DOI:  10.26658/jmr.1014572 (Research Article / Araştırma Makalesi) JMR 14, 2021  301-318
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements 
in the Christian Basilicas in Thrace during the Second Half of 5th C.
5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında 
Konstantinopolis Litürjisinin Mozaik Döşemelere Etkisi
 Ivo TOPALILOV* 
(Received 06 March 2021, accepted after revision 29 August 2021)
Abstract
The present article deals with changes that occurred in the arrangement of the mosaic floor decorations of two 
important basilicas located in the capitals of two provinces in Thrace – the Episcopal basilica at Philippopolis 
and the basilica at Herakleia, which are both dated to the second half of the 5th c. The study reveals that in these 
cases the changes were not a purely decorative issue with the introduction of a new trend in mosaic decoration. 
Instead, these were innovations that reflected the new importance of the areas marked by mosaic decoration, 
such as the ‘entrance’ in the atrium or narthex and the side aisles and their middle portions. It seems they 
were part of the introduction of the Constantinopolitan liturgy that emerged after the reassignment of Thrace 
to the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan church pursuant to canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical council at 
Chalcedon in 451. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, the new sites were marked by specific and clear 
Christians images. Dating to the second half of the 5th c., the Thracian examples are among the earliest so far 
attested and reveal the evolution of the Constantinopolitan liturgy before its completion, which is eventually 
attested in the monuments of the 6th c. in the capital and elsewhere.
Keywords: Liturgy, Constantinople, Thrace, Fourth Ecumenical council, Christian basilica.
Öz
Bu makale, iki eyaletin başkentinde yer alan ve her ikisi de 5. yüzyılın ikinci yarısına tarihlenen Trakya’daki 
iki önemli bazilikanın, Philippopolis’teki Piskoposluk Bazilikası ve Heraklea’daki Bazilika’nın, mozaik zemin 
süslemelerinin düzenlenmesinde meydana gelen değişiklikleri ele almaktadır. Çalışma, bu durumlarda, mozaik 
süslemede yeni bir akımın ortaya çıkmasıyla birlikte değişikliklerin salt dekoratif bir mesele olmadığını ortaya 
koymaktadır. Bunun yerine, bu özellikler atrium veya narteksteki ‘giriş’ ve dış nefler ile bunların orta kısımları 
gibi mozaik bezeme ile işaretlenen alanların yeni önemini yansıtan yeniliklerdi. Görünüşe göre bunlar, 451’de 
Kalkedon’daki Dördüncü Ekümenik Konsil’in 28. kanonu uyarınca Trakya’nın Konstantinopolis kilisesinin 
yargı yetkisine yeniden verilmesinden sonra ortaya çıkan Konstantinopolis liturjisinin tanıtımının bir parçası 
gibi görünmektedir. Herhangi bir yanlış anlamadan kaçınmak için, yeni kentler belirli ve net Hristiyan 
sembolleri ile işaretlenmiştir. 5. yüzyılın ikinci yarısına tarihlenen Trakya örnekleri, şimdiye kadar onaylanmış 
en erken örnekler arasındadır. Bu örnekler Konstantinopolis liturjisinin tamamlanmadan önceki evrim sürecini 
ortaya koymaktadır ve bu süreç sonunda başkentte ve başka yerlerde 6. yüzyıla ait anıtlarda kanıtlanmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Liturji, Konstantinopolis, Trakya, Dördüncü Ekümenik konsil, Hristiyan bazilikası.
*   Ivo Topalilov, Institute of Balkan Studies with Center of Thracology “Prof. Alexander Fol” - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 13 Moskovska Str., 
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0565-2054. E-mail: ivo.topalilov@balkanstudies.bg; itopalilov@yahoo.com   
This paper was written in the framework of the project LABedia: encyclopedia of Late Antique Balkans, 4th century, financed by the National Science 
Fund, Contract КН-06—Н30/6, 13.12.2018.           
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that improve the text. I would like to emphasize that when disagree, the 
decision is entirely mine and therefore the mistakes. My sincere thanks go to Dr. Matthew Schueller for proofreading of text.
302    Ivo Topalilov
It seems that the Episcopal basilica in Philippopolis received a new mosaic Figure 1 
pavement decoration very soon after the end of the Huns’ invasions of Thrace in General layout of the uncovered mosaic 
the third quarter of the 5th century. The mosaic covered the previously geometric pavement in the Episcopal basilica in 
Philippopolis (after Tankova 2017: 324 fig. 
ones in the naos, narthex, and rooms in the southern and northern part of the 1).
atrium (Fig. 1). As the new mosaic pavement still awaits full publication1, a brief 
description is needed for the purpose of this study.2
The mosaic floor was carried out in mixed techniques: opus vermiculatum, opus 
tessellatum, and opus sectile. While the opus sectile was used only once in the 
altar area, the combination of the other two techniques featured in the decoration 
that covered the rest of the complex’s floors. The new pavement surface was 
broken up in a sequence of three panels in the side aisles and central nave. 
Some other smaller panels are located on both sides of the altar area to the north 
and south and in the apse (Pillinger et al. 2016: 216). The iconography of the 
first panel in the nave consists of two compositions: a small entirely geometric 
scene at the center of the ambo and geometric patterns combined with images 
of birds, a vessel (a krater or kantharos), and a bucket. A certain sequence in 
the inclusion of these items cannot be established in either the horizontal or 
vertical row. The birds are presented individually or as a pair, free or caged, with 
and without plants, etc., within geometrically framed squares (Décor I: pl. 69f). 
Despite the numerous images (more than 70), only a few species are presented: 
an eagle, a peacock, a galeeny, a hen, and a duck. The second panel is filled 
with polychrome orthogonal pattern of circles interlooped tangentially (Décor 
I: pl. 235a) with a ‘diamond’ and a stylized rosette. The third panel consists of 
a polychrome orthogonal pattern of intersecting circles, which form saltires and 
concave squares with circles (Décor I: pl. 238e - variant). All of the panels are 
framed by a general border filled with ivy scroll pattern with or without grapes. 
