As part of a project to digitise several objects in the Arlon Museum, a new virtual reconstruction was proposed for the mausoleum of Vervicius and Vervicia in 2024. Of course, any attempt at reconstruction involves a degree of subjectivity, even if it aims to reality without ever quite achieving it. In this sense, the final reconstruction proposed is only the most likely hypothesis among others at the time it was carried out.
Diagram of the sources accompanying the 2024 reconstitution (from A. Peeters, 2024).
To show the degree of reliability of this reconstruction, we have created a diagram of the sources and hypotheses that are attached to the 3D model. This diagram, which is the result of a long research project, links each element of the 3D reconstruction to its source and the resulting hypotheses. In addition to the final 3D model, a coloured representation of the monument is produced, with each colour indicating the degree of reliability of the element in question:
- Red (certain): the archaeological object still exists.
- Blue (probable): it is an extension of a known object. Its shape and dimensions are therefore assumed.
- Green (uncertain): the item has not been found archaeologically. The reconstruction relies on other sources to determine its shape and dimensions.
Level of confidence in the 3D reconstruction: certain (red), probable (blue) and uncertain (green).
The present reconstruction is therefore largely based on the hypotheses formulated by Louis Lefèbvre in 1981, supplemented by more recent research on this type of funerary monument, notably by Hélène Clérin. The shape of the monument has been slightly modified: it now supports on two pillars and leans against a wall. As the rear block has not been excavated, there was likely another building behind it.
To determine the overall dimensions of the mausoleum, both the base and the roof, it was necessary to determine the basic unit of measurement that governed its construction. In addition, the inscription on the front block needed to remain legible from the ground, which limited the height of the base. For this type of building, the size of the base of the pillar is generally a good indicator. This one has a square section 38 cm wide, which was defined as the main unit. On this basis, and in comparison with other monuments in the Trier area, it was possible to estimate the height of the pillars at 2.2m (i.e. 7x 38cm).
The base is largely based on examples from the Trier and Neumagen areas, in particular the Igel pillar. We have therefore assumed the existence of a three-step base to obtain a height similar to 4x the width of the pilaster, i.e. 1.5m. This, together with the 2.2m of the pillars, ensures that the inscription is legible from the ground.
Finally, as regards the shape of the roof, it was decided to keep the type proposed by Louis Lefèbvre, which was in keeping with the style of the region. In the absence of any blocks that might have belonged to this region, it is difficult to estimate its height. Based on examples from the Neumagen region, and to keep the monument in proportion to its small size, we have estimated its height at 9 times the width of the pilaster, or 3.33 metres. Finally, we have used the pine cone-shaped crown, which is very common and highly probable. Other examples can be seen in the Musée d'Arlon.
