo v Naravoslovnem muzeju na Dunaju ter v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije in v Arhivu Republike Slovenije v Ljubljani.
Da bi si olajšali delo, smo večino gradiva fotokopirali in shranili v arhivu Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU. Sledila je transkripcija in izdelava regestov v elektronski obliki, vse to pa je zahtevalo veliko časa in potrpljenja, saj je bila večina dokumentov napisanih v nemščini in pogosto v težko berljivih rokopisih. Na srečo so del Pečnikovih pisem in Szombathyjevih dnevnikov, ki jih hrani Naravoslovni muzej na Dunaju že v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja prepisali sodelavci Narodnega muzeja iz Ljubljane.
S podatki iz arhivov starih izkopavalcev smo lahko pojasnili večino dvomov in napak, ki so se prikradle v kataster arheoloških najdišč. Ker gre za primarne vire, smo jih s pridom uporabili pri lociranju najdišč, nepogrešljivi pa so postali tudi ob pripravi objav starih fondov arheološkega gradiva.54 Arhivski viri torej niso koristni le za zgodovino raziskovanj, ampak se v njih skrivajo pomembni podatki, ki so v dobršni meri vplivali
53	Prim. Dular 2003, 91 ss.
54	Ib.; glej tudi Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004.
The data from the archives of the early excavators enabled us to resolve and rectify most doubts and mistakes that found their way into the cadastre of archaeological sites. Since these archives consist of primary sources, they proved very useful in locating sites and indispensable in preparing the old stock of the archaeological material for publication.54 Archival records were therefore useful not only in the history of research, but also revealed important data that considerably influenced the strategy of our work. After analysing them, we turned to field surveys.
2.2.3. FIELD SURVEYING
The area covered by the project is relatively large, since it measures 3470 km2. Half of it is covered by forest, a quarter by grassland and pastures, while the arable land covers less than 20 % (15% of fields, 2% of vineyards and orchards). The visibility of archaeological sites on the surface is thus poor, which led to extensive surveying. The latter proved to be the only way to cover the entire area in reasonable time and with reasonable expenses. This decision was also influenced by the experience of the reconnaissance in Bela krajina and around Šmarjeta in the 1980s, which produced good results, at least as far as the Iron Age is concerned.55
The area was divided into topographic units, established already by Arheološka najdišča Slovenije.^^ This facilitated our work in many ways, since the documentation within the Archaeological Cadastre of Slovenia (ARKAS), held at the Institute of Archaeology, is arranged according to the same principle.57 The surveys were carried out in early spring, usually in February, March and April when the forests had not yet turned green, while the fields had already been ploughed. The surveyed routes were drawn onto topographical maps (1: 25000), thereby enabling a constant control of the terrain already covered. Most surveys were carried out by Janez Dular, Borut Križ and Primož Pavlin, with the aid of co-workers. The survey dynamics are shown in fig. 2.
The reconnaissance topographic actions were followed by mapping and measuring of sites, usually done in May. The basic topographical plans in the scale of 1: 5000 served as the cartographic background onto which objects were drawn. Tumulus cemeteries and fortified settlements were measured separately. In measuring, the Breithaupt type compass and a metal measuring tape were used. After several attempts and comparisons, we
54	Ib.; see also Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004.
55	See Dular 1985 and A. Dular 1991.
56	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975, suppl. General map with borders of regions and sectors.
57	Tecco Hvala 1994.
tudi na strategijo našega dela. Po njihovi analizi smo se namreč posvetili terenskim pregledom.
2.2.3. TERENSKI PREGLEDI
Območje, ki ga je zaobjel naš projekt, je razmeroma veliko, saj meri 3470 km2. Polovico pokrajine prekriva danes gozd, dobro četrtino zavzemajo travniki in pašniki, medtem ko je obdelovalnih površin manj kot dvajset odstotkov (15% njiv, 2% vinogradov in sadovnjakov). Vidnost arheoloških najdišč na površju je torej slaba, zato smo se odločili za ekstenzivni terenski pregled, ki se je izkazal za edini način, da v doglednem času in s sprejemljivimi stroški obdelamo celoten teren. Na odločitev so vplivale tudi izkušnje rekognosciranj Bele krajine in okolice Šmarjete, ki smo jih opravili v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, saj so, vsaj kar se železnodobne poselitve tiče, dala zelo dobre rezultate.55
Celotno območje smo razdelili na posamezne enote, kot so jih uveljavila Arheološka najdišča Slovenije.56 To nam je v marsičem olajšalo delo, saj je po istem principu urejena dokumentacija, ki jo v okviru Arheološkega katastra Slovenije (ARKAS), hrani Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU.57 Preglede smo opravljali zgodaj spomladi, običajno v februarju, marcu in aprilu, ko gozdovi še niso ozelenili, medtem ko so bile njivske površine že zorane. Prehojene trase smo vrisovali v topografske karte (1: 25.000), tako da je bil možen sprotni nadzor obdelanega terena. Večino pregledov so ob pomoči sodelavcev opravili Janez Dular, Borut Križ in Primož Pavlin. Dinamika pregledov je prikazana na sl. 2.
Rekognosciranju je sledilo kartiranje in merjenje najdišč. Delo smo običajno opravili v maju. Za osnovo so nam služili temeljni topografski načrti v merilu 1: 5000, v katere smo vrisovali objekte. Gomilna grobišča in utrjena naselja smo izmerili posebej. Pri delu smo uporabili busolo tipa Breithaupt in kovinski merilni trak. Po več poskusih in primerjavah z geodetskimi posnetki istih najdišč smo namreč ugotovili, da je kvaliteta naših meritev v mejah zahtevane natančnosti. Načrte naselij smo izdelali v merilu 1: 500, načrte grobišč pa v merilu 1: 1000. Za reliefni prikaz terena smo uporabili karto 1: 5000, ki smo jo ustrezno povečali in interpolirali plastnice. Vse meritve sta opravila Janez Dular in Sneža Tecco Hvala.
Terenskemu pregledu in meritvam je sledila izdelava zapisnikov. Delo je bilo opravljeno sproti po vsaki končani terenski akciji. Najprej smo kritično pretresli arhivske vire in literaturo, nato pa smo stare podatke soočili z novimi dognanji in naredili za vsako najdišče zapisnik. Le-ta je vseboval podatke o lokaciji, opis, zgo-
55	Glej Dular 1985 in A. Dular 1991.
56	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975, pril. Generalna karta z mejami regij in sektorjev.
57	Tecco Hvala 1994.
Fig. 2: Dynamics of field surveys (annually) with registered sites. Sl. 2: Dinamika terenskih pregledov (po letih) z registriranimi najdišči.
established that the quality of the measurements taken lies within the limits of the precision required. Ground-plans were drawn in the scale of 1: 500 for settlements and 1: 1000 for cemeteries. The relief of the terrain was shown on a map in the scale of 1: 5000, which was appropriately enlarged and the contour lines were interpolated. All measurements were taken by Janez Dular and Sneza Tecco Hvala.
The next step was to compile site files. This was done after each finished survey. The archival records and literature were carefully studied, then old data were compared to the new findings and a special file was compiled for each site. The latter contained data on location, description, history of research, bibliographic references, topographical maps and photo documenta-
dovino raziskav, literaturo, topografske načrte ter fotografsko dokumentacijo. Tako je postopoma nastal katalog najdišč, ki je ob zaključku projekta štel 510 enot. Vse dosjeje najdišč je napisal in uredil Janez Dular.
2.2.4. SONDIRANJA
Obsežna izkopavanja grobišč, ki so na Dolenjskem potekala vse od druge polovice devetnajstega stoletja, so v dobršni meri pojasnila njihovo strukturo in starost, zato jim pri terenskem delu nismo posvečali večje pozornosti. Drugače je bilo z naselji. Walter Schmid je v tridesetih letih resda sondiral nekaj gradišč, vendar pa so ostala njegova dognanja, če odmislimo Zgornjo krono
tion. Thus a catalogue of sites slowly grew, including 510 units at the end of the project. All site files were written and arranged by Janez Dular.
2.2.4. TRIAL TRENCHES
Extensive excavations of cemeteries, conducted in Dolenjska from the second half of the 19th century onwards, have largely explained their structure and age and were, therefore, not given special attention during our field surveys. Not so with the settlements. Walter Šmid did dig trial trenches at several hillforts in the 1930s, but his discoveries remained unpublished with the exception of Zgornja krona near Vače. The first useful data on the hillforts of Dolenjska were obtained during the excavations at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, which were conducted by Gabrovec for the National Museum of Slovenia in the second half of the 20th century. They revealed that the settlement was occupied throughout the Iron Age. The obtained data then formed the basis for a settlement model that was expected also for other hill-top settlements in south-eastern Slovenia. In other words, it was supposed that the settlements of Dolenjska date to the Iron Age.58
The purpose of our trenches was to establish whether similar defensive structures to those at Vir pri Stični appear also at other hillforts of Dolenjska, as well as to determine the chronological span of individual settlements. Having to deal with over a hundred hillforts, we began our work very deliberately. There were two criteria of selection: the area of research had to be covered as evenly as possible and the trenching program had to include all settlement types. With the shortage of skilled co-workers, two experienced excavators were invited to the project in the beginning, Drago Svoljšak from the National Museum in Ljubljana and Borut Križ from the Dolenjska Museum in Novo mesto. Later, the work was taken over by Primož Pavlin and Sneža Tecco Hvala, who did the major part of the task together with Janez Dular. The excavation was conducted in 4- to 5-week summer campaigns (fig. 3).
As mentioned above, the main purpose of trenching was to gain an insight into the stratigraphy and thus the time span of the settlements. This aim also dictated the work plan, from the location of trenches to excavation methods. The trenches were located on the borders of settlements, where the layers were best preserved (fig. 4). At the same time, the construction and phases of fortification were registered. There were several trenches placed also in the interior of settlements with the aim of verifying the appearance of residential structures (fig. 5).
The trenches were of a standard width of 3 m. The lengths varied and were adapted to the terrain and the
nad Vačami, neobjavljena. Prve uporabne podatke o dolenjskih gradiščih smo dobili šele z izkopavanji Cvin-gerja nad Virom pri Stični, ki jih je pod vodstvom Ga-brovca v drugi polovici prejšnjega stoletja opravil Narodni muzej. Izkazalo se je, da je bilo naselje obljudeno skozi celo železno dobo, na osnovi teh podatkov pa je bil izdelan model poselitve, ki je predpostavljal podobne rezultate tudi na drugih višinskih naseljih jugovzhodne Slovenije. Povedano drugače, gradišča na Dolenjskem naj bi sodila v železno dobo.58
Namen naših sondiranj je bil ugotoviti, če se tudi na drugih gradiščih na Dolenjskem pojavljajo podobne obrambne strukture kot v Viru pri Stični, ter kakšni so kronološki razponi posameznih naselij. Glede na to, da smo imeli pred seboj čez sto gradišč, smo se dela lotiti premišljeno. Kriterija pri izboru sta bila dva: čim bolj enakomerno je bilo treba pokriti celotno območje projekta, hkrati pa je moral program sondiranj zajeti vse tipe naselij. Ker smo imeli premalo usposobljenih sodelavcev, smo na začetku k projektu pritegnili dva izkušena izkopavalca in sicer Draga Svoljška iz Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani in Boruta Križa iz Dolenjskega muzeja v Novem mestu. Kasneje sta vodenje sondiranj prevzela Primož Pavlin in Sneža Tecco Hvala, ki sta skupaj z Janezom Dularjem opravila glavni del naloge. Izkopavanja so potekala v 4-5 tedenskih kampanjah v poletnem času (sl. 3).
Kot smo že omenili, je bil glavni namen sondiranj dobiti vpogled v stratigrafijo in s tem tudi časovni razpon naselij. Temu cilju je bil podrejen načrt dela in sicer od tega, kje je bila locirana sonda, do metod izkopavanja. Sonde smo postavljali na robove naselij, torej na tista mesta, kjer so bile najbolje ohranjene plasti (sl. 4). Hkrati smo lahko registrirali tudi načine in faze utrjevanja. Nekajkrat smo se odločili za izkope v notranjosti naselij, in sicer zato, da bi preverili, kakšne so bile bivalne strukture (sl. 5).
Širina sond je bila standardna in je znašala 3 m. Dolžine so bile seveda različne in smo jih prilagajali obliki terena in vegetaciji. Praviloma so merile med 10 in 15 metrov. Takšna velikost sond je za proučevanje stratigrafije zadovoljiva, problem pa je nastopil, kadar smo zadeli na bivalne ostaline. Temelji hiš, ognjišča in razne jame so skoraj praviloma izginjale v profilih, vendar jim nismo sledili, saj bi s tem odstopili od vnaprej postavljenega koncepta.
Izkušnje iz Stične so nas učile, da mejam plasti skorajda ni mogoče slediti, ne da bi prej poznali profile. Strukture depozitov na dolenjskih gradiščih so namreč zelo komplicirane, zato bi pri stratigrafski metodi kopanja obstajala stalna nevarnost, da bi meje med posameznimi plastmi ustvarjali, namesto da bi jim sledili. Tako smo pri našem delu uporabili metodo kopanja po režnjih. Debeli so bili do 10 cm, velikokrat pa tudi manj, od-
58
Gabrovec 1975b, 70; Gabrovec 1987, 82.
58
Gabrovec 1975b, 70; Gabrovec 1987, 82.
Fig. 3: Project team at Kapiteljska njiva at Novo mesto. From left to right: Janez Dular, Sneža Tecco Hvala, Drago Svoljšak, Primož Pavlin and Borut Križ.
Sl. 3: Sodelavci projekta na Kapiteljski njivi v Novem mestu. Z leve proti desni: Janez Dular, Sneža Tecco Hvala, Drago Svoljšak, Primož Pavlin in Borut Križ.
vegetation cover. They usually measured between 10 and 15 m. This trench size was satisfactory for the study of stratigraphy, but problems arose when residential remains were found. Foundations of houses, hearths and various pits disappeared in the profiles almost as a rule, but they were not traced so as not to deviate from the pre-defined concept.
The experience from Stična taught us that layer boundaries are almost impossible to trace without previously knowing the profiles. The structures of deposits on the hillforts of Dolenjska are very complex, which means that by using the stratigraphic method of excavation we would constantly run the danger of arbitrarily creating boundaries of layers instead of tracing the real ones. For this reason, we preferred to use the method of planum excavation. The slices were up to 10 cm thick, often even less, depending on the situation during excavation. Wherever the stratigraphic units were clearly discernible (pit, wall, paved surface, burnt-down remains
visno od situacije, ki se je pokazala pri izkopu. Tam, kjer so bile stratigrafske enote jasno razpoznavne (jama, zid, tlak, pogorenina itd.), smo jim sledili. Najdbe (keramiko, hišni omet, žlindro, živalske kosti itd.) smo dvigali po mikrokvadratih, velikih 1 m2, ki so bili tekoče oštevilčeni. Lego pomembnejših kosov smo dokumentirali s koordinatami.
Po končanem izkopavanju smo s koreliranjem pla-numov in profilov določili potek plasti. Vanje smo pro-jecirali najdbe in nato izoblikovali stratigrafske skupke. Tako smo zopet vzpostavili prvotni kontekst med posameznimi kulturnimi plastmi in njihovo vsebino. Temu je sledila analiza kulturnih plasti, ki so seveda med seboj v relativnem kronološkem odnosu. Rezultat analize je bila njihova združitev v posamezne poselitvene faze, s tem pa smo rekonstruirali potek dogajanj na tistem delu naselja, ki smo ga raziskali s sondo.
V projekt sondiranj so bile vključene tudi arheo-botanične raziskave. Prvič v Sloveniji smo se lotili sis-
Fig. 4: Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje. Trench across the ramparts on the slope in front of the fortification wall. Sl. 4: Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem. Sonda preko nasipov na pobočju pred obzidjem.
and others), they were traced. The finds (pottery, plaster, slag, animal bones and others) were lifted by grid of microquadrants in the size of 1 m2 that were marked with successive numbers. Positions of the more important pieces were documented with coordinates.
After we had finished excavating, the planums and profiles were correlated and the layer sequence was established. Finds were then attributed to layers and strati-graphic assemblages formed. We thereby established the original context of individual cultural layers and their contents. This was followed by an analysis of cultural layers that are in a relative chronological relationship. As a result of this analysis, the layers were unified into individual settlement phases, whereby the course of activity was reconstructed for the excavated part of the settlement.
The project of trenching also included archaeobo-tanic analyses. For the first time in Slovenia, systematic sampling and floating of sediments was conducted with the aim of gaining data on the vegetation in the past. Unfortunately, the pollen in the deposits of the hillforts in Dolenjska was not preserved. We were more fortu-
Fig. 5: Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. Trench in the settlement interior.
Sl. 5: Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Sonda v notranjosti naselja.
Fig. 6: Map of the probe digging settlements. Sl. 6: Karta sondiranih naselij.
nate with the macroremains. The sorted samples were given to be analysed by the botanists at the Institute of Biology of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, since the Institute of Archaeology did not have a palaeobotanic laboratory at the time.
The material as well as the detailed reports was handed to the National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana on a yearly basis. This practice was not in accordance with the regulations, since the finds should have been taken over by local museums. However, the decision was taken so as to create comparative archives on a single location that are accessible to all interested users. The finds were diligently inventoried in the National Museum by Barbara Jerin.
tematičnega vzorčenja in flotiranja sedimentov, da bi dobili podatke o nekdanji vegetaciji. Žal se pelod v depozitih dolenjskih gradišč ni ohranil, več sreče smo imeli z makroostanki. Prebrane smo predali v obdelavo botanikom Inštituta za biologijo ZRC SAZU, saj takrat še nismo imeli lastnega paleobotaničnega laboratorija.
Gradivo smo skupaj z elaborati po končanih sondiranjih vsako leto izročili Narodnemu muzeju Slovenije v Ljubljani. To sicer ni bilo v skladu s predpisi, saj bi morali najdbe prevzeti pristojni lokalni muzeji, vendar smo se za ta korak odločili zato, da smo ustvarili primerjalni arhiv, ki je na enem mestu in dostopen vsem zainteresiranim uporabnikom. Najdbe v Narodnem muzeju je vestno inventarizirala Barbara Jerin.
Useful information was fortunately gained also during rescue interventions and trenching, which was conducted on the sites of Dolenjska by the employees of museums and institutes for the protection of cultural heritage. The data from the rescue excavation on the route of the Dolenjska highway were also precious. At the end of the project, the list included eighty-five settlements where trenching was conducted (fig. 6).
Trenching for the purposes of the project was conducted at the following hillforts:
1981
1.	Veliki Kolečaj near Zapudje
2.	Semenič near Gaber pri Semiču
3.	Veliki vrh near Dolenji Suhor
4.	Sv. Križ near Stražnji Vrh
1983
5.	Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj
1984
6.	Straža near Gorenji Radenci
7.	Topli vrh near Novi Tabor
8.	Gradišče near Gorica
9.	Židovec near Miklarji
1988
10.	Gradec near Mirna
11.	Križni vrh near Beli Grič
12.	Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje
1989
13.	Vesela gora at Brinje
14.	Žempoh near Ostrožnik
15.	Gradišče near Gradišče pri Trebnjem
16.	Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč
17.	Kincelj near Trbinc
1990
18.	Makovec near Zagorica
19.	Mali vrh near Srednji Globodol
20.	Plešivica near Drenje
21.	Stari grad near Sela pri Šumberku
22.	Cvinger near Korita
1991
23.	Vihra near Draga
24.	Mastni hrib near Škocjan
25.	Stari grad near Zagrad
26.	Janovke near Dolenja Stara vas (negative)
27.	Grad near Osrečje (negative)
28.	Anzovec near Zbure (negative)
1992
29.	Kočnik near Segonje
Na srečo smo koristne podatke dobili tudi ob zaščitnih posegih in sondažah, ki so jih na več dolenjskih in belokranjskih naseljih opravili sodelavci muzejev in zavodov za varstvo kulturne dediščine. Dragoceni so bili podatki z zaščitnih izkopavanj na trasi dolenjske avtoceste, tako da se je ob zaključku projekta na seznamu znašlo petinosemdeset sondiranih naselij (sl. 6).
V okviru projekta smo sondirali naslednja gradišča:
Leto 1981
1.	Veliki Kolečaj nad Zapudjem
2.	Semenič nad Gabrom pri Semiču
3.	Veliki vrh nad Dolenjim Suhorjem
4.	Sv. Križ nad Stražnjim Vrhom
Leto 1983
5.	Korinjski hrib nad Velikim Korinjem Leto 1984
6.	Straža nad Gorenjimi Radenci
7.	Topli vrh nad Novim Taborom
8.	Gradišče nad Gorico
9.	Židovec nad Miklarji
Leto 1988
10.	Gradec pri Mirni
11.	Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem
12.	Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem
Leto 1989
13.	Vesela gora v Brinju
14.	Žempoh nad Ostrožnikom
15.	Gradišče nad Gradiščem pri Trebnjem
16.	Sv. Ana nad Vrhpečjo
17.	Kincelj nad Trbincem
Leto 1990
18.	Makovec nad Zagorico
19.	Mali vrh nad Srednjim Globodolom
20.	Plešivica nad Drenjem
21.	Stari grad nad Seli pri Šumberku
22.	Cvinger nad Koriti
Leto 1991
23.	Vihra nad Drago
24.	Mastni hrib nad Škocjanom
25.	Stari grad pri Zagradu
26.	Janovke nad Dolenjo Staro vasjo (negativno)
27.	Grad nad Osrečjem (negativno)
28.	Anzovec nad Zburami (negativno)
Leto 1992
29.	Kočnik nad Segonjami
30.	Gradec pod Otavnikom
31.	Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo
30.	Gradec near Otavnik
31.	Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev
1993
32.	Gradec near Vinkov Vrh
33.	Grac near Sela pri Zajčjem Vrhu
1994
34.	Gradec near Vratno
35.	Golšaj near Tolsti vrh
36.	Trnišča near Mihovo
1995
37.	Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji
38.	Gradišče near Suhadole
39.	Zagrad near Gradišče
1996
40.	Grac near Tlake
41.	Kostjavec near Tihaboj
42.	Zagrac near Vodice pri Gabrovki
43.	Gradišče near Hohovica
1997
44.	Gradišca near Jelša
45.	Sitarjevec near Litija
46.	Pančičev vrh near Javorje
47.	Gradišče near Dešen
1998
48.	Gradišče near Primskovo
1999
49.	Gradišče near Sloka Gora
50.	Vinji hrib near Vino
51.	Gradec near Blečji Vrh
52.	Gradišče near Vrh pri Višnji Gori
2000
53.	Ajdovščina near Zaboršt pri Dolu
Settlements where trial trenches or excavations were conducted by museums and institutes for the protection of cultural heritage:
54.	Gradišče near Vintarjevec (1949, 1951)
55.	Gradišče near Mekinje nad Stično (1952)
56.	Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (1967-1974)
57.	Sv. Marjeta on Libna (1975-1976)
58.	Kučar near Podzemelj (1975-1979)
59.	Stari grad near Podbočje (1977)
60.	Šumenje near Podturn (1979)
61.	Spaha near Brezovica (1979-1981)
62.	Marof at Novo mesto (1981)
63.	Gradišče near Valična vas (1983-1984)
64.	Gradišca near Zgornji Prekar (1984)
65.	Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (1986-1991)
Leto 1993
32.	Gradec nad Vinkovim Vrhom
33.	Grac pod Seli pri Zajčjem Vrhu
Leto 1994
34.	Gradec nad Vratnim
35.	Golšaj pod Tolstim vrhom
36.	Trnišča pri Mihovem
Leto 1995
37.	Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji
38.	Gradišče pri Suhadolah
39.	Zagrad pri Gradišču
Leto 1996
40.	Grac pri Tlakah
41.	Kostjavec nad Tihabojem
42.	Zagrac nad Vodicami pri Gabrovki
43.	Gradišče pri Hohovici
Leto 1997
44.	Gradišca pri Jelši
45.	Sitarjevec nad Litijo
46.	Pančičev vrh pod Javorjem
47.	Gradišče nad Dešnom
Leto 1998
48.	Gradišče pri Primskovem Leto 1999
49.	Gradišče pod Sloko Goro
50.	Vinji hrib nad Vinom
51.	Gradec pri Blečjem Vrhu
52.	Gradišče nad Vrhom pri Višnji Gori
Leto 2000
53.	Ajdovščina nad Zaborštom pri Dolu
Naselja, ki so jih sondirali oziroma izkopavali muzeji in zavodi za varstvo kulturne dediščine:
54.	Gradišče nad Vintarjevcem (1949, 1951)
55.	Gradišče nad Mekinjami nad Stično (1952)
56.	Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (1967-1974)
57.	Sv. Marjeta na Libni (1975-1976)
58.	Kučar nad Podzemljem (1975-1979)
59.	Stari grad nad Podbočjem (1977)
60.	Šumenje pri Podturnu (1979)
61.	Spaha nad Brezovico (1979-1981)
62.	Marof v Novem mestu (1981)
63.	Gradišče pri Valični vasi (1983-1984)
64.	Gradišca nad Zgornjim Prekarjem (1984)
65.	Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (1986-1991)
66.	Gradec nad Mihovim (1987-1989)
67.	Sv. Duh v Črnomlju (1990-1996)
68.	Mestni trg v Metliki (1991-1992)
69.	Šentviška gora nad Čatežem (1998)
66.	Gradec near Mihovo (1987-1989)
67.	Sv. Duh in Črnomelj (1990-1996)
68.	Mestni trg in Metlika (1991-1992)
69.	Šentviška gora near Čatež (1998)
70.	Kapiteljski hrib at Novo mesto (1999)
71.	Camberk near Cerov Log (2004-2005)
Settlements where rescue excavations were conducted on the route of the Dolenjska highway:
72.	Bučarjev hrib near Sela pri Dobu (1998-1999)
73.	Marjanov hrib near Studenec (1999)
74.	Čateški grič near Čatež (2000, 2002)
75.	Col near Podgračeno (2001-2002)
76.	Mejni prehod near Obrežje (2001-2003)
77.	Sredno polje near Čatež (2002)
78.	Dolge njive near Bela Cerkev (2002)
79.	Vovk near Bela Cerkev (2002)
80.	Pule near Pristavica pri Velikem Gabru (2002)
81.	Reber near Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru (2002)
82.	Grofove njive near Velika vas (2002)
83.	Velike njive near Velika vas (2003)
84.	Sv. Jurij near Čatež (2003)
85.	Draga-Goričko near Obrežje (2003)
2.3. PUBLICATIONS
Settlements
Special attention was paid to presenting the results of the trenching within the project. The prompt publishing was considered of great importance for two reasons. Firstly because the effects and suitability of the research methods could be verified quickly and, secondly, because both the results and the material became publicly available. The publications were prepared according to selected geographical units. In this manner, the settlements in the Mirna and the Temenica Valleys,59 in Suha krajina,60 the Krka Valley,61 the vicinity of Dole pri Litiji62 and in the Posavsko hribovje63 were treated. We also published the results of certain excavations that were not conducted within the framework of the project, at Kučar near Podzemelj,64 Gradišče near Valična vas,65 Šumenje near Podturn66 and Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice.67 The project also produced several studies, for example on the history of research into the Iron Age settlements,68 on
70.	Kapiteljski hrib v Novem mestu (1999)
71.	Camberk nad Cerovim Logom (2004-2005)
Zaščitno izkopana naselja na trasi dolenjske avto-
ceste:
72.	Bučarjev hrib pri Selih pri Dobu (1998-1999)
73.	Marjanov hrib pri Studencu (1999)
74.	Čateški grič pri Čatežu (2000, 2002)
75.	Col pri Podgračenem (2001-2002)
76.	Mejni prehod pri Obrežju (2001-2003)
77.	Sredno polje pri Čatežu (2002)
78.	Dolge njive pri Beli Cerkvi (2002)
79.	Vovk pri Beli Cerkvi (2002)
80.	Pule pri Pristavici pri Velikem Gabru (2002)
81.	Reber pri Zagorici pri Velikem Gabru (2002)
82.	Grofove njive pri Veliki vasi (2002)
83.	Velike njive pri Veliki vasi (2003)
84.	Sv. Jurij pri Čatežu (2003)
85.	Draga-Goričko pri Obrežju (2003)
2.3. OBJAVE
Naselja
	59
	60
	
59 Dular et. al. 1991.	61
60 Dular et. al. 1995.	62
61 Dular et. al. 2000.	63
62 Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003.	64
63 Pavlin/Dular 2007.	65
64 Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995.	66
65 Dular/Breščak 1996.	67
66 Breščak/Dular 2002.	68
67 Dular/Križ 2004.	69
68 Dular 1992.	70
Posebno pozornost smo posvetili objavi rezultatov sondiranj, ki smo jih opravili v okviru našega projekta. Sprotno publiciranje se nam je zdelo pomembno zaradi dveh stvari. Najprej zato, ker smo lahko takoj preverjali učinke in primernost uporabljenih raziskovalnih metod, in drugič zaradi tega, da so postali rezultati in gradivo dostopni širši strokovni javnosti. Objave smo pripravili po zaokroženih geografskih sklopih. Tako smo po vrsti obdelali naselja v Mirenski in Temeniški dolini,59 Suhi krajini,60 dolini Krke,61 okolici Dol pri Litiji62 in v Posavskem hribovju.63 Hkrati smo objavili nekatera izkopavanja, ki niso potekala v okviru projekta, in sicer Kučar nad Podzemljem,64 Gradišče pri Valični vasi,65 Šumenje pri Podturnu66 in Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah.67 Iz projekta je izšlo tudi več študij, na primer o zgodovini raziskovanj železnodobnih naselij,68 o začetkih železno-dobne poselitve69 ter o gradiščih bakrene in železne dobe v osrednji Sloveniji.70
Od ostalih publikacij moramo omeniti Gabrovče-
Dular et. al. 1991.
Dular et. al. 1995.
Dular et. al. 2000.
Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003.
Pavlin/Dular 2007.
Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995.
Dular/Breščak 1996.
Breščak/Dular 2002.
Dular/Križ 2004.
Dular 1992.
Dular 1993; Dular 1994b.
Dular 1994a; Dular 1996a; Dular 1999b; Dular 2001.
the beginning of the Iron Age settlement69 and on the hillforts of the Copper and Iron Ages in central Slovenia.70
Other publications include the monographic publication of Cvinger near Vir pri Stični by Gabrovec71, prepared with our cooperation, and the publication of the excavations by Guštin on Libna72 and Stari grad near Podbočje.73
Cemeteries
The publications of cemeteries are of a great importance. Much work had been done already in the 1960s and 1970s when the complexes of finds from Dolenjska and Bela krajina, held at the National Museum of Slovenia, were published: Vače,74 Velike Malence,75 Rovišče,76 Vinkov Vrh,77 Šmarjeta,78 Dobrava,79 Valična vas80 and Podzemelj.81 Documentation of the material held at foreign museums began at approximately the same time. Although the latter is not fully completed, the important cemeteries are nevertheless well presented. Here we need to mention Brezje,82 Podzemelj,83 Dragatuš,84 Brusnice,85 barrows near Boštanj,86 Libna,87 Dolenjske Toplice,88 Magdalenska gora,89 Stična,90 Črnomelj,91 cemeteries in the vicinity of Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev92 as well as a joint publication of the smaller cemeteries of Dolenjska.93 The material from the cemeteries at Novo mesto is also reaching the professional public relatively quickly.94
vo monografijo o Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični,71 pri kateri smo sodelovali, ter objavi Guštinovih sondiranj na Libni72 in Starem gradu nad Podbočjem.73
Grobišča
Zelo pomembne so objave nekropol. Veliko dela je bilo opravljenega že v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja, ko so izšli kompleksi, ki jih iz Dolenjske in Bele krajine hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije: Vače,74 Velike Malence,75 Rovišče,76 Vinkov Vrh,77 Šmar-jeta,78 Dobrava,79 Valična vas,80 in Podzemelj.81 Nekako v istem času je steklo tudi dokumentiranje gradiva v tujih muzejih. Čeprav še ni v celoti zaključeno, pa so glavna grobišča dobro predstavljena. Omeniti moramo Brez-je,82 Podzemelj,83 Dragatuš,84 Brusnice,85 gomile pri Bo-štanju,86 Libno,87 Dolenjske Toplice,88 Magdalensko goro,89 Stično,90 Črnomelj,91 grobišča v okolici Velikega Vinjega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo92 ter skupno objavo manjših dolenjskih nekropol.93 Razmeroma hitro prihaja pred strokovno javnost tudi gradivo iz novomeških grobišč.94
69 Dular 1993; Dular 1994b.	
70 Dular 1994a; Dular 1996a; Dular 1999b; Dular 2001.	
71 Gabrovec 1994.	71 Gabrovec 1994.
72 Guštin 1976.	72 Guštin 1976.
73 Guštin/Cunja/Predovnik 1993.	73 Guštin/Cunja/Predovnik 1993.
74 F. Stare 1955.	74 F. Stare 1955.
75 V. Stare 1960-1961.	75 V. Stare 1960-1961.
76 V. Stare 1962-1963.	76 V. Stare 1962-1963.
77 V. Stare 1964-1965.	77 V. Stare 1964-1965.
78 V. Stare 1973a.	78 V. Stare 1973a.
79 V. Stare 1973b.	79 V. Stare 1973b.
80 Teržan 1973.	80 Teržan 1973.
81 Dular 1978a.	81 Dular 1978a.
82 Kromer 1959.	82 Kromer 1959.
83 Barth 1969.	83 Barth 1969.
84 Spitzer 1973.	84 Spitzer 1973.
85 Teržan 1974.	85 Teržan 1974.
86 Guštin 1974a.	86 Guštin 1974a.
87 Guštin 1976.	87 Guštin 1976.
88 Teržan 1976.	88 Teržan 1976.
89 Hencken 1978; Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004.	89 Hencken 1978; Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004.
90 Wells 1981; Gabrovec 2006.	90 Wells 1981; Gabrovec 2006.
91 Dular 1983.	91 Dular 1983.
92 A. Dular 1991.	92 A. Dular 1991.
93 Dular 2003.	93 Dular 2003.
94 Knez 1986; Knez 1992; Knez 1993; Križ 1997b; Križ	94 Knez 1986; Knez 1992; Knez 1993; Križ 1997b; Križ
2000; Križ 2005.	2000; Križ 2005.
3. EVALUATION OF SOURCES
3. KRITIKA VIROV
Anyone who studies settlement patterns realises that it would be naïve to expect the archaeological maps to realistically reflect past processes. Their reliability depends on many factors, ranging from natural processes and human interventions into the environment, which can influence archaeological remains, to the state of research.95 A critical evaluation of the sources is therefore an essential part of any settlement study, since the credibility of the conclusions reached depends, in a large measure, on an objective estimate of the potential of the material and the quality of the data used in the analysis.
Vsak, ki se ukvarja s poselitvenimi študijami, ve, da bi bilo naivno pričakovati, da so arheološke karte razprostranjenosti realen odsev dogajanj v preteklih obdobjih. Na njihovo kvaliteto vpliva veliko dejavnikov, od naravnih procesov in človekovih posegov v okolje pa vse do tega, kdaj in na kakšen način so bili podatki zajeti ter obdelani.95 Kritičen pretres virov je torej bistveni del vsake poselitvene študije. Kredibilnost zaključkov je namreč v največji meri odvisna prav od trezne presoje, kakšen domet ima gradivo in kako kvalitetni so podatki, ki so bili uporabljeni za analizo.
3.1. DATA ACQUISITION AND FREQUENCY
Most data, on which the catalogue of sites is based, was gathered from archival records, museum collections, publications, field surveys and excavation. The dynamics of site registering is shown in fig. 7. It shows that prehistoric settlement was practically unknown in the mid 19th century, since Radics could only mark one location on his archaeological map.96 The situation then began to change rapidly at the end of the 1870s. Dežman and Hochstetter marked seventeen sites in 1879,97 while a decade later Globočnik could enumerate over sixty locations.98 This rise in number is to be attributed to Pečnik, who began with his numerous excavations of barrows in the 1880s. The intensity of his activity can clearly be discerned from the list he published in 1904.99 There he listed over two hundred sites, thus tripling the number of previously known sites. He was familiar with all the important hillforts and cemeteries. The latter mostly consisted of barrows, many of which he dug.
After Pečnik's publication, the situation remained unchanged for a long period. Progress was made only
3.1. FREKVENCA IN NAČIN ZAJEMANJA PODATKOV
Glavnina podatkov, na osnovi katerih je bil sestavljen katalog najdišč, je bila pridobljena iz arhivskih virov, muzejskih zbirk, objav, s terenskimi pregledi in z izkopavanji. Dinamika registriranja najdišč je prikazana na sl. 7. Iz nje je razvidno, da je bila sredi 19. stoletja prazgodovinska poselitev praktično nepoznana, saj je lahko Radics na svoji arheološki karti zabeležil eno samo točko.96 Situacija se je pričela naglo spreminjati konec sedemdesetih let. Tako sta poznala Dežman in Hochstetter leta 1879 sedemnajst najdišč,97 desetletje kasneje pa je Globočnik naštel čez šestdeset lokacij.98 Zasluge za velik porast moramo pripisati Pečniku, ki je pričel v osemdesetih letih na veliko izkopavati gomile. Kako intenzivno je bilo njegovo delovanje, se lahko prepričamo iz njegovega seznama, ki ga je objavil leta 1904.99 V njem je zabeležil prek dvesto najdišč, tako da se je število lokacij za časa njegovega delovanja povečalo za več kot trikrat. Znana so mu bila vsa pomembna gradišča in nekropole, med katerimi so seveda prevladovale gomile. Mnoge med njimi je tudi prekopal.
95	Cf. Schier 1990, 45 ff.
96	Radics 1862.
97	Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879.
98	Globočnik 1889.
99	Pečnik 1904.
95	Prim. Schier 1990, 45 ss.
96	Radics 1862.
97	Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879.
98	Globočnik 1889.
99	Pečnik 1904.
after World War II, when the number of newly discovered sites began to rise quickly. This was the consequence of more intensive building activity, while an important step was taken with the founding of regional museums in Novo mesto, Brežice and Metlika that began with intense protection of the ancient cultural heritage. The publication of the archaeological sites of Slovenia in 1975 lists almost four hundred sites in the area covered by our project.100 Most were discovered during earthworking, either through farming or through building interventions. The prevailing records were individual finds and cemeteries, while the number of settlements, especially hillforts, did not change much from Pecnik's time.
The number of sites increased by a further 111 locations (28 %) until the end of 1997, when the field survey within the project was concluded. This number includes the finds that came to light during the construction of the Dolenjska highway. Field surveying had an extensive character due to the specific natural conditions, since as much as 83% of the surface of south-eastern Slovenia is covered by forest, grassland or pastures, and consequently the visibility is very low. It is therefore not surprising that most sites were located on forested terrain (fig. 8). The survey results were undoubtedly influenced also by the characteristics of the Hallstatt colonization, directed more to the hilly areas of Dolenjska, with its typical features of well visible hillforts and tumulus cemeteries. We registered 150 or over 29% of sites where the structures were lying underneath the surface.
The main achievement of field surveying was not only a considerable increase in the number of sites but also their geopositioning.101 Only thirty individual finds, six cemeteries and as many hoards remain without precise coordinates, that is just over eight percent (8.2%) of all sites.
3.2. STRUCTURE OF THE SITE DATABASE
There were 510 sites registered in the study-area that measures 3470 km2. They were divided into five basic groups on the basis of their function: settlements, cemeteries, hoards, production facilities (bloomeries) and locations without a determined context (individual finds). Settlements were further separated into fortified and unfortified, cemeteries into flat and tumulus cemeteries. Hoards, production facilities and individual finds were not further classified. Numerical relationships among individual sorts and types are as follows:
100	Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.
101	Most sites were successfully located with the accuracy of 10-15 m, whereby it should be said that at the time of the surveys the GPS system was not yet available.

I
600 T
500
400
300
'S
i 200 E
C
100
51(		
399		
		
	213	
_____	-----6a B	
1	17 ■ 1	
•o 00
u 1
00
0] S
tn _C
S
X
o 00 00
_o O
'"J §
S
to
z <
K O
o>
o ~a
sr
tO 0)
Fig. 7: Dynamics of site recording. Sl. 7: Dinamika registriranja najdišč.
Po Pečnikovi objavi se situacija dolgo časa ni spremenila. Do napredka je prišlo šele po drugi svetovni vojni, ko je pričelo število novoodkritih najdišč zopet hitreje naraščati. Temu je botrovala povečana gradbena dejavnost, pomemben korak pa je bil storjen z ustanovitvijo pokrajinskih muzejev v Novem mestu, Brežicah in Metliki, ki so pričeli intenzivno skrbeti za najstarejšo kulturno dediščino. V objavi arheoloških najdišč leta 1975 najdemo na območju, ki ga je zaobjel naš projekt, skoraj štiristo najdišč.100 Večina je bila ugotovljenih ob zemeljskih delih, bodisi pri obdelovanju polj ali ob gradbenih posegih. Prevladovale so posamične najdbe in grobišča, število naselij, zlasti gradišč, se od Pečnikovih časov ni bistveno spremenilo.
Do konca leta 1997, ko smo zaključili s pregledovanjem terena, se je število najdišč povečalo za nadaljnjih 111 lokacij (28%). V številu so zajete tudi najdbe, ki so prišle na dan ob gradnji dolenjske avtoceste. Pri delu smo uporabili ekstenzivni terenski pregled. Zanj smo se odločili zaradi specifičnega vegetacijskega pokrova, saj je v jugovzhodni Sloveniji pod gozdom, travniki in pašniki kar 83% površin. Tako seveda ne čudi, da je bila
100
Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.
Fig. 8: Site distribution with regard to recent land-use (Source: LANDSAT 1992-1996; Oštir et al. 2000). SI. 8: Razprostranjenost najdišč z ozirom na recentno rabo tal (vir: LANDSAT 1992-1996; Oštir et al. 2000).
Sites (n = 510) according to sort (fig. 9): 121 (23.7%) settlements 326 (63.9%) cemeteries 47 (9.2°%) individual finds 13 (2.6°%) hoards 3	(0.6%) production facilities
Settlements (n = 121) according to type (fig. 10): 99 (82%%) fortified 20 (16%) unfortified 2	(2%) undefined
Cemeteries (n = 326) according to type (fig. 11): 243 (75%) tumulus 40 (12%) flat
tudi večina najdišč na pogozdenih območjih (sl. 8). Na sliko je zanesljivo vplivala tudi specifičnost železnodob-ne poselitve, ki je bila usmerjena v gričevnat svet in za katero so na Dolenjskem značilna dobro vidna gradišča in gomile. Najdišč, katerih strukture so ležale pod površino, smo registrirali 150 oziroma dobrih 29%.
Glavni dosežek terenskega pregleda pa ni bilo le precejšnje povečanje števila najdišč ampak tudi njihovo geopozicioniranje.101 Brez natančnih koordinat je ostalo le trideset posamičnih najdb, šest grobišč in prav toliko depojev, kar znaša skupaj nekaj več kot osem odstotkov (8,2%) vseh najdišč.
101 Večino najdišč smo uspeli locirati z natančnostjo 10-15 metrov. Ob tem naj povemo, da takrat, ko smo delali terenske preglede, še nismo imeli na voljo sistema GPS.
11 (3%) tumulus and flat 32 (10%%) undefined
3.3. CHRONOLOGICAL DETERMINABILITY OF SITES
The sites were sorted into three main periods: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age and Late Iron Age. Wherever material permitted, the analyses took into account also a more precise date (see ch. 5.2.). We were able to chronologically determine 449 (88%) sites, whereby it should be stressed that some were occupied during several periods. The representation of sites in individual periods is as follows (^ig. 12):
-	Late Bronze Age (110 sites);
-	Early Iron Age (339 sites);
-	Late Iron Age (74 sites);
-	prehistory/further undefined (61 sites).
The degree of the chronological determinability according the site types is represented in the table (^ig. 13). It shows that cemeteries are well dated, particularly the flat cemeteries and those with both flat and barrow burials. A high chronological determinability can also be observed for tumulus cemeteries, though more than half were dated solely on the fact that barrows in Dolenjska are a phenomenon that is particular to the Hallstatt period. The total number of 243 includes 115 cemeteries, mostly tumulus, that were dug in one manner or another.
Settlements are not so well dated; four fifths of the unfortified settlements were defined and just over two thirds of hillforts.
3.4. RANGE OF THE SITE DATABASE
The basic questions that need to be addressed on the basis of the data analysis are the following:
-	were the chosen sampling methods suitable;
-	were the criteria used for the classification significant enough;
-	was the sample obtained representative enough;
-	does the sample reflect the real settlement pattern of a particular period.
As can be seen from the tables, the catalogue shows the strongest presence of cemeteries, which represent almost two thirds of all sites, while settlements represent slightly less than a quarter {fig. 9). Similar deviations can be seen also in the chronological determination, since the sites from the Early Iron Age constitute by far the most numerous group {^ig. 12). When both criteria {type and time) are considered together, it can
350 t
Fig. 9: Numerical proportions among classes of sites. Sl. 9: Številčna razmerja med zvrstmi najdišč.
100 r
90
80
g 70 a

60
50
40
0) E
30
20
10
r
"O o
m C CC 0)
"O o o C
iS. (Q
n
"S 5
C i=-
>u
o o
Fig. 10: Numerical proportions among settlement types. Sl. 10: Številčna razmerja med tipi naselij.
300 t
1 250
0
O)
1	200
O
•= 150 o E 8
1 E
100
50
I .
2.8 h. >u>
i ®
0	D
11
1	^
^ O (l> >u
S o
i o»
u D
5-1
2.5
h. >u»
i ^ o D
II
° □
E E B O cn
"O o
2=1-I o
Fig. Il: Numerical proportions among cemetery types. Sl. 11: Številčna razmerja med tipi grobišč.
400
350
0
C
_o
1
w \ in
-■i
300
250
200
2 150
<D
E
100 H 50 h
0___
Izl
(D a	o D ^ n	<D D O)^ ^ n	
^ -2	1-8	1-8	o 2 -o =
	i ?	i ?	C o
li	.s>s	o 8 -3 .S	0) C
n —I O	.S	.S	
H	£	□	
g.		E	
Fig. 12: Representation of sites in archaeological periods. Sl. 12: Zastopanost najdišč po dobah.
3.2. STRUKTURA NAJDIŠČ
Na raziskovalnem območju, ki meri 3470 km2, smo registrirali 510 najdišč. Po funkciji smo jih razvrstili na pet osnovnih skupin in sicer naselja, grobišča, depoje, gospodarske obrate (topilnice) ter lokacije brez deter-miniranega konteksta (posamične najdbe). Naselja smo delili še naprej v utrjena in neutrjena, grobišča pa v plana in gomilna. Depojev, gospodarskih obratov in posamičnih najdb nismo podrobneje razčlenjevali. Številčna razmerja med posameznimi zvrstmi in tipi najdišč so naslednja:
Najdišča (n = 510) po zvrsteh (sl. 9): 121 (23,7%%) naselij 326 (63,9%%) grobišč 47 (9,2%) posamičnih najdb 13 (2,6%%)depojev 3	(0,6%) gospodarski objekti
Naselja (n = 121) po tipu (sl. 10): 99 (82%%) utrjenih 20 (16%%) neutrjenih 2 (2%%) nedoločljivih
Grobišča (n = 326) po tipu (sl. 11): 243 (75%%) gomilnih 40 (12%%) planih 11 (3%) gomilnih in planih 32 (10%) nedoločljivih
3.3. ČASOVNA OPREDELJIVOST NAJDIŠČ
Najdišča smo razvrstili v tri glavna obdobja in sicer v pozno bronasto dobo, starejšo železno dobo in mlajšo železno dobo. Če je dopuščalo gradivo, smo pri analizah upoštevali tudi podrobnejšo delitev (glej pogl. 5.2.). Časovno smo uspeli razvrstiti 449 (88%) najdišč, pri čemer velja poudariti, da so bila nekatera obljudena v več obdobjih. Zastopanost najdišč v posameznih dobah je taka (sl. 12):
-	pozna bronasta doba (110 najdišč);
-	starejša železna doba (339 najdišč);
-	mlajša železna doba (74 najdišč);
-	prazgodovina/neopredeljeno (61 najdišč).
Oglejmo si še, kako visoka je stopnja kronološke opredeljivosti po tipih najdišč. Kot lahko razberemo iz tabele (sl. 13), so nekropole dobro datirane, kar velja še posebej za plana grobišča ter grobišča z gomilnimi in planimi pokopi. Visoko kronološko opredeljenost izkazujejo tudi gomilna grobišča, vendar pa moramo priznati, da smo jih več kot polovico datirali zgolj na pod-
100% T -^- --
80% -
60% -
40%
20% -
0%
<l>-m
E S
<a D
"SIs = t 3
C .SL
H
o
1 °
"g-i-■E "5 t <B £
^ o te ><-> 0) >«
0) jj E 2 !S
« o
11 - O)
X 0)
"S La E 2 S S.
o g
Q-
X (D m >o 0) >»
0)
E 2 g a.
o g = o -o ^
a S
</> 0) ■0_Q o C	J-S	«rt '.= (D .s :-E .2. 1-S
		
"O E		•I-g
.E □ «0		= 0 ~a a.
		2 8 O. Q)
E o
O)
□ undated nedatirano
■ dated datirano
Fig. 13: Chronological determination of site types. Sl. 13: Časovna opredeljenost najdišč po tipih.
be observed that tumulus cemeteries soar dramatically above the average and represent the main characteristic of the Hallstatt period in south-eastern Slovenia. Additional reasons for the deviation of barrows are their easy recognition, substantially higher visibility in the landscape than other sites, but they were also more attractive due to the rich grave goods they yielded.
A similar discrepancy as with cemeteries can be observed also with unfortified and fortified settlements, the latter being much easier to be identified in the landscape due to ramparts and terraces (fig. 10). They are also the best preserved, since they are mostly covered by forest and little exposed to earthworking in recent times. The reasons for the predominance of fortified settlements at higher altitudes could also be sought in the predominantly hilly landscape of Dolenjska.
A closer look at the relationships between settlements and cemeteries in various periods reveals that there are more settlements than cemeteries known from the Late Bronze Age i^ig. 14). A similar trend can be observed also in the Late Iron Age, while the Hallstatt period offers the opposite view. Here, the relationship between settlements and cemeteries is 1:6 in favour of the latter, which signifies that a certain spectrum of settlement structures was not perceived. These are mostly small farmsteads and hamlets, the discovery of which remains a task for the future.
lagi dejstva, da so gomile na Dolenjskem ekskluziven halštatski pojav. Od skupnega števila (243) je bilo namreč tako ali drugače prekopanih 115 večinoma velikih gomilnih grobišč.
Nekoliko slabše so datirana naselja. Opredeliti smo uspeli štiri petine neutrjenih naselij in nekaj več kot dve tretjini gradišč.
3.4. DOMET KATALOGA NAJDIŠČ
Temeljna vprašanja, ki si jih moramo zastaviti na podlagi analize podatkov so sledeča:
-	ali so bile izbrane metode vzorčenja ustrezne;
-	ali so bili uporabljeni kriteriji za klasifikacijo dovolj signifikativni;
-	ali je vzorec, ki smo ga zajeli, dovolj reprezentativen;
-	ali se v vzorcu odraža realna poselitvena slika določenega obdobja.
Kot je moč razbrati iz tabel, so v katalogu najmočneje zastopana grobišča, ki predstavljajo skoraj dve tretjini vseh najdišč, medtem ko je naselij slaba četrtina (sl. 9). Podobna odstopanja se kažejo tudi pri kronološkem razvrščanju, saj so daleč najštevilnejša najdišča iz starejše železne dobe (sl. 12). Če si ogledamo oba krite-
100% p 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
□ settlements naselja
■ cemeteries grobišča
<D D	v> o	0> D
		
	i ?	i ?
2 D		(D S
0		D"0j —' >N
-2 o	.s	.S
C N	£	□
0 a.		E
Fig. 14: Proportions between settlements and cemeteries in archaeological periods.
Sl. 14: Razmerja med naselji in grobišči po dobah.
In spite of the above, it may be said that the obtained sample is large enough and suitable for certain analyses. The number of sites enables the assumption to be made that we are dealing with the archaeological-ly best investigated region in Slovenia. Sites are spatially fairly evenly distributed (fig. 2) with the exception of Suha krajina and the highest parts of the Gorjanci, where even the present settlement is rather sparse. Based on the comparison with other areas in Slovenia it may be asserted that the quality of available data is considerably better than elsewhere, this being aided also by long-term research work with a clearly defined objective that was consistently pursued.
The rescue research conducted prior to the construction of the highway route in Dolenjska, which included aerial photography, systematic field surveying as well as rescue excavation, confirmed the methods of field reconnaissance to be adequate, the trenching results to be satisfactory and the settlement sample to be representative. The highway route in the length of over 100 km is a sort of a random section through the mostly flat part of the landscape that represented an important communication link between Central Europe and the Balkans throughout the periods. This route revealed, between 1997 and 2003, only 16 locations belonging to the time interval that is the subject of this study:
rija skupaj (zvrst in čas), vidimo, da od povprečja drastično odstopajo gomilna grobišča, ki so v jugovzhodni Sloveniji glavna značilnost halštatskega obdobja. Dodaten razlog za odklon je lahka prepoznavnost gomil, ki so na terenu bistveno bolj vidne kot druga najdišča, vrhu tega pa jim je bila v preteklosti zaradi bogatih najdb namenjena največja pozornost.
Podoben razkorak kot pri grobiščih opažamo tudi med neutrjenimi in utrjenimi naselji, ki so v naravi veliko bolj prepoznavna zaradi nasipov in teras (sl. 10). So tudi bolje ohranjena, saj jih večinoma prekriva gozd in jih z zemeljskimi deli v novejšem času niso toliko prizadeli. Sicer pa je moč vzroke za prevlado utrjenih naselij na višinah iskati tudi v pretežno gričevnati dolenjski pokrajini.
Če si pozorneje ogledamo še razmerja med naselji in grobišči po posameznih dobah, lahko ugotovimo, da je v pozni bronasti dobi znanih enkrat več naselij kot grobišč (sl. 14). Podoben trend je opaziti tudi v mlajši železni dobi, medtem ko je v halštatskem obdobju slika ravno obratna. Tu je odnos med naselji in grobišči 1:6 v prid slednjim, kar pomeni, da določenega spektra poselitvenih struktur nismo zaznali. Gre predvsem za manjše kmetije in zaselke, katerih odkrivanje ostaja naloga za prihodnost.
Ne glede na pravkar povedano, pa lahko rečemo, da je vzorec, ki smo ga zajeli, dovolj velik in primeren za nekatere analize. Že iz števila najdišč je možno sklepati, da gre za arheološko najbolje raziskano slovensko regijo. Najdišča so prostorsko dokaj enakomerno razporejena (sl. 2), izjemi sta Suha krajina in najvišji predeli Gorjancev, kjer pa tudi današnja poselitev ni kdove kako gosta. Na osnovi primerjave z ostalimi slovenskimi območji lahko trdimo, da je kvaliteta podatkov, s katerimi razpolagamo, bistveno boljša kot drugod, k čemur je pripomoglo dolgoletno raziskovalno delo z jasno zastavljenim ciljem, ki smo mu vztrajno sledili.
Da so bile uporabljene metode terenskega rekog-nosciranja ustrezne in rezultati sondiranj sprejemljivi, ter da je poselitveni vzorec dovolj reprezentativen, potrjujejo zaščitne raziskave ob gradnji dolenjskega kraka avtocestnega križa, ki so vključevale zračna snemanja, sistematičen terenski pregled in zaščitna izkopavanja. Na trasi, dolgi čez 100 km, ki je nekakšen naključen prerez čez pretežno ravninski predel pokrajine, po kateri je v vseh obdobjih tekla pomembna povezava med srednjo Evropo in Balkanom, je bilo v letih 1997-2003 odkritih le 16 lokacij, ki spadajo v časovni interval, ki je predmet naše študije:
-	10 najdišč iz pozne bronaste dobe (9 naselij in 1 grobišče);
-	4 najdišča iz starejše železne dobe (2 domnevni selišči in 2 grobišči);
-	2 najdišči iz mlajše železne dobe (1 naselje in 1 grobišče).
-	10 sites from the Late Bronze Age (9 settlements and 1 cemetery);
-	4 sites from the Early Iron Age (2 presumed habitations and 2 cemeteries);
-	2 sites from the Late Iron Age (1 settlement and 1 cemetery).
With some reservations, to the sites above could also be added the remains of a road at Požarnice near Družinska vas, though the arguments in its favour should first be carefully considered.102
The rescue research prior to highway construction used modern methods of reconnaissance and opened large surfaces (and was operating with considerably greater financial support as well as energy in comparison to the field surveying and trenching of our project). In spite of this, it did not yield significant new evidence on the density and structure of the Iron Age settlement. Of more importance are the discoveries from the Late Stone, Copper and Bronze Ages, which are not the focus here.
A word in conclusion. Though the catalogue of sites is relatively extensive and the data it contains have been verified, it is nevertheless clear that its potential in answering certain questions remains limited, in particular as to the economy, environment, natural resources, communication network, places of cult, centres of ceremony (cemeteries excepted) and others. As discernible from the history of research, the investigations so far conducted in Dolenjska were directed mostly towards detecting settlements and cemeteries as the best recognizable remains of human activities and did not include the research of specific natural environments such as river beds, water springs, natural passes, ore deposits and others.
The fact that none of the sites was completely excavated is also significant. Large surfaces were uncovered only at Kučar near Podzemelj and even there the Iron Age remains were considerably damaged by the subsequent occupation in Late Antiquity. The trenches we made were small and aimed mostly at dating the settlement structures and did not greatly contribute to the knowledge of the hillfort layouts. This study attempts to deal only with those questions for which verified sources and firm enough evidence in material remains are available. All other attempts would be misleading and a waste of time.
Morda bi lahko v ta čas z veliko mero previdnosti uvrstili tudi ostanke ceste na Požarnicah pri Družinski vasi, vendar bi bilo potrebno poprej argumente dobro pretehtati.102
Kljub temu, da so bile v teh akcijah uporabljene najmodernejše metode rekognosciranja in odprte ogromne površine (seveda ob neprimerno večjem vložku finančnih sredstev in energije kot pri naših terenskih pregledih in sondiranjih), pa raziskave avtocestnih tras niso prispevale bistveno novih podatkov o gostoti in strukturi železnodobne poselitve. Pomembnejša so odkritja iz mlajše kamene, bakrene in bronaste dobe, ki pa seveda niso bila v žarišču našega zanimanja.
Naj zaključimo. Čeprav je katalog najdišč razmeroma obsežen in podatki v njem preverjeni, pa je na dlani, da je njegov domet za reševanje nekaterih vprašanj omejen. Tu mislimo zlasti na ekonomiko, okolje, naravne resurse, komunikacijsko mrežo, ugotavljanje kultnih mest in ceremonialnih središč (izjema so grobišča) itd. Kot se lahko poučimo iz zgodovine raziskav, so bila dosedanja proučevanja na Dolenjskem usmerjena predvsem v odkrivanje naselij in grobišč kot najbolje prepoznavnih ostalin človekove dejavnosti, niso pa vključevala raziskav specifičnih naravnih ambientov, na primer rečnih strug, vodnih izvirov, naravnih prehodov, rudnih nahajališč ipd.
Pomenljivo je tudi dejstvo, da nobeno najdišče ni bilo v celoti izkopano. Večje površine so bile odprte le na Kučarju nad Podzemljem, pa še tam so poznoantični objekti dodobra uničili železnodobne ostaline. Naše sonde so bile majhne, z njimi smo želeli predvsem datirati naselja, zato niso veliko prispevale k poznavanju notranje strukture gradišč. V študiji nameravamo zato obravnavati le tista vprašanja, za katera imamo na voljo preverjene vire in dovolj trdne dokaze v materialnih ostankih. Vsak drug poskus bi bil zavajajoč in zapravljanje časa.
102 See Tica 2003b; Topličanec 2006.
102
Glej Tica 2003b; Topličanec 2006.
4. GEOGRAPHIC OUTLINE
4. GEOGRAFSKI ORIS
The impact of the natural environment on the human colonization is reflected in many ways: in the choice of location and settlement types, economic orientation, communication network and even architecture. In order to better understand settlement patterns, it is absolutely necessary to consider these aspects before proceeding.
4.1. LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND REGIONAL DIVISION
The areas of Dolenjska and Bela krajina, that are the focus of this study, are delimited to the north by the moor of the Ljubljansko barje, the ridges of the Posavsko hribovje and the Sava River that flows to the south-east; to the south they are delimited by the massif of the Gorjanci and the Kolpa River; to the west by the Krimsko hribovje and the mountain chain of the Mala gora, the Kočevski rog and the Poljanska gora (fig. 15).
Geographers divide this area into several regional units.103 The northern part - the Posavsko hribovje that extends from the Tuhinja to the Mirna Valley, belongs to the Alpine zone. This is a pronouncedly hilly terrain with little flatland, traversed by many river valleys and ravines.104 The main part of Dolenjska with Bela krajina is part of the Dinaric Alps with characteristic karstified plateaus and hills intermingled with valleys, depressions and peneplains, with underground and surface watercourses and high amounts of moisture and forested terrain. The borders of the area to the Alpine zone, represented by the Posavsko hribovje, on the one hand, and the Pannonian Krška ravan, on the other, are not clear.105
The north-western part of the region consists of the hilly area of the Krimsko hribovje that runs from the Ljubljansko barje up to the springs of the Iška Stream and merges into the mountain chain of the Mala gora, the Kočevski rog and the Poljanska gora in the southeast. The area is characterised by heavy karstification,
103	Gams 1984, 7 ff; Perko et al. 2001.
104	Perko et al. 2001, 178 ff.
105	Ib., 296 ff.
Vpliv naravnega okolja na poselitev se odraža v mnogih pogledih: v izbiri lege in tipih naselij, v gospodarski usmerjenosti, v komunikacijah in celo v arhitekturi. Obravnavanje teh vidikov je nujno potrebno, če hočemo pravilno razumeti poselitvene vzorce.
4.1. ZNAČILNOSTI POKRAJINE IN REGIONALNA ČLENITEV
Področje Dolenjske in Bele krajine, ki ga zajema naša študija, zamejujejo na severu Ljubljansko barje, slemena Posavskega hribovja in reka Sava, ki teče proti jugovzhodu; na jugu ga obrobljata masiv Gorjancev in reka Kolpa, na zahodu pa ga zapirajo Krimsko hribovje in pogorje Male gore, Kočevskega roga in Poljanske gore (sl. 15).
Geografi členijo to ozemlje v več regionalnih enot.103 Severni del - Posavsko hribovje, ki sega od Tuhinjske do Mirnske doline, pripisujejo alpskemu svetu. To je izrazito hribovit teren z malo ravnega sveta, razrezan s številnimi rečnimi dolinami in grapami.104
Glavnina Dolenjske skupaj z Belo krajino pripada Dinarskemu gorstvu, za katerega so značilne zakrasele planote in hribovja z vmesnimi podolji in ravniki, s podzemeljskimi in površinskimi vodnimi odtoki, z veliko na-močenostjo in gozdnatostjo. Meja z alpskim svetom Posavskega hribovja in panonsko Krško ravnjo ni izrazita.105 Na severozahodu pokrajine leži Krimsko hribovje, ki sega od Ljubljanskega barja do povirja Iške ter se na jugovzhodu staplja s pogorjem Male gore, Kočevskega roga in Poljanske gore. Močna zakraselost, odsotnost površinskih voda in nepregledni gozdovi, ki dajejo zatočišče rjavemu medvedu, so osnovne poteze tega področja, ki še danes predstavlja prometno pregrado.106 Na stiku alpskega, panonskega in dinarskega sveta se v dolgem in ozkem pasu razteza Dolenjsko podolje,
103	Gams 1984, 7 ss; Perko et al. 2001.
104	Perko et al. 2001, 178 ss.
105	Ib., 296 ss.
106	Ib., 392, 436 ss.
Fig. 15: Natural boundaries and physical-geographical régionalisation (Source: Anton Melik Geographical Institut ZRC SAZU). Sl. 15: Naravne meje in geografske enote (vir: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU).
absence of surface waters, and by vast forests that shelter the brown bear. It represents a communication barrier to this day.106
The Alpine, Pannonian and Dinaric zones meet in a long and narrow strip of the Dolenjsko podolje, the system of valleys, which includes the area of Grosuplje, the Kriška planota, the basin of the Višnjica, and the blind valley along the small Temenica River. The easy passage from the north-west to the south-east has enabled communication through the Dolenjsko podolje from prehistory to the present day.107
To the south lies Suha krajina (the Dry Country), extending between the Temenica Valley in the east and
kamor uvrščajo Grosupeljsko pokrajino z Radenskim poljem, Kriško planoto, Stiški kot s porečjem Višnjice, Šentviško kotlino in slepo dolino ob rečici Temenici. Zaradi lahke prehodnosti v severozahodno-jugovzhod-ni smeri so skozi to podolje vodili prometni tokovi od prazgodovine do danes.107
Južneje leži Suha krajina, razpeta med Temeniško dolino na vzhodu in Dobrepoljem na zahodu. To je ena izmed najbolj kraških pokrajin v Sloveniji. Ime je dobila zaradi pomanjkanja vode, kar jo razlikuje od sicer vod-nate Dolenjske. Zgornji tok reke Krke jo deli na dva dela: vzhodnega oblikujejo Ajdovska planota in široke kraške kotanje, kot sta Dobrniška uvala in Globodol, na zahod-
106	Ib., 392, 436 ff.
107	Ib., 460 ff.
107 Ib., 460 ss.
the Dobrepolje Valley in the west. This is one of the regions with most karst phenomena in Slovenia. It derived its name from to the lack of water which distinguishes it from the rest of Dolenjska, which is otherwise rich with water sources. The upper reaches of the Krka River divide it into two parts: in the east we find the high plateau of Ajdovska planota and broad karst depression of Dobrnič, while in the west karst dols and hills running in the Dinaric direction dominate the land-scape.108
Dolenjsko podolje joins the mountainous Raduljsko hribovje at the south-eastern edge. The latter is delimited to the north by the Mirna River, to the east by the Laknica Valley and to the south by the Krka. Raduljsko hribovje appears in some areas more like a group of hills with very little flatland.109
The heart of Dolenjska lies in undulating terrain of the Novo mesto area, where the Krka leaves the tight hold of the natural fault underneath the escarpment of Straška gora and meanders down the plain to the Sava. The area is delimited to the west by the Črmošnjica Stream, to the south by the outskirts of the Gorjanci, while to the east it opens into the Krška ravan.110
The plain of the Krška ravan and the karst hills of the Krško gričevje belong to the Pannonian zone. They border the Posavsko hribovje along the Mirna and the Dinaric zone along the natural fault. Krška ravan is the southernmost region of the Slovene Pannonian zone. It is covered by the impenetrable lowland and marshy Krakovski gozd, which represents the last remains of the vast floodplain primeval forests between the Krka and the Sava.111
The southern boundary is formed by the Gorjanci. This is a mountainous karst zone that runs in a southwest to north-easterly direction. Its northern slopes fall sharply into the lower hills of the Prigorjanske gorice and then sink underneath the deposits of the Krška ravan.
Bela krajina is characterized by a low karst peneplain enclosed by the Gorjanci, the Kočevski rog, the Poljanska gora and the Kolpa River and is thus separated from Dolenjska. Its southern border is clearly marked by the Kolpa, which has cut a deep bed into the high karst plateaus in its upper reaches.112
nem delu pa prevladujejo kraški doli in hribi z dinarsko usmerjenimi hrbti.108
Na jugovzhodnem koncu se Dolenjsko podolje stika z Raduljskim hribovjem, ki ga na severu omejuje reka Mirna, na vzhodu dolina Laknice, na jugu pa seže do reke Krke. V nekaterih delih je bolj podobno gričevju in premore bore malo ravninskega sveta.109
Osrčje Dolenjske označuje razgiban teren Novomeške pokrajine, kjer se reka Krka pod vzvišeno pregrado Straške gore izvije iz tesnega objema tektonskega preloma in odvijuga po ravnini k reki Savi. Na zahodu jo omejuje potok Črmošnjica, na jugu obronki Gorjancev, na vzhodu pa se razpira v Krško ravan.110
Krška ravan in zakraselo Krško gričevje sodita k panonskemu svetu. Meja s Posavskim hribovjem teče po reki Mirni, od dinarskega sveta pa ju ločuje tektonska prelomnica. Krška ravan je najbolj južna pokrajina slovenskega panonskega sveta. Na zahodu jo prekriva neprehoden, nižinski in zamočvirjen Krakovski gozd, ki je poslednji ostanek nekdaj obsežnih poplavnih gozdov med Krko in Savo.111
Na južni meji se dvigujejo Gorjanci. To je hribovit in gričevnat kraški svet, ki se vleče od jugozahoda proti severovzhodu. Severna pobočja se strmo spuščajo v Prigorjanske gorice in nato potonejo pod nasutine Krške ravni.
Belo krajino zaznamuje nizki kraški ravnik, ki ga Gorjanci, Kočevski rog in Poljanska gora ter reka Kolpa zapirajo v svoj svet, odmaknjen od Dolenjske. Kolpa je v zgornjem toku vrezala globoko strugo v visoke kraške planote in tako ostro zarisala južno mejo.112
4.2. GEOLOŠKA ZGRADBA
Geološka zgradba ozemlja je za nas privlačna v treh pogledih:
-	zaradi sedimentacijskih in tektonskih procesov, ki so vplivali na oblikovanost površja;
-	zaradi kameninske podlage in procesov prepe-revanja, ki pogojujejo sestavo tal;
-	zaradi rudnih pojavov mineralnih surovin za pridobivanje kovin kot so železo, baker in svinec.
4.2. GEOLOGY
4.2.1. NASTANEK IN ZGRADBA POVRŠJA113
The geological composition of the region is of importance here for three reasons:
- the sedimentation and tectonic processes that influenced the geomorphology of the area;
108	Ib., 472 ff.
109	Ib., 508 ff.
110	Ib., 520 ff.
111	Ib., 652 ff.
112	Ib., 300, 484 ff.
V hribovitem predelu Dolenjske imamo kar dober pregled nad kamninsko podlago, ki je sicer v ravninah
108	Ib., 472 ss.
109	Ib., 508 ss.
110	Ib., 520 ss.
Ib., 652 ss.
112	Ib., 300, 484 ss.
113	Povzeto po: Buser 1974, 11 ss; Pleničar in Premru 1977, 11 ss; Buser 1979, 12 ss; Premru 1983, 10 ss; Bukovac et al.
Fig. 1&. Age of geological formations (Source: Basic Geological Map of Slovenia 1:100 000 © Geological Survey of Slovenia, 2003). Sl. 16: Geološka starost formacij (vir: Osnovna geološka karta Slovenije 1:100.000, © Geološki zavod Slovenije, 2003).
-	the rocks and processes of weathering that determine the composition of the soil;
-	the occurrences of metal ores such as iron, copper and lead.
4.2.1. FORMATION AND ROCK COMPOSITION113
The hilly parts of Dolenjska enable a good over-
113 Taken from: Buser 1974, 11 ff; Pleničar and Premru 1977,
11 ff; Buser 1979, 12 ff; Premru 1983, 10 ff; Bukovac et al. 1984, 13 ff; Buser 1984, 26 ff; Ramovš 1987; Buser/Ramovš/ Drovenik/Pleničar 1989, 195 ff.
prekrita z enoličnimi sedimenti iz najmlajših geoloških dob (sl. 16). Kamninska sestava je dokaj raznolika (sl. 17).
Iz starejših geoloških dob je na površju le malo plasti. Najstarejše, iz zgornjega karbona, spodnjega in srednjega perma, nastopajo na severnem delu pokrajine. Iz-danjajo v dveh večjih vzporednih pasovih v Posavskih gubah. Tvorijo jih skrilavi glinavci, kremenovi peščenjaki in kremenovi konglomerati.
V spodnjem triasu so se odlagali predvsem sedimenti plitvega morja: meljevec, peščenjak, dolomit, apnenec in lapor z vložki oolitnega apnenca. V srednjem
1984, 13 ss; Buser 1984, 26 ss; Ramovš 1987; Buser/Ramovš/ Drovenik/Pleničar 1989, 195 ss.
Fig. 17: Lithostratigraphic structure of geological formations (Source: Basic Geological Map of Slovenia 1:100 000 © Geological Survey of Slovenia, 2003).
Sl. 17: Kameninska zgradba geoloških formacij (vir: Osnovna geološka karta Slovenije 1:100.000 © Geološki zavod RS, 2003).
view of the rock base, which in the plains is covered by uniform sediments from the latest geological periods (fig. 16). The rock composition is rather varied (fig. 17).
Earlier geological periods are represented by few layers on the surface. The earliest, dating from the Upper Carboniferous and Lower and Middle Permian, appear only in the northern part of the region. They crop out in two large parallel strips in the Sava folds and are composed of claystones, sandstones, siltstones and conglomerates.
The predominant deposition in the Lower Triassic was that of the shallow marine sediments: siltstone, sandstone, dolomite, limestone and marl with interlayers of oolite limestone. The Middle Triassic period witnessed
triasu je prišlo do močnejših tektonskih premikanj (dvigovanja in spuščanja obsežnih delov zemeljske skorje) in diferenciacije sedimentacijskih prostorov. Takrat je bilo vulkansko delovanje na ozemlju današnje Slovenije najmočnejše. Na severovzhodu pokrajine so se odložile magmatske kamnine: keratofir, porfir, diabaz in njihovi tufi. Drugod je nastajal dolomit, apnenec z roženci, glina-vec, lapor in tuf.
V juri sta v Sloveniji potekali globljemorska (apnenci, roženci, glinavci), južno od nje pa plitvomorska šelfna, deloma tudi grebenska sedimentacija. Največ je grebenskih in oolitnih apnencev, ki se ponekod izmenjujejo z zrnatim dolomitom. Jurski skladi so razširjeni okoli Novega mesta, na Ajdovski planoti, okoli Straže,
strong tectonic movements (uplifts and subsidences of vast parts of the earth's crust) as well as a differentiation of the sedimentation areas. The volcanic activity in the territory of present-day Slovenia reached its peak in this period. The deposition of volcanic rocks of kerato-phyre, porphyry, diabas and their tuffs occurred at the north-east of the region. Elsewhere dolomite, limestone with cherts, claystone, marl and tuff were formed.
The Jurassic in Slovenia brought about the deep marine sedimentation (limestones, cherts, claystones), while to the south of it the shallow marine shelf, partly also reefal sedimentation. Mostly the reefal and oolitic limestones were formed, which interchange with grained dolomite in places.
The palaeogeographic conditions in the Cretaceous did not alter much from those in the Jurassic period, both the deep and the shallow marine carbonate developments continued. The Lower Cretaceous layers are most extensive in Dolenjska. Limestone and dolomite prevail. The end of the Cretaceous witnessed the beginning of the orogenesis and the deposition of flysch sediments (conglomerate, sandstone, marl).
The nappe structure of the Dinarides was formed in the numerous orogenic phases of the Lower Tertiary (Pal-aeocene and Eocene). Post-orogenic (Oligocene and Miocene) sediments were deposited in the sea and occasionally also in brackish and freshwater lagoons on the western edge of the Pannonian basin. Several hundred metres thick successions of carbonate-clastic rocks are preserved from this period (marls, sandstones, in subordination also limestones). The Oligocene sediments in the Sava folds often include layers of coal. Tuffs are also frequent, since the stretching of the Pannonian basin caused a lively volcanic activity. At the end of the Tertiary, in the Pliocene, the basins of the Krško polje and the Ljubljana basin also subsided. Lakes and later marshes formed in them and layers of gravel, sand and clay were deposited.
The Alpine zone was covered by a thick ice sheet during the glacials of the Pleistocene. The gravel that deposited on the ice-free areas is difficult to be distinguished from the Pliocene gravel. The landscape of the time was similar to the present one. Rock rubble accumulated in river valleys, moors, on the fringes of the present-day lowland parts and at the terminations of torrents and streams.
The rocks that come to the surface due to erosion and denudation disintegrate, weather and dissolve. The product of weathering is a soil that is important in land cultivation and forestry.
4.2.2. TECTONIC COMPOSITION»4 (fig. 16) The area of Dolenjska and Bela krajina is divided
114
Taken from: Buser 1974, 35 ff; Pleničar and Premru 1977,
Dolenjskih Toplic, na Poljanski gori, okoli Črnomlja ter na Gorjancih.
V	kredi se paleogeografske razmere od jurske dobe niso bistveno spremenile; nadaljevala sta se globljemor-ski razvoj in plitvomorski karbonatni razvoj. Spodnje-kredne plasti imajo na Dolenjskem največji obseg. Prevladujeta v glavnem apnenec in dolomit. Na koncu krede se je začela orogeneza, odlagali so se flišni sedimenti (bazalni konglomerat, peščenjak, lapor).
V	spodnjem terciarju (paleocenu in eocenu) je v orogenih fazah nastala pokrovna zgradba Dinaridov. Postorogeni (oligocenski in miocenski) sedimenti so se odložili v morskih ter občasno brakičnih in sladkovodnih bazenih na zahodnem robu Panonskega bazena. Iz tega časa so ohranjena do več sto metrov debela zaporedja karbonatno-klastičnih kamnin (laporjev, peščenjakov, podrejeno tudi apnencev). V oligocenskih sedi-mentih so v Posavskih gubah pogoste premoške plasti. Precej je tudi tufov, ker je bilo zaradi raztezanja Panonskega bazena živahno vulkansko delovanje. Na koncu terciarja, v pliocenu, sta se pogreznili udorni kotlini Krškega polja in Ljubljanska kotlina. V njih so nastala jezera in kasneje močvirja, usedale so se plasti proda, peska in gline.
V	pleistocenu je bil alpski svet v glacialih pod debelo ledeno odejo, na nepoledenelem ozemlju pa se je odlagal prod, ki ga je težko ločiti od pliocenskega, ker sta si podobna. Takratna pokrajina je bila podobna današnji. Kamninski drobir se je nabiral v rečnih dolinah, barjih, na obrobju današnjih nižinskih delov, ob izteku hudournikov in potokov.
V	današnji dobi se usedajo različni sedimenti v rekah, jezerih, po dolinah in drugje po zemeljskem površju. Kamnine, ki pridejo zaradi erozije in denudacije na površje, razpadajo, preperevajo in se raztapljajo. Produkt preperevanja kamnine so tla, ki so pomembna za poljedelstvo in gozdarstvo.
4.2.2. TEKTONSKA ZGRADBA114 (sl. 16)
Območje Dolenjske in Bele krajine delimo na Zunanje Dinaride, zgrajene iz plitvovodnih karbonatov, in Notranje Dinaride, za katere so značilni globljemorski razvoji jure in krede. Prvotno so imele narivne strukture v obeh enotah dinarsko smer severozahod-jugovzhod, ki pa je na severu danes zabrisana zaradi poznejših tektonskih premikov. Ozemlje ob srednjem toku Save (pretežno Notranji Dinaridi in terciarne kamnine Panonskega bazena) je bilo namreč po miocenu močno nagubano. Ta pas nagubanih kamenin imenujemo Posavske gube. Na obravnavanem ozemlju je več mlado-
114 Povzeto po: Buser 1974, 35 ss; Pleničar in Premru 1977, 35 ss; Buser 1979, 41 ss; Premru 1983, 35 ss; Bukovac et al. 1984, 37 ss; Placer 1995, 156 s; Id. 1998, 223 ss; Id. 1999, 214 s.
into External Dinarides, composed of shallow-water carbonates, and Internal Dinarides. The latter are characterized by deep marine developments of the Jurassic and the Cretaceous. Originally, the thrust structures had the Dinaric north-west to south-east direction in both units, which is now blurred in the north due to later tectonic movements. The area along the middle reaches of the Sava was heavily folded after the Miocene. This belt of folded rocks is known as the Sava folds. The area under investigation has several young tectonic subsidences, such as the Ljubljana, Straža, Krško and Črnomelj subsidences.
The western part of the region belongs to the External Dinarides, which includes the Dolenjska-Notranjska sheets. They are characterized by block faulting as well as the Dinaric direction of fold and fault axes that run in a north-west - south-easterly direction. One of the longest and most distinct faults runs along the upper reaches of the Krka past Žužemberk to the south-east to Črnomelj and represents a distinct geological and morphologic border. The horst of the Gorjanci can be found in the south-east of the area and belongs to the transition zone between the Inner and External Dinarides.
The Sava folds are characterized by a west-easterly direction. The borders of the Sava folds are not sharp, they reach to the Ljubljana basin in the west, to Medved-nica and Kalnik in the east, to the Kamnik-Savinja Alps and the eastern extension of the Karavanke in the north, while in the south they gradually disappear in the External Dinarides south of the Sava. The tectonic subsidences appeared during the Pliocene and the Quarter-nary. The Ljubljana and the Krško subsidences are not yet fully formed, as shown by the occasional strong seismic activity and warm springs in the Brežice area, which spring up at the fault-line underneath the Gorjanci. The Črnomelj subsidence is also a young subsided area.
The tectonic composition influenced the present geomorphologic appearance of the landscape, which the surface waters and other natural processes have shaped into a landscape of numerous elevations and valleys as well as natural passes.
4.2.3. MINERAL RAW MATERIAL»5 (fig. 18) Iron
Iron ore once played an important role in the region. It was extracted mostly from the Plio-Quarternary red clay, in which it appears in the form of either big or small concretions or geodes. These concretions are usually hollow in the centre, while the crust is composed of
35 ff; Buser 1979, 41 ff; Premru 1983, 35 ff; Bukovac et al. 1984, 37 ff; Placer 1995, 156 f; Id. 1998, 223 ff; Id. 1999, 214 f.
115 Taken from: Buser 1974, 42 ff; Pleničar in Premru 1977, 40 ff; Buser 1979, 50 ff; Premru 1983, 49 ff; Bukovac et al. 1984, 46 ff; Drovenik/ Pleničar/Drovenik 1980.
tektonskih udorin kot so Ljubljanska, Straška, Krška in Črnomaljska udorina.
Zahodni del ozemlja sodi k Zunanjim Dinaridom, kamor prištevajo dolenjsko-notranjske grude, za katere je značilna blokovska razkosanost ter dinarska smer osi gub in prelomov, ki potekajo v smeri severozahod-ju-govzhod. Eden najdaljših in najbolj izrazitih prelomov poteka ob zgornjem toku Krke mimo Žužemberka proti jugovzhodu na Črnomelj in predstavlja izrazito geološko in morfološko mejo. Na jugovzhodu ozemlja je horst Gorjancev, ki sodi v prehodno cono med Notranjimi in Zunanjimi Dinaridi.
Za Posavske gube so značilne zahodno-vzhodno usmerjene strukture. Meje Posavskih gub niso ostre, na zahodu segajo do Ljubljanske kotline, na vzhodu do Medvednice in Kalnika, na severu do Kamniško-Savinj-skih Alp in vzhodnega podaljška Karavank, na jugu pa počasi zamrejo v Zunanjih Dinaridih južno od Save. Tektonske udorine (Ljubljanska na severu, Krška na jugovzhodu ter Straška med Straško goro in Krko) so nastale zaradi ugrezanja v pliocenu in kvartarju. Oblikovanje Ljubljanske in Krške udorine še ni zaključeno, o čemer priča občasna močna seizmična aktivnost in topli izviri na območju Brežic, ki prihajajo na površje ob prelomnici pod Gorjanci. Tudi Črnomaljska udorina je mlado pogreznjeno področje.
Tektonska zgradba je prispevala svoj delež k današnjemu geomorfološkemu obličju pokrajine, ki so mu površinske vode skupaj z drugimi naravnimi procesi vtisnile svoj pečat številnih vzpetin in dolin ter naravnih prehodov.
4.2.3. MINERALNE SUROVINE115 (sl. 18) Železo
Železova ruda je imela na tem ozemlju nekoč velik pomen. Pridobivali so jo pretežno iz pliokvartarne rdeče gline, v kateri se pojavlja v obliki večjih ali manjših konk-recij oziroma geod. Te konkrecije so običajno v sredini votle, sama skorja pa je iz limonita in vsebuje precej železa. V Beli krajini je večja koncentracija takšnih limonit-nih konkrecij ugotovljena v kvartarnih sedimentih zahodno od Dragatuša. V Gorjancih nastopajo kosi limonita v rdeči glini ali jerini, ki zapolnjuje večje vrtače v zgornje-krednem in jurskem apnencu. Ležišča so pri Vodenicah in pri Ržišču nad Kostanjevico. V podobnih okoliščinah se pojavljajo tudi v Suhi krajini na prostoru med Golo-binjekom in Jordankalom, kjer vsebujejo tudi do 36% železa. Kose limonita najdemo še severno od Bučke in severozahodno od Novega mesta. V Posavskem hribovju južno od Polšnika so nekoč kopali limonit in ga topili v
115 Povzeto po: Buser 1974, 42 ss; Pleničar in Premru 1977, 40 ss; Buser 1979, 50 ss; Premru 1983, 49 ss; Bukovac et al. 1984, 46 ss; Drovenik/ Pleničar/Drovenik 1980.
Fig. 18: Metalogenetic layers and ore occurrences: ba = barite; bx = bauxite; Cu = copper; Fe = iron; Pb = lead; Zn = zinc (Source: Metalogenetic Map, Basic Geological Map of Slovenia 1:100 000 © Geological Survey of Slovenia, 2003; Lipoid 1858). Sl. 18: Metalogenetske plasti in rudni pojavi: ba = barit; bx = boksit; Cu = baker; Fe = železo; Pb = svinec; Zn = cink (vir: Metalogenetska karta, Osnovna geološka karta Slovenije 1:100.000, © Geološki zavod Slovenije, 2003; Lipold 1858).
limonite and contains a considerable amount of iron. A concentration of such limonite concretions was uncovered in Bela krajina, more precisely in the Quarternary sediments west of Dragatuš. Pieces of limonite appear in the Gorjanci, in terra rossa that fills large sinkholes in the Upper Cretaceous and Jurassic limestones. It appears in similar circumstances also in Suha krajina, where it contains up to 36% of iron. Pieces of limonite can be found north of Bučka and north-west of Novo mesto. Limonite used to be mined in the Posavsko hribovje. The ore there contains up to 40% of iron.
Traces of abandoned mining activities are visible also in the vicinity of Mokronog, where the hematite ore can be found, while psilomelane, also rich in iron, appears near Sevnica.
Pesjeku. Tamkajšnja ruda vsebuje do 40% železa. Manjši pojavi limonita so še jugovzhodno od Polšnika in severovzhodno od Gabrovke pri Spodnji Cerovici.
Sledi opuščenih rudarskih del so vidne tudi v okolici Hrastnega (severno od Mokronoga), kjer se nahaja hematitna železova ruda. Južno od Dolnjih Orel pri Sevnici pa se pojavlja psilomelan, ki je prav tako bogat z železom.
Ostala nahajališča železove rude so v preteklosti predstavljali zgornjetriasni ter jurski boksiti. Zgornjetri-asni boksit, obogaten z železovimi oksidi, so kopali pri Smrjenah blizu Pijave Gorice. V jurskih plasteh pa nastopajo "železovi" boksiti jugovzhodno od Dolenjskih Toplic, v Suhi krajini pri Sv. Ani na Mali Gori, pri Am-brusu, na Ilovi gori, Čušperku, največji izdanki pa so
Other sources of iron ore were the Upper Triassic and Jurassic bauxites. The Upper Triassic bauxite, enriched with iron oxides, was mined near Pijava Gorica. The Jurassic layers, on the other hand, include "iron" bauxites south-east of Dolenjske Toplice, in Suha krajina, while the largest outcrops can be found near Žužemberk. A large quantity of iron was placed also in the Pleistocene red bauxite clays near Črnomelj.
Copper
Copper ore beds appear in the Middle Permian layers in the area of the Litija anticline, where traces of past shafts and diggings are still visible in numerous places. The ore appears in the form of malachite, azurite and chalcopyrite minerals. Ore beds were established in the Sopota Valley, in the Litija ore deposits and north of the Sava in the vicinity of Vače.
Lead and zinc
Lead and zinc minerals are relatively frequent but not extensive. The area of the Litija anticline reveals particularly numerous ore beds with galenite (lead ore) and sphalerite (zinc ore). These minerals appear in the Litija ore deposits at Sitarjevec, which was once one of the largest in the South-Eastern Alps. They also appear in a long ore belt of the Sava folds, from Sevnica and Litija towards the west to the lead-zinc ore deposit at Pleše near Škofljica, where galenite and sphalerite appear in the Permian-Carboniferous quartz sandstone thrust onto the Upper Triassic main dolomite.
Smaller outcrops of zinc and lead ores can also be found in the Lower Triassic sediment near Mokronog, where mining was still practiced in the previous century. These reveal also high concentrations of iron.
The above-enumerated mineral deposits are nowadays without economic value and are no longer being exploited. Former mines and prospectors, that extracted mostly iron and lead but also silver, mercury and barite, have ceased operation already before the middle of the 19th century. Other mineral raw materials are of less interest here and are therefore not treated.
med Budganjo vasjo in Šmihelom pri Žužemberku. Pri Črnomlju je bila v erozijskih krpah v okolici Knežine, Zorencev, Hrasta in Perudine ugotovljena večja množina železa v pleistocenskih rdečih boksitnih glinah.
Baker
Bakrova orudenja se pojavljajo v srednjepermskih skladih na območju litijske antiklinale med Podkumom in Jatno, kjer so na številnih mestih vidni sledovi rovov in razkopov iz preteklosti. Ruda nastopa v obliki mala-hitnih, azuritnih in halkopiritnih mineralov. Orudenit-ve so bile ugotovljene pri Podkumu, v dolini Sopote, na Magolniku, pri Močilnem, pri Budni vasi in Svibnem. Pojavljajo se tudi v litijskem rudišču in severno od Save, pri Cirkušah in Tolstem vrhu blizu Vač.
Svinec in cink
Orudenja s svincem in cinkom so razmeroma številna, vendar po obsegu niso velika. Na območju litijske antiklinale so zlasti številna orudenja z galenitom (svinčevo rudo) in sfaleritom (cinkovo rudo). Ti rudni minerali nastopajo v litijskem rudišču Sitarjevec, ki je nekdaj sodilo med največje v jugovzhodnih Alpah. Vsebujejo jih tudi manjša rudišča v dolgemu rudnemu pasu Posavskih gub, ki sega od Sevnice preko Litije proti zahodu vse do svinčevo-cinkovega rudišča Pleše pri Škofljici, kjer nastopata galenit in sfalerit v permokarbonskem kreme-novem peščenjaku, ki je narinjen na zgornjetriasni glavni dolomit.
Manjši površinski pojavi cinkove in svinčeve rude se pojavljajo tudi v spodnjetriasnih kameninah pod Škov-cem južno od Tržišča ter v Ajdovskih jamah pri Mokronogu, kjer so rudarili še v preteklem stoletju. V njih je zaslediti tudi povečano koncentracijo železa.
Rudišča naštetih mineralnih surovin danes nimajo ekonomske vrednosti in jih zato ne izkoriščajo več. Nekdanji rudniki in rudosledi, kjer so pridobivali večinoma železo in svinec, pa tudi srebro, živo srebro in barit, so propadli že do sredine 19. stoletja. Druge mineralne surovine so za nas manj zanimive, zato jih bomo izpustili iz našega prikaza.
4.3. RELIEF
4.3. RELIEF
Different rocks indicate also a different morpho-genetic development and forms that depend on the composition, characteristics and position of rocks, whereby also the tectonic predisposition and climatic conditions are of importance.
The main characteristic of the relief of south-eastern Slovenia is that it allows easy passage from the valley and ridge relief in the north, south and south-east (fig. 19)."6 The karst includes a large part of the area between
Različne kamnine narekujejo tudi različen morfo-genetski razvoj in oblike, ki so odvisne od sestave, značaja in položaja kamnin, pri čemer je pomembna tudi tektonska predisponiranost in klimatske razmere.
Osnovna reliefna značilnost jugovzhodne Slovenije je prehodnost iz dolinasto slemenastega reliefa na severu in severovzhodu v planotast kras na jugu in jugozahodu (sl. 19).116 Kras zajema velik del ozemlja med Savo in Kolpo in predstavlja poseben kompleks speci-
116
Gams 1984, 7 ff; Šifrer 1984, 38 ff; Perko et al. 2001.
116
Gams 1984, 7 ss; Šifrer 1984, 38 ss; Perko et al. 2001.
Fig. 19: Relief and main streams. Sl. 19: Relief in glavni vodotoki.
the Sava and the Kolpa and represents a particular complex of specific morphological and hydrographic phenomena, where the water represents the basic factor in relief formation. Dolenjska and Bela krajina have the Dinaric and the isolated karst. The alpine karst can be found in the Gorjanci and the shallow karst in Suha krajina, in the Novo mesto basin and in Bela krajina, while the isolated karst has developed in the Krško gričevje and at the foot of the Gorjanci. The series of dry valleys, sink holes, dols and uvalas mostly coincide with the positions of the main faults.117 The karst relief of Dolenjska and Bela krajina includes numerous caves
fičnih morfoloških in hidrografskih pojavov, kjer je voda osnovni dejavnik pri oblikovanju reliefa. Na Dolenjskem in v Beli krajini nastopata dinarski in osamljeni kras. Visoki kras je zastopan v Gorjancih, nizki pa v Suhi krajini, v Novomeški kotlini in v Beli krajini, medtem ko je osamljeni kras razvit v Krškem gričevju ter v vznožju Gorjancev. Nizi suhih dolin, vrtač, dolov in uval se v glavnem skladajo z razporeditvijo poglavitnih pre-lomov.117 V kraškem reliefu Dolenjske in Bele krajine so številne jame (sl. 20). Doslej je bilo na tem področju registriranih okoli tisoč jam. Večinoma so suhe, med
117
Kranjc 1984, 67 ff; Habič 1984, 57 ff; Šifrer 1984, 42.
117
Kranjc 1984, 67 ss; Habič 1984, 57 ss; Šifrer 1984, 42.
Fig. 20: Caves in relation to the lithostratigraphic structures (Source: Cadastre of caves © Speleological Association of Slovenia; Basic Geological Map of Slovenia 1:100.000, © Geological Survey of Slovenia, 2003).
Sl. 20: Jame ter litološka osnova (vir: Kataster jam © Jamarska zveza Slovenije; Osnovna geološka karta Slovenije 1:100.000 © Geološki zavod Slovenije, 2003).
(fig. 20). So far, approximately a thousand caves have been registered in the area. Most are dry and the majority of these are abysses. Water active caves are in a minority and can be found at lower altitudes.118
The relief reaches the highest elevations in the north,where it exceeds 1000 m and then slowly descends towards the south to the Gorjanci and falls to its lowest point (just above 100 m) in the Krška ravan. Almost half of the surface lies in a belt between 200 and 400 m above sea level (fig. 21).
njimi pa največji delež pripada breznom. Vodne jame so v manjšini in ležijo na nižjih nadmorskih višinah.118
Najvišji je relief na severu pokrajine, kjer z vrhovi seže tudi prek 1000 m, nato pa se proti jugu do Gorjancev zlagoma niža in doseže najnižjo točko (nekaj nad 100 m) na Krški ravni. Skoraj polovica površja leži v pasu med 200 in 400 m nadmorske višine (sl. 21).
V Posavskem hribovju je relief močno naguban, tvori ga vrsta podolžnih slemen in vmesnih podolij. Dominira rečni relief, ki ga je voda postopoma z globin-
118
Kranjc 1984, 67 ff.
118
Kranjc 1984, 67 ss.
1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0.1% 0.2% .7% 2% 3%
>45'
1
0.1%
5%
30-44.9 "l 2% 20-29.9°^HZ 12-19.9°| 6-11.90|
9.5%
24.4%
29.5%
16%
23% 22%
2-5.9°
22%
0-1.9°|
19%
12.5%
%
0
10 15 20 25
0
10 20
30 40
Fig. 21'. Representation of relief altitudes and inclinations (Source: Perko et al. 2001). Sl. 21: Zastopanost višinskih pasov in naklonskih razredov (Vir: Perko et al. 2001).
The relief in the Posavsko hribovje is strongly folded, it is composed of a series of longitudinal ridges and intermediate valleys and basins. River relief predominates, gradually but deeply cut and eroded by waters. The slopes, formed by rinsing as well as by creeps and slides, mostly have a gradient between 12 and 300. Most of the Posavsko hribovje lies between 300 and 600 m above sea level with individual peaks rising above 1000 m. The highest peak is Kum (1216 m) in the northwest, which offers a view over the entire area from the Alps and the Pohorje to the Gorjanci and the Kočevski rog.119 The area of the mountain chain of the Mala gora, the Kočevski rog and the Poljanska gora is composed of several relief units with distinct karst features. Dome-like peaks of the high karst plateaus rise above valleys and depressions, dry valleys and uvalas. Most of the territory lies at altitudes between 300 and 900 m; the lowest point of the relief is beside the Kolpa River (167 m) and the highest on Visoki Rog (1099 m). As much as two thirds of the territory belongs to the gradient class of 6 to 200.120 The transition of the previously mentioned area to the Posavsko hribovje is marked by the fluviokarst zone of the Dolenjsko podolje. This terrain between the Grosuplje basin and central Dolenjska is tectonically diversely uplifted and broken. Some of the rivers and streams in the Dolenjsko podolje made pocket valleys at their springs and blind valleys where they disappeared underground.
119	Perko et al. 2001, 179 ff.
120	Ib., 437 ff.
sko in bočno erozijo močno razrezala. Pobočja, izoblikovana s spiranjem in polzenjem ter naglimi zdrsi, imajo največ naklonov med 12 in 300. Večina hribovja leži v višinskem pasu med 300 in 600 m in le posamezni vrhovi segajo čez 1000 m. Najvišji vrh je Kum (1216 m) na severovzhodu, od koder zaobjame pogled v jasnem vremenu celotno pokrajino od Alp in Pohorja do Gorjancev in Kočevskega roga.119
Področje Male gore, Kočevskega roga in Poljanske gore sestavlja več reliefnih enot, ki imajo izrazite kraške poteze. Nad podolji, suhimi dolinami in uvalami se pnejo kopasti vrhovi visokih kraških planot. Večina ozemlja leži v višinskem pasu med 300 in 900 m; najnižjo točko pa relief doseže ob reki Kolpi (167 m), medtem ko se najvišje povzpne na Visokem Rogu (1099 m). Kar dve tretjini pokrajine spadata v naklonski razred od 6 do 200.120
Na prehodu v Posavsko hribovje leži fluviokraški svet Dolenjskega podolja. To območje med Grosupeljsko kotlino in osrednjo Dolenjsko je tektonsko različno dvignjeno in razlomljeno. V Dolenjskem podolju so nekateri vodotoki ob izvirih izdelali zatrepne doline, na območjih ponikanja pa slepe doline, ki so lahko prehodne in potekajo po dinarskih prelomnicah. Dve tretjini pokrajine leži med 300 in 400 m nadmorske višine in skoraj tri četrtine ozemlja ima naklon manjši od 120. Glavna značilnost Dolenjskega podolja je naravna prehodnost.121
119	Perko et al. 2001, 179 ss.
120	Ib., 437 ss.
121	Ib., 463 ss.
The latter are easily passable and run along the Dinaric fault-lines. Two thirds of the area lies between 300 and 400 m above sea level and almost three quarters has a gradient of less than 120. The main characteristic of the Dolenjsko podolje is its natural passable character.121
Suha krajina has a very varied karst landscape. Most of it lies between 200 and 500 m above sea level, half of it below 400 m. Only the highest peaks rise slightly above 700 m. The average gradient is 90, but is in reality much higher due to the strongly undulated relief. Western Suha krajina is composed of a series of ridges and dols or uvalas running in the Dinaric direction, while eastern Suha Krajina is represented by an approximately 300 m high plateau, interrupted by individual karst depressions.122
The Raduljsko hribovje also has a predominately karst surface with individual deeply carved valleys and steep slopes with a gradient between 12 to 200. The average altitude is 374 m above sea level. The two highest points are around 600 m high and the lowest point (179 m) is where the Laknica Stream flows out of the hills. The characteristic of the Raduljsko hribovje is in the big differences in altitudes between the rounded tops of the ridges and the valleys that at times exceed 300 m. The biggest differences can be seen in the north-western part. The area is flat only in the Mirna-Mokronog sinking basin with gradients of less than 20.123
Slightly smaller differences in relative altitude can be observed in the Novo mesto area, which lies mostly between 200 and 300 m above sea level. The area has the character of a basin, since it is surrounded on all sides - except for the north-east - by high ridges and plateaus. The relief was formed mostly by the activities in the Upper Pliocene and in Pleistocene, which interrupted the alluviation by deep erosion, as indicated by the accumulation terraces along the Krka.124
The Krško gričevje represent a highly folded area with faults and ridges of the Alpine direction, running east to west. Dols and small dry valleys are distributed on both sides of the central ridge. The average altitude is 294 m above sea level and the average gradient 120. The highest point of the hills is at Veliki vrh (540 m) and the lowest (152 m) is where the Sava enters the Krška ravan.125
The Krška ravan is a plain with the lowest average altitude in Slovenia (161 m). With the exception of the upper part of the Šentjernejsko polje, the entire plain lies between 100 and 200 m above sea level. Three quarters of its surface is flat with a gradient under 20.126
The terrain rises steeply on the southern border of the Krška ravan into the Gorjanci, which is a group of
121	Ib., 463 ff.
122	Ib., 474.
123	Ib., 510.
124	Šifrer 1984, 42; Perko et al. 2001, 522.
125	Perko et al. 2001, 553 ff.
126	Ib., 666.
Suha krajina ima zelo razčlenjeno kraško površje, večinoma na višini med 200 in 500 m; od tega kar polovica površja leži pod 400 m. Le najvišji vrhovi sežejo nekaj nad 700 m. Povprečni naklon je 90, dejansko pa je zaradi drobne razčlenjenosti strmejši. Zahodno Suho krajino tvori niz dinarsko usmerjenih hrbtov in vmesnih dolov oziroma uval, vzhodno pa predstavlja okoli 300 m visok planotast svet, ki ga prekinjajo večje posamične kraške globeli.122
Tudi Raduljsko hribovje ima pretežno kraško površje, v katerega so ponekod globoko zajedene doline s strmimi pobočji med 12 in 200. Povprečna nadmorska višina znaša 374 m, najvišji točki merita okoli 600 m, najnižje (179 m) pa se Raduljsko hribovje spusti tam, kjer ga zapušča potok Laknica. Sicer pa so za Raduljsko hribovje značilne velike višinske razlike med temeni slemen in dolinami, ki ponekod presegajo 300 m. Največje razlike nastopajo na severozahodnem delu hribovja. Raven svet se širi le po Mirnsko-Mokronoški ugrezajoči se kotlini, kjer so nakloni manjši od 20.123
Manjše višinske razlike med dnom dolin in robnimi slemeni so v Novomeški pokrajini, kjer večina ozemlja leži med 200 in 300 m nadmorske višine. Pokrajina ima kotlinast značaj, saj jo z vseh strani - razen na severovzhodu - obrobljajo višja slemena in planote. Tukajšnji relief so izoblikovala predvsem dogajanja v zgornjem pliocenu in pleistocenu, ki so z globinsko erozijo večkrat prekinila nasipavanja, kar kažejo akumulacijske terase ob Krki.124
Krško gričevje predstavlja močno nagubano področje s prelomi in slemeni alpske smeri, ki potekajo od vzhoda proti zahodu. Na obeh straneh osrednjega slemena so razvrščeni doli in suhe dolinice, ki so posledica kraškega razčlenjevanja prvotnih površinskih oblik. Povprečna nadmorska višina znaša 294 m, povprečen naklon pa 120. Najvišjo točko doseže Krško gričevje v Velikem vrhu (540 m), najnižjo (152 m) pa tam, kjer Sava vstopa na Krško ravan.125
Krška ravan ima najnižjo povprečno nadmorsko višino (161 m) v Sloveniji. Razen zgornjega dela Šentjer-nejskega polja leži vsa v pasu med 100 in 200 m nadmorske višine. Kar tri četrtine površja je ravnega z naklonom pod 20.126
Na njenem južnem obodu se strmo dvigajo Gorjanci, ki predstavljajo razmeroma visoko hribovje. Povprečna nadmorska višina znaša 470 m, najvišje pa sežejo na zahodnem delu, kjer se planotast svet v višinah med 800 in 950 m nadaljuje proti vzhodu v najvišjo točko Gorjancev (Trdinov vrh - 1178 m), nato pa se postopno znižujejo v Prigorjanske gorice. Povprečni naklon zna-
122	Ib., 474.
123	Ib., 510.
124	Šifrer 1984, 42; Perko et al. 2001, 522.
125	Perko et al. 2001, 553 ss.
126	Ib., 666.
relatively high hills. Their average altitude is 470 m above sea level, reaching highest in the western part, where the plateaus between 800 and 950 m continue to the east into the highest point of the Gorjanci (Trdinov vrh - 1178 m) and then gradually fall into the Prigorjanske gorice. The average gradient is 140 with the steepest slopes between 30 and 450, while the gentlest lie in the flattened summit area of the Gorjanci between 800 and 1000 m above sea level.127
The peneplain of Bela krajina lies at 160 to 200 m above sea level. To the north, it reaches to the foot of the Gorjanci, which represent the relief barrier to the west together with the Kočevski rog and the Poljanska gora. The gradients in the peneplain predominantly measure up to 60.128
The relief of south-eastern Slovenia offers advantageous natural conditions for transport from central Slovenia to the middle Danube basin, while the communication with the northern Adriatic has always been obstructed by the high Dinaric karst edge.
The most favorable natural connections run along the tectonic fault-lines and river valleys in north-westerly and south-easterly directions. The easiest and shortest passage from the Ljubljana basin to the Kolpa Valley is in the westernmost part along the upper Krka Valley and further along the Črmošnjica Valley, which also provides a smooth passage to the centre of Bela krajina. The easiest and shortest connection between the Ljubljansko barje and the area of Novo mesto runs more to the east, across the Dolenjsko podolje. The biggest obstacle on this route is the Peščenik Pass near Višnja gora (440 m). This area is connected to Bela krajina to the south of Novo mesto, on the transition from the hilly area of the Gorjanci via the Vahta Pass (615 m) to the Kolpa plain. At the eastern fringes of the Raduljsko hribovje, the Laknica Valley created an advantageous connection between the Mirna Valley and the Krka.
The otherwise hardly passable Posavsko hribovje is traversed from west to east by the Sava Valley, which represented an important communication line that ran along the Sava River in the past.129
The Sopota and Mirna Valleys also run in a west-easterly direction. The Mirna Valley represents a natural passage from the Dolenjsko podolje to the Sava Valley near Sevnica. A natural route continues from the Dolenjsko podolje along the Višnjica Stream to the upper reaches of the Krka. Further to the north, the Temenica Valley is traversed by a route that leads from Suha krajina into the Mirna Valley. The area of the easiest passage in a west-easterly direction, however, is the Novo mesto area and the Krška ravan that open up the area along the Krka to the east towards the Sava and
127	Ib., 500 f.
128	Ib., 485 ff.
129	Ib., 189 ff.
ša 140, najbolj strma pobočja imajo naklon med 30 in 450, najmanjša pa so na uravnanem ovršju Gorjancev na nadmorskih višinah med 800 in 1000 m.127
Nizki kras predstavlja belokranjski ravnik, ki se širi v osrednjem delu pokrajine na nadmorskih višinah med 160 in 200 m. Na severu sega do obronkov Gorjancev, ki predstavljajo skupaj s Kočevskim rogom in Poljansko goro na zahodu reliefno pregrado. Na nizkem kraškem ravniku prevladujejo nakloni do 60.128
Relief jugovzhodne Slovenije nudi ugodne naravne pogoje za tranzit iz osrednje Slovenije v srednje Po-donavje, medtem ko je prehod do severnega Jadranskega morja vseskozi oviral visoki dinarski kraški rob.
Najugodnejše naravne povezave potekajo po tektonskih prelomnicah ter rečnih dolinah v severozahod-no-jugovzhodnih smereh. Na skrajnem zahodnem delu ozemlja je najlažji in najkrajši prehod iz Ljubljanske kotline v Pokolpje po zgornji Krški dolini, ki se nadaljuje v dolino Črmošnjice in omogoča udoben prehod v središče Bele krajine. Vzhodneje poteka najlažja in najkrajša naravna povezava med Ljubljanskim barjem in Novomeško pokrajino po Dolenjskem podolju, ki vodi skozi Grosupeljsko in Šentviško kotlino ter dolino Temenice. Največja ovira na tej poti je preval Peščenik pri Višnji gori (440 m). Južno od Novega mesta se na prehodu iz gričevnatega gorjanskega sveta v obkolpsko ravnico prek prevala Vahte (615 m), nanjo navezuje Bela krajina. Na vzhodnem obrobju Raduljskega hribovja je dolina Laknice ustvarila ugodno vez med dolino Mirne in Krko.
Od zahoda proti vzhodu seka sicer težko prehodno Posavsko hribovje savska dolina, kjer je v preteklosti potekala pomembna prometna pot po reki Savi.129
Zahodno-vzhodno usmeritev imata tudi dolini So-pote in Mirne. Dolina Mirne predstavlja ugoden prehod med Dolenjskim podoljem in savsko dolino pri Sevnici. Iz Dolenjskega podolja poteka ob Višnjici naravna pot k zgornjemu toku Krke. Naprej proti jugu prečka dolino Temenice povezava, ki vodi iz Suhe krajine v dolino Mirne. Najlažje prehodni pokrajini v zahodno-vzhodni smeri pa sta Novomeška pokrajina in Krška ravan, ki odpirata prostor ob Krki na vzhod proti Savi in naprej v Podonavje. Nasprotno pa je dolina zgornje Kolpe zaprta in prometno izolirana, čeprav njeno povir-je sega v zaledje Jadranskega morja, od katerega je oddaljeno le kakih 15 km.130
4.4. REČNA MREŽA IN VODNI VIRI
Tako kot z drugimi naravnimi viri, tudi z vodo narava ni povsod enako radodarna. Na splošno je hidrograf-
127	Ib., 500 s.
128	Ib., 485 ss.
129	Ib., 189 ss.
130	Gams 1984, 7 ss; Šifrer 1984, 38 ss; Perko et al. 2001.
further into the Danube basin. The upper Kolpa Valley, on the other hand, is closed and devoid of traffic in spite of the fact that its headwaters reach the hinterland of the Adriatic and that the valley is separated from the Adriatic itself by no more than 15 km.130
4.4. HYDROGRAPHY AND WATER SOURCES
Similarly to other natural resources, water is also not equally plentiful in all areas. In general, the hydro-graphic network in Dolenjska and Bela krajina is rather dense but unevenly distributed. All the watercourses, including the Krka and the Kolpa, belong to the Sava catchment (fig. 22).
4.4.1. MAIN WATERCOURSES
The Sava
The largest river in the region is the Sava that connects the Alpine zone with the Pannonian basin. This rapid river, the most water-abundant in Slovenia, carries with it also rough transport material. The river cut a deep bed through the Posavsko hribovje; its valley floor is relatively narrow and appears as a real gorge at places. The riverbed is filled with gravel or rocks and sharp reefs, causing the navigation to be dangerous at places. Near Krško, where the river leaves the Sub-Alpine hills, it deposits its gravely load and continues its course on the alluvia deposited onto the Krška ravan. It is characterized by a snow-rain regime and a great water level oscillation. The lowest water level is in summer and the highest in spring and autumn, when the river often spills over the fields at Krško and Brežice. There, numerous river branches were formed in the past.131 The river once represented an important long-distance navigable way. Large cargo ships sailed even in the first half of the 18th century, pulled against the current by yoked oxen. Numerous ferry stations developed along it. River traffic stopped only with the construction of the Southern Railway.132
The Krka
The Krka represents in the consciousness of the local people one of those geographic markers with which they identify the landscape of Dolenjska. It is a calm karst river that flows into the Sava. Its course as well as the surrounding landscape changes drastically twice: at the transition into the Novo mesto area and at the entry into the Kostanjevica basin. Its course in the upper reach-
130	Gams 1984, 7 ff; Šifrer 1984, 38 ff; Perko et al. 2001.
131	Bricelj 1991.
132	Umek 1999a, 263 ff; Umek 1999b, 271 ff.
ska mreža na Dolenjskem in v Beli krajini dokaj gosta, vendar neenakomerno razpredena. Vsi vodotoki, skupaj s Krko in Kolpo, spadajo v porečje Save (sl. 22).
4.4.1. GLAVNI VODOTOKI
Sava
Največja reka na tem področju je Sava, ki povezuje alpski svet s Panonsko nižino. Je deroča in najbolj vod-nata slovenska reka, ki nosi s seboj tudi grob transportni material. V Posavskem hribovju si je z erozijo vrezala globoko strugo, njeno dolinsko dno je razmeroma ozko in mestoma daje videz prave soteske. Rečna struga je prodnata ali skalna, z ostrimi čermi, zato je na nekaterih krajih plovba po njej nevarna. Pri Krškem, kjer reka zapušča predalpsko hribovje, odlaga svoj prodnati tovor; tok nadaljuje po aluvialnih nasutinah, ki jih je nanesla na Krško ravan. Zanjo je značilen snežno-dežni režim in veliko nihanje v pretoku. Najmanjši letni vodostaj ima v poletnih mesecih, največjega pa spomladi in jeseni, ko se rada razlije po krških in brežiških poljih, kjer je v preteklosti oblikovala več rečnih rokavov.131 Nekdaj je predstavljala pomembno plovno pot na daljše razdalje. Še v prvi polovici 18. stoletja so po njej pluli večji tovorni čolni, ki so jih proti toku vlekli z volovskimi vpregami. Ob njej so se razvile številne brodarske postaje. Rečni promet je zamrl šele z izgradnjo Južne železnice.132
Krka
Krka je v zavesti današnjih ljudi eden tistih geografskih označevalcev, s katerim istovetijo dolenjsko pokrajino. To je mirna kraška reka, ki se po 92,3 km izlije v Savo. Njen tok se hkrati z okoliško pokrajino dvakrat bistveno spremeni: na prehodu v Novomeško pokrajino in potem še enkrat ob vstopu v Kostanjeviško kotlino. V zgornjem toku ji smer narekuje dinarski jarek, pri Soteski pa se preusmeri na vzhod. Na začetku je njena struga razmeroma plitva, izjedena v apnenčevih skladih; navzdol pa je stisnjena v globokem kanjonu, kjer ji edinstveno podobo dajejo lehnjakovi pragovi in pregrade, za katerimi se voda poglobi in zastaja, nato pa v slapovih in brzicah odhiti naprej. V zgornjem toku je njen strmec večji, v Kostanjeviški kotlini pa se poleni in se na Krškem polju pred savskim prodnim nasipom počasi zaustavlja. Vodnatost Krke je najmanjša v zgornjem delu, kjer reže Suho krajino, saj tam ni površinskih voda. V Novomeški pokrajini pridobi nekaj vode iz kratkih pritokov, medtem ko jo v spodnjem delu napajajo številni potoki s Krškega gričevja in Gorjancev.133 Nižje od Novega mesta postaja Krka vse bolj pluvio-nivalna reka, kjer je njen vodostaj v veliki meri odvisen od padavin-
131	Bricelj 1991.
132	Umek 1999a, 263 ss; Umek 1999b, 271 ss.
133	Gams 1962c, 92 ss.
Fig. 22: Hydrographie network. Sl. 22: Hidrografska mreža.
es is directed by the Dinaric graben, which turns eastwards at Soteska.
Its bed is at first relatively shallow and cut into limestone deposits. Downriver, it is squeezed in a deep canyon where it gains its unique appearance due to the tufa rises and barriers, behind which the waters become deeper and still, only to quickly flow forward through waterfalls and rapids. Its gradient is steep at the upper reaches, yet it becomes gentler in the Kostanjevica basin and finally evens out at the Krško polje before the gravel dam of the Sava. The Krka contains least water in its upper reaches where it cuts through Suha krajina, since there are no surface waters there. The short tributaries that flow into the Krka in the Novo mesto area
skega režima. Ta je največji spomladi in v jeseni, najmanjši pa v poletnih mesecih. Visoke vode pogosto povzročajo povodnji. Prvi poplavni pas se začne med Sotesko in Meniško vasjo, zato so tam njive umaknjene v breg ali na višje terase, poplavno področje pa pripada travnikom. Drugo poplavno področje se širi ob spodnji Temenici oz. Prečni, ki tudi rada poplavlja in zamočvir-ja, saj ob izdatnejših padavinah bližnji požiralniki ne zmorejo pogoltniti vse vode. Nižje od Kronovega, kjer Krka stopi z apnenčastih tal na terciarne in kvartarne sedimente, se prične strnjeno poplavno ozemlje, ki seže tja do Krškega. Poplavni pas se najbolj razširi med Belo Cerkvijo in Kostanjevico, kjer se voda na poljih zaradi nepropustnih tal lahko zadržuje na površju kar tri ted-
provide some water, though much more water is brought in by the numerous streams from the Krško gričevje and the Gorjanci in the lower reaches.133 Downstream from Novo mesto, the Krka becomes an increasingly rain-snow river with its water level predominantly dependent on precipitation. This is highest in spring and autumn and lowest in the summer months. High waters often cause floodings. The first flood belt begins between Soteska and Meniška vas, wherefore the fields are removed to the slope or the terraces and the floodplain is covered by grassland. The second flood belt extends along the lower Temenica or the Prečna Stream, which is also prone to inundation and bogs, since the swallow-holes cannot take all the water during heavy precipitation. Downstream from Kronovo, where the Krka passes from limestone to Tertiary and Quaternary sediments, begins the compact flood area that extends to Krško. The flood belt is widest between Bela Cerkev and Kostanjevica, where the water can stay on the surface up to three weeks due to the impermeability of the floor. The Krka inundates several times, as many as ten or more, per year. The area of the Šentjernejsko polje and the Krakovski gozd, on the other hand, can be marshy even without the floods of the Krka. Here we find extensive marshy forests and less valuable grassland for horse fodder.134 The lower reaches of the river are navigable by boat during middle water levels and from Novo mesto downwards also by small cargo ships. The Krka is also one of the most fish-abundant rivers in Slovenia.135
The Mirna
The Mirna River springs at the south-western fringes of the Kumljansko pogorje and enters the wide Mir-na-Mokronog Valley at the town of Mirna, where it has deposited a thick loamy-clayey alluvium. It continues its 44 km long route in a gully through the Krško gričevje and flows into the Sava at Sevnica. It receives water from the streams from the north-western part of the Krško gričevje. It has a relatively fast water flow and a rain-snow regime with highs in March and December and lows in August. The surrounding terrain is humid, grassed and uninhabited due to frequent flooding. Temperature inversion usually causes the fog.136
The Kolpa
The catchment of the Kolpa River lies at the point of transition from the Dinaric to the Pannonian zone. The river flows in a characteristic Dinaric direction to Marindol, whereupon it makes a sharp bend and continues its route northwards to Metlika. Its headwaters are separated from the Adriatic by only 15 km, which is
ne. Krka poplavlja večkrat letno, tudi do deset krat in več. Področje Šentjernejskega polja in Krakovskega gozda pa je zamočvirjeno tudi takrat, ko Krka ne poplavlja. Zato so tu obsežni močvirni gozdovi in manjvredni travniki za konjsko krmo.134 Pri srednji višini vode je možno v zgornjem toku čolnariti, od Novega mesta navzdol pa že lahko plujejo po njej male tovorne ladje. Krka je tudi ena najbogatejših slovenskih rek z ribami.135
Mirna
Reka Mirna izvira na jugozahodnem robu Kum-ljanskega pogorja in pri naselju Mirna sestopa v široko Mirnsko-Mokronoško kotlino, kjer je odložila debelo ilovnato-glineno nasutino. Svojo 44 km dolgo pot nadaljuje v debri skozi Krško gričevje in se pri Sevnici izlije v Savo. Vanjo se stekajo potoki severozahodnega dela Krškega gričevja. Ima razmeroma hiter tok in dežno-snežni režim z viški marca in decembra in nižki v avgustu. Okoliški svet je zaradi pogostih poplav mokro-ten, zatravljen in nenaseljen. Ob temperaturnih inverzijah se tod rada pojavlja tudi megla.136
Kolpa
Na prehodu iz dinarskega v panonski svet leži porečje Kolpe, ki teče do Marindola v značilni dinarski smeri, nato pa z ostrim zavojem spremeni tok in vse do Metlike nadaljuje pot proti severu. Njeno povirje je le okoli 15 km oddaljeno od Jadranskega morja, kar se odraža zlasti v klimatskih in vegetacijskih razmerah, čeprav je vmes visoko gorovje. Nagel prehod iz Dinaridov v Panonsko nižino je Zgornjemu Pokolpju vtisnil pečat dveh pokrajinsko različnih enot. Ta dvojnost v pokrajinski sestavi se kaže tudi v hidrografskih značilnostih. V njenem povirju je enkrat več padavin kot v nižini in prav takšen je tudi vodni pretok. Struga Kolpe je v zgornjem toku ozka in poteka po globoki debrski dolini, ki se pod Gribljami razširi. Od povirja do sotočja z Lahinjo nima daljših površinskih pritokov, napaja se le iz izvirov, ki so ostanek nekdanje rečne mreže. Njen strmec je največji v zgornjem toku, nato do Vinice postopoma upada, po sotočju z Lahinjo spet nekoliko naraste, najmanjši pa je v spodnjem toku. Tudi vodostaj precej niha. Najbolj vodnata letna časa sta jesen in pomlad, ko je v povprečju trikrat več vode kot v nižkih, ki se navadno pojavijo ob podaljšani poletni suši. Takrat je belokranjsko Kolpo na več mestih možno prebresti tudi peš. V primerjavi z drugimi slovenskimi rekami je obseg poplavnega sveta v zgornjem Pokolpju zelo skromen. Največ sklenjenega poplavnega področja se širi pri Gribljah in Pravutini. Zaradi številnih plitvin in kole-banj vode ter zavite rečne struge Kolpa nad Karlovcem ni primerna za večja plovila, ampak le za čolne.137
133	Gams 1962c, 92 ff.
134	Rus Goljevšček 1962, 111 ff.
135	Bole et al. 1992, 27 f.
136	Zupan 1993, 153 f; Perko et al. 2001, 182, 510, 656.
134	Rus Goljevšček 1962, 111 ss.
135	Bole et al. 1992, 27 s.
136	Zupan 1993, 153 s; Perko et al. 2001, 182, 510, 656.
137	Plut 1988.
reflected in the climatic and vegetation conditions in spite of a mountainous barrier that separates them. The rapid transition from the Dinaric Alps to the Pannonian Plain impressed the upper Kolpa Valley with the characteristics of both, quite different landscape units. This duality is visible also in the hydrographic characteristics. Precipitation at the headwaters is only a third of that in the plain, and the same goes for the water discharge. The Kolpa riverbed is narrow in the upper reaches and runs along a deep gully that widens beneath Gri-blje. It has shorter surface tributaries from the spring to the confluence with the Lahinja and it receives water only from the brooks that are the remnants of the former river network. Its gradient is steepest in the upper reaches and becomes gentler until reaching Vinica, rises again at the confluence with the Lahinja and is at its gentlest in the lower reaches. The water level fluctuates as well. The river has most water during autumn and spring, when it has approximately three times as much water as in the lows of the water level that usually appear during prolonged summer droughts, when it is possible to cross the Kolpa in Bela krajina also on foot. In comparison to other Slovene rivers, the Kolpa's flood area is quite small in the upper reaches. The most extensive compact flood area is situated near Griblje and Pravutina. Due to numerous shallows, water level fluctuations and the meandering course of the riverbed, the Kolpa is not suitable for vessels larger than boats above Karlovac.137
The Lahinja
Its position and the number of tributaries make the Lahinja the central water artery of Bela krajina. It measures over 33 km in length and flows in a narrow and shallow bed towards the north-east. It makes many bends, which are sharpest where the river flows in the opposite direction to the dip of the rock strata. The many bends are a common characteristic of the waters of Bela krajina, among which the Lahinja shows the gentlest gradient and can therefore only transport light material during floods that are usually limited in extent. Due to its loamy bottom it cannot be crossed on foot. The high water temperatures during the summer months rank the river, beside the Kolpa, among the warmest rivers in Slovenia.138
4.4.2. WATER SUPPLY AND USE OF WATER SOURCES
Water sources are of a vital and strategic importance for human existence. The water supply in the karstified zone, where springs are rare and only appear after rain, predominantly depends on the atmospheric water. The
137	Plut 1988.
138	Ib.
Lahinja
Lahinja je po legi in številu pritokov osrednja belokranjska vodna žila, dolga dobrih 33 km. Teče v ozki, a ne globoki strugi proti severovzhodu. Vijuga po številnih okljukih, ki so najbolj zaviti tam, kjer voda teče v nasprotni smeri vpadov kameninskih skladov, saj reka teži v smer vpada. Sicer pa je izvijuganost splošna značilnost belokranjskih voda, med katerimi ima Lahinja najmanjši strmec, zato zmore ob povodnjih, ki običajno nimajo večjih razsežnosti, prenašati le plavje (ilovico). Ker ima ilovnato dno, peš ni prehodna. Zanjo je značilen dokaj neenakomeren strmec, največji je v zgornjem toku. Zaradi visoke poletne temperature sodi poleg Kolpe med najtoplejše reke v Sloveniji.138
4.4.2. OSKRBA Z VODO IN IZRABA VODNIH VIROV
Vodni viri so za človeka in skupnost življenjskega in strateškega pomena. V zakraselem svetu, kjer so izviri redki in se pojavljajo le ob deževju, je oskrba vezana predvsem na padavinsko vodo. Največji problem s tekočo vodo ima Suha krajina, za razliko od Posavskega hribovja, kjer je površinska vodna mreža gosta.139
V	ravninskih delih subpanonskega sveta so velike zaloge talne vode v fluvioglacialnih prodnih nanosih Save, ki so zaradi poroznosti naravni rezervoarji padavinske in rečne vode. Debele plasti proda in peska delujejo kot naravni filtri, zato ima voda v njih veliko samo-čistilno sposobnost.140 Znatne zaloge talne vode so tudi ob Krki, na Šentjernejskem polju, v Globodolu, v Mirno-peški globeli, Zaloški kotlinici, kjer je podtalnica tesno navezana na pleistocenske sive ilovice in gline ter na vododržne terciarne kamenine.
Številni izvirki in studenci se pojavljajo na dolo-mitnih tleh in manj čistih apnencih. Veliko izvirov je v okolici Šmarjete in Škocjana. V Krškem gričevju in na severovzhodnem delu Gorjancev se večinoma pojavljajo na nadmorski višini 160 do 200 m.141
V	Beli krajini prevladujejo na robu akumulacijskih obkolpskih ravnic kraški izviri; ob zahodnem, tektonsko zasnovanem robu pod Kočevskim rogom pa se pojavljajo vodne jame, za katere je značilna precejšnja vod-natost in le manjša kolebanja. Največji je kraški izvir Krupe, ki leži osamljen sredi belokranjskega ravnika. Zaloge talne vode so v Beli krajini skromne, omejene na ozek pas akumulacijskih rečnih teras. Podzemna voda je tukaj bolj izjema in nastopa v primerjavi z drugimi subpa-nonskimi predeli v bistveno drugačnih naravnogeograf-skih razmerah - v vodoprepustnih kraških ilovicah.142
138	Ib.
139	Olas 1962, 116 ss; Plut 1984, 99 ss.
140	Briceljj 1991, 46.
141	Olas 1962, 116 ss; Plut 1984, 99 ss.
142	Plut 1988.
problem with water supply is gravest in Suha krajina, while the water network is densest in the Posavsko hribovje.139 The flatland parts of the Subpannonian zone have abundant subterranean water supplies in fluvioglacial gravel alluvia of the Sava, which are natural reservoirs of atmospheric and river water due to their high porosity. Thick layers of gravel and sand act as natural filters, giving the water a high self-cleansing capacity.140 Considerable water supplies are also to be found along the Krka, on the Šentjernejsko polje, in Globodol, the Mir-nopeška globel, the Zaloška kotlinica, where the underground water is closely tied to the Pleistocene grey loams and clays as well as to the impermeable Tertiary rocks.
Numerous small springs appear on the dolomite soils and less on pure limestones. Most springs can be found in the vicinity of Šmarjeta and Škocjan. In the Krško gričevje and the north-eastern part of the Gorjanci, most appear at 160 to 200 m above the sea level.141
Karst springs appear in Bela krajina mostly on the edges of the accumulation plains along the Kolpa and by the water caves that appear on the western, tectonically formed edge beneath the Kočevski rog. The characteristic of these caves is vast amounts of water with only minimal fluctuations. The largest karst spring is isolated in the middle of the peneplain of Bela krajina. The reserve of subterranean water in Bela krajina is short, limited to a narrow strip of accumulation river terraces. The underground water is exceptional and appears in substantially different natural and geographic conditions to those in other Subpannonian areas - in permeable karst loams.142 Water sources are important for drinking water but also for farming, particularly for cattle breeding, and also for river transport. The Sava was once used the latter, while the Krka and the Kolpa offered slightly less favourable natural conditions. In addition to that, streams and rivers offer a supplementary source of food (fishing). The waters of Dolenjska and Bela krajina are the habitat of the Salmonidae-Cyprinidae fish popula-tion.143 Apart from the advantages, the vicinity of water can also have negative consequences, brought about by inundation. It is estimated that flooding areas in Dolenjska cover over 20,000 ha.144
4.5. CLIMATE145
Dolenjska and Bela krajina have a moderate continental climate. Based on the temperature and quantity
139	Olas 1962, 116 ff; Plut 1984, 99 ff.
140	Bricelj 1991, 46.
141	Olas 1962, 116 ff; Plut 1984, 99 ff.
142	Plut 1988.
143	Plut 1988; Bricelj 1991.
144	Šifrer 1984, 38 ff.
145	Taken from: Gams 1962b, 68 ff; Bernot 1984, 89 ff; Perko et al. 2001.
Vodni viri pa niso pomembni le z vidika pitne vode, temveč tudi za kmetijstvo, še zlasti za živinorejo in seveda za rečni promet. Ta se je nekoč odvijal po Savi, nekoliko slabše naravne pogoje zanj pa imata tudi Krka in Kolpa. Potoki in reke nudijo dodaten vir za prehrano (ribištvo). Hidrološko so dolenjski in belokranjski vodotoki življenjski prostor za salmonidno-cipridno ribjo populacijo.143 Poleg pozitivnih učinkov pa ima lahko bližina vode zaradi nevarnosti poplav tudi negativne posledice. Po ocenah obsegajo poplavna področja na Dolenjskem okrog 20.000 ha.144
4.5. PODNEBJE145
Področje Dolenjske z Belo krajino ima zmerno celinsko podnebnje. Glede na temperature in količino padavin se celinskost stopnjuje od severozahoda proti jugovzhodu, kamor sega vpliv panonskega sveta. Zaradi razgibanega površja, različnih leg in nadmorskih višin, se uveljavljajo krajevne razlike.
Povprečne izmerjene letne temperature so med 8 in 100 C, temperaturne amplitude pa znašajo okoli 200 C. Absolutni toplotni viški in nižki običajno nastopijo s približno enomesečnim zamikom za poletnim in zimskim solsticijem. V uvalah, kraških poljih, na dnu dolin in v kotlinah se pojavlja temperaturna inverzija z obilno vlažnostjo in meglenostjo ter pogosto pozebo. Tam so zimske temperature znatno nižje kot v odprtem svetu.
Količina padavin se manjša z oddaljevanjem od glavnih reliefnih ovir za vodonosne zračne tokove z jugozahoda. Padavine so med letom dokaj enakomerno razporejene, običajno naraščajo z višino v goratem svetu, v splošnem pa se količina padavin od zahoda proti vzhodu zmanjšuje. V povprečju se giblje med 1200 in 1300 mm. Najbolj namočeni so poletni meseci, najmanj pa zimski. Najdebelejšo snežno odejo imajo severozahodni hribovski kraji, kjer je več zimskih padavin. Snežna odeja obleži dva meseca, v višjih in osojnih legah pa tudi tri mesece in še čez.
Posavsko hribovje in pogorje Male gore, Kočevskega roga ter Poljanske gore imata zaradi višje lege ozemlja nekoliko bolj ostre podnebne razmere. Vzrok za nižje povprečne poletne temperature je krajši čas sončnega obsevanja v bolj senčnih predelih ter pogost temperaturni toplotni obrat pozimi, ki se pojavlja v kotanjah in na dnu dolin. V tem hribovitem svetu pade tudi nekoliko več padavin kot je splošno povprečje za Dolenjsko in Belo krajino, nasprotno kot v Suhi krajini, kjer je množina padavin manjša.
143	Plut 1988; Bricelj 1991.
144	Šifrer 1984, 38 ss.
145	Povzeto po: Gams 1962b, 68 ss; Bernot 1984, 89 ss; Perko et al. 2001.
of precipitation, the continental characteristics increase from north-west to south-east, where the influence of the Pannonian zone can be felt. There are also local differences, brought about by the undulating terrain, various positions and altitudes.
The average measured temperature varies between 8 and 100 C, with amplitudes of around 200 C. The absolute highs and lows usually occur with a delay of approximately a month in relation to summer and winter solstices. Uvalas, karst poljes, floors of valleys and basins witness temperature inversion with abundant humidity and fog as well as frequent frosts.
The amount of precipitation decreases with the distance from the main relief barriers for water-carrying air currents that come from the south-west. Precipitation is fairly evenly distributed through the year and usually increases with altitude in the hilly regions, while in general the amount of precipitation decreases from west to east. The amount ranges, on average, between 1200 and 1300 mm. The summer months receive most water and the winter months the least. The thickest snow cover is in the north-western hilly areas, where winter precipitation is heavier. The snow cover stays for two months, at higher altitudes and on shady slopes also three months and more.
Due to higher altitudes, the Posavsko hribovje and the hills of the Mala gora, the Kočevski rog and the Poljanska gora have severer climatic conditions. Lower average summer temperatures are caused by a shorter period of exposure to sun in shady areas, as well as a frequent temperature inversion in winter that occurs in depressions and on valley floors. This hilly zone also receives more precipitation in comparison to the average values for Dolenjska and Bela krajina. The opposite is true for Suha krajina, which receives less than the average.
146
4.6. SOIL AND VEGETATION COVER
Types and characteristics of soils are tied to the rock beneath and to the relief, but depend also on water and climate conditions. Most of the surface is covered by shallow to medium deep chromic cambisols that developed on limestones and dolomites. The Permian-Carboniferous silicate clays, sandstones and conglomerates allow the formation of acid brown soils and in parts also rankers. Riverine soil and sometimes, due to humidity, also gleys and pseudogleys developed on river terraces and alluvia.
Closely related to the soil is the vegetation and the distribution of land for cultivation. The farming exploitation is importantly characterised also by karst relief
146 Taken from: Gams 1962a, 31 ff; Kokole 1962, 125 ff; Gams 1984, 7 ff; Perko et al. 2001.
4.6. PRST IN VEGETACIJSKI POKROV146
Tipi in lastnosti prsti so povezani s kameninami in reliefom, odvisni pa so tudi od vodnih in podnebnih razmer. Največ površin pokrivajo plitve do srednje globoke pokarbonatne prsti, ki so se razvile na apnencih in dolomitih. Na permokarbonskih silikatnih glinovcih, peščenjakih in konglomeratih so se razvile kisle rjave prsti in mestoma rankerji. Na rečnih terasah in nanosih je nastala obrečna prst, ponekod so se zaradi vlažnosti tam razvili tudi gleji in psevdogleji.
V tesni povezavi s prstjo sta rastje in razporeditev kulturnega zemljišča. Agrarnemu izkoriščanju dajejo mnogo karakterističnih potez tudi kraške značilnosti reliefa in hidrografija. Sicer pa veljata Dolenjska in Bela krajina za razmeroma nizko področje z dokaj rodovitno prstjo, z zadostnimi padavinami in dolžino vegetacijske dobe ter ugodnimi temperaturami. Polovico pokrajine danes prekriva gozd, čigar sestoj je v precejšnji meri odvisen od višinskih pasov (sl. 23). Najpogostejša drevesna vrsta je bukev v različnih sestojih. V najnižjem pasu se pojavlja naravni gozd belega gabra in različnih vrst hrastov, višje ga sestavlja bukov gozd, v najvišjem pasu pa gozd jelke in bukve s primesjo smreke. Na vzhodu se pojavlja kisloljubni gozd bukve, kostanja in hrasta, ki uspeva predvsem v vzhodnih Gorjancih, Raduljs-kem hribovju, Krškem gričevju ter v vzhodnem delu Posavskega hribovja. Travnikov in pašnikov je slaba tretjina, njiv pa je za polovico manj. Vegetacijska doba traja približno osem mesecev, poljedelska sezona pa nekaj manj kot šest.
4.7. UPORABNOST PODATKOV O DANAŠNJEM OKOLJU ZA PRAZGODOVINSKE RAZISKAVE
Pri ocenjevanju, kako je okolje vplivalo na poselitvene tokove v prazgodovini, se zastavlja osnovno vprašanje, ali je sploh mogoče in v kolikšni meri za analize uporabiti recentne podatke. Na teritoriju, ki ga je zajel naš projekt, namreč ni bilo raziskav, ki bi omogočale kakršenkoli resni poskus rekonstrukcije naravnih razmer, ki so vladale v prvem tisočletju pr. Kr. Na voljo so le podatki, ki veljajo za današnji čas, njihova nekritična uporaba pa je gotovo vprašljiva. Zdi se, da vsi naravni dejavniki skozi čas niso doživljali enakih sprememb, saj so bili nekateri procesi hitri in intenzivni, drugi pa dolgotrajni in komaj opazni.
Med stabilnejše naravne danosti na Dolenjskem gotovo sodita relief in kameninska podlaga, ki tvorita okostje pokrajine. Erozija, denudacija in akumulacija
146 Povzeto po: Gams 1962a, 31 ss; Kokole 1962, 125 ss; Gams 1984, 7 ss; Perko et al. 2001.
features as well as hydrography. In general, Dolenjska and Bela krajina are relatively low areas with fairly fertile soil, sufficient precipitation and length of the vegetation cycle as well as favourable temperatures. Half of the region is covered today by forests, the composition of which largely depends on the altitude zones (fig. 23). The commonest tree species is beech in combination with various other species. The lowest belt is covered by the natural forest of hornbeam and various oak species, followed by the beech forest and finally by the forest of fir and beech with occasional spruces. The acid-loving forest of beech, chestnut and oak appears in the east, thriving mostly in the east Gorjanci, in the Raduljsko hribovje and the Krško gričevje as well as the eastern part of the Posavsko hribovje. Grassland and pastures cover slightly less than a third of the surface, and fields half of that. The vegetation period lasts approximately eight months and the farming season less than six.
4.7. APPLICABILITY OF THE DATA ON THE PRESENT-DAY ENVIRONMENT IN PREHISTORIC STUDIES
The fundamental question in estimating the interaction of landscape and settlement in prehistoric times is whether it is at all possible - and in what measure - to apply recent data in such analyses. The territory of our project has not witnessed research that would in any way enable a serious attempt at a reconstruction of the natural circumstances during the first millennium BC. Only the data on the present-day natural conditions are available, therefore an uncritical use is certainly questionable. It seems that not all natural factors experienced equal changes through time, since some processes proved fast and intensive, while others are long-term and less perceptible.
Relief and bedrock are certainly one of the more stable natural factors and form the backbone of the region. Erosion, denudation and accumulation have not been observed to the extent that would significantly change the surface from the 1st millennium BC to the present day. The factor of change may, in this case, be neglected. The same can be said for mineral resources, though the surface deposits of iron ore had mainly been exhausted until the mid- 19th century.
More noticeable are the hydrographic changes. With the continuing karstification, the surface waters cut their beds ever deeper into the carbonate bedrock and sank under the surface. Many small springs or small streams thereby disappeared. These changes are ongoing, visible in the impermanent Sušica stream that drove mills until recently and is today dry even after heavy rains. Changes occurred also on the Krka in its lower reaches and the Sava on the Krško polje, where a port was located in the Roman period beside the town of
60
50
40
30
20
10
50%
28%
J2>
sl
|l
E
15% ■		
1	2%	5% ■
■D >	-s "a h 2	n
> >

