383Arheološki vestnik 76, 2025, 383–414; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.76.12; CC BY-SA 4.0
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part
of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’
and an Early Iron Age cemetery
Podgorica: naselje iz obdobja kulture žarnih grobišč
kot del podgoriško-dragomeljskega “somestja”
in starejšeželeznodobno grobišče 
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ
Izvleček
V pričujočem prispevku predstavljamo rezultate arheoloških raziskav bronastodobne naselbine pri Podgorici, obrav-
navane kot del tako imenovanega podgoriško-dragomeljskega “somestja”. Naselbina se je razprostirala vzdolž nekdanje 
rečne struge, na več kot 2 ha velikem območju. Gručasto razporejene stavbe ter na robove naselbine pomaknjena meta-
lurško-livarska dejavnost pričajo o načrtni organiziranosti naselbine in o gospodarskih dejavnostih njenih prebivalcev. 
V prispevku pa so zaradi ponovne rabe prostora v starejši železni dobi predstavljeni tudi halštatskodobni grobovi.
Ključne besede: pozna bronasta doba; nižinska naselbina; livarske aktivnosti; obredni običaji; starejša železna doba; 
grobovi 
Abstract
The article presents the results of the archaeological investigations conducted at Podgorica. They revealed a settlement 
considered part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ that was located at a former streambed and extended across 
more than 2 ha. The clustered buildings in its centre and the metallurgical-casting activities moved to the periphery 
indicate a deliberate organisation of the living and work spaces of its inhabitants. The area was then reused in the Early 
Iron Age, when it served as a burial ground in the Hallstatt period. 
Keywords: Late Bronze Age; Early Iron Age; lowland settlement; casting activities; ritual practices; graves
The archaeological investigations conducted 
in advance of constructing the Slovenian motor-
way cross included a campaign in 1999 located 
in the plain northeast of Ljubljana, between the 
modern-day settlements of Pšata, Dragomelj and 
Podgorica. It unearthed the remains of lowland 
settlements (Fig. 1) from the Late Stone and Late 
Bronze Ages, as well as stray finds that indicate 
the area was also inhabited during the Early Stone 
Age, the Early Iron Age, the Roman period and the 
Early Middle Ages.1 The most intense habitation 
remains, however, date to the Late Bronze Age – 
the Urnfield culture period.2 
1  The results of the archaeological excavations are 
integrally published in the Arheologija na avtocestah 
Slovenije series (Vojaković, Novšak 2022; Turk, Svetličič, 
Pavlovič 2022).
2  For the Dragomelj part of the ‘twin settlement’, see 
Turk, Svetličič in this volume.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ384
THE PODGORICA-DRAGOMELJ
‘TWIN SETTLEMENT’ FROM 
THE URNFIELD PERIOD:
EVIDENCE FROM PODGORICA
The lowland settlement at Podgorica extended 
across the whole excavation area and beyond (Fig. 
2), with the highest density of remains documented 
along a former streambed. The remains included 
sunken features of different shapes, sizes and func-
tions – mostly postholes intended for the vertical 
supports of timber buildings – that we were able 
to connect into the ground plans of individual 
buildings. The identification of these ground plans 
relied on previously established criteria.3
We identified twenty buildings (A–U) (Fig. 2). All 
shared the construction with earthfast wooden posts. 
We distinguished two groups based on the presence 
or absence of ridge posts. The first group comprises 
Buildings A, B, J, K and R without ridge posts, in 
which the roof rested solely on the exterior wall 
posts. The second group consisted of Buildings N, P, 
S and U that had a row of ridge posts to support the 
roof structure in addition to the exterior wall posts.4
3  Dular, Tomanič Jevremov 2010, 88; Vojaković, 
Novšak 2022, 30.
4  All other buildings are insufficiently preserved to 
enable a ground plan reconstruction.
Some posts were strengthened with packing 
stones in the postholes, while others rested on a 
stone footing. The pieces of burnt daub and the 
imprints observed on them suggest wattle-and-
daub buildings, with walls made of interwoven 
branches coated with clay. The analyses of the 
charcoal remains revealed the buildings were 
largely constructed of oak (Quercus), though 
beech (Fagus) and the wood of other deciduous 
trees such as maple (Acer), hornbeam (Carpinus) 
and rowan (Sorbus) was also used. A posthole 
of Building M held charcoal pieces of a conifer, 
either pine (Pinus) or fir (Abies). In addition to 
these species, the waste pits, storage pits and pits 
with fireplaces also revealed ash (Fraxinus), alder 
(Alnus) and hazel (Corylus) wood.5
The buildings fall into two size categories, one 
comprising Buildings A, B, J, K, N, P, R and S 
measuring up to 10 m in length, and the other 
consisting of Building U that is over 10 m long 
(Fig. 2).6
The ground plans show that the buildings were 
arranged in clusters with open areas between them 
that functioned as central courtyards. These clusters 
5  Meta Culiberg analysed and identified all the organic 
remains from Podgorica (Culiberg 2022).
6  All other buildings are insufficiently preserved to 
enable us to identify the size category.   
Fig. 1: The Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ investigated on the route of the motorway and the location of the 
potentially prehistoric hillforts in the vicinity. (basemap: https://geohub.gov.si/ghapp/giskd)
Sl. 1: Raziskano območje podgoriško-dragomeljskega “somestja” na avtocestni trasi ter lega okoliških, potencialno 
prazgodovinskih gradišč. (podlaga : https://geohub.gov.si/ghapp/giskd)
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 385
Fig. 2: Podgorica, excavation plan with marked buildings, pits and postholes from the Late Bronze Age and the cemetery 
from the Early Iron Age (from Vojaković, Novšak 2022, Fig. 18).
Sl. 2: Podgorica, načrt izkopnega polja z vrisanimi tlorisi stavb ter jam iz pozne bronaste dobe in grobiščem iz starejše 
železne dobe (po Vojaković, Novšak 2022, sl. 18).
(coordinate system / koordinatni sistem D48/GK)
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ386
formed ‘farmsteads’ with at least one large build-
ing (e.g., Buildings U, N and L) (Fig. 2). Buildings 
F, G, H and I, located south of the stream, may 
show a different organisation, though their poor 
preservation leaves this interpretation uncertain.7 
The text below presents the construction features 
of the two best-preserved buildings.
Building N 
Grid Squares J–K35–37 revealed a group of ten 
posts forming a rectangular plan of Building N, 
7  For the geomorphological impact, see Gruškovnjak 
2024, 19–20.
measuring 7.5 × 3.5 m with a NE–SW orientation 
(Fig. 2–3). The number and position of the post-
holes show it belongs to the second formal group 
(with a ridge post) and the first size category (up 
to 10 m in length). The postholes were dug 10 to 
32 cm deep and were either oval (34 × 42 cm) or 
round in plan (diameter 16 to 44 cm), with vertical 
walls and a flat to concave bottom (Fig. 3).8 They 
were filled with dark brown sandy silt containing 
bits of charcoal, pottery sherds (Pl. 1: 6,8–11) and 
a glass bead (Pl. 1: 7).9 Standing out among the 
8  Postholes SE 138 and SE 141 had a stepped bottom.
9  Posthole SE 105 was filled with a large quantity of 
charcoal bits (oak, beech, maple, rowan), Postholes SE 
102, SE 104, SE 134, SE 136, SE 138 and SE 143 held bits 
Fig. 3: Podgorica. Plan of Building N with some of its pits and postholes presented in plan and section.
Sl. 3: Podgorica. Tloris stavbe N ter tlorisi in preseki v besedilu obravnavanih jam.
(coordinate system / koordinatni sistem D48/GK) 
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 387
Fig. 4: Podgorica. Cumulative diagram showing the radiocarbon dates of charcoal and bone samples. Samples were 
analysed in the Leibniz-Labor für Altersbestimmung und Isotopenforschung, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, 
Germany, and in the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Sl. 4: Podgorica. Zbirni diagram radiokarbonskih datacij vzorcev. Vzorci so bili analizirani v laboratorijih Leibniz-labor 
für Altersbestimmung und Isotopenforschung, Univerza v Kielu, Nemčija in Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Univerza 
Waikato, Hamilton, Nova Zelandija.
postholes is that of SE 134, as it contained cremated 
human bones (parts of a skull, phalanx, long bone, 
scapula?),10 burned cattle horn and pig bones, as 
well as pieces of charcoal (oak). Burned bones, 
presumably human,11 were also found in two other 
postholes (SE 104 contained skull fragments, SE 
142 fragments of the pelvis, long bone and ulna).
The building interior revealed several small 
clusters of 10–40 cm large pieces of rubble, mixed 
with pottery sherds (Pl. 1: 1). Some of these clusters 
may represent the remains of a stone floor or the 
footing of loadbearing posts. Located in the centre 
of the building was an oval pit (SE 139) measuring 
1.34 × 1.24 m in plan and 0.50 cm in depth, with 
sloping walls and a concave bottom (Fig. 3). It was 
filled with dark grey sandy clay with charcoal bits 
(oak, maple) and a considerable amount of pottery 
sherds (Pl. 1: 2–5), daub fragments and burned 
bones, presumably human12 (fragments of a skull, 
long bone and femur).
of burned animal bones, the bottom of Posthole SE 141 
revealed burned animals bones and a 28 cm large piece of 
rubble, Posthole SE 102 held grains (wheat, millet), Posthole 
SE 136 grains (lentil, wheat) and burned animal bones.
10  Borut Toškan identified the animal bones (Toškan 
2022), Tamara Leskovar identified those belonging to 
humans (Leskovar 2022).
11  They are poorly preserved and therefore only 
tentatively identified as human.
12  They are poorly preserved and therefore only 
tentatively identified as human.
Two other postholes (SE 146 and 151) were 
found to the southeast of the building (Fig. 3). 
The charcoal samples from the central pit 
(SE 139) and one of the postholes (SE 134) were 
radiocarbon-dated and indicate that Building N 
most likely existed in the 13th or 12th century BC 
(2987 ± 25 BP; with a range of 1262 (40.7%)–1209 
BC (1σ) and 1314 (67.7%)–1186 BC (2σ); or 2918 
± 33 BP; with a range of 1130 (50.5%)–1043 BC 
(1σ) and 1134 (63.3%)–1004 BC (2σ)) (Fig. 4).
Building U
Grid Squares A–C19–22 revealed a group of 
twelve postholes that constitute the ground plan 
of Building U measuring 15 × 6 m, with a NE–SW 
orientation (Fig. 2, 5). It falls into the second group 
according to the number and position of the post-
holes, and in the second size category (length of 
over 10 m). The postholes were dug to the depths 
of 12 to 50 cm. They were oval (28 × 34 cm) or 
round (diameter 24 to 50 cm), with sloping walls 
and a flat to concave bottom (Fig. 5). They were 
filled with dark brown sandy clay, charcoal and 
pottery sherds (Pl. 1: 15–16).13 
13  Posthole SE 88 also contained the odd piece of 
rubble, up to 15 cm large, Pit SE 94 contained some pieces 
of burned bones, Pit SE 96 the remains of grains, while 
Pit SE 98 held up to 16 cm large rubble pieces at the top.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ388
The northernmost part of the building interior 
revealed a large irregularly shaped pit (SE 95), 
measuring 4.76 × 2.36 × 0.5 m (Fig. 5). It had 
sloping walls and a stepped bottom. It was filled 
with dark brown sandy clay, mixed with a large 
amount of charcoal and several up to 20 cm large 
stones. A scraper was found among these stones 
(Pl. 1: 12). Southwest of Pit SE 95 was a smaller 
oval pit (SE 77), which measured 1.32 × 1.1 m 
in plan and 0.30 m in depth. It also had sloping 
walls and a concave bottom, and was filled with 
dark brown sandy clay, charcoal bits (oak, alder), 
grains (barley), pottery sherds (Pl. 1: 13–14) and 
cremated human bone fragments (rib, long bone, 
ulna). 
Southwest of Building U was a large oval storage 
pit (SE 67), measuring 1.5 × 1.14 m in plan and 
36 cm in depth, with sloping walls and a flat bot-
tom. It was filled with dark brown sandy clay that 
contained pottery sherds (Pl. 2: 17–35), pieces of 
daub, a substantial amount of charcoal (oak) and 
burned animal bones (pig, dog). Several postholes 
Fig. 5: Podgorica. Plan of Building U with some of its pits and postholes presented in plan and section.
Sl. 5: Podgorica. Tloris stavbe U ter tlorisi in preseki v besedilu obravnavanih jam. 
(coordinate system / koordinatni sistem D48/GK)
Fig. 6: Podgorica. Plans and sections of the pits in Foundry 1. (coordinate system D48/GK)
Sl. 6: Podgorica. Tlorisi in preseki jam livarskega območja 1. (koordinatni sistem D48/GK)
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 389
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ390
were arranged in a semicircle around the pit (Fig. 
5).14 One of them (SE 81) containing a glass bead 
(Pl. 2: 36). 
The radiocarbon analysis of the charcoal from 
the storage pit (SE 67) dates Building U to the same 
time as Building N, i.e., the 13th or 12th century BC 
(2957 ± 34 BP; with a range of 1220 (53.3%)–1125 BC 
(1σ) and 1265 (91.6%)–1040 BC (2σ)) (Fig. 4).
Foundry 1
The northeastern edge of the excavation area 
revealed a group of pits (Fig. 2, 6). Two large oval 
pits stand out (SE 38 and 39), one surviving to the 
size of 3 × 2 m in plan and 70 cm in depth, while 
the other measured 3 × 1.5 m in plan and 62 cm in 
depth. Both contained a large amount of charcoal 
(oak) and ash, the first one also a stone quern (Pl. 
3: 41), which suggests metallurgical activities, pos-
sibly the production of fuel – charcoal.15  
Also filled with a large amount of charcoal (oak, 
beech) and ash was a smaller pit (SE 107), with a 
diameter of 26 cm, with sloping walls and a stepped 
bottom (Fig. 6). The ash mostly concentrated along 
the edge, while the charcoal was evenly distributed. 
Its fill included a mould for casting spearheads (Pl. 
3: 37), suggesting we are dealing with the remains 
of a smelting-casting hearth.
Another interesting feature is a round pit with 
a diameter of 1.6 m (SE 31), vertical walls and a 
flat bottom, surviving to a depth of 65 cm (Fig. 
