KARTOGRAFIJA U SLUŽBI MLETAČKE DRŽAVE: KARTA SJEVERNE I SREDNJE DALMACIJE NEPOZNATOG AUTORA S POČETKA 16. STOLJEĆA CARTOGRAPHY IN THE SERVICE OF THE VENETIAN STATE: AN EARLY 16TH-CENTURY MAP OF CENTRAL AND NORTHERN DALMATIA BY AN UNKNOWN DRAFTSMAN

U radu je analizirana rukopisna karta srednje i dijela sjeverne Dalmacije nepoznatog autora, nastala, po svoj prilici, u prvom desetljeću 16. stoljeća. Ta je karta najstariji sačuvani detaljni prikaz neke hrvatske regije, a pohranjena je u Državnom arhivu u Veneciji (Archivio di Stato di Venezia). Analizom geografskih i toponomastičkih podataka koji su u nju ugrađeni te korelacijom tih podataka s arhivskim vrelima i drugim ranonovovjekovnim kartama, utvrđeno je da je ona što se tiče kvantitete i kvalitete sadržaja činila značajan iskorak u vizualizaciji prostorne stvarnosti. Stoga je riječ o dragocjenom kartografskom spomeniku, nezaobilaznom za povijesno-geografska istraživanja Hrvatske i Jadrana kao arene višestoljetne vojnopolitičke konfrontacije Mletačke Republike, Ugarsko-Hrvatskoga Kraljevstva (od 1527. pod vlašću habsburške dinastije) i Osmanskoga Carstva. Ključne riječi: karta, Dalmacija, Hrvatska, Mletačka Republika, 16. stoljeće

Venice consolidated power on the coast and islands of Dalmatia (excluding the Dubrovnik region) in the first half of the 15 th century, which essentially coincided with the consolidation of mainland holdings in Northern Italy (Peace of Lodi, 1454). Within this new territorial framework, the Venetian authorities recognized the need for a systematic campaign to document its widely scattered spatial resources in order to align the interests of the state with those of the city communes and their local ruling elites. In this context, it is important to consider the 1460 ruling issued by the Council of Ten, which entrusted the cartographic documentation of the Venetian territories on the mainland (terraferma) and overseas (stato da mar), including Venetian Dalmatia, to the appropriate city and provincial authorities (Lorenzi, 1868, 82;Casti, 2007, 878). It should of course be emphasised that this ruling marked the beginnings of systematic cartographic documentation in European government archives. The ruling reads as follows: As concerning cities, fortresses and provinces, which by the grace of God are subject to our rule, there is no one in our government who, when there is deliberation concerning those places, is able to give specific informa-vladi nema nikoga tko bi, kada se raspravlja o tim mjestima, mogao dati specifične podatke o njihovu položaju, širini i dužini, i granicama, te obližnjim dominijima... Stoga je poželjno imati u našoj kancelariji ili vijećnici vjeran prikaz [in vera pictura], izvornik i presliku svih naših gradova, zemljišta, tvrđava, pokrajina i regija, pa onaj tko želi imati uvid ili se savjetovati o navedenim mjestima, taj može imati točna i specifična znanja prema viđenome, a ne prema nečijem mišljenju.
By the authority of this council, let it be written and sent to the rectors of all our cities, estates, and fortresses that, having received good and right counsel from local citizens and others who are knowledgeable about the city and its surroundings, they have drawn the land, settlement, and pertaining district with indications of the east and west winds, fortresses, rivers and plains, and the distances from place to place, and places in our vicinity and their respective distances, and they should diligently have the carefully drawn map examined by learned and experienced men in order to conclude whether it is accurately and skilfully rendered.
And once done, they must send the picture to our government. 1 What was new here in the administration of the Republic of Venice was systematic investment in "true pictures" as an aid in the management of state resources. The maps had to be hand-drawn and include quantitative data (the size of sites, distances between them, etc.) The map collection that resulted marked the inception of 'information technology' we take for granted today, that is, the rapid delivery of quantified geospatial data through visualization, using modern portable devices. While parchment was used at first (the earliest surviving maps that depict the coastal areas were produced on animal skin), the preferred medium quickly became paper, presumably for its lower cost and the potential for size standardization. Supplementing highly classified written reports, these new maps (produced according to the methodological principles described) served the purpose of collecting, organizing and archiving geospatial data in the most efficient way. They were the primary sources of information for officials in the metropolis regarding the state's fragmented periphery, and were of great assistance 1 Archivio di Stato di Venezia (further on: ASV), Consiglio di dieci, Deliberazioni miste. Registro 15 (1454Registro 15 ( -1459 in the planning and implementation of policies in the farthest flung provinces under Venetian rule. As reduced graphic depictions of important settlements and surrounding terrains, the maps were simply the most efficient medium of communication about space. It is reasonable to assume that the early 16 th -century manuscript map of central and parts of northern Dalmatia belonged to the corpus of drawings created in accordance with the 1460 ruling of the Council of Ten, which (according the document quoted above) were to be archived in one location -the chancery of the Ten or in their council hall in the Ducal Palace. The map appeared on the market for the first time in the mid-1990s, when it was purchased by the State Archives of Venice (Archivio di Stato di Venezia), where it now forms part of the "Miscellaneous Maps" collection. 2 We assume it was just one of an unknown number of maps removed by authorized users from the Ten's chancery or from one of the other archives in the Ducal Palace, caused the partial dispersal of.
