1. Introduction

The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors in Constantinople was the ceremonial heart of the Byzantine Empire for a millennium, and occupied a site that is now recognized as a World Heritage precinct [Fig. 1].¹ The Great Palace has a high cultural and historical significance, exerting a significant influence on both Western European and Levantine palatine architecture, and forming a link between Imperial Roman and medieval palaces. It is, nonetheless, only partially understood. Its remains are largely buried under later structures, notably the Sultan Ahmet Mosque, and can only be interpreted through texts and old representations.

2. The Upper Palace, including the Daphne Palace

The oldest portion of the Great Palace, the Palace of Daphne, built by Constantine the Great and his successors in the 4th and 5th centuries, was a complex that is thought to have occupied the site upon which the Sultan Ahmet, or Blue, Mosque now stands. Its immediate context comprised: the Hippodrome and adjacent palaces; the Baths of Zeuxippos; the Imperial forum or Augustaion, where Justinian I erected his equestrian statue on a monumental column in the 6th century; the churches of St. Sophia, St. Eirene, and later St. John Diippion to the north-east and Sts. Sergios and Bakchos to the south-east; the Mese, or middle road, along which the Adventus and, later, important civic and religious processions would proceed; the library and peristyle courtyard called the ‘Basilica’, and the fora of Constantine and Theodosius. Further to the east, descending to the sea walls, the topography for this period is unclear in the absence of evidence, but may have comprised imperial gardens and other aristocratic villas.² There is a clear precedent for such imperial gardens in the layout of Roman aristocratic villas, such as that of Hadrian in Tivoli, and the Flavian palace in Rome, as well as being evidenced by the typology of the late-antique porticoed villa.³ To the south were several other palaces, including that of Hormisdas, occupying an uncertain extent but, according to Bolognesi, extending into the area of the lower, or Sacred Palace.⁴

3. The Lower, or ‘Sacred’ Palace

The Great Palace was further extended, primarily to the east and south, by later emperors. It is thought to have retained a primarily ceremonial purpose in later centuries (for example at the time of writing of De Ceremoniis in the 10^th century- see below), while the original functions of its constituent buildings were appropriated by new buildings. Thus, for example, the Chrysotriklinos, the late 6^th century Throne Room of emperor Justin II, which was located in the area of the Lower Palace to the south of the Daphne, appears to have appropriated the state ceremonial functions that were previously met by certain rooms of the Daphne Palace complex- the Augustaion, possibly the first throne room from the reign of Constantine I,⁵ and the Consistorion, an imperial audience chamber. It would appear that parts of the complex of the Daphne Palace, such as the Chapel of St. Stephen, the Augustaion and the Consistorion, were still in use for special ceremonial occasions during the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus (r. 913 – 959), although most of the ceremonial life at that time would appear to have centred on the Chrysotriklinos, the Triklinos of Justinian, and the churches of the Theotokos of the Pharos and the Nea. However, when the emperor Nikephoros Phokas fortified the Great Palace in 969, the structures of the Daphne complex were excluded from its boundaries. They had, it would appear, by this date ceased to have any more than an occasional ceremonial function.⁶

4. The Palace in the Middle and Late Byzantine Periods

The Daphne Palace would seem to have thereafter fallen into gradual ruin, exacerbated by pillaging and spoliation during the period of the Latin Empire (1204 - 1261). As previously stated, by the Middle Byzantine period the imperial ceremonial had largely been displaced to the Lower (or ‘Sacred’) Palace. Nonetheless, in the 10^th century, as attested by the ceremonies identified with the Macedonian dynasty, the Great Palace remained a site of considerable ritual significance- thus for example on his death in 959, emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus was carried on a litter to certain specific halls within the palace: Kaballarios, Dekanneakkoubita, Chalke, where his body was viewed. In the Middle Byzantine period, and notably during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), there was a shift in significance to the Blachernae Palace, in the north-west part of the city, close by the Golden Horn, as the primary imperial residence.⁷ And yet, significant new or renovated structures were constructed in the Great Palace grounds as late as the 12th century, notably the Mouchroutas, a pleasure pavilion in Arabic or Persian style, possibly with a muqarnas (conical) vault,⁸ and thought to have been located in the south-west area of the palace. Great damage is recorded as having been inflicted on the area during the sack by the IV Crusade in 1204, and subsequent Latin occupation.⁹

