SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND COMMUNI-

CATION PATHS DURING THE EARLY- AND

LATE-BRONZE AGE IN NORTHWESTERN
CROATIA
Ana Đukić and Davor Špoljar, University of Zagreb, Department of Archaeology

With this paper, the authors tried to present a new interpretation of early- and late-bronze
age settlements, that is, their spatial distribution. The chosen period and area provided us with the only
representative number of settlements, which could be used as a big-enough sample for the implemen-
tation of our method. By applying the arithmetic mean/average method, together with satellite images
and picture processing software, we tried to determine settlement patterns in northwestern parts of
Croatia. Key words: settlement patterns, bronze age, northwestern Croatia, communication paths.

Before engaging the study of the social aspects of a population, it is necessary to a priori define
the demographic factors of the same population. We are dealing with a highly specialized area,
prehistoric demographics, and not many sources are available, especially concerning Europe. Since
archeology most often does not provide enough reliable data to reconstruct a demographic image
of a past population, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively, scientists often resort to mathematical,
statistical, ethnographical and antrophological methods. We will try to present a model of social
analysis in the context of studying past populations based on the assumption that settlement pat-
terns can be used to explain some of the first patterns of society, as well as basic social structures
(PETERSEN, 1975, 227).

Material remains are a direct consequence of a past population’s activity, and this activity
is a consequence of behavioral patterns of that population, the aim of this paper is to explain settle-
ment patterns of past populations. We focused on one region and one prehistoric period because
there are around fifty settlement sites in northwestern Croatia which can be dated back to either
early- or late-bronze age. We feel that it is reasonable and justifiable to take precisely this sample as
the basis for our experiment about settlement patterns on bronze age sites.

To write this paper, we had to consult plentiful sources in order to create a preliminary list
of settlements to be used in our calculations. We used maps obtained with the help of Google Earth
and Google Maps applications as well as some picture processing software (Microsoft Paint and
Microsoft Picture Manager. Once we mapped all known sites, we calculated the distances between
precise locations of selected sites with the help of Google Earth. The obtained data was then pro-
cessed in order to calculate average distances. Based on the results, we offered an interpretation of
settlement patterns from the early- and late-bronze age settlements of northwestern Croatia. During
the mapping of known sites, apart from regularities in spatial distribution of settlements, we noticed
several communication paths which encouraged us to interpret them as well.

The used materials and software is readily available and free, and the methods are com-
pletely non-destructive and simple. However, the obtained results prove their efficiency and applica-
bility in a wider archaeological context.

List of early-bronze age settlements in northwestern Croatia:

01. Cerine 3/Vratnec, Koprivnica (MARKOVIĆ 1982, 239-262; MARKOVIĆ 1986; REGISTAR 1997, 167;
TOMIČIĆ 1999)
02. Gumnik, Bosiljevo, Čazma (REGISTAR 1997, 210)
03. Katalena, Ludbreg (REGISTAR 1997, 118)
04. Kota 143/potok Berek, Goričan (REGISTAR 1997, 251-252)
05. Majka Božja Gorska, Lobor (FILIPEC 2008, 58)
06. Mulji 3, Vlaislav, Novigrad Podravski (REGISTAR 1997, 203-204)
07. Piškornica, Koprivnički Ivanec (MARKOVIĆ 1982, 239-262; REGISTAR 1997, 174; TOMIČIĆ 1999)
08. Polje 2, Ludbreški Ivanac, Rasinja (REGISTAR 1997, 181)
09. Pod lipom/Beleščak/Zbelščak, Zbelava, Varaždin (REGISTAR 1997, 141)
10. Rađinac, Čazma (ŠTRK 1984, 275-294; REGISTAR 1997, 211; TOMIČIĆ 1999)

100
11. Rudina 1, Reka Koprivnička, Sokolovac (MARKOVIĆ 1979 120-138; REGISTAR 1997, 191-192;
TOMIČIĆ 1999, 119)
12. Selo/Šarutanov breg, Pavlovec Ravenski, Križevci (REGISTAR 1997, 186)
13. Staro groblje, Sv. PetarLudbreški, Mali Bukovec (REGISTAR 1997, 130-131)
14. Šincekova špilja, Marčan, Vinica (REGISTAR 1997, 120)
15. Vindija cave, Donja Voća (ŠIMEK 1975; REGISTAR 1997, 103)
16. Turski breg/Stražbenica, Kloštar Vojakovački, Križevci (REGISTAR 1997)
17. Velika pećina/Mačkova špilja, Klenovnik (ŠIMEK 1975; REGISTAR 1997, 106-107)
18. Veliki Kalnik – Stari grad, Sv. Petar Orehovec (REGISTAR 1997)
19. Vratnec 1/Cerine 8, Peteranec (REGISTAR 1997)