Early 16 th -century map of central and parts of north Dalmatia is a reflection of the altered geopolitical framework in which the Venetian empire found itself in the hinterlands of north-eastern Dalmatia at the turn of the 16 th century. Venice was forced to adopt a defensive stance and retreat gradually before the Ottoman invaders. It is a valuable source of data which, in correlation with archival documents and the results of archaeological research, have enabled the reconstruction of the spatial organisation and respective landscape of this part of modern-day Croatia's coastal territory.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
The first person to mention the early 16 th -century map of central and parts of northern Dalmatia in Croatian scientific literature, as far as we know, was V. Firić (2001). Although he did not review the entire map, he presented an excerpt with a depiction of Klis, stating: "Klis was visually represented on a map of Split and its surroundings for the first time 2 ASV, Miscellanea Mappe, Call number 1663. tiranoj periferiji države te od velike pomoći u planiranju i implementaciji politike u najudaljenijim pokrajinama pod mletačkom vlasti. Kao umanjeni grafički prikazi važnih naselja i okolnog terena, svakako su bili najefikasnije sredstvo komunikacije o prostoru.

97
by an unknown early 16 th -century author, showing a rocky elevation with a fortress (Clissa) and a fortified settlement below it" (Firić, 2001, 7). Unfortunately, Firić did not name the source or give any other information regarding the map. The excerpt published by V. Firić was then used by I. Alduk (2009, 75;2015, 108) who also did not mention its provenance. K. Barzman (2014) published an illegible reproduction of the entire map along with a short description and lengthy contextualisation of its contents, stating that it was a manuscript type of map created solely for state requirements rather than for public distribution. Barzman performed no detailed analysis of its geographic content. She gave a summarised technical description, pointing out that the toponyms were added after the lines of the coast, rivers and elevations were drawn in brown ink (Barzman, 2014, 4).
The objective of this research was to publish a detailed geographic and historiographic analysis of the map of central and parts of northern Dalmatia (hereafter K-1), to establish the historical context of its origins and analyse its topographical elements from the point of view of relative location ubication, as well as identifying depicted landmarks. After a general overview of the geographic contents of the map, the depictions of forts and settlements are analysed in detail, as the focus of the unknown author or person who commissioned it. These are compared to contemporary archival documents from the late 15 th and early 16 th centuries. Based on this, the level of geographic knowledge is established in comparison with earlier and contemporary maps depicting the same space. In the first place, the map was compared to the contents of a map of northern Dalmatia and the Lika-Krbava region. This map, named Tuto el Contado di Zara e Sebenicho (hereafter: K-2) (Fig. 4), was produced by an unknown author and printed in Venice around 1530 by Matteo Pagano. 3 In fact, this map overlaps spatially with the map of central and parts of northern Dalmatia in the area of the Krka basin, making it the most similar regarding its purpose and time of creation.
Tijekom istraživanja K-1 nismo ulazili u pojedine detalje s obzirom na, primjerice, fizionomiju i tipologiju utvrda i urbanih središta (Šibenika, Knina, Trogira, Splita, Skradina, Livna), što će 3 Ta se karta uvriježeno u znanstvenoj literaturi naziva Paganom kartom. Matteo Pagano bio je mletački izdavač koji ju je tiskao, ali nije njezin autor. Autor te karte nije poznat. Usp. M. Donattini, 2014. typology of forts and urban centres (Šibenik, Knin, Trogir, Split, Skradin, Livno) which, after the publication of this valuable cartographic source, will most certainly become the object of further scientific research. The depiction of the relief is not described in great detail, because the map production was not preceded by a survey of elevations and other geomorphological elements, so it is not possible to reconstruct the hypsometric relations, inclines and expositions of slopes, the energy of the relief, and so on.
In order to make it easier for our readers and ourselves to navigate the intention behind the map, in the articulation of the topographical data we divided K-1 into 12 sectors, derived from three historical-geopolitical entities -Bosnia (Sector A), Croatia (Sectors B-E) and Venetian Dalmatia (Sectors F-I). Proportionally, we paid most attention to the Šibenik area due to its more detailed depiction in comparison to the Trogir, Split and Omiš coastlines and hinterlands. So, we divided sector F in the Šibenik area into a further four subsectors (F1-F4). Along with the high-resolution reproduction of K-1 (complete and individual excerpts) acquired with the permission of the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, we prepared a map with depictions of the research sectors by replicating the coastline and most important geographic elements shown on the original map (Fig. 6).

GEOGRAPHIC CONTENTS OF THE MAP
The geographic contents of K-1, especially the numerous toponyms, indicate that the map was created based on field observations by persons familiar with the geographic features of the depicted space. Certain discrepancies and flaws may have been the result of the inventory method of spatial resources used, which was not based on the use of precise geodetic instruments.
The geographic location of certain reference objects (primarily cities) and the mutual position of geographic points were not defined precisely, and therefore the linear relations and other spatial proportions are not accurate. When K-1 was made, the application potential of geometrical concepts was only just being considered theoretically in spatial measurement, and therefore also in cartography, for example zasigurno, nakon objavljivanja ovoga dragocjenog kartografskog izvora, biti objekt istraživanja znanstvenika koji se bave tim temama. Isto tako, nije podrobno opisan prikaz reljefa jer istraživanoj karti nije prethodila izmjera visina i drugih geomorfoloških elemenata pa se na temelju nje ne mogu rekonstruirati hipsometrijski odnosi, nagibi i ekspozicije padina, energija reljefa i dr.

100
1477 (Marković, 1993;Kozličić, 1995). However, Ptolemy's Fifth Map of Europe showed the classical perception of the region as "Illyricum" and parts of neighbouring Roman provinces, so map users were only given a superficial, anachronistic glimpse into the geographic reality of the region.