6). Its fill consisted of a roughly 10 cm thick 
layer of burnt material covered by dark brown 
loamy clay with a substantial amount of charcoal 
(hornbeam, oak), as well as pottery fragments 
(Pl. 3: 38–39), a glass bead (Pl. 3: 40), fragments 
of burned animal bones and remains of grains 
(wheat, barley, millet).
A glass bead (Pl. 3: 44) also came to light in 
Pit SE 124, which measured 4.2 × 2.2 m in plan 
and 12 cm in depth. The pit had sloping walls and 
an uneven bottom (SE 128), and was filled with 
dark brown sandy clay containing a considerable 
amount of charcoal (oak), grain remains (barley), 
burned animal bones and several pottery sherds 
(Pl. 3: 42–43). 
The radiocarbon dating of the bones from Pit 
SE 119 suggests a time between the second half of 
14  Pits SE 82 and SE 74 revealed the remains of grains 
(wheat and a hazel shell?).
15  Pleiner 2002, 115–126.
the 13th and the 12th century BC (2967 ± 30 BP; 
with a range of 1260 (68.2%)–1120 BC (1σ) and 
1310 (95.4%)–1050 BC (2σ)) (Fig. 4).
Foundry 2
The second area of casting activities with a pre-
sumed smelting-casting hearth was located at the 
south-eastern edge of the excavation area (Fig. 2, 
7). It involved a large pit (SE 108) measuring 1.16 
× 0.72 m in plan and 11 cm in depth, containing 
traces of a burning and tailings, a casting mould 
(Pl. 4: 47), a hammer for crushing ore (Pl. 4: 48) 
and a whetstone (Pl. 4: 49). The pit also contained 
a substantial amount of charcoal (oak, beech, alder, 
rowan, maple?), burned animal bones and pottery 
fragments (Pl. 4: 45–46).
The radiocarbon analysis of charcoal from the 
pit dates it to the 12th or 11th century BC (2928 
± 33 BP; with a range of 1131 (43.7%)–1049 BC 
(1σ) and 1215 (89.7%)–1010 BC (2σ)) (Fig. 4). 
Fig. 7: Podgorica. Plans and sections of the pit in Foundry 2.
Sl. 7: Podgorica. Tloris in presek jame livarskega območja 2.
(coordinate system / koordinatni sistem D48/GK)
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 391
CHRONOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTION
OF ARTEFACTS 
The recovered pottery mainly comprises the 
remains of coarse kitchenware (differently sized 
jars and pithoi). The most common are ellipsoid 
jars with a rounded shoulder, long conical neck 
and strongly everted rim (Fig. 8: L1; Pl. 1: 6, 9; 
2: 18–20; 3: 43). These are followed by ellipsoid 
jars with a conical neck and short everted rim 
(Fig. 8: L2; Pl. 1: 4, 13; 2: 35), a few examples of 
tulip-shaped jars with an everted rim (Fig. 8: L3; 
Pl. 1: 2, 10) and ellipsoid jars with a short neck 
and everted rim (Fig. 8: L4; Pl. 1: 14; 2: 21; 3: 38). 
Parallels for these vessels can be found at Tribuna 
in Ljubljana16 and at Rogoza near Maribor.17 
The most common forms among the fine (table) 
ware are dishes, predominantly undecorated. 
The dishes with an inverted rim (Fig. 8: S1; Pl. 1: 
11; 2: 24–34; 4: 46) can be paralleled with those 
from the settlements at Tribuna18 and Rogoza.19 
Some of their rims were decorated with oblique 
cannelling (Fig. 8: S1; Pl. 1: 11; 2: 30, 33–34; 4: 
46). The decoration of oblique, vertical and hori-
zontal cannelling already appears in the Dobova 
cemetery during Ha A1.20 The vessels with such 
decoration from Brinjeva gora date to the same 
period.21 Decorating with oblique cannelling was 
extremely popular in BA D–Ha A1 in the central 
Danube basin,22 and may have originated in the 
Baierdorf-Velatice group during BA D–Ha A.23 
The rims of dishes could also be decorated with 
horizontal facets (Fig. 8: S1; Pl. 2: 31). Examples 
of this come from Brinjeva gora, attributed to 
the habitation phases of both Ha A and Ha B.24 
At Dobova, such vessels of the same dating were 
16  Vojaković 2013, 231–235, Fig. 121: L1a, L1b, 
L2a, L3; Vojaković 2023, 536–537, 542–547, 551; Pl. 2: 
39–40,43; 4: 92–94,97; 6: 146–148,151; 8: 189–191,194; 
9: 208–209. 
17  Črešnar 2010, 37–38, Fig. 14: L4, 15: L5–L8. 
18  Vojaković 2013, 219–220, Fig. 120: S2; Vojaković 
2023, 536–537, 542–547, 551; Pl. 1: 3–5; 3: 52–54; 5: 
107–109; 7: 160–162; 9: 200–201.
19  Črešnar 2010, 23–26, Fig. 8: Sz2, Sz3.
20  Dular 1978, 37.
21  Oman 1981, 144–216.
22  This decoration on handles is known on an 
amphora from Grave 21 at Bezdanjača near Vrhovine, 
which the author correlates with the Lower Austrian 
Höting-Mörzg group and dates to Ha A1 (Drechsler-
Bižić 1979–1980, 40).
23  Črešnar 2010, 20–22, Fig. 7: Sv3b.
24  Oman 1981, Pl. 5: 2; 16: 3; 33: 6,11.
Fig. 8: Podgorica. Typology of the pottery from Podgorica.
Sl. 8: Podgorica. Tipološki prikaz posod iz Podgorice.
392 Petra VOJAKOVIĆ
found in Graves 90, 387 and 400,25 while those 
from Mestne njive in Novo Mesto date to Ha B3.26 
Standing out among the bowls are those of an 
ellipsoid body with a conical neck and everted rim 
(Fig. 8: Sk1; Pl. 2: 35), which have parallels from the 
settlements at Tribuna27 and Rogoza.28 Particularly 
noteworthy is a bowl with oblique cannelling at 
maximum diameter (Fig. 8: Sk1). Dishes with the 
same decoration from Brinjeva gora are dated to 
Ha A, but may persist into Ha B.29 
The pottery also includes slightly earlier types, 
which are datable to Phase I of the Urnfield period 
according to Vinski-Gasparini (late BA C and 
partially BA D).30 These were mainly discovered 
in the streambed (SE 40) and in Buildings A, B, C 
and D. They comprise numerous forms of jars, as 
well as an ellipsoid pithos with a conical neck and 
everted rim (Fig. 8: P1; Pl. 3: 42). There are also 
25  Stare 1975, Pl. 16: 12; 56: 5; 57: 6.
26  Knez 1966, 77, Pl. 6: 2; 12: 2,4; 13: 2.
27  Vojaković 2013, 255, Fig. 120: Sk4.
28  Črešnar 2010, 28–30, Fig. 10: Skd4.
29  Oman 1981, Pl. 7: 9.
30  Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 547–617.
single examples of conical dishes with an everted 
rim (Fig. 8: S2; Pl. 3: 39), bell-shaped dishes with 
an everted rim (Fig. 8: S3) and carinated bowls 
with a strongly everted rim (Fig. 8: Sk2; Pl. 1: 
16). All these forms have been documented at 
Podsmreka31 and Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš.32 They 
are characteristic of the Virovitica group in the 
interfluve of the Rivers Drava and Sava, as well as 
of the sites in the Bakony Hills and at Kis-Balaton 
during BA D.33
An outstanding metal artefact is a tanged bronze 
knife that suffered heavy fire damage (Fig. 9). The 
surviving part of its back is straight and thickened 
on both sides. The blade is partly missing, but 
does reveal a decoration of punched dots on the 
upper edge. The knife was unearthed in Building 
M, specifically in Posthole SE 163 that was filled 
with bits of charcoal (oak, pine, fir). The radio-
carbon analysis dates the charcoal to the 12th and 
11th centuries BC (2883 ± 29 BP; with a range of 
1054 (37.2%)–1004 BC at the 1σ standard devia-
tion (68.3% probability) and 1130 (86.9%)–973 BC 
at the 2σ standard deviation (95.4% probability)) 
(Fig. 4). Parallels from Monte Prima in northern 
Italy suggest we can identify it as the Fontanella 
type and date it to the last phase of Bronzo finale, 
i.e., to the 11th–10th century BC,34 though it could 
also be ascribed to the Wrocław – Grabiszyn type 
or the Bojanowo Stare variant from Phase IV of 
the Lužice culture.35 
THE STRUCTURE OF THE SETTLEMENT 
AND ITS ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES 
The internal layout of settlements is gener-
ally believed to reflect the social organisation 
of its inhabitants.36 The settlement at Podgorica 
consists of several clusters of buildings arranged 
around an open space – courtyard. These clusters 
presumably constituted individual farmsteads or 
economic units belonging to smaller communi-
ties in the sense of extended families or clans. It 
31  Murgelj et al. 2013, 21, 23, 25, 26–30, 34, Fig. 28a: 
S2; 29b: Sk1/2, 6; 30a: L1; 30b: L3/2, L4; 30d: L9; 30e: 
L12, 13; 31a: P1.
32  Dular, Šavel, Tecco Hvala 2002, 145, 147, 150, 154; 
Fig. 4: L1, L2; 5: L6, L8; 6: L12; 9: sk2.
33  Dular, Šavel, Tecco Hvala 2002, 204, 205, Fig. 25: 
7–8; 26: 2,3; 27: 3–5; 35: 8; 37: 2; 38: 1,7.
34  Bianco Peroni 1976, 19–20, Pl. 5: 49; 61: C.
35  Gedl 1984, 23–25, Pl. 4: 30.
36  Smith 2014, 211–218. 
Fig. 9: Podgorica. Bronze knife found in a posthole (SE 
163) of Building M. Scale = 1:1.
Sl. 9: Podgorica. Bronast nož odkrit v jami za stojko (SE 
163) stavbe M. M. = 1:1.
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 393
seems likely that the individual buildings around 
the courtyard served different purposes within a 
single community. Settlements of a similar internal 
organisation have been documented in adjacent 
Dragomelj,37 at Dobova in the Spodnje Posavje 
region,38 as well as in Podravje, at sites such as 
Rogoza39 in Orehova vas40 near Maribor. These 
are more or less contemporaneous settlements that 
show a similar layout of buildings and a similar 
construction technique, employed to make wattle-
and-daub houses of earthfast post construction. 
This in turn suggests a similar or even identical 
form of social structure or economy. 
The archaeological evidence from Podgorica 
indicates that household activities took place inside 
the buildings (where most large pits of different 
functions were located), while economic activities, 
particularly foundry work, were separated and 
moved to the periphery of the settlement. On that 
note, no spindle whorls (except one unearthed in 
a posthole of Building N) or loom weights were 
found at Podgorica, while the part of the ‘twin 
settlement’ at Dragomelj only revealed such items 
in the pits outside the buildings,41 in courtyards. 
Although it is generally believed that weaving and 
textile production during the Bronze Age were the 
domain of individual households,42 the occurrence 
of different tools in the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin 
settlement’ suggests specialized ‘quarters’ reserved 
for artisanal activities.
Foundry 1, located on the north-eastern edge of 
the Podgorica settlement, included a pit (SE 107) 
that held a fragment of a two-part stone mould 
made of talc slate (Pl. 3: 37). It is a metamorphic 
rock only found in Slovenia in the Kobansko 
area (for example at Pernice above Muta), and in 
the southern and northern parts of the Pohorje 
Mountains, outside Slovenia in Italy and Austria.43 
One side of the mould has part of the negative for 
casting a spearhead, while the opposite side had 
the negative of an object that could not be pre-
cisely identified (possibly a dress pin). The mould 
is intensely grey-black as the result of exposure to 
high temperatures. Similar two-part moulds for 
producing spearheads were found next to a hearth 
37  See Turk, Svetličič in this volume.
38  Plestenjak et al. 2014.
39  Črešnar 2010, 96–119.
40  Grahek 2016, 29–41, Fig. 26–b.
41  See Turk, Svetličič in this volume.
42  Belanová Štolcová, Grömer 2010, 9–20; Harding 
2000, 254–270.
43  Mioč, Žnidarčič 1978.
at Pivnica near Odžak, in northern Bosnia. Alojz 
Benac dated them to the transitional Ha A2/Ha B1 
phase, which corresponds to the time frame outlined 
for Podgorica.44 A mould for casting spearheads 
was also found in the settlement at Varvara in 
northern Herzegovina.45 Another fragment of a 
stone mould for casting spearheads, made of red 
quartz sandstone (Pl. 4: 50), was found at Pod-
gorica in secondary position (in a stone structure 
(SE 19) next to Early Iron Age burials). As for the 
products made in such moulds, numerous bronze 
spearheads of different shapes are known from 
the cult hoard at Mušja jama near Škocjan,46 from 
the Urnfield period,47 a substantial number also 
originate from the River Ljubljanica.48 
Foundry 2 stood at the south-eastern end of the 
excavation area. In it, Pit SE 108 yielded another 
two-part mould made of talc slate (Pl. 4: 47) to-
gether with a stone hammer with a groove across 
the centre (Pl. 4: 48) and a whetstone fragment 
(Pl. 4: 49). The closest parallel for such a com-
bination of tools comes from Kalnik – Igrišče in 
north-western Croatia, where the fragments of 
seven moulds for casting prepared bronze alloy, 
slag and a grooved stone hammer were excavated 
around seven hearths; the settlement at Kalnik is 
dated between the 13th and 11th centuries BC.49 
The combination of a mould and a stone ham-
mer with two grooves was also found in one of 
the buildings at Špičak in the Czech Republic.50 
Horst studied grooved hammers and examined 850 
stone examples from the Nordic cultural circle, the 
Lužice culture and Swiss pile-dwelling settlements, 
interpreting them as tools for processing bronze. 
Those from the Nordic circle were found in both 
settlements and hoards, while the hammers from 
Switzerland mainly originated from settlements, 
dating to Ha A and Ha B.51 
A special find from Foundry 2 at Podgorica is a 
mould with the negatives for casting on three long 
sides: a wheel-shaped pendant and a waterfowl 
protoma on one of the wider sides, for the handle 
44  Benac 1966–67, 158.
45  Čović 1971, 317; König 2004, 96; Gavranović 2012, 
Fig. 9: 1–9.