The first panel has a frame of its own.
The iconography of the mosaic pavements in the side aisles is symmetrical, with 
1 The mosaics have been published in Kesjakova 2011: 173-210; Pillinger et al. 2016: 198-220; Popova 
2016: 163-166; Kantareva-Decheva 2017: 220-227; 2018: 365-372; Popova 2018: 138-140 and 
bibliography cited there.
2 An aerial view of the mosaics in the nave and north aisle is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Great_Basilica,_Plovdiv#/media/File:Basilica_Philippopol_3.png (consulted on March, 6th, 2021).
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   303
two heavily elongated panels on both sides of a smaller square in the center (Fig. 
2). The overall motif is the image in the central panel - that of the ‘Fountain of 
Life’ (fons vitae) with two peacocks resting on both sides of a fountain in the 
form of a kantharos (Fig. 3). The picturesque nature of this scene is achieved 
through polychromy as well as redundantly decorated organic elements. The 
orientation of both scenes is west-south. As in the first panel in the nave, these 
panels have another frame of their own.
Figure 2 
The south aisle of the Episcopal 
basilica in Philippopolis with the small 
square panel in the center (after Pillinger et 
al. 2016: taf. 154 Abb. 401).
Figure 3 
The Fons vitae in the south aisle of the 
Episcopal basilica in Philippopolis (after 
Pillinger et al. 2016: taf. 158 Abb. 409).
304   Ivo Topalilov
These central panels were without a doubt the focus of the side aisles’ mosaic 
floor decoration. In the other panels in which figural motifs are presented, they 
are in much smaller scale and more humbly presented as an ordinary element 
of the whole decoration (Fig. 4). These images consist of a polychrome grid-
pattern of Heracles’ knots (Décor I: pl. 254f) with the space between filled with 
a kantharos, a wicker basket of fruits (probably pears or apples), birds, and 
stylized rosettes with four petals.
Figure 4
A detail from the western panel of the 
mosaic pavement in the south aisle of the 
Episcopal basilica in Philippopolis 
(Pillinger et al. 2016: taf. 156 Abb. 405).
The same iconography filled the eastern panel in the northern aisle. The 
decoration in the western panel in the northern aisle is different. It is a variant 
of the polychrome orthogonal pattern of intersecting circles, which form saltires 
and concave squares with circles that are similar to those in the western panel of 
the nave (Décor I: pl. 238e - variant).
The mosaic floor in the narthex is more elaborate. It focuses on a central panel 
located in front of the main entrance. This panel holds the representation of a 
peacock with a spread tail facing eastward (Fig. 5) (Popova 2018: 158 pl. IV, 1).
Although the mosaic decoration of Philippopolis’ episcopal basilica has not yet 
been entirely published, it has already been discussed with regard to several 
aspects such as its date (Kesjakova 2011: 193-194; Pillinger et al. 2016: 220; 
Popova 2018: 164-165; Topalilov 2020b: 259-262), the sequence of its respective 
panels’ construction (Kantareva-Decheva 2018: 370-372), its importance for 
liturgical practices (Popova 2016: 163-166; 2018: 138-142; 147-150), defining 
mosaic ateliers (Kesjakova 2011: 194; Popova 2016: 164-165; Topalilov 2016a: 
185-186), and problems of iconography and parallels (see most recently in 
Pillinger et al. 2016: 198-220; Popova 2016: 163-166; 2018: 138-140, 144-148). 
It is now assumed that the whole basilica received a new mosaic floor in the third 
quarter of the 5th century and more specifically in the 50s-60s of the century.3 
This new flooring covered the old mosaic pavement in all parts of the complex. 
It is also suggested that two different mosaic ateliers were involved in the mosaic 
pavements’ construction. Thus, the first panel with figures in the naos is thought 
to be the work either of a metropolitan mosaic atelier or of a local Thracian 
atelier with strong Constantinopolitan influence (Popova 2016: 165). The mosaic 
3 Until the full publication of the results of the latest archaeological excavations the dates as well as the 
phases proposed in the literature – see Kantareva-Decheva 2018 remain unverifiable.
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   305
Figure 5 pavement in the north and south aisle are considered to be the work of another 
The image of the peacock in the atrium similar atelier. To these craftsmen should be also attributed the panel with the 
(after https://www.enjoy-plovdiv.com/en/ image of the peacock in the narthex (Popova 2016: 165 n. 41). It is noteworthy 
blog/great-basilica-of-philippopolis) (last 
consulted on March, 5, 2021). that both of these mosaic ateliers are still unattested archaeologically. It has been 
suggested, however, that all of the geometric panels in the northern aisle and 
central nave were made by local mosaicists (Topalilov 2021).
The replacement of the almost entirely preserved, earlier geometrical mosaic 
pavement raises the question of the reasons for this change. The large 
dimensions of the new mosaic program (more than 800 m sq.) suggests that 
it was a deliberate change that was intended to convey a new message rather 
than to simply repair the previous floor. This impression is also prompted by 
the fact that in another basilica that was built in Philippopolis around 475 CE, 
the so-called ‘Small basilica,’ geometric compositions not only prevail in the 
iconography of the basilica’s mosaic floors but figural motifs are also entirely 
missing (Fig. 6) (Bospachieva 2002: 55-76; Pillinger et al. 2016: 227-239). 
Moreover, a major feature of the new program is the focus on the centers of the 
side aisles and of the narthex where the entrance is located. Specific images are 
placed at these key junctions in the mosaic decoration, such as the ‘Fountain of 
life’ and the full peacock, respectively, which present a sharp contrast to the rest 
of the mosaic decoration.
Indeed, these type of changes in mosaic decorative programs did not spread 
widely. For instance, they are not attested in the mosaics of the Christian 
basilicas in central and southern Greece, on the islands (see the corpora of 
Atzaka 1974; Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 1987), or along the West Asianic coast 
306    Ivo Topalilov
Figure 6
General layout of the mosaic pavements 
of the so-called “Small basilica” in 
Philippopolis (after Pillinger et al. 2016: Taf. 