The fact that Croatia did not even feature on largescale maps until the 16 th century is not particularly notable in terms of the Central European Mediterranean contact zone. It was not until the turn of the 16 th century that maps of European countries began to appear, including Italy and Hungary (Bagrow, Skelton, 1985). The impulse to do so in European cartography was fuelled partly by the publication of Ptolemy's Geographia and by advances being made in science with the aim of acquiring and thus depicting new geographic knowledge of space. It also became clear that it would be useful for the state and lower levels of government to visualise data about the territories and the spatial resources they governed (Woodward, 2007). In terms of depicting individual regional units on the eastern Adriatic coast, we should add that there was increased interest in European political and cultural centres in improving knowledge of the arenas of confrontation involving the imperial policies of Venice, the Habsburg Monarchy and Ottoman Empire (Fürst-Bjeliš, Zupanc, 2007;Mlinarić, 2014). The clash of these powers resulted in shifting borders on the ground, but they also attempted to achieve their political and economic goals by all kinds of means, including the production of maps,, on which they presented their political agendas or at least their perceptions of the borderlands (Mlinarić, Gregurović, 2011). During the entire early modern period, this left a strong impression on the landscape and identity of the Dalmatian coastland area, characterized as it was by the contiguity and permeation of various ethnic, religious and linguistic structures (Fürst-Bjeliš, 2009;. The field depicting K-1 is a rectangle measuring 29 × 60 cm. The top of the map is oriented in a north-east direction, which means that in order to reconstruct its geographic contents, it has to be rotated clockwise by 45° in order to compare it to modern topographical maps (Fig. 1). Although the map orientation is logical, as it follows the lay of the morphological features (NW-SE), allowing the (Marković, 1993.;Kozličić, 1995.). Međutim, na Ptolemejevoj Petoj karti Europe prikazivana je antička percepcija Ilirika i dijelova susjednih rimskih provincija, pa su korisnici te karte mogli steći samo površan i anakron uvid u geografsku stvarnost toga prostora.
Polje K-1 je u obliku pravokutnika čije su dimenzije 29 cm × 60 cm. Uz gornji rub karte proteže se sjeveroistok tako da je pri rekonstrukciji njezina geografskog sadržaja, posebno radi usporedbe s najnovijim topografskim kartama, kartu potrebno zarotirati za 45° u smjeru kazaljke na satu (Sl. 1.). Iako je takva orijentacija karte zapravo logična jer prati smjer pružanja osnovnih morfostruktura (SZ -JI), čime se geografski sadržaj contents to fit the paper format better, there is no compass rose or other cardinal direction markers, posing the question of how the less knowledgeable user was supposed to deduce spatial relationships between the depicted geographic objects. This was made even harder by the fact that the map was not produced in a unified scale relating to the entire field or most of the map field. A comparison of the map with the 1:25,000 scale digital map of Croatia projected in HTRS96/TM, 5 using QGIS as the programme tool, established that the range of scales on individual parts of the maps varied from 1:50,000 to 1:800,000! Hypothetically, the average of rounded modules for five selected samples would be 1:300,000, but the standard deviation was around 300,000 (±100%!), so there was no point in using this average as the scale of the whole map. Local scale enlargements were particularly obvious in the depiction of individual cities (for example, Šibenik, Trogir, Split and Knin), because the unknown draftsman obviously tried to show them in as much detail as possible without considering how he might be destroying the linear and areal proportions of the entire depicted space. In addition, our analysis confirmed that there was no regularity in the linear distortions of the individual microregional units depicted on the map. Despite the obviously more detailed depiction of the immediate environs of the city of Šibenik, which indicates the area was better known to the author, this part of the map is significantly deformed in terms of lines and surfaces. These kinds of distortion and unevenness were far from exceptions. They have been confirmed on many other early modern maps showing certain parts of Dalmatia, particularly those where geodetic surveys were not carried out beforehand, but which were compiled from various data sources (Mlinarić, 2012;.
The unknown author depicts the coastal area from Vodice (where the settlement is not marked) to Lokva Rogoznica close to Omiš (rogoznica) and its corresponding hinterland all the way to Dinara (dinara) and Kamešnica and part of western Bosnia. The map shows only the islands closest to the coast, from Prvić (unnamed) to an oversized version of Krapanj (chra-5 The medial meridian of the projection (λ =16°30´ E) passes approximately through Split, and deformations of the area shown on the old map compared to the modern map are exceptionally low (<1 dm/km). bolje uklapa u format papira, nedostaje kompasna ruža ili bilo kakva druga oznaka strana svijeta pa je pitanje koliko je manje upućeni korisnik mogao točno utvrditi prostorne odnose među prikazanim geografskim objektima. To je dodatno otežavala činjenica da karta nije izrađena u jedinstvenom mjerilu koje bi se odnosilo na cijelo polje ili na veći dio polja karte. Usporedbom te karte s digitalnom kartom Hrvatske u mjerilu 1:25.000 projiciranom u HTRS96/TM, 5 i to korištenjem QGIS-a kao programskog alata, utvrđeno je da se rasponi mjerila na pojedinim dijelovima karte kreću od 1:50.000 do 1:800.000! Prosjek zaokruženih modula na pet odabranih uzoraka bi, hipotetski, iznosio 1:300.000, no standardna devijacija iznosi oko 300.000 (±100 %!) pa nema smisla taj prosjek uzimati u obzir kao mjerilo cijele karte. Posebno su izrazita lokalna povećanja mjerila u prikazima pojedinih gradova (npr. Šibenika, Trogira, Splita i Knina) jer ih je nepoznati autor očito nastojao detaljnije prikazati ne obazirući se pri tome na narušavanje linearnih i arealnih proporcija cijeloga prikazanog prostora. Također, analizom je utvrđeno da ne postoji pravilnost u linearnim distorzijama pojedinih mikroregionalnih cjelina prikazanih na karti. Unatoč očigledno detaljnijem prikazu uže okolice grada Šibenika, što upućuje na bolje poznavanje toga prostora, i taj je dio karte u odnosu na crte i površine znatno izobličen. Takve distorzije i neujednačenosti nisu nikakva iznimka. Utvrđene su i na