5. The Palace Site in the Ottoman Period

By the time of the fall of the city to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, after the ramparts adjacent to the Blachernae gate had been breached by ‘modern’ cannon fire, all but a few structures of the Great Palace had become uninhabited ruins. The site later became appropriated for the construction of a number of Ottoman mansions, which themselves often fell victim to the periodic fires that plagued this region of Constantinople. However the major transformation of the area occurred with the construction of the Sultan Ahmet Mosque ¹⁰ between 1609 and 1616 during the reign of the eponymous sultan. The mosque and its dependent buildings were built over the remains of the Upper Palace, and their heritage and cultural and religious significance has ensured that no comprehensive archaeological survey of this site has been possible. Furthermore, it is probable that the Sultan Ahmet complex was constructed using the bricks stones and columns of the Great Palace and adjacent Senate house, thus for the most part removing the portion of the structures above ground level.

6. The Palace Site in the Modern Period

A major fire in the early 20^th century cleared much of the mosque’s adjacent district to the south and east of its houses, and permitted the only major archaeological survey to take place, resulting in the excavation of the Mosaic Peristyle, to the south-east of Sultan Ahmet Camii. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached as to the identity and interrelationship of these finds to the larger palace complex. More recent, but largely unpublished, excavations have been carried out by Turkish archaeologists since the 1950s,¹¹ the most recent having possibly identified the site of the late Roman senate house and the Pittakia, a building complex used variously as an administrative complex and prison.¹²

7. Scholarship on the Great Palace

Philological and archaeological research into the Great Palace began in the early 19th century with the rigorous translation and historical analysis of surviving manuscripts. Mango (1959) has cited the monograph by Jules Labarte of 1861 as the first systematic attempt to reconstruct the topography of the palace on the basis of the Book of Ceremonies.¹³ [Fig. 2] Among the numerous subsequent attempts, the reconstruction by Jean Ebersolt, of 1910, in collaboration with the architect A.D. Thiers [Fig. 3] was informed both by knowledge of Byzantine architecture, and his study of the Palace of Diocletian at Split.¹⁴ Ebersolt’s layout was further revised by Albert Vogt in 1935.¹⁵ [Fig. 4] Vogt included a revised plan (signed by ‘Arch^te D.P.L.G.’) to accompany his partial translation of De Ceremoniis. (1934, see below) Rodolphe Guilland (1969)¹⁶ published a highly significant revision of Ebersolt’s topographical study that took into account more recent archaeological evidence, without however attempting his own reconstruction of the complex, instead including a plan by Miranda. [Fig. 6] Raymond Janin (1964)¹⁷ produced a major topographical work on the topography of Byzantine Constantinople. The architect Miranda published various speculative plans [1955, 1973, 1983] that attempted to reconcile recorded accounts of the Palace with archaeological remains (1965, 1973).¹⁸ His attempts were summarily rejected by Mango.¹⁹ However recent topographical studies by Müller-Wiener (1977), Mango (1959, 1990, 1995, 1997, 2000), Kosteneç (1998, 1999 & 2004), Bolognesi and Bardill have provided additional evidence to the architectural research, to be undertaken into the layout of the Palace.²⁰

8. The Book of Ceremonies

The most important textual source for the Great Palace is the Book of Ceremonies compiled by, or for, the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus in the mid-10^th century. It is a compilation of archaic and contemporary court ceremonial.²¹ Explication of the date and provenance of its itineraries provides the most direct evidence for the spatial and functional relationship of the various palace buildings, and was used by Ebersolt, Vogt, Guilland, and current scholars to devise their topographies. Dr. J.M. Featherstone has written several papers on the provenance and dating of the various sections of the book.²² These important studies offer the potential for various hypotheses on the palace layout to be spatially tested. This is relevant in the context of current proposals to create an archaeological park tracing the site of the Palace.²³