DOI article:
Petric̆ević, Milos̆ B.: A contribution to examining the topography of antique Risinium
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41950#0195
191
productions not meeting minimum reąuirements for “objective” archaeological interpre-
tation madę it impossible to analyse the area where the remains of a former Roman castrum
at Salthua are located.
Digital materiał
Archaeological analysis of vertical aerial photographs was complemented with interpre-
tation of Landsat 5 satellite images from 2005. We decided to take this approach, because
the most recent series of usable vertical aerial photographs of the area of Risan found at
the Military Geographical Institute’s archive dated from 1981. In this manner, we attem-
pted to detect spatial changes over a 20-year time span in order to enhance the objectivity
of interpretation.
In the process of mapping and analyzing archaeological remains and structures we used
the SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) digital model of relief with a resolution
of 90 m and the ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Ra-
diometer) model with a resolution of 30 m.
Spatial data
The accessibility of spatial data for interpretation of an archaeological landscape was rather
limited in this case. The principal source of insight into today’s spatial organization was
the cadastral plan of the Municipality of Kotor. Regrettably, the examination of cadastral
plans with respect to spatial organization did not yield the desired results, as the historical
cadastral plans from the era of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which are kept in the His-
torical Archive in Kotor, were not available for comparative analysis. Historical carto-
graphic materiał is of great significance in the interpretation of archaeological landscape.
This was emphasized even by Crawford, precisely with respect to Austro-Hungarian car-
tography and its toponymy. This may sound a little ironie, but Crawford specifically men-
tioned examples of archaeological sites in the territory of former Yugoslavia which were
“visible” by reading Austro-Hungarian cartographic materiał.12
In addition to the basie cartographic materiał, the site documentation prepared by the
Center for Research on the Antiąuity of Southeastern Europę of the University of Warsaw
was also used in the form of key geodetic plans which guided the strategy of aerial inter-
pretation.
Aerial interpretation strategy
In linę with my previous experience in the analysis of aerial photographs I had not expected
interpretative problems when the Bay of Risan and its hinterland were selected for aerial
interpretation. In fact, my undergraduate thesis was also based on aerial interpretation of
an area in the Grbalj plain, which is geographically not far from the Bay of Risan. How-
ever, the ąuality of the photogrammetric materiał in this case was not optimal, not adeąuate
to the reąuirements for a detailed archaeological aerial interpretation. This was the main
12 Crawford 1950.
productions not meeting minimum reąuirements for “objective” archaeological interpre-
tation madę it impossible to analyse the area where the remains of a former Roman castrum
at Salthua are located.
Digital materiał
Archaeological analysis of vertical aerial photographs was complemented with interpre-
tation of Landsat 5 satellite images from 2005. We decided to take this approach, because
the most recent series of usable vertical aerial photographs of the area of Risan found at
the Military Geographical Institute’s archive dated from 1981. In this manner, we attem-
pted to detect spatial changes over a 20-year time span in order to enhance the objectivity
of interpretation.
In the process of mapping and analyzing archaeological remains and structures we used
the SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) digital model of relief with a resolution
of 90 m and the ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Ra-
diometer) model with a resolution of 30 m.
Spatial data
The accessibility of spatial data for interpretation of an archaeological landscape was rather
limited in this case. The principal source of insight into today’s spatial organization was
the cadastral plan of the Municipality of Kotor. Regrettably, the examination of cadastral
plans with respect to spatial organization did not yield the desired results, as the historical
cadastral plans from the era of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which are kept in the His-
torical Archive in Kotor, were not available for comparative analysis. Historical carto-
graphic materiał is of great significance in the interpretation of archaeological landscape.
This was emphasized even by Crawford, precisely with respect to Austro-Hungarian car-
tography and its toponymy. This may sound a little ironie, but Crawford specifically men-
tioned examples of archaeological sites in the territory of former Yugoslavia which were
“visible” by reading Austro-Hungarian cartographic materiał.12
In addition to the basie cartographic materiał, the site documentation prepared by the
Center for Research on the Antiąuity of Southeastern Europę of the University of Warsaw
was also used in the form of key geodetic plans which guided the strategy of aerial inter-
pretation.
Aerial interpretation strategy
In linę with my previous experience in the analysis of aerial photographs I had not expected
interpretative problems when the Bay of Risan and its hinterland were selected for aerial
interpretation. In fact, my undergraduate thesis was also based on aerial interpretation of
an area in the Grbalj plain, which is geographically not far from the Bay of Risan. How-
ever, the ąuality of the photogrammetric materiał in this case was not optimal, not adeąuate
to the reąuirements for a detailed archaeological aerial interpretation. This was the main
12 Crawford 1950.