mnogim drugim ranonovojekovnih kartama na kojima su prikazivani pojedini dijelovi Dalmacije, posebno na onima kojima nije prethodila geodetska izmjera i koje su nastale kao kompilacija više različitih izvora podataka (Mlinarić, 2012.;. Nepoznati je autor na K-1 prikazao obalni prostor od Vodica (s time da na mjestu Vodica nema oznake naselja) do Lokve Rogoznice nedaleko od Omiša (rogoznica) te pripadajuće zaobalje sve do Dinare (dinara) i Kamešnice te dijela zapadne Bosne. Na karti su prikazani samo oni otoci koji se nalaze u neposrednoj blizini obale, od Prvića (neimenovanog), preko preuveličanog Krapnja (chra-5 Srednji meridijan projekcije (λ = 16°30´ E) prolazi otprilike kroz Split i deformacije su prostora koji je prikazan na staroj karti s kojom je uspoređena ta moderna karta za to područje izrazito niske (< 1 dm/km pan) to Čiovo (chicovo) and parts of Brač (Isola d(e)la braçia). The author deliberately invested more effort in the detailed depiction of the Šibenik-Knin area, along with the entire coastline, while the geographic content around the Trogir and Split hinterland areas was reduced. This raises the question as to whether the author was less knowledgeable about the area, or the patron of the map was less interested in that part of Dalmatia, or even whether the map was never finished. However, when we consider the depiction of the River Cetina's course (especially the recognisable sharp bend at Zadvarje) we are not inclined to assume the author was less familiar with the central Dalmatian hinterland than that of Šibenik. The Zagora hinterland region was generally neglected by cartographers during the first half of the 16 th century, so, for example, on the oldest preserved map of Hungary (Tabula Hungariae; Fig. 2 107 stadt in 1528, 6 the hinterland area between Šibenik and Trogir (Zagora) is labelled as desert (Desertum). We assume this reflects the wasteland which resulted from Ottoman attacks. A similar situation occurs with the reduced depiction of the central Dalmatian hinterland on K-1, as the Cetina area at the turn of the 16 th century was also largely laid waste and left to the supervision of a few isolated fortresses as Croatian rule gave way to the Ottomans. The relief on K-1 was depicted by the commonly accepted method of drawing 'molehills' and stylised elevations, giving an impression of a hilly landscape with no information about the actual dimensions of depicted elevations (length, width and height) or their shape and gradients. For example, it is impossible to establish the basic hypsometric relations between Dinara, Promina, Svilaja, Kozjak and Mosor, while the basic morphostructures of these mountains cannot be recognized. Similarly, the level area of the north Dalmatian plain cannot be identified, because the unknown author showed it as a hilly landscape. Apart from the vicinity of Šibenik, the depiction of the coastline is perfunctory. The coastal belt from Trogir to Šibenik is particularly compressed. The author must have been challenged by the task, as the Croatian coastline is extremely indented, making it difficult to depict all the details of islands, peninsulas, capes, bays and coves. This was not achieved properly until the early 19 th century when the first hydrographic survey was performed in the Adriatic (Faričić, Mirošević, 2017).
The courses of the Krka and its tributaries, the Cetina and Jadro are depicted well, along with their many bridges (trageto). The confluence of streams in the vicinity of Knin (Krčić, Butišnica, Orašnica and Radljevac), which merge into the Krka, is particularly impressive. Only the spring of the Cetina was drawn in more detail, with the footnote Qui nasce lo fiume Cetina.
Na Dinari, u istočnom dijelu Bukovice, uz ušće Čikole u Krku te u okružju Šibenika, Knina i Podrebače prikazane su šume. Teško je iz takvoga true of other early modern maps (Faričić, 2018). Drawings of wooded areas (forests) do not indicate the types of trees, though the absence of depicted vegetation cover on most of the map does not mean there were no forests at all in the area. It is not easy to interpret the incomplete depiction of vegetation, and therefore it would be unjustifiable to draw conclusions about the state of afforestation in the mapped area.
Along with the depictions of settlements (which we will discuss in the following chapters), special attention is given to roads marked by broken lines that create a network across the entire area. A route is also depicted (marked with the number 10, which is obviously a numerical value referring to an unknown unit of measurement for length) by which one could sail down the centre of the Krka delta, or the Bay of Šibenik from Zaton to Mandalina, and another route from Šibenik to the Šibenik Channel in two sections (the first from the city to the watchtower at the entrance to St. Anthony's Channel marked with the number 1, and the other from the watchtower to the exit from St. Anthony's Channel marked with the number 2). Another route connected the eastern part of Čiovo and Split (marked with the number 1) and yet another route connected Split and Omiš (marked with the number 18). The relation between these numbers (Zaton -Mandalina 10, and Split -Omiš 18) does not correspond to the actual relation of the route lengths, which are not 1:1.8, but approximately 1:2.3. 7 This mistake however, is not as great as the one shown in a graphic depiction of the coast between Split and Omiš. In fact, the value of 18 (unknown unit of measurement) is linked to the line connecting Split and Omiš, which is four times shorter than the line connecting Zaton and Mandalina linked to the value of 10 (unknown unit of measurement). It is especially surprising that the value of 10 drawn in the Bay of Šibenik corresponds to the real distance between Zaton and the most indented part of Mandalina, measuring exactly 10 kilometres! This must be entirely coincidental as the accuracy of the 7 Based on a measurement published in the naval chart Jadransko more -istočna obala (The Adriatic Sea -Eastern Coast) at a scale of 1:100,000 by the Croatian Hydrographic Institute, published in 2013 in Split (sheets MK 15 Šibenik and MK 18 Brač). prikaza rekonstruirati stanje biljnog pokrova kao što to nije moguće učiniti ni na drugim kartama ranoga novog vijeka (Faričić, 2018.). Crteži šuma ne upućuju na vrstu drveća, a izostanak prikaza biljnog pokrova na glavnini polja karte ne znači da u tom prostoru drveća uopće nije bilo. Svakako, takav nepotpun prikaz biljnog pokrova ne može se jednostavno interpretirati, a stoga nije ni opravdano na temelju njega donositi zaključke o razlikama u pošumljenosti kartiranog prostora.