164 Abb. 422).
Figure 7
General layout of mosaic pavement of the 
“basilica Uvarov” at Chersonesus Taurica 
(after Dombrovskii 2004: 31).
Figure 8
General layout of mosaic pavement of the 
basilica No 14 at Chersonesus Taurica (after 
Biernacki et al. 2004: 46).
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   307
(Scheibelreiter-Gail 2011). They are, however, attested in some particular places 
such as the basilica at Heraklea (former Perinthos), the so-called basilica ‘A’ at 
Amphipolis dated in the second quarter of the 6th c. (Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 
2017: 362-364 pls. 333-337), and the basilicas at Chersonese Taurica in Crimea, 
which include the so-called ‘basilica Uvarov’ dated to the second half of the 5th 
c. (Fig. 7) (Pülz 1998: 48-50; Biernacki et al. 2004: 74), the so-called ‘basilica 
No 14’ (Fig. 8) (Biernacki et al. 2004: 45), and the cross-shaped memoria dated 
to the second quarter of the 6th century (Fig. 9) (Pülz 1998: 70-71; Biernacki 
et al. 2004: 94). Of particular interest for our study is the basilica at Herakleia 
since it is not only closer geographically to the basilica in Philippopolis – it is 
in the same diocese – but also chronologically. In fact, the similarities in the 
iconography of both basilicas’ mosaic pavements has already been observed in 
the literature (Popova 2016: 165; Topalilov 2016a: 185-187; Westphalen 2016: 
108-110). For the need of this study, a brief overview of the mosaic pavements 
of Herakleia’s basilica is called for.
Figure 9
General layout of the cross-shaped memoria 
with mosaic floor at Chersonesus Taurica 
(after Dombrovskii 2004: 66 plan 10).
The mosaic of Herakleia’s basilica, which St. Westphalen recently published 
in full (Fig. 10), was carried out in opus tessellatum and opus sectile, the latter 
of which was found in the atrium’s chapel (Yeşil-Erdek 2014: 63, 69, 71-73; 
Westphalen 2016: 86). In the side aisles, the mosaics present a three-panel floor 
decoration with a central square as its focal point. The south aisle holds an 
image of a full peacock (Fig. 11) while the north one is filled with a fons vitae 
with two peacocks resting on both edges of a chalice (Fig. 12) (Westphalen 
2016: Abb. 176-181). In comparison to the mosaic decoration of Philippopolis’ 
308   Ivo Topalilov
Figure 10
General layout of the mosaic pavements of 
the Herakleian basilica 
Figure 11
The medallion in the center of the south 
aisle in the Herakleian basilica 
(after Westphalen 2016: Abb. 177).
Figure 12
The medallion in the center of the north 
aisle in the Herakleian basilica (after 
Westphalen 2016: Abb. 176).
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   309
basilica, there are some differences in the geometric schemes and some of the 
figures included in the mosaics of Herakleia’s basilica. These mosaics’ central 
panels are also somewhat different. For example, a peacock is set at the center 
of the southern aisle of Herakleia’s basilica, and the ‘fons vitae’ motif appears 
dissimilar to that which appears in the mosaics of Philippopolis’ basilica. Despite 
these differences, it is clear that the main idea remains the same: the mosaic 
decorations at both basilicas center on key scenes in the side aisles.
Another point of focus is the ‘entrance’ panel of the mosaic pavement in the 
atrium, which is oriented toward the atrium and decorated with a chalice with a 
small pouring stream (Fig. 13) (Yeşil-Erdek 2014: 71 fig. 7; Westphalen 2016: 
197 Abb. 236). A discrepancy may also be observed between both examples 
under consideration in terms of the image of a full peacock, which is in the 
narthex in Philippopolis and the chalice which is in the atrium in Herakleia.
The construction of the Herakleian basilica is dated to 450-480 CE based on 
the significant similarities between this basilica and the monastery basilica 
of St. John in Studion (Westphalen 2016: 27-77).4 This date is supported by 
the archaeological material and specifics of the architectural decoration of 
Herakleia’s basilica (Westphalen 2016: 15). Despite the lack of the typical 
polygonal outer wall of the apse, the measurements, plan, proportions, and 
architecture of Herakleia’s basilica follow those of the basilica of St. John in 
Studion in Constantinople, which undoubtedly reveals that the construction of 
Figure 13 the Herakleian basilica was heavily influenced by Constantinople.
The “entrance” medallion image of the atrium The atelier that made the mosaic pavement of Herakleia’s basilica, however, 
of the Herakleian basilica (after Westphalen 
2016: Abb. 236). is still under debate. Thus, St. Westphalen believes that the mosaic pavements 
in both Philippopolis’ and Herakleia’s basilicas were produced by a Thracian 
atelier (Westphalen 2016: 109 n. 149). V. Popova expresses a different opinion. 
As mentioned above, she believes that the mosaic in the side aisles was laid 
by a still archaeologically unattested metropolitan atelier5 or one strongly 
influenced by Constantinople. She further asserts that this craftsman produced 
some mosaics in Philippopolis – viz. the south aisle of the Episcopal basilica 
and on Puschkin Str. (Popova 2016: 165 n. 41). The mosaics of Philippopolis 
and Herakleia’s basilicas, however, differ iconographically in some aspects 
and perhaps chronologically as well. For example, the Philippopolis mosaics 
are more nuanced in terms of shading, viz. the figural passages, with a greater 
range of geometric patterns. The Philippopolis and Herakleia peacocks are also 
differently conceived, with the former featuring straight feathers and the latter 
curved ones. It remains unclear to me which scenario is more likely: that an 
itinerant atelier influenced by Constantinople and based in Thrace executed the 
jobs or that they were carried out by ateliers based in the capital who travelled 
around to execute high-level projects.6 In either case, different completion dates 
for these projects would explain differences in style and execution. What is clear, 
however, is that in the second half of the 5th century in some specific areas like 
both provincial capitals in the diocese of Thrace and Crimea, a new iconographic 
program was introduced in important Christian basilicas that later also spread 
4 On the date of construction of the monastery in Studion – see Mango 1978: 115-122; Peschlow 1982: 
429–334.
