189

Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule

of the Counts of Krk: Topographical Situation and Local
Organization within the Feudal Manor

Gordan Ravančić

When discussing Vinodol’s past, one must keep in mind the antiquity of this ge-
ographic region, which becomes evident at the very irst glance – the clear shape of
the valley that stretches from Križišće towards the southeast, surrounded in north
and south by mountains belonging to the Bitoraj-Viševica massif.1 At the same time,
one should keep in mind that this geographical situation of Vinodol does not en-
tirely correspond to the former Vinodol municipalities or towns. As it is known, the
term “Vinodol towns” includes eight municipalities from Trsat in the northwest to
Ledenice in the southeast, which together with Novi (Vinodolski) sums up to the
nine towns of medieval Vinodol.
he archaeological material – mostly discovered sporadically – clearly indicates
the cultural diversity, but also continuity of settlement in this area. Remnants of jew-
ellery from the archaeological site in Vinodol also testify of links in cultural patterns
of the so-called Dalmatian-Croatian group, with traces of inluence from Pannonia
and the eastern Alpine region.2 On the other hand, the scarce written sources pre-
served from the medieval period leave suicient room for various speculations on
the social and organizational evolution of Vinodol and its towns before the compi-
lation of the Vinodol Law Code (1288).3 Hypotheses ofered by modern historiogra-
phy range from attempts at interpreting the past of Vinodol as part of the territorial

1
Lujo Margetić, Vinodolski zakon [he Vinodol Law Code] (Rijeka and Novi Vinodolski: Skupština
općine – Turističko društvo, 1988), 73-74. See also the English translation in: Lujo Margetić,
Vinodolski zakon = La legge del Vinodol = Das Gesetz von Vinodol = he Vinodol law. Translated by
A. Margetić, T. Krupis and J. Kraljić (Rijeka: Adamić-Vitagraf, 1998).
2
Željka Cetinić, Stanče-Gorica starohrvatsko groblje [Stanče-Gorica, an ancient Croatian cemetery]
(Rijeka: Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja, 1998), 25; Mirjana Matijević Sokol and
Vladimir Sokol, Hrvatska i Nin u doba kneza Branimira [Croatia and Nin during the rule of Duke
Branimir] (Zagreb and Milano: Studia Croatica and Heti, 1999), 76-80.
3
A summary of scholarly literature on this issue can be found in: Maurizio Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga
kmeta u vinodolskom društvu XIII. stoljeća” [he origin and role of the serf in the 13th-century
society of Vinodol], Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti
HAZU u Zagrebu 19 (2001), 35-81.
190 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

apparatus of medieval Croatian rulers to relections on the possibility of a system of

the so-called free rural municipalities, and further to speculations on a sort of corpus
separatum in terms of military and defence system separated from the so-called royal
lands (territorium regalis).4
In any case, the speciicity of social organization in Vinodol’s municipalities at
the time of codiication clearly indicates the speciicity of organizational structures
in medieval Vinodol. Namely, one of the reasons for writing down the Vinodol Law
Code was undoubtedly the set of problems that arose with the Counts of Krk estab-
lishing control over Vinodol.5 he very text of the Law Code shows that its aim was
to arrange the newly created (feudal) relations, not only in regard to the new masters,
the Counts of Krk, but also towards the diocesan Church, i.e. the bishopric of Senj.6

4
he aim of this contribution is not to ofer a detailed analysis of the existing theories on the origins
of Vinodol’s municipalities; therefore, I will give only a concise list of studies on this issue: Marko
Kostrenčić, “Vinodolski zakon” [he Vinodol Law Code], Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti
i umjetnosti 227 (1923), 110-230; idem, “Vinodolski zakon” [he Vinodol Law Code], Historijski
zbornik 2 (1949), 131-152; Miho Barada, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam [Croatian aristocratic
feudalism], Djela Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 44 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1952); Lujo
Margetić, Iz vinodolske prošlosti. Pravni izvori i rasprave [From Vinodol’s past: Legal sources and
studies] (Rijeka and Zagreb: Liburnija and Školska knjiga, 1980); Nada Klaić, Vinodol: od antičkih
vremena do Knezova Krčkih i Vinodolskog zakona [Vinodol: From ancient times to the Counts of
Krk and the Vinodol Law Code] (Pazin and Rijeka: Historijski arhiv u Pazinu, 1988); Mile Bogović,
“Crkva u Vinodolskom zakonu iz 1288. godine” [he Church in the Vinodol Law Code of 1288],
Riječki teološki časopis 2 (1994): 63-77; Radoslav Katičić, “Praslavenski pravni termini i formule u
Vinodolskom zakonu” [Old Slavonic legal terms and formulas in the Vinodol Law Code], Slovo:
Časopis Staroslavenskog instituta u Zagrebu 39-40 (1989/90), 73-85; Eduard Hercigonja, “Neke
jezično-stilske značajke Vinodolskog zakona (1288) i Krčkoga (Vrbanskoga) statuta (1388)” [Some
linguistic and stylistic features of the Vinodol Law Code (1288) and the Krk (Vrbnik) Statute
(1388)], Slovo: Časopis Staroslavenskog instituta u Zagrebu 39-40 (1989/90), 87-125; Tomislav
Raukar, “Vinodolski zakon i hrvatsko srednjovjekovno društvo” [he Vinodol Law Code and the
medieval Croatian society], Historijski zbornik 45 (1992), 155-168; Svetislav Polovina, “Gospodarski
i društveni aspekti Vinodolskog zakona” [Economic and social aspects of the Vinodol Law Code],
Ekonomska misao i praksa: Časopis Sveučilišta u Dubrovniku 1 (1992), 157-160; Vinko Tadejević,
“Poljoprivredno čitanje Vinodolskog zakona” [An agricultural reading of the Vinodol Law Code],
Vinodolski zbornik: godišnjak za gospodarstvo-turizam, povijesnu i kulturnu baštinu, ekologiju i
promicanje ljudskog stvaralaštva 9 (2004), 245-249.
5
hat Vinodol’s system was indeed “something special” and that the arrival of the Counts of Krk
marked a crucial turning point in its life and administration is also evident from the fact that some
scholars presume that the compilation and implementation of the Codex was preceded by a rebellion
of Vinodol’s population. Cf. Zrinko Mičetić, Praputnjak i Vinodolski zakon [Praputnjak and the
Vinodol Law Code] (Praputnjak: Kulturno društvena udruga Praputnjak, 2009), 65-67.
6
In the wake of Ante Škegro’s recent research, the issue of the continuity of the bishopric of Senj and its
attitude towards the ecclesiastical organization in Vinodol has become even more complex, additionally
emphasizing the exceptional administrative and organizational speciicity of Vinodol before it was
incorporated in the feudal manor of the Counts of Krk. On the antiquity of the bishopric of Senj and
for an overview of scholarly studies, see: Ante Škegro, “Sarnienska dijeceza (Sarniensis Ecclesia)” [he
diocese of Sarnia (Sarniensis Ecclesia)], Satrohrvatska prosvjeta III/37 (2010), 247-263. On the history
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 191