109
distance between Split and Omiš is much less.
As well as the previously mentioned river bridges, of which the biggest (with two arches) is depicted in Solin on the River Jadro, separate drawings show bridges connecting Trogir with the mainland and the island of Čiovo.
The map does not depict all the relevant economic content. The author emphasised all the content significant to the Šibenik area, which was his focal point of interest. Mills (molini) are depicted in three locations on the Krka upstream of the bridge over the Jadro, as are salt pans (salina) in Zablaće and Morinje.

DATING ISSUES
The existing literature dates K-1 to the beginning of the 16 th century, which according to our assessment is correct but not sufficiently well argued (Firić, 2001, 7, 10;Barzman, 2014, 10, note 5). Even a brief glance at the depicted network of settlements and fortresses leads to the conclusion that the map was created between 1500 and 1540. St. Nicholas's Fort, built by Giangirolamo Sanmicheli between 1540 and 1543 (Glavaš, 2015, 131-132), at the entrance to the St. Anthony's Channel near Šibenik, was not shown on K-1, while Znoilo fortress in the Trogir hinterland, which according to historical sources was built at the turn of the 16 th century (Andreis, 1977, 202-204, 382-383), is clearly drawn and named (znoilo).
We then find the next dating determinant in Kapitul near Knin, shown on K-1 without fortifications (with the toponym capitulo and the triple-naved Cathedral of St. Bartholomew), while on K-2 (around 1530) it is surrounded by high walls and watchtowers (Fig. 3). In fact, if we consider the 1504 decision of the Hungarian council to spend 4,000 forints on building a wall and digging a moat around Kapitul, as well as renovating the areas below the fortifications of Knin and Kapitul, there are reasonable grounds to limit dating to the period from 1505 to 1522 (Klaić, 1928, 257;Jakšić, 1996, 26-27;Gunjača, 2009, 140).
It was during this period that three fortresses were built in the western part of the Šibenik district (Sector F1), none of which are shown on K-1: Velim, Dazlina and Rakitnica. On the other hand, mostovi s kojima je Trogir povezan s kopnom i s otokom Čiovom.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE MAP
K-1 was made just after the Second Venetian-Ottoman war (1499-1503), as a result of field observations initiated by the Venetian authorities with the aim of mapping the military and economic infrastructure and potential military strongholds in the hinterland of the Dalmatian cities. From this military-political perspective, we should consider the information that at the end of 1500, a military officer from Zadar, Ivan Detricho, the envoy of the Zadar rectors, stayed with Ivan of Krbava, Duke Kožul in Ostrovica, and Viceban Marčinko in Knin, to prepare defences against expected Ottoman attacks. With a wealth of field experience in the threatened Dalmatian borderlands, Detricho played an important role in Venetian military diplomatic efforts, which during the war promised and occasionally provided financial and material aid to Croatian dignitaries and military commanders in return for their maintaining outposts and reporting on the movements of Ottoman troops. Detricho was accompanied by Petar Jordanić, a priest and painter from Zadar, who was tasked with making a "sketch of the upper regions" or the Croatian territory in the immediate hinterland of Venetian Dalmatian holdings. 15 In the light of the above information, which we gleaned from Marino Sanudo's diaries, the context of K-1's creation becomes more clearly defined. The same applies to K-2. Therefore, it is possible that Jor-  (Babić, 1991., 128, bilj. 90;Gamulin, 2013., 38-42). Pretpostavljamo da se upravo na tu utvrdu odnosi zapis Marina Sanuda iz 1509. godine, u kojem se prenose suvremene riječi trogirskoga kneza da su Turci upali na njegov teritorij sve do "biskupskoga kaštela na obali". 12 Je li utvrda u Bosiljini izostavljena zbog nedovršenosti karte, ili visokog stupnja kartografske generalizacije koju je autor primijenio namjerno reducirajući geografski sadržaj na prikazu trogirskoga i splitskoga distrikta, ili kojega drugog razloga, pitanja su na koja nemamo odgovor. U kontekstu predložene datacije u razdoblje 1505. -1510. još je problematičniji prikaz obrambenoga zida s kulom u Raslini (Sektor F1). Naime, ugovor o gradnji raslinske kule sklopljen je 1513., a njezini su graditelji u cijelosti isplaćeni dvije godine kasnije. 13   danić's field sketches 16 (if indeed he made them) were (also) used in the creation of these two maps which were chronologically close together and had contents which partially corresponded. However, due to the fact that Sanudo described Detricho's and Jordanić's visit to Croatia at least a few years before K-1 was made and probably even longer before K-2 was created, it is even more reasonable to assume that other Dalmatian or well-versed Venetian cartographers were involved in the making of these maps. The historical circumstances elaborated above suggest that K-1 had a predominantly military-strategic purpose, which can be inferred from its content, with prevailing depictions of forts, refuges, thoroughfares (roads) and river crossings. It is quite certain that it had a significant place among the earliest achievements of Venetian imperial cartography, with a focus on the arena of military-political confrontation between the Venetian Republic and the Ottoman Empire. Unlike K-2 printed by Pagano, which served as a template for the production of numerous maps of the Zadar and Šibenik region made in the second half of the 16 th century, K-1 remained in manuscript form, probably unfinished and therefore unknown to contemporaries, especially cartographers.