46  Szombathy 1913, 134–140.
47  Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 63–93, Tab. 1–12, 35–50.
48  Turk et al. 2009, 62–67, Fig. 66.
49  Majnarić-Pandžić 1992, 57–73; Karavanić 2009; 
Karavanić, Kudelić 2013, 88–92; Karavanić, Kudelić 2016, 
117–121; Karavanić, Kudelić, Karavidović 2015, 59–62.
50  Smrž, Mlady 1979, 31–32.
51  Horst 1986, 85.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ394
of a tanged knife on the opposite wider side and 
for two thin round-sectioned objects, possibly 
pins, created on one of the narrow sides. All four 
long sides have dowel holes, while the two short 
sides are finely finished. The mould was intended 
for making different objects, possibly for trade, 
though it could also have been the property of an 
itinerant foundry worker. Wheel-shaped pendants 
are objects with a broad scope in both time and 
type, appearing as early as the Middle Bronze Age, 
becoming especially common during the Urnfield 
period and continuing the tradition into the Ini-
tial Iron Age. In Slovenia, an assemblage of such 
pendants forms the Kanalski Vrh I hoard, which 
contains 43 examples of different types and is dated 
to the transition from Ha A to early Ha B, or to 
Horizon III of hoards according to Peter Turk.52 
Individual examples are also known from the 
hoards at Mušja jama near Škocjan53 and Ivanec 
Bistranski from Phase IV of hoards according to 
Vinski-Gasparini.54 Interestingly, such pendants 
are very rare goods in the LBA graves in Slovenia, 
mainly associated with the burials of women. Two 
pendants of different types came to light at Dobova, 
one of which was found in Grave 289 and has a 
cross inside the thick outer ring similarly as the 
example from Podgorica.55 Grave 289 is rich and 
ranks among the earliest of the cemetery, dating 
to Ha A1, which corresponds to Phase II of the 
Urnfield culture according to Vinski-Gasparini.56 
The same dating is shared by the other grave with a 
wheel-shaped pendant from Dobova – Grave 17.57 
The motif of a water bird – duck was also very 
popular throughout the Urnfield period. Depic-
tions of waterfowl are characteristic of the Greek 
and eastern Mediterranean cultures, and continue 
to be used in the Iron Age. The geographically and 
formally closest parallel for the mould with the 
waterfowl negative from Podgorica is a fragmented 
mould from Rifnik, dated to Ha B1/B2, which bears 
the negative of two water birds.58 The duck motif 
is also present on a fragment of a stone mould 
from the metallurgical centre of the Villanovan 
culture in Frattesina, in the lower reaches of the 
52  Teržan 1995, 203, Pl. 100–103; Žbona-Trkman, 
Bavdek 1996, 31–72; Turk 1996, 113–116; Turk 2001a, 
249–279; Trampuž-Orel, Heath 2001, 143–171.  
53  Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, Tab. 33: 2–3.
54  Žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 1996, 63.
55  Stare 1975, 76, Pl. 40.
56  Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 72, 95.
57  Stare 1975, 28, Pl. 8: 6.
58  Bolta 1959, 273.
River Po.59 A bronze pendant with a pair of bird 
protomes comes from the Kanalski Vrh I hoard.60 
We should also mention the find of a small bronze 
female figurine with stylized arms in the shape of 
ducks, unearthed in one of the barrows between 
Griže and Šešče in the Savinja valley, symbolizing 
the Mistress of the Animals and dated to the Rifnik 
II/III horizon or Ha B2/B3.61 Peter Turk proposed 
an intriguing interpretation of the mould with a 
wheel-shaped pendant and a water bird from Pod-
gorica, suggesting that it might have been used to 
cast parts of a cult wagon. Such wagons came to 
light as grave and/or votive (water or marsh) finds 
in different parts of Europe, during the Urnfield 
period and the Initial Iron Age. One such wagon, 
which is closest both geographically and chrono-
logically, was found in a grave from Acholshausen 
in Franken, dated to the 11th century BC.62 
The functional link between the metallurgical-
mining tools, such as moulds, hammer and whet-
stone, and the hoard of bronze raw material and 
ingots from Dragomelj63 indicates foundry activities 
that took place in the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin 
settlement’ during the Late Bronze Age, possibly 
even wider in the Ljubljana basin, as traces of 
these activities were also excavated in the partially 
contemporaneous settlement at Tribuna.64 The 
organisation of the settlement excavated at Pod-
gorica indicates the foundry areas were moved to 
its periphery. A similar situation has been observed 
at several sites outside Slovenia, for example at 
the lowland settlements of the Po valley such as 
Frattesina – Fratta Polesine, where finds of ivory, 
glass, Baltic amber, bronze plano-convex ingots 
and moulds show that workshops were located in 
the eastern part of the settlement; the settlement 
was inhabited roughly from the 12th to the 9th 
century BC.65 Contemporaneous with Frattesina 
and located only 35 km to the west, was another 
LBA settlement at Mariconda di Melara, which 
revealed glassworks.66 A variety of workshops was 
active contemporaneously (11th–8th century BC) 
59  Le Fevre-Lehoerff 1992, 208.
60  Žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 1996, 64; Teržan 1995, 203, 
Pl. 99: 18.
61  Teržan 1990, 111–112.
62  Turk, Turk 2019, 205, Fig. 256. 
63  See Turk, Svetličič in this volume.
64  Vojaković 2023, 531–590.
65  Bietti Sestieri 1984a, 413–427; Bietti Sestieri 1984b, 
429–464; Bietti Sestieri et al. 2015, 427–436; Bietti Sestieri, 
Bellintani, Giardino 2019. 
66  Towle et al. 2002, 7–68.
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 395
in Montagnana, 30 km northwest of Frattesina, 
mostly in the eastern part of the settlement that 
revealed furnaces, moulds, metal (especially bronze), 
glass, loom weights, spindle whorls, rings, antler 
and other objects.67 Connections with sites in the 
Po valley may also be identified in the four glass 
beads found at Podgorica. They are small annular 
beads of green (three) and turquoise (one) glass, 
measuring 0.4–0.5 cm across (Pl. 1: 7; 2: 36; 3: 40, 
44). Two were found in the pits of Foundry 1 (SE 
31 and 124), one in a posthole of Building N (SE 
102) and one in a posthole of Building U (SE 81), 
both identified as the main buildings of individual 
households. Glass beads are rare finds in the Urn-
field period settlements in Slovenia, comprising 
only a few stray examples.68 Without PIXE and 
PIGE analyses, the origin of the Podgorica beads 
remains unknown, though they could have been 
imported from the northern Italian production 
centre at Frattesina, similarly as the bead found 
at Medvode – Svetje.69
RITUAL PRACTICES
IN THE SETTLEMENT
The archaeological investigations in Podgorica 
have revealed remains that point to ritual practices 
within the settlement. These came to light in the 
already mentioned Buildings N and U, which are 
two of the twenty identified buildings or structures. 
Both seem to have been central buildings within 
their respective clusters, probably separated by a 
stream. Both incorporated sunken features of dif-
ferent purposes (postholes and larger pits inside 
and next to the buildings) that contained burned 
animal and cremated human bones; Building N 
revealed an exceptionally high density of bone 
fragments in its postholes.70 These bone remains 
come from the fills, indicating the possibility of 
them representing the result of a secondary process, 
as storage pits, waste pits and postholes could have 
been filled either during the settlement’s existence 
or after it had been abandoned. 
Although the context is not clear, we should 
consider the following. Cremated human bones 
67  Bianchin Citton 1998, 429–433; De Min 1984, 
642–650; Bianchin Citton 2015, 251–266; Bianchin Citton, 
Balista, De Angeli 2015, 461–467.
68  Leghissa et al. 2023, 442.
69  Leghissa et al. 2023, 434–444.
70  Toškan 2022, 88–90, Fig. 124.
are not part of the typical household contents, 
nor can they be associated with kitchen waste, 
but may be interpreted as evidence of special ritu-
als related to building construction.71 Building 
sacrifices stem from the belief that buildings can 
be endowed with prosperity and magical protec-
tion if offerings are placed at important spots in 
their structure. There are numerous examples of 
building sacrifices in northern Europe (hillforts, 
buildings, roads, walls and wells).72 Offerings were 
placed at special spots, for example under the 
threshold, above the main entrance, in building 
foundations or postholes, in hearths, or in the 
floor.73 Capelle also describes several instances 
of human burials within Iron Age buildings in 
northern Europe,74 with several of them belong-
ing to small children. LBA and Iron Age ritual 
burials of newborn and stillborn infants inside 
buildings have been recorded in Cantabria (and 
other parts of the Iberian Peninsula),75 as well 
as in Great Britain and central Europe.76 The 
burial of a premature infant was recently found 
in the hillfort on Pungrt near Ig, in one of the 
Late Hallstatt buildings (Building 22).77 A human 
bone (phalanx) fragment and a dog bone were 
found in the fill of a posthole in Building 12 = 
13 from Phase IV (8th century BC) of the Tribuna 
settlement in Ljubljana.78 The dog is considered 
man’s best friend, a hunting and battle companion, 
a guardian of the domestic space and of livestock, 
hence an important element in various rituals, cer-
emonies and funerary rites, but not a food source.79 
At Podgorica, a burned dog phalanx was found 
near Building U in Pit SE 67. Two dog mandibles 
were also found at Ormož, one of them next to 
a large building that is considered central within 
the settlement (Building 13 at Skolibrova ulica).80 
The layout of the lowland Podgorica-Dragomelj 
‘twin settlement’, at least the part at Podgorica, 
71  Paulsson-Holmberg 1997, 169–172.
72  Capelle 1987; Hauge 1965, 76, 83, 96; Paulsson 
1993, 13.
73  Paulsson 1993, 15.
74  Capelle 1987, 185, 191, 197, 204.
75  Galilea, García 2002; Gusi, Luján 2011; Torres-
Martínez 2011, 329.
76  Karl, Lo ̈cker, 2011, 37.
77  Vojaković et al. 2023.
78  Vojaković 2023, 554; Škvor Jernejčič, Toškan 2018, 
256–258.
79  Škvor Jernejčič, Toškan 2018, 249–260.
80  Dular, Tomanič Jevremov 2010, 90, 94, 103; Škvor 
Jernejčič, Toškan 2018, 256.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ396
Fig. 10: Podgorica. Plan reconstruction of Graves 1–4. (coordinate system D48/GK)
Sl. 10: Podgorica. Tlorisna rekonstrukcija grobov 1–4. (koordinatni sistem D48/GK)
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 397
shows several residential or economic nuclei with 
buildings clustered around a courtyard – function-
ing as farmsteads – located in the centre of the 
settlement and foundries removed to the periph-
ery. The available evidence indicates that foundry 
activities, with the production of bronze objects, 
were an important part of the settlement’s economy, 
possibly forming part of a supra-regional network. 
The proximity of water (streambed) makes the 
choice of location logical. The disposition of the 
buildings, all of which show a single construction 
phase without traces of repairs or modifications, 
suggests that the settlement was not of a long dura-
tion. The analysis of the pottery, metal and stone 
finds reveals the settlement can be dated from 
the Early Urnfield period (Late BA D/Ha A1) and 
potentially up to the transition to the Late Urnfield 
period (Ha A2/B1), i.e., roughly from the 13th to 
the 11th century BC, with an emphasis on the 12th 
and 11th centuries BC. This time frame, based on 
the archaeological evidence, is corroborated by a 
series of radiocarbon dates (Fig. 4).
GRAVES FROM THE
EARLY IRON AGE
The LBA ‘twin settlement’ came to an end around 
1000 BC, which may have been associated with the 
process of early nucleation81 and consequently the 
rise of a new urban centre in Ljubljana.82 After 
this, the area was abandoned for several centuries. 
The southern part of the investigated area was then 
reused as a burial ground towards the end of the 
7th or beginning of the 6th century BC. 
Two substantial and elongated patches of stones 
oriented NE–SW were unearthed in the slightly 
sunken terrain in Grid Squares B–C16–21 (Fig. 
10). One was a stone paving of a linear shape (SE 
3), measuring 8.5 m in length and 2.5 m in width, 
consisting of differently sized and predominantly 
non-carbonate rubble (up to 29 cm large), cobbles 
and debris.83 Located just under 4 m northeast 
81  Zamboni 2021, 387–430. 
82  Vojaković 2023, 531–590.
83  The rubble is predominantly of quartz siltstone 
and Carboniferous and quartz sandstone of Permian age. 
Carboniferous rocks are found on the surface in proximity 
to the site, on the peaks of the isolated hill west of Podgorica 
(Podgoriški hrib, Soteški hrib, Strašnjak), as well as on a 
ridge east of the site (Videmski hrib, Ajdovščina). Permian 
reddish quartz sandstone and conglomerate (Gröden 
Formation) are found slightly further away, on the ridge 
was another patch (SE 19), measuring 3 × 2.5 m 
(probably damaged), composed of differently sized 
and carefully arranged cobbles and differently sized 
rubble (up to 8 cm in size), among which was a 
mould for casting spearheads (Pl. 4: 50). The stones 
here were laid on an up to 15 cm thick layer of clay 
(SE 23), which covered the LBA streambed.84 The 
stone patches are interpreted as the remnants of a 
paved path or entranceway that might have led to 
the graves, presumably under a barrow. 
Grave 1
It was a grave (SE 20) without a clearly discern-
ible pit found in Grid Squares C–D20, near the 
end of the stone patches (Fig. 10). Of its goods 
only two85 rather damaged vessels survived (Pl. 
5: 51), occupying an area of 0.52 × 0.25 m. In 
their immediate vicinity, 50 cm northeast of the 
vessels, lay an iron lozenge-shaped belt plate (Pl. 
5: 52). No ashes or cremated remains were found. 
Grave goods: The pedestal bowl (Pl. 5: 51) 
belongs to Type C9 after Dular.86 Numerous 
parallels from the graves at Stična, Magdalenska 
gora and Vače show that such vessels appear in 
the Serpentine phase and remain in use in the 
following, Certosa phase.87 The iron lozenge-
shaped belt plate with traces of a mesh fabric (Pl. 