Nevertheless, historians have only recently ofered a plausible explanation for the
speciicity of certain elements in the social evolution of medieval Vinodol. he ques-
tion of Vinodol’s serfs was long a “stumbling stone” in analyzing Vinodol’s Middle
Ages.7 he problem was additionally complicated owing to the fact that understand-
ing the notion of serfdom was necessary in explaining the social and political-admin-
istrative evolution of Vinodol.8
According to what has been said, I believe that there should be no doubt about the
fact that the political and administrative evolution of Vinodol was closely connected
to its social development, and that solving the issue of the origin of Vinodol’s serfs
should help us answer the question about the administrative (and political) cohesion
between the medieval municipalities of Vinodol. Nevertheless, I would like to
emhasize once again that the lack of written sources on Vinodol before 1288 makes it
very diicult to venture into any precise reconstruction of historical events or research
on the process of creating organizational (and administrative) structures in this area.
It is in this light that I would like to underline the observation of Lujo Margetić
from his monograph Vinodolski zakon [he Vinodol Law Code] that Vinodol and
its area must be seen in two diferent ways: as “Vinodol proper”, which consisted
of the valley stretching from Križišće towards the southeast, and the administrative
and organizational unit of “extended Vinodol”, which comprised (from an unknown
point in time) Grobnik, Trsat, and Bakar.9
Historians have relatively early reached the consensus that the administrative and
religious centre of Vinodol proper (in the early Middle Ages) was Bribir, which is at

of the Bishopric of Senj, see especially: Darko Nekić, “Senjska biskupija u srednjem vijeku” [Bishopric
of Senj in the Middle Ages], Senjski zbornik 24 (1997), 31-48.
7
he abovementioned study by Maurizio Levak on the role and origin of Vinodol’s serfs ofers a
plausible explanation for the social evolution in that region, according to which the serfs of Vinodol
may have been the former iobagiones castri of Vinodol’s fortiied towns, who were in the late 13th
century still not completely afected by the feudalization process in the Kingdom of Croatia. Reasons
for this exemption, unfortunately, must remain a subject of speculation, yet this indicates that the
old hypothesis of Miho Barada on the existence of a Krajina / Krajište (military march) on the
western borders of the early medieval Croatian state, which is vaguely mentioned as early as the
Baška Tablet, may be correct. On these issues, see: Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 35-81.
8
Cf. note 4 with a bibliography on Vinodol’s past.
9
Lujo Margetić, Vinodolski zakon (as in n. 1), 73f. he geographic inconsistency of Vinodol was irst
observed by Vjekoslav Klaić, although he did not formulate his indings as explicitly as Margetić.
Cf. Vjekoslav Klaić, Krčki knezovi Frankapani [he Frankapan Counts of Krk] (Zagreb: Matica
hrvatska, 1901), 51. he same geographic diversity has been emphasized by Vladimir Košćak,
“Položaj Vinodola u hrvatskoj feudalnoj državi” [he position of Vinodol in the Croatian feudal
state], Historijski zbornik 16 (1963), 131.
192 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

the same time the geographical centre of the abovementioned valley.10 However, the
scarce written sources on early medieval Vinodol allow only for indirect conclusions
about this area as a part of the early medieval Croatian state.11 he fact that Vinodol
is mentioned in the famous Baška Tablet supports this hypothesis, but owing to its
brevity also opens up room for various interpretations. Vinodol is mentioned in the
context of conirming the donation, which was witnessed, among others, by (legate)
Pribineg in Vinodol, and the whole event is dated to the era of Duke Kosmat “oblada-
jućago vsu Krainu” (who ruled over all of the March).12
his mention of Kraina (the military march) on the western borders of the early
medieval Croatian state, unique in the preserved written sources (except for Barada’s
reconstructions linked to the events of 1116, described in a 15th-century collection
known as the Miracles of St Christopher), has opened up room for a somewhat difer-
ent interpretation of the administrative past of Vinodol, which would have, according
to the available data, certainly been a part of that Kraina.13 In the context of such
relections, it may be useful to recall the data preserved in fragments in the so-called
Viennese Illustrated Chronicle from the 14th century, which has also been referred to
by Barada.14 hat chronicle, namely, explicitly mentions a marcha Dalmatiae that the
Hungarian king Solomon and Prince Géza conquered in the name of their brother-
in-law Zvonimir during the conlict he had with the “Carantanians”.15
For our discussion, it is of minor importance to elaborate on the identity of these
Carantenos, as historians have long given their opinion on that issue.16 However, the
mention of the Dalmatian March is extremely important, primarily in terms of textu-
10
Besides Margetić’s abovementioned study, see e.g. Barada, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam (as in n. 4),
52; Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 43-44.
11
Cf. Constantine Porphirogenetes, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins
(Washington: Harvard University, 1967), 145-147. One should also take into account the data
from the so-called Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, which mentions Vinodol in chapters 3 and 9
as a border area of “White Croatia”. Cf. http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/duklja/
ljetopis_pop_dukljanina_latinicna_redakcija.htm.
12
For the text of the Baška Tablet, see e.g. Nada Klaić, Izvori za hrvatsku povijest do 1526. godine
[Sources for Croatian history before 1526] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1972), 86; English translation at:
http://info.hazu.hr/bascanska_en (last accessed: August 10, 2014).
13
Cf. Barada, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam (as in n. 4), 13-19; Priručnik izvora hrvatske historije
[Handbook of sources on Croatian history], ed. Ferdo Šišić (Zagreb: Kr. hrv. slav. dalm. zemaljska
vlada, 1914), 624-525; Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 48-64.
14
Barada, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam (as in n. 4), 14-15 (note 14).
15
Concerning these data, see: Ferdo Šišić, Povijest Hrvata u doba narodnih vladara [History of the
Croats at the time of national rulers] (Zagreb: no publisher, 1925), 527 (note 70); N. Klaić, Izvori (as
in n. 12), 65; Chronicon pictum, fol. 35v (Országos Széchényi Könyvtár in Budapest, Hungary).
16
Cf. Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 60-61 (with bibliography).
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 193

al content, but also for the possible meaning of the term marcha.17 he source clearly
shows that it was a territory bordering on the Holy Roman Empire of the German
Nation, and probably had an important defensive function.18 he fact that the source
describes this territory as a marcha indicates that Barada was probably right when
considering a wider surroundings of Vinodol as identical with the Kraina mentioned
in the Baška Tablet.
Nevertheless, my purpose here is not to analyze the extension of that (supposed)
March, as such an analysis would require a separate study.19 But if one accepts the
possibility of a longer existence of military and defensive organization in the area of
Vinodol, then the social evolution and the existence of Vinodol’s serfs, in the sense
in which it has been proposed by Maurizio Levak, become completely plausible and
understandable.20 he credibility of such conclusions on the military and defensive
organization of Vinodol is relatively evident from the implementation of the geo-
graphical central place theory, introduced by German geographer Walter Christaller,
on which more will be said later on.21