-g
o _c o _
o"2
S
Fig. 23: Recent land-use (Source: Perko et al. 2001). Sl. 23: Današnja raba tal (vir: Perko et al. 2001).
namreč nista zaznavni v tolikšni meri, da bi se od prvega tisočletja pr. Kr. do danes oblika površja bistveno spremenila. Faktor sprememb lahko v tem primeru zanemarimo. Isto lahko rečemo za rudne resurse, čeprav so bila površinska ležišča železove rude do sredine devetnajstega stoletja v glavnem izčrpana.
Bolj opazne so hidrografske spremembe. Z napredovanjem zakrasevanja so si površinske vode v karbonatno podlago poglabljale svoje struge in ponikale. Tako je izginil marsikateri studenec ali potoček. Da te spremembe še vedno potekajo, kaže nestalna belokranjska Sušica, ki je še do nedavna gnala mline, danes pa je suha tudi po izdatnejšem deževju. Spremembe sta doživljali tudi Krka v spodnjem toku in savska struga na krškem polju, saj je bilo v rimskem času ob Neviodunu rečno pristanišče, danes pa teče reka približno 3 km stran od Drnovega. Mrtvica stare savske struge je ohranjena še ob vznožju Gorjancev pri Prilipah.147 Do določene mere je na spremembe vplival tudi človek, ki je v boju za pridobivanje rodovitne zemlje spreminjal potek rečnih strug, jih poglabljal in utrjeval brežine, gradil jezove z akumulacijskimi jezeri ipd. Mnoge zamočvirjene travnike je obdal z izsuševalnimi jarki in tako zabrisal podobo prvobitnejše pokrajine. Da so bile spremembe pogoste, kažejo številne paleostruge potokov, ki so jih od-
147 Plut 1984, 99 ss; Šifrer 1984, 502 ss; Perko et al. 2001, 501 s.
Neviodunum, the present day Drnovo, which the river nowadays avoids for some 3 km. Part of the fossil Sava bed, now filled with standing water, is preserved at the foot of the Gorjanci at Prilipe.147 The changes were, to a certain degree, influenced also by man who wished to gain fertile land and therefore changed the course of rivers, deepened them, reinforced the banks, built dams with accumulation lakes and so on. Numerous marshy meadows were therefore surrounded by drainage ditches, which removed the traces of the more primeval landscape. The frequency of these changes is indicated by the palaeochannels of former streams uncovered prior to the construction of the highway cross-roads in Slovenia. In general, we may expect that the lowland was more subjected to hydrographic changes than the elevations on impermeable bedrock.
There are practically no available data on the climatic conditions and the vegetation cover during the 1st millennium BC. Samplings that were undertaken in recent years in rare marshy areas of Dolenjska did not offer reliable pollen profiles for this period. The same holds true for pedologic analyses. The discussion concerning the degradation of the environment and the exploitation of land for farming purposes at that time remains therefore strictly on a theoretical level.
krili pri gradnji avtocestnega križa. Na splošno lahko predvidevamo, da so bili hidrografskim spremembam občutneje podvrženi nižinski predeli, manj pa vzpetine na vodoodpornih kamninskih osnovah.
Kakšne so bile v prvem tisočletju pr. Kr. klimatske razmere in kako je izgledal vegetacijski pokrov, pa ne vemo praktično ničesar. Poskusna vrtanja na redkih zamočvirjenih območjih Dolenjske, ki so jih opravili v zadnjih letih, za to obdobje niso dala zanesljivih pelod-nih profilov. Isto velja za pedološke analize, zato se lahko razprav o problematiki degradiranosti okolja oziroma o izkoriščanju takratnih površin v poljedelske namene (nosilnost pokrajine) lotimo zgolj na teoretičnem nivoju.
147 Plut 1984, 99 ff; Šifrer 1984, 502 ff; Perko et al. 2001, 501 f.
5. CHRONOLOGY
5. KRONOLOGIJA
The importance of a good chronology as the basis for any settlement study probably does not need to be stressed, since it is the precise chronological determination that provides the proper understanding of various acts and activities of prehistoric man. However, a thorough knowledge of chronology can be hampered for several reasons: analyses can be hindered by old material without known assemblages and contexts, problems can arise from poorly made typologies of settlement pottery, while some periods cannot be satisfactorily divided due to an insufficient material basis. Fortunately, there is a sufficiently precise chronology established for south-eastern Slovenia that spans the entire 1s' millennium BC. The development of this chronology has a long history of its own.
5.1. SHORT HISTORY OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEM
The first person to chronologically divide the material from the Iron Age cemeteries of Dolenjska was M. Hoernes. He established a two-phase system that remained in use until World War II.148 F. Stare attempted to upgrade the system in the 1950s, but his method, based mostly on typology, was not widely accepted.149 A new view of the chronology of the 1s' millennium BC was developed under the influence of Merhart's prehistoric school. The two basic works in this respect are by H. Muller-Karpe and G. Kossack, which decisively influenced all further research.150 S. Gabrovec formulated a new chronological concept in the 1960s. He based his division of the Hallstatt period on closed grave units, aided by the stratigraphy of Tumulus 48 at Griže near Stična.151 Gabrovec observed that the Iron Age in the south-eastern Alps had a specific development, different from that in Central Europe, since the area was closer
Verjetno ni treba posebej poudarjati, da je predpogoj vsake poselitvene študije dobra kronologija, saj nam šele natančna časovna opredelitev posameznih najdišč omogoča pravilno dojemanje različnih dejanj in aktivnosti prazgodovinskega človeka. Vzrokov za slabo poznavanje kronologije je lahko več: analize ovira staro gradivo, ki nima znanih skupkov in kontekstov, problem predstavljajo slabo razdelane tipologije naselbinske keramike, nekatera obdobja pa ni mogoče zadovoljivo razčleniti zaradi skromne materialne baze. Na srečo imamo za območje jugovzhodne Slovenije dovolj natančno kronologijo, ki zaobjema celotno prvo tisočletje pr. Kr. Njeno nastajanje ima dolgo zgodovino.
5.1. KRATEK HISTORIAT NASTAJANJA KRONOLOGIJ
Prvi, ki je kronološko razčlenil gradivo iz dolenjskih železnodobnih grobišč je bil M. Hoernes. Postavil je dvostopenjski sistem, ki je ostal v uporabi vse do druge svetovne vojne.148 V petdesetih letih ga je skušal nadgraditi F. Stare, vendar pa se njegova razdelitev, ki je temeljila predvsem na tipološki metodi, ni uveljavila.149 Nov pogled na kronologijo prvega tisočletja pr. Kr. je nastal pod vplivom Merhartove prazgodovinske šole. Tu mislimo na temeljni deli H. Muller-Karpeja in G. Kossacka, ki sta odločujoče vplivali na vse nadaljnje raziska-ve.150 Nov kronološki koncept je v šestdesetih letih postavil S. Gabrovec. Svojo shemo halštatskega obdobja je utemeljil na zaključenih grobnih celotah, v pomoč pa so mu bila tudi stratigrafska dognanja, pridobljena z izkopavanjem gomile 48 v Grižah pri Stični.151 Gabrovec je dobro razbral, da je imela železna doba v jugovzhodnih Alpah specifičen razvoj, ki je potekal drugače od srednje Evrope, saj je bil prostor bliže vplivom Medite-rana in Podonavja. To je skušal izraziti tudi v kronološ-
148	Hoernes 1914; Hoernes 1915.
149	F. Stare 1954a.
150	Muller-Karpe 1959; Kossack 1959.
151	Gabrovec 1974.
148	Hoernes 1914; Hoernes 1915.
149	F. Stare 1954a.
150	Muller-Karpe 1959; Kossack 1959.
151	Gabrovec 1974.
to the influences from the Mediterranean and the Danube basin. He attempted to express these observations in a chronological scheme, in which he divided the Early Iron Age into four main phases that span from the 8th to 4th century BC.152 This chronology received a few changes through time. It was first supplemented by the author himself,153 while a more detailed division of the Late Hallstatt period was later made by B. Teržan.154 With the latter, the chronology assumed the form it still has today.155
Gabrovec also provided a detailed classification of the Urnfield period. His division was based on the material from the large cemetery discovered in the courtyard of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana and convincingly supported by a horizontal stratigraphy of the cemetery.156 He established several phases in the development of the cemetery (Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, IIIa), whereby the phase Ljubljana IIb was attributed to the Iron Age.157 He explained, in an original manner, the specificity of the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age, which differed in south-eastern Slovenia as opposed to the neighbouring areas: according to his concept, the new was forming while the old had not yet fully disappeared. He expressed this view of the development also in a chronological scheme, where phases Ljubljana IIb and Podzemelj I existed contemporaneously but with different cultural and historical contents.
The chronology of the Late Iron Age was, likewise, being gradually formed. The first division into the Middle and Late La Tene phases was made already in 1951 by H. Muller-Karpe.158 The problem was tackled also after that, particularly by S. Gabrovec and M. Guštin.159 The final chronological scheme of the Late Iron Age was given by D. Božič, who divided the last three centuries BC into three phases, which were further divided into two subphases each, except for the earliest one.160
Finally, two broad chronological overviews deserve mentioning here, published at the end of the 20th century and also touching upon the problems of the Slovene area. The first is the study by H. Parzinger on the chronology of the Late Hallstatt and Early La Tene periods between the Mosell and the Sava, which treats, among others subjects, also the development of the Hallstatt group of Dolenjska.161 The second synthetic work was written by Ch. Pare. He treated the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Ages, in which he also re-analysed
ki shemi. Starejšo železno dobo je razčlenil v štiri glavne horizonte, s katerimi je zaobjel čas od 8. do 4. stoletja pr. Kr.152 Gabrovčeva kronologija je čez čas doživela nekaj sprememb. Deloma jo je dopolnil že avtor,153 kasneje pa je mlajše halštatsko obdobje podrobneje razčlenila B. Teržan.154 Tako je dobila kronološka shema starejše železne dobe sedanjo uveljavljeno obliko.155
Gabrovec je podrobneje razčlenil tudi žarnogrobišč-no obdobje. Delitev je izpeljal s pomočjo gradiva iz velike nekropole na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani, rezultate pa je prepričljivo podprl s horizontalno stratigrafijo grobišča.156 V razvoju nekropole je razbral več faz (la, Ib, Ila, IIb, Illa), pri čemer je horizont Ljubljana IIb že smatral za železnodoben.157 S takšno rešitvijo je na domiseln način pojasnil specifičnost prehoda iz pozne bronaste dobe v železno, ki se je v jugovzhodni Sloveniji odvil nekoliko drugače kot na sosednjih območjih: po njegovem konceptu novo nastaja, staro pa še ni povsem izginilo. Takšen pogled na razvoj je izrazil tudi v kronološki shemi. V njej imata fazi Ljubljana IIb in Podzemelj 1 sicer isto časovno dimenzijo, popolnoma drugačna pa je njuna kulturnohistorična vsebina.
Postopoma je bila izoblikovana tudi kronologija mlajše železne dobe. Prvo delitev na srednje in poznola-tensko stopnjo je že leta 1951 naredil H. Muller-Kar-pe,158 kasneje pa sta se s to problematiko ukvarjala predvsem S. Gabrovec in M. Guštin.159 Kronologijo mlajše železne dobe je dokončno izoblikoval D. Božič, ki je zadnja tri stoletja pr. Kr. razčlenil na tri stopnje, od katerih imata zadnji dve še vsaka po dve fazi.160
Na koncu moramo omeniti še dva velika kronološka pregleda, ki sta izšla ob koncu dvajsetega stoletja in se prav tako dotikata problematike slovenskega prostora. Prvi je študija H. Parzingerja o kronologiji pozno-halštatskega in zgodnjelatenskega časa med Moselo in Savo, v katerem obravnava tudi razvoj dolenjske halštatske skupine.161 Drugo sintetično delo je prišlo izpod peresa Ch. Pareja. Ukvarjal se je s prehodom bronaste dobe v železno, pri tem pa med drugim ponovno analiziral gradivo iz žarne nekropole v Ljubljani.162 Dognanja Par-zingerja in Pareja se v bistvu ne razlikujejo od Gabrovče-vih kronoloških shem, res pa je, da sta jih na nekaterih mestih podrobneje razčlenila oziroma dodelala. Važne so tudi absolutne datacije žarnogrobiščnih stopenj, ki so prilagojene dendrološkim datumom švicarskih ko-
152	Gabrovec 1964-1965; Gabrovec 1966c.
153	Frey/Gabrovec 1971.
154	Teržan 1976, 437 ff.
155	Gabrovec 1987, 35 ff; see also Dular 2003, 99 ff.
156	Gabrovec 1973; Gabrovec 1976.
157	Ib.; Gabrovec 1983, 66 ff.
158	Muller-Karpe 1951.
159	Gabrovec 1966b; Guštin 1977a; Guštin 1984a.
160	Božič 1987, 866 ff; Božič 1999, 195 ff.
161	Parzinger 1988, 27 ff.
152	Gabrovec 1964-1965; Gabrovec 1966c.
153	Frey/Gabrovec 1971.
154	Teržan 1976, 383 ss.
155	Gabrovec 1987, 35 ss; glej tudi Dular 2003, 99 ss.
156	Gabrovec 1973; Gabrovec 1976.
157	Ib.; Gabrovec 1983, 66 ss.
158	Muller-Karpe 1951.
159	Gabrovec 1966b; Guštin 1977a; Guštin 1984a.
160	Božič 1987, 866 ss; Božič 1999, 195 ss.
161	Parzinger 1988, 27 ss.
162	Pare 1998, 340 ss.
the material from the incremation cemetery in Ljubljana.162 The observations of Parzinger and Pare do not substantially differ from the chronological schemes made by Gabrovec, though they did divide the chronologies in more detail or completed them at places. Also of importance are the absolute dates of the Urnfield phases, which are adapted to the dendrochronological dates from the Swiss pile-dwellings,163 as well as a newly-defined beginning of the Iron Age north of the Alps, which was also confirmed by dendrochronological dating.164 These new findings were considered also in the chronological scheme of this publication.
5.2. TERMINOLOGY
In order to avoid needless problems and misunderstandings, the main terms need to be clarified first, with which each of the evolutionary or chronological phases will be named. We will adhere to the assumptions suggested by Müller-Karpe some three decades ago,165 that is a multi-level nomenclature scheme, which facilitates the definition of the chronological as well as the horo-logical dimension of a phenomenon. The focus of our research being the Is' millennium BC (Late Bronze as well as Early and Late Iron Ages), we will use these chronological terms on the first level:166
Late Bronze Age: Early Urnfield period Middle Urnfield period Younger Urnfield period Late Urnfield period
Early Iron Age: Early Hallstatt period Late Hallstatt period
Late Iron Age: Early La Tene period Middle La Tene period Late La Tene period
■	ca. '200-''00 BC
■	ca. ''00-'050 BC
■	ca. '050-950 BC
■	ca. 950-800 BC
■	ca. 800-600 BC
■	ca. 600-300 BC
■	ca. 300-250 BC
■	ca. 250-''0 BC
■	ca. ''0 BC to the arrival of the Romans.
Wherever a more precise chronological determination of individual finds or buildings is needed, the standard denotation for chronological phases as defined for south-eastern Slovenia by Gabrovec and Božič will
162	Pare 1998, 340 ff.
163	Pare 1999, 259 ff; see also Rychner et al. 1995; Rych-ner/Böhringer/Gassmann 1996.
164	Pare 1991; Pare 1999, 287 ff; Friedrich/Hennig 1995; Hennig 2001, 85 ff; Gleirscher 2006b.
165	Müller-Karpe 1974.
166	Cf. Pare 1998, 299; Gabrovec 1987, 75 ff; Božič 1987,
lišč,163 ter na novo definiran začetek železne dobe severno od Alp, ki je prav tako dobil potrditev v dendrološki dataciji.164 Novosti smo upoštevali tudi v naši kronološki shemi.
5.2. TERMINOLOGIJA
Da bi se izognili nepotrebnim težavam in nesporazumom, moramo na začetku pojasniti glavne oznake, s katerimi bomo poimenovali posamezne razvojne oziroma kronološke stopnje. Pri delu se bomo držali izhodišč, ki jih je že pred dobrimi tremi desetletji predlagal Müller-Karpe.165 Gre za večnivojsko nomenklaturno shemo, s katero je najlažje označiti tako kronološko kot tudi horološko dimenzijo nekega pojava. Ker je tema naše raziskave prvo tisočletje pr. Kr. (pozna bronasta ter starejša in mlajša železna doba), bomo na prvem nivoju uporabljali naslednje časovne oznake:166
Pozna bronasta doba:
Starejše žarnogrobiščno obdobje - ca. 1200-1100 pr. Kr. Srednje žarnogrobiščno obdobje - ca. 1100-1050 pr. Kr. Mlajše žarnogrobiščno obdobje - ca. 1050-950 pr. Kr. Pozno žarnogrobiščno obdobje - ca. 950-800 pr. Kr.
Starejša železna doba:
Starejše halštatsko obdobje - ca. 800-600 pr. Kr. Mlajše halštatsko obdobje - ca. 600-300 pr. Kr.
Mlajša železna doba: Zgodnje latensko obdobje Srednje latensko obdobje Pozno latensko obdobje
-	ca. 300-250 pr. Kr.
-	ca. 250-''0 pr. Kr.
-	ca. ''0 pr. Kr. do prihoda Rimljanov.
V vseh tistih primerih, ko bo potrebna bolj natančna časovna opredelitev posameznih najdb ali objektov, pa bomo uporabili ustaljeno poimenovanje kronoloških stopenj, kot sta jih za območje jugovzhodne Slovenije definirala Gabrovec in Božič.167 Prvo tisočletje pr. Kr. sta razčlenila na deset glavnih kronoloških stopenj (Ljubljana I, Ljubljana II, Podzemelj, Stična, stopnja kačas-te fibule, stopnja certoške fibule, stopnja negovske čelade, Mokronog I, Mokronog II, Mokronog III), od katerih je moč večino še naprej deliti na starejšo in mlajšo fazo.
163	Pare 1999, 259 ss; glej tudi Rychner et al. 1995; Rych-ner/Böhringer/Gassmann 1996.
164	Pare 1991; Pare 1999, 287 ss; Friedrich/Hennig 1995; Hennig 2001, 85 ss; Gleirscher 2006b.
165	Müller-Karpe 1974.
166	Prim. Pare 1998, 299; Gabrovec 1987, 75 ss; Božič 1987,
881.
167	Gabrovec 1987, 35 ss; Božič 1987, 866 ss; Božič 1999, 195 ss; glej tudi Dular 2003, 99 ss.
be used.167 They divided the 1st millennium BC into ten main chronological phases (Ljubljana I, Ljubljana II, Podzemelj, Stična, Serpentine Fibula phase, Certosa Fibula phase, Negova Helmet phase, Mokronog I, Mokronog II, Mokronog III), most of which can be further separated into early and late phases.
167 Gabrovec 1987, 35 ff; Božič 1987, 866 ff; Božič 1999, 195 ff; see also Dular 2003, 99 ff.
6. SETTLEMENT STRUCTURES
6. POSELITVENE STRUKTURE
The notion "settlement structures" is used here to define all the remains and traces left by man in the specific time and space that are the focus of this publication (Late Bronze and Iron Ages). The known sites were divided according to function into settlements, cemeteries and hoards. These three categories were joined by the locations of individual finds without determined archaeological contexts as well as the remains of economic activities uncovered outside settlement complexes.
S pojmom "poselitvene strukture" smo označili vse tiste ostaline in sledi, ki jih je zapustil človek na določenem prostoru ter v času, ki je predmet te študije (pozna bronasta in železna doba). Najdišča smo po funkciji razvrstili v naselja, grobišča in depoje, tem trem kategorijam pa smo dodali še lokacije posamičnih najdb brez determiniranega arheološkega konteksta ter ostaline gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki so bile odkrite izven naselbinskih kompleksov.
6.1. FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS
6.1. UTRJENA NASELJA
The settlements were, on the basis of established fortifications, divided into two groups, into fortified and unfortified settlements. As a rule, the former are to be found on tops of the hills, while the latter were constructed in lowland. Exceptions are rare and more or less confirm the above-mentioned rule.168
Naselja smo razdelili na dve skupini, in sicer na utrjena ter neutrjena. Prva najdemo praviloma na vzpetinah, medtem ko so bila neutrjena postavljena v ravnini. Izjeme so zelo redke in slej ko prej potrjujejo to pravilo.168
6.1.1 ČASOVNA OPREDELITEV
6.1.1. CHRONOLOGICAL DETERMINATION
There were altogether 99 hillforts registered in the area of south-eastern Slovenia.169 Of these, two thirds (69 %) were chronologically determined. The main aid in dating were the data obtained through systematic trenching conducted over several years in the entire area of Bela krajina and Dolenjska (see fig. 5). The analysis also included the metal-detector finds from the collections of the National Museum of Slovenia,170 while some settlements were indirectly chronologically ranked with the material from the accompanying cemeteries.171 The sample of dated hillforts is sufficiently representative; both in the settlement number and their distribution in space.
168	There were only four hill-top settlements where defence structures were not established: Gradišče near Mekinje nad Stično (cat. no. 95), Plešivica near Drenje (cat. no. 455), Grobišča near Mihovo (cat. no. 419) and Camberk near Cerov Log (cat. no. 418).
169	This number does not include fortified settlements from the Late Stone and Copper Ages, since these periods are not the topic of this publication; see Dular 2001, 89 ff.
170	Cf. Svoljšak et al. 1994-1995, 227 ff.
171	These settlements are marked with * on the table (fig. 24).
Od skupaj 99 gradišč, ki smo jih registrirali na območju jugovzhodne Slovenije,169 smo jih časovno opredelili dve tretjini (69 %). Glavna opora pri datiranju so bili podatki, pridobljeni z večletnimi sistematičnimi sondiranji, ki smo jih opravili na celotnem ozemlju Bele krajine in Dolenjske (glej sl. 5). Pri analizi smo upoštevali tudi detektorske najdbe iz zbirk Narodnega muzeja Sloveni-je,170 nekaj naselij pa smo opredelili posredno in sicer z gradivom iz pripadajočih nekropol.171 Vzorec datiranih gradišč je dovolj reprezentativen; to velja tako za število naselij, kot njihovo razprostranjenost v prostoru.
Pri razvrščanju gradišč smo upoštevali pet nekoliko poenostavljenih kronoloških stopenj:
168	Omenimo lahko le štiri višinska naselja kjer nismo mogli ugotoviti obrambnih struktur: Gradišče nad Mekinjami nad Stično (kat. št. 95), Plešivica nad Drenjem (kat. št. 455), Grobišča nad Mihovim (kat. št. 419) in Camberk nad Cerovim Logom (kat. št. 418).
169	To število ne vključuje utrjenih naselij iz mlajše kamene in bakrene dobe, saj to obdobje ni predmet naše študije; glej Dular 2001, 89 ss.
170	Prim. Svoljšak et al. 1994-1995, 227 ss.
171	Na tabeli (sl. 24) so ta naselja označena z znakom (*).
The hillforts were classified according to five slightly simplified chronological phases:
-	Early and Middle Urnfield periods (Uk 1);
-	Younger and Late Urnfield periods (Uk 2);
-	Early Hallstatt period (Ha 1);
-	Late Hallstatt period (Ha 2);
-	Late La Tene period (LT).
The settlement structures (walls, houses, storage pits, hearths and others) were dated more precisely, but only when the material allowed, since the extent of the project within individual settlements was usually limited to one trench only.
The results of the analysis are presented on fig. 24, which shows that hillforts were divided into seven groups. The first group includes settlements occupied during the Urnfield period. Pottery, metal finds as well as radiocarbon analyses of the charcoal from Zempoh near Ostroznik and Golsaj near Tolsti vrh (fig. 25) show that most settlements of this group date to the Ljubljana I phase and some reach into the Ljubljana II phase. The settlements were no longer occupied after the eight century.
-	starejše in srednje žarnogrobiščno obdobje (Uk 1);
-	mlajše in pozno žarnogrobiščno obdobje (Uk 2);
-	starejše halštatsko obdobje (Ha 1);
-	mlajše halštatsko obdobje (Ha 2);
-	pozno latensko obdobje (Lt).
Bolj natančno smo datirali naselbinske strukture (obzidja, hiše, hrambene jame, ognjišča itd.), vendar le takrat, ko nam je to dovoljevalo gradivo. Pri delu smo bili namreč omejeni, saj smo zaradi obsežnosti projekta v posameznem naselju običajno izkopali le eno sondo.
Rezultati analize so prikazani na sl. 24. Iz tabele lahko razberemo, da smo gradišča razvrstili v sedem skupin. V prvi so združena naselja, ki so bila obljudena v žarnogrobiščnem obdobju. Keramično gradivo, kovinske najdbe in tudi radiokarbonske analize oglja z Žem-poha nad Ostrožnikom in Golšaja pod Tolstim Vrhom (sl. 25) kažejo, da sodi večina naselij v fazo Ljubljana I, nekatera pa sežejo tudi v fazo Ljubljana II. Po osmem stoletju niso bila več poseljena.
Druga skupina naselij je bila obljudena v žarno-grobiščnem obdobju, nato pa so bila daljši čas zapušče-
Cat. No. / Kat. št.	Site / Najdišče	Place / Kraj	Uk 1	Uk 2	Ha 1	Ha 2	LT	Group / Skupina
497	Židovec	Miklarji	•					
80	Sv. Lambert	Pristava nad Stično		•				
173	Kočnik	Segonje		•				
235	Grac	Tlaka		•				
278	Gradišče	Gradišče pri Trebnjem		•				
289	Žempoh	Ostrožnik		•				
338	Mastni hrib	Škocjan		•				
386	Vihra	Draga		•				I
415	Golšaj	Tolsti vrh	•	•				
429	Gradec	Vratno		•				
443	Makovec	Zagorica pri Dobrniču		•				
469	Veliki vrh	Dolenji Suhor pri Metliki		•				
491	Sv. Križ	Mavrlen (Stražnji Vrh)		•				
500	Ileničev vrt	Zorenci		•				
509	Gradišče	Gorica		•				
29	Marječek	Podmolnik		•		•		
464	Cvinger	Dolenjske Toplice		•		•		
316	Šumenje	Podturn		•		?	•	
112	Korinjski hrib	Veliki Korinj	•	•		?	•	
92	Gradišče	Primskovo		•		•	•	
302	Sv. Ana	Vrh peč		•		•	•	
423	Trnišča	Mihovo		•			•	II
1	Ajdovščina	Zaboršt pri Dolu		•			•	
163	Gradec	Otavnik		•			?	
421	Gradec	Mihovo		•			?	
217	Čateški grič	Čatež	?				•	
468	Semenič	Gaber pri Semiču	•	•			•	
220	Šentviška gora	Čatež	•				•	
192	Gradišče	Dunaj	•	•	•	•	•	
439	Stari grad	Stari grad v Podbočju	•	•	•	•	•	
198	Sv. Marjeta	Libna		•	•	•	•	
294	Križni vrh	Beli Grič		•	•	•	•	III
476	Metlika	Metlika		•	•		•	
495	Črnomelj	Črnomelj		•			•	
351	Marof	Novo mesto		•	•	•		
9	Zgornja krona	Vače
39	Magdalenska gora**	Zgornja Slivnica
96	Cvinger	Vir pri Stični
124	Kostjavec	Tihaboj
273	Kunkel	Vrhtrebnje
382	Veliki Vinji vrh	Bela Cerkev
447	Cvinger	Korita
453	Gradec	Vinkov Vrh
483	Kučar	Podzemelj
508	Šlemine**	Golek pri Vinici
25	Molnik*	Podmolnik
55	Bezeg*	Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico
171	Tičnica*	Studenec
213	Gradišče*	Velike Malence
246	Vesela gora	Brinje
311	Karlin**	Brezje pri Trebelnem
64	Limberk	Velika Račna
44	Gradec	Blečji Vrh
119	Gradišče	Valična vas
126	Špičasti hrib	Dole pri Litiji
279	Kincelj	Trbinc
405	Grac	Sela pri Zajčjem Vrhu
67	Sitarjevec	Litija
81	Pančičev vrh	Javorje
88	Gradišca	Jelše
6	Gradišče	Dešen
53	Vinji hrib	Vino
123	Zagrac	Vodice pri Gabrovki
62	Gradišče	Sloka Gora
78	Gradišče	Vintarjevec
131	Gradišče	Suhadole
73	Sv. Jurij**	Stranski vrh
504	Veliki Kolečaj	Zapudje
IV
VI
VII
Uk 1 Early and Middle Urnfield period / starejše in srednje žarnogrobiščno obdobje Uk 2 Younger and Late Urnfield period / mlajše in pozno žarnogrobiščno obdobje Ha 1 Early Hallstatt period / starejše halštatsko obdobje Ha 2 Late Hallstatt period / mlajše halštatsko obdobje LT Late La Tene period / pozno latensko obdobje
Fig. 24: Chronological classification of the fortified settlements. Sl. 24: Datacije utrjenih naselij.
Cat. No. Kat. št.	Site Najdišče	Place Kraj	Sample Vzorec	Convencional radiocarbon age Konvencionalna starost	Cal. 2 Sigma (95 %)
415	Golšaj	Tolsti Vrh	Beta-192537	2850 +/- 40 BP	BC 1120-910
289	Žempoh	Ostrožnik	Beta-192532	2750 +/- 40 BP	BC 990-820
464	Cvinger	Dolenjske Toplice	Beta-192536	2700 +/- 40 BP	BC 920-800
464	Cvinger	Dolenjske Toplice	Beta-192535	2760 +/- 40 BP	BC 1000-820
Fig. 25: Radiocarbon dates of the Late Bronze Age fortified settlements. Sl. 25: Radiokarbonske datacije iz poznobronastodobnih utrjenih naselij.
The second group of settlements was populated in the Urnfield period and then abandoned for a longer period.172 They were again occupied in the Late Hallstatt and Late La Tene periods.
172 Two pieces of a wooden fence remains from Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (see fig. 25), from Trenches 2 and 3 were dated with the radiocarbon method; Dular/Križ 2004, 232.
na.172 Ponovno so jih poselili v mlajšem halštatskem in v poznem latenskem obdobju.
Ostanki žarnogrobiščne poselitve so bili odkriti tudi
172 S Cvingerja pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (glej sl. 25) sta bila radiokarbonsko datirana opaža iz sond 2 in 3; Dular/Križ 2004, 232.
V
Remains of the Urnfield period colonization were uncovered also in the settlements of the third group. These differ from the previous groups mostly due to the fact that life here continued into the Iron Age; the gap in settlement between the Urnfield and Hallstatt Culture periods was thus almost non-existant. Most settlements were occupied also in the Late La Tène period.
The fourth group is the most numerous. It encompasses hillforts that appeared at the beginning of the Iron Age (the Podzemelj phase) and went on to be occupied throughout the Early and Late Hallstatt periods. The Late La Tène occupation was established for just over a half of the settlements and can very probably be expected on most others.173 Most Iron Age centres of Dolenjska belong to this group.
The fifth and sixth groups include settlements that appeared in the Late Hallstatt period. Some of them were occupied also in the Late La Tène period (group V), while for others (group VI) this is not the case.
The seventh group comprises settlements that revealed only Late La Tène remains so far.
As can be seen from the above, half of all datable hillforts was settled already in the Late Bronze Age. Most date to the Younger and Late Urnfield periods. The scarce settlement structures documented at these sites indicate that they were occupied only occasionally. The continuity of occupation was reliably established for six settlements and for one the continuation is very probable (group III).
The other half of the settlements appeared during the Iron Age; seventeen at the beginning (group IV) and others in the Late Hallstatt period (groups V and VI). The latter period also saw a reoccupation of certain Late Bronze Age settlements that had been abandoned centuries ago (group II).
Reoccupation of certain known sites occurred also in the Late La Tène period. For the end of the Early and in the Middle La Tène periods (the Mokronog I and II phases), on the other hand, trial trenches have shown that hillforts of Dolenjska were not occupied.174 Life before the arrival of the Celts apparently took place outside the former fortification walls. The only exception known so far is Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, where the Middle La Tène layers could not be clearly distinguished from the Late La Tène layers. It is evident, however, that Cvinger was not equipped with stone walls at this time.175 This problem might be elucidated by a systematic analysis of pottery material, which is currently being carried out.
Life in fortified settlements of south-eastern Slovenia finally died out after Octavian's wars in Illyricum between 35 and 33 BC, when the territory up to the Sava was annexed to the Roman Empire.
na naseljih tretje skupine. Od predhodnih pa se ta gradišča razlikujejo prevsem po tem, da se je na njih življenje kontinuirano nadaljevalo v železno dobo, da torej med žarnogrobiščnim in halštatskim obdobjem ni bilo poselitvene vrzeli. Večina naselij je bila poseljena tudi v poznem latenu.
Četrta skupina je številčno najmočnejša. V njej so združena gradišča, ki so nastala na začetku železne dobe (v stopnji Podzemelj), nato pa so bila obljudena tako v starejšem kot tudi mlajšem halštatskem obdobju. Poselitev v poznem latenu je dokazana za dobro polovico naselij, na večini preostalih pa jo lahko z veliko verjetnostjo pričakujemo.173 V tej skupini srečamo večino dolenjskih železnodobnih središč.
V	peti in šesti skupini so združena naselja, ki so nastala v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju. Nekatera od njih so bila nato poseljena tudi v poznem latenu (skupina V), na drugih (skupina VI) pa obljudenost v tem času ni dokazana.
V	sedmo skupino so uvrščena naselja, na katerih so bili za zdaj odkriti le ostanki iz poznega latenskega obdobja.
Kakor vidimo, je bilo od celotnega števila gradišč, ki smo jih uspeli datirati, polovica (35) poseljenih že v pozni bronasti dobi. Večina jih sodi v mlajše in pozno žarnogrobiščno obdobje. Sodeč po skromnih naselbinskih strukturah, ki smo jih dokumentirali na teh najdiščih, lahko rečemo, da so bila obljudena le občasno. Na šestih gradiščih je bila ugotovljena zanesljiva, na enem pa zelo verjetna kontinuiteta v železno dobo (skupina III).
Druga polovica naselij je nastala v železni dobi; sedemnajst že na njenem začetku (skupina IV), ostale pa v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju (skupini V in VI). V mlajšem halštatskem obdobju so bila ponovno obljudena tudi nekatera pred stoletji zapuščena poznobronas-todobna gradišča (skupina II).
S ponovno poselitvijo nekaterih znanih točk imamo opraviti tudi v poznem latenskem obdobju. Sondiranja so namreč pokazala, da ob koncu zgodnjega in v srednjem latenu (stopnji Mokronog I in II) gradišča na Dolenjskem niso bila poseljena.174 Življenje se je po prihodu Keltov očitno odvijalo izven nekdanjih obzidij. Izjema naj bi bil za zdaj le Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični, kjer pa srednjelatenskih plasti prav tako ni bilo mogoče natančno ločiti od poznolatenskih. Zanesljivo pa v tem času Cvinger ni imel obzidja.175 Morda bo več jasnosti prinesla sistematična obdelava keramičnega gradiva, ki je v pripravi.
Življenje na utrjenih naseljih v jugovzhodni Sloveniji je dokončno zamrlo po Oktavijanovih vojnah v Iliri-ku med leti 35-33 pr. Kr., ko je bilo tudi ozemlje do Save vključeno v rimski imperij.
173	These are the settlements that were not trenched.
174	Dular 1999b, 138 ff.
175	Gabrovec 1994, 152.
173	Gre za naselja, ki niso bila sondirana.
174	Dular 1999b, 138 ss.
175	Gabrovec 1994, 152.
6.1.2. LOCATION
6.1.2. LEGA
Most fortified settlements were constructed on elevations. This can be clearly seen on fig. 26 that shows separately the altitudes of 100 randomly selected points from the relief of Dolenjska and the altitudes of the Iron Age settlements. The altitude span is relatively broad. Settlements can be found very low, almost on the bottoms of lowland areas (for example Črnomelj - 155 m) and on very high hills (Sv. Jurij near Stranski vrh - 828 m). However, almost two thirds of fortified settlements lie between 300 and 600 m above the sea, which corresponds well to the most frequent altitudes of the relief. The positions chosen for settlements therefore did not drastically stand out of surroundings. A similar trend can be observed also in the Late Bronze Age, when most fortified settlements were also situated between 300 and 600 m of altitude. This leads us to conclude that Iron Age hillforts did not differ much in in this respect from those of the previous period.
Beside the absolute, we observed also the relative altitudes. Measurements were taken on the gentlest slopes in a distance of 250 m from the settlements.176
random altitudes of relief naključne višine reliefa (n = 100)
altitudes of fortified settlements višine utrjenlfi naselij (n = 53)
Fig. 26: Relationship between relief and absolute altitudes of Iron Age fortified settlements.
Sl. 26: Odnos med reliefom in absolutnimi višinami železno-dobnih utrjenih naselij.
176 This is the distance at which, in most cases, the foot of the elevation or the nearest saddle was reached.
Večina utrjenih naselij je bila zgrajena na vzpetinah. To lahko zelo dobro razberemo iz grafikona, na katerem so ločeno predstavljene višine 100 naključno izbranih točk reliefa Dolenjske in nadmorske višine železnodobnih naselij (sl. 26). Razpon je razmeroma velik. Najdemo jih skoraj v ravnini (npr. Črnomelj - 155 m) in na zelo visokih hribih (Sv. Jurij pri Stranskem Vrhu - 828 m). Vendar pa je opaziti, da ležita skoraj dve tretjini utrjenih naselij med 300 m in 600 m nad morjem, kar se dobro ujema z najpogostejšimi višinami reliefa. Za poselitev torej niso bili izbrani vrhovi, ki bi bistveno izstopali iz širše okolice naselja. Podoben trend pozna bronasta doba. Tudi v tem času je bila večina utrjenih naselij na nadmorski višini med 300 in 600 m, zato lahko rečemo, da se železnodobna gradišča po absolutnih višinah niso bistveno razlikovala od utrjenih naselij predhodnega obdobja.
Oglejmo si še relativne višine utrjenih naselij. Meritve smo opravili na najbolj zložni strani in sicer na razdalji 250 m od naselja.176 Izkazalo se je, da je bilo potrebno le pri četrtini naselij premagati višinsko razliko, ki je bila večja od 30 m (sl. 27). To seveda pomeni, da je bil dostop v večino naselij ne glede na njihovo morebitno veliko nadmorsko višino vsaj z ene strani razmeroma enostaven. Ta ugotovitev velja tako za pozno bronasto kot tudi za železno dobo. Prav nikjer ni bilo potrebno na tej razdalji premagati večje višinske razlike kot 70 m. Posebno skupino predstavljajo naselja, do katerih ni bil potreben nikakršen vzpon. Postavljena so bila v okljuke rek in na hrbte grebenov, zato se jim je bilo mogoče približati celo z višje ležečih predelov.
Geološka podlaga, na kateri so bila zgrajena utrjena naselja, je pestra (sl. 28). Največkrat jih srečamo na območjih, kjer se izmenjujeta apnenec in dolomit. Na drugem mestu je čisti dolomit, nato pa si sledijo druge geološke podlage in apnenec. Še bolj zanimivo sliko dobimo, če si ogledamo, koliko naselij je bilo zgrajenih na apnencu in koliko je naselij, kjer te kamenine ni (sl. 29). Izkazalo se je, da je bilo v pozni bronasti dobi razmerje skoraj enako, saj so 51% naselij zgradili na apnencu, 49% pa na dolomitu, ilovicah in drugih podlagah. V železni dobi se situacija spremeni. Odstotek naselij na apnenčasti osnovi se je znatno povečal (66%), kar verjetno ni slučaj. Premik je očitno povezan z novim načinom gradnje fortifikacij, ki so bile v železni dobi praviloma kamnite, medtem ko so jih v pozni bronasti dobi gradili iz ilovice in lesa.
Končno si moramo ogledati še odnos naselij do vodnih virov. Kot vemo, Dolenjska ne trpi pomanjkanja vode. Izjema je Suha krajina, zlasti desni breg Krke, ki pa v železni dobi ni bil poseljen. Vendar dostop do vode
176 Na tej razdalji smo namreč v večini primerov že dosegli vznožje vzpetine oziroma najbližje sedlo.
□ Late Bronze Age pozna bronasta doba
■ Iron Age železna doba
1-10 m 11-20 m 21-30 m 31-40 m 41-50 m 51-60 m 61-70 m
Fig. 27: Relative altitudes of fortified settlements. Sl. 27: Relativne višine utrjenih naselij.
The results showed that in just a few cases, only a quarter, it is neccesarry to surmount an altitude of more than 30 m (fig. 27). This indicates that access was relatively easy from at least one side, whatever the absolute altitude of the settlement. This holds true for both the Late Bronze and the Iron Ages. The maximum difference in altitudes within the radius of 250 m from the settlements never exceeded 70 m. A special type of settlements are those that are accessible without ascending. These were located in river bends and on ridges and could be reached by descending from higher-lying locations.
Fortified settlements were constructed on various bedrocks (^ig. 28). They are most frequently found on areas with alternating limestone and dolomite. The second commonest bedrock is that of pure dolomite, followed by other bedrocks and limestone. A more interesting picture is obtained by observing the correlation between the number of the settlements on limestone and those on a limestone-free bedrock (^ig. 29). The observation shows that the relationship is almost equal in the Late Bronze Age, with 51 % of settlements built on limestone and 49 % on dolomite, loams and other types of ground. In the Iron Age, on the other hand, the situation changes. The percentage of settlements on limestone increases substantially (66 %), which is probably not a coincidence. The shift is apparently tied to the new tehniques of fortification construction in the Iron Age. These were predominantly made of stone, while the Late Bronze Age fortifications were made of earth and wood.
We closely examined also the relationship between settlements and their water sources. It is known that Dolenjska does not suffer from shortage of water. The only exception is Suha krajina, particularly the right bank
□ Late Bronze Age ■ Iron Age pozna bronasta doba železna doba
40 35 30 25
I 20
J)
I 15
0
1 E
3
10 5
I
i*
|1 ^ o
-O "o o-a
TJ
|1 ^ o
-O "o ^ o
ll E °
Fig. 28: Fortified settlements in relation to geological composition.
Sl. 28: Geološke osnove utrjenih naselij.
ni bil vedno enostaven. Gradišča so bila namreč postavljena na višine, večino izvirov pa najdemo ob vznožju vzpetin. Dostop do vode je bil zato odvisen od oddaljenosti vira in konfiguracije zemljišča. Na grafikonu smo oddaljenost predstavili s časom, ki je bil potreben za pot od izvira do naselja (sl. 30). Kot vidimo, je bila v železni dobi le dobra četrtina naselij (26%) od vodnega vira oddaljena več kot 25 minut. V pozni bronasti dobi je bilo to razmerje slabše. Zunaj meje 25 minut je ostala tretjina gradišč (33%). Ali se v razliki odraža drugačen
□ Late Bronze Age pozna bronasta doba (n = 35)
■ Iron Age železna doba (n = 53)
Fig. 29: Proportions between limestone and other rock bases in fortified settlements.
Sl. 29: Razmerja med apnenčevimi in drugimi podlagami utrjenih naselij.
14
odnos do vodnih virov, je težko reči. Ne smemo namreč prezreti dejstva, da so bila kar tri pomembna železno-dobna gradišča (Zgornja krona nad Vačami, Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu in Sv. Marjeta na Libni) oddaljena od najbližjih izvirov pol ure hoda. Takšna oddaljenost kaže na možnost, da so se preskrbovali z vodo tudi iz kalov in cistern, za kar pa seveda nimamo nobenih neposrednih dokazov.
6.1.3. TIPI UTRJENIH NASELIJ
Čeprav so si po velikosti in obliki gradišča velikokrat podobna, pa teh kriterijev nismo upoštevali pri njihovem tipološkem razvrščanju. Obliko naselij je namreč v dobršni meri pogojevala konfiguracija terena, saj so prazgodovinski graditelji v obrambni sistem učinkovito vključili strma pobočja, robove kraških vrtač in skalnate skoke. Naselja smo zato razvrstili po obliki fortifi-kacij. Takšna klasifikacija je namreč najbolj upravičena, saj veljajo obrambni sistemi za eno od glavnih značilnosti prazgodovinskih gradišč.
Z ozirom na potek in obliko fortifikacij smo naselja
o 4
o n E
= 2 f O
12
S
D 10
J2
C
E 6^--------
0)
:iil
MiL^
□ Late Bronze Age pozna bronasta doba
■ Iron Age železna doba
5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min 25 min 30 min 35 min 40 min 50 min 60 min
Fig. 30: Classification of fortified settlements with regard to the distances from water sources. Sl. 30: Oddaljenost utrjenih naselij od vodnih virov.
of the Krka, which was not settled in the Iron Age. Having said that, access to water was not always easy; hillforts were located on elevations, while most water sources are situated at the feet of elevations. Access therefore depended on the remoteness of the source and relief restrictions. This is presented on a graph, where the distance and the time consumption, needed to arrive from the source to the desired destination, are compared (fig. 30). It shows that, in the Iron Age, only a quarter of settlements (26 %) were situated more than 25 minutes from
razvrstili v šest glavnih skupin. Vse so dovolj jasne in prepoznavne, čeprav moramo priznati, da obstajajo tudi gradišča, ki združujejo značilnosti več skupin. V takšnih primerih smo se pri klasifikaciji ravnali po tistih tipoloških značilnostih, ki so bile prevladujoče.
Naselja s sklenjenimi obzidji
Najbolj preprosta in hkrati tudi najštevilnejša so naselja s sklenjenimi obodi. Običajno so se ohranili kot robovi dobro vidnih teras oziroma okopov, ki so v celoti
a water source. In the Late Bronze Age, on the other hand, the percentage is higher, with a third of settlements laying outside of the 25-minute radius (33 %). It is difficult to say whether this difference reflects an altered attitude towards water sources. It should not be overlooked that as many as three important Iron Age hillforts (Zgornja krona near Vače, Gradec near Vinkov Vrh and Sv. Marjeta on Libna) lay over half an hour of walk away from the nearest water source. This distance suggests the possibility of the water being supplied by pools of water and cisterns, for which no direct evidence exists.
6.1.3. TYPOLOGY OF FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS
obkrožali naselja (sl. 31:1-5). Veliko je gradišč, ki imajo obod poškodovan ali celo uničen, kar se je običajno zgodilo na tistih predelih, kjer so v preteklosti zemljišča prerigolali v vinograde (sl. 31: 6,7). Kljub temu pa lahko z natančnim pregledom terena v večini primerov verno rekonstruiramo njegov potek.
Naselja z nesklenjenimi obzidji
Kot pove že samo ime, smo v to skupino uvrstili tista naselja, ki nimajo sklenjenega oboda. Gre za gradišča, postavljena na vzpetine, ki imajo na eni strani zelo strmo pobočje. Takšna oblikovanost tal je omogočala, da naselje na strmi strani ni bilo dodatno utrjeno, saj ga je dovolj dobro varovala že sama strmina (sl. 31: 8,9).
The hillforts are often similar in size and shape. However, these two criteria were not considered in the typological classification. The form of the settlement was, in a considerable measure, dictated by the configuration of the terrain, since the prehistoric builders included steep slopes, edges of karst sinkholes and escarpments into the settlement's defence system. The classification was therefore based rather on the sort of the fortifications, which is the most justified in that the defence systems represent one of the main characteristics of prehistoric hillforts.
Settlements were classified into six main groups on the basis of the fortification design. All groups are clear and distinctive enough, though it has to be said that there are also settlements which show the characteristics of more than one group. In such cases, the determination of the group was made on the basis of the prevalent typological characteristic.
Settlements with a total enclosure
The simplest and also the most numerous are the settlements with uninterrupted enclosure. The latter were usually preserved as edges of clearly visible terraces or ramparts that totally enclosed the settlement (fig. 31:15). There are many hillforts with damaged or even destroyed segments of enclosure, which usually occurred on the parts that were ploughed up and transformed into vineyards in the past (fig. 31: 6,7). In spite of this, a detailed examination of the terrain enabled a fairly faithful reconstruction of the course of the walls.
Settlements with a partial enclosure
As revealed by the name, this group includes settlements which are partially enclosed by walls. These hillforts are located on elevations with a very steep slope on one side. Such configuration allowed for one side of the settlement, the steepest, not to be additionally fortified, since the escarpment itself offered sufficient protection (fig. 31: 8,9).
Naselja z oddvojnimi okopi
Značilna lega na pomolu je pri tej skupini gradišč zahtevala gradnjo zelo močnega okopa, s katerim so naselje oddvojili od preostalega grebena. Okop so običajno postavili na najožji del pomola, če pa je bil na njem manjši kucelj, so vzpetino učinkovito vključili v njegov potek (sl. 32:1-4). Na ta način so naselje dobro zavarovali s tiste strani, kjer je bil najlažji dostop. Na ostalih straneh je gradišče ščitil zid oziroma naravna strmina, odvisno od konfiguracije terena.
Naselja s prečnimi obzidji
Ta skupina naselij ni številna, značilno zanje pa je to, da imajo notranjost s prečnimi obzidji predeljeno v dva ali več delov (sl. 33: 3). S prečnimi obzidji so lahko obdani tudi dvignjeni predeli naselij (sl. 33:1,2).
Naselja s terasami
Za ta naselja je značilno, da nimajo definiranega oboda. Naselbinski prostor je bil namreč urejen tako, da so vrh preoblikovali v terase, na katerih so stale hiše. Terase med seboj niso povezane, ampak se vrstijo druga nad drugo po pobočju hriba (sl. 32: 5-8). Terasasta naselja srečamo največkrat na dolomitni podlagi. Morda so bila obdana z lesenimi plotovi, kar pa bi bilo potrebno šele dokazati z načrtnimi izkopavanji.
Naselja v okljuku
V to skupino smo uvrstili naselja, ki so bila postavljena v vodne okljuke. Obrambno funcijo je torej prevzela voda (sl. 32: 9). Posebej utrjen je bil verjetno le tisti predel, kjer je na okljuk vodila pot.
6.1.4. FORTIFIKACIJF
Rekli smo že, da so bile fortifikacije glavna značilnost višinskih naselij. Med gradišči pozne bronaste in železne dobe vsaj v načinu utrjevanja ni bilo bistvenih razlik. V obeh obdobjih srečamo največ naselij s skle-
Fig. 31: Settlements with total enclosing wall: 1. Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice; 2. Semenič near Gaber pri Semiču; 3. Cvinger near Korita; 4. Gradec near Vinkov Vrh; 5. Tičnica near Studenec; 6. Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem; 7. Stari grad near Podbočje. Settlements with partial enclosing wall: 8. Šentviška gora near Čatež ob Savi; 9. Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč. Scale = 1:5000. Sl. 31: Naselja s sklenjenimi obzidji: 1. Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah; 2. Semenič nad Gabrom pri Semiču; 3. Cvinger nad Koriti; 4. Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu; 5. Tičnica pri Studencu; 6. Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem; 7. Stari grad nad Podbočjem. Naselja z nesklenjenimi obzidji: 8. Šentviška gora nad Čatežem ob Savi; 9. Sv. Ana nad Vrhpečjo. M. = 1:5000.
Settlements with separating ramparts
The characteristic position on a promontory required the construction of a very strong rampart, with which the settlements of this group were separated from the rest of the ridge. The rampart was usually located on the narrowest part of the promontory. Wherever it encompassed a small peak, this was effectively included into the course of the rampart (fig. 32:1-4). The settlement was thereby well protected from the side where access was easiest. Other sides of the hillfort were defended by either walls or a cliff, depending on the configuration.
Settlements with transverse rampart
This group of settlements is not numerous. It is characterised by inner repartition with transverse rampart (fig. 33: 3). The inner walls can also be used to enclose the elevated parts of settlements (fig. 33:1,2).
Settlements with terraces
This type of settlements is characterized by an absence of a defined enclosure. The habitation area on a hill-slopes was arranged into terraces on which the houses erected. Terraces are not interconnected, but rather succeed each other up the slope (fig. 32: 5-8). Such settlements are most commonly found on dolomite bedrock. They were perhaps surrounded by wooden fences, but this is yet to be proven by target excavations.
Settlements in river bends
This group represents occupation in river bends, whereby the defensive function was fulfilled by water (fig. 32: 9). They were probably particularly fortified only in the access areas where a road led to the bend.
6.1.4. FORTIFICATION STRUCTURES
It has already been stated that fortifications were the main characteristic of elevation settlements. Those of the Late Bronze and the Iron Ages do not differ substantially in the mode of fortification, since both periods reveal the highest number of settlements with continuous walls, followed by hillforts with a partial enclosure and with separating ramparts (fig. 34). A somewhat different picture is obtained when observing the manner of constructing the fortifications. All the Late Bronze Age settlements trenched so far revealed defence systems made of earth ramparts or wooden fences. No exceptions were detected. In the Iron Age, on the other hand, the situation changed. Of the altogether 29 hillforts trenched, eighteen (62 %) had stone walls and eleven (38 %) revealed terraces or earthen mounds.
njenimi obzidji, tem pa sledijo gradišča z nesklenjenimi obzidji in oddvojnimi okopi (sl. 34). Nekoliko drugačno sliko dobimo, če si ogledamo, kako so bile fortifikacije zgrajene. Izkazalo se je, da so bili na vseh do sedaj son-diranih poznobronastodobnih naseljih obodni sistemi iz zemlje oziroma lesa. Izjem nismo zasledili. V železni dobi se je situacija spremenila. Od skupaj 29 sondira-nih gradišč jih je imelo osemnajst (62 %) kamnita obzidja, medtem ko smo na enajstih (38 %) ugotovili terase oziroma zemljena nasutja.
6.1.4.1. Konstrukcije iz zemlje in lesa
Še največ podatkov o gradnji zemljenih okopov so dala sondiranja na Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Ugotovili smo, da so v pozni bronasti dobi na robu naselja postavili lesena opaža, vmes pa nabili ilovnato zemljo. Konstrukcija je bila široka 2,5 m. Ker je bila uničena v močnem požaru, so se njeni ostanki dobro ohranili (sl. 35). Opaž je bil narejen iz vodoravno položenih brun, ki so jih podpirale vertikalne, v tla zabite stojke. Kot že rečeno, je bil okop uničen v velikem požaru, ki je bil tako močan, da se je nasutje spremenilo v paket prežgane ilovice rdečeoranžne barve, posamezni kamni v njem pa so popolnoma poapneli (sl. 36).177
Podobna konstrukcija iz zemlje in lesa je bila odkrita na Sv. Marjeti na Libni. Tudi v tem primeru je šlo za nasutje, ki so ga na zunanji strani podprli z opažem, od katerega se je v profilu sonde ohranila dobro vidna sled. Okop je očitno nastal v pozni bronasti dobi.178
Ostanke lesene konstrukcije poznamo tudi s poz-nobronastodobnega naselja Golšaj pod Tolstim Vrhom.179 Pogorenina je bila slabše ohranjena, zato ni bilo mogoče rekonstruirati njene oblike. Zelo verjetno pa imamo tudi v tem primeru opraviti s kombinacijo lesenega opaža in zemljenega nasutja.
Na podoben način je bil utrjen Kočnik nad Segon-jami, medtem ko je naselje Mastni hrib pri Škocjanu obdajala le lesena ograda. Tudi ti dve naselji sta bili obljudeni v pozni bronasti dobi.180
Na poznobronastodobnem naselju Gradišče pri Trebnjem je bil v profilu sonde, ki smo jo izkopali na robu naselja, viden ostanek sprhnele stojke. Spodaj je bila zašiljena, tičala pa je med dvema kamnoma v primarni osnovi hriba. Verjetno je ostanek ograde, ki je obdajala gradišče.181
177	Dular/Križ 2004, 217.
178	Guštin 1976, 13 ss, postavlja okop v železno dobo, kar pa je z ozirom na način gradnje malo verjetno. Da je bila Sv. Marjeta na Libni poseljena v pozni bronasti dobi govorijo tudi najdbe, ki so prišle na dan ob zaščitnem izkopavanju leta 1993.
179	Naselje je bilo sondirano leta 1994, terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni.
180	Dular et al. 2000, 125 s in 129 ss.
181	Dular et al. 1991, 82.
Fig. 32: Settlements with separate ramparts: 1. Kostjavec near Tihaboj; 2. Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje; 3. Makovec near Zagorica; 4. Mastni hrib near Škocjan. Settlements with terraces: 5. Sitarjevec near Litija; 6. Gradišče near Dunaj; 7. Gradec near Otavnik; 8. Gradišče near Valična vas. Settlement within a river bend: 9. Črnomelj. Scale = 1:5000.
Sl. 32: Naselja z oddvojnimi okopi: 1. Kostjavec nad Tihabojem; 2. Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem; 3. Makovec nad Zagorico; 4. Mastni hrib pri Škocjanu. Naselja s terasami: 5. Sitarjevec nad Litijo; 6. Gradišče pri Dunaju; 7. Gradec pod Otavnikom; 8. Gradišče pri Valični vasi. Naselje v vodnem okljuku: 9. Črnomelj. M. = 1:5000.
Fig. 33: Settlements with transverse walls: 1. Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico 2. Kučar near Podzemelj; 3. Sv. Marjeta on Libna. Scale = 1:5000.
Sl. 33: Naselja s prečnimi obzidji: 1. Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico 2. Kučar nad Podzemljem; 3. Sv. Marjeta na Libni. M. = 1:5000.
T
O 20
15
(D
E
J 10
2 5+H
E
o
= g3_
' "n
05.I3 E O O § U g)_
ll a
to
§ -
^ N 03J2
E O
O i u g)_
Jj
O
~ to t (D
Ml.,
□ Late Bronze Age pozna bronasta doba
■ Iron Age železna doba
t o. □ o
E ° P C
£
o
S-Ž
S
=
^ 'n > g
o g
§ 2 E £ £