5: 52) belongs to the type characteristic of the 
Stična-Novo mesto 2 and Serpentine phases. Most 
of these belt plates occur in inhumation graves. 
In cremations, they were found at Magdalenska 
gora (Preloge, Grave 13/10), Stična (Grave 48/30) 
and Podzemelj (Grave 28/1 from Grm). Belt 
plates generally formed parts of the male outfit 
that also comprised weapons or tools (awl or 
whetstone).88 Considering the parallels, Grave 
1 can be attributed to the Stična-Novo mesto 2 
or Serpentine phase (around 600 BC). 
between Mengeš and Šinkov Turn and on the left bank of 
the River Kamniška Bistrica above Rova near Radomlje. 
Non-carbonate cobbles were brought from the gravel beds 
of either the Kamniška Bistrica or the Sava.
84  A natural depression (SE 18) was found under the 
levelling and revealed LBA pottery.
85  One of the vessels is lost and is not included in 
the catalogue.
86  Dular 1982, 50, Pl. 16: 146.
87  Dular 1982, 51.
88  Tecco Hvala 2012, 165–169.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ398
Grave 2
The grave (SE 21) was excavated in Grid Squares 
C–D21, located approximately 1.6 m northeast of 
Grave 1 (Fig. 10). Its oval pit with sloping walls 
and an uneven bottom measured 0.96 × 0.7 m in 
plan and survived to a depth of 20 cm. It held at 
least two pottery vessels (Pl. 6: 54–56) and other 
grave goods (Pl. 6: 57–62). It was filled with dark 
brown to black silty clay mixed with a significant 
amount of charcoal and seeds, while the cremated 
human bones were placed in both vessels – urns. 
Some fragments of cremated bones were also 
found at the top of the grave fill, indicating that 
the grave had been disturbed prior to discovery. 
One urn (Pl. 6: 54) contained 7.5 g of cremated 
bones of the skull and long bones, while the other 
(Pl. 6: 55) held 18.7 g of cremated remains of the 
skull, long bones and articular surface fragments. 
The poorly preserved bones could not be used 
to determine the sex or height of the individual, 
though the thickness of the cranial bones and some 
long bones does suggest an adult. The presence of 
cremated remains in two vessels suggests a double 
burial, which the anthropological analysis could 
not confirm due to the poor preservation of the 
bone remains.89 Oak and beech were identified 
among the charcoal remains.
Grave goods: Pottery vessels in the shape of situlae 
are generally considered imitations or substitutes 
for the much more valuable and prestigious bronze 
situlae, and are a common grave good within the 
Eastern Alpine Hallstatt and northern Italian cul-
tural groups.90 The pedestal situla from Podgorica 
(Pl. 6: 54) most closely resembles those of Type 2 
after Dular91 (also see the pedestal situlae of Type 
IIb1 after Tecco Hvala).92 It was used as an urn 
and held ashes and cremated bones, as well as a 
heavily damaged iron awl/chisel (Pl. 6: 58) and 
an iron tanged knife (Pl. 6: 57). Such knives oc-
cur throughout the Hallstatt period in the graves 
of both men and women.93 Ashes and cremated 
bones were also found in a vessel only surviving 
in its lower part (Pl. 6: 55). Other grave goods 
include two pieces of iron awls/chisels (Pl. 6: 59, 
61), an iron nail (Pl. 6: 60) and a small bead of 
89  Tamara Leskovar performed all the anthropological 
analyses (Leskovar 2022).
90  Teržan 2014, 255.
91  Dular 1982, 97, Fig. 7: 13.
92  Tecco Hvala 2014, 333–334, Fig. 4: IIb1.
93  Tecco Hvala 2012, 135–136.
black glass (Pl. 6: 62). The human remains placed 
in two urns suggest a grave with a double burial, 
while the grave goods date it to the Stična-Novo 
mesto 2 or Serpentine phase.
Grave 3
The grave (SE 22) without a clearly discernible pit 
was excavated in Grid Squares D20–21, less than a 
meter northeast of Grave 1 and roughly 0.5 m south 
of Grave 2 (Fig. 10). Only a damaged vessel (Pl. 5: 
53) survived, covering an area of 0.32 × 0.25 m. 
No cremated remains or human bones were found. 
Grave goods: The vessel (Pl. 5: 53) is a pedestal 
bowl of Type 3 after Dular.94 Such bowls appear 
in the Stična-Novo mesto 2 phase and continue to 
be used in the following Serpentine phase.
Excavated some 20 m northeast of Graves 1–3, 
in Grid Squares F–H1–5, was scattered rubble and 
cobbles documented in an elongated patch with a 
NE–SW orientation and two concentrations (Fig. 10). 
The first concentration (SE 99) measured 1.5 × 0.8 m 
and comprised differently sized (up to 7 cm) rubble 
mixed with pottery sherds. Next to it was a 3.2 m long 
semicircular row of flat and up to 24 cm large pieces 
of rubble (SE 100). The second concentration (SE 101, 
SE 166) was located just over 3 m to the southwest, 
measuring 7 × 5 m and consisting of up to 19 cm 
large cobbles. These remains may also represent a 
damaged path or entranceway or an above-ground 
grave construction of a presumed barrow. 
Grave 4
The oval pit of this grave (SE 153) was excavated 
in Grid Squares H4–5, at the edge of the stone 
patch (SE 99) (Fig. 10). It measured 1 × 0.84 m and 
survived 16 cm deep, it had sloping walls and an 
uneven bottom. The pit held two pottery vessels 
(Pl. 6: 63–64). It was filled with black sandy silt 
mixed with some pieces of rubble, a large amount 
of charcoal, ashes and cremated bones (4 g of skull 
and long bone fragments). The bone remains are 
poorly preserved and do not enable conclusions 
as to the sex and height of the deceased, though a 
skull fragment with an open suture and the roughly 
4 mm thick flat skull bones do suggest an adult 
younger than 30 years.
94  Dular 1982, 45–46, Pl. 13: 119–123.
399Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ...
Grave goods: The pedestal dish (Pl. 6: 63) 
belongs to Type 1 after Dular.95 The rare known 
parallels suggest that such pedestal dishes were 
used primarily in the Late Hallstatt period. The 
other vessel was a dish with an inverted rim (Pl. 
6: 64), with parallels occurring within a broader 
time frame. The burial can thus be dated to the 
Serpentine or Certosa phase. 
The excavated remains suggest the area was 
used as a cemetery during the transition from the 
Early to the Late Hallstatt period. Graves 2 and 
4 were clearly cremation burials, Graves 1 and 3 
may also have been cremations, though we can-
not exclude the possibility of contemporaneous 
inhumations.96 The modern-period agricultural 
land use also erased any clear evidence that would 
reveal whether the graves were covered by bar-
rows or rather formed parts of a flat cemetery. 
95  Dular 1982, 72, Pl. 24: 233–235.
96  The absence of ashes and cremated bones, the 
position of the grave goods and the absence of grave pits 
suggest Graves 1 and 3 could together represent a single 
inhumation burial.
The pottery grave goods and even more so the 
iron lozenge-shaped belt plate indicate the buri-
als can be dated to the Stična-Novo mesto 2 or 
Serpentine phase (c. 600 BC). The settlement of 
the people who buried their dead in the lowland 
area of Podgorica is to be sought in the vicinity, 
with its location possibly indicated by a LiDAR 
image of the area (Fig. 1). The image shows that 
the nearest hillfort is on Podgoriški hrib (0.6 
ha), while two others were located further away 
on Soteški hrib (15 ha) and Strašnjak (0.1 ha). 
It is also possible that the associated settlement 
was in the lowland, in the immediate vicinity of 
the cemetery; this possibility is suggested by the 
presumably contemporaneous remains excavated 
at the Dragomelj site, which could be interpreted 
as either habitation or funerary in nature.97 
Translation: Andreja Maver
97  See Turk, Svetličič in this volume; Turk 2001b, 
161–162, Fig. 7.
Plate 1 
Building N
1. Frg of a vessel; reddish-brown; medium-grained; cordon 
with impressions. Surv. l. 3.8 cm, surv. w. 4.2 cm. Floor 
or footing SE 148, GS K37, PN 959. 
2. Rim frg of a jar; reddish-brown; medium-grained; finger 
impressions on the rim. R. d. 28.8 cm, surv. h. 4.2 cm. 
Pit SE 139, GS K36, PN 851.
3. Frg of a vessel; dark to light brown; fine-grained; coni-
cal knob. Surv. l. 3.9 cm, surv. w. 4.2 cm. SE 139, GS 
K36, PN 850.
4. Rim frg of a jar; dark brown; fine-grained. Surv. l. 2.3 cm, 
surv. w. 2.7 cm. SE 139, GS K36, PN 893.
5. Domed spindle whorl; mottled light to dark brown. D. 
5.7 cm, h. 2.8 cm. SE 139, GS K36, PN 886.
6. Rim frg of a jar; dark brown; medium-grained; hori-
zontal cannelling on rim interior. R. d. 20.2 cm, surv. 
h. 4.6 cm. Posthole SE 102, GS K35, PN 739 + PN 741.
7. Small annular bead of green glass. D. 0.4 cm, h. 0.3 cm. 
SE 102, GS K35, PN 964.
8. Rim frg of a jar; mottled light to dark brown; fine-
grained. Surv. l. 3.5 cm, surv. w. 4.3 cm. Posthole SE 
134, GS J36, PN 926.
9. Rim frg of a jar; light brown; fine-grained. Surv. l. 3.3 cm, 
surv. w. 4.5 cm. Posthole SE 141, GS J36, PN 896.
10. Rim and body frg of a jar; mottled dark to light brown; 
fine-grained. R. d. 13.9 cm, surv. h. 5.3 cm. SE 141, GS 
J36, PN 898.
11. Rim frg of a dish; dark brown; fine-grained; oblique 
cannelling on the rim. Surv. l. 2 cm, surv. w. 2.6 cm. 
SE 141, GS J36, PN 897.
CATALOGUE
The catalogue only brings the finds unearthed in Buildings N and U, in Foundries 1 and 2, as well as in the graves. 
To facilitate cross-referencing, the numbers of special finds (PN) are added at the end. The small finds are kept in the 
Mestni muzej Ljubljana. 
The information on the finds comprises the type or shape of the vessel, the surface colour, grain-size of the fabric and 
decoration. Drawings are the work of Simona Tomažič, Ida Murgelj, Borut Plohl, Jerica Brečič in Suzana Puhar.
Okrajšave / Abbreviations:
b. = base / dno
l. = length / dolžina
GS = grid square / kvadrant
frg = fragment / odlomek
surv. = surviving / ohranjen
d. = diameter / premer
 
SE = stratigraphical unit / stratigrafska enota 
w. = width / širina 
r. = rim / ustje 
h. = height / višina 
[ ] = not drawn / ni izrisano 
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ400
Building U
12. Straight scraper of silicified green tuff or tuffite. Flaked 
off a medium-sized cobble. Surv. l. 7.2 cm, surv. w. 4.9 cm. 
Pit SE 95, GS A–B21, PN 633.
13. Rim and body frg of a jar; mottled dark brown to brown; 
medium-grained; horizontal facet on rim interior. R. d. 
33.4 cm, surv. h. 9.7 cm. Pit SE 77, GS A–B20, PN 653. 
14. Rim and body frg of a jar; mottled dark brown to 
brown; fine-grained; cordon with impressions, facet 
on rim interior. R. d. 33.4 cm, surv. h. 9.7 cm. SE 77, 
GS A–B20, PN 654.
15. Frg of a dish with a horizontally perforated grip; dark 
brown; fine-grained. Surv. l. 2.9 cm, surv. w. 2.5 cm. 
Posthole SE 73, GS C20, PN 612.
16. Rim and body frg of a bowl; brown; fine-grained. R. d. 
13.2 cm, surv. h. 3.2 cm. Posthole SE 78, GS B20, PN 651.
Plate 2
Vicinity of Building U
17. Frg of a pithos with an elongated grip at maximum 
diameter; mottled reddish to dark brown; fine-grained. 
Surv. l. 6.9 cm, surv. w. 9 cm. Pit SE 67, GS B17, PN 507.
18. Rim frg of a pithos; reddish-brown; fine-grained; 
horizontal cannelling on rim interior. R. d. 27.9 cm, 
surv. h. 4.1 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 524.
19. Rim frg of a jar; light brown; fine-grained; horizontal 
facet on rim interior. Surv. l. 1.5 cm, surv. w. 3.9 cm. 
SE 67, GS B17, PN 538.
20. Rim frg of a jar; dark brown; fine-grained. R. d. 24.4 cm, 
surv. h. 3.7 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 523.
21. Rim and body frg of a jar; reddish-brown; fine-grained. 
R. d. 14.3 cm, surv. h. 3.8 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 525.
22. Pedestal frg of a vessel; mottled dark brown to brown; 
fine-grained. B. d. 20.3 cm, surv. h. 2.6 cm. SE 67, GS 
B17, PN 531.
23. Rim frg of a jar; dark brown; fine-grained. Surv. l. 2.3 cm, 
surv. w. 3 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 528.
24. Frg of a dish with a vertical and horizontally perforated 
grip at maximum diameter; mottled reddish to dark 
brown; medium-grained. R. d. 18 cm, surv. h. 4.7 cm. 
SE 67, GS B17, PN 503.
25. Frg of a dish; dark brown; fine-grained. R. d. 18.4 cm, 
surv. h. 4 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 527.
26. Frg of a dish; mottled dark brown to brown; fine-grai-
ned; knob applied below the rim. R. d. 19.5 cm, surv. 
h. 2.4 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 526.
27. Frg of a dish; mottled dark brown to brown; fine-grained. 
R. d. 17.8 cm, surv. h. 5.4 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 522.
28. Frg of a dish; mottled dark brown to brown; fine-grained. 
R. d. 24.3 cm, surv. h. 3.1 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 536.
29. Frg of a dish; mottled dark to reddish-brown; fine-
-grained. R. d. 21.9 cm, surv. h. 3.4 cm. SE 67, GS 
B17, PN 535.
30. Frg of a dish; reddish-brown; fine-grained; oblique 
cannelling on the rim. R. d. 28.3 cm, surv. h. 3 cm. SE 
67, GS B17, PN 534.
