Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 30-31 (1985-1986) (Pécs, 1987)

Régészet - Hajnóczi, J. Gyula: The conceptual and actual reconstruction of the villa and the burial vault at Kővágószőlős

THE CONCEPTUAL AND ACTUAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE VILLA AND THE BURIAL VAULT AT KŐVÁGÓSZŐLŐS GYULA J. HAJNÓCZI The villa In terms of dimensions, the villa at Kővágószőlős comes near to the similar building found at Hosszúhetény, also in the territory ot Sopianae. Some of the structural features of the villa at issue may be identified with those observed at Hosszúhetény: both buildings had a peristyle and a portico flanked by two corner turrets on the main front. Although the turrets at Hosszúhetény were polygonal and were presumably erected subsequently, while those at our site were semicircular, the fact that no other parallels are known to have been discovered in the province may be considered a proof in favour of their comparableness. The corner turrets of the procuratorial palace at Aquincum or those discovered on late-period refugium-villas cannot be cited as parallels here, since they had been added to buildings with completely different features and ground plan. Notwithstanding that the two examples mentioned above can scarcely be used to lay down a general rule, it appears to be well-founded to presume that the villas with peristyle, portico and corner turrets were typical primarily of the S provinces. If we take stock of the peculiarities of our villa, the first thing that strikes the eye is that the methods of construction are easily separable into two groups: the standard methods typical of the villas with peristyle, and the methods specific to this villa only. It may be considered a routine procedure in our province to provide the cloister with windows instead of a colonnade, i.e. to build a porticus fenestrata. This assumption is supported by the plate glass fragments recovered at the sites. The width of the two side-wings adjoining the courtyard was different: the W wing was smaller, since it was heated. Besides the structure of the main front, the lateral extension of the front may also be considered specific of our building. This extension comprised a cryptoporticus with a number of rooms added to it on the W side (near the stream), and the apsidal space with adjoining small rooms on the E side. Besides the comparative smallness of the courtyard — which was still another peculiarity —, the most oustanding feature was the "over-dimensioned" N wing not conforming to the usual constructions. In other villas with peristyle this outer wing housed the tablinum extended with the apse, while here it comprised one longitudinal, two smaller and one large, rectangular spaces. This latter space must have been roofed: indicative of this was the large number of roof-tiles found in the area, and also the two wall piers on the W wall, presumably parts of a system of inner supporting pillars. The function of the rooms may only be considered a matter of conjecture. Parallels of outer corridor spaces attached to the main building of the villa are known to have been provided by other sites in the province (e.h. Baláca), but here a number of rooms were also added to the corridor. These rooms may have been used as store-rooms or ergastulums, and the secondary structures on the E side presumably served as a bathhouse and a diaeta. The curious part about these structures is that while the balneum was normally orientated W, SW, here they were situated on the E side, remote from the stream. The E part of the side-wing adjoining the courtyard comprised living-rooms, the W part served as an outhouse, but it is rather difficult to determine the function of the back of the villa. It is remarkable that, in terms of shape and dimensions, the large room in the NE corner was almost completely identical with the aula of the villa with portico at Parndorf, the only differences being the lack of the apse and the eccentric arrangement of the room at issue. A large door in the E wall gave access to this room from the outside: this, and the small front-structure next to it lead us to believe that this huge room served communak purposes, i.e. that it may have been a gathering room. This assumption is supported by the existence of the sepulchral chapel forming part of the villa, and also by by the archaeological reasoning. On the evidence of the groundwalls, this room must have been subsequently enlarged northwards. On the strength of the densely built in ground space and the narrowness of the courtyard we may presume that only the back of the cloisters was roofed, while the W, S and E wings, together with the side-wings and the frontal portico, were covered with a U-shaped gable roof. The gable roof with transverse crest of the spacious outer wing towered in the rear of this U-shaped roof (Fig. 1.). The reconstruction of the villa, still in progress, is aimed at protecting the well-preserved walls and, by means of a thin retaining wall, the ultimate goal is to give an idea of the original aspect of the villa seen from the S. This is why the secondary walls are the highest in the N, and the mural crowns are gradually smaller A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 30-31 (1985—86): 229—236. Pécs, Hungária 1987.