List of late-bronze age settlements of northwestern Croatia:

01. Bračkova pećina, Lepoglava (REGISTAR 1997, 116)

02. Bregi Kostelski, Pregrada (KLEMENC, SARIA 1939, 34; REGISTAR 1997, 72)
03. Brezovica, Petrovsko1
04. Cerine 7, Koprivnica (REGISTAR 1997, 168)
1
noted in 2010 as part
of a student project “Archaeo-
05. Ciglana, Križevci (REGISTAR 1997, 175; TOMIČIĆ 1999, 120)
logical field survey of Ivanšćica
06. Delovi, Grede 1, Novigrad Podravski (REGISTAR 1997, 149-150) and Ravna gora”.
07. Donje Orešje, Sv. Ivan Zelina (REGISTAR 1997, 48)
08. Dvorišće, Močvare 1, Domašinec (REGISTAR 1997, 250)
09. Gaj, Zlatar (FILIPEC 2008, 10)
10. Gaveznica-Kameni vrh, Lepoglava (REGISTAR 1997, 116-117; PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 17)
11. Goljački bregi, Podsused (PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 17)2
12. Goruševnjak, Donja Voća (REGISTAR 1997, 124)
2
located during a walk
in 2010. Several pottery frag-
13. Gradina 1 – Špičak, Bojačno, Zagorska Sela (KLEMENC, SARIA 1939, 63-64; PAVIŠIĆ 1987, 5;
ments made Ivančica Pavišić
PAVIŠIĆ 1993, 171-188; REGISTAR 1997, 66; TOMIČIĆ 1999, 50; PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 16-17) and Davor Špoljar ascribe it to
14. Gradinovec, Zlatar (FILIPEC 2008, 10) the bronze age
15. Kalnik-Igrišče, Vilhelmova kućica, Sv. Petar Orehovec (VRDOLJAK 1992, 75-87; REGISTAR 1997,
164; PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 17)
16. Kamenjak, Stubičke Toplice (KLEMENC 1938, 63-64; LIPOVAC, IVANČAN 1993, 38; PAVIŠIĆ 2007,
14-17)
17. Kosovac, Bregana (VINSKI-GASPARINI 1973, 66-67, T. 22, 8, 9; VRDOLJAK 1996, 179-188; PAVIŠIĆ
2007, 17)
18. Kuča-gora, Donja Višnjica3 3
noted in 2010 as part
19. Kukelj, Donja Višnjica (REGISTAR 1997, 101)
of a student project “Archaeo-
20. Kuzelin-Donja Glavnica, Sesvete (SOKOL 1981, 169-185; SOKOL 1986, 85; SOKOL 1994; REGISTAR logical field survey of Ivanšćica
1997; PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 14-17) and Ravna gora”.
21. Majka Božja Gorska, Lobor (REGISTAR 1997, 74; TOMIČIĆ 1999; FILIPEC 1999, 88-93; FILIPEC
2007, 411-422; FILIPEC 2008, 58; PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 14-17)
22. Majurec – Gradina, Križevci (REGISTAR 1997)
23. Mali Sip, Hercegovac (REGISTAR 1997, 221)
24. Mikeluška, gradina Marić, Kutina (REGISTAR 1997, 89)
25. Miklinovec-Donaščice, Koprivnica (REGISTAR 1997, 171)
26. Pašinec, Zaprešić (LOŽNJAK-DIZDAR 2009, 109-112)
27. Samostan klarisa, Gradec, Zagreb (MAJNARIĆ-PANDŽIĆ 1992, 1-12; BALEN-LETUNIĆ 1996; 13-
27; VRDOLJAK 1996, 179-182; REGISTAR 1997; PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 17)
28. Stari grad Krapina, Krapina (REGISTAR 1997, 72-73; TOMIČIĆ 1995, 120; TOMIČIĆ 1999, 48-55;
PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 17)
29. Staro Čiče, Gradišće, Velika Gorica (BALEN-LETUNIĆ 1996, 15; VRDOLJAK 1996, 181)
30. Sv. Križ, Križ Brdovečki, Marija Gorica (RADOVČIĆ, ŠKOBERNE 1989, 121; BALEN-LETUNIĆ 1996,
15; VRDOLJAK 1996, 179; LOŽNJAK-DIZDAR 2008)
31. Sv. Martin, Križevci (REGISTAR 1997, 197, TOMIČIĆ 1999, 120)
32. Sv. Petar Ludbreški, Mali Bukovec (VRDOLJAK 1996, 181; REGISTAR 1997, 131)
33. Šemovec, Šarnjak, Trnovec Bartolovečki (REGISTAR 1997, 132-133)
34. Torčec, Pod Vratnec, Drnje (REGISTAR 1997, 200)
35. Vlaislav, Mulji 2, Novigrad Podravski (REGISTAR 1997, 203)
36. Želimor, Bednja (KLEMENC, SARIA 1936, 3; REGISTAR 1997, 97)
37. Židovina, Zlatar (FILIPEC 2000, 353-361; FILIPEC 2008, 10, 16; PAVIŠIĆ 2007, 16)