17
he term March (Old Saxon mearc, Frisian merke, etc.) has in its root the meaning of “boundary”
or “borderline military.” During the Carolingian period, the term spread across Europe, particularly
with the meaning of a marginal territory with a defensive function. Cf. e.g. Online Etymology
Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mark); “March (territory)”, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_(territory)&oldid=459948180 (last accessed
on November 25, 2011). See also: Vladimir Mažuranić, Prinosi za pravno-povjestni rječnik
[Contributions to a dictionary of law and history] (Zagreb: JAZU, 1908-1922), 535 and 630. All
this has been indicated by Barada in his study Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam (as in n. 4), 15, while
the more recent research on Vinodol’s past has only corroborated his interpretation. Besides, it is
important to keep in mind the duration of this territory’s role as a boundary, as well as the fact
that the terms march/border have had diferent meanings, with various implications regarding
their social and political development. On this approach and a suggestion for further analysis that
should be done for the medieval period in the Croatian lands, see especially: Drago Roksandić,
Triplex Coninium ili o granicama i regijama hrvatske povijesti 1500-1800 [Triplex Coninium, or:
On borders and territories in Croatian history, 1500-1800] (Zagreb: Barbat, 2003), 25-50.
18
he very early use of this region for defensive purposes is also indirectly mentioned in the Royal
Frankish Annals (olim Annales Laurissenses maiores), which mention the death of Eric, Margrave of
Friuli, in the Battle of Trsat (799). See e.g. Documenta historiae Croaticae periodum antiquam, ed.
Franjo Rački, in: Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 7 (Zagreb: JAZU,
1877), 300.
19
On the size of the March at the western borders of the early medieval state, one should mention,
besides Barada as the irst to write about it, the discussion and arguments presented in: Levak,
“Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 52-64.
20
It should be emphasized that Tomislav Raukar, in his study on Vinodol, “hinted” at an exceptionally
important factor that should not be ignored, namely the question whether the Vinodol Law Code was a
result of sudden change or a long-term one. To be sure, Raukar had discussed the social arrangement
in this context, but I am of the opinion that this perspective should be extended to the issues related to
Vinodol’s organizational structures. Cf. Raukar, “Vinodolski zakon” (as in n. 4), 161f.
21
Gordan Ravančić, “Topograija Vinodola i teorija centraliteta” [Topography of Vinodol and the
194 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

Namely, it is clear that the spatial distribution of Vinodol’s municipalities created

a sort of “protective wall” for the ancient road leading from Istria towards Senj.22 At
the same time, their distance from each other clearly indicates that each of these for-
tiied towns (castra) was a separate administrative unit,23 which can also be discerned
from the text of the Vinodol Law Code itself24 and the mention of “Vinodol men” (ludi
vinodolskih) who witnessed its creation.25 Moreover, if one considers the topogeo-
graphical distribution of these towns/municipalities of Vinodol, one can see perfectly
clearly the abovementioned logic behind “protecting” the traic route.

centrality theory], Povijesni prilozi 40 (2011), 71-80.

22
On the existence of a late antique road through the hinterland, see e.g. Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as
in n. 3), 55 (with bibliography).
23
Ravančić, “Topograija” (as in n. 21), 76-78.
24
his is clearly stated in the article speaking about the rules of summoning the assembly in particular
towns (Art. 57), as well as the fact that the Law Code had to be “preserved” in each of Vinodol’s
municipalities (Art. 76). Besides, the preamble of the Law Code clearly mentions the “laws of the
town,” which indicates a sort of administrative autonomy of each of Vinodol’s municipalities.
However, Barada is of the opinion that this formulation relects a later historical period, when “the
unity of Vinodol was already broken” (Barada, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam [as in n. 4], 133).
Personally, I am of the opinion that the towns of Vinodol were originally separate administrative
units, linked by their military and defensive function, and that it was only the Counts of Krk who
tried to “unite” them into a single administrative unit – a duchy – that would become part of their
feudal manor.
25
A concise table listing the representatives of Vinodol’s municipalities who witnessed the creation of
the Law Code can be found in: Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 40.
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 195

he long-term military and defensive function was logically mirrored in the social
and organizational landscape of medieval Vinodol. he text of the Law Code itself
unfortunately does not reveal all the elements necessary to reconstruct with certainty
the organizational hierarchy of Vinodol’s municipalities, be it on the level of their in-
dividual internal organization or on that of their interaction.26 However, what is clear
is that it was precisely the Vinodol Law Code that was intended to regulate (among
other things) the organizational dilemmas arising from the fact that the terra of Vi-
nodol became a feudal manor of the Counts of Krk.27
Unfortunately, it cannot be established with precision when the Counts of Krk
obtained Vinodol. A charter of King Andrew II, in which he donated totam terram
… scilicet Wynadol et Modros to Vid, Count of Krk, in 1223, was most probably com-
piled only in the 14th century, although its conirmation charters from the 1240s and
later are indeed authentic, which leaves open the question in what way the Counts
of Krk actually acquired Vinodol.28 Perhaps this question could be answered with
the help of terminology used to denote Vinodol in the preserved documents. In the
charters from 1223 and 1242, it is characterized by a very general term terra, whereas
in the conirmation charter from 1251 it is termed comitatus. However, the problem
is that one cannot be really sure whether these terms meant an actual diference in
organizational structure or were simply used as synonyms.29 What may be claimed
with some certainty is that the term comitatus (county) denotes an administrational