31. Frg of a dish; dark brown; fine-grained; horizontal 
facets on the rim. Surv. l. 2.5 cm, surv. w. 4.1 cm. SE 
67, GS B17, PN 541.
32. Frg of a dish; mottled dark to reddish-brown; fine-
-grained. R. d. 16.3 cm, surv. h. 2.6 cm. SE 67, GS 
B17, PN 547.
33. Frg of a dish; mottled dark to reddish-brown; fine-
-grained; oblique cannelling on the rim. Surv. l. 4.5 cm, 
surv. w. 2.1 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 548.
34. Frg of a dish; mottled dark to reddish-brown; fine-
-grained; oblique cannelling on the rim. R. d. 26.1 cm, 
surv. h. 3 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 549.
35. Rim frg of a bowl; dark brown; fine-grained. R. d. 16.4 cm, 
surv. h. 3.6 cm. SE 67, GS B17, PN 521.
36. Frg of a small annular bead of turquoise glass. D. 0.5 cm, 
w. 0.1 cm. Posthole SE 81, GS K17, PN 965.
Plate 3
Foundry 1 
37. Mould of grey-green foliated talc schist for making 
a spearhead on one side and an unidentifiable object, 
possibly a vase-headed pin, on the other side. L. 12.8 cm, 
w. 5.4 cm, h. 2.4 cm. Pit SE 107, GS K39−40, PN 672.
38. Rim frg of a jar; light brown; fine-grained; oblique 
impressions on the rim. Surv. l. 2.9 cm, surv. w. 3.5 cm. 
Pit SE 31, GS AA47, PN 236.
39. Frg of a bowl; very mottled dark brown to brown; 
medium-grained. R. d. 19 cm, surv. h. 3.7 cm. SE 31, 
GS AA47, PN 237.
40. Small annular bead of green glass. D. 0.4 cm, w. 0.2 cm. 
SE 31, GS AA47, PN 433.
41. Frg of a quern of quartz conglomerate. Surv. l. 44.2 cm, 
surv. w. 19.9 cm. Pit SE 38, GS AA47, PN 261.
42. Pithos with two twice-perforated grips at maximum 
diameter; mottled dark to reddish-brown; medium-grai-
ned; appliques in the shape of a downturned U. Max. 
d. 46.2 cm, surv. h. 31.9 cm. Pit SE 124, GS K43, PN /.
43. Frg of a jar with a concave neck and everted rim; 
mottled dark brown to brown; fine-grained; vertical 
cannelling on the shoulder and maximum diameter; 
two horizontal facets on rim interior. R. d. 15.4 cm, 
base d. 8.8 cm, surv. h. 19.2 cm. SE 124, GS K43, PN /.
44. Small annular bead of green glass. D. 0.5 cm, h. 0.3 cm. 
SE 124, GS K43, PN 676.
Plate 4
Foundry 2
45. Frg of a vessel; light brown; fine-grained; fingerprints 
on the body. Surv. l. 3.4 cm, surv. w. 3.7 cm. Pit SE 108, 
GS H7, PN 784.
46. Frg of a dish; dark brown; fine-grained; oblique can-
nelling on the rim. R. d. 12.8 cm, surv. h. 2.1 cm. SE 
108, GS H7, PN 782.
47. Mould of brown foliated talc schist for making a duck 
protoma and a wheel-shaped pendant on one side, a 
tanged knife on the other and a pin on the third side. L. 
11.3 cm, w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.3 cm. SE 108, GS H7, PN 704.
48. Grooved hammer of red quartz sandstone (Gröden 
sandstone). L. 7.9 cm, w. 7.2 cm. SE 108, GS H7, PN 705.
49. Frg of a whetstone of quartz sandstone (Gröden sand-
stone). Surv. l. 7.2, surv. w. 4.7 cm. SE 108, GS H7, PN 706.
Stone paving near Graves 1–3
50. Frg of a mould of red quartz sandstone (Gröden sand-
stone) for making spearheads. Surv. l. 5.9 cm, surv. w. 
3.6 cm. Stone patch SE 19, GS C19, PN 66.
[not drawn] Cobble debris of grey foliated chert. Surv. l. 
6.5 cm, surv. w. 4.5 cm. SE 108, GS H7, PN 708.
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 401
Plate 5
Grave 1
51. Pedestal bowl; reddish-brown; fine-grained; horizontal 
cannelling on the pedestal. R. d. 15 cm, h. 21.8 cm. SE 
20, GS C20, PN 44.
52. Iron lozenge-shaped belt plate. L. 13.8 cm, w. 3.3 cm. 
SE 20, GS D20, PN 45.
[not drawn] Vessel (lost). SE 20, GS C20, PN 49. 
Grave 3
53. Pedestal bowl; very dark brown, with red-brown patches 
on the pedestal; fine-grained. R. d. 13.6 cm, base d. 6.3 cm, 
surv. h. 22.1 cm. SE 22, GS D21, PN 67.
Plate 6
Grave 2
54. Pedestal situla – urn; very dark brown; fine-grained. 
R. d. 17.2 cm, surv. h. 20.7 cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 50.
55. Base and body frg of a vessel – urn; mottled red-brown 
to dark brown; medium-grained; applied knob. B. d. 6 cm, 
surv. h. 4.5 cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 51.
56. Rim frg of a vessel; very dark brown; fine-grained. 
Surv. l. 2.2 cm, surv. w. 4.1 cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 65.
57. Iron knife with a tang (in vessel with Cat. No. 56, PN 
50). Surv. l. 11.7 cm, w. 2 cm. SE 21, GS C–D21, PN /.
58. Frg of a round-sectioned iron object – awl/chisel? (in 
vessel with Cat. No. 56, PN 50). Surv. l. 3.3 cm, w. 0.5 cm. 
SE 21, GS C21, PN 52.
59. Frg of an iron awl or chisel. Surv. l. 5.3 cm, surv. w. 
0.5 cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 601.
60. Small iron nail of a rectangular section. Surv. l. 2.9 cm, 
surv. w. 0.9 cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 54a.
61. Frg of an iron awl/chisel. Surv. l. 3.2 cm, surv. w. 0.8 
cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 54b.
62. Annular bead of black glass; subsequently melted. D. 
0.4 cm, h. 0.2 cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 263.
[not drawn]. Chip of pale yellow-brown chert. Surv. l. 1.1 cm, 
surv. w. 0.5 cm. SE 21, GS C21, PN 600. 
Grave 4
63. Frg of a pedestal dish; mottled very dark to pale brown; 
very fine-grained; vertical grooves at maximum diameter. 
B. d. 7.8 cm, surv. h. 2.7 cm. SE 153, GS H4−5, PN 957.
64. Dish with a knob-shaped horizontal grip at maximum 
diameter; very dark brown; fine-grained. R. d. 13.6 cm, 
base d. 6.6 cm, h. 11.2 cm. SE 153, GS H4−5, PN 153a.
BELANOVÁ ŠTOLCOVÁ, T., K. GRÖMER 2010, Loom-
-weights, Spindles and Textiles. Textile Production in 
Central Europe from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. 
– In: E. Andersson Strand, M. Gleba, U. Mannering, 
C. Munkholt and M. Ringgaard (ed.), North European 
Symposium for Archaeological Textiles X, Ancient Textiles 
series 5, 9–20.
BENAC, A. 1966–1967, Kameni kalupi sa Pivnice. – Glasnik 
Zemaljskog Muzeja 21–22, 155–160.
BIANCHIN CITTON, E. 1998, Montagnana tra XIII e 
VIII sec. a. C: un primo bilancio delle ricerche. – In: 
E. Bianchin Citton, G. Gambacurta, A. Ruta Serafini 
(ed.), …“presso l‘Adige ridente“... Recenti rinvenimenti 
archeologici da Este a Montagnana, 429–433, Padova.
BIANCHIN CITTON, E. 2015, Il Bronzo finale nel Veneto: 
Dinamiche insediative e gestione del territorio. – In: 
G. Leonardi, V. Tiné (ed.), Preistoria e protostoria del 
Veneto, Studi di Preistoria e Protostoria 2, 251–266. 
BIANCHIN CITTON, E., C. BALISTA, G. DE ANGELI 
2015, L’abitato protostorico di Montagnana-Borgo S. 
Zeno (Padova): Aggiornamento dei dati paleoambi-
entali in relazione alle diverse fasi insedia- tive. – In: 
G. Leonardi, V. Tiné (ed.), Preistoria e protostoria del 
Veneto, Studi di Preistoria e Protostoria 2, 461–467. 
BIANCO PERONI, V. 1976, Die Messer in Italien / I coltelli 
nell‘Italia continentale. – Prähistorische Bronzefunde 7/1.
BIETTI SESTIERI, A. M. 1984a, L‘ abitato di Frattesina. 
– Padusa 20, 413–427.
BIETTI SESTIERI, A. M. 1984b, Lo scavo dell‘ abitato 
prostorico di Frattesina di Fratta Polesine (Rovigo). – 
Padusa 20, 429–464.
BIETTI SESTIERI et al. 2015 = A. M. Bietti Sestieri, P. 
Bellintani, L. Salzani, I. Angelini, B. Chiaffoni, J. De 
Grossi Mazzorin, C. Giardino, M. Saracino, F. Soriano 
2015, Frattesina: Un centro internazionale di produzi-
one e di scambio nell’Età del Bronzo del Veneto. – In: 
G. Leonardi, V. Tiné (ed.), Preistoria e protostoria del 
Veneto, Studi di Preistoria e Protostoria 2, 427–436.
BIETTI SESTIERI A. M., P. BELLINTANI, C. GIARDI-
NO (ed.) 2019, Frattesina: Un centro internazionale di 
produzione e di scambio nella Tarda Età del Bronzo del 
Veneto. – Rome.
BOLTA, L. 1959, Ilirska naselbina na Rifniku pri Šentjurju. 
– Celjski zbornik, 258–276.
CAPELLE T. 1987, Eisenzeitliche Bauopfer. – Frühmitte-
lalterliche Studien. Jahrbuch des Instituts für Frühmit-
telalterforschung der Universität Münster 21, 182–205.
CULIBERG, M. 2022, Paleobotanična analiza. – In: P. 
Vojaković, M. Novšak (ed.) 2022, 91–93. 
ČOVIĆ, B. 1971, Dva specifična tipa zapadnobalkanske 
fibule. – Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 24, 
313–330.
ČREŠNAR, M. 2010, New research on the Urnifield period 
of Eastern Slovenia. A case study of Rogoza near Mari-
bor / Nova spoznanja o pozni bronasti dobi vzhodne 
Slovenije na primeru naselja Rogoza pri Mariboru. – 
Arheološki vestnik 61, 7–116.
DE MIN, M. 1984, Montagnana (Padova). L‘abitato proto-
storico di Borgo S. Zeno. – In: A. Aspes (ed.), Il Veneto 
nell‘antichità. Preistoria e protostoria II, 642–650, Verona.
DRECHSLER-BIŽIĆ, R. 1979–1980, Nekropola brončanog 
doba u pećini Bezdanjači kod Vrhovina. – Vjesnik Ar-
heološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 12–13/1, 27–78.
DULAR, J. 1978, Poskus kronološke razdelitve dobov-
skega žarnega grobišča / Versuch einer Einteilung des 
Urnenfeldes in Dobova. – Arheološki vestnik 29, 36–45.
DULAR, J. 1982, Halštatska keramika v Sloveniji / Die 
Grabkeramik der älteren Eisenzeit in Slowenien. – Dela 
1. Razreda SAZU 23.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ402
DULAR, J., I. ŠAVEL, S. TECCO HVALA 2002, Bronastodobno 
naselje Oloris pri Dolnjem Lakošu / Bronzezeitliche Siedlung 
Oloris bei Dolnji Lakoš. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici 
Sloveniae 5. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612544980
DULAR, J., M. TOMANIČ JEVREMOV 2010, Ormož. 
Utrjeno naselje iz pozne bronaste in starejše železne dobe 
/ Ormož. Befestigte Siedlung aus der späten Bronze- und 
der älteren Eisenzeit. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici 
Sloveniae 18. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545659
FERNÁNDEZ-GÖTZ M., D. KRAUSSE 2013, Rethinking 
Early Iron Age urbanisation in Central Europe: the 
Heuneburg site and its archaeological environment. – 
Antiquity 87, 473–487. http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/
ant0870473.htm 
GALILEA, F., A. GARCÍA 2002, Enterramientos Infantiles 
en el Poblado Protohistórico de La Hoya (Laguardia, 
Álava). – Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa 19, 150–162. 
GAVRANOVIĆ, M. 2012, Ore Exploitation and Settle-
ment Dynamic during the Late Bronze Age in Central 
Bosnia. – In: J. Kneisel, W. Kirleis, M. Dal Corso, 
N. Taylor, V. Tiedtke (ed.), Collapse or Continuity? 
Environment and Development of Bronze Age Human 
Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Workshops 
“Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the last 12,000 
Years: The Creation of Landscapes II (14th-18th March) 
in Kiel”, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen 
Archäologie 205, 103–111.
GEDL, M. 1984, Die Messer in Polen. – Prähistorische 
Bronzefunde 7/4. 
GRAHEK, L. 2016, Stična. Železnodobna naselbinska keramika 
/ Iron Age Settlement Pottery. − Opera Instituti Archaeolo-
gici Sloveniae 32. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612549244
GRUŠKOVNJAK L. 2024. Surveying along the Slopes: 
Evaluating the Impact of Geomorphic Processes on 
Field Survey’s Site Discovery Effectiveness. – Journal 
of Field Archaeology, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
934690.2024.2402112 
GUSI, F., J. LUJÁN 2011, Enterramientos Infantiles y Juveniles 
en la Edad del Bronce Peninsular. Una Aproximación 
Cuantitativa. – Quaderns de Prehistòria i Arqueologia 
de Castelló 29, 153–208. 
HARDING, A. F. 2000, European Societies in the Bronze 
Age. – Cambridge. 
HAUGE, H. E. 1965, Levande begravd elhr bränd i nordisk-
folkmedicin. – Stockholm. 
HORST, F. 1986, Die jungbronzezeitlichen Kannelurenstei-
ne des mitteleuropäischen Raums. Werkzeuge für die 
Bronzebearbeitung. – Helvetia archaeologica 17, 82–91.