101
 RESULTS

Bigger early-bronze age settlements

Calculated distances between bigger settlements of the early-bronze age

Veliki Kalnik/Stari grad Kalnik – Selo/Šarutanov breg, Ravenci, Križevci = 11.77 km

Veliki Kalnik/Stari grad Kalnik - Turski breg/Stražbenica/Kloštar Vojakovački, Križevci = 13.94 km

Turski breg/Stražbenica/Kloštar Vojakovački, Križevci – Rudina 1/Reka Koprivnička, Sokolovac =

12.20 km

Turski breg/Stražbenica/Kloštar Vojakovački, Križevci - Polje 2, Ludbreški Ivanac, Rasinja = 8.58 km

Rudina 1/Reka Koprivnička, Sokolovac – Katalena, Ludbreg = 12.38 km

Katalena, Ludbreg – Pod lipom/Beleščak/Zbelščak/Zbelava, Varaždin = 13.10 km

Katalena, Ludbreg – Kota 143/potok Berek, Goričan = 12.97 km

Kota 143/potok Berek, Goričan – Staro groblje, Sv. Petar Ludbreški, Mali Bukovec = 10.93 km

Rudina 1/Reka Koprivnička - Staro groblje, Sv. Petar Ludbreški, Mali Bukovec = 12.32 km

Staro groblje, Sv. Petar Ludbreški, Mali Bukovec – Piškornica/Koprivnički Ivanec = 12.77 km

Rudina 1/Reka Koprivnička, Sokolovac – Vratnec 1/ Cerine 8, Peteranec = 13.69 km

Vratnec 1/ Cerine 8, Peteranec – Mulji 3, Vlaislav, Novigrad Podravski = 11.49 km

Mulji 3, Vlaislav, Novigrad Podravski – Cerine 3/ Vratnec, Koprivnica = 10.42 km

The arithmetic mean/average of all distances divided by the number of distances included in the
experiment is 12.04 km. The required farming area (grazing, agriculture, wood…) around bigger
settlements spreads in all directions and is 6.02 km in radius.

FIG. 1 THE DISTRIBUTION

OF EARLY-BRONZE AGE
SETTLEMENTS IN NORTH-
WESTERN CROATIA
102
01. Velika pećina/Mačkova špilja, Klenovnik;
02. špilja Vindija, Donja Voća;
03. Pod lipom/ Belščak/ Zbelščak, Zbelava, Varaždin; 04. Veliki Kalnik – Stari grad, Sv. Petar Orehovec;
05. Selo/Šarutanov breg, Pavlovec Ravenski, Križevci; 06. Gumnik, Bosiljevo,Čazma;
07. Rađinac, Čazma;
08. Katalena, Ludbreg;
09. Polje 2, Ludbreški Ivanec, Rasinja; 10. Turski breg/Stražbenica, Kloštar Vojakovački, Križevci; 11.
Rudina 10. Reka Koprivnička, Sokolovac; 12. Kota 143/potok Berek, Goričan; 13. Staro groblje, Sv.
PetarLudbreški, Mali Bukovec; 14. Vratnec 1/Cerine 8, Peteranec¸15. Piškornica, Koprivnički Ivanec¸16.
Cerine 3/Vratnec, Koprivnica, 17. Mulji, Vlaislav, Novigrad Podravski; 18. Majka Božja Gorska, Lobor;
19. Šincekova špilja, Marčan, Vinica.

Smaller early-bronze age settlements

Calculated distances between smaller settlements of the early-bronze age in northwestern Croatia

Katalena, Ludbreg - Staro groblje, Sv. Petar Ludbreški, Mali Bukovec = 6.50 km

Velika pećina/Mačkova špilja – špilja Vindija = 5.93 km

Gumnik/Čazma – Rađinac/Čazma = 4.17 km

Polje 2,Ludbreški Ivanac,Rasinja-Rudina 1/Reka Koprivnička, Sokolovac= 4.06 km

Vratnec 1/ Cerine 8, Peteranec - Cerine 3/ Vratnec, Koprivnica = 3.69 km

Vratnec 1/ Cerine 8, Peteranec - Piškornica/Koprivnički Ivanec = 4.64 km

Piškornica/Koprivnički Ivanec - Cerine 3/ Vratnec, Koprivnica = 4.27 km

The arithmetic mean/average of all distances divided by the number of distances included in the ex-
periment is 4.75 km. The required farming area (grazing, agriculture, wood…) around smaller settle-
ments spreads in all directions and is 2.37 km in radius.