26
his is corroborated by the abovementioned study of Maurizio Levak, which shows very nicely that
analogy and knowledge of a wider context of events leading to the compilation of the Vinodol Law
Code can be useful when reconstructing the social arrangements. I would also like to emphasize
the importance of research carried out by Zrinko Mičetić and presented in his book Praputnjak
i Vinodolski zakon (as in n. 5), where he suggested a new reading of the Vinodol Law Code and
indicated that the order of its articles, in the version in which it has come down to us in its oldest
preserved copy, does not correspond to the (supposed) original order, which, of course, creates
room for new historical and legal-historical interpretations of the Law Code.
27
he fact that the Codex could not solve all the dilemmas around the rule of the Counts of Krk over
Vinodol is clear from the legal process that took place in 1309 between Novi and other Vinodol’s
towns. V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 56.
28
On the problem of authenticity of this document, see e.g. Nada Klaić, “Kako i kada su knezovi krčki
stekli Modruš i Vinodol?” [When and how the Counts of Krk acquired Modruš and Vinodol?],
Vjesnik Historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu 16 (1971), 140f; Lujo Margetić, Iz vinodolske prošlosti
(as in n. 4), 20. he document was published in Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et
Slavoniae, ed. Tadija Smičiklas (Zagreb: JAZU, 1904- ), vol. 3, 244-245 (hereater: CD). Considering
the question when the Counts of Krk came to power in Vinodol, see also: Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga”
(as in n. 3), 39 and 49-51.
29
Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 39-40.
196 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

unit, and has in Croatian historiography oten been used as a synonym of županija,
transposed also to the case of medieval Vinodol.30 In my opinion, this identiication
does not in fact relect the historical reality – especially not about the feudal manor
of the Counts of Krk – as recent research has shown that the term comitatus could be
used to denote a part of županija that functioned as a separate administrative unit.31
Consequently, it is possible that the terms terra and comitatus relect an actual change
in the internal organization of Vinodol, namely that around 1251 the Counts of Krk
began to intervene in the established order of Vinodol’s municipalities, which was
then mirrored in the change of term used to denote that particular administrative
unit.32 he problems that (apparently) resulted from this situation found a solution in
the composition of the Vinodol Law Code.33
On the other hand, the logic of creating a spacious feudal manor was completely
diferent from the organizational principles of Vinodol. he very title used by Count
Dujam II in 1302 – comes Vegle, Modruxe, Vinodoli atque Senie – clearly shows that the
Counts of Krk considered all these lands as their patrimony.34 I would like to emphasize

30
Cf. e.g. Košćak, “Položaj Vinodola” (as in n. 9), 135; Marko Kostrenčić, “Vinodolski zakon”, 139. Ivan
Beuc has noticed the lack of logic in this identiication in case of Vinodol, yet without ofering any
possible explanation. Ivan Beuc, Povijest institucija državne vlasti Kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije i
Dalmacije [History of institutions of state power in the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia]
(Zagreb: Pravni fakultet, 1985), 126.
31
Ana Novak, “Gorički arhiđakonat Zagrebačke biskupije od 1334. do 1501. godine (Povijesni razvoj
crkvenoadministrativnog područja)” [he Archdiaconate of Gorica in the Zagreb Diocese from
1334-1501 (Historical development of ecclesiastical administration], PhD dissertation (University
of Zagreb, 2011), 59-60 and 78-79. Besides, the abovementioned monograph by Beuc clearly states
that the administrative system of royal counties eroded not only due to the assignment of entire
counties to individuals for administration, but also due to the fragmentation of the territory of
these royal administrative units and ofering them for administration to individual noblemen and/
or kindreds. Beuc, Povijest institutcija (as in n. 30), 121-122.
32
In that context, one should come back to Barada’s idea about the existence of an early medieval March
and his hypothesis that it “disappeared” in 1116 (Barada, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam [as in n. 4],
91-92). It may be presumed that the terra of Vinodol remained without its “umbrella organization”
with the disappearance of the March, and with its inclusion in the dominion of the Counts of Krk it
had to become a separate administrative unit (comitatus), which corresponded to the administrative
structure of the kingdom at the time. he turning point in that change, as irst observed by Nada Klaić,
may have been the period following the Mongol invasion, when the Hungarian-Croatian king Béla IV
undertook an overall administrative and defensive reorganization of his kingdom.
33
his has been indirectly corroborated by the conclusion of Franjo Smiljanić that the administration
of the Counts of Krk aimed at “destroying” the old administrative structures of rural counts (župan).
Franjo Smiljanić, “O položaju i funkciji župana u hrvatskim srednjovjekovnim vrelima od 9. do 16.
st.” [On the position and function of župan in Croatian medieval sources from the 9th-16th centuries],
Povijesni prilozi 33 (2007): 68-72. At the same time, the disappearance of the title of župan in the
area of Vinodol (if they had ever existed there, as supposed by Smiljanić) and the emergence of that
of the military commander (satnik) as the municipal representative speaks in itself, I would argue,
about the social and organizational function of that territory, which was military and defensive.
34
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 31. A similar tendency of the Counts of Krk to take all parts of their
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 197

that they expressed this position regarding their dominion (county) barely 20 years af-
ter the creation of the Vinodol Law Code, although the county was far from being a uni-
ied (integral) feudal manor. he Counts of Krk were building it up gradually, whereby
Vinodol was only a step in the early phase of developing their dominion.

As their name says, the Counts of Krk began expanding their feudal manor from
their island of origin, Krk, which they had obtained – under still obscure circum-
stances – from the Venetian doge for administration purposes.35 In the medieval pe-
riod, the estate of Krk was divided into four administrative units, with their centres
in Omišalj, Dobrinj, Vrbnik, and Baška respectively, while the town of Krk (in the
southern part of the island) was the counts’ own centre of power.36 At the same time,
it should be emphasized that the county was ruled by the entire kindred of Krčki (lat-

dominion for their patrimony can be observed as early as 1257, in a charter issued in Senj, where the
local potestas Fridrik Krčki is called dominus Federicus Veglensis, Modrusiensis et Vinodolensis comes
et potestatus Seniensis. CD, vol. 5, 66.
35
he beginning of rule of the Counts of Krk is mentioned only in the conirmation of a contract
signed between the sons of the late Count of Krk Dujam and Venice in 1163. his contract clearly
shows the conditions under which Count Dujam took over administration over the island of Krk,
but the very circumstances of that transfer are not clear. Cf. CD, vol. 2, 94-96; N. Klaić, Izvori (as in
n. 12), 91-92; V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 82-83.
36
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 35. Also see 304, note 50.
198 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

er Frankapan) and that ater the death of the Byzantine emperor Manuel Komnenos,
Krk became the “front line” in the Venetian defence against the growing power of the
Hungarian-Croatian king Béla III. hese circumstances undoubtedly inluenced the
fact that precisely at that time (1191) the sons of Dujam II, Count Bartol (the elder)
and Count Vid, additionally fortiied the town of Krk. In order to rule over the island
successfully, they also needed good communication between their individual strong-
holds, which is why I believe that their distribution over the island was everything
else but accidental. To the contrary, each of these strongholds was located on the
main traic route along the island, whereby the settlements/fortiications were posi-
tioned so as to form a “shield” against the Croatian mainland, while the very centre of
power (the town of Krk) was situated on the southern side of the island, with a port
that ensured unhindered communication with Venice.37

his spatial distribution of administrative centres on the island of Krk now leads
me to abandon the historiographic narrative for a while, including its way of seeing the
development of the feudal manor of the Counts of Krk. In order to gain a better insight
into its structures and local organization, I want to make use of a non-historiographic
method or theory, which I have mentioned above and which has been successfully im-