.2-o
5
g.'
f/g. 34: Relationships among the types of fortification. Sl. 34: Razmerja med vrstami fortifikacij.
6.1.4.1. Constructions of earth and wood
Most data on the structure of earthen ramparts were provided by the trial trenches at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. It was established that, in the Bronze Age, two parallel lines of wooden fence were positioned at the settlement rim and the space between them filled with earth. The construction measured 2.5 m in width. Its remains were well preserved, since it was destroyed in a fire (fig. 35). The fence was made of horizontal timbers supported by vertical posts driven into the ground. The strong fire transformed the earthen mound into a pack of burnt red-orange loam and individual stones in its interior to completely calcify (fig. 36).177
A similar construction of earth and wood was uncovered at Sv. Marjeta on Libna. In this case as well a mound was supported on the exterior side by wooden fence, traces of which were clearly visible in the profile of the trench. The rampart is supposed to be made in the Bronze Age.178
The remains of a wooden construction are known also from the Late Bronze Age settlement at Golšaj near Tolsti Vrh.179 The burnt remains were poorly preserved, making it impossible to reconstruct its form. However, we are probably dealing with a combination of wooden lacing and earthen mound here as well.
177	Dular/Križ 2004, 217.
178	Guštin 1976, 13 ff, dates the rampart to the Iron Age. The construction technique, however, indicates that this chronological determination is hardly likely and that a Bronze Age date is more probable, which is indicated also by the finds that came to light during the rescue excavations in 1993.
179	The settlement was trenched in 1994, the results of which have not yet been published.
Fig. 35: Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. Trench 2, remains of the wooden lacing.
Sl. 35: Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Sonda 2, ostanki lesenega opaža.
Nekaj zemljenih nasutij oziroma ostankov lesenih ograd poznamo tudi iz železne dobe. Srečamo jih na naseljih, ki so stala na dolomitnem apnencu ali ilovi-cah, zato ne čudi, da so za gradnjo uporabili tisti material, ki jim je bil najbolj pri roki.
Na Marofu v Novem mestu je bilo nasutje iz ilovi-
Similar fortifications were observed at Kočnik near Segonje. The settlement at Mastni hrib near Škocjan, on the other hand, was only surrounded by a wooden fence. These two settlements were also occupied during the Late Bronze Age.180
The profile of a trench made at the edge of the Late Bronze Age settlement at Gradišče near Trebnje revealed the remains of a rotted post. It was pointed at the bottom and stuck between two stones of the hill's bedrock. It probably represents the remains of the fence that surrounded the hillfort.181
Some earthen mounds or remains of wooden fences are known also from the Iron Age. They can be found on settlements constructed on dolomite limestone or loams. It is therefore not surprising that the material closest at hand was used for building.
The two-metre wide loam mound at Marof at Novo mesto appears to have been renovated twice.182
Significantly poorer results were obtained by the trial trenches of the perimeter at Kincelj near Trbinc. They revealed that the mound was practically removed, which was probably caused by the Late Antiquity occupation.183
A Late Antiquity wall disturbed also the prehistoric layers at Šumenje near Podturn. It is not clear whether the trace of a vertical post found underneath the wall represents the bearer of the fence or can be explained as part of a building that stood at the edge of the settlement.184
Remains of a fence were positively identified at Križni vrh near Beli Grič.185 Two well preserved post-holes were uncovered at the northern rim of the settlement and a trace of the third was found continuing into the eastern profile (^ig. 37: A). The round holes were dug into the soil with wedging stone for strengthening the timbers found at their edges. The distance between the holes measured 1.2 m.
It seems that a wooden fence surrounded also the settlement at Vinji hrib near Vino.186 Two very well preserved post-holes with wedging stone were uncovered on the perimeter of the settlement (fig. 37: B and fig. 38). The distance between the holes measured exactly 2.5 m.
Terraced settlements at Gradišče near Valična vas, Gradišca near Jelše, Pančičev vrh near Javor and Sitarjevec near Litija, to mention only those that were trenched, were made by earthen mounds as well as by hewing into the bedrock. Other than that, not much data
180	Dular et al. 2000, 125 f and 129 ff.
181	Dular et al. 1991, 82.
182	The settlement was trenched by T. Knez in 1981. Knez 1982.
183	Dular et al. 1991, 91 ff.
184	Breščak/Dular 2002, 106.
185	Dular et al. 1991, 105.
186	The settlement was trenched in 1999, the results of which have not yet been published.
Fig. 36: Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. Trench 2, cross-section of the earthen rampart.
Sl. 36: Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Sonda 2, profil preko zemljenega okopa.
ce debelo dva metra, vse pa kaže, da so ga dvakrat obnovili.182
Bistveno slabši rezultat je dalo sondiranje oboda na Kinclju nad Trbincem. Izkazalo se je, da je bilo nasutje praktično odstranjeno, čemur je najverjetneje botrovala poselitev v pozni antiki.183
Poznoantični zid se je zajedel tudi v prazgodovinske plasti na Šumenju pri Podturnu. Ni namreč jasno, če je bila sled vertikalne stojke, ki smo jo našli pod njim, nosilec obodne ograje, saj bi jo lahko razložili tudi kot del stavbe, ki je stala na robu naselja.184
Zanesljivi ostanki obodne ograje pa so znani s Križnega vrha nad Belim Gričem.185 Tu smo na severnem robu naselja odkrili dve zelo dobro ohranjeni luknji za vertikalni stojki, sled tretje pa je izginjala v vzhodnem profilu (sl. 37: A). Luknji, okrogle oblike, sta bili vkopani v raščena tla, na njunih robovih pa so še stale kamnite zagozde, s katerimi sta bili učvrščeni leseni bruni. Razdalja med luknjama je znašala 1,2 m.
Vse kaže, da je lesena ograja obdajala tudi naselje Vinji hrib nad Vinom.186 Tudi tu smo na obodu odkrili dve zelo dobro ohranjeni luknji za stojki, ki sta imeli kamnite zagozde (sl. 37: B in sl. 38). Razdalja med njima je znašala natanko 2,5 m.
Z zemljenimi nasutji in vsekavanjem v dolomitno osnovo so nastala tudi terasasta naselja Gradišče pri Valični vasi, Gradišca pri Jelšah, Pančičev vrh pod Ja-
182	Naselje je leta 1981 sondiral T. Knez. Knez 1982.
183	Dular et al. 1991, 91 ss.
184	Breščak/Dular 2002, 106.
185	Dular et al. 1991, 105.
186	Naselje je bilo sondirano leta 1999, terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni.
Fig. 37: A: Križni vrh near Beli Grič. Ground plan and cross-section of the post-holes. B: Vinji vrh near Vino. Cross-section of the post-hole. Scale = 1:50.
Sl. 37: A: Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem. Tloris in profil lukenj za stojke. B: Vinji vrh nad Vinom. Profil lukenj za stojke. M. = 1:50.
were gathered on the construction of earthen ramparts or wooden fences with the only exception of the ramparts at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice and Sv. Marjeta on Libna. Trenching at other sites only revealed variously thick mounds that were preserved as terraces with more or less steep slopes. The question concerning the form of the wooden fences also remains unanswered. The remains of posts could indicate palisades or fence bearers of that surrounded the settlements, whereby we are more inclined towards the latter on the basis of the thickness and the distances among the posts. The poor preservation and superficial construction gave to these enclosures of earth and wood a more provisional character; there was not much effort put into their construction. Something similar can be said of the terraces.
6.1.4.2. Constructions of stone
The most frequent material used in the Iron Age to built defence systems was stone. The mode of con-
Fig. 38: Vinji vrh near Vino. Cross-section of the post-hole. Sl. 38: Vinji vrh nad Vinom. Profil luknje za stojko.
vorjem in Sitarjevec nad Litijo, da omenimo le tiste, na katerih smo opravili sondažne raziskave. Sicer pa o sami zgradbi zemljenih okopov oziroma lesenih ograd nismo zbrali veliko podatkov. Izjemi sta okopa na Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah in Sv. Marjeti na Libni. Drugod smo s sondažami ugotovili le različno debela nasutja, ki so se ohranila kot terase z bolj ali manj strmimi ježami. Neodgovorjeno ostaja tudi vprašanje, kako so izgledale lesene ograde. So bili ostanki stojk deli palisad ali le nosilni stebri plotov, ki so obdajali naselja? Glede na njihovo debelino in medsebojne razdalje bi se bolj nagibali k drugi možnosti. Prav zaradi slabe ohranjenosti in površne gradnje so imele obodne konstrukcije iz zemlje in lesa bolj provizoričen značaj. V njihovo postavitev ni bilo vloženo veliko truda. Podobno lahko rečemo za terase.
6.1.4.2. Konstrukcije iz kamna
Najpogostejši material, ki so ga v železni dobi uporabili za gradnjo obrambnih sistemov, je bil kamen. Kako so obzidja v železni dobi gradili, razmeroma dobro vemo. Največ podatkov so dala sistematična izkopavanja naselja Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični, pomembna pa so bila tudi sondiranja na drugih železnodobnih gradiščih Dolenjske.
Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični
Naselje je bilo raziskano z dvaindvajsetimi sondami. Rezultati so bili objavljeni v posebni monografiji,
structing the fortification walls in the Iron Age is fairly well known. Most data were provided by the systematic excavations of the settlement at Cvinger near Stična, though trenching on other Iron Age hillforts of Dolenjska was also important.
Cvinger near Vir pri Stični
The settlement was explored with twenty-two trial trenches. The results were published in a special monographic publication, therefore only a short summary of the results is given here.187
Wall 1
The earliest fortification wall (Wall 1) was built on a new, previously unoccupied location. It was built in a single campaign, which marked the extent of the entire settlement at the very beginning. The walls were built in the same manner along the entire length. Large unworked stones were used on the inner and outer faces, while the core was filled with stone rubble and loam (fig. 39). The wall was 2.0 to 2.5 m thick. It usually did not have an earthen mound on the outer side. The only exception is the area at the south-west of the settlement (Trenches 4, 16, 17), where the foundations had to be reinforced due to the sloping terrain. Repair to the wall was established, in the south of the settlement (Trenches 6 and 12), whereby the wall was thickened for 0.5 m in the interior and reinforced with a vertical wooden post.
Wall II
Wall II was built after a huge fire had destroyed the southern part of the settlement. An interesting find-
Fig. 39: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Trench 4, inner face of Wall I.
Sl. 39: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Sonda 4, notranja fronta zidu I.
zato se lahko na tem mestu zadovoljimo s kratkim povzetkom dognanj.187
Zid I
Najstarejše obzidje (zid I) je bilo postavljeno na novi, pred tem neposeljeni lokaciji. Zgradili so ga v enem zamahu, tako da so z njim že na začetku zamejili celoten obseg naselja. Zid je bil na vseh predelih zgrajen na enak način. Za njegovo notranje in zunanje lice so uporabili večje neobdelane kamne, medtem ko je bila sredina zapolnjena s kamnitim drobirjem in ilovico (sl. 39). Debel je bil od 2,0 m do 2,5 m. Zid na zunanji strani praviloma ni imel zemljenega nasutja, izjema je območje na jugozahodu naselja (sonde 4, 16, 17), kjer so morali njegove temelje dodatno učvrstiti zaradi naklona zemljišča. V enem primeru, tokrat na jugu (sondi 6 in 12), je bilo ugotovljeno tudi popravilo zidu. Na notranji strani so ga razširili za 0,5 m in mu povečali trdnost z vertikalno leseno stojko.
Zid II
Zid II so zgradili po velikem požaru, ki je uničil južni del naselja. Zanimiva je ugotovitev, da je pogore-nina na nekaterih mestih (sondi 13 in 17) segala čez ostanke prvega zidu, kar je neposreden dokaz, da je bilo na tem območju naselje vsaj krajši čas brez obzidja. Odnos novega zidu do starega ni povsod enak. Na južni in jugozahodni strani naselja so zid II postavili neposredno na zid I (sl. 40: A). Ponekod so vmes za izravnavo nasuli tudi plast ilovice (sl. 41: A). Nekoliko drugače je potekala prenova na severu. Tu so staro obzidje večinoma podrli, nato pa so njegove ostanke enostavno nadzidali oziroma preoblekli (sl. 40: B).
Zid II je bil zgrajen na podoben način kot zid I. Za obe fronti so uporabili večje kamne, notranjost pa so zapolnili z drobirjem in ilovico (sl. 42). Vendar pa obstajajo med njima tudi pomembne razlike. Zid II je bil namreč močnejši (3,0 m do 3,4 m), razen tega pa so pri njegovi gradnji uporabili les. Gre za vertikalne stojke, vgrajene paralelno v zunanjo in notranjo fronto zidu, ki pa niso bile vkopane v tla, ampak le učvrščene s kamnitimi zagozdami. Ohranjene reže kažejo, da je bil za opornike uporabljen tesan les (sl. 43). Razdalje med njimi niso bile enake in so nihale od 1,9 m pa tja do 5,4 m. Najpogosteje so se pojavljale na razdalji nekaj več kot 3 m (sl. 41: B). Vertikalne stojke so bile najverjetneje povezane s prečnimi vezmi, čeprav so sled horizontalne reže ugotovili le v enem primeru.
Zid II je imel na zunanji strani ilovnat nasip, ki je bil močnejši v tistih predelih naselja, kjer pred obzidjem ni bilo občutnejše strmine. Izkopavalci naselja zato menijo, da nasip ni služil le kot opora obzidju, temveč je oteževal tudi pristop. Vsi trije elementi, ki so značilni za zid II (kamnito jedro, leseni oporniki in ilovnato nasutje)
187
Gabrovec 1994, 145 ff.
187
Gabrovec 1994, 144 ss.
Fig. 40: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. A: Trench 17, SE cross-section. B: Trench 10, NE cross-section. Scale = 1:50 (after Svoljšak 1994 and Gabrovec 1994).
Sl. 40: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. A: sonda 17, jugovzhodni profil. B: sonda 10, severovzhodni profil. M. = 1:50 (po Svoljšku 1994 in Gabrovcu 1994).
Fig. 41: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. A: Trench 4, SW cross-section. B: Trenches 12 and 13, ground plan of Wall II. Scale = 1:50 (after Frey 1994).
Sl. 41: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. A: sonda 4, jugozahodni profil. B: sondi 12 in 13, tloris zidu II. M. = 1:50 (po Freyu 1994).
ing is that in some places (Trenches 13 and 17) the burnt remains were spread across the remains of the first wall, which is a direct evidence of the settlement having no fortification walls for at least a short period of time. The relationship of the new to the old wall is not the same in all places. In the southern and south-western parts of the settlement, Wall II was built directly onto Wall I (^ig. 40: A). A levelling layer of loam was also laid between the two walls at places (fig. 41: A). The renovation took a somewhat different course in the north. There, the old wall was mostly pulled down and its remains simply built over or coated (^ig. 40: B).
Wall II was built in a similar manner as Wall I. Large stones were used for both faces and the interior was filled with rubble and loam (^ig. 42). But there are also important differences. Wall II was stronger (3.0 to 3.4 m). Wood was used in its construction, which consisted of parallel posts built into the outer and inner faces. The posts were not driven into the ground, only strengthened by wedging stones. The preserved grooves in the wall indicate that posts were made of hewn wood (^ig. 43). The distances between the posts varied between 1.9 and 5.4 m and most frequently appeared at an interval of just over 3 m (^ig. 41: B). They were most probably tied with horizontal beams, though a trace of a horizontal hole could only be established in a single case.
Fig. 43: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Trench 10, groove for a post in the outer face of Wall II.
Sl. 43: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Sonda 10, reža za stojko v zunanji fronti zidu II.
v širšem prostoru nimajo odgovarjajoče paralele. S. Gabrovec je tak način gradnje upravičeno označil za stiški tip obzidja, ki naj bi bil značilen prav za dolenjsko hal-štatsko skupnost (sl. 44).188
Fig. 42: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Trenches 12 and 13, Wall II.
Sl. 42: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Sondi 12 in 13, zid II.
Fig. 44: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Reconstruction of Wall II (after Gabrovec 1994).
Sl. 44: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Rekonstrukcija zidu II (po Gabrovcu 1994).
Ib., 162 s.
Wall II had a mound of loam on the outer side, which was thicker on the part of the settlement where the slope was gentle. The excavators therefore believe that the mound served not only as a support for the fortification wall but also to hinder the access. The three elements characteristic for Wall II (stone core, wooden support posts and loam mound) are without a direct parallel in the surrounding area. This mode of constructing fortification walls was rightfully defined by S. Gabrovec as the Stična type, which was believed to be characteristic for the Hallstatt community of Dolenjska (^ig. 44).188
Zid III
Zid III so v preteklosti večinoma odstranili. Pravzaprav so se od njega ohranili le skromni ostanki (v sondi 4 notranja fronta v dveh legah; v sondah 6, 12 in 13 nekaj kamnov), zato o njegovi zgradbi ne vemo veliko (sl. 45). Na sklenjeno notranje lice zidu III so naleteli tudi v severnem koncu naselja (sonda 20), nikjer pa niso ugotovili njegove zunanje fronte. Širina zidu zato ni znana. Na tistih mestih, kjer zid ni bil več ohranjen, pa lahko sklepamo o njem na podlagi ilovnatih nasutij, ki leže nad nasutji zidu II (sondi 8 in 10).
Wall III
Most of Wall III was removed in the past. The scarce preserved remains (inner face in two rows of stone in superposition in Trench 4; several stones in Trenches 6, 12 and 13) do not reveal much of its structure (^ig. 45). The unbroken inner face of Wall III was uncovered in the northern part of the settlement (Trench 20), while the outer face was not uncovered anywhere. Wherever the wall was not preserved, its existence may nevertheless be assumed on the basis of loam mounds that lie on top of the mound of Wall II (Trenches 8 and 10).
Zid IV
Še manj podatkov imamo o načinu gradnje zidu IV. Njegovim ostankom je Gabrovec pripisal neurejeno vrsto kamnov, na katere so zadeli tik pod površino na južni strani Cvingerja (sonde 3, 6, 12, 13, 16, 17). Strati-grafsko so bili povsem ločeni od halštatskih plasti, zato naj bi sodili na konec obstoja naselja (sl. 46). Posreden dokaz za zid IV so tudi kamniti tlaki na pobočju zunaj gradišča, ki naj bi imeli podobno funkcijo kot halštatska nasutja. Z najdbami so bili namreč jasno datirani v pozno latensko obdobje.189
Wall IV
The data on Wall IV are even scarcer than on Wall III. Gabrovec defined an untidy line of stones, uncovered just underneath the surface on the southern side of Cvinger, as its remains (Trenches 3, 6, 12, 13, 16, 17). They were stratigraphically completely separated from the Hallstatt layers and are though to belong to the end of the settlement's existence (^ig. 46). An indirect evi-
Fig. 45: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Trench 4, inner face of Wall III.
Sl. 45: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Sonda 4, notranja fronta zidu III.
Fig. 46: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Trench 6, remains of Wall IV.
Sl. 46: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Sonda 6, ostanki zidu IV.
Datacija zidov
Zid I je Gabrovec datiral v starejše halštatsko obdobje. Njegov začetek je postavil v fazo Podzemelj 1, propadel pa naj bi fazi Podzemelj 2 oziroma na začetku
Ib., 163 f.
189
Ib., 148.
dence of Wall IV is also stone pavements on the slope outside the hillfort, presumably with a similar function as the Hallstatt mounds. Finds securely date the pavements to the Late La Tène period.189
Date of the walls
Gabrovec dated Wall I to the Early Hallstatt period. He set its beginning in the Podzemelj 1 phase and its destruction either in the Podzemelj 2 or in the beginning of the Stična phase.190 This chronological determination was contested by B. Teržan.191 She found the date of the wall's destruction particularly problematic. In her opinion, the walls were destroyed slightly later, at the end of the Stična 2 phase. She tied this event to the incursions of the groups of the so-called "Scythian origin" that caused great disturbances at the eastern outskirts of the Alps in this period. The material found in the southern part of Cvinger, behind Wall I, and most importantly in the extensive burnt ruins above it (Trenches 13, 14 and 16) speaks in favour of the date proposed by B. Teržan.192 The material included typical pottery that cannot be expected before the end of the Stična 2 phase.193 Dating Wall I into the Early Hallstatt period (Podzemelj and Stična phases) therefore seems all the more acceptable.
Gabrovec set the beginning of the construction of Wall II as early as the Stična phase with its use lasting to the beginning of the Certosa Fibula phase.194 B. Teržan, on the other hand, is again of a different opinion and supposes that the second wall was built up only after the consolidation of the incursions at the beginning of the Certosa phase.195 After the demolition of the first wall, Cvinger was without fortification wall for a short period of time. This is indicated by the remains of burnt down buildings that stood when Wall I had already been destroyed and Wall II was not yet constructed. This situation lasted, according to Teržan, throughout the Serpentine Fibula phase. Stratigraphic findings196 and pottery fragments from layers belonging to Wall II,197 however, allow for an earlier date, since the above-mentioned fragments are of the same form and production mode as the pottery found on the site of the buildings between Wall I and Wall II that were destroyed in a fire. Not much time elapsed, therefore, between the period
189	Ib., 149.
190	Ib., 155.
191	Teržan 1998, 527 f, n. 114-116.
192	In dating, it is the assemblages 13/50, 14/16, 14/21, 16A/ 17 and 16A/20 that are of importance.
193	These include a pythos (type 4 after Dular), a cibori-um (type 3 after Dular) and a situla on a foot (type 1 after Dular. Cf. Dular 1982, 173, 184 and 188.
194	Gabrovec 1994, 157.
195	Teržan 1998, 528.
196	Cf. Frey 1994, 81; Svoljšak 1994, 95; Gabrovec 1994, 147.
197	The assemblages 3/47 (pythos, type 4; situla on a foot, tip 1), 7/83 (pythos, type 4), 17/21 (pythos, type 4) etc.
stopnje Stična.190 Takšni časovni opredelitvi je ugovarjala B. Teržan.191 Problematična se ji je zdela predvsem datacija propada obzidja, ki je bilo po njenem mnenju uničeno nekoliko kasneje in sicer na koncu faze Stična 2. Dogodek je povezala z vpadi skupin tako imenovanega skitskega porekla, ki so prav v tem času povzročili velike pretrese na vzhodnem obrobju Alp. Gradivo, ki je bilo najdeno v južnem delu Cvingerja za zidom I, predvsem pa v velikem pogorišču nad njim, (sonde 13, 14 in 16), govori v prid dataciji B. Teržan.192 Med njim je bila namreč najdena značilna keramika, ki si je nikakor ne moremo predstavljati pred koncem faze Stična 2.193 Uvrstitev zidu I v starejše halštatsko obdobje (stopnji Podzemelj in Stična) se zdi zato še najbolj sprejemljiva.
Začetek gradnje zidu II postavlja Gabrovec že v stopnjo Stična, v uporabi pa naj bi bil do začetka stopnje certo-ške fibule.194 Drugačnega mnenja je B. Teržan, ki meni, da je bil drugi zid zgrajen šele po konsolidaciji vpadov na začetku certoškega horizonta.195 Po uničenju prvega zidu je bil namreč južni del Cvingerja krajši čas brez obzidja, za kar govorijo ostanki pogorelih stavb, ki so stale, ko je bil zid I porušen, zid II pa še ne zgrajen. Tako stanje naj bi po Teržanovi trajalo vso stopnjo kačaste fibule. Strati-grafska dognanja196 in fragmenti posod iz plasti, ki sodijo k zidu II,197 dovoljujejo zgodnejšo datacijo. Po obliki in načinu izdelave so namreč enaki keramiki, ki so jo našli v pogorišču stavb med zidom I in zidom II. Med fazo, ko naselje ni bilo utrjeno in drugim zidom torej ni preteklo veliko časa. Gradnjo zidu II postavljamo zato v stopnjo kačaste fibule, v uporabi pa je ostal, kot je nazorno pokazal že S. Gabrovec, tudi v certoškem horizontu.198
Zid III je bil slabo ohranjen, precej ohlapna pa ostaja tudi njegova datacija. Gabrovec ga je okvirno opredelil v mlajši certoški in v negovski horizont.199 Morda bo o njegovem časovnem razponu mogoče reči kaj več, ko bo v celoti izvrednoteno keramično gradivo.
Skromni so tudi ostanki zidu IV. Zgrajen je bil v poznem latenskem obdobju (stopnja Mokronog III). Poznolatensko je tudi prečno obzidje, ohranjeno v dveh stratigrafsko ločenih zidovih, ki so ju ugotovili v sondah 9, 18 in 19.200
190	Ib., 152.
191	Teržan 1998, 527 s, op. 114-116.
192	Za datacijo so pomembni predvsem skupki 13/50, 14/ 16, 14/21, 16A/17 in 16A/20.
193	Gre za pitos (tip 4 po Dularju), ciborij (tip 3 po Dularju) in situlo z nogo (tip 1 po Dularju). Prim. Dular 1982, 21, 45 s. in 55 s.
194	Gabrovec 1994, 154.
195	Teržan 1998, 528.
196	Prim. Frey 1994, 80; Svoljšak 1994, 92; Gabrovec 1994,
144.
197	Skupki 3/47 (pitos, tip 4; situla z nogo, tip 1), 7/83 (pitos, tip 4), 17/21 (pitos, tip 4) itd.
198	Gabrovec 1994, 152 s.
199	Ib., 154.
200	Ib., 156.
when the settlement was unfortified and the construction of the second wall. The latter is thus set in the Serpentine Fibula phase, while the wall stayed in use also in the Certosa phase, as has clearly been shown already by S. Gabrovec.198
Wall III was poorly preserved and its chronological determination remains fairly imprecise. Gabrovec dated it in the Late Certosa and Negova phases.199 This time frame might be defined more precisely after the pottery will have been fully evaluated.
The remains of Wall IV are scarce. It was built in the Late La Tene period (the Mokronog III phase). The transverse rampart dates from the same period and is preserved in two stratigraphically separate walls that were established in Trenches 9, 18 and 19.200
Fortification walls of the remaining hillforts Apart from Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, fortification walls were trenched on seventeen other Iron Age hillforts. This number was sufficient to enable us to verify whether the Stična type of walls appears also elsewhere in Dolenjska. The preservation of the walls on two sites was, unfortunately, not sufficient for a precise study of their structure to be made. For them, we can only be sure that they were girded with fortification walls in the Iron Age.201
The remaining fifteen settlements yielded clear field results. Trial trenches have shown that the Iron Age hillforts of Dolenjska can be divided into two groups based on their fortification walls and the chronological differences between the two groups make the division all the more justified.
Group A
The first group is composed of hillforts where the defence system is similar to the one described for the settlement at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Five were researched. These settlements were provided with fortification walls already in the beginning of the Iron Age and all show signs of repair.
The first wall at Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje was built in the Podzemelj phase.202 It was constructed with large stones used for both faces, while the core was filled with rubble and loam (^ig. 47: A). It measured 2 m in thickness. It was destroyed in a fire at the beginning of the Late Hallstatt period, together with the building standing behind it. The second wall was built in front of the first. It was thicker (2.8 m) and its inner face partly leaned against the old wall. This wall was built immediately after the fire.
198	Gabrovec 1994, 157.
199	Ib., 157.
200	Ib., 159.
201	These are the settlements at Vesela gora at Brinje and Stari grad near Podbočje, where later construction severely damaged the Iron Age structures.
202	Dular et al. 1991, 136 ff.
Obzidja ostalih gradišč
Razen na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični so bila obzidja sondirana še na sedemnajstih drugih železnodob-nih gradiščih, kar je bilo dovolj, da smo lahko preverili, če se stiški tip obzidja pojavlja tudi drugod po Dolenjski. Žal pa moramo takoj povedati, da pri dveh najdiščih zidovi niso bili ohranjeni do take mere, da bi mogli natančno proučiti njihovo strukturo. Zanesljivo lahko rečemo le to, da sta bili v železni dobi opasani z obzidjem.201
Na preostalih petnajstih naseljih pa so terenski izvidi jasni. Sondiranja so pokazala, da lahko dolenjska železnodobna gradišča glede na obzidja razdelimo v dve skupini. Ker obstajajo med obema skupinama tudi kronološke razlike, je naša delitev še toliko bolj upravičena.
Skupina A
V prvo skupino sodijo gradišča, na katerih smo odkrili podobne obrambne sisteme, kot jih je imelo naselje Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Raziskali smo jih pet. Za naselja je značilno, da so bila utrjena že na začetku železne dobe, na vseh pa smo ugotovili obnavljanje obzidij.
Na Kunklupod Vrhtrebnjem je bil prvi zid zgrajen v stopnji Podzemelj.202 Naredili so ga tako, da so za obe fronti izbrali večje kamne, sredino pa so zapolnili z drobirjem in ilovico (sl. 47: A). Debel je bil 2 m. Zid je propadel na začetku mlajšega halštatskega obdobja, hkrati z njim pa je pogorela tudi stavba, ki je stala za njim. Drugi zid je bil postavljen pred prvega. Bil je močnejši (2,8 m), njegova notranja fronta pa je deloma slonela na starejšem zidu. Zgradili so ga takoj po požaru.
Tudi Cvinger nad Koriti je bil opasan z obzidjem na začetku železne dobe (stopnja Podzemelj).203 Od prvega zidu sta se ohranili le dve najnižji legi kamnov, med katerimi pa je bila odkrita dobro vidna reža z ostanki vodoravnega zoglenelega bruna. Pri gradnji so za obe fronti izbrali večje neobdelane kamne, medtem ko je bila sredina zapolnjena z drobirjem in ilovico (sl. 47: B). Zid je bil debel nekaj manj kot 3 m. Nad pravkar opisanim zidom so ležale mogočne ruševine. To je bila skoraj 1 m debela plast prežgane gline in kamnitega drobirja, ki je bil izpostavljen močnemu ognju, saj se je na nekaterih mestih apnenec že spremenil v slabo žgano apno. Ruševine so zanesljivo ostanek drugega zidu, ki je propadel v strahovitem požaru. Kdaj se je to zgodilo, ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, čas njegove gradnje pa je razmeroma jasen. Postavili so ga v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju, najverjetneje v stopnji kačaste fibule. Nad pogoriščem je bil odkrit še tretji zid. Imel je ohranjene tri lege kamnov, njegova debelina pa je znašala 1,5 m. Grajen je bil
201	To sta naselji Vesela gora v Brinju in Stari grad nad Podbočjem, kjer so kasnejši gradbeni posegi dodobra načeli železnodobne strukture.
202	Dular et al. 1991, 70 ss.
203	Dular et al. 1995, 105 ss.
Fig. 47: A: Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje; Southern cross-section. B: Cvinger near Korita; Eastern cross-section. C: Gradec near Vinkov Vrh; NW cross-section. Scale = 1:50.
Sl. 47: A: Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem; južni profil. B: Cvinger nad Koriti; vzhodni profil. C: Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu; severozahodni profil. M. = 1:50.
The settlement at Cvinger near Korita was also girded with a wall at the beginning of the Iron Age (the Podzemelj phase).203 Only the bottom two rows of stone in superposition were preserved, between which a clearly visible groove with remains of a charred horizontal timber was found. The wall was constructed with large stones used for both faces and the core was filled with rubble and loam (^ig. 47: B). The wall was slightly less than 3 m thick. Above it lay massive ruins, constituted by an almost 1 m thick layer of burnt clay and stone rubble exposed to fierce fire, since the limestone already transformed into poor quicklime at places. The ruins undoubtedly represent the remains of the second wall that was destroyed in a fire, the date of which is not clear. This wall was built in the Late Hallstatt period, probably in the Serpentine Fibula phase. Above its burnt remains a third wall was discovered. It measured 1.5 m in thickness and was preserved in the height of three rows of stone in superposition. It was built rather imprecisely, although somewhat larger stones were chosen for both faces. The core was, as usually, filled with rubble and loam. The third wall was built in the Late La Tene period, in the Mokronog III phase.
The first wall at Gradec near Vinkov Vrh was built in the Podzemelj phase.204 Large stones were used for the faces, of which 2-3 rows of stone in superposition remained (fig. 47: C). The core of the wall was packed with rubble and loam. Its thickness measured 2.2 m. Behind the wall stood a house, which was destroyed in a fire. The second wall was built in front of the first and partially covered it. The same mode of construction was used as before, though slightly larger unworked stone blocks were used for the exterior face. These were laid with their flat surfaces outwards so that the wall had a very nice appearance (fig. 48). It was 2.5 m thick and preserved at a height of over 2 m. It tilted strongly outwards in spite of the mound in front of it. The second wall was built in the Late Hallstatt period, probably in the Serpentine Fibula phase.
The first wall at Veliki Vinji Vrh near Bela Cerkev was 2.1 m thick at the foundations (fig. 49: A).205 Both faces were composed of unworked stone blocks that measured up to 0.9 m x 0.5 m and the core was composed of a stone and loamy fill. The beginning of its construction could not be established, but the finds from the layers belonging to the wall show that it was still in use in the Stična phase. The second wall was built on top of the ruins of the first one. Its outer face was preserved in four uneven rows of flat stone in superposition that slid down the slope in spite of the earthen mound. A groove for a wooden post, wedged in position with two stones, was discovered. The second wall cannot be precisely dated
dokaj površno, čeprav so za obe fronti izbrali nekoliko večje kamne. Notranjost je bila kot običajno zapolnjena z drobirjem in ilovico. Tretji zid je bil postavljen v poznem latenskem obdobju, to je v stopnji Mokronog III.
Na Gradcu pri Vinkovem Vrhu so prvi zid zgradili v stopnji Podzemelj.204 Zanj so uporabili velike frontne kamne, ki so še stali v 2-3 legah (sl. 47: C). Jedro zidu je bilo zatrpano z drobirjem in ilovico. Njegova debelina je znašala 2,2 m. Za zidom je stala hiša, ki jo je uničil požar. Drugi zid so postavili pred prvega, in sicer tako, da ga je deloma prekril. Naredili so ga na enak način, le da so za zunanje lice uporabili nekoliko večje neobdelane kamnite bloke. Z ravnimi ploskvami so bili obrnjeni navzven, tako da je imel zid zelo lep videz (sl. 48). Debel je bil 2,5 m. Ohranil se je čez 2 m visoko, vendar pa je bil kljub nasutju pred njim močno nagnjen navzven. Drugi zid so postavili v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju, najverjetneje v stopnji kačaste fibule.
Prvi zid na Velikem Vinjem vrhu nad Belo Cerkvijo je bil v temelju širok 2,1 m (sl. 49: Obe fronti sta bili zgrajeni iz neobdelanih kamnitih blokov, ki so merili do 0,9 m x 0,5 m. Vmes je bilo kamnito in ilovnato polnilo. Začetka njegove gradnje ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, najdbe iz pripadajočih plasti pa kažejo, da je bil v stopnji Stična še v uporabi. Drugi zid so postavili na ruševine starejšega. Zunanja fronta se je ohranila v štirih vegastih legah ploščatih kamnov, ki so kljub zunanjemu zemljenemu nasipu zdrsnili proti pobočju. V zunanji fronti zidu je bila odkrita tudi reža za leseno stoj-ko, ki je bila zagozdena z dvema kamnoma. Precizna datacija drugega zidu ni mogoča, gotovo je le to, da so ga postavili v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju. Podrtijo drugega zidu in njegov nasip so prekrivale ruševine, na njih pa je stal še tretji zid. Pomaknjen je bil nekoliko naprej proti pobočju. Obe fronti je imel zgrajeni iz ploščatih lomljencev (lapor) in apnenčastih kamnov, ki pa so bili manjših dimenzij (sl. 50). Vmesni prostor je bil zatrpan z nabito zemljo in drobirjem. Širina zidu je znašala 1,3 m. Zid je jasno datiran v pozno latensko obdobje, to je v stopnjo Mokronog III.
Na Kostjavcu nad Tihabojem je bil prvi zid postavljen na umetno poravnano apnenčasto osnovo.206 Zgrajen je bil iz velikih kamnitih blokov, ki so tvorili zunanje in notranje lice, medtem ko je bil vmesni prostor zapolnjen z ilovico in manjšimi kamni (sl. 49: B). Notranja fronta je segala še 1 m visoko, zunanja pa je bila poškodovana in premaknjena v smeri pobočja. Zid je bil jasno datiran na začetek železne dobe, to je v stopnjo Podzemelj. Njegov konec najverjetneje soupada z velikim požarom, v katerem je zgorel objekt, ki je stal na robu naselja. Pogorenina je namreč segala čez njegovo notranjo fronto. Drugi zid so zgradili na istem mestu in na
203	Dular et al. 1995, 137 ff.
204	Ib., 139 ff.
205	Dular et al. 2000, 150.
204	Ib., 112 ss.
205	Dular et al. 2000, 135 ss.
206	Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003, 181 ss.
Fig. 48: Gradec near Vinkov Vrh. Outer face of Wall II. Sl. 48: Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu. Zunanja fronta zidu II.
except that it was certainly built in the Late Hallstatt period. The remains of the second wall and its mound were covered by ruins, on top of which stood yet a third wall. It was built slightly more up the slope. Both faces were built of flat unworked stones (marl) and limestones of smaller dimensions (fig. 50), while the core was filled with packed earth and rubble. The wall measured 1.3 m in thickness. It is clearly dated to the Late La Tene period, more precisely to the Mokronog III phase.
The first wall at Kostjavec near Tihaboj was built on an artificially levelled limestone bedrock.206 It was composed of large stone blocks that formed the outer and inner faces, while the core was again filled with loam and small stones (^ig. 49: B). The inner face was preserved to 1 m in height, while the outer face was damaged and slid towards the slope. The wall clearly dates to the beginning of the Iron Age, to the Podzemelj phase. Its end, on the other hand, probably coincides with a great fire in which the building that stood on the edge of the settlement was also destroyed, since burnt remains extended over the wall's inner face. The second wall was built on the same spot, but less of it has been preserved. Since there was no intermediate layers between the two walls, there could not have elapsed much time between the fire and the renovation. The second wall clearly dates
206
Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003, 201 f.
enak način kot prvega, le da je bil precej slabše ohranjen. Ker med njima ni bilo nobenih vmesnih plasti, med požarom in obnovo ni moglo preteči veliko časa. Drugi zid je namreč jasno postavljen v mlajši halštatski čas (stopnja kačaste ali certoške fibule), s tem pa je posredno datiran tudi propad prvega obzidja. Na Kostjavcu nad Tihabojem je bil odkrit tudi tretji zid. Po dimenzijah je odstopal od prejšnjih dveh, saj je bil debel le dober meter (sl. 51). Narejen je bil v suhozidni tehniki, verjetno pa so pri njegovi gradnji uporabili tudi les. Za tako možnost govori dobro vidna luknja za stojko v njegovi sredini. Tretji zid sodi v pozno latensko obdobje (stopnja Mokronog III).
Končno si moramo ogledati še zadnje naselje iz prve skupine, to je Sv. Marjeto na Libni. Najdišče je leta 1975 sondiral Guštin. Ugotovil je več obzidij, ki se po njegovi interpretaciji precej razlikujejo od fortifikacij drugih dolenjskih gradišč.207 Prav zaradi tega bomo skušali Guštinovo razlago na novo ovrednotiti in jo uskladiti z novejšimi dognanji. Zelo verjetno je namreč, da so bila obzidja na Libni zgrajena na podoben način, kot jih poznamo z drugih dolenjskih gradišč.
Prva fortifikacija je bila iz ilovnatega nasutja, nabitega med lesen opaž, katerega sled se je ohranila le na
207 V naselju je ugotovil sedem faz. Faza I (zemljen nasip); faza IIa (zemljen nasip s palisado); faza IIb (zemljen nasip s
Fig. 49: A: Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev; E cross-section. B: Kostjavec near Tihaboj; S cross-section. C: Sv. Marjeta at Libna; E cross-section (after Guštin 1976). Scale = 1:50.
Sl. 49: A: Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo; vzhodni profil. B: Kostjavec nad Tihabojem; južni profil. C: Sv. Marjeta na Libni; vzhodni profil (po Guštinu 1976). M. = 1:50.	_
Fig. 50: Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev. Wall III. Sl. 50: Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo. Zid III.
to the Late Hallstatt period (the Serpentine or Certosa Fibula phases), which indirectly dates also the destruction of the first wall. The site revealed yet a third wall. It differed in its size from the first two, since it was only over a metre thick (fig. 51). It was built in the drystone technique. Wood was probably also used in the construction, which is indicated by the post-hole in its middle. The third wall belongs to the Late La Tene period (the Mokronog III phase).
The last settlement from the first group is located at Sv. Marjeta on Libna. The site was trenched in 1975 by Guštin. He observed several fortification walls that, according to his interpretation, differed considerably from the fortifications at other hillforts of Dolenjska.207 This incited us to re-evaluate the interpretation and reconcile it with recent findings, since we think it very likely that the walls on Libna were built in the mode that is known from other hillforts of Dolenjska.
The first fortification is a mound of loam packed between two wooden lacings, the traces of which are preserved only on the outer side (fig. 49: C). The finds date it to the Late Bronze Age.208 The following fortification is a wall built behind the earthen mound, which was apparently destroyed in a fire, since it was partially covered by a thick layer of burnt remains. The wall was built of unworked stones and only its inner face was well preserved. It measured 2 m in thickness. The finds from the layers belonging to the wall date it to the Early Hallstatt period.209 Once the wall fell in ruins, the area at the rim of the settlement was levelled and a second wall
207	He established seven phases at the settlement. Phase I (earthen rampart); phase II (earthen rampart with a palisade); Phase IIb (earthen rampart with a palisade and a stone inner face); phase III (without fortification walls); phase IV (stone walls); phase V (without fortification walls); phase VI (supposedly destroyed wall). See Guštin 1976, 13 ff, fig. 4.
208	Ib., pl. 82: 6, 8.
209	Ib., 16, pl. 81: 10-11 and pl. 83: 6.
Fig. 51: Kostjavec near Tihaboj. Wall III. Sl. 51: Kostjavec nad Tihabojem. Zid III.
zunanji strani (sl. 49: C). Sodeč po najdbah, se je to zgodilo v pozni bronasti dobi.208 Naslednjo fortifikacijo predstavlja zid, postavljen za uničen zemljen nasip, ki je očitno propadel v požaru, saj ga je delno prekrivala močna plast žganine. Zid je bil zgrajen iz neobdelanih lomljencev, dobro ohranjeno je imel le notranjo fronto. Njegova širina je znašala 2 m. Najdbe iz pripadajočih plasti ga uvrščajo v starejše halštatsko obdobje.209 Po
palisado in kamnito notranjo fronto); faza III (brez obzidja); faza IV (kamnit zid); faza V (brez obzidja); faza VI (domnevno uničen zid). Glej Guštin 1976, 13 ss, sl. 4.
208	Ib., t. 82: 6, 8.
209	Ib., 16, t. 81: 10-11 in t. 83: 6.
was built over it. This was poorly preserved with both faces missing. It is dated to the Late Hallstatt period.210 Libna was occupied also in the Late La Tene period though a fortification wall from that period was not observed. It was probably removed in the past.
Having looked at the fortifications of the hillforts of the first group, we can now sum up the results of the analysis in several conclusions. There are many similarities among the settlements though the differences should also not be neglected. The first common characteristic is that their walls were built in the Podzemelj phase. Earlier stone fortifications were not observed, indicating that fortification walls in Dolenjska only came to be widely built at the beginning of the Iron Age.
The second important similarity is the mode of construction. Large stones were used for the faces, while rubble mixed with loam was used for the core. The walls were almost of standard dimensions (2.5 - 3.2 m thick), wood was used in construction and earthen mounds were built beside the outer faces. The fact that not all of these characteristics, typical for the Stična type fortification walls, were always uncovered, needs to be attributed to different degrees of wall preservation as well as to narrow trial trenches.
The contemporaneity of the renovation work is also significant. All walls were rebuilt at the beginning of the Late Hallstatt period. In some cases (Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje, Gradec near Vinkov Vrh and Kostjavec near Tihaboj), this occurred after a huge fire, which points to events of larger dimensions.
Another common characteristic is the occupation of settlements during the Late La Tene period. All were probably fortified anew in this period, though clear traces of walls could only be established on four hillforts (Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, Gradec near Vinkov Vrh, Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev and Kostjavec near Tihaboj).
The biggest difference between Cvinger near Vir pri Stični and other trenched settlements is in there being no third Hallstatt wall detected on the latter. Whether this is the consequence of insufficient widths of trenches or other factors, is not clear. It is true, however, that the third wall at Vir pri Stični was very poorly preserved and its existence could, in some trenches, only be supposed indirectly through earthen mounds.211
propadu zidu so prostor na robu naselja zravnali in na poravnano površino postavili drugi zid. Bil je slabo ohranjen, saj sta mu manjkali obe fronti. Zid je datiran v mlajše halštatsko obdobje.210 Libna je bila poseljena tudi v poznem latenu, obzidja iz tega časa pa niso ugotovili. Verjetno je bilo v preteklosti uničeno.
Zdaj, ko smo si ogledali tudi fortifikacije drugih gradišč, lahko rezultate analize strnemo v nekaj zaključkov. Med naselji je namreč veliko podobnosti, opozoriti pa moramo tudi na razlike. Za vsa najdišča je značilno, da so bila z zidovi opasana v stopnji Podzemelj. Starejših fortifikacij iz kamna nismo ugotovili, kar pomeni, da so se obzidja na Dolenjskem masovno uveljavila šele na začetku železne dobe.
Druga pomembna podobnost se kaže v načinu zidave. Za fronte obzidij so izbrali večje kamne, notranjost pa je zapolnjeval drobir, pomešan z ilovico. Zidovi so bili skoraj standardnih dimenzij (2,5m - 3,2 m širine), pri gradnji so uporabljali les, na zunanji strani so imeli zemljena nasutja. Dejstvo, da vseh teh elementov, ki so značilni za stiški tip obzidja, nismo vedno odkrili, moramo pripisati različni ohranjenosti zidov in ozkim sondam.
Pomembno je tudi časovno sovpadanje obnovitvenih del. Prav vse zidove so namreč obnovili na začetku mlajšega halštatskega obdobja. V nekaj primerih (Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični, Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem, Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu in Kostjavec nad Tihabojem) se je to zgodilo po velikih požarih, kar kaže na dogodke širših razsežnosti.
Skupna značilnost je tudi poseljenost v poznem latenu. V tem času so bila verjetno vsa naselja ponovno utrjena, čeprav smo jasne ostanke obzidij ugotovili le na štirih gradiščih (Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični, Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu, Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo in Kostjavec nad Tihabojem).
Še največja razlika med Cvingerjem nad Virom pri Stični in ostalimi sondiranimi naselji pa je v tem, da na njih nismo ugotovili tretjega halštatskega zidu. Če so temu botrovale preozke sonde, ali kaj drugega, ne vemo. Dejstvo je namreč, da je bil tretji zid tudi v Viru pri Stični izredno slabo ohranjen, saj je moč njegov obstoj v nekaterih sondah predpostavljati le posredno s pomočjo zemljenih nasutij.211
Group B
The second group is constituted by settlements with single walls. Some, in fact, have two walls, but they are separated by a longer time gap. These are cases of clear discontinuity in occupation. The basic characteristic of this group is that the walls were not subjected to renovation. Altogether nine settlements of this group were investigated.
Skupina B
V drugo skupino smo uvrstili tista naselja, ki so imela eno samo obzidje. No, nekatera tudi dve, vendar pa je bila med njima daljša časovna vrzel. V takih primerih gre za jasno diskontinuiteto v poselitvi. Bistvo skupine je namreč v tem, da zidovi niso doživeli obnavljanj. Skupaj smo jih raziskali devet.
Na Ajdovščini nad Zaborštom pri Dolu smo odkrili
210	Ib., pl. 81: 3-7.
211	Gabrovec 1994, 147 ff.
210	Ib., t. 81: 3-7.
211	Gabrovec 1994, 146 ss.
Fig. 52: Gradec near Blečji Vrh. Groove for a post in the inner face of the wall.
Sl. 52: Gradec pri Blečjem Vrhu. Reža za stojko v notranji fronti zidu.
The site of Ajdovščina near Zaboršt pri Dolu revealed an approximately 1 m thick wall.212 It was built of flat stones with occasional large blocks (40 cm x 70 cm). A post-hole was clearly visible in the middle of the wall, indicating that wooden support was also used in the construction.
Gradišče near Dešen was girded with a wall built of small stones.213 A single row of stones in superposition was preserved in the original position and revealed the thickness of the wall as measuring 1.5 m. The wall was built in the Late Hallstatt period, probably in the Certo-sa Fibula phase.
The wall at Gradec near Blečji Vrh was preserved at a height of 1 m.214 Its thickness is not known, since the trench did not extend onto the slope. The inner face was built of large stone blocks with a clearly visible groove for a wooden post (^ig. 52). The wall is dated to the Certosa phase.
212	The settlement was trenched in 2000, the results of which have not yet been published.
213	The settlement was trenched in 1997, the results of which have not yet been published.
214	The settlement was trenched in 1999, the results of which have not yet been published.
zid, ki je bil debel približno 1 m.212 Zgradili so ga iz ploščatih kamnov, med katerimi so bili tudi večji bloki (40 cm x 70 cm). Sredi zidu je bila lepo vidna luknja za stojko, kar kaže na to, da so pri njegovi gradnji uporabili tudi lesene opornike.
Gradišče nad Dešnom je obdajal zid, ki je bil zgrajen iz manjših kamnov.213 V prvotnem mestu se je ohranila le ena lega kamnov, iz katere je bilo mogoče razbrati, da je bil debel 1,5 m. Zid so postavili v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju, najverjetneje v stopnji certoške fibule.
Zid na Gradcu pri Blečjem Vrhu je bil ohranjen 1 m visoko.214 Njegova debelina ni znana, ker sonda ni segala na pobočje. Notranjo fronto je imel narejeno iz večjih kamnitih blokov, v njej je bila lepo vidna reža za leseno stojko (sl. 52). Zid je datiran v certoški horizont.
Gradišče pod Sloko Goro je v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju obdajal zid, od katerega so se ohranili borni ostanki. Zgrajen je bil iz manjših kamnov, njegova debelina je znašala približno 1,3 m.215
Na Gradišču nadPrimskovim sta bila odkrita dva stratigrafsko in kronološko jasno ločena zidova.216 Prvi sodi v mlajše halštatsko obdobje, drugi pa v pozni laten. Žal sta bila oba zelo slabo ohranjena, tako da nismo mogli ugotoviti njunih mer. Zgrajena sta bila iz manjših kamnov.
Zid na Gradišču pri Suhadolah je bil debel 1,4 m (sl. 53:^).217 Narejen je bil tako, da so za obe fronti uporabili velike kamne, vmesni prostor pa je bil zapolnjen z zemljo in drobirjem. Vse kaže, da so na nekaterih odsekih pri njegovi gradnji uporabili tudi les. Zid je opredeljen v pozno latensko obdobje.
Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji je bil obdan z zidom v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju (sl. 53: B).218 Notranje in zunanje lice so tvorili kamniti bloki, veliki do 90 cm x 50 cm, ki so bili dodatno utrjeni z lesenimi stojkami. Vertikalne opornike v notranjem in zunanjem licu so povezovala prečna bruna. Prostor med obema frontama je zapolnjeval kamnit drobir. Zid je bil v temelju debel 1,6 m. Po daljšem premoru v srednjem latenu, ko Špičasti hrib ni bil obljuden, so naselje ponovno utrdili šele ob koncu mlajše železne dobe (stopnja Mokronog III). Obdali so ga z obzidjem, od katerega so se ohranili le temeljni kamni. Zid je bil širok 1,2 m.
Najverjetneje poznolatenski je bil tudi zid, ki smo ga odkrili na Sv. Ani nad Vrhpečjo.^1^ Bil je slabo ohran-
212	Naselje je bilo sondirano leta 2000, terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni.
213	Naselje je bilo sondirano leta 1997, terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni.
214	Naselje je bilo sondirano leta 1999, terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni.
215	Naselje je bilo sondirano leta 1999, terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni.
216	Naselje je bilo sondirano leta 1998, terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni.
217	Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003, 161 ss.
218	Ib., 174 ss.
219	Dular et. al. 1991, 77 ss.
Fig. 53: A: Gradišče near Suhadole; Trench 1, W cross-section. B: Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji; Trench 1, W cross-section. C: Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice; Trench 1, NE cross-section. Scale = 1:50.
Sl. 53: A: Gradišče pri Suhadolah; sonda 1, zahodni profil. B: Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji; sonda 1, zahodni profil. C: Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah; sonda 1, severovzhodni profil. M. = 1:50.
Gradišče near Sloka Gora was provided with a fortification wall in the Late Hallstatt period, of which scarce remains were preserved. It was built of small stones and measured approximately 1.3 m in thickness.215
The site of Gradišče near Primskovo revealed two stratigraphically and chronologically clearly separated walls.216 The first is dated to the Late Hallstatt period and the second to the Late La Tene. They were built of small stones. Unfortunately, both were poorly preserved and could therefore not be measured.
The wall at Gradišče near Suhadole was 1.4 m thick (^ig. 53: A).217 It was built of large stones on both faces and earth and rubble in the middle. It appears that, in certain sections, wood was also used in its construction. The wall is dated to the Late La Tene period.
Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji was surrounded by a wall in the Late Hallstatt period (fig. 53: B).218 Inner and outer faces were composed of stone blocks, 90 cm x 50 cm in size, that were reinforced with wooden posts. The vertical support beams in the inner and outer faces were tied with horizontal timbers. The space between the faces was filled with stone rubble. The wall was 1.6 thick at the foundations. After a longer pause of disuse in the Middle La Tene period, the settlement on Špičasti vrh was again fortified at the end of the Late Iron Age (the Mokronog III phase). It was provided with a 2.1 m thick fortification wall, of which only the foundations remain.
The wall uncovered at Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč probably dates from the Late La Tene as well.219 It was poorly preserved, with a single row of stones still standing in its original position. The wall may have been reinforced on the outer side with wooden posts.
The wall at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice was built in the Late Hallstatt period (the Certosa Fibula phase) and occupied the same spot as the Late Bronze Age earthen rampart.220 The wall was built fairly imprecisely. It measured 1.5 m in thickness (^ig. 53: C) and was made in the usual manner: large unworked stones were used for the faces (up to 40 cm x 60 cm in size) and earth and small unworked stones for the core. Three rows of stones in superposition it were preserved.
The walls of the second group show the following common characteristics. Almost all were very poorly preserved, with usually only one or two rows of stones in superposition still in their original place. The construction was not solid. The faces were made of large unworked stones, which were considerably smaller in size when compared to those of the first group. The walls
215	The settlement was trenched in 1999, the results of which have not yet been published.
216	The settlement was trenched in 1998, the results of which have not yet been published.
217	Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003, 198.
218	Ib., 199 f.
219	Dular et. al. 1991, 138 f.
220	Dular/Križ 2004, 237.
jen, saj je ostala na svojem mestu le ena lega kamnov. Zid je bil morda na zunanji strani dodatno podprt z lesenimi stojkami.
Obzidje na Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah je bilo zgrajeno v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju (stopnja certo-ške fibule), in sicer na istem mestu, kjer je v pozni bronasti dobi že stal zemljen okop.220 Zid je bil narejen dokaj površno, njegov premer pa je znašal poldrugi meter (sl. 53: C). Naredili so ga na običajen način: za lice so uporabili večje neobdelane kamne (velike do 40 cm x 60 cm), medtem ko je bil vmesni prostor zapolnjen z zemljo in manjšimi lomljenci. Zid se je ohranil v dveh do treh legah.
Obzidja, ki smo jih uvrstili v drugo skupino, kažejo nekatere skupne značilnosti. Skoraj vsa so bila zelo slabo ohranjena, saj sta običajno ostali na svojih mestih le še ena do dve legi kamnov. Dokaj nesolidna je bila tudi gradnja. Za fronte zidov so sicer izbrali večje neobdelane bloke, ki pa še zdaleč niso bili takšnih dimenzij, kot so jih imeli zidovi prve skupine. Bili so tudi bistveno ožji, saj je znašala njihova debelina do 1,6 m. Pri gradnji so očitno uporabljali les. Dokaz za to so luknje za stojke in ostanki zoglenelih vodoravnih brun, ki smo jih nekajkrat našli med obema frontama zidov. Vendar pa ti gradbeni elementi niso bili toliko prepričljivi, da bi smeli tudi na teh gradiščih z zanesljivostjo pričakovati stiški tip obzidja. Izjema je morda le zid z Gradca pri Blečjem Vrhu. V notranji fronti je imel dobro ohranjeno navpično režo (sl. 52), narejeno na enak način, kot jih poznamo s Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični.
Datacija obzidij druge skupine je bolj ali manj jasna: na štirih gradiščih sodijo v mlajše halštatsko obdobje, na treh v pozni laten, dve naselji (Gradišče nad Primskovim in Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji) pa sta bili obdani z zidovi tako v mlajšem halštatskem kot tudi poznem latenskem obdobju. Vendar pa v zadnjih dveh primerih ne gre za obnavljanje zidov ampak za novo gradnjo, do katere je prišlo po daljšem časovnem pre-moru.221
6.1.5. VHODI
O vhodih v gradišča ne moremo reči veliko konkretnega, saj še niso bili raziskovani. Edina izjema je sondaža domnevnih severnih vrat na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični, ki pa je jasno pokazala, da na tem mestu v obzidju ni bilo vrzeli.222 Naša izvajanja bomo zato oprli zgolj na podatke, ki smo jih zbrali s terenskimi obhodi najdišč. Prikaz problematike ima značaj prve, zelo splošne informacije.
220	Dular/Križ 2004, 230 s.
221	V srednjelatenskem obdobju najdišči namreč nista bili poseljeni.
222	Gabrovec/Frey/Foltiny 1969, 184; Pingel 1994, 54 in 72.
were also considerably thinner; their thickness only measured up to 1.6 m. Wood was apparently used in their construction. The proof of the latter is provided by post-holes and remains of charred horizontal timbers, found on several occasions between the wall faces. These architectural elements are, however, not convincing enough to allow us to expect the Stična type wall on these settlements as well. The only exception might be Gradec near Blečji Vrh, where the wall revealed a well preserved vertical groove in the inner face (fig. 52), made in the same manner as those at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični.
The date of the walls of the second group is more or less clear: at four settlements they date to the Late Hallstatt period, at three to Late La Tene, while two settlements (Gradišče near Primskovo and Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji) were surrounded by walls in both periods. The walls at the last two settlements were not renovated but rather built anew after a longer pause.221
6.1.5. ENTRANCES
The entrances into hillforts have not yet been researched; therefore nothing concrete can be said about them. The only exception is provided by the trenching of the supposed northern entrance at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, which clearly showed that there was no gap in that part of the wall.222 The inferences below are therefore based solely on the data gathered from field walking and the presentation of the issue is very general in nature.
For most hillforts, the entrance could not be established. The reason lies in that individual segments of the fortification walls had been previously destroyed and the preserved parts usually did not reveal a gap. It should be pointed out that hillforts with completely uninterrupted enclosures are also known. Topographic observations alone thus do not suffice in establishing former entrances. More or less clear gaps in walls have been observed at only fourteen settlements, though even on these it is not quite certain that they represented former entrances. The hard evidence that is needed could, as learned from the example at Stična, only be provided by excavations.
The first group consists of entrances where the gap was in the line of the wall. They are not of a special shape, whereby the possibility of some of them occurring also in recent times cannot be excluded, particularly since all of these are crossed by modern roads. Examples of this entrance type can be found at Cvinger near Korita, Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico, Šumen-
221	The sites were not occupied in the Middle La Tene period.
222	Gabrovec/Frey/Foltiny 1969, 184; Pingel 1994, 57 and
Pri večini gradišč nismo uspeli ugotoviti, kje je bil nekoč vhod. Vzrok tiči v dejstvu, da so bili posamezni deli obzidij v preteklosti uničeni, na tistih odsekih, ki so se ohranili, pa običajno nismo ugotovili vrzeli. Kot zanimivost naj povemo še to, da poznamo tudi taka gradišča, ki imajo popolnoma sklenjene obode, zato zgolj s topografskimi opazovanji ni mogoče ugotoviti, kje so bili nekdanji vhodi. Kolikor toliko jasne vrzeli v obzidjih smo zasledili le na štirinajstih naseljih. Vendar pa tudi tu ni povsem zanesljivo, če gre res za nekdanje vhode. Kot nas je poučil primer iz Stične, bi trdne dokaze dala šele načrtna izkopavanja.
V	prvo skupino smo uvrstili vhode, ki so narejeni tako, da je v poteku obzidja nastala vrzel. Ker niso posebej oblikovani, ne smemo izključiti možnosti, da so nekateri nastali tudi v novejšem času. Skozi vse namreč vodijo sedanje poti. Kot primere za ta tip vhodov lahko navedemo Cvinger nad Koriti, Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico, Šumenje pri Podturnu in Magdalensko goro pri Zgornji Slivnici (sl. 54:1-4).
Bolj prepričljivo delujejo vhodi, kjer se je obod ohranil kot okop. Dvignjeno obzidje na obeh straneh vrzeli daje slutiti, da so bila vrata skrbno zgrajena in zaščitena s kamnito konstrukcijo. Kot najbolj značilne primere takšnih vhodov lahko omenimo Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah in severni vhod na Gradcu pri Vinkovem vrhu (sl. 54: 5,6).
V	tretjo skupino sodijo vhodi, pri katerih sta oba konca obzidja simetrično zasukana proti notranjosti. Takšna oblika še najbolj spominja na tako imenovana škarja-sta vrata. Dobra primera za ta tip vhoda sta znana z Molnika nad Podmolnikom in s Sv. Marjete na Libni (sl. 54: 7,8).
Četrto skupino tvorijo tangencialni vhodi. Ime so dobili po značilnem zamiku, ki je narejen tako, da poteka ob vratih zunanji zid vzporedno z notranjim. Takšne vhode so imela na primer naselja Marof v Novem mestu, Stara gora pri Vrhu nad Mokronogom, Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici, Molnik nad Podmolnikom, da omenimo le najbolje ohranjene (sl. 55:1-7).
Na koncu moramo omeniti še vhode pete skupine. Vanjo smo uvrstili primere, ko je bil dostop v naselje obdan z vzdolžnimi okopi. Na Gradišču nad Dešnom, kjer je bila pot speljana ob robu naravne strmine, je bil dovolj eden (sl. 54: 9), na Gradcu pri Vinkovem Vrhu pa sta dostopno rampo k jugovzhodnim vratom obdajala dva paralelna okopa (sl. 54:10).
6.1.6. NOTRANJOST NASELIJ
O notranjosti naselij vemo malo. Izkopavanja so bila namreč usmerjena k problemom stratigrafije in kronologije gradišč, raziskavam notranjosti pa smo se morali zaradi omejenih finančnih sredstev odpovedati. Način gradnje stavb, tipologija hiš in notranja zasnova
Fig. 54: Settlement entrances: 1. Cvinger near Korita; 2. Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico; 3. Šumenje near Podturn; 4. Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica; 5. Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice; 6. Gradec near Vinkov Vrh; 7. Sv. Marjeta on Libna; 8. Molnik near Podmolnik; 9. Gradišče near Dešen; 10. Gradec near Vinkov Vrh.
Sl. 54: Vhodi v naselja: 1. Cvinger nad Koriti; 2. Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico; 3. Šumenje pri Podturnu; 4. Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici; 5. Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah; 6. Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu; 7. Sv. Marjeta na Libni; 8. Molnik nad Podmolnikom; 9. Gradišče nad Dešnom; 10. Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu.
Fig. 55: Settlement entrances: 1. Marof at Novo mesto; 2. Stara gora near Sv. Vrh; 3. Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica; 4. Molnik near Podmolnik; 5 and 7. Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo gorico; 6. Gradišče near Spodnja Slivnica. Sl. 55: Vhodi v naselja: 1. Marof v Novem mestu; 2. Stara gora pri Sv. Vrhu; 3. Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici; 4. Molnik nad Podmolnikom; 5 in 7. Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo gorico; 6. Gradišče nad Spodnjo Slivnico.
je near Podturn and Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (fig. 54:1-4).
More convincing are the entrances where the enclosure was preserved as a rampart. Elevated walls on both sides of the gap indicate that the entrance was carefully built and defended with a stone construction. The most typical examples of such entrances can be found at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice and in the north entrance at Gradec near Vinkov vrh (fig. 54: 5,6).
The third group is constituted by entrances with both ends of the walls symmetrically turned inwards. This form is most reminiscent of the so-called "Zangen-
naselij ostajajo zato naloge za prihodnost. Ne glede na to pa se nam zdi umestno, da tiste podatke, ki smo jih zbrali pri našem delu, vseeno predstavimo. Pri sondiranju obzidij smo namreč naleteli tudi na arhitekturne ostaline. Raziskali smo jih v okviru možnosti, ki so nam jih dovoljevale širine sond.
Za vsa utrjena naselja velja, da so imela najbolje ohranjene plasti tik za obzidji. Njihova debelina je večkrat znašala tudi čez dva metra, proti notranjosti pa so se naglo tanjšale. Najvišji predeli naselij so pogosto zakraseli. Ponekod se pojavlja živa skala že na površini, ali pa jo prekriva le tanek sloj humusa.
tor". Good examples of these can be found at Molnik near Podmolnik and at Sv. Marjeta on Libna (fig. 54: 7,8).
The forth group is constituted by tangential entrances. Their name originates from a characteristic misaligned gap, by way of which an external wall runs parallel to the interior wall at the entrance. Such entrances can be found, for example, at Marof at Novo mesto, Stara gora near Vrh nad Mokronogom, Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica, Molnik near Podmolnik, to mention only the best preserved ones (fig. 55:1-7).
Finally, there are the entrances of the fifth group. These have the access road to the settlement flanked by longitudinal ramparts. At Gradišče near Dešen, where the road led along the edge of a natural declivity, one rampart sufficed (fig. 54: 9), while the access ramp to the south-eastern entrance at Gradec near Vinkov Vrh was flanked by two parallel ramparts (fig. 54:10).
6.1.6. INTFRIOR LAYOUT OF SFTTLFMFNTS
Little is known of the settlements' interiors. Fxca-vations of hillforts were oriented towards problems of stratigraphy and chronology and the intra-site investigations had to be given up due to limited finances. Researching the construction mode, typology of houses and internal layout of settlements therefore remains a task for the future. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to present the data gathered during our work, since the trial trenches at the fortification walls also revealed architectural remains, which were researched within the limitations of trench widths.
A common characteristic of the fortified settlements is that its layers were best preserved just behind the fortification walls. The thickness of the layers often measured over two metres and became thinner towards the interior. The highest parts of settlements are often karstified and the bedrock sometimes appears on the surface or is covered by a thin layer of humus.
The undulating interior of the hillforts often included terraces. The researched terraces revealed to be artificial features hewn into the bedrock in order to level the sloping terrain. Another manner of creating flat space was by bringing in soil. The terraces are usually small in size and only individual buildings could be erected on them. Large-scale terracing is observed relatively rarely.
6.1.6.1. Buildings
The building site was usually cleared before every new construction. Another option was to level the ruins so that little remained of the old buildings in their original positions. At some hillforts (for example at Kučar
Razgibana notranjost gradišč je bila velikokrat prepredena s terasami. Na tistih, ki smo jih raziskali, se je pokazalo, da gre za umetne useke v geološko osnovo, s katerimi so zravnali padajoč teren. Drug način, s katerim so ustvarili raven prostor, je bilo nasipavanje. Terase so običajno manjših dimenzij. Na njih so lahko stale le posamične stavbe, večja terasiranja zasledimo razmeroma redko.
6.1.6.1. Stavbe
Stavbišča so bila pred vsako novo gradnjo običajno očiščena. V primerih, ko se to ni zgodilo, so bile ruševine poravnane, tako da je ostalo od starih stavbnih struktur na svojih prvotnih mestih le malo ostankov. Na nekaterih gradiščih (npr. na Kučarju nad Podzemljem) so prazgodovinske plasti močno poškodovali poznoantič-ni objekti. Od arhitekturnih ostalin smo pri našem delu največkrat naleteli na ostanke hodnih površin (tlakov), dele podrtih sten, jame in ognjišča. Pogosti so bili tudi kamniti temelji hiš, ki pa so praviloma izginjali v profile sond. Nismo jim sledili, saj to ni predvideval koncept naših sondiranj.
Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični
Raziskave v jugozahodnem delu naselja so pokazale, da prostor tik za obzidjem ni bil pozidan. Z notranje strani ga je omejevala vrsta velikih kamnitih blokov, ki je tekla v razmiku 2-3 m od obrambnega zidu. Z njo so ustvarili hodnik, ki je po mnenju izkopavalcev omogočal dostop do obzidja.223 Domneva, da so kamni nosili tudi leseno nadgradnjo, ni bila potrjena z neposrednimi dokazi. Prazen, s kamni omejen prostor, je bil ugotovljen tako za prvim kot tudi za drugim zidom (sl. 56).
Temeljev oziroma tlorisov hiš, ki bi bile sočasne s prvim obrambnim zidom, na Cvingerju niso odkrili in to kljub temu, da so se v notranjosti naselja ohranile razmeroma debele plasti ruševin (hišni omet, oglje, razbito posodje). Isto velja za naslednjo poselitveno fazo, ko južni del naselja krajši čas ni bil obdan z obzidjem. Na območju velikih pogorenin, ki so se vlekle vzdolž roba gradišča, niso nikjer našli temeljnih zidov ali lukenj za stojke. Vendar so stavbe na tem mestu zanesljivo stale. Dokaz so deli podrtih sten iz desk in tesanih brun (sl. 57).224
Razmeroma skromni so bili tudi ostanki stavb za drugim obzidjem. Omenimo lahko en sam temeljni zid, na katerem je očitno počivala lesena konstrukcija (sl. 58: A). Oblike hiše ni bilo mogoče zamejiti, vse pa kaže, da se je širila proti jugovzhodu, saj je bila površina v tej smeri polna prežgane ilovice in zoglenelega lesa. Bogati so bili tudi ostanki hišnega inventarja.225
223	Svoljšak 1994, 92 ss.
224	Ib.
225	Ib., 98.
near Podzemelj), prehistoric layers were heavily damaged by Late Antiquity buildings. The commonest architectural remains that we came across were paved surfaces, parts of walls, pits and hearths. Stone house foundations were also frequent, but they disappeared into the profiles of the trenches and were not traced, since this was not in accordance with the trenching concept.
Cvinger near Vir pri Stični
The research at the south-western part of the settlement did not reveal any buildings just behind the fortification wall. The space was delimited on the inner side by a series of large stone blocks that ran 2-3 m from the wall. According to the excavators, the corridor that was thus created offered access to the fortification wall.223 The supposition that the blocks carried a wooden superstructure has not been confirmed by direct evidence. The empty stone-delimited space was observed behind both the first and the second wall (^ig. 56).
In spite of relatively thick debris layers (clay plaster, coal, potsherds) preserved in the interior of the settlement, foundations or ground-plans of houses contemporary with the first defence wall were not uncovered. The same goes for the next settlement phase, when the southern part existed without a fortification wall for a short period of time. There were no foundation walls or post-holes found in the area of the extensive burnt remains that ran along the rim of the settlement. Nevertheless, buildings surely stood there, as is indicated by parts of toppled walls made of boards and hewn timbers (fig. 57).224
The remains of buildings behind the second fortification wall were also relatively poor. A single stone foundations can be cited, which apparently bore a wooden construction (^ig. 58: A). The house could not be delimited, but it must have extended towards the southeast, since the surface in that direction was covered by burnt loam and charred wood. The remains of the house contents were rich.225
Some building remains were found also in the centre of Cvinger, where transverse rampart was made in the Late La Tene period (Trenches 18 and 19). Ruins of earlier settlement structures were uncovered underneath. In the Hallstatt period, terraced platforms were hewn into the slope and houses built on them. The ground-plans of these houses are not known, but we do know that the houses mostly had stone foundations and wooden walls (fig. 58: B-C). Two post-holes were uncovered in one of these houses that are believed to have supported the roof (fig. 58: B). The remains of charcoal indicate that hewn wood, beside timbers, was used in construction.226
223	Svoljšak 1994, 92 ff.
224	Ib.
225	Ib., 98.
226	Teržan 1994a, 129.
Fig. 56: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Relationship between Walls I and II and delimitation of the passages with two rows of stones behind the walls on the SE side of the settlement (after Svoljšak 1994). Scale = 1:250.
Sl. 56: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Razmerje med zidovoma I in II ter liniji kamnov, ki zamejujeta hodnika za obzidjema na jugovzhodni strani naselja (po Svoljšku 1994). M. = 1:250.
Nekaj ostankov stavb je bilo raziskanih tudi v sredini Cvingerja, in sicer na območju, kjer so v poznem latenu zgradili prečno obzidje (sondi 18 in 19). Pod njegovimi ruševinami so bile namreč odkrite starejše naselbinske strukture. V halštatskem obdobju so v pobočje vsekali terasaste ploščadi, na katerih so stale hiše. Tlorisi stavb sicer niso znani, vemo pa, kako so bile hiše zgrajene: večinoma so imele kamnite temelje in lesene stene (sl. 58: B-C). V eni od hiš so odkrili tudi dve luknji za stojki, za kateri menijo, da sta nosili strešno konstrukcijo (sl. 58: B). Iz ostankov oglja je moč sklepati, da so pri gradnji uporabili poleg brun tudi tesan les.226
Kot kažejo najdbe, je bil Cvinger v celoti poseljen tudi v poznem latenskem obdobju, žal pa poznamo iz tega časa bolj malo stavbnih ostalin. Izjeme so le delno raziskan kamnit temelj hiše, ki je stala na terasi za prečnim obzidjem (sl. 58: E)227 in dve stratigrafsko jasno loče-
226	Teržan 1994a, 130.
227	Ib.
Fig. 57: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Trench 17, ruins of a burnt house (after Svoljšak 1994). Scale = 1:25. Sl. 57: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Sonda 17, ruševine zgorele stavbe (po Svoljšku 1994). M. = 1:25.
The finds indicate that Cvinger was occupied in its entirety also in the Late La Tene period. Unfortunately, very few building remains are known from this period. The exceptions are the partially researched stone foundations of a house that stood behind the transverse wall (fig. 58: E)227 and two stratigraphically clearly separated residential surfaces in the area of the upper terrace. The latter represented the floors of former buildings, which is proven by a stone paved surface, a hearth and rich house contents. The restricted width of the trench prevented us from determining the form and size of the houses.228
Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje
This site revealed a building that stood on a terrace behind the fortification wall, which was only partially researched. It is nevertheless clear that it had wooden walls and a stone partition wall. The latter had the average thickness of 30 cm, it was built of middle-sized stones set close together (fig. 59: B). Leaning against it was a hearth with a stone bottom that was coated with a layer of heavily burnt loam (fig. 60). The prolonged use of fire caused the stones underneath the loam coating to calcify. The hearth was repaired, as is indicated by the remains of a thin clay coating that covered the pre-
227	Ib.
228	Dular 1994c, 139 f, fig. 133.
ni bivalni površini na območju zgornje terase. Da gre v zadnjem primeru za tla nekdanjih stavb, dokazujejo kamnit tlak, ognjišče in bogat hišni inventar. Stavbam zaradi ozke sonde ni bilo mogoče določiti oblike in velikos-ti.228
Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem
Tudi na Kunklu pod Vrhtrebnjem je na terasi za obzidjem stala stavba. Raziskana je bila le delno, vendar pa je kljub temu jasno, da je imela lesene stene in kamnit predelni zid. Le-ta je bil debel v povprečju 30 cm, zgrajen pa je bil iz srednje velikih kamnov, ki so bili postavljeni tesno drug ob drugega (sl. 59: B). Ob zid je bilo prislonjeno ognjišče. Imelo je kamnito podlago, ki je bila prevlečena s plastjo močno prežgane ilovice (sl. 60). Zaradi dolgotrajnega kurjenja, so kamni pod ilovnatim premazom poapneli. Ognjišče je bilo popravljano, kar dokazujejo ostanki tanke glinaste prevleke, ki je na nekaj mestih prekrivala spodnji premaz. Hišo je uničil požar. To je moč sklepati iz ostankov zgorele konstrukcije, ki se je podrla v notranjost stavbe. Ruševina zdrobljenega stenskega ometa in oglja je bila debela čez 10 cm, med njo pa je ležala obilica razbitega posodja. Najdbe so bile najštevilnejše prav ob ognjišču.229
228	Dular 1994c, 138 s, sl. 133.
229	Dular et al. 1991, 71 s.
Fig. 58: Remains of house ground plans at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. A: Trench 3; B: Trench 18, House 1; C: Trench 19, House 2; D: Trench 19, House 4; E: Trench 19, Late La Tene house (after Svoljšak 1994 and Teržan 1994a). Scale = 1:50. Sl. 58: Ostanki tlorisov hiš na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični. A: sonda 3; B: sonda 18, hiša 1; C: sonda 19, hiša 2; D: sonda 19, hiša 4; E: sonda 19, poznolatenskodobna hiša (po Svoljšku 1994 in Teržanovi 1994a). M. = 1:50.
Fig. 59: Remains of house ground plans. A: Cvinger near Korita; B: Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje; C and D: Križni vrh near Beli Grič. Scale = 1:50.
Sl. 59: Ostanki tlorisov hiš. A: Cvinger nad Koriti; B: Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem; C in D: Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem. M. = 1:50.
vious one in several places. The house was destroyed in a fire, which is attested to by the remains of the burnt construction that fell inwards. The ruin of crushed clay plaster and charcoal was over 10 cm thick and included a large amount of potsherds. The finds were most numerous near the hearth.229
Cvinger near Korita
The settlement at Cvinger near Korita revealed a house that stood just behind the first fortification wall. Only its western part was uncovered, since the ruin ran into the profile. Large pieces of charred wood lay among the burnt remains and fragments of clay plaster. The analysis shows that wood of deciduous trees was used in construction, more precisely that of ash, sessile oak and pedunculate oak.230
The ruins of houses were levelled after a fire and the area was covered by a paved corridor that ran along the fortification wall similarly to the one at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Behind the corridor, foundations of two houses were uncovered that were separated by a 1.1 m wide passage (fig. 59:A). The interior of one of the houses was paved with stone rubble and its foundations were reinforced by a wooden post. Remains of a hearth were found on the paved surface.231
Gradec near Vinkov Vrh
A similar mode of construction was found also at Gradec near Vinkov Vrh. A strong layer of debris filled with clay plaster was uncovered just behind the first fortification wall and underneath it the remains of house contents (pottery fragments, pieces of clay rings, parts of a baking lid, a portable hearth and a whetstone) were found lying on a stone pavement. A great amount of animal bones was also found. The ruin was levelled when the second fortification wall was built and the new buildings moved towards the interior. This is indicated by the remains of a house that stood 3.5 m from the fortification wall and was paved with stones. The pavement terminated in straight lines at the western and eastern sides, while it disappeared in the profiles of the trench at the northern and southern sides (^ig. 61). There were no post-holes uncovered at the edges, which allows for the supposition that the walls of the house laid on wooden sleeper beams. A stone block and 50 cm x 30 cm large hearth remains beside it were uncovered in the centre of the paved surface. The hearth had a clay coating with a smooth surface. Beside the hearth an almost complete pot was found with its contents composed of charred grains of brassica, vicia and setaria plants.232
229	Dular et al. 1991, 137.
230	Dular et al. 1995, 138.
231	Ib.
232	Ib., 140 f.
Fig. 60: Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje. Hearth. Sl. 60: Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem. Ognjišče.
Cvinger nad Koriti
Spodnja hiša na Cvingerju nad Koriti je stala tik za prvim obzidjem. Odkrit je bil le njen zahodni del, saj so ruševine izginjale v profil sonde. Med žganino in ostanki glinastega ometa so ležali večji kosi zoglenelega lesa. Analize so pokazale, da so pri gradnji uporabili les listavcev, in sicer jesen, graden in dob.230
Po požaru so ruševine stavbe zravnali in prostor namenili tlakovanemu hodniku, ki je podobno kot na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični tekel vzdolž obzidja. Novo stavbišče je bilo pomaknjeno v notranjost naselja. Za hodnikom sta bila namreč odkrita temeljna zidova dveh hiš, med katerima je bil 1,1 m širok prehod (sl. 59: A). Ena od stavb je imela s kamnitim drobirjem tlakovano notranjost, njen temeljni zid pa je bil okrepljen z leseno stojko. Na kamnitem tlaku so bili najdeni ostanki ognjišča.231
Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu
Podoben način pozidave je bil ugotovljen tudi na Gradcu pri Vinkovem Vrhu. Takoj za prvim obzidjem je bila ugotovljena močna ruševinska plast polna glinastega ometa, pod katerim so na kamnitem tlaku ležali ostanki hišnega inventarja (črepinje posod, kosi svitkov, deli pekve, prenosnega ognjišča in kamnit brus). Vmes je bilo precej živalskih kosti. Ko je bilo zgrajeno drugo obzidje, so ruševino poravnali, novo stavbišče pa pomaknili v notranjost. Dokaz za to so ostanki hiše, ki je stala 3,5 m od obzidja, imela pa je s kamni tlakovana tla. Tlak se je na zahodni in vzhodni strani zaključeval v ravnih
230	Dular et al. 1995, 106.
231	Ib., 106 s.
Fig. 61: Gradec near Vinkov Vrh. Stone pavement; House B. Sl. 61: Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu. Kamnit tlak v hiši B.
Križni vrh near Beli Grič
The research at Križni vrh near Beli Grič was directed towards one of the terraces on the north-western slope of the hill.233 The terrace was hewn into the dolomite bedrock and buildings were constructed on a levelled surface prepared there. The trench revealed two fairly clear settlement phases. The lower one, probably dating from the Late Bronze or the beginning of the Iron Age, revealed a number of post-holes that were dug into the dolomite soil. Unfortunately, their distribution did not enable the form of the house to be established (^ig. 59: C). The upper layer dated from the La Tene period and revealed the ruins of a burnt-down house, built of clay-plastered wooden boards or timbers, inside which a hearth was uncovered. The ruins were spread across a large area, which made it impossible to precisely defined the contour of the house (^ig. 59: D).
Veliki Vinji Vrh near Bela Cerkev
Remains of buildings behind the fortification wall were uncovered also at Veliki Vinji Vrh. Their ground-plans could not be established, but we do know that the earlier building there was constructed with the aid of wooden posts, while the later one had stone founda-
linijah, medtem ko je na severu in jugu izginjal v profilih sonde (sl. 61). Ker na njegovih robovih niso odkrili lukenj za stojke, lahko predpostavljamo, da so stene hiše počivale na lesenih temeljnih brunih. Sredi tlakovanega prostora je bil odkrit kamnit blok in ob njem 50 cm x 30 cm velik ostanek ognjišča. Glinast premaz je imel gladko površino. Ob ognjišču je bil najden skoraj cel lonec, v njem pa ostanki zoglenelih zrn ogrščice, grašice in muhiča.232
Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem
Na Križnem vrhu je bila raziskana ena od teras na severozahodnem pobočju hriba.233 Izkazalo se je, da je bila terasa vsekana v dolomitno osnovo, na poravnano površino pa so potem postavili stavbe. Izkop je odkril dva razmeroma jasna poselitvena horizonta. Od spodnjega, ki sodi najverjetneje v pozno bronasto ali na začetek železne dobe, se je ohranila vrsta lukenj za stojke. Vkopane so bile v dolomitna tla, žal pa iz njihove razporeditve ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti oblike hiše (sl. 59: C). Zgornji horizont je latenskodoben. Gre za ruševine požgane hiše, ki je bila zgrajena iz lesenih desk oziroma brun, ometanih z ilovico. V hiši je bilo ognjišče. Žal so
233
Dular et al. 1991, 144 ff.
232	Ib., 112 ss.
233	Dular et al. 1991, 100 ss.
Fig. 62: Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev. Retaining wall. Sl. 62: Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo. Podporni zid.
tions.234 The site also revealed a support wall composed of flat unworked stones laid in regular courses, which is particularly interesting for its solid construction. Its outer face was very carefully made, while it was uneven on the inner side. The wall was furnished with a narrow passage with carefully made sides (fig. 62). It dates to the Early Hallstatt period.
Gradišče near Valična vas
The hillfort revealed a Late Hallstatt house constructed on the highest terrace.235 Below it were earlier, chronologically indeterminate building remains (post-holes) that could not be tied into a ground-plan. The house was heavily damaged, since it was cut in half by a sand digging pit (fig. 63). It was probably rectangular and divided into two parts of different heights, whereby the difference in level was clearly visible in the profile of the sand digging pit. Well preserved floors made of beaten earth were uncovered in the western, higher-lying half of the house. On top of the floors a large amount of broken pottery and crushed clay plaster was found. The house terminated at the west with an approximately 40 cm deep slot hewn into the dolomite. It served as a bed for a timber made of oak wood, the charred remains of which were preserved in their original position. An oval hearth was situated close to the wall. It was constructed by laying two rows of small stones in superposition onto the floor and covering them with a clay coating (fig. 64).
234	Dular et al. 2000, 150.
235	Dular/Breščak 1996.
bile ruševine močno razvlečene, zato tudi tokrat tlorisa hiše ni bilo mogoče natančno zamejiti (sl. 59: D).
Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo
Ostanke stavb, ki so stale za obzidjem, so odkrili tudi na Velikem Vinjem vrhu. Ni jim bilo mogoče določiti tlorisov, gotovo je le to, da je bila starejša zgrajena s pomočjo lesenih stojk, medtem ko je imela mlajša kamnite temelje.234 Z Velikega Vinjega vrha poznamo tudi zanimiv podporni zid, zgrajen iz ploščatih lomljencev, ki so bili zloženi v pravilnih legah. Skrbno je bilo izdelano zlasti njegovo zunanje lice, medtem ko je bil na notranji strani neraven. V zidu je bil ozek prehod s skrbno izdelanima stranicama (sl. 62). Zid sodi v starejše halštatsko obdobje in je zanimiv predvsem zaradi solidne gradnje.
Gradišče pri Valični vasi
Poznohalštatska hiša je stala na najvišji terasi gradišča.235 Pod njo so bile odkrite starejše, časovno neo-predeljive stavbne ostaline (luknje za stojke), ki pa se jih ni dalo povezati v jasen tloris. Močno poškodovana je bila tudi sama hiša, saj jo je nekako čez polovico presekal peskokop (sl. 63). Stavba je imela najverjetneje pravokotno obliko, razdeljena pa je bila v dva različno visoka dela. Nivojska razlika je bila zelo dobro vidna v profilu peskokopa. V zahodni, višje ležeči polovici hiše so bila dobro ohranjena tla iz phane zemlje. Na njih je ležalo obilo razbite lončenine in zdrobljenega stenske-
234	Dular et al. 2000, 137 s.
235	Dular/Breščak 1996.
Fig. 63: Gradišče near Valična vas. Cross-section of the house floor. Sl. 63: Gradišče pri Valični vasi. Profil hiše.
The eastern part of the house was lower than the western and contained two pits hewn into the bedrock. Their bottoms were 28 cm and 43 cm, respectively, beneath the floor level of the house. They were packed with earth and stone rubble, while a thin layer of burnt remains covered the bottom. The pits probably served as storage areas.
Gradec near Mihovo
The research of a Late Antiquity church at Gradec uncovered also a prehistoric house. Only scant data on the house can be given here, since field results have not yet been published. The ground-plan measured 4 m x 5 m (fig. 65). The floor was partially dug into the sandy base of the hill. Ten centimetres deep slots were made along the sides of the house and wooden wall timbers were placed in them. The interior of the house revealed a large amount of pottery fragments and burnt clay plaster.236
Kučar near Podzemelj
Iron Age remains at Kučar near Podzemelj were uncovered during rescue excavation of the Early Christian building complex.237 The remains were relatively
236	Breščak 1990, 153.
237	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 33 ff.
Fig. 64: Gradišče near Valična vas. Hearth. Sl. 64: Gradišče pri Valični vasi. Ognjišče.
ga ometa. Na zahodni strani se je hiša zaključevala s približno 40 cm globokim usekom v dolomitna tla. Služil je kot ležišče za temeljno bruno, katerega zogleneli kosi so se še ohranili na svojem mestu. Bruno je bilo iz hrastovega lesa. Tik ob steni je bilo postavljeno ovalno ognjišče. Narejeno je bilo tako, da so na raščena tla položili dve legi drobnega kamenja, ki so ga nato prevlekli z glinastim premazom (sl. 64).
Fig. 65: Gradec near Mihovo. A: ground plan of the house; B: beds for the foundation beams (photo: D. Breščak). Sl. 65: Gradec nad Mihovim. A: tloris hiše; B: ležišča za temeljna bruna (foto: D. Breščak).
poorly preserved, since they were heavily damaged by the construction activities in Late Antiquity. The rescue research was orientated primarily towards excavating both churches and a palace, wherefore only the prehistoric buildings that were underneath or in the immediate vicinity of the Late Antiquity structures were documented. In all, five Iron Age buildings were uncovered at Kučar, three of which will be presented below.
House C stood on the southern part of the plateau. Its ground-plan was preserved as a patch of black-brown earth that was clearly distinguished from the surrounding yellow loam. It was therefore easy to establish its rectangular shape with sides measuring 7 m and 3 m (^ig. 66). Considerable burnt remains and charred wood indicate that the house was destroyed in a fire. Its western side leaned against the natural rock, while on the opposite side it terminated in a sharply marked line. Unfortunately, a Late Antiquity wall was later built on this exact spot and destroyed both corners of the Iron Age building.
House B stood on the north-eastern edge of the plateau. Its contour is not clearly discernible, but could nevertheless be reconstructed on the basis of the distribution of finds and clay plaster (^ig. 67). The house was clearly delimited in the north by a charred timber made of sessile oak wood, which was not completely preserved but the outline was nevertheless clear. Since the finds and plaster do not appear north of the charred timber, we can safely say that the timber represents the north line of the house.
The remains of a charred timber indicated also the south wall of the house. The timber was 14 cm thick and was preserved over 1 m in length. A mass of burnt clay plaster lay beside it, which again indicates the presence of a wall. A compact surface of burnt clay plaster outlined the eastern side of the building, while the western edge was destroyed during the construction of a Late Antiquity tower.
The house had two levels. The floor in the eastern half was over 40 cm higher than the floor in the western part. There were no traces of horizontal or vertical timbers in the area of the step between the levels, indicating that the interior of the house was probably not divided with a wall. The floor of the upper part of the house was covered by a layer of clay plaster and pottery. The potsherds mostly lay underneath the plaster, indicating that the wall fell inwards during a fire. The impressions on the plaster indicate that the walls were built of round beams and cleft boards. Xylotomic analyses of the charcoal have shown that sessile oak, pedunculate oak, fir and poplar wood was used in construction. The hearth of the house was uncovered under a thick layer of clay plaster in the upper part of the house. Around it laid clay rings, pyramidal weights, potsherds and a part of a fire-dog.
Vzhodna polovica stavbe je bila nižja od zahodne. V njej sta bili odkriti dve, v skalno osnovo vsekani jami, katerih dno je segalo 28 cm in 43 cm pod hodni nivo hiše. Jami sta bili zatrpani z zemljo in kamnitim drobirjem, na dnu globlje pa se je vlekla tanka plast žganine. Najverjetneje sta služili kot shrambi.
Gradec nad Mihovim
Hiša na Gradcu je bila odkrita pri raziskavah tamkajšnje poznoantične cerkve. Ker terenski izvidi še niso objavljeni, lahko navedemo o njej le nekaj skopih podatkov. Tloris stavbe je meril 4 m x 5 m (sl. 65). Tla so bila delno vkopana v peščeno osnovo hriba, vzdolž stranic pa so bili narejeni 10 cm globoki jarki, v katere so bila položena temeljna bruna sten. V hiši so našli obilo fragmentov lončenine in prežganega glinastega ometa.236
Kučar nad Podzemljem
Železnodobne ostaline na Kučarju nad Podzemljem so bile odkrite pri zaščitnem raziskovanju zgodnje-krščanskega stavbnega kompleksa.237 Bile so razmeroma slabo ohranjene, saj so jih dodobra načeli s pozno-antičnimi gradbenimi posegi. Ker je bilo zaščitno raziskovanje na Kučarju usmerjeno predvsem v izkop obeh cerkva in palače, so bili dokumentirani izključno tisti prazgodovinski objekti, ki so bili pod antičnimi stavbami, ali pa so ležali v njihovi neposredni bližini. Skupaj je bilo na Kučarju odkritih pet železnodobnih stavbišč, od katerih bomo na tem mestu predstavili tri.
Hiša C je stala na južnem predelu platoja. Njen tloris se je ohranil kot lisa črnorjave zemlje, ki se je dobro razlikovala od rumene ilovice okoliškega prostora, zato je bilo moč brez večjih težav ugotoviti, da je imel objekt pravokotno obliko s stranicami 7 m x 3 m (sl. 66). Hiša je propadla v ognju, o čemer pričajo močni ostanki žga-nine in zoglenelega lesa. Njena zahodna stranica je bila prislonjena ob naravne skale, medtem ko se je na nasprotni strani zaključila v ostro zamejeni liniji. Žal je bil prav na tem območju kasneje zgrajen poznoantični zid, ki je uničil oba vogala železnodobne stavbe.
Hiša B je stala na severovzhodnem robu platoja. Njen obris sicer ni bil najbolje viden, vendar se je dal vseeno rekonstruirati s pomočjo razprostranjenosti najdb in stenskega ometa (sl. 67). Na severni strani je potek hišne stene določalo zoglenelo bruno iz gradna. Ni bilo ohranjeno v celoti, vendar pa je bil obris jasen. Ker se najdbe in omet severno od zoglenelega bruna niso več pojavljale, lahko z veliko verjetnostjo trdimo, da je na tej liniji stala severna stena stavbe.
Ostanek zoglenelega bruna je določal tudi potek južne stene hiše. Bruno je bilo debelo 14 cm, v dolžino pa je bilo ohranjeno čez 1 m. Ob njem je ležala gmota prežganega hišnega ometa, kar je ponoven dokaz, da je
236	Breščak 1990, 153.
237	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 33 ss.
Fig. 66: Kučar near Podzemelj. Ground plan of House C. Sl. 66: Kučar nad Podzemljem. Tloris hiše C.
A thick layer of burnt remains appeared beside the step in the lower part of the house, which later turned out to be the remains of several charred boards, on top of which parts of a quernstone and a pot were found. The remains of the boards most probably represent parts of a bench that held the above-mentioned objects.
House A also stood on the north-western plateau, in the immediate vicinity of House B. They shared the orientation but were built differently. House A had stone foundations and was square in shape with sides measuring 7.5 m (fig. 68). The walls were built in the drystone technique, with the average thickness of 40 cm. They were mostly preserved in a single row of stones, though in some parts of the eastern, least damaged wall two rows were preserved one on top of the other. The remains of toppled walls were uncovered in three places. Burnt clay plaster was mostly reduced to small pieces though larger ones were also found. The latter show impressions of timbers with the diameter of up to 15 cm. An oval pit was dug beside the south wall, measuring 1.5-1.9 m in width and 1.2 m in depth. It was packed full with brown-black earth that contained numerous fragments of pottery and clay plaster. A piece of a quernstone was also found in it. Patches of burnt clay plaster
na tem mestu stala stena. S pomočjo kompaktne površine prežganega glinastega ometa se je dala začrtati tudi vzhodna stranica stavbe, medtem ko so na zahodu objekt uničili z gradnjo poznoantičnega stolpa.
Hiša je imela dva nivoja. Tla v vzhodni polovici so bila za dobrih 40 cm višja od tal na zahodu. Ker ni bilo na območju stopnice nobenih sledov vodoravnih ali navpičnih brun, notranjost hiše očitno ni bila pre-grajena. Tla zgornje polovice hiše je prekrivala plast stenskega ometa in keramike. Posodje je ležalo večinoma pod ometom, kar kaže na to, da se je stena ob požaru zrušila v notranjost stavbe. Po odtisih v ometu je moč sklepati, da so bile stene zgrajene iz oblic in klanih desk. Ksilotomske analize oglja so pokazale, da je bil pri gradnji uporabljen graden, dob, jelka in topol. Pod debelo naloženim stenskim ometom v zgornjem delu hiše je bilo odkrito ognjišče. Okoli njega so ležali svitki, piramidalne uteži, razbito posodje in deli ognjiščne kozice.
V spodnji polovici hiše se je tik ob stopnici pojavila debela plast žganine, ki se je kasneje izkazala za ostanek več zgorelih desk. Na njih so ležali deli žrmelj in lonec. Ostanki desk so najverjetneje deli klopi, na kateri je stal omenjeni hišni inventar.
Fig. 67: Kučar near Podzemelj. Ground plan of House B. Sl. 67: Kučar nad Podzemljem. Tloris hiše B.
in the interior of the house indicated that the house was destroyed in a fire. Based on the finds, this must have occurred at the end of the Early Iron Age (the Certosa or Negova phases).
6.1.6.2. House construction
The tour of the sites revealed that not much information has been gathered on the buildings. This is understandable, since the investigation of the settlement interior was not a priority of this project. More data on the construction of houses were yielded only by the rescue excavations at Kučar near Podzemelj, the results of which have only recently been published. In the interest of the publication, they are summarily presented also below.238
The Late Hallstatt houses at Kučar were rectangular or square in ground-plan. The largest of them was House A, which measured just over 56 m2. Its foundations consisted of two rows of stone in superposition and the superstructure was made of wood. The latter is
Hiša A je prav tako stala na severozahodnem robu platoja in sicer v neposredni bližini hiše B. Bila je enako usmerjena, zgradili pa so jo na drugačen način. Imela je kamnite temelje in kvadratno obliko s stranicami dolgimi po 7,5 m (sl. 68). Zid je bil zgrajen v suhi tehniki, sestavljali pa sta ga dve vzporedno ležeči vrsti kamnov. Njegova debelina je znašala v povprečju 40 cm. Kamni so bili večinoma ohranjeni v eni legi, le v vzhodni stranici, ki je bila najmanj poškodovana, sta bili na nekaj mestih ena nad drugo po dve vrsti kamnov. Ostanke podrtih sten so odkrili na treh mestih. Prežgan glinast omet je bil precej zdrobljen, vendar pa so bili vmes tudi večji kosi. V njih so se ohranili odtisi brun s premerom do 15 cm. Tik ob južni steni zidu je bila vkopana 1,5-1,9 m široka ovalna jama. Njena globina je znašala 1,2 m. Jama je bila do vrha zatrpana z rjavočrno zemljo, polno črepinj in hišnega lepa. Vmes je bil tudi kos žrmelj. Zaplate prežganega stenskega ometa, ki so ležale v notranjosti hiše, kažejo, da je stavba propadla v požaru. Sodeč po najdbah, se je to zgodilo ob koncu starejše železne dobe (certoški oziroma negovski horizont).
238
Ib., 63 ff.
Fig. 68: Kučar near Podzemelj. Stone foundations of House A. Sl. 68: Kučar nad Podzemljem. Kamniti temelji hiše A.
indicated by the clay plaster which revealed impressions of approximately 15 cm thick timbers. There were no traces of post-holes found in the area of the buildings and the burnt plaster did not show the impressions of wattle, which allows the supposition that the house was built in one of the more progressive construction techniques. Of these, only the postpad building (Ständerbau) or the corner timbering (Blockbau) techniques are relevant. In the first, the walls rest on a sleeper beam, into which studs are driven.239 Intermediate walls were made of boards or round beams. The studs also carried the roof, therefore the houses did not require ridgepoles to be driven into the ground. The second technique, the corner timbering construction,240 where the walls of the house are built of horizontally laid timbers that are joined in the corners by the so-called Verkämmung. The fact that the inhabitants of Kučar were familiar with this joining method is confirmed by the remains of a wooden box built above one of the storage pits at the site.241
239	Zippelius 1954, 42 ff; Zimmermann 1998.
240	Zippelius 1954, 30 ff.
241	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 56.
6.1.6.2. Gradnja hiš
Sprehod po najdiščih je pokazal, da o stavbah nismo zbrali veliko gradiva. To je razumljivo, saj raziskovanje notranjosti naselij ni bila prioritetna naloga našega projekta. Več podatkov o gradnji hiš so dala le zaščitna izkopavanja na Kučarju nad Podzemljem. Čeprav so bili rezultati že objavljeni, jih zaradi aktualnosti na kratko povzemamo.238
Poznohalštatske hiše na Kučarju so imele pravokoten oziroma kvadraten tloris. Največja je bila hiša A, ki je merila nekaj nad 56 m2. Za njen temelj so postavili kamnit venec iz dveh vrst kamnov. Nadgradnja je bila lesena. To lahko sklepamo na osnovi stenskega ometa, v katerem so bili odtisi okroglih brun, debelih približno 15 cm. Ker na območju stavbe niso našli obrisov lukenj za stojke, prav tako pa tudi v prežganem ometu ni bilo odtisov protja, lahko predpostavljamo, da je bila hiša zgrajena v eni od naprednejših gradbenih tehnik. V poštev prideta le so-hasta oziroma blokovna gradnja. Pri prvi počivajo stene na temeljnem brunu, v katerega so z utori zasidrane verti-
238 Ib., 63 ss.
House B (40 m2) was built similarly to House A. Its interior was divided with a step into two parts: the upper part with a hearth and the lower part where apparently a bench stood with vessels and a quernstone. House B did not have a stone foundation wall. Its walls stood directly on the ground, which is proven by there having been no stones found underneath the sleeper beams. It seems that, at the end of the Early Iron Age, some houses at Kučar had stone foundations but houses without these were also being built. The latter were, of course, much more exposed to humidity though this apparently did not greatly influence the foundation walls to be employed more consistently.242
House B also did not yield post-holes. The most plausible explanation for this is that the house was built in one of the two building techniques mentioned above (postpad building or corner timbering). The burnt clay plaster, which bears impressions of round timbers (7 cm to 19 cm in diameter) rather than of wattle, speaks in support of this. Some pieces of plaster bear the impressions of boards, proving that hewn wood was also used in construction.
Houses C and D at Kučar were built in the same mode. They were poorly preserved, since they were heavily damaged by the Late Antiquity architecture. The absence of post-holes in their ground-plans indicates that they were also constructed in either the postpad building or corner-timbering technique.
The findings from Kučar help to explain some of the architectural remains on other hillforts of Dolenjska. Stone foundations with sleeper beams for wallposts on top are known from Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje and Cvinger near Korita. The stud or corner-timbering technique can reliably be proven also for a house at Gradec near Mihovo and at Gradišče near Valična vas, since both had slots for sleeper beams cut into the dolomite bedrock. Most of the above-mentioned structures date to the Iron Age with the exception of Gradec near Mihovo, which dates to the Late Bronze Age.
Some settlements (for example at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, Križni vrh near Beli Grič and Gradišče near Valična vas) also revealed post-holes. They mostly belonged to the earliest phases of the settlements. Their positions do not allow for a reconstruction of ground-plans, but they do offer clear evidence that earthfast post construction was used also in the Iron Age though that period in Dolenjska knew more modern construction techniques, which were brought about by progressive building techniques that enabled the stud or corner-timbering constructions. The house at Gradec near Mihovo
242 This should not come as a surprise, since ethnological analogies show that, in Bela krajina, farm houses without substructure were common even in the twentieth century (Lokar 1912, 20). The same situation was observed in Prekmurje, where low stone foundations even represented an exception (Maučec 1939, 177).
kalne sohe.239 Vmesne stene so narejene iz desk ali oblic. Sohe nosijo tudi streho, zato stavbe nimajo v tla zasidranih slemenskih stojk. Drug način tesarske tehnike, ki bi prišel v poštev, je blokovna gradnja.240 Pri tej zvrsti stavbarstva so namreč stene hiš narejene iz vodoravno položenih brun, ki so v vogalih spojena s pomočjo tako imenovane sedlaste zveze. Da so tak način spajanja lesenih konstrukcij prebivalci Kučarja v starejši železni dobi poznali, kažejo ostanki lesenega zaboja, ki je bil zgrajen nad eno od tamkajšnjih hrambenih jam.241
Na podoben način kot stavba A je bila zgrajena tudi hiša B (40 m2). Njena notranjost je bila s stopnico predeljena v dva dela: zgornjega z ognjiščem in na spodnjega, v katerem je očitno stala klop s posodjem in žrm-ljami. Vendar pa hiša B ni imela kamnitega venca. Njene stene so stale neposredno na zemlji. Dokaz za to so ostanki temeljnih brun, ki so bili odkriti na severni in južni strani tlorisa, pod katerimi niso našli kamnov. Vse kaže, da so ob koncu starejše železne dobe na Kučarju nekatere hiše imele kamnit temelj, gradili pa so tudi take brez njega. Slednje so bile seveda veliko bolj izpostavljene vlagi, kar pa očitno ni imelo večjega vpliva na doslednejšo uporabo kamnitega venca.242
Ker tudi pri hiši B niso odkrili lukenj za stojke, je še najbolj sprejemljiva razlaga, da je bila prav tako zgrajena v eni od zgoraj omenjenih gradbenih tehnik (so-hasta oziroma blokovna gradnja). To dokazuje tudi prežgan stenski omet, v katerem so se ohranili odtisi okroglih brun (premer 7 cm do 19 cm) ne pa protja. Na nekaj kosih so vidni odtisi plohov, kar je dokaz, da so pri gradnji uporabili tudi tesan les.
Na podoben način sta bili na Kučarju zgrajeni še hiši C in D, ki pa sta bili veliko slabše ohranjeni, saj ju je močno načela poznoantična arhitektura. Ker tudi v njihovih tlorisih niso našli lukenj za stojke, prideta v poš-tev le sohasta oziroma blokovna gradnja.
S pomočjo kučarskih ugotovitev lahko razložimo tudi nekatere arhitekturne ostaline z drugih dolenjskih gradišč. Kamnite zidove, na katerih so počivala temeljna bruna sten, poznamo s Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični, Kunkla pod Vrhtrebnjem in Cvingerja nad Koriti. Sohasto oziroma blokovno gradnjo lahko zanesljivo dokažemo tudi za hiši na Gradcu nad Mihovim in na Gradišču pri Valični vasi, saj sta imeli v dolomitno osnovo vsekana ležišča, v katerih so počivala vodoravna temeljna bruna. Večina omenjenih struktur je železno-dobnih, izjema je le hiša z Gradca nad Mihovim, ki sodi v pozno bronasto dobo.
239	Zippelius 1954, 42 ss; Zimmermann 1998.
240	Zippelius 1954, 30 ss.
241	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 56.
242	Temu se ne smemo čuditi, saj primerjave iz etnologije kažejo, da so bile v Beli krajini kmečke hiše brez podzidka nekaj običajnega še v dvajsetem stoletju (Lokar 1912, 20). Enako so ugotovili za Prekmurje, kjer pa je bil nizek kamnit temelj celo izjema (Maučec 1939, 177).
is an excellent example of the novelties that came to be used already at the end of the Late Bronze Age.
6.2. UNFORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS
As revealed by the name, this group includes settlements without fortification structures. Most of them are situated in lowland and have therefore been known as lowland settlements. Within the framework of this research project they were not paid so much attention as the fortified settlements. The reasons for this are multiple. Firstly, unfortified settlements were not the representative type of dwelling in the Iron Age. Secondly, the project was limited in time and expenses and uncovering lowland settlements in such a large area would entail a substantially higher engagement of people and means. And thirdly, we have to keep in mind that information on size and particularly the chronological span of the lowland settlements could only be gained by excavating large areas, which was simply not possible in our case. This possibility only appeared with the rescue excavations that accompanied the construction of the highway cross in Slovenia.
Nevertheless, the issue of lowland settlement was not entirely avoided. On the contrary. Throughout the research we were aware that elevations were not the only areas to be occupied during the Iron Age. The evidence of this is the numerous tumuli that are situated far from the hillforts and indicate, with their location, the possible existence of smaller farmsteads and hamlets. Some of the large cemeteries must have belonged to the unfortified settlements, since there were no hillforts uncovered in their vicinity.243 Settlement outside the hillforts will be treated in a special chapter, but we will first present the unfortified settlements that were researched.
6.2.1. CHRONOLOGICAL DETERMINATION
Thirteen more or less clearly dated unfortified settlements are known from the area of our project. Most were discovered and researched during the construction of the Dolenjska section of the highway. Since field results have not yet been published, we will draw from the data that the excavators offered in their short reports.
The findings are interesting. Of the altogether thirteen settlements that could be chronologically determined, as many as ten date to the Late Bronze Age (fig. 69). It has to be said that the date of two settlements is still under question, which is understandable given the fact that the material has not yet been thoroughly ana-
243 E. g. Smarcna (cat. no. 149), Osredek near Velika Hubajnica (cat. no. 168), Male Brusnice (cat. no. 410), Ratez (cat. no. 411), Pusti Gradac (cat. no. 500).
Na nekaj naseljih (npr. na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični, Križnem vrhu nad Belim Gričem in Gradiščem pri Valični vasi) so bile odkrite tudi luknje za stojke. Večinoma so pripadale najstarejšim gradbenim fazam omenjenih naselij. Iz njihovih leg ni bilo mogoče izluščiti stavbnih tlorisov, so pa trden dokaz, da se je stojkasta gradnja zadržala tudi v železni dobi. Toda v tem času so hiše na Dolenjskem postavljali tudi na bolj moderen način. K temu so pripomogle naprednejše tesarske tehnike, ki so omogočale gradnjo sohastih in blokovnih konstrukcij sten. Hiša na Gradcu nad Mihovim je odličen dokaz, da so se novosti uveljavile že ob koncu pozne bronaste dobe.
6.2. NEUTRJENA NASELJA
Kot pove že samo ime, smo v tej skupini združili naselja, ki niso imela fortifikacij. Večinoma leže v nižini, zato se je zanje uveljavil tudi termin nižinsko naselje. Pri naših raziskavah jim nismo posvečali toliko pozornosti kot utrjenim gradiščem. Vzrokov za takšno ravnanje je več. Najprej moramo navesti dejstvo, da v železni dobi neutrjena naselja niso predstavljala najpomembnejše vrste bivališč. Drugi vzrok tiči v časovni in finančni omejenosti projekta. Odkrivanje nižinskih najdišč na tako velikem območju, kot so ga zajele naše raziskave, bi zahteval znatno večji angažma ljudi in sredstev. In tretjič, zavedati se moramo, da je kvalitetne informacije o velikosti in zlasti časovnem razponu nižinskih naselij moč dobiti le z odkopom večjih površin. Za kaj takega pa nismo imeli nobenih možnosti. Le-te so se odprle šele z zaščitnimi izkopavanji, ki spremljajo izgradnjo slovenskega avtocestnega križa.
Seveda pa se problematiki nižinske poselitve nismo povsem odrekli. Prav nasprotno. Ves čas naših raziskovanj smo se namreč zavedali, da v železni dobi niso bile poseljene zgolj višine. Dokaz za to so številne gomile, raztresene daleč proč od gradišč, ki prav zaradi odmaknjene lege kažejo na možnost obstoja manjših kmetij in zaselkov. Neutrjenim naseljem so očitno pripadale tudi nekatere večje nekropole, saj v njihovi bližini nismo odkrili gradišč.243 Sicer pa bomo problematiko izvengradišč-ne poselitve obravnavali v posebnem poglavju, zato si najprej oglejmo raziskana neutrjena naselja.
6.2.1. Časovna opredelitev
Z območja, ki ga je zajel naš projekt, poznamo za zdaj trinajst bolj ali manj jasno datiranih neutrjenih naselij. Večino so odkrili in raziskali pri gradnji dolenjske-
243 Npr. Šmarčna (kat. št. 149), Osredek pri Veliki Hubaj-nici (kat. št. 168), Male Brusnice (kat. št. 410), Ratež (kat. št. 411), Pusti Gradac (kat. št. 500).
Cat. No.	Site	Place	Uk	Ha	LT
Kat. št.	Najdišče	Kraj			
94	Samostan	Stična	•		
388	Dolge njive	Bela Cerkev	•		
227	Mejni prehod	Obrežje	•		
206	Velike njive	Velika vas	•		
207	Grofove njive	Velika vas	•		
229	Draga-Goričko	Obrežje	•		
221	Col	Podgračeno	•		
107	Pule	Pristavica pri Velikem Gabru	?		
219	Sredno polje	Čatež	?		
106	Bučarjev hrib	Sela pri Dobu	•		•
108	Reber	Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru			•
99	Marjanov hrib	Studenec		•	
387	Vovk	Bela Cerkev		•	
Uk Urnfield period / žarnogrobiščno obdobje
Ha Hallstatt period / halštatsko obdobje LT La Tene period / latensko obdobje
Fig. 69: Chronological determination of the unfortified settlements. Sl. 69: Datacije neutrjenih naselij.
lysed. It is also difficult to say whether the settlements were occupied throughout the Late Bronze Age. Some could have lived only in the Early and some in the Middle, Younger or even Late Urnfield periods. These questions will certainly be elucidated by further information.
The Late Bronze Age settlement at Bučarjev hrib near Sela pri Dobu revealed also remains from the La Tène period. They are not very rich, but do indicate the occupation of the same area after a longer pause.
Traces of the La Tène settlement have been uncovered also at Zagorica near Veliki Gaber (the Reber location), while the settlement remains from the Early Iron Age have so far been uncovered only at two sites, at Marjanov hrib near Studenec and at Vovk near Bela Cerkev. The former cannot be dated more precisely, while the latter belongs to the Certosa Fibula phase.
The above provides certain facts to be ascertained. Most unfortified lowland settlements belong to the Late Bronze Age. This is a very important finding in all respects, since it indicates that not only the elevations but also the lowland in south-eastern Slovenia was intensely settled in this period. We could even say that the Late Bronze Age settlement was orientated predominantly to the lowland zone, since the elevation settlements show only temporary occupation in this period. Quite a different picture emerges for the lowland settlements of the Early Iron Age. Only two unfortified settlements of the period were found on the route of the highway that traverses Dolenjska, which is quite a eloquent fact. Both provided scant remains of buildings that stood directly at the feet of large hillforts.244 These two settlements points can only be understood in direct relation to the near-by fortified settlement. The Late Iron Age offers a
244 Marjanov hrib near Studenec (in the area of the hillfort at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični) and Vovk near Bela Cerkev (in the area of the hillfort at Veliki Vinji vrh).
ga avtocestnega kraka. Ker terenski izvidi še niso bili objavljeni, se bomo pri datacijah naslonili na podatke izkopavalcev, kot so jih podali v svojih kratkih poročilih.
Ugotovitve so zanimive. Od skupaj trinajstih naselij, kolikor jih je bilo moč časovno opredeliti, jih kar deset sodi v pozno bronasto dobo (sl. 69). Pri tem moramo pripomniti, da je za dve najdišči datacija še vprašljiva, kar pa je glede na dejstvo, da gradivo ni bilo temeljiteje analizirano, povsem razumljivo. Prav tako je za zdaj težko reči, če so bila naselja obljudena skozi ves časovni razpon pozne bronaste dobe. Nekatera so lahko živela le v starejšem, druga pa v srednjem, mlajšem ali celo poznem žarnogrobiščnem času. Kaj več bo o teh vprašanjih moč reči šele takrat, ko bomo imeli na razpolago več podatkov.
Na območju poznobronastodobnega naselja Bučarjev hrib pri Selih pri Dobu so našli tudi ostanke iz la-tenskega obdobja. Niso bili kdove kako bogati, kažejo pa na poseljenost istega prostora po daljšem časovnem premoru.
Sledove latenske poselitve poznamo tudi iz Zagori-ce pri Velikem Gabru (lokacija Reber), medtem ko so bili naselbinski ostanki iz starejše železne dobe za zdaj odkriti le na dveh mestih, in sicer na Marjanovem hribu pri Studencu in v Vovku pri Beli Cerkvi. Marjanovega hriba ne moremo opredeliti ožje, Vovk pa sodi v stopnjo certoške fibule.
Iz pravkar povedanega lahko izluščimo nekaj dejstev. Kot vidimo, sodi večina neutrjenih nižinskih naselij v pozno bronasto dobo. To je vsekakor pomembna ugotovitev, saj kaže, da imamo v jugovzhodni Sloveniji v tem času poleg višin intenzivno poseljene tudi nižine. Lahko bi celo rekli, da je bila poznobronasto-dobna poselitev usmerjena predvsem v ravninski svet, saj so bila naselja na vrhovih v tem času obljudena le občasno. Precej drugače je z nižinskimi naselji iz starejše železne dobe. Prav pomenljiva je ugotovitev, da so na
similar picture. According to the current knowledge, the lowland settlement is scarce in this period, since only two locations are more or less clearly defined (Bučarjev hrib near Sela pri Dobu and Reber near Zagorica near Veliki Gaber).
6.2.2. LOCATION
Unfortified settlements are mostly located in the lowland, usually at the foot of an elevation, on river terraces and gently sloping banks. Though there is hardly a difference in altitude between the settlements themselves and the surrounding area, it can nevertheless be observed that slightly elevated points were chosen for the former almost as a rule. The second characteristic common to lowland settlements is the vicinity of water sources. It seems that water was, beside fertile fields, the determining factor in the choice of a location. The settlements are mostly found near streams or rivers. Examples with more than 10 minutes required to reach the nearest water source are not known as yet. The action of water influences the formation of the bedrock. In connection with the latter it has to be said that most settlements were built on alluvia of gravel, sank, silt and clay or on gravel-covered Pliocene terraces.
6.2.3. SOME DATA ON THE UNFORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS
trasi avtoceste, ki je diagonalno presekala Dolenjsko, našli le dve neutrjeni bivališči iz tega obdobja. V obeh primerih so prišli na dan skromni ostanki stavb, ki so stale neposredno ob vznožju velikih gradišč.244 Gre torej za poselitveni točki, ki ju lahko razumemo le v direktni povezavi z bližnjim utrjenim naseljem. Podobno lahko rečemo za mlajšo železno dobo. Nižinska poselitev je za zdaj skromna, saj imamo kolikor toliko jasno opredeljeni le dve lokaciji (Bučarjev hrib pri Selih pri Dobu in Reber pri Zagorici pri Velikem Gabru).
6.2.2. LEGA
Neutrjena naselja srečamo v ravnini. Običajno leže ob vznožjih vzpetin, na rečnih terasah in na rahlo padajočih bregovih. Čeprav med samimi naselji in bližnjo okolico ni bistvenih višinskih razlik, pa je vseeno opaziti, da so za lokacije skoraj po pravilu izbrali nekoliko dvignjene prostore. Druga značilnost, ki je skupna nižinskim naseljem, je bližina vodnih virov. Zdi se, da je bila poleg rodovitnih polj prav voda ena od determinant pri izbiri prostora. Naselja so bila večinoma ob potokih oziroma rekah, primerov, da so do vodnega vira potrebovali več kot 10 minut, za zdaj ne poznamo. Z delovanjem voda je povezan tudi nastanek geoloških podlag. Večina naselij je stala na aluvialnih nanosih proda, peska, melja in gline, oziroma na gramoznih pliocenskih terasah.
It has already been said that most unfortified or lowland settlements were uncovered during the construction of the Dolenjska section of the highway cross in Slovenia. Since the results have not yet been published, only short information on the settlements taken from the reports of the excavators is given here.
The settlements from the Late Bronze Age, which will be treated first, reveal very scarce settlement structures. Three settlements (Samostan at Stična,245 Bučarjev hrib near Sela pri Dobu246 and Draga-Goričko near Obrežje247) have so far yielded only individual finds. A few more finds came to light at the next four sites. The site at Pule near Pristavica pri Velikem Gabru revealed two simple fire places,248 the site at Srednje polje near Čatež a few refuse pits249 and at Col near Podgračeno the remains of two buildings were uncovered, one of which contained a simple fire place.250 An interesting building was found at Dolge njive near Bela Cerkev, made of two platforms of large boulders and stone rubble, on
245	Information provided by the excavator dr. Marko Frelih.
246	M. Horvat 2003b, 235.
247	Djuric 2003c, 204.
248	Tica 2003a, 95.
249	Guštin 2003, 247.
250	M. Horvat 2003a, 109.
6.2.3. NEKAJ PODATKOV O NEUTRJENIH NASELJIH
Rekli smo že, da je bila večina neutrjenih oziroma nižinskih naselij odkrita ob gradnji dolenjskega kraka avtocestnega križa. Ker rezultati izkopavanj še niso bili objavljeni, podajamo o naseljih kratko informacijo. Podatke smo povzeli iz poročil izkopavalcev.
Če se najprej zaustavimo pri naseljih iz pozne bronaste dobe, vidimo, da so bile naselbinske strukture zares skromne. S treh naselij (Samostan v Stični,245 Bučarjev hrib pri Selih pri Dobu246 in Draga-Goričko pri Obrežju247) so za zdaj znane le posamične najdbe. Nekaj več ostalin je prišlo na dan na naslednjih štirih najdiščih. V Pulah pri Pristavici pri Velikem Gabru sta bili odkriti dve kurišči,248 v Srednjem polju pri Čatežu nekaj odpadnih jam249 in na Colu pri Podgračenem ostanki
244	Marjanov hrib pri Studencu (v območju gradišča Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični) in Vovk pri Beli Cerkvi (v območju gradišča Veliki Vinji vrh).
245	Podatek izkopavalca dr. Marka Freliha.
246	M. Horvat 2003b, 235.
247	Djurič 2003c, 204.
248	Tica 2003a, 95.
249	Guštin 2003, 247.
top of which burnt human bones were found. The excavator interpreted them as sacrificial platforms.251 More or less clear outlines of buildings were found at only three sites, at Velike njive near Velika vas,252 at Grofove njive near Velika vas253 and at the state border crossing near Obrežje.254 Numerous pits and post-holes were found there that allow, in the excavators' opinions, ground-plans to be reconstructed.
Two lowland settlements are known from the Early Iron Age so far. The site at Marjanov hrib near Studenec revealed building remains in two places. The first building was wooden and the other probably had a foundation wall. The finds include burnt clay plaster, part of a quernstone, slag and potsherds.255 The second settlement was uncovered at Vovk near Bela Cerkev. A 16 m long foundation wall was uncovered there, made from relatively large stones, beside which lay a large amount of clay plaster, animal bones and pottery.256
Two of the known settlement points date to the Late Iron Age. For Reber near Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru, the excavators mention settlement traces without a more detailed description.257 More is known about the settlement at Bučarjev hrib near Sela pri Dobu. The remains of six buildings were uncovered there, built in the earthfast post technique, as well as two bloomery furnaces and four reheating hearths.258
As visible from the above, the data on the unfortified lowland settlements are quite scarce in that almost nothing is known of their size, internal structure and forms of houses. They cannot even be chronologically determined prior to the publication of the material. Judging from the fact that excavators mention post-holes for almost every Bronze Age settlement, we could suppose that earthfast post building predominated in this period. The technique apparently changed in the Iron Age. Both Hallstatt period settlements revealed stone walls that indicate the postpad building construction. The data on the house construction in the lowland settlements therefore correspond, more or less, with the results offered by the research of the hillforts. More will be said on the subject after the field research and the material has been published.
dveh stavb, od katerih je ena imela kurišče.250 Zanimiv objekt je bil odkrit na Dolgih njivah pri Beli Cerkvi. Gre za dve ploščadi, narejeni iz večjih balvanov oziroma kamnitega drobirja, na katerih so našli ostanke sežganih človeških kosti. Izkopavalec ju tolmači kot obredni ploščadi.251 Kolikor toliko jasne obrise stavb so našli le na treh najdiščih in sicer na Velikih njivah pri Veliki vasi,252 Grofovih njivah pri Veliki vasi253 in na Mejnem prehodu pri Obrežju.254 Gre za številne jame in luknje za stojke, ki po mnenju izkopavalcev omogočajo rekonstrukcije tlorisov stavb.
Nižinski bivališči iz starejše železne dobe sta za zdaj znani dve. Na Marjanovem hribu pri Studencu so na dveh mestih odkrili ostanke stavb, od katerih je bila prva lesena, druga pa je imela zelo verjetno temeljni zid. Med najdbami velja omeniti prežgan stenski omet, dele žrmelj, žlindro in črepinje posod.255 Drugi objekt iz starejše železne dobe je bil odkrit v Vovku pri Beli Cerkvi. Gre za 16 m dolg temeljni zid, narejen iz razmeroma velikih kamnov, ob katerem je ležala množica stenskega ometa, živalskih kosti in lončenine.256
Dve poselitveni točki poznamo tudi iz mlajše železne dobe. Z Rebri pri Zagorici pri Velikem Gabru omenjajo izkopavalci za zdaj le naselitvene sledove, ne da bi jih podrobneje opisali.257 Več je znanega o naselju Bučarjev hrib pri Selih pri Dobu. Tu so bili najdeni ostanki šestih stavb, zgrajenih v stojkasti tehniki, poleg tega pa še dve peči za taljenje rude in štiri kovaška ognjišča.258 Kot vidimo, so podatki o neutrjenih nižinskih naseljih za zdaj res skromni. Tako ne vemo skoraj ničesar o njihovi velikosti, notranji strukturi in oblikah hiš. Pred objavo gradiva jih ni bilo možno niti časovno natančno opredeliti. Glede na to, da omenjajo izkopavalci pri bro-nastodobnih naseljih skoraj vedno luknje za stojke, bi smeli predpostavljati, da je v tem času prevladovala stojkasta gradnja hiš. Tehnika se je očitno spremenila v železni dobi. Na obeh halštatskodobnih naseljih so namreč ugotovili tudi kamnite zidove, ki predpostavljajo gradnjo sohastih sten. Podatki o gradnji hiš iz naselij v ravnini se torej bolj ali manj ujemajo z rezultati, ki so jih dale raziskave gradišč. Kaj več pa bo o tej problematiki možno reči šele takrat, ko bodo objavljeni terenski izvidi in gradivo.
251	Mason 2003a, 120.
252	Djuric 2003d, 273.
253	Djuric 2003b, 143.
254	Mason 2003b, 203.
255	Svoljšak 2003b, 251 f.
256	Križ 2003, 93 f.
257	Vičič 2003, 276.
258	M. Horvat 2000, 93 ff; M. Horvat 2003b, 235 f.
250	M. Horvat 2003a, 109.
251	Mason 2003a, 120.
252	Djuric 2003d, 273.
253	Djuric 2003b, 143.
254	Mason 2003b, 203.
255	Svoljšak 2003b, 251 s.
256	Križ 2003, 93 s.
257	Vičič 2003, 276.
258	M. Horvat 2000, 93 ss; M. Horvat 2003b, 235 s.
6.3. CEMETERIES
6.3. GROBIŠČA
The study-area revealed 326 cemeteries. Most numerous among them are the tumulus cemeteries. There were 243 registered, which represents 75 % of the total number of discovered cemeteries (fig. 70). Flat cemeteries come second with 40 of them registered (12 %). The reason for the smaller representation of the latter is in the fact that they are difficult to detect with extensive field surveys. Eleven locations (3 %) revealed cemeteries that are both tumulus and flat, while fourteen (4 %) cannot be defined. They could be flat, but the possibility of destroyed (ploughed up) tumuli is not to be excluded.259 Eighteen (6 %) tumulus-like structures remain undetermined.260 Their type would only be confirmed or excluded by field research.
Na območju, ki ga je zaobjel projekt, smo ugotovili 326 grobišč. Najštevilnejše so gomilne nekropole. Registrirali smo jih 243, kar znese 75% od celotnega števila (sl. 70). Na drugem mestu so plana grobišča. Teh je le 40 (12%), vzrok za slabšo zastopanost pa tiči v dejstvu, da jih je z ekstenzivnim terenskim pregledom težko odkriti. Na enajstih lokacijah (3%) smo ugotovili gomilno in plano grobišče, medtem ko za štirinajst nekropol (4%) ne vemo, kakšne vrste so. Lahko so bila plana, ne gre pa izključiti možnosti, da imamo opraviti z uničenimi (razo-ranimi) gomilami.259 Nezanesljivih ostaja tudi osemnajst (6%) gomilam podobnih tvorb.260 Njihovo pristnost bi namreč potrdile ali ovrgle šele terenske raziskave.
tumulus cemetery? gomilno grobišče?
6%
4%
cemetery ^^----^ ^
grobišče
flat and tumulus cemetery piano in gomilno grobišče
3%
12% flot cemetery piano grobišče
75% tumulus cemetery gomilno grobišče
Fig. 70: Proportions among cemetery types. Sl. 70: Razmerja med tipi grobišč.
6.3.1. TUMULUS CEMETERIES
6.3.1. GOMILNA GROBIŠČA
Gomile so bile v jugovzhodni Sloveniji najbolj razširjen tip grobišča. Raztresene so po celem območju Dolenjske in Bele krajine, njihova umeščenost v prostor pa se dobro ujema z razgibanim reliefom pokrajine. Srečamo jih v ravnini, na hrbtih grebenov in na kopas-tih vzpetinah, zato bi lahko rekli, da oblikovanost tal pri izbiri lokacije ni odigrala ključne vloge. Če pa se vprašamo, katere lege so najpogostejše, potem je na dlani, da je bila večina gomil postavljena na grebene in vzpetine. To je seveda razumljivo, saj je bila tudi železnodob-na poselitev usmerjena pretežno v gričevnat svet.
Število gomil v okviru enega grobišča je različno. Najštevilnejše so posamične gomile, ki leže daleč stran od naselij in poti (sl. 71). Razmeroma pogosto srečamo tudi par gomil oziroma grobišča, kjer so na kupu trije ali štirje tumuli. Kot lahko razberemo iz grafikona, so dobro zastopane tudi manjše nekropole (s 5-10 oziroma 11-20 gomilami). Grobišč z več kot dvajsetimi gomilami je malo (komaj 9 %). Zelo velika nekropola, ki šteje čez sto gomil je znana le ena: to so Griže pri Stični (kat. št. 98).
Tumuli represent the most widespread cemetery type in south-eastern Slovenia. They are distributed across the entire area of Dolenjska and Bela krajina and their locations fit well into the rolling terrain of the region. They are found in the lowland, on ridges of hills and on dome-like elevations, which leads us to believe that the configuration of the terrain did not play a key role in the choice of a location. If, on the other hand, we try to determine the most frequent location, then it is obvious that most tumuli were located on ridges and
259	These are sites with cat. nos.: 13, 14, 16, 79, 86, 87, 89, 111, 128, 137, 232, 280, 303 and 348.
260	These are sites with cat. nos.: 10, 47, 70, 75, 83, 125, 139, 186, 205, 210, 234, 239, 243, 317, 340, 344, 363 and 452.
Zgradba in časovna opredelitev gomil
Zgradba dolenjskih gomil je dobro poznana, kar je zasluga novejših izkopavanj v Stični in Novem mestu.261 Gre za tako imenovano družinsko gomilo, v katero so pokopavali več generacij. Grobovi so bili razporejeni tangencialno okoli središčnega groba, večkrat pa je bila sredina gomile tudi prazna.
259	To so najdišča s kat. št.: 13, 14, 16, 79, 86, 87, 89, 111, 128, 137, 232, 280, 303 in 348.
260	To so najdišča s kat. št.: 10, 47, 70, 75, 83, 125, 139, 186, 205, 210, 234, 239, 243, 317, 340, 344, 363 in 452.
261	Gabrovec 1974; Knez 1986; Knez 1993; Križ 1997b; Križ 2000.
	140
	130
	120
	110
g.	100
(D C	90
0	
1	80
>«	
M	70
(U	
1	60
	