Bigger late-bronze age settlements

Calculated distances between bigger settlements of the late-bronze age in northwestern Croatia

Gradina I, Špičak, Bojačno, Zagorska Sela – Kostelski vrhi, Pregrada = 11.43 km

Kostelski vrhi, Pregrada – Stari grad Krapina, Krapina = 9.17 km

Brezovica, Petrovsko – Želimor, Bednja = 11.84 km

Stari grad Krapina, Krapina – Želimor, Bednja = 10.65 km

Želimor, Bednja .- Majka Božja Gorska, Lobor = 9.61 km

Gaveznica, Kameni vrh, Lepoglava – Donja Višnjica (Kukelj), Lepoglava = 9.90 km

Gaveznica, Kameni vrh, Lepoglava – Kuča-gora, Donja Višnjica = 9.78 km

Želimor, Bednja – Kuča-gora, Donja Višnjica = 8.71 km

Želimor, Bednja – Židovina, Zlatar = 12.94 km

Kosovac, Bregana – Pašinec, Zaprešić = 10.84 km

Kosovac, Bregana – Sv. Križ, Sv. Križ Brdovečki = 7.47 km

Sv. Križ Brdovečki, Marija Gorica – Pašinec, Zaprešić = 11.06 km

Goljački bregi, Podsused – Samostan klarisa, Gradec, Zagreb = 9.42 km

103
 Gaj, Zlatar – Majka Božja Gorska, Lobor = 8.81 km

Gaj, Zlatar – Židovina, Zlatar = 11.22 km

Samostan klarisa, Gradec, Zagreb – Kuzelin, Sesvete = 11.73 km

Donje Orešje, Sv. Ivan Zelina – Kalnik-Igrišče, Sv. Petar Orehovec = 11.73km

Šemovec, Trnovec Bartolovečki – Dvorišće, Domašinec = 11.65 km

Drnje, Pod Vratnec, Torčec – Sv. Petar Ludbreški, Ludbreg = 12.27 km

Kalnik-Igrišče – Ciglana, Križevci = 12.42km

The arithmetic mean/average of all distances divided by the number of distances included in the
experiment is 10.634 km. The required farming area (grazing, agriculture, wood…) around bigger
settlements spreads in all directions and is 5.3 km in radius.

Bigger late-bronze age settlement with a proposed settlement in between in northwestern

Croatia

Calculated distances between bigger settlements of the early-bronze age in northwestern Croatia
and three proposed additional settlement in between in northwestern Croatia:

Gradina I, Špičak, Bojačno, Zagorska Sela - Stari grad Krapina, Krapina = 19.82 km

Kostelski bregi, Pregrada – Želimor, Bednja = 17.84 km

Želimor, Bednja – Goruševnjak, Donja Voća = 14.65 km

Goljački bregi, Podsused – Kamenjak, Stubičke Toplice = 18.83 km

Mikleuška, Kutina – Mali Sip, Hercegovac = 24.79 km

Brezovica, Petrovsko – Gradina I, Špičak, Zagorska Sela = 17.69 km

Pašinec, Zaprešić – Kamenjak, Stubičke Toplice = 17.82 km

Kamenjak, Stubičke Toplice – Gaj, Zlazar = 14.86km

Kosovac, Bregana – Goljački bregi, Podsused = 14.05 km

Samostan klarisa, Gradec, Zagreb – Staro Čiče, Gradišće, Velika Gorica = 17.44 km

The arithmetic mean/average of all distances divided by the number of distances included in the
experiment is 17.78 km. Archeological field surveys and potential finds will be necessary to test the
experiment.

Bigger late-bronze age settlement and observatories/refuges

Calculated distances between bigger settlements of the late-bronze age and their respective obser-
vatories/refuges (valid for the mountain areas of Medvednica, Ivanšćica, Brezovica, Ravna gora and
so on.) in northwestern Croatia.

Majka Božja Gorska, Lobor – Židovina, Zlatar = 1.57 km

Kuča-gora, Donja Višnjica – Donja Višnjica (Kukelj) = 0.54 km

Brezovica, Petrovsko – Stari grad Krapina, Krapina = 3.27 km

The arithmetic mean/average of all distances between a settlement and its respective observatory/
refuge is 1.79 km

104
Smaller late-bronze age settlements

Calculated distances between smaller settlements of the late-bronze age in northwestern Croatia

Gaveznica,Kameni vrh,Lepoglava–Majka Božja Gorska,Lobor = 5.59 km

Brezovica, Petrovsko – Kostelski vrhi, Pregrada = 6.41 km

Želimor, Bednja – Gaveznica-Kameni vrh, Lepoglava = 4.66 km

Kuča-gora, Donja Višnjica – Goruševnjak, Donja Voća = 6.84 km

Goljački bregi, Podsused – Pašinec, Zaprešić = 3.92 km

The arithmetic mean/average of all distances divided by the number of distances included in the ex-
periment is 5.48 km. The required farming area (grazing, agriculture, wood…) around smaller settle-
ments spreads in all directions and is 2.74 km in radius.