37
Distances between the individual strongholds made it possible to reach any of them quickly from
any point on the island, and they were also well connected with the central place – the island’s
administrative centre. hese distances, with an approximate time needed to reach them (in walking
hours) are as follows: Omišalj – Krk: ca. 22.7 km (4h 45min); Omišalj – Dobrinj: ca. 15.7 km (3h
15min); Dobrinj – Krk: ca. 13.3 km (3h); Dobrinj – Vrbnik: ca. 10.6 km (2h 15min); Vrbnik – Krk:
ca. 11.4 km (2h 25min); Vrbnik – Baška: ca. 19.5 km (4h 15min); Baška – Krk: ca. 19.4 km (4h).
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 199

plemented by historians before.38 It is the geographical central place theory, “created” in

the 1930s by Walter Christaller.39 According to Christaller’s theory, the spatial distribu-
tion of individual settlements is determined, besides geography, by their position in the
hierarchy of places. hereby the main factor in deining that hierarchy is functionality
in terms of supply (trade), transportation (traic), and administrative organization.40
Christaller has assigned a so-called hierarchical index to each of these domains, and
thus the index of the hierarchical-spatial distribution of settlements according to the
principle of trade (supply) would be k=3, which means that each local supply centre
evolves under the inluence of three surrounding regional supply centres. According
to the principle of traic (transportation), the hierarchical-distributional index is k=4,
which means that each local traic knot is surrounded by four other such centres, i.e.

38
See e.g. Bruce M. S. Campbell, “Benchmarking medieval economic development: England, Wales,
Scotland, and Ireland, c. 1290,” Economic History Review 61/4 (2008), 896-945; Christopher Dyer,
“Market Towns and the Countryside in Late Medieval England,” Canadian Journal of History 31
(1996), 17-35; Peter K. Doorn, “Geographical Analysis of Early Modern Data in Ancient Historical
Research: he Example of Stroúza Region Project in Central Greece,” Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers 10/3 (1985), 275-291. One should also mention that Christaller’s theory has
been implemented in Croatian historiography as well, e.g. by Neven Budak, Gradovi Varaždinske
županije u srednjem vijeku: Urbanizacija Varaždinske županije do kraja 16. stoljeća [Towns and cities
of the Varaždin county in the Middle Ages: Urbanization of the Varaždin County before the end of
the 16th century] (Zagreb and Koprivnica: Dr. Feletar, 1994); Franjo Pajur, “Kako je Vrbovec postao
središnje mjesto okolice” [How Vrbovec became the central place of its area], Kaj 42/6 (2009), 61-
76; Ivan Botica, “Krbavski knezovi u srednjem vijeku” [Counts of Krbava in the Middle Ages], PhD
dissertation (University of Zagreb, 2011), especially 45 and 270-271.
39
Walter Christaller presented his theory to the geography public in his book Die zentralen Orte in
Süddeutschland (Jena, 1933), which was also his doctoral dissertation. Even though largely criticized
for its fundamentally “static” character, in the circles of American geographers this theory has been well
received, with numerous modiications and complementations, and is still largely viable. See, among
others: Denise Pumain, Central Places heory (http://www.hypergeo.eu/article.php3?id_article=188
(last accessed on May 24, 2008); eadem, “Settlement Systems in the Evolution,” Geograiska Annaler.
Series B. Human Gography 82/2 (2000), 73-87; Martin Glamuzina and Nikola Glamuzina, “Problem
centralnog naselja u općini Gradac” [he issue of central place in the municipality of Gradac], Geoadria
3 (1998), 57-63; David Job and Maggie Jarman, “Central Place Provision in heory and Practice: An
Evaluation in Shropshire,” Field Studies 5 (1980), 259-288; John B. Parr, “Frequency Distributions of
Central Places in Southern Germany: A Further Analysis,” Economic Geography 56/2 (1980), 141-154;
Edwin von Böventer, “Walter Christaller’s Places and Peripheral Areas: he Central Place heory in
Retrospect,” Journal of Regional Science 9/1 (1969), 117-124; C. F. J. Whebell, “Corridors: A heory
of Urban Systems,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59/1 (1969), 1-26; Charles T.
Stewart, “he Size and Spacing of Cities,” Geographical Review 48/2 (1958), 222-245.
40
A good and brief description of the central place theory of Walter Christaller can be found in: Milan
Vresk, Grad i urbanizacija [he city and urbanization] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2002), 213-224. A
more detailed and also more accessible explanations of the theory can be found in: Pragya Agarwal,
“Walter Christaller: Hierarchical Patterns of Urbanization,” http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/67
(last accessed on November 14, 2007); “Central place theory,” Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Central_place_theory (last accessed on December 12, 2011).
200 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

that the impact of the regional centre is four times greater than that of the local ones.
Eventually, the administrative principle has the index of k=7, which means that each
regional centre administratively inluences six surrounding local centres.
Christaller’s theory presupposes a symmetrical (hexagonal) distribution of set-
tlements in (an imaginary/ideal) space, but it logically implies divergences from this
distributional system according to the given geographical (actual) circumstances
of the terrain where the centres are located.41 Social sciences and humanities have
mostly been using (and criticizing) the traic and trade principles, whereas the ad-
ministrative one has been somehow avoided in such research. he reason may be
the fact that historiographic research, when using geography’s models as auxiliary
methodology, mostly focuses on economic history or issues related to the history of
communications,42 and in such research the administrative aspect tends to fall into
the background. Besides, I suppose that the historians have found the administrative
principle to be less interesting because the distribution of administrative centres is
supposed to follow the logic of evolution of the territorial apparatus of central power;
however, unfortunately that is not necessarily the case in actual historical develop-
ment, especially if we keep in mind that in pre-modern statehood the evolution of the
territorial apparatus of central power oten resulted from the momentary (favoura-
ble) circumstances and the possibilities of imposing central power in the irst place.43