1	50
	
m _Q	40
E	
C	30
	20
	10
3-4 5-10 11-20 21-30 3140 41-50 number of tumuli / število gomil
Fig. 71: Size of tumulus cemeteries. Sl. 71: Velikost gomilnih grobišč.
>50
elevations. This is understandable, since the Iron Age settlement was also upland-orientated.
The number of tumuli within a site varies. Most frequent are cemeteries represented by a single tumulus that are situated far from settlements and communications (fig. 71). A pair of tumuli or cemeteries with three or four tumuli close together is also a relatively common occurrence. A graph is presented here to show that smaller cemeteries (with 5-10 or 11-20 tumuli) are also well represented. There are few cemeteries with over twenty tumuli (scarcely 9 %) and only one with over a hundred tumuli: at Griže near Stična (cat. no. 98).
Structure and chronological determination of the tumuli
The structure of the tumuli of Dolenjska is well known and was revealed by the recent excavations at Stična and Novo mesto.261 It is the so-called family tumulus with burials spanning several generations. The graves were positioned tangentially to the central grave though there are several examples where the centre of the tumulus was empty.
The tumuli vary in size. Most are small (up to 10 m in diameter) and contain up to 30 burials. Larger ones
261 Gabrovec 1974; Knez 1986; Knez 1993; Križ 1997b; Križ 2000.
Tumuli so različno veliki. Večina je manjših (premer do 10 m), v katerih je bilo pokopanih do 30 oseb. Vendar pa so znani tudi večji. Tako je imela na primer gomila 48 iz Griž pri Stični 153 grobov, gomila 13 s Prelog pri Zgornji Slivnici 173 grobov, medtem ko omenjajo v gomili 2 z istega najdišča celo 400 pokopov.262 Mrtvi so bili pokopani oblečeni v nošo, večkrat so se ohranili ostanki lesenih krst. V dolenjskih gomilah srečamo tudi pokope s konjem. Običajno so bili položeni k nogam pokojnika, in sicer celi, ali pa le glava oziroma kakšen del. Znani so tudi primeri, ko je bil v grobno jamo položen le konj.
Gomile so nastajale postopoma. Kot se lahko poučimo iz dobro raziskanega primera iz Griž pri Stični (sl. 72: 1), so nad centralni grob najprej nasuli prvo gomilo (premer 24 m, višina 3 m).263 Okoli nje je postopoma nastal prvi krog grobov, čez katerega so nato nanesli drugo, za 4-5 m širšo in 1 m višjo gomilo. Pokopavanje v povečan tumul se je nadaljevalo tako, da je na njegovem obrobju nastal nov krog grobov. Ko je bil tudi ta sklenjen, so ga prekrili še s tretjim nasutjem in vanj vkopali nove grobove. Nazadnje so gomilo obdali s kamnitim vencem, s čemer je dobila dokončen videz in obseg.
Družinska gomila se je v jugovzhodni Sloveniji uveljavila na začetku starejše železne dobe. V uporabi je
262	Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 26.
263	Gabrovec 1974, 172 ss; id. 1999, 178 ss; id. 2006.
Fig. 72: Ground plans of tumuli: 1. Griže pri Stični, Tumulus 48; 2. Kapiteljska njiva at Novo mesto, Tumulus 5; 3. Griže pri Stični, Tumulus 5; 4. Znančeve njive at Novo mesto, Tumulus 4 (after Knez 1986, Križ 2000 and Gabrovec 2006). Scale = 1:500. Sl. 72: Tlorisi gomil: 1. Griže pri Stični, gomila 48; 2. Kapiteljska njiva v Novem mestu, gomila 5; 3. Griže pri Stični, gomila 5; 4. Znančeve njive v Novem mestu, gomila 4 (po Knezu 1986, Križu 2000 in Gabrovcu 2006). M. = 1:500.
are also known. Tumulus 48 at Griže near Stična, for example, contained 153 graves, Tumulus 13 at Preloge near Zgornja Slivnica 173 graves and Tumulus 2 from the same site is mentioned to contain as many as 400 burials.262 The dead were buried dressed in the traditional attire. Remains of wooden coffins have been preserved in several graves. The tumuli of Dolenjska also revealed burials with a horse. The animals were usually placed at the feet of the deceased, either complete or
ostala do konca halštatskega obdobja, ves čas pa se njena zgradba ni bistveno spreminjala. Nastanek gomile je najbolje raziskan v Beli krajini. Tu se je zanesljivo pojavila že v fazi Podzemelj 1, zelo verjetno pa segajo njene korenine še globlje v preteklost. Dokaz za takšno trditev je gomila s Hriba v Metliki, ki je imela edinstveno strukturo: v njej so odkrili devetdeset pokopov, od katerih je bilo le osem skeletnih, vsi ostali pa žgani.264 Gre torej za zanimivo simbiozo dveh religioznih svetov, ko
262
Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 124.
264
Grahek 2004.
only in a part such as the head. There were also grave pits found that contained only the remains of a horse.
Tumuli were made gradually. A well researched example from Griže near Stična (fig. 72:1) showed that the first coat (diameter 24 m, height 3 m) was raised above the central grave.263 Around it, the first circle of graves was made, over which the second, 4-5 m wider and 1 m higher coat was raised. The enlarged tumulus continued to receive burials that formed a circle of graves on the perimeter. When this circle was completed, it was covered by yet a third coat and new graves were dug into that. Finally, the tumulus was encircled with a stone ring, which gave it its final form and size.
The family tumulus became widely used in south-eastern Slovenia at the beginning of the Early Iron Age. It remained in use until the end of the Hallstatt period, whereby its structure did not alter substantially. The appearance of tumuli is best documented in Bela krajina. They appeared already in the Podzemelj 1 phase, while its roots can probably be traced further back into history. The evidence of the latter is provided by the tumulus from Hrib in Metlika, which revealed a unique structure: it contained ninety burials, eight of which were inhumations and others incremations.264 It is an interesting symbiosis of two religious worlds where the old, Urnfield burial custom is combined with the new, Iron Age idea of a tumulus cemetery. Scarce grave goods indicate that the earliest incremation burial from the Metlika tumulus date to the Ljubljana Ib phase, that is before the Podzemelj 1 phase. The inhumation burial are considerably later; all eight of them date to the Stična phase.
Individual incremation burials in tumuli were uncovered also at other cemeteries of Bela krajina and Dolenjska, such as Loka pri Črnomlju (cat. no. 496), Podzemelj (cat. no. 479), Gradenje (cat. no. 379), Brezje pri Trebel-nem (cat. no. 310), Griže pri Stični (cat. no. 98) and Pod-molnik (cat. no. 24) that all date to the Podzemelj phase.265 However, inhumation begins to be widely practiced already in the Podzemelj 2 phase and achieves dominance in the Stična phase. After this period, incremation burials are only rarely found in tumuli. The situation is slightly different only at Magdalenska gora. There the tradition of cremating the dead was maintained all to the Late Hallstatt period (the Serpentine Fibula phase), which was probably caused by the marginal location of the settlement at the north-westernmost edge of the Hallstatt group of Dolenjska on the contact zone with other communities, which practised incremation burial.266
Finally, it should be mentioned that five tumulus cemeteries revealed also La Tene graves. All are subsequent burials into the coats of the Hallstatt tumuli that occurred after a long pause.267
263	Gabrovec 1974, 172 ff; id. 1999, 178 ff; id. 2006.
264	Grahek 2004.
265	Dular 2003, 108 f.
266	Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 178.
267	These are the cemeteries: Laščik near Zgornja Slivnica
je na enem mestu združen star žarnogrobiščni način pokopa, nova pa je železnodobna ideja gomilnega grobišča. Sodeč po skromnih pridatkih, sodijo najstarejši žgani grobovi iz metliške gomile v fazo Ljubljana Ib, torej pred horizont Podzemelj 1. Skeletni grobovi so bistveno mlajši. Vseh osem sodi v stopnjo Stična.
Posamezne žgane grobove v gomilah srečamo tudi na drugih grobiščih Bele krajine in Dolenjske. Omenimo naj le Loko pri Črnomlju (kat. št. 496), Podzemelj (kat. št. 479), Gradenje (kat. št. 379), Brezje pri Trebel-nem (kat. št. 310), Griže pri Stični (kat. št. 98) in Grmado nad Podmolnikom (kat. št. 24), ki so vsi datirani v stopnjo Podzemelj.265 Vendar pa se prične že s fazo Podzemelj 2 povsod uveljavljati inhumacija, ki v stopnji Stična v celoti prevlada. Po tem času najdemo žgane pokope v gomilah le še izjemoma. Nekoliko drugačna je le situacija pod Magdalensko goro. Na tamkajšnjih grobiščih se je ohranila navada sežigati mrliče vse do mlajšega halštatskega obdobja (stopnja kačaste fibule), čemur je najverjetneje botrovala obrobna lega naselja, ki je bilo postavljeno na skrajni severozahodni rob dolenjske halštatske skupnosti.266
Na koncu naj omenimo še to, da so na petih gomil-nih grobiščih odkrili tudi latenske grobove. V vseh primerih gre za naknadne pokope v nasutja halštatskih gomil, do katerih je prišlo po daljšem časovnem pre-
sledku.267
6.3.2. PLANA GROBIŠČA
Planih grobišč poznamo 40. Ker so bila večinoma odkrita po naključju (pri zemeljskih delih), njihovo številčno razmerje do gomilnih nekropol najverjetneje ne ustreza dejanskemu stanju. Vendar pa se v tem, lahko bi rekli, naključno zbranem vzorcu kaže dovolj prepoznavnih karakteristik, da opravimo vsaj najosnovnejše analize.
Tipološka in časovna opredelitev planih grobišč
Kot je razbrati iz tabele (sl. 73), uporaba planih grobišč ni bila omejena zgolj na eno obdobje. Med seboj se razlikujejo tudi po načinu pokopa, zato smo jih z ozirom na strukturo in čas razvrstili v pet skupin.
Prva skupina šteje trinajst grobišč. Enajst jih sodi v krog tako imenovane ljubljanske žarnogrobiščne skupine, ki se je na začetku 1. tisočletja pr. Kr. razširila po
265	Dular 2003, 108 s.
266	Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 98 ss.
267	To so grobišča Laščik pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 36), Preloge pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 37), Medvedjek pri Velikem Gabru (kat. št. 110), Gomile pri Dobravi (kat. št. 448) in Brodaričeva loza pri Podzemlju (kat. št. 479). Glej tudi Božič 1999, 208; Božič 2001, 186 ss.
6.3.2. FLAT CFMFTFRIFS
There are 40 flat cemeteries known so far. They were discovered predominantly by accident (during earthworks), so that their number most probably does not reflect the actual state in comparison to the tumulus cemeteries. They form a sort of a random sample that nevertheless reveals a sufficient amount of recognizable characteristics to allow us to perform at least the basic analyses.
Typological and chronological determination of flat cemeteries
As visible on fig. 73, the appearance of flat cemeteries was not limited to a single period. They also differ in the burial customs. For these reasons, they were classified into five groups based on their structure and period.
The first group includes thirteen cemeteries. Eleven of them belong to the so-called Ljubljana Urnfield group that spread across Dolenjska in the beginning of the 1s' millennium BC.268 They were not systematically researched and are therefore difficult to be determined. The scarce material found there cannot be dated more precisely, but does indicate that the cemeteries were in use in phases Ljubljana Ib and Ljubljana II. The remaining two cemeteries, located in the easternmost part of Dolenjska, are typical representatives of the Dobova group.269 The earliest graves from the eponymic site (Gomilice near Dobova) date to the Early and the latest graves to the Late Urnfield period.270 The common characteristic of the flat cemeteries with incremation burials of the first group is that they ceased to be in use at the beginning of the Iron Age.
The second group includes six cemeteries. These are also typical representatives of the Ljubljana group. Their common characteristic is that the burial stopped in the Ljubljana III phase. It has been proven on several occasions that this phase corresponds to phase Podzemelj 2, which means that burials at these cemeteries still occurred in the Early Hallstatt period.271 An example can be found in Novo mesto, where a flat cemetery at Mestne njive was still in use when the first tumuli already stood at neighbouring Kapiteljske njive.272
(cat. no. 36), Preloge near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 37), Medvedjek near Veliki Gaber (cat. no. 110), Gomile near Dobrava (cat. no. 448) and Brodaričeva loza near Podzemelj (cat. no. 479). See also Božič 1999, 208; Božič 2001, 186 ff.
268	Gabrovec 1973, 341 ff; Gabrovec 1983, 63 ff; Teržan 1999, 137.
269	Gomilice near Dobova (cat. no. 224) and Mejni prehod near Obrežje (cat. no. 228).
270	Dular 1978b; Teržan 1995a, 338 f.
271	Gabrovec 1973, 348; Dular 1979, 74 f; Gabrovec 1987, 36 f.
272	Dular 2003, 117.
celi Dolenjski.268 Ker niso bila načrtno raziskana, jih je časovno težko opredeliti. Sodeč po skromnem gradivu, ki ne dopušča natančnejših datacij, so bila v uporabi v stopnji Ljubljana Ib in v stopnji Ljubljana II. Preostali dve nekropoli, ki ležita na skrajnem vzhodnem koncu Dolenjske, pa sta značilni predstavnici dobovske skupi-ne.269 Najstarejši grobovi iz eponimnega najdišča (Go-milice pri Dobovi) segajo v starejše, najmlajši pa v pozno žarnogrobiščno obdobje.270 Za plana grobišča z žganimi pokopi, ki smo jih uvrstili v prvo skupino, je torej značilno, da so bila opuščena z nastopom železne dobe.
Druga skupina šteje šest nekropol. Tudi te so značilne predstavnice ljubljanske skupine, druži pa jih skupna lastnost, da so bile v uporabi vse do faze Ljubljana IIIa. V starejšem halštatskem obdobju so na njih še pokopavali. Faza Ljubljana Illa je namreč vzporedna s fazo Podzemelj 2, kar je bilo že večkrat dokazano.271 Tak primer imamo v Novem mestu, kjer je bilo plano grobišče na Mestnih njivah še vedno v uporabi, ko so na sosednji Kapiteljski njivi že stale prve gomile.272 Podobno situacijo poznamo tudi iz Črnomlja, Podzemlja, Metlike in
Podmolnika.273
Tretja skupina, ki šteje devet grobišč, je železno-dobna. Tiste nekropole, ki jih je moč datirati, so mlado-halštatske,274 za vse pa je značilen skeleten pokop. Zanimiva je tudi njihova razprostranjenost. Najdemo jih v Posavskem hribovju, ki je bilo pred tem neposeljeno. Vse kaže, da je prišlo proti koncu železne dobe v severnem delu Dolenjske do pomembnih sprememb. Le-te se ne odražajo le v novih naseljih, ampak tudi v nekropo-lah, ki so bile plane s skeletnimi pokopi.
Fdino grobišče četrte skupine (Stražni dol nad Gole-kom pri Vinici) je nastalo v poznem halštatskem obdobju, na njem pa so pokopavali predvsem v mlajši železni dobi. Po svoji strukturi je bilo nekaj posebnega. Viri omenjajo skeleten in žgan pokop, ni pa mogoče ugotoviti, kakšno je bilo njuno številčno razmerje.275 Pred objavo
268	Gabrovec 1973, 341 ss; Gabrovec 1983, 63 ss; Teržan 1999, 137.
269	Gomilice pri Dobovi (kat. št. 224) in Mejni prehod pri Obrežju (kat. št. 228).
270	Dular 1978b; Teržan 1995a, 338 s.
271	Gabrovec 1973, 348; Dular 1979, 74 s; Gabrovec 1987, 36 s.
272	Dular 2003, 117.
273	Navedemo lahko sočasnost naslednjih planih in gomil-nih grobišč: Sadež v Črnomlju (kat. št. 494) in Grajska cesta v Loki pri Črnomlju (kat. št. 496); Krč pri Podzemlju (kat. št. 484) ter Brodaričeva loza pri Podzemlju (kat. št. 479), Steljnik pri Grmu (kat. št. 480) in Vir pri Škriljah (kat. št. 487) - vse že v fazi Ljubljana Ilb/Podzemelj 1; Borštek oziroma Špitalska draga v Metliki (kat. št. 471 in 477) ter Hrib v Metliki (kat. št. 475); Roje pri Orlah (kat. št. 22) in Grmada nad Podmolni-kom (kat. št. 24).
274	Kidričeva cesta v Zagorju (kat. št. 20), Skubičev vrt pri Pancah (kat. št. 43) in Kavčev hrib pri Suhadolah (kat. št. 130). Glej tudi Gabrovec 1966a, 24 ss; Dular 2003, 154 s, 269 s.
275	Vogt 1934, 48 s.
Cat. No. Kat. št.	Site Najdišče	Place Kraj	Uk	Ha	LT	Group Skupina
42	Železniška postaja	Grosuplje	?			
288	Pašnik	Ostrožnik	•			
345	Inis	Bršljin	•			
394	Pleskovičeva njiva	Gorenja Gomila	•			
400	Golobinjek	Šmarje	•			
474	Jerebova ulica	Metlika	•			
484	Krč	Podzemelj	•			I
490	Požekov vrt	Griblje	•			
493	Trdinova ulica	Črnomelj	•			
434	Kuntaričeva hosta	Dobe	•			
224	Gomilice	Dobova	•			
228	Mejni prehod	Obrežje	•			
204	Agrokombinat	Žadovinek	•		•	
22	Roje	Orle	•	•		
97	Dole	Pristavlja vas		•		
349	Mestne njive	Novo mesto	•	•		II
471	Špitalska draga	Metlika	•	•		
477	Borštek	Metlika	•	•		
494	Sadež	Črnomelj	•	•		
20	Kidričeva cesta	Zagorje ob Savi		•		
33	Jurjev britof	Račica		•		
34	Žitnice	Javor		•		
35	Hribarjeva košenica	Ravno brdo		•		
43	Skubicev vrt	Pance		•		III
77	Roje	Podroje		•		
130	Kavčev hrib	Suhadole		•		
132	Furije	Dobovica		•		
134	Topliška skala	Jagnenica		•		
506	Stražni dol	Golek pri Vinici		•	•	IV
72	Spodnji dol	Stranski vrh			•	
60	Zavrh	Spodnja Slivnica			•	
109	Reber	Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru			•	
216	Sejmišče	Brežice			•	
223	Kosovka	Dobova			•	V
293	Vidmarjeva hosta	Ribjek			•	
352	Beletov vrt	Novo mesto			•	
437	Male pužce	Veliko Mraševo			•	
472	Pungart	Metlika			•	
481	Jurajevčičeva njiva	Zemelj			•	
Uk Urnfield period / žarnogrobiščno obdobje
Ha Hallstatt period / halštatsko obdobje LT La TSne period / latensko obdobje
Fig. 73: Chronological determination of flat cemeteries. Sl. 73: Datacije planih grobišč.
A similar situation can be observed also at Črnomelj, Podzemelj, Metlika and Podmolnik.273
273 Contemporaneity was observed at the following flat and tumulus cemeteries: Sadež in Črnomelj (cat. no. 494) and Grajska cesta in Loka pri Črnomlju (cat. no. 496); Krč near Podzemelj (cat. no. 484) and Brodaričeva loza near Podzemelj (cat. no. 479), Steljnik near Grm (cat. no. 480) and Vir near Škrilje (cat. no. 487) - all of them already in the Ljubljana IIb/Podzemelj 1 phases; Borštek or Špitalska draga in Metlika (cat. no. 471 and 477) and Hrib in Metlika (cat. no. 475); Roje near Orle (cat. no. 22) and Grmada near Podmolnik (cat. no. 24).
terenskih zapiskov - v kolikor sploh obstajajo - tudi ni mogoče ugotoviti, če se je način pokopa spreminjal skozi čas. Svojskost grobišča lahko razložimo z etnično pripadnostjo tamkajšnjega prebivalstva, saj je bil južni del Bele krajine v mlajši železni dobi poseljen s Kolapijani.276
Peta skupina planih nekropol je latenskodobna, za vse pa je značilen žgan pokop. Po sedanjem vedenju so bile večinoma v uporabi v srednjem oziroma v poznem latenskem obdobju (stopnji Mokronog II in III).277
276	Božič 2001, 181 ss.
277	Glej tudi Božič, 1999, 192 ss.
The third group is composed of nine cemeteries and dates to the Iron Age. The cemeteries that can be dated belong to the Late Hallstatt period,274 with a common characteristic of inhumation burials. Their distribution is also interesting, since they can be found also in the Posavsko hribovje, which was previously uninhabited. It all seems that important changes occurred in northern Dolenjska at the end of the Iron Age. These are reflected not only in new settlements, but also in the flat cemeteries with inhumation burials.
The forth group consists of a single cemetery (Strazni dol near Golek pri Vinici). Burial began there in the Late Hallstatt period, while most graves date from the Late Iron Age. The cemetery has a particular structure, since written sources mention inhumation and incremation burials, though their numerical proportion cannot be established.275 Prior to the publication of the field notes - if they at all exist - it is also not possible to establish whether the burial custom changed through time. The particular character of the cemetery can be explained with the ethnicity of the area, since the southern part of Bela krajina was settled by the Colapiani.276
The fifth group of flat cemeteries dates to the La Tene period. Its common characteristic is incremation burials. The present knowledge indicates that the cemeteries were used mostly in the Middle and/or Late La Tene period (phases Mokronog II in III).277
6.3.3. FLAT AND TUMULUS CEMETERIES
South-eastern Slovenia also knows cemeteries where the burial custom altered through time (fig. 74). The best researched site of this sort is Kapiteljska njiva at Novo mesto. The cemetery is located on a slightly elevated dome-like hill, where first a flat cemetery with incremation burials appeared on the southern and eastern slopes of the hill. The finds date it to the Late Urnfield period (phases Ljubljana Ib in II). First tumuli with inhumation burials were added in the Podzemelj 1 phase and the burial custom continued throughout the Early Iron Age. The burial ritual at Kapiteljske njive changed again around 300 BC. The arrival of the Celtic Taurisci caused yet a third cemeterial area to be opened, this time with flat incremation burials. The area remained in use until the Middle La Tene period (phase Mokronog IIb).278 A similar situation has been observed also at Slepšek and Beli Grič. Both cemeteries are mentioned
274	Kidričeva cesta in Zagorje (cat. no. 20), Skubičev vrt near Pance (cat. no. 43) and Kavčev hrib near Suhadole (cat. no. 130). See also Gabrovec 1966a, 24 ff; Dular 2003, 154 f., 269 f.
275	Vogt 1934, 48 f.
276	Božič 2001, 181 ff.
277	See also Božič, 1999, 192 ff.
278	Ib.
6.3.3. PLANA IN GOMILNA GROBIŠČA
V jugovzhodni Sloveniji so znana tudi takšna grobišča, na katerih se je način pokopa s časom spreminjal (sl. 74). Najbolje raziskano grobišče te vrste je Kapiteljska njiva v Novem mestu. Na nekoliko dvignjenem ko-pastem vrhu so namreč najprej uredili plano grobišče z žganimi pokopi, ki se je razprostiralo na južni in vzhodni strani vzpetine. Najdbe ga postavljajo v pozno žar-nogrobiščno obdobje (stopnja Ljubljana Ib in II). V fazi Podzemelj 1 so ob njem nasuli prve gomile, v katerih so bila pokopana cela trupla, tak način pokopa pa se je nato ohranil skozi vso starejšo železno dobo. Pogrebne navade na Kapiteljski njivi so se ponovno spremenile okoli leta 300 pr. Kr. Po prihodu keltskih Tavriskov je vzhodno od gomil nastal še tretji grobiščni areal, tokrat z žganimi planimi pokopi. V uporabi je ostal vse do konca srednjelatenskega obdobja (faza Mokronog IIb).278 Podobno situacijo so ugotovili v Slepšku in Belem Griču. V obeh nekropolah se omenjajo plani žgani grobovi iz pozne bronaste dobe, gomile oziroma skeletni grobovi iz halštatskega obdobja in posamezni predmeti iz la-tenskega časa.
Halštatske in latenske grobove poznamo še s sedmih dolenjskih najdišč (sl. 74). Na Rojah nad Ribjekom in Znančevih njivah v Novem mestu je situacija jasna, saj gre za plani nekropoli z žganimi pokopi iz mlajše železne dobe, ki sta se razprostirali v neposredni bližini halštatskih gomil. Nekoliko bolj zamegljena je struktura ostalih petih grobišč.279 Znano je namreč, da so nastala v halštatskem obdobju, na vseh pa so prišli na dan tudi latenski grobovi. Šlo naj bi za plana grobišča, kar pa ni najbolj verjetno. Realnejša je namreč razlaga, da so tudi na teh najdiščih nekoč stale gomile, ki pa so bile zaradi obdelovanja polj in vinogradov v preteklosti razo-rane. Gre torej za podobno situacijo, kot so jo ugotovili na dobro raziskani Kapiteljski njivi v Novem mestu: tudi tu so nekoč stale gomile, o katerih pa ni bilo na površini ohranjenih nobenih sledov. Naše mnenje je zato jasno. Na vseh petih grobiščih so najprej pokopavali v gomile, v mlajši železni dobi pa so ob njih nastala še plana grobišča. Toda medtem, ko je bila nekropola pri Valični vasi v uporabi ves čas (stopnje Mokronog I-III), so na ostalih štirih pokopavali predvsem v poznem latenskem obdobju (stopnja Mokronog III). Med njimi je opaziti še nekatere razlike: grobovi v Moravčah in v Podbočju so bili namreč žgani, v Beli Cerkvi in na Mihovem pa so polagali v zemljo cela trupla.280
Zadnji dve nekropoli (Cvetež pri Vovšah in Reber nad Klenikom) sodita v sklop vaškega naselbinskega
278	Ib.
279	Zadinec v Valični vasi (kat. št. 118), Roje pri Moravčah pri Gabrovki (kat. št. 122), Bočje nad Podbočjem (kat. št. 440), Strmec pri Beli Cerkvi (kat. št. 384) in Hribec v Mihovem (kat. št. 422).
280	Božič 1999, 194 s.
Cat. No. / Kat. št.	Site / Najdišče	Place / Kraj	Uk	Ha	LT
350	Kapiteljska njiva	Novo mesto	•	•	•
290	Božji grob	Slepšek	•	•	•
291	Sv. Križ	Beli Grič	•	•	•
292	Roje	Ribjek		•	•
354	Znančeve njive	Novo mesto		•	•
118	Zadinec	Valična vas		•	•
122	Roje	Moravče pri Gabrovki		•	•
440	Bočje	Podbočje		•	•
384	Strmec	Bela Cerkev		•	•
422	Hribec	Mihovo		•	•
12	Cvetež	Vovše		•	
15	Reber	Klenik		•	
Uk Urnfield period / žarnogrobiščno obdobje
Ha Hallstatt period / halštatsko obdobje LT La Tene period / latensko obdobje
Fig. 74: Chronological determination of flat and tumulus cemeteries. Sl. 74: Datacije planih in gomilnih grobišč.
as including flat incremation burials from the Late Bronze Age, tumuli and inhumation graves from the Hallstatt period and individual finds from the La Tene period.
Hallstatt and La Tene graves are known from further seven sites in Dolenjska (fig. 74). Roje near Ribjek and Znančeve njive at Novo mesto are flat cemeteries with incremation burials from the Late Iron Age that extended in the immediate vicinity of the Hallstatt tumuli. The structure of the remaining five cemeteries is less clear.279 We know that they appeared in the Hallstatt period, but all revealed also La Tene graves. They have so far been thought as flat cemeteries. However, this does not seem very likely and a much more probable explanation is that tumuli once stood on these sites and were later, through agricultural activity on fields and vineyards, levelled by ploughing. This is a situation similar to that at Kapiteljske njive at Novo mesto, where tumuli also once stood but no trace of them is visible on the surface. We therefore firmly believe that the first burials on all five cemeteries were in tumuli, while flat cemeteries appeared beside them in the Late Iron Age. The differences among these five cemeteries are, firstly, that the cemetery at Valična vas was in use throughout the Late Iron Age (phases Mokronog I-III), while burials on other four cemeteries mostly date from the Late La Tene period (phase Mokronog III) and, secondly, that graves at Moravče and Podbočje contained cremated remains, while at Bela Cerkev and Mihovo inhumation burial was practised.280
The last two cemeteries (Cvetež near Vovše and Reber near Klenik) form part of a settlement complex
279	Zadinec in Valična vas (cat. no. 118), Roje near Moravče pri Gabrovki (cat. no. 122), Bočje near Podbočje (cat. no. 440), Strmec near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 384) and Hribec in Mihovo (cat. no. 422).
280	Božič 1999, 194 f.
kompleksa. Kolikor je moč razbrati iz starih poročil in topografskih rekognosciranj, gre v obeh primerih za piano in gomilno grobišče z žganimi in skeletnimi pokopi. Tak, lahko bi rekli heterogen način pokopa, je na Vačah razumljiv. Najdišče leži na meji dolenjske, gorenjske in štajerske skupnosti, ki so poznale vsaka nekoliko drugačen način pokopa, kar se je očitno odražalo tudi na grobiščih v okolici Vač. Obe nekropoli sta bili po dosedanjem vedenju v uporabi le v halštatskem obdobju.
6.4. DEPOJI
Na območju Dolenjske je iz obdobja, ki nas zanima, znanih trinajst depojskih najdb (sl. 75). Ker so bile nedavno izčrpno predstavljene in analizirane, se lahko na tem mestu zadovoljimo s kratkim povzetkom ugoto-vitev.281 Polovica depojev nima znanih ožjih najdiščnih podatkov, zato jih nismo mogli natančno umestiti v prostor. Šest depojev sodi v tako imenovano skupino večjih depojev mešane sestave (tip 1). P. Turk jih je časovno uvrstil v svoj II. horizont, kar odgovarja starejšemu in srednjemu žarnogrobiščnemu obdobju (Ha A).282 V isti čas sodita tudi depoja iz Gorenjega Loga in Zagorja ob Savi, ki pa sta glede na število najdb predstavnika manjših depojev mešane sestave (tip 2). Trije depoji so vsebovali srpe (tip 3). Dva (Mala Račna in Brežice) sodita v starejše žarnogrobiščno obdobje (Ha A1), medtem ko tretjega (Rumanja vas) zaradi izgubljenih najdb ni možno natančno opredeliti. Kronološko in tipološko neopredeljena ostajata tudi depoja z Velikega Korinja in Zidanega mosta, saj so o njih ohranjene le bežne notice.
281	Teržan (ur.) 1995-1996.
282	Turk 1996, 108 ss.
near Vače. As revealed by old reports and topographical reconnaissance, both are flat as well as tumulus cemeteries with incremation as well as inhumation burials. This heterogeneous burial custom is understandable at Vače, since the site is located on the border of the communities of Dolenjska, Gorenjska and Štajerska, each of which knew a slightly different burial custom. This was reflected in the cemeteries around Vače. According to the present knowledge, the cemeteries were in use only during the Hallstatt period.
6.4. HOARDS
There are thirteen hoard finds known in the area of Dolenjska from the period treated in this publication (^ig. 75). They were recently thoroughly presented and analysed, wherefore only a summary of the findings will be given here.281 Half of the hoards could not be precisely located, since they lack the required data. Six belong to the so-called group of large hoards of mixed composition (type 1). P. Turk dated them to his horizon II, which corresponds to the Early and Middle Urnfield period (Ha A).282 The hoards from Gorenji Log and Zagorje ob Savi date to the same time frame, but belong on the basis of the number of finds to small hoards of mixed composition (type 2). Three hoards contained sickles (type 3). Two hoards (Mala Račna and Brežice) belong to the Early Urnfield period (Ha A1), while the third (Rumanja vas) could not be precisely dated, because the finds were lost. The hoards from Veliki Korinj and Zidani most also remain chronologically undetermined, since only cursory notes on the sites survive.
Cat. No.	Site	Place	Type
Kat. št.	Najdišče	Kraj	Tip
56	Zaičeva hiša	Udie	
194	Ajdovska jama	Silovec	
402		Crmošnjice	
407	Kopinatova hosta	Gorenji Suhodol	
460	Osredek	Mali Podljuben	
498	Debeli vrh	Dolenia Podgora	
66		Gorenji Log	2
17	Gradišče	Zagorje ob Savi	2
66		MOIO Račna	3
215		Brežice	3
458		Rumanja vos	3
113		Veliki Korinj	
138		Zidani most	
Type / Tip:
1	large hoard of mixed composition / večji depo mešane sestave
2	small hoard of mixed composition / manjši depo mešane sestave
3	hoard composed of sickles / depo, sestavljen iz srpov
Fig. 75: Hoards. Sl. 75: Depoji.
281	Teržan (ed.) 1995-1996.
282	Turk 1996, 110 ff.
7. SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS
7. POSELITVENA DINAMIKA
Studying the history of colonisation usually leads the researchers to pose certain basic questions. These include the development of the settlement pattern, the interaction between the natural environment and human settlement, but also the motives behind the choice of location and the issue of territorial delimitation. We also need to bear in mind that the colonisation of an area is a dynamic process influenced by natural, economic and social factors, whereby the relations among them varied. What, then, was the appearance of the settlement of south-eastern Slovenia in the 1s' millennium BC?
Pri proučevanju kolonizacijske zgodovine si raziskovalci običajno zastavijo nekaj temeljnih vprašanj. Ugotoviti skušajo potek poselitve, zanima jih, kako so nanjo vplivale naravne danosti pokrajine, iščejo pa tudi odgovore na vprašanja, kaj je takratne ljudi vodilo pri izbiri novih lokacij in kako so zamejili svoja poselitvena območja. Kolonizacija nekega prostora je dinamičen proces, na katerega so vplivali tako naravni, kot tudi gospodarski in družbeni dejavniki, razmerja med njimi pa niso bila vedno enaka. Kakšna je bila torej poselitev jugovzhodne Slovenije v 1. tisočletju pr. Kr.?
7.1. SETTLEMENT IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE
We begin the analysis with a short presentation of the settlement structures from the Late Bronze Age. They are not the focal point of our research, but are nevertheless relevant for the understanding of later colonisation processes. There is probably no need to emphasize that the area of the present-day Slovenia was relatively densely occupied and cultivated even before the appearance of iron, as is clearly shown by the number of sites. So far, 48 settlements and 22 cemeteries were identified between the Sava and the Kolpa. If hoards and individual finds, which also act as indicators of colonization currents, are added to the list, the total number of the Late Bronze Age sites rises to 110.
The settlement features of the Late Bronze Age will be considered as a whole, since it is difficult to differentiate among Early, Middle, Younger and Late Urn-field periods on most sites. This is particularly true for the lowland settlements that were researched during the construction of the highway across Dolenjska, since the material and field results have not yet been evaluated. The fortified settlements on elevations are better dated, though for most of them only broad chronological frames were given. However, our interest lies in the settlement features of the period as a whole and these shortcomings may be neglected.
7.1. POSELITEV V POZNI BRONASTI DOBI
Analizo pričenjamo s kratkim prikazom poselitvenih struktur pozne bronaste dobe, ki sicer niso v žarišču našega zanimanja, so pa pomembne za pravilno razumevanje kasnejših kolonizacijskih procesov. Verjetno ni treba posebej poudarjati, da je bilo ozemlje današnje jugovzhodne Slovenije že pred pojavom železa razmeroma gosto poseljeno in kultivirano, saj to dovolj jasno kaže že število najdišč. Doslej je bilo med Savo in Kolpo ugotovljenih 48 naselij in 22 nekropol, če pa k temu prištejemo še depoje in posamične najdbe, ki so prav tako indikatorji poselitvenih tokov, se skupno število poznobronastodobnih najdišč dvigne na 110.
Poselitveno sliko bomo skušali zarisati kot celoto, saj je razlikovanje med starejšim, srednjim, mlajšim in poznim žarnogrobiščnim obdobjem pri večini najdišč težko izvedljivo. To velja še posebej za nižinska naselja, ki so bila raziskana pri gradnji dolenjske avtoceste, gradivo in terenski izvidi pa še niso bili izvred-noteni. Bolje so datirana utrjena naselja na višinah, čeprav moramo priznati, da smo tudi zanje večinoma določili le grobe časovne okvirje. Ker pa nas zanima poselitvena slika celotnega obdobja, lahko te pomanjkljivosti zanemarimo.
Fig. 76: Late Bronze Age settlement pattern. Sl. 76: Poselitev v pozni bronasti dobi.
7.1.1. SETTLEMENT PATTERN
7.1.1. POSELITVENA SLIKA
As stated above, the area of south-western Slovenia was highly cultivated in the Late Bronze Age. This can be seen on the map of settlements and cemeteries that are the most reliable indicators of the permanent human presence in a particular area (fig. 76). The settlement was particularly dense in central Dolenjska and Bela krajina, while other parts such as the Posavsko hribovje and Suha krajina were practically empty. The situation in the former seems particularly unusual, since several beds of copper ore are known in the area, which apparently did not attract the Bronze Age inhabitants.283
283 The import of copper during the Younger Urnfield period
Rekli smo že, da je bil v pozni bronasti dobi prostor jugovzhodne Slovenije dodobra kultiviran. To lahko razberemo tudi iz karte naselij in grobišč, ki so najzanesljivejši pokazatelji stalne prisotnosti človeka na določenem območju (sl. 76). Poseljeni sta bili zlasti osrednja Dolenjska in Bela krajina, medtem ko so ostali predeli Posavskega hribovja in Suhe krajine praktično prazni. Nenavadna se zdi predvsem situacija v Posavskem hribovju, kjer je znanih nekaj ležišč bakrove rude, ki pa očitno niso pritegnila bronastodobnega prebivalstva.283 Lažje razumemo pustoto Suhe krajine, ki je bila
283
Da so v mlajšem žarnogrobiščnem obdobju baker uvažali
The emptiness of Suha krajina, on the other hand, is easier to understand; lack of water caused it to be empty throughout the archaeological periods and it is sparsely populated even today.
A closer look at the distribution map reveals that the Stiški kot was particularly densely populated, with five settlements and a cemetery known so far.284 Concentrations of sites are also observed around Mokronog,285 between Škocjan and Bela Cerkev286 and in Novo mesto.287 The northern outskirts of the Gorjanci were also relatively densely populated. Two cemeteries and six settlements were found between Tolsti Vrh and Podbočje, four of which were located on the ridges in the vicinity of Mihovo.288 The settlement of the so-called Brežice Gate is also of interest, where six settlements as well as two cemeteries appeared between Čatež and Obrežje.289 Three of the settlements were built in the lowland and two on the nearby elevations. Bela krajina reveals a concentration of sites in Metlika290 and Črnomelj.291
The settlement picture sketched above is importantly supplemented by hoard and individual finds. They confirm the existence of large settlement clusters at the northern foot of the Gorjanci and in the Brežice Gate. They also additionally stress the significance of the areas in the middle reaches of the Krka between Novo mesto and Soteska, along the Kolpa between Griblje and Metlika as well as along the Lahinja between Črnomelj and Pusti Gradec.
7.1.2. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The position of the settlements would indicate that upland settlement was prevalent in the Late Bronze Age. Of the total number of 48 settlements, 38 (79 %) were discovered on elevations and the remaining 10 (21 %) in lowland. This ratio, however, will certainly change in the future, since the low number of the latter should be attributed to the shortcomings of extensive field surveys.
Research has shown that, in the Late Bronze Age, as many as 38 settlements (79 %) were built on previously unoccupied locations. Traces of earlier (Copper Age) settlement have been discovered on only ten sites (three in the lowland and seven on elevations). This re-
is indicated also by the archaeometallurgic research. Plano-convex and pick-shaped ingots found in the Dragomelj hoard were made of a metal which is closest in its origin to the complex ores from the Austrian ore deposits in the Niedere Tauern Mountains. Cf. Trampuž Orel/Heath 2001, 158 ff.
284	Cat. nos. 80, 94, 95, 97, 106 and 107.
285	Cat. nos. 288-291 and 294.
286	Cat. nos. 163, 173, 338, 386, 388 and 394.
287	Cat. nos. 345, 349-351.
288	Cat. nos. 400, 415, 418, 421, 423, 429, 434 and 439.
289	Cat. nos. 217, 219-221, 224, 227-229.
290	Cat. nos. 471, 474-477.
291	Cat. nos. 493-495.
zaradi pomanjkanje vode prazna v vseh arheoloških obdobjih, redko poseljena pa je ostala tudi danes.
Natančnejši pogled na karto razprostranjenosti pokaže, da je bil močno poseljen Stiški kot, kjer je za zdaj znanih pet naselij in eno grobišče.284 Koncentracijo najdišč opažamo še v okolici Mokronoga,285 med Škoc-janom in Belo Cerkvijo286 ter v Novem mestu,287 razmeroma gosto pa so bili poseljeni tudi severni obronki Gorjancev. Med Tolstim Vrhom in Podbočjem lahko naštejemo dve nekropoli in šest naselij, od katerih so bila kar štiri postavljena na grebene v bližnji okolici Mihovega.288 Zanimiva je tudi poselitev tako imenovanih Brežiških vrat. Med Čatežem in Obrežjem je stalo šest naselij, temu številu pa lahko dodamo še dve nekropoli.289 Tri naselja so bila v nižini, dve pa na bližnjih vzpetinah. V Beli krajini je opaziti koncentracijo najdišč v Metliki290 in v Črnomlju.291
Pravkar skicirano poselitveno sliko pomembno dopolnjujejo depojske in posamične najdbe. Potrjujejo namreč obstoj močnih poselitvenih niš ob severnem vznožju Gorjancev in v Brežiških vratih, dodatno pa širijo pomen prostora ob srednjem toku Krke med Novim mestom in Sotesko, ob Kolpi med Gribljami in Metliko, ter ob Lahinji med Črnomljem in Pustim Gradcem.
7.1.2. ZNAČILNOSTI POSELITVE
Glede na lego naselij bi lahko rekli, da je v pozni bronasti dobi prevladovala višinska poselitev. Od skupaj 48 naselij jih je bilo namreč 38 (79%) odkritih na vzpetinah, ostalih 10 (21%) pa v nižini. Vendar se bo v bodoče to razmerje zanesljivo spreminjalo. Maloštevil-nost nižinskih naselij moramo pripisati pomanjkljivostim ekstenzivnega terenskega pregleda.
Raziskave so pokazale, da je v pozni bronasti dobi kar 38 (79%) naselij zraslo na takšnih lokacijah, ki niso bile poprej nikoli poseljene. Sledove starejše (bakreno-dobne) poselitve smo namreč odkrili le na desetih najdiščih (na treh v ravnini in sedmih na višini). Razmerje je vsekakor jasen dokaz, da je v pozni bronasti dobi pri izbiri poselitvenega prostora prevladala drugačna logika kot v prejšnjih obdobjih.
Pogled se še bolj izostri, če si ogledamo časovne razpone petintridesetih utrjenih višinskih naselij. V sta-
od drugod, kažejo tudi arheometalurške raziskave. Pogače in ingoti, najdeni v depoju Dragomelj, so iz kovine, katere izvor je še najbliže kompleksnim rudam iz avstrijskih rudišč v Nizkih Turah. Prim. Trampuž Orel/Heath 2001, 158 ss.
284	Kat. št. 80, 94, 95, 97, 106 in 107.
285	Kat. št. 288-291 in 294.
286	Kat. št. 163, 173, 338, 386, 388 in 394.
287	Kat. št. 345, 349-351.
288	Kat. št. 400, 415, 418, 421, 423, 429, 434 in 439.
289	Kat. št. 217, 219-221, 224, 227-229.
290	Kat. št. 471, 474-477.
291	Kat. št. 493-495.
lationship offers a clear evidence of a different logic prevailing in the choice of the location in the Late Bronze Age as opposed to the previous periods.
The picture becomes even clearer when observing the time spans of 35 hillforts. Two (6 %) were occupied in the Early and Middle and as many as 28 (80 %) in the Younger and Late Urnfield periods. Five settlements (14 %) revealed occupation during the whole Urnfield period. This points to significant differences within the Late Bronze Age, whereby it seems that the largest settlement changes occurred in the Younger and Late Urnfield periods.
rejšem oziroma v srednjem žarnogrobiščnem obdobju sta bili poseljeni dve (6%), v mlajšem in poznem pa kar osemindvajset (80%). Na petih naseljih (14%) je bila ugotovljena obljudenost tako v prvi, kot tudi drugi polovici žarnogrobiščnega obdobja. Bistvene razlike je torej opaziti tudi znotraj pozne bronaste dobe, pri čemer se zdi, da je prišlo prav v mlajšem oziroma poznem žar-nogrobiščnem obdobju do največjih poselitvenih sprememb.
7.1.3. RAZMERJE MED VIŠINSKO IN NIŽINSKO POSELITVIJO
7.1.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UPLAND AND LOWLAND SETTLEMENT
We know practically nothing of the relationship between the lowland and upland settlement. The former have not yet been published and their time spans are also unknown. The available data therefore make it difficult to conduct a serious analysis. More is known on the hill-top settlements. Trenching has shown that hillforts were occupied only temporarily and even then for short periods of time. This interpretation is based on modest cultural layers and a relatively simple type of fortification, which was made of earth and/or wood according to the present knowledge. Three settlements most probably did not even have a defence system.292 In spite of the above-presented facts, there are still questions that remain unanswered, particularly that of the chronological correlation of the two settlement types. It is tempting to define the hillforts as temporarily occupied refuges, where the population from the unfortified settlement in the lowland retired to in times of danger. Unfortunately, this model is not confirmed by precise dates that would establish the contemporaneity of the lowland and elevation settlement, neither is it confirmed by the settlement pattern, since only two reliable examples of hillforts discovered not far from a lowland settlement are known so far.293 Most Late Bronze Age hill-top settlements were located in new, previously unoccupied areas. Furthermore, the appearance of a great number of hillforts is a phenomenon that particularly marked the Younger and Late Urnfield periods and was probably brought about by the need for more secure locations in terms of defence. Whether the appearance of new hillforts signified the end of life in unfortified lowland settlements remains to be answered.
292	Gradišče near Mekinje nad Stično (cat. no. 95), Plešivica near Drenje (cat. no. 455) and Camberk near Cerov Log (cat. no. 418).
293	Samostan in Stična (cat. no. 94) and Gradišče near Mekinje nad Stično (cat. no. 95); Dolge njive near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 388) and Vihra near Draga (cat.no. 386); the distance between the settlements measures 1.5 km in the first case and 0.9 km in the second.
Razmerij med nižinsko in višinsko poselitvijo praktično ne poznamo. Naselja v ravnini še niso bila objavljena, neznan je tudi njihov časovni razpon, zato je na osnovi razpoložljivih podatkov težko izpeljati resnejše analize. Več vemo o naseljih na višinah. Sondaže so pokazale, da so bila gradišča obljudena le občasno, pa še to za krajši čas. Takšno razlago nakazujejo skromne bivalne plasti in razmeroma enostaven tip fortifikacij, ki so bile po sedanjem vedenju iz zemlje oziroma lesa. Tri naselja so bila najverjetneje celo brez obrambnih sis-temov.292 Ne glede na našteta dejstva pa se zastavlja predvsem vprašanje kronološke vzporednosti obeh vrst poselitve. Vabljiva je namreč misel, da bi gradišča opredelili kot občasno poseljena pribežališča, kamor se je ob nevarnih situacijah zatekalo prebivalstvo iz neutrjenih naselij v nižini. Žal nam za potrditev takšnega modela manjkajo precizne datacije, ki bi potrdile sočasnost nižinske in višinske poselitve. Takšne razlage ne podpira niti poselitveni raster, saj poznamo za zdaj le dva zanesljiva primera, ko je bilo nedaleč stran od naselja v ravnini odkrito tudi gradišče.293 Večina poznobronastodob-nih višinskih naselij je bila namreč locirana v povsem nova, pred tem neposeljena območja. Z masovnim pojavom gradišč je bilo zaznamovano predvsem mlajše in pozno žarnogrobiščno obdobje, čemur je očitno botrovala potreba po varnejših legah zaradi obrambe. Vprašanje je le, če je hkrati z nastankom novih gradišč dokončno zamrlo tudi življenje v neutrjenih naseljih v ravnini.
292	Gradišče nad Mekinjami nad Stično (kat. št. 95), Plešivica nad Drenjem (kat. št. 455) in Camberk nad Cerovim Logom (kat. št. 418).
293	Samostan v Stični (kat. št. 94) in Gradišče nad Mekinjami nad Stično (kat. št. 95); Dolge njive pri Beli Cerkvi (kat. št. 388) in Vihra nad Drago (kat. št. 386); v prvem primeru znaša razdalja 1,5 km, v drugem pa 0,9 km.
7.2. SETTLEMENT IN THE EARLY IRON AGE
7.2. POSELITEV V STAREJŠI ŽELEZNI DOBI
Certain social and historical phenomena that marked the beginning of the first millennium BC have already been pointed out in the chapters on chronology and settlement structures. These phenomena involve the process of transformation of the Urnfield world that was brought about by the contacts with the Mediterranean. In time, this led to fundamental changes in the economy, spiritual life and structure of the contemporary society. It was a long-term process. Its roots reach back to the transition from the 2°d to the 1s' millennium, while it was concluded in the 8th century BC. This is a century that represents an important milestone in south-eastern Slovenia. At this time, the old Urnfield Culture was declining and a new era began that was marked by the use of iron. These findings have been known for a long time and do not require to be substantiated in more detail.294 The changes in the settlement pattern, on the other hand, have been less clearly presented in spite of a number of publications on the subject.295 In the following pages, we will therefore look at the novelties brought by the 8th century in this respect.
7.2.1. INTEGRATION PROCESS AND EMERGENCE OF CENTRES
The first great change that needs to be mentioned is the decline of the Bronze Age settlements in the lowland. They seem to have been abandoned even before the beginning of the 8th century, similarly to most Bronze Age hillforts. The main novelty is thus a drastic decrease in the number of settlements in general. The ratios between the settlements of the Late Bronze Age and those of the Early Hallstatt period, represented in fig. 77, show that the number decreased by half during the 8th century. Only seven of the 48 old settlement cores remained (15 %),296 which justifiably leads us to consider a discontinuity in settlement. The 8th century saw the appearance of seventeen new hillforts. If we add the settlements where continuity of settlement has been observed, the number rises to 24, which is still only half the number known in the Late Bronze Age.
A comparison of the settlement size produces an
Že v poglavjih o kronologiji in poselitvenih strukturah smo opozorili na nekatere družbenozgodovinske pojave, ki so zaznamovali začetek 1. tisočletja pr. Kr. Pri tem mislimo na proces preobrazbe žarnogrobiščne-ga sveta, ki so ga povzročili stiki z Mediteranom, kar je postopoma privedlo do korenitih sprememb v gospodarstvu, duhovnem življenju in socialni strukturi takratne družbe. Proces je trajal dalj časa. Njegove korenine segajo na prelom prvega in drugega tisočletja, zaključil pa se je v 8. stoletju pr. Kr. Osmo stoletje je torej v jugovzhodni Sloveniji pomemben mejnik. V tem času je zamrla stara žarnogrobiščna kultura, hkrati pa je napočilo novo obdobje, ki ga je zaznamovala uporaba železa. Vse te ugotovitve so že dolgo znane in jih ni treba podrobneje utemeljevati.294 Slabše so predstavljene spremembe v poselitveni sliki, čeprav je bilo tudi tej problematiki posvečeno nekaj razprav.295 Oglejmo si torej, kakšne novosti je prineslo 8. stoletje.
D
C
_o
<u E
(U t S 'o
i E
50 T 45 40
35----
30-----
25 I - - -20
15 f-H 10
5 f--
Uk
Ha 1
□	abandoned at the end of Uk opuščena na koncu Uk
□	established In Ha 1 novonastala v Ha 1
■ continuity from Ukto Ha 1 s kontinuiteto Iz Uk v Ha 1
294	Gabrovec 1973; Gabrovec 1976; Dular 1979; Gabrovec 1987, 109 ff; Teržan 1990a, 119 ff; Teržan 1990b.
295	Dular 1993; Dular 1994b; Dular 1996a.
296	Gradišče near Dunaj (cat. no. 192), Sv. Marjeta at Libna (cat. no. 198), Križni vrh near Beli Grič (cat. no. 294) Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351), Stari grad near Podbočje (cat. no. 439), Metlika (cat. no. 476). The settlement at Črnomelj persisted as well. Though settlement finds have not yet been uncovered there, the occupation is indicated by a cemetery with incineration burials (Sadež - cat. no. 494).
Fig. 77: Numerical proportions between the settlements from the Late Bronze Age and Early Hallstatt Period. Sl. 77: Številčno razmerje med naselji iz pozne bronaste dobe in starejšega halštatskega obdobja.
294	Gabrovec 1973; Gabrovec 1976; Dular 1979; Gabrovec 1987, 109 ss.; Teržan 1990a, 119 ss; Teržan 1990b.
295	Dular 1993; Dular 1994b; Dular 1996a.
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 O
Fig.
li
m
H
□ Late Bronze Age pozna bronasto doba
■ Early Hallstatt period starejše halštatsko obdobje
<0,5ha 0,5-1 ha 1 - 2 ha 2-5ha 5-lOha 10-20ha
78: Surfaces of the fortified settlements from the Late Bronze Age and Early Hallstatt Period. Sl. 78: Površine utrjenih naselij iz pozne bronaste dobe in starejšega halštatskega obdobja.
interesting result. The analysis included only hillforts, since the size of the unfortified settlements could not be satisfactorily assessed. Seven settlements with conti-
ho 100
90 f
80
70
60
50
40
30
20-----
10-----
n= 17
n = 28
Uk	Ha 1
□ total settlements surface skupna površina naselij
■ average settlements surface povprečna površina naselij
Fig. 79: Total and average surfaces of the fortified settlements from the Late Bronze Age and Early Hallstatt Period. Sl. 79: Absolutne in povprečne površine utrjenih naselij iz pozne bronaste dobe in starejšega halštatskega obdobja.
7.2.1. INTEGRACIJA POSELITVE IN NASTANEK SREDIŠČ
Prva velika sprememba, ki jo moramo omeniti, je zaton bronastodobnih naselij v ravnini. Vse kaže, da so bila opuščena že pred začetkom 8. stoletja, podobno, kot se je to zgodilo z večino bronastodobnih gradišč. Glavna novost, ki jo je prinesel novi čas, je torej drastično zmanjšanje števila naselij. Kot lahko razberemo iz grafikona, na katerem so prikazana razmerja med naselji pozne bronaste dobe in starejšega halštatskega obdobja, se je v 8. stoletju njihovo število prepolovilo (sl. 77). Od oseminštiridesetih starih poselitvenih jeder jih je ostalo pri življenju le še sedem (15%),296 zato smemo upravičeno govoriti o diskontinuiteti poselitve. Novih gradišč, ki so nastala v 8. stoletju, je bilo sedemnajst. Če jim prištejemo še naselja s kontinuiteto, se njihovo število dvigne na štiriindvajset, to pa je še vedno polovico manj, kot jih je poznala pozna bronasta doba.
Zelo zanimiv rezultat dobimo tudi s primerjanjem velikosti naselij. V analizo smo vključili le gradišča, saj neutrjenim naseljem ni mogoče izračunati zanesljivih površin. Izločili smo tudi sedem naselij s kontinuiteto iz pozne bronaste v železno dobo, ker ne vemo, če so bila ves čas enako velika. Izkazalo se je, da so v pozni bronasti dobi prevladovala majhna gradišča. Kar 89% jih je bilo manjših od dveh hektarjev (sl. 78). V starejšem hal-štatskem obdobju se je situacija spremenila. Čeprav je bilo gradišč manj, se je njihova skupna površina poveča-
296 Gradišče pri Dunaju (kat. št. 192), Sv. Marjeta na Lib-ni (kat. št. 198), Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem (kat. št. 294) Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351), Stari grad nad Podbočjem (kat. št. 439), Metlika (kat. št. 476). Poseljen je ostal tudi Črnomelj, od koder za zdaj ne poznamo naselbinskih najdb, obljudenost pa dokazuje tamkajšnje grobišče z žganimi pokopi (Sadež - kat. št. 494).
nuity from the Late Bronze Age were excluded, since it could not be positively ascertained whether their sizes had altered or not. The comparison showed that small hillforts, of which as much as 89 % were smaller than two hectares (fig. 78), predominated in the Late Bronze Age. The situation changed in the Early Hallstatt period. There were fewer hillforts, but their total sizes increased from 31 to 100 hectares (fig. 79). Large settlements predominated and as much as 70 % were larger than 2 hectares. The average size of hillforts is also eloquent, since it increased from 1.1 to 5.9 hectares in the 8th century.
The results of the comparison are certainly interesting. The most surprising finding is that the surface of the hillforts is not in direct but in inverse proportion to their number. In other words, settlement number decreased by half in the beginning of the Iron Age, while the total surface almost doubled. Such radical changes could only have occurred due to wider social and political processes. We will attempt to show the influences of these on the settlement pattern with a map that combines several data: the distribution of settlements, their chronological determination and their size. Five-kilometre radii have also been drawn around the Early Hallstatt hillforts in order to schematically simulate their areas of interest (fig. 80). The map reveals the following.
Firstly, the situation in the east shows that in the area of the "Brežice Gates", which ranked among the more intensely occupied during the Late Bronze Age, there appeared only one new, though large settlement near Velike Malence (cat. no. 213). A similar situation can be observed along the middle reaches of the Krka. The new settlement at Veliki Vinji Vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382) covered an area that included three smaller settlements in the Late Bronze Age. The next example is the Stiški kot. At least four settlements from the Urnfield periods are known there, which were replaced in the 8th century by a single and very big hillfort near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96). A similar process is observed in Bela krajina. The settlement moved from the ridges of the Poljanska gora to the lowland, where two new centres formed at Podzemelj (cat. no. 483) and Golek near Vinica (cat. no. 508) alongside two settlements with continuity from the Late Bronze Age (Metlika - cat. no. 476 and Črnomelj - cat. no. 495). A new large hillfort is missing only around Mihovo at the northern foot of the Gorjanci, where as many as four settlements stood in the Late Bronze Age. The first assumption would be that the area was deserted in the 8th century.297 However, tumulus cemeteries at Stražnik near Vratno (cat. no. 427) and Selo near Gorenje Vrhpolje (cat. no. 425) indicate otherwise. They belonged to a settlement that
la iz 31 na 100 ha (sl. 79). Prevladovala so velika naselja. Takšnih s površino večjo od dveh hektarjev je bilo kar 70%. Zgovorna je tudi povprečna površina gradišč, ki se je v 8. stoletju z 1,1 povečala na 5,9 hektarja.
Rezultati primerjav so vsekakor zanimivi. Najbolj presenetljiva je ugotovitev, da površina gradišč ni v premem, ampak v obratnem sorazmerju z njihovim številom. Povedano drugače: na začetku železne dobe se je število gradišč prepolovilo, hkrati pa se je skoraj za dvakrat povečala njihova skupna površina. Do tako radikalnih sprememb je lahko prišlo le zaradi širših družbenopolitičnih procesov. Kako so vplivali na strukturo poselitve, bomo skušali ponazoriti s karto, ki združuje več informacij: na njej je prikazana distribucija naselij, njihova kronološka opredelitev in velikost, razen tega pa smo okoli gradišč iz starejšega halštatske-ga obdobja zarisali petkilometrske radije, ki na nekoliko shematiziran način simulirajo njihova interesna območja (sl. 80). Kaj nam torej pove omenjena karta?
Če si najprej ogledamo situacijo na vzhodu, potem vidimo, da je na območju "Brežiških vrat", ki je bilo v pozni bronasti dobi med intenzivneje poseljenimi, nastalo eno samo, toda veliko gradišče pri Velikih Malen-cah (kat. št. 213). Podobno situacijo imamo ob srednjem toku reke Krke. Novo naselje na Velikem Vinjem vrhu nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382) je zraslo na območju, kjer so bila v pozni bronasti dobi tri manjša naselja. Naslednji primer, ki ga moramo omeniti, je Stiški kot. Tu so bila v žarnogrobiščnem času znana vsaj štiri naselja, v 8. stoletju pa so nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96) namesto njih zgradili eno samo, toda zelo veliko gradišče. Podoben proces opažamo v Beli krajini. Poselitev se je z grebenov Poljanske gore premaknila v ravnino, kjer sta ob dveh naseljih s kontinuiteto iz pozne bronaste dobe (Metlika - kat. št. 476 in Črnomelj - kat. št. 495) nastali novi središči v Podzemlju (kat. št. 483) in Goleku pri Vinici (kat. št. 508). Novo, večje gradišče manjka le na območju Mihovega ob severnem vznožju Gorjancev. Tu so v pozni bronasti dobi stala kar štiri naselja, zato bi najprej pomislili, da je območje v 8. stoletju opustelo.297 Gomilni nekropoli Stražnik nad Vratnim (kat. št. 427) in Selo nad Gorenjim Vrhpoljem (kat. št. 425) sta dokaz, da ni bilo tako. Pripadali sta naselju, ki je morda stalo na Novi gori nad Gorenjim Vrhpol-jem. Žal se danes tem mestu raztezajo vinogradi.
Osrednja Dolenjska ne kaže tako močnega integracijskega procesa. Halštatska gradišča so manjša in gosteje posejana, kar je morda povezano z dejstvom, da so nadomestila le po eno oziroma dve poznobronastodobni naselji. Vendar pa je prišel tudi tu do izraza splošni razvojni trend: železnodobna gradišča so bila praviloma večja od žarnogrobiščnih, zrasla pa so na novih lokacijah.
297 Camberk near Cerov Log (cat. no. 418), Gradec near Mihovo (cat. no. 421), Trnišča near Mihovo (cat. no. 423) and
Gradec near Vratno (cat. no. 429).
297 Camberk nad Cerovim Logom (kat. št. 418), Gradec nad Mihovem (kat. št. 421), Trnišča pri Mihovem (kat. št. 423) in Gradec nad Vratnim (kat. št. 429).
Fig. 80: Settlements from the Late Bronze Age and Early Hallstatt Period. Sl. 80: Naselja iz pozne bronaste dobe in starejšega halštatskega obdobja.
might have stood at Nova gora near Gorenje Vrhpolje. Unfortunately, this area is nowadays covered by vineyards.
Central Dolenjska does not show such a strong process of integration. Hallstatt hillforts are smaller and more densely distributed, which might be related to the fact that they only replaced one or two Late Bronze Age settlements. But even here the general trend of development can be observed: the Iron Age hillforts are usually larger than those of the Late Bronze Age and appear on new locations.
The transformation proceeded differently in the westernmost part of Dolenjska. Most Iron Age settlements there were built in new, previously unoccupied areas, whereby exterior migration currents are not to be
Na skrajnem zahodnem delu Dolenjske je proces preobrazbe potekal drugače. Večino železnodobnih naselij so postavili v nova, prej neposeljena območja, zato ni izključeno, da so rezultat zunanjih migracijskih tokov. Od kod se je prebivalstvo doselilo, je težko ugotoviti. V poštev pridejo predvsem sosednja območja, priliv iz oddaljenejših krajev je manj verjeten.
Kot vidimo, so se v 8. stoletju pr. Kr. radikalno spremenile tudi poselitvene strukture. Glavno novost predstavlja nov tip naselja, ki se po svoji legi, velikosti in očitno tudi funkciji bistveno razlikuje od bronastodob-nih selišč. Vzrokov, da je prišlo do opuščanja starih naselij, je bilo verjetno več. Najprej velja omeniti družbene spremembe, ki so zahtevale integracijo poselitve. Drug vzrok za premike tiči v dejstvu, da so bila poznobronas-
excluded. It is difficult to say where the population came from. In this respect, the neighbouring areas should be considered in the first place, while immigration from more distant places is less likely.
It has been shown above that settlement structures also underwent a radical transformation during the 8th century BC. The main novelty is a new type of settlement, which differs substantially from that of the Bronze Age in its position, size and apparently also function. Abandonment of old settlements, on the other hand, probably occurred for several reasons. Firstly, there are social changes that demanded integration of settlement. The second reason for the settlement shifts lies in the fact that Late Bronze Age settlements often stood on ground that lacked the appropriate material for building fortification systems, which represent the main characteristic of the Hallstatt hillforts. The third reason for abandonment is seen in the unfavourable microlocation for enlargment. A substantial part of the Urnfield settlements was positioned on narrow summits without the possibility of expansion. The decline of some settlements was also caused by their remote location, while the influence of natural resources, on the other hand, seems to have been less decisive. Iron ore can be found all across Dolenjska. Shifts sometimes occurred also within the same subsistence area, which is proven by cases where the distance between the old and the new settlements measures less than a kilometre (fig. 81).
Judging from the results of our analyses, the process of integration included mostly the indigenous population. This can be observed also in the cemeteries discovered at some of the new hillforts, such as Molnik near Podmolnik with an accompanying cemetery at Roje,298 Cvinger near Vir pri Stični with an incremation cemetery at Dole299 and Kučar near Podzemelj with a cemetery at Krč.300 All three settlements appeared on new locations, while the material culture and the burial custom in the accompanying flat cemeteries shows a continuation of the tradition of the Ljubljana Urnfield group.
Another novelty gains ground across Dolenjska in the 8th century, that is burial under an earthen mound. The graves in these tumuli contain cremated remains at first, but inhumation soon predominates and remains characteristic throughout the Early Iron Age. The appearance of a family tumulus as well as the changes in the structure of the grave goods are the characteristics that defined the Hallstatt community of Dolenjska. However, in the period that witnessed the assertion of the tumulus, the inhabitants of Dolenjska continued to bury their dead in the flat incremation cemeteries as well. In Bela krajina and in Novo mesto, these can be
298	Cat. no. 22 and 25.
299	Cat. no. 96 and 97.
300	Cat. no. 483 and 484.
todobna naselja velikokrat na takšnih mestih, kjer ni bilo ustreznega materiala za gradnjo fortifikacijskih sistemov, ki so glavna značilnost halštatskih gradišč. Tretji vzrok za opustitev vidimo v neustrezni mikrolokaciji. Dobršen del naselij iz žarnogrobiščnega časa je bil postavljen na ozke vrhove, zato niso imela možnosti za širitev. Zatonu nekaterih naselij je očitno botrovala tudi njihova odroč-nost, medtem ko se zdi vpliv naravnih resursov manj odločujoč. Železovo rudo najdemo povsod po Dolenjskem, do premikov pa je nekajkrat prišlo tudi znotraj istih gospodarskih niš. Dokaz so primeri, ko je znašala razdalja med starimi in novimi naselji manj kot kilometer (sl. 81).
Sodeč po rezultatih naših analiz, je bilo v proces integracije vključeno predvsem staroselsko prebivalstvo. To dokazujejo tudi nekropole, ki so jih odkrili ob nekaterih novih gradiščih. Kot primer naj navedemo Molnik nad Podmolnikom s pripadajočo nekropolo Roje,298 Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični z žarnim grobiščem v Dolah299 in Kučar nad Podzemljem s pokopališčem Krč.300 Vsa tri naselja so nastala na novih lokacijah, materialna kultura in način pokopa v pripadajočih planih grobiščih pa se v celoti vežeta na tradicijo ljubljanske žarnogrobiščne skupine.
Vendar pa se v 8. stoletju povsod na Dolenjskem uveljavi še ena novost, to je pokop pod gomilo. Na začetku so grobovi v gomilah žgani, kmalu pa prevlada inhu-macija, ki je nato značilna za vso starejšo železno dobo. Prav pojav družinske gomile in spremembe v strukturi grobnih pridatkov so značilnosti, na katerih je bila definirana dolenjska halštatska skupnost. Toda v času, ko so se uveljavile gomile, so na Dolenjskem še vedno pokopavali tudi na planih žarnih grobiščih. V Beli krajini in v Novem mestu jih srečamo drugo ob drugem celo v fazi Podzemelj 2, torej v prvi polovici 7. stoletja pr. Kr.301 Te ugotovitve seveda niso pomembne zgolj s stališča kronologije. Morda se v njih skrivajo, kot je to pred časom formulirala B. Teržan, "heterogene skupine različnih provenienc in tradicij",302 nemara pa gre celo za dodatno (zunanjo) kolonizacijo.303 Dokončnega odgovora na zastavljeno vprašanje seveda ne moremo dati, res pa je, da vse spremembe težko razložimo zgolj z notranjimi prestrukturiranji. Naj zaključimo. V 8. stoletju pr. Kr. se je v jugovzhodni Sloveniji odvil proces, ki je pripeljal do integracije poselitve. Večina starih naselij je bila opuščenih, namesto njih pa so zrasla nova. Zgrajena so bila v enem zamahu in v celotnem obsegu. Glede na lego in utrjenost lahko največja med njimi označimo za središča, ki so odigrala ključno vlogo v nadaljnjem razvoju dolenjske železnodobne skupnosti.
298	Kat. št. 22 in 25.
299	Kat. št. 96 in 97.
300	Kat. št. 483 in 484.
301	Glej poglavje 6.3.2.
302	Teržan 1999, 112.
303	Prim. Gabrovec 1973, 361s; Dular 1979, 80; Dular 1985, 22.
Fig. 81: Distances among settlements of the Late Bronze Age and Early Hallstatt Period. Sl. 81: Razdalje med naselji iz pozne bronaste dobe in starejšega halštatskega obdobja.
seen side by side as late as in the Podzemelj 2 phase, that is in the first half of the 7th century BC.301 These findings are significant from the chronological point of view but may also, as formulated some time ago by B. Teržan, conceal heterogeneous groups of various provenances and traditions302 and possibly even an additional (external) colonization.303 The final answer to this question cannot be given here. It is true, however, that all changes can hardly be explained by internal restructuring only. To conclude, the 8th century in south-eastern Slovenia witnessed a process that led to an integration of settlement. Most old settlements were abandoned and new ones appeared instead. These were constructed in their complete extents in single campaigns. The position and fortification leads us to mark the largest among them as centres that played a key role in the further evolution of the Iron Age community of Dolenjska.
7.2.2. SETTLEMENT PATTERN IN THE EARLY HALLSTATT PERIOD
The process of integration in the 8th century BC also brought about a change in the settlement pattern in south-eastern Slovenia. Firstly, a new settlement pattern is observed that altered and became less dense but nevertheless mostly remained within the bounds of the old cultural landscape. The Posavsko hribovje was still unpopulated and western Dolenjska revealed only rare settlements. The exceptions are the surroundings of Vače and the fringes of the Ljubljana and Grosuplje basins (fig. 80).304 The same could be said for the Krško gričevje, in the midst of which a single centre grew at Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171).
Secondly, certain old settlement cores were preserved. A closer look reveals that they have several common characteristics. Two settlements in river bends remained settled (Metlika and Črnomelj) as well as three hillforts on strategically important elevations in eastern Dolenjska (Dunaj, Libna, Podbočje) and both most important centres of the Late Bronze Age (Novo mesto and Beli Grič).305
The distribution of settlements is also interesting. As a rule, settlements were positioned approximately five kilometres from one another and some had even
301	See chapter 6.3.2.
302	Teržan 1999, 112.
303	Cf. Gabrovec 1973, 361s; Dular 1979, 80; Dular 1985,
22.
304	Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9), Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39), Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico (cat. no. 55), Limberk near Velika Račna (cat. no. 64).
305	Gradišče near Dunaj (cat. no. 192), Sv. Marjeta at Libna
(cat. no. 198), Križni vrh near Beli Grič (cat. no. 294) Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351), Stari grad near Podbočje (cat. no. 439), Metlika (cat. no. 476), Črnomelj (cat. no. 495).
7.2.2. POSELITVENA SLIKA V STAREJŠEM HALŠTATSKEM OBDOBJU
S procesom integracije se je v 8. stoletju pr. Kr. spremenila tudi poselitvena slika jugovzhodne Slovenije. Najprej moramo omeniti nov raster naselij, ki se je sicer razredčil in spremenil, vendar je ostal večidel znotraj meja stare kulturne krajine. Še vedno je ostalo neposeljeno Posavsko hribovje, razmeroma redka pa so bila naselja tudi v zahodnem delu Dolenjske. Izjema je okolica Vač ter obronki Ljubljanske in Grosupeljske kotline (sl. 80).304 Isto bi lahko rekli za Krško gričevje, sredi katerega je zraslo eno samo središče na Tičnici pri Studencu (kat. št. 171).
Na drugi strani opažamo ohranjanje nekaterih starih poselitvenih jeder. Če si jih ogledamo, vidimo, da imajo nekaj stičnih točk. Tako sta ostali obljudeni dve naselji v okljukih rek (Metlika in Črnomelj), tri gradišča na strateško važnih vzpetinah vzhodne Dolenjske (Dunaj, Libna, Podbočje) ter obe najpomembnejši poznobronastodobni središči (Novo mesto in Beli Grič).305
Zanimiva je tudi razporejenost naselij. Praviloma so bila med seboj oddaljena okoli pet kilometrov, nekatera pa so imela še širše zaledje.306 Opazen je tudi premik poselitve h komunikacijam. Ob severni naravni poti, ki poteka od Šmarske doline, preko Stiškega kota do Temenice, so nastala naselja na Magdalenski gori pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39), Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96) in Kunklu pod Vrhtrebnjem (kat. št. 273). Novo gradišče (Gradec pri Vinko-vem Vrhu - kat. št. 453) srečamo tudi ob južni komunikaciji, ki je bila speljana ob Krki. Nasprotno pa je povezava z Belo krajino izgubila na pomenu. Dokaz sta opuščeni naselji Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464) in Semenič nad Gabrom pri Semiču (kat. št. 468), ki sta v pozni bronasti dobi nadzirali severni in južni vstop v dolino Starih žag (Črmošnjice). Zmanjšanje pomena poti preko Gorjancev sovpada s postopnim odmikom Bele krajine od osrednje Slovenije. Proces odtujevanja se kaže tudi v kulturnem razvoju pokrajine, ki je ubrala v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju drugačna pota kot sosednja Dolenjska.
304	Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9), Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39), Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico (kat. št. 55), Limberk nad Veliko Račno (kat. št. 64).
305	Gradišče pri Dunaju (kat. št. 192), Sv. Marjeta na Lib-ni (kat. št. 198), Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem (kat. št. 294) Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351), Stari grad nad Podbočjem (kat. št. 439), Metlika (kat. št. 476), Črnomelj (kat. št. 495).
306	Npr. Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9), Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96), Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 383), Šlemine nad Golekom pri Vinici (kat. št. 508).
broader hinterlands.306 Another observation is that settlement in general shifted towards the communication routes. The northern natural passage that leads from the Šmarje Valley through the Stiški kot to the Temenica River witnessed the appearance of settlements at Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39), Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96) and Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje (cat. no. 273). A new hillfort (Gradec near Vinkov Vrh - cat. no. 453) appeared also beside the southern communication route along the Krka. Contra-rily to this, the connection with Bela krajina became less important, as is proven by the abandoned settlements at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464) and Semenič near Gaber pri Semiču (cat. no. 468) that controlled the north and south entrance into the Stare Žage Valley (Črmošnjica) in the Late Bronze Age. The declining importance of the route across the Gorjanci coincides with a gradual separation of Bela krajina from central Slovenia. This process of alienation can also be seen in the cultural development of the region that followed a different path in the Late Hallstatt period as did neighbouring Dolenjska.
7.2.3. SETTLEMENT PATTERN IN THE LATE HALLSTATT PERIOD
The Late Hallstatt period witnessed several important changes in settlement pattern, though most old centres remained occupied in this period (fig. 82). It seems that only the settlements in Metlika (cat. no. 476) and Črnomelj (cat. no. 495) died away, since no Late Hallstatt finds are so far known to originate from there. Settlement change is also indicated by the local cemeteries. According to the present knowledge, they were abandoned in the 6th century BC.307
The decrease of power is noticeable also at Velike Malence. The hillfort (cat. no. 213) itself has not been trenched, but the decreasing significance can be observed in the structure of the material from the local cemeteries. The Late Hallstatt finds are very scarce there and the hillfort seems to have been abandoned even before the end of the Early Iron Age. Similar findings emerged when the settlement at Stari grad near Pod-bočje (cat. no. 439) was trenched.308 It revealed no Late Hallstatt material with the exception of a Certosa fibula, which is a chance find.309 Burial on the tumulus cemetery at near-by Sajevce (cat. no. 436) also ceased at the
306	E. g. Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9), Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96), Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 383), Šlemine near Golek pri Vinici (cat. no. 508).
307	Hrib in Metlika (cat. no. 475), Grajska cesta in Loka pri Črnomlju (cat. no. 496).
308	Cf. Guštin/Cunja/Predovnik 1993, 20 ff.
309	It is held at the National Museum of Slovenia (inv. no. P 20486).
7.2.3. POSELITVENA SLIKA V MLAJŠEM HALŠTATSKEM OBDOBJU
Čeprav je prišlo v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju do nekaterih pomembnih poselitvenih sprememb, pa moramo najprej poudariti, da je ostala večina starih središč obljudena tudi v tem času (sl. 82). Kot kaže, sta zamrli le naselji v Metliki (kat. št. 476) in Črnomlju (kat. št. 495), od koder za zdaj ne poznamo mladohalštat-skih najdb. Na poselitvene spremembe kažejo tudi tamkajšnje nekropole, saj so bile po sedanjem vedenju opuščene v 6. stoletju pr. Kr.307
Usihanje moči je opaziti tudi v Velikih Malencah. Gradišča (kat. št. 213) sicer nismo sondirali, na zmanjševanje pomena pa kaže struktura gradiva iz tamkajšnjih nekropol. Mladohalštatskih najdb je le še za vzorec in zdi se, da je kraj opustel še pred koncem starejše železne dobe. Do podobnih ugotovitev so prišli s sondiranjem naselja na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (kat. št. 4 3 9).308 Mlado-halštatskega gradiva od tu ne poznamo, izjema je fragment certoške fibule, ki pa je slučajna najdba.309 Na začetku 6. stoletja pr. Kr. so prenehali pokopavati tudi na go-milnem grobišču v bližnjih Sajevcah (kat. št. 436). Verjetno ni slučaj, da je v istem stoletju zamrlo tudi življenje na Budinjaku na hrvaški strani Gorjancev. Gre za pomembno središče, ki je v starejšem halštatskem obdobju prav tako sodilo v krog dolenjske halštatske skupnosti.310
Kot vidimo, je do opuščanja naselij prišlo predvsem ob spodnjem toku Krke, na Gorjancih in v Beli krajini. Proti zahodu Dolenjske je slika obrnjena. Tu lahko v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju naštejemo kar devetnajst novih gradišč, od katerih so jih enajst postavili na povsem novih lokacijah, v osmih primerih pa so ponovno poselili stara, pred stoletji opuščena bivališča (sl. 82). Kot primer naj omenimo Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464), ki se je naglo razvil v pomembno središče ob srednjem toku reke Krke.
Nova kolonizacija je bila torej usmerjena predvsem v prazna območja zahodne Dolenjske. Dolino Krke z naseljema pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464) in Valični vasi (kat. št. 119) smo že omenili, prvič pa je bilo intenzivneje poseljeno tudi Posavsko hribovje, kjer je zlasti v okolici Šmartnega pri Litiji zraslo več manjših gradišč.311 Nova naselja srečamo še na obrobju Grosupeljske kotline,312 ponovno pa so za bivanje usposobili tudi nekatere opuščene strateške točke, na primer Gra-
307	Hrib v Metliki (kat. št. 475), Grajska cesta v Loki pri Črnomlju (kat. št. 496).
308	Prim. Guštin/Cunja/Predovnik 1993, 20 ss.
309	Hrani jo Narodni muzej Slovenije (inv. št. P 20486).
310	Škoberne 1999, 107 s; Škoberne 2004, 144.
311	Sitarjevec nad Litijo (kat. št. 67), Gradišče pri Vintar-jevcu (kat. št. 78), Pančičev vrh pod Javorjem (kat. št. 81), Gradišča pri Jelšah (kat. št. 88).
312	Gradec pri Blečjem Vrhu (kat. št. 44), Vinji hrib nad Vinom (kat. št. 53) in Gradišče pri Sloki Gori (kat. št. 62).
Fig. 82: Settlement pattern in the Late Hallstatt Period. Sl. 82: Poselitev v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju.
beginning of the 6th century. It is probably not a coincidence that the same century witnessed the end of life also at Budinjak on the Croatian slopes of the Gorjanci. This settlement is an important centre that also formed part of the Hallstatt community of Dolenjska in the Early Hallstatt period.310
As seen from the above, the abandonment of settlements occurred mostly in the lower reaches of the Krka River, in the Gorjanci and in Bela krajina. This picture is different towards the west of Dolenjska. Here, as many as nineteen new hillforts appeared in the Late Hallstatt period, eleven of which on completely new locations and eight on reoccupied old settlements that had
310 Škoberne 1999, 107 f; Škoberne 2004, 144.
dišče nad Primskovim (kat. št. 92), Korinjski hrib nad Velikim Korinjem (kat. št. 112) in Sv. Ano nad Vrhpečjo (kat. št. 302).
Vseh novih naselij ne moremo dovolj natančno kronološko opredeliti. Za devet gradišč je bolj ali manj jasno, da so zaživela v certoškem horizontu,313 nadaljnji dve pa ob koncu certoškega oziroma v negovskem.314 O preo-
313	Gradišče nad Dešnom (kat. št. 6), Gradec pri Blečjem Vrhu (kat. št. 44), Gradišče pod Sloko Goro (kat. št. 62), Gradišče nad Vintarjevcem (kat. št. 78), Gradišče pri Primskovem (kat. št. 92), Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji (kat. št. 126), Kin-celj nad Trbincem (kat. št. 279), Sv. Ana nad Vrhpečjo (kat. št. 302) in Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464).
314	Gradišče pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 119) in Zagrac nad Vodicami pri Gabrovki (kat. št. 123).
been abandoned centuries earlier (fig. 82). An example of this is Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464) that quickly grew into an important centre along the middle reaches of the Krka River.
New colonisation was therefore directed mostly to the empty areas of western Dolenjska. The Krka Valley with the settlements at Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464) and Valična vas (cat. no. 119) have already been mentioned. The Posavsko hribovje witnessed, for the first time, a more intensive settlement. Several smaller hillforts appeared, particularly in the vicinity of Šmartno pri Litiji.311 New settlements can also be found on the fringes of the Grosuplje basin,312 while certain abandoned strategic positions were again given a residential function, such as Gradišče near Primskovo (cat. no. 92), Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj (cat. no. 112) and Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč (cat. no. 302).
The new settlements cannot all be chronologically determined with sufficient precision. For nine of them it is more or less clear that life began in the Certosa phase313 and for a further two at the end of the Certosa or in the Negova phase.314 As for the remaining eight settlements, it is known only that they were occupied in the Late Hallstatt period.315
Though the number of settlements almost doubled in the Late Hallstatt period (from 24 to 40), their total surface, on the other hand, only increased by 14 %. The situation observed is thus the opposite of that in the beginning of the Iron Age. The new settlements were small (with an average surface of 1.2 ha) and did not include important centres. There are, however, two exceptions: Valična vas and Dolenjske Toplice.
The lithological base at the newly appeared settlements is also significant, since all are situated on dolomite or mixed bedrock. It is therefore not surprising that most were without fortification walls. Those that were girded by walls show a common characteristic. Trenching revealed that these walls were substantially thinner and poorly built in comparison to the strong fortifica-
311	Sitarjevec near Litija (cat. no. 67), Gradišče near Vintarjevec (cat. no. 78), Pančičev vrh near Javorje (cat. no. 81), Gradišča near Jelše (cat. no. 88).
312	Gradec near Blečji Vrh (cat. no. 44), Vinji hrib near Vino (cat. no. 53) and Gradišče near Sloka Gora (cat. no. 62).
313	Gradišče near Dešen (cat. no. 6), Gradec near Blečji Vrh (cat. no. 44), Gradišče near Sloka Gora (cat. no. 62), Gradišče near Vintarjevec (cat. no. 78), Gradišče near Primskovo (cat. no. 92), Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji (cat. no. 126), Kin-celj near Trbinc (cat. no. 279), Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč (cat. no. 302) and Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464).
314	Gradišče near Valična vas (cat. no. 119) and Zagrac near Vodice pri Gabrovki (cat. no. 123).
315	Marječek near Podmolnik (cat. no. 29), Vinji hrib near Vino (cat. no. 53), Sitarjevec near Litija (cat. no. 67), Pančičev vrh near Javorje (cat. no. 81), Gradišča near Jelše (cat. no. 88), Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj (cat. no. 112), Šumenje near Podturn (cat. no. 316) and Grac near Sela pri Zajčjem vrhu (cat. no. 405).
stalih osmih naseljih vemo za zdaj le to, da so bila obljudena v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju.315
Čeprav se je v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju število naselij skoraj podvojilo (od 24 na 40), pa se je njihova skupna površina povečala za borih 14%. Opažamo torej obratno situacijo, kot smo jo ugotovili na začetku železne dobe. Nova naselja so bila majhna (povprečna površina je znašala 1,2 ha) in med njimi ni bilo pomembnejših središč. Izjemi sta pravzaprav dve: Valična vas in Dolenjske Toplice.
Pomenljiva je tudi geološka osnova novonastalih naselij. Prav vsa najdemo na dolomitu oziroma mešanih podlagah, zato ne čudi, da večinoma niso imela obzidij. Tista, ki so bila opasana z zidovi, pa kažejo podobno sliko. S sondiranji smo ugotovili, da so bili le-ti bistveno ožji in slabše grajeni od močnih obzidij velikih gradišč. Zanimivo je še to, da sodi večina zidov, ki smo jih raziskali, v certoški horizont.316 Vse kaže, da se tudi v teh fortifikacijah odražajo dogodki širših razsežnosti, kar smo ugotovili že pri analizi obzidij velikih gradišč.317
7.2.4. PROBLEMATIKA IZVENGRADIŠČNE POSELITVE
Utrjena naselja predstavljajo najpomembnejši segment poselitvenih struktur železnodobne Dolenjske. Niso pa seveda edini, zato bi bila poselitvena slika, zarisana zgolj z gradišči, zanesljivo nepopolna in zavajajoča. Danes vemo, da se je poselitev širila tudi izven obzidij, kar jasno dokazuje nekaj selišč, ki so bila v zadnjem času odkrita na pobočjih in ob vznožjih gradišč. Kot primer naj omenimo bivalne ostaline zunaj obzidja na Velikem Vinjem vrhu318 ter manjši nižinski naselji Marjanov hrib pri Studencu (kat. št. 99) in Vovk pri Beli Cerkvi (kat. št. 387). Na skromne sledi neutrjenega bivališča so naleteli tudi ob južnem vznožju Kučarja nad Podzemljem.319 Takšnih primerov bo v bodoče še več, težava je le v tem, da je naselja v ravnini razmeroma težko odkriti in časovno opredeliti. Sicer pa nas na tem mestu ne zanima poselitev v neposredni bližini glavnih centrov, ampak si želimo zastaviti vprašanje, če so bila
315	Marječek nad Podmolnikom (kat. št. 29), Vinji hrib nad Vinom (kat. št. 53), Sitarjevec nad Litijo (kat. št. 67), Pančičev vrh pod Javorjem (kat. št. 81), Gradišča pri Jelšah (kat. št. 88), Korinjski hrib nad Velikim Korinjem (kat. št. 112), Šumenje pri Podturnu (kat. št. 316) in Grac pod Seli pri Zajčjem vrhu (kat. št. 405).
316	Gradišče nad Dešnom (kat. št. 6), Gradec pri Blečjem Vrhu (kat. št. 44), Gradišče pod Sloko Goro (kat. št. 62), Gradišče pri Primskovem (kat. št. 92), Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji (kat. št. 126), Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464).
317	Gre za obnavljanje zidov na začetku mlajšega halštats-kega obdobja. Glej poglavje 6.1.4.2.
318	Križ 1982b.
319	Naselje je bilo odkrito pri kopanju kanalizacijskega jarka leta 2004 in ni vključeno v naš katalog.
tion walls of the large hillforts. It is also interesting that most researched walls date to the Certosa phase.316 It seems that these fortifications also reflect events of larger dimensions, as has been established already in analyzing the fortification walls of large hillforts.317
7.2.4. SETTLEMENT OUTSIDE THE HILLFORTS
Fortified settlements represent the most dominant segment of the settlement pattern of the Iron Age Dolenjska. However, the settlement pattern composed only of hillforts would be incomplete and misleading. We know today that settlement extended also extra muros, which is clearly proven by a few settlements recently discovered on the slopes and at the feet of hillforts. Here we should mention residential remains outside the ramparts at Veliki Vinji vrh318 and smaller lowland dwellings at Marjanov hrib near Studenec (cat. no. 99) and Vovk near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 387). Faints traces of an unfortified dwelling place were uncovered also at the southern foot of Kučar near Podzemelj.319 There will surely be more such cases in the future; the only difficulty lies in that the lowland settlements are relatively difficult to detect as well as to determine chronologically. However, our interest here lies not so much in the settlement in the immediate vicinity of the main centres but rather in the question of whether, in the Early Iron Age, also the areas between individual hillforts - or areas which lacked the latter - were populated. The task is not simple, since detecting unfortified settlements in predominantly wooded areas is a time-consuming process. A further difficulty lies in the material gathered by intensive field surveying, which is not sufficiently revealing to enable a reliable chronological determination of the sites. Systematic excavation would be needed. This was unfortunately not possible within the framework of the project. Therefore, an attempt was made to solve in a different manner the problem of the settlement outside hillforts. Our analysis concentrated on the tumulus cemeteries, which also represent an important segment of the Iron Age settlement structures. They are visible on the surface, which makes them easy to be detected, and have been relatively well preserved in Dolenjska to the present day.
There were over 250 tumulus cemeteries registered in the study-area. Small cemeteries predominate with
316	Gradišče near Dešen (cat. no. 6), Gradec near Blečji Vrh (cat. no. 44), Gradišče near Sloka Gora (cat. no. 62), Gradišče near Primskovo (cat. no. 92), Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji (cat. no. 126), Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464).
317	The walls were renovated in the beginning of the Late Hallstatt period. See chapter 6.1.4.2.
318	Križ 1982b.
319	The dwelling was discovered when digging a sewage ditch in 2004 and is not included into the catalogue.
v starejši železni dobi obljudena tudi območja med posameznimi gradišči, oziroma predeli, kjer le-teh sploh ni. Naloga ni enostavna, saj je detekcija neutrjenih naselij na območjih, ki so večinoma porasla z gozdom, zamuden proces. Težava je tudi v tem, da gradivo, ki ga pridobimo z intenzivnimi terenskimi pregledi, večinoma ni izpovedno do takšne mere, da bi omogočalo zanesljivo kronološko opredelitev najdišč. Potrebna bi bila sistematična izkopavanja, za kar pa v okviru našega projekta nismo imeli nobenih možnosti. Problem izvengradišč-ne poselitve smo zato skušali rešiti na nekoliko drugačen način. V analizo smo pritegnili gomilne nekropole, ki so prav tako pomemben segment železnodobnih poselitvenih struktur. Na Dolenjskem jih ni težko izslediti, saj gre za grobišča, ki so vidna na površju in so se razmeroma dobro ohranila vse do današnjih dni.
Na območju, ki ga je zaobjel projekt, smo registrirali čez 250 gomilnih grobišč. Prevladujejo manjše nek-ropole, največjo koncentracijo pa opažamo v osrednji Dolenjski (sl. 83). Številne so zlasti na obrobju Mirenske doline, v Raduljskem hribovju in Krškem gričevju, medtem ko jih srečamo na drugih območjih redkeje.
Vsa grobišča niso enako dobro opredeljena. Kolikor toliko zanesljive časovne razpone je moč določiti le oseminšestdesetim, pretežno večjim nekropolam, medtem ko lahko za ostale rečemo le to, da so bile v uporabi v starejši železni dobi. Čeprav je število natančno datiranih grobišč skromno (27%), pa se v raziskanem vzorcu vseeno kažejo določeni razvojni trendi. To je razvidno tudi iz grafikona, na katerem smo skušali prikazati nastajanje in opuščanje grobišč po posameznih kronoloških stopnjah (sl. 84). Če si najprej ogledamo krivuljo, ki predstavlja skupno število nekropol, potem vidimo, da jih je bilo največ v uporabi v stopnji kačaste fibule. Krivulja se torej ujema z ugotovitvami, ki smo jih dobili z analizo naselij. Do največje gostote je prišlo v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju. Zelo zanimiva je tudi dinamika nastajanja in opuščanja grobišč. V starejšem hal-štatskem obdobju jih veliko nastane in malo zamre. Do preobrata pride v kačastem horizontu. Število novonas-talih in opuščenih grobišč se praktično izenači, nato pa gre razvoj le še navzdol. Do odločujočega preloma je torej prišlo v 6. stoletju, kar se zopet dobro ujema z rezultati naselbinskih raziskav.
Kakšen pogled pa nam gomilna grobišča odstirajo na poselitveno problematiko? Ogledali si bomo območje osrednje Dolenjske, kjer je bilo registriranih največ gomil (sl. 85). Najprej lahko ugotovimo, da leži večina velikih nekropol zelo blizu gradišč. Običajno jih srečamo v radiju 1,5 km, zato se zdi, da je bilo pol ure hoda skrajna razdalja, do koder so se širila grobišča posameznega naselja. Kot dokaz si oglejmo pozicije velikih gomilnih grobišč ob naseljih Tičnica pri Studencu (kat. št. 171), Vesela gora v Brinju (kat. št. 246), Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 311), Cvinger nad Koriti (kat. št. 447), Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu (kat. št. 453), Cvinger
Fig. 83: Distribution of tumulus cemeteries. Sl. 83: Razprostranjenost gomilnih grobišč.
the largest concentration noticed in central Dolenjska (fig. 83). The cemeteries are particularly frequent at the fringes of the Mirna Valley, in the very undulating terrain of the Raduljsko hribovje and the Krško gričevje, while elsewhere they are rare.
The cemeteries are not equally well determined. Relatively reliable time spans were defined for only sixty-eight of the mostly large cemeteries, while others can only be said to have been in use in the Early Iron Age. Though the number of precisely dated cemeteries is low (27 %), the researched sample nevertheless shows certain development trends. This is visible also in fig. 84, where we wanted to show the emergence and abandonment of cemeteries in individual chronological phases. The curve that represents the total number of cemeter-
pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464), Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351) in Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382), ki so vse znotraj omenjene polurne časovne meje. Vendar pa moramo poudariti, da smo na ta način določili pripadnost velikim nekropolam, medtem ko je ostala večina manjših zunaj začrtanih območij. Posamične gomile najdemo daleč stran od utrjenih gradišč. Raztresene so po grebenih na obeh straneh reke Mirne, v gričevnatem svetu med dolinami Krke, Radulje in Laknice, razmeroma gosto pa je z njimi posejano tudi Šentjernejsko polje. V primerih, ko so gomile na odmaknjenih krajih, je seveda težko ugotoviti, h kateremu naselju so pripadale. Princip oddaljenosti do najbližjega gradišča je verjetno prehuda poenostavitev. Razdalje so namreč prevelike in močno odstopajo od modela polur-
ies reveals that most were in use during the Serpentine Fibula phase. The curve therefore corresponds to the results of the analysis of settlements. The highest density occurred in the Late Hallstatt period. Also of interest is the dynamics of the emergence and abandonment of the cemeteries. In the Early Hallstatt period, many appear and few become abandoned. The situation changes in the Serpentine phase, when the numbers of newly-appeared and abandoned cemeteries are practically equal, after which the development has a downward trend. The decisive break therefore occurred in the 6th century, which again corresponds well to the results of the settlement research.
In order to see what the tumulus cemeteries reveal of the settlement issue, we will take a look at the area of central Dolenjska, where the highest number of tumuli was registered (fig. 85). The first finding is that most large cemeteries were situated very close to the hillforts, usually within a 1.5 km radius. It seems therefore that a half-hour walk is the maximum distance between the settlement and its cemeteries. As evidence of the latter, we shall mention the large tumulus cemeteries, all lying within the above-mentioned half-hour limit, at the settlements at Ticnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171), Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246), Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem (cat. no. 311), Cvinger near Korita (cat. no. 447), Gradec near Vinkov Vrh (cat. no. 453), Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464), Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351) and Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382). From this point of view, only the large cemeteries could be associated with settlement, while most smaller cemeteries remained outside the catchment of any known settlement. Individual tumuli were detected also far from hillforts. They are scattered across the ridges of the Mirna River, in the hilly area among the valleys of the Krka, the Radulja and the Laknica, with a relatively dense distribution also in the Sentjernejsko polje. For the tumuli situated in remote areas, it is, of course, difficult to establish to which settlement they belonged. For them, the assumption that they accompanied the nearest hillfort is probably too simplified, since the distances are too great and deviate considerably from the model of a half-hour distance. A more acceptable explanation is that the scattered tumuli indicate a special settlement type, which bore no direct relation to the hillforts. Individual tumuli and small cemeteries are seen as the cemeteries of the inhabitants of hamlets and farmsteads that were scattered between individual fortified settlements. We thus come across a different settlement type outside of hillforts, which is practically unknown and needs yet to be researched. Topographic surveys have yielded first indices of the locations of these hamlets. In spite of the poor research, it can already be said that differences must have existed among these settlements as well, which can be inferred from the sizes of the cemeteries. The most frequent are individual tumu-
Po St Ka Ce Ne
55
25 15 5
-5 --15 -25 -35
-Mr
new cemeteries novonastala grobišča
abandoned at the end of a period opuščena ob koncu stopnje
total number of cemeteries skupno število grobišč
Fig. 84: Beginning and abandonment of cemeteries according to chronological periods.
Sl. 84: Nastajanje in opuščanje grobišč po kronoloških stopnjah.
ne oddaljenosti, do katerega smo prišli z analizo leg velikih gomilnih grobišč. Bolj sprejemljiva se nam zdi razlaga, da se za razpršenimi gomilami skriva poseben tip poselitve, ki z gradišči ni bil v neposredni zvezi. V posamičnih gomilah in manjših nekropolah vidimo pokopališča prebivalcev zaselkov in kmetij, ki so ležale raztresene med posameznimi utrjenimi naselji. Gre torej za tako imenovano izvengradiščno poselitev, o kateri ne vemo veliko in jo bo treba šele raziskati. S topografskimi obhodi smo namreč že dobili prve indice, kje naj bi zaselki stali. Ne glede na slabo raziskanost pa lahko že sedaj rečemo, da so morale obstajati tudi med temi naselji določene razlike. To je moč sklepati iz velikosti grobišč. Najpogostejše so resda posamezne gomile, vendar pa poznamo tudi nekropole z več deset tumuli. Med slednjimi velja omeniti Šmarčno (kat. št. 150), Osredek pri Hubajnici (kat. št. 168) in tri grobišča med Velikimi Brusnicami in Ratežem (kat. št. 412-414). Na naši karti (sl. 85) so obdana z belimi kvadrati. V njihovi bližini nismo ugotovili gradišč, zato so zanesljivo pripadala neutrjenim naseljem. Sicer pa je opaziti razlike med
Fig. 85: Relationship between fortified settlements and tumulus cemeteries. Sl. 85: Odnos med utrjenimi naselji in gomilnimi grobišči.
li, though cemeteries with several tens of tumuli are also known. The former include Smarcna (cat. no. 150), Osredek pri Hubajnici (cat. no. 168) and three cemeteries between Velike Brusnice and Ratez (cat. no. 412-414). They are shown on the map (fig. 85) framed with white squares. Since there were no hillforts ascertained in their vicinity, they must therefore have belonged to unfortified settlements. The differences between large and small cemeteries are also in the wealth of their graves. The
velikimi in majhnimi grobišči tudi v bogastvu gradiva. V majhnih, posamičnih gomilah je bilo bistveno skromnejše, kot v velikih nekropolah ob gradiščih.320 Zdi se, da je tudi to ena od značilnosti poselitve, ki jo moramo razložiti predvsem kot hierarhično razmerje med periferijo in glavnimi središči.
320 Za gradivo iz malih nekropol in posameznih gomil glej Dular 2003.
small individual tumuli revealed substantially poorer graves than the large cemeteries near hillforts.320 It seems that this is also one of the settlement characteristics that can be explained, in the first place, as a hierarchical relationship between the periphery and the main centres.
7.3. SETTLEMENT IN THE LATE IRON AGE
The arrival of the Celts, who conquered the area of the present-day Slovenia, caused the decline of the Hallstatt culture. The break with the old tradition was relatively sharp. Novelties are observed in the burial custom, attire and armour, religious ideas changed and a different artistic expression emerged. The strong Celt-ization caused an almost complete loss of the indigenous identity.321 Relicts persisted only in some fields of activity, for example in pottery, where vessels continued to be produced in the traditional manner for some time.322 It seems that settlement structure also remained more or less untouched, though certain changes are noticeable.
7.3.1. SETTLEMENT PATTERN
Before analyzing the settlement pattern, a few words should be said on the database. The number of the La Tene sites established during our work is five times smaller than the number of the Hallstatt sites. This might lead us to believe that the region was deserted in the Late Iron Age. However, a closer look at the structure of the sites reveals a different picture. The number of settlements remained almost unchanged, but a substantial discordance is observed in the density of cemeteries. The reason behind this lies in the burial custom that changed to cremation and flat cemeteries in the Late Iron Age, the latter being difficult to detect by topographic surveying only. The smaller number seems not to be realistic and must primarily be attributed to the state of research.
As seen from the above, there are less data on hand for a reconstruction of the settlement picture for the La Tene than for the previous periods. The end of the Early and the Middle La Tene periods (the Mokronog I and Mokronog II phases) are particularly poorly known but are of crucial importance for a better understanding of the settlement changes. The problem is in the forti-
320	For the finds from small cemeteries and individual tumuli see Dular 2003.
321	Cf. Božič 1987, 893; Božič 1999, 189 ff.
322	The evidence is provided by the pottery from the La Tene cemetery at Kapiteljska njiva at Novo mesto (cat. no. 350), the production technique of which in no respect differs from the Hallstatt pottery. Cf. Križ 2001a, 84, fig. 64-65, 69-72 and others.
7.3. POSELITEV V MLAJŠI ŽELEZNI DOBI
Prihod Keltov, ki so okoli leta 300 pr. Kr. zavzeli naše kraje, je povzročil zaton halštatske kulture. Prelom s staro tradicijo je bil razmeroma oster. Novosti je opaziti v načinu pokopa, noši in oborožitvi, spremenile so se religiozne predstave in uveljavil se je drugačen umetniški izraz. Prišlo je do močne keltizacije, ki je povzročila skoraj popolno izgubo staroselske identite-te.321 Prežitki so se ohranili le na nekaterih področjih, na primer v lončarstvu, kjer so posodje nekaj časa še izdelovali na tradicionalen način.322 Vse kaže, da so ostale bolj ali manj nedotaknjene tudi poselitvene strukture, čeprav je opaziti tudi tu nekatere spremembe.
7.3.1. POSELITVENA SLIKA
Preden pristopimo k analizi poselitvene slike, moramo reči nekaj besed o podatkovni zbirki. Število la-tenskih najdišč, ki smo jih ugotovili pri našem delu, je namreč petkrat manjše od tistega iz halštatskega obdobja, zato bi marsikdo pomislil, da je v mlajši železni dobi pokrajina opustela. Natančen pogled v strukturo najdišč pove, da ni bilo tako. Število naselij je ostalo skoraj enako, bistveni razkorak pa je opaziti v gostoti nekropol. Vzrok tiči v spremenjenem načinu pokopa, ki je postal v mlajši železni dobi žgan in plan, plana grobišča pa je zgolj s topografskimi obhodi težko odkriti. Manjše število najdišč je, kot kaže, navidezno, kar moramo pripisati predvsem stanju raziskav.
Za rekonstrukcijo poselitvene slike imamo torej manj podatkov, kot smo jih imeli za predhodna obdobja. Slabo poznamo zlasti konec zgodnjega in srednje latensko obdobje (stopnji Mokronog I in Mokronog II), ki sta za pravilno razumevanje poselitvenih sprememb ključnega pomena. Problem predstavljajo utrjena naselja, za katera ne vemo, če so ostala obljudena tudi po prihodu Keltov. Vzrok za težave tiči v neizrazitem gradivu, saj z naselbinsko lončenino ni mogoče zanesljivo prepoznati srednjelatenskih plasti.323 Manjkajo tudi obodni zidovi. Našli jih nismo nikjer, tudi na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični ne, čeprav je bilo na njegovem robu izkopanih osemnajst sond. Poselitev gradišč v srednjem latenu ostaja zato nerešen problem. Morda so jih po prihodu Keltov zapustili, ne gre pa povsem izključiti možnosti, da so ostala obljudena, vendar v skromnejšem obsegu in brez fortifikacij. Jasnega odgovora na to vprašanje ne
321	Prim. Božič 1987, 893; Božič 1999, 189 ss.
322	Dokaz je keramika iz latenskega grobišča Kapiteljska njiva v Novem mestu (kat. št. 350), ki se po načinu izdelave v ničemer ne razlikuje od halštatske lončenine. Prim. Križ 2001a, 84, sl. 64-65, 69-72 itd.
323	Gre za nadaljevanje halštatske lončarske tradicije, ki se je ohranila tudi v srednjelatenskem obdobju.
fied settlements, for which we do not know whether they remained occupied after the arrival of the Celts. The cause of this problem lies in the uncharacteristic material, since settlement pottery does not allow us to positively identify Middle La Tene layers.323 Enclosures are also missing. They were not established anywhere, not even at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični in spite of the eighteen trial trenches dug at its edges. The occupation of hillforts in the Middle La Tene period therefore remains an unsolved problem. They might have been abandoned after the arrival of the Celts, though we cannot completely exclude the possibility of their having remained occupied in a lesser extent and without fortifications. A clear answer to this question can as yet not be given. We can say with certainty, however, that the hillforts did not retain the role and significance in the Middle La Tene period that they enjoyed during the Early Iron Age.
Settlements do not provide much help in reconstructing the settlement pattern in the Middle La Tene period. For this reason, we will look at the information provided by the cemeteries on that topic. Similarly to the settlements, cemeteries are also not numerous (fig. 86). However, an important finding in that respect is that they are mostly located in the immediate vicinity of the abandoned Hallstatt tumulus cemeteries. Examples can be found at Zadinec near Valična vas (cat. no. 118), Kapiteljska njiva and Znančeve njive at Novo mesto (cat. no. 350, 354) and Roje and Vidmarjev gozd near Ribjek (cat. no. 292, 293). At Brodaričeva loza near Podzemelj (cat. no. 479) graves were even dug into the coat of one of the local tumuli. The situation at Stražni dol near Golek pri Vinici (cat. no. 506) is also instructive, since the burial there continued on an old flat Hallstatt cemetery without an apparent break. The La Tene cemeteries at Zavrh near Spodnja Slivnica (cat. no. 60), Pun-gart in Metlika (cat. no. 472) and Jurajevčičeva njiva near Zemelj (cat. no. 481) are also located in old settlement areas. The cited examples show that settlement structures, at least in their microlocation, did not alter significantly. The old settlement cores mostly remained occupied, though some exceptions are also known. These include the cemeteries at Reber near Zagorica (cat. no. 109), Agrokombinat near Žadovinek (cat. no. 204), Kosovka near Dobova (cat. no. 223) and Male pužce near Veliko Mraševo (cat. no. 437), which are located away from the Hallstatt hillforts. Unfortunately, they are distributed too sparsely for their locations to allow us to recognise probable rules. They may have formed part of a lowland settlement (outside hillforts).
More data are available on the settlement structures in the Late La Tene period (the Mokronog III phase). The settlements are better known, while the cemeteries are scarce due to the above-mentioned reasons
323 It is a continuation of the Hallstatt pottery tradition that persisted also in the Middle La Tene period.
moremo dati, zanesljivo pa lahko rečemo, da gradišča v srednjem latenskem obdobju niso obdržala tiste vloge in veljave, kot so jo imela v starejši železni dobi.
Ker si z naselji pri rekonstrukciji poselitvene slike v srednjem latenskem obdobju ne moremo veliko pomagati, si oglejmo, kakšen pogled nam na to problematiko odstirajo nekropole. Žal tudi teh ni veliko (sl. 86), pomembna pa je ugotovitev, da ležijo večinoma v neposredni bližini opuščenih halštatskih gomilnih grobišč. Kot primere naj omenimo Zadinec pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 118), Kapiteljsko njivo in Znančeve njive v Novem mestu (kat. št. 350, 354) in Roje in Vidmarjev gozd nad Ribjekom (kat. št. 292, 293). V Brodaričevi lozi pri Podzemlju (kat. št. 479) so bili grobovi vkopani celo v nasutje ene od tamkajšnjih gomil. Zgovorna je tudi situacija v Stražnem dolu nad Golekom pri Vinici (kat. št. 506), kjer so brez prekinitve nadaljevali s pokopavanjem na stari plani halštatski nekropoli. V stara poselitvena okolja so locirana tudi latenska grobišča Zavrh pri Spodnji Slivnici (kat. št. 60), Pungart v Metliki (kat. št. 472) ter Jurajevčičeva njiva pri Zemlju (kat. št. 481). Vsi našteti primeri kažejo, da se poselitvene strukture vsaj v mikrolokacijskem smislu niso bistveno spreminjale. Obljudena so ostala predvsem stara poselitvena jedra, čeprav poznamo tudi nekaj izjem. Omenimo naj grobišča Reber pri Zagorici (kat. št. 109), Agrokombinat pri Žadovinku (kat. št. 204), Kosovka pri Dobovi (kat. št. 223) in Male pužce pri Velikem Mraševem (kat. št. 437), ki ležijo stran od halštatskih gradišč. Žal so pre-redko posejana, da bi lahko iz njihovih pozicij razbrali morebitne zakonitosti. Morda so bila del nižinske (iz-vengradiščne) poselitve.
Več podatkov imamo o poselitvenih strukturah v poznem latenskem obdobju (stopnja Mokronog III). Bolje poznamo zlasti naselja, medtem ko je nekropol zaradi zgoraj omenjenih razlogov le za vzorec (sl. 87). Ugotovili smo, da se praviloma na vseh naseljih, ki so bila obljudena v starejši železni dobi, pojavljajo tudi poznolatenske plasti. Z veliko verjetnostjo jih smemo pričakovati tudi na tistih gradiščih, ki jih nismo sondira-li.324 Izjem je le nekaj, na primer Gradišče pri Vintarjev-cu (kat. št. 78), Vesela gora v Brinju (kat. št. 246) in Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464), ki so najverjetneje opusteli že ob koncu starejše železne dobe. Število obljudenih gradišč kaže, da se poselitvena slika v poznem latenu ni bistveno razlikovala od tiste iz hal-štatskega obdobja. Odprto ostaja le vprašanje izvengra-diščne poselitve, ki pa ga zaradi težko ugotovljivih ne-kropol ne moremo rešiti.
Na koncu naj omenimo še nekaj posebnosti, ki so značilne za pozno latensko obdobje. Mednje zanesljivo
324 Npr. Molnik nad Podmolnikom (kat. št. 25), Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico (kat. št. 55), Tičnica nad Studencem (kat. št. 171), Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah (kat. št. 213), Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 311).
Fig. 86: Cemeteries from the Middle La Tene Period. Sl. 86: Grobišča v srednjem latenskem obdobju.
(fig. 87). It has been established that Late La Tene layers appear, as a rule, on all settlements occupied in the Early Iron Age. They may very likely be expected also on the hillforts that have not been trenched.324 There are a few exceptions, such as Gradišče near Vintarjevec (cat. no. 78), Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246) and Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464), which were abandoned most probably already at the end of the Early Iron Age. The number of occupied hillforts indicates that the settlements picture for the Late La
324 E. g. Molnik near Podmolnik (cat. no. 25), Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico (cat. no. 55), Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171), Gradišče near Velike Malence (cat. no. 213), Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem (cat. no. 311).
sodi gradnja obzidij, s katerimi so po približno dvestoletnem premoru ponovno obdali večino gradišč. Znova so bila obljudena tudi nekatera bronastodobna naselja, na primer Ajdovščina nad Zaborštom pri Dolu (kat. št. 1), Korinjski hrib nad Velikim Korinjem (kat. št. 112), Šentviška gora nad Čatežem (kat. št. 220) in Semenič nad Gabrom pri Semiču (kat. št. 468). Gre za točke, ki leže ob važnih naravnih poteh. Ponovna naselitev višin in nagla gradnja obzidij govorita za usoden čas, ko življenje v ravnini ni bilo več varno. Vzroke za spremembe moramo iskati v osvajalni strategiji rimske države, ki je po ustanovitvi Akvileje (181 pr. Kr.) usodno posegla v jugovzhodnoalpski prostor: najprej z gospodarskimi stiki, nato s kazenskimi pohodi in končno z okupacijo ozemlja, ki je bilo po Oktavijanovem pohodu nad Japo-
Fig. 87: Settlement pattern in the Late La Tene Period. Sl. 87: Poselitev v poznem latenskem obdobju.
Tene period did not differ substantially from that for the Hallstatt period. The only question that remains is that of the settlement outside hillforts, which cannot be answered due to the difficulty in identifying the cemeteries.
Finally, some other characteristics of the Late La Tene period should be mentioned. One of these is the construction of fortification walls with the purpose of protecting most hillforts after an almost two-hundred-year gap. Some Bronze Age settlements were also reoc-cupied, such as Ajdovščina near Zaboršt pri Dolu (cat. no. 1), Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj (cat. no. 112), Šentviška gora near Čatež (cat. no. 220) and Semenič near Gaber pri Semiču (cat. no. 468). These settlements are located along important natural passages. The reoc-
de (35-33 pr. Kr.) vključeno v rimski imperij.325 Ti dogodki so seveda našli svoj odmev v poselitveni sliki jugovzhodne Slovenije. Utrjena gradišča na Dolenjskem in v Beli krajini so bila opuščena, življenje pa se je pod novimi gospodarji dokončno prestavilo v ravnino.
325 Šašel 1983a, 15 s; Božič 1987, 855 ss; Božič 1991; Guštin 1996b; Šašel Kos 2005, 393 ss.
cupation of elevations and a quick construction of fortification walls speak of troubled times, when living in the lowland no longer provided enough security. The reason for this should be sought in the expansive strategy of the Roman State, which decisively intervened into the south-eastern Alpine area after the founding of Aq-uileia (181 BC): first with economic contacts, later with punitive marches and finally with the occupation of the territory, which was included into the Roman Empire after Octavian's march against the lapodi (35-33 BC).325 These events echoed also in the changed settlement pattern of south-eastern Slovenia. Hillforts in Dolenjska and Bela krajina were abandoned and life finally shifted, under the new rule, into the lowlands.
325 Šašel 1983a, 15 f; Božič 1987, 855 ff; Božič 1991; Guštin 1996b; Šašel Kos 2005, 393 ff.
8. HIERARCHY OF SETTLEMENTS
8. HIERARHIJA NASELIJ
Wolfgang Kimmig presented his concept of the so-called "Furstensitze" almost four decades ago, with which he attempted to hierarchically divide the settlement structures of the west Hallstatt circle. Ever since, this problem has been the topic of lively scientific discussions.326 Kimmig's attempt is of interest also for this publication. In one of his later studies, the author expanded his model of "princely seats" onto the east Hallstatt area and included Kleinklein from Styria as well as two sites from Dolenjska.327 The latter were Stična and Novo mesto, which he ranked as settlements of a higher rank (Heerensitz), a definition that was accepted without objections also by some Slovene archaeologists.328 Kimmig' concept of ranking settlements was based on previously determined criteria. The first criterion that needed to be fulfilled concerned the form of the settlement. According to him, a hillfort had to comprise an acropolis and suburbium, which clearly expressed the need for structuring the settlement's interior. The second criterion was related to the presence of "princely graves". The settlement needed to have, in its vicinity, graves of the representatives of the social elite that were clearly distinguishable from the simple burials of the rest of the population in their construction as well as grave goods. Kimmig declared imports from the Mediterranean as the third criterion. These are the precious finds that came to the settlement from distant places either by trade, as gifts or otherwise. The last criterion concerned the position of the hillforts. These had to be naturally well protected and occupying positions which enabled the inhabitants to exert control over the key communication routes. The settlements that fulfilled all four criteria were then marked as "FUrstensitz".329
As mentioned above, the model of the "princely seats" became the topic of lively criticism and discus-
326	Kimmig 1969.
327	Kimmig 1983, 53, fig. 45.
328	Most consistently by Tone Knez; cf. Knez 1988; Knez 1989a; Knez 1989b.
329	The settlement was usually named Furstensitz, Heerensitz, Dynastenburg. All terms express particularly the sociopolitical significance of the agglomerations; cf. Kimmig 1983, 52 ff.
Odkar je pred skoraj štirimi desetletji Wolfgang Kimmig predstavil svoj koncept tako imenovanih "knežjih sedežev", s katerim je skušal hierarhično razčleniti poselitvene strukture zahodnohalštatskega kroga, je postala ta problematika predmet živahnih znanstvenih diskusij.326 Kimmigov poskus je zanimiv tudi za nas, saj je avtor v eni od svojih kasnejših študij model "knežjih sedežev" razširil na vzhodnohalštatski prostor in vanj poleg štajerskega Kleinkleina vključil tudi dve dolenjski najdišči.327 Kot naselji višjega ranga (Heerensitz) je označil Stično in Novo mesto, to definicijo pa so brez pripomb sprejeli tudi nekateri slovenski arheologi.328 Kimmigov koncept rangiranja naselij je baziral na vnaprej določenih kriterijih. Prvi pogoj, ki je moral biti izpolnjen, da je najdišče uvrstil na seznam, se je nanašal na obliko naselja. Gradišče je moralo imeti akropolo in suburbium, s čemer je bila jasno izražena zahteva po strukturiranosti njegove notranjosti. Drugi pogoj je povezan s prisotnostjo "knežjih grobov". Blizu naselja so morali ležati grobovi predstavnikov socialne elite, ki so se po konstrukciji in pridatkih jasno razlikovali od enostavnih pokopov ostalega prebivalstva. Kot tretji kriterij navaja Kimmig mediteranski import. Gre za gradivo, ki je prišlo v naselja iz oddaljenih krajev, bodisi s trgovino, darili ali na kakšen drug način. Končno je tu še zadnja zahteva. Nanaša se na lego gradišč, saj so morala biti naravno dobro zavarovana in postavljena na takšna mesta, s katerih je bilo moč nadzirati ključne prometne poti. Naselja, ki so izpolnjevala vse štiri pogoje, je Kimmig označil kot "sedeže knezov".329
Kot smo že uvodoma omenili, je postal model "knežjih sedežev" predmet živahnih kritik in diskusij. Tako je H. Härke že leta 1979 temeljito pretresel Kim-migove kriterije in jih označil za problematične, saj je bil mnenja, da se pri njihovi uporabi ni mogoče izogniti
326	Kimmig 1969.
327	Kimmig 1983, 53, sl. 45.
328	Najbolj dosledno Tone Knez; prim. Knez 1988; Knez 1989a; Knez 1989b.
329	Naselje je običajno poimenoval Fürstensitz, Heerensitz, Dynastenburg. Vsi termini izražajo zlasti družbenopolitični aspekt aglomeracij; prim. Kimmig 1983, 52 ss.
sion. H. Hârke, for example, thoroughly examined Kim-mig's criteria already in 1979 and characterised them as problematic. In his opinion, subjective judgement cannot be avoided in the use of the criteria.330 In spite of these doubts, however, he later admitted that no better criteria actually existed and went on to use them in his analyses. He did, however, upgrade Kimmig's roughly formulated model by dividing the "princely seats" into three categories. Based on the newly defined sites, he then undertook the study of settlement patterns.331 He made a social and political model of the contemporary society, for which some believed he lacked sufficiently reliable data.
One of the harshest critics of the "Furstensitz" concept was M. Eggert. He stressed the problem of the material's expressive potential, the deficiencies of the methods and a frequently inconsistent approach to interpreting settlement structures.332 Hasty deductions were criticized also by H. Parzinger. His thorough analysis of the field results of some of the better researched Hallstatt hillforts led him to the conclusion that it is actually impossible to conclusively prove the existence of courts or residential areas of the contemporary elites on the basis of the internal partition of the settlements.333
The information that the archaeological material and contexts can provide is thus limited. This must be kept in mind also when a hierarchical classification of the settlements is attempted. How misleading the external appearance and simplified approach can be, is best learned from the Greek historian Thucydides, who lived in the period that concerns us here. In one of the initial chapters of his Peloponnesian War he wrote: "^For if the city of the Lacedaemonians should be deserted, and nothing should be left of it but its temples and the foundations of its other buildings, posterity would, I think, after a long lapse of time, be very loath to believe that their power was as great as their renown. (And yet they occupy two-fifths of the Peloponnesus and have the hegemony of the whole, as well as of their many allies outside; but still, as Sparta is not compactly built as a city and has notprovid-ed itself with costly temples and other edifices, but is inhabited village-fashion in the old Hellenic style, its power would appear less than it is.) Whereas, if Athens should suffer the same fate, its power would, I think, from what appeared of the city's ruins, be conjectured double what it is. The reasonable course, therefore, is not to be incredulous or to regard the appearance of cities rather than their power,^". 334
330	Harke 1979, 111 ff.
331	Ib. 117 ff, pl. 4; see also Härke 1983.
332	Eggert 1989; Eggert 1991; Eggert 1997; see also Jung 2005.
333	Parzinger 1991, 26 ff; Parzinger 1992, 83 ff.
334	Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book I.10.2. English translation: C. F. Smith, in: the Loeb Classical library, 1951, p. 19.
subjektivnim presojam.330 Ne glede na izražen dvom je v nadaljevanju priznal, da boljših kriterijev pravzaprav ni, zato jih je tudi sam uporabil pri svojih analizah. Kim-migov podrobneje nerazdelan koncept je nadgradil tako, da je "knežje sedeže" razvrstil v tri kategorije in se z novo definiranimi najdišči lotil poselitvenih vzorcev.331 Izdelal je socialni in politični model takratne družbe, za kar pa po mnenju nekaterih ni imel dovolj kvalitetnih podatkov.
Med najbolj ostrimi kritiki koncepta "knežjih sedežev" velja omeniti M. Eggerta. Izpostavil je tako problem izpovednosti gradiva, kot pomanjkljivost metod ter pogosto nekonsistenten pristop pri interpretaciji poselitvenih struktur.332 Do prenagljenega sklepanja je bil kritičen tudi H. Parzinger, ki je s temeljito analizo terenskih izvidov nekaterih bolje raziskanih halštatskih gradišč prišel do zaključka, da s pomočjo notranje struk-turiranosti naselij pravzaprav ni mogoče zanesljivo dokazati obstoja dvorov oziroma bivalnih predelov takratnih elit.333
Izpovednost arheološkega gradiva in kontekstov je torej omejena. Tega se moramo zavedati tudi takrat, ko hočemo hierarhično razvrščati naselja. Kako zavajajoč je lahko zunanji videz in poenostavljen pristop, nas najbolje pouči grški zgodovinar Tukidid. Živel je v času, ki je tudi predmet naših raziskav. V enem od začetnih poglavij svojega dela Peleponeška vojna je namreč zapisal: V primeru, da bi bila Šparta porušena in bi ne bilo ostalo nič drugega kot svetišča in temelji, bi poznejši rodovi čez mnoga leta ne verjeli v slavo Lakedemoncev, čeprav sta dve petini Peloponeza njihovi in vsemu vladajo ter še imajo mnogo zaveznikov. Njih mesto bi bilo zelo skromno, ker stavbe ne stojijo druga poleg druge in nima svetišč ali dragocenih palač, temveč se sestoji iz posameznih okrajev, kot je običajno pri starih helenskih mestih. Če bi se Atenam isto zgodilo, bi morali njih moč po ostankih dvakrat više ceniti, kot v resnici zaslužijo. Zato ne smemo biti neverni in sklepati po videzu mesta, temveč po njegovi moči.^^^
8.1. KRITERIJI ZA RAZVRŠČANJE NASELIJ
Glede na pravkar povedano, se seveda zastavlja vprašanje o smiselnosti nadaljnjih analiz, saj imamo na razpolago zelo malo konkretnih podatkov. O notranji organiziranosti naselij ne vemo pravzaprav ničesar, družbeno strukturo takratnih skupnosti slutimo v meglenih obrisih, za rekonstrukcijo gospodarske slike pa so
330	Harke 1979, 111 ss.
331	Ib. 117 ss, t. 4; glej tudi Harke 1983.
332	Eggert 1989; Eggert 1991; Eggert 1997. Glej tudi Jung 2005.
333	Parzinger 1991, 26 ss; Parzinger 1992, 83 ss.
334	Tukidides, Peloponeška vojna, knjiga I, 10.2; (prev. J. Fašalek), Ljubljana 1958.
8.1. CRITERIA FOR SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION
The question that poses itself in view of the restrictions of the available data is whether further analyses are at all reasonable. There is practically nothing known of the internal spatial organization of the settlements, the social structure of the contemporary societies can only be assumed in vague outlines, and only scarce indirect evidence is at hand for a reconstruction of the economic background. Such state of research renders every attempt at a classification of settlements a risky endeavour. For our analysis, we therefore decided to use primarily those criteria that are fairy reliable and enable a reciprocal comparison of data. The first step is to analyze the size of the settlements, the second to analyze the size of the accompanying cemeteries and the third to analyze the wealth of the material. We will thus try to assert the significance of those parameters that are connected to the population potential of an individual settlement. We will proceed by confronting the obtained results with spatial analyses. Here, the locational logic of the hillforts will primarily be verified, i.e. their relation to the relief, lines of communication and natural resources.
8.2. IDENTIFICATION AND PRESENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT SETTLEMENTS
At present, there are forty-three fortified settlements known in south-eastern Slovenia that were occupied during the Early Iron Age {fig. 24). If classified by size, approximately half of them turn out to be larger than two hectares. The median {1.8 ha) therefore proves an appropriate criterion for the first selection. Since hillforts that extend over more than 2 hectares are usually flanked by one or more tumulus cemeteries, the presence of cemeteries was established as an additional criterion in identification. A group of nineteen settlements thus formed, to which was added two exceptions: Metlika {cat. no. 476), measuring 1.1 ha, and Ticnica near Studenec {cat. no. 171) which covered a surface of 0.8 ha.335 Both settlements have tumulus cemeteries within the required radius {1.5 km) and were therefore included in subsequent analyses {^ig. 88).
Apart from the above-mentioned criteria, there are further characteristics that bind the settlements on the list. Trial trenches revealed the settlements to be well fortified. Their enclosures were predominantly made of
na voljo le skromni posredni dokazi. Pri takšnem stanju raziskav je vsak poskus razvrščanja naselij tvegano početje, vendar smo se kljub temu odločili, da bomo pri analizi uporabili predvsem tiste kriterije, ki so kolikor toliko zanesljivi in omogočajo medsebojno primerjanje rezultatov. V prvem koraku bomo analizirali velikost naselij, v drugem velikost pripadajočih nekropol in v tretjem bogastvo gradiva. Na ta način bomo skušali uveljaviti pomen tistih parametrov, ki so povezani s populacijskim potencialom posameznega naselja. V nadaljevanju bomo dobljene rezultate soočili s prostorskimi analizami. Preverili bomo predvsem lokacijsko logiko gradišč, torej njihov odnos do reliefa, komunikacijskih povezav in naravnih resursov.
8.2. IDENTIFICIRANJE IN PREDSTAVITEV POMEMBNEJŠIH NASELIJ
Trenutno poznamo v jugovzhodni Sloveniji triin-štirideset utrjenih naselij, ki so bila obljudena v starejši železni dobi (sl. 24). Če jih razvrstimo po velikosti, ugotovimo, da jih je približno polovica večjih od dveh hektarjev, zato je mediana (1,8 ha) kar pravšnji kriterij za prvo selekcijo. Ker imajo gradišča z več kot 2 ha površine praviloma ob sebi eno ali več gomilnih nekropol, smo kot dodaten kriterij pri identificiranju postavili tudi prisotnost grobišč. Tako se je izoblikovala skupina devetnajstih naselij, kateri smo dodatno priključili še dve izjemi: Metliko (kat. št. 476), ki meri 1,1 ha in Tičnico pri Studencu (kat. št. 171), katere površina znaša 0,8 ha.335 Obe naselji imata v zahtevanem radiju (1,5 km) gomilni nekropoli, zato smo se kljub njuni majhnosti odločili, da ju upoštevamo pri nadaljnjih analizah (sl. 88).
Razen zgoraj omenjenih kriterijev druži naselja, ki so ostala na seznamu, še nekaj značilnosti. Na tistih, ki smo jih sondirali, smo ugotovili, da so bila dobro utrjena. Večinoma gre za kamnita obzidja, nekaj gradišč pa so varovala močna zemljena nasutja oziroma voda. Za gradišča je značilno tudi to, da so bila obljudena skozi vso starejšo železno dobo. Izjeme so štiri: naselji Metlika in Črnomelj, ki sta po sedanjem vedenju na začetku mlajšega halštatskega obdobja zamrli, ter Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah in Gradišče pri Valični vasi, ki sta v tem času šele nastali.
Kot vidimo, nam je uspelo z vnaprej postavljenimi kriteriji in manjšimi izjemami izdvojiti skupino enaindvajsetih halštatskih gradišč, ki se po velikosti, pripadajočih nekropolah, fortifikacijah in tudi po času, ko so bila v uporabi, razlikujejo od ostalih utrjenih naselij ju-
335 The settlement at Ticnica possibly extended extra muros, since the flat ridge on the south-eastern side of the hill revealed several small fragments of clay plaster. Its surface would thus measure approximately 1.6 ha.
335 Naselje na Tičnici se je morda širilo tudi zunaj obzidja, saj smo na ploskem hrbtu na jugovzhodni strani hriba v krtinah našli nekaj drobcev hišnega ometa. V tem primeru bi njegova površina znašala približno 1,6 ha.
Cat. No.	Site	Place	Surface (m2)	Cemetery	Fortification	U/^ 1	U/^ 0
Kat. št.	Najdišče	Kraj	Površina (m2)	Grobišče	Fortifikacija	Ha 1	Ha 2
9	Zgornja krona	Vače	101597	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
25	Molnik	Podmolnik	50668	•	?	•	•
39	Magdalenska gora	Zgornja Slivnica	151294	•	?	•	•
55	Bezeg	Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico	36680	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
96	Cvinger	Vir pri Stični	198388	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
119	Gradišče	Valična vas	25817	•	earth / zemljena		•
171	Tičnica	Studenec	8186	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
198	Sv. Marjeta	Libna	117770	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
213	Gradišče	Velike Malence	78777	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
246	Vesela gora	Brinje	35158	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
294	Križni vrh	Beli Grič	29497	•	earth / zemljena	•	•
311	Karlin	Brezje pri Trebelnem	20894	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
351	Marof	Novo mesto	38465	•	earth / zemljena	•	•
382	Veliki Vinji vrh	Bela Cerkev	126777	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
447	Cvinger	Korita	31278	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
453	Gradec	Vinkov Vrh	27627	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
464	Cvinger	Dolenjske Toplice	33930	•	stone / kamnita		•
476	Metlika	Metlika	11325	•	?	•	
483	Kučar	Podzemelj	98899	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
495	Črnomelj	Črnomelj	38030	•	?	•	
508	Šlemine	Golek pri Vinici	28893	•	stone / kamnita	•	•
Fig. 88: Iron Age centres. Sl. 88: Železnodobna središča.
stone, while some hillforts were defended by thick earthen ramparts or by water. Another characteristic is that they remained occupied throughout the Early Iron Age. There are four exceptions to the latter: the settlements of Metlika and Črnomelj, where life came to halt in the beginning of the Late Hallstatt period according to the present knowledge, and Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice and Gradišče near Valična vas, where life in that period was just beginning.
As seen from the above, the previously set criteria and few exceptions enabled us to form a group of twenty-one Hallstatt fortified settlements in south-eastern Slovenia that differ from others in size, accompanying cemeteries, fortifications and the time-span of their occupation. They are undoubtedly settlements of a higher rank, centres of a sort that had a particular significance in the settlement pattern. They are briefly presented below.
Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9)
A dominant plateau rises above the Klenik village north-east of Vače, surrounded from all sides by steep slopes (fig. 89). The outline of the plateau is very ramified due to the lithological base that mostly consists of dolomite. The terrain rises gently from the south to the north and peaks in two almost equally high dome-like elevations (Špičasti hrib and Zgornja krona) separated by a gentle saddle.
The form of the settlement is almost completely adapted to the relief (app. 2). The area of occupation extended over the central plateau and both elevations,
govzhodne Slovenije. Nedvomno gre za naselja višjega ranga, neke vrste središča, ki so imela v poselitveni strukturi poseben pomen. V nadaljevanju jih na kratko predstavljamo.
Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9)
Severovzhodno od Vač se nad vasjo Klenik dviga dominanten plato, ki ga z vseh strani obdajajo strma pobočja (sl. 89). Obris platoja je zaradi geološke podlage, ki jo v pretežni meri tvori dolomit, zelo razvejan. Teren se rahlo vzpenja od juga proti severu. Vrh doseže v dveh skoraj enako visokih kopastih vzpetinah (Špičasti hrib in Zgornja krona), med katerima je blago sedlo.
Oblika naselja je bila v celoti prilagojena reliefu (pril. 2). Poseljeni so bili osrednji plato in obe kopasti vzpetini, ostanki teras pa so vidni tudi na pobočjih Slem-ška in ozkem jeziku na skrajnem severnem koncu grebena pod Zgornjo krono.
Obod naselja se je najbolje ohranil na vzhodni strani. Sledimo mu lahko po robu lepe terase, pod katero je razmeroma strma ježa. Slednja je zelo močna na območju Zgornje krone, dobro pa je z njo zamejena tudi vsa severna stran naselja. Nekoliko slabša je situacija na severozahodnem koncu gradišča. Tu so se ohranili le trije razmeroma kratki odseki teras, preostali del pa je bil uničen. Isto lahko rečemo za Slemšek, to je ozek
Fig. 89: Zgornja Krona near Vače. 5> J> Sl. 89: Zgornja Krona nad Vačami. >>
rs—N"






Y -r/Y-i i ^
In' I " I 'K	Y
I'i ''y:
-
1;, /1

'(!{!'■■ inii,.,
■.V vr ~ M .
'If ' I tl :ll

- 1 (U


'fji t' r




' I !. '■■ I r 11
I-
. . I '
r»
v-


■ . H M t .. / ,, -	,'■/■ , !>;
a.
tff.'
— If



A, V-5





rm

mmm

i

8 9
\i.'/. J:


i'

while remains of terraces are visible also on the slopes of Slemšek and on the narrow strip on the northernmost end of the ridge underneath Zgornja krona.
The settlement's perimeter is best preserved on the eastern side. It can be traced along the edge of a well visible terrace, with a relatively steep slope. The latter is very steep at Zgornja krona, while it delimits well the whole southern side of the settlement as well. The state of preservation on the north-western end of the hillfort is not as good. Only three fairly short sections of terraces are preserved here and the rest was destroyed. The same could be said of Slemšek, the narrow promontory at the south-westernmost end of the settlement. Its northern and southern sides are well delimited, while the terrain at the west was reshaped. Prehistoric remains were apparently removed during the construction of the church of St. Cross.
The settlement has a vast interior. Until recently, it was covered by fields separated by small terrace slopes, while the area is nowadays mostly overgrown by grass and slowly also by trees. Field cultivation in the interior hid the prehistoric structures. The exception is the forest-covered area of Zgornja krona, where two small terraces are preserved, apparently made so as to level the slope there. A small terrace runs also across the northern slope of Zgornja krona, just above the narrow promontory that was also included into the settlement. The evidence of this is the remains of terracing, which we were not able to connect to the main perimeter of the settlement due to poor preservation.
The settlement above Vače was researched by Walter Schmid in 1932-1934. He dug mostly on the Zgornja krona area, where a 2.3 m thick stone wall and several buildings behind it were uncovered. He also researched a row of houses on the southern side of Špičasti hrib, while individual buildings came to light also on other parts of the settlement.336
The settlement at Zgornja krona was accompanied by several cemeteries. The most important one is believed to be Reber near Klenik (cat. no. 15) on the eastern side of the hillfort. The cemetery was flat with incremation and inhumation burials. The second flat cemetery known by the name Laz near Klenik is situated not far away, on a narrow terrace above the road to Vovše (cat. no. 14). Even more to the east is an isolated but relatively large Vodice near Klenik tumulus (cat. no. 11). A single tumulus is mentioned also at Napredovec near Klenik (cat. no. 10). The easternmost cemetery is at Cvetež near Vovše (cat. no. 12). It is a flat cemetery that extends over a steep ridge above the road with two other tumuli standing to the south.
The settlement has three western cemeteries. Firstly we should mention Apno near Klenik (cat. no. 13), where flat burial were discovered. The second is a tu-
336
Schmid 1939, 96 ff.
pomol na skrajnem jugozahodnem koncu naselja. Severna in južna stran sta namreč dobro zamejeni, medtem ko je bil teren na zahodu preoblikovan. Prazgodovinske ostaline so očitno odstranili pri gradnji cerkvice Sv. Križa.
Notranjost naselja je prostrana. Še donedavna so bile tu njivske površine, ki so jih razmejevale manjše ježe, danes pa je prostor večinoma zatravljen oziroma ga zarašča gozd. Prav zaradi obdelovanja polj v notranjosti naselja ni vidnih prazgodovinskih struktur. Izjema je območje z gozdom porasle Zgornje krone, kjer sta ohranjeni dve manjši terasi, s katerima so očitno zravnali tamkajšnje pobočje. Manjša terasa se vleče tudi čez severno pobočje Zgornje krone, tik nad ozkim pomolom, ki je bil prav tako priključen k naselju. Dokaz so ostanki terasiranj, ki pa se jih zaradi slabe ohranjenosti ne da povezati z glavnim obodom naselja.
Naselje nad Vačami je med leti 1932-1934 raziskoval Walter Schmid. Kopal je zlasti na območju Zgornje krone, kjer je odkril 2,3 m debel kamnit zid in za njim več stavb. Vrsto hiš je raziskal še na južni strani Špiča-stega hriba, posamezne stavbe pa so prišle na dan tudi na drugih predelih naselja.336
Grobišč, ki so pripadala naselju na Zgornji kroni, je več. Za najpomembnejše velja Reber nad Klenikom (kat. št. 15) na vzhodni strani gradišča. Bilo je plano z žganimi in skeletnimi pokopi. Nedaleč stran se je na ozki terasi tik nad cesto za Vovše širilo drugo plano grobišče, ki je poznano pod imenom Laz nad Klenikom (kat. št. 14). Še vzhodneje stoji osamljena, toda razmeroma velika gomila Vodice nad Klenikom (kat. št. 11). Samo ena gomila se omenja tudi na Napredovcu nad Klenikom (kat. št. 10). Za najbolj vzhodno ležeče grobišče velja Cvetež pri Vovšah (kat. št. 12). Tu se je na strmem grebenu nad potjo širila plana nekropola, južno od nje pa stojita še dve gomili.
Zahodna grobišča so tri. Najprej velja omeniti Apno nad Klenikom (kat. št. 13), kjer so bili odkriti plani pokopi. Severovzhodno od tu se razteza gomilno grobišče na Ravnih njivah pri Vačah (kat. št. 8), še bolj proti zahodu pa so tri gomile na Lestini pri Vačah (kat. št. 7).
Vse kaže, da so bila grobišča tudi južno od naselja. Dokaz so najdbe iz grobov, ki so prišle na dan pri oranju na ledini Boršt pri Vačah (kat. št. 16). Gradivo, ki ga z Vač hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, je objavil France
Stare.337
Molnik nad Podmolnikom (kat. št. 25)
Molnik je najvišji vrh v gričevju, ki na severovzhodni strani obroblja Ljubljansko barje. Njegova pobočja so zelo razgibana, saj je voda v dolomitno osnovo izdrla globoke grape, ki jih ločujejo ozki in strmi grebeni. Najvišji predel Molnika je razčlenjen v dva skoraj enako
336	Schmid 1939, 96 ss.
337	F. Stare 1954a; F. Stare 1955; F. Stare 1962-1963, 383 ss.
mulus cemetery at Ravne njive near Vače (cat. no. 8) that extends to the north-east from the first, while further three tumuli at Lestina near Vače (cat. no. 7) are situated more to the west.
It appears that cemeteries extended also to the south of the settlement. The evidence for this is provided by the finds from graves that came to light during ploughing at the Boršt fallow near Vače (cat. no. 16). The grave material from Vače, held at the National Museum of Slovenia, was published by France Stare.337
Molnik near Podmolnik (cat. no. 25)
Molnik is the highest peak in the hills that border the Ljubljansko barje in the north-east. Its slopes are undulated, since water cut deep ravines into the dolomite base that are separated by narrow and steep ridges. The highest part of Molnik is divided into two almost equally high dome-like peaks separated by an elongated saddle (fig. 90).
The form of the settlement is entirely adapted to the configuration of the terrain (fig. 155). The northeastern peak is surrounded by an total enclosure with two entrance gaps. Inside the perimeter are two more terraces and the peak itself is also reshaped into a terrace. The settlement was prolonged in the south-east, which was also delimited with a well preserved terrace. On this side as well a misaligned gap has been preserved where the entrance used to be.
The south-western peak at Molnik was also surrounded by ramparts or terraces. The perimeter is mostly well preserved with the exception of a short section where the rampart slid down the slope due to its steepness. The entrance into the hillfort was apparently on the spot where the modern road leads to the top of the hill. The interior is covered by terraces, while three small terraces are preserved also on the north-western slope outside the main perimeter of the settlement.
The cemeteries of the settlement at Molnik were situated on the nearby ridges. First we should mention Roje near Orle (cat. no. 22), where flat incremation burials were discovered.338 Incremation burials were found also at sand digging pit Kotarjev peskokop near Podmolnik (cat. no. 23), though it is not certain whether this represents an isolated tumulus or a flat cemetery. There are three tumulus cemeteries. The largest one (Grmada near Podmolnik - cat. no. 24) extended across a ridge west of the settlement and included twenty-four tumuli. The second in size was the cemetery at Pleška hosta near Podmolnik (cat. no. 26) with sixteen tumuli and the third Pavšarjeva hosta near Pleše (cat. no. 27), where thirteen tumuli were observed. A selection of the grave goods found in the excavated tumuli was published by Ivan Puš.339
337	F. Stare 1954a; F. Stare 1955; F. Stare 1962-1963, 383 ff.
338	Puš 1984, 134 ff.
339	Puš 1991.
visoka kopasta vrhova, med katerima se vleče razpoteg-njeno sedlo (sl. 90).
Oblika naselja je bila v celoti prilagojena konfiguraciji tal (sl. 155). Severovzhodni vrh obdaja sklenjen obod, ki ima na dveh mestih vrzel, kjer je bil vhod. Znotraj oboda sta še dve manjši terasi, v teraso pa je bil preoblikovan tudi sam vrh. Na jugovzhodni strani se je naselje širilo v podaljšek, ki je prav tako zamejen z dobro ohranjeno teraso. Tudi na tej strani se je na mestu, kjer je bil vhod, v obodu ohranil zamik.
Z nasipi oziroma terasami je bil obdan tudi jugozahodni vrh Molnika. Obod se je večinoma dobro ohranil, izjema je krajši odsek, kjer je nasutje zaradi strmine spolzelo po pobočju. Vhod v gradišče je bil očitno na mestu, kjer je na vrh speljana današnja pot. Notranjost je prepredena s terasami, tri manjše terase pa so se ohranile tudi na severozahodnem pobočju zunaj glavnega oboda naselja.
Grobišča, ki so pripadala naselju na Molniku, najdemo na okoliških grebenih. Najprej naj omenimo Roje pri Orlah (kat. št. 22), kjer so bili odkriti plani žgani grobovi.338 Na žgane grobove so naleteli tudi v Kotarje-vem peskokopu nad Podmolnikom (kat. št. 23), vendar pa ni gotovo če gre za osamljeno gomilo ali plano grobišče. Gomilne nekropole so tri. Največja (Grmada nad Podmolnikom - kat. št. 24) se je raztezala po grebenu zahodno od naselja in je štela štiriindvajset gomil. Drugo po velikosti je bilo grobišče Pleška hosta nad Pod-molnikom (kat. št. 26) s šestnajstimi gomilami, na tretjem mestu pa je Pavšarjeva hosta pri Plešah (kat. št. 27), kjer smo našteli trinajst tumulov. Izbor gradiva iz pre-kopanih gomil je objavil Ivan Puš.339
Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39)
Magdalenska gora leži severovzhodno od Šmarja (sl. 91). To je podolgovat, z mešanim gozdom porasel hrib, ki ima proti jugu in zahodu razmeroma blaga pobočja, z vzhodne strani pa je dostop nanj težji, saj se teren naglo spusti v grapo bližnjega potoka. Na najvišji točki (504,1 m) stoji podružnična cerkev Sv. Magdalene.
Naselje na Magdalenski gori sodi med večja prazgodovinska gradišča, kar jih poznamo na Dolenjskem. Dolgo je nekaj čez 800 metrov, medtem ko znaša njegova največja širina 220 metrov (pril. 3). S svojim obsegom je zajelo dobršen del podolgovatega grebena, ki poteka v smeri SZ-JV. V isti smeri se postopoma spušča tudi teren, vendar pa je naklon razmeroma blag, zato je bilo v naselju veliko ravnega prostora.
Naselje lahko razdelimo na dva dela: zgornji, ki zavzema prostor okoli cerkve sv. Magdalene, in spodnji, v katerega je zaobjet preostali del grebena. Zgornji del naselja je bil posebej utrjen. Potek nekdanjega obzidja je dobro viden in mu lahko sledimo po celi dolžini.
338	Puš 1984, 134 ss.
339	Puš 1991.
Fig. 90: Molnik near Podmolnik. Sl. 90: Molnik nad Podmolnikom.
Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39) Magdalenska gora lies north-east of Šmarje (fig. 91). It is an elongated hill covered by a mixed forest. It has fairly gentle slopes to the south and west, while the access is more difficult from the east where the terrain quickly falls into a ravine of the nearby stream. The highest point (504.1 m) is occupied by the subsidiary church of St. Mary Magdalen.
The settlement at Magdalenska gora ranks among the larger prehistoric hillforts known in Dolenjska. It measures just over 800 metres in length, while its maximum width is 220 metres (app. 3). It extended over most
Ohranil se je kot rob razmeroma močne ježe (široke do 12 metrov), za katero je nastala nagnjena terasa. Terasa se je najlepše ohranila na južni in severovzhodni strani naselja, saj so na teh območjih obzidje skoraj v celoti prilagodili konfiguraciji terena.
Na južni strani obzidje ni sklenjeno, ampak poteka v značilnem zamiku, skozi katerega je proti vrhu speljan današnji kolovoz. Na tem mestu je bil skoraj gotovo tudi prazgodovinski vhod v zgornji del naselja. Vhod je eden od bolje ohranjenih, kar jih poznamo na Dolenjskem.
Po zahodnem pobočju se pod obzidjem vleče nekaj teras. Njihov potek ni najbolj jasen, saj se praviloma
Fig. 91: Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica. Sl. 91: Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici.
of the elongated ridge running in a NW-SE direction. In the same direction, the terrain gradually descends in a gentle declivity, which offered the settlement much flat space.
The settlement can be divided into two parts: the upper one covers the area around the church of St. Mary Magdalen and the lower one covers the rest of the ridge. The upper part was specially fortified. The course of the enclosure is clearly visible and can be traced along its entire length. It is preserved as the edge of a relatively large terrace slope {up to 12 metres in width), behind
nadaljujejo v ježe tamkajšnjih njiv oziroma travnikov. Terase so razmeroma ozke, zato na njih ni bilo veliko prostora. Ne glede na to pa je zelo verjetno, da so nastale že v prazgodovinskem času.
Notranjost zgornjega dela naselja je spremenjena. Temu je botrovala že gradnja cerkve, močno poškodovan pa je tudi prostor južno od zidu, ki obdaja cerkveno dvorišče. Vse kaže, da so v preteklosti na tem območju kopali pesek, saj je teren v celoti prerit in poln velikih vkopov oziroma kotanj. Bolje so ohranjeni predeli tik za zidom, ob katerem se vlečejo razmeroma lepe terase.
which a slanted terrace formed. The latter is best preserved on the southern and north-eastern sides of the settlement, since the wall is almost entirely adapted to the configuration of the terrain in the area.
The wall is interrupted on the southern side and has the characteristic misaligned gap, through which a modern cart track runs towards the summit. This spot almost certainly represented also the prehistoric entrance into the upper part of the settlement. It is one of the best preserved entrances known in Dolenjska.
The western slope has several terraces running underneath the fortification wall. Their course is not very clear, since they usually continue into the terrace slopes of the local fields and meadows. The terraces are relatively narrow and do not offer much space. In spite of this, it is very likely that they were made already in the prehistoric times.
The interior of the upper part of the settlement was modified by the construction of the church, though the area south of the wall around the church yard is also heavily damaged. It appears that sand was extracted in this area in the past, since the terrain is completely dug up and full of large cuts or depressions. Better preserved are the areas just behind the wall, along which run fairly well visible terraces.
The lower part of the settlement was also fortified. The fortification wall is slightly less well preserved here, particularly in the south-western edge of the hillfort, which is completely destroyed in the length of 200 metres. Nevertheless, the course of the enclosure is clear and allows us to say that the settlement extended across most of the ridge. The contact between the lower and upper fortification walls is not preserved, since the terrace slope runs into the slopes of the hill. The entrance into the lower part of the settlement was at the southeast, where a gap in the fortification wall is surrounded by natural rocks.
Three tumulus cemeteries belong to the settlement at Magdalenska gora: Laščik near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 36), Preloge near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 37) and Voselca near Hrastje (cat. no. 40). The grave material from the excavated tumuli was published by Hugh Henck-en, Sneža Tecco Hvala, Janez Dular and Eva Kocuvan.340
Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico (cat. no. 55)
The settlement lies on a dome-like hill to the northwest of the Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico village (fig. 92). Its enclosure is clear and can easily be traced along its entire length. It is preserved as a terrace on the southern and eastern sides with a steep slope underneath it (^ig. 168). The edge of the terrace changes into a small rampart in two short sections at the northern part of the settlement and then sharply turns towards the south and runs out at the road that leads to the top from the
Fig. 92: Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico. Sl. 92: Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico.
Utrjen je bil tudi spodnji del naselja. Tu je obzidje nekoliko slabše ohranjeno, kar velja še zlasti za jugozahodni rob gradišča, ki je v razdalji 200 metrov v celoti uničen. Kljub temu pa je obod jasen, zato lahko rečemo, da je naselje zaobjelo pretežni del grebena. Stik spodnjega obzidja z zgornjim ni ohranjen, saj se ježa na obeh krakih izteče v pobočjih hriba. Vhod v spodnji del naselja je bil na jugovzhodnem koncu, kjer je v obzidju vrzel, ki jo obdajajo naravne skale.
K naselju na Magdalenski gori sodijo tri gomilne nekropole: Laščik pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 36), Preloge pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 37) in Voselca pri Hrast-ju (kat. št. 40). Gradivo iz prekopanih gomil so objavili Hugh Hencken ter Sneža Tecco Hvala, Janez Dular in Eva Kocuvan.340
Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico (kat. št. 55)
Naselje leži na kopastem hribu severozahodno od vasi Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico (sl. 92). Njegov obod je jasen in mu zlahka sledimo po celotni dolžini. Na južni in vzhodni strani se je ohranil kot terasa, pod katero je strma ježa (sl. 168). Na severnem koncu naselja
340
Hencken 1978; Tecco/Dular/Kocuvan 2004.
340
Hencken 1978; Tecco/Dular/Kocuvan 2004.
north. The course of the fortification wall on the western side is also clear. It is preserved as an edge of a terrace with a relatively steep slope underneath.
The interior of the settlement has two equally high dome-like peaks separated by an elongated and a few metres deep saddle. The southern edge is additionally fortified. It is surrounded in the south by a well visible rampart that changes into a steep terrace slope in the west. Another relatively well preserved terrace lies south of the main entrance, with a cart track running across it. The mound is certainly artificial. It is not clear, on the other hand, whether it was made in the Iron Age, since the course of the terrace cannot be tied to the main perimeter of the settlement.
The hillfort apparently had two entrances, located where modern roads lead to Bezeg from the north and the south. Considering the course of the terraces, both are most probably the so-called tangential entrances.
The accompanying cemetery (Velika senožet near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico - cat. no. 54) extended to the north of the settlement, where seven tumuli were observed in a forest. The grave material, held at the National Museum of Slovenia, was published by Davorin Vuga.341
preide rob terase na dveh krajših odsekih v rahel okop, nato pa ostro zavije proti jugu in se izteče ob poti, ki s severne strani pripelje na vrh. Potek obzidja na zahodni strani je prav tako zelo jasen. Ohranjen je kot rob terase, pod katero je razmeroma strmo pobočje.
Notranjost naselja ima dva enako visoka kopasta vrhova, ki ju ločuje nekaj metrov nižje razpotegnjeno sedlo. Južni vrh je bil še dodatno utrjen, saj ga z juga obdaja lep okop, ki pa preide na zahodni strani v strmo ježo. Južno od glavnega oboda naselja je še ena razmeroma dobro ohranjena terasa, skozi katero je speljana kolovozna pot. Nasutje je zanesljivo umetno, vprašanje pa je, če je nastalo v železni dobi. Poteka terase namreč ni mogoče povezati z glavnim obodom naselja.
Vhoda v gradišče sta bila očitno dva in sicer na mestih, kjer pripeljeta s severa in juga na Bezeg sedanji poti. Z ozirom na potek teras imamo na obeh točkah najverjetneje opraviti s tako imenovanimi tangencialnimi vrati.
Pripadajoče grobišče (Velika senožet pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico - kat. št. 54) se je raztezalo severno od naselja, kjer je v gozdu sedem gomil. Gradivo, ki ga hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, je objavil Davorin Vuga.341
Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96)
The settlement is situated on a wide promontory that rises approximately 30 m above the surrounding area (fig. 93). Several roads lead to it, while the access is usually by a road from Stična. The settlement is irregularly oval in shape, 800 m long and around 400 m wide (app. 4). Its perimeter is very clear. It is preserved in the southern part as the edge of a well visible terrace, which changes into a wide rampart in the northern part that reaches almost 6 m in height. The fortification wall was destroyed only in two parts: at Kavec's homestead that stands just behind the edge of the settlement as well as in a bend, where the modern road from Stična reaches Cvinger.
The interior of the settlement is divided into two parts by a transverse rampart. The southern, slightly lower half is covered by fields and meadows. The area is vast but not completely flat, since the limestone ridge running along its middle gradually rises into a slight elevation. The terrain descends into a relatively wide basin in the eastern part, where the rather thick layers of soil caused the land to be used for fields.
The northern part of Cvinger is karstified and more undulated. It is mainly covered by forest. The grassland (once fields) only covers the terrace and the large basin just behind the transverse wall. The terrain rises to the north and offers very little space for living. The exception is the narrow terrace on the western side of the settlement where the research showed the presence of houses. It appears that the settlement reached so far to
Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96)
Naselje leži na širokem pomolu, ki je približno 30 m višji od bližnje okolice (sl. 93). Nanj pripelje več poti, najobičajnejši dostop pa je po cesti iz Stične. Naselje ima nepravilno ovalno obliko in je dolgo 800 m in široko okoli 400 m (pril. 4). Njegov obod je zelo jasen. V južnem delu se je ohranil kot rob lepe terase, v severni polovici pa preide v močan okop, ki doseže skoraj 6 m višine. Nekdanje obzidje je bilo uničeno le na dveh mestih: ob Kavčevi domačiji, ki stoji tik za robom naselja in na pre-voju, kjer pripelje na Cvinger sedanja cesta iz Stične.
Notranjost naselja je s prečnim nasipom razdeljena v dva dela. Po južni, nekoliko nižji polovici se širijo njive in travniki. Svet je prostran, vendar ne povsem raven, saj se po sredini vleče apnenčast greben, ki se postopoma dvigne v rahlo vzpetino. Na vzhodni strani se teren spusti v razmeroma široko kotanjo, kjer so zaradi debelejšega sloja prsti njive.
Severna polovica Cvingerja je zakrasela in bolj razgibana. V glavnem jo porašča gozd. Travniki (nekoč njive) se širijo le na terasi in v večji kotanji tik za prečnim obzidjem. Severno od tod se svet dviga, zato je bilo v tem predelu za poselitev bolj malo ugodnega prostora. Izjema je ožja terasa na zahodni strani naselja, na kateri so, kot so pokazale raziskave, stale hiše. Zdi se, da je naselje segalo tako daleč na sever predvsem zaradi oblikovanosti tal. Okop so namreč postavili na robove tamkajšnjih kraških vrtač, ki so jih učinkovito vključili v obrambni sistem.
341 Vuga 1980, 201 ff.
341 Vuga 1980, 201 ss.
Fig. 93: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Sl. 93: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični.
the north mostly due to the configuration of the terrain, since the rampart was located on the edges of the karst sinkholes there, which were effectively included into the defence system.
The settlement probably had several entrances. The first could be supposed on the eastern side, where a cart track reaches Cvinger, the second behind the Kavec's homestead (here as well a wide road runs nowadays) and the third where the road from Stična arrives to the settlement. All three accesses are significantly modified. It is therefore not known whether prehistoric remains are still preserved underneath the modern roads.
Cvinger near Vir pri Stični was researched by the National Museum of Slovenia between 1967 and 1974. The work was focused mainly on the study of the fortification wall. The results were published by Stane Gab-rovec and his colleagues in a special monograph.342
The accompanying cemetery (Gomile near Griže -cat no. 98) extends, in a wide arch, to the south of the settlement. The latest topographic survey there showed that approximately 125 more or less visible tumuli are present in the area. The exact number cannot be established, since some tumuli were ploughed up in the past. The tumuli in the vicinity of Griže were dug by numerous excavators and also by the local people. Only two were professionally researched, excavated by the National Museum in Ljubljana in the second half of the 20th century. Cvinger also boasts a flat cemetery with incremation burials that extended along the eastern foot of the settlement (Dole near Pristavlja vas - cat. no. 97). Unfortunately, the cemetery was almost completely destroyed in the past.343
The finds from the tumuli researched by the Duchess of Mecklenburg were published by Peter Wells344 and the remaining material by Stane Gabrovec.345
Gradišče near Valična vas (cat. no. 119)
The settlement is located on a ridge east of Valična vas (^ig. 94). Its northern side is very steep and poorly accessible, while the southern slopes are gentler and descend in terraces to the Krka. The eastern part of the ridge is destroyed, since a large sand digging pit was cut into its side. Access to the settlement is easiest from the west, along the ridge from Valična vas.
The shape of the settlement is adapted to the configuration of the terrain (^ig. 183). Due to the dolomite rock, Gradišče was apparently not girded by fortification walls. No traces of it were uncovered on the surface. The access to the settlement at the north-westernmost side was blocked by a natural cone-shaped peak named Kunkelj that rose approximately ten metres above
Vhodov v naselje je bilo verjetno več. Prvega lahko domnevamo na vzhodni strani, kjer pripelje na Cvinger kolovoz, drugega za Kavčevo domačijo (tudi tu je sedaj široka pot) in tretjega na mestu, kjer je speljana cesta iz Stične. Vsi trije dostopi so močno preoblikovani, zato ne vemo, če so pod sedanjimi potmi še ohranjene prazgodovinske ostaline.
Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični je med leti 1967 in 1974 raziskoval Narodni muzej Slovenije, vendar pa so bila dela osredotočena predvsem na proučevanje obzidij. Rezultate raziskav je skupaj s sodelavci v posebni publikaciji objavil Stane Gabrovec.342
Pripadajoče grobišče (Gomile pri Grižah - kat št. 98) se razprostira v širokem loku južno od naselja. Zadnji topografski pregled je pokazal, da je na tem prostoru približno 125 bolje ali slabše vidnih gomil. Točnega števila namreč ni mogoče ugotoviti, ker so bile nekatere v preteklosti razorane. Gomile v okolici Griž so izkopavali številni izkopavalci in tudi domačini. Strokovno sta bili raziskani le dve, ki ju je v drugi polovici prejšnjega stoletja raziskal Narodni muzej iz Ljubljane. K Cvingerju je sodilo tudi plano grobišče z žganimi grobovi, ki se je širilo ob vzhodnem vznožju naselja (Dole pri Pristavlji vasi - kat. št. 97). Žal je bilo v preteklosti skoraj v celoti uničeno.343 Najdbe iz gomil, ki jih je raziskala vojvodinja Meck-lenburška, je objavil Peter Wells,344 ostalo gradivo pa Stane Gabrovec.345
Gradišče pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 119) Naselje je postavljeno na greben vzhodno od Va-lične vasi (sl. 94). Njegova severna stran je zelo strma in težko dostopna, proti jugu pa so pobočja zložnejša in se terasasto spuščajo proti Krki. Vzhodni del grebena je uničen, saj se je vanj zajedel velik peskokop. Najlažji dostop v naselje je z zahoda torej po grebenu od Valične vasi.
Oblika naselja je prilagojena konfiguraciji tal (sl. 183). Ker so tla iz dolomita, Gradišče očitno ni bilo opasano z obzidjem. Na površini namreč nismo odkrili njegovih sledov. Na skrajni severozahodni strani je dostop v naselje zapiral naraven stožec, imenovan Kun-kelj, ki je bil za približno deset metrov višji od okolice. Ker je greben na tem predelu ozek, njegova severna in južna pobočja pa zelo strma, je bil dostop z zahoda že po naravi dobro zavarovan. Žal so stožec pred leti s kopanjem peska v celoti odstranili.
Rob naselja je na severni strani jasen, saj poteka tik za potjo, pod katero se teren prevesi v hudo strmino. Po približno 150 metrih se pojavi ježa, ki ima jasen rob. Dolga je skoraj sto metrov in obroblja teraso severno od cerkvice Sv. Martina.
342	Gabrovec 1994.
343	Ib., 40.
344	Wells 1981, 45 ff.
345	Gabrovec 2006. See also Ložar 1937a and Ložar 1937b.
342	Gabrovec 1994.
343	Ib., 40.
344	Wells 1981, 45 ss.
345	Gabrovec 2006. Glej tudi Ložar 1937a in Ložar 1937b.
the surrounding area. The ridge is narrow here and its northern and southern slopes are very steep, which makes the western side of the settlement naturally well protected. Unfortunately, the peak was completely removed years ago by the extraction of sand.
The edge of the settlement is clear on the north, since it runs just behind the road underneath which the terrain falls in a steep declivity. A terrace slope with a clear edge appears after approximately 150 metres. It measures almost a hundred metres in length and surrounds the terrace to the north of the church of St. Martin.
The extent of the settlement to the east can no longer be established because of the large sand digging pit. The southern slope of the ridge is better preserved. It is crossed by seven terraces of different sizes, all hewn into the dolomite base of the hill and completely adapted in their form to the configuration of the terrain. The absence of research prevents us from claiming that all terraces are prehistoric in date. They have been subjected to much change over the centuries, since they were covered by fields and vineyards until recently.
The settlement itself was not researched. The exception is a small rescue intervention by the Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage from Novo mesto in 1983 and 1984. The intervention revealed a part of a prehistoric house with a fairly clear ground plan and a well preserved hearth.346
The accompanying flat cemetery with inhumation graves was discovered to the north-east of the settlement, on the Zadinec fallow near Valična vas (cat. no. 118). The finds were published by Biba Teržan.347
Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171)
Tičnica is a dome-like, forest-covered hill located south of the Studenec village (^ig. 95). Its slopes are not steep, making the access to the top relatively easy. This is especially true of the northern and western sides, where a tarmac road leads to the top.
The settlement is relatively well preserved (^ig. 194). It has an partial enclosure that can be traced along the edge of a wide terrace, underneath which a steep slope begins. The declivity is particularly pronounced on the northern and eastern sides, while the western slopes are gentler. The southernmost part of the hillfort revealed a small rampart of no more than 50 metres in length. The fortification wall was cut through and destroyed by a road leading to the settlement; only a few stones are still visible in the profile. The interior of the settlement is almost flat, since the terrain rises barely visibly to the highest point, where a hunting lodge stands today. The entrance to the settlement could not be established, since no gaps in the perimeter were observed.
346	Dular/Breščak 1996, 145 ff.
347	Teržan 1973, 660 ff.
Fig. 94: Gradišče near Valična vas. Sl. 94: Gradišče pri Valični vasi.
Kako daleč se je naselje širilo proti vzhodu, zaradi ogromnega peskokopa ni več mogoče ugotoviti. Bolje je ohranjeno južno pobočje grebena, čez katerega se vleče sedem različno velikih teras. Vse so bile vsekane v dolomitno osnovo hriba, njihovo obliko pa so v celoti prilagodili konfiguraciji pobočja. Brez raziskovalnih posegov ni mogoče trditi, da so vse terase prazgodovinske. V stoletjih so bile namreč močno spremenjene, saj so se na njih vse do nedavnega raztezale njive in vinogradi.
Naselje ni bilo raziskovano. Izjema je manjši zaščitni poseg, s katerim je leta 1983 in 1984 Zavod za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine iz Novega mesta dokumentiral del prazgodovinske hiše z razmeroma jasnim tlorisom in lepo ohranjenim ognjiščem.346
Pripadajoča plana nekropola s skeletnimi pokopi je bila odkrita severovzhodno od naselja na ledini Zadi-nec pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 118). Najdbe je objavila Biba
Teržan.347
Tičnica pri Studencu (kat. št. 171) Tičnica je kopast, z gozdom poraščen hrib, ki leži južno od vasi Studenec (sl. 95). Njegova pobočja niso strma, zato je dostop na vrh razmeroma lahek. To velja še posebej za severno in zahodno stran, po kateri je speljana asfaltirana cesta.
Naselje je razmeroma dobro ohranjeno (sl. 194). Ima namreč sklenjen obod, ki mu lahko sledimo po robu široke terase, pod katero se pričenja strmo pobočje. Naklon je izrazit zlasti na severni in vzhodni strani hri-
346	Dular/Breščak 1996, 145 ss.
347	Teržan 1973, 660 ss.
Fig. 95: Tičnica near Studenec. Sl. 95: Tičnica pri Studencu.
The main cemetery (Gomile near Rovišče - cat. no. 172) lies to the south-east of the settlement and includes thirty-seven tumuli. It was researched already in the 1870s. Their material was published by Vida Stare and Janez Dular.348 Considering the distance of less that 1.5 km, three isolated tumuli on the Boben hrib ridge (cat. no. 170), southwest of Zavratec, also belonged to the settlement.
Sv. Marjeta on Libna (cat. no. 198)
The Libna hill (355 m), where a village of the same name is located, rises on the left bank of the Sava River above Krško (^ig. 96). Its slopes are very steep, particularly on the southern, northern and western sides, while the access from the east is somewhat easier.
The settlement was constructed on top of the hill where the subsidiary church of St. Margaret stands to-
348 V. Stare 1962-1963, 435 ff; Dular 2003, 240 ff.
ba, medtem ko so zahodna pobočja položnejša. Na skrajnem južnem delu gradišča se je ohranil rahel okop, ki pa ni daljši od 50 metrov. Na mestu, kjer pripelje v naselje cesta, je bilo ob gradnji presekano in uničeno obzidje. V profilu je še videti nekaj kamnov. Notranjost naselja je skoraj ravna. Teren se namreč komaj opazno dviga proti najvišji točki, kjer stoji lovski dom. Kje je bil vhod v naselje, nismo uspeli ugotoviti, saj v obodu nismo zapazili nobene vrzeli.
Glavna nekropola (Gomile pri Rovišču - kat. št. 172) leži jugovzhodno od naselja in šteje sedemintrideset gomil. Raziskovali so jo že v sedemdesetih letih devetnajstega stoletja. Gradivo sta objavila Vida Stare in Janez Dular.348 Glede na oddaljenost, ki znaša manj kot 1,5 km, sodijo k naselju tudi tri osamljene gomile na grebenu Boben hrib (kat. št. 170) jugozahodno od Za-vratca.
348 V. Stare 1962-1963, 435 ss; Dular 2003, 240 ss.
Fig. 96: Sv. Marjeta at Libna. Sl. 96: Sv. Marjeta na Libni.
day. The perimeter is clear, since the remains of the fortification have been well preserved to the present day (app. 6). The settlement was divided into two parts: the upper extends over the top of the hill and on the southwestern slopes, while the lower part extends towards the northern end of Libna. The perimeter of the central part of the settlement is preserved in the eastern side as an edge of a terrace, underneath which steep slopes begin. The terrace changes in a short section into a small rampart, after which the perimeter can again be traced along the edge of the terrace that turns sharply to the south at the cart track. Since the course of the perimeter is equal also on the opposite side of the track, we may suppose an entrance here, through which ran the communication between the upper and the lower parts of the settlement.
The edge of the settlement is very clear also to the west of the cart track. The wall turns southwards after a long straight section and disappears into a slope underneath a homestead that stands on a small dome-like elevation. It is again visible after a gap of eighty metres, after which it can be traced along the edge of a terrace running across the entire south-western slope of Libna. The course of the wall in the south-east is no longer preserved. It was completely destroyed by the fields and vineyards that now occupy the area.
Sv. Marjeta na Libni (kat. št. 198)
Hrib Libna (355 m), na katerem leži istoimenska vas, se dviga na levem bregu Save nad današnjim Krškim (sl. 96). Njegova pobočja so zelo strma, kar velja še posebej za južno, severno in zahodno stran, medtem ko je dostop z vzhoda nekoliko zložnejši.
Naselje je bilo zgrajeno na vrhu hriba, kjer stoji danes podružnična cerkev Sv. Marjete. Obod je jasen, saj so ostanki fortifikacij še danes dobro ohranjeni (pril. 6). Naselje je bilo razdeljeno na dva dela: zgornji, ki zaobjema sam vrh hriba in jugozahodna pobočja ter spodnji, ki se širi proti severni strani Libne. Obod osrednjega dela naselja je na vzhodni strani ohranjen kot rob terase, pod katero se pričenjajo strma pobočja. Na severu preide terasa na krajšem odseku v manjši okop, po njegovem prenehanju pa lahko obodu zopet sledimo po robu terase, ki pri kolovozu ostro zavije proti jugu. Ker je potek oboda enak tudi na nasprotni strani poti, lahko na tem mestu predvidevamo vhod, skozi katerega je bila speljana povezava iz zgornjega v spodnji del naselja.
Rob naselja je zelo jasen tudi zahodno od kolovoza. Zid se namreč po daljšem ravnem odseku v širokem loku zasuče proti jugu, nato pa pod domačijo, ki stoji na manjši kopasti vzpetini, izgine v tamkajšnjem pobočju. Nanj naletimo šele po osemdeset metrov dolgi vrzeli,
Beside the upper, the lower part of the settlement was also strongly fortified. Its edge on the eastern side is first visible as a strong rampart, which changes into the edge of a terrace after approximately a hundred metres and continues in a wide arch across the entire northern slope of Libna. The contacts with the fortification wall of the upper part of the settlement are not preserved, since the terrace or rampart wedges out into the slopes before the contact.
The settlement was very large and so was its interior. The terrain falls from the highest part with the church of St. Margaret to all sides. The slopes are covered with orchards, vineyards and fields. There are no archaeological remains visible on the surface, while the earth holds many fragments of pottery, which is especially frequently found in a depression on the south-western part of the settlement. The location of the main entrance is not clear. With some reservations, however, it could be supposed on the destroyed part where a modern tarmac road reaches the summit.
The settlement on Libna was researched in 1942 by Walter Schmid who excavated the remains of a house in the northern end of the central part.349 Not far from that spot, the employees of the Posavje Museum in Brežice dug trial trenches in the inner enclosure in 1975 and the rampart of the lower part of the settlement a year later.350 The last research intervention took place in 1994, when the area south-east of the church of St. Margaret was researched prior to the construction of a new water reservoir.
The settlement has five tumulus cemeteries that extend on the eastern ridge and slopes of Libna: Deržaničev gozd (cat no. 199), Račičev gozd (cat. no. 201), Planinčev travnik (cat. no. 202), Greben (cat. no. 200) and Špiler (cat. no. 203). The hillfort should also be ascribed the isolated Volčanšek's tumulus near Stara vas (cat. no. 197), which used to be situated on a small terrace at the south-western foot of Libna but is now destroyed.351 The material from the researched tumuli was published by Mitja Guštin.352
Gradišče near Velike Malence (cat. no. 213)
The settlement lies on a vast terrace on the right bank of the Krka River, which makes a large bend there (fig. 97). The terrace is almost flat, with the difference in altitude between the highest and lowest points measuring only a few metres. The easiest access to Gradišče is from the southwest, whence a good road leads to the hill.
The settlement was triangular in shape (fig. 207). Its perimeter is relatively clear. It is preserved as a rampart on the easternmost part and changes into a terrace
od tu naprej pa mu je moč slediti po robu terase, ki se vleče preko celega jugozahodnega pobočja Libne. Potek obzidja na jugovzhodu pa ni več ohranjen. Tu se namreč širijo njive in vinogradi, ki so v celoti uničili njegove ostanke.
Tako kot zgornji, je bil dobro utrjen tudi spodnji del naselja. Na vzhodni strani je njegov rob najprej viden kot močan okop. Ta po približno stotih metrih preide v rob terase, ki se nato v širokem loku nadaljuje preko celega severnega pobočja Libne. Spoja z obzidjem zgornjega dela naselja nista ohranjena, saj se terasa oziroma okop pred stikom izklini v tamkajšnjih pobočjih.
Ker je bilo naselje zelo veliko, je njegova notranjost prostrana. Teren pada od najvišjega predela s cerkvijo Sv. Marjete na vse strani. Pobočja so obdelana, saj se po njih širijo sadovnjaki, vinogradi in njive. Na površini ni videti arhitekturnih ostalin, pač pa je v zemlji veliko fragmentov keramike, ki jo pogosto najdejo zlasti v veliki kotanji na jugozahodni strani naselja. Kje je bil glavni vhod ni jasno, s previdnostjo pa bi ga lahko predvidevali na uničenem mestu, kjer tudi danes pripelje na vrh asfaltirana pot.
Naselje na Libni je leta 1942 raziskoval Walter Schmid in v severnem koncu osrednjega dela izkopal ostanke hiše.349 Nedaleč stran je leta 1975 Posavski muzej iz Brežic sondiral notranje obzidje, leto kasneje pa še okop spodnjega dela naselja.350 Zadnji raziskovalni poseg je bil opravljen leta 1994, ko so jugovzhodno od cerkve Sv. Marjete raziskali prostor, na katerem je bil kasneje zgrajen nov vodohran.
K naselju sodi pet gomilnih nekropol, ki se raztezajo po vzhodnem grebenu in pobočjih Libne: Deržaničev gozd na Libni (kat. št. 199), Račičev gozd na Libni (kat. št. 201), Planinčev travnik na Libni (kat. št. 202), Greben na Libni (kat. št. 200) in Špiler na Libni (kat. št. 203). H gradišču moramo pripisati tudi osamljeno Volčanškovo gomilo pri Stari vasi (kat. št. 197), ki je danes ni več, stala pa je na manjši terasi ob jugozahodnem vznožju Libne.351 Gradivo iz raziskanih gomil je objavil Mitja Guštin.352
Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah (kat. št. 213)
Naselje leži na prostrani terasi na desnem bregu Krke, ki dela na tem mestu velik zavoj (sl. 97). Terasa je skoraj ravna, saj znašajo višinske razlike med najvišjim in najnižjim delom le nekaj metrov. Na Gradišče se najlažje povzpnemo iz jugozahodne smeri, koder pripelje nanj dobra pot.
Naselje je imelo trikotno obliko (sl. 207). Obod je razmeroma jasen. Na skrajnem vzhodnem delu se je
349	Schmid 1943, 143.
350	Guštin 1976, 11 ff.
351	Dular 2006.
352	Guštin 1976.
349	Schmid 1943, 143.
350	Guštin 1976, 11 ss.
351	Dular 2006.
352	Guštin 1976.
Fig. 97: Gradišče near Velike Malence. Sl. 97: Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah.
after a few metres. The edge of the terrace surrounds also the northern side and disappears only above the houses of the Velike Malence village. Here, the terrace was destroyed. The perimeter becomes clearer again south of the natural indentation, where it is first preserved as a small rampart and then as the edge of a well visible terrace that extends across the south-eastern side of the settlement.
Gradišče's interior is almost flat. The terrain gradually rises from south to north, where two small elevations are located. The entire area is now covered by fields and the settlement structures are not visible on the surface. The entrance to the settlement cannot be established without thorough research. Two locations are relevant in this connection, both on the spots where the modern roads reach Gradišče (in the east and west).
The research of B. Saria, who excavated at Gradišče near Velike Malence in 1929 and 1930, showed that the settlement was occupied in the Iron Age and Late Antiquity.353 The wall that he uncovered on the eastern side of the settlement measured 3 m in width and was built, as is usual for Iron Age settlement, from unworked stones. The stones lay in yellow loam that could be well distinguished from other layers. The northern and western sides are naturally well protected and have revealed no prehistoric walls or mounds. The entire settlement,
ohranil kot okop, ki pa po nekaj metrih preide v teraso. Rob terase obroblja tudi severno stran in izgine šele nad hišami vasi Velike Malence. Na tem mestu je bila terasa uničena. Obod postane jasnejši šele južno od naravne zajede, kjer se je najprej ohranil kot rahel okop, nato pa zopet preide v rob lepe terase, ki se vleče po celi jugovzhodni strani naselja.
Notranjost Gradišča je skoraj ravna. Teren se namreč zložno dviga od juga proti severu, kjer sta dve rahli vzpetini. Po celem prostoru se danes širijo njive. Naselbinskih struktur na površini ni opaziti. Kje je bil vhod v naselje, brez temeljitejših raziskovanj ni mogoče ugotoviti. V poštev bi prišli predvsem dve mesti in sicer tam, kjer pripeljeta v Gradišče sedanji poti (na vzhodu in jugozahodu).
Raziskovanja B. Sarie, ki je na Gradišču pri Velikih Malencah izkopaval leta 1929 in 1930, so pokazala, da je bilo naselje obljudeno v železni dobi in v pozni antiki.353 Zid, ki so ga ob tej priliki odkrili na vzhodni strani naselja, je bil širok 3 m, zgrajen pa je bil, kot je to za železnodobna naselja običajno, iz neobdelanih kamnov. Kamni so ležali v rumeni ilovici, ki se je dobro ločila od ostalih plasti. Na severni in zahodni strani, ki sta že sami po sebi naravno dovolj utrjeni, prazgodovinskih zidov oziroma nasipov niso našli. Po celem naselju, zlasti pa na prostoru tik za obzidjem, so našli veliko prazgo-
353
Saria 1929, 12 f.
353
Saria 1929, 12 s.
the area just behind the fortification wall in particular, yielded a great amount of prehistoric pottery. Based on Saria's descriptions, it can roughly be dated to the Early and Late Iron Ages.354
Roman occupation of Gradišče near Velike Ma-lence is of course not of interest here. It is worth mentioning, however, that Saria established two phases based on his research: the settlement first received a strong, up to 2.1 m thick fortification wall in the 3rd century, while the second phase dates from the end of the 4th or the beginning of the 5th century and witnessed restoration and additional strengthening of the walls with rectangular towers. Old Roman material was used in construction, including many inscription stones.355
The Iron Age settlement had two cemeteries. The larger one was on the eastern side (Gomile near Velike Malence; cat. no. 214), where ten tumuli were discovered. The other cemetery with five tumuli (Trebeži near Velike Malence; cat. no. 212) was located west of the settlement. It was destroyed in the past and thus its precise location can no longer be determined. The finds from the excavated tumuli were published by Vida Stare and Janez Dular.356
Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246)
Vesela gora is an elongated ridge rising to the west of Šentrupert. The settlement there extended across the entire plateau north and south of a church (^ig. 98). The northern half has a relatively clear perimeter. It is preserved throughout as a terrace, only slightly damaged by the buildings south and west of the church that were built at the very edge of the settlement (^ig. 212). Judging from the course of the terrace, the northern, somewhat higher half was especially fortified. Its entrance was located just behind the castle building, where the terrain rises relatively quickly from the lower to the upper plateau. Here the modern road leads to the church. The entrance is unfortunately not preserved, since it was damaged during the construction of an outhouse. The northern entrance is also unclear. It was considerably reshaped by the widening of the modern road that leads from Brinje towards Škrljevo.
The settlement certainly included also the somewhat lower plateau south of the castle. This part is without a preserved entrance, since the terrain was considerably altered on the edges through cultivation. The southernmost part of the settlement reveals a tumuluslike structure, measuring 15 m in diameter. The structure of a tumulus cannot be established without trenching. It is most likely, however, that the peak be seen as the terminal part of the settlement.
The interior of the southern part is relatively wide
Fig. 98: Vesela gora at Brinje. Sl. 98: Vesela gora v Brinju.
dovinske keramike, ki jo lahko na osnovi Sarijinih opisov okvirno datiramo v starejšo in mlajšo železno dobo.354
Antična poselitev Gradišča pri Velikih Malencah nas tu seveda ne zanima, omeniti pa velja, da je Saria na osnovi svojih raziskav ugotovil dve fazi: najprej naj bi naselje v 3. stoletju obdali z močnim do 2,1 m debelim obzidjem. Druga faza sodi v konec 4. oziroma v začetek 5. stoletja. V tem času so obzidje obnovili in ga še dodatno utrdili s pravokotnimi stolpi. Za gradnjo so uporabili star antičen material, med katerimi so bili tudi številni napisni kamni.355
K železnodobnemu naselju sta pripadali dve grobišči. Večje je bilo na vzhodni strani (Gomile pri Velikih Malencah; kat. št. 214), kjer so odkrili deset gomil. Drugo grobišče s petimi gomilami (Trebeži pri Velikih Malencah; kat. št. 212) je bilo zahodno od naselja. Ker je bilo v preteklosti uničeno, njegove natančne lege ni več mogoče določiti. Najdbe iz prekopanih gomil sta objavila Vida Stare in Janez Dular.356
354	Saria 1956, 44.
355	Saria 1929; see also Ciglenečki 1987a, 99 ff.
356	V. Stare 1960-1961, 50 ff; Dular 2003, 233 ff.
354	Saria 1956, 44.
355	Saria 1929; glej tudi Ciglenečki 1987a, 99 ss.
356	V. Stare 1960-1961, 50 ss; Dular 2003, 233 ss.
and flat, though it was considerably modified in the past. The same could be said for the northern part. It does have clear edges, but its interior was significantly changed by construction and cultivation. The settlement at Vesela gora was trenched in 1989.357
The main cemetery (Brezje near Straža - cat. no. 247) extends along the southern foot of the hillfort, where 21 tumuli were observed. They were severely damaged by ploughing. Two tumuli at Rovnice near Škrljevo (cat. no. 245) probably also belonged to the settlement, as well as an isolated tumulus at Koška hosta near Ravnik (cat. no. 244), since all three lie less than a kilometre from the hillfort.
Križni vrh near Beli Grič (cat. no. 294)
Križni vrh represents the highest point of the elongated ridge that gradually rises from the Slepšek village towards the south (^ig. 99). Its slopes are very steep and poorly accessible on all sides. The road to the summit leads along the ridge from the north, where the terrain widens into a slightly larger ridge just underneath the summit. The settlement at Križni vrh is divided into two parts (^ig. 222). The lower one covers the area at Oreš-nik's fields and is not completely flat due to the terrain descending towards the east and west. This part is delimited with a well visible semi-circular terrace on the northern side, the edge of which follows the line of the former prehistoric perimeter. Križni vrh rises above the lower part of the settlement. It has two peaks separated by a small saddle.
No terraces were preserved on the southern peak and the terrain is quite disturbed. Contrary to that, the southern peak has the form of a well visible plateau with distinct edges that are clearly man-made. The plateau is damaged on the south-western part by a small cut. Underneath the upper plateau are two smaller but beautifully shaped terraces on the northern slope. Even lower is the third terrace, which is the largest and has a very clear edge. Similarly to the first two, this one also wedges out into the slope at the edges. All three terraces are suitable for occupation. Further down, there are two more small terraces on the north-eastern side, the upper one of which has a recent cut.
The settlement's perimeter is fairly clear only on the northern side, where fields terminate on the edge of the terrace. The summit itself was apparently not specially fortified. The settlement at Križni vrh was trenched in 1988.358
The accompanying cemeteries extended along the ridge underneath the settlement. The four of them succeed each other from north to south as follows: Božji grob near Slepšek (cat. no. 290), Sv. Križ in Beli grič (cat. no. 291), Roje near Ribjek (cat. no. 292) and Vid-
357	Dular et al. 1991, 94 ff.
358	Dular et al. 1991, 98 ff.
Vesela gora v Brinju (kat. št. 246) Vesela gora je podolgovat hrbet, ki se dviga zahodno od Šentruperta. Naselje se je raztezalo po celem platoju severno in južno od cerkve (sl. 98). Severna polovica naselja ima obod razmeroma jasen. Vseskozi je ohranjen kot terasa, nekoliko so ga poškodovale le stavbe južno in zahodno od cerkve, ki so bile zgrajene prav na robu naselja (sl. 212). Sodeč po poteku terase, je bila severna nekoliko višja polovica naselja posebej utrjena. Vhod vanjo je bil tik za grajsko stavbo, kjer se teren razmeroma naglo dvigne iz spodnjega na zgornji plato. Tu vodi k cerkvi današnja pot. Žal vhod ni ohranjen, saj so ga poškodovali pri gradnji gospodarskega poslopja, ki stoji na tem mestu. Nejasen je tudi severni vhod. Močno ga je namreč preoblikovala razširitev sedanje poti, ki pelje iz Brinja proti Škrljevem.
K naselju je zanesljivo sodil tudi nekoliko nižji plato južno od gradu. Ta del nima ohranjenega vhoda, saj je teren na robovih zaradi obdelovanja močno spremenjen. Na skrajnem južnem koncu naselja stoji gomili podobna tvorba s premerom 15 m. Če gre za gomilo, brez sondiranj ni mogoče ugotoviti, verjetneje pa je, da moramo v kuclju videti zaključek naselja.
Notranjost južne polovice je razmeroma široka in ravna, vendar so jo v preteklosti močno preoblikovali. Isto lahko rečemo za severni del, ki ima sicer jasne robove, je pa zaradi gradenj in obdelovanja polj močno spremenjena njegova notranjost. Naselje na Veseli gori smo sondirali leta 1989.357
Glavna nekropola (Brezje pri Straži - kat. št. 247) se je razprostirala ob južnem vznožju gradišča, kjer smo našteli 21 močno razoranih gomil. K naselju sta verjetno sodili tudi dve gomili v Rovnicah nad Škrljevim (kat. št. 245) in osamljena gomila v Koški hosti pri Ravniku (kat. št. 244), saj so vse tri oddaljene manj kot kilometer od gradišča.
Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem (kat. št. 294) Križni vrh je najvišja točka podolgovatega grebena, ki se od vasi Slepšek postopoma dvigne proti jugu (sl. 99). Njegova pobočja so z vseh strani zelo strma in težko dostopna. Pot nanj vodi po grebenu s severne strani, kjer se tik pod vrhom teren razširi v nekoliko širši hrbet. Naselje na Križnem vrhu ima dva dela (sl. 222). Spodnji se širi po območju Orešnikovih njiv in ni povsem raven, saj pada proti vzhodu in zahodu. Na severni strani je ta del naselja obrobljen z lepo polkrožno teraso, katere rob poteka po liniji nekdanjega prazgodovinskega oboda. Nad spodnjim predelom naselja se dviga Križni vrh, ki ima dva vrhova, ločena z manjšim sedlom.
Na južnem vrhu ni ohranjenih nobenih teras, teren pa je precej prekopan. Nasprotno pa ima severno ležeči vrh obliko lepega platoja z jasnimi robovi, ki so zanesljivo delo človeških rok. Na jugozahodni strani je
357
Dular et al. 1991, 94 ss.
Fig. 99: Križni vrh near Beli Grič. Sl. 99: Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem.
marjeva hosta near Ribjek (cat. no. 293). Part of the material from these cemeteries was published by Stane Gabrovec, Mitja Guštin and Janez Dular.359
Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem (cat. no. 311) The settlement at Karlin lies south of the Brezje village near Trebelno, on the highest point of a ridge that separates the valleys of the Radulja and Igmanca Streams (^ig. 100).36" The perimeter is preserved mostly as the edge of a terrace, only rising to a low rampart on
359	Gabrovec 1973, 366 f; Guštin 1977a, pl. 9-13; Dular 2003, 166 ff and 171 ff.
360	Dular/Križ 1990, 531 ff.
plato načet z manjšim vkopom. Pod tem vrhnjim platojem sta na severnem pobočju dve manjši, vendar lepo oblikovani terasi. Še nižje je postavljena tretja terasa, ki pa je od vseh največja in ima zelo jasen rob. Kot prejšnji dve se tudi ta na robovih izklini v pobočju. Vse tri terase so zelo primerne za poselitev. Nekoliko nižje sta na severovzhodni strani še dve majhni terasi, od katerih ima zgornja recentni vkop.
Obod naselja je kolikor toliko jasen le na severni strani, kjer se njivske površine končajo na robu terase. Sam vrh, kot kaže, ni bil posebej utrjen. Naselje na Križnem vrhu smo sondirali leta 1988.358
Pripadajoča grobišča so se širila po grebenu pod naseljem. Bila so štiri: tako si od severa proti jugu sledijo Božji grob nad Slepškom (kat. št. 290), Sv. Križ v Belem griču (kat. št. 291), Roje nad Ribjekom (kat. št. 292) in Vidmarjeva hosta nad Ribjekom (kat. št. 293). Del gradiva iz omenjenih nekropol so objavili Stane Gabrovec, Mitja Guštin in Janez Dular.359
Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 311)
Naselje Karlin leži južno od vasi Brezje pri Trebel-nem na najvišji točki grebena, ki ločuje dolini potokov Radulje in Igmance (sl. 100).360 Obod je večidel ohranjen kot rob terase, le na zahodni strani se dvigne v nizek okop (sl. 226). Najslabše je zaznaven južni rob, kjer so z obdelovanjem vinogradov zemljišče zelo preoblikovali, zato se njegov potek sluti le po večjem nagibu tal. Dobro viden pa je severni rob naselja, kjer se ob njem vseskozi vleče njiva. Vhoda sta bila verjetno dva, in sicer na skrajnem vzhodnem in zahodnem delu, kjer držita na Karlin tudi sedanji poti.
Naselje je podolgovate oblike, z daljšo osjo v smeri vzhod-zahod. Bolj vzhodno ležeči predel je najvišji. Na Karlinu stoji danes kmetija s pripadajočimi gospodarskimi poslopji, vzdolž južnega roba pa je nekaj zidanic in počitniških hišic.
O notranjosti ni moč reči nič določenega. Najdbe se pojavljajo zlasti na njivi ob severnem robu (keramični fragmenti, lep, žlindra), posamezni kosi pa prihajajo na dan tudi na drugih predelih naselja. Ob gradnji vodnega zbiralnika v začetku 70. let, ki stoji na najvišji točki gradišča, so naleteli približno 1 m globoko na precejšnjo količino prazgodovinske keramike in prežgano glino. Ko so leta 1979 ponovno kopali jarek za vodovod, v južnem in osrednjem delu niso našli kulturnih ostalin, medtem ko je bila v severnem delu kulturna plast zelo močna.
Naselju na Karlinu je pripadalo pet gomilnih grobišč. Prvi dve (Plešivica - kat. št. 308 in Brekovnica -kat. št. 309) nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem sta majhni. Ostale tri nekropole so večje. V Hojbih (kat. št. 310)
358	Dular et al. 1991, 98 ss.
359	Gabrovec 1973, 366 s; Guštin 1977a, t. 9-13; Dular 2003, 166 ss in 171 ss.
360	Dular/Križ 1990, 531 ss.
Fig. 100: Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem. Sl. 100: Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem.
the western side (fig. 226). The least discernible is its southern edge, where the terrain was significantly altered by cultivation and its course can only be supposed from a steeper gradient of the terrain. The northern edge of the settlement, on the other hand, is clearly visible and covered by a field. There were probably two entrances, on easternmost and westernmost parts, where also the modern roads lead to Karlin.
The settlement is elongated, with the longer axis lying in an east-westerly direction. The part more to the east is the highest. A farmstead with its outhouses now stands at Karlin as well as some vineyard cottages and holiday homes along its southern edge.
Nothing precise can be said about the interior. The finds appear particularly frequently on the field along the northern edge (potsherds, plaster, slag) with individual pieces also appearing on other parts of the settlement. The construction of the water reservoir in the early 1970s on the highest point of the hillfort uncovered a great amount of prehistory pottery and burnt clay in a depth of approximately 1 m. Later, in 1979, the construction of a ditch for local water pipes revealed no cultural remains in the southern and central parts, while a very thick cultural layer was uncovered in the northern part.
The settlement at Karlin had five tumulus cemeteries. The first two (Plesivica - cat. no. 308 and Breko-vnica - cat. no. 309) near Brezje pri Trebelnem are small. The other three cemeteries are larger. Fourteen tumuli
stoji štirinajst gomil, v Hosti (kat. št. 315) sedem, medtem ko smo v vasi Brezje pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 314) našteli šest tumulov. Najdbe iz prekopanih gomil je objavil Karel Kromer.361
Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351)
Širok okljuk Krke, na katerem stoji stari del Novega mesta, zaključuje na severozahodni strani kopast vrh, ki nosi ledinsko ime Marof. Na vzhodu in jugozahodu ima strma pobočja, z ostalih strani pa je dostop nanj zložnejši (s/. 101).
Gradišče ima ovalno obliko (s/. 236). Obod ni v celoti ohranjen, saj je bil na zahodni strani zaradi obdelovanja njiv precej spremenjen. Bolje je ohranjen severni predel, kjer je rob zelo jasen. Tik ob poti se pričenja kot rahla ježa, ki pa kmalu preide v strmo pobočje. Sredi severnega loka je v obodu vrzel. Skoznjo pripelje na Marof sedanja pot, zelo verjetno pa je bil na istem mestu tudi prazgodovinski vhod. Potek obzidja je jasen tudi na vzhodni strani. Sledimo mu po ostrem robu, pod katerim se spušča strmo pobočje. Dolžina ohranjenega oboda znaša preko 250 m.
Notranjost Marofa se rahlo spušča od severa proti jugu. Zaradi obdelovanja polj je precej spremenjena. Iz konfiguracije terena ni mogoče razbrati, če je k naselju sodil tudi iztegnjen jezik, ki se proti zahodu postopoma spušča proti Krki. Sledov nasipov na tem predelu nismo
361
Kromer 1959.
were observed at Hojbi (cat. no. 310), seven at Hosta (cat. no. 315) and six at the village of Brezje near Trebel-no (cat. no. 314). The finds from the excavated tumuli were published by Karel Kromer.361
Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351) The wide bend of the Krka River, where the old part of Novo mesto is located, ends in a dome-like peak on the north-western side with the fallow name of Marof. It has steep slopes on the eastern and western sides, while the access elsewhere is easier (^ig. 101).
The hillfort is oval in shape (fig. 236). The perimeter is not completely preserved; it was significantly altered due to land cultivation on the western part. The northern part is better preserved, with a clear edge. It begins at the road as a gentle terrace slope, which soon becomes steep. The northern arch of the perimeter has a gap in its centre. Through it, the modern road leads to Marof and the same spot most probably also represented the prehistoric entrance. The course of the perimeter is clear also on the eastern side. It can be traced along a sharp edge, underneath which the slope falls steeply. The length of the preserved perimeter exceeds 250 m.
The interior at Marof falls slightly from north to south. It is considerably altered due to land cultivation. The configuration of the terrain does not reveal whether the tongue-like extension that gradually descends towards the west into the Krka also formed part of the settlement. There were no traces of ramparts observed here. Similar observations were made on the southern plateau, where the construction of a kindergarten uncovered fragments of settlement pottery. Another terrace with a very clear edge is situated on the eastern side of the settlement underneath the fortification wall. It gradually rises and narrows from south to north and finally joins the main perimeter underneath the highest area of the settlement. The shape of the terrace indicates its recent date. However, the possibility of its prehistoric origin cannot be excluded without trenching.
The entrance to the settlement was on the northern side. Here a characteristic tangential misaligned gap is preserved in the course of the fortification wall. The gap is not intact, since it was damaged by the modern road. Possible entrances into the settlement are no longer preserved on any other parts of Marof. The settlement was researched by T. Knez in 1981. He dug a small trial trench at the north-western edge and cut through the earthen mound. He found remains of a burnt-down house and a substantial quantity of coarse pottery in the settlement's interior.362
Novo mesto had several cemeteries on both sides of the Krka. They include the Late Bronze Age flat cem-
361	Kromer 1959.
362	Knez 1982, 152.
zasledili, isto pa lahko rečemo tudi za južni plato, na katerem so pri gradnji stavbe za otroški vrtec naleteli na fragmente naselbinske lončenine. Na vzhodni strani naselja je pod obzidjem še ena terasa, ki ima zelo jasen rob. Terasa se postopoma dviga od juga proti severu, hkrati pa postaja vse ožja in se tik pod najvišjim predelom naselja združi z glavnim obodom. Glede na obliko domnevamo, da je terasa recentna, vendar pa brez sondažnih preverjanj ne smemo izključiti možnosti, da je nastala že v prazgodovinskem času.
Vhod v naselje je bil na severni strani. Tu je namreč v poteku obzidja ohranjen značilen tangencialni zamik, ki pa ni intakten, saj ga je poškodovala sedanja pot. Na drugih predelih Marofa morebitni dostopi v naselje niso več ohranjeni. Naselje na Marofu je leta 1981 sondiral T. Knez. Na severozahodnem robu je izkopal manjšo sondo in z njo presekal zemljen nasip. V notranjosti je našel ostanke požgane hiše in precej grobe lončeni-ne.362
V Novem mestu je znanih več grobišč, ki leže na obeh straneh Krke. Najprej naj omenimo poznobronastodobni plani nekropoli Mestne njive (kat. št. 349) in Inis (kat. št. 345), nato plano in gomilno grobišče iz pozne bronaste, halštatske in latenske dobe na Kapiteljski njivi (kat. št. 350) ter poznolatensko plano grobišče Beletov vrt (kat. št. 352). Velika gomilna in plana nekropola je bila odkrita na Znančevih njivah (kat. št. 354), posamične gomile pa so bile tudi v Portovaldu (kat. št. 347), pri Pionirju v Bršljinu (kat. št. 348), ob Zagrebški cesti (kat. št. 355), na Malenškovi njivi (kat. št. 356) in v Smolovi hosti (kat. št. 357). Najdbe iz novomeških grobišč so objavili Walter Schmid, Stane Gabrovec, Tone Knez in Borut Križ.363
Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382)
Naselje je bilo postavljeno na Veliki Vinji vrh (392 m), ki zaradi dominantne lege odlično obvladuje bližnjo in daljno okolico (sl. 102). Vrh ima zelo strma pobočja, kar velja še posebej za vzhodno in jugozahodno stran, kjer doseže v grapi za vasjo Gradenje višinsko razliko čez 150 metrov. Pobočja proti severu so nekoliko manj strma, vendar še vedno toliko nagnjena, da je vzpon proti vrhu dokaj težaven. Dostop je najlažji po grebenu na severozahodu in preko sedla na severovzhodu, koder je speljana na vrh tudi sedanja pot.
Naselje se je močno prilagodilo konfiguraciji terena (pril. 8). Obod je sklenjen in zelo jasen.V večjem delu je ohranjen kot rob terase, ki mu je moč zlahka slediti. To velja še posebej za vso severno stran, kjer je zelo prostrana terasa. Deloma je obod spremenjen le pri Žibertovi domačiji, kjer sta ga poškodovala kolovoz
362	Knez 1982, 152.
363	Šmid 1908; Gabrovec 1960; Gabrovec 1968; Knez 1966; Knez 1967; Knez 1986; Knez 1992; Knez 1993; Križ 1997b; Križ 2000; Križ 2005.
Fig. 101: Marof at Novo mesto. Sl. 101: Marof v Novem mestu.
eteries at Mestne njive (cat. no. 349) and Inis (cat. no. 345), a flat and tumulus cemetery from the Late Bronze, Hallstatt and La Tene periods at Kapiteljska njiva (cat. no. 350) and a Late La Tene flat cemetery at Beletov vrt (cat. no. 352). A large tumulus cemetery was uncovered at Znančeve njive (cat. no. 354) and individual tumuli at Portovald (cat. no. 347), near Pionir at Bršljin (cat. no. 348), along Zagrebška ulica (cat. no. 355), at Malenškova njiva (cat. no. 356) and at Smolova hosta (cat. no. 357). The finds from the Novo mesto cemeter-
in gradnja hleva. Južneje od tod pa postane rob zopet jasen in mu zlahka sledimo vse do nosastega podaljška, ki nosi ledinsko ime Nebesa. Na zahodni strani Nebes se terasa v prevoju, kjer pripelje na Veliki Vinji vrh kolovoz iz Bele Cerkve, izklini. Gradnja poti in obdelava vinogradov je na tem mestu obod povsem uničila, čeprav je gotovo, da je linija tekla prav po trasi sedanje poti, ki pelje do bližnje zidanice. Tik za zidanico je rob zopet dobro ohranjen, saj sta ježa in terasa za njo zelo izraziti. Vendar pa se tudi tu terasa po slabih petdesetih
ies were published by Walter Šmid, Stane Gabrovec, Tone Knez and Borut Križ.363
Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382)
The hillfort was located on Veliki Vinji vrh (392 m), which assumes close control of its immediate and more distant surroundings due to its dominant position (^ig. 102). The peak has very steep slopes, particularly in the east and south-west, where in a ravine behind the Gradenje it reaches over 150 m of difference in altitude village. The slopes to the north are slightly less steep but still slanted enough to render the ascent fairly difficult. Access it easiest along the ridge on the north-western and across a saddle on the north-eastern sides, where a modern road also runs.
The settlement is well adapted to the configuration of the terrain (app. 8). The total enclosure is very well pronounced. It is mostly preserved as the edge of a terrace, which is easy to be traced. This is particularly true for the entire northern side, which includes a vast terrace. The perimeter is slightly altered only at Žibert's homestead, where it was damaged by a cart track and the construction of a stable. To the south from there, the edge again becomes clear and can easily be traced all to the nose-like extension bearing the fallow name of Nebesa. The terrace wedges out on the western side of Nebesa in a bend where a cart track from Bela Cerkev reaches Veliki Vinji vrh. The construction of the cart track and vineyard cultivation has completely destroyed the perimeter here. It is certain, however, that the line closely followed the course of the modern road that leads to the nearby vineyard cottage. The edge is again well preserved just behind the cottage with very a distinct terrace and its slope. The terrace disappears into the slope of the hill after less than fifty metres. The entire south-western side of Veliki Vinji vrh is very steep, which prevented the mound to be preserved in this area.
The terrace slope becomes more distinct and edge clearer underneath the church. The perimeter runs almost exactly to the north but it is interrupted after less than a hundred metres by the main access road coming from Orešje. Road construction, sand extraction and levelling of the terrain all caused the rampart on this spot to be completely removed. It only continues underneath the nearby homestead and then runs unbroken across the entire northern side of Veliki Vinji vrh.
The position of the entrance into the settlement is not clear. The configuration of the terrain and the position of the cemeteries could lead to the supposition that there was more than a single entrance. They can be expected particularly on the spots where modern roads lead to the summit, that is near the church, at Žibert's
363 Šmid 1908; Gabrovec 1960; Gabrovec 1968; Knez 1966; Knez 1967; Knez 1986; Knez 1992; Knez 1993; Križ 1997b; Križ 2000; Križ 2005.
metrih izgubi v pobočju hriba. Vsa jugozahodna stran Velikega Vinjega vrha je namreč zelo strma, zato se nasip na tem mestu ni ohranil.
Pod cerkvijo postane ježa izrazitejša in s tem tudi rob jasnejši. Obod poteka skoraj natanko proti severu, vendar pa ga že po slabih stotih metrih preseka glavna dovozna pot, ki pride z Orešja. Prav z gradnjo poti, kopanjem peska in ravnanjem zemljišča je bil na tem mestu nasip v celoti odstranjen. Nadaljuje se šele pod bližnjo domačijo, od tu naprej pa poteka sklenjeno čez vso severno stran Velikega Vinjega vrha.
Kje je bil vhod v naselje ni jasno. Glede na konfiguracijo terena in lego nekropol bi lahko predpostavljali, da jih je bilo več. V poštev pridejo predvsem mesta, koder vodijo na vrh tudi sedanje poti, torej pri cerkvi, pri Žibertovi domačiji in na zahodnem delu Nebes. Žal so prav ta tri mesta močno spremenjena in vprašanje je, če so pod sedanjimi potmi ohranjene prazgodovinske ostaline. Naselje na Velikem Vinjem vrhu smo sondirali leta 1992.364
K naselju sodijo velike gomilne nekropole Laze na Vinjem Vrhu (kat. št. 381), Mlada vina nad Strelacem (kat. št. 380), Gradenjska hosta pri Gradenju (kat. št. 379) in Ivanec pri Družinski vasi (kat. št. 378). Tri gomile so odkrili na Dolgih njivah pri Beli Cerkvi (kat. št. 389), osamljen tumul pa je tudi na Jelševcu pod vzhodnim robom naselja (kat. št. 383). Na koncu moramo omeniti še Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 384), kjer so nekoč stale gomile iz starejše železne dobe, na istem pobočju pa je bilo odkritih tudi več planih grobišč iz poznega latenskega in zgodnjega rimskega obdobja. Gradivo iz raziskanih nekropol sta objavili Vida Stare in Anja Dular.365
Cvinger nad Koriti (kat. št. 447)
Naselje leži na skrajnem južnem vrhu razpotegnje-nega kopastega hriba jugozahodno od Korit (sl. 103). Njegov položaj odlično obvladuje prostrano Dobrniško polje, ki je kar s treh strani obdano z razmeroma visokimi hribi. Povezava s Temeniško dolino poteka preko strme Grmade, proti Globodolskemu polju in še bolj proti vzhodu ležeči dolini Temenice pri Mirni peči pa vodi pot preko prevala pri Jordankalu. Najlažja je komunikacija z dolino reke Krke. Ta je dosegljiva po sicer zelo razgibanem kraškem terenu, ki pa nima nobene višinske prepreke.
Obod naselja je sklenjen in večidel ohranjen kot okop (sl. 261). Zelo lep je zlasti na zahodni strani Cvin-gerja, kjer mu je mogoče slediti v dolžini več kot 200 m. Na ostalih predelih se okop pojavlja v krajših odsekih (do 70 m), vmes pa je obod ohranjen kot rob terase, pod katerim je zelo strma ježa.
Vhoda v naselje sta bila dva. Prvi je na severovzho-
364	Dular et al. 2000, 134 ss.
365	V. Stare 1973a; A. Dular 1991.
Fig. 102: Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev. SI. 102: Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo.
homestead and on the western part of Nebesa. Unfortunately, these spots are significantly altered and we do not know whether prehistoric remains are still preserved underneath the modern roads. The settlement at Veliki Vinji vrh was trenched in 1992.364
The settlement had large tumulus cemeteries at Laze on Vinji Vrh (cat. no. 381), Mlada vina near Strelac (cat. no. 380), Gradenjska hosta near Gradenje (cat. no. 379) and Ivanec near Družinska vas (cat. no. 378). Three tumuli were discovered at Dolge njive near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 389) and an isolated tumulus at Jel-ševec underneath the eastern edge of the settlement (cat. no. 383). Finally, Strmec near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 384) should also be mentioned, where tumuli from the Early Iron Age once stood. That slope also revealed several flat cemeteries from the Late La Tene and Early Roman periods. The material from the researched cemeteries was published by Vida Stare and Anja Dular.365
Cvinger near Korita (cat. no. 447)
The settlement lies on the southernmost peak of an elongated dome-like hill southwest of Korita (^ig. 103). Its position gives it an effective control over the vast Dobrniško polje, which is surrounded with relatively high hills from three sides. The connection with the Temenica Valley runs past steep Grmada to the west, while the road to the Globodolsko polje and further to the east to the Temenica Valley near Mirna peč leads across a pass at Jordankal. The easiest communication is that with the Krka Valley, which can be reached across karst terrain that is highly undulated but without a barrier of height.
The total enclosure is mostly preserved as a rampart (^ig. 261). It is particularly well visible on the western side of Cvinger where it can be traced in the length of over 200 m. The rampart appears in shorter sections (up to 70 m) also on other parts, between which it is preserved as the edge of a terrace with a very steep slope underneath.
The settlement had two entrances. The first one is situated at the north-east, where a modern road reaches Cvinger. Its good state of preservation leaves no room for doubts as to the existence of an entrance here. The exit to the south, in the direction of the cemetery near the Dobrava village, is more uncertain. There is a clear gap in the rampart, which might have been caused by the cart track. A clear answer as to its appearance could only be provided by target excavation.
The terrain in the interior of the settlement rises gradually in several terraces towards the highest part that were probably caused by land cultivation. The terraces are particularly numerous on the northern and eastern slopes of Cvinger and are adapted to the natu-
364	Dular et al. 2000, 134 ff.
365	V. Stare 1973a; A. Dular 1991.
du, kjer pripelje na Cvinger sedanja pot. Ker je dobro ohranjen, o obstoju vrat na tem mestu ne kaže dvomiti. Bolj vprašljiv je izstop proti jugu, torej v smeri nekropole pri vasi Dobrava. Tu je sicer v okopu jasna vrzel, ki pa je morda nastala zaradi tamkajšnjega kolovoza. Jasen odgovor na vprašanje, kako je izgledal, bi dal le načrten izkop.
V notranjosti se teren postopoma dviga proti najvišjemu predelu naselja v več terasah, ki so najverjetneje nastale zaradi obdelovanja tal. Terase so številne zlasti na severnem in vzhodnem pobočju Cvingerja in so prilagojene naravni oblikovanosti hriba. Prostor za ježo na vzhodni strani Cvingerja je prostran. Za robom se namreč širi skoraj ravna terasa, na kateri je bila nekoč njiva, sedaj pa je tu travnik. Zelo lepa, vendar nekoliko ožja terasa se vleče tudi za okopom na južni in zahodni strani naselja. Površinske najdbe (keramika, žlindra) so številne. Največ jih je na terasah za okopom, pojavljajo pa se tudi v krtinah na najvišjem predelu naselja. Cvin-ger nad Koriti smo sondirali leta 1990.366
K naselju sodi več nekropol. Največja (Gomile pri Dobravi; kat. št. 448) leži južno od Cvingerja in šteje dvainpetdeset gomil. Ostala grobišča so manjša, vsa pa so severno od naselja: Gomila pri Zagorici (kat. št. 444), Gabrje nad Koriti (kat. št. 446), Pupeč nad Koriti (kat. št. 445) in Koželjeva hosta pri Revi (kat. št. 442). Najdbe iz prekopanih gomil sta objavila Vida Stare in Hermann Parzinger.367
Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu (kat. št. 453) Severozahodno od Vinkovega vrha, ki leži na prostrani terasi na levem bregu Krke, se dviga kopast hrib Gradec (sl. 104). Na njegovi južni strani so njive, vinogradi in travniki, vrh in severna polovica pa sta porasla z gozdom. Dostop na Gradec je najlažji z juga, kjer pripelje nanj tudi slaba gozdna pot. Severna in vzhodna pobočja so bolj strma in prepredena s številnimi kraškimi vrtačami.
Naselje na Gradcu ima ovalno obliko in je eno redkih, ki je skoraj v celem obsegu obdano z okopom (sl. 263). Le-ta se je lepo ohranil zlasti ob južnem vhodu, kjer so nasipi z zunanje strani še vedno visoki tudi do 5 m, medtem ko dosežejo v notranjosti do 2 m višine. Na drugih predelih naselja okop ni tako visok, čeprav je vseskozi zelo lep. Na vzhodni strani, kjer se je obod naslonil na rob globoke vrtače (njena strmina je bila učinkovito vključena v obrambni sistem), okop za kratek čas preide v ježo. Toda tudi tu se že čez slabih 15 metrov zopet pojavi kamnit nasip, ki se nato nepretrgano vleče vse do južnega vhoda.
Naselje je imelo dvoje vrat. Prva so bila na severovzhodu in so običajne oblike. Zanimivejši je vhod na jugozahodu. Tu sta se namreč na zunanji strani naselja pred vhodom ohranila dva manjša paralelna kam-
366	Dular et al. 1995, 103 ss.
367	V. Stare 1973b, 744 ss; Parzinger 1988-1989, 529 ss.
Fig. 103: Cvinger near Korita. Sl. 103: Cvinger nad Koriti.
ral shape of the hill. The area behind the terrace slope on the eastern side of Cvinger offers a vast space, since an almost flat terrace extends behind the edge. The terrace might once have been a field but is nowadays covered by grassland. A well visible though somewhat narrower terrace lies also behind the rampart on the southern and western sides of the settlement. There are nu-
nita nasipa, ki v dolžini dvajset metrov z obeh strani obrobljata dovozno pot. S tem je bil, kot kaže, vhod še dodatno utrjen. Naselje smo sondirali leta 1993.368
Prazgodovinska poselitev je očitno segala tudi izven obzidja. Na jugovzhodnem pobočju Gradca je nam-
368
Dular et al. 1995, 103 ss.
merous surface finds (pottery, slag), most on them the terraces behind the rampart but they also appear in molehills on the highest part of the settlement. Cvinger near Korita was trenched in 1990.366
The settlement had several cemeteries. The largest (Gomile near Dobrava; cat. no. 448) lies south of Cvinger and includes fifty-two tumuli. Other cemeteries are smaller and all lie to the north of the settlement: Gomila near Zagorica (cat. no. 444), Gabrje near Korita (cat. no. 446), Pupec near Korita (cat. no. 445) and Kozeljeva hosta near Reva (cat. no. 442). The finds from the excavated tumuli were published by Vida Stare and Hermann Parzinger.367
Gradec near Vinkov Vrh (cat. no. 453)
Vinkov vrh lies on a vast terrace on the left bank of the Krka with the dome-like hill of Gradec rising to the northwest of it (^ig. 104). Gradec's southern side is covered by fields, vineyards and grassland, while the peak and the northern half are covered by forest. The access to Gradec is easiest from the south, where a poor forest road leads to it. The northern and eastern slopes are rather steep and dotted with numerous karst sinkholes.
The settlement at Gradec is oval in shape and is one of the few to be completely surrounded by a rampart (^ig. 263). The latter is particularly well preserved at the southern entrance, where the mounds on the exterior side still reach up to 5 m in height, while their interior sides only measure up to 2 m. The rampart is lower at other places though it is very well visible
reč po njivah veliko železove žlindre in prežgane zemlje, zato smemo na tem mestu upravičeno pričakovati železarske objekte.
Naselju sta pripadali dve grobišči. Glavna nekro-pola (Gomile pri Vinkovem Vrhu; kat. št. 454) leži na manjši ravnici jugovzhodno od naselja in šteje osemindvajset gomil. Tri domnevne gomile so tudi v Prelogah pri Mačkovcu (kat. št. 452) na severozahodni strani Gradca. Gradivo iz prekopanih gomil sta objavila Vida Stare in Janez Dular.369
Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464)
Naselje je bilo postavljeno na kopast hrib zahodno od Dolenjskih Toplic (sl. 105). Vzpetina ima tri ploske vrhove. Na srednjem, ki je hkrati tudi najvišji in nosi ledinsko ime Cvinger (263,8 m), so ohranjeni ostanki prazgodovinskih okopov. Hrib je iz apnenca, poraščen pa je z mešanim gozdom. Ob njegovem vznožju tečeta potoka Radešca in Sušica, ki se dober kilometer sever-neje izlivata v reko Krko.
Gradišče na Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah ima obliko nepravilnega trapeza (sl. 267). Njegov obod je vseskozi zelo jasen. V južni polovici je ohranjen kot lep okop, ki je na notranji strani visok do 1 m. Ježa pred njim je na tem predelu zelo strma in mestoma široka tudi do 8 m. Okop poteka v skoraj nespremenjeni obliki vse do jugovzhodnega vogala naselja, kjer prične postopoma slabeti. Na krajšem odseku (ca. 60 m) ga zamenja lepa terasa, nato pa se zopet pojavi in obroblja ves severni in zahodni del naselja. Cvinger pri Dolenjskih
Fig. 104: Gradec near Vinkov Vrh. Sl. 104: Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu.
366	Dular et al. 1995, 103 ff.
367	V. Stare 1973b, 744 ff; Parzinger 1988-1989, 529 ff.
369 V. Stare 1964-1965, 215 ss; Dular 2003, 159 ss.
throughout. The perimeter leaned onto the edge of a deep sinkhole (its declivity was effectively included into the defence system) on the eastern side and there the rampart briefly appears as a terrace slope. The stone mound again appears after less than 15 m and then continues uninterrupted as such to the southern entrance.
The settlement had two entrances. The first was situated at the northeast and is of a usual form. The second entrance at the southwest is more interesting. Here, two parallel stone mounds are preserved in front of the entrance, on the exterior side of the settlement. They flank the access road in the length of twenty metres and appear to be an additional fortification of the entrance. The settlement was trenched in 1993.368
Prehistoric settlement apparently continued outside the fortification wall. Large amounts of iron slag and burnt earth on the fields of the south-eastern slope of Gradec gives us a good reason to expect ironworking structures here.
The settlement had two cemeteries. The main cemetery (Gomile near Vinkov Vrh; cat. no. 454) lies on a small plain south-east of the settlement and includes twenty-eight tumuli. Three supposed tumuli are situated also at Preloge near Mackovec (cat. no. 452) on the north-western side of Gradec. The material from the excavated tumuli was published by Vida Stare and Janez Dular.369
Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no.
The settlement was situated on a dome-like hill west of Dolenjske Toplice (fig. 105). The elevation has three flat peaks. The middle one, with the fallow name of Cvinger (263.8 m), is the highest and bears the remains of prehistoric ramparts. The hill is composed of limestone and covered by a mixed forest. At its foot flow the streams of the Radesca and the Susica that join the Krka just over a kilometre to the north.
The settlement at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice is an irregular trapeze in shape (^ig. 267). Its perimeter is clear throughout. It is preserved as a well visible rampart in the southern half, reaching up to 1 m in height on the inner side. The terrace slope in front of it is very steep and up to 8 m in width at places. The rampart runs in an almost unaltered form up to the south-eastern corner of the settlement where it gradually begins to decrease in size. It is replaced by a well visible terrace in a short section (ca 60 m), after which it reappears and delimits the entire northern and western part of the settlement. Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice is one of the prehistoric settlements in Dolenjska with best preserved perimeters.
The settlement has a vast interior. The terrain gradually falls from the highest point to the rampart, leaving
368	Dular et al. 1995, 103 ff.
369	V. Stare 1964-1965, 215 ff; Dular 2003, 159 ff.
Toplicah sodi med tista prazgodovinska naselja na Dolenjskem, ki imajo najbolje ohranjene obode.
Notranjost gradišča je prostrana. Teren se od najvišje točke postopoma spušča proti okopu, zato je bilo v naselju za poselitev veliko primernega prostora. Tla so sicer tu in tam skalnata, vendar pa so prav med skalnimi bloki tudi večji platoji, na katerih so lahko stale hiše. Sredi naselja je manjše, deloma zasuto kraško brezno.
Danes vodijo na Cvinger štiri poti, vendar pa so dostopi s severa in zahoda skoraj zanesljivo recentni. Vhod v naselje je bil, kot kaže, na jugu v smeri vasi Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Na tej strani je namreč na pobočju pred gradiščem še vidna nekdanja dostopna pot, ki pripelje v dveh zavojih do glavnih vrat. Naselje na Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah smo sondirali med leti 1986-1991.370
Južno od naselja leži ledina Branževec nad Seli pri Dolenjskih Toplicah, na kateri so bili odkriti ostanki topilniškega kompleksa (kat. št. 465), nedaleč stran pa še glavna, naselju pripadajoča gomilna nekropola (kat. št. 466).371 Dve posamični gomili sta bili odkriti tudi severno od naselja in sicer na ledinah Gomivnica (kat. št. 462) in Dolgi deli (kat. št. 463) pri Meniški vasi. Gradivo iz prekopanih gomil je objavila Biba Teržan.372
Metlika (kat. št. 476)
Naselje se je širilo po pomolu, na katerem danes stoji mesto (sl. 106). Prostor je že po naravi dobro utrjen, saj ga s treh strani obdajata globoki strugi potokov Obrh in Suhor. Kako je bila zavarovana severozahodna stran, s katere je na pomol najlaži dostop, ne vemo. Srednjeveške in kasnejše pozidave so namreč močno preoblikovale prvotni teren, zato je ostalo na tem mestu tudi za morebitne raziskave prazgodovinskih os-talin bolj malo možnosti.
Najdbe, ki kažejo, da je bilo območje današnje Metlike poseljeno v bronasti in železni dobi, so prihajale na dan le ob gradbenih posegih. Tako so na primer na nekdanjem Weisovem dvorišču pri kopanju kanalizacijskega jarka prebili približno pol metra debelo naselbinsko plast, v kateri je bilo veliko lončenine, ki jo je moč datirati v starejšo in mlajšo železno dobo. Podobne najdbe so našli tudi na območju Mestnega trga in nekdanjega Proštijske-ga vrta, kar kaže na to, da je bil poseljen ves pomol.
Na območju današnjega mesta je bilo odkritih pet nekropol: plana grobišča v Špitalski dragi (kat. št. 471), Jerebovi ulici (kat. št. 474) in na Borštku (kat. št. 477), gomile na Hribu (kat. št. 475) ter plano latensko grobišče na Pungartu (kat. št. 472). Gradivo so objavili Vinko Šribar, Janez Dular in Lucija Grahek.373
370	Dular/Križ 2004, 215 ss.
371	Ib., 208 ss. in 228 ss. Glej tudi Mušič/Orengo 1998, 157 ss.
372	Teržan 1976, 396 ss.
373	Šribar 1974, 319 ss; Dular 1979, 56 ss; Grahek 2004, 111 ss.
Fig. 105: Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. Sl. 105: Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah.
plenty of appropriate living space within the settlement. The terrain is rocky at places, but there are also larger plateaus with space for houses among the rocky blocks. A small, partially filled karst abyss can be found in the middle of the settlement.
Four roads lead to Cvinger at present, whereby those from the north and west are almost certainly of recent date. The entrance to the settlement appears to be from the south from the village of Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. A former access road seems to still be
Kučar nad Podzemljem (kat. št. 483) Kučar je hrib, ki se dviga nad Podzemljem iz ob-kolpske ravnice (sl. 107). Vzpetina ima dva vrhova. Ker je severni, z gozdom poraščeni del dvajset metrov nižji od južnega vrha, se od daleč dobro vidi njuna višinska razlika. Naselje se je raztezalo po vsem Kučarju (sl. 274). Osrednji del je bil postavljen na južni višji vrh, ki ga danes prekrivajo vinogradi. Čeprav so z rigolanji v preteklosti precej preoblikovali teren, pa so ostanki oboda na nekaterih mestih dobro vidni. To velja še zlasti za
discernible on this slope before the hillfort, reaching the main entrance after two bends. The settlement at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice was trenched between 1986 and 1991.370
South of the settlement lies the Branževec fallow near Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah, where the remains of a iron smelting complex were uncovered (cat. no. 465). Not far from there the main tumulus cemetery of the settlement was uncovered (cat. no. 466).371 Two individual tumuli were uncovered also to the north of the settlement, on the fallows of Gomivnica (cat. no. 462) and Dolgi deli (cat. no. 463) near Meniška vas. The material from the excavated tumuli was published by Biba Teržan.372
Metlika (cat. no. 476)
The settlement extended across a promontory that forms part of the city of Metlika (^ig. 106). The area is naturally already well protected, since it is surrounded from three sides by the deep beds of the Obrh in the Suhor Streams. The protection on the north-western side, where it is easiest to access the promontory, is not known. Medieval and later buildings have heavily reshaped the terrain and little possibility exists for researching the prehistoric remains there.
The Bronze and Iron Age occupation of Metlika is indicated by the finds that were unearthed during various construction works. A sewage ditch on the former Weiss yard, for example, revealed an approximately half a metre thick settlement layer with a large amount of pottery datable to the Early and Late Iron Ages. Similar finds were uncovered also in the area of Mestni trg and the former Proštijski vrt (Provost's garden), which indicates that the entire promontory was settled.
Five cemeteries were discovered in the area of Metlika: flat cemeteries at Špitalska draga (cat. no. 471), Jerebova ulica (cat. no. 474) and at Borštek (cat. no. 477), tumuli at Hrib (cat. no. 475) and a flat La Tene cemetery at Pungart (cat. no. 472). The material was published by Vinko Šribar, Janez Dular and Lucija Grahek.373
Kučar near Podzemelj (cat. no. 483)
Kučar is a hill that rises above Podzemelj from the Kolpa plain (^ig. 107). The elevation has two peaks. The northern one is covered by forest. It is also twenty metres lower than the southern peak and the difference in their altitudes is well visible from afar. The settlement extended all across Kučar (^ig. 274). The central part was situated on the southern, higher peak which is cov-
370	Dular/Križ 2004, 215 ff.
371	Ib., 208 ff and 228 ff. See also Mušič/Orengo 1998, 157 ff.
372	Teržan 1976, 396 ff.
373	Šribar 1974, 319 ff; Dular 1979, 56 ff; Grahek 2004,
111 ff.
severozahodni del, saj doseže na tem mestu ježa tudi do tri metre višine. Nekoliko slabše sta ohranjeni stranici na severu in vzhodu, saj jima je moč slediti le po recent-ni kamniti škarpi, ki nad potjo obroblja vinograde. Sodeč po oblikovanosti tal, stoji škarpa nad temelji prazgodovinskega zidu.
Slabše je ohranjen obod na jugu naselja. Na tem predelu je bilo rigolanje tako intenzivno, da so njegovi sledovi povsem izginili. Z natančnim opazovanjem je na pobočju v vinogradih še zaznati rahel prelom, vendar pa je konfiguracija terena premalo izrazita, da bi lahko določili natančen potek nekdanjega zidu.
Kot smo že omenili, se je naselje širilo tudi po severnem vrhu Kučarja. Na tem predelu se namreč razprostira ovalen plato, ki se na južni in zahodni strani zaključuje z jasnim robom. Na vzhodu rob terase ni več ohranjen. Po vsej verjetnosti je nasip na tem mestu zdrsnil po strmem pobočju, medtem ko ga je na severu uničil kamnolom. Z natančnim opazovanjem se je dalo ugotoviti, da sta bila oba vrhova Kučarja povezana v eno naselje. Na zahodni strani je okop, ki je tekel preko sedla od severnega vrha proti južnemu, še dobro viden, čeprav ni v celoti ohranjen. Manjka predvsem stik z obzidjem južnega vrha, uničen pa je tudi ves odsek severno od kolovoza, ki pelje iz vasi Grm. Na vzhodu se je obod ohranil kot rob lepe terase, ki se vleče čez celo dolžino sedla. Žal se njen potek tudi na tej strani izgubi, tako da spoj z obzidjem južnega vrha ni več ohranjen.
Na severnem platoju so bile pri zaščitnih izkopavanjih med leti 1975-1979 odkrite bogate stavbne ostali-ne iz starejše in mlajše železne dobe, ki jih je v pozni antiki prekril zgodnjekrščanski stavbni kompleks.374
K naselju sodi več nekropol. Največji sta gomilni grobišči, ki ležita severno od Kučarja v Brodaričevi lozi pri Podzemlju (kat. št. 479) in v Steljniku pri Grmu (kat. št. 480). Vsaka šteje čez tridest gomil. Posamične gomile so raztresene tudi južno od naselja. Omeniti moramo Sv. Heleno pri Zemlju (kat. št. 485) ter Gomilico (kat. št. 486), Vir (kat. št. 487) in Brinčevo gomilico (kat. št. 488) pri Škriljah. Ob vznožju Kučarja sta bili odkriti tudi dve plani grobišči in sicer Krč pri Podzemlju (kat. št. 484), kjer so našli poznobronastodobne žarne grobove in Jurajevčičeva njiva pri Zemlju (kat. št. 481) z žganimi pokopi iz latenskega obdobja. Gradivo iz raziskanih gomilnih in planih nekropol sta objavila Fritz Eckart Barth in Janez Dular.375
Črnomelj (kat. št. 495)
Naselje se je širilo po okljuku, ki ga s treh strani oblivata potok Dobličica in reka Lahinja (sl. 108). Ker stoji danes na tem območju mestno jedro, naletijo na prazgodovinske ostaline le še pri gradbenih delih. Tako so že ob koncu devetnajstega stoletja pri zidavi stavbe
374	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995.
375	Barth 1969; Dular 1978a.
Fig. 106-. Metlika. Sl. 106: Metlika.
ered by vineyards at present. In spite of the deep ploughing in the past that considerably altered the terrain, the perimeter remains are still clearly visible in some places. This is particularly true for the north-western part where the terrace slope reaches up to three metres in height. The sides in the north and east are not so well preserved and can only be traced along a recent stone scarp that borders the vineyards above the road. The configuration of the terrain indicates that the scarp stands above the foundations of a prehistoric wall.
The perimeter at the south of the settlement is less well preserved. Deep ploughing was so intense here that it completely erased its traces. A slight break in the slope can still be discerned in the vineyards by detailed observation, but the configuration of the terrain does not show distinct enough features that would enable us to determine the exact course of the former wall.
za ljudsko šolo, ki stoji tik ob farni cerkvi, naleteli na bronastodobno gradivo. Naselbinske plasti so presekali tudi ob preurejanju glavne mestne ulice po drugi svetovni vojni.376 Novi podatki o bronastodobni in železnodobni poselitvi so prišli na dan pri zaščitnih izkopavanjih na več lokacijah v vzhodnem in južnem koncu mesta. Vse to kaže, da je bil v prazgodovini poseljen ves okljuk. Najdbe novejših izkopavanj še niso bile objavljene.377
Na območju mesta sta znani dve nekropoli. Na Sadežu (kat. št. 494), severno od okljuka, so prišli na dan plani žarni grobovi, ob Grajski cesti (kat. št. 496), ki poteka skozi nekdanjo Loko pri Črnomlju, pa se je širilo gomilno grobišče. Na posamične grobne najdbe so naleteli tudi ob Trdinovi ulici (kat. št. 493) na sever-
376	Dular 1985, 58.
377	Glej Mason 1998, 18 ss; Mason 2001a, 17 ss.
Fig. 107: Kučar near Podzemelj. Sl. 107: Kučar nad Podzemljem.
As mentioned above, the settlement extended also across the northern peak at Kučar. The latter is an oval plateau that terminates in a clear edge on the southern and western sides. The terrace edge is no longer visible on the eastern side. The rampart very probably slid down the steep slope, while it was destroyed by a quarry on the northern side. Careful observation showed that the two peaks at Kučar were included into a single settlement. The rampart that ran across the saddle from the northern to the southern peak is still clearly visible on the western side, though it is not completely preserved. The contact with the fortification wall on the southern part, on the other hand, is unfortunately missing and the entire section north of the cart track that leads from the Grm village is missing as well. The perimeter is preserved in the east as the edge of a well visible terrace that runs across the entire length of the saddle. Its course was unfortunately lost on this side and the contact with the fortification wall of the southern peak is no longer preserved.
Rescue excavation on the northern plateau in the years 1975-1979 revealed rich building remains from the Early and Late Iron Ages that were covered by an Early Christian building complex in Late Antiquity.374
The settlement had several cemeteries. The largest are the tumulus cemeteries north of Kučar at Broda-ričeva loza near Podzemelj (cat. no. 479) and at Steljnik near Grm (cat. no. 480). Each includes over thirty tumuli. Individual tumuli are dispersed also south of the settlement. Examples of these are Sv. Helena near Zemelj (cat. no. 485), Gomilica (cat. no. 486), Vir (cat. no. 487) and Brinčeva gomilica (cat. no. 488) near Škrilje. Two flat cemeteries were discovered at the foot of Kučar: at Krč near Podzemelj (cat. no. 484), where Late Bronze Age incremation burials were found, and Jurajevčičeva njiva near Zemelj (cat. no. 481) with incremation burials from the La Tene period. The material from the researched tumulus and flat cemeteries was published by Fritz Eckart Barth and Janez Dular.375
Črnomelj (cat. no. 495)
The settlement extended along a bend surrounded from three sides by the Dobličica Stream and the Lahi-nja River (^ig. 108). This area is now covered by the city centre and prehistoric remains are thus found only during construction work. Bronze Age material was found already at the end of the nineteenth century, for example, while building the public school that stands next to the parish church. Settlement layers were cut through also while the mains city street was being arranged after World War II.376 New data on the Bronze and Iron Age settlement were later acquired during rescue research
374	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995.
375	Barth 1969; Dular 1978a.
376	Dular 1985, 58.
Fig. 108: Črnomelj. Sl. 108: Črnomelj.
nem koncu mesta. Najdbe iz grobišč je objavil Janez
Dular.378
378 Dular 1979, 82, t. 12: 6-9, t. 13, t. 14: 1-4; Dular 1983,
219 ss.
on several locations in the eastern and southern parts of the city. It all points to the entire bend being occupied during prehistory. The finds from the recent excavation have not yet been published.377
Two cemeteries are known in the area. Flat incremation graves were found at Sadež (cat. no. 494) to the north of the bend and a tumulus cemetery was found along Grajska ulica (cat. no. 496) that runs through former Loka near Črnomelj. Individual grave finds were uncovered also along Trdinova ulica (cat. no. 493) in the northern part of the city. The finds from the cemeteries were published by Janez Dular.378
Šlemine near Golekpri Vinici (cat. no. 508)
The dome-like hill of Šlemine rises north of the Golek pri Vinici village. It revealed remains of a prehistoric settlement (fig. 109), oval in size with a well preserved northern side that can be traced in its entire length along the edge of a well visible terrace (^ig. 278). The eastern side of the settlement is not as distinct. It is preserved, particularly in the southern part, as a stone rampart that quickly disappears into a slope. The western side, which probably included also the entrance to the settlement, is no longer preserved. It was destroyed during the construction of the access road that reaches the peak of Šlemine from this side. The southern side of the settlement is also mostly destroyed, only a short section remains. The reason for this should be sought in the slope's declivity, which is so steep in this area that the walls could not remain in their position. The southern slope has five parallel lines of piled-up stones running towards the interior of the settlement, the function and appearance of which are not completely clear. Considering the fact that these oblong piles of stones are positioned perpendicularly to the course of the fortification wall and that they lie on the lines of the lot borders, they may very probably be seen as stones removed from the earth that are in no relation to the prehistoric fortification system.
The settlement's interior is undulated and karsti-fied. This is particularly true of the central part that is very rocky at places and unsuitable for occupation. More space can be found on a terrace along the northern edge of the hillfort. Buildings may be expected there.
The settlement's flat cemetery (Stražni dol near Golek pri Vinici; cat. no. 506) lies on a sunny slope of a deep sinkhole north of Šlemine. Two isolated tumuli on the Steljnik fallow near Golek pri Vinici apparently also belonged to the settlement (cat. no. 505). Part of the finds has been published by Stane Gabrovec and Janez
Dular.379
377	See Mason 1998, 18 ff; Mason 2001a, 17 ff.
378	Dular 1979, 82, pl. 12: 6-9, pl. 13, pl. 14: 1-4; Dular 1983, 219 ff.
379	Gabrovec 1966b, 179, pl. 14-20; Dular 1973, pl. 7.
Fig. 109: Šlemine near Golek pri Vinici. Sl. 109: Šlemine nad Golekom pri Vinici.
Šlemine nad Golekom pri Vinici (kat. št. 508)
Severno od vasi Golek pri Vinici se dviga kopast hrib Šlemine, na katerem so ohranjeni ostanki prazgodovinskega naselja (sl. 109). Slednje je imelo ovalno obliko, z dobro ohranjeno severno stranico, ki ji lahko po vsej dolžini sledimo po robu lepe terase (sl. 278). Vzhodna stranica naselja ni tako izrazita, vendar je zlasti v južnem delu ohranjena kot kamnit okop, ki pa naglo izgine v tamkajšnjem pobočju. Zahodna stranica, kjer je bil po vsej verjetnosti tudi vhod v naselje, ni več ohranjena. Uničili so jo pri gradnji dovozne poti, ki s te strani pripelje na vrh Šlemin. Prav tako je večinoma uničena tudi južna stranica naselja. Ohranjen je ostal le krajši odsek. Vzrok moramo iskati v nagibu pobočja, ki je na tem predelu tako strmo, da se obzidje ni moglo obdržati na svojem mestu. Po južnem pobočju hriba teče proti notranjosti naselja pet vzporednih kamnitih grobelj, katerih funkcija in nastanek nista povsem jasni. Glede na to, da so podolžni kupi kamenja postavljeni pravokotno na potek obzidja in da leže na linijah parcelnih mej, jih lahko s precejšnjo verjetnostjo označimo za iz-krčeno kamenje, ki nima s prazgodovinskim utrdbenim sistemom nobene zveze.
Notranjost naselja je razgibana in zakrasela. To velja še posebej za osrednji del, ki je mestoma zelo skalnat in neprimeren za poselitev. Več prostora je na terasi vzdolž severnega roba gradišča. Tu lahko pričakujemo stavbe.
Pripadajoče plano grobišče (Stražni dol nad Golekom pri Vinici; kat. št. 506) leži na prisojnem pobočju
8.3. HIERARCHY OF THE CENTRES
This brief presentation of the significant settlements, which will be termed "centres" below, has pointed to considerable differences among them. It thus seems appropriate to attempt to further classify them with additional analyses.
The size of the hillforts reveals that most cover a surface of between two and four hectares (fig. 110). Remaining below this limit are Tičnica near Studenec and Metlika, while the surface of eight settlements surpasses four hectares. By far the greatest surface is that of Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (19.8 ha), followed by Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (15.1 ha), Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (12.7 ha), Sv. Marjeta on Libna (11.8 ha), Zgornja krona near Vače (10.1 ha) and Kučar near Podzemelj (9.9 ha). In view of their size, these settlements must have enjoyed pride of place. Gradišče near Velike Malence (7.9 ha) may also be added, while Molnik near Podmolnik with its 5.0 ha is already considerably smaller and is close to the largest group in its size.
The second criterion used in the classification was the size of the accompanying cemeteries, whereby we only considered the cemeteries within the 1.5 km radius from the settlement. These are mostly tumulus cemeteries, for which sizes could easily be established. We should keep in mind that the present number is only an approximation of the original number of tumuli. Fortunately, most are located in wooded areas and were probably not significantly damaged by land cultivation and other destructive processes. The size of the flat cemeteries, on the other hand, is slightly more difficult to establish. Only four examples are known. In order to facilitate the comparison with tumulus cemeteries, we tried to transform the number of the graves or amount of grave goods into the number of tumuli.380 The incomplete data and the somewhat simplified procedure reduced the reliability of the obtained approximations. However, we believe that the latter still remained within acceptable limits.
Cemeteries offer the following picture. The differences are great, as shown in fig. 111. The highest number of tumuli (as many as 145) has been observed in the area around Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev, which is closely followed by Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (125 tumuli). The second group lags behind considerably. At the foot of Kučar near Podzemelj and Cvinger near Korita, for example, 75 tumuli were observed, the slopes of Libna were strewn with 61 tumuli, while the ceme-
380 Based on the fact that tumuli in Dolenjska contain twenty to thirty graves on average, our estimate is as follows: Reber near Klenik (cat. no. 15) 25 tumuli, Sv. Križ near Beli grič (cat. no. 291) 15 tumuli, Zadinec near Valična vas (cat. no. 118) 10 tumuli and Stražnji dol near Golek pri Vinici (cat. no. 506) 10 tumuli.
globoke vrtače severno od Šlemin. K naselju sta očitno sodili tudi dve osamljeni gomili na ledini Steljnik nad Golekom pri Vinici (kat. št. 505). Del najdb sta objavila Stane Gabrovec in Janez Dular.379
8.3. HIERARHIJA SREDIŠČ
Že kratka predstavitev pomembnejših naselij, za katera bomo v nadaljevanju uporabljali izraz "središče", je pokazala, da obstajajo med njimi precejšnje razlike. Prav zaradi tega se nam zdi umestno, da poskusimo, če jih je možno z dodatnimi analizami še podrobneje razvrstiti.
Če si ogledamo najprej velikosti gradišč, potem vidimo, da je največ takšnih, ki imajo površino med dvema in štirimi hektarji (sl. 110). Pod to mejo ostajata Tičnica pri Studencu in Metlika, medtem ko je naselij s površino nad štirimi hektarji osem. Med vsemi daleč izstopa Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (19,8 ha), nato pa si sledijo Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici (15,1 ha), Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (12,7 ha), Sv. Marjeta na Libni (11,8 ha), Zgornja krona nad Vačami (10,1 ha) in Kučar nad Podzemljem (9,9 ha). Glede na velikost pripada tem naseljem zanesljivo posebno mesto. Morda bi jim lahko dodali še Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah (7,9 ha), medtem ko je Molnik nad Podmolnikom s svojimi 5,0 ha že bistveno manjši in se po površini približuje največji skupini.
Drugi kriterij, ki smo ga uporabili pri razvrščanju, je velikost pripadajočih nekropol. Upoštevali smo samo tiste, ki ležijo v radiju 1,5 km od naselja. Ker gre večinoma za gomilna grobišča, je njihovo velikost lahko ugotoviti. Seveda pa ob tem ne smemo prezreti dejstva, da je današnje število gomil zgolj približek nekdanjega stanja. Na srečo leži večina grobišč v gozdnatih območjih, zato jih obdelovanje polj in drugi uničevalni procesi verjetno niso bistveno prizadeli. Nekoliko težje je določiti velikost planih grobišč. Ker imamo samo štiri primere, smo si pomagali na ta način, da smo gradivo oziroma število grobov pretvorili v gomile.380 Zaradi pomanjkljivih podatkov in nekoliko poenostavljenega postopka je v tem primeru zanesljivost približkov manjša, vendar pa po našem mnenju vseeno ostaja v mejah tolerance.
Kakšno sliko nam torej rišejo grobišča. Kot lahko razberemo iz grafikona, so razlike velike (sl. 111). Največje število gomil (kar 145) smo ugotovili na območju Velikega Vinjega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo. Takoj za njim je Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (125 gomil), naslednja
379	Gabrovec 1966b, 179, t. 14-20; Dular 1973, t. 7.
380	Glede na dejstvo, da vsebujejo gomile na Dolenjskem v povprečju med dvajset in trideset grobov, je naša ocena naslednja: Reber nad Klenikom (kat. št. 15) 25 gomil, Sv. Križ v Belem Griču (kat. št. 291) 15 gomil, Zadinec pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 118) 10 gomil in Stražnji dol nad Golekom pri Vinici (kat. št. 506) 10 gomil.
>o to
•C
o.
(D O) C
5
.> Č75
D.
E o o> £i
2
0 o>
1
C
JJ o ■D OJ D