FIG. 2. LATE-BRONZE AGE

SETTLEMENT DISTRIBU-
TION IN NORTHWESTERN
CROATIA; URNFIELD CUL-
TURE SETTLEMENTS

01. Gradina 1, Špičak, Bojačno, Zagorska Sela;

02. Kosovac, Bregana;
03. Bregi Kostelski, Pregrada;
04. Goljački bregi, Podsused;
05. Stari grad Krapina, Krapina; 06. Goruševnjak, Donja Voća;
07. Kamenjak, Stubičke Toplice; 08. Samostan klarisa, Gradec, Zagreb;
09. Želimor, Bednja;
10. Kukelj, Donja Višnjica;
11. Gaveznica-Kameni vrh, Lepoglava;
12. Kuzelin, Sesvete; 13. Majka Božja Gorska, Lobor; 14. Židovina, Zlatar; 15. Donje Orešje, Sv. Ivan
Zelina; 16. Kalnik-Igrišče, Sv. Petar Orehovec; 17. Šemovec, Trnovec Bartolovečki; 18. Ciglana, Križevci;
19. Sv. Martin, Križevci; 20. Dvorišće, Domašinec; 21. Mikleuška, Kutina; 22. Miklinovec-Donaščice,
Koprivnica; 23. Cerine 7, Koprivnica; 24. Torčec, Drnje; 25. Vlaislav, Novigrad Podravski; 26. Delovi,
Novigrad Podravski; 27. Mali Sip, Hercegovac; 28. Brezovica, Petrovsko; 29. Gaj, Zlatar; 30. Gradin-
ovec Zlatar; 31. Kuča-gora, Donja Višnjica; 32.Majurec – Gradina, Križevci, 33. Pašinec, Zaprešić; 34.
Bračkova pećina, Lepoglava; 35. Sv. Križ, Sv. Križ Brdovečki, Marija Gorica; 36. Staro Čiče, Gradišće,
Velika Gorica, 37. Sv. Petar Ludbreški, Mali Bukovec.

105
 DISCUSSION
The study of prehistory and the interpretation of its characteristics is complex and chal-
lenging work primarily because of the differences between the environment and landscape inhab-
ited by prehistoric populations and that which is visible today. While looking for firm, unchangeable
points for the basic research framework for the bronze age, we decided to use a different type of
data, notably the physical locations of archaeological settlement sites.

Physical locations are reliable referential points, as are the distances between them because
they did not change despite the changes in the landscape, such as changes in vegetation, river flows,
climates, which have certainly occurred since the bronze age. This is precisely why this type of data
can, in our opinion, be used as a basis for sound arguments about settlement patterns of the early-
and late-bronze age settlement patterns in the studied region. Modern techonologies enabled the
development of non-destructive methods based on existing data. The results of such studies can be
internally examined, but can also be furthered by additional archaeological field surveys, mappings
of new sites and excavations.

The results of our calculations show that by careful measuring of the distances between
specific sites and finetunning them with the configuration of the landscape (e.g. not measuring dis-
tances in ares not right for farming – mountains and similar), one can see that regularities in settle-
ment patterns arise from the size of the population and the area required for farming. The calculated
values of 5-6 km and 11-12 km between specific sites show that we are dealing with different sized
settlements and different farming areas required for the survival of the inhabitantsa of those settle-
ments. Logically, bigger settlement require a bigger farming area no matter what their primary feed-
ing strategy might be (farming, hunting...), so these settlement needed to be further apart from one
another than smaller ones.

Apart from the difference in the size of a settlement, in higher mountain areas we see
a difference between settlemwents based on their location and function. Sites situated on visible
higher mountain slopes, often between 500m and 1.5 km away from the settlement, were only rarely
inhabitated and could have been used as observatories or refuges.

Itis important to note another cathegory which encompasses values for very distant sites,
but which are always a sum of known values for either smaller or bigger settlemens. We feel that we
are dealing with 2 settlements between which there is a third one which has not yet been noted. If,
for example, the distance between 2 settlements is 18 km, it is to be expected that there is one big
sand one small settlement between, or otherwise three small settlements. By making this connec-
tion we realized that the application of our method can enable archaeologists to map new, so far
undiscovered sites.