KARAVANIĆ, S. 2009, The Urnfield Culture in continental 
Croatia. – BAR Inernational Series 2036.
KARAVANIĆ, S., A. KUDELIĆ 2013, Rezultati arheolo-
ških istraživanja lokaliteta Kalnik – Igrišče. – Annales 
Instituti archaeologici IX, 88–92.
KARAVANIĆ, S., A. KUDELIĆ 2016, Kalnik – Igrišče 
– rezultati arheoloških iskopavanja u 2015. godini. – 
Annales Instituti archaeologici XII, 117–121.
KARAVANIĆ, S., A. KUDELIĆ, T. KARAVIDOVIĆ 2015, 
Rezultati arheološkog iskopavanja lokaliteta Kalnik – 
Igrišče 2014. godine. – Annales Instituti archaeologici 
XI, 59–62.
KARL, R., K. LÖCKER 2011, Thrown out with the bathwater 
or properly buried: neonate and infant skeletons in a 
settlement context on the Dürrnberg bei Hallein. – In: 
M. Lally and A. Moore (ed.), (Re)Thinking the Little 
Ancestor: new perspectives on the archaeology of infancy 
and childhood, BAR International Series 2271, 37–46. 
KNEZ, T. 1966, Žarno grobišče v Novem mestu / Das 
Urnengräberfeld in Novo mesto. – Arheološki vestnik 
18, 155–161.
KÖNIG, P. 2004, Spätbronzezeitliche Horfunde aus Bosnien 
und der Herzegowina. – Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX/1. 
LE FEVRE-LEHOERFF, A. 1992, Les moules de l‘age du 
Bronze dans la plaine orientale du Po. – Padusa 28, 
131–243.
LEGHISSA et al. 2023 = E. Leghissa, Ž. Smit, B. Brezigar, 
V. Svetličič, P. Turk 2023, The earliest glass from the 
territory of Slovenia. – Documenta Praehistorica 50, 
434–444.
LESKOVAR, T. 2022, Antropološka analiza. – In: P. Voja-
ković, M. Novšak (ed.), 2022, 83–88.
MAJNARIČ-PANDŽIČ, N. 1992, Ljevaonica brončanih 
predmeta na Kalniku. – Opuscula Archaeologica 16, 57–73.
MIOČ, P., ŽNIDARČIČ, M. 1978. Basic geological map of 
Yugostavia. Sheet Slovenj Gradec, 1: 100.000. – Beograd.
MURGELJ et al. 2013 = I. Murgelj, D. Svoljšak, M. Culiberg, 
P. Leben Seljak, T. Verbič, A. Šemrov 2013, Podsmreka 
pri Višnji Gori. – Zbirka arheologija na avtocestah 
Slovenije 42. https://www.zvkds.si/files/uploads/files/
publication/42_podsmreka_pri_visnji_gori.pdf
OMAN, D. 1981, Brinjeva Gora 1953 (Obdelava prazgo-
dovinske keramike). – Arheološki vestnik 32, 144–153.
PAULSSON, T. 1993, Huset och lyckan: en studie i byggnad-
soffer från nordisk järnälder och medeltid. – C-uppsats, 
Lunds universitets arkeologiska institution vt 1993
PAULSSON-HOLMBERG, T. 1997, Iron Age building 
offerings. A contribution to the analysis of a die-hard 
phenomenon in Swedish preindustrial agrarian society. 
– Fornvännen 92(3/4), 163–175. 
PLEINER R. 2002, Iron in archaeology. The european 
bloomery smelters. – Praha.
PLESTENJAK et al. 2014 = A. Plestenjak, T., Verbič, P., 
Vojaković, M., Novšak 2014, Končno poročilo o arhe-
oloških izkopavanjih na lokaciji OŠ Dobova; “ureditev 
zunanjih površin na parc. št. 241/1, 241/4, 238/1, 237/5, 
237/1, 234/1, 231, 230/1, 229/1, 229/4 k.o. gaberje – II. 
faza.” (hrani / kept by: ZVKDS in / and Arhej d. o. o.). 
https://www.arhej.com/datoteke/Pdf/porocilo_dobova.pdf
SMITH M. E. 2014. Housing in Premodern Cities: Patterns 
of Social and Spatial Variation. International Journal of 
Architectural Research 8(3), 207–222. https://web.archive.
org/web/20170416055130/http://www.archnet-ijar.net:80/
index.php/IJAR/article/viewFile/448/pdf_16
SMRŽ, Z., F. MLADÝ, 1979, Výšinné sídliště knovízské 
kultury na vrchu Špičák u Mikulovic (okr. Chomutov) 
/ Eine Höhensiedlung der Knovízer Kultur auf dem 
Špičák-Berg bei Miulovice (Bez Chomutov). – Arche-
ologické rozhledy 31, 27–53 
STARE, F. 1975, Dobova. – Posavski muzej Brežice 2.
SZOMBATHY, J. 1913, Altertumsfunde aus Hohlen bei St. 
Kanzian im osterreichischen Kustenlande. – Mitteilungen 
der prähistorischen Kommission der KaiserlichenAkademie 
der Wissenschaften 2, 127–190.
ŠKVOR JERNEJČIČ, B., B. TOŠKAN 2018, Ritual use of 
dogs and wolves in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age 
Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ... 403
in the South-Eastern Alpine region. New evidence from 
the archaeo(zoo)logical perspective. – In: S. Costamagno 
(ed.), Animal symbolisé, animal exploité: du Paléolithique 
à la Protohistoire. Actes des congrès nationaux des sociétés 
historiques et scientifiques, 249–277, Paris.
TECCO HVALA, S. 2012, Magdalenska gora. Družbena 
struktura in grobni rituali železnodobne skupnosti / Social 
structure and burial rites of the Iron Age community. – 
Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 26. https://doi.
org/10.3986/9789612546007
TECCO HVALA, S. 2014, Lončene situle iz starejše železne 
dobe na območju Slovenije / Early Iron Age ceramic 
situlae from Slovenia. – In: S. Tecco Hvala (ed.), Studia 
praehistorica in honorem Janez Dular, Opera Instituti 
Archaeologici Sloveniae 30, 323–339. https://doi.
org/10.3986/9789610503651
TERŽAN, B. 1990, Starejša železna doba na Slovenskem 
Štajerskem / The Early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria. – 
Katalogi in monografije 25. 
TERŽAN, B. 1995, Handel und soziale Oberschichten im 
früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa. – In: B. Hansel (ed.), 
Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisen-
zeitlichen Südosteuropa, Prähistorische Archäologie in 
Südosteuropa 11, 81–159. 
TERŽAN, B. 2014, Prvi med prvimi – o centralnem grobu 
gomile I na Kapiteljski njivi v Novem mestu. – In: S. 
Tecco Hvala (ed.), Studia Praehistorica in Honorem 
Janez Dular. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 
30, 251–270. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789610503651
TERŽAN, B., E. BORGNA, P. TURK 2016, Depo iz Mušje 
jame pri Škocjanu na Krasu / Il ripostiglio della Grotta 
delle Mosche presso San Canziano del Carso. – Katalogi 
in monografije 42.
TORRES-MARTÍNEZ, J. F. 2011, El Cantábrico en la 
Edad del Hierro. Medioambiente, Economía, Territorio 
y Sociedad. – Madrid. 
TOŠKAN, B. 2022, Analiza živalskih ostankov. – In: P. 
Vojaković, M. Novšak (ed.), 2022, 88–90.
TOWLE et al. 2002 = A. Towle, J. Henderson, P. Bellintani, 
G. Gambacurta 2002, Frattesina and Adria: report of 
scientific analyses of early glass from the Veneto. – 
Padusa 37, 7–68. 
TRAMPUŽ-OREL, D. J. HEATH 2001, Depo Kanalski Vrh 
– študija o metalurškem znanju in kovinah na začetku 
1. tisočletja pr. n. š. / The Kanalski Vrh hoard – a case 
study of the metallurgical knowledge and metals at 
the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. – Arheološki 
vestnik 52, 143–171.
TURK, P. 1996, Datacija poznobronastih depojev. – In: B. 
Teržan (ed.), Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe 
bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem 1 / Hoards 
and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and 
Bronze Ages in Slovenia 1. – Katalogi in monografije 
30, 89–124.
TURK, P. 2001a, The Weight of Objects in Late Bronze Age 
Hoards in Slovenia and Possibilities for Determining 
Weight Standards / Teže predmetov v depojih pozne 
bronaste dobe iz Slovenije in možnosti ugotavljanja 
utežnih standardov. – Arheološki vestnik 52, 249–279.
TURK, P. 2001b, Some aspects of new Late Bronze Age 
and Early Iron Age hoard-finds from Central Slovenia. 
– In: A. Lippert (ed.), Die Drau-, Mur- und Raab-Region 
im 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des Symposi-
ums Bad Radkersburg. – Universität- forschungen zur 
prähistorischen Archäologie 78, 155–164. 
TURK, P., M. TURK 2019, Najstarejše zgodbe s stičišča 
svetov. – Ljubljana.
TURK, P., V. SVETLIČIČ, D. PAVLOVIČ 2022, Drago-
melj. – Zbirka arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 106. 
https://www.zvkds.si/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/
aas_106_dragomelj_splet.pdf 
TURK et al. 2009 = P. Turk, J. Istenič, T. Knific, T. Nabergoj 
2009, Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke. – Ljubljana.
VINSKI-GASPARINI, K. 1973, Kultura polja sa žarama u 
sjevernoj Hrvatskoj / Die Urnenfelderkultur in Nordkro-
atien. – Monografije 1.
VINSKI GASPARINI, K. 1983, Kultura polja sa žarama sa 
svojim grupama. – In: Praistorija 
jugoslavenskih zemalja 4, Bronzano doba, 547–617, Sarajevo.
VOJAKOVIĆ, P. 2013, Prazgodovinska Emona. Novo od-
krita protourbana naselbina na Prulah in njeno mesto v 
času in prostoru. – Doktorska disertacija / PhD thesis, 
Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze 
v Ljubljani (neobjavljeno / unpublished).
VOJAKOVIĆ, P. 2023, Prazgodovinska Ljubljana: urbano 
trgovsko središče na stičišču poti / Prehistoric settlement 
in Ljubljana: an urban trading centre at the crossroads. 
– Arheološki vestnik 74, 531–590.
VOJAKOVIĆ, P., M. NOVŠAK 2022, Podgorica. – Zbirka 
arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 97. https://www.
zvkds.si/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aas_97_podgo-
rica_petra_vojakovic_matjaz.pdf 
VOJAKOVIĆ et al. 2023 = P. Vojaković, T. Žerjal, J. Brečić, 
A. Krašna, I. Bekljanov Zidanšek, L. Furlan, K. Varga, T. 
Tolar, B. Toškan, T. Leskovar, L. Gruškovnjak, J. Burja, 
B. Šetina Batič, A. Šemrov, J. Lorber, T. Verbič 2023, 
Končno poročilo o arheoloških raziskavah »Objekt za 
reševanje prostorske problematike Zavoda za prestajanje 
kazni zapora Ig – nova gradnja, rekonstrukcija, odstranitev 
objekta« : faza III. – arheološka izkopavanja.” (hrani / 
kept by: ZVKDS in / and Arhej d. o. o.). https://ised.
gov.si/api/javna/neavtoriziran/arheo/koncno_porocilo/
files/61369/download
ZAMBONI L. 2021. The Urbanization of Northern Italy: 
Contextualizing Early Settlement Nucleation in the Po 
Valley. – Journal of Archaeological Research 29(3), 85–101. 
ŽBONA-TRKMAN, B., A. BAVDEK 1996, Depojski najdbi 
s Kanalskega Vrha. – In: B. Teržan (ed.), Depojske in 
posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na 
Slovenskem 1 / Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from 
the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia 1, Katalogi 
in monografije 30, 31–72.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ404
Leta 1999 so bili ob gradnji slovenskega avto-
cestnega križa na ravninskem območju severo-
vzhodno od Ljubljane, natančneje med naselji 
Pšata, Dragomelj in Podgorica, odkriti sledovi 
večje nižinske podgoriško-dragomeljske naselbine 
iz pozne bronaste dobe (sl. 1).1 Naselbina na ob-
močju Podgorice se je razprostirala po celotnem 
območju, raziskanem z arheološkimi izkopavanji 
(sl. 2), največjo zgostitev pa je bilo mogoče zaznati 
ob nekdanji strugi potoka. Večino jam različnih 
oblik, velikosti in namembnosti, med katerimi so 
prevladovale tiste za navpične lesene nosilce stavb-
nih konstrukcij (stojke), nam je uspelo povezati v 
tlorisne zasnove stavb.2
Razpoznali smo 20 tlorisov potencialnih stavb 
(A–U) (sl. 2). Vse so bile grajene tako, da so imele 
v tla vkopane jame za nosilne lesene stebre stavbne 
konstrukcije (stojke). Ločili smo dve skupini glede 
na prisotnost ali odsotnost slemenskih stojk. V 
prvi skupini so bile stavbe A, B, J, K in R brez 
slemenskih stojk, streha je slonela le na stebrih 
obeh stranskih sten. Pri drugi skupini, stavbah N, 
P, S in U, pa je strešno konstrukcijo poleg stranskih 
sten podpirala dodatna vrsta slemenskih stebrov.3 
Med stavbami sta bila zastopana dva velikostna 
razreda, prvi s stavbami dolžine do 10 m (stavbe 
A, B, J, K, N, P, R in S) in drugi s stavbami dolžine 
nad 10 m (stavba U).4 
KRONOLOŠKA OPREDELITEV NAJDB 
Med odkritimi keramičnimi najdbami prevladujejo 
odlomki grobih kuhinjskih posod (lončki, lonci, 
pitosi) (sl. 8: L1–L4; t. 1: 2, 4, 6, 9–10, 13–14; 2: 
1  Celostni rezultati arheoloških izkopavanj so objavljeni 
v zbirki Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije (Vojaković, 
Novšak 2022; Turk, Svetličič, Pavlovič 2022).
2  Pri njihovem opredeljevanju smo se opirali na že 
večkrat predstavljene kriterije (Dular, Tomanič Jevremov 
2010, 88; Vojaković, Novšak 2022, 30).
3  Preostale stavbe niso bile ohranjene do te mere, da 
bi jim lahko začrtali tloris.