> J
o
C
-Q
I
O
S

i
'c O o> N
<B
E
S
"O
.8 V
o E
"O
<D E O C
>(J
1= _ „ -
> ^ ^
g)
■73 2 O
O
s
o 2
I
o
o §
is:
■D
o
C
o
■13 O
O)
S
ca
CQ g
o
O)
s
o. .0
J)
o
0} O) C
5
s
■C
o
(D 03
> U
>o o	[o 'c >	g
1		3. C
	<S)	>
>	0	o
1	o 0)	o "D 2
v	C. E (U ■to	o
o
C
>u

"O p
O -
o
"O CO
o u "c
>u
p

Fig. 110: Classification of Iron Age centres according to settlement surface. Sl. 110: Razvrstitev železnodobnih središč glede na njihovo površino.
tery at the settlement of Molnik near Podmolnik was slightly smaller (53 tumuli in total). The next group is the largest. It includes eight settlements with cemeteries of 20-40 tumuli (for example, Zgornja krona near Vače, Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica, Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem, Marof at Novo mesto, Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice). The next four hillforts (Šlemine near Golek pri Vinici, Gradišče near Velike Malence, Križni vrh near Beli Grič, Gradišče near Val-ična vas) are characterized by smaller cemeteries (between 10 and 20 tumuli). At the very bottom of this list are three settlements (Črnomelj, Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico, and Metlika), where fewer then ten tumuli were observed.
The next parameter to be examined is that of the so-called prestige items. These are objects connected with the existence of elites that indirectly reflect the economic power, mostly that of an individual settlement. The finds are known exclusively from the accompanying cemeteries. They were, unfortunately, excavated with deficient methods and the data they provided do not necessarily reflect the actual situation. However, the archives of the old excavation revealed that the cemeteries of Dolenjska were researched in roughly equal extents, therefore
skupina pa že bistveno zaostaja. Ob vznožju Kučarja nad Podzemljem in Cvingerja nad Koriti smo našteli po 75 gomil, na pobočjih Libne je raztresenih 61 tumulov, le nekoliko manjšo nekropolo pa je imelo tudi naselje Molnik nad Podmolnikom (skupaj 53 gomil). Naslednja skupina je najštevilnejša. Gre za osem naselij z nek-ropolami, ki štejejo od 20-40 gomil (npr. Zgornja krona nad Vačami, Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici, Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem, Marof v Novem mestu, Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah). Za naslednja štiri gradišča (Šlemine nad Golekom pri Vinici, Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah, Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem, Gradišče pri Valični vasi) so značilne manjše nekropole (med 10 in 20 gomilami), prav na repu pa so tri naselja (Črnomelj, Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico in Metlika), ob katerih smo našteli manj kot deset tumulov.
Naslednji parameter, ki ga nameravamo vzeti v pretres, je tako imenovano prestižno gradivo. Gre za predmete, povezane z obstojem elit, v katerih se na posreden način odraža zlasti ekonomska moč posameznega naselja. Najdbe poznamo izključno iz pripadajočih grobišč. Žal so bila izkopana s pomanjkljivimi metodami, zato ni nujno, da podatki, ki jih imamo na razpolago, v
'c »u m	(U E S	1 ^	□ C	"c o E
i s	"O g	O O) C	i o	~a g
o	□ >o	3	s	'c
05 C '>			> C/2	o
u				
Fig. 111: Classification of Iron Age centres according to size of the accompanying cemeteries. Sl. 111: Razvrstitev železnodobnih središč glede na velikost pripadajočih grobišč.
the quantitative differences that appear among the sites cannot be attributed solely to the state of research.381 There are, in fact, cemeteries with richer finds and those with less prestige material. We should be aware of another fact: the available data are a mere approximation of the past situation.
Several types of material were defined as prestige. Firstly there are the imports that came to the region as trading goods, gifts or otherwise (for example as loot). Home-made bronze vessels, such as situlas, cists, plates and ciboria were also determined as prestige objects. The next group of prestige items is represented by warrior equipment, mostly helmets and armours, to which the relatively rare daggers and swords were also added. The existence of elites was also connected to certain burial rituals. For this reason, burials with horses and horse gear were also added to the list.
The quantities of the prestige material were jointly presented on a diagram (^ig. 112). This reveals that Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica, and Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, stand out considerably. Marof at
381 For the history of research of the tumulus cemeteries in Dolenjska see Dular 2003, 13 ff.
potankosti odsevajo dejansko stanje. Pa vendar, kot smo lahko ugotovili iz arhivov starih izkopavanj, so bile nek-ropole na Dolenjskem raziskane v približno enakem obsegu, tako da količinske razlike, ki se pojavljajo med najdišči, ne moremo pripisati zgolj stanju raziskav.381 Obstajajo pač grobišča z bolj bogatimi najdbami in nekropole, kjer je prestižnega gradiva manj. Seveda pa si kljub vsemu ne smemo delati utvar: podatki, ki jih imamo na razpolago, so zgolj približek nekdanjega stanja.
Kot prestiž smo definirali več vrst gradiva. Najprej uvožene predmete, ki so prišli k nam bodisi kot trgovsko blago, darila ali na kak drug način (npr. kot plen). Za prestižno gradivo smo označili tudi doma izdelano bronasto posodje, na primer situle, ciste, pladnje in ci-borije. Naslednjo skupino prestižnih predmetov predstavlja orožje, predvsem čelade in oklepi, ki smo jim dodali še razmeroma redka bodala in meče. Ker so z obstojem elit povezani tudi določeni pogrebni rituali, smo na seznam uvrstili tudi pokope s konji in konjsko opremo.
Združene količine prestižnega gradiva prikazuje diagram (sl. 112). Iz njega je moč razbrati, da sta daleč
381 Za zgodovino raziskovanj dolenjskih gomilnih grobišč glej Dular 2003, 13 ss.
.>
Zn
D.
E o cn
ts □
o
O) q
J) D "O O) D
>o (O •C
Q-
O}
U
o
u
_o
(U
m
-C
'E" >

1 □
C
2
o
o
a. o
C
O ^
O O) C
5
E
(D _c 0)
£
o.
SL 'n
(D m

-Q
3 v

(I)
ro
> U
m E o
C
>U
o E
S
-D O
.8
-i >
1 ?
1 <D
>2 ■T3
S O
— >
O
5
(D "O 2 O
>u •C	(U u	U <D	1	•SL		O
o "5 fO	C (D D S	C 0) "O i	0 o o	•c m 2	'c >	o s
			>	o		
-E		D	D	O)	o	
>	(U 1	U	a:	o	o	
		'c >u p	~a o C	S	o (]> C 'c	
~a 2 O
"O 2 O
S
ca
>00
Fig. 112: Classification of Iron Age centres according to prestigious finds from the accompanying cemeteries. Sl. 112: Razvrstitev železnodobnih središč glede na prestižno gradivo iz pripadajočih grobišč.
Novo mesto comes third, followed by Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev and Zgornja krona near Vače with roughly equal shares. The settlements at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice and Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem are also equal and share the sixth and seventh position. Next comes Sv. Marjeta on Libna and nine more hillforts with relatively low shares. The cemeteries that belong to the last four settlements did not reveal any prestige material.
The tables show that all three parameters (settlement size, tumulus number, amount of prestige finds) reveal certain common rules. More precise data are obtained by the regression analysis. Comparing the settlement size and the size of the accompanying cemeteries gives a correlation coefficient (r = 0.67), which is not bad considering that the available data cannot be measured completely objectively. An even better coefficient is obtained by comparing hillfort surfaces and prestige material (r = 0.74). The above thus shows a positive correlation between settlement size, tumulus number and amount of prestige material. Next, we integrated all three categories on a single table. This is shown in fig. 113. Though we risk the reproach of adopting a simplified approach, the trends shown on the table are neverthe-
spredaj Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici in Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Na tretjem mestu je Marof v Novem mestu, sledita pa mu s približno enakima deležema Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo in Zgornja krona nad Vačami. Izenačeni sta tudi naselji Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah in Karlin nad Brezjem pri Tre-belnem, ki si delita šesto in sedmo mesto. Naslednja je Sv. Marjeta na Libni, nato pa si sledi še devet gradišč, z razmeroma skromnimi deleži. V nekropolah, ki so pripadale zadnjim štirim naseljem, niso našli prestižnega gradiva.
Že bežen pogled na tabele pokaže, da obstajajo med vsemi tremi kategorijami (velikost naselja, število gomil, količina prestižnega gradiva) določene pravilnosti. Natančnejše podatke dobimo z regresijsko analizo. Če namreč primerjamo velikost naselij z velikostmi pripadajočih grobišč, dobimo korelacijski koeficient (r = 0,67), kar v našem primeru, ko nimamo povsem objektivno merljivih podatkov, ni slab rezultat. Še boljši koeficient dobimo, če primerjamo površine gradišč s prestižnim gradivom (r = 0,74). Med velikostjo naselja, številom gomil in količino prestižnega gradiva obstaja torej pozitiven odnos. Kakšen rezultat pa dobimo, če vse tri kategorije združimo v eno tabelo? Poskus je prikazan na sl. 113.
Cat. No.	Site	Place	Size of settlement	Size of cemetery	Prestige	Total
Kat. št.	Najdišče	Kraj	Velikost naselja	Velikost grobišča	Prestiž	Skupaj
96	Cvinger	Vir pri Stični	21	20	20	61
382	Veliki Vinji vrh	Bela Cerkev	19	21	18	58
39	Magdalenska gora	Zgornja Slivnica	20	13	21	54
198	Sv. Marjeta	Libna	18	17	14	49
9	Zgornja krona	Vače	17	14	17	48
483	Kučar	Podzemelj	16	19	1 1	46
351	Marof	Novo mesto	13	11	19	43
447	Cvinger	Korita	8	18	13	39
25	Molnik	Podmolnik	14	16	9	39
464	Cvinger	Dolenjske Toplice	9	10	16	35
311	Karlin	Brezje pri Trebelnem	3	12	16	31
213	Gradišče	Velike Malence	15	7	6	28
495	Črnomelj	Črnomelj	12	3	12	27
171	Tičnica	Studenec	2	15	6	23
453	Gradec	Vinkov Vrh	5	9	9	23
119	Gradišče	Valična vas	4	5	1 1	20
294	Križni vrh	Beli Grič	7	6	7	20
246	Vesela gora	Brinje	10	8		18
55	Bezeg	Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico	1 1	2		13
508	Šlemine	Golek pri Vinici	6	4		10
476	Metlika	Metlika	1	1		2
Fig. 113: Classification of centres according to united criteria. Sl. 113: Vrstni red središč po združenih kriterijih.
less interesting.382 The settlements that were previously considered as the most important centres of Iron Age Dolenjska are highly ranked. The same could be said for the medially ranked hillforts; the bottom of the table is also more or less as anticipated. Though the sequence of the neighbouring settlements on the table may not be correct in details, it is the general picture that we deem important. The differences in the rank of settlements are difficult to explain. The interrelation probably reflects several factors, such as population size, economic strength and finally also the socio-political role of individual hillforts. The latter is, as we know, most difficult to be identified. An important finding is that none of the highly ranked settlements stands out drastically, to the point that it could be defined as the hegemonic centre of the region. The classification of other hillforts shows a similar picture. The intervals among them show that hillforts may have differed in strength, but it would be difficult to speak of a clear dominance of one over the others. This is the picture obtained by considering the archaeological evidence. Next, we will consider the issue as revealed by spatial analyses.
Čeprav nam bo morda kdo očital poenostavljen pristop, pa so trendi, ki jih kaže tabela, vseeno zanimivi.382 Na vrh so se uvrstila tista naselja, ki so že sedaj veljala za najpomembnejša središča železnodobne Dolenjske. Isto lahko rečemo za gradišča s sredine tabele, bolj ali manj skladno s pričakovanji pa je oblikovan tudi rep razpredelnice. Seveda ni nujno, da je vrstni red med sosednjimi naselji na tabeli popolnoma pravilen, pomembna se nam zdi celotna slika. Kako naj razložimo razlike? Odgovor je težak. Verjetno se v medsebojnih razmerjih odraža več dejavnikov, na primer velikost populacije, ekonomska moč naselij in ne nazadnje tudi družbenopolitična vloga posameznega gradišča. Slednjo pa je, kot vemo, najtežje prepoznati. Zelo pomembna se nam zdi ugotovitev, da nobeno od naselij z vrha razpredelnice ne izstopa do take mere, da bi ga lahko opredelili kot središče celotne regije. Podobno je z razvrstitvijo ostalih gradišč. Enakomerni intervali med njimi kažejo na to, da so bila sicer različno močna, o izraziti prevladi enega nad drugim pa bi težko govorili. Takšna je pač slika, ki jo dobimo, če upoštevamo arheološke podatke. Kaj pa nam o tej problematiki povedo prostorske analize?
382 The analysis includes twenty-one settlements, which were attributed values by inverse weighting. The first place on each diagram was thus marked with twenty-one and the last with a single point.
382 Ker je v igri enaindvajset naselij, smo prvo mesto na vsakem diagramu obtežili z enaindvajsetimi točkami, zadnje
pa z eno točko.
9. SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
9. NASELJA IN NJIHOVO GOSPODARSKO ZALEDJE
In this chapter, the results obtained from archaeological data will be confronted with the outcomes of spatial analyses. The aim is to verify the locational logic of the hillforts, their relation to the relief, natural resources and communications, which do, i.e. to those factors, in fact, have a substantial impact on their economic and social strength.383
Rezultate, ki smo jih dobili na osnovi arheoloških podatkov, bomo v nadaljevanju soočili s prostorskimi analizami. Preveriti nameravamo lokacijsko logiko gradišč, njihov odnos do reliefa, naravnih resursov in komunikacijskih povezav, skratka do tistih dejavnikov, ki so bistveno vplivali na njihovo gospodarsko in družbeno moč.383
9.1. DENSITY OF THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK
9.1. GOSTOTA POSELITVENE MREŽE
The first factor to be observed is the location of the centres, more precisely of those that rank highest in their size, tumuli number and amount of prestige finds (fig. 113). The seven largest and wealthiest settlements are: Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39), Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9) and Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96) from the western part of Dolenjska; Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351) and Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382) in the central part of this region; and Sv. Marjeta on Libna (cat. no. 198) and Kučar near Podzemelj (cat. no. 483) in the easternmost and south-eastern border of the study-area (^ig. 114). The distance between centres measures over ten kilometres (more precisely from 11.5 to 23.7 km), which allows us to say that the locations of the above-enumerated settlements reflect two important characteristics: regular distribution across the entire area of the Dolenjska Iron Age community and a relatively large distance among the big centres.
This picture is supplemented by other, lower-ranking centres from fig. 113, which are strewn across the interjacent areas and lie 7.4 km on average from the closest neighbour. The location observed thus far revealed certain rules: the most important centres lie far
Najprej si oglejmo lego središč, in sicer tistih, ki so se po velikosti, številu pripadajočih gomil in količini prestižnega gradiva uvrstila na vrh razpredelnice (sl. 113). Gre za sedem največjih in najbogatejših naselij: Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39), Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9) in Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96) ležijo na zahodu Dolenjske, Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351) in Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382) sta v njenem osrednjem delu, Sv. Marjeto na Libni (kat. št. 198) in Kučar nad Podzemljem (kat. št. 483) pa najdemo na skrajnem vzhodu oziroma jugovzhodu (sl. 114). Razdalje med njimi znašajo več kot deset kilometrov (natančneje od 11,5 do 23,7 km), zato lahko rečemo, da se v lokacijah omenjenih naselij odražata dve pomembni značilnosti: razporejenost po celotnem območju dolenjske železnodobne skupnosti ter razmeroma velika medsebojna oddaljenost.
To sliko dobro dopolnjujejo ostala, nižje uvrščena središča z naše razpredelnice (sl. 113). Posejana so po vmesnem prostoru, od najbližjega soseda pa so v povprečju oddaljena 7,4 km. V lokacijah se torej kažejo določene zakonitosti: najpomembnejša središča ležijo daleč vsaksebi, razdalje do ostalih (oziroma med ostali-
383 Many authors have considered the issue of locational logic and settlement principles. For recent works written by Central European authors on this topic see: Hennig/Lucianu 2000, Salac 2002, Della Casa 2002, Kümmel 2002 with further references.
383 Z lokacijsko logiko naselij in zakonitostmi poselitve se je ukvarjalo veliko avtorjev. Med novejšimi deli z območja Srednje Evrope, ki obravnavajo to problematiko, glej Hennig/Lucianu 2000, Salač 2002, Della Casa 2002, Kümmel 2002 z nadaljnjo literaturo.
Fig. 114: Distribution of Hallstatt centres. Sl. 114: Razprostranjenost halštatskih središč.
apart, while the distances from the less important centres (or among them) are much smaller. The minimum distance is 4.5 km.384 The interjacent areas were then filled with settlements of a lower rank. Some of the large cemeteries fit well into this pattern. No hillforts were detected near these, but the high number of tumuli leads to the supposition that they belonged to large unfortified agglomerations. These are marked on the map with filled circles (^ig. 114).385 They are situated over 6 km
384	This is the distance between Magdalenska gora (cat. no. 39) and Molnik (cat. no. 25).
385	Velika Dobrava near Šmarčna (cat. no. 150), Raguše near Osredek pri Hubanjici (cat. no. 168), Klevevški boršt near Brusnice (cat. no. 413), Gomile near Sajevce (cat. no. 436),
mi) pa so precej manjše. Minimum znaša 4,5 km.384 Kot vidimo, so vmesne prostore zapolnila naselja nižjega ranga. V raster se zelo dobro vključuje tudi nekaj velikih gomilnih nekropol, ob katerih sicer nismo našli gradišč, iz števila gomil pa lahko sklepamo, da so pripadale večjim neutrjenim aglomeracijam. Na karti (sl. 114) so označene s polnimi krožci.385 Od najbližjega središča so oddaljene več kot 6 km, kar se odlično ujema z gostoto
384	To je razdalja med Magdalensko goro (kat. št. 39) in Molnikom (kat. št. 25).
385	Velika Dobrava pri Šmarčni (kat. št. 150), Raguše v Osredku pri Hubanjici (kat. št. 168), Klevevški boršt pri Brusnicah (kat. št. 413), Gomile pri Sajevcah (kat. št. 436), Selo nad Gorenjim Vrhpoljem (kat. št. 425), Černetova njiva pri Pustem Gradcu (kat. št. 502).
from the nearest centre, which corresponds perfectly with the density of the central settlement network. There is only one exception, which more or less confirms the rule: the tumuli at Osredek near Hubajnica (cat. no. 168) that are situated slightly over 2 km from the centre at Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171).
9.1.1. SITE CATCHMENT ANALYSIS
There are numerous methods but also attempts at defining the subsistence economic areas and the site catchments and they have met with response from very early on also in Slovene archaeology.386 The development of the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has only increased their use. A decade ago, the first GIS-based analyses were made also within our project.387 In spite of encouraging results in this respect, it is not our aim to define the territories of settlements or even to draw borders between individual centres. Our interest lies primarily in the potential for exploitation of natural resources in the settlements' hinterlands, in their capability to exploit it, and also whether the results of the environmental analyses are in accordance with the analysis on the hierarchy of centres.
Dolenjska is very varied in its relief, geological composition and soils, climatic conditions as well as accessibility of natural resources and communication lines. For these reasons, the centres did not all have equal chances for economic prosperity. We began our analysis by determining the area of observation (analytical territory) in order to operate with more or less comparable units. Considering the decisive impact that the relief had on the manageability of the territory, we used the cost-surface analysis to aid us.388 Delimitation of the site catchment is based on travel time, which is represented by multiple buffer zones of a half-hour walk (^ig. 115). The result showed that the borders of the polygons join after less than an hour's walk (45 minutes) from individual centres in eight cases and in a further eight cases after an hour and a quarter (75 minutes) (^ig. 116). A wider site catchment has been observed at less than a quarter of the settlements (24 %), three of these being most important ones, which is probably not a coincidence.389 For the positions of the contact zones,
Selo near Gorenje Vrhpolje (cat. no. 425), Černetova njiva near Pusti Gradac (cat. no. 502).
386	Slapšak 1995. See also Novakovic 2003, 249 ff, with further references.
387	Stančič et al. 1995.
388	The analyses were conducted by Dr. Tomaž Podobni-kar from the Institute of Anthropological and Spatial Studies of the Scientific Research Centre at the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
389	Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96), Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382) in Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9).
mreže centralnih naselij. Izjema, ki slej ko prej potrjuje pravilo, je le ena: to so gomile v Osredku pri Hubajnici (kat. št. 168), ki so od središča Tičnica pri Studencu (kat. št. 171) oddaljene nekaj več kot 2 km.
9.1.1. DOLOČITEV GOSPODARSKIH PROSTOROV
V svetu obstajajo številne metode in poskusi določanja ekonomskih prostorov in vplivnih območij naselij, ki so razmeroma zgodaj našli odmev tudi v slovenski arheologiji.386 Z razvojem geografskih informacijskih sistemov se je njihova uporaba še povečala, prve analize pa smo pred desetletjem opravili tudi v okviru našega projekta.387 Kljub vzpodbudnim rezultatom ni naš namen določanje teritorialnosti naselij ali celo risanje mej med posameznimi središči. Zanima nas predvsem to, kakšne razvojne potenciale je naseljem nudilo okolje, v kolikšni meri so ga znala izkoristiti in če so rezultati okoljskih analiz v sozvočju z analizo hierarhije središč.
Ker je Dolenjska glede reliefa, geološke sestave tal, klimatskih razmer pa tudi dostopnosti do naravnih resursov in komunikacij pestra pokrajina, vsa središča niso imela enakih možnosti za razvoj. Da bi bili podatki med seboj kolikor toliko primerljivi, moramo najprej določiti prostor opazovanja. Z ozirom na to, da je na obvladljivost terena odločujoče vplival relief, smo si pomagali z analizo stroškovnih površin.388 Okoli središč smo zarisali razdalje, ki jih prehodi človek v polurnih intervalih (sl. 115). Izkazalo se je, da se v osmih primerih meje poligonov staknejo po slabi uri hoda (45 minutah), pri nadaljnjih osmih pa po uri in četrt (75 minutah), merjeno od posameznega središča (sl. 116). Večje zaledje izkazuje slaba četrtina naselij (24 %), med njimi tri najpomembnejša, kar verjetno ni slučaj.389 Glede na pozicije kontaktnih con, ki se pri večini središč gibljejo okoli ene ure hoda, bomo tudi prostor opazovanja zamejili s to razdaljo. To seveda ne pomeni, da je imelo gospodarsko zaledje posameznega naselja v resnici tak obseg. Zamejitev je tehnične narave, res pa je, da izhaja iz gostote naselij in reliefa pokrajine, v katero so bila le-ta umeščena. Velikost poligonov, ki jih bomo opazovali, smo torej določili s pomočjo gostote poselitvene mreže dolenjskih železnodobnih središč. Pri tem ne gre prezreti dejstva, da se razdalje bolj ali manj ujemajo z ekonomsko upravičeno oddaljenostjo, ki je bila ugotovljena za poljedelske skupnosti.390
386	Slapšak 1995. Glej tudi Novakovic 2003, 249 ss, z nadaljnjo literaturo.
387	Stančič et al. 1995.
388	Analize je opravil dr. Tomaž Podobnikar z Inštituta za antropološke in prostorske študije ZRC SAZU.
389	To so Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96), Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382) in Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9).
390	Higgs/Vita-Finzi 1972.
Fig. 115: Cost-surface analysis of Hallstatt centres. Sl. 115: Analiza stroškovnih površin halštatskih središč.
which for most centres lie around an hour's walk away, the same distance will be used to delimit the territorial unit of observation. Of course, this does not signify that the economic hinterland of an individual settlement had such an extent in reality. The delimitation is rather of a analytical nature, though it is based on the settlement density and the relief of their locations. To sum up, the size of the polygons under observation has been determined with the aid of the density of the settlement network of the Iron Age centres in Dolenjska. Having said that, we should not disregard the fact that these distances correspond more or less to the economically justifiable distances established for farming communities.390
390
Higgs/Vita-Finzi 1972.
Enourno zaledje Zgornje krone nad Vačami (kat. št. 9) je zaradi razgibanega reliefa razmeroma majhno. Na severu sega v dolino Kandrščice, na vzhodu do grebena Zasavske gore, medtem ko zajame proti jugu in zahodu police Ržišča, Tolstega Vrha in Cirkuš.
Na grebene, ki so prepredeni s številnimi grapami, je osredotočeno tudi zaledje Molnika nad Podmol-nikom (kat. št. 25). Nekoliko ravnega prostora vključuje le v smeri Orel, na jugovzhodni strani pa se blizu Pleš že stika z zaledjem Magdalenske gore.
Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39) obvladuje v enourni oddaljenosti večji del Šmarske in Grosupeljske kotline, preval proti Ljubljanskemu barju in vstop v dolino Duplice, po kateri teče naravna povezava s Stiškim kotom.
Cat. No.	Site	Place	Distance
Kat. št.	Najdišče	Kraj	Oddaljenost
25	Molnik	Podmolnik	ca. 45 min
39	Magdalenska gora	Zgornja Slivnica	ca. 45 min
246	Vesela gora	Brinje	ca. 45 min
294	Križni vrh	Beli Grič	ca. 45 min
447	Cvinger	Korita	ca. 45 min
453	Gradec	Vinkov Vrh	ca. 45 min
476	Metlika	Metlika	ca. 45 min
483	Kučar	Podzemelj	ca. 45 min
55	Bezeg	Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico	ca. 75 min
119	Gradišče	Valična vas	ca. 75 min
198	Sv. Marjeta	Libna	ca. 75 min
213	Gradišče	Velike Malence	ca. 75 min
311	Karlin	Brezje pri Trebelnem	ca. 75 min
351	Marof	Novo mesto	ca. 75 min
464	Cvinger	Dolenjske Toplice	ca. 75 min
495	Črnomelj	Črnomelj	ca. 75 min
96	Cvinger	Vir pri Stični	ca. 105 min
382	Veliki Vinji vrh	Bela Cerkev	ca. 105 min
508	Šlemine	Golek pri Vinici	ca. 105 min
9	Zgornja krona	Vače	> 120 min
171	Tičnica	Studenec	> 120 min
Fig. 116: Contact zones with regard to cost-surface analyses. Sl. 116: Medsebojna oddaljenost stroškovnih površin.
The site catchment of Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9) is relatively small due to the constraints of the relief. It reaches into the Kandrščica Valley in the north, to the ridge of Zasavska gora in the east, while it includes the ledges of Ržišče, Tolsti Vrh and Cirkuše towards the south and west.
The hinterland of Molnik near Podmolnik (cat. no. 25) is also concentrated on the ridges intersected with numerous ravines and only includes some flat area in the direction towards Orle. It joins the site catchment borders of Magdalenska gora to the south-east near Pleše.
Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39) controls, within an hour's walk, a large part of the Šmarje and Grosuplje basins, the pass towards the Ljubljansko barje and the entrance into the Duplica Valley, where a natural communication with the Stiški kot runs.
Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico (cat. no. 55) has a smaller and more undulated hinterland. It controls the karst plateau near Smrjene, ridges near Udje and Vrbičje to the east and reaches in the west to the Želimeljščica Stream, which flows along a side valley to the Ljubljansko barje.
Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96) has a large hinterland. The one-hour distance includes the entire Stiški kot, a large part of the small Šentvid basin as well as the area along the Višnjica Stream between Draga in the west and Muljava in the south.
The hinterland of Gradišče near Valična vas (cat.
Manjše in bolj razgibano zaledje ima Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico (kat. št. 55). Obvladuje namreč kraško planoto pri Smrjenah, vzhodno ležeča slemena pri Udju in Vrbičju, medtem ko sega na zahodni strani do Želimeljščice, ki teče po stranski dolini Ljubljanskega barja.
Veliko zaledje ima Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96). V enourni oddaljenosti obvladuje ves Stiški kot, dobršen del Šentviške kotlinice, prav tako pa tudi svet ob Višnjici med Drago na zahodu in Muljavo na jugu.
Zaledje Gradišča pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 119) se širi po kraški terasi na levem in desnem bregu Krke.
Poligona Cvingerja nad Koriti (kat. št. 447) in Gradca pri Vinkovem Vrhu (kat. št. 453) se stakneta prej kot v uri hoda, vendar pa imata obe naselji zaradi razmeroma lahko prehodnega terena možnost širitve proti severu in jugu. Tako obvladuje Cvinger v enourni oddaljenosti večji del Dobrniške kotline, Gradec pa kraško teraso na levem in desnem bregu Krke.
Do stika enournih poligonov pride tudi pri Veseli gori v Brinju (kat. št. 246) in Križnem vrhu nad Belim Gričem (kat. št. 294). Meja je očitno potekala po Mirni, pri čemer je Vesela gora obvladovala skoraj ves zahodni del Mirenske doline, medtem ko je bil v enourno zaledje Križnega vrha zaradi razgibanega terena vključen le podolgovat greben, na katerem stoji naselje in del Mo-kronoške kotline.
Lepo zaključen je enourni teritorij Karlina nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 311). Na severu sega do
no. 119) extends along a karst terrace on the left and right banks of the Krka.
The polygons of Cvinger near Korita (cat. no. 447) and Gradec near Vinkov Vrh (cat. no. 453) join within less than an hour's walk, though both settlements have the possibility of expanding to the north and south due to the relatively easily passable terrain. Cvinger thus controls, within an hour's distance, a large part of the Dobrnič basin, while Gradec controls the karst terrace on the left and right banks of the Krka.
The one-hour polygons of Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246) and Križni vrh near Beli Grič (cat. no. 294) also join. The border apparently ran along the Mirna. Vesela gora controlled almost the entire western part of the Mirna Valley, while the range of Križni vrh only included, due to the undulated terrain, the oblong ridge of the settlement and a part of the Mokronog basin.
The limits of the one-hour territory of Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem (cat. no. 311) are well defined. In the north, it reaches the confluence of the Mirna and Radulja Rivers, in the west to the pass underneath Goli vrh and in the south to the foot of the Karteljevski klanec.
Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464) exerted a territorial control over the Krka Valley from Soteska to Straža, the entrance to the Stare žage Valley near Kočevske Poljane as well as over the vast karst area between Podturn and Ljuben.
Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351) had a relatively large hinterland. The polygon is delimited by the Prečna Stream in the west and in the north it reaches to the top of the Karteljevski klanec. The border to the south and east is not as distinct, since it meanders among the hills between Črmošnjice and Smolenja vas.
The catchment of Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382) is somewhat smaller than that of Novo mesto due to the undulated relief, but it is clearly delimited. It reaches to the Radulja Stream in the north, to the right bank of the Krka in the south, while the borders in the east and west run at the foot of the hill that is crowned by the settlement.
The hinterland of Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171) terminates in the east and west in the ravines of the Štagina and the Impoljski potok, it reaches almost to the Sava in the north and includes the ridges above Raka in the south.
The polygon of Sv. Marjeta on Libna (cat. no. 198) extends to the former riverbed of the Sava in the south and west, while the border on other sides runs at the foot of Libna.
Within an hour's walk from Gradišče near Velike Malence (cat. no. 213) it is possible to reach a vast part of the plain on the other side of the Krka and the Sava that join not far from the settlement. The territory towards the south, where the border meanders among the northern fringes of the Gorjanci, is not as easily passable.
razvodja med Mirno in Raduljo, na zahodu do prevala pod Golim vrhom in na jugu do vznožja Karteljevskega klanca.
Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464) je v uri hoda obvladoval dolino Krke od Soteske do Straže, vstop v dolino Starih žag pri Kočevskih Poljanah ter prostran kraški svet med Podturnom in Ljubnom.
Razmeroma veliko zaledje je imel Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351). Poligon na zahodu zamejuje potok Prečna, na severu sega do vrha Karteljevskega klanca, proti jugu in vzhodu pa meja ni tako izrazita, saj vijuga po gričevju med Črmošnjicami in Smolenjo vasjo.
Enourno zaledje Velikega Vinjega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382) je zaradi razgibanega reliefa nekoliko manjše od novomeškega, vendar pa je jasno zamejeno. Na severu sega do potoka Radulja, proti jugu na desni breg Krke, na vzhodu in zahodu pa poteka meja ob vznožju hriba, na katerem stoji naselje.
Zaledje Tičnice pri Studencu (kat. št. 171) zapirata na vzhodu in zahodu grapi Štagine in Impoljskega potoka, proti severu sega skoraj do Save, na južni strani pa zaobjame grebene nad Rako.
Poligon Sv. Marjete na Libni (kat. št. 198) se širi na jugu in zahodu do nekdanje struge Save, na ostalih straneh pa poteka meja ob vznožju Libne.
V uri hoda je moč z Gradišča pri Velikih Malencah (kat. št. 213) doseči obsežen del ravnine onkraj Krke in Save, ki imata sotočje nedaleč od naselja. Težje prehoden je teritorij proti jugu, kjer vijuga meja med severnimi obronki Gorjancev.
Na koncu si na kratko oglejmo še enourna zaledja belokranjskih središč. Poligona Metlike (kat. št. 476) in Kučarja nad Podzemljem (kat. št. 483) se stakneta že po nekaj več kot tridesetih minutah hoje oziroma na reki Lahinji. Razmeroma malo prostora ima Kučar tudi proti zahodu, saj se njegov enourni teritorij skoraj združi z poligonom Črnomlja, ki obvladuje osrednji del belokranjskega ravnika. Veliko je tudi enourno zaledje Šle-min nad Golekom pri Vinici (kat. št. 508). Na zahodu sega do vznožja Poljanske gore, na severu in vzhodu zajame obsežen del zakrasele Viničke gmajne, vanj pa je vključen tudi desni breg Kolpe.
9.1.2. KONFLIKTNOST TERITORIJEV
Čeprav smo že na začetku poudarili, da šestdeset-minutnih zaledij nikakor ne smemo tolmačiti kot območja dejanske gospodarske izrabe ali celo kot teritorije družbenopolitičnih enot, pa si moramo vendarle ogledati tiste primere, kjer je prišlo na tej razdalji do stika poligonov. Prevelika bližina naselij že sama po sebi predpostavlja možnost konfliktnih situacij, zato nas zanima, zakaj v poselitveni mreži ni bil upoštevan princip enake oddaljenosti.
Finally, we will take a brief look at the one-hour hinterlands of the centres in Bela krajina. The polygons of Metlika (cat. no. 476) and Kučar near Podzemelj (cat. no. 483) join after just over thirty minutes of walk, at the Lahinja River. Kučar has relatively little space towards the west, since its one-hour territory is almost united with the Črnomelj polygon that controls the central part of the Bela krajina peneplain. The one-hour hinterland of Šlemine near Golek pri Vinici (cat. no. 508) is also large, reaching to the foot of the Poljanska gora in the west, embraces a extensive part of the karsti-fied Vinička gmajna in the north and east and includes also the right bank of the Kolpa.
9.1.2. CONFLICT ZONES
It has been stressed in the beginning that the sixty-minute site catchment borders should not be interpreted as territories of actual economic exploitation or even as territories of sociopolitical units. However, we need to look at the cases where the above-mentioned distance revealed touching polygons. Close proximity in itself represents a danger for conflict situations and we are therefore interested in the reasons for not respecting the principle of equal distances within the settlement network.
There are eight cases with contact zones within less than an hour's distance from the settlement (fig. 116). The situation between Kučar near Podzemelj (cat. no. 483) and Metlika (cat. no. 476) reveals that these two neighbours are rather different in strength. Kučar ranks among the most important centres, while Metlika is at the bottom of the scale (cf. fig. 113). This is apparently the reason for the coexistence of two settlements within a relatively short distance from each other. Moreover, Metlika and Črnomelj (cat. no. 495) were abandoned in the Late Hallstatt period and Kučar thus did not actually come into conflict with its neighbours.
A similar relationship can be observed for Molnik (cat. no. 25) and Magdalenska gora (cat. no. 39), which are located in the westernmost part of Dolenjska. These are two neighbouring centres of different strengths, the one-hour polygons of which overlap minimally on the top of a narrow ridge (fig. 115). This coexistence might have been possible also due to the fact that the hinterland of Magdalenska gora gravitates to the south, in the direction of the fertile Šmarje and Grosuplje Valleys.
The remaining four settlements (Vesela gora at Brinje - cat. no. 246, Križni vrh near Beli grič - cat. no. 294, Cvinger near Korita - cat. no. 447 and Gradec near Vinkov Vrh - cat. no. 453) belong into the second category of centres in their importance. As can be discerned from the overlapping one-hour polygons, they had smaller site catchments. The density of the settlement network was therefore more or less in accordance with the
Naselij, ki imajo kontaktne cone na manjši razdalji kot uro hoda, je osem (sl. 116). Če si najprej ogledamo situacijo med Kučarjem nad Podzemljem (kat. št. 483) in Metliko (kat. št. 476), vidimo, da gre za dva po moči dokaj različna soseda. Medtem ko sodi Kučar med najpomembnejša središča, pa se je Metlika uvrstila na rep razpredelnice (prim. sl. 113). Očitno je prav to omogočalo sobivanje obeh naselij na razmeroma majhni oddaljenosti. Sicer pa sta tako Metlika kot tudi Črnomelj (kat. št. 495) v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju opustela, zato Kučar s svojimi sosedi pravzaprav ni imel težav.
Podobno razmerje opažamo med Molnikom (kat. št. 25) in Magdalensko goro (kat. št. 39), ki ležita na skrajnem zahodu Dolenjske. Tudi tu imamo primer sosedstva dveh različno močnih središč, katerih enourna poligona se minimalno prekrivata na vrhu ozkega grebena (sl. 115). Morda je bilo sožitje možno tudi zaradi tega, ker je bilo zaledje Magdalenske gore usmerjeno predvsem proti jugu, torej v smeri rodovitne Šmarske in Grosupeljske doline.
Preostala štiri naselja (Vesela gora v Brinju - kat. št. 246, Križni vrh nad Belim gričem - kat. št. 294, Cvinger nad Koriti - kat. št. 447 in Gradec pri Vinkovem Vrhu - kat. št. 453) pa sodijo po pomembnosti med središča druge kategorije. Manjša so bila tudi njihova zaledja, kar lahko razberemo iz prekrivanja enournih poligonov. Gostota poselitvene mreže je bila torej bolj ali manj v soglasju s pomembnostjo naselij. Ugotovitev ne preseneča, saj drugače sistem ne bi mogel obstajati.
9.1.3. ODNOS SREDIŠČ DO PERIFERNIH NASELIJ
Podobne zakonitosti pri umeščenosti v prostor opažamo tudi pri drugih naseljih. Gre za tista gradišča, ki niso izpolnjevala kriterijev, da bi jih uvrstili na seznam središč. Poimenovali smo jih periferna naselja. Če si ogledamo najprej situacijo v starejšem halštatskem obdobju, vidimo, da je bilo takšnih naselij pet (sl. 115). To so Limberk pri Veliki Račni (kat. št. 64), Kostjavec nad Tihabojem (kat. št. 124), Gradišče pri Dunaju (kat. št. 192), Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem (kat. št. 273) in Stari grad nad Podbočjem (kat. št. 439). Vsa ležijo izven de-vetdesetminutnih poligonov središč, kar verjetno ni slučaj. Hkrati z razmeroma veliko oddaljenostjo jih družita še dve značilnosti: vizualno dobro obvladujejo okolico, vsa pa so postavljena v bližino naravnih prehodov oziroma komunikacij.
Čeprav se je poselitvena slika v mlajšem halštat-skem obdobju spremenila, pa se je princip medsebojne oddaljenosti ohranil. Najprej moramo omeniti dve novi središči (Gradišče pri Valični vasi - kat. št. 119 in Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah - kat. št. 464), ki sta zrasli na takšnih lokacijah, da s svojima šestdesetminutnima poligonoma nista motili sosednjih naselij (sl. 115). Očitno
importance of settlements as revealed by the archaeological evidence. This finding is not surprising, since otherwise the system could not have functioned.
9.1.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CENTRES AND PERIPHERAL SETTLEMENTS
Similar rules in spatial positions as for the centres are observed also for other settlements. These settlements were not included into the list of centres, because they failed to meet the required conditions. They were termed peripheral settlements. The situation in the Early Hallstatt period reveals five such settlements (fig. 115): Limberk near Velika Račna (cat. no. 64), Kostjavec near Tihaboj (cat. no. 124), Gradišče near Dunaj (cat. no. 192), Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje (cat. no. 273) and Stari grad near Podbočje (cat. no. 439). They all lie outside the ninety-minute polygons of the centres, which is not likely to be a coincidence. Beside the relatively great distance, they share two other characteristics: a good visual control over the surroundings and the position in the vicinity of natural passes or communication lines.
Though the settlement pattern changed in the Late Hallstatt period, the principle of the distance among settlements remained. Two new centres (Gradišče near Valična vas - cat. no. 119 and Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice - cat. no. 464) appeared in this period and were positioned so that their sixty-minute polygons did not disturb the neighbouring settlements (fig. 115). This is obviously a thought-out colonisation intervention directed into the empty areas of the upper reaches of the Krka. A similar situation is observed in the Posavsko hribovje. All the new settlements grew beyond the limits of a two hours' walk from the already existing settlements.391 Another important finding is that they did not include any new centres. We are therefore dealing with peripheral agglomerations located in empty spaces away from the old settlement cores and main roads. It is difficult to determine their subsistence, but at least some of them must have been engaged in mining.392
Only one settlement deviates from the considered principles, that is Šumenje near Podturn (cat. no. 316), which lies less than half an hour's walk from the centre at Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem (cat. no. 311) (fig. 115). However, its occupation during the Late Hallstatt period is questionable and therefore does not compro-
391	Gradišče near Dešen (cat. no. 6), Gradec near Blečji Vrh (cat. no. 44), Sitarjevec near Litija (cat. no. 67), Gradišče near Vintarjevec (cat. no. 78), Pančičev vrh near Javorje (cat. no. 81), Gradišca near Jelše (cat. no. 88), Gradišče near Primskovo (cat. no. 92), Zagrac near Vodice pri Gabrovki (cat. no. 123), Špičasti vrh near Dole pri Litiji (cat. no. 126).
392	The evidence of this is the remains of slag uncovered at Gradišče near Dešen, Gradec near Blečji Vrh, Sitarjevec near Litija and Gradišca near Jelše.
gre za premišljen kolonizacijski poseg, ki je bil usmerjen v prazni območji zgornjega toka reke Krke. Podobno situacijo opažamo v Posavskem hribovju. Vse nove poselitvene točke so bile od obstoječih naselij oddaljene več kot dve uri hoda.391 Pomembna je tudi ugotovitev, da ni bilo med njimi nobenega novega središča. Pred seboj imamo torej periferne aglomeracije, ki so bile postavljene v prazen prostor, stran od starih naselij in glavnih poti. Kaj je omogočalo njihovo eksistenco, je težko reči, bržkone so se vsaj nekatera ukvarjala z rudar-stvom.392
Od pravkar opisanega poselitvenega rastra odstopa eno samo naselje, to je Šumenje pri Podturnu (kat. št. 316), ki je od središča Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 311) oddaljeno manj kot pol ure hoda (sl. 115). Vendar pa je njegova obljudenost v mlajšem hal-štatskem obdobju vprašljiva, zato v bistvu ne kvari zakonitosti poselitvene mreže, ki je bila ugotovljena z lokacijsko analizo halštatskih središč.393
9.2. NARAVNI VIRI
9.2.1. KVALITETA PRSTI IN AGRARNO ZALEDJE
Ker nimamo o paleookolju Dolenjske in Bele krajine praktično nobenih podatkov, lahko opravimo analizo vpliva agrarnega zaledja na poselitev zgolj na teoretičnem nivoju. Naš poskus temelji na predpostavki, da je bila rodovitnost prsti na tem območju v veliki meri odvisna od sestave matične podlage, oblikovanosti površja in hidroloških razmer, ter da so za razvoj tal potrebna tisočletja. Za približno oceno pedološkega potenciala smo se naslonili na karto najboljše obdelovalne zemlje, ki se pojavlja v radiju ure hoda od posameznega središča (ssl. 117). Želeli smo namreč preveriti, katera naselja so imela vsaj teoretično boljše možnosti za poljedelstvo, prav tako pa nas je zanimalo, če se dobljeni rezultati ujemajo s hierarhijo naselbin, ki smo jo izdelali s pomočjo arheoloških podatkov.
Največ rodovitne zemlje leži na rjavih pokarbonat-nih tleh in rečnih nanosih. Najdemo jo v nižinah, na u-ravnanih slemenih, rečnih terasah ter prisojnih legah. Gro-
391	Gradišče nad Dešnom (kat. št. 6), Gradec pri Blečjem Vrhu (kat. št. 44), Sitarjevec nad Litijo (kat. št. 67), Gradišče pri Vintarjevcu (kat. št. 78), Pančičev vrh pod Javorjem (kat. št. 81), Gradišca pri Jelšah (kat. št. 88), Gradišče pri Primskovem (kat. št. 92), Zagrac nad Vodicami pri Gabrovki (kat. št. 123), Špičasti vrh nad Dolami pri Litiji (kat. št. 126).
392	To dokazujejo ostanki žlinder, ki smo jih našli na Gradišču nad Dešnom, Gradcu pri Blečjem Vrhu, Sitarjevcu nad Litijo in Gradišci pri Jelšah.
393	Datacija naselja sloni na detektorski najdbi, katere provenienca pa ni povsem zanesljiva. Pri sondiranju Šumenja namreč niso odkrili halštatskih ostalin. Glej Breščak/Dular 2002, 109.
mise the principles of the settlement network established through the locational analysis of the Hallstatt centres.393
9.2. NATURAL SOURCES
9.2.1. SOIL QUALITY
AND AGRICULTURAL BACKGROUND
Practically no data on the palaeoenvironment of Dolenjska and Bela krajina are available to us and thus the analysis of the interaction between the agricultural area and the settlement can only be performed on a theoretical level. Our attempt is based on the premise that the soil fertility in this area largely depended on the composition of the parent rock, surface configuration and hydrologic conditions, and also the fact that the soil took millennia to form. The estimate of the pedo-logic potential was obtained with the aid of a recent map of the best soil for farming, whereby we observed the areas within a one-hour's walk radius from individual centres (fig. 117). This was done so as to verify which settlements had, at least in theory, better potential for farming. We also wanted to know whether the obtained results corresponded with the settlement hierarchy obtained with the aid of archaeological evidence.
Most fertile soil lies on brown chromic cambisols and river alluvia. It can be found in the lowland, on flattened ridges, river terraces and sunny slopes. A rough comparison between the surface of the study-area and the surface of first-class arable land shows that Dolenjska and Bela krajina enjoy fairly good conditions for farming, which are not equal everywhere. The majority of the compact agricultural surfaces can be observed along the Krka, in the Novo mesto area and on the Krška ravan with the Krško gričevje, where a good third of the Iron Age centres was located. The centres with most fertile hinterlands are those at Gradišče near Velike Malence (cat. no. 213), Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351) and Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382). The location of the centres in Bela krajina is also in surprising accordance with the fertile soils. The best hinterlands are those of Kučar near Podzemelj (cat. no. 483) and Črnomelj (cat. no. 495). It has to be stressed that the data for the right bank of the Kolpa in Croatia are missing, which makes Metlika (cat. no. 476), Kučar near Podzemelj (cat. no. 483) and Šlemine near Golek pri Vinici (cat. no. 508) somewhat underestimated in our classification (^ig. 118). At the very top of the list of fertile hinterlands are also the main centres of the Dolenjsko podolje, that is Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat.
393 The date of the settlement is based on metal detector finds, the provenance of which is not completely reliable. The trial trenches at Šumenje failed to reveal Hallstatt remains. See Breščak/Dular 2002, 109.
ba primerjava med površino območja, ki smo ga vključili v projekt in površino kvalitetne obdelovalne zemlje pokaže, da imata Dolenjska in Bela krajina dokaj ugodne pogoje za poljedelstvo, ki pa niso povsod enaki. Glavnino strnjenih agrarnih površin srečamo ob Krki, v Novomeški pokrajini in na Krški ravni s Krškim gričevjem, kjer je zrasla dobra tretjina železnodobnih središč. Po rodovitnosti zaledja prednjačijo Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah (kat. št. 213), Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351) in Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382). V presenetljivem sozvočju z rodovitnimi prstmi je tudi prostorska umeščenost belokranjskih središč. Najboljše zaledje premoreta Kučar nad Podzemljem (kat. št. 483) in Črnomelj (kat. št. 495), pri čemer pa moramo poudariti, da nam manjkajo podatki za desno, hrvaško stran Kolpe, zato so Metlika (kat. št. 476), Kučar nad Podzemljem (kat. št. 483) in Šlemine nad Golekom pri Vinici (kat. št. 508) v naši razvrstitvi nekoliko podcenjeni (sl. 118). V sam vrh se uvrščata tudi glavni naselji Dolenjskega podolja, in sicer Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96) ter Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39). Prvo središče leži sredi plodne ravnice Stiškega kota in Šentviške kotlinice, drugo pa dobro obvladuje Šmar-sko dolino in del Grosupeljske kotline. V Mirnski dolini pripada največji delež rodovitne zemlje Veseli gori v Brinju (kat. št. 246), medtem ko imajo druga naselja skromnejše možnosti za poljedelstvo. To velja še zlasti za gradišča v Posavskem hribovju, kjer je kvalitetna obdelovalna zemlja skopa in vegetacijska doba nekoliko krajša.
Najslabši agrarni potencial med železnodobnimi središči imajo Tičnica nad Studencem (kat. št. 171) v Krškem gričevju, Molnik nad Podmolnikom (kat. št. 25) in Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9) v Posavskem hribovju ter Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo gorico (kat. št. 55) na obrobju Krimskega hribovja. Podobno lahko rečemo za Sv. Marjeto na Libni (kat. št. 198), saj ima do najrodovitnejše zemlje nekoliko več kot uro hoda. V vseh omenjenih primerih imamo opraviti z mejnimi naselji dolenjske železnodobne skupnosti, ki so morda izkoriščala druge prednosti, ki jim jih je nudilo okolje.
9.2.2. PRIDOBIVANJE HRANE
Kljub razmahu nekaterih novih gospodarskih dejavnosti, na primer železarstva, sta poljedelstvo in živinoreja tudi v železni dobi ostala osnova za preživetje. Prav zaradi tega smo med raziskovanji dolenjskih naselij vseskozi zbirali tudi kostno gradivo in ostanke rastlinskih semen. Žal zaradi majhnih sond organskih ostankov ni bilo veliko, kot problematične pa so se izkazale tudi palinološke analize. Območje jugovzhodne Slovenije je namreč močno zakraselo in praktično nima ohranjenih barjanskih sedimentov. Ne glede na omenjene težave pa se nam zdi vseeno umestno, da o obeh gospodarskih panogah spregovorimo vsaj nekaj besed.
Fig. 117: Distribution of the recent first-class arable land (Source: Anton Melik Geographical Institut ZRC SAZU). Sl. 117: Kmetijska zemljišča 1. kategorije (vir: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU).
no. 96) and Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39). Stična lies in the middle of the fertile plain of the Stiški kot and the small Šentvid basin, and Magdalenska gora's hinterland encompasses the Šmarje Valley and part of the Grosuplje basin. The largest share of fertile soil in the Mirna Valley belongs to Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246), while other settlements have a lower farming potential. This is particularly true of the hillforts in the Posavsko hribovje, where the quality farming land is scarce and the vegetation period somewhat shorter.
The lowest agricultural potential among the Iron Age centres was observed at Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171) in the Krško gričevje, Molnik near Podmolnik (cat. no. 25) and Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9)
9.2.2.1. Poljedelstvo
O oblikah polj, njihovi velikosti in načinu obdelave, ne moremo reči pravzaprav ničesar. Tovrstnih struktur namreč nismo raziskovali, zato lahko o njih sklepamo le posredno. Naselja, ki so na istih mestih vztrajala več stoletij, kažejo na stabilno kulturno pokrajino s trajnimi polji, ki so zahtevala temu primerne obdelovalne postopke. Mednje vsekakor sodijo kolobarjenje, gnojenje in uporaba rala, ki se je v srednji Evropi uveljavilo že v neolitskem času.394 Žal na Dolenjskem za zdaj ne poznamo poljedelskega orodja, saj ga pri naših raziskavah
394
Lüning 2000; Fries-Knoblach 2005; Rösch 2005.
2500
-o 2000
□ t
0) o
•I
3
1500
1000
500
o
I
TJ
S O
0)
E
-Sf _g
ffi m
-£ >
<D >
.32. "ffl
.E E g
□
O O)
_g
S
(D >
KJ
>o tO •C
o.
0) E
I £
o.
3
> r -i- ^
D
C
>o
E
(U _c
(D O)


o o
0) O)
d
"O □
CL
Si.
N 2 ca
1	-E	3	o	>u •C	o C
o	>		'c	o	
^ m O) C	t C >	S	tž5 o E	I	i Q
5	o		o O) ts	> 1	>
	O		g	v	CO
O —