Our results show that the early- and late-bronze age landscape was inhabited according
to certain rules, i.e. based on the size of the population and different functions of settlements. The
size of the population, but also the size of the neighboring population played a major role in the
positioning of a site. Despite the fact that the landscape influenced the placing of settlements, our
results show that the size of the population was a more important factor.

By combining the physical placing of sites and the studies on today’s communication net-
works, we offer a reconstruction of a part of the prehistoric network as well. The settlement were, as
they are today, connected by a series of roads, and our studies show that these were placed far from
rivers, on the borders of valleys, and, in the case of mountains, they followed the natural layout of the
slopes. In the case of northwestern Croatia, some of the main oads were used up to the beginning
of the 20th century, before the rivers were regulated, swapms dried out and highways built.

Established hierarchy of bronze age settlements in northwestern Croatia

Factors employed for creating the hierarchy (HARDING 2000):

1.) Relations to other settlements
2.) The size of the farming area

Hierarchy:

BIGGER SETTLEMENTS - proposed term: VILLAGE

- between 11 and 12 km apart; individual settlement could hold between 100 and 200 people

SMALLER SETTLEMENTS - proposed term: HAMLET

- between 5 and 6 km apart; an individual settlement could hold less than 100 people

106
OBSERVATORIES/REFUGES
- can be about 1.79 km away from the settlement; situated in mountain areas (Ivanščica, Medvednica,
Ravna Gora, Brezovica), up to 800 m above sea level; probably not inhabitated during the whole year.

RECONSTRUCTING A PART OF THE PREHISTORIC COMMUNICATION

NETWORK

While reconstructing prehistoric communication roads, one need to keep in mind the fact
that river flows were not changed, but caused massive floods in the surrounding areas, as well as the
fact that a much larger area was covered by forests. Furthermore, areas of lower altitudes like river
valleys could not be used as communication roads because they would be under water for a large
part of the year. As in older periods like the neolithic, so in the studied bronze age, the roads needed
to be on the borders of valleys, and not in their centers.
Some archaeologists think that the Roman communication network relied on its prehistoric
predecessors (SLUKAN-ALTIĆ 2003), but one should note the fact that the Romans were able to dry
out swapms and build roads of high quality, which is why they could be placed in the middle of val-
leys.

In this paper we have so far focused on settlements built on higher altitudes (an example
of which can be seen in Image 2), because the settlers of these sites were able to control the area
and stay in visual contact with their neighbors. However, apart from this connection, there had to be
roads forming a communication network between these settlements, which served as a means to
exchange goods and, very often, cultural characteristics.

We were able to note four prehistoric communication roads in Hrvatsko zagorje:

The first road spreads over the northern slopes of Kostelsko gorje, a hill range which divides
the region to form Upper and Lower Zagorje, but which also forms a border between two kinds of
landscape, the pre-Alpine karst region and a highland region of greater geological age. The path
leads grom Gradina 1 near Bojačno, passes below the northern slopes of Kostelsko gorje and Kuna-
gora and leads to the site at Kostelski Bregi near Pregrada. From this point the road most propably
spread eastward towards the settlement at Želimor near Bednja and the hillfort at Gaveznica near
Lepoglava. It is important to note that the distance between Bojačno and Kostelski Bregi is 11.43 km.
The second road cuts over the Sava valley and connects several settlements, Kosovac near Bregane,
on the slopes of Samoborsko gorje, Pašinec near Zaprešić and the settlement at Goljački bregi near
Podsuseda on the southwestern slopes of Medvednica. It is interesting to nothe that the road cuts
across the Sava valley presicely near Podsused where the existence of a ferry or even a brigde from
the Middle Ages is noted. The ferry or bridge was owned by Podsused noblemen, and could be
used to cross from the left to the right bank of the Sava. Furthermore, historical sources note many
mills in that general area, as well as a monestary on an island in the middle of the river. This road is
tremendously important because it connects the Sava valley and the Panonian plain with the pre-
Alpine and alpine regions. The distances between known sites along the road are: Goljački bregi,
Podsused – 3.92 km – Pašinec, Zaprešić – 10.84 km – Kosovac, Bregana.