5 On the archaeological record of floor mosaics in Constantinople - see Dalgıç 2008; 2010: 127-134; 
2011: 223-235; 2015: 15-48.
6 Indeed, texts do not support the idea of floor mosaic ateliers based in the capital travelling around to 
execute high-level projects, but this possibility should not be excluded as we are aware of similar cases 
with the wall mosaic ateliers, such as the Umayyad wall mosaics of the Great Mosque of Damascus, 
though debated.
310    Ivo Topalilov
other areas such as around Thessalonica. In this program, important locations in 
the basilica – the ‘entrance area’ in either the narthex or atrium and the centers 
of the side aisles – are highlighted through the introduction of specific images. 
Such images prominently include a kantharos or chalice with two peacocks 
resting on both edges, a peacock with a spread tail, and a single chalice, all of 
which are emphasized by their placement at the center of a special medallion 
and by their bigger size, polychromy, and lavishness.  It seems, then, that the 
mosaic programs of both Philippopolis and Herakleia’s basilicas belong to an 
intermediate period in the development of the iconography of the ecclesiastic 
floor mosaic. This decorative flooring was initially treated as a unit with a purely 
ornamental pattern but in the 6th c. was commonly subdivided into a sequence 
of panels dominated by various enclosed animals, plants, fruits, and objects 
(Maguire 1987: 83; Raynaud 2009: 138-139 n. 24, 31). The mixed figural and 
geometric designs of the mosaic programs in Herakleia and Philippopolis’s 
basilicas corroborate a date in this transitional span of time.
The interpretation of these motifs in both places have already been discussed in 
the literature. Thus, for the Herakleian motifs St. Westphalen suggested that the 
peacocks should be associated with the common symbolism of immortality and 
eternal life, and the chalice and wine in the northern medallion can be understood 
in the Eucharistic sense (Westphalen 2016: 109-110).7 On the other hand, the 
fons vitae in the southern aisle of Philippopolis’ basilica is interpreted by V. 
Popova in connection with the new cult to Mary that emerged during the reign 
of Leo I (457-474) – that of Mary the Life-Giving Spring (or Life-giving Font). 
Popova believes that the dimensions of the vessel and its dominating presence 
is reminiscent of the basin with the Virgin blessing and embracing the Child 
that is found in Medieval and Revival period icons. As it was not appropriate at 
the time to depict the Mother of God on the floor, she assumes that the image 
of the kantharos itself symbolized this cult of Mary and that the entire aisle 
was devoted to Mary (Popova 2016: 164-166, 174). Given the nature of the 
cult, its introduction and spread in Thrace should undoubtedly be regarded as a 
direct influence from Constantinople (Popova 2018: 148). As for the image of 
the peacock in the narthex of the Episcopal basilica in Philippopolis (Fig. 5), this 
image is linked with the Eucharist, and the reverse orientation of the image is 
in accordance with the position of a bishop facing the laity that gathered in the 
atrium during the rite (Popova 2018: 140).
Certainly, the Christian reinterpretation of the motifs dominating the mosaic 
pavements in the side aisles, narthex and atrium in both basilicas is not a foregone 
conclusion. As is well evidenced, the use of various motifs (including those from 
the everyday life) in ecclesiastical floor decoration is not uncommon practice, 
and both mosaics under discussion provide good examples for this with the 
incorporation of local birds and other motifs in the geometric patterns. The fact 
that the scenes of the kantharos/chalice with two peacocks resting on both edges, 
of a peacock with a spread tail, and of a single chalice dominate the mosaic floor 
in particular areas of the basilica complex in the manner described above clearly 
points out to me that they have been placed due to their interpretatio christiana 
and belong to a new iconographic repertoire for ecclesiastic mosaic decoration. 
If we accept, however, the above-mentioned interpretation regarding the cult to 
Mary, the image of the cup (chalice) depicted at the center of the northern aisle 
of the Herakleian basilica is more suggestive of this cult rather than the image 
in the Philippopolitan mosaic with its two-stage structure. The depiction of the 
7 The image of the kantharos turned into a fountain by the depiction of a small stream, which is enclosed 
in the medallion of the “entrance” mosaic to the atrium, remains undiscussed.
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   311
kantharos-fountain may also resemble the Eucharistic chalice in a form that is 
attested elsewhere.8
Although the Christian interpretation of the motifs under consideration is 
debatable9, it seems that the new iconographic program emphasizes the greater 
importance that the entrance and side aisles gained in the second half of the 
5th century in a way that became common in the next century.10 The deliberate 
use of figural ornamentation and scenes in special medallions in these areas is 
in sharp contrast to the geometric decoration floor that covered the rest of both 
basilicas.
These newly decorated parts, however, played important roles in some rituals 
that were vital to the Constantinopolitan liturgy, such as the processions revealed 
by the writings of its bishops Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom. 
Unsurprisingly, Christian basilicas at that time “consisted of a succession of 
expansive spaces opening into one another and lighted from all sides: atrium, 
aisles, galleries, and nave,” and the liturgy itself was a “liturgy of processions” 
(Mathews 1982: 125). This is clearly visible in one of the most important 
ceremonies, that of the “First Entrance,” in which initially all the faithful 
participated. The bishop received acclamation by the laity that gathered at the 
atrium, and after the clergy performed the rites of entry in the narthex, everyone 
simultaneously entered the naos lead by the bishop (Mathews 1971: 144-145; 
Taft 1992: 33-34).11 The laity entered the church through several doors, the so-
called “Little Entrance,” at the same time as the clerical procession led by the 
bishop, which allowed them to witness the procession itself (Mathews 1971: 
138-145; Taft 1992: 33-34; 1998: 59-60). In the case with Philippopolis, we 
may assume that the bishop entered the naos trough the main entrance, while the 
rest of the clergy by the side doors of the main entrance.12 Similar is the ‘Great 
Entrance’ when bread and wine was carried in and the deacons also carried in 
holy elements with incense and candles, around which the faithful prostrated (on 
the ceremony and its development – see Mathews 1971: 155-176; Taft 1975; 
Mathews 1982: 125-126).