4  Preostale stavbe so bile preslabo ohranjene, da bi jih 
lahko razporedili v velikostni razred.   
18–21, 35; 3: 38, 43), ki jim najdemo paralele tako 
na Tribuni v Ljubljani5 kot na najdišču Rogoza pri 
Mariboru.6 Najštevilnejše med finim (namiznim 
oz. servirnim) posodjem so sklede (sl. 8: S1; t. 
1: 11; 2: 24–34; 4: 46), sledijo jim skodele (sl. 8: 
Sk1; t. 2: 35). Nekatere izmed skled so imele ustje 
okrašeno s poševnimi kanelurami (sl. 8: S1; t. 1: 
11; 2: 30, 33–34; 4: 46). Okraševanje s poševnimi 
kanelurami je bilo izjemno priljubljeno v času 
Bd D–Ha A1 na območju srednjega Podonavja,7 
njegov izvor pa bi morda lahko iskali v skupini 
Baierdorf-Velatice v obdobju Bd D–Ha A.8 Po-
menljivo je, da so med keramičnimi najdbami 
zastopane tudi nekoliko starejše oblike posodja 
(sl. 8: P1; t. 3: 42; sl. 8: S2; t. 3: 39; sl. 8: S3; sl. 8: 
Sk2; t. 1: 16), ki jih lahko datiramo v I. fazo KŽG 
po K. Vinski-Gasparini (konec Bd C in delno Bd 
D).9 Odkrite so bile predvsem v strugi potoka (SE 
40) ter v sklopu stavb A, B, C in D. 
USTROJ NASELBINEIN GOSPODARSKE 
DEJAVNOSTI V NJEJ
Naselbino v Podgorici sestavlja več skupin gru-
často razporejenih stavb, nanizanih okoli odprtega 
prostora – dvorišča. Te stavbne skupine naj bi se-
stavljale posamezno gospodinjstvo oz. gospodarstvo 
z najmanj eno večjo stavbo (npr. stavbe U, N in 
L) (sl. 2–3, 5), ki je pripadalo posameznim ožjim 
družbenim skupnostim v smislu razširjene družine 
oz. rodbine. Zdi se verjetno, da so se posamezne 
stavbe okoli dvorišča uporabljale za različne name-
ne v okviru iste skupnosti. Podobno organizirane 
5  Vojaković 2013, 231–235, sl. 121: L1a, L1b, L2a, L3; 
Vojaković 2023, 536–537, 542–547, 551; t. 2: 39–40,43; 
4: 92–94,97; 6: 146–148,151; 8: 189–191,194; 9: 208–209. 
6  Črešnar 2010, 37–38, sl. 14: L4, 15: L5–L8. 
7  Tako okrašena ročaja je imela tudi amfora iz groba 
21 v Bezdanjači pri Vrhovinah, ki ga avtorica ob pomoči 
navezav na spodnjeavstrijsko skupino Höting-Mörzg datira 
v Ha A1 (Drechsler-Bižić 1979–1980, 40).
8  Črešnar 2010, 20–22, sl. 7: Sv3b.
9  Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 547–617.
Podgorica: naselje iz obdobja kulture žarnih grobišč
kot del podgoriško-dragomeljskega “somestja”
in starejšeželeznodobno grobišče 
Povzetek
405Podgorica: naselje iz obdobja kulture žarnih grobišč kot del podgoriško-dragomeljskega “somestja” ...
naselbine zasledimo tako v sosednjem Dragomlju10 
in Spodnjem Posavju, npr. v Dobovi,11 pa tudi v 
Podravju, denimo v Rogozi12 in Orehovi vasi13 
pri Mariboru. Ker gre za bolj ali manj sočasne 
naselbine, ki v svoji zasnovi odražajo podobno 
razporeditev stavb in hkrati podoben način gradnje 
s stojkami za lesene stavbne nosilce butanih hiš, 
domnevamo, da gre tudi za podobno ali morda 
celo povsem enako obliko družbene strukture oz. 
gospodarstva. 
Zdi se, da so se na podgoriškem delu naselbine 
gospodinjske dejavnosti odvijale v stavbah (predvsem 
v slednjih so bile večje jame različnih namemb-
nosti), medtem ko so bile gospodarske dejavnosti, 
zlasti livarske, ločene od stavb in pomaknjene na 
obrobje naselbine (sl. 2, 6–7). Pomenljivo se zdi, 
da na podgoriškem delu “somestja” nismo našli 
vretenc (z izjemo enega v jami za stojko v stavbi 
N) in tkalskih uteži, medtem ko so bile na drago-
meljskem delu slednje odkrite le v jamah zunaj 
stavb,14 tj. na dvoriščih. Čeprav velja mnenje, da 
sta bila tkanje in izdelava blaga v bronasti dobi 
domena posameznih gospodinjstev,15 se zdi, da 
pojavnost različnih rokodelskih pripomočkov v 
podgoriško-dragomeljskem primeru nakazuje 
nekakšne specializirane “četrti” rokodelskih dejav-
nosti v okviru “somestja”. 
V prvi livarski delavnici (sl. 2, 6), na severo-
vzhodnem robu podgoriške naselbine, je bil v 
jami SE 107 odkrit fragmentiran dvodelni kamniti 
kalup iz lojevčevega skrilavca (t. 3: 37). Gre za 
metamorfno kamnino, ki jo v Sloveniji najdemo 
le na Kobanskem (npr. Pernice nad Muto) ter na 
južnem in severnem delu Pohorja, sicer pa v Italiji 
in Avstriji.16 Na eni strani kalupa je ohranjen del 
negativa sulične osti, na nasprotni strani pa negativ 
predmeta, ki ga ni mogoče natančno opredeliti 
(morda gre za iglo). Kalup je izrazito sivo-črne 
barve (zaradi delovanja visokih temperatur). 
Podobna dvodelna kalupa za izdelavo suličnih osti 
sta bila najdena ob ognjišču na najdišču Pivnica 
pri Odžaku v severni Bosni. Alojz Benac ju datira 
v prehodno fazo Ha A2/Ha B1, torej v podoben 
čas kot v Podgorici.17 Kalup za ulivanje suličnih 
10  Glej tu: Turk, Svetličič.
11  Plestenjak et al. 2014.
12  Črešnar 2010, 96–119.
13  Grahek 2016, 29–41, sl. 26–b.
14  Glej tu Turk, Svetličič.
15  Belanová Štolcová, Grömer 2010, 9–20; Harding 
2000, 254–270.
16  Mioč, Žnidarčič 1978.
17  Benac 1966–67, 158.
osti je bil odkrit tudi v naselbini Varvara na severu 
Hercegovine.18 Na tem mestu naj omenimo še v 
sekundarni legi (tj. v kamniti strukturi SE 19 ob 
starejšeželeznodobnih grobovih) odkrit odlomek 
kamnitega kalupa iz rdečega kremenovega peščen-
jaka. Tudi ta je bil namenjen izdelavi suličnih osti 
(t. 4: 50). Številne različno oblikovane bronaste 
sulične osti, izdelane v takšnih kalupih, so znane 
iz kultnega depoja v Mušji jami pri Škocjanu19 iz 
obdobja kulture žarnih grobišč,20 zajetno število 
pa jih izvira tudi iz reke Ljubljanice.21 
Druga livarska delavnica je stala na jugovzhodnem 
robu izkopnega polja (sl. 2, 7). V jami SE 108 je bil 
odkrit še en dvodelni kamniti kalup iz lojevčevega 
skrilavca (t. 4: 47), skupaj s kamnitim tolkačem s 
sredinsko kaneluro (t. 4: 48) in odlomkom kamni-
tega brusa (t. 4: 49). Najbližje primerjave omenjene 
kombinacije orodij najdemo na najdišču Kalnik – 
Igrišče na severozahodu Hrvaške, kjer je bilo okrog 
sedmih ognjišč raztresenih sedem fragmentiranih 
kalupov za ulivanje pripravljene bronaste zlitine, 
žlindra in kaneliran kamnit tolkač. Naselbina na 
Kalniku je datirana v obdobje med 13. in 11. st. 
pr. n. št.22 Kombinacija kalupa in tolkača z dvema 
kanelurama je bila odkrita tudi v eni izmed stavb 
na najdišču Špičak na Češkem.23 S kaneliranimi 
tolkači se je v svoji študiji ukvarjal F. Horst. 
V njej je obravnaval 850 kamnitih tolkačev iz 
nordijskega kroga, lužiške kulture in švicarskih 
koliščarskih naselbin ter jih interpretiral kot orodja 
za obdelavo brona. V nordijskem kulturnem krogu 
jih najdemo tako v naselbinah kot depojih, tolkači 
iz Švice pa izhajajo predvsem iz naselbin stopenj 
Ha A in Ha B.24 
Iz druge livarske delavnice v Podgorici izstopa 
kalup, ki ima na eni strani negativ obeska v obliki 
kolesa in negativ vodne ptice, na nasprotni strani 
pa je negativ dela noža z jezičastim nastavkom za 
držaj. Na stranski stranici sta vidna negativa za 
vlivanje ozkih predmetov z okroglim presekom – 
morda igli. Na obeh ožjih stranskih stranicah so 
– enako kakor na obeh glavnih – luknje za spojke, 
ozki frontalni stranici pa sta lepo zglajeni. Kalup je 
18  Čović 1971, 317; Ko ̈nig 2004, 96; Gavranović 2012, 
sl. 9: 1–9.
19  Szombathy 1913, 134–140.
20  Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 63–93, tab. 1–12, 35–50.
21  Turk et al. 2009, 62–67, sl. 66.
22  Majnarić-Pandžić 1992, 57–73; Karavanić 2009; 
Karavanić, Kudelić 2013, 88–92; Karavanić, Kudelić 2016, 
117–121; Karavanić, Kudelić, Karavidović 2015, 59–62.
23  Smrž, Mlady 1979, 31–32.
24  Horst 1986, 85.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ406
bil namenjen izdelavi različnih predmetov, morda 
za trgovino, morda pa je bil last potujočega livarja. 
Kolesasti obeski niso ozko časovno in tipološko 
omejeni, saj se pojavijo že v srednji bronasti dobi, 
zlasti pogosti pa so v času kulture žarnih grobišč 
in se kot tradicija obdržijo še v zgodnji železni 
dobi. Na našem prostoru imamo v I. depoju s Ka-
nalskega Vrha pravo zbirko 43 kolesastih obeskov 
različnih tipov. Depo je datiran v čas prehoda iz 
stopnje Ha A in v zgodnji Ha B oz. v III. depojski 
horizont po P. Turku.25 Posamezni primerki so 
znani tudi iz depoja v Mušji jami pri Škocjanu26 
ter iz depoja v Ivancu Bistranskem iz IV. stopnje 
depojev po K. Vinski-Gasparini.27 Zanimivo je, 
da so tovrstni obeski v grobovih kulture žarnih 
grobišč na slovenskem ozemlju izjemno redki, 
pojavljajo pa se predvsem v ženskih grobovih. Iz 
Dobove sta znana kolesasta obeska različnega tipa, 
pri čemer ima primerek iz bogatega groba 289 
znotraj odebeljenega obroča križno razdelitev, kar 
ga približa našemu kosu.28 Grob 289 spada med 
najstarejše na nekropoli, je iz stopnje Ha A1, kar je 
primerljivo z II. fazo kulture žarnih grobišč po K. 
Vinski-Gasparini.29 Iz istega obdobja je tudi drugi 
dobovski grob s kolesastim obeskom – grob 17.30 
Motiv vodne ptice – račke je bil prav tako razšir-
jen skozi celotno obdobje kulture žarnih grobišč, 
upodobitve vodnih ptic so značilne za grški svet 
in kulture vzhodnega Sredozemlja, pojavljajo pa 
se tudi še v železni dobi. Kalup z negativom vo-
dne ptice iz Podgorice ima najbližjo in najboljšo 
primerjavo v fragmentiranem kalupu z Rifnika, na 
katerem je negativ dveh vodnih ptic, opredeljen pa 
je v stopnjo Ha B1/B2.31 Motiv račke najdemo tudi 
na fragmentiranem kamnitem kalupu v metalur-
škem središču villanovske kulture v Frattesini ob 
spodnjem toku Pada.32 Bronasti obesek s ptičjima 
protomoma izvira iz I. depoja s Kanalskega Vrha,33 
omembe vredna pa je tudi drobna ženska bronasta 
figurica s stiliziranimi rokami v obliki račke iz ene 
izmed gomil na območju med Grižami in Šeščami 
25  Teržan 1995, 203, t. 100–103; Žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 
1996, 31–72; Turk 1996, 113–116; Turk 2001a, 249–279; 
Trampuž-Orel, Heath 2001, 143–171.  
26  Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, tab. 33: 2–3.
27  Žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 1996, 63.
28  Stare 1975, 76, t. 40.
29  Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 72, 95.
30  Stare 1975, 28, t. 8: 6.
31  Bolta 1959, 273.
32  Le Fevre-Lehoerff 1992, 208.
33  Žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 1996, 64; Teržan 1995, 203, 
t. 99: 18.
v Savinjski dolini, ki simbolizira gospodarico 
živali in je datirana v horizont Rifnik II/III oz. 
Ha B2/B3.34 Zanimivo interpretacijo kalupa s 
kolesastim obročkom in vodno ptico iz Podgorice 
je ponudil P. Turk, ki meni, da bi lahko v kalupu 
ulivali posamezne dele za izdelavo kultnega vo-
zička. Ti vozički so bili odkriti kot grobne in/ali 
votivne (vodne ali močvirske) najdbe v različnih 
delih Evrope, in sicer v času kulture žarnih grobišč 
in zgodnji železni dobi. Eden izmed takšnih je bil 
najden v grobu iz Acholshausna na Frankovskem, 
datiranem v 11. st. pr. n. št.35 
Funkcionalna povezanost metalurško-rudarskega 
orodja, kot so kalupi, tolkač in brusni kamen, ter 
dragomeljski depo bronastih surovcev in ingotov36 
nakazujeta na livarske dejavnosti, ki so se odvijale 
med pozno bronasto dobo v podgoriško-dragomelj-
skem “somestju” ter morda tudi širše v Ljubljanski 
kotlini, če omenimo sledove teh dejavnosti tudi v 
delno sočasni naselbini na Tribuni v Ljubljani.37 
Organiziranost podgoriške naselbine kaže, da 
sta bili livarski območji pomaknjeni na njeno 
obrobje. Podobna situacija je bila ugotovljena 
tudi na nekaterih bolj oddaljenih najdiščih, npr. 
v nižinskih naselbinah v Padski nižini, kot je 
Frattesina – Fratta Polesine, kjer so v vzhodnem 
delu naselbine delovale rokodelske delavnice, o 
čemer pričajo najdbe, med drugim slonovina, 
steklo, baltski jantar, bronaste pogače in kalupi. 
