"1"^^ . "Neolitick\u00E9 chr\u00E1my na ostrov\u011B Malta. Kam zmizel k\u00E1men?" . "RIV/62690094:18460/11:43866655!RIV12-MSM-18460___" . . . "2011" . "215539" . . . . . . "Vliv postdepozi\u010Dn\u00ED transformace na podobu nebo mo\u017Enosti rekonstrukce kamenn\u00FDch staveb chr\u00E1m\u016F na Malt\u011B je z\u0159ejm\u00FD. Situace je p\u0159\u00EDkladem vlivu lidsk\u00E9 snahy v dob\u011B vykop\u00E1vek porozum\u011Bt stavebn\u00ED podob\u011B p\u016Fvodn\u00EDch rozvalin. Porozum\u011Bt jim alespo\u0148 do v\u00FD\u0161ky st\u011Bn a tak trochu mo\u017En\u00E1 na \u00FAkor pozn\u00E1n\u00ED podoby zast\u0159e\u0161en\u00ED V\u00E1\u017Enou ot\u00E1zkou je, pro\u010D se v ruin\u00E1ch chr\u00E1m\u016F st\u0159e\u0161n\u00ED kamenn\u00E9 p\u0159eklady nedochovaly. Tento probl\u00E9m uvid\u00EDme mo\u017En\u00E1 jin\u00FDma o\u010Dima, kdy\u017E si uv\u011Bdom\u00EDme, \u017Ee naprost\u00E1 v\u011Bt\u0161ina maltsk\u00FDch chr\u00E1m\u016F se nach\u00E1z\u00ED v mnohem ne\u00FApln\u011Bj\u0161\u00EDm stavu ne\u017E t\u011Bch n\u011Bkolik nej\u010Dast\u011Bji uv\u00E1d\u011Bn\u00FDch. Ale i u nich je dob\u0159e patrn\u00E1 ne\u00FAplnost dokonce vn\u011Bj\u0161\u00EDch st\u011Bn. Tak je to v Mnajdra, Ggantija i Tarxien (obr.7). K\u00E1men byl z\u0159ejm\u011B pou\u017Eit jinde. 1. Kamenn\u00E9 p\u0159eklady mohly b\u00FDt \u010D\u00E1ste\u010Dn\u011B pou\u017Eity p\u0159i novodob\u00E9 rekonstrukci chr\u00E1m\u016F v pr\u016Fb\u011Bhu ran\u00FDch vykop\u00E1vek. 2. Kamenn\u00E9 p\u0159eklady mohly b\u00FDt masivn\u011B pou\u017Eity na stavbu bl\u00EDzk\u00FDch st\u0159edov\u011Bk\u00FDch a novov\u011Bk\u00FDch m\u011Bst, nap\u0159. Xewkija nebo Birzebbuga. 3. Mohly b\u00FDt vybr\u00E1ny pozd\u011Bj\u0161\u00EDmi novodob\u00FDmi zem\u011Bd\u011Blci, nap\u0159. jako \u017Eensk\u00E1 socha z Tarxien, z n\u00ED\u017E se dochovaly jen nohy, zbytek je nezv\u011Bstn\u00FD dodnes. 4. Mohly b\u00FDt pou\u017Eity na p\u0159\u00EDstavby mlad\u0161\u00EDch chr\u00E1m\u016F z p\u0159\u00EDslu\u0161n\u00FDch %22dvojic%22, nap\u0159. p\u016Fvodn\u00ED \u017Debbiegh na nov\u00FD Ta\u00B4Hagrat nebo p\u016Fvodn\u00ED Hagar Qim na nov\u00FD Mnajdra. K tomu n\u00E1m v\u0161ak chyb\u00ED p\u0159esn\u011Bj\u0161\u00ED datace, proto\u017Ee nev\u00EDme s jistotou, zda tyto %22dvojice%22 chr\u00E1m\u016F nefungovaly i sou\u010Dasn\u011B. Pak by nem\u011Blo smysl jeden z nich rozeb\u00EDrat. Vod\u00EDtkem k \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED tvaru st\u0159echy m\u016F\u017Ee b\u00FDt model stavby z Ta\u00B4Hagrat o velikosti 4,5 x 3,7 cm (obr.4), a to bez ohledu na skute\u010Dnost, zda ve skute\u010Dnosti chr\u00E1m zobrazuje. Tvar st\u0159echy toti\u017E m\u016F\u017Ee odpov\u00EDdat i mo\u017En\u00E9mu zde navr\u017Een\u00E9mu \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED konstrukce pomoc\u00ED kamenn\u00FDch p\u0159eklad\u016F tak, jak to nazna\u010Duje tvar stropu hypogenia v Hal Saflieni (obr.6). Pokud by m\u011Blo \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED odpov\u00EDdat d\u0159ev\u011Bn\u00E9 konstrukci, kter\u00E1 je n\u011Bkdy uva\u017Eovan\u00E1, muselo by j\u00EDt o s\u00EDlu kmen\u016F strom\u016F v prost\u0159ed\u00ED prehistorick\u00E9 Malty naprosto nedostupn\u00FDch."