ABSTRACT
Anyone approaching the study of ninth-century palatine architecture in Constantinople is confronted with two fundamental obstacles. On one side, the chronic paucity of palatine remains reaches its lowest point in this era. On the other, and perhaps related, there is an unfortunate absence of proper archaeological investigations for the period. 1 It will suffice to note that of the two securely identified remains of Constantinopolitan complexes of the period, only the substructures of the Mangana palace have been the object of 'archaeological investigations'. 2 These were emptied out in the 1920s by French Occupation troops, who cleared out the building's substructures and brought to light a level of rectangular shape that appeared to function as a cistern and substructure for the palace proper. Some traces of walls were also noted above the substructures. However, due to the complex political events of the period, the final report of the works in the Mangana quarter was published only several years later, regrettably omitting some of the most detailed information about the finds, including any discussion of the walls above the palace's substructures. A mere six pages in its total length, the evidence did not merit inclusion (as it turned out) in Muller-Wiener's seminal work on the topography of Byzantine and Ottoman Istanbul. 3
Without entering into the analysis and discussion of the substructures of
the Mangana palace, we shall nonetheless return both to the palace and to the Mangana quarter as a whole below.4 At this point, it is important only to note that the shape of ninth-century palaces in Constantinople is in every sense difficult to reconstruct. 5
However grim this outlook, the palace of Bryas-the second of our two identified complexes-has, unlike the Mangana, enjoyed a rather striking degree of popularity in recent decades. Notably, it is alleged by some to represent the paradigm par excellence of palatine architecture in the period.6