41
Divergences from the ideal hexagon in case of the administrative model (k=7) have been perceived
and acknowledged as a “legitimate anomaly” even by the geographers. Cf. Deborah Martin,
“Models and heories of Urban Systems,” http://www.ggy.uga.edu/courses/geog3630/lect78.html
(last accessed on January 27, 2004). In terms of the trade and traic principles, such divergences
from the ideal hexagon have been demonstrated on the example of the Varaždin County by Budak,
Gradovi (as in n. 38), 18-19 and 81-85. By the same token, a divergence from the ideal scheme can
be observed in Vinodol, precisely in case of the administrative principle of hierarchical distribution.
cf. Ravančić, “Topograija Vinodola” (as in n. 21), 78.
42
See, among others: Hrvoje Petrić, “Prilog poznavanju srednjovjekovnih puteva u središnjoj
Hrvatskoj” [On medieval roads in central Croatia], Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog
fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu 26 (1993), 17-26; Lovorka Čoralić, Put, putnici, putovanja: Ceste i
putovi u srednjovjekovnim hrvatskim zemljama [Travellings, travellers, journeys: Roads and routes
in medieval Croatian lands] (Zagreb: AGM, 1997); Ratko Vučetić, “Prostorni razvoj privilegiranih
srednjovjekovnih gradova u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj do kraja 18. stoljeća” [Spatial development
of privileged medieval towns in north-western Croatia until the end of the 18th century] , PhD
dissertation (University of Zagreb, 2005); Ratko Vučetić, “Trgovište Prelog – obilježja povijesnog
razvoja” [he market town of Prelog: Features of its historical development], Radovi Instituta za
povijest umjetnosti 33 (2009), 179-190 (with bibliographies).
43
his issue would deserve a separate study, but in order to gain an impression about the depth of the
problem, see, among others: Beuc, Povijest institucija (as in n. 30); Otto Brunner, Land and Lordship.
Structures of Governance in Medieval Austria (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1992); Andrej Komac, Od mejne groije do dežele: Urlik III. Spanheim in Kranjska v 13. stoletju [From
a borderline county to a state: Ulrich III of Spanheim and Carinthia in the 13th century] (Ljubljana:
Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU, 2006).
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 201

he implementation and adaptation of Christaller’s central place theory in terms

of traic and trade principles has shown that around each regional centre there was a
triple ring of its inluence. he radiuses of these rings were 2, 4, and 8 Buda miles, i.e.
15-25 km, 30-45 km, and 60-70 km respectively. In fact, the impact range of a local
centre was around 4 Buda miles, which was an adequate distance for a merchant or
messenger to cover on foot or on horse within one day.44 I believe that this spatial
distribution was also suitable for controlling the area administratively. Favourable
circumstances, combined with a planned hierarchical distribution of administration
centres, deined the administrative landscape in the feudal manor of the Counts of
Krk, both on their island and on mainland.
It is in this (opportune and pragmatic) way that the dominion of the Counts of
Krk evolved. his development began with the departure of Bartol II from the island
to enter the service of Hungarian-Croatian king Béla III, who awarded him for his
loyalty in 1193 by granting him the entire Modruš County for all times.45 he island
of Krk was ruled at the time by his brother Bartol I (the other brother, Vid, died that
very year) and apparently Bartol II did not personally participate in governing the
patrimony of the Counts of Krk. It seems that Bartol II had no legitimate descendants
and in 1209 King Andrew II ratiied his request to be inherited in Modruš ater his
death by his nephew Vid II, son of the already deceased Count Bartol I.46 his event
“laid the foundations” for the future expansion of the Counts of Krk on the mainland,
at the same time deining the fate and importance of this noble kindred, since being
subject to the Venetian doge and the Hungarian-Croatian king at the same time was
an exceptionally “slippery ground”, meaning that the fame of the Counts of Krk could
rise abruptly or become the source of their decline – all depending on the political
decisions and the balance of these two (oten opposed) sovereign rulers.47
In the Modruš County, the Counts of Krk developed their administrative centres

44
Budak, Gradovi (as in n. 38), 83-84 (with bibliography).
45
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 86. It should be emphasized that there is a debate among the historians
on the authenticity of this document, as well as the subsequent donations and their conirmation
charters issued to the Counts of Krk. For more information, see: N. Klaić, “Kako i kada” (as in n. 28),
141-153; Margetić, Iz vinodolske prošlosti (as in n. 4), 16-28; Levak, “Podrijetlo i uloga” (as in n. 3), 50-
51. I would also like to indicate that in this case it may be more appropriate to use the term kneštvo for
the county, rather than županija, partly because of the authenticity problems and partly because of the
aforementioned problem with the not always justiied identiication of comitatus with županija.
46
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 89.
47
Some features of this ambivalent position of the Counts of Krk have been emphasized by V. Košćak
as early as 1963: Košćak, “Položaj Vinodola” (as in n. 9), 135.
202 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

in the following towns (fortiications): Modruš, Plaško (Plasa), Vitunj (under Mount
Klek), Ključ (at the estuary of Tovunjčice into Mrežnica), and Janjča (near Generalski
Stol).48 If one takes a closer look at the location of these centres, it becomes clear that
they were strategically distributed so as to protect the medieval traic route from Jas-
ka to Lipa and Modruš, and then further towards Senj,49 as well as the access roads to
this main route. However, the topography of these settlements also reveals the inten-
tion of controlling the entire territory of the Modruš County. Namely, the commu-
nications and distances between these fortiications clearly show that a messenger of
the count of a feudal lord could bring the news from individual fortresses to Modruš
and come back with the corresponding orders within a day.50

48
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 48-49. Here I must emphasize that the exact location of the Janjča
fortress is still unknown, and inding it has been on the priority list for the municipality of Generalski
Stol ever since 2007. Cf. Prostorni plan uređenja općine Generalski Stol sa smanjenim sadržajem
[Master plan for the municipality of Generalski Stol, reduced version] (Zagreb: Urbanistički institut
Hrvatske, September 2007), 47 (www.generalski-stol.hr/prostorni_plan_opcine_generalski_stol.
pdf).
49
Petrić, “Prilog poznavanju” (as in n. 42), 21.
50
he distances between the individual administrative fortresses in the Modruš part of the dominion
of the Counts of Krk were as follows: Modruš – Plaški: ca. 18.2 km (3h 50min), Modruš – Ključ:
ca. 29 km (5h 50min), Modruš – Vitunj: ca. 27.5 km (5h 40min), Vitunj – Ključ: ca. 34.2 km (7h),
Vitunj – Janjač: ca. 29.5 km (6h), Ključ – Janjač: ca. 28.5 km (6h).
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 203