@cs . . "V" . "Neolitick\u00E9 chr\u00E1my na ostrov\u011B Malta. Kam zmizel k\u00E1men?"@cs . "Tich\u00FD, Radom\u00EDr" . . "RIV/62690094:18460/11:43866655" . . "Vliv postdepozi\u010Dn\u00ED transformace na podobu nebo mo\u017Enosti rekonstrukce kamenn\u00FDch staveb chr\u00E1m\u016F na Malt\u011B je z\u0159ejm\u00FD. Situace je p\u0159\u00EDkladem vlivu lidsk\u00E9 snahy v dob\u011B vykop\u00E1vek porozum\u011Bt stavebn\u00ED podob\u011B p\u016Fvodn\u00EDch rozvalin. Porozum\u011Bt jim alespo\u0148 do v\u00FD\u0161ky st\u011Bn a tak trochu mo\u017En\u00E1 na \u00FAkor pozn\u00E1n\u00ED podoby zast\u0159e\u0161en\u00ED V\u00E1\u017Enou ot\u00E1zkou je, pro\u010D se v ruin\u00E1ch chr\u00E1m\u016F st\u0159e\u0161n\u00ED kamenn\u00E9 p\u0159eklady nedochovaly. Tento probl\u00E9m uvid\u00EDme mo\u017En\u00E1 jin\u00FDma o\u010Dima, kdy\u017E si uv\u011Bdom\u00EDme, \u017Ee naprost\u00E1 v\u011Bt\u0161ina maltsk\u00FDch chr\u00E1m\u016F se nach\u00E1z\u00ED v mnohem ne\u00FApln\u011Bj\u0161\u00EDm stavu ne\u017E t\u011Bch n\u011Bkolik nej\u010Dast\u011Bji uv\u00E1d\u011Bn\u00FDch. Ale i u nich je dob\u0159e patrn\u00E1 ne\u00FAplnost dokonce vn\u011Bj\u0161\u00EDch st\u011Bn. Tak je to v Mnajdra, Ggantija i Tarxien (obr.7). K\u00E1men byl z\u0159ejm\u011B pou\u017Eit jinde. 1. Kamenn\u00E9 p\u0159eklady mohly b\u00FDt \u010D\u00E1ste\u010Dn\u011B pou\u017Eity p\u0159i novodob\u00E9 rekonstrukci chr\u00E1m\u016F v pr\u016Fb\u011Bhu ran\u00FDch vykop\u00E1vek. 2. Kamenn\u00E9 p\u0159eklady mohly b\u00FDt masivn\u011B pou\u017Eity na stavbu bl\u00EDzk\u00FDch st\u0159edov\u011Bk\u00FDch a novov\u011Bk\u00FDch m\u011Bst, nap\u0159. Xewkija nebo Birzebbuga. 3. Mohly b\u00FDt vybr\u00E1ny pozd\u011Bj\u0161\u00EDmi novodob\u00FDmi zem\u011Bd\u011Blci, nap\u0159. jako \u017Eensk\u00E1 socha z Tarxien, z n\u00ED\u017E se dochovaly jen nohy, zbytek je nezv\u011Bstn\u00FD dodnes. 4. Mohly b\u00FDt pou\u017Eity na p\u0159\u00EDstavby mlad\u0161\u00EDch chr\u00E1m\u016F z p\u0159\u00EDslu\u0161n\u00FDch %22dvojic%22, nap\u0159. p\u016Fvodn\u00ED \u017Debbiegh na nov\u00FD Ta\u00B4Hagrat nebo p\u016Fvodn\u00ED Hagar Qim na nov\u00FD Mnajdra. K tomu n\u00E1m v\u0161ak chyb\u00ED p\u0159esn\u011Bj\u0161\u00ED datace, proto\u017Ee nev\u00EDme s jistotou, zda tyto %22dvojice%22 chr\u00E1m\u016F nefungovaly i sou\u010Dasn\u011B. Pak by nem\u011Blo smysl jeden z nich rozeb\u00EDrat. Vod\u00EDtkem k \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED tvaru st\u0159echy m\u016F\u017Ee b\u00FDt model stavby z Ta\u00B4Hagrat o velikosti 4,5 x 3,7 cm (obr.4), a to bez ohledu na skute\u010Dnost, zda ve skute\u010Dnosti chr\u00E1m zobrazuje. Tvar st\u0159echy toti\u017E m\u016F\u017Ee odpov\u00EDdat i mo\u017En\u00E9mu