The Second Venetian-Ottoman war (1499-1503) left a legacy of open demographic and economic wounds in the Dalmatian communes. Although the consequences of war forced La Serenissima to put more effort into devising a more effective defence system for the protection of the Dalmatian strongholds, state investment in this regard was very modest. While some attention was paid to city fortifications and military garrisons, the rural coastal area was left to its own devices. The Zadar district was in a slightly better position than the others because it was already defended by well-placed forts in Novigrad, Vrana and Nadin. The districts of Šibenik and Trogir tried to defend themselves with newly erected forts in Košević (St. Mark's Castle) and Znoilo (both shown on K-1), but the result was devastating; whole villages were evacuated during the war and Venetian sovereignty was constantly threatened. Split, however, relied on Croatian Klis. The co-operation between the Venetians and Croats was self-imposed; because of 16 For more on Jordanić, see E. Hilje, 1999, 145-151. ugovorena još 1478. godine. 14 Svjesni činjenice da neke od prikazanih geografskih objekata nije lako "ugurati" u datacijski okvir od 1505. do 1510. godine, opterećeni k tomu spoznajama o nedostajućim objektima, ostajemo i dalje na pretpostavci da je K-1 nastala upravo u tom razdoblju.
Of the three Venetian lions drawn on K-1, the author placed two of them on the northeast perimeter of the Šibenik district (to the right of Žitnić and Zamelica and above Nevest) 18 , and the third along the edge of the district of Trogir (to the left of Klis). Therefore, the lions of St. Mark indicate the border between the Venetian territory and Croatio-Hungary. Croatia, however, is represented by the geographic name CROVATIA, written on the border with Bosnia, along the left bank of the upper course of the River Cetina, and we are still investigating the reasons for this. Even more mysterious is the case of Vrlika or the medieval town of Vrhrič (Prozor Fort). Only this fortress has a flag, but we cannot determine what it represents (there is a star depicted) or its provenance. Next to the name of the fortress (verchricha) it says da s. marcho inexpugnabile. Was the fort in the possession of the Venetians, who thought it invincible, or was it unconquerable by the Venetians? Leaving this question unanswered, it is quite clear that in the imperial confrontations in the Dalmatian borderlands, Vrlika was the focus of Venetian policies at some point. That moment can of course only be seen in the context of acute Ottoman danger. It is important to emphasise again that there are no symbols of Ottoman presence on the map, which is understandable in relation to the Croatian territory in the hinterland of the Dalmatian communes, if the map has been correctly dated to between 1505 and 1510, since the first Croatian forts fell into Ottoman hands in 1513. These included Čavčina, Nutjak and Sinj by the River Cetina. 19 However, there is no Ottoman symbol on the map even in southwest Bosnia (along the upper edge of the map) to mark where the Ottomans set up rule during the last decades of the 15 th century. Whether it was deliberately or inadvertently ignored, or whether the political reality in the area was more complex than well-known sources tell us, remains the topic of another debate. Our debate 18 At that time, Žitnić, Zamelica and Nevest were border settlements of the Šibenik district. 19 See the following chapters focusing on topography. novcu, oružju i hrani, svjesni činjenice da su hrvatske utvrde prva crta obrane Dalmacije. Osmanski upadi nastavljaju se i nakon rata, de facto okončanog 1502., a de iure završenog 1503. U razdoblju 1503. -1508. posebno je na udaru šibensko područje i njegovo hrvatsko zaleđe u okolici Knina. Komunalne vlasti i pripadnici zemljoposjedničke elite određuju lokacije, organiziraju i utvrđuju priobalne i otočne zbjegove, pa tako nastaju nova fortificirana naselja, poput trogirskih i splitskih Kaštela. 17 Sva su ta zbivanja prikazana na K-1, doduše u konvertiranom i komprimiranom obliku, uokolo najvažnijih lokaliteta. Šibenik je u prvom planu, a u njegovu se zaobalju prostire mreža hrvatskih fortifikacija sa središtem u Kninu. Moglo bi se stoga kazati da je na K-1 prikazan zajednički hrvatsko-dalmatinski prostor ugroženosti od osmanskih upada. Ne naslućuju se pri tome povremena ugarsko-mletačka (ne)prikrivena neprijateljstva i ekscesi, poput upada hrvatskih vojnika u dalmatinska sela ili prijedloga Cambraiske lige upućena 1510. ugarsko-hrvatskom kralju da Veneciji oduzme Dalmaciju (Raukar, 1990., 9-10). S obzirom na takav povijesno-prostorni kontekst, u kojemu interferiraju interesi Ugarsko-Hrvatskog Kraljevstva, Mletačke Republike i Osmanskoga Carstva, intrigira nas neupadljivost kartografskih oznaka (znakom i/ili imenom) političkih entiteta i regionalnih identiteta. Prepoznajemo dva simbolička i jedan toponimski element u toj funkciji: 1) tri prikaza krilatog lava (Lav sv. Marka) -simbola Mletačke Republike, 2) geografsko ime CROVATIA i 3) zastava na utvrdi Vrlici. Nema pak imena Dalmacije ni njezina atribuiranja Mletačkoj Republici kako je to redovito činjeno na kasnijim kartama s prikazom istoga prostora, kao što nema ni jednoga znaka koji bi upućivao na osmansku prisutnost u Bosni. Za usporedbu, na K-2 osmanska je prisutnost prikazana imenom (La turchia) i znakom (stjegovima s polumjesecom nad Kninom, Skradinom, Vrlikom i Nečvenom).