By that time, Modruš had already become the centre of the entire mainland
dominion of the Counts of Krk, and this would remain so for the times to come.
he logic of evolution of the feudal fortiied settlements in this area during the 13th
and 14th centuries – in Drežnik and Tržac on the River Korana, in Cetin and Slunj,
Zvečaj, Bosiljevo, Blagaj, and Skrad on the Korana, and even more northwards, in
Bosiljevo and Novigrad on the Dobra, up to Brod on the Kupa – clearly illustrates
the intention of controlling the entire area by securing all important north-south
traic routes.51

he way in which the Counts of Krk came into the possession of Gacka, that
is, the Gacka County, also mirrors the principle of using favourable circumstances
when expanding their feudal manor. Even though it is far from clear when they took
control over this territory, Vjekoslav Klaić was the irst to make some plausible re-
constructions.52 Ater the rule of the Knights Templar (1218-1269) and a period of

51
Milan Kruhek, Srednjovjekovni Modruš: Grad knezova Krčkih-Frankopana i biskupa Krbavsko-
modruške biskupije [Medieval Modruš: he town of the Counts of Krk-Frankapan and the bishops of
the Krbava-Modruš diocese] (Ogulin: Matica hrvatska, 2008), 19-20. On the network of traic routes
in this area – besides the main one, passing through Modruš – is well attested in historical sources. Cf.
the reconstruction of medieval roads in this area in: Čoralić, Put, putnici, putovanja (as in n. 42), 207.
52
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 71-72. It is interesting to observe that the beginnings of royal
204 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

administration of royal governors and viceroys, during decades of struggle over the
Hungarian-Croatian throne between the house of Arpad, which was about to die out,
and the Neapolitan branch of the Angevin, the Counts of Krk used the importance
of both maritime and mainland territories that they were controlling and expand-
ed their dominion towards the northeast. he royal conirmation charters issued to
them for this area between 1290 and 1300 clearly show that they had already come to
control these territories by the time, although it is not quite clear when exactly.53 his
area included the entire basin of Gacka and its tributaries, with the fortiied town of
Otočac almost at its very centre. Besides that central fortress, there were other ad-
ministrative centres in the area, such as Prozor, Dabar, and Vrhovine, and the sources
also mention the fortress of Brinje and its town of Sokol/ac; however, it is not entirely
clear whether Brinje (Sokol) belonged to the Gacka County or the Counts of Krk
ruled over it independently.54
But regardless of this dilemma, what remains is the fact that Brinje must have
played a particularly important role in the dominion of the Counts of Krk owing to
its geo(topo)graphical position.55 Even a leeting glance at the map reveals that Brinje
must have been an inevitable stop and a control point on the road from Modruš to
Senj, which in the 14th century also belonged to the Counts of Krk. Besides, coming
back to the central place theory, I would argue that Brinje its very well into Christall-
er’s model according to the traic principle (k=4). Moreover, the position of other
administrative centres in the Gacka part of the feudal manor of the Counts of Krk its

power over the Gacka region in the earlier periods are also documented rather vaguely and therefore
remain obscure. Cf. Botica, “Krbavski knezovi” (as in n. 38), 40.
53
A letter of Pope Nicholas IV from 1290 mentions Ivan and Lenard as the counts of Krk, Vinodol,
Modruš, and Gacka, while a donation charter issued for the Franciscan monastery of Senj mentions
ser Ivan, Count of Krk, Vinodol, Modruš, and Gacka. Cf. CD, vol. 7, 1 and 80-82. On the other hand,
in 1300 the court of Naples conirmed to Dujam III, Count of Krk, all his possessions, which also
included Gacka. Cf. CD, vol. 7, 386-387.
54
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 73. It is important to note that recent research has revealed an
erroneous interpretation of the document from 1449, which confused the fortress of Brinje with
that of Sokol near Bihać. See e.g. Zorislav Horvat, “Srednjovjekovna sakralna arhitektura u Brinju i
okolici” [Medieval sacral architecture in Brinje and its surroundings], Senjski zbornik 27 (2000), 106;
Drago Miletić and Marija Valjato Fabris, Sokolac – frankopanski plemićki grad u Brinju [Sokolac: A
noble town of the Frankapan family in Brinje] (Zagreb: Ministarstvo kulture RH, 2003), 7-9. he
next level of the problem is the issue of Brinje’s antiquity, as it appears in the written sources only
from the mid-14th century, even though there is a possibility that the settlement was older: any
debate on this topic must be preceded by thorough archaeological research in this area, as evident
also from Miletić’s study on Brinje.
55
his incorporation of Brinje in the Gacka County is conirmed by an analysis presented by Stjepan
Pavičić, Seobe i naselja u Lici [Migrations and settlements in Lika] (Zagreb: JAZU, 1962), 93.
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 205

more or less to the same principle.56 hereby one should also keep in mind that the
sources speak of a medieval road through the Gacka valley, leading from Senj over
Brinje, Otočac, and Kosinje down to Drniš and the Adriatic, which was used already
in the early Middle Ages by the irst Crusaders to transport a part of the army.57
Only a single component was missing in the dominion of the Counts of Krk in
order to “close the circle” and to connect their mainland and island estates and terri-
tories. he town of Senj – ancient Senia – had been an intersection of mainland and
maritime routes since ancient times.58 he Counts of Krk again “played their card
well” and used the favourable situation in order to secure their patrimony. Ater the
Templar rule over Senj ended in 1269, the Counts of Krk probably engaged in intense
diplomatic activity in order to get the town nobility of Senj to their side, and as early
as 1271 the citizens of Senj elected Vid IV for their count and potestas with hereditary
rights.59 From that point, the Counts of Krk regularly mentioned this function in