o
O)
J? o "O OJ
o
s

2 D
O □J M
•C
o
o g
D
"O □
C 0} i« D
O
U>
S
O
o
E
J)
x/>
^	u
'4	=
o	o
E	"S
-o	a
o	CO
Q_	-—■
S"	5
^	"E
o	-
Fig. 118: Classification of Iron Age centres in relation to the potential use of the first-class arable land. Sl. 118: Razvrstitev železnodobnih središč glede na možnost izrabe kmetijskih zemljišč 1. kategorije.
in the Posavsko hribovje as well as Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico (cat. no. 55) on the fringes of the Krimsko hribovje. A similar conclusion can be made for Sv. Marjeta on Libna (cat. no. 198), since it is over an hour away from the most fertile land. All the above-enumerated settlements lie at the borders of the Iron Age community of Dolenjska and probably had other advantages provided by the environment.
9.2.2. FOOD SUPPLY AND CONSUMPTION
In spite of the expansion of certain new economic activities - such as iron working - land farming and cattle breeding retained their positions as the basic means of subsistence also in the Iron Age. With this in mind, we collected also bone material and remains of plant seeds during the research of the settlements of Dolenjska. Unfortunately, the small trial trenches did not yield much organic remains. Furthermore, palinological analyses proved to be problematic, since the area of southeastern Slovenia is highly karstified and is practically devoid of preserved moory sediments. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to say at least a few words on both of the above-mentioned branches of economy.
nismo našli. Nekoliko drugačna je situacija v bližnji soseščini, na primer v Istri, kjer je iz 5. stoletja pr. Kr. poznana upodobitev rala na eni od situl iz Nezakcija,395 medtem ko pozna Posočje v poznem latenu (1. stoletje pr. Kr.) prilaganje poljedelskega orodja v grobove.396 Verjetno ne bomo daleč od resnice, če rečemo, da so podobno poljedelsko orodje uporabljali tudi na Dolenjskem, saj je bilo to območje v starejši železni dobi s pokrajinami na zahodu v tesnih gospodarskih in kulturnih stikih.
O hranjenju poljščin govore hrambene jame, ki smo jih odkrili v nekaterih naseljih. Na Gradcu pri Vinko-vem Vrhu je bila okrogle oblike (premer 1 m, globina 0,5 m), vsekana v skalnato osnovo, ležala pa je tik ob stavbi iz mlajšega halštatskega obdobja.397 V isti čas sodi hrambena jama s Cvingerja pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Tudi ta je bila vsekana v živo skalo, njena oblika pa je bila ovalna (1,7 m x 1,0 m) z dnom, ki je imelo dva nivoja.398 Hrambene jame poznamo tudi s Kučarja nad Podzemljem. Tista v hiši A (mlajše halštatsko obdobje) je imela lijakasto obliko (premer 1,5 m, globina 1,2 m), zapolnjena pa je bila s temnorjavo mastno zemljo, v kateri je
395	Mihovilic 2001, 100 s, sl. 94, t. 15: 9.
396	Guštin 1991, 60 ss.
397	Dular et al. 1995, 113 s, sl. 37.
398	Dular/Križ 2004, 224 s, sl. 29.
9.2.2.1. Land cultivation
The shape of fields, their size and cultivation mode are practically unknown. These types of features were not investigated and can therefore only be indirectly inferred. The settlements that persisted in the same ecological niches for several centuries indicate a stable cultural landscape with permanent fields that demanded appropriate cultivation procedures. The latter certainly included crop rotation, fertilization and the use of a ploughshare that became widely used in Central Europe already in the Neolithic times.394 In Dolenjska, no farm implements have so far been found. The situation in the near vicinity is somewhat different. In Istria, for example, a ploughshare is depicted on a 5th century BC situla from Nesactium,395 while in the Posočje area cultivation tools were offered in graves in the Late La Tene period (1s' century BC).396 It would probably not be far from the truth to say that similar farm implements were used also in Dolenjska, since the latter had close economic and cultural contacts with the areas to the west in the Early Iron Age.
Storing field crops is indicated by the storage pits uncovered at certain settlements. At Gradec near Vinkov Vrh, for example, the pit was round in shape (1 m in diameter, 0.5 m in depth), hewn into the rock base and located beside a building from the Late Hallstatt peri-od.397 A storage pit from Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice belongs to the same period. This pit was also hewn into the bedrock and was oval in shape (1.7 m x 1.0 m) with a two-level bottom.398 Storage pits are known also from Kučar near Podzemelj. The pit in house A (Late Hallstatt period) was funnel-shaped (1.5 m in diameter, 1.2 m in depth) and filled with dark brown clayey earth with many fragments of pottery, clay plaster and part of a quernstone.399 Pit 2 is even more interesting. It was almost square in shape (1.1 m x 1.3 m), dug into a layer of loam with a wooden box built in its upper part. The box was destroyed in fire, which caused its outlines to be well preserved on the walls of the pit. It was made of horizontally laid round beams (9-11 cm in diameter) set into the holes in the wallposts. Of the material from the pit we should mention two small heaps of charred grains, which the analyses revealed as millet. The finds date the pit to the Late Iron Age.400
The remains of thrashing are represented by chaff that was often used as temper in making the clay plaster for house. If the houses were destroyed in a fire, the remains of charred chaff would be relatively well preserved in the burnt plaster.
394	Lüning 2000; Fries-Knoblach 2005; Rösch 2005.
395	Mihovilic 2001, 100 f, fig. 94, pl. 15: 9.
396	Guštin 1991, 60 ff.
397	Dular et al. 1995, 113 f, fig. 37.
398	Dular/Križ 2004, 224 f, fig. 29.
399	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 35 f, fig. 34.
400	Ib. 58 ff, fig. 33-35.
bilo precej fragmentov keramike, hišnega ometa in del žrmelj.399 Še zanimivejša je bila jama 2. Bila je skoraj kvadratne oblike (1,1 m x 1,3 m), vkopana v plast ilovice, vanjo pa je bil v zgornjem delu vgrajen lesen zaboj. Ker je propadel v požaru, so se v stenah lepo ohranili njegovi obrisi. Zgrajen je bil iz vodoravno položenih okroglih brun (premer 9-11 cm), ki so bila v vogalih vtaknjena v utore vertikalnih soh. Med gradivom, ki je bilo najdeno v jami, nas na tem mestu zanimata predvsem dva kupčka zoglenelega zrnja, ki se je po analizah izkazalo za proso. Najdbe datirajo jamo v mlajšo železno dobo.400
Ostanki mlačve so pleve, ki so jih velikokrat kot pustilo uporabljali pri izdelavi glinastega ometa hiš. Če so le-te propadle v požaru, so se ostanki zoglenelih luščin razmeroma dobro ohranili v prežganem lepu.
S poljedelstvom je povezano tudi mletje žita. Na ostanke kamnitih žrmelj smo naleteli v več naseljih.401 Za njihovo izdelavo so bili primerni predvsem kreme-novi peščenjaki in konglomerati, ki se nahajajo v per-mokarbonskih plasteh Posavskega hribovja. Iz teh kamenin so bile na primer izdelane žrmlje s Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični in iz drugih naselij, ki ležijo blizu tega območja.402 V oddaljenejših krajih (npr. v Beli krajini) so uporabljali lokalne peščenjake, ki pa po kvaliteti za prvimi zaostajajo. Žrmlje iz starejše železne dobe se po obliki in velikosti od poznobronastodobnih v ničemer ne razlikujejo. V obeh obdobjih so bile sestavljene iz dveh ploščatih kamnov in sicer masivnejšega spodnja-ka, ki je stal na mestu in premikajočega se vrhnjaka, s katerim so drobili žito. Žrmlje so v naseljih pogosta najdba, vendar pa smo pri naših sondiranjih običajno našli le fragmente. Bolje ohranjenih kosov je bilo razmeroma malo.403
V mlajši železni dobi se je uveljavil ročni mlin. Narejen je bil tako, da se je zgornji, konkavno obdelan kamen vrtel okoli osi, ki je bila vdelana v konveksno oblikovan spodnjak. Kamni so bili zato okrogle oblike in so merili v premeru do 40 cm. Dva fragmenta ročnih mlinov sta bila najdena na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični. Oba sodita v pozno latensko obdobje.404
O tem, kakšne kulturne rastline so gojili v železni dobi, nismo vedeli pred začetkom našega projekta praktično ničesar. Pri sondiranju naselij smo zato veliko
399	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 35 s, sl. 34.
400	Ib. 58 ss, sl. 33-35.
401	Za žrmlje in ročne mline glej Py 1992; Čižmar 2002; za petrografske analize žrmelj iz zahodne Slovenije glej A. Horvat/Župančič 1987.
402	Buser 1994, 42.
403	Npr. Kučar nad Podzemljem (Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 42, sl. 20); Makovec nad Zagorico (Dular et al. 1995, 102, sl. 16); Zagrac nad Vodicami pri Gabrovki (Dular/Pavlin/ Tecco Hvala 2003, 179, sl. 29); Kostjavec nad Tihabojem (ib. 188, sl. 38).
404	Dular 1994c, 129, t. 14: 16 in 15: 1.
Connected with land cultivation is also the grinding of cereals. The remains of stone quernstones were uncovered in several settlements.401 The suitable materials for their production were mostly quartz sandstones and conglomerates of the Permian-Carboniferous layers of the Posavsko hribovje. These rocks were used, for example, to make the quernstones from Cvinger near Vir pri Stični and other settlements that lie near this area.402 In more distant places (in Bela krajina, for example), local sandstones of a lower quality were used. Quernstones from the Early Iron Age differ neither in form nor in size from those dating from the Late Bronze Age. The quernstones of both periods were composed of two flat stones, the more massive stationary quern and, above it, the mobile handstone with which the cereals were ground. They were made of tufa. Quernstones represent a common find in settlements, though our trial trenches revealed only their fragments. Better preserved pieces were relatively rare.403
The Late Iron Age witnessed a wide use of the hand mill. It was made so that its upper, concave stone rotated around the axis set into the convex quern underneath. The stones were therefore round in shape and measured up to 40 cm in diameter. Two fragments of hand mills were found at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Both date to the Late La Tene period.404
Before the beginning of our project, practically nothing was known as to which cultural plants were grown in the Iron Age. We therefore paid much attention to collecting plant remains during trenching. These remains were scarce. Since most settlements were constructed on limestone and dolomite bases, the pollen was destroyed in the sediments, while of the seeds only those charred in fire remained. Most material was found in burnt areas. Layers were systematically sampled and charred remains were separated by floatation. Unfortunately, the remains were not plentiful. Such data are only available for fifteen settlements, since the researched surfaces were small and often caused the sampling to be unsuccessful.405 The material was analyzed by M. Culiberg and A. Šercelj. The results of their analyses have already been published, therefore only a brief summary of their findings is given here.406
401	For quernstones and hand mills see Py 1992; Čižmar 2002; for petrographic analyses of quernstones from western Slovenia see A. Horvat/Župančič 1987.
402	Buser 1994, 42.
403	E. g. Kučar near Podzemelj (Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 42, fig. 20); Makovec near Zagorica (Dular et al. 1995, 102, fig. 16); Zagrac near Vodice pri Gabrovki (Dular/Pavlin/ Tecco Hvala 2003, 179, fig. 29); Kostjavec near Tihaboj (ib. 188, fig. 38).
404	Dular 1994c, 129, pl. 14: 16 and 15: 1.
405	Unfortunately, old excavations (for example at Cving-er near Vir pri Stični), that were conducted in the 1960s and 70s, did not involve palaeobotanic research.
406	Culiberg/Šercelj 1995a; Culiberg/Šercelj 1995b.
pozornost posvečali tudi zbiranju rastlinskih ostankov, ki pa jih je bilo zelo malo. Ker so večino naselij zgradili na apnenčastih in dolomitnih podlagah, je pelod v sedi-mentih propadel, medtem ko so se od semen ohranila le tista, ki so zoglenela v ognju. Največ gradiva smo našli v pogoriščih. Plasti smo sistematično vzorčili in nato s flotacijo izločili zoglenele ostanke. Žal tudi teh ni bilo veliko, tako da imamo podatke le za petnajst naselij. Raziskane površine so bile namreč majhne, zato vzorčenje velikokrat ni bilo uspešno.405 Gradivo sta analizirala M. Culiberg in A. Šercelj. Ker so rezultati njunih analiz že objavljeni, na tem mestu na kratko povzemamo ugo-
tovitve.406
Če si najprej ogledamo tabelo (sl. 119), na kateri so naselja razvrščena po kronološkem redu, vidimo, da ni bilo med vegetacijo pozne bronaste in železne dobe, vsaj kar se gojenja kulturnih rastlin tiče, nobenih bistvenih razlik. Pomembnejše vrste so zastopane v obeh obdobjih. Njihova pogostost je resda različna, vendar pa na osnovi majhnega vzorca in bolj ali manj naključno zbranih najdb ne kaže delati daljnosežnejših zaključkov.
Od žit so gojili ječmen (Hordeum vulgare), oves (Avena sativa), pšenico (Triticum sp.), proso (Panicum miliaceum) in rž (Secale cereale). Razmeroma dobro so zastopane tudi stročnice, na primer grašica (Vicia sp.), bob (Vicia faba), grah (Pisum sp.) in leča (Lens culina-ris). Vse te rastline spremljajo njihovi redni spremljevalci pleveli, katerih zoglenela semena smo prav tako odkrili v posameznih vzorcih. Omenimo naj stoklaso (Bro-mus sp.), metliko (Chenopodium sp.), dresen (Polygonum), deteljo (Trifolium sp.) itd.
Posebej pomembna je ugotovitev, da smo v večini vzorcev našli tudi zoglenela semena zelenjave, in sicer križnic (Brassicaceae) iz rodov Brassica in Sinapis, med katere spadajo današnje kulturne rastline kot so zelje, repa, gorčica in koleraba. Culibergova in Šercelj celo menita, da lahko prav na osnovi velikega števila zrnja križnic iz dolenjskih naselij, ki daleč presega ostala najdišča v Evropi, sklepamo, da je bila ena od domovin teh kultiviranih rastlin tudi obrobje jugovzhodnih Alp.407
Med uporabnimi rastlinami, katerih zoglenele ostanke smo prav tako našli v dolenjskih železnodobnih naseljih, naj omenimo tri: lan (Linum usitatissimum), ki so ga gojili tako zaradi oljnatih semen kot vlaken za prejo, črni bezeg (Sambucus nigra), ki pomaga pri lajšanju prehladnih obolenj ter robido (Rubussp.), ki je prav tako uporabna za izdelavo napitkov.
405	Žal pri starejših izkopavanjih (npr. na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični), ki so potekala v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, niso opravili paleobotaničnih raziskav.
406	Culiberg/Šercelj 1995a; Culiberg/Šercelj 1995b.
407	Culiberg/Šercelj 1995a, 174 s.
			i 1 D} § E 1 X	"c" E ~5 E 1 C g O) § E 1 X	S! ^ S '•C s 0 1 C	Ol i S CO	.8 C 0) š- i u '■C	8 g E § 0) o E 3 '■C	8 1 i E § S 0 ti 1 '•E	8 C .S CL D g 8 1 E U 0 1 E 3 ti:	"o 1 E 1 E E .3 1	■i sD 1 to	3" i D •s s	1 š-D 1	1 g •s s	1 Š- i u> cC	■s D .C "5 u (o S —J	8 •s i? Š-V) 8-C CÖ	8 1 iT) C O V) 8-C CÖ	8 88 a 1	"c" E E 5 1 E .C	1 <u -Q .1 C s o § to	-o J. s- M -Q Bi	3 S d W> 3 E 1	"o % E =} 1 C 0) Ö	šE C f	i s E QÄ E C 1 cg	Si E is	J 8-s E QÄ
278	Gradišče	Gradišče pri Trebnjem									X			X					X	X		X	X		X				
386	Vihro	Draga	X	X				X										X							X				
338	Mastni hrib	Škocjan	X								X							X					X		X				
421	Gradec	Mihovo	X	X	X		X	X		X	X		X	X			X		X	X									
429	Gradec	Vratno	X					X		X	X		X			X	X			X			X	X	X		X		X
124	Kostjavec	Tihaboj	X				X	X		X	X	X	X													X			
273	Kunkel	Vrhtrebnje									X			X					X	X		X	X		X				
447	Cvinger	Korita	X		X		X				X	X	X	X		X				X		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
453	Gradec	Vinkov Vrh	X		X	X	X				X	X		X	X					X			X	X			X		
279	Kincelj	Trbinc	X				X				X								X	X		X	X		X	X		X	
464	Cvinger	Dolenjske Toplice	X				X	X	X		X							X	X		X	X	X			X			
126	Špičasti hrib	Dole pri Litiji									X		X					X							X				
53	Vinji hrib	Vino									X									X									
483	Kučar	Podzemelj									X									X					X				
131	Gradišče	Suhadole	X				X	X		X										X									
Fig. 119: Charred plant remains from the settlements. Sl. 119: Zogleneli rastlinski ostanki iz naselij.
The table (fig. 119) with settlements classified in a chronological order shows that there were no significant differences between the vegetation of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, at least as far as the cultivated plants are concerned. The more important species are represented in both periods. Their frequency does differ, but the small sample and finds that were collected more or less by chance defer us from making any far-reaching conclusions.
The cultivated cereals include barley (Hordeum vulgare), oats (Avena sativa), wheat (Triticum sp.), broom-corn millet (Panicum miliaceum) and rye (Secale cereale). The leguminous plants are also relatively well represented, for example vetch (Vicia sp.), faba bean (Vicia faba), pea (Pisum sp.) and lentil (Lens culinaris). All these plants are accompanied by their regular companions the weeds, the charred grains of which were also found in certain samples. The weeds include brome grass (Bromus sp.), goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), knotweed (Polygonum), clover (Trifolium sp.) and others.
A particularly important finding is that most samples also revealed charred seeds of vegetables, more precisely the Brassicaceae family from the Brassica and Si-napis genera, which include the modern cultural plants
9.2.2.2. Živinoreja
O živinoreji v pozni bronasti in železni dobi nam govori gozdna vegetacija in ostanki živalskih kosti, ki smo jih našli v naseljih. Čeprav za to obdobje še nimamo natančnih pelodnih profilov, ki bi nam pokazali natančnejša razmerja med posameznimi drevesnimi vrstami,408 pa sta Culibergova in Šercelj že na podlagi ostankov oglja iz nekaterih naselij ugotovila razmeroma močno degradacijo gozda. V bližnji okolici Kučarja nad Podzemljem naj bi izgledal približno takole: najbolj razširjeni so bili mešani hrastovi gozdovi z brestom, gabrom in javorjem, v katerem je bila možna paša. Vsekakor to ni bil kli-maksni (vrhunski) gozd, ampak njegova regresivna sekundarna faza, ki jo lahko razlagamo kot posledico an-tropozoogenega vpliva.409
Več podatkov o železnodobni živinoreji seveda nudi kostno gradivo. Žal ni bilo povsod enako bogato, saj se je število najdenih kosti od najdišča do najdišča močno razlikovalo. Čeprav iz količinskih razmerij ne
408 Problem bodo zanesljivo osvetlile nove sistematične raziskave, ki že potekajo. Prim. Andrič 2004.
409
Culiberg/Sercelj 1995b, 197
s.
such as cabbage, turnip, mustard and kohlrabi. In the opinion of Culiberg and Šercelj, judging by the high number of Brassicaceae seeds from the settlements of Dolenjska, that are far greater than elsewhere in Europe, we may infer that one of the homelands of these cultivated plant also lay in the fringes of the south-eastern Alps.407 The Iron Age settlements of Dolenjska revealed also charred remains of other useful plants. Three should be mentioned here: flax (Linum usitatissimum), cultivated for its oily seeds and for yarn, elderberry (Sambucus nigra) for cold relief, and blackberry (Rubus sp.), which can be used for preparing beverages.
9.2.2.2. Stock breeding
Stock breeding in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages is indicated by forest vegetation and remains of animal bones found in the settlements. At present, no detailed pollen profiles are available that would show precise relationships among individual tree species.408 However, Culiberg and Šercelj were able to establish fairly severe forest degradation on the basis of the charcoal remains from certain settlements. The situation in the close vicinity of Kučar near Podzemelj should be approximately as follows: mixed oak forests with elm, beech and maple, that were suitable for pasture, were prevalent. This was by no means a climax forest, but represented rather a regressive secondary phase that may be interpreted as a consequence of anthropogenic influence.409
More data on the Iron Age stock breeding are, of course, provided by bones. Unfortunately, the number of the uncovered bones greatly differs from site to site. Though the quantitative relationships cannot serve as the basis for conclusions, we did observe that bones were relatively rare in the fortified settlements of the Late Bronze Age. This is additional evidence of hill-top settlements being occupied only for short periods (temporarily). Iron Age settlements yielded more material. Wherever trial trenches cut through thick layers, they usually also revealed numerous bones. However, most material comes from the excavations at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični, where twenty-two trenches yielded 4493 identifiable bones. The number represents just over two thirds of all animal remains excavated in Dolenjska so far. The assemblage from other settlements is far more modest but supplements well the picture obtained from the Stična material. The information on animal bones is summarized here from the studies of S. Bokony and L. Bartosiewicz.410
407	Culiberg/Šercelj 1995a, 174 f.
408	New systematic research already underway will certainly shed light onto the problem. Cf. Andrič 2004.
409	Culiberg/Šercelj 1995b, 197 f.
410	Bartosiewicz 1991; Bokony 1994; Bartosiewicz 1996;
Bartosiewicz 1999.
kaže delati resnejših zaključkov, pa je vendarle opaziti, da so bile v poznobronastodobnih utrjenih naseljih kosti razmeroma redke. To je dodaten dokaz, da so bile višine le kratkotrajno (občasno) obljudene. Več gradiva so dala železnodobna naselja. Če smo s sondami presekali debele plasti, smo v njih praviloma našli tudi veliko kosti. Sicer pa izvira pretežni del gradiva z izkopavanj Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični, kjer so v dvaindvajsetih sondah našli 4493 opredeljivih kosti. Število predstavlja nekaj več kot dve tretjini vseh najdb, kar smo jih doslej izkopali na Dolenjskem. Bera iz ostalih naselij je torej skromnejša, vendar dobro dopolnjuje sliko, ki jo je dalo stiško gradivo. Rezultate analiz živalskih kosti povzemamo po študijah S. B6k6nyja in L. Bartosiewicza.410
Če si najprej ogledamo pogostost posameznih vrst, vidimo, da gre v vseh doslej analiziranih naseljih za podobne trende (sl. 120). Povsod je bilo najbolj razširjeno domače govedo, temu pa je praviloma sledila drobnica (ovce in koze), medtem ko je bila na tretjem mestu domača svinja. Odstotek ostalih domačih in divjih živali je bil z ozirom na omenjene tri vrste zanemarljiv.
Natančnejši pogled v posamezne živalske vrste in njihova medsebojna razmerja nam omogoča veliko število opredeljivih kosti s Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični (sl. 121). B6k6ny je ugotovil, da je bila populacija govedi, ki je zavzemala čez polovico vseh domačih živali, precej raznolika. To velja tako za obliko in velikost rogov, kot tudi telesni obseg. Na Cvingerju je prevladovalo primitivno govedo nizke rasti (povprečna višina 109 cm), ki se v bistvu ni razlikovalo od železnodobnega goveda srednje in jugovzhodne Evrope.
Med drobnico je bila ovca pogostejša od koze. To je sicer v skladu s splošnimi trendi, vendar pa je bila drugod po srednji in jugovzhodni Evropi pogostost ovčjih kosti kar pet do desetkrat večja od kozjih in ne le za dobrih 7%, kot je to primer na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični. B6k6ny omenja kot morebitni razlog za pogostost koze hribovit svet.411
Podobno kot govedo so bili tudi prašiči primitivne in majhne rasti. V glavnem so jih redili zaradi mesa, saj je več kot polovica najdenih kosti pripadala primerkom, ki niso dosegli odrasle starosti. Pri govedu in drobnici je bila situacija drugačna. Mladih živali je bilo le okoli 30%, medtem ko juvenilnih kosti konja in psa na Cvingerju sploh niso našli.412
Večina konjskih kosti je pripadala osebkom male rasti. Gre za delovne konje tako imenovane zahodne skupine oziroma primerke lokalnega izvora, ki so jih očitno uporabljali pri delu. Drugačne rase so bili konji iz dolenjskih gomil. Bili so večji in po B6k6nyjevem mnenju
410	Bartosiewicz 1991; B6k6ny 1994; Bartosiewicz 1996; Bartosiewicz 1999.
411	B6k6ny 1994, 196, tab. 7.
412	Ib. 202.
The study of the frequency of particular species reveals that all settlements analyzed so far reveal similar trends (^ig. 120). All show a predominance of cattle, usually followed by caprinae, while pigs came third. The percentage of other domestic and wild animals was negligible in comparison to the domestic animals.
The high number of identifiable bones from Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (fig. 121) enables a closer look at individual animal species and the relationships among them. Bokony found that the cattle population, which represented over a half of all domestic animals, was highly varied. This holds true of the shape and size of horns as well as body size. The predominant type was primitive cattle of low stature (average height of 109 cm) that did not substantially differ from the Iron Age cattle of Central and South-Eastern Europe.
Sheep were more frequent than goats. This is in accordance with the general trends, though the frequency of sheep bones in Central and South-Eastern Europe is five to ten times higher than that of goat bones, as opposed to just over 7 % higher at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Bokony mentions the hilly terrain as the possible reason for the frequency of the goat.411
Pigs were, similarly to cattle, primitive and of small size. They were mostly bred for meat, since more than half of the uncovered bones belong to specimens that
uvoženi z vzhoda.413 Očitno so na njih jezdili predstavniki takratne elite, kar lahko sklepamo iz primerov, ko so bili konji kot žrtveni darovi položeni v njihove grobove.
Analize kostnega gradiva so pokazale, da so v železni dobi v jugovzhodni Sloveniji prevladovale domače živali drobne do srednje velike rasti. Prašiče so redili izključno zaradi mesa, od ostalih živali pa so imeli še druge koristi. Tako so koze dajale mleko, ovce mleko in volno, govedo pa so lahko uporabljali tudi kot vlečno žival. Za vleko oziroma ježo je služil še konj, medtem ko je bil pes čuvaj čred in pomočnik pri lovu. Za zdaj ostaja odprto le vprašanje perjadi. Kostnega gradiva praktično ne poznamo, zato vzreja pernatih živali še ni zanesljivo dokazana.
9.2.2.3. Lov in ribolov
Lov je bil v železni dobi sicer priljubljen, vendar v prehrani ni igral večje vloge. Na Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični je divjim živalim pripadalo komaj 4,5 % opredeljivih kosti. Podobna razmerja opažamo tudi v drugih naseljih.
Upodobitve na situlskih spomenikih kažejo, da so pri lovu uporabljali različne tehnike. Velike živali, na primer jelenjad in srnjad, so lovili s kopjem in lokom, za
o	(N	
n	00	00
	CN	K
C	C	C
ro O
o
»o o
CN
CO
100% T
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
o
C
P
O
o
a> □
>o čo
•C CL
O O)
d
-£ >
i
"O
E O
£ D
C 2 D
O O) M
O
<u OJ
u
(D
E
I g
O >u
V
□	other drugo
□	pig svinja
■	sheep&goot drobnica
■	cattle govedo
Fig. 120: Proportion of individual animal species on the basis of bone number. Sl. 120: Razmerje med posameznimi vrstami živali na osnovi števila kosti.
411
Bokony 1994, 196, tab. 7.
413
Bokony 1964, 233 s; Bokony 1968, 18 ss; Bokony 1994, 200.
did not reach maturity. The situation for cattle, sheep and goats was different. Only around 30 % of young specimens were found, while juvenile bones of horse and dog were not found at all at Cvinger.412
Most horse bones belonged to individuals of small size. These are the horses of the so-called western group, which were of local origin and apparently used for working. The horses from the tumuli of Dolenjska belonged to a different race. They were larger and, in Bokony's opinion, imported from the east.413 They were apparently ridden by the representatives of the contemporary elite, as can be inferred from the cases when horses were placed into their graves as sacrificial gifts.
The analysis of the bone material has shown that, during the Iron Age in Slovenia, domestic animals of small or medium sizes predominated. Pigs were bred exclusively for meat, while other animals served other purposes. Goats, for example, gave milk, sheep gave milk and wool, and cattle could also have been used for pulling. Horses were used for pulling but also for riding, while the dog watched the herd and assisted in hunting. Only the question of the poultry remains unanswered. Their bone material is practically unknown and their breeding has not been reliably proven.
9.2.2.3. Hunting and fishing
Hunting was very popular in the Iron Age, but did not play a more significant role in nutrition. Hardly 4.5 % of identifiable bones from Cvinger near Vir pri Stični belonged to wild animals. Similar relationships have been observed also at other settlements.
Depictions on the monuments of the situla art show that various techniques were used in hunting. Big animals, such as red and roe deer, were hunted with a spear and a bow, while they either threw special bludgeons, weighed at one end, at hares or drove them into hunting nets. Hunters were aided in their hunting also by trained dogs.414 The analysis of the bones from Cvinger near Vir pri Stični has shown that the favorite hunted animal was red deer, followed by boar and roe deer. The shares of bones of other animals are negligible and do not exceed 2 % with the exception of the wolf (^ig. 122). In spite of the poor representation, we can say that the Iron Age people enriched their menus, at least occasionally, also with the meat of aurochs, ibexes, bears, hares and possibly even birds. Wolves and foxes, the remains of which were also found in settlements, were probably hunted for their furs.
26% sheep, goat ovca, koza
52% cattle govedo
Fig. 121: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Quantitative proportions among the bones of domestic animals. Sl. 121: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Razmerja med številom kosti domačih živali.
zajci pa so metali posebna krepelca, ki so bila na eni strani obtežena, ali pa so jih zganjali v lovilne mreže. Pri lovu so jim pomagali tudi dresirani psi.414 Analiza kosti s Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični je pokazala, da so najraje lovili jelenjad, nekoliko manj pa divje svinje in srnjad. Deleži kosti ostalih živali so zanemarljivi in z izjemo volka ne presegajo 2 % (sl. 122). Ne glede na skromno zastopanost pa lahko rečemo, da so si železno-dobni prebivalci vsaj občasno popestrili jedilnik tudi z mesom turov, kozorogov, medvedov, zajcev in morda celo ptic. Volkove in lisice, katerih ostanke smo tudi našli v naseljih, pa so verjetno lovili zaradi kož.
Ribarili so s kovinskimi trnki, ki jih poznamo iz grobov in s pomočjo ribiških mrež, ki so prav tako upodobljene na situlskih spomenikih.415 Na vprašanje kakšne vrste rib so lovili, pa žal ne moremo odgovoriti, saj v vzorcih naselbinskih sedimentov, ki smo jih flotirali, nismo našli njihovih lusk ali kosti.
9.2.3. RUDONOSNA OBMOČJA
Pridobivanje in predelava kovin sta imeli v 1. tisočletju pr. Kr. nedvomno velik gospodarski pomen, zato smo preverili, kakšne možnosti so imela naselja za izkoriščanje rudnih mineralov. Rudne pojave smo analizirali na območju, ki je bilo zamejeno z enourno hojo od posameznega naselja. Za kartografsko osnovo nam je poleg digitalnega modela reliefa služila osnovna geološka in metalogenetska karta Slovenije ter Lipoldova karta železovih rudišč, ki je nastala v času, ko so na Dolenjskem in v Beli krajini še delovali železarski obrati.416
412	Ib. 202.
413	Bököny 1964, 233 f; Bököny 1968, 18 ff; Bököny 1994, 200.
414	Eor hunting scenes see Turk 2005, 31 f, fig. 43-45; Križ 1997b, 28, app. 4; Egg/Eibner 2005, 193 ff, fig. 4.
414	Za lovske scene glej Turk 2005, 31 s, sl. 43-45; Križ 1997b, 28, pril. 4; Egg/Eibner 2005, 193 ss, sl. 4.
415	Dular 1979, t. 10: 6-8; Križ 1997b, 28, pril. 4. Glej tudi Gleirscher 2006a, 26 s.
416	Drovenik/Pleničar/Drovenik 1980; Lipold 1858; glej tudi Müllner 1909, 522 ss.
brown bear rjavi medved 1%
ibex kozorog 2%
hare poljski zajec 1%
wild boar divji prašič 19%
Fig. 122: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Quantitative proportions among the bones of wild animals. Sl. 122: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Razmerja med številom kosti divjih živali.
Fish were caught with metal hooks, which are known from graves, as well as fishing nets, which are depicted on the situla monuments.415 The fish species cannot be determined, since the settlement sediments subjected to floatation did not reveal any scales or bones.
Karta je dragocena predvsem zaradi tega, ker so na njej vrisana tudi tista ležišča, ki so bila v preteklosti že izčrpana in jih moderne metalogenetske karte ne upoštevajo. To velja še zlasti za pliokvartarne ilovice, v katerih se pojavlja železova ruda v obliki bobovca in limonitnih
9.2.3. METAL ORE DEPOSITS
Extracting and working of metals undoubtedly had a large economic significance in the 1s' millennium BC. We therefore verified the possibilities that the settlements had for exploiting ore minerals. The occurrences of metal ores were analyzed within the range of an hour's walk from individual settlements. Our cartographic base was the digital elevation model as well as the Basic geological and Metalogenetic map of Slovenia and Lipold's map of iron ore deposits, which was made in the time when iron working facilities were still active in Dolenjska and Bela krajina.416 This map is valuable primarily because it contains also the deposits that were already exhausted in the past and do not figure on modern metaloge-netic maps. This is particularly true of the Plio-Quarter-nary loams, where iron ore appears as pisolitic iron and limonite concretions. These formations lie close to the surface, and gathering them did not require deeper excavations. It has to be stressed, however, that the above-mentioned cartographic bases are of different resolu-
415	Dular 1979, pl. 10: 6-8; Križ 1997b, 28, app. 4. Cf. also Gleirscher 2006a, 26 f.
416	Drovenik/Pleničar/Drovenik 1980; Lipold 1858; see also Mullner 1909, 522 ff.
■ Fe ore Fe ruda
□ no Fe ore brez Fe rude
Fig. 123: Settlements in relation to iron ore deposits. A: Early Hallstatt Period. B: Late Hallstatt Period. Sl. 123: Odnos naselij do železovih rudišč. A: starejše halštat-sko obdobje. B: mlajše halštatsko obdobje.
Fig. 124: Distribution of Hallstatt settlements in relation to iron ore deposits. Sl. 124: Halštatska naselja in rudonosna območja.
tions and the results of our analysis should therefore be taken as approximations.
How did the ore deposits influence the choice of the settlement locations? This influence was negligible in the Late Bronze Age, since the highly orebearing Posavsko hribovje remained practically unoccupied. An increased influence can be observed only in the Iron Age. It has been established that almost eighty per cent of settlements from the Early Hallstatt period had iron ore within the reach of less than an hour's walk, which shows that the ore deposits represented an important factor in the choice of locations {fig. 123:A). An even more interesting fact is that most centres lie in the vicinity of Plio-Quarternary clays and loams, where the ore appears as limonite concretions on the surface, and the extraction thus did not
konkrecij. Ker ležijo tvorbe blizu površja, pri njihovem nabiranju ni bilo potrebnih globljih kopov. Vendar pa moramo poudariti, da so omenjene kartografske podlage različnih resolucij, zato moramo rezultate naše analize jemati kot približke.
Kako so torej rudna ležišča vplivala na izbor poselitvenih lokacij? Za pozno bronasto dobo lahko rečemo, da je bil vpliv zanemarljiv, saj je ostalo rudonosno Posavsko hribovje praktično neposeljeno. Večji interes za rudišči je opaziti v železni dobi. Ugotovili smo, da je imelo skoraj osemdeset odstotkov naselij iz starejšega halštatskega obdobja železovo rudo na dosegu v manj kot uri hoda, kar kaže, da so bila rudišča pomemben dejavnik pri izbiri lokacij (sl. 123: A). Še bolj zanimivo je dejstvo, da leži večina središč v bližini pliokvartarnih
necessitate mining (^ig. 124). Hinterlands with such ore were observed at the following settlements: Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39), Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96), Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246), Križni vrh near Beli Grič (cat. no. 294), Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem (cat. no. 311), Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351), Metlika (cat. no. 476), Kučar near Podzemelj (cat. no. 483), Črnomelj (cat. no. 495) and Šlemine near Golek pri Vinici (cat. no. 508). Both Late Hallstatt centres, i.e. Gradišče near Valična vas (cat. no. 119) and Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464) also appeared near the orebearing Plio-Quarternary loams. Somewhat more difficult conditions for iron extraction were observed for the settlements at Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9) and Molnik near Podmolnik (cat. no. 25), where the iron ore occurs in the Palaeozoic rocks, as well as at Bezeg near Gradišče pri Pijavi Gorici (cat. no. 55), where iron ore layers formed in the Triassic rocks.
The new settlements that appeared in the Late Hallstatt period were mostly located in the vicinity of iron ore deposits (^ig. 123: B; fig. 124). The centres at Valična vas and Dolenjske Toplice have already been mentioned, while the same observation holds true also for most smaller hillforts.417 There is, however, an important novelty. The settlement was oriented primarily towards the Posavsko hribovje, where the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic rocks include other ore minerals beside iron, particularly lead, zinc and copper. Whether the shift to the above-mentioned ore deposits also signifies an increased extraction of non-ferrous metals, cannot as yet be answered. The problem might be cleared up by possible further research.
glin in ilovic, v katerih se ruda v obliki limonitnih konk-recij pojavlja že na površini, zato za njeno izkoriščanje ni bilo potrebno rudarjenje (sl. 124). Zaledje s takšno rudo so imela naselja Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39), Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96), Vesela gora v Brinju (kat. št. 246), Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem (kat. št. 294), Karlin nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 311), Marof v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351), Metlika (kat. št. 476), Kučar nad Podzemljem (kat. št. 483), Črnomelj (kat. št. 495) in Šlemine nad Gole-kom pri Vinici (kat. št. 508). Blizu rudonosnih pliokvar-tarnih ilovic sta nastala tudi oba mladohalštatska centra, in sicer Gradišče pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 119) ter Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464). Težje pogoje za pridobivanje železa so imela naselja Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9) in Molnik nad Podmolnikom (kat. št. 25), kjer se nahaja železova ruda v izdankih paleozojskih skladov, ter Bezeg nad Gradiščem pri Pijavi Gorici (kat. št. 55), kjer so z njo obogateni triasni skladi.
Tudi nova naselja, ki so zrasla v mlajšem halštat-skem obdobju, so se v glavnem umestila v bližino železovih rudišč (sl. 123: B; sl. 124). Centra pri Valični vasi in Dolenjskih Toplicah smo že omenili, ta ugotovitev pa velja tudi za večino manjših gradišč.417 Vendar pa je opaziti pomembno novost. Poselitev je bila usmerjena predvsem v Posavsko hribovje, kjer se v paleozojskih in mezozojskih skladih poleg železove rude pojavljajo zlasti svinčevi, cinkovi in bakrovi minerali. Na vprašanje, ali pomeni premik k omenjenim rudiščem tudi razmah pridobivanja barvnih kovin, pa ne vemo odgovoriti. Problem bi razjasnile morebitne nadaljnje raziskave.
9.2.3.1. Metallurgy
9.2.3.1. Metalurgija
As has been shown above, the locational logic of the Iron Age settlements was largely influenced by the vicinity of metal ore deposits. The iron ore was first to be exploited, and primarily where it was accessible on the surface, while mining as well as extraction of non-ferrous metals may have begun in the Late Hallstatt period. Of the latter we should particularly mention lead, which was used to make certain objects that appeared in greater quantities in precisely this period.418
Most settlements were thus located close to the orebearing areas. The exceptions in this respect are four centres in the east of Dolenjska, at Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171), Sv. Marjeta on Libna (cat. no. 198), Gradišče near Velike Malence (cat. no. 213) and Veliki
417	The only exceptions are at Gradišče near Primskovo (cat. no. 92) and Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji (cat. no. 126).
418	For example lead bracelets and appliques. Cf. Hencken 1974; Parzinger 1988, pl. 149, map 2: 3; Tecco Hvala/Dular/ Kocuvan 2004, 109 f.
Kot vidimo, je bližina rudišč v precejšnji meri botrovala lokacijski logiki železnodobnih naselij. Železovo rudo so sprva izkoriščali predvsem tam, kjer je bila dostopna na površini, v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju pa so se morda lotili tudi rudarjenja in pridobivanja barvnih kovin. Med njimi velja omeniti zlasti svinec, iz katerega so bili izdelani nekateri predmeti, ki so se številnejše pojavili prav v tem času.418
Večina naselij je torej ležala blizu rudonosnih območij. Med izjemami moramo omeniti štiri središča na vzhodu Dolenjske in sicer Tičnico nad Studencem (kat. št. 171), Sv. Marjeto na Libni (kat. št. 198), Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah (kat. št. 213) in Veliki Vinji vih nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382), ki v svoji okolici nimajo
417	Izjemi sta le Gradišče nad Primskovim (kat. št. 92) in Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji (kat. št. 126).
418	Npr. svinčene zapestnice in razne aplike. Prim. Hencken 1974; Parzinger 1988, t. 149, karta 2: 3; Tecco Hvala/Dular/ Kocuvan 2004, 109 s.
Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382). It all seems that these settlements did not engage in iron working, but might have known secondary processing of metals. The trial trenches at Libna and Veliki Vinji vrh did not reveal any remains of slag. A similar situation was observed at Gradišče near Primskovo (cat. no. 92) and Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji (cat. no. 126). Both settlements lie in the middle of the Posavsko hribovje but away from the orebearing areas (fig. 124). Slag was not uncovered there, but secondary processing (smithcraft) is indicated by a large iron ingot found just underneath the surface in the centre of Špičasti hrib.419
Slag was found in most Hallstatt centres. Certain smaller settlements also engaged in iron working, which is clear evidence that contemporary people intensively exploited the ore resources.420 Unfortunately, the trial trenches covered relatively small areas and did not reveal production facilities within settlements. The exception is an reheating hearth that came to light at the rescue research of Late Antiquity buildings on the northern peak of Kučar near Podzemelj.421 The metal processing there is indicated also by some other objects, such as pieces of moulds, casting plugs and tuyere nozzles for blowing in air, while a small iron ingot was also found.422 Kučar certainly ranks among the more important production centres of Iron Age Dolenjska.
A real smelting area is known from Branževec near Dolenjske Toplice. An approximately eighty metres long area along the saddle between the settlement and the cemetery revealed large concentrations of iron slag appearing on the surface (^ig. 105). Small trial trenches at the site uncovered twelve slag-pit furnaces, of which only the furnace hearths were preserved, filled with pieces of burnt loam and slag.423 Geophysical prospecting of the entire area showed that the cluster of bloomery furnaces covered an approximately 100 m long and 50 m wide space (fig. 125).424
Bloomery furnaces were found also on the left bank of the Krka, just under the settlement of Marof at Novo mesto. According to Mullner, the furnaces had around 2 m high clay cones above the pit that were made of two coatings. The furnace interior was packed with iron slag.425 Mullner mentions another bloomery area at Gornja Straža near Novo mesto. It is thought to have included dozens of slag-pit furnaces standing in rows and at a 1.5 m interval.426
419	Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003, 175, fig. 24.
420	A considerable amount of slag was found at Gradec near Blečji Vrh (cat. no. 44), Vinji hrib near Vino (cat. no. 53), Kostjavec near Tihaboj (cat. no. 124) and Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje (cat. no. 273).
421	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 51 ff.
422	Ib. 69 f.
423	Križ 1998-1999; Dular/Križ 2004, 228 ff.
424	Mušič/Orengo 1998.
425	Mullner 1909, 68 f.
426	Ib. 69 f. Gradišče near Gornja Straža (cat. no. 457),
Fig. 125: Branževec near Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Me-talurgical complex with the remains of bloomery furnaces. (after Mušič/Orengo 1998).
Sl. 125: Branževec nad Seli pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Železarski prostor z ostanki talilnih peči. (po Mušič/Orengo 1998).
rudišč. Vse kaže, da se v teh naseljih niso ukvarjali z železarstvom, lahko pa da se je v njih odvijala sekundarna predelava kovin. Pri sondiranju Libne in Velikega Vinjega vrha namreč nismo našli ostankov žlindre. Podobno situacijo poznamo na Gradišču nad Primskovim (kat. št. 92) in Špičastem hribu nad Dolami pri Litiji (kat. št. 126). Obe naselji ležita sredi Posavskega hribovja, vendar stran od rudonosnih območij (sl. 124). Tudi tu žlindre nismo odkrili, o sekundarni proizvodnji (ko-vaštvu) pa govori velik železen ingot, ki je bil najden tik pod površjem sredi Špičastega hriba.419
Sicer pa smo našli žlindro v večini halštatskih središč. Z železarstvom so se ukvarjala tudi nekatera manjša naselja, kar je jasen dokaz, da so takratni prebivalci intenzivno izkoriščali rudne resurse.420 Žal z našimi sondiranji, ki so zajela razmeroma majhne površine, znotraj gradišč nismo odkrili proizvodnih obratov. Izjema je razžarilna peč, ki je prišla na dan ob zaščitnih izkopa-
419	Dular/Pavlin/Tecco Hvala 2003, 175, sl. 24.
420	Precej žlindre smo našli na Gradcu pri Blečjem Vrhu (kat. št. 44), Vinjem hribu nad Vinom (kat. št. 53), Kostjavcu pri Tihaboju (kat. št. 124) in Kunklu pod Vrhtrebnjem (kat. št. 273).
The locations of iron smelting furnaces at Dolenjske Toplice, Gornja Straža and Novo mesto, as well as the reheating hearth from Kučar near Podzemelj, indicate that reduction of iron ore was conducted outside settlements, while further processing probably took place behind the walls of settlements: reheating of blooms, removal of slag and forging through of purified iron into ingots427. It cannot be said, however, whether this process was also carried out in a similar manner elsewhere in Dolenjska. The answer would be provided by excavations of larger surfaces and most of all by a precise prospecting of the near vicinity of hillforts.
9.3. COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORT
The territory of modern Slovenia is, geographically speaking, not uniform, since it lies at the meeting point of several landscape types: it reaches into the Pannonian plain in the east, it is delimited by the Alps in the north, while the Dinaric karst predominates in its centre. For transport connections it is also important that it borders on the Adriatic in the west. The Slovene territory is therefore characterized by its diversity and passable nature. It is a known fact that the easiest natural route from the Danube basin into Italy leads across Slovenia, while a good connection between the Mediterranean and Central Europe can also lead across the Slovene territory. Dolenjska or south-eastern Slovenia represents an important link in this natural communication system, and it is no wonder that important ways ran across it throughout the periods. Their routes during the Iron Age will be the topic of the following chapter.
vanjih poznoantičnih stavb na severnem vrhu Kučarja nad Podzemljem.421 O tamkajšnji predelavi kovin govore tudi nekateri drugi predmeti, na primer deli kalupov, livarskih čepov in šob za vpihovanje zraka, najden pa je bil tudi manjši železen ingot.422 Kučar vsekakor sodi med pomembnejše proizvodne centre železnodobne Dolenjske.
Pravi talilniški prostor pa poznamo z Branževca pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Tu se je na sedlu med naseljem in nekropolo raztezalo približno osemdeset metrov dolgo območje, kjer so se na površini pojavljale večje koncentracije železove žlindre (sl. 105). Z manjšim sondiranjem je bilo odkritih dvanajst talilnih peči, od katerih so se ohranila le kurišča, zapolnjena s kosi prežgane ilovice in žlindre.423 Geofizikalna prospekcija celotnega območja je pokazala, da se je talilniški kompleks raztezal na približno 100 m dolgem in 50 m širokem prostoru, na katerem je stalo več sto peči (sl. 125).424
Talilne peči so našli tudi na levem bregu Krke tik pod naseljem Marof v Novem mestu. Po Mullnerju so imele nad kurišči približno 2 m visoke glinaste stožce, ki so bili narejeni iz dveh oblog. Notranjost peči je bila zatrpana z železovo žlindro.425 Naslednje talilniško območje omenja Mullner v Gornji Straži pri Novem mestu. Šlo naj bi za več deset peči, ki so stale v vrstah, med seboj oddaljene 1,5 m.426
Lokacije talilniških kompleksov v Dolenjskih Toplicah, Gornji Straži in Novem mestu ter razžarilna peč s Kučarja nad Podzemljem kažejo na to, da so rudo talili zunaj naselij, medtem ko je za obzidji najverjetneje potekala nadaljnja obdelava: razžarevanje volka, odstranjevanje žlindre in prekovanje čistega železa v ingote.427 Če se je proces na podoben način odvijal tudi drugod po Dolenjski, žal ne vemo. Odgovor bi dala izkopavanja večjih površin, predvsem pa natančna prospekcija bližnje okolice gradišč.
9.3.1. RIVER WAYS
Man's attachment to waterways does not only reflect his need for water and an additional source of nutrition, the river network also represented an orientation marker in space. The rivers and streams of Dolenjska belong to the catchment of the Sava, which is the main water artery between the north-west and southeast of Slovenia. The river, at times quite rapid, represents a natural boundary that is crossed with difficulty. The Sava, on the other hand, is attractive from the communication point of view, since it flows from the Alpine zone to the heart of the Balkans and the Danube basin. Other waterways in Dolenjska, such as the Krka, the
which extended on the left bank of the Krka, was completely destroyed in the previous century through the construction of houses. Its date is not completely clear, although Mullner does mention finds of weapons and even a serpentine fibula.
427 For ancient iron metallurgy see Pleiner 2000.
9.3. KOMUNIKACIJE IN PROMET
Ozemlje današnje Slovenije v geografskem smislu ni enotno, saj se na njem stika več tipov pokrajin: na vzhodu sega do Panonske ravnine, na severu ga obrobljajo Alpe, medtem ko prevladuje v njegovem osrčju dinarski Kras; za prometne povezave je pomembno tudi to, da se na zahodu stika z Jadranskim morjem. Značilnost slovenskega prostora se torej odraža v njegovi raz-
421	Dular/Ciglenečki/Dular 1995, 51 ss.
422	Ib. 69 s.
423	Križ 1998-1999; Dular/Križ 2004, 228 ss.
424	Mušič/Orengo 1998.
425	Mullner 1909, 68 s.
426	Ib. 69 s. Gradišče pri Gornji Straži (kat. št. 457), ki se je raztezalo na levem bregu Krke, je bilo v prejšnjem stoletju v celoti uničeno z gradnjo hiš. Njegova datacija ni povsem jasna, čeprav omenja Mullner najdbe orožja in celo kačasto fibulo.
427	Za železarstvo v prazgodovini glej Pleiner 2000.
Fig. 126: Late Bronze Age settlement pattern in relation to river ways. Sl. 126: Poznobronastodobna poselitev v odnosu do rek.
Mirna and the Radulja, are smaller and slower flowing and do not represent a serious obstacle for crossing. The present state of the watercourses is, of course, not completely identical to the one in the 1st millennium BC. The changes occurred particularly on the plains of the Krško and Šentjernejsko polje, as is indicated by the numerous backwaters and fossil riverbeds. The Sava, for example, is known to have flown past Drnovo in the past, since a river port was located there as late as the Roman times, while the present bed runs approximately three kilometres north of the village. In most of Dolenjska, however, the watercourses were preserved by the hilly terrain. We may therefore conclude that the present hydrographic network did not change dramatically from that of the Iron Age.
nolikosti in prehodnosti. Znano je, da pelje preko Slovenije najlažja naravna pot iz Podonavja v Italijo, prav tako pa je moč preko njenega ozemlja speljati ugodno povezavo med Sredozemljem in srednjo Evropo. Dolenjska oziroma jugovzhodna Slovenija predstavlja v omenjenem naravnem komunikacijskem sistemu pomemben člen, zato ne čudi, da so preko nje vodile v vseh obdobjih važne poti. Kako so bile speljane v železni dobi, si bomo ogledali v naslednjem poglavju.
9.3.1. REČNE POTI
Človekova navezanost na vodotoke ni zgolj odraz njegovih potreb po vodi oziroma dodatnem viru hrane,
There is no material evidence of the river traffic in Dolenjska. We will therefore first take a look at how strongly the settlement depended on the river network as a natural line of communication. The analysis has been conducted by observing the appearance of settlements in a half-kilometre buffer along the main waterways. We observed that, in the Late Bronze Age, as much as 40 % of sites were situated along rivers, which may point to a relatively high dependence on this natural communication potential {fig. 126). The main role was apparently played by the Sava and the Krka and much less by other watercourses of central Dolenjska. This may be seen from the number of the relatively sparsely distributed sites along the Radulja and the Mirna, while the valley of the Sopota in the heart of the Posavsko hribovje was dead communication-wise. The sites in Bela krajina are concentrated along the Lahinja and the lowland course of the Kolpa. We can certainly say that life in the Late Bronze Age was concentrated on the middle and lower reaches of the Krka, since as much as 39 % of all sites of the period are situated along the river.
The share of locations in the immediate vicinity of the main waterways was reduced almost by half in the Iron Age and amounted to mere 24 % in comparison to sites located elsewhere. This change certainly reflects an increased use of ridge routes dictated by the settlement of the northern hilly part of the region. A novelty can also be observed in central Dolenjska. Beside the most attractive Krka, communication became livelier in the valleys of the Radulja and the Mirna in particular and it seems that the Sopota Valley at the outflow into the Sava gorge was also revived {fig. 127). A somewhat different situation is observed along the Sava: the rare sites along the route between the Ljubljana basin and the confluence with the Savinja might lead to a conclusion that this natural connection lost its significance in the Iron Age. Bela krajina saw fewer changes, since most settlement points remained closely related to the river communication along the Lahinja and the Kolpa.
There is no material evidence on the use of the rivers of Dolenjska. However, there are ancient sources that speak of their navigability. The earliest information on the river traffic is the mention of the Argonauts and the description of their route along the Danube, the Sava, the Ljubljanica and across the Kras to the sea.428 Information on the river traffic provided by Strabo in his Geography (4.6.10 and 7.5.2) is also based on the prehistoric tradition. He mentions the Ljubljanica, the Sava, the Krka and the Kolpa as navigable rivers.429 The last two enabled boating only in their lower reaches: on the Krka from Soteska to Velike Malence, while the Kolpa was navigable from Ozalj to the outflow into the Sava. By way of the Kolpa it might also have been possible, at
428	Katicic 1970, 81 ff; Sasel Kos 1990, 19 f.
429	Sasel 1974; Sasel 1977; Sasel Kos 1990, 17 ff.
ampak mu je rečna mreža vedno predstavljala tudi izrazito prostorsko orientacijo. Reke in potoki Dolenjske sodijo v porečje Save, ki je glavna vodna žila med severozahodom in jugovzhodom Slovenije. Mestoma precej deroča reka sicer predstavlja težko prehodno naravno mejo, vendar pa je Sava tudi komunikacijsko privlačna, saj teče iz alpskega sveta proti osrčju Balkana in Podonavju. Drugi vodotoki na Dolenjskem, na primer Krka, Mirna in Radulja, so manjši in mirnejši ter ne pomenijo resnejše ovire za prečkanje. Seveda današnje stanje vodotokov ni povsem identično tistemu iz 1. tisočletja pr. Kr. Do spreminjanja je prihajalo zlasti v ravninskih predelih Krškega in Šentjernejskega polja, o čemer govore številni mrtvi rokavi in stare struge. Tako vemo, da je Sava tekla mimo Drno-vega, kjer je bilo še v rimskem času rečno pristanišče, danes pa je njena struga približno tri kilometre severno od vasi. Sicer pa v večjem delu Dolenjske zaradi gričevnate pokrajine spreminjanje vodotokov ni bilo možno, zato lahko rečemo, da se današnja hidrografska mreža bistveno ne razlikuje od tiste v železni dobi.
Ker nimamo o rečni plovbi na dolenjskih rekah nobenih materialnih dokazov, si bomo najprej ogledali, kako močno se je poselitev naslonila na rečno mrežo kot naravno komunikacijo. Analizo smo opravili tako, da smo ugotavljali pojavljanje najdišč v kilometrskem pasu ob glavnih vodotokih. Ugotovili smo, da je bilo v pozni bronasti dobi kar 40 % najdišč ob rekah, kar nemara kaže na dokajšnjo navezanost na ta naravni komunikacijski potencial (sl. 126). Očitno sta glavno vlogo odigrali Sava in Krka, precej manj pa ostali vodotoki osrednje Dolenjske. To je moč razbrati iz števila razmeroma redko posejanih najdišč ob Radulji in Mirni, dolina Sopote v osrčju Posavskega hribovja pa je bila prometno mrtva. V Beli krajini so najdišča zgoščena ob Lahinji in nižinskem toku Kolpe. Vsekakor lahko rečemo, da je bilo v pozni bronasti dobi življenje najbolj živahno v osrednjem in spodnjem toku Krke, saj se nanjo navezuje kar 39 % vseh obrečnih najdišč tistega časa.
V železni dobi se je delež lokacij v neposredni bližini glavnih vodotokov skoraj prepolovil in je v primerjavi z ostalimi najdišči znašal le še 24 %. V spremembi se zanesljivo odraža večja uporaba grebenskih poti, ki jo je narekovala poselitev severnega hribovitega dela pokrajine. Novosti je opaziti tudi v osrednji Dolenjski. Ob naj-privlačnejši reki Krki sta postali prometno živahni zlasti dolini Radulje in Mirne, vse pa kaže, da je zaživela tudi dolina Sopote ob izteku v savsko sotesko (sl. 127). Nekoliko drugačno situacijo opažamo ob Savi: glede na redka najdišča ob trasi med Ljubljansko kotlino ter sotočjem s Savinjo, bi lahko sklepali, da je v železni dobi ta naravna povezava izgubila na svojem pomenu. Manj sprememb je bilo v Beli krajini, saj je ostala večina poselitvenih točk tesno naslonjena na tamkajšnje rečne komunikacije ob Lahinji in Kolpi.
Čeprav nimamo o uporabi dolenjskih rek nobenih materialnih dokazov, pa govore o njihovi plovnosti antič-
Fig. 127\ Iron Age settlements pattern in relation to river ways. Sl. 127: Železnodobna poselitev v odnosu do rek.
acceptable water levels and with occasional reloading, to reach Bela krajina with its most important centre at Kučar near Podzemelj.
9.3.2. LANDWAYS
The land ways formed part of the communication network of the Iron Age Dolenjska. In establishing their routes we used the aid of the tools of the geographic information system. The analysis used the digital elevation model and algorithm based on the principle of least-cost-paths.430 We observed several variants of connec-
430
For the method see Podobnikar/Tecco Hvala/Dular 2004.
ni viri. Najzgodnejši podatek o rečnem prometu je omemba Argonavtov in opis njihove poti po Donavi, Savi in Ljubljanici ter čez Kras do morja.428 Na prazgodovinski tradiciji slonijo tudi podatki o rečnem prometu, ki jih v svoji Geografiji navaja Strabo (4.6.10 in 7.5.2). Kot plovne reke omenja Ljubljanico, Savo, Krko in Kolpo.429 Na zadnjih dveh je bilo možno čolnariti le v spodnjem toku: po Krki od Soteske do Velikih Malenc, medtem ko je bila Kolpa plovna od Ozlja do izliva v Savo. Morda so po njej ob ugodnih vodostajih in z občasnim prekladanjem blaga dosegli tudi Belo krajino z njenim najpomembnejšim središčem na Kučarju nad Podzemljem.
428	Katičic 1970, 81 ss; Šašel Kos 1990, 19 s.
429	Šašel 1974; Šašel 1977; Šašel Kos 1990, 17 ss.
Fig. 128: Predictive model of the communication network in the Iron Age. Sl. 128: Napovedni model komunikacijske mreže v železni dobi.
tions among individual centres by various weighing. The second step was to choose those ways that were attracted by most sites along a half-kilometre buffer. The number of locations was a decisive factor also in the categorization of communications, whereby two classes were formed, the main and the secondary roads (fig. 128).
Main roads
The most important road that traversed the entire Dolenjska represented a connecting line between the west and the east. It entered the area of the Dolenjska community at the foot of Magdalenska gora (cat. no. 39) at the westernmost end of the Grosuplje basin, continued along the Duplica Valley, and across the pass at
9.3.2. KOPNE POTI
Pri ugotavljanju tras kopnih poti, ki so tvorile komunikacijsko mrežo železnodobne Dolenjske, smo si pomagali z orodji geografskega informacijskega sistema. Pri analizi smo uporabili digitalni model reliefa in algoritem, ki sloni na principu stroškovnih razdalj.430 Med več variantami povezav, ki smo jih z različnim obteže-vanjem ugotovili med posameznimi središči, smo se nato v drugem koraku odločili za tiste poti, ob katerih se je v kilometerskem pasu pojavljalo največ najdišč. Število lokacij je bilo odločujoče tudi pri kategorizaciji komuni-
430
Za metodo glej Podobnikar/Tecco Hvala/Dular 2004.
Spodnje Brezovo it reached the Višnjica Stream and the Stiški kot with its centre at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96). Here it reached a crossroads with secondary ways that led northwards to the Sava Valley and southwards to the Krka. To continue towards the east there were two more or less equivalent variants. The southern (49 km) led across the Medvedjek Pass into the Temenica Valley and past Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje (cat. no. 273), Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč (cat. no. 302) and Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351) to Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382). The northern variant was slightly shorter (44 km). It ran along the upper part of the Temenica Valley, which it left near Velika Loka. From there it continued past Račje selo to Kincelj near Trbinc (cat. no. 279), where it reached the Mirna Valley with important centres at Vesela gora near Brinje (246) and Križni vrh near Beli Grič (cat. no. 294). Further to the east, the road meandered along the valleys of the Laknica and the Radulja and finally joined the southern variant at Veliki Vinji vrh (cat. no. 382).
Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev was an important crossroads: not only due to the crossing of the Krka, which could even be forded at low water levels, but also because it is the point of separation of two secondary roads towards Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem (cat. no. 311) and towards Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171). After crossing the Krka, which was rendered necessary because of the marshy Krakovski gozd, the way continued past Šentjernej, Kostanjevica and Stari grad near Podbočje (cat. no. 439) and reached Gradišče near Velike Malence (cat. no. 213) along the right bank. The entire route, if the southern variant is considered, measured 110 km in length. It connected five centres, nine peripheral settlements and passed forty-seven cemeteries.
The second main road led along the upper Krka Valley. It branched off at Novo mesto and then ran past Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice (cat. no. 464), Gradec near Vinkov Vrh (cat. no. 453) and Gradišče near Valič-na vas (cat. no. 119) to the spring of the Krka. Here it was joined by the secondary road from Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. It continued by meandering into the hills north of Korinjski hrib (cat. no. 112) and reached, past Hočevje, the Dobrepolje Valley, which is the western border of the Iron Age community of Dolenjska. Although its course further towards Notranjska is not of a particular interest here, we should nevertheless mention it. This route led across the Bloke and past Lake Cerknica to Postojna, and represented an important alternative to the northern communication across the Ljubljansko barje. It is therefore not surprising that it was used in almost all periods.431 Judging from the sites along the Krka, it was particularly important in the Late Bronze Age. After a longer pause in the Early Hallstatt period, its significance again rose at the end of the Ear-
431 Šašel 1977; Ciglenečki 1985b; Kosi 1998, 237 ff.
kacij: razvrstili smo jih v dva razreda in sicer v glavne in sekundarne poti (sl. 128).
Glavne poti
Najpomembnejša pot, ki je prečkala celo Dolenjsko, je bila povezava med zahodom in vzhodom. Na območje dolenjske skupnosti je vstopila pod vznožjem Magdalenske gore (kat. št. 39) na skrajnem zahodnem koncu Grosupeljske kotline, nato pa je po dolini Duplice in preko prevala pri Spodnjem Brezovu dosegla Višnji-co ter ob njej Stiški kot s središčem Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96). Tu je bilo križišče s sekundarnima potema, ki sta vodili na sever v savsko dolino in na jug proti Krki. Za nadaljevanje proti vzhodu je bilo moč izbirati med dvema bolj ali manj enakovrednima variantama. Južna (49 km) je vodila preko prevala Medvedjek v Temeniško dolino ter mimo Kunkla pod Vrhtrebnjem (kat. št. 273), Sv. Ane nad Vrhpečjo (kat. št. 302) in Marofa v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351) do Velikega Vinjega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382). Severna varianta je bila malenkost krajša (44 km). Tekla je po zgornjem delu Temeniške doline, ki jo je zapustila pri Veliki Loki. Od tu naprej je šla pot mimo Račjega sela do Kin-clja nad Trbincem (kat. št. 279), kjer je dosegla Mirn-sko dolino s pomembnima središčema na Veseli gori nad Brinjem (246) in na Križnem vrhu nad Belim Gričem (kat. št. 294). Naprej proti vzhodu je pot vijugala po dolini Laknice in Radulje ter se pri Velikem Vinjem vrhu (kat. št. 382) združila z južno varianto.
Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo je bil pomembno križišče: ne le zaradi prehoda čez Krko, ki jo je bilo moč ob nizkih vodostajih celo prebresti, ampak tudi zato, ker sta se pri kraju odcepili sekundarni poti proti Karli-nu nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem (kat. št. 311) in na Tični-co pri Studencu (kat. št. 171). Po prečkanju Krke, ki je bilo nujno zaradi močvirnega Krakovskega gozda, je pot tekla mimo Šentjerneja, Kostanjevice in Starega gradu nad Podbočjem (kat. št. 439) ter po desnem bregu reke dosegla Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah (kat. št. 213). Celotna trasa, če upoštevamo južno varianto, je bila dolga 110 km. Povezovala je pet središč in devet perifernih naselij, ob njej pa je ležalo tudi sedeminštirideset nekropol.
Druga glavna pot je vodila po zgornji dolini Krke. Odcepila se je v Novem mestu, nato pa je tekla mimo Cvingerja pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (kat. št. 464), Gradca pri Vinkovem Vrhu (kat. št. 453) in Gradišča pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 119) do izvira Krke. Tu se ji je priključila sekundarna pot s Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični. V nadaljevanju je pot zavijugala med hribovje severno od Korinjskega hriba (kat. št. 112) ter preko Hočevja dosegla Dobrepoljsko dolino oziroma zahodno mejo dolenjske železnodobne skupnosti. Čeprav nas na tem mestu njen nadaljnji potek proti Notranjski ne zanima, ga velja vseeno omeniti. Trasa čez Bloke in mimo Cerkniškega jezera do Postojne je bila namreč pomembna
ly and in the Late Iron Age. It is known, however, that the road along the Krka was slightly longer and demanded an additional day of transport in comparison to both northern variants that ran along the Temenica and the Mirna Valleys.432
Secondary roads
Only the most important secondary roads will be mentioned here. The first one led from Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39) past Vinji hrib near Vino (cat. no. 53), Gradišče near Pijava Gorica (cat. no. 55) and Gradišče near Sloka Gora (cat. no. 62) to the Dobrepolje Valley, where it joined the main road towards Notranjska.
The next secondary road led from the Krka past Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96), Gradišče near Vintarjevec (cat. no. 78) and Sitarjevec near Litija (cat. no. 67) to Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9).
Judging from the number of sites, the route that led from Sitarjevec near Litija (cat. no. 67) to the east was also fairly interesting. It ran along the Šmarje and Moravče Valleys, then descended past Kostjavec near Tihaboj (cat. no. 124) to Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246). From there on it meandered along the left bank of the Mirna and turned at Tržišče to the Krško gričevje and the settlements at Tičnica near Studenec (cat. no. 171), Gradišče near Dunaj (cat. no. 192) and Sv. Marjeta on Libna (cat. no. 198).
Both connections between Dolenjska and Bela krajina should also be marked as secondary roads. It seems that the western variant that ran along the Stare žage Valley was more important, although the importance of the communication across the pass at Vahta should not be discounted. It was used particularly in the Late Iron Age, when Bela krajina was ethnically divided. In that period, most of the region was controlled by the Colapi-ani, while the northern end was in the hands of the Celtic Taurisci and closely tied to Dolenjska.433
9.3.3. TERRITORIAL AND COMMUNICATION CONTROL
Throughout the periods, the control over the territory and the communications represented one of the key factors that influenced the economic and political power of the settlements. Below, we will look at the situation in the Iron Age Dolenjska. The analysis of visibility was based primarily on the digital elevation model with high resolution and without consideration of other variables such as vegetation cover, weather conditions, distance factor and others. The viewshed was cal-
432	For the travelling speed in Antiquity see Bender 1989, 150 f.
433	Cf. Božič 2001, 191 f.
alternativa severni komunikaciji preko Ljubljanskega barja, zato ne čudi, da so jo uporabljali skoraj v vseh obdobjih.431 Sodeč po najdiščih ob Krki je bila aktualna zlasti v pozni bronasti dobi, po daljšem premoru v sta-rohalštatskem obdobju pa je njen pomen zopet narasel ob koncu starejše in v mlajši železni dobi. Sicer pa je znano, da je bila pot ob Krki nekoliko daljša in je zahtevala v primerjavi z obema severnima variantama, ki sta tekli po Temeniški oziroma Mirenski dolini, dodaten tovorniški dan.432
Sekundarne poti
Od sekundarnih poti bomo omenili le najpomembnejše. Najprej tisto, ki je vodila od Magdalenske gore pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39) mimo Vinjega hriba nad Vinom (kat. št. 53), Gradišča nad Pijavo Gorico (kat. št. 55) in Gradišča pod Sloko Goro (kat. št. 62) do Dobrepoljske doline, kjer se je pridružila glavni poti proti Notranjski.
Naslednja sekundarna pot, ki jo moramo omeniti, je vodila od Krke mimo Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96), Gradišča nad Vintarjevcem (kat. št. 78) in Sitarjevca nad Litijo (kat. št. 67) do Zgornje krone nad Vačami (kat. št. 9).
Sodeč po številu najdišč je bila dokaj zanimiva tudi smer, ki je tekla od Sitarjevca nad Litijo (kat. št. 67) proti vzhodu. Speljana je bila po Šmarski in Moravški dolini, nato pa se je mimo Kostjavca nad Tihabojem (kat. št. 124) spustila do Vesele gore v Brinju (kat. št. 246). Od tu naprej je vijugala po levem bregu Mirne in se pri Tržišču usmerila v Krško gričevje k tamkajšnjim naseljem na Tičnici nad Studencem (kat. št. 171), Gradišču pri Dunaju (kat. št. 192) in Sv. Marjeti na Libni (kat. št. 198).
Kot sekundarni poti moramo označiti tudi obe povezavi med Dolenjsko in Belo krajino. Zdi se, da je bila pomembnejša zahodna varianta, ki je tekla po dolini Starih žag, čeprav komunikaciji čez preval na Vahti ne kaže odrekati pomena. Uporabljali so jo zlasti v mlajši železni dobi, ko je bila Bela krajina etnično razdeljena, saj so večji del pokrajine obvladovali Kolapijani, severni konec pa je bil v rokah keltskih Tavriskov in tesno povezan z Dolenjsko.433
9.3.3. NADZOR PROSTORA IN KOMUNIKACIJ
Nadzor nad teritorijem in komunikacijami je bil v vseh obdobjih eden od ključnih dejavnikov, ki so vplivali na gospodarsko in politično moč naselij, zato si oglejmo, kakšna je bila situacija v železni dobi na Dolenjskem. Analizo smo opravili s pomočjo vidnosti, pri če-
431	Šašel 1977; Ciglenečki 1985b; Kosi 1998, 237 ss.
432	Za hitrost potovanja v antiki glej Bender 1989, 150 s.
433	Prim. Božič 2001, 191 s.
Fig. 129: Ideal visual control over the territory in the Early Hallstatt Period. Sl. 129: Idealno vizualno obvladovanje teritorija v starejšem halštatskem obdobju.
culated from the highest viewpoints in settlements, considering the height of observer.434
The hillforts in the Early Hallstatt period had a fairly good visual control of their territories, since the multiple viewshed covered over a third of the area (38 %) included into our project (fig. 129). The same could be said of the intervisibility among hillforts: on average, almost three other hillforts could be seen from a given settlement. Probabilistic intervisibility among Molnik near Podmolnik (cat. no. 25), Magdalenska gora near
434 The analyses were conducted by Dr. Tomaž Podobni-kar from the Institute of Anthropological and Spatial studies of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
mer smo se oprli predvsem na relief, nismo pa upoštevali drugih spremenljivk, na primer vegetacijskega pokrova, vremenskih razmer, faktorja oddaljenosti in podobno. Velikost vidnih polj smo računali z najvišjih točk v naseljih.434
V starejšem halštatskem obdobju so gradišča razmeroma dobro vizualno obvladovala teritorij, saj so pokrivala več kot tretjino ozemlja (38%), ki smo ga vključili v naš projekt (sl. 129). Isto lahko rečemo za medsebojno komuniciranje: z enega naselja se je v povprečju videlo na skoraj tri druga gradišča. Na severozahodu so se spletle vidne povezave med Molnikom nad Podmol-
434 Analize je opravil dr. Tomaž Podobnikar z Inštituta za antropološke in prostorske študije ZRC SAZU.
Zgornja Slivnica (cat. no. 39), Gradišče near Pijava Gorica (cat. no. 55) and Limberk near Velika Račna (cat. no. 64) was established in the north-west; the latter settlement extended its horizon also to the east and south-east. The Temenica Valley was controlled by Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje (cat. no. 273), which maintained intervisibility with Limberk, but also with Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no. 96), Kostjavec near Tihaboj (cat. no. 124) and Vesela gora at Brinje (cat. no. 246). The Krška ravan was also well controlled. The visual communication network included practically all settlements, though Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382) deserves a particular mention, since it is considered, beside Molnik, the Iron Age hillfort with the best view in Dolenjska. The situation in Bela krajina is somewhat different. There the settlements did not establish visible connection amongst each other. The same could be said for Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9), which remained isolated in the middle of the Posavsko hribovje.
The multiple viewshed in the Late Hallstatt period (fig. 130) included 45 % of the territory due to the increase in the number of settlement viewpoints. Visual communication among settlements was lively, particularly in the central and north-western parts of Dolenjska, where several attractive points from the Late Bronze Age again became important, such as Gradišče near Primskovo (cat. no. 92), Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj (cat. no. 112) and Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč (cat. no. 302). A visual contact with the Posavsko hribovje to the north and south of the Sava River was also established.435 An important role in this hilly area was played also by Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji (cat. no. 126) and Kincelj near Trbinc (cat. no. 279). Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje (cat. no. 273) continued its dominance over the Temenica Valley, while an intervisibility triangle was established in Suha krajina among Gradišče near Valična vas (cat. no. 119), Cvinger near Korita (cat. no. 447) and Gradec near Vinkov vrh (cat. no. 453). On the Krška ravan the old connection was preserved, while both settlements in Bela krajina persisted in separation.
The network of visual connections in the Posavsko hribovje became denser in the Late La Tene period (fig. 131). The central position belonged to Gradišče near Suhadole (cat. no. 131), which was tied to the settlements in the Krško gričevje, the Gorjanci and the northwest of Dolenjska. Here, Korinjski hrib near Veliki Ko-rinj (cat. no. 112) shared its dominant position with Limberk near Velika Račna (cat. no. 64), which managed to regain it. A new settlement at Sv. Jurij near Stranski vrh (cat. no. 73) oriented its view towards the area to the north of the Sava. Life restarted at several forgot-
435 Gradišče near Dešen (cat. no. 6), Zgornja krona near Vače (cat. no. 9), Sitarjevec near Litija (cat. no. 67), Gradišče near Vintarjevec (cat. no. 78), Gradišca near Jelše (cat. no. 88).
nikom (kat. št. 25), Magdalensko goro pri Zgornji Slivnici (kat. št. 39), Gradiščem nad Pijavo Gorico (kat. št. 55) in Limberkom nad Veliko Račno (kat. št. 64); slednji je širil svoje obzorje tudi na vzhod in jugovzhod. Te-meniško dolino je obvladoval Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem (kat. št. 273), ki je vzdrževal vidne zveze z že omenjenim Limberkom, razen tega pa še s Cvingerjem nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št. 96), Kostjavcem nad Tihabojem (kat. št. 124) in z Veselo goro v Brinju (kat. št. 246). Dobro nadzorovana je bila tudi Krška ravan. V vizualno mrežo so bila vključena pravzaprav vsa naselja, med njimi pa moramo vseeno izpostaviti Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382), ki velja poleg Molnika za najbolj razgledno železnodobno gradišče Dolenjske. Nekoliko drugačna je bila situacija v Beli krajini, kjer naselja med seboj niso vzpostavila vidnih povezav. Isto lahko rečemo za Zgornjo krono nad Vačami (kat. št. 9), saj je ostala osamljena sredi Posavskega hribovja.
V	mlajšem halštatskem obdobju (sl. 130) se je zaradi porasta poselitvenih točk pokritost teritorija dvignila na 45 %. Vizualna komunikacija med naselji je bila živahna zlasti v osrednjem in severozahodnem delu Dolenjske, kjer so postale znova aktualne nekatere atraktivne točke iz časa pozne bronaste dobe, na primer Gradišče nad Primskovim (kat. št. 92), Korinjski hrib nad Velikim Korinjem (kat. št. 112) in Sv. Ana nad Vrhpečjo (kat. št. 302). Vzpostavljen je bil tudi vizualni stik s Posavskim hribovjem severno in južno od reke Save.435 V tem hribovitem svetu sta vidno vlogo odigrala Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji (kat. št. 126) in Kincelj nad Trbincem (kat. št. 279). V Temeniški dolini je še naprej dominiral Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem (kat. št. 273), medtem ko se je v Suhi krajini izoblikoval vizualni trikotnik med Gradiščem pri Valični vasi (kat. št. 119), Cvingerjem nad Koriti (kat. št. 447) in Gradcem pri Vinkovem vrhu (kat. št. 453). Na Krški ravni se je ohranila stara naveza, obe belokranjski naselji pa sta še naprej vztrajali vsaksebi.
V	poznem latenskem obdobju se je zgostila mreža vidnih povezav v Posavskem hribovju (sl. 131). Osrednje mesto je pripadlo Gradišču pri Suhadolah (kat. št. 131), ki se je navezalo na naselja v Krškem gričevju, na Gorjancih in v severozahodnem koncu Dolenjske. Tu je poleg Korinjskega hriba nad Velikim Korinjem (kat. št. 112) poglavitni položaj ponovno osvojil Limberk nad Veliko Račno (kat. št. 64). Proti krajem severno od Save je uperjalo svoj pogled novo naselje Sv. Jurij pri Stranskem vrhu (kat. št. 73). Na hribovitem obrobju Krške ravni so oživele nekatere pozabljene razgledne točke na Gorjancih in v Krškem gričevju (npr. Gradec nad Mihovim - kat. št. 421; Šentviška gora nad Čatežem - kat. št. 220; Gradec pod Otavnikom - kat. št. 163), ki so bile
435 Gradišče nad Dešnom (kat. št. 6), Zgornja krona nad Vačami (kat. št. 9), Sitarjevec nad Litijo (kat. št. 67), Gradišče nad Vintarjevcem (kat. št. 78), Gradišca pri Jelšah (kat. št. 88).
Fig. 130: Ideal visual control over the territory in the Late Hallstatt Period. Sl. 130: Idealno vizualno obvladovanje teritorija v mlajšem halštatskem obdobju.
ten vantage points on the hilly fringes of the Krška ravan, in the Gorjanci and the Krško gričevje, which were occupied already in the Late Bronze Age (for example Gradec near Mihovo - cat. no. 421; Šentviška gora near Čatež - cat. no. 220; Gradec near Otavnik - cat. no. 163). The intervisibility network of the Late Bronze Age was also renewed in Bela krajina, where only Metlika remained isolated. Beside Semenič near Gaber pri Semiču (cat. no. 468), the control over the area was gained also by Veliki Kolečaj near Zapudje (cat. no. 504). Visual coverage of the territory was best in the Late La Tene period, when it reached 48 %.
These analyses lead us to conclude that the visual communication among settlements was important throughout the periods, which is confirmed by the small
poseljene že v pozni bronasti dobi. Obnovila se je tudi mreža poznobronastodobnih vidnih povezav v Beli krajini, kjer je ostala izolirana edinole Metlika. Tam je poleg Semeniča nad Gabrom pri Semiču (kat. št. 468) nadzor nad pokrajino prevzel Veliki Kolečaj nad Zapudjem (kat. št. 504). V poznem latenskem obdobju je bila vizualna pokritost teritorija najboljša, saj je znašala 48 %.
Na podlagi analiz lahko zaključimo, da je bila vizualna komunikacija med naselji pomembna v vseh obdobjih, kar potrjuje majhen odstotek tistih gradišč (10 %), ki se niso vključevala v vidne povezave. Izrazito nadzorno funkcijo bi lahko pripisali Molniku nad Pod-molnikom (kat. št. 25), ki je obvladoval prehod iz Ljubljanskega barja v Dolenjsko podolje, Limberku nad Veliko Račno (kat. št. 64) in Korinjskemu hribu nad
Fig. 131: Ideal visual control over the territory in the Late La Tene Period. Sl. 131: Idealno vizualno obvladovanje teritorija v poznem latenskem obdobju.
percentage of the hillforts (10 %) not included into the visual communication network. Of the settlements, a distinct control function could be ascribed to Molnik near Podmolnik (cat. no. 25), which supervised the transition from the Ljubljansko barje into the Dolenjsko podolje, to Limberk near Velika Račna (cat. no. 64) and Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj (cat. no. 112), which exercised control over the territory of north-western Dolenjska, and to Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje (cat. no. 273) and Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč (cat. no. 302), which controlled the Temenica Valley. The Krška ravan was in the visual range of Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382), Gradec near Mihovo (cat. no. 421), Stari Grad near Podbočje (cat. no. 439) and Sv. Marjeta on Libna (cat. no. 198), while most of Bela krajina was control-
Velikim Korinjem (kat. št. 112), ki sta imela nadzor nad teritorijem severozahodne Dolenjske ter Kunklu pod Vrhtrebnjem (kat. št. 273) in Sv. Ani nad Vrhpečjo (kat. št. 302), ki sta kontrolirala dolino Temenice. Krška ravan je bila v vidnem polju Velikega Vinjega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382), Gradca nad Mihovim (kat. št. 421), Starega Gradu nad Podbočjem (kat. št. 439) in Sv. Marjete na Libni (kat. št. 198), medtem ko je večji del Bele krajine nadziral Semenič nad Gabrom pri Semiču (kat. št. 468). Omenjene naselbine so v povprečju obvladovale 9,1 % teritorija na enoto, kar je šestnajstkrat več od najmanj razglednih točk. Glede na to, da je bila večina teh gradišč manjših od 1,5 hektarja, lahko rečemo, da je bilo prav nadzorovanje prostora njihova primarna naloga. V mislih imamo zlasti tista naselja, ki
Fig. 132: Ideal visual control over the probabilistic roads (r = 5 km). A: Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica; B: Cvinger near Vir pri Stični; C: Kučar near Podzemelj; D: Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev; E: Sv. Marjeta at Libna; F: Zgornja krona near Vače.
Sl. 132: Idealen vizualni nadzor nad možnimi komunikacijami (r = 5 km). A: Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici; B: Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični; C: Kučar nad Podzemljem; D: Veliki Vinji vrh nad Belo Cerkvijo; E: Sv. Marjeta na Libni; F: Zgornja
krona nad Vačami.	228
led by Semenič near Gaber pri Semiču (cat. no. 468). The above-mentioned settlements controlled 9.1 % of territory per unit on average, which is sixteen times more than the viewpoints of least vantage. Considering the fact that most of these hillforts were smaller than 1.5 hectares, it may be said that territory control represented their primary task. Such are particularly the settlements that were occupied in several periods, also in the restless times of Late Antiquity: Limberk near Velika Račna, Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj, Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč and Gradec near Mihovo.
Finally, let us inspect the visual control over the lines of communication. The analysis included only the centres, since we wished to verify whether the results would be in accordance with the settlements hierarchy.436 The radius of five kilometres was determined as the limit of viewshed, within which the lengths of the probabilistic visually controlled road sections were calculated for each centre (^ig. 132). The differences among the settlements are substantial, but more or less in line with expectations. The majority of the most important centres came out at the top of the list, which signifies, of course, that control of the communications played an important role (^ig. 133). The only exceptions are Zgornja krona near Vače and Sv. Marjeta on Libna, which surprisingly came out at the bottom. There are probably several reasons for this. First we should mention their position, since both hillforts lie away from the main ways and important crossroads. The second is the configuration of the terrain, which is - particularly at Vače - very uneven and thus offers poor visibility. Finally, the shortcomings of this method should also be mentioned. The view of the extensive hillforts, such as on Libna, did not each from the highest point to the foot of the hill because it was blocked by an elevated edge (the edge effect) and the communications that ran along the settlement thus remained hidden. In spite of the above, however, it is still evident that Zgornja krona near Vače, in particular, had a very poor control over the communications in its immediate surroundings.
9.3.4. TRAFFIC AND EXCHANGE
The hypothetical communication network, which was outlined above with the aid of the digital elevation model of the landscape and the distribution of sites, does not represent the system of communication lines in legal terms. So far, there have been no reliably proven Iron Age roads uncovered in Dolenjska and we have no data as to their latitudes and constructions. It would probably not be far from the truth to say that most cart tracks were simply rutted, while planned routings and earthworks were undertaken only on those sections
so bila obljudena v več obdobjih, med drugim tudi v nemirnem času pozne antike: Limberk nad Veliko Rač-no, Korinjski hrib nad Velikim Korinjem, Sv. Ana nad Vrhpečjo in Gradec nad Mihovim.
Na koncu si oglejmo še vizualni nadzor nad komunikacijami. V analizo smo vključili le središča, saj smo želeli preveriti, če bodo rezultati v soglasju s hierarhijo naselij.436 Za prostor opazovanja smo določili radij pet kilometrov, znotraj katerega smo za vsako središče izračunali dolžine vizualno nadzorovanih odsekov poti (sl. 132). Razlike med naselji so očitne, vendar bolj ali manj v skladu s pričakovanji. Na vrh lestvice se je uvrstila večina najpomembnejših središč, kar seveda pomeni, da je imel nadzor nad komunikacijami pomembno vlogo (sl. 133). Izjemi sta le Zgornja krona nad Vačami in Sv. Marjeta na Libni, ki sta se presenetljivo uvrstili na rep tabele. Vzrokov za to je verjetno več. Najprej velja omeniti njuno lego, saj ležita obe gradišči stran od glavnih poti in pomembnih križišč. Druga ovira je konfiguracija površja, ki je zlasti pri Vačah zelo razgibano in zato nepregledno. Končno moramo omeniti tudi pomanjkljivost uporabljene metode. Pri prostranih gradiščih, kot je na primer Libna, pogled z najvišje točke zaradi dvignjenega roba ni segel do vznožja vzpetin. Komunikacije, ki so tekle tik ob naselju, so zato ostale v senci. Ne glede na povedano, pa ostaja na dlani, da je predvsem Zgornja krona nad Vačami zelo slabo nadzorovala komunikacije v svoji neposredni okolici.
9.3.4. PROMET IN MENJAVA
Komunikacijska mreža, ki smo jo skicirali s pomočjo reliefa pokrajine in z razprostranjenostjo najdišč, seveda ne predstavlja sistema cest in poti v pravem pomenu besede. Doslej ni bila na Dolenjskem odkrita še nobena zanesljivo dokazana železnodobna pot, zato nimamo o njenih dimenzijah in načinu gradnje nobenih podatkov. Verjetno ne bomo daleč od resnice, če rečemo, da je bila večina kolovozov zgolj izvoženih, medtem ko so se načrtnih trasiranj in zemeljskih posegov lotili le na tistih odsekih, kjer je bilo to nujno potrebno. Včasih je za gradnjo obstajal tudi kak drug, nam ne povsem razumljiv interes. V tem smislu lahko razumemo odkritje nekaj deset metrov dolge in tri metre široke ceste v Požarnicah pri Kronovem, ki jo je prekrivala debela plast naplavin, na katerih so v tretjem stoletju po Kr. zgradili rimsko podeželsko vilo. Cesta je imela kamnit, z robniki obdan tampon, proti Velikemu Vinjemu vrhu pa je potekala skoraj v natanko isti smeri, kot jo je začrtala naša računalniška simulacija (sl. 134). Čeprav za datacijo ceste razen redkih fragmentov prazgodovinske keramike nimamo neposrednih dokazov, pa se njeni iz-kopavalci že zaradi stratigrafske situacije nagibajo k
436
Cf. chapter 8.3.
436
Prim. poglavje 8.3.
12t
10
T 8
C
iN O "D
OJ
C <D
1 či □	D u ;i to	<D [c S S	0] E s "O 0	C >u CO ■C o.	(D u C 0) o
0) CQ -£ >	o 'c o O} (S	O OJ o s	b >u =	4 ffi OJ C	3 1 (D
'E"	s	>		*>	>o
>	o OJ			u	
	o				E
J"	*o C				O
>					
% (U
E §
O E -a
£
3
•C
o v
m O)
C >
<D
-i u
I cS

E >to
JJ o "O OJ o
5
E d)	O u "C	M	d) E	u <» C	-E >	OJ .o	OJ >o o	o C n
1 £ 1—	O 0 1	O C >u 1	O C >u	o -a tO 8	C >	■Q. to 'c	> o C e	1 o
^	O-	OJ			o	OJ	o	
0)	■a	>u >c/)		>5 i—	"O	o	'c	
'n d)	o C				S		o	
m	<D >U >tn	g O			O	o OJ		
C	TJ					C		
o	g					5		
v	O							
O)
a
Fig. 133: Ideal visual control over the probabilistic roads in 5 km distance from the highest viewpoint of the settlement. Sl. 133: Idealen vizualni nadzor nad možnimi komunikacijami v razdalji 5 km od najvišje točke naselja.
where it proved absolutely necessary. At times, the construction of a road was led by another, to us not fully comprehensible interest. This is how we may understand the road uncovered at Pozarnice near Kronovo. It measured several tens of metres in length and three metres in width, it was covered by a thick alluvial layer, and on top of it a Roman country villa was constructed in the third century AD. The road had a stone surface layer flanked by kerbstones and ran towards Veliki Vinji vrh in a direction almost identical to the one laid out in our computer simulation (fig. 134). Although the road is dated without direct evidence - with the exception of the rare fragments of prehistoric pottery - the stratigraphic situation nevertheless led the excavators to consider it as dating to the Iron Age.437 If the date should turn out to be correct, we would need to consider the existence of shorter sections of real roads with wheeled traffic also in Dolenjska. Two-and four-wheeled waggons are, in fact, depicted several times on the monuments of the situla art.438 In the trans-
437	Tica 2003b; Topličanec 2006.
438	Lucke/Frey 1962, pl. 48, pl. 72, pl. 73; Križ 1997b, app. 3; Turk 2005, fig. 44, fig. 50-52. The only waggon in south-
mnenju, da sodi v železno dobo.437 Če se bo datacija izkazala za pravilno, bomo morali tudi na Dolenjskem računati z obstojem krajših odsekov pravih cest, na katerih se je odvijal vozni promet. Dvo in štirikolesni vozovi so namreč nekajkrat upodobljeni na situlskih spo-menikih.438 Sicer pa je v transportu blaga prevladovalo tovorništvo, ki ni zahtevalo stalno vzdrževanih poti. Konj, otovorjen z mehovi, je upodobljen na eni od situl iz Novega mesta.439
Komunikacijska mreža je omogočala stike med sosednjimi naselji in oddaljenimi kraji. Za železno dobo, kjer smo skoraj v celoti vezani na materialne ostaline, jih najlažje ponazorimo s kartami razprostranjenosti posameznih predmetov. Toda potrebna je previdnost. Za razprostranjenostjo najdb se skriva pisana paleta odnosov, od prave trgovine in menjave dobrin, pa vse
437	Tica 2003b; Topličanec 2006.
438	Lucke/Frey 1962, t. 48, t. 72, t. 73; Križ 1997b, pril. 3; Turk 2005, sl. 44, sl. 50-52. Edini voz v jugovzhodni Sloveniji je bil najden v srednjelatenskem grobu iz Brežic (Guštin 1984b, 114 ss).
439	Knez 1973, sl. 2b; Knez 1986, pril. 3; Turk 2005, sl. 63.
Veliki Vinji vrh
Fig. 134: Požarnice near Kronovo. A: prehistoric road; B: computer simulation of the Iron Age road.
Sl. 134: Požarnice pri Kronovem. A: prazgodovinska cesta; B: računalniška simulacija poteka železnodobne ceste.
port of goods, however, the dominant role was played by the freight traffic, which did not necessitate constantly maintained roads. One of the situlas from Novo mesto, for example, bears a depiction of a horse laden with bellows.439
The communications network enabled contacts among neighbouring settlements as well as with distant
eastern Slovenia was uncovered in a Middle La Tene grave from Brežice (Guštin 1984b, 114 ff).
439 Knez 1973, fig. 2b; Knez 1986, app. 3; Turk 2005, fig.
do plenilnih pohodov, širitve tehnoloških znanj in migracij oseb. Meje med njimi so pogosto zabrisane in jih je težko prepoznati. V nadaljevanju zato ne bomo govorili o trgovini, za katero na Dolenjskem pravzaprav nimamo pravih dokazov, ampak predvsem o stikih. Da se v njih skriva tudi menjava dobrin, verjetno ni treba posebej poudarjati.440
Na odprtost dolenjskega prostora, ki je bil v stalnih stikih s severom, vzhodom in zahodom, kaže vrsta
440 Za problematiko kontaktov z oddaljenimi kraji glej Lang 2000 z nadaljnjo literaturo.
places. For the Iron Age, where we rely almost completely on the material remains, the cultural contacts can best be illustrated with distribution maps of individual objects. However, we need to be cautious, since the distribution of finds conceals a wide variety of relationships, from actual trade and exchange of goods to plundering raids, the spread of technological knowledge and human migrations. The borders among these are frequently blurred and are difficult to be identified. For this reason, we will write below of contacts rather than of trade, for which there is actually no firm evidence in Dolenjska. Contacts also include the exchange of goods, but this probably does not need to be especially stressed.440
The area of Dolenjska was in permanent relationship with the north, east and west, and its openness is indicated by a variety of objects. Since many authors showed a keen interest in this topic in the past, it would suffice to briefly summarize their findings here. The female attire, for example, had distinct Balkan features at the beginning of the Iron Age,441 while these garments were slowly being replaced by the Italic fashion already in the mid 7th century BC. This would, of course, not be possible without the strengthening of the contacts with the west.442 A similar observation can be made for the weaponry. The use of certain eastern types of offensive weapons may be observed in the Early Hallstatt period,443 while the Late Hallstatt helmets were made according to the Middle Italic models.444 The distribution of certain objects even shows the impact that certain socio-political events had on the contacts.445 The map of the Smarjeta fibulae, which date to the beginning of the 6th century BC, shows strong relations of Dolenjska with the eastern Alpine and Transdanubian areas (fig. 135: A). When these areas became deserted as a consequence of the incursions of groups of Scythian origin not long afterwards, the contacts shifted westwards (fig. 135: B). The situation became consolidated in the 5th century. The distribution of the Certosa fibulae of the V type (fig. 135: C) and the slightly later eastern Alpine animal-headed fibulae (ostalpine Tierkopffibel) indicate that the contacts between the east and the west were renewed, in which Dolenjska played an important role as a distinct traffic junction.
Other material also speaks of the relationship, for example the ornaments,446 horse gear,447 monuments of the situla art,448 Early La Tene openwork belt hooks
440	For long-distance contacts see Lang 2000 with further references.
441	Gabrovec 1970.
442	Teržan 1976; Parzinger 1988, pl. 142-147; Frey 1984, 38 f; Gabrovec 1992, 213.
443	Guštin 1974b.
444	Egg 1986.
445	Teržan 1998, 521 ff.
446	Metzner-Nebelsick 1992; Eibner 2001.
447	Werner 1988; Teržan 1995b, 92 ff.
448	Lucke/Frey 1962; Frey 1969; Capuis 2001; Turk 2005.
predmetov. Ker so jim v preteklosti nekateri avtorji posvetili precej pozornosti, se lahko zadovoljimo s kratkim povzetkom njihovih dognanj. Tako je imela na primer ženska noša na začetku železne dobe izrazito balkanske poteze,441 že v sredini 7. stoletja pr. Kr. pa jo je pričela izpodrivati italska moda. To seveda ne bi bilo mogoče, če se ne bi okrepili stiki z zahodom.442 Podobno je z oborožitvijo. V starejšem halštatskem obdobju opažamo uporabo nekaterih vzhodnih tipov ofenzivnega orožja,443 mladohalštatske čelade pa so bile narejene po srednje-italskih vzorih.444 Iz razprostranjenosti nekaterih predmetov je moč razbrati celo to, kako so na stike vplivali nekateri družbenopolitični dogodki.445 Karta šmarjeških fibul, ki sodijo v konec 7. in na začetek 6. stoletja pr. Kr., kaže na močno povezanost Dolenjske z vzhodno-alpskim in transdanubijskim prostorom (sl. 135: A). Ko so kmalu za tem ta območja zaradi vpadov skupin skitskega porekla večinoma opustela, so se kontakti zasukali proti zahodu (sl. 135: B). Situacija se je konsolidi-rala v 5. stoletju. Iz razprostranjenosti certoških fibul V. vrste (sl. 135: C) in nekoliko mlajših vzhodnoalpskih živalskih fibul je moč razbrati, da so se stiki med vzhodom in zahodom obnovili, Dolenjska pa je kot izrazito prometno vozlišče pri tem odigrala pomembno vlogo.
O povezavah govori še drugo gradivo, na primer ornamentika,446 konjska oprema,447 spomeniki situlske umetnosti,448 zgodnjelatenske pasne spone449 in še bi lahko naštevali, vendar pa vse te predmete ne moremo označiti kot trgovsko blago. Gre namreč za izdelke domačih delavnic, ki so nastali po tujih vzorih. S trgovino lažje povežemo uvožene predmete, ki jih na Dolenjskem sicer ni veliko, so pa lep dokaz, da je imel prestiž v takratni družbi velik pomen. Omeniti velja konjsko opremo, italo-korintski vrč, bronasto skodelico in negovsko čelado iz Stične, pa bronast trinožnik in ilirski čeladi iz Novega mesta, z več najdišč pa je znana tudi grška in apulska keramika, ki je bila v Beli krajini tako priljubljena, da so po originalnih kosih izdelovali celo domače ponaredke.450 Toda, tudi za te uvožene predmete ni nujno, da so na Dolenjsko zašli kot trgovsko blago. Prav zaradi maloštevilnosti bi jih lahko označili kot darove, s katerimi so utrjevali medsebojne vezi.451 Trgovanje je očitno potekalo z bolj vsakdanjimi rečmi. Čeprav jih je težko prepoznati, naj najprej omenimo železo. Na Do-
441	Gabrovec 1970.
442	Teržan 1976; Parzinger 1988, t. 142-147; Frey 1984, 38 s; Gabrovec 1992, 213.
443	Guštin 1974b.
444	Egg 1986.
445	Teržan 1998, 521 ss.
446	Metzner-Nebelsick 1992; Eibner 2001.
447	Werner 1988; Teržan 1995b, 92 ss.
448	Lucke/Frey 1962; Frey 1969; Capuis 2001; Turk 2005.
449	Frey 1974b.
450	Frey 1989; Gabrovec 1992; Egg 1996, 264 ss. Glej tudi Križ 1997a, 32; Križ 2000, t. 6: 1.
451	Prim. Fischer 1973.
Fig. 135: A: distribution map of the Šmarjeta type boat-shaped fibulae; B: distribution map of two-knobbed fibulae; C: distribution map of the Certosa fibulae, type V (after Teržan 1998).
Sl. 135: A: razprostranjenost šmarjeških fibul; B: razprostranjenost dvortastih fibul; C: razprostranjenost certoških fibul V. vrste (po Teržanovi 1998).
(durchbrochene Gurtelhacken)**^ and others. However, these objects cannot be marked as merchandise; they are rather the products of local workshops that were made according to foreign models. The imported objects can more easily be linked with trading. These do not appear in great numbers in Dolenjska, but are solid evidence of the importance of prestige in the contemporary society. Of those, we should mention horse gear, an Italo-Corinthian jug, a bronze cup and a Negova helmet from Stična, a bronze tripod and Illyrian helmets from Novo mesto, while several sites yielded Greek and Apulian pottery, which was popular in Bela krajina to the extent that local imitations based on original pieces were produced.450 However, the imported objects did not necessarily arrive in Dolenjska as trading goods. Their small number may lead us to interpret them as gifts offered to strengthen the alliances.451 Trading apparently involved more every-day objects. Though these may be difficult to identify, let us first mention iron. This metal was present in Dolenjska in sufficient amounts and the production may even have exceeded the local need. The second article of trading was livestock, riding horses in particular, which were certainly of the eastern, Scythian origin in Dolenjska and in the Venetic area.452 Hides and slaves could also be added to iron and livestock. In the opposite direction, wine and oil came to Dolenjska from the south and amber came from the far north. For the latter, the analyses indicated a Baltic origin.453 The above-mentioned goods (wine, oil, cattle, hides and slaves) were enumerated also by Strabo, when he wrote of the trading of Aquileia with its hinterland (5.1.8). This information refers to the pre-occupation phase, as does his note of the discovery of a gold mine (4.6.12), which caused a dispute between the Itali and the Tauris-ci, since the latter wished to retain the monopoly over the trading to themselves.454 In the century before the Roman conquest, monetary economy was established with the Norici and the Taurisci.455
The exchange of goods, which could take several forms,456 was in the hands of the elites. The communication network (fig. 128) indicates that the most important crossroads were at Magdalenska gora (cat. no. 39), Cvinger near Vir pri Stični (cat. no 96), Marof at Novo mesto (cat. no. 351) and Veliki Vinji vrh near Bela Cerkev (cat. no. 382). These settlements revealed most roads
449	Frey 1974b.
450	Frey 1989; Gabrovec 1992; Egg 1996, 264 ff. See also Križ 1997a, 32; Križ 2000, pl. 6: 1.
451	Cf. Fischer 1973.
452	Bokony 1993, 49 ff.
453	Hadži/Orel 1978; Palavestra 1993, 172 ff. For connections along the eastern Alps see Stegmann-Rajtar 2002.
454	Šašel 1959; Šašel 1974-1975; see also Dobesch 2002, 5 f.
455	Kos 1977; Kos 1983; Kos 1984a; Kos 1984b; Kos 1986.
456	Kossack 1982, 106; Stjernquist 1985, 71 f; Renfrew/
Bahn 1996, 335 ff.
lenjskem ga je bilo dovolj, proizvodnja pa je verjetno presegala domače potrebe. Drugi artikel je bila živina, zlasti jezdni konji, ki so bili na Dolenjskem in v ve-netskem prostoru zanesljivo vzhodnega, skitskega porekla.452 Železu in živini bi dodali še kože in sužnje. V obratni smeri je z juga pritekalo vino in olje, z daljnega severa pa jantar, za katerega so analize pokazale, da je na Dolenjskem baltskega izvora.453 Omenjeno blago (vino, olje, živino, kože in sužnje) našteva tudi Strabo, ko govori o trgovanju Akvileje z njenim zaledjem (5.1.8). Podatek se nanaša na predokupacijsko fazo, podobno kot njegov zapis o odkritju rudnika zlata (4.6.12), zaradi katerega je prišlo do spora Italikov s Tavriski, saj so le-ti želeli sami obdržati monopol nad prodajo.454 V stoletju pred rimsko zasedbo se je pri Norikih in Tavriskih uveljavilo denarno gospodarstvo.455
Menjava dobrin, ki se je lahko odvijala na več nači-nov,456 je bila v rokah elit. Glede na komunikacijsko mrežo (sl. 128) so bila najpomembnejša križišča pri Magdalenski gori (kat. št. 39), Cvingerju nad Virom pri Stični (kat. št 96), Marofu v Novem mestu (kat. št. 351) in Velikem Vinjem vrhu nad Belo Cerkvijo (kat. št. 382). Pri teh krajih se je od glavnih komunikacij odcepilo največ poti, hkrati pa je bila v pripadajočih grobiščih najdena večina importiranih predmetov (sl. 136). Nekoliko preseneča, da je ostala Zgornja krona nad Vačami zunaj glavnih prometnih tokov. Mimo je sicer peljala povezava čez Trojane v Savinjsko dolino, vendar pa jo lahko označimo le kot sekundarno pot. Vače torej s prometnega vidika niso igrale pomembnejše vloge. To je vsekakor nenavadno, saj je imelo naselje tudi razmeroma neugodno agrarno zaledje. Morda je središče cvetelo zaradi bližnjih rudnih ležišč barvnih kovin, zlasti bakra in svinca, kar pa bi morali šele dokazati z novimi raziskavami.
Na koncu se moramo na kratko zadržati še pri vprašanju migracije ljudi. Pojem razumemo v ožjem smislu besede, torej kot stalno prisotnost določene osebe v tujem okolju. S problematiko se je ukvarjala B. Teržan. Na osnovi razprostranjenosti nekaterih predmetov iz grobov, zlasti delov ženske noše, ki so bili najdeni daleč stran od njihovega izvornega področja, je skušala dokazati, da gre v bistvu za žene, ki so bile izročene kot darila tujcem, da bi na ta način učvrstili medsebojne sti-ke.457 Obdarovanja med višjimi sloji so bila seveda običajna (omenimo naj le Cezarja [Bell. Gall. 1.53], ko govori o drugi ženi Ariovista, ki mu jo je poslal noriški kralj Vokio), vendar pa moramo biti pri sklepanju previdni.
452	Bokony 1993, 49 ss.
453	Hadži/Orel 1978; Palavestra 1993, 172 ss. Za povezave vzdolž vzhodnih Alp glej Stegmann-Rajtar 2002.
454	Šašel 1959; Šašel 1974-1975; glej tudi Dobesch 2002, 5
s.
455	Kos 1977; Kos 1983; Kos 1984a; Kos 1984b; Kos 1986.
456	Kossack 1982, 106; Stjernquist 1985, 71 s; Renfrew/ Bahn 1996, 335 ss.
457	Teržan 1995b, 95 ss.
branching off from the main lines of communication, and the accompanying cemeteries yielded most imported objects (^ig. 136). It is somewhat surprising that Zgornja krona near Vače remained outside the main traffic routes. The connection across Trojane into the Savinja Valley did run past the settlement, but this road can only be marked as secondary. Vače, therefore, did not play an important communication role. This is certainly unusual, since the settlement also had quite a poor agricultural hinterland. It may have flourished due to the nearby ore deposits of non-ferrous metals, copper and lead in particular, but this is yet to be proven by new research.
Finally, we should briefly consider the question of migration of peoples, whereby the notion is understood in its limited sense, as the permanent presence of an individual in a foreign environment. This problem was tackled by B. Teržan. Based on the distribution of certain objects uncovered in graves, parts of female attire in particular, that were found far from their original area, B. Teržan attempted to prove that these women were presented to foreigners as gifts in order to strengthen the alliances.457 Bestowing presents was of course common practice among the higher classes (to mention only Caesar [Bell. Gall. 1.53] who writes of the second wife of Ariovistus sent to him by Vocion, the Norican king). However, we should be cautious in making such inferences, since not every fibula or necklace necessarily indicates an immigrated person, particularly if these are individual objects and not complete attires. For this reason, the criterion was made stricter and the analysis included the burial custom as well as the objects. Funeral rites are a good indicator of exceptions, since the ideas related to life after death makes them the least subjected to change. What, then, can be discerned from the objects and grave structures?
The collected data are rather scarce. The grave with a lid of a situla from Griže near Stična,458 for example, was an incremation burial, which is not a characteristic of the Dolenjska Hallstatt community. Beside the burial custom it is important to note that the grave contained an Italo-Corinthian jug as well as several Sv. Lucija and Este objects (a large bronze situla, a small cup, a cup with a burnished ornament and also the lid of a situla mentioned above). The possibility of this grave having contained the burial of a person, who arrived in Dolenjska from the western part of Slovenia, can therefore not be excluded. The same could be said of the deceased from grave 48/30 of the same cemetery.459 The latter was also cremated and his remains were placed in a characteristic Sv. Lucija pithos.460
457	Teržan 1995b, 95 ff.
458	Dular 2003, fig. 68 and 69A.
459	Gabrovec 2006, pl. 25: 1-4.
460	For vessels see Dular 1982, 173 and 200.
Fig. 136: Imports.
Sl. 136: Uvoženi predmeti.
Ni namreč nujno, da se za vsako fibulo ali ogrlico tujega porekla skriva tudi priseljena oseba, še zlasti ne, če gre za posamezne predmete in ne celotno nošo. Prav zaradi tega smo kriterij zaostrili. V analizo smo poleg predmetov vključili tudi način pokopa. Pogrebne navade so namreč dober indikator izjem, saj se zaradi specifike predstav o posmrtnem življenju najtežje spreminjajo. Kaj lahko torej razberemo iz predmetov in grobiščnih struktur?
Naj takoj povemo, da je bera razmeroma skromna. Iz Griž pri Stični velja omeniti grob s situlskim pokro-vom.458 Bil je žgan, kar seveda ni značilnost dolenjske halštatske skupnosti. Vendar pa ni pomemben zgolj način pokopa. V grobu je bilo poleg italo-korinskega vrča tudi nekaj svetolucijskih in estenskih predmetov (veliko bronasto vedro, skodelica, skodela z vglajenim ornamentom in nenazadnje tudi pokrov situle), zato ni izključeno, da je bila v njem pokopana oseba, ki je prišla na Dolenjsko z zahodnega konca Slovenije. Isto bi lahko rekli za pokojnika iz groba 48/30.459 Tudi njega so sežgali, žganina pa je bila shranjena v značilnem svetolucijskem pitosu.460
Žgane grobove v pitosih poznamo tudi z Laščika (gr. 1892/13) in s Prelog pod Magdalensko goro (gr. 13/ 105 in gr. 13/163).461 V vseh so bile pokopane ženske, podobno kot v grobu 13/158 s Prelog. Slednji sicer ni vseboval pitosa, toda kot tuj element je bil v njem najden značilen italski nakit.462
Še težje kot tujce na Dolenjskem je dokazati migracijo prebivalcev jugovzhodnih Alp v tujino. Na grobove
458	Dular 2003, sl. 68 in 69A.
459	Gabrovec 2006, t. 25: 1-4.
460	Za posode glej Dular 1982, 21 in 93.
461	Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, t. 5A, t. 102A, t. 123-124.
462	Ib., 103, t. 121A: 1.
Incremation burials in pithoi are known also from Laščik (gr. 1892/13) and Preloge near Magdalenska gora (gr. 13/105 and gr. 13/163).461 All were female graves. Grave 13/158 from Preloge also held a woman. It did not contain a pithos, but characteristic Italic jewellery was found in it as a foreign element.462
The emigration of the inhabitants of the south-eastern Alps is even harder to prove than the immigration of foreigners into Dolenjska. The female graves from Cieszkow in Silesia and Ordone in southern Italy have been pointed out in this respect already by B. Teržan.463 Another reliable example may be added, that of a warrior from Hallstatt who was buried in the attire typical of Dolenjska. He was marked as a foreigner years previously, one who came to this part of the Alps to purchase salt.464 Other graves from Hallstatt, in which objects of a south-eastern Alpine origin (for example disk helmets (Schusselhelme), fibula with a glass bow (Glas-bugelfibel) are not characteristic enough to enable us to identify them as burials of the members of the Dolenjska Iron Age community.
žensk iz Cieszk6wa v Šleziji in Ordone v južni Italiji je pokazala že B. Teržan.463 Dodamo ji lahko le še en zanesljiv primer in sicer bojevnika iz Hallstatta, ki je bil pokopan v značilni dolenjski opravi, zato so ga že pred leti označili kot tujca, ki je prišel v ta konec Alp kupovat sol.464 Ostali grobovi iz Hallstatta, v katerih so bili najdeni predmeti jugovzhodnoalpskega porekla (npr. skledaste čelade, fibula s stekleno oblogo) pa so premalo značilni, da bi lahko v njih prepoznali pokope pripadnikov dolenjske železnodobne skupnosti.
461	Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, pl. 5A, pl. 102A, pl. 123-124.
462	Ib., 182, pl. 121A: 1.
463	Teržan 1995b, 97.
464	Egg 1978. For salt trade see Stollner 2002.
463	Teržan 1995b, 97.
464	Egg 1978. Za trgovino s soljo glej Stollner 2002.
10. SOCIAL STRUCTURE
10. DRUŽBENA STRUKTURA
The study of prehistoric societies is a complex process, since the written records for the periods in question are scarce. The south-eastern Alpine area entered into the awareness of the ancient writers relatively late in spite of the vicinity of the Mediterranean world. This holds true also for the Dolenjska Hallstatt community in the hinterland of the Adriatic.465 The main source for the analysis of the Iron Age society remains the cemeteries and the funerary attire, which is assumed to reflect the differences in sex, age, wealth and social stand-ing.466 However, conducting such analyses urges us to be cautious, since the status of an individual depended on several socio-economic factors, and the relationships among them were complex. The basic dilemmas that we should be aware of are: what does the attire actually represent, does it reflect the social organization and how strongly was this filtered through funerary rituals?467
Raziskovanje prazgodovinskih družb je kompliciran proces, saj za to obdobje večinoma nimamo pisanih sporočil. Ta ugotovitev velja tudi za dolenjsko železnodobno skupnost, ki je sicer živela v zaledju Jadrana, vendar pa je bil jugovzhodnoalpski prostor kljub bližini mediteranskega sveta razmeroma pozno vključen v zavest antičnih av-torjev.465 Glavni vir za analizo železnodobne družbe ostajajo zato grobišča in pogrebna noša, za katero se predpostavlja, da se v njej skrivajo spolne, starostne, premoženjske in tudi socialne razlike.466 Vendar pa moramo biti pri analizah previdni. Na status posameznika v neki družbi je vplivalo več dejavnikov, razmerja med njimi pa niso bila vedno enaka. Temeljne dileme, ki jih moramo imeti pred očmi, se nanašajo na izpovednost pogrebne noše: kaj noša pravzaprav predstavlja, so v njej sploh zakodira-ni družbeni obrazci in kako močno je bila ob pogrebnih ritualih filtrirana njena sporočilna moč.467
10.1. STRUCTURE OF CEMETERIES
It is true that the analyses of cemeteries offer a fairly limited insight into the prehistoric social structure. However, it is also true that in the absence of written records, grave offerings and burial rites represent the only reliable source for prehistorians that can be used for sociological diagnosing. The burial custom practiced in the Hallstatt community of Dolenjska is relatively well known.468 It involves a tumulus with graves laid out tangentially in several circles around the central burial, with the centre of the mound oftentimes empty. Another important finding is that individual tumuli could remain in use for several centuries and the largest ones therefore contained even over two hundred graves. This funerary rite was a constant of the Early Iron Age in south-eastern Slovenia; it was subjected to
465	Božič 1987, 855 ff.
466	Teržan 1985, 77.
467	Cf. Kossack 1974, 13 ff; Hodder 1982; Parzinger 1993, 568; Bockisch-Brauer 1999, 533 ff; Kraufie 1999.
468	Gabrovec 1974; Gabrovec 1987, 85 ff. See also chapter 6.3.1.
10.1. STRUKTURA GROBIŠČ
Nedvomno drži, da nudijo analize grobišč dokaj omejen vpogled v socialno strukturo prazgodovinskih skupnosti, vendar pa je tudi res, da so zaradi izostanka pisanih sporočil prav grobni pridatki in način pokopa edini zanesljivi vir, ki ga lahko uporabimo za sociološko dia-gnosticiranje. Način pokopa, ki je bil v uporabi v dolenjski halštatski skupnosti, je razmeroma dobro poznan.468 Gre za gomilo s tangencialno položenimi grobovi, ki so razvrščeni v več krogih okoli centralnega pokopa, velikokrat pa je bila sredina nasutja tudi prazna. Pomembna je ugotovitev, da so lahko v posamezne gomile pokopavali več stoletij, zato štejejo največje tudi čez dvesto grobov. Tak način pokopa je bil v starejši železni dobi jugovzhodne Slovenije konstanta. Podvržen je bil strogim normam in se ni bistveno spreminjal pol tisočletja!
465	Božič 1987, 855 ss.
466	Teržan 1985, 77.
467	Prim. Kossack 1974, 13 ss; Hodder 1982; Parzinger 1993, 568; Bockisch-Brauer 1999, 533 ss; Kraufie 1999.
468	Gabrovec 1974; Gabrovec 1987, 85 ss. Glej tudi pogl. 6.3.1.
strict norms and did not change substantially in half a millennium!
The specific structure of the tumuli, which is unknown to any of the neighbouring south-eastern Alpine communities, led Gabrovec to advance a thesis of the tumuli of Dolenjska representing burial grounds of families in which members of several generations were in-terred.469 The graves differ considerably in the wealth of the grave goods. Based on that, Gabrovec saw the wealthiest graves as burials of the leading personalities and other members of the family or kin in the less wealthy graves.470 The fact that even the wealthiest graves do not stand out in their position within a tumulus gradually led to the development of the idea of an oligarchy, where the chief would not have the status of a ruler but would rather be the first among equals.471
Prav zaradi specifične strukture gomil, ki je v podobni obliki ne pozna nobena od sosednjih jugovzhod-noalpskih skupnosti, je Gabrovec postavil tezo, da so dolenjske gomile pokopališča družin, v katerih so bili pokopani pripadniki več generacij.469 Ker se grobovi po bogastvu pridatkov med seboj precej razlikujejo, je v bogatejših prepoznal vodilne osebnosti, v manj premožnih pa ostale člane posamezne družine oziroma rodu.470 Glede na to, da se tudi najbogatejši grobovi po svoji legi v gomilah v ničemer ne razlikujejo od ostalih pokopov, se je postopoma razvila ideja o oligarhični ureditvi družbe, v kateri prvak ne bi imel statusa vladarja, ampak bi bil zgolj prvi med enakimi.471
10.2. STRUKTURA POKOPOV
10.2. STRUCTURE OF BURIALS
The structure of burials of the Dolenjska Hallstatt community was studied in detail by B. Teržan.472 She based her study on the assumption that the funerary cult conceals rules that would prove relevant in identifying individual social groups. She analysed the material of the larger cemeteries such as Vače, Podzemelj and Dolenjske Toplice. These were mostly excavated at the end of the nineteenth century and their material is thus not always as revealing as would be desired.473 Of the cemeteries researched by modern methods, she included only Stična, since the cemeteries of Novo mesto were not yet published at the time.
In spite of the above-mentioned problems, the results of her analysis proved interesting. Teržan found that a strict ritual governed the funerary cult, which was reflected in fairly standardized attire as well as in offerings of vessels in graves.474 Two male attires were typical in the Early Hallstatt period, the ordinary and the warrior attire, whereby the warriors were in a significant minority. The female attire was more varied, since it was distinguished by jewellery. Four variants were observed there. The relatively small differences in wearing indicate that the society in Dolenjska was fairly unstratified at the beginning of the Iron Age, though a wealthier class must undoubtedly have existed.475
469	Gabrovec 1987, 113.
470	The Slovene terminology for the leading personalities is very varied. For example: "pater familias" (Teržan 1985, 86); "princeps" (Gabrovec 1987, 114; Gabrovec 1993-1994, 84; Teržan 1994b, 665; Teržan 1997, 664).
471	Teržan 1995b, 85; Tomedi 1999, 666 f; Tomedi 2002, 293; Egg 2004, 124.
472	Teržan 1985.
473	For problems concerning the reliability of the grave contexts see Dular 2003, 85 ff.
474	Teržan 1980.
475	Teržan 1985, 95.
Podrobneje se je s strukturo pokopov dolenjske halštatske skupnosti ukvarjala B. Teržan.472 Izhajala je iz predpostavke, da se morda v grobnem kultu skrivajo take zakonitosti, ki bi se lahko izkazale kot relevantne za identifikacijo posameznih družbenih skupin. Analizirala je gradivo večjih nekropol, med drugim Vač, Podzemlja in Dolenjskih Toplic. Ker so bile večinoma izkopane ob koncu devetnajstega stoletja, izpovednost gradiva ni bila vedno najboljša.473 Od moderno raziskanih nekropol je upoštevala Stično, saj grobišča iz Novega mesta takrat še niso bila objavljena.
Ne glede na omenjene težave pa so bili rezultati analize zanimivi. Teržanova je ugotovila, da je v pogrebnem kultu vladal strog ritual, ki se je odražal v dokaj standardizirani noši, prav tako pa tudi v pridajanju posodja v grobove.474 Za starejše halštatsko obdobje sta značilni dve moški noši, navadna in bojevniška, pri čemer so bili bojevniki v izraziti manjšini. Ženska noša je bila pestrejša, saj jo je odlikoval nakit. Znane so štiri različice. Zaradi razmeroma majhnih razlik v oblačilni kulturi naj bi bila na začetku železne dobe družba na Dolenjskem še dokaj nerazslojena, čeprav je nedvomno že obstajal tudi premožnejši sloj.475
Način oblačenja se je koreniteje spremenil v fazi Stična 1, to je sredi 7. stoletja pr. Kr. Novosti so se uvelja-
469	Gabrovec 1987, 113.
470	Terminologija, ki jo uporabljajo avtorji za poimenovanje vodilnih osebnosti, je zelo pestra. Npr: "pater familias" (Teržan 1985, 86); "princeps" (Gabrovec 1987, 114; Gabrovec 1993-1994, 84; Teržan 1994b, 665; Teržan 1997, 664); "prvak" (Gabrovec 1990, 26); "knez" (Knez 1989b; Križ 1997a, 48; Teržan 1997, 664; Škoberne 1999); "starešina" (Gabrovec 1987, 114); "veljak" (Teržan 1980, 344).
471	Teržan 1995b, 85; Tomedi 1999, 666 s; Tomedi 2002, 293; Egg 2004, 124.
472	Teržan 1985.
473	Za problematiko zanesljivosti grobnih celot glej Dular 2003, 85 ss.
474	Teržan 1980.
475	Teržan 1985, 95.
The fashion changed rather substantially in the Stična 1 phase, that is in the mid 7th century BC. Novelties, which were tied to the Italic style, gained ground fairly rapidly and the new adornament design completely ousted earlier jewellery. Teržan's analyses showed that there were between eight to ten female attires in the Late Hallstatt period in Dolenjska, which express not only the differences in wealth, but also in age, status and other. The changes are discernible also in the male attire. In the warrior attire, four groups can be differentiated, at the end of the Late Hallstatt period even five, which differ in the combinations of the offered weapons. Another important finding is that warrior graves became more numerous in this period than the graves without weapons.476 The complete male equipment included two spears and a battle axe. The wealthiest also had a helmet, an armour and a shield; they usually also possessed a horse.
vile razmeroma naglo, gre pa za italsko modo, ki je z novimi oblikami okrasja v celoti izpodrinila star nakit. Analize Teržanove so pokazale, da je bilo v mladohal-štatskem obdobju na Dolenjskem nekako osem do deset ženskih noš, ki pa v svoji različnosti ne kažejo le premoženjskih, ampak tudi starostne, statusne in še kake druge razlike. Spremembe je opaziti tudi v moški noši. Med bojevniki je moč razlikovati štiri, ob koncu mlajšega halštatskega obdobja celo pet skupin, ki se med seboj ločijo po kombinacijah pridanega orožja. Važna je tudi ugotovitev, da so v tem času postali bojevniški grobovi številnejši od tistih brez pridanega orožja.476 K popolni moški opravi sta sodili dve sulici in bojna sekira, najpre-možnejši pa so nosili še čelado, oklep in ščit; k njihovi opremi je običajno sodil tudi konj.
10.3. BOJEVNIKI
10.3. WARRIORS
Our supposition is that the wealth of grave goods reflects the status of the deceased. On that basis, we can observe the structure of the Hallstatt society of Dolenjska on several levels. Firstly, the situation in individual tumuli reveals that each tumulus actually includes a complete spectrum of graves: from those without grave goods to those with very rich grave goods. Since the latter usually also contain weapons, it would be unreasonable to doubt the high esteem that the warriors enjoyed in the Iron Age society. In esteem, only craftsmen may have come close, and even of those only some. Metalworkers deserve a particular mention in this respect, that is metallurgists, casters and craftsmen in toreutics, as is also discernible from the structure of the grave goods.477
The analysis of tumuli that were uncovered during modern excavations has shown that rich warrior graves appear in all chronological phases. In Tumulus 48 from Griže near Stična, for example, the pride of place at the beginning of the Iron Age (the Podzemelj phase) belonged to a warrior interred in the central grave (1922), in the Stična phase it was Grave 72, in the Serpentine fibula phase Grave 141, and in the Certosa Fibula phase Graves 99, 104 and 33 (fig. 137: A).478 The time span that lasted for several centuries is, of course, not completed with the above-enumerated graves. It should be supplemented by other, less rich warrior graves. However, these gaps are not very important. In our opinion, greater significance should be ascribed to the finding that the tumulus structure reflects the principle of repeated wealthy burials. Each phase includes a grave that
476	Ib.
477	Teržan 1994b, 659 ff.
478	Cf. Gabrovec 1987, 113.
Ob predpostavki, da se v bogastvu pridatkov odraža status pokojnikov, lahko v nadaljevanju ustroj dolenjske
Fig. 137: Location of rich warrior graves. A: Griže pri Stični, Tumulus 48; B: Preloge near Zgornja Slivnica (Magdalenska gora), Tumulus 13.
Sl. 137: Lega bogatih bojevniških grobov. A: Griže pri Stični, gomila 48; B: Preloge pri Zgornji Slivnici (Magdalenska gora), gomila 13.
476
Ib.
Fig. 138: Locations of the graves with defensive weapons around Magdalenska gora near Zgornja Slivnica. Sl. 138: Razprostranjenost grobov z obrambnim orožjem okoli Magdalenske gore pri Zgornji Slivnici.
stands out from the rest in the wealth of its grave goods. It would probably be reasonable to say that these are examples of important personalities, a sort of seniors, who headed the family, the members of which were buried with the senior in the same tumulus. The example from Stična is not isolated. A similar situation can be observed also at Magdalenska gora (fig. 137: B)479 and Novo mesto.480
479	Preloge tumulus 13: graves 55, 84, 119 (Certosa Fibula phase), graves 60 and 132 (Negova Helmet phase). Cf. Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 103.
480	E. g. Znančeve njive, tumulus 1: graves 31 and 23 (Certosa
halštatske družbe opazujemo na več ravneh. Če si najprej ogledamo situacijo v posameznih gomilah, vidimo, da ima pravzaprav vsaka celoten spekter grobov: od takih, v katerih ni bilo nobenih pridatkov, do zelo bogatih. Ker se v slednjih praviloma pojavlja orožje, ne kaže dvomiti, da so imeli bojevniki v železnodobni družbi posebno veljavo. Po ugledu so jim bili morda blizu le obrtniki, pa še to ne vsi. Izpostaviti velja zlasti tiste, ki so se ukvarjali s predelavo kovin, torej metalurge, livarje in torevte, kar se prav tako odraža v strukturi grobnih pridatkov.477
477
Teržan 1994b, 659 ss.
Fig. 139: Locations of the graves with defensive weapons around Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. Sl. 139: Razprostranjenost grobov z obrambnim orožjem okoli Cvingerja nad Virom pri Stični.
The picture becomes even more interesting if we observe the situation from a broader perspective and
Fibula phase), grave 20 (Negova Helmet phase). Cf. Knez 1986, 64 ff.
Analiza moderno izkopanih gomil je pokazala, da se bogati bojevniški grobovi pojavljajo v vseh kronoloških stopnjah. Tako je na primer v gomili 48 iz Griž pri Stični na začetku železne dobe (stopnja Podzemelj) vodilno mesto pripadalo bojevniku, ki je bil pokopan v
compare the structure of grave goods in all tumulus cemeteries that accompanied a settlement. This analysis includes the wealthiest of warrior graves, that is burials of the individuals considered to represent the top of the Hallstatt elite. These graves contained the usual spears and axe but also defensive battle equipment, helmet, armour and shield in particular.481 What does the spatial analysis of these graves show?
The first finding is that they are not limited to a single cemetery or even to a single tumulus. The evidence can be found under Magdalenska gora, where the helmet bearers indicate that the two most important dignitaries in the Stična phase were members of the families in Tumulus 4 at Laščik and Tumulus 4 at Preloge {fig. 138), respectively. Somewhere in the 6th century, the power came into the hands of the families in Tumuli 2 and 7 from Preloge. Tumulus 2 in particular attests to considerable power, since it contained as many as four bearers of double-crested helmets. They were closely followed by a family in Tumulus 13 with two helmets. The second half of the 5th and the 4th century BC (the Negova phase) apparently witnessed an ascent of the family from Tumulus 5 at Laščik, where three Negova helmets were uncovered.
Similar shifts of the wealthiest warrior graves are known also elsewhere in Dolenjska. At Griže near Stična, for example, where the situation is less clear due to poorly documented finds (^^g. 139), two chiefs from Tumuli 40/41 or 52 were at the forefront in the second half of the 7th century BC, while in the Certosa Fibula phase this place was taken by a warrior from Tumulus 48.482
The highest-ranked warrior in the Podzemelj phase at Brezje near Trebelno was one from Tumulus 6, in the Stična phase it was a member of Tumulus 12, while the end of the Late Hallstatt period saw the chief from Tumulus 7 standing out in importance (fig. 140).
Finally, we should take a look at the situation in Novo mesto (^ig. 141). A warrior from Tumulus 1 at Kapiteljska njiva took pride of place in the beginning of the Iron Age (the Podzemelj phase).483 In the next phase,
481	Helmets predominate, since only three armours and two shields have been uncovered in Dolenjska so far; however, armours and shields were certainly made of organic materials as well (leather, fabric and wood) and have therefore not been preserved in graves. Cf. Pauli 1980, 358; Egg/Križ 1997, 193 ff; Egg 1999, 329 ff.
482	The following helmets remained spatially undetermined: disk helmet (Schüsselhelm) from Tumulus 6 (excavations by the Duchess of Mecklenburg), helmet made of several sheets of bronze riveted together (mit zusammengesetzter Kalotte) and double-crested helmet (Doppelkammhelm) from Tumulus 5 (excavations by the Duchess of Mecklenburg) and three double-crested and three Negova helmets (excavations by the Duchess of Mecklenburg and other diggers); cf. Wells 1981, fig. 125: f., 128: d and 144: c; Egg 1986, 182 (nos. 129-131), 223 (nos. 308-309) and 228 (no. 329).
483	This is Grave 1/16 that dates to the Podzemelj 2 phase. The same tumulus also contained an earlier central grave, which was robbed already in the ancient times.
centralnem grobu (19-22), v stopnji Stična je bil to grob 72, v stopnji kačaste fibule grob 141, v stopnji certoške fibule pa grobovi 99, 104 in 33 (sl. 137: A).478 Seveda z omenjenimi grobovi časovni lok, ki je trajal več stoletij, ni popolnoma sklenjen. Zapolniti bi ga morali z drugimi, manj bogatimi bojevniškimi grobovi. Vendar pa to niti ni tako važno. Pomembnejša se nam zdi ugotovitev, da je v strukturi gomile izražen princip ponavljanja bogatih pokopov. V vsaki stopnji lahko namreč poiščemo grob, ki po bogastvu pridatkov izstopa iz povprečja. Verjetno ne bomo daleč od resnice, če rečemo, da gre v teh primerih za grobove pomembnejših osebnosti, neke vrste starešin, ki so načelovali družini, katere člani so bili skupaj z njim pokopani v isti gomili. Stiški primer ni osamljen. Podobno situacijo poznamo z Magdalenske gore (sl. 137: B)479 in Novega mesta.480
Če se sedaj pomaknemo nekoliko višje in primerjamo strukturo grobnih pridatkov na nivoju vseh gomil-nih grobišč, ki so pripadala posameznemu naselju, je slika še zanimivejša. Tokrat smo v analizo vključili najbogatejše bojevniške grobove, torej pokope tistih, za katere je do sedaj veljalo, da predstavljajo vrh halštatske elite. Poleg običajnih sulic in sekire so vsebovali tudi defenzivno bojno opremo, od katere velja omeniti zlasti čelado, oklep in ščit.481 Kaj nam torej prinaša prostorska analiza teh grobov?
Najprej lahko ugotovimo, da niso omejeni zgolj na eno grobišče ali celo posamezno gomilo. Dokaz je situacija pod Magdalensko goro, kjer bi lahko glede na nosilce čelad dejali, da sta v stopnji Stična najpomembnejša veljaka izšla iz družin, katerim sta pripadali gomila 4 na Laščiku in gomila 4 na Prelogah (sl. 138). Nekje v 6. stoletju je moč prešla v roke družin iz gomile 2 in gomile 7 s Prelog. Zlasti gomila 2 kaže izredno moč, saj so bili v njej pokopani kar štirje nosilci dvogrebe-nastih čelad. Takoj za njimi je bila družina iz gomile 13 z dvema čeladama. V drugi polovici 5. stoletja in v 4. stoletju pr. Kr. (negovska stopnja) pa je svoj vzpon očitno doživela družina iz gomile 5 na Laščiku, v kateri so bile odkrite tri negovske čelade.
Podobno premikanje najbogatejših bojevniških grobov poznamo tudi drugod po Dolenjskem. V Grižah pri Stični, kjer je situacija zaradi slabo dokumentiranih najdb manj pregledna (sl. 139), sta bila v stopnji Stična
478	Prim. Gabrovec 1987, 113.
479	Preloge gomila 13: grobovi 55, 84, 119 (stopnja certoške fibule), grobova 60 in 132 (stopnja negovske čelade). Prim. Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 103.
480	Npr. Znančeve njive, gomila 1: grobova 31 in 23 (stopnja certoške fibule), grob 20 (stopnja negovske čelade). Prim. Knez 1986, 64 ss.
481	Prevladujejo čelade, saj so bili doslej na Dolenjskem odkriti le trije oklepi in dva ščita; vendar pa so bili oklepi in ščiti zanesljivo izdelani tudi iz organskih snovi (usnja, blaga in lesa), zato se v grobovih niso ohranili. Prim. Pauli 1980, 358; Egg/Križ 1997, 193 ss; Egg 1999, 329 ss.
Fig. 140: Locations of the graves with defensive weapons around Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem. Sl. 140: Razprostranjenost grobov z obrambnim orožjem okoli Karlina nad Brezjem pri Trebelnem.
burial shifted to the right bank of the Krka River. From there we should first mention a warrior with armour, shield and helmet made of several sheets of bronze riveted together from Tumulus 5, followed by a dignitary with a double-crested helmet from Tumulus 1, while the cycle was concluded by a warrior with a Negova helmet from Tumulus 4. Two warriors with Illyrian helmets buried in Tumulus 7 at Kapiteljska njiva also belong to the end of the Late Hallstatt period.
The above indicates that the distribution of the wealthiest warrior graves reveals an important rule. Although the analysed patterns are far from perfect, and none of the mentioned cemeteries had been completely researched, it is nevertheless evident that the wealthiest warriors did not originate from a single family. Quite the contrary. They were dispersed in different tumuli, which speaks in favour of the thesis that the power and esteem of individual families altered considerably through time, since we did not come across an example of the graves of a warrior elite succeeding each other in a particular tumulus without interruption for more than one chronological phase.484 This, of course, signifies that we are dealing with a society that did not choose their
484 The exception might be Tumulus 2 from Preloge near Magdalenska gora with four double-crested and one Negova helmet, whereby the latter was unprofessionally excavated and all the details of its structure remain unknown. Cf. Tecco Hvala/ Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 124 ff.
v ospredju prvaka iz gomil 40 ali 41 ter 52, v stopnji certoške fibule pa bojevnik iz gomile 48.482
V Brezju pri Trebelnem je bil v stopnji Podzemelj najvišje bojevnik iz gomile 6, v stopnji Stična pripadnik gomile 12, medtem ko je na koncu mladohalštatskega obdobja po pomembnosti izstopal prvak iz gomile 7 (sl.
140).
Končno si oglejmo še situacijo v Novem mestu (sl.
141).	Kot lahko vidimo, je bil na začetku železne dobe (stopnja Podzemelj) v ospredju bojevnik iz gomile 1 na Kapiteljski njivi.483 V naslednji stopnji so pokopavanje elite prestavili na desni breg Krke. Najprej moramo omeniti bojevnika z oklepom, ščitom in sestavljeno čelado iz gomile 5, temu je sledil veljak z dvogrebenasto čelado iz gomile 1, razvojno linijo pa je zaključil bojevnik z negov-sko čelado iz gomile 4. Na konec mladohalštatskega obdobja sodita tudi bojevnika z ilirskima čeladama, ki sta bila pokopana v gomili 7 na Kapiteljski njivi.
482	Prostorsko neumeščene so ostale skledasta čalada iz gomile 6 (izkopavanje Mecklenburške), sestavljena in dvogre-benasta čelada iz gromile 5 (izkopavanje Mecklenburške) ter tri dvogrebenaste in tri negovske čelade (izkopavanje Mecklenburške in drugih kopačev); prim. Wells 1981, sl. 125: f, 128: d in 144: c; Egg 1986, 182 (št. 129-131), 223 (št. 308-309) in 228 (št. 329).
483	To je grob 1/16, ki sodi v fazo Podzemelj 2. Vendar pa je bil v isti gomili še starejši centralni grob, ki pa je bil že v antiki izropan.
Fig. 141-. Locations of the graves with defensive weapons around Marof at Novo mesto. Sl. 141. Razprostranjenost grobov z obrambnim orožjem okoli Marofa v Novem mestu.
leaders according to the principle of descent, but rather that each leader had to constantly prove himself worthy by his abilities and deeds. Beside that, the status of a leader was connected also to wealth, esteem and honour, as is indicated by numerous objects of prestige found in their graves.
Adopting an even broader perspective, we will take a look at the structure of the society on the level of the entire Hallstatt community of Dolenjska. In order to do
Iz pravkar povedanega lahko ugotovimo, da se v razprostranjenosti najbogatejših bojevniških grobov skriva pomembna zakonitost. Čeprav analizirani vzorci še zdaleč niso popolni, saj nobena od omenjenih nekropol ni bila v celoti raziskana, pa je že sedaj na dlani, da najbogatejši bojevniki niso izšli iz ene same družine. Prav nasprotno. Njihova razpršenost po različnih gomilah govori v prid tezi, da sta se moč in ugled posameznih družin skozi čas precej spreminjala, saj nismo nikjer za-
that, we must first repeat certain findings made in the settlement research. It has already been stated that hier-archizing settlements and analysing the local subsistence bases did not enable us to identify the settlement that could be declared the hegemonic centre of the whole community. On the scale of importance, the settlements succeed each other at regular intervals, which makes it impossible to talk of predominance of one hillfort over the others (fig. 113). A similar picture is shown by the analysis of cemeteries. Rich warrior graves can be found on the cemeteries of most centres. Moreover, some of them are similar in the offered grave goods and funerary ritual to such a degree that we could speak of certain norms that are valid for the whole Iron Age community of Dolenjska. Examples of this can be found in the graves with armours from Stična and Novo mesto485 and in two graves with ritually damaged Negova helmets from Sela near Dolenjske Toplice and Novo mesto.486 They are closely related in attire and grave goods, which leads us to conclude that these persons enjoyed a similar status. The last two examples even had a woman buried beside the warrior, which might be an evidence of the right of the leaders of individual settlements to decide over the life or death of the members of their communities.487
10.4. WOMEN AND CHILDREN
The status of women in the Hallstatt society of Dolenjska is not as clear. Nevertheless, their attire also allows certain rules to be discerned. With the aid of standardized combinations of jewellery, B. Teržan was able to establish several groups, which partly exhibited local characteristics, but essentially conveyed a similar message. Wearing bracelets was considered to be the decisive factor. The persons who wore a pair of bracelets (one on each arm) were recognized as mothers or married women, while the graves without ring jewellery supposedly contained children. According to Teržan, there was a third, intermediate group between the two above-mentioned poles, that is graves with a single bracelet, which represented young men (juveniles). Necklets also enjoyed a special place among the ring jewellery, appearing exclusively in the graves of children (boys and girls) and in the graves of women with children buried at their side. Since such graves are not particularly frequent, the necklets were supposed to be primarily a status symbol.488
485	Stična: Gabrovec 1964-1965, 21 ff, pl. 2-5; Novo mesto: Gabrovec 1960.
486	Dolenjske Toplice: grave 5/17 (Teržan 1976, 317 ff, pl.
29-31);	Novo mesto, Znančeve njive: grave 4/3 (Knez 1986, pl.
30-37).
487	For the sacrifice of people ("Totenfolge") see Oeftiger 1984; Teržan 1997, 663 ff; Tomedi 2002, 289 f.
488	Teržan 1985, 83 ff; Teržan 1995b, 95.
sledili primera, ko bi si v isti gomili grobovi bojevniške elite brez presledka sledili dalj kot eno kronološko stopnjo.484 To seveda pomeni, da imamo pred seboj družbo, ki svojih poglavarjev ni kadrovala po descendenčnem principu, ampak so se morali vsak posebej stalno dokazovati s svojimi sposobnostmi in dejanji. Da je bil status poglavarjev posameznih naselij povezan tudi s premoženjem, ugledom in častjo, kažejo številni prestižni predmeti, ki so jih našli v njihovih grobovih.
Če se sedaj premaknemo še korak višje in si ogledamo, kako je bila urejena družba na nivoju celotne dolenjske halštatske skupnosti, potem moramo najprej ponoviti nekatere ugotovitve, do katerih smo prišli z raziskovanjem naselij. Rekli smo že, da s hierarhiziran-jem gradišč in z analizo njihovih okoljskih potencialov nismo uspeli prepoznati naselja, ki bi ga lahko razglasili za središče celotne skupnosti. Ker si naselja po lestvici pomembnosti sledijo v dokaj enakomernih intervalih, o prevladi enega gradišča nad ostalimi ne moremo govoriti (sl. 113). Podobno sliko nam nudi analiza grobišč. Bogate bojevniške grobove najdemo v nekropolah večine središč. Še več, nekateri med njimi so si po pridani opravi in grobnem ritualu tako podobni, da bi lahko govorili o določenih normah, ki so veljale za celotno dolenjsko železnodobno skupnost. Kot primer naj omenimo grobove z oklepi iz Stične in Novega mesta,485 oziroma grobova z ritualno poškodovanima negovskima čeladama iz Sel pri Dolenjskih Toplicah in Novega mes-ta.486 Po noši in grobnih pridatkih so si zelo blizu, iz česar lahko sklepamo, da so imele osebe podoben status. V obeh zadnjih primerih sta bili ob bojevnikih pokopani celo ženski, kar je morda dokaz, da so imeli poglavarji posameznih naselij pravico odločanja o življenju in smrti članov svojih srenj.487
10.4. ŽENSKE IN OTROCI
Status žensk v halštatski družbi Dolenjske ni tako jasen, čeprav se da tudi iz njihove noše razbrati nekaj zakonitosti. B. Teržan je s pomočjo standardiziranih kombinacij nakita ugotovila več skupin, ki so bile deloma lokalno obarvane, v bistvu pa so imele podobno sporočilno noto. Odločujoča naj bi bila nošnja zapestnic. V osebah, ki so jih nosile v paru (na vsaki roki po eno), je prepoznala matere oziroma poročene žene, medtem ko
484	Izjema je morda gomila 2 s Prelog pod Magdalensko goro s štirimi dvogrebenastimi in eno negovsko čelado, ki pa je bila nestrokovno izkopana, zato ne poznamo vseh detajlov njene zgradbe. Prim. Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 26 ss.
485	Stična: Gabrovec 1964-1965, 21 ss, t. 2-5; Novo mesto: Gabrovec 1960.
486	Dolenjske Toplice: gr. 5/17 (Teržan 1976, 317 ss, t. 2931); Novo mesto, Znančeve njive: gr. 4/3 (Knez 1986, t. 30-37).
487	O problematiki žrtvovanja ljudi ("Totenfolge") glej Oeftiger 1984; Teržan 1997, 663 ss; Tomedi 2002, 289 s.
The role of women in the contemporary society is more difficult to be defined. The wealth of their grave goods points to social differences among them, though there are relatively few extremely rich graves. They can be found primarily in the cemeteries of the largest centres, such as at Preloge near Magdalenska gora, at Griže near Stična and Znančeve njive at Novo mesto, to mention only those that were better researched.489 The second confirmation of the findings from the distribution of the wealthiest warrior burials is that the wealthiest female graves were also dispersed across the cemeteries.
The complete female attire included fibulae, bracelets, anklets, earrings and necklaces, whereby every type of jewellery was usually represented with more than one example. Ornaments of gold are also known.490 Another observation is that the wealthiest female graves often contained also spindle whorls, bronze vessels and bronze sceptres. The opinion of Teržan, who sees in these graves burials of women devoted to the religious sphere, is therefore very credible.491 The scarcity of adequately researched tumuli in Dolenjska renders such analyses more difficult. Nevertheless, the examples from Stična and Novo mesto show that most of the wealthiest female graves lay in a circle and did not differ from other burials in their positions. There are also exceptions. Wealthy female Graves 16/34 from Kapiteljska njiva at Novo mesto, 10/1 from Sajevce and 1/5 from Špiler at Libna, for example, were even uncovered in the centre of the tumuli.492 This central position undoubtedly reflects a special status that the person enjoyed, at least among the members of the family buried under the same mound if not among the members of the whole community of the settlement.493 The other extreme is double burials, such as are known from Sela near Dolenjske Toplice and Novo mesto, which Teržan showed to represent the ritual sacrifice of women.494
naj bi bili v grobovih brez obročastega nakita pokopani otroci. Med tema dvema poloma je po Teržanovi obstajala še tretja vmesna skupina z eno samo zapestnico, ki naj bi predstavljala mladeniče (juvenile). Med obro-častim nakitom je poseben pomen pripisala tudi ovratnicam, ki se pojavljajo izključno v otroških grobovih (dečkov in deklic) oziroma v grobovih žena, poleg katerih so bili pokopani otroci. Ker takšni grobovi niso kdo-ve kako pogosti, naj bi bile ovratnice predvsem statusno obeležje.488
Manj prepoznavna je vloga ženske v takratni družbi. Sodeč po bogastvu pridatkov, so tudi med njimi obstajale socialne razlike, vendar pa je izjemno bogatih grobov razmeroma malo. Srečamo jih predvsem v nekropolah največjih središč, na primer na Prelogah pod Magdalen-sko goro, v Grižah pri Stični in Znančevih njivah v Novem mestu, da omenimo le tiste, ki so bile bolje raziska-ne.489
K idealni noši ženske elite so sodile fibule, zapestnice, nanožnice, uhani in ogrlice, pri čemer je bila vsaka zvrst nakita običajno zastopana v več primerkih. Znano je tudi okrasje iz zlata.490 Pomenljivo je tudi to, da se v najbogatejših ženskih grobovih pogosto pojavljajo vijčki za prejo, bronaste posode in bronasti sceptri, zato je mnenje Teržanove, ki vidi v takšnih grobovih pokope žena, povezanih z religiozno sfero, zelo verjet-no.491 Žal imamo na Dolenjskem bolj malo strokovno raziskanih gomil, kar otežuje analize. Pa vendar, kot kažejo primeri iz Stične in Novega mesta, je ležala večina najbogatejših ženskih grobov v krogu in se po legi ni razlikovala od ostalih pokopov. Znane pa so tudi izjeme. Bogati ženski grobovi 16/34 s Kapiteljske njive v Novem mestu, 10/1 iz Sajevc in 1/5 z grobišča Špiler na Libni so bili namreč odkriti sredi gomile.492 Centralna lega brez dvoma odraža poseben status osebe, ki je imela izpostavljeno mesto vsaj med pripadniki v isti gomili pokopane družine, če že ne na nivoju celotne srenje.493 Drugo skrajnost predstavljajo dvojni pokopi, kakršne poznamo iz Sel pri Dolenjskih Toplicah in Novega mesta, za katere je Teržanova pokazala, da se v njih skriva ritualno žrtvovanje žena.494
489	Preloge near Zgornja Slivnica: grave 2a, grave 13/36, grave 13/117, grave 13/152, grave 13/163 (Tecco Hvala/Dular/ Kocuvan 2004, pl. 7-8, pl. 76, pl. 105-106, pl. 118-119, pl. 123124); Griže near Stična: grave 48/27, grave 5/4 (Gabrovec 19641965, pl. 8-11; Teržan 1995b, fig. 33-34); Znančeve njive at Novo mesto: grave 2/8, grave 2/19, grave 3/33 (Knez 1986, pl. 18: 115, pl. 21, pl. 28).
490	Kastelic 1960; Guštin/Preložnik 2005a; Guštin/Preložnik 2005b, 148 ff.
491	Teržan, 1990a, 207; Teržan 1996, 524 ff.
492	Knez/Škaler 1968, 245; Križ 2004; Guštin/Preložnik 2005b, 144 f.
493	For the status of women in the Iron Age society see Eibner 2000-2001; Teržan 2004.
494	Teržan 1997, 663 ff.
488	Teržan 1985, 83 ss; Teržan 1995b, 95.
489	Preloge pri Zgornji Slivnici: gr. 2a, gr. 13/36, gr. 13/ 117, gr. 13/152, gr. 13/163 (Tecco Hvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, t. 7-8, t. 76, t. 105-106, t. 118-119, t. 123-124); Griže pri Stični: gr. 48/27, gr. 5/4 (Gabrovec 1964-1965, t. 8-11; Teržan 1995b, sl. 33-34); Znančeve njive v Novem mestu: gr. 2/8, gr. 2/19, gr. 3/33 (Knez 1986, t. 18: 1-15, t. 21, t. 28).
490	Kastelic 1960; Guštin/Preložnik 2005a; Guštin/Preložnik 2005b, 148 ss.
491	Teržan, 1990a, 207; Teržan 1996, 524 ss.
492	Knez/Škaler 1968, 245; Križ 2004; Guštin/Preložnik 2005b, 144 s.
493	Za status žensk v železnodobni družbi glej Eibner 20002001; Teržan 2004.
494	Teržan 1997, 663 ss.
10.5. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
10.5. DRUŽBENA SLIKA
The results of our analyses enable us to present, at least in contour, the structure of the society that lived in the area of south-eastern Slovenia in the Iron Age. The picture is more or less clear. The nucleus of the contemporary society was a family headed by a senior. Judging from the number of burials established in tumuli that were excavated with modern methods, the families were not large.495 They were based on kinship and, as shown by the central graves in tumuli, also on the worship of a common, probably heroic ancestor.496 The family was also the basic production and consumption unit that provided the goods needed to survive within the household economy. The question of individual families uniting in groups such as an extended family, sometime called lineage, or even a clan cannot be answered as yet. No data exist on this subject with the exception of clusters of tumuli near almost all settlements (for example fig. 90, fig. 91, fig. 93 and others), the specific locations of which might hold a clue.
A larger reliably proven unit was the local community. It included a central settlement with its territory, the local resources of which depended on the population size and on economic strength. Most members of the settlement community lived within the fortification walls of the centre, while isolated farmsteads and unfortified hamlets are believed to be relatively rare.
The local community was led by a chieftain who was not chosen according to the principle of inheritance (blood), though his birth did play an important role. He had to prove himself through his abilities, esteem and deeds. This can be read on numerous scenes of the situla art, which B. Teržan convincingly showed as figurative depictions of episodes of an epic aimed at expressing heroism and immortality.497 The second frieze on the situla from Magdalenska gora might also be interpreted in this manner.498 It depicts the enthronement ceremony, part of which was also the transferral of the chieftain's insignia (sceptre) from one person to another.499 It seems that chieftains enjoyed considerable power, which included not only the managing of common affairs and redistribution of material goods, but possibly also the right of judging over life and death of certain members of their communities.
495	The calculation is only approximative: Tumulus 48 from Griže near Stična (Gabrovec 2006) contained 153 graves with three centuries separating the earliest and the latest burials, which gives an average of one burial every two years. An even larger interval was observed in Tumuli 1-4 from Znančeve njive at Novo mesto (Knez 1986), where burials succeeded each other in an interval of five years on average.
496	Cf. Teržan 1997.
497	Teržan 1997, 667 ff; see also Huth 2003, 194 and 245 ff.
498	Preloge: grave 13/55; TeccoHvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, app. 4.
499	Turk 2005, 36 f.
Če poskusimo sedaj strniti rezultate analiz in vsaj v grobih potezah zarisati strukturo skupnosti, ki je v železni dobi živela na območju jugovzhodne Slovenije, je slika bolj ali manj jasna. Osnovna celica takratne družbe je bila družina, na čelu katere je stal starešina. Sodeč po številu pokopov, ki so bili ugotovljeni v moderno raziskanih gomilah, družine niso bile velike.495 Temeljile so na tesnih sorodstvenih zvezah, in kot kažejo centralni pokopi v gomilah, tudi na čaščenju skupnega, verjetno heroiziranega prednika.496 Družina je bila tudi osnovna produkcijsko-porabna enota, ki si je glavne dobrine, potrebne za preživetje, ustvarila znotraj hišnega gospodarstva. Za zdaj ostaja odprto vprašanje, če so se posamezne družine združevale v večje enote, kot je na primer velika družina ali celo rod. Podatkov o tem nimamo, izjema so gruče gomil, ki jih srečamo ob skoraj vseh naseljih (npr. sl. 90, sl. 91, sl. 93 itd.). Morda se v njihovi specifični legi skrivajo prav takšne povezave.
Večja, zanesljivo dokazana enota je bila srenja. Sestavljalo jo je središče s pripadajočim teritorijem, katerega velikost je bila odvisna od števila prebivalstva in njihove ekonomske moči. Večina pripadnikov srenje je živela za obzidjem središča, samostojne kmetije in neutrjeni zaselki so bili razmeroma redki.
Srenjo je vodil poglavar, ki ni bil izbran po dednem (krvnem) načelu, čeprav je imelo njegovo poreklo pomembno vlogo. Izkazati se je moral tudi s svojo sposobnostjo, ugledom in dejanji, kar lahko razberemo iz številnih scen situlske umetnosti, za katere je B. Teržan dobro pokazala, da so pravzaprav v likovno govorico prelite epizode junaškega epa, ki izraža težnjo k heroiz-mu in nesmrtnosti.497 V tem smislu bi lahko razumeli tudi drugi friz na situli z Magdalenske gore,498 ki prikazuje ritual ustoličenja, katerega del je bil tudi prenos poglavarske insignije (žezla) z ene osebe na drugo.499 Vse kaže, da so imeli poglavarji precejšnjo moč. Le-ta se ni odražala zgolj pri vodenju skupnih zadev in distribuciji materialnih dobrin, ampak so, kot je moč razbrati iz dvojnih pokopov, morda odločali tudi o življenju in smrti nekaterih članov svojih srenj.
Teritorij posamezne srenje se je končal tam, kjer se je pričelo interesno območje sosednjega središča. Srenje so bile torej politično in ekonomsko avtarkične enote, katerih obstoj je temeljil na subsistenčnem gospo-
495	Izračun je lahko zgolj približen: gomila 48 iz Griž pri Stični (Gabrovec 2006) je vsebovala 153 grobov, med najstarejšim in najmlajšim pokopom pa so pretekla tri stoletja, kar znese v povprečju en pokop vsaki dve leti. Še večji interval izkazujejo gomile 1-4 z Znančevih njiv v Novem mestu (Knez 1986), kjer so si pokopi v povprečju sledili vsakih pet let.
496	Prim. Teržan 1997.
497	Teržan 1997, 667 ss; glej tudi Huth 2003, 194 in 245 ss.
498	Preloge, grob 13/55; TeccoHvala/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, pril. 4.
499	Turk 2005, 36 s.
% Po 60
St
Ka
Ce
Ne
50
40
30
20-----
10
60
Po
St
Ka
Ce
Ne
Veliki Vinji vrh (Bela Cerkev) n = 246 Kučar (Podzemelj) n = 142 Sv. Marjeta (Libna) n = 132 Križni vrh (Beli Grič) n = 68
Fig. 142: Presence of fibulae according to chronological periods. Sl. 142: Zastopanost fibul po kronoloških stopnjah.
The territory of a local community ended where the area of interest of the neighbouring centre began. The communities were thereby politically and economically autarchic units, the existence of which was based on subsistence economy. Their members grew their own food, reared stock and produced tools and vessels. Certain demanding production processes also took place within these economic units. A good example of this is metallurgy; we have established above that every centre, if only permitted by natural resources, had its own iron production. The exchange of goods was probably organized in a similar fashion.
The economic power of individual local communities was not equal throughout the periods. It is also difficult to be assessed, since very little useful data are available. The attempt was nevertheless made with the aid of the fibulae from cemeteries that are chronologically sensitive, and their great numbers reveal - at least partially -the wealth of the population. The results show that the more important centres in the east of Dolenjska and in Bela krajina reveal similar trends (fig. 142). After a relatively modest beginning, they reach climax in the Stična phase, after which their power weakens and stops in the Negova helmet phase on an approximately same level as at the beginning of the Iron Age. A very different economic progression of centres is discernible in the northwest of Dolenjska. The graph (fig. 143) shows that, in the Podzemelj phase, Zgornja krona near Vače was dominant, while Cvinger near Vir pri Stični and Magdalenska gora
50 -
40
30 -
20 ^
10
♦ Cvinger (Vrh pri Stični) n = 243 ...m— Zgornja krona (Vače) n = 284 —*— Magdalenska gora (Zg. Slivnica) n = 424
Fig. 143: Presence of fibulae according to chronological periods. Sl. 143: Zastopanost fibul po kronoloških stopnjah.
darstvu. Njeni člani so si sami pridelovali hrano, redili živino ter izdelovali orodje in posodje, da, celo nekateri bolj zahtevni proizvodni procesi so se odvijali znotraj teh gospodarskih enot. Lep dokaz je metalurgija, saj smo ugotovili, da se je vsako središče, če so mu le dopuščali naravni resursi, ukvarjalo z lastno proizvodnjo železa. Na podoben način je bila verjetno organizirana tudi menjava dobrin.
Ekonomska moč posameznih srenj ni bila ves čas enaka. Žal jo je težko oceniti, saj imamo na razpolago zelo malo uporabnih podatkov. Poskus smo opravili s pomočjo fibul iz nekropol, ki so kronološko dovolj občutljive, hkrati pa se v njihovi številčnosti vsaj delno odraža bogastvo prebivalstva. Kakšen je torej rezultat analiz? Pomembnejša središča na vzhodu Dolenjske in v Beli krajini kažejo podoben trend (sl. 142). Po razmeroma skromnem začetku dosežejo vrh v stopnji Stična, nato pa njihova moč slabi in se v stopnji negovske čelade ustavi na približno istem nivoju, kot je bila na začetku železne dobe. Precej drugačen je bil ekonomski utrip središč na severozahodu Dolenjske. Kot lahko razberemo iz priloženega grafikona (sl. 143), je bila v stopnji Podzemelj najmočnejša Zgornja krona nad Vačami, medtem ko sta Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični in Magdalenska gora pri Zgornji Slivnici vidno zaostajala. Razlike so se do stopnje kačaste fibule postopoma zmanjševale, zanimivo pa je, da sta dosegli v tem časovnem horizontu prvi dve središči svoj vrh, Magdalenska gora pa šele predzadnjo etapo vzpona. Še večji razkorak opazimo ob koncu starejše železne dobe: Magdalenska gora je praktično ohranila svojo moč, Cvinger in Zgornja
near Zgornja Slivnica lagged behind considerably. The differences gradually decreased towards the Serpentine Fibula phase. It is interesting to note that the first two settlements reached their respective peaks in this chronological phase, while Magdalenska gora only reached the penultimate level in its ascent. An even greater discrepancy can be observed at the end of the Early Iron Age: Magdalenska gora basically retained its power, while Cvinger and Zgornja krona descended, according to the number of fibulae, to approximately the same level as was observed for the centres of eastern Dolenjska. An interesting trend is shown by Cvinger near Korita and Marof at Novo mesto (fig. 144). They reached their first peaks in the Stična phase and again in the Certosa Fibula phase with a relatively sharp decline in between. However, Marof at Novo mesto retained its power also in the Negova phase, while Cvinger near Korita showed a considerable decline at the end of the Early Iron Age.
A word in conclusion. Local communities (centres with their territories) did differ in catchment, population size as well as amounts of material goods, but they functioned as more or less independent political and economic units. It is very likely that conflict situations among them did occur, as it is also probable that they formed alliances in face of danger from without. The confirmation of these assumptions unfortunately lacks firm evidence.
The society outlined above did not grow beyond the tribal cycle as defined by Friedman in Breuer.500 Its structure primarily reveals elements of the so-called simple chiefdoms, which are characterized by a stratified society and a concentration of power in the hands of chieftains, but not the existence of elites that would have complete control over the redistribution of goods. Storage of valuables, economic transactions and the tendency to form a class that is visibly set apart from the average population in status symbols, living culture and grave architecture is, in fact, characteristic of complex chief-doms.501 This stage was apparently not reached by the society of Dolenjska. The situation probably did not alter even with the arrival of the Celts that did away with the old system.
The models for the Iron Age society of Dolenjska, which remained on the threshold of the historic cultures in its development, can be found in the Aegean area. By this we mean the Homeric society and its structure, from which a number of parallels can be drawn.502 To mention only the household (oikos) as the basic unit based on the autarchic economy,503 the local community (demos) as a territorial unit504 and a class of leading person-
500	Friedman 1982; Breuer 1990; see also Schier 1998, 503 ff.
501	Earle 1991, 71 ff; Earle 2002, 325 ff; Schier 1998, 505 f.
502	For Homeric society see Finley 1978; Andreev 1988; Ulf 1990.
503	Ulf 1990, 187 ff.
504	Andreev 1988, 14 ff; Ulf 1990, 164 ff.
Po	St	Ko	Ce	Ne
60
50
40
30
20
10 -
—♦— Cvinger (Korita) n = 68
Marof (Novo mesto) n = 140
Fig. 144: Presence of fibulae according to chronological periods. Sl. 144: Zastopanost fibul po kronoloških stopnjah.
krona pa sta se po številu fibul spustila približno na isto raven, kot so jo izkazovala središča vzhodne Dolenjske. Zanimiv trend kažeta tudi Cvinger nad Koriti in Marof v Novem mestu (sl. 144). Svoj prvi vrh sta dosegla v stopnji Stična, nato pa po razmeroma močnem nazadovanju zopet v stopnji certoške fibule. Toda medtem ko je Marof v Novem mestu ohranil svojo moč tudi v ne-govskem horizontu, pa je opaziti pri Cvingerju nad Koriti ob koncu starejše železne dobe precejšnje nazadovanje.
Naj zaključimo. Srenje (središča s pripadajočimi teritoriji) so se po velikosti, številu prebivalstva in tudi količini materialnih dobrin med seboj sicer razlikovale, vendar pa so funkcionirale kot bolj ali manj neodvisne politične in ekonomske enote. Da je med njimi prihajalo do konfliktnih situacij, je verjetno, kot se zdi verjetno tudi to, da so se ob zunanjih nevarnostih povezovale v skupno zvezo. Žal nam za potrditev teh domnev manjkajo konkretni dokazi.
Družba, ki smo jo pravkar opisali, ni presegla plemenskega cikla, kot sta ga definirala Friedman in Breu-er.500 V njeni strukturi lahko razberemo predvsem elemente tako imenovanih enostavnih poglavarstev, za katera je sicer značilna rangirana družba in koncentracija moči v rokah poglavarjev, ne pa tudi obstoj takšnih elit, ki bi v celoti obvladovale redistribucijo dobrin. Tezauri-ranje dragocenosti, ekonomske transakcije in težnja k formiranju sloja, ki po svojih statusnih simbolih, bivalni kulturi in grobni arhitekturi vidno odstopa od povprečja, je namreč značilnost kompleksnih poglavarstev.501 Te
500	Friedman 1982; Breuer 1990; glej tudi Schier 1998, 503 ss.
501	Earle 1991, 71 ss; Earle 2002, 325 ss; Schier 1998, 505 s.
alities (basileoi), the status of which was not automatically inherited, but rather proven by virtues and abilities.505 The main economic base of the Homeric society was land cultivation and stock rearing, though it was primarily loot and, related to it, exchange of goods (geras) that earned an individual his esteem (time).
The contacts between the Aegean world and Caput Adriae, which occurred in the beginning of the 1s' millennium BC, were pointed out already by B. Teržan.506 It seems more than likely that these contacts brought to the south-eastern Alpine area not only material goods (for example first products made of iron), but also ideologic concepts - ideas, beliefs, and their representations - and new forms of social organisation. Having said that, a certain reduction in the adoption of ideas and knowledge needs to be taken into account, which in no way lessens the significance of the contacts. The models coming from the Aegean world are obvious. The Greek interest in the wider hinterland of the Balkans found a distant echo also in the ancient literature. Part of the famous legend of the Argonauts, written down by Apollonius of Rhodes in the 3rd century BC, is actually tied to areas in present-day Slovenia. This tie was recognized already by Pliny the Elder, the encyclopaedist, who outlined the route that Jason and the Argonauts took to return to their native Greece as leading across the area controlled by the community of Dolenjska in the Iron Age.507
10.6. SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL TURNING POINTS
The south-eastern Alps witnessed, at the turn of the 1st millennium, the beginning of a process that significantly changed the settlement pattern and the way of life of the contemporary population. Novelties first appeared in the west, in Notranjska and the Kras, and somewhat later in other areas of the present-day Slovenia. The influences coming from the Danube basin and the Mediterranean world brought about the stratification of the Urnfield society.508 Gradually, a new social structure was formed. A new leading class appeared, well documented in rich warrior graves. The chieftains of the contemporary communities united under their rule the economic as well as military and political power.
The decisive changes occurred in the economy. Iron working was finally established in the south-eastern Alps at the end of the and particularly in the 8th century and immediately became one of the leading economic sectors due to rich ore deposits.
505	Ulf 1990, 85 ff.
506	Teržan 1990b; see also Borgna 1999.
507	For the legend of the Argonauts see Šašel Kos 1990, 19 f.
508	For the contacts with the Danube basin see MetznerNebelsick 2002, 490 ff.
stopnje dolenjska družba očitno ni dosegla. Najbrž se ni bistveno spremenila niti z doselitvijo Keltov, čeprav se je z njihovim prihodom zrušil star sistem.
Vzore za dolenjsko železnodobno družbo, ki je v svojem razvoju obtičala na pragu zgodovinskih kultur, lahko najdemo v egejskem prostoru. Pri tem mislimo na homersko družbo in njeno strukturo, iz katere lahko potegnemo vrsto paralel.502 Omenimo naj le družino (oikos) kot temeljno, na avtarkičnem gospodarstvu bazirajočo enoto,503 občino (demos) kot teritorialno enoto504 in sloj vodilnih osebnosti (bazileji), katerih status ni bil avtomatično dedovan, ampak so si ga morali potrjevati s svojimi vrlinami in sposobnostmi.505 Glavno ekonomsko bazo homerske družbe je sicer predstavljalo poljedelstvo z živinorejo, vendar pa je bil zlasti plen in z njim povezana izmenjava dobrin (geras) eden bistvenih elementov, na katerih je počival ugled (time) posameznika.
Na stike med Egejo in Caput Adriae, do katerih je prišlo na začetku 1. tisočletja pr. Kr., je opozorila B. Teržan.506 Da so z njimi v jugovzhodnoalpski prostor poleg materialnih dobrin (npr. prvih izdelkov iz železa) prihajale tudi duhovne koncepcije in nove oblike družbene organiziranosti, se zdi več kot verjetno. Seveda moramo ob tem računati z določeno redukcijo prevzemanja idej in znanj, kar pa nikakor ne zmanjšuje pomena povezav. Vzori iz egejskega sveta so namreč očitni. Grški interes za širše zaledje Balkana je našel oddaljen odmev tudi v antični literaturi. Del znamenite legende o Argonavtih, ki jo je v tretjem stoletju pr. Kr. zapisal Apolonij Rodoški, je namreč povezan z našimi kraji. To je ne nazadnje spoznal že encikopedist Plinij Starejši, saj je začrtal pot, po kateri se je Jazon s tovariši vračal v rodno Grčijo, prav preko ozemlja, ki ga je v železni dobi obvladovala dolenjska skupnost.507
10.6. DRUŽBENE IN ZGODOVINSKE PRELOMNICE
Na prelomu tisočletij se je v jugovzhodnih Alpah začel proces, ki je v dobršni meri spremenil poselitveno sliko in način življenja takratnih ljudi. Novosti so se najprej pojavile na zahodu, na Notranjskem in Krasu, nekoliko kasneje pa tudi na ostalih območjih današnje Slovenije. Vplivi, ki so prihajali iz Podonavja in mediteranskega sveta, so povzročili, da se je žarnogrobiščna družba razslojila.508 Postopoma se je izoblikovala nova
502	Za homersko družbo glej Finley 1978; Andreev 1988; Ulf 1990.
503	Ulf 1990, 187 ss.
504	Andreev 1988, 14 ss; Ulf 1990, 164 ss.
505	Ulf 1990, 85 ss.
506	Teržan 1990b; glej še Borgna 1999.
507	Za legendo o Argonavtih glej Šašel Kos 1990, 19 s.
508	Za stike s Podonavjem glej Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, 490 ss.
Novelties can be discerned also in the settlement structure. The old lowland settlements were abandoned and a similar fate befell most of the temporarily occupied hill-top posts. The number of settlements decreased; we may therefore speak of a sort of synoicism or process of integration. New centres were, as a rule, fortified with strong walls or earthen mounds. They were constructed in single campaigns, which is an admirable though not very time-consuming feat.509
The trading contacts with Italy grew stronger in the eighth and even more so in the seventh century BC. The export products mostly included iron and cattle, while importing used the same route as exporting and brought precious utilitarian objects, wine and new ideas. Towards the end of the 7th century, Italic fashion finally established itself in Dolenjska, the first products of the situla art appeared and technological novelties in metallurgy and pottery arrived here from the west. The Iron Age society of Dolenjska reached its first economic and cultural bloom at this time.
Unfortunately, the prosperity did not last long. A considerable stagnation can be observed already in the first half of the 6th century (the Serpentine Fibula phase). Rich warrior graves disappear and a similar picture is offered by female burials. The impoverishment was felt primarily in eastern and central Dolenjska, while the western parts were less afflicted (cf. fig. 142-144). The seriousness of the situation can be observed in the settlements. Most centres researched within our project had their fortification walls renovated. We even know of some examples where walls were built on top of burnt remains, which indicates a catastrophe of larger proportions. The reason behind this must be sought in the east. These disturbances were brought about by the looting incursion of gangs of Scythian origin,510 which caused the areas on the west-
509	As an example we will take a look at Cvinger near Vir pri Stični. The calculation, which can only be informative, was based on the model by Eggert, who attempted to show the time needed to make the Magdalenenberg mound near Villingen (Eggert 1988, 269 ff). Based on observations done by Erasmus (ib. 267), a man can hew out approximately 330 kg of surface stones in one hour and transport only 50 kg across a distance of a kilometre within the same time. Based on the information that the fortification wall at Cvinger was once only 2.2 m thick, 3 m high and the spaces among stone filled with loam, each metre of the wall used up approximately 10 tons of stone material. A further calculation reveals that each metre of wall demanded 30 hours for hewing stones and 200 hours for transport. If 20 hours needed for the construction itself are added, we get a sum of 487,500 hours for the entire length of the wall (1950 m). Next, the number of hands should be considered. If we assume that 150 people participated in the construction, which represents a third of the population considering the size of the cemeteries, who worked three hours per day (spending the remaining time on other activities), the result is 1083 days. If considering also the pause in construction during the winter months, then the construction of the wall lasted four and a half years. More zeal would of course correspondingly shorten the time required.
510	Parzinger/Stegmann-Rajtar 1988; Teržan 1998, 526 ff.
socialna struktura. Pojavil se je vodilni sloj, ki je dobro dokumentiran v bogatih bojevniških grobovih. Poglavarji tedanjih skupnosti so združili v svojih rokah poleg ekonomske tudi vojaško in politično moč.
Odločilne so bile spremembe v gospodarstvu. Konec 9. in zlasti v 8. stoletju se je v jugovzhodnih Alpah dokončno uveljavilo železarstvo, ki je zaradi bogatih rudnih ležišč takoj postalo ena od vodilnih gospodarskih panog.
Novosti opažamo tudi v poselitveni strukturi. Stara ravninska naselja so bila opuščena, podobno se je zgodilo z večino občasno obljudenih višinskih postojank. Število naselij se je zmanjšalo, zato lahko govorimo o neke vrste sinoikizmu oziroma integraciji poselitve. Nova središča so bila praviloma utrjena z močnimi obzidji ali zemljenimi nasipi. Postavili so jih v enem zamahu, kar je sicer občudovanja vreden dosežek, za katerega pa niso potrebovali kdove kako veliko časa.509
Že v osmem, še bolj pa v sedmem stoletju pr. Kr. so se okrepili trgovski stiki z Italijo. Izvažali so v glavnem železo in živino, k nam pa so po istih poteh prihajali dragoceni uporabni predmeti, vino, pa tudi nove ideje. Proti koncu 7. stoletja se je na Dolenjskem dokončno uveljavila italska moda, pojavili so se prvi izdelki situlske umetnosti, z zahoda pa so prišle tudi tehnološke novosti v kovinarstvu in lončarstvu. Dolenjska železnodobna družba je v tem času dosegla svoj prvi ekonomski in kulturni razcvet.
Žal blagostanje ni trajalo dolgo. Že v prvi polovici 6. stoletja (stopnja kačaste fibule) je opaziti v razvoju občuten zastoj. Bogati bojevniški grobovi izginejo, skromnejši postanejo tudi ženski pokopi. Obubožanje je zajelo predvsem vzhodni in osrednji del Dolenjske, medtem ko so bili zahodni kraji manj prizadeti (prim. sl. 142-144). Da je bila situacija resna, govore naselja. Na večini središč, ki smo jih raziskali v okviru projekta, so
509 Kot primer si oglejmo Cvinger nad Virom pri Stični. Za izračun, ki je lahko le informativen, smo uporabili Egger-tov model, s katerim je skušal pokazati, koliko časa je bilo potrebno za nasutje gomile Magdalenenberg pri Villingenu (Eggert 1988, 269 ss). Na osnovi opazovanj, ki jih je opravil Erasmus (ib. 267), lahko človek v eni uri nalomi približno 330 kg površinskega kamenja, v istem času pa ga je zmožen prenesti en kilometer daleč le 50 kg. Na osnovi podatka, da je bilo nekoč obzidje Cvingerja debelo 2,2 m in visoko 3 m, reže med kamni pa so bile zapolnjene z ilovico, so za vsak meter porabili približno 10 ton kamnitega gradiva. Nadaljnji izračun pokaže, da je tekoči meter zidu zahteval 30 ur za lomljenje kamna in 200 ur za transport. Če k temu dodamo še 20 ur, ki so jih potrebovali za samo gradnjo, dobimo vsoto 250 ur, kar znaša pri celotni dolžini obzidja (1950 m) 487.500 ur. Sedaj moramo upoštevati še število rok. Ob predpostavki, da je pri gradnji sodelovalo 150 ljudi, kar je glede na velikost grobišč nekako tretjina populacije, delali pa so po tri ure dnevno (ostali čas so porabili za druge dejavnosti), dobimo rezultat 1083 dni. Če upoštevamo še to, da je čez zimo delo štiri mesece mirovalo, potem so za postavitev zidu potrebovali štiri leta in pol. Ob večji angažiranosti se je lahko čas gradnje ustrezno skrajšal.
ern edge of the Pannonian plain to become practically deserted and were experienced by the community of Dolenjska as a serious political and economic crisis.
The situation improved towards the end of the 6th century, when the former prosperity was gradually re-established. The settlement pattern also underwent a slight change with newly occupied western Dolenjska (the Posavsko hribovje and the upper reaches of the Krka). We are probably dealing with internal colonisation in this case, since some of the eastern centres weakened at approximately the same time.511 The artistic craft also gained momentum, producing the most magnificent pieces of the situla art in the beginning of the 5th century.512
The crisis occurred again at the end of the 4th century. It was caused by the arrival of the Celtic Taurisci, who occupied central and eastern Slovenia.513 This brought about great novelties. Changes occurred in the attire, armour, burial manner, and life in the hillforts also ceased. We may speak of a strong Celticization of the indigenous population. It is difficult to give the reasons behind this almost complete loss of identity. The changes were almost certainly caused by the military and political superiority of the Celts who profoundly influenced contemporary Europe, though the reason must certainly be sought also in the disintegration of ideology and cultural identity of the Hallstatt society. Several ethnic communities were living on the southern fringes of the Alps, which were apparently a mix of the indigenous population and the Celts. Ancient writers preserved their names for us: the Carni lived in Posočje and Notranjska, the Taurisci lived in Dolenjska and Štajerska and the Colapiani in the south of Bela krajina.514
The 1s' century BC represents the last turning point in the prehistory of the Slovene area. It is tied to the conquest strategy of Rome, which decisively intervened, first economically and later politically, in the south-eastern Alpine area after the foundation of Aquileia in 181 BC.515 The inhabitants living on the territory of the present-day Slovenia reacted to the impending danger by girding their settlements with fortification walls again. However, the prehistoric communities could not hope to win their conflict with the Roman State. In the end, Octavian's wars in Illyricum between 35 and 33 BC brought about the inclusion of the territory to the Sava into the Roman Empire.516
v tem času obnovili obzidja. Znanih je celo nekaj primerov, ko so bili zidovi zgrajeni na pogoriščih, kar kaže na katastrofo večjih razsežnosti. Vzroke za težave moramo iskati na vzhodu. Povzročili so jih roparski vpadi tolp skitskega porekla,510 zaradi katerih so pokrajine ob zahodnem robu Panonske ravnine praktično opustele, dolenjska skupnost pa jih je doživela kot resno politično in gospodarsko krizo.
Razmere so se izboljšale proti koncu 6. stoletja, ko se je postopoma vzpostavilo staro blagostanje. Deloma se je spremenila tudi poselitvena slika, saj je bila v tem času na novo poseljena zahodna Dolenjska (Posavsko hribovje in zgornji tok reke Krke). Najverjetneje imamo opraviti z notranjo kolonizacijo, saj so približno v istem času opešala nekatera vzhodna središča.511 Pomemben zagon je doživela tudi umetnostna obrt, ki je na začetku 5. stoletja ustvarila najimenitnejše izdelke situlske umetnosti.512
Do nove krize je prišlo ob koncu 4. stoletja. Povzročil jo je prihod keltskih Tavriskov, ki so poselili osrednjo in vzhodno Slovenijo.513 Novosti so bile velike. Spremenili so se noša, oborožitev in način pokopa, prekinjeno pa je bilo tudi življenje v utrjenih gradiščih. Govorimo lahko o močni keltizaciji staroselskega prebivalstva. Kje tiče vzroki za skoraj popolno izgubo identitete, je težko reči. Spremembam je gotovo botrovala vojaška in politična premoč Keltov, ki so krojili usodo takratne Evrope, razloge pa bo treba iskati tudi v duhovnem razkroju halštatske družbe. Na južnih obronkih Alp je v tem času živelo več etničnih skupnosti, ki so bile očitno mešanica staroselcev in Keltov. Tokrat so nam antični pisci ohranili njihova imena: tako so v Posočju in na Notranjskem živeli Karni, na Dolenjskem in Štajerskem Tavriski in na jugu Bele krajine Kolapijani.514
Zadnje prelomno obdobje v prazgodovini slovenskega prostora predstavlja 1. stoletje pr. Kr. Povezano je z osvajalno strategijo Rima, ki je po ustanovitvi Akvileje leta 181 pr. Kr. najprej gospodarsko, nato pa tudi politično usodno posegel v jugovzhodnoalpski prostor.515 Prebivalstvo, ki je živelo na današnjem slovenskem ozemlju, je na bližajočo se nevarnost reagiralo tako, da je svoja naselja ponovno obdalo z obzidji. Vendar pa prazgodovinske skupnosti v konfliktu z rimsko državo niso mogle upati na zmago. Po Oktavijanovih vojnah v Iliri-ku med leti 35-33 pr. Kr. je bilo tudi ozemlje do Save vključeno v rimski imperij.516
511	E. g. Budinjak, Velike Malence, Metlika and Črnomelj.
512	Lucke-Frey 1962, 44 ff; Gabrovec 1987, 63 f; Turk 2005, 23 ff.
513	Božič 1987, 893 ff.
514	Šašel 1983b; Božič 1987, 893 ff; Božič 1991; Guštin 1996b; Šašel Kos 1998, 219; Božič 1999, 212 f; Božič 2001, 192.
515	Božič 1987, 889 ff.
516	Šašel Kos 2005, 393 ff.
510	Parzinger/Stegmann-Rajtar 1988; Teržan 1998, 526 ss.
511	Npr. Budinjak, Velike Malence, Metlika in Črnomelj.
512	Lucke-Frey 1962, 44 ss; Gabrovec 1987, 63 s; Turk 2005, 23 ss.
513	Božič 1987, 893 ss.
514	Šašel 1983b; Božič 1987, 893 ss; Božič 1991; Guštin 1996b; Šašel Kos 1998, 219; Božič 1999, 212 s; Božič 2001, 192.
515	Božič 1987, 889 ss.
516	Šašel Kos 2005, 393 ss.
11. CATALOGUE OF SITES KATALOG NAJDIŠČ
CATALOGUE EXPLANATION
POJASNILA H KATALOGU
The catalogue was concluded in 2003 and contains 510 units/ entries. Information on each site is organized as follows:
-	Catalogue number;
-	Site (name of the site, usually a fallow name);
-	Place (usually the name of the nearest modern town/city);
-	Position on the general map (Appendix 1);
-	TTN 5 (name of the Basic Topographic Plan in scale 1:5000 (exceptionally 1:10000);
-	Type of site;
-	Date;
-	Ground plan;
-	Bibliography.
Katalog najdišč obsega 510 enot in je bil zaključen leta 2003. Podatki o posameznem najdišču si sledijo po naslednjem vrstnem redu:
-	Kataloška številka najdišča;
-	Najdišče (praviloma ledinsko ime);
-	Kraj (praviloma ime najbližjega kraja);
-	Lega na pregledni karti (priloga 1);
-	TTN 5 (številka lista Temeljnega topografskega načrta 1:5000 (izjemoma 1:10.000);
-	Tip najdišča;
-	Datacija;
-	Načrt najdišča;
-	Literatura.
Iza ZRC SAZU = Institut of Archaeology, Scientific Research Centre of the Academy of Sciences and Arts
Iza ZRC SAZU = Inštitut za arheologijo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti
Cat. No.: 1
Site: Ajdovščina.
Place: Zaboršt pri Dolu.
Position: 1 B.
TTN5: Ljubljana S-28.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 145.
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Zaboršt pri Dolu. - In: ANSL 1975, 177; Pavlin/Dular 2007.
Fig. 145: Ajdovščina near Zaboršt pri Dolu. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 145: Ajdovščina nad Zaborštom pri Dolu. M. = 1:2500.
__sis-
//////
\\ \ \ \ l\
/ /
\ \ ^ ^ *
\ \
V