The processions, however, were not only confined only to the limits of the basilica. 
Herakleia and Philippopolis were without any doubt among these cities where 
the lithian and other type of processions were practiced, such as the stational 
liturgy led by the local bishop. The proximity of Constantinople where these 
processions were very popular (Baldovin 1987: 167-226), the direct influence 
of the Constantinopolitan bishop over that of Philippopolis (which is attested 
in the literary sources as is noted below), and the specific development of the 
political and religious process in Thrace, viz. the Gothic wars and Arianic past, 
were all crucial factors for the implementation of the Constantinopolitan liturgy 
in local religious life. Archaeology provides a clue for one of these processions 
in Philippopolis, which started from the imposing conch martyrium that was 
located some 70 m off the porta triumphalis and dedicated to the 38 martyrs of 
Philippopolis and Byzie. This procession continued through the gate and up the 
new main street of the city, which was 24 m wide and lavishly decoration on 
8 See the examples and literature provided in Raynaud -  Islami 2018: 234-236.
9 See for this Bisconti 2000; Bisconti - Gentili 2007.
10 See for example Kitzinger 1977; Cvetković-Tomašević 1978; Perseng 2021: 338-348.
11 This is also proved by the lack of numerous additional entrances in the north and south wall in both 
basilicas. Unlike the naos, however, this may be applied to the atrium of the Herakleian basilica. On 
the examples from Greece, see Caraher 2003: 100-101.
12 The three entrances of the naos in the Philippopolitan basilica are clearly distinguished in the mosaic 
floor – the central marked with the image of the peacock while the rest – by geometric panels.
312    Ivo Topalilov
both sides with double-stored porticoes, and then finally reached the Episcopal 
basilica directly or via the domus episcopalis that is located just 30 m north of 
the basilica and linked by a special cardo, which was constructed regardless 
of the existing street-grid.13 The procession reached the monumental propylaea 
of the Episcopal basilica’s main entrance and ended in the atrium where some 
liturgical actions were pursued, as we can assume by the altar found there in situ 
(on the inscription on the altar - see Sharankov 2018: 731).14 The gathering of 
the laity at the atrium allowed the bishop to address them, and the image of the 
full peacock in the central medallion in the narthex mosaic may mark his place 
given the orientation of the figure itself.
Although there is no direct evidence yet for these processions at Herakleia, 
the mosaic floor decoration implies the involvement of the basilica in such 
liturgical activities. As was already mentioned, the Herakleian ‘entrance’ mosaic 
is decorated with a chalice with a small pouring stream and is oriented toward 
the atrium (Yeşil-Erdek 2014: 71 fig. 7; Westphalen 2016: 197 Abb. 236). This 
“sacro fonte” clearly marks the entrance of the basilica for processions of the 
faithful that began outside the basilica under the guidance of the bishop or 
another member of the clergy (Mathews 1971: 138-147). The symbol on the 
floor mosaic indicates the solemn entrance of the faithful and processions into 
the basilica. It is known that the ceremony itself was among the spectacular 
events that drew crowd’s eager to see how the clergy entered the church (John 
of Ephesus HE, 3.3).
As was noted above, the Constantinopolitan liturgy was the ‘liturgy of 
processions.’ The simultaneous entrance of the laity with the bishop in the ‘First 
entrance’ and the ‘Little entrance,’ the former in the side aisles and the latter in 
the central nave, allowed the people to witness the clerical procession and so 
reveals the importance that the side aisles of the basilica gained at that time. By 
this, the laity were undoubtedly included in the liturgy, especially given the fact 
that they also experienced the liturgy when they watched the clergy walk down 
the nave and around the altar (Caraher 2003: 106-110). Processions are now an 
important part of the liturgy itself. It is unclear, however, if this area was also a 
processional space as suggested in the literature in the case of the southern aisle 
of the Episcopal basilica in Philippopolis.15
Although fragmented, this evidence reveals a possible connection between 
the mosaic floor decoration and the liturgy. Both the mosaics and the liturgy 
emphasize particular parts of the basilica in the side aisles and narthex/atrium, 
the former by focusing attention on specific areas through the use of charged 
Christian symbols and the latter by including these areas into various rituals. 
This novelty is clearly attested when compared with the iconography of the 
older, entirely geometric mosaic pavement in the Philippopolitan basilica, which 
still found its place in the new iconography.
If all this is correct, we may go further and discuss the function of one of the 
rooms in the atrium of the basilicas at both Philippopolis and Herakleia. The 
so-called “room C” located in the southern portico at Philippopolis received 
13 On the bishop’s residence – see Dinchev 2002: 223 n. 15; Bospachieva 2003; Valeva 2011: 36-41; 
Pillinger et al. 2016: 174-198; Topalilov 2018; Popova 2021, on the Eastern Gate complex – see 
Martinova-Kjutova - Sharankov 2014; Topalilov 2016c; 2020a, on the road - see Martinova-Kjutova 
- Pirovska 2011; Topalilov 2016b.
14 On monumental entrances and churches see Yasin 2017.
15 See for this V. Popova who assumes that the Fountain of Life mosaic implies glorification through a 
procession that stopped at this place and after that entered the naos from the south aisle (Popova 2016: 
164).
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   313
geometric decoration that held images of a kantharos and a basket with breads 
(Fig. 14), and the room in the northern portico of the Herakleian basilica had a 
mosaic that had depictions of a kantharos and basket among other figural motifs 
(Figs. 10, 15). The mosaic decoration of both places is in sharp contrast to that 
of the rest of the atrium, which was decorated entirely with geometric mosaics. 
The exact function of these ancillary rooms remains unclear, but this may have 
been the place where the wine and bread for the Eucharist was stored before it 
was carried into the naos.16
Figure 14
Fragment of the mosaic floor of room “C” 
in the atrium of the Episcopal basilica in 
Philippopolis (Archive: E. Kessjakova).
