Page 53 - Blečić Kavur, Martina. Povezanost perspektive / A coherence of perspective. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem, 2015.
P. 53
izgrađivana i sva ostala gradinska naselja. Kamen lo- hill forts – as a double dry wall. Stone blocks of regu- prosperitet grada ■ prosperity of the city 53
mljenac slagan je pravilno na vanjskim stranama, a sre- lar forms were arranged properly on the outside, while
dišnji je dio bio ispunjen sitnijim kamenjem i zatrpa- the central portion was filled with smaller stones and
van sa zemljom. Pretpostavlja se, kako su i u to vrijeme covered with earth. It is assumed, that at that time
najjači bedemi bili uz najlakše pristupe gradu, uz istoč- the strongest walls were positioned on the easiest ap-
ni i zapadni potez, gdje su se nedvojbeno s manjim ili proaches to the city along the eastern and western side,
većim odstupanjima, kao što je bio slučaj i u svim ka- where undoubtedly with minor deviations, as was the
snijim razdobljima, nalazili ulazi u grad kroz koje je te- case in all subsequent periods, were positioned the en-
kla glavna prometnica.73 trances into the city through which led the main road.73
U vrijeme mlađeg željeznog doba, od kraja 4. i u 3. st. During the period of the Late Iron Age, from the end
pr. Kr., Osor su obuzele velike promjene s porastom of the 4th and in the 3rd cent. BC, Osor witnessed major
helenističkog utjecaja sredozemnih kultura. Između changes reflected by the increase of the Hellenistic in-
ostalog, uredile su se luke i prilazi te adaptirali posto- fluences of Mediterranean cultures. Inter alia, the har-
jeći bedemi (sl. 17-18). Na dijelovima su se učvrstili ili bour and approaches were regulated and the existing
nadogradili velikim kamenim blokovima, u tzv. me- city walls were adapted (Fig. 17-18). They were upgrad-
galitskoj ili kiklopskoj tehnici gradnje obrambene ar- ed on several locations with large stone blocks in the
hitekture. Gdje je to bilo dozvoljeno terenskim uvje- so-called megalithic or cyclopean building technique
tima, novi su bedemi podizani u nešto širem obujmu of defensive architecture. Where the terrain allowed
od prethodnih, čime je riješeno željeno povećanja ur- it new walls were raised in a broader scope than previ-
banog prostora.74 Premda su i ti bedemi izvedeni u ous ones which resolved the desired increase of the ur-
suhozidu, slagani su od blago zaobljenih velikih ka- ban space.74 Although they were drystone walls they
menih blokova, u relativno pravilnim redovima i s pra- were stacked from slightly curved large stone blocks
vilnim sljubnicama.75 Kameni blokovi izrazito su du- placed in relatively regular rows with regular joint
guljastog formata, dužine do 1,50 m i visine do 0,60 m, connections.75 Stone blocks were extremely elongat-
s izvedbom anatiroze, tj. otklesanog pojasa uz rub blo- ed – up to 1.5 meters long and up to 0.60 meters high
ka, i s blago ispupčenom vanjskom površinom kako bi with a anathyrosis, a chiselled belt along the edge of the
73 Faber 1982, 72; Blečić, Sušanj 2007a, 28-34, 41-53. 73 Faber 1982, 72; Blečić, Sušanj 2007a, 28-34, 41-53.
74 Proof of this is the cutting of certain grave tumuli and individual graves by
74 Dokaz tomu je presijecanje tzv. helenističkog megalitskog bedema pojedinih
the megalithic Hellenistic walls - mostly along the eastern and western side
grobnih tumula i pojedinačnih grobova, ponajviše uz istočni i zapadni potez (Faber 1980; Faber 1982) which stands in contrast to the thesis of A. Faber
which assumed a reduction of the surface already in that period (Faber 1980;
(Faber 1980; Faber 1982) što stoji u suprotnosti s tezom A. Faber o reduciranju Faber 1982).
75 Faber 1976, 235-236, sl. 5b; Faber 1982, 72-73, sl. 11; Faber 2000, 161-162; cf. Blečić,
površine već i u tome vremenu (Faber 1980; Faber 1982). Sušanj 2007a, 30-33, 41-49.
