This chapter examines the rituals and ceremonies that took place in court spaces, especially the salutatio, and state ceremonial involving the court, such as the rituals that grew up surrounding imperial accessions. Particular attention is given to the development of the salutatio, to the spaces in which this ritual was staged, and to the management and ordering of courtiers during it. Also examined are the forms of greeting given to the emperor: the imperial kiss in the Principate, and adoratio in the Tetrarchic period. The chapter argues that ceremonial involving the imperial court functioned as a performance of the socio-political hierarchy of the Roman state and an acknowledgement of that hierarchy by its participants. Although grounded in routine and tradition, these ceremonies were subject to negotiation by emperor and subject, and this process of negotiation was sometimes responsible for long-term developments in ceremonial practices.

This chapter traces the architectural development of the imperial palaces in Rome, with emphasis on the Flavian palace. The imperial residences in Rome show us how power and stratification were embodied in architecture; they also tell us something about social practices within the imperial court. The chapter sets the background by examining the residence of Augustus, which was an assemblage of aristocratic houses adjacent to a sacred area, and Nero’s Domus Aurea, which sought to create spaces for leisure (otium) reminiscent of villas and suburban gardens (horti). With the Flavian palace, an enduring model for the Roman imperial palace was defined. It offered a flexible assemblage of spaces, some of them suited to the social rituals of court life, including the salutatio and banquets, and others providing spaces for otium. The success of the model was such that elements were imitated in the palaces of the Tetrarchic period.

Is the periodization of the Principate according to dynasties also valid for the history of the court? Was there continuous development of court life – such as increasing institutionalization – or were certain elements of court life linked to certain styles of rule, recurring occasionally but then disappearing again? In answering these questions, this chapter focuses on elements that are central in this book: place; composition; activity; and the institutionalization or ritualization of court life. The chapter finds that there were few neatly defined chronological developments of the court, other than changes which were directly related to the increasing absence of the emperors from Rome. There was, however, a consistent moralistic discourse, often created and perpetuated by courtiers, surrounding the emperor’s behaviour at court. This meant that the expectations of members of the Roman court could influence emperors just as they could influence life at their court.

At the beginning of the Roman Principate, there was no self-evident model for the residence of the Roman emperor. During a long period of experimentation, emperors and their architects attempted to fashion spaces appropriate to the social rituals of their courts and to the self-image they aimed to project. By the end of the first century, a viable palace model was established in Rome, and elements of this were then redeployed in the palaces of the Tetrarchic period. This chapter presents a selection of literary sources, archaeological plans, photographs, and computer visualizations to illustrate the developing Roman palace model, its Hellenistic forerunners, and its afterlife in the Tetrarchic period. It also contains a selection of sources relating to imperial villas in Italy for which there are archaeological remains. This collection shows that imperial villas did share some common features, even if a clear ‘imperial villa model’ never developed.

Chapter 9, “Residential Constantinople,” considers Constantinopolitan domestic architecture by examining written sources and material remains. It discusses the evidence chronologically and according to social group, distinguishing between the early Byzantine period and the middle and late Byzantine periods to demonstrate that, institutional continuity notwithstanding, the makeup of the residential city and its components changed over time.

While the night posed a challenge to authority of the sultan, it was also opportunity to showcase the power of the ruler. By illuminating mosques, Sufi lodges and palaces; in public and private light spectacles, and through court-produced texts, Ottoman sultans in the eighteenth century sought to associate themselves with light and through this association, to project their power and legitimate it in the eyes of their subjects and rivals. The two mediums, words and light, were intentionally and intricately connected to serve this purpose. While Ottoman use of actual and figurative light to project royal power and legitimacy had a long history, the palace elite of the early eighteenth century, and in particular the ruling clique of the so-called Tulip Era (narrowly defined 1718–1730), took it to a whole new level.

The collapse of MBA polities lays the Levant open to Egyptian domination. A network of elite estate dwellers maintains power through Egyptian patronage and participation in the exchange of women and valuable gifts, abandoning large parts of the countryside.

The collapse of MBA polities lays the Levant open to Egyptian domination. A network of elite estate dwellers maintains power through Egyptian patronage and participation in the exchange of women and valuable gifts, abandoning large parts of the countryside.