16 Indeed, the wine and bread were typically stored in a side room on the east side of the basilica, usually 
at the end of the aisles. However, no indication of such subdivision is attested at both basilicas, nor 
implied somehow, for example, by the floor decoration or the lack of it, as is well attested in other 
similar cases including in Philippopolis itself with the so-called ‘Small basilica’.
314    Ivo Topalilov
Figure 15
The mosaic floor of the room in the northern 
room of the atrium in the Herakleian basilica 
(after Westphalen 2016: Abb. 231). 
Indeed, this review of the changes that occurred in the mosaic decoration in 
two basilicas in two important provincial capitals in Thrace – Herakleia and 
Philippopolis – from the middle to third quarter of the 5th c. is far from complete. 
Although the exact meanings of the symbols used in the basilicas’ mosaics are 
debatable, it is clear that their use underlined the importance of the side aisles 
and the ‘entrance’ area. It is also clear that these parts of the basilicas gained 
new importance in the Constantinopolitan liturgy that was established in the 
late 4th century. Given the close geographic proximity and the influence of the 
Constantinopolitan bishop in both centers, which in Philippopolis is attested in 
the literary sources,17 one wonders if these changes are not due to the spread of the 
metropolitan liturgy in the hinterland. It should be underlined that these are not 
the only novelties found in Thrace that have been heavily affected by innovations 
at Constantinople.18 The almost simultaneous appearance of these changes in the 
third quarter of 5th century may imply that they were deliberately introduced 
and spread in Thrace and so were a part of a well-organized process rather than 
phenomena that were accidentally introduced. The structures in which these 
changes were found, in our case the Episcopal basilica in the Thracian capital 
Philippopolis and a basilica in Herakleia the capital of the province of Eurōpē, 
were among the most important in the provinces. In fact, the former basilica is 
probably the biggest in the diocese of Thrace while the latter is closely linked 
architecturally to Constantinople. The introduction of the new concept in the 
iconography of the mosaic pavement was made either by metropolitan ateliers 
or ateliers influenced by them; the former scenario seems preferable. It seems a 
full integration of Thrace into the metropolitan liturgy was sought, which could 
be regarded as a consequence of the expansion of the metropolitan jurisdiction 
officially after canon 28 at the Fourth Ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451 
CE. This canon states:
‘so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the 
17 In this case it is about the request of the Philippopolitan bishop Sylvanus who asked the metropolitan 
bishop Aticus to be removed from Philippopolis to another place with a mild climate, which dates to 
the first half of the 5th century – see for this Sokr. 7.36, 37.
18 The introduction of the polygonal outer shape of the apse, for example, is one of best attested, and 
accordingly the semi-circular shape of already existing basilicas were remodeled to obtain the new 
form – see for these churches in Chaneva-Dechevska 1999. The example with the so-called ‘basilica 
no. 3’ is very significant in this aspect – for the basilica see Madzharov 1993: 130-132. Among the 
other novelties is the emergence of the small chapel attached to the narthex that also dates to this time 
– see the examples in Chaneva-Dechevska 1999: 102-104.
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   315
metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as 
are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy 
throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of 
the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining 
his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but 
that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses 
should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper 
elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to 
him’.19
By this decision, the council confirmed de jure an already existing situation with 
the appointment of the highest church clergy in the area by Constantinople’s 
bishop. The aforementioned case with the Philippopolitan bishop Sylvanus is 
a good example of this. The already established close link between Thracian 
Christian communities and Constantinople may date back to the time of 
Theodosius I when firm control over the provinces in Thrace was required due 
to their “Arianic” past and the so-called “Gothic Wars.” It seems that if it was 
not the emperor himself, it was the bishop in Constantinople, whom he installed, 
who was involved in the process of appointing local Thracian bishops loyal to 
the emperor and to the Nicene creed and who therefore controlled church matters 
and communities in Thrace. The result of this development can be observed in 
the support that the Christians in Thrace provided to the metropolitan bishop 
Nestorius (428-431) and his doctrine, which may also be due to the “Arianic” 
past of these lands.
With canon 28, this Constantinopolitan domination was embodied also in the 
local liturgy, which was subject to some change because of the simple reason 
that new clergy came from Constantinople with different liturgical rites. On top 
of the fact that Thrace was under the official jurisdiction of Constantinople’s 
bishop, all the events and changes echoed in Thrace, including the establishment 
of new cults, rites, and evolution of the liturgy and architecture, concerned new 
liturgical demands. In fact, we may assume that from the second half of the 5th 
c. onward, the provincial structures may provide a good deal of information of 
metropolitan prototypes that are not preserved or have not yet been discovered.
The evidence available, although scanty, promotes questions concerning the 
material manifestation of the mechanism of integration in the traditions of 
certain provinces and respective churches and their liturgical life and concerning 
the direct and indirect metropolitan influences on art in the hinterland. In our 
case the importance of the latter question is exemplified by the introduction of 
new iconography in mosaic flooring that was executed either by a metropolitan 
mosaic atelier or by ateliers under the influence of Constantinople. Above all, 
though, it is clear enough that mosaic floor decoration started to play a significant 
active role in the liturgy of the Christian basilicas in certain regions. Indeed, 
some skepticism is expressed in the literature about the possible link between the 
images and liturgy, as is the case with the chalice and kantharos decorating the 
aisles of the Herakleian basilica (Westphalen 2016: 109-110). There is also the 
unclear case of the chalice and wine scene in the northern medallion of this basilica 
(Westphalen 2016: 109-110). The possible correlation between the particular 
19 Canon 28: Ut et Ponticae, et Asianae, et Thraciae dioeceseos metropolitani soli: praeterea et qui sunt in 
barbarico, episcopi praedictarum dioeceseon ordinentur a praedicto sanctissimo throno sanctissimae 
Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae. Nimirum unoquoque metropolita earum ipsarum dioeceseon, una 
cum episcopis provinciae ordinante provinciae episcopos, ut divinis canonibus promulgatum est. 