zde navr\u017Een\u00E9mu \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED konstrukce pomoc\u00ED kamenn\u00FDch p\u0159eklad\u016F tak, jak to nazna\u010Duje tvar stropu hypogenia v Hal Saflieni (obr.6). Pokud by m\u011Blo \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED odpov\u00EDdat d\u0159ev\u011Bn\u00E9 konstrukci, kter\u00E1 je n\u011Bkdy uva\u017Eovan\u00E1, muselo by j\u00EDt o s\u00EDlu kmen\u016F strom\u016F v prost\u0159ed\u00ED prehistorick\u00E9 Malty naprosto nedostupn\u00FDch." . "Neolithic Temples on Malta. Where did the stone disappear?"@en . "Neolitick\u00E9 chr\u00E1my na ostrov\u011B Malta. Kam zmizel k\u00E1men?" . . "Neolithic Temples on Malta. Where did the stone disappear?"@en . "reconstruction; temples; Neolithic; Malta"@en . . . "Rekonstrukce a experiment v archeologii. (\u017Div\u00E1 archeologie)" . "[FD84CB2C95C3]" . . "12" . "The influence of postdeposit transformation on the design and possibilities of reconstruction of stone buildings of temples on Malta is obvious. The situation is an example of the result of human endeavour in understanding the structure of the ruins. To understand it at least up to the height of the walls maybe to the detriment of finding out about roofing. An important question is why stone roof beams were not preserved in the temple ruins. We can view this problem in different light if we realise that majority of Maltese temples are more incomplete than the few most often named. But even with those the incompleteness of walls is evident. This is true at Mnajdra, Ggantija and Tarxien (Fig. 7). The stone was probably used elsewhere. 1. Stone beams could have been used in modern reconstructions of temples during early excavations. 2. Stone beams could have been used for building nearby medieval and later towns, for example Xewkija and Birzebbuga. 3. they could have been looted by modern farmers as for example the female sculpture from Tarxien where only the legs are preserved, the rest is missing 4. They could have been use to build later temples from the %22coupled%22 temples \u2013 for example original Zebbiegh and new Ta`Hagrat or original Hagar Qim and new Mnajdra. Precise dating is missing therefore we cannot say with certainty if these %22coupled%22 temples operated simultaneously. A lead to solve the problem of the roof shape can be the model of the building from Ta`Hagrat (4.5 by 3.7 cm, Fig. 4) regardless of whether depicts the temple or not. The shape of the roof would correspond with the here proposed solution of construction with stone beams as suggested by the design of the ceiling in Hypogenium in Hal Saflieni (Fig. 6). The design could also correspond to wooden construction, which is sometimes considered, but the beams would have to be from large trees unavailable in the environment of prehistoric Malta."@en . "1213-1628" . "CZ - \u010Cesk\u00E1 republika" . . "6"^^ . "18460" . . "Neolitick\u00E9 chr\u00E1my na ostrov\u011B Malta. Kam zmizel k\u00E1men?"@cs . "1"^^ .