Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 20. 1980 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1983)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Kralovászky Alán: The earliest church of Alba Civitas. p. 75–88. t. XXVII–XXXII.

the building under discussion could be an original Roman construction. Even the use of Roman bricks seems to be secondary. Many of them were fragmented pieces. Other typical Roman building materials (tegula, imbrex, ground bricks in the cementing medium) are not present at all and the small finds (especially ceramic sherds) are also missing. At present no other Roman settlement or burial data are known from the site. The Roman period habitation of the mound thus cannot be demonstrated (Kralovánszky 1967, 8—9). As far as the inner space, spans and overarching of the building can be reconstructed from the evidence brought to light (walls and pillar), both techniques were unknown during the Roman period (HAJNÓCZY 1976, 454—455). In this regard, the archaeological and architectural data seem to confirm each other. If we assume that the questionable southern arch existed as well the function and age of this building becomes easier to establish. It fits the historical picture reconstructed from the correspondence between archaeological data and written sources. The reconstruction of the plan Data obtained from the recovery of the building's plan are instrumental in the study of the original construction plan. Aside from the plan's importance in reconstructing the architectural technology this is of special significance in our case since it provides additional information for our study. According to our reconstruction the standard modulus of the building was 10 feet (312±5 centimeters) which corresponds to one royal fathom („öl") (BOGDÁN 1978, 87—97). This measure may be observed between three points of principal constructional and static importance: 1) between the center of the whole building and the center of the pillar; 2) between the central and external points of the apsis; 3) between the central points of the pillar and those of the semicircular apses (=,a'). Obviously, this relationship is not accidental. Furthermore, the lines connecting the maximum extension points of the building fit into a regular square. The central point of the building corresponds to that of this square. Additional coincidences should be considered when reviewing the relationships between the surrounding square and smaller additional squares which fit within the plan with a rotation of 45 degrees. The lines of this second largest square correspond to the main walls forming the corners of the construction. Lines of the third rotated square include the sections connecting the centers of the pillar and those of the apses. The fourth square covers the lines connecting the centers of the pillars. The sixth square (=,b') corresponds to the distances between the axes of the main square. The side of the eighth square (= ,c') is as long as one side of the pillar and the thickness of the walls of the apses. The length of one side of the tenth rotated square (=,d') corresponds to the thickness of walls in the extension of the sanctuary. This last measurement reflects the thickness of the pillar as well and casts light on the dimensions and location of the foundation of the pillar. One foot breaks in the profile line of the wall belonging to the foundation of the pillar help in locating the two feet wide pillar on the floor level. In addition, this provides a basis for estimating the width of the overarching structure. If the reconstruction described here is correct, the ten feet modulus and the principles of construction show that it was not only the foundation of the building which was executed with impressive accuracy but that the building itself is a respectable intellectual achievement in spite (or because) of its apparent simplicity. This excellent construction and architectural performance suggest that an extraordinary patron ordered the building (VILLARD 1959; Veite 1951, 17—28). It is also worth mentioning that ten was a widely used and sacred number in both pagan and Christian practices (FERGUSON 1959, 92—93; Sunderland 1959; Györffy 1973, 57—64). Reconstruction of the building's exterior, interior and function On the basis of the indirect and direct evidence the building from Fehérvár was identified as one having four semicircular arches in its plan. Within the building four pillars were recognized as being arranged in a square. All these were located along the intersections of the inner tangents which belong to the axes. Obviously, these pillars held a cupola. There is an additional piece of data which proved useful is an additional piece of data which proved useful in the reconstruction of the intérieur. The northwestern plane of the wall of the eastern apsis is extended. It thus becomes apparent that the eastern apsis was emphasized by its elongated shape (bema). The southwestern extension of the wall was destroyed by a Medieval burial. The most likely reason for such an extension was that the building had a cultic function and the eastern apsis served as a sanctuary. This theory is useful in identifying two other sections in the building. The rooms marked by the northeastern and southeastern pillars, the walls of the bema and the southern wall of the building may be identified as a prothesis and a diakonikon respectively. The characteristics of the plan and analogous buildings with similar foundation inevitably suggest the conclusion that the apses had a quadrispherical vaulting, and the inner front parts of the apses covered by barrel vaults, this barrel vaults had each other at the corners crossed. The central cupola may have been a semisphere supported by crossing piers. It also may have had a tambour under the roof and a octagonal tower on the top. The roof was probably shingled. The building may have had an entrance on the western and/or perhaps on the southern side as well. Eight or four windows may have been located on the tower, one or three of them at each apsis, and two at the entrance. One may also assume that the 13th century St. Peter's church inherited its name from this building as well as its orientation (Fitz 1955, 65). Such interrelationship between churches succeeding each other at the same spot was quite common during the Middle Ages. The carefully chosen location, the well designed structure and both the exterior and interior of this building 78