Metropolitas vero earum dioeceseon, sicut dictum est, ordinari a Constantinopolitano archiepiscopo, 
electionibus convenientibus secundum morem factis, et ad eum perlatis (Schwartz 1936).
316    Ivo Topalilov
areas that received more remarkable floor decoration and those that gained more 
importance in the Constantinopolitan liturgy since the last quarter of 4th century 
is a crucial for understanding the proposed link between the decoration and 
liturgy. Examples dating to the third quarter of the 5th century, such as those in 
Herakleia and Philippopolis’ episcopal basilicas, are among the first such cases 
when these innovations were not yet conceptualized. It was done as late as 475 
CE as the iconography of the so-called ‘Small basilica’ in Philippopolis reveals, 
for which also a metropolitan influence is also suggested in the literature. The 
examples under consideration here thus present an intermediate period in this 
development that would find its complete form in the next century. Thrace 
and Chersonesos Taurica provide examples for these new changes that were 
inspired by Constantinople, given also the direct influence of the metropolis in 
the northern region. I have no doubt that examples of these changes can also 
be found in other regions in the empire, especially these included in canon 28 
of the Fourth Ecumenical council. One should here call to mind the so-called 
‘Constantinopolitan’ type of churches that spread in Syria at that time and later 
(see for example the study of Mulholland 2014). One should also look to other 
regions that were linked closely with Constantinople at that time, such as the 
area of Thessalonica and its hinterland. In this area, changes in mosaic floor 
decoration like those discussed here may be observed in monuments from the 
6th century. I admit that the scanty evidence now available is not yet compelling, 
but I do hope, however, that this study will help address questions concerning 
the links between the Constantinopolitan liturgy and episcopal architecture and 
floor and wall decoration in Thrace.
Bibliography – Kaynaklar   
Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 1987 P. Asimakopoulou-Atzaka, Syntagma ton palaiohristianikon psefidoton dapedon tes Ellados, II. Peloponnesos 
– Sterea Ellada, Byzantina mnhmeia 7, Kentron Byzantinon Eregnon, Thessaloniki. 
Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 2017 P. Asimakopoulou-Atzaka, Syntagma ton palaiohristianikon psefidoton dapedon tes Ellados, III. Makedonia-
Thrake. 2. Ta Psifidota Dapeda tes Makedonias kai tes Thrakes (ektos Thessalonikes), Byzantina mnhmeia 18, 
Thessaloniki.
Atzaka 1974 P. Atzaka, Syntagma ton palaiohristianikon psifidoton dapedon tes Ellados, I. Nesiotike Ellas, Byzantina 
mnhmeia 1, Kentron Byzantinon Eregnon, Thessaloniki. 
Baldovin 1987 J. F. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian worship. The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational 
Liturgy, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228, Roma.
Biernacki et al. 2004 A. Biernacki - E. Klenina - St. Ryizhova, Rannevizantiiskie sakral’nye postroiki Hersonesa Tavricheskogo, 
Poznań.
Bisconti 2000 F. Bisconti, Temi di iconografia paleocristiana, Città del Vaticano.
Bisconti - Gentili 2007 F. Bisconti - G. Gentili (eds.), La rivoluzione dell’immagine. Arte paleocristiana tra Roma e Bisanzio, Milano.
Bospachieva 2002 M. Bospachieva, “A small early Christian basilica with mosaics at Philippopolis”, ABulg 6/2, 55-76.
Bospachieva 2003 M. Bospachieva, “The Late Antiquity Building EIRHNH with Mosaics from Philippopoilis (Plovdiv, Southern 
Bulgaria)”, ABulg 2, 83-105.
Caraher 2003 W. Caraher, Church, Society and the Sacred in Early Christian Greece. Dissertation submitted to the Ohio State 
University, Ohio.
Chaneva-Dechevska 1999 N. Chaneva-Dechevska, Rannohristijanskata architectura v Balgaria IV-VI v., Sofia.
Cvetković-Tomašević 1978 G. Cvetković-Tomašević, Ranovizantijski podni mozaici. Dardanija, Makedonija, Novi Epir, Filozofski 
Fakultet u Beogradu, Institut za Istoriju Umetnosti, Belgrade.
Dalgıç 2008 Ö. Dalgıç, Late Antique Floor Mosaics of Constantinople prior to the Great Palace, Unpublished PhD Thesis, 
New York University, New York. 
The Impact of Constantinopolitan Liturgy on the Mosaic Pavements in ...  / 5. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Trakya’daki Hristiyan Bazilikalarında ...   317
Dalgıç 2010 Ö. Dalgıç, “The Corpus of Floor Mosaics of Constantinople”, F. Daim - J. Drauschke (Hrsg.) Byzanz - das 
Römerreich im Mittelalter, Monographien des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, vol. 84,3, Mainz, 127-
134.
Dalgıç 2011 Ö. Dalgıç, “Early Floor Mosaics in Istanbul”, G. Sözen (ed.) Mosaics of Anatolia, Istanbul, 223-235.
Dalgıç 2015 Ö. Dalgıç, “The Triumph of Dionysos in Constantinople: A Late Fifth-Century Mosaic in Context”, DOP 69, 
15-48.
Décor I      C. Balmelle – M. Blanchard Lemée – J. Christophe – J.-P. Darmon – A.-M. Guimier Sorbets – H. Lavagne – R. 
Prudhomme – H. Stern, Le Décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine I, Paris, 1985.
Dinchev 2002 V. Dinchev, “Kam harakteristikata na predstavitelnata kasnoantichna zhilishtna arhitektura v Thracia i Dacia”, 
Godishnik na Arheologicheskija Institut s muzei 2, 206-241. 
Dombrovskii 2004 O. Dombrovskii, Vizantiiskie mozaiki Hersonesa Tavricheskogo, Poznań.