Croatia -eastern Promina, Petrovo polje and Zmina (Sector D)
The Promina district, or the medieval district of Oprominje, within Knin County, bounded by the River Krka and River Čikola (medieval Poljšćica) and Mt. Promina, is named in two places as hoprominge.
We have covered one part of it, following the Krka, in Sector C and described it in the previous chapter (bergati, Neven, Bogočin and Kamičak fortresses).
Here we describe the eastern part of Oprominje. Thus, the fortifications of Ključ(ica) (chiaue) and Drniš (dirnis) are shown along the River Čikola and three river crossings in the direction of the Šibenik territory (see Sector F4). There is one river crossing east of Drniš, however it is not drawn in the same way as the previous one, but as part of a continuous traffic route from Potravlje on the Cetina, through Svilaja, Petrovo polje and Zagora to Dubrava and Šibenik. At this crossing, we find the toponym grachosa inscribed, following the course of the river. It is not clear what this geographic name refers to.

Croatia -Cetinska Krajina region and Klis (Sector E)
Downstream of the mouth of the Cetina, Vrlika and Prozor forts (verchricha da s. marcho inexpugnabile), Potravlje (traf[ni]cho), Sinj (suignia), Nutjak (nutgacho) are shown, and on the opposite side, Čačvina (sasuina) 39 , positioned slightly further from the river. Five river crossings are found in the same stretch: in the vicinity of Vrlika (only marked graphically), below Travnik (trageto C[…]scocha), 40 near Maljkovo (trageto malcoua), 41 followed by Trilj near Sinj (trageto tril), and an unnamed trageto near Nutjak. We should also mention that the depiction of Klis, which we include in this sector 42 for practical reasons, was previously known and discussed in the Croatian literature (Firić, 2001, 10), while the toponym clieme 43 is entirely unknown to us. 38 As toponymic comparisons, it is also worth mentioning the lookout point and Štrbina Pass on Biokovo as well as the toponym Rivina in Vinovo Gornji and Utori Donji (Matas, 2001, 133-134 and 138). 39 The Cetinska Krajina region and its fall to Ottoman powers in 1513, with special mention of Vrlika, was mentioned earlier in the chapter on the historical context and purpose of the map. Here we refer to the literature that deals with the Cetina fortifications overall or individually (Gamulin, 1992/93;Gudelj, 2006;Milošević, 2005;Alduk et al., 2010;Alduk, 2010 The latter two crossings were where Lake Perućko is today. The spatial relationship of Potravlje and Maljkovo is confusing. 42 Although the Klis region, due to its historical importance and administrative uniqueness deserves equal status with the other Croatian regions, for other reasons it is considered part of the Cetina sector here (it is represented by only one object and one toponym). 43 Or could this be Dicmo, whose name the illustrator erroneously copied from the source (due to graphic similarity)? The letter 'd' could easily have been mistaken for the letters 'cl', the same applies to 'c' and 'e'. Although we are aware arguments are lacking, this has to be considered as a valid possibility. Isailović (2019.). 37 U blizini izvora Čikole ucrtan je monumentalni objekt -Rotna gomila (rotna gomila) -kojim završava Petrovo polje, a počinje predio Zmina (smina/smino) (Zlatović, 1888., 144). Riječ je o spomeniku koji je prostorno izvorište i simbolički iskaz predaje, zapisane u 19. stoljeću, o kamenovanju kralja Rotanda, što su neki dovodili u vezu s pogibijom hrvatskoga kralja Dmitra Zvonimira, dok su drugi takve relacije odbacivali kao puke maštarije (Gunjača, 1952., 309-311

The district of Šibenik -western part (Sector F1)
The western part of the Šibenik district, whose late medieval border with the Croatian hinterland follows the course of the River Guduća (gueluga) 44 is represented in less detail than the eastern one. In this area, only three objects are depicted: a defence wall with a tower in Raslina (raslina), a church in the area of podrebaç and an unnamed ecclesiastical building on a hill. We have already made some observations about Raslina in the chapter on map dating, and here we add another. In fact, on K-2 its position is 'ceded to neighbouring Zaton (Sxato). 45 Podrebaç refers to the church of Our Lady of Podrebača in modern-day Stankovci, which at the time of the map was located right on the Venetian-Hungarian or Šibenik-Ostrovica border (Kolanović, 1995, 16, note 24;Smiljanić, 2003, 16, note 73 ). The unnamed church, however, may be the Romanesque church of Our Lady of Srima, which dominated the landscape of the medieval settlement of Srima (see Dujmović, Fisković, 1959). Nevertheless, this identification cannot be confirmed beyond doubt, given its location on the map, which corresponds more closely to the area of the present settlements of Putičanje and Dazlina.
Primošten (cauocesto). 53 Two unnamed churches are shown in Gornje polje, probably the parish churches of St. George in Biranj (Danilo Biranj today; on the map above the toponym dubroua) and St. Daniel in Orišje (Danilo today; on the map above Vrpolje) (Stošić, 1941, 95-100). There is another church on the eastern Šibenik-Trogir border, which could be ubicated approximately to the region of Slivno or Sitno. We also notice five orthogonal symbols whose geographic context leads to the assumption that they were guard posts. Three of them are placed around the Bay of Morinje, which indicates their function in supervising the production and storage of salt. 54 There is another guard post in Donje polje (between the churches of St. Sylvester and St. Lawrence), while the last one is in Gornje Polje, somewhere near historical Orišje (Danilo).