\\\ \ \ \ V
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ^360-^ "^"-iT^TFl^nm«
\\\\ lil//
/ /
/ / u
\ \
(i)
~~350--
~-345--^
~-340-
V/ / /
50 m ^ —330-
Fig. 146: Gradišče near Podgora pri Dolskem. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 146: Gradišče nad Podgoro pri Dolskem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 2
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Podgora pri Dolskem.
Position: 1 B.
TTN5: Ljubljana S-39.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: Fig. 146.
Bibliography: Zupančič, Kleče. - In: ANSL 1975, 177.
Cat. No.: 3
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Zagorica pri Dolskem. Position: 2 B. TTN5: Litija 21.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: undated. Ground plan: Fig. 147.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1995).
Cat. No.: 4
Site: Pelinovec. Place: Križevska vas. Position: 2 B. TTN5: Litija 21.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: prehistory. Ground plan: Fig. 149.
Bibliography: Zupančič, Križevska vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 177.
Fig. 147: Gradišče near Zagorica pri Dolskem. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 147: Gradišče pod Zagorico pri Dolskem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 148: Gorišca near Zgornji Prekar. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 1498 Gorišca nad Zgornjim Prekarjem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 149: Pelinovec near Križevska vas. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 149: Pelinovec nad Križevsko vasjo. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 5
Site: Gorišca. Place: Zgornji Prekar. Position: 2 A. TTN5: Liti'a 23.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: prehistory. Ground plan: Fig. 148.
Bibliography: Sagadin 1984, 206; Sagadin 1985, 210 ff.
Cat. No.: 6
Site: Gradišče. Place: Dešen. Position: 2 A. TTN5: Litija 23.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Early Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 150.
Bibliography: Pavlin/Dular 2007.
Fig. 150: Gradišče near Dešen. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 150: Gradišče nad Dešnom. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 7
Site: Lestina. Place: Vače. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 89.
Bibliography: F. Stare 1962-1963, 383.
Cat. No.: 9
Site: Zgornja krona. Place: Vače. Position: 3 A.
TTN5: Litija 15, Litija 16, Litija 25. Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 89 and Appendix 2. Bibliography: Schmid 1939.
Cat. No.: 8
Site: Ravne njive.
Place: Vače.
Position: 3 A.
TTN5: Litija 15, Litija 25.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (12 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 89 and 151.
Bibliography: F. Stare 1954a, 10.
Cat. No.: 10
Site: Napredovec. Place: Klenik. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 16.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Hochstetter 1883, 163.
Fig. 151: Ravne njive near Vače. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 151: Ravne njive pri Vačah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 11
Site: Vodice. Place: Klenik. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 26.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 89. Bibliography: F. Stare 1954a, 10.
Cat. No.: 17
Site: Gradišče. Place: Zagorje ob Savi. Position: 4 A.
TTN5: Litija 30, Trbovlje 21.
Type of site: hoard (a small hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 229 ff.
Cat. No.: 12
Site: Cvetež. Place: Vovše. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 26.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 89.
Bibliography: Deschmann 1883, 177 ff.
Cat. No.: 18
Site: Sv. Gora. Place: Rovišče. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 17.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: prehistory, Late Antiquity. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Bolta, Sv. Gora. - In: ANSL 1975, 266; Vuga, 1974.
Cat. No.: 13
Site: Apno. Place: Klenik. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 25. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 89.
Bibliography: F. Stare 1954a, 10; Vuga 1985.
Cat. No.: 14
Site: Laz.
Place: Klenik.
Position: 3 A.
TTN5: Litija 26.
Type of site: cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 89.
Bibliography: Vuga 1982a, 27 ff.
Cat. No.: 15
Site: Reber. Place: Klenik. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 26.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 89.
Bibliography: Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879, 7 ff; Hochstetter 1883, 161 ff; Vuga 1986; Vuga 1988.
Cat. No.: 19
Site: Gradišče. Place: Rovišče. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 27.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: undated. Ground plan: Fig. 152.
Bibliography: Bolta, Rovišče. - In: ANSL 1975, 266; Slabe/Vuga 1974.
Cat. No.: 20
Site: Kidričeva cesta.
Place: Zagorje ob Savi.
Position: 4 A.
TTN5: Litija 20.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec 1966a, 24 ff.
Cat. No.: 21
Site: Grobišče. Place: Kovk. Position: 5 A. TTN5: Trbovlje 24.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (5 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age? Ground plan: Fig. 153.
Bibliography: Bolta, Kovk. - In: ANSL 1975, 263.
Cat. No.: 16
Site: Boršt. Place: Klenik. Position: 3 A. TTN5: Litija 26. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 89.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1998).
Cat. No.: 22
Site: Roje. Place: Orle. Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-16, Ljubljana J-17.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 90.
Bibliography: Puš 1984.
Fig. 152: Gradišče near Rovišče. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 152: Gradišče nad Roviščem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 153: Grobišče near Kovk. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 153: Grobišče pri Kovku. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 23
Site: Kotarjev peskokop. Place: Podmolnik. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-17.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 90. Bibliography: Puš 1993.
Cat. No.: 24
Site: Grmada. Place: Podmolnik. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-17.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (24 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 90 and 154.
Bibliography: Puš 1983; Puš 1986; Puš 1987; Puš 1991.
Cat. No.: 25
Site: Molnik.
Place: Podmolnik.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-17.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 90 and 155.
Bibliography: Puš 1991.
Cat. No.: 26
Site: Pleška hosta. Place: Podmolnik. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-17.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (16 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 90 and 156.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1997).
Cat. No.: 27
Site: Pavšarjeva hosta. Place: Pleše. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-17.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (13 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 90 and 157.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (2002).


024 A\--
(J)
100 m
Fig. 155: Molnik near Podmolnik. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 155: Molnik nad Podmolnikom. M. = 1:2500.
<	Fig. 154: Grmada near Podmolnik. Scale = 1:2500.
<	Sl. 154: Grmada nad Podmolnikom. M. = 1:2500.
100 m
Fig. 156: Pleška hosta near Podmolnik. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 156: Pleška hosta nad Podmolnikom. M. = 1:2500.

Fig. 157: Pavšarjeva hosta near Pleše. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 157: Pavšarjeva hosta pri Plešah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 28
Site: Lampičev peskokop. Place: Podmolnik. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-7.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (13 tumuli) - destroyed. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Šribar 1967.
Cat. No.: 32
Site: Mancin vrh. Place: Tuji Grm. Position: 2 B. TTN5: Litija 41.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: V. Stare, Tuji grm. - In: ANSL 1975, 196.
Cat. No.: 29
Site: Mareček.
Place: Podmolnik.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-7.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Puš 1981; Puš 1990.
Cat. No.: 30
Site: Gradišca.
Place: Zagradišče.
Position: 1 B.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-8.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: Fig. 158.
Bibliography: V. Stare, Zagradišče. - In: ANSL 1975, 195.
Cat. No.: 31
Site: -
Place: Janče. Position: 2 B. TTN5: Litija 41.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 67 f.
Cat. No.: 33
Site: Jurjev britof. Place: Račica. Position: 2 B. TTN5: Višnja Gora 2. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1998).
Fig. 158: Gradišca near Zagradišče. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 158: Gradišca pri Zagradišču. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 34
Site: Žitnice.
Place: Javor.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-10.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin/Knific 1973. Cat. No.: 35
Site: Hribarjeva košenica.
Place: Ravno brdo.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 1.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1995).
Cat. No.: 36
Site: Laščik.
Place: Zgornja Slivnica.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (13 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 91 and 159.
Bibliography: Tecco/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 17 ff.
Cat. No.: 37
Site: Preloge.
Place: Zgornja Slivnica.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (17 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 91 and 160.
Bibliography: Tecco/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 24 ff.
Cat. No.: 38
Site: Magdalenska gora 1. Place: Zgornja Slivnica. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-28.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze dagger). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 97 f. Cat. No.: 39
Site: Magdalenska gora 2.
Place: Zgornja Slivnica.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-28.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 91 and Appendix 3.
Bibliography: Tecco/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 14 ff.
Fig. 159: Laščik near Zgornja Slivnica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 159: Laščik pri Zgornji Slivnici. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 40
Site: Voselca.
Place: Hrastje.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 91 and 161.
Bibliography: Tecco/Dular/Kocuvan 2004, 81 ff.
Fig. 160: Preloge near Zgornja Slivnica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 160: Preloge pri Zgornji Slivnici. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 161: Voselca near Hrastje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 161: Voselca pri Hrastju. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 41
Site: -
Place: Perovo.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-29.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 43.
Cat. No.: 42
Site: Železniška postaja. Place: Grosuplje. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-39. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šašel, Grosuplje. - In: ANSL 1975, 179.
Cat. No.: 43
Site: Skubičev vrt. Place: Pance. Position: 1 C. TTN5: Ljubljana J-19. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 154 f.
Cat. No.: 44
Site: Gradec.
Place: Blečji Vrh.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 11.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 162.
Bibliography: Puš, Blečji vrh. - In: ANSL 1975, 205.
Fig. 163: Gradišče near Vrh pri Višnji Gori. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 163: Gradišče nad Vrhom pri Višnji Gori. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 45
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Vrh pri Višnji Gori.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 22.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: Fig. 163.
Bibliography: Puš, Vrh pri Višnji gori. - In: ANSL 1975, 205; Frey 1968-1969, 19.
Cat. No.: 46
Site: Mareča dula.
Place: Sela pri Višnji Gori.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 23.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: Fig. 164.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1998).
Fig. 162: Gradec near Blečji Vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 162: Gradec pri Blečjem Vrhu. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 164: Mareča dula near Sela pri Višnji Gori. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 164: Mareča dula pod Seli pri Višnji Gori. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 49
Site: -
Place: Višnja Gora. Position: 2 C. TTN5: Višnja Gora 32.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze spearhead). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 80.
Cat. No.: 50
Site: Podsmreka 2.
Place: Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 32.
Type of site: individual find (pottery, slag).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Murgelj/Svoljšak 2003.
Cat. No.: 47
Site: Ravne.
Place: Sela pri Višnji Gori.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 23.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1998).
Cat. No.: 51
Site: Peskokop.
Place: Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Puš, Podsmreka pri Višnji gori. - In: ANSL 1975, 205.
Cat. No.: 48
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Žalna.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 31.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: Fig. 165.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1997).
Cat. No.: 52
Site: Podsmreka 1.
Place: Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori.
Position: 2 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 33.
Type of site: smelting-furnace.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Svoljšak 2003a.
Cat. No.: 53
Site: Vinji hrib.
Place: Vino.
Position: 1 C.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-37.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 166.
Bibliography: Puš, Vino. - In: ANSL 1975, 195.
Cat. No.: 54
Site: Velika senožet.
Place: Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico.
Position: 1 D.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (7 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 92 and 167.
Bibliography: Vuga 1980, 201; Vuga 1982b.
Fig. 165: Gradišče near Žalna. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 165: Gradišče pri Žalni. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 166: Vinji hrib near Vino. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 166: Vinji hrib nad Vinom. M. = 1:2500.
\ - . '^98,7	-^
\ ^y J /	/
^^^ ^^^y	
	<3© X
	f' "—{
	
	I' -
	ow -\ .......
. ■ (D	
Fig. 167: Velika senožet near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico. Scale = 1:2500.
Sl. 167: Velika senožet pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 168: Bezeg near Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 168: Bezeg pri Gradišču nad Pijavo Gorico. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 55
Site: Bezeg.
Place: Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico.
Position: 1 D.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-46.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 92 and 168.
Bibliography: Truhlar, Gradišče nad Pijavo gorico. - In: ANSL 1975, 200.
Cat. No.: 56
Site: Zajčeva hiša. Place: Udje. Position: 1 D. TTN5: Ljubljana J-47.
Type of site: hoard (a large hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 223 ff.
Cat. No.: 59
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Spodnja Slivnica.
Position: 1 D.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-49.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 170.
Bibliography: Puš, Spodnja Slivnica. - In: ANSL 1975, 179.
Cat. No.: 57
Site: Gradišnica.
Place: Podtabor pri Grosupljem.
Position: 1 D.
TTN5: Ljubljana J-48.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 169.
Bibliography: Puš, Podtabor pri Grosupljem. - In: ANSL 1975, 194; Slabe 1982.
Fig. 169: Gradišnica near Podtabor pri Grosupljem. Scale 1:2500.
Sl. 169: Gradišnica nad Podtaborom pri Grosupljem. M. 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 58
Site: Leničeva hiša. Place: Spodnja Slivnica. Position: 1 D. TTN5: Ljubljana J-49.
Type of site: individual finds (2 iron spearheads). Date: Iron Age ? Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Puš, Spodnja Slivnica. - In: ANSL 1975, 179; Šribar 1957, 145: note 22.
Cat. No.: 60
Site: Zavrh.
Place: Spodnja Slivnica. Position: 1 D. TTN5: Ljubljana J-49. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šribar 1957; Guštin 1977a, Pl. 14.
Cat. No.: 61
Site: Gora.
Place: Mali Ločnik.
Position: 1 D.
TTN5: Velike Lašče 7.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 171.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1988).
Cat. No.: 62
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Sloka Gora.
Position: 1 D.
TTN5: Velike Lašče 8.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 172.
Bibliography: Pečnik 1904, 139.
Cat. No.: 63
Site: Kopanj.
Place: Velika Račna.
Position: 2 D.
TTN5: Velike Lašče 10.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Puš, Velika Račna. - In: ANSL 1975, 179.
Cat. No.: 64
Site: Limberk.
Place: Velika Račna.
Position: 1 D.
TTN5: Velike Lašče 9.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 175.
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1987a, 99.
Fig. 170: Gradišče near Spodnja Slivnica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 170: Gradišče nad Spodnjo Slivnico. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 65
Site: -
Place: Mala Račna. Position: 2 D. TTN5: Velike Lašče 10.
Type of site: hoard (a hoard composed of sickles). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 204 f.
Cat. No.: 67
Site: Sitarjevec. Place: Litija. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Litija 45.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Early Iron Age?, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 173. Bibliography: Pavlin/Dular 2007.
Cat. No.: 66
Site: -
Place: Gorenji Log. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Liti'a 35.
Type of site: hoard (a small hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 169 f.
Cat. No.: 68
Site: Cvingar. Place: Breg pri Lit^i. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Litija 46.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: V. Stare, Mala Kostrevnica. - In: ANSL 1975, 203.
Fig. 171: Gora near Mali Ločnik. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 171: Gora nad Malim Ločnikom. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 69
Site: Zavrh. Place: Mamolj. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Litija 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age? Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 71
Site: -
Place: Zgornji Mamolj. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Litija 47.
Type of site: individual finds (2 bronze anklets). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 272.
Cat. No.: 70
Site: Stonar. Place: Mamolj. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Litija 48.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 72
Site: Spodnji dol.
Place: Stranski vrh.
Position: 4 B.
TTN5: Litija 50.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Bolta, Koprivnik. - In: ANSL 1975, 265; Slabe 1974.
Fig. 174: Sv. Jurij near Stranski vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 174: Sv. Jurij pri Stranskem vrhu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 73 Site: Sv. Jurij. Place: Stranski vrh. Position: 4 B. TTN5: Litija 50.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity. Ground plan: Fig. 174.
Bibliography: Bolta, Glinjek. - In: ANSL 1975, 265; Ciglenečki 1987b.
Fig. 172: Gradišče near Sloka Gora. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 172: Gradišče pod Sloko Goro. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 173: Sitarjevec near Litija. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 173: Sitarjevec nad Litijo. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 175: Limberk near Velika Račna. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 175: Limberk nad Veliko Račno. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 176: Sv. Lenart near Rodež. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 176: Sv. Lenart nad Rodežem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 74
Site: Sv. Lenart.
Place: Rodež.
Position: 4 B.
TTN5: Trbovlje 31.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 176.
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1981b.
Cat. No.: 75
Site: Kucenberg. Place: Podkum. Position: 4 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 31.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1977c; Ciglenečki 1981b.
Cat. No.: 76
Site: Šumberk.
Place: Vintarjevec.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 14.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Ložar 1933, 47s.
Cat. No.: 77
Site: Roje. Place: Podroje. Position: 3 C. TTN5: Višnja Gora 5. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 155 f.
Cat. No.: 78
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Vintarjevec.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 5.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 177.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1999.
Fig. 177: Gradišče near Vintarjevec. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 177: Gradišče nad Vintarjevcem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 79
Site: Sv. Peter. Place: Vintarjevec. Position: 3 C. TTN5: Višnja Gora 15. Type of site: cemetery. Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Ložar 1933, 48.
Cat. No.: 80
Site: Sv. Lambert.
Place: Pristava nad Stično.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 14.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1984a; Ciglenečki 1985a.
Cat. No.: 81
Site: Pančičev vrh.
Place: Javorje.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 15, 16.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age?, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 178.
Bibliography: Pavlin/Dular 2007.
V Fig. 178: Pančičev vrh near Javorje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 178: Pančičev vrh pod Javorjem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 82
Site: Perovškov hrib. Place: Mala Kostrevnica. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Višnja Gora 6.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 88
Site: Gradišca.
Place: Jelše.
Position: 3 B.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 6.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age?, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 179.
Bibliography: Pavlin/Dular 2007.
Cat. No.: 83
Site: Teroh. Place: Jelše. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Višnja Gora 6.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 84
Site: Bukovna.
Place: Mala Kostrevnica.
Position: 3 B.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 6.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 85
Site: Ograja.
Place: Mala Kostrevnica.
Position: 3 B.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 6.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 86
Site: Krvica.
Place: Velika Kostrevnica. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Višnja Gora 6. Type of site: cemetery. Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 87
Site: Grmadca. Place: Jelše. Position: 3 B. TTN5: Višnja Gora 6. Type of site: cemetery. Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Fig. 179: Gradišca near Jelše. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 179: Gradišca pri Jelšah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 89
Site: Dobravčev vinograd. Place: Velika Kostrevnica. Position: 3 C. TTN5: Višnja Gora 6. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: V. Stare, Velika Kostrevnica. - In: ANSL 1975, 203; Dular 2003, 155.
Cat. No.: 90
Site: Podbukovje.
Place: Lupinica.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 17.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: V. Stare, Lupinica. - In: ANSL 1975, 203.
Cat. No.: 91
Site: -
Place: Vinji Vrh. Position: 3 C. TTN5: Višnja Gora 18.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze sword). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 107.
Fig. 180: Gradišče near Primskovo. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 180: Gradišče na Primskovem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 92
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Primskovo.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 28.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity. Ground plan: Fig. 180.
Bibliography: Knez, Primskovo. - In: ANSL 1975, 234.
Cat. No.: 93
Site: Namrova hosta.
Place: Zaboršt pri Šentvidu.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 26.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1997).
Cat. No.: 94
Site: Samostan.
Place: Stična.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 34.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (2003).
Cat. No.: 95
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Mekinje nad Stično.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 35.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec 1994, 32 and 216.
Cat. No.: 96
Site: Cvinger. Place: Vir pri Stični. Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 34, Višnja Gora 35. Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 93 and Appendix 4. Bibliography: Gabrovec 1994.
Cat. No.: 97
Site: Dole.
Place: Pristavlja vas.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 35.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec 1994, 40; Možina 1983.
Cat. No.: 98
Site: Gomile. Place: Griže pri Stični. Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 34, Višnja Gora 35. Type of site: tumulus cemetery (125 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 93 and Appendix 5.
Bibliography: Wells 1981, 45 ff; Gabrovec 1994, 36 ff; Gabrovec 2006.
Cat. No.: 99
Site: Marjanov hrib.
Place: Studenec.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 34.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Svoljšak 2003b, 252.
Cat. No.: 100
Site: Šrajeva hosta.
Place: Velike Pece.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 45.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Velike Pece. - In: ANSL 1975, 200; Wells 1981, 86.
Cat. No.: 101
Site: Brezovski klanec.
Place: Radohova vas.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 181.
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Radohova vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 199.
Fig. 181: Brezovski klanec near Radohova vas. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 181: Brezovski klanec pri Radohovi vasi. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 102
Site: Vencljev hrib.
Place: Radohova vas.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Radohova vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 199.
Cat. No.: 106
Site: Bučarjev hrib.
Place: Sela pri Dobu.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 46.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Horvat 2003b.
Cat. No.: 103
Site: Špajpil.
Place: Radohova vas.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1997).
Cat. No.: 107 Site: Pule.
Place: Pristavica pri Velikem Gabru.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 47.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age?
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Tica 2003a.
Cat. No.: 104
Site: Brezje.
Place: Radohova vas.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1997).
Cat. No.: 108
Site: Reber 1.
Place: Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 47.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Vičič 2003.
Cat. No.: 105
Site: Gaberje.
Place: Grm.
Position: 3 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1997).
Cat. No.: 109
Site: Reber 2.
Place: Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 47.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Vičič 2003.
Cat. No.: 110
Site: Medvedjek.
Place: Veliki Gaber.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 48.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Breščak 1982.
Cat. No.: 111
Site: Koščakov vrt. Place: Znojile pri Krki. Position: 2 D. TTN5: Žužemberk 3. Type of site: cemetery. Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Puš, Znojile pri Krki. - In: ANSL 1975, 185.
Cat. No.: 112
Site: Korinjski hrib.
Place: Veliki Korinj.
Position: 2 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 23.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age?, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity. Ground plan: Fig. 182.
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1984b; Ciglenečki 1985b, 255 ff; Dular et al. 1995, 91 ff.
Fig. 182: Korinjski hrib near Veliki Korinj. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 182: Korinjski hrib nad Velikim Korinjem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 113
Site: -
Place: Veliki Korinj. Position: 2 E. TTN5: Žužemberk 23.
Type of site: hoard (a hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 226 f.
Cat. No.: 114
Site: -
Place: Mali Korinj.
Position: 2 E.
TTN5: Žužemberk 23.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 70.
Cat. No.: 115
Site: Straža.
Place: Češnjice.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 16.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Češnjice. - In: ANSL 1975, 235.
Cat. No.: 116
Site: -
Place: Valična vas. Position: 3 D. TTN5: Žužemberk 16.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze sickle). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 112 f.
Cat. No.: 117
Site: Ulice.
Place: Valična vas.
Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 16.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šašel, Valična vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 235.
Cat. No.: 118
Site: Zadinec. Place: Valična vas. Position: 3 D. TTN5: Žužemberk 16.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 94.
Bibliography: Teržan 1973; Šašel, Valična vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 235.
Cat. No.: 119
Site: Gradišče. Place: Valična vas. Position: 3 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 16, Žužemberk 17. Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 94 and 183. Bibliography: Dular/Breščak 1996.
50 m
Fig. 183: Gradišče near Valična vas. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 183: Gradišče pri Valični vasi. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 120
Site: Lešenbert.
Place: Hohovica.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 121
Site: Rojska hosta.
Place: Moravče pri Gabrovki.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Vuga 1977, 294 f.
Cat. No.: 122
Site: Roje.
Place: Moravče pri Gabrovki.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 20.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šašel, Roje. - In: ANSL 1975, 178; Vuga 1970; Vuga 1977; Knez 1977; Vuga 1979.
Cat. No.: 123
Site: Zagrac.
Place: Vodice pri Gabrovki.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 10.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 184.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2003, 176 ff.
Cat. No.: 124
Site: Kostjavec.
Place: Tihaboj.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 11.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 185.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2003, 180 ff.
Cat. No.: 125
Site: Makote. Place: Brezovo. Position: 4 C. TTN5: Mokronog 11.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Fig. 184: Zagrac near Vodice pri Gabrovki. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 184: Zagrac nad Vodicami pri Gabrovki. M. = 1:2500.
	\ \ %
	\
\ \ . 776,8 \ \ V ^ \	\
\ ■	\ \
\ -x,,.......™® ® ® N	\ ) j(
	
. 0)	
Fig. 185: Kostjavec near Tihaboj. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 185: Kostjavec nad Tihabojem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 187: Bohinčev hrib near Dole pri Litiji. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 187: Bohinčev hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 126
Site: Špičasti hrib.
Place: Dole pri Litiji.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 1.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 186.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2003, 171 ff.
Fig. 186: Špičasti hrib near Dole pri Litiji. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 186: Špičasti hrib nad Dolami pri Litiji. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 127
Site: Bohinčev hrib. Place: Dole pri Litiji. Position: 4 C. TTN5: Mokronog 1.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 187.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 128
Site: Celestinova hiša. Place: Dole pri Litiji. Position: 4 B. TTN5: Mokronog 2. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Deschmann/Hochstetter 1879, 34.
Cat. No.: 129
Site: Berinjek. Place: Dole pri Litiji. Position: 4 B. TTN5: Mokronog 2.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 268 f.
Cat. No.: 130
Site: Kavčev hrib. Place: Suhadole. Position: 4 B. TTN5: Mokronog 2. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 269 ff.
Cat. No.: 131
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Suhadole.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 2.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 188.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2003, 159 ff.
Fig. 188: Gradišče near Suhadole. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 188: Gradišče pri Suhadolah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 132
Site: Furije. Place: Dobovica. Position: 4 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 42. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 266 ff.
Cat. No.: 133
Site: Ajdov grob. Place: Svibno. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 43.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 134
Site: Topliška skala. Place: Jagnjenica. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 45. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 135
Site: Gradec.
Place: Jagnjenica.
Position: 5 B.
TTN5: Trbovlje 45.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 136
Site: Kržišče. Place: Jagnjenica. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 45.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Bolta, Jagnjenica. - In: ANSL 1975, 265 f.
Cat. No.: 137
Site: Kopališče. Place: Stari Dvor. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 45. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Vogrin 1985.
Cat. No.: 138
Site: -
Place: Zidani most. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 37. Type of site: hoard. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 232.
Cat. No.: 139
Site: Starina. Place: Jelovo. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 140
Site: Vranski hrib.
Place: Jelovo.
Position: 5 B.
TTN5: Trbovlje 36.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 189.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 141
Site: Marof. Place: Dobrava. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Fig. 189: Vranski hrib near Jelovo. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 189: Vranski hrib nad Jelovim. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 190: Dobrava near Hotemež. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 190: Dobrava pri Hotemežu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 142
Site: Dobrava. Place: Hotemež. Position: 6 B. TTN5: Trbovlje 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 190.
Bibliography: Bolta, Hotemež. - In: ANSL 1975, 265.
Cat. No.: 143
Site: Krokarjev hrib. Place: Budna vas. Position: 5 B. TTN5: Mokronog 7.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Bolta, Brunik. - In: ANSL 1975, 265.
Cat. No.: 144
Site: Sv. Martin.
Place: Kal.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 4.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Kal. - In: ANSL 1975, 253.
Cat. No.: 145
Site: Pasjek. Place: Podboršt. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 16.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze boat-shaped fibula). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 146
Site: Videmska gorica. Place: Birna vas. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 16.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Št. Janž. - In: ANSL 1975, 253.
Cat. No.: 147
Site: Takpav. Place: Birna vas. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 17.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 148
Site: Hrib. Place: Novi Grad. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 8.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 149
Site: Volčje jame. Place: Vrh pri Boštanju. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 150
Site: Velika dobrava. Place: Šmarčna. Position: 6 B. TTN5: Mokronog 9.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (46 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 191.
Bibliography: P. Petru, Šmarčna. - In: ANSL 1975, 248; Guštin 1974a, 88.
Cat. No.: 151
Site: Grac.
Place: Razbor.
Position: 6 B.
TTN5: Trbovlje 50.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1987a, 43; Ciglenečki 1992, 19 f.
Fig. 191: Velika dobrava near Šmarčna. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 191: Velika dobrava pri Šmarčni. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 152
Site: Hrib.
Place: Apnenik pri Boštanju. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Apnenik pri Boštanju. - In: ANSL 1975, 247; Guštin 1974a, 88.
Cat. No.: 153
Site: Gavge. Place: Boštanj. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1974a, 88.
Cat. No.: 154
Site: Zemljak. Place: Vrh pri Boštanju. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 155
Site: Ščit.
Place: Dolenji Boštanj.
Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1974a, 89.
Cat. No.: 158
Site: Kržišče. Place: Lukovec. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Krško 21.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1974a, 89 f.
Cat. No.: 159
Site: Kosmatec. Place: Preska. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Krško 21.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1974a, 90 ff.
Cat. No.: 160
Site: Kluški vrh. Place: Drušče. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 30.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 161
Site: Škoporčeva hosta. Place: Jeperjek. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 156
Site: Gorenjčeve groblje. Place: Dolenji Boštanj. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Krško 11.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Mantuani 1913; Guštin 1974a, 89.
Cat. No.: 162
Site: Gomila. Place: Slančji vrh. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 264 f.
Cat. No.: 157
Site: Grmašca. Place: Lukovec. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Krško 11.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1974a, 89.
Cat. No.: 163
Site: Gradec.
Place: Otavnik.
Position: 6 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 40.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age?, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 192.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2000, 127 ff.
Fig. 192: Gradec near Otavnik. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 192: Gradec pod Otavnikom. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 164
Site: Mlake. Place: Sv. Primož. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Krško 21.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Truhlar, Sv. Primož. - In: ANSL 1975, 258.
Cat. No.: 165
Site: Gorenja hosta. Place: Gornje Orle. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 22.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 166
Site: Bučni vrh. Place: Gornje Orle. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 22.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1974a, 90.
Cat. No.: 167
Site: Zaključi.
Place: Velika Hubajnica.
Position: 6 C.
TTN5: Krško 21, Krško 31.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Deschmann 1884, 380 and 383.
Cat. No.: 168
Site: Raguše.
Place: Osredek pri Hubajnici. Position: 7 C.
TTN5: Krško 22, Krško 32.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (33 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 193.
Bibliography: Deschmann 1884, 379 f; Šašel, Mala Hubajnica. -In: ANSL 1975, 258.
Cat. No.: 169
Site: Jesihova hiša. Place: Mala Hubajnica. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Krško 31.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: F. Stare 1958-1959; Šašel, Mala Hubajnica. - In: ANSL 1975, 258.
Cat. No.: 170
Site: Boben hrib. Place: Zavratec. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 32.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Deschmann 1884, 380; P. Petru, Zavratec. - In: ANSL 1975, 258.


(J)
50 m
Fig. 193: Raguše near Osredek pri Hubajnici. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 193: Raguše pod Osredkom pri Hubajnici. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 171
Site: Tičnica.
Place: Studenec.
Position: 7 C.
TTN5: Krško 23.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 95 and 194.
Bibliography: Deschmann 1884, 380; Deschmann 1988, 55; Šašel, Rovišče. - In: ANSL 1975, 258.
Fig. 194: Tičnica near Studenec. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 194: Tičnica pri Studencu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 172
Site: Gomile. Place: Rovišče. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (38 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 95 and 195.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1962-1963; Dular 2003, 240 ff.
Cat. No.: 173
Site: Kočnik.
Place: Segonje.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 50.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 196.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2000, 124 ff.
Cat. No.: 174
Site: Lapor. Place: Bučka. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Krško 41.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 175
Site: Legarje. Place: Gorenje Radulje. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 32.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age? Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
26
\ (27) 28
.38 //
O//
Bi
\ / /
(D
100 m
Fig. 195: Gomile near Rovišče. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 195: Gomile pri Rovišču. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 196: Kočnik near Segonje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 196: Kočnik nad Segonjami. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 176
Site: Bukovje. Place: Brezovo. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 32.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 238 ff.
Cat. No.: 180
Site: Vinji vrh.
Place: Raka.
Position: 7 D.
TTN5: Krško 43.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 198.
Bibliography: P. Petru, Raka. - In: ANSL 1975, 257.
Cat. No.: 177
Site: Mlakarjeva hosta. Place: Koritnica. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 197.
Bibliography: P. Petru, Koritnica. - In: ANSL 1975, 257.
Cat. No.: 181
Site: Iljaševa hosta. Place: Brezje pri Raki. Position: 7 D. TTN5: Krško 43.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Brezje pri Raki. - In: ANSL 1975, 256.
1	-J			
\ \ n \ \	321,5 y f-Y	j	\ \ n	
\ \ \ V	IC	/ ( 1	/ / / I	V
\ / <		\ 0		
Fig. 197: Mlakarjeva hosta near Koritnica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 197: Mlakarjeva hosta pri Koritnici. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 182
Site: -
Place: Stranje. Position: 7 B. TTN5: Kozje 45.
Type of site: individual finds (a bronze dagger, a bronze chisel) Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 100 and 115.
Cat. No.: 183
Site: Polžev hrib. Place: Gorenji Leskovec. Position: 7 B. TTN5: Krško 5.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Gorenji Leskovec. - In: ANSL 1975, 247; Horvat/Ravnik-Toman 1986.
Cat. No.: 178
Site: Obrčeva hosta. Place: Brezje pri Raki. Position: 7 D. TTN5: Krško 43.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 179
Site: Jermena. Place: Brezje pri Raki. Position: 7 D. TTN5: Krško 43.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 184
Site: Gradec. Place: Gorenji Leskovec. Position: 7 B. TTN5: Krško 5.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: prehistory. Ground plan: Fig. 199. Bibliography: Horvat/Ravnik-Toman 1986.
Cat. No.: 185
Site: Okrog. Place: Krajna brda. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 14.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Krajna brda. - In: ANSL 1975, 247; Dular 2003, 224 ff.
Fig. 198: Vinji vrh near Raka. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 198: Vinji vrh nad Rako. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 199: Gradec near Gorenji Leskovec. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 199: Gradec pri Gorenjem Leskovcu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 186
Site: Golke. Place: Žigrski vrh. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 13.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (2 tumuli). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 187
Site: Grbelne. Place: Dolnje Brezovo. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 13.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Dolnje Brezovo. - In: ANSL 1975, 247.
Cat. No.: 188
Site: Boršt. Place: Krajna brda. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 14.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Krajna brda. - In: ANSL 1975, 247; Dular 2003, 221 ff.
Cat. No.: 189
Site: Dele 1.
Place: Kladje nad Blanco. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Kladje nad Blanco. - In: ANSL 1975, 247; Dular 2003, 218 ff.
Cat. No.: 192
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Dunaj.
Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 27.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity. Ground plan: Fig. 200.
Bibliography: Šašel, Dunaj (Mladovine). - In: ANSL 1975, 260; Ciglenečki 1992, 25 ff.
Cat. No.: 193
Site: Šapole. Place: Kostanjek. Position: 8 C. TTN5: Krško 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Kostanjek. - In: ANSL 1975, 249; Dular 2003, 231 f.
Cat. No.: 194
Site: Ajdovska jama. Place: Silovec. Position: 9 C.
TTN5: Veliko Trgovišče 11.
Type of site: hoard (a large hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 213 ff.
Cat. No.: 195
Site: Sava. Place: Krško. Position: 8 C. TTN5: Krško 27.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze sword). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 109.
Cat. No.: 190
Site: Dele 2.
Place: Kladje nad Blanco. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Kladje nad Blanco. - In: ANSL 1975, 247; Dular 2003, 218 ff.
Cat. No.: 191
Site: Radijeva hosta. Place: Rožno. Position: 7 C. TTN5: Krško 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Rožno. - In: ANSL 1975, 247; Dular 2003, 228 ff.
Cat. No.: 196
Site: Narpelj.
Place: Trška Gora.
Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 37.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Trška gora. - In: ANSL 1975, 261.
Cat. No.: 197
Site: Volčanškova gomila. Place: Krško. Position: 8 C. TTN5: Krško 38.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 96.
Bibliography: Guštin 1976, 19 and 41 ff; Dular 2006, 172 f.
Fig. 200: Gradišče near Dunaj. Scale = 1:2500. Si. 200: Gradišče pri Dunaju. M. = 1:2500.
310,2
32
16 („k®
\ V-} o
y ... ^^--. .. - - o /
b # A' k) V
38 39
OO
(45;

\\v
\
b //7/
Fig. 201: Deržaničev gozd on Libna. Scale = 1:2500. Si. 201: Deržaničev gozd na Libni. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 198
Site: Sv. Marjeta.
Place: Libna.
Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 38.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 96 and Appendix 6.
Bibliography: Guštin 1976, 13 ff; Dular 2006, 165 ff.
Cat. No.: 199
Site: Deržaničev gozd. Place: Libna. Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 38, Krško 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (47 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 96 and 201.
Bibliography: Guštin 1976, 19 ff and 41, 44; Dular 2006, 167 f.
Cat. No.: 200
Site: Greben. Place: Libna. Position: 8 C. TTN5: Krško 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (8 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 96 and 202. Bibliography: Guštin 1976, 19 ff; Dular 2006, 170.
Cat. No.: 201
Site: Račičev gozd. Place: Libna. Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 38, Krško 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (8 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 96 and 203.
Bibliography: Guštin 1976, 19 and 44; Dular 2006, 168 f.
Fig. 202: Greben on Libna. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 202: Greben na Libni. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 203: Račičev gozd on Libna. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 203: Račičev gozd na Libni. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 204: Planincev travnik on Libna. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 204: Planincev travnik na Libni. M. = 1:2500.
(D
50 m
Cat. No.: 202
Site: Planincev travnik. Place: Libna. Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 38, Krško 39. Type of site: tumulus cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 96 and 204.
Bibliography: Guštin 1976, 19 and 43 f; Dular 2006, 169 f.
Cat. No.: 203
Site: Špiler. Place: Libna. Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 38, Krško 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 96 and 205.
Bibliography: Guštin 1976, 19 and 37 ff; Dular 2006, 170 ff.
Cat. No.: 204
Site: Agrokombinat.
Place: Žadovinek.
Position: 8 C.
TTN5: Krško 37.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1981a.
Cat. No.: 205
Site: Žabjek. Place: Velika vas. Position: 8 D. TTN5: Krško 46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Velika vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 255.
Fig. 205: Špiler at Libna. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 205: Špiler na Libni. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 206
Site: Velike njive. Place: Velika vas. Position: 8 D. TTN5: Krško 46.
Type of site: unfortified settlement. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Djuric 2003d.
Cat. No.: 207
Site: Grofove njive 1. Place: Velika vas. Position: 8 D. TTN5: Krško 47.
Type of site: unfortified settlement. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Djuric 2003b.
Cat. No.: 208
Site: Grofove njive 2. Place: Velika vas. Position: 8 D. TTN5: Krško 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Djuric 2003b.
Cat. No.: 209
Site: Letališče.
Place: Zasap.
Position: 8 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 8.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Zasap. - In: ANSL 1975, 250.
Cat. No.: 210
Site: Gomila.
Place: Boršt.
Position: 8 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 10.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (2 tumuli).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Boršt. - In: ANSL 1975, 249.
Cat. No.: 211
Site: -
Place: Boršt.
Position: 8 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 10.
Type of site: individual find (an iron axe).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Stare/Škaler 1958-1959a.
Cat. No.: 212
Site: Trebeži. Place: Velike Malence. Position: 8 D. TTN5: Kostanjevica 10.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (5 tumuli) - destroyed. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 213
Site: Gradišče. Place: Velike Malence. Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 10, Samobor 1. Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Early Iron Age, Late Antiquity. Ground plan: Fig. 97 and 207.
Bibliography: Šašel, Velike Malence. - In: ANSL 1975, 250; Ciglenečki 1987a, 99 ff.
Cat. No.: 214
Site: Gomile. Place: Velike Malence. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 1.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (10 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 97 and 206.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1960-1961; Guštin 1996a; Dular 2003, 233 ff.
® ® q
Fig. 206: Gomile near Velike Malence. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 206: Gomile pri Velikih Malencah. M. = 1:2500.
E 8
e
ll II
M\\\
H i
M
Fig. 207: Gradišče near Velike Malence. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 207: Gradišče pri Velikih Malencah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 215
Site: -
Place: Brežice. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 1.
Type of site: hoard (a hoard composed of sickles). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec I995, I34.
Cat. No.: 216
Site: Sejmišče. Place: Brežice. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor I. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin I977a, Pl. 6-7; Guštin I984b, II4 ff; Jovanovic 200I.
Cat. No.: 217
Site: Čateški grič.
Place: Čatež.
Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Samobor 1.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age?, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1983; Guštin/Olič 2003.
Cat. No.: 221
Site: Col.
Place: Podgraceno.
Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Samobor 13.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Horvat 2003a.
Cat. No.: 218
Site: Sv. Jurij.
Place: Čatež.
Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Samobor 1.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Bugar 2003.
Cat. No.: 222
Site: Veliki prudi. Place: Veliki Obrež. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 4.
Type of site: individual find (an iron spearhead). Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Škaler 1968-1969a.
Cat. No.: 219
Site: Sredno polje.
Place: Čatež.
Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Samobor 2.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age?
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 2003.
Cat. No.: 223
Site: Kosovka. Place: Dobova. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 4. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Guštin 1981b; Guštin 1981c.
Cat. No.: 220
Site: Šentviška gora.
Place: Čatež.
Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Samobor 1.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 208.
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1981a; Ciglenečki 1983, 436.
Cat. No.: 224
Site: Gomilice. Place: Dobova. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 4. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: F. Stare 1975.
Fig. 208: Šentviška gora near Čatež. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 208: Šentviška gora nad Čatežem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 225
Site: -
Place: Dobova. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 3.
Type of site: individual find (an iron sword). Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Škaler 1968-1969c.
Cat. No.: 226
Site: Sava. Place: Jesenice. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 14.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 124.
Cat. No.: 227
Site: Mejni prehod 1.
Place: Obrežje.
Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Samobor 25.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Mason 2003b.
Cat. No.: 228
Site: Mejni prehod 2. Place: Obrežje. Position: 9 D. TTN5: Samobor 25. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Mason 2003b.
Cat. No.: 229
Site: Draga-Goričko.
Place: Obrežje.
Position: 9 D.
TTN5: Samobor 25.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Djuric 2003c.
Cat. No.: 230
Site: -
Place: Bregansko selo.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Position: 9 E.
TTN5: Samobor 24.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 66 f.
Cat. No.: 231
Site: Križ.
Place: Zagorica pri Čatežu.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Cat. No.: 232
Site: -
Place: Zagorica pri Čatežu. Position: 4 C. TTN5: Višnja Gora 39. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Treasures of Carniola 1934, 127; Knez, Zagorica pri Čatežu. - In: ANSL 1975, 234.
Cat. No.: 233
Site: Martinov britof.
Place: Zagorica pri Čatežu.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Zagorica pri Čatežu. - In: ANSL 1975, 234; Dular 2003, 204 ff.
Cat. No.: 234
Site: Gabrje.
Place: Sejenice.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 30.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Cat. No.: 235
Site: Grac.
Place: Tlaka.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 30.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 209.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2003, 167 ff.
Cat. No.: 236
Site: Grmada. Place: Tihaboj. Position: 4 C. TTN5: Mokronog 21.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Vuga 1982d, 180.
Fig. 209: Grac near Tlaka. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 209: Grac pri Tlaki. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 237
Site: Drnovec.
Place: Ravne.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 21.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (7 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 210.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1994).
Cat. No.: 238
Site: Britof.
Place: Korenitka.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 49.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Korenitka. - In: ANSL 1975, 234.
Cat. No.: 239
Site: Šemrga.
Place: Iglenik pri Veliki Loki.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Višnja Gora 40.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Cat. No.: 240
Site: Polšnik. Place: Križ. Position: 4 C. TTN5: Mokronog 31.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Cat. No.: 241
Site: Hom.
Place: Sajenice.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 22.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Sejenice. - In: ANSL 1975, 215; Dular 2003, 161 ff.
@
© \ ® /
\ \ \ \
\ \
Fig. 210: Drnovec near Ravne. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 210: Drnovec pri Ravnah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 242
Site: Lacenberg.
Place: Trstenik.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 22.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuU).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Cat. No.: 248
Site: -
Place: Grič pri Trebnjem.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 10.
Type of site: individual finds (2 bracelets).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Grič. - In: ANSL 1975, 230.
Cat. No.: 243
Site: Roje.
Place: Mirna.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery?
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Mirna. - In: ANSL 1975, 215.
Cat. No.: 244
Site: Koška hosta. Place: Ravnik. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 23.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Šentrupert. - In: ANSL 1975, 220.
Cat. No.: 245
Site: Rovnice.
Place: Škrljevo.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 23.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Škrljevo. - In: ANSL 1975, 220.
Cat. No.: 246
Site: Vesela gora.
Place: Brinje.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 23.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 98 and 212.
Bibliography: Knez, Brinje. - In: ANSL 1975, 219; Dular et. al. 1991, 94 ff.
Cat. No.: 247
Site: Brezje. Place: Straža. Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 23, Mokronog 24. Type of site: tumulus cemetery (21 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 98 and 213.
Bibliography: Šašel, Straža. - In: ANSL 1975, 220; Križ 1988c.
Cat. No.: 249
Site: Kremenska hosta.
Place: Bistrica.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 25.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Bistrica. - In: ANSL 1975, 219; Dular 2003, 175 f.
Cat. No.: 250
Site: Kremen. Place: Gorenje Jesenice. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 25.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Cat. No.: 251
Site: Žontova hosta. Place: Rožemberk. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 25.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Cat. No.: 252
Site: Slančev hrib.
Place: Bistrica.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 25.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 211.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Fig. 211: Slančev hrib near Bistrica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 211: Slančev hrib pri Bistrici. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 212: Vesela gora at Brinje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 212: Vesela gora v Brinju. M. = 1:2500.
I 279,8 /


\ \ /"^W --—
(p
50 m
A	1 ^
V W 1 w	(5
I	v©^
1 \ 1 \\ 1 \	®
\	
	
Fig. 213: Brezje near Straža. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 213: Brezje pri Straži. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 253
Site: Zajčji vrh. Place: Gorenje Jesenice. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 25.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Gorenje Jesenice. - In: ANSL 1975, 219.
Cat. No.: 254
Site: Dele.
Place: Gorenje Jesenice. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 25.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Fig. 214: Grič near Hrastovica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 214: Grič pri Hrastovici. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 257
Site: Jančev hrib. Place: Pijavica. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 26.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Cat. No.: 258
Site: -
Place: Spodnje Mladetiče. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 26.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 66.
Cat. No.: 255
Site: Grič.
Place: Hrastovica.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 26.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (7 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age?
Ground plan: Fig. 214.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Cat. No.: 259
Site: Lopanec.
Place: Kaplja vas.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 260 ff.
Cat. No.: 256
Site: Močile.
Place: Zgornje Mladetiče.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 26.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Spodnje Mladetiče. - In: ANSL 1975, 259; Dular 2003, 257 ff.
Cat. No.: 260
Site: Gaber.
Place: Polje pri Tržišču.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Fig. 215: Marof near Gabrijele. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 215: Marof pri Gabrijelah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 261
Site: Mohorjeva njiva. Place: Polje pri Tržišču. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 262
Site: Marof.
Place: Gabrijele.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 215.
Bibliography: P. Petru, Gabriele. - In: ANSL 1975, 258.
Cat. No.: 263
Site: Cimermanova hosta. Place: Polje pri Tržišču. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 264
Site: Gošča.
Place: Polje pri Tržišču. Position: 6 C. TTN5: Mokronog 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1993).
Cat. No.: 265
Site: Šentjurski hrib.
Place: Tržišče.
Position: 6 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 37.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 216.
Bibliography: Petru, Kaplja vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 258.
Cat. No.: 266
Site: Zapečar 1.
Place: Sv. Vrh.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Fig. 216: Šentjurski hrib near Tržišče. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 216: Šentjurski hrib nad Tržiščem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 267
Site: Zapečar 2. Place: Sv. Vrh. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 268
Site: Zapečar 3. Place: Sv. Vrh. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 269
Site: Pečar.
Place: Sv. Vrh.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 270
Site: Stara gora.
Place: Sv. Vrh.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 37.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 217.
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 216.
Cat. No.: 271
Site: Dolinarjev hrib.
Place: Pavla vas.
Position: 6 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 37.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Korošec 1965.
Cat. No.: 272
Site: Trebanjsko bukovje.
Place: Grmada.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 10.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Grmada. - In: ANSL 1975, 230.
Cat. No.: 273
Site: Kunkel.
Place: Vrhtrebnje.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 1.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 218.
Bibliography: Knez, Vrhtrebnje. - In: ANSL 1975, 232 f; Dular et al. 1991, 69 ff.
Cat. No.: 274
Site: Kovačev laz. Place: Hudeje. Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 41, Mokronog 42. Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Fig. 217: Stara gora near Sv. Vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 217: Stara gora pri Sv. Vrhu. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 218: Kunkel near Vrhtrebnje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 218: Kunkel pod Vrhtrebnjem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 275
Site: Breznik. Place: Hudeje. Position: 4 D. TTN5: Mokronog 42.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Cat. No.: 276
Site: Petkovka. Place: Rodine pri Trebnjem. Position: 4 D. TTN5: Mokronog 42.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Rodine. - In: ANSL 1975, 231.
Cat. No.: 277
Site: Borovje.
Place: Rodine pri Trebnjem. Position: 4 D. TTN5: Mokronog 42.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 278
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Gradišče pri Trebnjem.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 43.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 219.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 1991, 81 ff.
Fig. 220: Kincelj near Trbinc. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 220: Kincelj nad Trbincem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 279
Site: Kincelj.
Place: Trbinc.
Position: 4 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 32.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 220.
Bibliography: Šašel, Trbinc. - In: ANSL 1975, 215; Dular et al. 1991, 90 ff.
Fig. 219: Gradišče near Gradišče pri Trebnjem. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 219: Gradišče nad Gradiščem pri Trebnjem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 280
Site: Devce. Place: Trbinc. Position: 4 C. TTN5: Mokronog 32. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šašel, Trbinc. - In: ANSL 1975, 215; Vuga/Josipovič 1981; Vuga 1982c, 155.
Cat. No.: 286
Site: Površnica.
Place: Glinek.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 34.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 281
Site: Radovica. Place: Zabrdje. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 282
Site: Kozlevec. Place: Stan. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (12 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Appendix 7.
Bibliography: Knez, Stan. - In: ANSL 1975, 215; Dular 2003, 163 ff.
Cat. No.: 283
Site: Rakovniško. Place: Zabrdje. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 284
Site: Škodetov pruh. Place: Volčje njive. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 34.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec 1956; Knez, Volčje njive. - In: ANSL 1975, 215.
Cat. No.: 285
Site: Gosjak.
Place: Glinek.
Position: 5 C.
TTN5: Mokronog 34.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 287
Site: Špičasti hrib. Place: Log. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 34.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 216.
Cat. No.: 288
Site: Pašnik. Place: Ostrožnik. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 35. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 216; Križ 1988a; Križ 1989a.
Cat. No.: 289
Site: Žempoh.
Place: Ostrožnik.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 45.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 221.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 1991, 96 ff.
Fig. 221: Žempoh near Ostrožnik. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 221: Žempoh nad Ostrožnikom. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 290
Site: Božji grob. Place: Slepšek. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 35.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 99.
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 216; Križ/ Breščak 1986; Dular 2003, 166 ff.
Cat. No.: 296
Site: Stranje.
Place: Gorenji Mokronog. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Mokronog 46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 291
Site: Sv. Križ. Place: Beli Grič. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 35.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 99.
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 216; Dular 2003, 171 ff.
Cat. No.: 292
Site: Roje. Place: Ribjek. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 35.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 99.
Bibliography: Gabrovec 1966b, 176 f, Pl. 1-13; Gabrovec, Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 216; Guštin 1977a, 82 f, Pl. 11: 4-8; Breščak 1987.
Cat. No.: 293
Site: Vidmarjeva hosta. Place: Ribjek. Position: 5 C. TTN5: Mokronog 35. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 99.
Bibliography: Gabrovec 1966b, 176 f, Pl. 1-13; Gabrovec, Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 216; Guštin 1977a, 82 f, Pl. 9, 10, 11: 13,12,13.
Cat. No.: 294
Site: Križni vrh.
Place: Beli Grič.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 45.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 99 and 222.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 1991, 98 ff.
Cat. No.: 295
Site: Kalinova hosta.
Place: Gorenji Mokronog.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 297
Site: Pugelca.
Place: Gorenje Laknice.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Gorenje Laknice. - In: ANSL 1975, 216.
Cat. No.: 298
Site: -
Place: Gorenji Mokronog. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Mokronog 46.
Type of site: individual find (an iron sword and a chain). Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Deschmann 1889, [30].
Cat. No.: 299
Site: Kocijanova hiša. Place: Gorenje Laknice. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Mokronog 46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Gorenje Laknice. - In: ANSL 1975, 216.
Cat. No.: 300
Site: Grad.
Place: Gorenji Mokronog.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 46.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šašel, Gorenji Mokronog. - In: ANSL 1975, 229.
Cat. No.: 301
Site: Stari Bajhovec.
Place: Drečji vrh.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Fig. 222: Križni vrh near Beli Grič. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 222: Križni vrh nad Belim Gričem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 223: Sv. Ana near Vrhpeč. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 223: Sv. Ana nad Vrhpečjo. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 302
Site: Sv. Ana.
Place: Vrhpeč.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 13.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity. Ground plan: Fig. 223.
Bibliography: P. Petru, Vrhpeč. - In: ANSL 1975, 232; Dular et al. 1991, 76 ff.
Cat. No.: 303
Site: Laze. Place: Vrhpeč. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 13. Type of site: cemetery. Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Vrhpeč. - In: ANSL 1975, 232; Dular 2003, 165 f.
Cat. No.: 305
Site: Ostrvec. Place: Rihpovec. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 4.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Rihpovec. - In: ANSL 1975, 231; Dular 2003, 197 ff.
Cat. No.: 306 Site: Hrib.
Place: Gorenje Zabukovje.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 5.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 224.
Bibliography: Križ 1987b.
Cat. No.: 304
Site: Zelkova hosta. Place: Rihpovec. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 4.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Rihpovec. - In: ANSL 1975, 231; Dular 2003, 199 ff.
Fig. 224: Hrib near Gorenje Zabukovje. Scale = 1:2500. Si. 224: Hrib nad Gorenjim Zabukovjem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 307
Site: Srobotnica. Place: Gorenje Zabukovje. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Mokronog 45.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Dolenje Zabukovje. - In: ANSL 1975, 229.
Cat. No.: 311
Site: Karlin.
Place: Brezje pri Trebelnem.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 15.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. I00 and 226.
Bibliography: Dular/Križ I990, 533 ff.
Cat. No.: 308
Site: Plešivica.
Place: Brezje pri Trebelnem.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 5.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 100.
Bibliography: Dular/Križ 1990, 535 ff.
Cat. No.: 312
Site: -
Place: Dolenje Karteljevo.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 15.
Type of site: individual finds (pottery).
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Dolenje Karteljevo. - In: ANSL 1975, 215.
Cat. No.: 309
Site: Brekovnica.
Place: Brezje pri Trebelnem.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 100.
Bibliography: Kromer 1959, 36; Dular/Križ 1990, 535 ff.
Cat. No.: 313
Site: Strmec.
Place: Gorenje Kamenje.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 26.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Gorenje Kamenje. - In: ANSL 1975, 215.
Cat. No.: 310
Site: Hojbi.
Place: Brezje pri Trebelnem.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (14 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 100 and 225.
Bibliography: Kromer 1959, 11 ff; Dular/Križ 1990, 535 ff.
Cat. No.: 314
Site: Gomile.
Place: Brezje pri Trebelnem. Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 5, Novo mesto 15. Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 100 and 227.
Bibliography: Kromer 1959, 11; Dular/Križ 1990, 535 ff.
Fig. 225: Hojbi near Brezje pri Trebelnem. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 225: Hojbi nad Brezjami pri Trebelnem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 226: Karlin near Brezje pri Trebelnem. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 226: Karlin nad Brezjami pri Trebelnem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 227: Gomile at Brezje pri Trebelnem. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 227: Gomile v Brezjah pri Trebelnem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 228: Hosta near Brezje pri Trebelnem. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 228: Hosta nad Brezjami pri Trebelnem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 315
Site: Hosta.
Place: Brezje pri Trebelnem.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (7 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 100 and 228.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1987).
Cat. No.: 316
Site: Šumenje 1. Place: Podturn. Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 5, 6, 15, 16. Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age?, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 229. Bibliography: Breščak/Dular 2002.
Fig. 229: Šumenje near Podturn. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 229: Šumenje pri Podturnu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 317
Site: Šumenje 2.
Place: Podturn.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 15.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1977b, 335.
Cat. No.: 323
Site: Krački.
Place: Jelševec.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 7.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, [Jelševec]. - In: ANSL 1975, 229.
Cat. No.: 318
Site: Zadnja hosta. Place: Podturn. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 5.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Podturn. - In: ANSL 1975, 230; Dular 2003, 190 ff.
Cat. No.: 324
Site: Kobilenca. Place: Jelševec. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 7.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 319
Site: Češenjski hrib. Place: Češnjice pri Trebelnem. Position: 5 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 6.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Češnjice pri Trebelnem. - In: ANSL 1975, 229.
Cat. No.: 320
Site: Štatenberški hrib.
Place: Štatenberk.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 6.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1986).
Cat. No.: 321
Site: Laze.
Place: Roje pri Trebelnem.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 7.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Roje pri Trebelnem. - In: ANSL 1975, 230; Dular 2003, 193 ff.
Cat. No.: 322
Site: Veliki vrh.
Place: Jelševec.
Position: 5 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 230.
Bibliography: Knez, [Jelševec]. - In: ANSL 1975, 229.
Cat. No.: 325
Site: Mirenski hrib. Place: Mirna vas. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 7.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Mirna vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 229.
Cat. No.: 326 Site: Brinc. Place: Mirna vas. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 8.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Mirna vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 229.
Cat. No.: 327
Site: Zaloka. Place: Čužnja vas. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Mokronog 48.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 189 f.
Cat. No.: 328
Site: Tratce. Place: Čužnja vas. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Mokronog 48.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 187 ff.
Fig. 230: Veliki vrh near Jelševec. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 230: Veliki vrh pri Jelševcu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 329
Site: Osredek.
Place: Čužnja vas.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 8.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Čužnja vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 229; Dular 2003, 183 ff.
Cat. No.: 330
Site: Hočevarjev vinograd. Place: Čužnja vas. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 8.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Čužnja vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 229; Dular 2003, 182 f.
^ ©
50 m
Fig. 231: Gabrina near Vinica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 231: Gabrina pri Vinici. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 331
Site: Jurjevci.
Place: Grič pri Klevevžu.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 49.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 51.
Cat. No.: 333
Site: Pungrčarjeva hosta. Place: Radovlja. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 9.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 50 f.
Cat. No.: 332
Site: Kostanovlje. Place: Grič pri Klevevžu. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 9.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 50 f.
Cat. No.: 334
Site: Gabrina.
Place: Vinica.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 10.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (10 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 231.
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 51 ff.
Fig. 232: Groblje near Goriška vas pri Škocjanu. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 232: Groblje nad Goriško vasjo pri Škocjanu. M. = 1:2500.
		
		
	—.......„j	®,j ^________
. (	_)/ h ® // / / 1 \ / / I/	f ^ \ ' - ! "
\ r \ \ \	. / 1	- (D 0 50 m
Fig. 233: Bregarjev gozd near Dolnja Stara vas. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 233: Bregarjev gozd pri Dolnji Stari vasi. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 335
Site: Groblje.
Place: Goriška vas pri Škocjanu.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Mokronog 50.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (8 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 232.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 336
Site: Kolesniška hosta.
Place: Škocjan.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 10.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 53.
Cat. No.: 337
Site: Bregarjev gozd.
Place: Dolnja Stara vas.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 1.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 233.
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 54.
Cat. No.: 338
Site: Mastni hrib 1.
Place: Škocjan.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 1.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 234.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2000, 129 ff.
Cat. No.: 339
Site: Mastni hrib 2.
Place: Škocjan.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 1.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 53 f.
Fig. 234: Mastni hrib near Škocjan. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 234: Mastni hrib pri Škocjanu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 340
Site: Gomila. Place: Stara Bučka. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Krško 41.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus?). Date: undated. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 341
Site: Straža.
Place: Osrečje.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 1.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 45 f.
Cat. No.: 342
Site: Bukovec.
Place: Dobruška vas.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 1.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 47.
Cat. No.: 343
Site: -
Place: Češča vas.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 45.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Križ 2001b.
Cat. No.: 346
Site: Železniška postaja.
Place: Bršljin.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 36.
Type of site: smelting-furnace.
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Mullner 1909, 67 ff; Knez, 1972, 125.
Cat. No.: 347
Site: Portovald.
Place: Novo mesto.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 36.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 101.
Bibliography: Knez, 1972, 128; R. Božič 1983.
Cat. No.: 348
Site: Pionir.
Place: Bršljin.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 36.
Type of site: cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 101.
Bibliography: Knez 1968-1969, 182 f.
Cat. No.: 349
Site: Mestne njive.
Place: Novo mesto.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 36.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 101.
Bibliography: Knez 1966; Knez 1984; Križ 1991a; Križ 1992a; Križ 1995; Križ 1996; Križ 2001c.
Cat. No.: 344
Site: Grobeljska hosta.
Place: Groblje.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 46.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (2 tumuli?).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Groblje. - In: ANSL 1975, 218.
Cat. No.: 345
Site: Inis. Place: Bršljin. Position: 5 E. TTN5: Novo mesto 36. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Knez 1967.
Cat. No.: 350
Site: Kapiteljska njiva. Place: Novo mesto. Position: 5 E. TTN5: Novo mesto 36.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery (27 tumuli). Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 101 and 235.
Bibliography: Knez 1986, 33 ff; Knez 1993; Križ 1997a; Križ 1997b; Križ 2000; Križ 2005.
Cat. No.: 351
Site: Marof.
Place: Novo mesto.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 36.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 101 and 236.
Bibliography: Knez 1974; Knez 1982.
Fig. 235: Kapiteljska njiva at Novo mesto. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 235: Kapiteljska njiva v Novem mestu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 352
Site: Beletov vrt.
Place: Novo mesto.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 36.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 101.
Bibliography: Knez 1992.
Cat. No.: 353
Site: Kapiteljski hrib. Place: Novo mesto. Position: 5 E. TTN5: Novo mesto 36. Type of site: settlement. Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez 1972, 126; Breščak 2000.
Fig. 236: Marof at Novo mesto. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 236: Marof v Novem mestu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 354
Site: Znančeve njive. Place: Novo mesto. Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 46, Novo mesto 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli), flat cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 101 and 238.
Bibliography: Knez 1986.
Cat. No.: 355
Site: Zagrebška cesta.
Place: Novo mesto.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 101.
Bibliography: Breščak 1979a; Knez 1985, 206 ff.
Cat. No.: 356
Site: Malenškova njiva.
Place: Novo mesto.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 37.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 101.
Bibliography: Šmid 1908, 202 ff; Guštin/Teržan 1975.
Cat. No.: 357
Site: Smolova hosta.
Place: Novo mesto.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 37.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šmid 1908, 209 ff.
Cat. No.: 358
Site: Krška hosta.
Place: Smolenja vas.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 37.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 237.
Bibliography: Knez, Smolenia vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 214; Križ 1985.
Fig. 237: Krška hosta near Smolenja vas. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 237: Krška hosta pri Smolenji vasi. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 238: Znančeve njive at Novo mesto. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 238: Znančeve njive v Novem mestu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 359
Site: Brezovica.
Place: Sevno na Trški gori.
Position: 5 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1990).
Cat. No.: 360
Site: Jakovec.
Place: Jelše pri Otočcu.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Jelše pri Otočcu. - In: ANSL 1975, 233.
Cat. No.: 361
Site: Farovške njive.
Place: Otočec.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šašel, Otočec. - In: ANSL 1975, 233; Dular 2003, 202 f.
Cat. No.: 364
Site: Mali deli.
Place: Šmarješke Toplice.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Gabrovec, Šmarješke Toplice. - In: ANSL 1975, 227.
Cat. No.: 362
Site: Starograjska hosta.
Place: Otočec.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 239.
Bibliography: Knez, [Zagrad pri Otočcu]. - In: ANSL 1975, 233; Križ 1982c; Križ 1989c.
Cat. No.: 363
Site: Žabjek.
Place: Otočec.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 28.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (1 tumulus).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1990).
Cat. No.: 365
Site: Bevčev gozd.
Place: Lutrško selo.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 29.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Lutrško selo-Kij. - In: ANSL 1975, 233.
Cat. No.: 366
Site: Tratnikova hosta.
Place: Lutrško selo.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 29.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Lutrško selo. - In: ANSL 1975, 233.
Fig. 239: Starograjska hosta near Otočec. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 239: Starograjska hosta pri Otočcu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 367
Site: Vidmarjev gozd.
Place: Dobovo.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 29.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Dobovo. - In: ANSL 1975, 233; A. Dular 1998.
Cat. No.: 370
Site: Golobič.
Place: Gorenja vas pri Šmarjeti. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Novo mesto 9.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 44.
Cat. No.: 368
Site: -
Place: Dolenje Kronovo.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: individual finds (pottery).
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Djuric 2003e.
Cat. No.: 371
Site: Gomila nad Zavetrščico.
Place: Brezovica.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 48.
Cat. No.: 369
Site: Cevnice.
Place: Zalovice.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 18.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 240.
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 49 f.
Cat. No.: 372
Site: Deli.
Place: Brezovica.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 47.
Fig. 240: Čevnice near Žaloviče. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 240: Čevnice pri Žalovičah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 373
Site: Volčji breg.
Place: Brezovica.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 48.
Cat. No.: 375
Site: Gmajna.
Place: Brezovica.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 47.
Cat. No.: 374
Site: Hrastovec.
Place: Obrh pri Šmarjeti.
Position: 6 D.
TJN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 47 f.
Cat. No.: 376
Site: Nad Lošprenom.
Place: Strelac.
Position: 6 D.
TJN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 44.
Fig. 241: Ivanec near Družinska vas. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 241: Ivanec pri Družinski vasi. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 242: Gradenjska hosta near Gradenje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 242: Gradenjska hosta pri Gradenju. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 377
Site: Pri jezeru.
Place: Šmarješke Toplice.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 44.
Cat. No.: 379
Site: Gradenjska hosta.
Place: Gradenje.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (43 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102 and 242.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1973a; A. Dular 1991, 31 ff.
Cat. No.: 378
Site: Ivanec.
Place: Družinska vas.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (44 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102 and 241.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1973a; A. Dular 1991, 22 ff; Križ 1991b; Mason 2001b.
Cat. No.: 380
Site: Mlada vina.
Place: Strelac.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (46 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102 and 243.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1973a; A. Dular 1991, 37 ff.
/ / / /
/ / /

// \ /
// V//
(D
50 m
Fig. 243: Mlada vina near Strelac. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 243: Mlada vina pri Strelacu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 381
Site: Laze.
Place: Vinji Vrh.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (9 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102 and 244.
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 44 f; Belak 1990; Križ 1993.
Cat. No.: 382
Site: Veliki Vinji vrh.
Place: Bela Cerkev.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102 and Appendix 8.
Bibliography: Dular et al. 2000, 134 ff.
A Fig. 244: Laze at Vinji vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 244: Laze na Vinjem vrhu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 383
Site: Jelševec.
Place: Vinji vrh.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102.
Bibliography: A. Dular 1991, 45.
Cat. No.: 384
Site: Strmec.
Place: Bela Cerkev.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1973a; A. Dular 1991, 54 ff.
Cat. No.: 385
Site: Srednji hrib.
Place: Vinji vrh.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: individual finds (pottery).
Date: Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Križ 1988d.
Cat. No.: 386
Site: Vihra. Place: Draga. Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20, Kostanjevica 11. Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: Fig. 245. Bibliography: Dular et al. 2000, 122 ff.
> Fig. 245: Vihra near Draga. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 245: Vihra nad Drago. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 387
Site: Vovk.
Place: Bela Cerkev.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102
Bibliography: Križ 2003.
Cat. No.: 393
Site: Krničeva hosta.
Place: Prapreče.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 30.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1991).
Cat. No.: 388
Site: Dolge njive 1.
Place: Bela Cerkev.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Mason 2003a.
Cat. No.: 394
Site: Pleskovičeva njiva. Place: Gorenja Gomila. Position: 6 D. TTN5: Kostanjevica 11. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Križ 1989b.
Cat. No.: 389
Site: Dolge njive 2.
Place: Bela Cerkev.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 102.
Bibliography: Mason 2003a.
Cat. No.: 395
Site: Čadraška hosta.
Place: Dolenji Maharovec.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 11.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1991).
Cat. No.: 390
Site: Koreničeva hosta.
Place: Gorenja Gomila.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 11.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1991).
Cat. No.: 396
Site: Razdrška hosta.
Place: Razdrto.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 21.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1991).
Cat. No.: 391
Site: Sv. Urh.
Place: Čadraže.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 11.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age?
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Čadraže. - In: ANSL 1975, 220.
Cat. No.: 397
Site: Dobravska hosta.
Place: Dobravica.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 22.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Dobravica. - In: ANSL 1975, 221.
Cat. No.: 392
Site: Hribec.
Place: Gorenja Gomila.
Position: 6 D.
TTN5: Novo mesto 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1991).
Cat. No.: 398
Site: -
Place: Šentjernej. Position: 7 E. TTN5: Kostanjevica 22.
Type of site: individual finds (a copper axe and a bronze sickle). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 38 and 113 f.
Cat. No.: 399
Site: Brezje.
Place: Vrh pri Šentjerneju.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 22.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Vrh pri Šentjerneju. - In: ANSL 1975, 225.
Cat. No.: 400
Site: Golobinjek. Place: Šmarje. Position: 7 E. TTN5: Kostanjevica 23. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Šmarje. - In: ANSL 1975, 224; Gabrovec 1973, 367.
Cat. No.: 401
Site: Zaboršt.
Place: Gotna vas.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Križ 1987c.
Cat. No.: 402
Site: -
Place: Črmošnjice pri Stopičah.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 47.
Type of site: hoard (a large hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 148 ff.
Cat. No.: 403
Site: -
Place: Verdun pri Stopičah.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 48.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 59.
Cat. No.: 404
Site: Breznik.
Place: Hrušica.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 49.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Hrušica. - In: ANSL 1975, 214.
Fig. 246: Grac near Sela pri Zajčjem Vrhu. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 246: Grac pod Seli pri Zajčjem Vrhu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 405
Site: Grac.
Place: Sela pri Zajčjem Vrhu.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 49.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Early Iron Age?, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 246.
Bibliography: Ciglenečki 1977a; Breščak 1979b.
Cat. No.: 406
Site: Gomila.
Place: Gabrje.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 50.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Gabqe. - In: ANSL 1975, 210; Dular 2003, 157 ff.
Cat. No.: 407
Site: Kopinatova hosta. Place: Gorenji Suhadol. Position: 6 E. TTN5: Kostanjevica 41.
Type of site: hoard (a large hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU.
Cat. No.: 408
Site: Breznik.
Place: Sela pri Zajčjem vrhu. Position: 6 E. TTN5: Semič 9.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, [Sela pri Zajčjem vrhu]. - In: ANSL 1975, 214.
Cat. No.: 409
Site: Grace.
Place: Jugorje.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 50.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 247.
Bibliography: Knez, Gabrje. - In: ANSL 1975, 210.
0)
50 m
Fig. 247: Grace near Jugorje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 247: Grace nad Jugorjem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 410
Site: Gospodična. Place: Gabrje. Position: 6 E. TTN5: Metlika 1.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze spearhead). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 89.
Cat. No.: 411
Site: Hrib.
Place: Male Brusnice.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Breščak 1977, 184.
Cat. No.: 412
Site: Drenovec.
Place: Ratež.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (11 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 249.
Bibliography: Breščak 1977.
Cat. No.: 413
Site: Klevevški boršt.
Place: Male Brusnice.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 39.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (11 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 250.
Bibliography: Breščak 1977; Teržan 1974.
Cat. No.: 414
Site: Vrhi.
Place: Velike Brusnice.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 40.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 251.
Bibliography: Breščak 1977; Teržan 1974.
Cat. No.: 415
Site: Golšaj.
Place: Tolsti vrh.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 40.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 248.
Bibliography: S. Petru, Tolsti vrh. - In: ANSL 1975, 225.
Fig. 248: Golšaj near Tolsti vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 248: Golšaj pod Tolstim vrhom. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 249: Drenovec near Ratež. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 249: Drenovec pri Ratežu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 416
Site: -
Place: Tolsti vrh.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 31.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 56.
Cat. No.: 418
Site: Camberk.
Place: Cerov Log.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 42.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU.
Cat. No.: 417
Site: Vrhovski boršt.
Place: Orehovica.
Position: 6 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 31.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Orehovica. - In: ANSL 1975, 224.
Cat. No.: 419
Site: Grobišča.
Place: Mihovo.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 42.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. and S. Petru, Mihovo. - In: ANSL 1975, 222.

(D
50 m
Fig. 250: Klevevški boršt near Male Brusnice. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 250: Klevevški boršt nad Malimi Brusnicami. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 251: Vrhi near Velike Brusnice. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 251: Vrhi nad Velikimi Brusnicami. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 420
Site: Tisovec.
Place: Mihovo.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 43.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze sword).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 107 f.
Cat. No.: 421
Site: Gradec.
Place: Mihovo.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 42.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age?, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 252.
Bibliography: Breščak 1990; Breščak 1997.
Cat. No.: 423
Site: Trnišča.
Place: Mihovo.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 32.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 253.
Bibliography: P. and S. Petru, Mihovo. - In: ANSL 1975, 223; Šribar 1968-1969.
Fig. 252: Gradec near Mihovo. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 252: Gradec nad Mihovim. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 422
Site: Hribec.
Place: Mihovo.
Position: 7 E.
^5: Kostanjevica 32.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. and S. Petru, Mihovo. - In: ANSL 1975, 223 Božič 1990.
Fig. 253: Trnišča near Mihovo. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 253: Trnišča pri Mihovem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 424
Site: -
Place: Mihovo.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 32.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 75.
Cat. No.: 425
Site: Selo.
Place: Gorenje Vrhpolje.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 32.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (12 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 254.
Bibliography: S. Petru, Gorenje Vrhpolje. - In: ANSL 1975, 221; Dular 2003, 179 ff.
Cat. No.: 426
Site: -
Place: Gorenje Vrhpolje.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 32.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 71.
Cat. No.: 427
Site: Stražnik.
Place: Vratno.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 32.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (4 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 255.
Bibliography: S. Petru, [Vratno]. - In: ANSL 1975, 225; Dular 2003, 177 f.
Cat. No.: 428
Site: Kolosek.
Place: Apnenik.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 33.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Apnenik. - In: ANSL 1975, 220; Dular 2003, 176.
Cat. No.: 429
Site: Gradec.
Place: Vratno.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 33.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 256.
Bibliography: S. Petru, [Vratno]. - In: ANSL 1975, 225.
Fig. 254: Selo near Gorenje Vrhpolje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 254: Selo nad Gorenjim Vrhpoljem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 255: Stražnik near Vratno. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 255: Stražnik nad Vratnim. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 256: Gradec near Vratno. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 256: Gradec nad Vratnim. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 430
Site: -
Place: Veliki Ban.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 33.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe).
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 75.
Cat. No.: 431
Site: -
Place: Gruča. Position: 7 D. TTN5: Kostanjevica 24.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze knobbed ring). Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Gruča. - In: ANSL 1975, 222.
Cat. No.: 432
Site: Jerebova hiša.
Place: Ostrog.
Position: 7 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 14.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age?
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: S. Petru, Ostrog. - In: ANSL 1975, 224.
Cat. No.: 433
Site: -
Place: Ostrog. Position: 7 D. TTN5: Kostanjevica 14.
Type of site: individual finds (a bronze axe and a bronze knife). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 70 f. and 117.
Cat. No.: 437
Site: Male pužce. Place: Veliko Mraševo. Position: 8 D. TTN5: Kostanjevica 16. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Škaler 1968-1969b; Guštin 1977a, Pl. 8: 1-4.
Cat. No.: 434
Site: Kuntaričeva hosta. Place: Dobe. Position: 7 D. TTN5: Kostanjevica 25. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Dobe. - In: ANSL 1975, 252.
Cat. No.: 438
Site: Mlačetne.
Place: Veliko Mraševo.
Position: 8 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 7.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1992).
Cat. No.: 435
Site: Kosovo dvorišče.
Place: Kostanjevica.
Position: 7 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 25.
Type of site: individual find (a bracelet).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Stare/Škaler 1958-1959b; P. Petru, Kostanjevica. In: ANSL 1975, 252.
Cat. No.: 439
Site: Stari grad.
Place: Stari grad v Podbočju.
Position: 8 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 17.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 257.
Bibliography: Šašel, Podbočje. - In: ANSL 1975, 256; Guštin/ Cunja/Predovnik 1993.
Cat. No.: 436
Site: Gomile.
Place: Sajevce.
Position: 7 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 16.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (21 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Appendix 9.
Bibliography: Guštin/Preložnik 2005b.
Cat. No.: 440
Site: Bočje.
Place: Podbočje.
Position: 8 D.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 17.
Type of site: flat cemetery, tumulus cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šašel, Podbočje. - In: ANSL 1975, 256; Božič 1993, 138 f.
Fig. 257: Stari grad near Podbočje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 257: Stari grad nad Podbočjem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 441
Site: Cerenica.
Place: Frluga.
Position: 8 E.
TTN5: Kostanjevica 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1991).
Cat. No.: 442
Site: Koželjeva hosta.
Place: Reva.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (15 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 103 and 258.
Bibliography: Knez, Reva. - In: ANSL 1975, 211; Parzinger 19881989, 529; Križ 1991c; Križ 1992b.
Cat. No.: 445
Site: Pupeč.
Place: Korita.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 103.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1988).
Cat. No.: 446
Site: Gabrje.
Place: Korita.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (5 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 103 and 260.
Bibliography: Šašel, Korita. - In: ANSL 1975, 211.
Cat. No.: 443
Site: Makovec.
Place: Zagorica pri Dobrniču.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 20.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 259.
Bibliography: Knez, Zagorica pri Dobrniču. - In: ANSL 1975, 211; Dular et al. 1995, 99 ff.
Cat. No.: 447
Site: Cvinger.
Place: Korita.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 20.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 103 and 261.
Bibliography: Šašel, Korita. - In: ANSL 1975, 211; Dular et al. 1995, 103 ff.
Cat. No.: 444
Site: Gomila.
Place: Zagorica pri Dobrniču.
Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 103.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1988).
Cat. No.: 448
Site: Gomile. Place: Dobrava. Position: 4 D.
TTN5: Žužemberk 20, Žužemberk 30. Type of site: tumulus cemetery (52 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 103 and 262.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1973b; Šašel, Korita. - In: ANSL 1975, 211; Parzinger 1988-1989.
^_____	
......... ®	
	..............-><
	
' /7 'v ^	® jW;:........ -
297,9 \ _ ^ -	
	i
(T)	y v^ ©
0 ^^ 50 m	
Fig. 258: Koželjeva hosta near Reva. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 258: Koželjeva hosta pri Revi. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 259: Makovec near Zagorica pri Dobrniču. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 259: Makovec nad Zagorico pri Dobrniču. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 260: Gabrje near Korita. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 260: Gabrje nad Koriti. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 449
Site: Gomilica.
Place: Zafara.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Žužemberk 29.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Zafara. - In: ANSL 1975, 236.
Cat. No.: 450
Site: Kopica.
Place: Trebča vas.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Žužemberk 29.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Fig. 261: Cvinger near Korita. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 261: Cvinger nad Koriti. M. = 1:2500.
;51;	{52}
Fig. 262: Gomile near Dobrava. Scale = 1:2500. SI. 262: Gomile pri Dobravi. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 451
Site: -
Place: Mačkovec pri Dvoru.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Žužemberk 39.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze bracelet). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Breščak 1985b.
Cat. No.: 452
Site: Preloge.
Place: Mačkovec pri Dvoru.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Žužemberk 40.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery? (3 tumuli).
Date: undated.
Ground plan: Fig. 104.
Bibliography: topographic report, Archives Iza ZRC SAZU (1989).
Cat. No.: 454
Site: Gomile.
Place: Vinkov vrh.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Žužemberk 40.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (28 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 104 and 264.
Bibliography: V. Stare 1964-1965; P. Petru, Vinkov vrh. - In: ANSL 1975, 213; Dular 2003, 159 ff.
Cat. No.: 455
Site: Plešivica.
Place: Drenje.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Novo mesto 41.
Type of site: unfortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular et al. 1995, 118 f.
Cat. No.: 453
Site: Gradec.
Place: Vinkov vrh.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Žužemberk 40.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 104 and 263.
Bibliography: P. Petru, Vinkov vrh. - In: ANSL 1975, 213; Dular et al. 1995, 110 ff.
Cat. No.: 456
Site: Mala njivica. Place: Gorenja Straža. Position: 5 E. TTN5: Novo mesto 43.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze bracelet). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Breščak 1985a.
Fig. 263: Gradec near Vinkov vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 263: Gradec pri Vinkovem vrhu. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 264: Gomile near Vinkov vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 264: Gomile pri Vinkovem vrhu. M. = 1:2500.



3 \ \ wu
\\ v\
1 \\ /\\ 170,6
r	V--^ Z	\
50 m
Fig. 265: Gradišče at Gorenja Straža. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 265: Gradišče v Gorenji Straži. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 457
Site: Gradišče. Place: Gorenja Straža. Position: 5 E. TTN5: Novo mesto 43.
Type of site: fortified settlement, smelting-furnace. Date: prehistory. Ground plan: Fig. 265.
Bibliography: Knez, Gorenja Straža. - In: ANSL 1975, 220; Križ 1982a.
Cat. No.: 458
Site: -
Place: Rumanja vas. Position: 5 E. TTN5: Novo mesto 43.
Type of site: hoard (a hoard composed of sickles). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 213.
Cat. No.: 460
Site: Osredek.
Place: Mali Podljuben (Jurka vas). Position: 5 E. TTN5: Semič 4.
Type of site: hoard (a large hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Čerče/Šinkovec 1995, 197 ff.
Cat. No.: 461
Site: Gradišnica.
Place: Dolenje Gradišče.
Position: 4 E.
TTN5: Semič 2, Semič 3.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: prehistory.
Ground plan: Fig. 266.
Bibliography: P. Petru, Gorenje Gradišče. - In: ANSL 1975, 212; Križ 1987a; Križ 1988b.
Cat. No.: 459
Site: Vidičeva njiva. Place: Vavta vas. Position: 5 E. TTN5: Novo mesto 43.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze bracelet). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Knez, Vavta vas. - In: ANSL 1975, 220.
Cat. No.: 462
Site: Gomivnica. Place: Meniška vas. Position: 4 E. TTN5: Semič 2.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 105.
Bibliography: Breščak 1981; Dular/Križ 2004, 210 f.

Fig. 266: Gradišnica near Dolenje Gradišče. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 266: Gradišnica pri Dolenjem Gradišču. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 463
Site: Dolgi deli. Place: Meniška vas. Position: 4 E. TTN5: Semič 2.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 105.
Bibliography: Knez, Dolenjske Toplice. - In: ANSL 1975, 212; Dular/Križ 2004, 210.
Cat. No.: 465
Site: Branževec 1.
Place: Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah.
Position: 4 F.
TTN5: Semič 2.
Type of site: smelting-furnace.
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 105.
Bibliography: Mušič/Orengo 1998; Križ 1998-1999; Dular/Križ 2004, 228 ff.
Cat. No.: 464
Site: Cvinger. Place: Dolenjske Toplice. Position: 4 E. TTN5: Semič 2.
Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 105 and 267.
Bibliography: Knez, Dolenjske Toplice. - In: ANSL 1975, 211; Dular/Križ 2004, 211 ff.
Cat. No.: 466
Site: Branževec 2.
Place: Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Position: 4 F. TTN5: Semič 2.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (26 tumuli).
Date: Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 105 and 268.
Bibliography: Teržan 1976, 393 ff; Dular/Križ 2004, 208 ff.
Fig. 267: Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 267: Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 467
Site: Medičevo dvorišče. Place: Selišče. Position: 5 F. TTNIO: Semič 17.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze anklet). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: P. Petru, Selišče. - In: ANSL 1975, 212.
Cat. No.: 468
Site: Semenič.
Place: Gaber pri Semiču.
Position: 5 G.
TTNIO: Semič 23.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 269.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 100 f.
Fig. 268: Branževec near Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. Scale = 1:2500. SI. 268: Branževec nad Seli pri Dolenjskih Toplicah. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 269: Semenič near Gaber pri Semiču. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 269: Semenič nad Gabrom pri Semiču. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 469
Site: Veliki vrh.
Place: Dolenji Suhor pri Metliki.
Position: 6 F.
TTN5: Metlika 31.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 270.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 86 f.
Fig. 270: Veliki vrh near Dolenji Suhor pri Metliki. Scale 1:2500.
Sl. 270: Veliki vrh nad Dolenjim Suhorjem pri Metliki. M. 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 470
Site: -
Place: Grabrovec. Position: 6 F. TTN5: Metlika 31.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 88; Šinkovec 1995, 70.
Cat. No.: 471
Site: Špitalska draga.
Place: Metlika.
Position: 6 G.
TTN5: Metlika 41.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 106.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 92 f.
Cat. No.: 472
Site: Pungart.
Place: Metlika.
Position: 6 G.
TTN5: Metlika 42.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 106.
Bibliography: Šribar 1974; Dular 1985, 91 f.
Cat. No.: 473
Site: Veselica. Place: Metlika. Position: 7 G. TTN5: Metlika 42. Type of site: settlement? Date: prehistory. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 93 f.
Cat. No.: 474
Site: Jerebova ulica. Place: Metlika. Position: 7 G. TTN5: Metlika 42. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: Fig. 106. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 90.
Cat. No.: 477
Site: Borštek.
Place: Metlika.
Position: 7 G.
TTN5: Metlika 42.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 106.
Bibliography: Dular 1979; Dular 1985, 89.
Cat. No.: 475
Site: Hrib. Place: Metlika. Position: 7 G. TTN5: Metlika 42.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (6 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 106 and 271. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 89 f; Grahek 2004.
Cat. No.: 478
Site: Kolpski most. Place: Metlika. Position: 7 G. TTN5: Ozalj 2.
Type of site: individual finds (3 bronze axes). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 90 f; Šinkovec 1995, 64 and 72 f.
Cat. No.: 476
Site: Metlika.
Place: Metlika.
Position: 7 G.
TTN5: Metlika 42.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 106.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 93; Breščak 1992.
Cat. No.: 479
Site: Brodaričeva loza. Place: Podzemelj. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 10.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (32 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107 and 272.
Bibliography: Barth 1969, 12 and 83 ff; Dular 1978a, 11; Dular 1985, 78 f.
Fig. 271: Hrib at Metlika. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 271: Hrib v Metliki. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 272: Brodaričeva loza near Podzemelj. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 272: Brodaričeva loza pri Podzemlju. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 480
Site: Steljnik. Place: Grm. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 10.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (31 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107 and 273.
Bibliography: Barth 1969, 11 f and 103 ff; Dular 1978a, 9 ff; Dular 198 5, 74 f.
Cat. No.: 481
Site: Jurajevčičeva njiva. Place: Zemelj. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 10. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107.
Bibliography: Dular 1978a, 11 and 28 f; Dular 1985, 85.
Cat. No.: 482
Site: Gomila. Place: Zemelj. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Ozalj 1.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 85.
Cat. No.: 483
Site: Kučar.
Place: Podzemelj.
Position: 6 G.
TTN5: Črnomelj 20.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 107 and 274.
Bibliography: Dular 1978a, 7 ff; Dular 1985, 79 ff; Dular/ Ciglenečki/Dular 1995.
Fig. 273: Steljnik near Grm. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 273: Steljnik pri Grmu. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 484
Site: Krč. Place: Podzemelj. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 20. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 82 f.
Cat. No.: 485
Site: Sv. Helena. Place: Zemelj. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 85.
Cat. No.: 486
Site: Gomilica. Place: Škrilje. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107.
Bibliography: Barth 1969, 13 and 153 ff; Dular 1985, 83.
Fig. 274: Kučar near Podzemelj. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 274: Kučar nad Podzemljem. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 487
Site: Vir. Place: Škrilje. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107.
Bibliography: Barth 1969, 13 and 144 ff; Dular 1985, 83.
Cat. No.: 493
Site: Trdinova ulica. Place: Črnomelj. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 27. Type of site: flat cemetery. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: Fig. 108. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 58.
Cat. No.: 488
Site: Brinčeva gomilica. Place: Škrilje. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 20.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 107. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 83.
Cat. No.: 494
Site: Sadež.
Place: Črnomelj.
Position: 6 H.
TTN5: Črnomelj 27.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 108.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 57.
Cat. No.: 489
Site: -
Place: Krasinec. Position: 6 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 20.
Type of site: individual find (a bronze axe). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Šinkovec 1995, 59.
Cat. No.: 490
Site: Požekov vrt.
Place: Griblje.
Position: 6 H.
TTN5: Ozalj 21.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 74.
Cat. No.: 491
Site: Sv. Križ. Place: Stražnji Vrh. Position: 5 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 25. Type of site: fortified settlement. Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: Fig. 275. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 63.
Cat. No.: 492
Site: Starihova hosta. Place: Črnomelj. Position: 5 G. TTN5: Črnomelj 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (1 tumulus). Date: Early Iron Age? Ground plan: -Bibliography: Križ 1989d.
Cat. No.: 495
Site: Črnomelj.
Place: Črnomelj.
Position: 6 H.
TTN5: Črnomelj 27.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age?, Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 108.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 58; Mason 1998.
Cat. No.: 496
Site: Grajska cesta. Place: Loka pri Črnomlju. Position: 6 H. TTN5: Črnomelj 27.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (8 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 108. Bibliography: Dular 1983; Dular 1985, 59 f.
Fig. 275: Sv. Križ near Stražnji Vrh. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 275: Sv. Križ nad Stražnjim Vrhom. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 497
Site: Židovec.
Place: Miklarji.
Position: 5 H.
TTN10-: Črnomelj 7.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 276.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 61 f.
Cat. No.: 499
Site: Krč. Place: Butoraj. Position: 6 H. TTN5: Črnomelj 38.
Type of site: flat cemetery, individual finds (2 bronze axes). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 56; Šinkovec 1995, 49 and 61.
Cat. No.: 498
Site: Debeli vrh. Place: Dolenja Podgora. Position: 5 H. TTN5: Črnomelj 44.
Type of site: hoard (a large hoard of mixed composition). Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Hirschback-Merhar 1984; Dular 1985, 97 f; Čerče/ Šinkovec 1995, 159 ff.
Cat. No.: 500
Site: Ileničev vrt.
Place: Zorenci.
Position: 6 H.
TTN5: Črnomelj 38.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Copper Age, Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 65.
Fig. 276: Židovec near Miklarji. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 276: Židovec nad Miklarji. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 501
Site: Okljuk. Place: Pusti Gradac. Position: 6 H. TTN5: Črnomelj 48.
Type of site: individual finds (2 bronze spearheads and a bronze bracelet).
Date: Late Bronze Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 67 f; Šinkovec 1995, 86 f.
Cat. No.: 505
Site: Steljnik. Place: Golek pri Vinici. Position: 6 I. TTN5: Vrbovsko 19.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (2 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: Fig. 109. Bibliography: Dular 1985, 106.
Cat. No.: 502
Site: Črnetova njiva. Place: Pusti Gradac. Position: 6 H. TTN5: Črnomelj 47.
Type of site: tumulus cemetery (5 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 2003, 208 ff.
Cat. No.: 503
Site: Brezjece. Place: Veliki Nerajec. Position: 6 H.
TTN5: Črnomelj 47, Črnomelj 48. Type of site: tumulus cemetery (3 tumuli). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Spitzer 1973; Dular 1985, 69 f.
Cat. No.: 504
Site: Veliki Kolečaj.
Place: Zapudje.
Position: 5 H.
TTN5: Vrbovsko 6.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Iron Age?, Late Antiquity.
Ground plan: Fig. 277.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 70 f.