The third road spreads across the eastern border of the Krapina valley, across the northern
egdes of the slopes of Medvednica. From here it leads to Zlatar Bistrica, enters the Zlatarsko polje
and spreads on towards Lobor. Several late-bronze age settlements were noted along this road:
Pašinec near Zaprešić, Kamenjak near Stubičke Toplice, Gaj near Zlatar and Majka Božja Gorska near
Lobor. The importance of the road is further emphasized by the fact that it was used up to the
middle of the past century. Only two roads lead to Zagreb at that point, and this is one of them. The
other spread across the west edges of the Krapina valley and northward through Zaprešić. Roads like
those used today, for example the “zagorska magistrala“ and the A2 highway, which spread parallel
to Krapina did ot exist in prehistoric times because the river was not regulated and would often flood
the surrounding area. The shifts of the river were also stronger than today4. This example shows that 4
The results of shifts
some prehistoric roads in Hrvatsko zagorje were used in the first half of the 20th century as well, and
of the Krapina river are visible
are used even today by the local population. The distances between known sites along the road are: even today, primarily as old
Pašinec, Zaprešić – 17.82 km- Kamenjak, Stubičke Toplice – 14.86 km – Gaj, Zlatar – 8.81 km – Majka dried effluents, swampish wet
Božja Gorska, Lobor. land. The shifts made most of
the areas aroung the Krapina
The fourth road sreads over the southern slopes of Medvednica, from its westernmost river not suitable for farming.
part and the settlement at Goljački bregi near Podsuseda and the river Sava, across the settlement
at Samostan klarisa on Gradecu/Griču, where it turns slightly towards the northeast, following the
configurartion of the mountain, and leads across Donja Glavica, Kuzelin further towards Kalnik. The
distances between known sites along the path are: Goljački bregi, Podsused – 9.42 km – Samostan
klarisa, Zagreb-Gradec/Grič – 19.25 km – Donja Glavnica, Kuzelin.

107
FIG. 3 RECONSTRUCTION
OF A PART OF THE PREHIS-
TORIC COMMUNICATION
NETWORK

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this paper, we have successfully applied the mathematical method of arithmetic mean/
average for calculating the distances between specific settlements. The application of this method
could, as we have shown, contribute to the mapping and finding of new archaeological sites from
the same period and in the same region. The obtained results showed population size to be a very
important factor in the spatial distribution of sites, perhaps more important than landscape. The
settlements were built in accordance with the minimal farming area required for the survival of the
population. However, we do not diminish the role of landscape, which determined the distance
between settlements because of the impossibility to modify it in order to acommodate the usual
settlement pattern of both the early- and late-bronze age.

In the part on prehistoric communication paths, we ried to reconstruct a part of a larger

network which existed in the bronze age, but which was used in other periods of prehistory as well.
This sample also mirrors the pattern we have established for bigger late-bronze age settlements (in
this case 11 to 12 km apart), so we assume that these paths were linkers between such settlements
in the region. While reconstructing these paths, we noted that in Hrvatsko zagorje they tend to be
positioned at the borders of valleys and are sometimes protected by mountain slopes (Medvednica,
Kostelsko gorje). The fact that settlements along these paths follow the same patterns of spatial
distribution as other settlements studied in this paper suggests that population size also influenced
the formation of paths.

The results obtained through this research and presented in this paper show that the used
non-destructive methods can be applied in archaeology. The results were tested internally on early-
and late-bronze age settlement spatial distribution. As the method has proved to be successfull even
in regions where no settlement was noted before, we hope that it will be applied to other periods of
prehistory and possibly in different regions. We highlight the fact that, for studying other periods,
the method will need to be modified with respect to the type and number of sites, as well as the
economic and ecological conditions in the studied region because the types of settlements we have
proposed for the early- and late-bronze age of northwestern Croatia need not apply to other periods
and/or regions.

108
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BALEN-LETUNIĆ, D., 1996, Novi kasnobrončanodobni lokaliteti sa zagrebačkog područja (Zusamm.),
Izdanja HAD-a 17 (1992), Zagreb, 13-27.

FILIPEC, K., 1999, Zaštitno arheološko iskapanje kod svetišta Majke Božje Gorske u Loboru, Obavijesti
HAD-a, XXXI, 1, Zagreb, 88-93.

FILIPEC, K., 2000, Neznani srednjovjekovni grad na gori Ivanščici, Opvsvla. Archaeologica. 23-24,
Zagreb, 353-361.

FILIPEC, K., 2007, 10 Jahre archäologischer Grabung in Lobor (1998.-2007.), Hortus Artium Medi-
evalum, vol. 1372, Zagreb, 411-422.

FILIPEC, K., 2008, Arheološko – povijesni vodič po svetištu Majke Božje Gorske u Loboru, Odsjek za
arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu; Župni ured sv. Ane; Općina Lobor, Zagreb,
58.

FILIPEC, K., 2008, Arheološka nalazišta i nalazi na području grada Zlatara, Hrvatsko zagorje – časopis
za kulturu Krapinsko-zagorske županije, br. 1.-2., god.XIV., Krapina, 7-19.

GLOGOVIĆ, D., 2000, Novoobjavljena ostava Pustakovec i ostale prapovijesne ostave iz sjeveroza-
padne Hrvatske, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju 17/1, Zagreb.

HARDING, A. F.: 2000, European Societies in The Bronze Age, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cam-
bridge University Press.