75 Faber 1976, 235-236, sl. 5b; Faber 1982, 72-73, sl. 11; Faber 2000, 161-162; usp. Blečić,
Sušanj 2007a, 30-33, 41-49.
mljenac slagan je pravilno na vanjskim stranama, a sre- lar forms were arranged properly on the outside, while
dišnji je dio bio ispunjen sitnijim kamenjem i zatrpa- the central portion was filled with smaller stones and
van sa zemljom. Pretpostavlja se, kako su i u to vrijeme covered with earth. It is assumed, that at that time
najjači bedemi bili uz najlakše pristupe gradu, uz istoč- the strongest walls were positioned on the easiest ap-
ni i zapadni potez, gdje su se nedvojbeno s manjim ili proaches to the city along the eastern and western side,
većim odstupanjima, kao što je bio slučaj i u svim ka- where undoubtedly with minor deviations, as was the
snijim razdobljima, nalazili ulazi u grad kroz koje je te- case in all subsequent periods, were positioned the en-
kla glavna prometnica.73 trances into the city through which led the main road.73
U vrijeme mlađeg željeznog doba, od kraja 4. i u 3. st. During the period of the Late Iron Age, from the end
pr. Kr., Osor su obuzele velike promjene s porastom of the 4th and in the 3rd cent. BC, Osor witnessed major
helenističkog utjecaja sredozemnih kultura. Između changes reflected by the increase of the Hellenistic in-
ostalog, uredile su se luke i prilazi te adaptirali posto- fluences of Mediterranean cultures. Inter alia, the har-
jeći bedemi (sl. 17-18). Na dijelovima su se učvrstili ili bour and approaches were regulated and the existing
nadogradili velikim kamenim blokovima, u tzv. me- city walls were adapted (Fig. 17-18). They were upgrad-
galitskoj ili kiklopskoj tehnici gradnje obrambene ar- ed on several locations with large stone blocks in the
hitekture. Gdje je to bilo dozvoljeno terenskim uvje- so-called megalithic or cyclopean building technique
tima, novi su bedemi podizani u nešto širem obujmu of defensive architecture. Where the terrain allowed
od prethodnih, čime je riješeno željeno povećanja ur- it new walls were raised in a broader scope than previ-
banog prostora.74 Premda su i ti bedemi izvedeni u ous ones which resolved the desired increase of the ur-
suhozidu, slagani su od blago zaobljenih velikih ka- ban space.74 Although they were drystone walls they
menih blokova, u relativno pravilnim redovima i s pra- were stacked from slightly curved large stone blocks
vilnim sljubnicama.75 Kameni blokovi izrazito su du- placed in relatively regular rows with regular joint
guljastog formata, dužine do 1,50 m i visine do 0,60 m, connections.75 Stone blocks were extremely elongat-
s izvedbom anatiroze, tj. otklesanog pojasa uz rub blo- ed – up to 1.5 meters long and up to 0.60 meters high
ka, i s blago ispupčenom vanjskom površinom kako bi with a anathyrosis, a chiselled belt along the edge of the
73 Faber 1982, 72; Blečić, Sušanj 2007a, 28-34, 41-53. 73 Faber 1982, 72; Blečić, Sušanj 2007a, 28-34, 41-53.
74 Proof of this is the cutting of certain grave tumuli and individual graves by
74 Dokaz tomu je presijecanje tzv. helenističkog megalitskog bedema pojedinih
the megalithic Hellenistic walls - mostly along the eastern and western side
grobnih tumula i pojedinačnih grobova, ponajviše uz istočni i zapadni potez (Faber 1980; Faber 1982) which stands in contrast to the thesis of A. Faber
which assumed a reduction of the surface already in that period (Faber 1980;
(Faber 1980; Faber 1982) što stoji u suprotnosti s tezom A. Faber o reduciranju Faber 1982).
75 Faber 1976, 235-236, sl. 5b; Faber 1982, 72-73, sl. 11; Faber 2000, 161-162; cf. Blečić,
površine već i u tome vremenu (Faber 1980; Faber 1982). Sušanj 2007a, 30-33, 41-49.
75 Faber 1976, 235-236, sl. 5b; Faber 1982, 72-73, sl. 11; Faber 2000, 161-162; usp. Blečić,
Sušanj 2007a, 30-33, 41-49.