V a (D
50 m
Fig. 277: Veliki Kolečaj near Zapudje. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 277: Veliki Kolečaj nad Zapudjem. M. = 1:2500.
Fig. 278: Šlemine near Golek pri Vinici. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 278: Šlemine nad Golekom pri Vinici. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 506
Site: Stražni dol.
Place: Golek pri Vinici.
Position: 6 I.
TTN5: Vrbovsko 19.
Type of site: flat cemetery.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 109.
Bibliography: Vogt 1934; Ložar 1934, 45 ff; Gabrovec 1966b, 185 ff; Dular 1985, 106 f.
Cat. No.: 510
Site: Kolpa. Place: Vukovci. Position: 6 I. TTN5: Vrbovsko 29.
Type of site: individual find (an iron spearhead). Date: Late Iron Age. Ground plan: -Bibliography: Knific 1990.
Cat. No.: 507
Site: -
Place: Drenovec. Position: 6 I. TTN5: Vrbovsko 19.
Type of site: individual finds (3 iron spearheads and a bronze fragment of Negova helmet). Date: Early Iron Age. Ground plan: -
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 105 f.
Cat. No.: 508
Site: Šlemine.
Place: Golek pri Vinici.
Position: 6 I.
TTN5: Vrbovsko 19.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 109 and 278.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 107 f.
Fig. 279: Gradišče near Gorica. Scale = 1:2500. Sl. 279: Gradišče nad Gorico. M. = 1:2500.
Cat. No.: 509
Site: Gradišče.
Place: Gorica.
Position: 5 I.
TTN5: Vrbovsko 26.
Type of site: fortified settlement.
Date: Late Bronze Age.
Ground plan: Fig. 279.
Bibliography: Dular 1985, 108.
12. BIBLIOGRAPHY
12. LITERATURA
ANDREEV, J. V. 1988, Die homerische Gesellschaft. -Klio 70, 5 ff.
ANDRIČ, M. 2004, Paleookolje v Sloveniji in severnemu delu hrvaške Istre v pozni prazgodovini. - Arheološki vestnik 55, 509 ff.
ANSL 1975, Arheološka najdišča Slovenije. - Ljubljana.
BALEN-LETUNIČ, D. 1981, Grobovi kasnog brončanog i željeznog doba iz okolice Karlovca (Spätbronzezeitliche und früheisenzeitliche Gräber aus der Umgebung von Karlovac). - Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 3. serija 14, 11 ff.
BALEN-LETUNIČ, D. 1986, Revizijska iskopavanja tu-mula starijeg željeznog doba u Dugoj Gori (Revisionsforschungen von Tumuli der älteren Eisenzeit in Duga Gora). - In: Arheološka istraživanja na karlovačkom i sisačkom području. Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 10, 45 ff.
BARTH, F. E. 1969, Die hallstattzeitlichen Grabhügel im Bereiche des Kutscher bei Podsemel (Slowenien). -Antiquitas, Reihe 3, Band 5, Bonn.
BARTOSIEWICZ, L. 1991, Faunal material from two Hallstatt Period settlements in Slovenia. - Arheološki vestnik 42, 199 ff.
BARTOSIEWICZ, L. 1996, Continuity in the animal keeping of Hallstatt Period communities in Slovenia. - In: E. Jerem and A. Lippert (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur, Archaeolingua, Budapest, 29 ff.
BARTOSIEWICZ, L. 1999, Recent developments in ar-chaeozoological research in Slovenia. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 311 ff.
BELAK, M. 1990, Gomila Velše na Vinjem Vrhu. - In: Dolenjski zbornik, Novo mesto, 9 ff.
BENDER, H. 1989, Verkehrs- und Transportwesen in der römischen Kaiserzeit. - In: H. Jankuhn, W. Kimmig, E. Ebel (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. Theil V, Der Verkehr (Verkehrswege, Verkehrsmittel, Organisation), Göttingen, 108 ff.
BERNOT, F. 1984, Opis klimatskih razmer občin Trebnje, Novo mesto, Metlika in Črnomelj. - In: Dolenj-
ska in Bela krajina. Prispevki za 13. zborovanje slovenskih geografov, 89 ff.
BOCKISCH-BRÄUER, C. 1999, Zur Aussagefähigkeit von Gräbern bei der Rekonstruktion sozialer Strukturen - Überlegungen am Beispiel der Spätbronze-und Urnenfelderzeit in Nordbayern. - In: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Koloquien in Mainz und Athen. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 43, Mainz, 533 ff.
BÖKÖNY, S. 1964, Angaben zur Kenntnis der eisenzeitlichen Pferde in Mittel- und Osteuropa. - Acta archaeologica Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae 16, 227 ff.
BÖKÖNY, S. 1968, Data on Iron Age horses of Central and Eastern Europa. In: H. Hencken (ed.), Mecklenburg Collection, Part I. Bulletin American School of Prehistoric Research 25.
BÖKÖNY, S. 1993, Pferdedomestifikation, Haustierhaltung und Ernährung. Archäozoologische Beiträge zu historisch-ethnologischen Problemen. - Archaeoling-ua, Series Minor, Budapest.
BÖKÖNY, S. 1994, Analiza živalskih kosti (Die Tierknochenfunde). - In: S. Gabrovec, Stična I, Naselbinska izkopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). - Katalogi in monografije 28, 190 ff.
BOLE, J. et al. 1992, Krka. - In: Enciklopedija Slovenije 6, Ljubljana.
BORGNA, E. 1999, The North Adriatic Regions between Europe and the Aegean World (12th-8th CA.): Social Strategies and Symbols of Power in the Long-Distance Exchange. - In: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Koloquien in Mainz und Athen. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 43, Mainz, 151 ff.
BOŽIČ, D. 1987, Zapadna grupa. Izvori za istoriju Tau-riska. - In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 5, Sarajevo, 855 ff.
BOŽIČ, D. 1990, Mihovo. - In: Arheološka najdišča Dolenjske. Arheo. Posebna številka, izdana ob 100-letnici arheoloških raziskav v Novem mestu, Novo mesto, 79 ff.
BOŽIČ, D. 1991, I Taurisci. - In: I Celti, Milano, 471 ff.
BOŽIČ, D. 1993, Slovenija in srednja Evropa v poznola-tenskem obdobju (Slowenien und Mitteleuropa in der Spätlatenezeit). - Arheološki vestnik 44, 137 ff.
BOŽIČ, D. 1999, Die Erforschung der Latenezeit in Slowenien seit Jahr 1964. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 189 ff.
BOŽIČ, D. 2001, Ljudje ob Krki in Kolpi v latenski dobi. (Zur latenezeitlichen Bevölkerung an Krka und Kolpa. - Arheološki vestnik 52, 181 ff.
BOŽIČ, R. 1983, Novo mesto - Portovald. - Varstvo spomenikov 25, 204.
BREŠČAK, D. 1977, Male Brusnice. - Varstvo spomenikov 21, 182 ff.
BREŠČAK, D. 1979a, Novo mesto. - Varstvo spomenikov 22, 274.
BREŠČAK, D. 1979b, Sela pri Zajčjem vrhu. - Varstvo spomenikov 22, 276.
BREŠČAK, D. 1981, Meniška vas. - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 214.
BREŠČAK, D. 1982, Veliki Gaber. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 156 f.
BREŠČAK, D. 1985a, Gorenja Straža. - Varstvo spomenikov 27, 200.
BREŠČAK, D. 1985b, Mačkovec pri Dvoru. - Varstvo spomenikov 27, 205.
BREŠČAK, D. 1987, Beli grič. - Varstvo spomenikov 29, 238 f.
BREŠČAK, D. 1990, Gradec nad Mihovim. - Varstvo spomenikov 32, 153 f.
BREŠČAK, D. 1992, Metlika. - Varstvo spomenikov 34, 255 f.
BREŠČAK, D. 1997, Gradec nad Mihovim. - In: Dolenjski zbornik, Novo mesto 98 ff.
BREŠČAK, D. 2000, Arheološko izkopavanje na Kapit-lju. - Rast 11/1, 31 ff.
BREŠČAK, D. and J. DULAR 2002, Prazgodovinsko in poznoantično naselje Šumenje pri Podturnu (The prehistoric and late Roman settlement of Šumenje near Podturn). - Arheološki vestnik 53, 101 ff.
BREUER, S. 1990, Der archaische Staat. Zur Soziologie charismatischer Herrschaft. - Berlin.
BRICELJ, M. 1991, Reka in človek - Sava. Ljubljana.
BUGAR, S. 2003, Čatež - sv. Jurij. In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 114 f.
BUKOVAC, J., M. POLJAK, M. ŠUŠNJAR, M. ČAKALO 1984, Osnovna geološka karta 1:100.000. Tumač za list Črnomelj, Beograd.
BUSER, S. 1974, Osnovna geološka karta 1:100.000. Tolmač lista Ribnica, Beograd.
BUSER, S. 1979, Osnovna geološka karta 1:100.000. Tolmač lista Celje, Beograd.
BUSER, S. 1984, Nekaj novosti o geologiji Dolenjske. -In: Dolenjska in Bela krajina. Prispevki za 13. zborovanje slovenskih geografov, 26 ff.
BUSER, S. 1994, Geološka zgradba bližnje okolice Stične (Der geologische Aufbau der näheren Umgebung von Stična). - In: S. Gabrovec, Stična I, Naselbinska izkopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). -Katalogi in monografije 28.
BUSER, S., A. Ramovš, M. Drovenik, M. Pleničar 1989, Geološki razvoj Slovenije. - In: Enciklopedija Slovenije 3, Ljubljana.
CAPUIS, L. 2001, L'arte delle situle quarant'anni dopo.
-	Arheološki vestnik 52, 199 ff.
ČHIEČO BIANCHI, A. M. and L. CALZAVARA CA-PUIS 1985, Este I. - Monumenti antichi, Serie mo-nografica 2, Roma.
ČIGLENEČKI, S. 1977a, Sela pri Zajčjem vrhu. - Varstvo spomenikov 21, 193 f.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1977b, Podturn pri Karteljevem. -Varstvo spomenikov 21, 334 f.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1977c, Podkum. - Varstvo spomenikov 21, 240.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1981a, Čatež ob Savi. - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 224.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1981b, Rodež. - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 228 f.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1983, Čateški grič - Linhartov "Nevi-odunum"? (Čateškigrič - Linharts "Neviodunum"?).
-	Arheološki vestnik 34, 431 ff.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1984a, Pristava nad Stično. - Varstvo
spomenikov 26, 268.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1984b, Utrdba Korinjski hrib v arheoloških obdobjih. - Zbornik občine Grosuplje 13, 145 ff.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1985a, Pristava nad Stično. - Varstvo spomenikov 27, 280 f.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1985b, Potek alternativne ceste Sisci-ja-Akvileja na prostoru zahodne Dolenjske in Notranjske v času 4. do 6. stoletja (Der Verlauf der Alternativstrasse Siscia-Aquileia im Raum von Westdolenj-sko und Notranjsko in der Zeitspanne vom 4. bis 6. Jh.). - Arheološki vestnik 36, 255 ff.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1987a, Höhenbefestigungen aus der Zeit vom 3. bis 6. Jh. im Ostalpenraum (Višinske utrdbe iz časa 3. do 6. st. v vzhodnoalpskem prostoru).
-	Dela 1. razreda SAZU 31.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1987b, Polšnik. - Varstvo spomenikov 29, 280.
CIGLENEČKI, S. 1992, Polis Norikon. Poznoantične višinske utrdbe med Celjem in Brežicami. - Podsreda.
CULIBERG, M. and A. ŠERCELJ 1995a, Karpološke in antrakotomske analize iz prazgodovinskih višinskih naselij na Dolenjskem (Karpologische und an-thrakotomische Analysen aus den vorgeschichtlichen Höhensiedlungen in Dolenjsko). - Arheološki vest-nik 46, 169 ff.
CULIBERG, M. and A. ŠERCELJ 1995b, Antrakotomske in karpološke raziskave rastlinskih ostankov s Kučarja (Anthrakotomische und karpologische Un-
tersuchungen der Pflanzreste vom Kučar). - In: J. Dular, S. Ciglenečki, A. Dular, Kučar. Železnodobne naselje in zgodnjekrščanski stavbni kompleks na Kučarju pri Podzemlju (Kučar. Eisenzeitliche Siedlung und frühchristlicher Gebäudekomplex auf dem Kučar bei Podzemelj). - Opera Instituti archaeologici Sloveniae 1, 195 ff.
CERCE, P. and I. ŠINKOVEC 1995, Katalog depojev pozne bronaste dobe (Catalogue of Hoards of the Urnfield Culture). - In: B. Teržan (ed.), Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem (Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia), Katalogi in monografije 29, 129 ff.
CIŽMAR, M. 2002, Latenske žernovy ve Stareho Hradis-ka. - (Latenezeitliche Mahlsteine aus dem keltischen Oppidum Stare Hradisko). Pamätky archeologicke 93, 259 ff.
DELLA CASA, P. 2002, Landschaften, Siedlungen, Ressourcen. - Prehistoires 6, Montagnac.
DESCHMANN, C. 1883, Prähistorische Nachgrabungen in Krain im Jahre 1882. - Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 13, 177 ff.
DESCHMANN, C. 1884, Die Hügelgräber von Rovišče in der Pfarre Bründl (Studenc) im Gerichtsbezirke Gurkfeld in Unterkrain. - In: F. Hochstetter, Siebenter Bericht der prähistorischen Commission der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften über die Arbeiten im Jahre 1883. Sitzungsberichte der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 89, 378 ff.
DESCHMANN, K. 1888, Führer durch das Krainische Landes-Museum Rudolfinum in Laibach. - Laibach.
DESCHMANN, C. 1889, Die prähistorischen und römischen Ausgrabungen des krainischen Landesmuseums im Jahre 1888. - Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 19, [28] ff.
DESCHMANN, C. and F. HOCHSTETTER 1879, Prähistorische Ansiedelungen und Begrebnissstätten in Krain. Erster Bericht der Prähistorischen Commission der mathematisch- naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. -Denkschriften der mathematisch- naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 42, 1 ff.
DJURIC, B. (ed.) 2003a, Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana.
DJURIC, B. 2003b, Grofove njive pri Veliki vasi. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 143.
DJURIC, B. 2003c, Obrežje - Draga-Goričko. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheolo-
gija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 204.
DJURIC, B. 2003d, Velike njive pri Veliki vasi. - In: B. Dju-ric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 273.
DJURIC, B. 2003e, Dolenje Kronovo. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 118.
DOBESCH, G. 2002, Handel und Wirtschaft der Kelten in antiken Schriftquellen. - In: C. Dobiat, S. Sievers, T. Stöllner (eds.), Dürrnberg und Manching. Wirtschaftsarchäologie im ostkeltischen Raum. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Hallein/ Bad Dürrnberg vom 7. bis 11. Oktober 1998, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 7, 1 ff.
DOBIAT, C. 1982, Funde aus der Sammlung Mecklenburg. - Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg 12, 4 f.
DROVENIK, M., M. PLENICAR, F. DROVENIK 1980, Nastanek rudišč v SR Sloveniji. - Geologija. Razprave in poročila 23/1.
DULAR, A. 1991, Prazgodovinska grobišča v okolici Vin-jega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo (Die vorgeschichtlichen Nekropolen in der Umgebung von Vinji Vrh oberhalb von Bela Cerkev). - Katalogi in monografije 26.
DULAR, A. 1998, Halštatski gomili v Vidmarjevem gozdu pri Dobovem. - Arheološki vestnik 49, 133 ff.
DULAR, J. 1973, Bela krajina v starohalštatskem obdobju (Die Bela krajina in der frühen Hallstattzeit). - Arheološki vestnik 24, 544 ff.
DULAR, J. 1974, Bronasti jezičastoročajni meči iz Slovenije (Die bronzenen Griffzungenschwerter aus Slowenien). - In: M. Guštin (ed.), Varia archaeologi-ca, Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 1, 11 ff.
DULAR, J. 1978a, Podzemelj. - Katalogi in monografije 16.
DULAR, J. 1978b, Poskus kronološke razdelitve dobovske-ga žarnega grobišča. - Arheološki vestnik 29, 36 ff.
DULAR, J. 1979, Žarno grobišče na Borštku pri Metliki (Das Urnenfeld auf Borštek in Metlika). - Arheološki vestnik 30, 65 ff.
DULAR, J. 1982, Halštatska keramika v Sloveniji (Die Grabkeramik der älteren Eisenzeit in Slowenien). -Dela 1. razreda SAZU 23.
DULAR, J. 1983, Gomilno grobišče v Loki pri Črnomlju (Die Hügelnekropole in Loka bei Črnomelj). - Arheološki vestnik 34, 219 ff.
DULAR, J. 1985, Topografsko področje XI (Bela krajina). - Arheološka topografija Slovenije, Ljubljana.
DULAR, J. 1992, Zgodovina raziskovanj železnodobnih naselij in poselitve v osrednji Sloveniji (Geschichte der Erforschung der eisenzeitlichen Siedlungen und der Besiedlung in Zentralslowenien). - Arheološki vest-nik 43, 37 ff.
DULAR, J. 1993, Začetki železnodobne poselitve v osrednji Sloveniji. - Arheološki vestnik 44, 101 ff.
DULAR, J. 1994a, Befestigte prähistorische Siedlungen in Slowenien. - Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 1, 41 ff.
DULAR, J. 1994b, Beginn der eisenzeitlichen Besiedlung in Zentralslowenien. - Marburger Studien zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte 16, 183 ff.
DULAR, J. 1994c, Sonda 11 (Schnitt 11). - In: S. Gabrovec, Stična I, Naselbinska izkopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). - Katalogi in monografije 28, 138 ff.
DULAR, J. 1996a, New results from the excavation of upland settlements in Slovenia. - Archaeolingua 7, 47 ff.
DULAR, J. 1996b, Starinoslovec Jernej Pečnik. - In: Naši kraji in ljudje. Dobrepoljsko-struški zbornik, Dob-repolje, 226 ff.
DULAR, J. 1999a, Ältere, mittlere und jüngere Bronzezeit in Slowenien - Forschungsstand und Probleme. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 81 ff.
DULAR, J. 1999b, Höhensiedlungen in Zentralslowenien von der Kupfer- bis zur Eisenzeit. - Praehistorische Zeitschrift 74/2, 129 ff.
DULAR, J. 2001, Neolitska in eneolitska višinska naselja v osrednji Sloveniji (Neolithische und äneolithische Höhensiedlungen in Zentralslowenien). - Arheološki vestnik 52, 89 ff.
DULAR, J. 2003, Halštatske nekropole Dolenjske (Die hallstattzeitlichen Nekropolen in Dolenjsko). - Opera Instituti archaeologici Sloveniae 6.
DULAR, J. 2006, Železnodobno naselje in grobišča na Libni - topografija in viri (Die eisenzeitliche Siedlung und die Gräberfelder auf der Libna - Topographie und Quellen). - Arheološki vestnik 57, 163 ff.
DULAR, J. and D. BREŠČAK 1996, Poznohalštatska hiša na Gradišču pri Valični vasi (Späthallstattzeitliches Haus in Gradišče bei Valična vas). - Arheološki vestnik 47, 145 ff.
DULAR, J. and B. KRIŽ 1990, Železnodobno naselje in grobišče v Brezjah pri Trebelnem (Die eisenzeitliche Siedlung und Nekropole in Brezje bei Trebelno). -Arheološki vestnik 41, 531 ff.
DULAR, J. and B. KRIŽ 2004, Železnodobno naselje na Cvingerju pri Dolenjskih Toplicah (Eisenzeitliche Siedlung auf dem Cvinger bei Dolenjske Toplice). - Arheološki vestnik 55, 207 ff.
DULAR, J., S. CIGLENEČKI, A. DULAR 1995, Kučar. Železnodobno naselje in zgodnjekrščanski stavbni kompleks na Kučarju pri Podzemlju (Kučar. Eisenzeitliche Siedlung und frühchristlicher Gebäudekomplex auf dem Kučar bei Podzemelj). - Opera Instituti archaeologici Sloveniae 1.
DULAR, J., B. KRIŽ, D. SVOLJŠAK, S. TECCO HVALA 1991, Utrjena prazgodovinska naselja v Miren-ski in Temeniški dolini (Befestigte prähistorische Siedlungen in der Mirenska dolina und in der Temeniška dolina). - Arheološki vestnik 42, 65 ff.
DULAR, J., B. KRIŽ, D. SVOLJŠAK, S. TECCO HVALA 1995, Prazgodovinska višinska naselja v Suhi krajini (Vorgeschichtliche Höhensiedlungen in der Suha krajina). - Arheološki vestnik 46, 89 ff.
DULAR, J., B. KRIŽ, D. SVOLJŠAK, S. TECCO HVALA 2000, Prazgodovinska višinska naselja v dolini Krke (Vorgeschichtliche Höhensiedlungen im Krka-tal). - Arheološki vestnik 51, 119 ff.
DULAR, J., P. PAVLIN, S. TECCO HVALA 2003, Prazgodovinska višinska naselja v okolici Dol pri Litiji (Vorgeschichtliche Höhensiedlungen in der Umgebung von Dole pri Litiji). - Arheološki vestnik 54, 159 ff.
EARLE, T. 1991, Property Rights and the evolution of chiefdoms. - In: T. Earle (ed.), Chiefdoms: power, economy and ideology, New York/Cambridge, 71 ff.
EARLE, T. 2002, Bronze Age Economics. - Boulder, Colorado, 325 ff.
EGG, M. 1978, Das Grab eines unterkrainischen Kriegers in Hallstatt. - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 8, 191 ff.
EGG, M. 1986, Italische Helme. Studien zu den älterei-senzeitlichen Helmen Italiens und der Alpen. - Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 11, Mainz.
EGG, M. 1996, Das hallstattzeitliche Fürstengrab von Strettweg bei Judenburg in der Obersteiermark. -Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 37, Mainz.
EGG, M. 1999, Waffenbrüder? Eine ungewöhnliche Bestattung der frühlatenezeit in Novo mesto in Slowenien. - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 46, 317 ff.
EGG, M. 2004, Die Wiederentdeckung eines osthallstätti-schen Fürstengrabes. Anmerkungen zum Fürstengrab im Hartnermichelkogel 1 bei Kleinklein (Gem. Grossklein, Bez. Leibnitz) in der Weststeiermark. - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 51, 93 ff.
EGG, M. and A. EIBNER 2005, Einige Anmerkungen zur figural verzierten Bronzesitula aus Dolenjske Toplice in Slowenien. - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 35, 191 ff.
EGG, M. and B. KRIŽ 1997, Ein neuer hallstattzeitli-cher Schildbeschlag aus Novo mesto, Slowenien. -Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 44, 193 ff.
EGGERT, M. K. H. 1988, Riesentumuli und Sozialorganisation: vergleichende Betrachtungen zu den sogenannten "Fürstenhügeln" der späten Hallstattzeit. -Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 18, 263 ff.
EGGERT, M. K. H. 1989, Die "Fürstensitze" der Späthallstattzeit: Bemerkungen zu einem archäologischen Konstrukt. - In: Archäologischer Befund und historische Deutung. Festschrift für Wolfgang Hübner, Hammaburg N. F. 9, 53 ff.
EGGERT, M. K. H. 1991, Prestigegüter und Sozialstruktur in der Späthallstattzeit: eine kulturanthropologische Perspektive. - In: Urgeschichte als Kulturanthropologie. Beiträge zum 70. Geburtstag von Karl Narr, Saeculum 42, 1 ff.
EGGERT, M. K. H. 1997, Le concept de "Fürstensitz" et autres problèmes d'interprétation: Annotations sur le "phénomène princier" du Hallstatt final. - In: Vix et les éphémères principautés celtiques. Les VIe et Ve siècles avant J.-C. en Europe centre-occidentale. Actes du colloque de Châtillon-sur-Seine (27-29. octobre 1993), Paris, 287 ff.
EIBNER, A. 2000-2001, Die Stellung der Frau in der Hallstattkultur anhand der bildlichen Zeugnisse. -Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 130-131, 107 ff.
EIBNER, A. 2001, Der Donau-Drave-Save-Raum im Spiegel gegenseitiger Einflußnahme und Kommunikation in der frühen Eisenzeit. Zentralorte entlang der "Argonautenstraße". - In: A. Lippert (ed.), Die Drau-, Mur- und Raabregion in 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des internationalen interdisziplinären Symposiums vom 26. bis 29. April 2000 in Bad Radkensburg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 78, 181 ff.
FINLEY, M. I. 1978, The World of Odysseus. - New York.
FISCHER, F. 1973, Keimelia. Bemerkungen zur kulturgeschichtlichen Interpretation des sogenannten Südimports in der späten Hallstatt- und frühen Latène-kultur des westlichen Mitteleuropa. - Germania 51, 436 ff.
FREY, O.-H. 1968-1969, Halštatska naselja na Dolenjskem. - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 17 ff.
FREY, O.-H. 1969, Die Entstehung der Situlenkunst. -Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 31, Berlin.
FREY, O.-H. 1974a, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen im Ringwall von Stična (Slowenien). In: Symposium zu Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa, 151 ff., Bratislava.
FREY, O.-H. 1974b, Durchbrochene Frühlatènegürtelha-ken aus Slowenien. - Situla 14-15, 129 ff.
FREY, O.-H. 1984, Jugoslawien unter dem Einfluß der griechischen Kolonisation. - In: K.-G. Grothusen (ed.), Jugoslawien. Integrationsprobleme in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Beiträge des Südosteuropa Arbeitskreises der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft zum V. Internationalen SüdosteuropaKongreß der Association Internationale d'Etudes du Sud-Est Européen, Belgrad, 11.-17.September 1984, Göttingen, 29 ff.
FREY, O.-H. 1989, Mediterranes Importgut im Südostalpengebiet. - In: La civisation de Hallstatt, bilan d'une rencontre, Liège 1987, Liège, 293 ff.
FREY, O.-H. 1994, Sonde na jugovzhodu naselja (4, 6, 12-13) (Die Schnitte im Südosten der Anlage (4, 6, 12-13). - In: S. Gabrovec, Stična I, Naselbinska iz-
kopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). -Katalogi in monografije 28, 74 ff.
FREY, O.-H. and S. GABROVEC 1971, Zur Chronologie der Hallstattzeit im Ostalpenraum. - In: Actes du VIIIe Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques 1, Beograd, 193 ff.
FRIEDMAN, J. 1982, Catastrophe and Continuity in Social Evolution. - In: C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, B. Abbot Segraves (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. The Sauthampton conference, New York, 175 ff.
FRIEDRICH M., and H. HENNIG 1995, Dendrochronologische Untersuchung der Hölzer des hallstattzeitlichen Wagengrabes S aus Wehringen, Lkr. Augsburg und andere Absolutdaten zur Hallstattzeit. - Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 60, 289 ff.
FRIES-KNOBLACH, J. 2005, Neolitische Pflüge und Ackerfluren aus archäologischer Sicht. - Zu den Wurzeln europäischer Kulturlandschaft - experimentalle Forschungen. Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg 73, 27 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1956, Ilirska gomila v Volčjih njivah (The Illyrian tumulus of Volčje njive). - Arheološki vest-nik 7, 62 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1960, Grob z oklepom iz Novega mesta (Panzergrab von Novo mesto). - Situla 1, 27 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1964-1965, Halštatska kultura v Sloveniji. - Arheološki vestnik 15-16, 21 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1966a, Zagorje v prazgodovini (Zagorje in der Vorgeschichte). - Arheološki vestnik 17, 19 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1966b, Srednjelatensko obdobje v Sloveniji (Zur Mittellatènezeit in Slowenien). - Arheološki vestnik 17, 169 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1966c, Zur Hallstattzeit in Slowenien.
-	Germania 44, 1 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1968, Grob s trinožnikom iz Novega mesta (Das Dreifussgrab aus Novo mesto). - Arheološki vestnik 19, 157 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1970, Dvozankaste ločne fibule. Doprinos k problematiki začetka železne dobe na Balkanu in v jugovzhodnih Alpah (Die Zweischleifige Bogen-fibeln. Ein Beitrag zum Beginn der Hallstattzeit am Balkan und in den Südalpen). - Godišnjak 8, Cen-tar za balkanološka ispitivanja 6, 5 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1973, Začetek halštatskega obdobja v Sloveniji (Der Beginn der Eisenzeit in Slowenien) -Arheološki vestnik 24, 338 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1974, Die Ausgrabungen in Stična und ihre Bedeutung für die südostalpine Hallstattkultur.
-	In: Symposium zu Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa, Bratislava, 163 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1978, Dolga pota stiških izkopanin. -Grosupeljski zbornik 10, 127 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1975a, Naselitvena zgodovina Slovenije v halštatskem obdobju; Naselitvena zgodovina Slovenije v latenskem obdobju. - In: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana, 55 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1975b, Überblick über eisenzeitliche Befestigungen in Slowenien. - In: Utvrdena ilirska naselja, Posebna izdanja Akademije nauka i umjet-nosti Bosne i Hercegovine 24/6, Sarajevo, 59 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1976, Zum Beginn der Hallstattzeit in Slowenien. - In: Festschrift für Richard Pittioni zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Archaeologia Austriaca, Beih. 13, 588 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1983, Jugoistočnoalpska regija - Kasno brončano doba (kultura polja sa žarama). - In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 4, Sarajevo, 52 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1987, Jugoistočnoalpska regija sa zapad-nom Panonijom (Uvod, Dolenjska grupa, Svetolucij-ska grupa, Notranjska grupa, Ljubljanska grupa). -In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 5, Sarajevo, 23 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1990, Prazgodovinska podoba Slovenije. O kontinuiteti naseljevanja slovenskega prostora (The prehistoric Picture of Slovenia. On the Continuity of Settlement in the Slovene Territory). - Traditiones 19, 17 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1992, Etruskischer Niederschlag in Slowenien. - In: L. Aigner-Foresti (ed.), Etrusker nördlich von Etrurien. Etruskische Präsenz in Norditalien und nördlich der Alpen sowie ihre Einflüsse auf die einheimischen Kulturen. Akten des Symposions von Wien - Schloß Neuwaldegg, 2.-5. Oktober 1989, Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 589, str. 203 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1993-1994, Ausgrabungen in Stična und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte der Eisenzeit in den Südosteuropa. - Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 123-124, 73 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 1994, Stična I, Naselbinska izkopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). - Katalogi in monografije 28.
GABROVEC, S. 1999, 50 Jahre Archäologie der älteren Eisenzeit in Slowenien. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 145 ff.
GABROVEC, S. 2006, Stična II/1. Gomile starejše železne dobe (Grabhügel aus der älteren Eisenzeit). Katalog. - Katalogi in monografije 37.
GABROVEC, S., O.-H. FREY, S. FOLTINY 1969, Prvo poročilo o naselbinskih izkopavanjih v Stični. - Arheološki vestnik 20, 177 ff.
GABROVEC, S., O.-H. FREY, S. FOLTINY 1970, Erster Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen im Ringwall von Stična (Slowenien). - Germania 48, 12 ff.
GAMS, I. 1962a, Morfografski pregled novomeških pokrajin. - In: Dolenjska zemlja in ljudje, Novo mesto, 31 ff.
GAMS, I. 1962b, Klima Krške kotline. - In: Dolenjska zemlja in ljudje, Novo mesto, 68 ff.
GAMS, I. 1962c, Nekatere značilnosti Krke in njenih pritokov. - In: Dolenjska zemlja in ljudje, Novo mesto, 92 ff.
GAMS, I. 1984, Regionalizacija nizke jugovzhodne Slovenije. - In: Dolenjska in Bela krajina. Prispevki za 13. zborovanje slovenskih geografov, 7 ff.
GLEIRSCHER, P. 2006a, Ertauchte Geschichte. Zu den Anfängen von Fischerei und Schifffahrt im Alpenraum. - Klagenfurt.
GLEIRSCHER, P. 2006b, Urnenfelderzeitliche Grabhügel und Siedlungen der älteren Hallstattkultur in der Steiermark. Zum Beginn der Hallstattkultur im Südostalpenraum. - Arheološki vestnik 57, 85 ff.
GLOBOCNIK, A. 1889, Archäologische Karte von Krain. - Mittheilungen des Musealvereins für Krain 2.
GRAHEK, L. 2004, Halštatska gomila na Hribu v Metliki (A Hallstatt tumulus at Hrib in Metlika). - Arheološki vestnik 55, 111 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1974a, Gomile starejše železne dobe iz okolice Boštanja (Die eisenzeitlichen Grabhügel aus der Umgebung von Boštanj). - In: M. Guštin (ed.), Varia archaeologica, Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 1, 87 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1974b, Mahaire. Doprinos k povezavam Pi-cena, Slovenije in Srednjega Podonavja v 7. stol. pr. n. št. (Mahaira Krummschwerter: urgeschichtliche Verbindungen Picenum-Slowenien-Basarabi). - Situla 1415, 77 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1976, Libna. - Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 3.
GUŠTIN, M. 1977a, Relativna kronologija grobov "Mo-kronoške skupine" (Relative Chronology of the Graves of the "Mokronog group"). - In: M. Guštin (ed.), Keltske študije, Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 4, 67 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1977b, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen im Ringwall von Libna. - Marburger Studien zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte 1, 139 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1978a, Gradišča železne dobe v Sloveniji (Typologie der eisenzeitlichen Ringwälle in Slowenien) . - Arheološki vestnik 29, 100 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1978b, Tipologija gradišč železne dobe v Sloveniji (Typologie der eisenzeitlichen Ringwälle in Slowenien). - In: Naseljavanje i naselja u praistori-ji, Materiali 14, 135 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1981a, Krško. - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 222 f.
GUŠTIN, M. 1981b, Dobova. - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 222.
GUŠTIN, M. 1981c, Keltische Gräber aus Dobova, Slowenien. - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 11, 223 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1984a, Die Kelten in Jugoslawien. - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 31, 305 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1984b, Prazgodovinski vozovi na ozemlju Jugoslavije. - In: M. Guštin and L. Pauli (eds.), Keltski voz. Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 6, 111 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1991, Posočje in der jüngeren Eisenzeit (Posočje v mlajši železni dobi). - Katalogi in monografije 27.
GUŠTIN, M. 1996a, Der Grabhügel der älteren Hallstattzeit aus Velike Malence (Brežice/Slowenien). - In: E. lerem and A Lippert (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur. Akten des Internationalen Symposiums, Sopron, 10.-14. Mai 1994, Archaeolingua 7, Budapest, 115 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1996b, Taurisci - Verknüpfung der historischen und archäologischen Interpretation. - In: E. Jerem, A. Krenn-Leeb, J.-W. Neugebauer, O. Urban (eds.), Die Kelten in den Alpen und an der Donau. Akten des Internationalen Simposions St. Pölten, 14.-18. Oktober 1992, Archaeolingua 1, Budapest-Wien, 433 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 1996c, Eisenzeitliche Siedlungs- und Hausstrukturen im Südostalpengebiet. - Archaeologia Austriaca 80, 215 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. 2003, Sredno polje pri Čatežu. - In: B. Djurič (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 247 f.
GUŠTIN, M. 2004, Insediamenti e borghi d'altura in Slovenia. - In: G. Cuscito and F. Maselli Scotti (eds.), I borghi d'altura nel Caput Adriae: il perdurare degli insediamenti dall'eta del ferro al medioevo. Atti del Convegno internazionale di Trieste, 5-6 dicembre 2003, Antichita Altoadriatiche, 56, Trieste, 293 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. and T. KNIFIC 1973, Halštatske in antične najdbe iz Javorja (Funde aus Hallstatt- und Römerzeit in Javor). - Arheološki vestnik 24, 831 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. and S. OLIC 2003, Čateški grič. - In: B. Djurič (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 110 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. and A. PRELOŽNIK 2005a, Die hallstattzeitlichen Frauen mit Goldschmuck von Dolenjsko (Slowenien). - In: R. Karl and J. Leskovar (eds.), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 18, 113 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. and A. PRELOŽNIK 2005b, Sajevce. Železnodobno gomilno grobišče ob Krki (Sajevce. An Iron Age barrow cemetery at Krka River). - Arheološki vestnik 56, 113 ff.
GUŠTIN, M. and B. TERŽAN 1975, Malenškova gomila v Novem mestu. - Arheološki vestnik 26, 188 ff.
GUŠTIN, M., R. CUNJA, K. PREDOVNIK 1993, Pod-bočje/Stari grad. - Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 9.
HABIČ, P. 1984, Strukturne oblike v kraškem reliefu Dolenjske in Bele krajine. - In: Dolenjska in Bela krajina. Prispevki za 13. zborovanje slovenskih geografov, 57 ff.
HADŽI, D. and B. OREL 1978, Spektrometrične raziskave jantarja in smol iz prazgodovinskih najdišč na Slovenskem. - Vestnik Slovenskega kemijskega društva 25, 51 ff.
HÄRKE, H. 1979, Settlement Types and Settlement Patterns in the West Hallstatt Province. An evaluation of Evidence from Excavated Sites. - British Archaeological Reports, International Series 57, Oxford.
HÄRKE, H. 1983, Höhensiedlungen im Westhallstattkreis - ein Diskussionsbeitrag. - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 13, 461 ff.
HEINRICH, A. 2003, Josef Szombathy (1853-1943). -Mitteilungen der Anthopologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 133, 1 ff.
HENCKEN, H. 1974, Bracelets of Lead-Tin Alloy from Magdalenska gora. - Situla 14-15, 119 ff.
HENCKEN, H. 1978, The Iron Age Cemetery of Magdalenska gora in Slovenia. - American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 32.
HENNIG H. 2001, Gräber der Hallstattzeit in BayerischSchwaben. - Monographien der Archäologischen Staatssammlung München 2.
HENNIG, H. and C. LUCIANU 2000, Zipf, Christaller, Gräberfelder. Sind latente Besiedlungsstrukturen der Hallstattzeit aus der Verteilung der Nekropolen ersichtlich? - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 30, 527 ff.
HIGGS, E. and C. VITA-FINZI 1972, Prehistoric economies. A territorial approach. - In: E. Higgs (ed.), Papers in economic prehistory, Cambridge, 27 ff.
HIRSCHBÄCK-MERHAR, G. 1984, Prazgodovinski depo Debeli vrh nad Predgradom (The Prehistoric Depot Debeli vrh above the Village of Predgrad). - Arheološki vestnik 35, 90 ff.
HOCHSTETTER, F. 1883, Die neuesten Gräberfunde von Watsch und St. Margarethen in Krain und der Kulturkreis der Hallstätter-Periode. - Denkschriften der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 47, 161 ff.
HODDER, I. (ed.) 1982, Symbolic and structural archaeology, Cambridge.
HOERNES, M. 1914, Zur Chronologie der Gräberfunde von Watsch. - Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 1, 42 ff.
HOERNES, M. 1915, Krainische Hügelnekropolen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit. - Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 2, 98 ff.
HORVAT, A. and M. ŽUPANČIČ 1987, Prazgodovinske in rimske žrmlje v zahodni Sloveniji (prvi rezultati petrografskih analiz) (Macine romane e protostoriche nella Slovenia occidentale (Primi risultati dell'analisi petrografica). - Geološki zbornik 8, 105 ff.
HORVAT, J. and B. RAVNIK-TOMAN 1986, Gorenji Leskovec. - Varstvo spomenikov 28, 266.
HORVAT, M. 2000, Iron furnaces from Sela pri Dobu near Ivančna gorica (Slovenia). In: M. Feugere and M. Guštin (eds.). Iron, blacksmiths and tools. Ancient European crafts. Acts of the Instrumentum Conference at Podsreda (Slovenia) in April 1999, (Monographies Instrumentum, 12). Montagnac, 93 ff.
HORVAT, M. 2003a, Col. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 108 f.
HORVAT, M. 2003b, Sela pri Dobu. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 235 f.
HUTH, C. 2003, Menschenbilder und Menschenbild. Anthropomorphe Bildwerke der frühen Eisenzeit. -Berlin.
JOVANOVIC, A. 2001, Brežice. - Varstvo spomenikov (Poročila) 38, 13.
JUNG, M. 2005, Nochmals zum Problem späthallstatt-zeitlicher Adelsitze. Eine kritische Wiederlektüre des Textes von Wolfgang Kimmig. - In: R. Karl and J. Leskovar (eds.), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 18, 181 ff.
KASTELIC, J. 1960, Nov tip halštatskega diadema v Sloveniji (A New Type of the Diadem from the Hallstatt Period in Slovenia). - Situla 1, 3 ff.
KATIČIC, R. 1970, Podunavlje i Jadran u epu Apolonija Rodanina (Le bassin danubien et l'Adriatique dans l'epopee d'Apolonios de Rhodes). - Godišnjak 7, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 5, 71 ff.
KIMMIG, W. 1969, Zum Problem späthallstättischer Adelsitze. - In: Siedlung, Burg und Stadt: Studien zu ihren Anfängen (Festschrift P. Grimm); Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Section für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 25, 95 ff.
KIMMIG, W. 1983, Die griechische Kolonisation im westlichen Mittelmeergebiet und ihre Wirkung auf die Landschaften des westlichen Mitteleuropa. - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 30, 5 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1966, Žarno grobišče v Novem mestu (Das Urnengräberfeld in Novo mesto). - Arheološki vestnik 17, 51 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1967, Žarni grobovi v Bršljinu (Gräber der Ur-nenfelderzeit in Bršljin). - Arheološki vestnik 18, 155 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1968-1969, Novo mesto. - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 182 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1972, Novo mesto v davnini (Novo mesto in der Vorzeit). - Maribor.
KNEZ, T. 1973, Figurale Situlen aus Novo mesto. - Arheološki vestnik 24, 309 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1974, Novo mesto - Marof. - Varstvo spomenikov 17-19/1, 106.
KNEZ, T. 1977, Keltski grobovi iz Roj pri Moravčah (Keltische Gräber aus Roje bei Moravče). - In: M. Guštin (ed.), Keltske študije, Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 4, 105 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1982, Novo mesto. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 152.
KNEZ, T. 1984, Žarno grobišče v Novem mestu. Začasno poročilo o raziskovanju v letu 1982. - Arheološki vestnik 35, 119 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1985, Novo mesto. - Varstvo spomenikov 27, 205 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1986, Novo mesto 1. Halštatski grobovi (Novo mesto 1. Hallstattzeitliche Gräber). - Carniola ar-chaeologica 1.
KNEZ, T. 1988, Fürstensitze und Fürstengräber der Hallstattkultur in Slowenien. - In: Archäologie Alpen Adria 1. Klagenfurt, 59 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1989a, Novo mesto - ein hallstattzeitlicher Fürstensitz. - Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 118-119, 287 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1989b, Halštatski knežji grobovi v Sloveniji. -Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 60, 228 ff.
KNEZ, T. 1990, Sto let arheoloških raziskovanj v Novem mestu 1890-1990 (Hundert Jahre archäologische Forschungen in Novo mesto 1890-1990). - Novo mesto.
KNEZ, T. 1992, Novo mesto 2; keltsko-rimsko grobišče Beletov vrt (Novo mesto 2; keltisch-römisches Gräberfeld Beletov vrt). - Carniola archaeologica 2.
KNEZ, T. 1993, Novo mesto 3. Kapiteljska njiva. Knežja gomila (Novo mesto 3. Kapiteljska njiva. Fürstengrabhügel). - Carniola archaeologica 3.
KNIFIC, T. 1990, Vukovci. - Varstvo spomenikov 32, 160 f.
KOKOLE, V. 1962, Prirodne osnove in agrarna izraba Novomeške pokrajine. - In: Dolenjska zemlja in ljudje, Novo mesto, 125 ff.
KOROŠEC, P. 1965, Prazgodovinska gomila v Pavlovi vasi pri Tržišču na Dolenjskem (Vorgeschichtlicher Tumulus in Pavlova vas bei Tržišče, Dolenjsko - Unterkrain). - Poročilo o raziskovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 2, 73 ff.
KOS, P. 1977, Keltski novci Slovenije (Keltische Münzen Sloweniens). - Situla 18.
KOS, P. 1983, Der Schatzfund norischer Großsilbermünzen aus Bevke. - Arheološki vestnik 34, 411 ff.
KOS, P. 1984a, Die Goldmünzen der norischen Kelten. -Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 34, 7 ff.
KOS, P. 1984b, Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Rom und dem keltischen Ostalpenraum aufgrund der Münzfunde. - In: G. Grasmann, W. Janssen, M. Brandt (eds.), Keltische Numismatik und Archaeologie. Veröffentlichung der Referate des Kolloquiums Keltische Numismatik vom 4. bis 8. Februar 1981 in Würzburg, British Archaeological Reports, International series 200, Oxford, 185 ff.
KOS, P. 1986, The monetary circulation in the Southeastern Alpine region: ca. 300 B. C. - A. D. 1000. - Situla 24.
KOSI, M. 1998, Potujoči srednji vek. Cesta, popotnik in promet na Slovenskem med antiko in 16. stoletjem. -Ljubljana.
KOSSACK, G. 1959, Südbayern während der Hallstattzeit. - Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 24.
KOSSACK, G. 1974, Prunkgräber. Bemerkungen zu Eigenschaften und Aussagewert. - In: Studien zur vor-und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Festschrift für Joachim Werner zum 65. Geburtstag, Munchen, 3 ff.
KOSSACK, G. 1982, Früheisenzeitlicher Gütertausch. -Savaria 16, 95 ff.
KRANJC, A. 1984, Speleološke značilnosti osrednje Dolenjske in Bele krajine. - In: Dolenjska in Bela krajina. Prispevki za 13. zborovanje slovenskih geografov, 67 ff.
KRAUßE, D. 1999, Der "Keltenfürst"von Hochdor^:Dorfältester oder Sakralkönig? - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29, 339 ff.
KRIŽ, B. 1982a, Gorenja Straža. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 150.
KRIŽ, B. 1982b, Vinji vrh. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 157 f.
KRIŽ, B. 1982c, Otočec. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 163.
KRIŽ, B. 1985, Smolenja vas. - Varstvo spomenikov 27, 223.
KRIŽ, B. 1987a, Dolenje Gradišče. - Varstvo spomenikov 29, 241 f.
KRIŽ, B. 1987b, Gorenje Zabukovje. - Varstvo spomenikov 29, 242.
KRIŽ, B. 1987c, Gotna vas. - Varstvo spomenikov 29, 249.
KRIŽ, B. 1988a, Ostrožnik pri Mokronogu. - Varstvo spomenikov 30, 207 ff.
KRIŽ, B. 1988b, Gorenje Gradišče. - Varstvo spomenikov 30, 213 ff.
KRIŽ, B. 1988c, Straža pri Mirni. - Varstvo spomenikov 30, 214 ff.
KRIŽ, B. 1988d, Vinji Vrh - Srednji hrib. - Varstvo spomenikov 30, 227.
KRIŽ, B. 1989a, Mokronog - Ostrožnik. - Varstvo spomenikov 31, 207 f.
KRIŽ, B. 1989b, G. Gomila. - Varstvo spomenikov 31, 211.
KRIŽ, B. 1989c, Otočec. - Varstvo spomenikov 31, 213 f.
KRIŽ, B. 1989d, Črnomelj - Starihova hosta. - Varstvo spomenikov 31, 218.
KRIŽ, B. 1991a, Novo mesto Mestne njive. - Varstvo spomenikov 33, 200 ff.
KRIŽ, B. 1991b, Družinska vas - gomila "Kopina". - Varstvo spomenikov 33, 205 f.
KRIŽ, B. 1991c, Reva pri Dobrniču. - Varstvo spomenikov 33, 208 f.
KRIŽ, B. 1992a, Novo mesto. - Varstvo spomenikov 34, 261.
KRIŽ, B. 1992b, Reva. - Varstvo spomenikov 34, 293.
KRIŽ, B. 1993, Vinji Vrh. - Varstvo spomenikov 35, 169.
KRIŽ, B. 1995, Novo mesto pred Iliri (Novo mesto vor den Illyrern). - Novo mesto.
KRIŽ, B. 1996, Novo mesto. - Varstvo spomenikov (Poročila) 37, 76 f.
KRIŽ, B. 1997a, Kapiteljska njiva. - Novo mesto.
KRIŽ, B. 1997b, Novo mesto 4. Kapiteljska njiva. Gomila II in gomila III. - Carniola archaeologica 4.
KRIŽ, B. 1998-1999, Iron smelting furnaces at Cvinger near Dolenjske Toplice. - Archaeologia Austriaca 82-8S, 498 ff.
KRIŽ, B. 2000, Novo mesto 5. Kapiteljska njiva. Gomila IV in gomila V. - Carniola archaeologica 5.
KRIŽ, B. 2001a, Kelti v Novem mestu. Katalog razstave (The Celts in Novo mesto. Exhibition Catalogue). -Novo mesto.
KRIŽ, B. 2001b, Češča vas. - Varstvo spomenikov (Poročila) S8, 16 f.
KRIŽ, B. 2001c, Novo mesto. - Varstvo spomenikov (Poročila) S8, 79 f.
KRIŽ, B. 200S, Bela Cerkev - Pod Vovkom. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 9S f.
KRIŽ, B. 2004, Kneginja s Kapiteljske njive. - Rast 15/6, 597 ff.
KRIŽ, B. 2005, Novo mesto 6. Kapiteljska njiva. Mlajšeže-leznodobno grobišče (Novo mesto 6. Kapiteljska njiva. Late Iron Age Cemetery). - Carniola Archaeologica 6, Novo mesto.
KRIŽ, B. and D. BREŠČAK 1986, Mokronog. - Varstvo spomenikov 28, 248 f.
KROMER, K. 1959, Brezje. - Arheološki katalogi Slovenije 2.
KÜMMEL, C. 2002, Frühe Weltsysteme. Zentrum und Peripherie-Modelle in der Archäologie. - Tübinger Texte 4, Rahden/Westf.
LANG, A. 2000, Fernkontakte - Voraussetzungen, Interpretationen und Auswirkungen für die Eisenzeit. - In: A. Lang and V. Salač (eds.), Fernkontakte in der Eisenzeit. Konferenz Liblice 2000, Praha, 11 ff.
LINHART, A. 1788, Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain und den übrigen Ländern der südlichen Slaven Oesterreichs 1. - Laibach.
LIPOLD, M. V. 1858, Die Eisenstein führenden DiluvialLehme in Unter Krain. - Jahrbuch der k. k. Geologischen Reichanstalt 1858, 246 ff.
LOKAR, J. 1912, Belokranjska hiša. - Carniola S, 1 ff.
LOŽAR, R. 19SS, Poročilo arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani za leta 1931-1933. - Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 14, 28 ff.
LOŽAR, R. 19S4, Predzgodovina Slovenije, posebej Kranjske, v luči zbirke Mecklenburg (Die Vorgeschichte Sloweniens, insbesondere Krains, im Lichte der Sammlung Mecklenburg). - Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 15, 5 ff.
LOŽAR, R. 19S7a, Situla iz Griž pri Stični (Situle de Griže près de Stična). - Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 18, 1 ff.
LOŽAR, R. 19S7b, Bronasti oklep z Vrhpolja pri Stični (Armure de bronze provenant de Vrhpolje près de Stična). - Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 18, 7S ff.
LUCKE, W. and O.-H. FREY 1962, Die Situla in Providence (Rhode Island). - Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 26.
LÜNING, J. 2000, Steinzeitliche Bauern in Deutschland.
-	Die Landwirtschaft im Neolithikum. - Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 58, Bonn.
MANTUANI, J. 1913, Prazgodovinska gomila v Boštan-ju. - Carniola n. v. 4, 85 ff.
MASON, Ph. 1998, Črnomelj. - Varstvo spomenikov (Poročila) 37, 18 ff.
MASON, Ph. 2001a, Črnomelj. - Varstvo spomenikov (Poročila) 38, 17 ff.
MASON, Ph. 2001b, Družinska vas. - Varstvo spomenikov (Poročila) 38, 24 f.
MASON, Ph. 2003a, Dolge njive pri Beli Cerkvi. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 119 ff.
MASON, Ph. 2003b, Obrežje MMP. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 202 f.
MAUCEC, m. 1939, Podstenj in priklet v prekmurski hiši.
-	Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 34, 176 ff.
METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 1992, Gefäße mit basa-
raboider Ornamentik aus Frög. - In: A. Lippert and K. Spindler (eds.), Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen des Institutes für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 8, 349 ff.
METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 2002, Der "Thrako-Kim-merische" Formenkreis aus der Sicht der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit im südöstlichen Pannonien. -Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 23.
MIHOVILIC, K. 2001, Nezakcij. Prapovjesni nalazi 19001953 (Nesactium. Prehistoric finds 1900-1953). -Monografije i katalozi, Arheološki muzej Istre 11, Pula.
MOŽINA, A. 1983, Pristavlja vas. - Varstvo spomenikov 25, 214 in 231.
MUCH, M. 1880, Bericht über die Versammlung österreichischer Anthropologen und Urgeschichtsforscher am 28. und 29. Juli 1879 zu Laibach. - Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 10, 1 ff.
MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1951, Zeugnisse der Taurisker in Kärnten. - Carinthia I, 141, 670 ff.
MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1959, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen.
-	Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 22.
MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1974, Zur Definition und Benennung chronologischer Stufen der Kupferzeit, Bronzezeit und älteren Eisenzeit. - Jahresbericht des Instituts für Vorgeschichte der Universität Frankfurt a. M. 1974, 7 ff.
MÜLLNER, A. 1879, Emona. Archaeologische Studien aus Krain. - Laibach.
MÜLLNER, A. 1892, Die "Gradišča"in Krain. - Argo 1, 7 ff; 25 ff; 41 ff; 65 ff; 105 ff.
MÜLLNER, A. 1909, Geschichte des Eisens in Krain, Görz und Istrien von der Urzeit bis zum Anfange des XIX. Jahrhunderts. - Wien, Leipzig.
MURGELJ, I. and D. SVOLJŠAK 2003, Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori 2. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 222 f.
MUŠIČ, B. and L. ORENGO 1998, Magnetometrične raziskave železnodobnega talilnega kompleksa na Cvingerju pri Meniški vasi (Magnetic Investigation of the Iron Age Iron-Smelting Complex at Cvinger near Meniška vas). - Arheološki vestnik 49, 157 ff.
NOVAKOVIC, P. 2003, Osvajanje prostora: razvoj prostorske in krajinske arheologije. - Ljubljana.
OEFTIGER, C. 1984, Mehrfachbestattungen im Westhallstattkreis. Zum Problem der Totenfolge. - Antiqui-tas, Reihe 3, 26.
OŠTIR, K., Z. STANCIC, T. PODOBNIKAR, Z. VE-HOVAR 2000, Pridobivanje in uporaba prostorskih podatkov visoke ločljivosti pri načrtovanju omrežja mobilne telefonije. - In: D. Hladnik et al. (eds.), Geografski informacijski sistemi v Sloveniji 1999-2000, Ljubljana, 143 ff.
OLAS, L. 1962, Viri pitne vode v Novomeški pokrajini. -In: Dolenjska zemlja in ljudje, Novo mesto, 116 ff.
PALAVESTRA, A. 1993, Praistorijski cilibar na central-nom i zapadnom Balkanu (Prehistoric Amber in Central and Western Balkan). - Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Balkanološki institut, Posebna iz-danja 52, Beograd.
PARE, Ch. 1991, Swords, Wagon-Graves and the Beginning of the Early Iron Age in Central Europe. - Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar der Philipps-Universität Marburg 37.
PARE, Ch. 1998, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Theil I: Grundzüge der Chronologie im östlichen Mitteleuropa (11.-8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentmuseums Mainz 45, 293 ff.
PARE, Ch. 1999, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Theil II: Grundzüge der Chronologie im westlichen Mitteleuropa (11.-8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentmuseums Mainz 46, 175 ff.
PARZINGER, H. 1988, Chronologie der Späthallstatt- und Frühlatene-Zeit. Studien zu Fundgruppen zwischen Mosel und Save. - Quellen und Forschungen zur prähistorischen und provinzialrömischen Archäologie 4.
PARZINGER, H. 1988-1989, Hallstattzeitliche Grabhügel bei Dobrnič. - Arheološki vestnik 39-40, 529 ff.
PARZINGER, H. 1991, Zur regionalen Gliederung der Hallstattkultur aufgrund der Siedlungsverhältnisse.
- Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie-GeschichteGeographie 9, 25 ff.
PARZINGER, H. 1992, Zwischen "Fürsten" und "Bauern" - Bemerkungen zu Siedlungsform und Sozialstruktur unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der älteren Eisenzeit. - Mittelungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Etnologie und Urgeschichte 13, 77 ff.
PARZINGER, H. 1993, Biba Teržan, The Early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria. Starejša železna doba na Slovenskem Štajerskem. - Germania 71, 566 ff.
PARZINGER, H. and S. STEGMANN-RAJTÄR 1988, Smolenice-Molpir und der Beginn skythischer Sachkultur in der Südwestslowakei. - Praehistorische Zeitschrift 63, 162 ff.
PAULI, L. 1980, Novo mesto-Hallstatt-Beru. Eine außergewöhnliche Beigabe in reichen Kriegergräbern der Frühlatenezeit. - Situla 20-21, 353 ff.
PAVLIN, P. and J. DULAR 2007, Prazgodovinska višinska naselja v Zasavskem hribovju. - Arheološki vestnik 58, (in print).
PEČNIK, J. 1894, Pogled na kranjska gradišča. - Izvest-ja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 4, 6 ff.
PEČNIK, J. 1904, Prazgodovinska najdišča na Kranjskem. - Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 14, 27 ff; 125 ff; 185 ff.
PERKO, D. et al. 2001, Slovenija. Pokrajine in ljudje, Ljubljana.
PICK, K. and W. SCHMID 1922-1924, Frühgeschichtliche Befestigungen im Bereiche derIsonzofront. - Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in Wien 21-22, 277 ff.
PINGEL, V. 1994, Sonde 15, 20, 21 in 22 (Schnitte 15, 20, 21 und 22). - In: S. Gabrovec, Stična I, Naselbinska izkopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). - Katalogi in monografije 28, 54 ff.
PLACER, L. 1995, Posavske gube. - In: Enciklopedija Slovenije 9, Ljubljana.
PLACER, L. 1998, Contribution to the macrotectonic subdivision of the border region between Southern Alps and External Dinarides. - Geologija 41, 223 ff.
PLACER, L. 1999, Tektonska zgradba. - In: Enciklopedija Slovenije 13, Ljubljana.
PLEINER R. 2000, Iron in Archaeology. The European Bloomery Smelters. - Praha.
PLENIČAR, M. and U. PREMRU 1977, Osnovna geološka karta 1:100.000. Tolmač za list Novo mesto, Beograd.
PLUT, D. 1984, Nekatere značilnosti vodnih virov novomeške občine. - In: Dolenjska in Bela krajina. Prispevki za 13. zborovanje slovenskih geografov, 99 ff.
PLUT, D. 1988, Belokranjske vode. Novo mesto.
PODOBNIKAR, T., S. TECCO HVALA, J. DULAR 2004, Iterative approach to ancient paths modelling in the Iron Age study of the Dolenjska region (Slovenia). - In: K. Fischer Ausserer (ed.), Enter the past:
the e-way into the four dimensions of cultural heritage. Proceedings of the 30th conference, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1227, Oxford, 254 ff.
POLIZZOTTI GREIS, G. 2006, A Noble Pursuit. The Duchess of Mecklenburg Collection from Iron Age Slovenia. - Peabody Museum collections series.
PREMERSTEIN, A. and S. RUTAR, 1899, Römische Strassen und Befestigungen in Krain. - Wien.
PREMRU, U. 1983, Osnovna geološka karta 1:100.000. Tolmač za list Ljubljana, Beograd.
PUŠ, I. 1971, Žarnogrobiščna nekropola na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani. Izkopavanja v letih 1964-1965 (Nekropole der Urnenfelderkultur im Hof der Slowenischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und Künste in Ljubljana. Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1964-1965). -Razprave 1. razreda SAZU 7/1, Ljubljana.
PUŠ, I. 1981, Podmolnik. - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 227.
PUŠ, I. 1982, Prazgodovinsko žarno grobišče v Ljubljani (Das vorgeschichtliche Gräberfeld in Ljubljana). -Razprave 1. razreda SAZU 13/2, Ljubljana.
PUŠ, I. 1983, Podmolnik. - Varstvo spomenikov 25, 205 ff.
PUŠ, I. 1984, Prazgodovinski Molnik (Das vorgeschichtliche Molnik). - Arheološki vestnik 35, 134 ff.
PUŠ, I. 1986, Molnik.- Varstvo spomenikov 28, 248.
PUŠ, I. 1987, Molnik. - Varstvo spomenikov 29, 243 f.
PUŠ, I. 1990, Mareček - višinska postojanka in refugij (Mareček - Höhenanlage und Refugium). - Arheološki vestnik 41, 365 ff.
PUŠ, I. 1991, Molnik, sedež prazgodovinskih knezov. -Ljubljana.
PUŠ, I. 1993, Podmolnik pri Sostrem. - Varstvo spomenikov 35, 130 f.
PY, M. 1992, Meules d'époque protohistorique et romaine provenant de Lattes. - Lattara 5, 183 ff.
RADICS, P. 1862, Geschichte Krain's, ein Handbuch. -Laibach.
RAMOVŠ, A. 1987, Geologija. Tretja dopolnjena izdaja, Ljubljana.
RENFREW, C. and P. BAHN 1996, Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice. - London.
RÖSCH, M. 2005, Anbauversuche in Hohenlohe - Fragestellung, wissenschaftlicher Ansatz. - Zu den Wurzeln europäischer Kulturlandschaft - experimentalle Forschungen. Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg 73, 67 ff.
RUS GOLJEVŠČEK, B. 1962, Vodni režim Krke. - In: Dolenjska zemlja in ljudje, Novo mesto, 111 ff.
RYCHNER, V., A. BILLAMBOZ, A. BOQUET, P. GASSMANN, L. GEBUS, Th. KLAG, A. MAR-GUET, G. SCHÖBEL 1995, Stand und Aufgaben dendrochronologischer Forchung zur Urnenfelderzeit. - In: Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 35, 455 ff.
RYCHNER, V., S. BÖHRINGER, P: GASSMANN
1996, Dendrochronologie et typologie du bronze final dans la region de Neuchâtel (Suisse): un résumé.
-	In: Absolute Chronology Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta archaeologica (Kobenhavn) 67, Suplementum 1, 307 ff.
SAGADIN, M. 1984, Gorišca nadZg. Prekarjem. - Varstvo spomenikov 26, 206.
SAGADIN, M. 1985, Gorišca nad Zgornjim Prekarjem.
-	Varstvo spomenikov 27, 210 ff.
SAILE, T. 1998, Untersuchungen zur ur- undfrühgeschicht-lichen Besiedlung der nördlichen Wetterau. - Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen 21.
SALAČ, V. 2002, Zentralorte und Fernkontakte. - In: A. Lang and V. Salač (eds.), Fernkontakte in der Eisenzeit. Dâlkové kontakty v dobe železne, Konferenz Liblice 2000, 20 ff.
SARIA, B. 1929, Začasno poročilo o izkopavanjih na Gradišču pri Vel. Malenci. - Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 10, 11 ff.
SARIA, B. 1930, Drugo začasno poročilo o izkopavanjih na Gradišču pri Vel. Malenci. - Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 11, 5 ff.
SARIA, B. 1956, Die vorgeschichtlichen Ringwallsysteme in Slowenien. - Südostforschungen 15, 41 ff.
SAVNIK, R. 1962, Nekateri problemi kraške hidrogra-fije na Dolenjskem. - In: Dolenjska zemlja in ljudje, Novo mesto, 15 ff.
SCHAUER, P. 1994 (ed.), Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus. - Regensburger Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie 1.
SCHEFZIK, M. 2001, Die bronze- und eisenzeitliche Besiedlungsgeschichte der Münchner Ebene. - Internationale Archäologie 68.
SCHIER, W. 1990, Die vorgeschichtliche Besiedlung im südlichen Maindreieck. - Materialhefte zur bayerischen Vorgeschichte, Reihe A, 60.
SCHIER, W. 1998, Fürsten, Herren, Händler? Bemerkungen zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft der westlichen Hallstattkultur. - In: H. J. Küster, A. Lang and P. Schauer (eds.), Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen Siedlungslandschaften. Festschrift für Georg Kossack zum 75. Geburtstag. Regensburger Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie 5, 493 ff.
SCHMID, W. 1915, Die Ringwälle des Bacherngebietes.
-	Mittheilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 2, 229 ff.
SCHMID, W. 1937, Ulaka. Japodska naselbina nad Starim trgom pri Ložu (Ulaka. Colonie des Japodes au-dessus de Stari trg près de Lož). - Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 18, 17 ff.
SCHMID, W. 1939, Vače, prazgodovinska naselbina. -Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 20, 96 ff.
SCHMID, W. 1943, Die Fortschritte der vorgeschichtlichen Forschung in Südsteiermark zwischen den beiden Weltkriegen. - Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 36, 134 ff.
SCHÖNLEBEN, J. L. 1681, Carniolia antiqua et nova. -Labaci.
SLABE, M. 1974, Polšnik. - Varstvo spomenikov 17-19/1, 107.
SLABE, M. and D. VUGA 1974, Rovišče pri Senožetih nad Zagorjem. - Varstvo spomenikov 17-19/1, 108 f.
SLABE, M. 1982, Podtabor pri Grosupljem. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 210.
SLAPŠAK, B. 1995, Možnosti študija poselitve v arheologiji. - Arheo 17.
SPITZER, G. 1973, Ein hallstattzeitlicher Tumulus von Dragatuš. - Arheološki vestnik 24, 780 ff.
STANCIČ, Z., J. DULAR, V. GAFFNEY, S. TECCO HVALA 1995, A GlS-based analysis of later prehistoric settlement patterns in Dolenjska, Slovenia. - In: J. Wilcock and K. Lockyear (eds.), Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology, 1993, British Archaeological Reports, International series 598, Oxford, 161 ff.
STARE, F. 1954a, Prazgodovinske Vače (Das urgeschichtliche Vače). - Ljubljana.
STARE, F. 1954b, Ilirske najdbe železne dobe v Ljubljani (Illyrische Funde aus der Eisenzeit in Ljubljana). -Dela 1. razreda SAZU 9, Ljubljana.
STARE, F. 1955, Vače. - Arheološki katalogi Slovenije 1.
STARE, F. 1958-1959, Mala Hubajnica. - Varstvo spomenikov 7, 326.
STARE, F. 1962-1963, Kipec ilirskega bojevnika z Vač (Statuette eines illyrischen Kriegers aus Vače). - Arheološki vestnik 13-14, 383 ff.
STARE, F. 1975, Dobova. - Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 2.
STARE, F. and S. ŠKALER 1958-1959a, Boršt. - Varstvo spomenikov 7, 323.
STARE, F. and S. ŠKALER 1958-1959b, Kostanjevica.
-	Varstvo spomenikov 7, 326.
STARE, V. 1960-1961, Prazgodovinske Malence (The Prehistoric Malence). - Arheološki vestnik 11-12, 50 ff.
STARE, V. 1962-1963, Prazgodovinske gomile iz Rovišča (Die urzeitlichen Hügelgräber aus Rovišče). - Arheološki vestnik 13-14, 435 ff.
STARE, V. 1964-1965, Železnodobne gomile na Vinkovem vrhu (Eisenzeitliche Grabhügel auf Vinkov vrh).
-	Arheološki vestnik 15-16, 215 ff.
STARE, V. 1973a, Prazgodovina Šmarjete (Der vorgeschichtliche Komplex von Šmarjeta). - Katalogi in monografije 10.
STARE, V. 1973b, Gomile pod Koriti na Dolenjskem (Hügelgräber bei Korita in Dolenjsko). - Arheološki vestnik 24, 744 ff.
STARE, V. 1999, Naselbina na Gradišču nad Vintarjev-
cem pri Litiji (The Settlement in Gradišče near Vin-tarjevec). - Argo 42, 18 ff.
STEGMANN-RAJTÄR, S. 2002, Früheisenzeitliche Fernverbindungen entlang dem Ostalpenrand. - In: A. Lang and V. Salač (eds.), Fernkontakte in der Eisenzeit. Konferenz Liblice 2000, Praha, 254 ff.
STJERNQUIST, B. 1985, Methodische Überlegungen zum Nachweis von Handel aufgrund archäologischer Quellen. - In: K. Düwel, H. Jankuhn, H. Siems, D. Timpe (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel und Nordeuropa. Theil I, Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike, Göttingen, 56 ff.
STÖLLNER, T. 2002, Salz als Fernhandelsgut in Mitteleuropa während der Hallstatt- und Latenezeit. - In: A. Lang and V. Salač (eds.), Fernkontakte in der Eisenzeit. Konferenz Liblice 2000, Praha, 47 ff.
SVOLJŠAK, D. 1994, Sonde na jugozahodnem naselbinskem robu (Die Schnitte am Südwestrand der Siedlung). - In: S. Gabrovec, Stična I, Naselbinska izkopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). -Katalogi in monografije 28, 86 ff.
SVOLJŠAK, D. 2003a, Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori 1. -In: B. Djurič (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 221.
SVOLJŠAK, D. 2003b, Studenec pri Stični. - In: B. Djurič (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 251 f.
SVOLJŠAK, D., P. BITENC, J. ISTENIČ, T. KNIFIC, T. NABERGOJ, V. STARE, N. TRAMPUŽ OREL 1994-1995, Novo gradivo v Arheološkem oddelku Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani (pridobljeno v letih od 1987 do 1993). - Varstvo spomenikov 36, 224 ff.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1959, Contributo alla conoscenca del commer-cio con gli schiavi norici ed illirici alla fine del periodo repubblicano. - In: Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, Roma, 143 ff. = J. Šašel, Opera selecta, Situla 30, 1992, 494 ff.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1974, Okra. - Kronika 22, 9 ff.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1974-1975, Miniera aurifera nelle Alpi Orientali. - Aquileia Nostra 45-46, 147 ff. = J. Šašel, Opera selecta, Situla 30, 1992, 538 ff.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1977, Strabo, Ocra and archaeology. - In: Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean. Studies presented in honour of Hugh Hencken, Warminster, 157 ff. = J. Šašel, Opera selecta, Situla 30, 630 ff.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1983a, K tisočletju pred rimsko zasedbo. - In: D. Božič (ed.), Keltoi. Kelti in njihovi sodobniki na ozemlju Jugoslavije, Ljubljana, 10 ff.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1983b, Pregled plemen. - In: D. Božič (ed.), Keltoi. Kelti in njihovi sodobniki na ozemlju Jugoslavije, Ljubljana, 111 ff.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1990, Nauportus: antični literarni in epigrafski viri (Nauportus: Literary and epigraphical sources). - In: J. Horvat, Nauportus (Vrhnika). Dela 1. razreda SAZU 33.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1998, The Tauriscan Gold Mine. Remarks Concerning the Settlement of the Taurisci. -Tyche 13, 207 ff.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2005, Appian and Illyricum. - Situla 43.
ŠIFRER, M. 1984, Poglavitne značilnosti geomorfološke-ga razvoja Dolenjske s posebnim ozirom na poplavnih področjih. - In: Dolenjska in Bela krajina. Prispevki za 13. zborovanje slovenskih geografov, 38 ff.
ŠINKOVEC, I. 1995, Katalog posameznih kovinskih najdb bakrene in bronaste dobe (Catalogue of Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages). - In: B. Teržan (ed.), Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem (Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia), Katalogi in monografije 29, 29 ff.
ŠKALER, S. 1968-1969a, Veliki ObrežpriDobovi. - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 154.
ŠKALER, S. 1968-1969b, Veliko Mraševo pri Podbočju. - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 154 f.
ŠKALER, S. 1968-1969c, Dobova. - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 185.
ŠKOBERNE, Ž. 1995, The Early Iron Age cemetery at Bu-dinjak in the Žumberak mountains (Northwestern Croatia) - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 5/3, 291 ff.
ŠKOBERNE, Ž. 1999, Budinjak, kneževski tumul (Bu-dinjak, Princely Tumulus). - Zagreb.
ŠKOBERNE, Ž. 2004, Grupa Budinjak (Budinjak Group). - In: D. Balen-Letunič (ed.), Ratnici izmedu istoka i zapada (Warriors at the crossroads of East and West), Zagreb.
ŠMID, W. 1908, Tumuliforschungen. - Carniola 1, 1908, 202 ff.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1957, Latenski grob iz Spodnje Slivnice pri Grosuplju (A La Tene grave at Spodnja Slivnica near Grosuplje). - Arheološki vestnik 8, 141 ff.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1967, Podmolnik. - Varstvo spomenikov 12, 83.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1968-1969, Mihovo. - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 196 f.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1974, Žgano srednjelatensko grobišče v Metliki (Brandgräber aus dem mittleren La-Tene in Metlika). - Arheološki vestnik 25, 319 ff.
TECCO HVALA, S. 1994, Kataster arheoloških najdišč Slovenije ali zgodba o nastanku neke računalniške baze podatkov. 1. del. - Arheo, 15, 62 ff.
TECCO HVALA, S., J. DULAR, E. KOCUVAN 2004, Železnodobne gomile na Magdalenski gori (Eisenzeitliche Grabhügel auf der Magdalenska gora). -Katalogi in monografije 36.
TERŽAN, B. 1973, Valična vas. - Arheološki vestnik 24, 660 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1974, Halštatske gomile iz Brusnic na Dolenjskem (Die hallstattzeitlichen Grabhügel aus Brusnice bei Novo mesto). - In: M. Guštin (ed.), Varia archaeologica, Posavski muzej Brežice, knjiga 1, 31 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1976, Certoška fibula (Die Certosafibel). -Arheološki vestnik 27, 317 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1980, Posodje v grobovih halštatskih veljakov na Dolenjskem (Vessels-sets in the Graves of Hallstatt Chieftains in the Dolenjska Area). - Situla 2021, 343 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1985, Poskus rekonstrukcije halštatske družbene strukture v dolenjskem kulturnem krogu (Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch der Gesellschaftstruktur im Dolenjsko-Kreis der Hallstattzeit). - Arheološki vest-nik 36, 77 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1987, The Early Iron Age Chronology of the Central Balkans. Review from the Viewpoint of the Southeastern Alpine Hallstatt. - Archaeologia Iugoslavica 24, 7 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1990a, Starejša železna doba na Slovenskem Štajerskem (The Early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria). - Katalogi in monografije 25.
TERŽAN, B. 1990b, Polmesečaste fibule. O kulturnih povezavah med Egejo in Caput Adriae (Die Halbmondfibeln. Über die Kulturverbindungen zwischen der Ägäis und dem Caput Adriae). - Arheološki vestnik 41, 49 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1992, Bemerkungen zuH. Parzingers Chronologie der Späthallstatt- und Frühlatenezeit. - Prae-historische Zeitschrift 67, 66 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1994a, 9., 18., 19. sonda na prečnem nasipu gradišča (Die Schnitte 9, 18 und 19 im Querwall der Befestigungsanlage). - In: S. Gabrovec, Stična I, Naselbinska izkopavanja (Stična I. Siedlungsausgrabungen). - Katalogi in monografije 28, 120 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1994b, Überlegungen zum sozialen Status des Handwerkers in der frühen Eisenzeit Südosteuropas. - Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 16, 659 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1995a, Stand und Aufgaben der Forschungen zur Urnenfelderzeit in Jugoslawien. - In: Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 35, 323 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1995b, Handel und soziale Oberschichten im früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa. - In: B. Hän-sel (ed.), Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze-und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa, Südosteuropa-Schriften 17 = Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 11, 81 ff.
TERŽAN, B. (ed.) 1995-1996, Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem (Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from
the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia) I-II. -Katalogi in monografije 29-30.
TERŽAN, B. 1996, Weben und Zeitmessen im südostalpinen und westpanonnischen Gebiet. - Archaeolingua 7, 507 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1997, Heros der Hallstattzeit. Beobachtungen zum Status an Gräbern um das Caput Adriae. -Hronos. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel, Espelkamp, 653 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1998, Auswirkungen des skytisch geprägten Kulturkreises auf die hallstattzeitlichen Kulturgruppen Pannoniens und des Ostalpenraumes. - In: Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000-500 v. Chr.), Südosteuropa-Schriften 20 = Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 12, 511 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 1999, An Outline of the Urnfield Culture Period in Slovenia. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 97 ff.
TERŽAN, B. 2004, L'aristocrazia femminile nella prima etä del Ferro. - In: F. Marzatico and P. Gleirscher (eds.), Guerrieri, Principi ed Eroi fra il Danubio e il Po dall Preistoria all'Alto Medioevo, Trento, 221 ff.
TICA, G. 2003a, Bič. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 95 f.
TICA, G. 2003b, Požarnice pri Družinski vasi. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 229 ff.
TOMEDI, G. 1996, Nochmals zur "Fabel von den Traditionsschwertern". Weitere Randbemerkungen zu den Schwertgräbern des Südostalpenraumes und zur "Schwertgrabchronologie". - In: T. Stöllner (ed.), Europa celtica. Untersuchungen zur Hallstatt- und Latenekultur, Espelkamp, 167 ff.
TOMEDI, G. 1999, Eliten und Dynasten der späten Urnenfelderzeit und Hallstattzeit im Südostalpenraum. - In: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Koloquien in Mainz und Athen. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 43, Mainz, 661 ff.
TOMEDI, G. 2002, Das hallstattzeitliche Gräberfeld von Frög. - Archaeolingua 14.
TOPLIČANEC, M. 2006, Rimska in prazgodovinska cesta pri Požarnicah. - Rast 17/2 (104), 189 f.
TRAMPUŽ OREL, N. and D. J. HEATH 2001, Depo Kanalski Vrh - Študija o metalurškem znanju in kovinah na začetku 1. tisočletja pr. n. št. (The Kanalski Vrh hoard - a case study of the metallurgical knowledge and metals at the beginning of the 1st millenium BC. - Arheološki vestnik 52, 143 ff.
TURK, P. 1996, Datacija poznobronastodobnih depojev (The Dating of Late Bronze Age Hoards). - In: TERŽAN (ur). 1996, Depojske in posamezne ko-
vinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem (Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia) II. - Katalogi in monografije 30, 89 ff.
TURK, P. 2005, Podobe življenja in mita, Ljubljana.
ULF, Ch. 1990, Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung. - Vestigia, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 43.
UMEK, E. 1999a, Promet po Savi in mitnina v Krškem (1569-1574). - In: Gestrinov zbornik, Ljubljana, 263 ff.
UMEK, E. 1999b, Promet po Savi in Ljubljanici. - In: Gestrinov zbornik, Ljubljana, 271 ff.
VALVASOR, J. W. 1689, Die Ehre des Herzogthums Crain. - Laibach.
VENZLOVÄ, N. 2001, Vyroba a sidla v dobe latenske. Projekt Lodenice (Production and Settlement: The Lodenice projekt, Central Bohemia), Praha.
VIČIČ, B. 2003, Zagorica pri Biču. - In: B. Djuric (ed.), Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih, Ljubljana, 276 f.
VOGRIN, A. 1985, Stari Dvor. - Varstvo spomenikov 27, 208.
VOGT, E. 1934, The Cemetery of Vinica (Weinitz), Carniola. - In: Treasures of Carniola, 47 ff., New York.
VUGA, D. 1970, Roje pri Moravčah. - Varstvo spomenikov 15, 146.
VUGA, D. 1974, Sveta gora v Zasavju - Rovišče ( Sveta gora dans le Zasavje - Rovišče). - Arheološki vestnik 25, 424 ff.
VUGA, D. 1977, Roje pri Moravčah pri Gabrovki. - Varstvo spomenikov 21, 290 ff.
VUGA, D. 1978, Nastanek in razvoj velikega grobišča na Rojah - Moravčah pri Gabrovki. - In: Naseljavanja i naselja u antici, Materiali 15, 121 ff.
VUGA, D. 1979, Konservatorske ugotovitve o grobišču Roje. - Varstvo spomenikov 22, 145 ff.
VUGA, D. 1980, Železnodobna najdišča Ljubljanskega barja (Iron Age Sites in the Ljubljansko barje. - Situ-la 20-21, 199 ff.
VUGA, D. 1982a, Železnodobne Vače. - Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, Zbirka vodnikov 100, Ljubljana.
VUGA, D. 1982b, Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 150.
VUGA, D. 1982c, Trbinc. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 154 ff.
VUGA, D. 1982d, Tihaboj. - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 179 f.
VUGA, D. 1985, Klenik pri Vačah. - Varstvo spomenikov 27, 202 ff.
VUGA, D. 1986, Klenik pri Vačah. - Varstvo spomenikov 28, 248.
VUGA, D. 1988, Klenik pri Vačah. - Varstvo spomenikov 30, 215 f.
VUGA, D. and D. JOSIPOVIČ 1981, Trbinc. - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 217.
WELLS, S. P. 1981, The Emergence of an Iron Age Economy. The Mecklenburg Grave Groups from Hallstatt and Stična. - American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 33.
WERNER, M. W. 1988, Eisenzeitliche Trensen an der unteren und mittleren Donau. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde 16/4.
ZIMMERMANN H. 1998, Pfosten, Ständer und Schwelle und der Übergang vom Pfosten- zum Ständerbau. - Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 25, 9 ff.
ZIPPELIUS, A. 1954, Vormittelalterliche Zimmerungstechnik in Mitteleuropa. - Rheinisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde 5, 7 ff.
ZUPAN, M. 1993, Mirna. - In: Encikopedija Slovenije 7. Ljubljana, 153 f.
13. INDICES INDEKSI
Legend / legenda
Periods / dobe:
P	prehistory / prazgodovina
LBA Late Bronze Age / pozna bronasta doba Ha Hallstatt period / halštatsko obdobje LT La Tene period / latensko obdobje X undated / nedatirano
Simbols / znaki:
▼	hoard / depo
*	individual find(s) / posamična najdba X	cemetery / grobišče
+	flat cemetery / plano grobišče
•	tumulus cemetery / gomilno grobišče ■	fortified settlement / utrjeno naselje
□	unfortified settlement / neutrjeno naselje
A	settlement / naselje
n	smelting-furnace / topilnica
13.1. LIST OF PLACES / IMENIK KRAJEV
Place	Site
Kraj	Najdišče A
Apnenik	Kolosek
Apnenik pri Boštanju	Hrib
Cat.No. Section Page Kat. št. Razdelek Stran
428 152
7 E 6 C
335 285
Bela Cerkev	Dolge njive 1	388	6 D	329
Bela Cerkev	Dolge njive 2	389	6 D	329
Bela Cerkev	Strmec	384	6 D	328
Bela Cerkev	Veliki Vinji vrh	382	6 D	327
Bela Cerkev	Vovk	387	6 D	329
Beli Grič	Križni vrh	294	5 D	308
Beli Grič	Sv. Križ	291	5 C	308
Birna vas	Takpav	147	5 C	283
Birna vas	Videmska gorica	146	5 C	283
Bistrica	Kremenska hosta	249	5 C	300
Bistrica	Slančev hrib	252	5 C	300
Blečji Vrh	Gradec	44	2 C	266
Boršt	-	211	8 D	295
Boršt	Gomila	210	8 D	295
Boštanj	Gavge	153	6 C	285
Breg pri Litiji	Cvingar	68	3 B	270
Bregansko selo	-	230	9 E	298
Brezje pri Raki	Iljaševa hosta	181	7 D	289
Brezje pri Raki	Jermena	179	7 D	289
Brezje pri Raki	Obrčeva hosta	178	7 D	289
Brezje pri Trebelnem	Brekovnica	309	5 D	311
Brezje pri Trebelnem	Gomile	314	5 D	311
Brezje pri Trebelnem	Hojbi	310	5 D	311
Brezje pri Trebelnem	Hosta	315	5 D	313
Brezje pri Trebelnem	Karlin	311	5 D	311
Brezje pri Trebelnem	Plešivica	308	5 D	311
Brezovica	Deli	372	6 D	324
Brezovica	Gmajna	375	6 D	325
Brezovica	Gomila nad Zavetrščico	371	6 D	324
Brezovica	Volčji breg	373	6 D	325
Brezovo	Bukovje	176	7 C	289
Brezovo	Makote	125	4 C	279
Brežice	-	215	9 D	296
Brežice	Sejmišče	216	9 D	296
Brinje	Vesela gora	246	5 C	300
Bršljin	Inis	345	5 E	319
Bršljin	Pionir	348	5 E	319
Bršljin	Železniška postaja	346	5 E	319
Brusnice (see Male Brusnice and Velike Brusnice)				
Bučka	Lapor	174	6 D	287
Budna vas	Krokarjev hrib	143	5 B	283
Butoraj	Krč	499	6 H	351
Site
Najdišče
Cat.No. Section Kat. št. Razdelek
Stran
C
Cerov Log Č	Camberk	418	7 E	332
Čadraže	Sv. Urh	391	6 D	329
Čatež	Čateški grič	217	9 D	297
Čatež	Sredno polje	219	9 D	297
Čatež	Sv. Jurij	218	9 D	297
Čatež	Šentviška gora	220	9 D	297
Češča vas	-	343	5 E	319
Češnjice	Straža	115	3 D	278
Češnjice pri Trebelnem	Češenjski hrib	319	5 D	314
Črmošnjice pri Stopičah	-	402	6 E	330
Črnomelj	Črnomelj	495	6 H	350
Črnomelj	Sadež	494	6 H	350
Črnomelj	Starihova hosta	492	5 G	350
Črnomelj	Trdinova ulica	493	6 G	350
Čužnja vas	Hočevarjev vinograd	330	6 D	316
Čužnja vas	Osredek	329	6 D	316
Čužnja vas	Tratce	328	6 D	314
Čužnja vas	Zaloka	327	6 D	314
D				
Dešen	Gradišče	6	2 A	256
Dobe	Kuntaričeva hosta	434	7 D	337
Dobova	-	225	9 D	298
Dobova	Gomilice	224	9 D	297
Dobova	Kosovka	223	9 D	297
Dobovica	Furije	132	4 B	281
Dobovo	Vidmarjev gozd	367	6 D	324
Dobrava	Gomile	448	4 D	338
Dobrava	Marof	141	5 B	281
Dobravica	Dobravska hosta	397	6 E	329
Dobrnič {see Korita)				
Dobruška vas	Bukovec	342	6 D	319
Dole pri Litiji	Berinjek	129	4 B	280
Dole pri Litiji	Bohinčev hrib	127	4 C	280
Dole pri Litiji	Celestinova hiša	128	4 B	280
Dole pri Litiji	Špičasti hrib	126	4 C	280
Dolenja Podgora	Debeli vrh	498	5 H	351
Dolenje Gradišče	Gradišnica	461	4 E	343
Dolenje Karteljevo	-	312	5 D	311
Dolenje Kronovo	-	368	6 D	324
Dolenji Boštanj	Gorenjčeve groblje	156	6 C	285
Dolenji Boštanj	Ščit	155	6 C	285
Dolenji Maharovec	Čadraška hosta	395	6 D	329
Dolenji Suhor pri Metliki	Veliki vrh	469	6 F	346
Dolenjske Toplice	Cvinger	464	4 E	344
Dolenjske Toplice {see also Meniška vas and Sela pri Dolenjskih Tophcah)				
Dolnja Stara vas	Bregarjev gozd	337	6 D	318
Dolnje Brezovo	Grbelne	187	7 C	291
Draga	Vihra	386	6 D	328
Drečji vrh	Stari Bajhovec	301	5 D	308
Drenje	Plešivica	455	4 E	341
Drenovec	-	507	61	353
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
Drušče	Kluški vrh	160	6 C	285
Družinska vas	Ivanec	378	6 D	326
Dunaj	Gradišče	192	8 C	291
F
Frluga
Cerenica
441
8 E
338
G
Gaber pri Semiču	Semenič	468	5 G	345
Gabrijele	Marof	262	5 C	304
Gabrje	Gomila	406	6 E	330
Gabrje	Gospodična	410	6 E	331
Glinek	Gosjak	285	5 C	307
Glinek	Površnica	286	5 C	307
Golek pri Vinici	Steljnik	505	61	352
Golek pri Vinici	Stražni dol	506	61	353
Golek pri Vinici	Šlemine	508	61	353
Gorenja Gomila	Hribec	392	6 D	329
Gorenja Gomila	Koreničeva hosta	390	6 D	329
Gorenja Gomila	Pleskovičeva njiva	394	6 D	329
Gorenja Straža	Gradišče	457	5 E	343
Gorenja Straža	Mala njivica	456	5 E	341
Gorenja vas pri Šmarjeti	Golobič	370	6 D	324
Gorenje Jesenice	Dele	254	5 C	302
Gorenje Jesenice	Kremen	250	5 C	300
Gorenje Jesenice	Zajčji vrh	253	5 C	302
Gorenje Kamenje	Strmec	313	5 D	311
Gorenje Laknice	Kocijanova hiša	299	5 D	308
Gorenje Laknice	Pugelca	297	5 D	308
Gorenje Radulje	Legarje	175	7 C	287
Gorenje Vrhpolje	-	426	7 E	335
Gorenje Vrhpolje	Selo	425	7 E	335
Gorenje Zabukovje	Hrib	306	5 D	310
Gorenje Zabukovje	Srobotnica	307	5 D	311
Gorenji Leskovec	Gradec	184	7 B	289
Gorenji Leskovec	Polžev hrib	183	7 B	289
Gorenji Log	-	66	3 B	270
Gorenji Mokronog	-	298	5 D	308
Gorenji Mokronog	Grad	300	5 D	308
Gorenji Mokronog	Kalinova hosta	295	5 D	308
Gorenji Mokronog	Stranje	296	5 D	308
Gorenji Suhadol	Kopinatova hosta	407	6 E	330
Gorica	Gradišče	509	51	353
Goriška vas pri Škocjanu	Groblje	335	6 D	318
Gornje Orle	Bučni vrh	166	7 C	286
Gornje Orle	Gorenja hosta	165	7 C	286
Gotna vas	Zaboršt	401	6 E	330
Grabrovec	-	470	6 F	346
Gradenje	Gradenjska hosta	379	6 D	326
Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico	Bezeg	55	1D	268
Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico	Velika senožet	54	1D	267
Gradišče pri Trebnjem	Gradišče	278	5 D	306
Griblje	Požekov vrt	490	6 H	350
Grič pri Trebnjem	-	248	4 D	300
Grič pri Klevevžu	Jurjevci	331	6 D	317
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
Grič pri Klevevžu	Kostanovlje	332	6 D	317
Griže pri Stični	Gomile	98	3 C	276
Grm	Gaberje	105	3 C	277
Grm	Steljnik	480	6 G	348
Grmada	Trebanjsko bukovje	272	4 D	305
Groblje	Grobeljska hosta	344	5 E	319
Grosuplje	Železniška postaja	42	1 C	266
Gruča	-	431	7 D	336
H				
Hohovica	Lešenbert	120	4 C	279
Hotemež	Dobrava	142	6 B	283
Hrastje	Voselca	40	1 C	264
Hrastovica	Grič	255	5 C	303
Hrušica	Breznik	404	6 E	330
Hudeje	Breznik	275	4 D	306
Hudeje	Kovačev laz	274	4 D	305
I Iglenik pri Veliki Loki J	Šemrga	239	4 C	299
Jagnenica	Gradec	135	5 B	281
Jagnenica	Kržišče	136	5 B	281
Jagnenica	Topliška skala	134	5 B	281
Janče	-	31	2 B	263
Javor	Žitnice	34	2 C	264
Javorje	Pančičev vrh	81	3 C	274
Jelovo	Starina	139	5 B	281
Jelovo	Vranski hrib	140	5 B	281
Jelše	Gradišca	88	3 B	275
Jelše	Grmadca	87	3 B	275
Jelše	Teroh	83	3 B	275
Jelše pri Otočcu	Jakovec	360	6 E	322
Jelševec	Kobilenca	324	5 D	314
Jelševec	Krački	323	5 D	314
Jelševec	Veliki vrh	322	5 D	314
Jeperjek	Škoporčeva hosta	161	6 C	285
Jesenice	Sava	226	9 D	298
Jugorje	Grace	409	6 E	331
Jurka vas {see Mali Podljuben)				
K				
Kal	Sv. Martin	144	5 C	283
Kaplja vas	Lopanec	259	5 C	303
Kladje nad Blanco	Dele 1	189	7 C	291
Kladje nad Blanco	Dele 2	190	7 C	291
Klenik	Apno	13	3 A	258
Klenik	Boršt	16	3 A	258
Klenik	Laz	14	3 A	258
Klenik	Napredovec	10	3 A	257
Klenik	Reber	15	3 A	258
Klenik	Vodice	11	3 A	258
Korenitka	Britof	238	4 D	299
Korita	Cvinger	447	4 D	338
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
Korita	Gabrje	446	4 D	338
Korita	Pupeč	445	4 D	338
Korita (see also Dobrava	448, Reva and Zagorica pri Dobrniču - 444)			
Koritnica	Mlakarjeva hosta	177	7 C	289
Kostanjek	Šapole	193	8 C	291
Kostanjevica	Kosovo dvorišče	435	7 E	337
Kovk	Grobišče	21	5 A	258
Krajna brda	Boršt	188	7 C	291
Krajna brda	Okrog	185	7 C	289
Krasinec	-	489	6 G	350
Križ	Polšnik	240	4 C	299
Križevska vas	Pelinovec	4	2 B	255
Krško	Sava	195	8 C	291
Krško	Volčanškova gomila	197	8 C	291
Libna	Deržaničev gozd	199	8 C	293
Libna	Greben	200	8 C	293
Libna	Planinčev travnik	202	8 C	294
Libna	Račičev gozd	201	8 C	293
Libna	Sv. Marjeta	198	8 C	293
Libna	Špiler	203	8 C	294
Libna (see also Krško -	■ 197)			
Litija	Sitarjevec	67	3 B	270
Log	Špičasti hrib	287	5 C	307
Loka pri Črnomlju	Grajska cesta	496	6 H	350
Lukovec	Grmašca	157	6 C	285
Lukovec	Kržišče	158	6 C	285
Lupinica	Podbukovje	90	3 C	275
Lutrško selo	Bevčev gozd	365	6 D	323
Lutrško selo	Tratnikova hosta	366	6 D	323
M
Mačkovec pri Dvoru	Preloge
Mačkovec pri Dvoru	-
Magdalenska gora (see Hrastje and Zgornja Slivnica)
452 451
4 E 4 E
341 341
Mala Hubajnica	Jesihova hiša	169	6 C	286
Mala Kostrevnica	Bukovna	84	3 B	275
Mala Kostrevnica	Ograja	85	3 B	275
Mala Kostrevnica	Perovškov hrib	82	3 B	275
Mala Račna	-	65	2 D	270
Male Brusnice	Hrib	411	6 E	331
Male Brusnice	Klevevški boršt	413	6 E	331
Mali Korinj	-	114	2 E	278
Mali Ločnik	Gora	61	1 D	269
Mali Podljuben	Osredek	460	5 E	343
Mamolj	Stonar	70	3 B	271
Mamolj	Zavrh	69	3 B	271
Mekinje nad Stično	Gradišče	95	3 C	276
Meniška vas	Dolgi deli	463	4 E	344
Meniška vas	Gomivnica	462	4 E	343
Metlika	Borštek	477	7 G	347
Metlika	Hrib	475	7 G	347
Metlika	Jerebova ulica	474	7 G	347
Metlika	Kolpski most	478	7 G	347
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
Metlika	Metlika	476	7 G	347
Metlika	Pungart	472	6 G	346
Metlika	Špitalska draga	471	6 G	346
Metlika	Veselica	473	7 G	346
Mihovo	-	424	7 E	335
Mihovo	Gradec	421	7 E	334
Mihovo	Grobišča	419	7 E	332
Mihovo	Hribec	422	7 E	334
Mihovo	Tisovec	420	7 E	334
Mihovo	Trnišča	423	7 E	334
Miklarji	Zidovec	497	5 H	351
Mirna	Roje	243	5 C	300
Mirna vas	Brinc	326	6 D	314
Mirna vas	Mirenski hrib	325	6 D	314
Mokronog {see Beli Grič, Ribjek and Slepšek)				
Moravče pri Gabrovki	Roje	122	4 C	279
Moravče pri Gabrovki N	Rojska hosta	121	4 C	279
Novi Grad	Hrib	148	6 C	283
Novo mesto	Beletov vrt	352	5 E	320
Novo mesto	Kapiteljska njiva	350	5 E	319
Novo mesto	Kapiteljski hrib	353	5 E	320
Novo mesto	Malenškova njiva	356	5 E	321
Novo mesto	Marof	351	5 E	319
Novo mesto	Mestne njive	349	5 E	319
Novo mesto	Portovald	347	5 E	319
Novo mesto	Smolova hosta	357	5 E	321
Novo mesto	Zagrebška cesta	355	5 E	321
Novo mesto	Znančeve njive	354	5 E	321
O				
Obrežje	Draga-Goričko	229	9 D	298
Obrežje	Mejni prehod 1	227	9 D	298
Obrežje	Mejni prehod 2	228	9 D	298
Obrh pri Šmarjeti	Hrastovec	374	6 D	325
Orehovica	Vrhovski boršt	417	6 E	332
Orle	Roje	22	1 C	258
Osredek pri Hubajnici	Raguše	168	7 C	286
Osrečje	Straža	341	6 D	319
Ostrožnik	Pašnik	288	5 C	307
Ostrožnik	Žempoh	289	5 D	307
Ostrog	-	433	7 D	337
Ostrog	Jerebova hiša	432	7 D	336
Otavnik	Gradec	163	6 C	285
Otočec	Farovške njive	361	6 E	323
Otočec	Starograjska hosta	362	6 E	323
Otočec	Žabjek	363	6 E	323
P Pance	Skubičev vrt	43	1 C	266
Pavla vas	Dolinarjev hrib	271	6 C	305
Perovo	-	41	1 C	266
Pijavica	Jančev hrib	257	5 C	303
Pleše	Pavšarjeva hosta	27	1 C	259
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
Podbočje	Bočje	440	8 D	337
Podboršt	Pasjek	145	5 C	283
Podgora pri Dolskem	Gradišče	2	1 B	255
Podgračeno	Col	221	9 D	297
Podkum	Kucenberg	75	4 B	274
Podmolnik	Grmada	24	1 C	259
Podmolnik	Kotarjev peskokop	23	1 C	259
Podmolnik	Lampičev peskokop	28	1 C	263
Podmolnik	Mareček	29	1 C	263
Podmolnik	Molnik	25	1 C	259
Podmolnik	Pleška hosta	26	1 C	259
Podroje	Roje	77	3 C	274
Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori	Peskokop	51	2 C	267
Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori	Podsmreka 1	52	2 C	267
Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori	Podsmreka 2	50	2 C	267
Podtabor pri Grosupljem	Gradišnica	57	1 D	269
Podturn	Šumenje 1	316	5 D	313
Podturn	Šumenje 2	317	5 D	314
Podturn	Zadnja hosta	318	5 D	314
Podzemelj	Brodaričeva loza	479	6 G	347
Podzemelj	Krč	484	6 G	348
Podzemelj	Kučar	483	6 G	348
Podzemelj {see also Grm, Skrilje and Zemelj)				
Polje pri Tržišču	Cimermanova hosta	263	5 C	304
Polje pri Tržišču	Gaber	260	5 C	303
Polje pri Tržišču	Gošča	264	6 C	304
Polje pri Tržišču	Mohorjeva njiva	261	5 C	304
Prapreče	Krničeva hosta	393	6 D	329
Preska	Kosmatec	159	6 C	285
Primskovo	Gradišče	92	3 C	276
Pristava nad Stično	Sv. Lambert	80	3 C	274
Pristavica pri Velikem Gabru Pule		107	3 D	277
Pristavlja vas	Dole	97	3 C	276
Pusti Gradac	Črnetova njiva	502	6 H	352
Pusti Gradac	Okljuk	501	6 H	352
R				
Radohova vas	Brezje	104	3 C	277
Radohova vas	Brezovski klanec	101	3 C	276
Radohova vas	Špajpil	103	3 C	277
Radohova vas	Vencljev hrib	102	3 C	277
Radovlja	Pungrčarjeva hosta	333	6 D	317
Račica	Jurjev britof	33	2 B	263
Raka	Vinji vrh	180	7 D	289
Ratež	Drenovec	412	6 E	331
Ravne	Drnovec	237	4 C	299
Ravnik	Koška hosta	244	5 C	300
Ravno brdo	Hribarjeva košenica	35	2 C	264
Razbor	Grac	151	6 B	283
Razdrto	Razdrška hosta	396	6 D	329
Reva	Koželjeva hosta	442	4 D	338
Ribjek	Roje	292	5 C	308
Ribjek	Vidmarjeva hosta	293	5 C	308
Rihpovec	Ostrvec	305	5 D	310
Rihpovec	Zelkova hosta	304	5 D	310
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
Rožemberk	Zontova hosta	251	5 C	300
Rožno	Radijeva hosta	191	7 C	291
Rodež	Sv. Lenart	74	4 B	274
Rodine pri Trebnjem	Borovje	277	4 D	306
Rodine pri Trebnjem	Petkovka	276	4 D	306
Roje pri Trebelnem	Laze	321	5 D	314
Rovišče	Gomile	172	7 C	287
Rovišče	Gradišče	19	3 A	258
Rovišče	Sv. Gora	18	3 A	258
Rumanja vas	-	458	5 E	343
S				
Sajenice	Hom	241	4 C	299
Sajevce	Gomile	436	7 D	337
Segonje	Kočnik	173	6 D	287
Sejenice	Gabrje	234	4 C	298
Sela pri Dobu	Bučarjev hrib	106	3 D	277
Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah Branževec 1		465	4 F	344
Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah Branževec 2		466	4 F	344
Sela pri Višnji Gori	Mareča dula	46	2 C	266
Sela pri Višnji Gori	Ravne	47	2 C	267
Sela pri Zajčjem vrhu	Breznik	408	6 E	331
Sela pri Zajčjem Vrhu	Grac	405	6 E	330
Selišče	Medičevo dvorišče	467	5 F	345
Sevno na Trški gori	Brezovica	359	5 E	322
Silovec	Ajdovska jama	194	9 C	291
Slančji vrh	Gomila	162	6 C	285
Slepšek	Božji grob	290	5 C	308
Sloka Gora	Gradišče	62	1 D	269
Smolenja vas	Krška hosta	358	6 E	321
Spodnja Slivnica	Gradišče	59	1 D	269
Spodnja Slivnica	Leničeva hiša	58	1 D	269
Spodnja Slivnica	Zavrh	60	1 D	269
Spodnje Mladetiče	-	258	5 C	303
Stan	Kozlevec	282	5 C	307
Stara Bučka	Gomila	340	6 D	319
Stari Dvor	Kopališče	137	5 B	281
Stari Grad v Podbočju	Stari grad	439	8 D	337
Stična {see Griže pri Stični, Pristavlja vas andYir pri Stični)				
Stična	Samostan	94	3 C	276
Stranje	-	182	7 B	289
Stranski vrh	Spodnji dol	72	4 B	271
Stranski vrh	Sv. Jurij	73	4 B	272
Straža	Brezje	247	5 C	300
Stražnji Vrh	Sv. Križ	491	5 G	350
Strelac	Mlada Vina	380	6 D	326
Strelac	Nad Lošprenom	376	6 D	325
Studenec	Marjanov hrib	99	3 C	276
Studenec	Tičnica	171	7 C	287
Suhadole	Gradišče	131	4 C	280
Suhadole	Kavčev hrib	130	4 B	280
Sv. Primož	Mlake	164	6 C	286
Sv. Vrh	Pečar	269	5 C	305
Sv. Vrh	Stara gora	270	5 C	305
Sv. Vrh	Zapečar 1	266	5 C	304
Site
Najdišče
Cat.No. Section Kat. št. Razdelek Stran
Sv. Vrh	Zapečar 2	267	5 C	305
Sv. Vrh	Zapečar 3	268	5 C	305
Svibno	Ajdov grob	133	5 B	281
Šentjernej	-	398	7 E	329
Škocjan	Kolesniška hosta	336	6 D	318
Škocjan	Mastni hrib 1	338	6 D	318
Škocjan	Mastni hrib 2	339	6 D	318
Škrilje	Brinčeva gomilica	488	6 G	350
Škrilje	Gomilica	486	6 G	348
Škrilje	Vir	487	6 G	350
Škrljevo	Rovnice	245	5 C	300
Šmarčna	Velika dobrava	150	6 B	283
Šmarje	Golobinjek	400	7 E	330
Šmarješke Toplice	Mali deli	364	6 D	323
Šmarješke Toplice	Pri jezeru	377	6 D	326
Smarjeta (see Bela Cerkev, Družinska vas, Gradenje,
Statenberk
Statenberški hrib
Strelac and Vinji 320 5 D
Vrh)
314
T
Tihaboj	Grmada	236	4 C	298
Tihaboj	Kostjavec	124	4 C	279
Tlaka	Grac	235	4 C	298
Tolsti vrh	-	416	6 E	332
Tolsti vrh	Golšaj	415	6 E	331
Tržišče	Šentjurski hrib	265	6 C	304
Trbinc	Devce	280	4 C	307
Trbinc	Kincelj	279	4 C	306
Trebča vas	Kopica	450	4 E	339
Trška Gora	Narpelj	196	8 C	291
Trstenik	Lačenberg	242	4 C	300
Tuji Grm	Mancin vrh	32	2 B	263
U
Udje
Zajčeva hiša
56
1 D
269
Vače	Lestina	7	3 A	257
Vače	Ravne njive	8	3 A	257
Vače	Zgornja krona	9	3 A	257
Vače {see also Klenik and Vovše)				
Valična vas	-	116	3 D	278
Valična vas	Gradišče	119	3 D	278
Valična vas	Ulice	117	3 D	278
Valična vas	Zadinec	118	3 D	278
Vavta vas	Vidičeva njiva	459	5 E	343
Velika Hubajnica	Zaključi	167	6 C	286
Velika Kostrevnica	Dobravčev vinograd	89	3 C	275
Velika Kostrevnica	Krvica	86	3 B	275
Velika Račna	Kopanj	63	2 D	269
Velika Račna	Limberk	64	1 D	269
Velika vas	Grofove njive 1	207	8 D	294
Velika vas	Grofove njive 2	208	8 D	294
Velika vas	Velike njive	206	8 D	294
S
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
Velika vas	Zabjek	205	8 D	294
Velike Brusnice	Vrhi	414	6 E	331
Velike Malence	Gomile	214	9 D	295
Velike Malence	Gradišče	213	9 D	295
Velike Malence	Trebeži	212	8 D	295
Velike Pece	Šrajeva hosta	100	3 D	276
Veliki Ban	-	430	7 E	336
Veliki Gaber	Medvedjek	110	3 D	278
Veliki Korinj	-	113	2 E	278
Veliki Korinj	Korinjski hrib	112	2 D	278
Veliki Nerajec	Brezjece	503	6 H	352
Veliki Obrež	Veliki prudi	222	9 D	297
Veliko Mraševo	Male pužce	437	8 D	337
Veliko Mraševo	Mlačetne	438	8 D	337
Verdun pri Stopičah	-	403	6 E	330
Vinica	Gabrina	334	6 D	317
Vinica {see Golek pri Vinici)				
Vinji Vrh	-	91	3 C	275
Vinji vrh	Jelševec	383	6 D	328
Vinji vrh	Laze	381	6 D	327
Vinji vrh	Srednji hrib	385	6 D	328
Vinkov vrh	Gomile	454	4 E	341
Vinkov vrh	Gradec	453	4 E	341
Vino	Vinji hrib	53	1 C	267
Vintarjevec	Gradišče	78	3 C	274
Vintarjevec	Sv. Peter	79	3 C	274
Vintarjevec	Šumberk	76	3 C	274
Vir pri Stični	Cvinger	96	3 C	276
Višnja Gora	-	49	2 C	267
Vodice pri Gabrovki	Zagrac	123	4 C	279
Volčje njive	Škodetov pruh	284	5 C	307
Vovše	Cvetež	12	3 A	258
Vratno	Gradec	429	7 E	335
Vratno	Stražnik	427	7 E	335
Vrh pri Boštanju	Volčje jame	149	6 C	283
Vrh pri Boštanju	Zemljak	154	6 C	285
Vrh pri Šentjerneju	Brezje	399	7 E	330
Vrh pri Višnji Gori	Gradišče	45	2 C	266
Vrhpeč	Laze	303	5 D	310
Vrhpeč	Sv. Ana	302	5 D	310
Vrhtrebnje	Kunkel	273	4 D	305
Vukovci	Kolpa	510	61	353
Z				
Zaboršt pri Dolu	Ajdovščina	1	1 B	255
Zaboršt pri Šentvidu	Namrova hosta	93	3 C	276
Zabrdje	Radovica	281	5 C	307
Zabrdje	Rakovniško	283	5 C	307
Zafara	Gomilica	449	4 E	339
Zagorica pri Dobrniču	Gomila	444	4 D	338
Zagorica pri Dobrniču	Makovec	443	4 D	338
Zagorica pri Dolskem	Gradišče	3	2 B	255
Zagorica pri Čatežu	-	232	4 C	298
Zagorica pri Čatežu	Križ	231	4 C	298
Zagorica pri Čatežu	Martinov britof	233	4 C	298
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek .	Stran
Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru	Reber 1	109	3 D	277
Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru	Reber 2	108	3 D	277
Zagorje ob Savi	Gradišče	17	4 A	258
Zagorje ob Savi	Kidričeva cesta	20	4 A	258
Zagradišče	Gradišca	30	1 B	263
Zapudje	Veliki Kolečaj	504	5 H	352
Zasap	Letališče	209	8 D	295
Zavratec	Boben hrib	170	7 C	286
Zemelj	Gomila	482	6 G	348
Zemelj	Jurajevčičeva njiva	481	6 G	348
Zemelj	Sv. Helena	485	6 G	348
Zgornja Slivnica	Laščik	36	1 C	264
Zgornja Slivnica	Magdalenska gora 1	38	1 C	264
Zgornja Slivnica	Magdalenska gora 2	39	1 C	264
Zgornja Slivnica	Preloge	37	1 C	264
Zgornje Mladetiče	Močile	256	5 C	303
Zgornji Mamolj	-	71	3 B	271
Zgornji Prekar	Gorišca	5	2 A	256
Zidani most	-	138	5 B	281
Znojile pri Krki	Koščakov vrt	111	2 D	278
Zorenci	Ileničev vrt	500	6 H	351
Ž Žadovinek	Agrokombinat	204	8 C	294
Žalna	Gradišče	48	2 C	267
Žaloviče	Čevnice	369	6 D	324
Žigrski vrh	Golke	186	7 C	291
13.2. LIST OF SITES / IMENIK NAJDIŠČ
Site	Place	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Najdišče	Kraj	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran
A Agrokombinat	Žadovinek	204	8 C	294
Ajdov grob	Svibno	133	5 B	281
Ajdovska jama	Silovec	194	9 C	291
Ajdovščina	Zaboršt pri Dolu	1	1 B	255
Apno	Klenik	13	3 A	160, 258
Beletov vrt	Novo mesto	352	5 E	177,	178,	320
Berinjek	Dole pri Litiji	129	4 B	280		
Bevčev gozd	Lutrško selo	365	6 D	323		
Bezeg	Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico	55	1D	164,	268	
Boben hrib	Zavratec	170	7 C	169,	286	
Bočje	Podbočje	440	8 D	337		
Bohinčev hrib	Dole pri Litiji	127	4 C	280		
Borovje	Rodine pri Trebnjem	277	4 D	306		
[Boršt]	Boršt	211	8 D	295		
Boršt	Klenik	16	3 A	160,	161,	258
Boršt	Krajna brda	188	7 C	291		
Borštek	Metlika	477	7 G	184,	186,	347
Božji grob	Slepšek	290	5 C	174,	175,	308
Branževec 1	Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah	465	4 F	184,	186,	344
Branževec 2	Sela pri Dolenjskih Toplicah	466	4 F	184,	186,	344
[Bregansko selo]	Bregansko selo	230	9 E	298		
Bregarjev gozd	Dolnja Stara vas	337	6 D	318		
Brekovnica	Brezje pri Trebelnem	309	5 D	175,	176,	311
Brezje	Radohova vas	104	3 C	277		
Brezje	Straža	247	5 C	174,	300	
Brezje	Vrh pri Šentjerneju	399	7 E	330		
Brezjece	Veliki Nerajec	503	6 H	352		
Breznik	Hrušica	404	6 E	330		
Breznik	Hudeje	275	4 D	306		
Breznik	Sela pri Zajčjem vrhu	408	6 E	331		
Brezovica	Sevno na Trški gori	359	5 E	322		
Brezovski klanec	Radohova vas	101	3 C	276		
[Brežice]	Brežice	215	9 D	296		
Brinc	Mirna vas	326	6 D	314		
Brinčeva gomilica	Škrilje	488	6 G	186,	189,	350
Britof	Korenitka	238	4 D	299		
Brodaričeva loza	Podzemelj	479	6 G	186,	189,	347
Bučarjev hrib	Sela pri Dobu	106	3 D	277		
Bučni vrh	Gornje Orle	166	7 C	286		
Bukovec	Dobruška vas	342	6 D	319		
Bukovje	Brezovo	176	7 C	289		
Bukovna	Mala Kostrevnica	84	3 B	275		
C
Camberk Celestinova hiša
Cerov Log Dole pri Litiji
418 128
332 280
Cerenica
Cimermanova hosta
Col
Cvetež
Cvingar
Cvinger
Cvinger
Cvinger
Č
Čadraška hosta Čateški grič [Češča vas] Češenjski hrib Čevnice
[Črmošnjice pri Stopičah] Črnetova njiva Črnomelj
D
Debeli vrh Dele Dele 1 Dele 2 Deli
Deržaničev gozd Devce [Dobova] Dobrava
Dobravčev vinograd Dobravska hosta Dole
[Dolenje Karteljevo] [Dolenje Kronovo] Dolge njive 1 Dolge njive 2 Dolgi deli Dolinarjev hrib Draga-Goričko [Drenovec] Drenovec Drnovec
F
Farovške njive Furije
G
Gaber
Gaberje
Gabrina
Gabrje
Gabrje
Gavge
Gmajna
Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek Stran	
Frluga	441	8 E	338
Polje pri Tržišču	263	5 C	304
Podgračeno	221	9 D	297
Vovše	12	3 A	160, 258
Breg pri Litiji	68	3 B	270
Dolenjske Toplice	464	4 E	183, 184, 344
Korita	447	4 D	179, 181, 338
Vir pri Stični	96	3 C	165, 276
Dolenji Maharovec	395	6 D	329
Čatež	217	9 D	297
Češča vas	343	5 E	319
Češnjice pri Trebelnem	319	5 D	314
Žaloviče	369	6 D	324
Črmošnjice pri Stopičah	402	6 E	330
Pusti Gradac	502	6 H	352
Črnomelj	495	6 H	186, 189, 350
Dolenja Podgora	498	5 H	351
Gorenje Jesenice	254	5 C	302
Kladje nad Blanco	189	7 C	291
Kladje nad Blanco	190	7 C	291
Brezovica	372	6 D	324
Libna	199	8 C	171, 293
Trbinc	280	4 C	307
Dobova	225	9 D	298
Hotemež	142	6 B	283
Velika Kostrevnica	89	3 C	275
Dobravica	397	6 E	329
Pristavlja vas	97	3 C	167, 276
Dolenje Karteljevo	312	5 D	311
Dolenje Kronovo	368	6 D	324
Bela Cerkev	388	6 D	329
Bela Cerkev	389	6 D	179, 181, 329
Meniška vas	463	4 E	184, 186, 344
Pavla vas	271	6 C	305
Obrežje	229	9 D	298
Drenovec	507	61	353
Ratež	412	6 E	331
Ravne	237	4 C	299
Otočec	361	6 E	323
Dobovica	132	4 B	281
Polje pri Tržišču	260	5 C	303
Grm	105	3 C	277
Vinica	334	6 D	317
Korita	446	4 D	181, 183, 338
Sejenice	234	4 C	298
Boštanj	153	6 C	285
Brezovica	375	6 D	325
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek Stran	
Golke	Žigrski vrh	186	7 C	291
Golobič	Gorenja vas pri Šmarjeti	370	6 D	324
Golobinjek	Šmarje	400	7 E	330
Golšaj	Tolsti vrh	415	6 E	331
Gomila	Boršt	210	8 D	295
Gomila	Gabrje	406	6 E	330
Gomila	Slančji vrh	162	6 C	285
Gomila	Stara Bučka	340	6 D	319
Gomila	Zagorica pri Dobrniču	444	4 D	181, 183, 338
Gomila	Zemelj	482	6 G	348
Gomila nad Zavetrščico	Brezovica	371	6 D	324
Gomile	Brezje pri Trebelnem	314	5 D	176, 177, 311
Gomile	Dobrava	448	4 D	181, 183, 338
Gomile	Griže pri Stični	98	3 C	167, 276
Gomile	Rovišče	172	7 C	169, 287
Gomile	Sajevce	436	7 D	337
Gomile	Velike Malence	214	9 D	173, 295
Gomile	Vinkov vrh	454	4 E	183, 184, 341
Gomilica	Škrilje	486	6 G	186, 189, 348
Gomilica	Zafara	449	4 E	339
Gomilice	Dobova	224	9 D	297
Gomivnica	Meniška vas	462	4 E	184, 186, 343
Gora	Mali Ločnik	61	1 D	269
Gorenja hosta	Gornje Orle	165	7 C	286
Gorenjčeve groblje	Dolenji Boštanj	156	6 C	285
[Gorenje Vrhpolje]	Gorenje Vrhpolje	426	7 E	335
[Gorenji Log]	Gorenji Log	66	3 B	270
[Gorenji Mokronog]	Gorenji Mokronog	298	5 D	308
Gorišca	Zgornji Prekar	5	2 A	256
Gosjak	Glinek	285	5 C	307
Gospodična	Gabrje	410	6 E	331
Gošča	Polje pri Tržišču	264	6 C	304
[Grabrovec]	Grabrovec	470	6 F	346
Grac	Razbor	151	6 B	283
Grac	Sela pri Zajčjem Vrhu	405	6 E	330
Grac	Tlaka	235	4 C	298
Grace	Jugorje	409	6 E	331
Grad	Gorenji Mokronog	300	5 D	308
Gradec	Blečji Vrh	44	2 C	266
Gradec	Gorenji Leskovec	184	7 B	289
Gradec	Jagnenica	135	5 B	281
Gradec	Mihovo	421	7 E	334
Gradec	Otavnik	163	6 C	285
Gradec	Vinkov vrh	453	4 E	181, 183, 341
Gradec	Vratno	429	7 E	335
Gradenjska hosta	Gradenje	379	6 D	179, 181, 326
Gradišca	Jelše	88	3 B	275
Gradišca	Zagradišče	30	1 B	263
Gradišče	Dešen	6	2 A	256
Gradišče	Dunaj	192	8 C	291
Gradišče	Gorenja Straža	457	5 E	343
Gradišče	Gorica	509	51	353
Gradišče	Gradišče pri Trebnjem	278	5 D	306
Gradišče	Mekinje nad Stično	95	3 C	276
Gradišče	Podgora pri Dolskem	2	1 B	255
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek Stran	
Gradišče	Primskovo	92	3 C	276
Gradišče	Rovišče	19	3 A	258
Gradišče	Sloka Gora	62	1 D	269
Gradišče	Spodnja Slivnica	59	1 D	269
Gradišče	Suhadole	131	4 C	280
Gradišče	Valična vas	119	3 D	167, 278
Gradišče	Velike Malence	213	9 D	171, 295
Gradišče	Vintarjevec	78	3 C	274
Gradišče	Vrh pri Višnji Gori	45	2 C	266
Gradišče	Zagorica pri Dolskem	3	2 B	255
Gradišče	Zagorje ob Savi	17	4 A	258
Gradišče	Žalna	48	2 C	267
Gradišnica	Dolenje Gradišče	461	4 E	343
Gradišnica	Podtabor pri Grosupljem	57	1 D	269
Grajska cesta	Loka pri Črnomlju	496	6 H	187, 190, 350
Grbelne	Dolnje Brezovo	187	7 C	291
Greben	Libna	200	8 C	171, 293
Grič	Hrastovica	255	5 C	303
[Grič pri Trebnjem]	Grič pri Trebnjem	248	4 D	300
Grmada	Podmolnik	24	1 C	161, 259
Grmada	Tihaboj	236	4 C	298
Grmadca	Jelše	87	3 B	275
Grmašca	Lukovec	157	6 C	285
Grobeljska hosta	Groblje	344	5 E	319
Grobišča	Mihovo	419	7 E	332
Grobišče	Kovk	21	5 A	258
Groblje	Goriška vas pri Škocjanu	335	6 D	318
Grofove njive 1	Velika vas	207	8 D	294
Grofove njive 2	Velika vas	208	8 D	294
[Gruča]	Gruča	431	7 D	336
H
Hočevarjev vinograd	Čužnja vas	330	6 D	316
Hojbi	Brezje pri Trebelnem	310	5 D	175, 177, 311
Hom	Sajenice	241	4 C	299
Hosta	Brezje pri Trebelnem	315	5 D	176, 177, 313
Hrastovec	Obrh pri Šmarjeti	374	6 D	325
Hrib	Apnenik pri Boštanju	152	6 C	285
Hrib	Gorenje Zabukovje	306	5 D	310
Hrib	Male Brusnice	411	6 E	331
Hrib	Metlika	475	7 G	184, 186, 347
Hrib	Novi Grad	148	6 C	283
Hribarjeva košenica	Ravno brdo	35	2 C	264
Hribec	Gorenja Gomila	392	6 D	329
Hribec	Mihovo	422	7 E	334
I
Ileničev vrt Iljaševa hosta Inis
Ivanec
Zorenci Brezje pri Raki Bršljin
Družinska vas
500 181 345 378
6	H
7	D
5	E
6	D
351 289
177, 178, 319 179, 181, 326
J
Jakovec [Janče]
Jelše pri Otočcu Janče
Jančev hrib Jelševec Jerebova hiša Jerebova ulica Jermena Jesihova hiša Jurajevčičeva njiva Jurjev britof Jurjevci
K
Kalinova hosta Kapiteljska njiva Kapiteljski hrib Karlin Kavčev hrib Kidričeva cesta Kincelj
Klevevški boršt Kluški vrh Kobilenca Kocijanova hiša Kočnik
Kolesniška hosta
Kolosek
Kolpa
Kolpski most Kopališče Kopanj Kopica
Kopinatova hosta
Koreničeva hosta
Korinjski hrib
Kosmatec
Kosovka
Kosovo dvorišče
Kostanovlje
Kostjavec
Koščakov vrt
Koška hosta
Kotarjev peskokop
Kovačev laz
Kozlevec
Koželjeva hosta
Krački
[Krasinec]
Krč
Krč
Kremen
Kremenska hosta Križ
Križni vrh Krničeva hosta Krokarjev hrib Krška hosta
Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek Stran	
Pijavica	257	5 C	303
Vinji vrh	383	6 D	179, 181, 328
Ostrog	432	7 D	336
Metlika	474	7 G	184, 186, 347
Brezje pri Raki	179	7 D	289
Mala Hubajnica	169	6 C	286
Zemelj	481	6 G	186, 189, 348
Račica	33	2 B	263
Grič pri Klevevžu	331	6 D	317
Gorenji Mokronog	295	5 D	308
Novo mesto	350	5 E	177, 178, 319
Novo mesto	353	5 E	320
Brezje pri Trebelnem	311	5 D	175, 311
Suhadole	130	4 B	280
Zagorje ob Savi	20	4 A	258
Trbinc	279	4 C	306
Male Brusnice	413	6 E	331
Drušče	160	6 C	285
Jelševec	324	5 D	314
Gorenje Laknice	299	5 D	308
Segonje	173	6 D	287
Škocjan	336	6 D	318
Apnenik	428	7 E	335
Vukovci	510	61	353
Metlika	478	7 G	347
Stari Dvor	137	5 B	281
Velika Račna	63	2 D	269
Trebča vas	450	4 E	339
Gorenji Suhadol	407	6 E	330
Gorenja Gomila	390	6 D	329
Veliki Korinj	112	2 D	278
Preska	159	6 C	285
Dobova	223	9 D	297
Kostanjevica	435	7 E	337
Grič pri Klevevžu	332	6 D	317
Tihaboj	124	4 C	279
Znojile pri Krki	111	2 D	278
Ravnik	244	5 C	174, 300
Podmolnik	23	1 C	161, 259
Hudeje	274	4 D	305
Stan	282	5 C	307
Reva	442	4 D	181, 183, 338
Jelševec	323	5 D	314
Krasinec	489	6 G	350
Butoraj	499	6 H	351
Podzemelj	484	6 G	186, 189, 348
Gorenje Jesenice	250	5 C	300
Bistrica	249	5 C	300
Zagorica pri Čatežu	231	4 C	298
Beli Grič	294	5 D	174, 308
Prapreče	393	6 D	329
Budna vas	143	5 B	283
Smolenja vas	358	6 E	321
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek Stran	
Krvica	Velika Kostrevnica	86	3 B	275
Kržišče	Jagnenica	136	5 B	281
Kržišče	Lukovec	158	6 C	285
Kucenberg	Podkum	75	4 B	274
Kučar	Podzemelj	483	6 G	185, 186, 348
Kunkel	Vrhtrebnje	273	4 D	305
Kuntaričeva hosta	Dobe	434	7 D	337
Lačenberg	Trstenik	242	4 C	300
Lampičev peskokop	Podmolnik	28	1 C	263
Lapor	Bučka	174	6 D	287
Laščik	Zgornja Slivnica	36	1 C	164, 264
Laz	Klenik	14	3 A	160, 258
Laze	Roje pri Trebelnem	321	5 D	314
Laze	Vinji vrh	381	6 D	179, 181
Laze	Vrhpeč	303	5 D	310
Legarje	Gorenje Radulje	175	7 C	287
Leničeva hiša	Spodnja Slivnica	58	1 D	269
Lestina	Vače	7	3 A	160, 161
Lešenbert	Hohovica	120	4 C	279
Letališče	Zasap	209	8 D	295
Limberk	Velika Račna	64	1D	269
Lopanec	Kaplja vas	259	5 C	303
M
[Mačkovec pri Dvoru]	Mačkovec pri Dvoru	451	4 E	341
Magdalenska gora 1	Zgornja Slivnica	38	1 C	264
Magdalenska gora 2	Zgornja Slivnica	39	1 C	160,
Makote	Brezovo	125	4 C	279
Makovec	Zagorica pri Dobrniču	443	4 D	338
Mala njivica	Gorenja Straža	456	5 E	341
[Mala Račna]	Mala Račna	65	2 D	270
Male pužce	Veliko Mraševo	437	8 D	337
Malenškova njiva	Novo mesto	356	5 E	177,
Mali deli	Šmarješke Toplice	364	6 D	323
[Mali Korinj]	Mali Korinj	114	2 E	278
Mancin vrh	Tuji Grm	32	2 B	263
Mareča dula	Sela pri Višnji Gori	46	2 C	266
Mareček	Podmolnik	29	1 C	263
Marjanov hrib	Studenec	99	3 C	276
Marof	Dobrava	141	5 B	281
Marof	Gabrijele	262	5 C	304
Marof	Novo mesto	351	5 E	176,
Martinov britof	Zagorica pri Čatežu	233	4 C	298
Mastni hrib 1	Škocjan	338	6 D	318
Mastni hrib 2	Škocjan	339	6 D	318
Medičevo dvorišče	Selišče	467	5 F	345
Medvedjek	Veliki Gaber	110	3 D	278
Mejni prehod 1	Obrežje	227	9 D	298
Mejni prehod 2	Obrežje	228	9 D	298
Mestne njive	Novo mesto	349	5 E	177,
Metlika	Metlika	476	7 G	184,
[Mihovo]	Mihovo	424	7 E	335
Mirenski hrib	Mirna vas	325	6 D	314
L
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page	
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	- Stran	
Mlačetne	Veliko Mraševo	438	8 D	337	
Mlada Vina	Strelac	380	6 D	179,	181, 326
Mlakarjeva hosta	Koritnica	177	7 C	289	
Mlake	Sv. Primož	164	6 C	286	
Močile	Zgornje Mladetiče	256	5 C	303	
Mohorjeva njiva	Polje pri Tržišču	261	5 C	304	
Molnik	Podmolnik	25	1 C	160,	161, 259
N Nad Lošprenom	Strelac	376	6 D	325	
Namrova hosta	Zaboršt pri Šentvidu	93	3 C	276	
Napredovec	Klenik	10	3 A	160,	257
Narpelj	Trška Gora	196	8 C	291	
O Obrčeva hosta	Brezje pri Raki	178	7 D	289	
Ograja	Mala Kostrevnica	85	3 B	275	
Okljuk	Pusti Gradac	501	6 H	352	
Okrog	Krajna brda	185	7 C	289	
Osredek	Čužnja vas	329	6 D	316	
Osredek	Mali Podljuben	460	5 E	343	
[Ostrog]	Ostrog	433	7 D	337	
Ostrvec	Rihpovec	305	5 D	310	
P
Pančičev vrh
Pasjek
Pašnik
Pavšarjeva hosta
Pečar
Pelinovec
[Perovo]
Perovškov hrib
Peskokop
Petkovka
Pionir
Planinčev travnik
Pleskovičeva njiva
Plešivica
Plešivica
Pleška hosta
Podbukovje
Podsmreka 1
Podsmreka 2
Polšnik
Polžev hrib
Portovald
Površnica
Požekov vrt
Preloge
Preloge
Pri jezeru
Pugelca
Pule
Pungart
Javorje	81	3 C	274	
Podboršt	145	5 C	283	
Ostrožnik	288	5 C	307	
Pleše	27	1 C	161,	259
Sv. Vrh	269	5 C	305	
Križevska vas	4	2 B	255	
Perovo	41	1 C	266	
Mala Kostrevnica	82	3 B	275	
Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori	51	2 C	267	
Rodine pri Trebnjem	276	4 D	306	
Bršljin	348	5 E	177,	178, 319
Libna	202	8 C	171,	294
Gorenja Gomila	394	6 D	329	
Brezje pri Trebelnem	308	5 D	175,	176, 311
Drenje	455	4 E	341	
Podmolnik	26	1 C	161,	259
Lupinica	90	3 C	275	
Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori	52	2 C	267	
Podsmreka pri Višnji Gori	50	2 C	267	
Križ	240	4 C	299	
Gorenji Leskovec	183	7 B	289	
Novo mesto	347	5 E	177,	178, 319
Glinek	286	5 C	307	
Griblje	490	6 H	350	
Mačkovec pri Dvoru	452	4 E	183,	184, 341
Zgornja Slivnica	37	1 C	164,	264
Šmarješke Toplice	377	6 D	326	
Gorenje Laknice	297	5 D	308	
Pristavica pri Velikem Gabru 107		3 D	277	
Metlika	472	6 G	184,	186, 346
Site
Najdišče
Cat.No. Section Page Kat. št. Razdelek Stran
Pungrčarjeva hosta Pupeč
R
Radovlja Korita
333 445
6 D 4 D
317
181, 183, 338
Račičev gozd	Libna	201	8 C	171, 293
Radijeva hosta	Rožno	191	7 C	291
Radovica	Zabrdje	281	5 C	307
Raguše	Osredek pri Hubajnici	168	7 C	286
Rakovniško	Zabrdje	283	5 C	307
Ravne	Sela pri Višnji Gori	47	2 C	267
Ravne njive	Vače	8	3 A	160, 161, 257
Razdrška hosta	Razdrto	396	6 D	329
Reber	Klenik	15	3 A	160, 258
Reber 1	Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru	109	3 D	277
Reber 2	Zagorica pri Velikem Gabru	108	3 D	277
Roje	Mirna	243	5 C	300
Roje	Moravče pri Gabrovki	122	4 C	279
Roje	Orle	22	1 C	161, 258
Roje	Podroje	77	3 C	274
Roje	Ribjek	292	5 C	174, 175, 308
Rojska hosta	Moravče pri Gabrovki	121	4 C	279
Rovnice	Škrljevo	245	5 C	174, 300
[Rumanja vas]	Rumanja vas	458	5 E	343
Sadež	Črnomelj	494	6 H	187, 190, 350
Samostan	Stična	94	3 C	276
Sava	Jesenice	226	9 D	298
Sava	Krško	195	8 C	291
Sejmišče	Brežice	216	9 D	296
Selo	Gorenje Vrhpolje	425	7 E	335
Semenič	Gaber pri Semiču	468	5 G	345
Sitarjevec	Litija	67	3 B	270
Skubičev vrt	Pance	43	1 C	266
Slančev hrib	Bistrica	252	5 C	300
Smolova hosta	Novo mesto	357	5 E	177, 178, 321
[Spodnje Mladetiče]	Spodnje Mladetiče	258	5 C	303
Spodnji dol	Stranski vrh	72	4 B	271
Srednji hrib	Vinji vrh	385	6 D	328
Sredno polje	Čatež	219	9 D	297
Srobotnica	Gorenje Zabukovje	307	5 D	311
Stara gora	Sv. Vrh	270	5 C	305
Stari Bajhovec	Drečji vrh	301	5 D	308
Stari grad	Stari Grad v Podbočju	439	8 D	337
Starihova hosta	Črnomelj	492	5 G	350
Starina	Jelovo	139	5 B	281
Starograjska hosta	Otočec	362	6 E	323
Steljnik	Golek pri Vinici	505	61	190, 191, 352
Steljnik	Grm	480	6 G	186, 189, 348
Stonar	Mamolj	70	3 B	271
[Stranje]	Stranje	182	7 B	289
Stranje	Gorenji Mokronog	296	5 D	308
Straža	Češnjice	115	3 D	278
Straža	Osrečje	341	6 D	319
Stražni dol	Golek pri Vinici	506	61	190, 353
Stražnik Strmec Strmec Sv. Ana Sv. Gora Sv. Helena Sv. Jurij Sv. Jurij Sv. Križ Sv. Križ Sv. Lambert Sv. Lenart Sv. Marjeta Sv. Martin Sv. Peter Sv. Urh
Š
Šapole
Ščit
Šemrga
[Šentjernej]
Šentjurski hrib
Šentviška gora
Škodetov pruh
Škoporčeva hosta
Šlemine
Špajpil
Špičasti hrib
Špičasti hrib
Špiler
Špitalska draga Šrajeva hosta Štatenberški hrib Šumberk Šumenje 1 Šumenje 2
T
Takpav
Teroh
Tičnica
Tisovec
[Tolsti vrh]
Topliška skala
Tratce
Tratnikova hosta Trdinova ulica Trebanjsko bukovje Trebeži Trnišča
U
Ulice
Site
Cat.No. Section
Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek Stran	
Vratno	427	7 E	335
Bela Cerkev	384	6 D	179, 181, 328
Gorenje Kamenje	313	5 D	311
Vrhpeč	302	5 D	310
Rovišče	18	3 A	258
Zemelj	485	6 G	186, 189, 348
Čatež	218	9 D	297
Stranski vrh	73	4 B	272
Beli Grič	291	5 C	174, 175, 308
Stražnji Vrh	491	5 G	350
Pristava nad Stično	80	3 C	274
Rodež	74	4 B	274
Libna	198	8 C	169, 170, 293
Kal	144	5 C	283
Vintarjevec	79	3 C	274
Čadraže	391	6 D	329
Kostanjek	193	8 C	291
Dolenji Boštanj	155	6 C	285
Iglenik pri Veliki Loki	239	4 C	299
Šentjernej	398	7 E	329
Tržišče	265	6 C	304
Čatež	220	9 D	297
Volčje njive	284	5 C	307
Jeperjek	161	6 C	285
Golek pri Vinici	508	61	190, 353
Radohova vas	103	3 C	277
Dole pri Litiji	126	4 C	280
Log	287	5 C	307
Libna	203	8 C	171, 294
Metlika	471	6 G	184, 186, 346
Velike Pece	100	3 D	276
Štatenberk	320	5 D	314
Vintarjevec	76	3 C	274
Podturn	316	5 D	313
Podturn	317	5 D	314
Birna vas	147	5 C	283
Jelše	83	3 B	275
Studenec	171	7 C	168, 287
Mihovo	420	7 E	334
Tolsti vrh	416	6 E	332
Jagnenica	134	5 B	281
Čužnja vas	328	6 D	314
Lutrško selo	366	6 D	323
Črnomelj	493	6 G	187, 190, 350
Grmada	272	4 D	305
Velike Malence	212	8 D	173, 295
Mihovo	423	7 E	334
Valična vas	117	3 D	278
Site
Najdišče
Cat.No. Kat. št.
Section Page Razdelek Stran
V
[Valična vas]	Valična vas	116	3 D	278
Velika dobrava	Šmarčna	150	6 B	283
Velika senožet	Gradišče nad Pijavo Gorico	54	1D	165, 267
Velike njive	Velika vas	206	8 D	294
[Veliki Ban]	Veliki Ban	430	7 E	336
Veliki Kolečaj	Zapudje	504	5 H	352
[Veliki Korinj]	Veliki Korinj	113	2 E	278
Veliki prudi	Veliki Obrež	222	9 D	297
Veliki Vinji vrh	Bela Cerkev	382	6 D	177, 179, 327
Veliki vrh	Dolenji Suhor pri Metliki	469	6 F	346
Veliki vrh	Jelševec	322	5 D	314
Vencljev hrib	Radohova vas	102	3 C	277
[Verdun pri Stopičah]	Verdun pri Stopičah	403	6 E	330
Vesela gora	Brinje	246	5 C	173, 174, 300
Veselica	Metlika	473	7 G	346
Videmska gorica	Birna vas	146	5 C	283
Vidičeva njiva	Vavta vas	459	5 E	343
Vidmarjev gozd	Dobovo	367	6 D	324
Vidmarjeva hosta	Ribjek	293	5 C	174, 175, 308
Vihra	Draga	386	6 D	328
Vinji hrib	Vino	53	1 C	267
Vinji vrh	Raka	180	7 D	289
[Vinji Vrh]	Vinji Vrh	91	3 C	275
Vir	Škrilje	487	6 G	186, 189, 350
[Višnja Gora]	Višnja Gora	49	2 C	267
Vodice	Klenik	11	3 A	160, 258
Volčanškova gomila	Krško	197	8 C	171, 291
Volčje jame	Vrh pri Boštanju	149	6 C	283
Volčji breg	Brezovica	373	6 D	325
Voselca	Hrastje	40	1 C	164, 264
Vovk	Bela Cerkev	387	6 D	329
Vranski hrib	Jelovo	140	5 B	281
Vrhi	Velike Brusnice	414	6 E	331
Vrhovski boršt	Orehovica	417	6 E	332
Z
Zaboršt	Gotna vas	401	6 E	330
Zadinec	Valična vas	118	3 D	168, 278
Zadnja hosta	Podturn	318	5 D	314
[Zagorica pri Čatežu]	Zagorica pri Čatežu	232	4 C	298
Zagrac	Vodice pri Gabrovki	123	4 C	279
Zagrebška cesta	Novo mesto	355	5 E	177, 178,
Zajčeva hiša	Udje	56	1 D	269
Zajčji vrh	Gorenje Jesenice	253	5 C	302
Zaključi	Velika Hubajnica	167	6 C	286
Zaloka	Čužnja vas	327	6 D	314
Zapečar 1	Sv. Vrh	266	5 C	304
Zapečar 2	Sv. Vrh	267	5 C	305
Zapečar 3	Sv. Vrh	268	5 C	305
Zavrh	Mamolj	69	3 B	271
Zavrh	Spodnja Slivnica	60	1 D	269
Zelkova hosta	Rihpovec	304	5 D	310
Zemljak	Vrh pri Boštanju	154	6 C	285
Place	Site	Cat.No.	Section	Page	
Kraj	Najdišče	Kat. št.	Razdelek	Stran	
Zgornja krona	Vače	9	3 A	158,	257
[Zgornji Mamolj]	Zgornji Mamolj	71	3 B	271	
[Zidani most]	Zidani most	138	5 B	281	
Znančeve njive	Novo mesto	354	5 E	177,	178
Ž Žabjek	Otočec	363	6 E	323	
Žabjek	Velika vas	205	8 D	294	
Železniška postaja	Bršljin	346	5 E	319	
Železniška postaja	Grosuplje	42	1 C	266	
Žempoh	Ostrožnik	289	5 D	307	
Židovec	Miklarji	497	5 H	351	
Žitnice	Javor	34	2 C	264	
Žontova hosta	Rožemberk	251	5 C	300	
o O
o
o
o

or o o" o
O o O O O
o
o
.cP,

Oo
cO
o
o
o
^ o
Q
ÖÖO
Zalozba ZRC http://zalozba.zrc-sazu.si ZRC Publishing
ISBN 978-961-254-000-5
O
O
O
8
O CD
o
O
o
O
o
o
O o
o
o
o
9 / O VU l äL OHVJU'iJO
9789612540005