The significance of this sector in the context of the map as a Venetian database in specific historical circumstances is not only that it covered the central part, but that it also included so many named settlements. In fact, while mapping other spatial units under Venetian and Hungaro-Croatian rule primarily concentrated on fortresses, the author depicted Šibenik Zagora in detail, listing various toponyms referring to known and unspecified villages (about ten from Žitnić to Koprno). These settlements were located on the northern borders of the Šibenik district and were mostly abandoned during the Venetian-Ottoman War of 1499-1503 (see Juran, 2014, 130-133). By recording their toponyms and highlighting the boundary markers of Venetian dominion -the Lions of St. Mark -we recognize the intention of legally protecting and defining the extent of endangered Venetian possessions in the eastern Adriatic.
other documents of the time and later maps it is recorded with an older name -Bua. 59 Two ecclesiastical structures are shown on the coast west of Trogir,: the church of St. John of Trogir on Cape Planka (s. zua(n) d(e)la piancha) and east of the church, on a hill, an unnamed structure which is probably the church of St. Mary on Drid (Our Lady of the Snows). 60 Further along the coast towards Split, there is an unexpected view of the fortified castles -there appear to be six of them, but this number, because of the author's obvious carelessness, does not mean much to us. Previous studies of the history of the Kaštela have led to the conclusion that at least four of them were built by 1500, while there were seven by 1509 (Marasović, 2003, 513). The omission of the fort at Marina (Bosiljina), built at the turn of the 16th century, can be explained by the unreliability of the dating of its construction or the shortcomings of the map. 61 Fort Znoilo (znoilo) erected at the turn of the 16th century (Andreis, 1977, 202-204, 382-383) is shown in the hinterland. In the context of the overall geographic inventory, the district of Trogir is specific for its visually uniform representation of towers or watchtowers located at the tops of hills in the hinterland. They are also referred to as a whole: torre de uardie / uardie. We assume that they are also referred to in a note from 1505 about the Duke of Trogir "having built guard posts on the hills", while in the 17 th century the local chronicler Pavao Andreis regarded them not only as guard posts but as adornments of the Trogir region (Babić, 1991, 136;Babić, 2012, 20-22).

The district of Omiš (Sector I)
This sector covers Omiš and the Poljica duchy as the peripheral areas of Venetian-Dalmatian holdings towards the Makarska region, which was occupied by the Ottomans at the end of the 15th century. Poljica (poglica), however, fell under Ottoman rule in 1514 (Nazor, 2003, 69 and 76). The fort in Omiš is shown together with a suburb (almissa) and the bridge over the River Cetina, which was named edna fl. It is not necessary to seek an unknown hydronym in this alternative name of the Cetina. Since the name of the source is written as Cetina, it is possible that it was simply wrongly copied, with an e instead of a c and a d instead of et. Near the mouth of the Cetina, along its left bank, a structure is drawn and the toponym zachua 67 is inscribed next to it, reminiscent of the name of modern-day Zakučac. On the lower course of the Cetina, two fortifications guard the Omiš and Poljica territories -Starigrad (starigrad) and Visuć (uis[i]ç) 68 . In the coastal area southeast of Omiš, the toponym rogoznica is entered (Lokva Rogoznica today), and the nearby aquatic region to the SW is bordered by the island of Brač (Isola d(e)la braçia).
This 16 th -century map of central and parts of northern Dalmatia contains an array of data about the spatial organisation of this part of the Adriatic at the time. A comparative analysis of the map with archival documents and other maps depicting the same space confirms that the map is exceptional with regards to the quality and quantity of its contents in comparison to meagre cartographic depictions of the time, which in terms of the scales used and the level of geographic knowledge included, depicted only the basic contours of Dalmatia. However, unlike the map of the Zadar and Šibenik regions (actually northern Dalmatia and the Lika-Krbava area) produced by an unknown author and printed by M. Pagano in Venice around 1530, the map of central and northern Dalmatia was only produced in manuscript form and therefore remained unknown to Venetian and other European cartographers. It therefore did not have much influence or find an echo in later works. It remained in the shadows in one of the Venetian offices that gathered information from the field to consider and make relevant decisions at the highest levels of the state about the preparation and implementation of military defence activities on the Adriatic periphery of the Serenissima.
Karta srednje i dijela sjeverne Dalmacije s početka 16. stoljeća sadrži mnoštvo podataka o tadašnjoj prostornoj organizaciji toga dijela Jadrana. Na temelju usporedne analize sadržaja te karte s arhivskim dokumentima i drugim kartama s prikazima istoga prostora utvrđeno je da je ona kvalitetom i kvantitetom sadržaja bljesnula u odnosu na dotadašnje sadržajno šture kartografske prikaze, koji su 68 O utvrdama Starigrad i Visuć te mletačkom ulaganju u njihovu dogradnju i opremanje u drugoj polovici 15. stoljeća vidi kod V. Kovačić, 2002. This valuable cartographic source has now been published in high resolution, with the appropriate historiographic and geographic analysis and contextualization, for scientific circles and the wider public, so it can become the basis for further research, as well as important evidence of the development of mapping the Croatian historical space founded on the multiple functions of maps as media of communication in and about space.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are grateful to Tome Marelić of the Department of Geography, University of Zadar, for his help during the cartometric analysis of the early 16 th -century map of northern and central Dalmatia.