Naselbina je živela od približno 12. do 9. st. pr. 
n. št.38 Sočasna s Fratessino, le 35 km zahodno od 
nje, je bila druga poznobronastodobna naselbina, 
Mariconda di Melara, kjer so bile odkrite delavnice 
stekla.39 Tudi v Montagnani, 30 km severozahodno 
od Fratessine, so sočasno (tj. 11.–8. st. pr. n. št.) 
delovale različne rokodelske delavnice, in sicer 
po večini v njenem vzhodnem delu, kjer so našli 
peči, kalupe, kovino, predvsem bron, pa tudi uteži, 
vretenca, svitke, rogovje itd.40 Povezave z najdišči 
v Padski nižini morda nakazujejo tudi najdbe 
steklenih jagod v Podgorici. Odkrite so bile štiri 
majhne okrogle steklene jagode, tri zelene in ena 
34  Teržan 1990, 111–112.
35  Turk, Turk 2019, 205, sl. 256. 
36  Glej tu Turk, Svetličič.
37  Vojaković 2023, 531–590.
38  Bietti Sestieri 1984a, 413–427; Bietti Sestieri 1984b, 
429–464; Bietti Sestieri et al. 2015, 427–436; Bietti Sestieri, 
Bellintani, Giardino 2019. 
39  Towle et al. 2002, 7–68.
40  Bianchin Citton 1998, 429–433; De Min 1984, 
642–650; Bianchin Citton 2015, 251–266; Bianchin Citton, 
Balista, De Angeli 2015, 461–467.
407Podgorica: naselje iz obdobja kulture žarnih grobišč kot del podgoriško-dragomeljskega “somestja” ...
turkizna, velikosti od 0,4 do 0,5 cm (t. 1: 7; 2: 36; 
3: 40, 44). Dve sta bili najdeni v jamah prvega 
livarskega območja (SE 31 in 124; sl. 6), ena v jami 
za stojko stavbe N (SE 102; sl. 3), še ena pa v jami 
za stojko stavbe U (SE 81; sl. 5), tj. v stavbah, ki 
smo ju označili kot vodilni stavbi v posameznih 
gospodarstvih. Najdbe steklenih jagod v naselbi-
nah kulture žarnih grobišč po Sloveniji so redke, 
odkritih je bilo le nekaj posamičnih primerkov.41 
Izvor jagod iz Podgorice brez opravljenih analiz 
PIXE in PIGE ostaja neznan, morda bi bile lahko, 
podobno kot tista z najdišča Medvode – Svetje, 
uvožene iz severnoitalskega proizvodnega središča 
Frattesina.42
OBREDNI OBIČAJI V NASELBINI
Arheološke raziskave v Podgorici so odkrile 
tudi nenavadne obredne običaje v naselbini. Med 
20 razpoznanimi stavbnimi tlorisi oz. stavbami 
vzbujata največ pozornosti stavbi N in U (sl. 2, 3, 
5). Za obe se zdi, da sta bili osrednji stavbi v svoji 
skupini in ti sta bili med seboj verjetno ločeni s 
strugo potoka. V obeh stavbah so bile v jamah 
različnih namembnosti (jame za stojke ter večje 
jame v notranjosti stavbe in ob njej) odkrite sež-
gane živalske in človeške kosti, pri čemer stavba N 
odstopa z nadpovprečno gostoto pojavnosti kostnih 
drobcev v jamah za stojke.43 Velja poudariti, da 
te najdbe izvirajo iz zasutij jam, kar pomeni, da 
je lahko šlo za sekundarni proces. Jame – tako 
shrambne in odpadne kot tudi jame za stojke – so 
bile namreč lahko zasute še v času obstoja naselbine 
ali pa po njenem propadu. 
Kljub temu želimo tu ponuditi naslednji premislek. 
Sežgane človeške kosti niso del običajnega hišnega 
inventarja, prav tako jih ne moremo povezati z 
ostanki kuhinjskega odpada, zato bi jih morda smeli 
razlagati kot dokaz posebnih obredov, povezanih 
z gradnjo stavb.44 Stavbne daritve temeljijo na 
verovanju, da lahko stavbam zagotovimo bogastvo 
in magično zaščito, če na pomembna mesta v nji-
hovi strukturi postavimo darove. Znani so številni 
severnoevropski primeri stavbnih daritev (gradišča, 
stavbe, ceste, zidovi in vodnjaki).45 Darovi so bili 
41  Leghissa et al. 2023, 442.
42  Leghissa et al. 2023, 434–444.
43  Toškan 2022, 88–90, sl. 124.
44  Paulsson-Holmberg 1997, 169–172.
45  Capelle 1987; Hauge 1965, 76, 83, 96; Paulsson 
1993, 13.
položeni na posebna mesta, npr. pod prag, nad 
glavni vhod, v temelje stavb ali stojke, v ognjišča ali 
v stavbni tlak.46 Capelle opisuje tudi več primerov 
človeških grobov, najdenih v severnoevropskih 
stavbah iz železne dobe,47 v kar nekaj med njimi 
so bili položeni majhni otroci. Poznobronastodobni 
in železnodobni obredni pokopi novorojenčkov 
in mrtvorojenih otrok v notranjosti stavb so 
bili med drugim zaznani v Kantabriji (in drugih 
delih Iberskega polotoka)48 ter v Veliki Britaniji 
in srednji Evropi.49 Pokop nedonošenčka v eni 
izmed mlajšehalštatskodobnih stavb (stavba 22) 
je bil nedavno odkrit tudi na gradišču Pungrt nad 
Igom.50 Del človeškega skeleta (človeška prstnica) 
in pasja kost pa sta bila odkrita v zasutju jame 
za stojko v eni izmed stavb (stavba 12 = 13) iz 
IV. naselbinske faze (8. st. pr. n. št.) v naselbini 
na Tribuni v Ljubljani.51 Pes velja za človekovega 
najboljšega prijatelja, lovskega in vojnega spre-
mljevalca, zaščitnika domačega prostora in čred 
domačih živali ter zato tudi pomemben element 
pri različnih obredih, ceremonijah in pogrebnih 
svečanostih, ne pa kot vir hrane.52 V Podgorici je 
bila sežgana pasja prstnica odkrita v bližini stavbe 
U v večji jami (SE 67). Pasja čeljustnica je bila 
najdena tudi v Ormožu, in sicer ob veliki stavbi, 
ki ji pripisujejo osrednje mesto v naselbini (tj. na 
Skolibrovi ulici: Stavbi 13).53 
Nižinsko podgoriško-dragomeljsko “somestje”, 
vsaj njegov del na območju Podgorice, v svoji 
zasnovi odraža večje število stanovanjskih oz. 
gospodarskih jeder z gručasto razporejenimi 
stavbami okoli dvoriščnega prostora, gre za tako 
imenovana gospodarstva v središču naselja in na 
njegovo obrobje pomaknjena livarska območja. Na 
podlagi predstavljenega se zdi, da je bila pomemb-
na gospodarska panoga prav livarska dejavnost s 
proizvodnjo bronastih predmetov, morda je imela 
nadregionalni pomen. Zaradi bližine vode (struga) 
se zdi logična tudi izbira lokacije. Iz razmestitve 
stavb, ki vse kažejo le enofaznost gradnje, brez 
posebnih sledov in znamenj popravil ali dogradnje, 
46  Paulsson 1993, 15.
47  Capelle 1987, 185, 191, 197, 204.
48  Galilea, García 2002; Gusi, Luján 2011; Torres-Mar-
tínez 2011, 329.
49  Karl, Lo ̈cker, 2011, 37.
50  Vojaković et al. 2023.
51  Vojaković 2023, 554; Škvor Jernejčič, Toškan 2018, 
256–258.
52  Škvor Jernejčič, Toškan 2018, 249–260.
53  Dular, Tomanič Jevremov 2010, 90, 94; Škvor Jer-
nejčič, Toškan 2018, 256.
Petra VOJAKOVIĆ408
sklepamo, da ne gre za dolgotrajno naselbino. Po 
analizi keramičnih, kovinskih in kamnitih najdb 
jo lahko datiramo v čas starejše kulture žarnih 
grobišč (pozna Bd D/Ha A1) in eventualno vse do 
prehoda v mlajše obdobje žarnih grobišč (Ha A2/B1) 
oz. od 13. do 11. st. pr. n. št., s poudarkom na 12. 
in 11. st. pr. n. št. Takšna časovna opredelitev, ki 
se opira na analizo arheoloških najdb, je podprta 
tudi z nizom radiokarbonskih datacij (sl. 4).
GROBOVI IZ STAREJŠE
ŽELEZNE DOBE
Po propadu poznobronastodobnega “somestja” 
okoli leta 1000 pr. n. št., ki bi ga morda lahko 
povezovali s procesom zgodnje nukleacije54 in 
posledično z vzponom novega urbanega središča 
– Ljubljane,55 je bil južni del raziskanega območja 
ob koncu 7. oz. začetku 6. st. pr. n. št. po večsto-
letni opustitvi ponovno v uporabi, vendar tokrat 
kot grobišče. 
54  Zamboni 2021, 387–430. 
55  Vojaković 2023, 531–590.
Očitno je, da sta bila vsaj grobova 2 in 4 žgana 
(sl. 10; t. 6: 54–64), ne izključujemo pa prisotnosti 
sočasnega skeletnega groba, t.j. grob 1 in 3 (sl. 
10; t. 5: 51–53).56 Ali so bili prekriti z gomilo ali 
je bila nekropola plana, ostaja zaradi novoveške 
agrarne izrabe prostora neznano. Grobna kera-
mika in predvsem železna rombična pasna spona 
govore, da bi smeli čas pokopov datirati v stopnjo 
Stična-Novo mesto 2 ali v horizont kačastih fibul 
(okoli 600 pr. n. št.). 
Kje so živeli nekdanji prebivalci, ki so svoje umrle 
pokopavali na ravninskem območju Podgorice, nam 
po eni strani nakazuje lidarski posnetek bližnje 
okolice (sl. 1). S tega je razvidno, da je najbližje 
utrjeno gradišče na Podgoriškem hribu (0,6 ha), 
nekoliko bolj oddaljeni sta še na Soteškem hribu 
(15 ha) in Strašnjaku (0,1 ha). Morda pa bi morali 
grobišču pripadajočo naselbino, predvsem zaradi 
domnevnih sočasnih ostalin na dragomeljskem 
delu najdišča,57 iskati na ravninskem delu, torej 
v neposredni bližini grobišča.
56  Zaradi odsotnosti žganine in žganih kosti, položaja 
pridatkov ter manka grobnih jam domnevamo, da bi lahko 
grobova 1 in 3 skupaj nakazovala na skeletni pokop.
57  Glej tu Turk, Svetličič; Turk 2001b, 161–162, sl. 7.
Petra Vojaković
Filozofska fakulteta UL
Oddelek za arheologijo
Aškerčeva 2
SI-1000 Ljubljana
Arhej d.o.o.
Drožanjska cesta 23
SI-8290 Sevnica
petra.vojakovic@ff.uni-lj.si
petra.vojakovic@gmail.com
ID orcid: 0009-0002-3974-5387
409Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ...
Pl. 1: Podgorica. Buildings N and U. 1–6,8–11,13–16 pottery; 12 stone; 7 glass. Scale 7 = 1:1; 12 = 1:2; 1–6,8–11,13–16 = 1:3.
T. 1: Podgorica. Stavba N in U. 1–6,8–11,13–16 keramika; 12 kamen; 7 steklo. M. 7 = 1:1; 12 = 1:2; 1–6,8–11,13–16 
ostalo = 1:3.
410 Petra VOJAKOVIĆ
Pl. 2: Podgorica. Building U. 17–35 pottery; 36 glass. Scale 36 = 1:1; 17–35 = 1:3.
T. 2: Podgorica. Stavba U. 17–35 keramika; 36 steklo. M. 36 = 1:1; 17–35 = 1:3.
411Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ...
Pl. 3: Podgorica. Foundry 1. 38–39,42–43 pottery; 37,41 stone, 40,44 glass. Scale 37 = 1:2; 40,44 = 1:1; 41–42 = 1:6; 
38–39,43 = 1:3. 
T. 3: Podgorica. Livarsko območje 1. 38–39,42–43 keramika; 37,41 kamen, 40,44 steklo. M. 37 = 1:2; 40,44 = 1:1; 41–42 
= 1:6; 38–39,43 = 1:3.
412 Petra VOJAKOVIĆ
Pl. 4: Podgorica. Foundry 2. 45–46 pottery; 47–49, 51 stone. Scale 47–49,51 = 1:2; 45–46  = 1:3.
T. 4: Podgorica. Livarsko območje 2. 45–46 keramika; 47–49, 51 kamen. M. 47–49,51 = 1:2; 45–46 = 1:3.
413Podgorica: an Urnfield period settlement as part of the Podgorica-Dragomelj ‘twin settlement’ ...
Pl. 5: Podgorica. Graves 1 and 3. 52,55 pottery; 54 iron. Scale 54 = 1:2; 52,55 = 1:3.
T. 5: Podgorica. Grob 1 in 3. 52,55 keramika; 54 železo. M. 54 = 1:2; 52,55 = 1:3.
414 Petra VOJAKOVIĆ
Pl. 6: Podgorica. Graves 2 and 4. 56–58,66–67 pottery; 59–63 iron, 64 glass. Scale 59–63 = 1:2; 64 = 1:1; 56–58,66–67 = 1:3.
T. 6: Podgorica. Grob 2 in 4. 56–58,66–67 keramika; 59–63 železo, 64 steklo. M. 59–63 = 1:2; 64 = 1:1; 56–58,66–67 = 1:3.