56
Distances between individual fortresses in Gacka are as follows: Brinje – Otočac: ca. 26.5km (5h
30min); Otočac – Dabar: ca. 17km (3h 45min); Otočac – Prozor: ca. 5km (1h); Prozor – Dabar:
ca. 17.5 km (4h); Prozor – Vrhovine: ca. 13 km (3h); Vrhovine – Otočac: ca. 17 km (3h 30min);
Vrhovine – Dabar: ca. 25.5 km (5h 30min). What certainly does not it this pattern of distances
between the fortresses is the relatively short distance between Otočac and Prozor. However, one
must recall the fact that Otočac appears in the sources only in the 11th century, in relation to the
Benedictine monastery of St Nicholas, whereas Prozor was a settlement of ancient tradition, which
is rarely mentioned in the Middle Ages, with the exception of the famous charter on the great split of
the Frankapan estates in 1449. However, it is quite certain that the medieval fortress of the Counts of
Krk in Prozor should be dated much earlier than that. Cf. Pavičić, Seobe i naselja (as in n. 55), 94. It is
therefore possible that the Counts of Krk (and perhaps also the earlier masters of Gacka) maintained
and used both centres, one of which evolved under the auspices of the monastery and another on the
remnants of an earlier (ancient) settlement. he fact that Otočac evolved in a monastic district may
have obstructed its use as an administrative centre of secular power, which then certainly beneited
the evolution of the nearby Prozor as it had been, as mentioned above, a stop on the traic route
between Senj and Zadar since the Antiquity. However, this problem probably cannot be solved on
the basis of the scarce written sources and a more detailed archaeological research on the “medieval
layer” of Prozor would be needed to shed some light on it.
57
See the map in: Čoralić, Put, putnici, putovanja (as in n. 42), 246. It is an ancient road leading from
Senj over today’s Prozor (Arupium) towards Dalmatia. See e.g. V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 72.
On the antiquity of colonization of this area, which can be dated back to the Illyrian times, see e.g.
Ivan Šarić, “Arupijski prostorni koncept u arealu Gackog polja” [Arupian spatial concept in the area
of Gacko Polje], Vjesnik arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 37/1 (2005), 43-46; Roger Beck, “he Rock-
Cut Mithraea of Arupium (Dalmatia),” Phoenix 38/4 (1984), 356-371.
58
Čoralić, Put, putnici, putovanja (as in n. 42), 26, 34, 35, 39, and the map on p. 213; V. Klaić, Krčki
knezovi (as in n. 9), 70.
59
V. Klaić, Krčki knezovi (as in n. 9), 71 and 110; Franjo Smiljanić, Studije o srednjovjekovnim slavenskim
/ hrvatskim institucijama [Studies on medieval Slavic/Croatian institutions] (Zadar: Sveučilište u
Zadru, 2010), 57. Even though Smiljanić gives an erroneous year for this election (1291), he has
rightly concluded that the Counts of Krk could not have acquired that title without the support of
the local nobility and institutions. For the year of election of Vid IV, see: CD, vol. 5, 597-598.
206 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

their title, which clearly speaks of its importance for them.60 his is only logical as a
glance at the map reveals that Senj was the key point (beginning and ending) on the
traic route connecting the littoral with the inland, and now it was exclusively con-
trolled by them.61 Senj was also interesting for the Counts of Krk as a “spring board”
and a fortiied mainland town on the way towards their island, and that is why they
strove and managed to preserve it until the very end of the Middle Ages.

***

Taking all these circumstances into account, it is clear that the feudal manor of the
Counts of Krk evolved in various “phases” between the late 12th and the early 14th cen-
tury. It is important to note that during this period there were signiicant changes in
organizational and administrative structures in the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom,
which (apparently) beneited the interests of the Counts of Krk. At the same time,
as I have already emphasized, some parts of what Dujam II would be able to call his
dominion in 1302 were in fact territorial acquisitions, which therefore followed a
diferent structural pattern, also relected in diferent attitudes of the Counts of Krk
towards the particular territories.
It may be concluded that the organizational scheme of medieval Vinodol corre-
sponds more or less to the administrative principle, but with some elements of the
traic principle of hierarchical distribution.62 However, in other parts of the feudal
manor of the Counts of Krk, the spatial distribution of settlements, i.e. administrative
centres, reveals a completely diferent scheme. he distances and the spatial distribu-
tion of administrative centres on the island of Krk, as well as in Modruš and Gacka,
correspond to the scheme of preserving the traic routes while having the possibility
to have the orders of the count or a feudal lord fulilled within a day. his distribu-

60
On the other hand, concerning the title used by Dujam II in 1302 (comes Vegle, Modruxe, Vinodoli
atque Senie), it is interesting to observe that Gacka has been let out, while the function of potestas in
Senj is “transformed” into that of comes. his formulation may be interpreted as showing that it was
in this very period that the Counts of Krk strengthened their rule over all the components of their
dominion, controlling an important traic route between medieval Slavonia and the Adriatic. How
this “transformation” exactly happened is a question that would require a separate study, especially
with regard to the relections of Franjo Smiljanić on the overlapping between (ancient) Croatian and
urban institutions. Cf. Smiljanić, Studije (as in n. 59), 41-59.
61
Distances between Senj and other nearby centres of the Counts of Krk are as follows: Senj – Brinje:
ca. 32 km (6h 50min), Senj – Novi: ca. 22.5 km (4h 45min) or ca. 29 km (6h) along the coast.
62
Ravančić, “Topograija Vinodola” (as in n. 21), 76-79.
Gordan Ravančić, Urban Settlements (oppida) of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk 207

tion of administrative centres partly corresponds to Christaller’s central place theory,

namely according to the traic principle of hierarchy (k=4), but the spatial distribu-
tion does not it to the hexagon that the theory requires. Nevertheless, it is precisely
the distances between the individual administrative centres of the Counts of Krk in
the inland and the littoral that more or less it into the raster of settlement distribu-
tion, as it has been shown in other studies with the help of the central place theory, as
the distances between most of them range from 15-30 km, which corresponds to the
zones of inluence around the local trade centres.
Taking into account this reconstruction and the attested existence of a major trade
route through most of the mainland territories governed by the Counts of Krk at the
time, one may reasonably ask whether there were trade fairs in the surroundings or at
the foot of these administrative centres. his question, however, must await another
occasion, as it would require an expansion of the time frame that has been considered
in this study, since the quantity of written sources dating to the period before 1300
and the data they ofer simply do not allow us to say something that would surpass
pure speculation in this regard.
Notwithstanding, I am of the opinion that the presented diferences in the spatial
and hierarchical distribution of administrative centres of the Counts of Krk show
rather clearly to what extent Vinodol was structurally diferent from the rest of the
territories governed by this noble kindred. hese diferences do not concern only so-
cial arrangements, but also the spatial and hierarchical distribution of administrative
centres, which can also be well reconstructed by using the central place theory. At-
tempts by the Counts of Krk to simply incorporate Vinodol in their feudal manor met
with resistance precisely because the administrative and organizational tradition was
completely diferent in that area than in the other territories controlled by them. It is
for this reason, these deeply anchored diferences, that the Counts of Krk, in order
to include Vinodol in their feudal manor in a peaceful way, had to agree on the com-
position of the Vinodol Law Code in 1288 – the time when their mainland dominion
was reaching its inal proportions.