KLEMENC, J., SARIA, B., 1936, Archaeologische Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Ptuj, Beograd-Zagreb.

KLEMENC, J., 1938, Archaeologische Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Zagreb, Beograd.

KLEMENC, J., SARIA, B., 1939, Archaeologische Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Rogatec, Zagreb.

LIPOVAC, G., IVANČAN, T., 1993, Obilazak arheoloških lokaliteta na području općine Donja Stubica,
Obavijesti HAD-a, Zagreb, 38.

LOŽNJAK-DIZDAR, D., 2008, Terenski pregled područja izgradnje HE Podsused, Annales Instuti ar-
cheologici IV/2008, Zagreb, 109-112.

MAJNARIĆ-PANDŽIĆ, N., 1992, Prapovijesna naselja na Gradecu, In: Zagrebački Gradec 1242.-1850.,
Zagreb, 1-12.

MARKOVIĆ, Z., 1979, Vučedolsko naselje Rudina, Podravski zbornik 79, Koprivnica, 120-138.

MARKOVIĆ, Z., 1982, Rezultati istraživanja prethistorijskih lokaliteta oko Koprivnice 1981. godine,
Podravski zbornik 82, Koprivnica, 239-262.

MARKOVIĆ, Z., 1986, Koprivnica, Cerine III, prethistorijsko i srednjovjekovno naselje, Arheološki
pregled 25, Ljubljana.

PAVIŠIĆ, I., 1987, Rezultati probnih iskopavanja na prethistorijskoj gradini Špičak u Bojačnom, Prilozi
Instituta za arheologiju 5/6, 1986-1987, Zagreb, 5-23.

PAVIŠIĆ, I., 1993, The Late Bronze Age Settlement of Špičak in Bojačno. A contribution to Knowledge
of the Ruše group, Ptujski arheološki zbornik, ob 100-letnici muzeja in muzejskega društva, Ptuj,
178-201.

PAVIŠIĆ, I., 2007, Arheološka svjedočanstva o prošlosti Stubice i okolice, Hrvatsko zagorje – časopis
za kulturu Krapinsko-zagorske županije, br. 3-4, god.XIII., Krapina, 8-24.

PETERSEN, W., 1975, A Demographer’s View of Prehistoric Demography, Current Anthropology Vol.
16, No. 2, The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research, Chicago, 227-245.

RADOVČIĆ, J., ŠKOBERNE, Ž., 1989, Zagreb prije početaka, Mladost, Zagreb, 121.
Registar arheoloških nalaza i nalazišta sjeverozapadne Hrvatske, 1997, Muzejsko društvo sjeveroza-
padne Hrvatske – sekcija arheologa i preparatora, Ed. Marina Šimek, II. izdanje, Bjelovar.

SLUKAN-ALTIĆ, M., 2003, Povijesna kartografija, Meridijani, Samobor.

109
 SOKOL, V., 1981, Najnovija arheološka istraživanja u Prigorju, Izdanja HAD-a 6, Zagreb, 169-185.

SOKOL, V., 1986, Područje sjeverozapadne Hrvatske u razdoblju između 400. i 800. godine (velika
seoba naroda), In: 40 godina arheoloških istraživanja u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj, Koprivnica, 54-60,
85-87.

SOKOL, Vladimir, 1994, Das spätantike Kastrum auf dem Kuzelin bei Donja Glavnica, Arheološki vest-
nik. 45, Ljubljana, 199-210.

ŠIMEK, M., 1975, Licenska keramika u Gradskom muzeju u Varaždinu, Godišnjak Gradskog muzeja
Varaždin 5, Varaždin, 13-24.

ŠTRK, V., 1984, Rezultati pokusnih iskapanja prethistorijskog naselja Rađinac u Čazmi 1983. godine,
Podravski zbornik 84, Koprivnica, 275-294.

TOMIČIĆ, Ž., 1995, U potrazi za srednjovjekovnim arheološkim naslijeđem Hrvatskog zagorja,

Hrvatsko zagorje – časopis za kulturu Krapinsko-zagorske županije, br. 1., god. I., Krapina, 109-124.

TOMIČIĆ, Ž., 1999, Panonski periplus, arheološka topografija kontinentalne Hrvatske, Zagreb.

VINSKI-GASPARINI, K., 1973, Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj, Katalozi i monografije,
Zadar, 66-67, T. 22: 8-9.

VRDOLJAK, S., 1992, Nalazi kalupa s lokaliteta Kalnik-Igrišče, Opvscvla Archeologica 16, Zagreb, 75-
87.

VRDOLJAK, S., 1996, Prapovijesno naselje na Kosovcu kod Bregane (Samobor), Opvscvla Archeo-
logica 20, Zagreb, 179-188.

110