Kantareva-Decheva 2017 E. Kantareva-Decheva, “Konservatsija i restavratsija na podovi mozaiki ot obekt “Episkopska bazilika na 
Filipopol” – Plovdiv 2015-2016 g.”, T. Shekerdzhieva-Novak (ed.), Proletni nauchni chetenija 2017, Plovdiv, 
220-227.
Kantareva-Decheva 2018 E. Kantareva-Decheva, “Novi stratigrafski prouchvanija na mozaikata ot Episkopskata bazilika na Filipopol”, 
T. Shekerdzhieva-Novak (ed.), Sbornik dokladi ot Mezhdunarodna nauchna konferentsiya “Nauka, obrazovanie 
i inovatsii v oblastta na izkustvoto”, Plovdiv, 365-372.
Kesjakova 2011  E. Kesjakova, “Mozaiki ot episkopskata bazilika na Filipopol”, St. Stanev - V. Grigorov - V. Dimitrov (eds.), 
Studies in honour of Stefan Boyadzhiev, Sofia, 173-210.
Kitzinger 1977 E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylisitc Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd-7th 
century, Cambrigde, Mass.
Madzharov 1993 K. Madzharov, Diokletsianopol, tom 1. Topografija, gradoustroistvo i arhitektura, Sofia.
Maguire 1987 H. Maguire, Earth and Ocean. The Terrestrial World in the Early Byzantine Art, London.  
Mango 1978 C. Mango, “The Date of the Studius Basilica at Istanbul”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4, Essays 
Presented to Sir Steven Runciman, 115-122.
Martinova-Kjutova -  Pirovska 2011 
 M. Martinova-Kjutova - G. Pirovska, “Iztochnata porta na Filipopol”, St. Stanev - V. Grigorov - V. Dimitrov 
(eds.), Studies in honour of Stefan Boyadzhiev, Sofia, 211-233. 
Martinova-Kjutova - Sharankov 2014  
 M. Martinova-Kjutova -  N. Sharankov, “Novi danni za kompleksa “Iztochna porta na Filipopol”, Annual of 
the Regional Archaeological museum – Plovdiv, 12, Proceedings dedicated to the 130th anniversary of the 
Regional Archaeological Museum – Plovdiv (1882 -2012), 159-184.
Mathews 1971 T. F. Mathews, The Early churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, Penn.
Mathews 1982 T. F. Mathews, “Private’ Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture: Toward a Reappraisal”, CArch 30, 125-138.
Mulholland 2014 B. Mulholland, The Early Byzantine Christian Church. An Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven Early 
Byzantine Basilical Church Excavations Primarily in Israel and Jordan, and their Historical and Liturgical 
Context, Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies 9, Bern.
Perseng 2021 M. Perseng, “The iconographic and stylistic development of the Eucharistic images in the floor mosaics on the 
Balkans during the Early Christianity”, M. Rakocija (ed.), Niš and Byzantium Symposium 16, Niš, 325-328.
Peschlow 1982 U. Peschlow, “Die Johanneskirche des Studios in Istanbul”, JbÖByz 32.4, 429–434.
Pillinger et al. 2016 R. Pillinger – A. Lirsch – V. Popova (Hrsg.), Corpus der spätantiken und frühchristlichen Mosaiken Bulgariens, 
Wien, 2016.
Popova 2016  V. Popova, “Fons Vitae in Late Antique monuments in Bulgaria”, Studia academica Šumenensia 3, 154-198.
Popova 2018 V. Popova, “Liturgy and Mosaics: The Case Study of the Late Antique Monuments from Bulgaria”, M. Rakocija 
(ed.), Niš and Byzantium Symposium 16, Niš, 135-160.
Popova 2021 V. Popova, “The personification of Eirene from the episcopal residence in Philippopolis/Plovdiv”, M. Rakocija 
(ed.), Niš and Byzantium Symposium 16, Niš, 299-324.
Pülz 1998 A. Pülz, “Die frühchristlichen Kirchen des taurischen Chersonesos/Krim”, MitChrA 4, 45-78.
Raynaud 2009 M.-P Raynaud, Corpus of the Mosaics of Turkey, Volume 1: Lycia. Xanthos Part 1: The East Basilica, Bursa.
318   Ivo Topalilov
Raynaud -  Islami 2018 M.-P. Raynaud - A. Islami, Corpus of the Mosaics of Albania, volume 1. Butrint intramuros, Balkans’ Mosaic 
1, Bordeaux.
Scheibelreiter-Gail 2011 V. Scheibelreiter-Gail, Die Mosaiken Westkleinasiens. Tessellate des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. bis Anfang des 7. 
Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Sonderschriften Band 46, Wien.
Schwartz 1936 E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 2, 1, 2, Concilium Chalcedonense, Berlin – Leipzig.
Sharankov 2018 N. Sharankov, “Epigrafski otrkitija“, Arheologicheski otrkritija i razkopki prez 2017, 731-734.
Taft 1975 R. F. Taft, The Great, Entrance, A History of the Transfer of Gifts and other Preanahoral Rites of the Liturgy of 
St. John Chrvsostom, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 200, Rome.
Taft 1992 R. F. Taft, The Byzantine Rite: A Short History, Collegeville.
Taft 1998 R. F. Taft, “Quaestiones disputatae: The Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia and the Entrances of the Liturgy 
Revisited”, OrChr 82, 53-87.
Tankova 2017 Zh. Tankova, “Arheologichesko prouchvane na obekt “Episkopska basilica”, gr. Plovdiv, Arheologicheski 
otrkritija i razkopki prez 2016, 323-325.
Topalilov 2016a I. Topalilov, “Local Mosaic Workshops in Late Antique Philippopolis, Thrace: Some consideration”, L. Neira 
Jiménes (ed.), Estudios sobre mosaicos antiquos y medievales, Roma, 183-188.
Topalilov 2016b I. Topalilov, “The impact of the religious policy of Theodosius the Great on the urbanization of Philippopolis, 
Thrace (Preliminary notes)”, O. Brandt - V. Fiocchi Nicolai (eds.), Costantino e i Costantinidi: l’innovazione 
costantiniana, le sue radici e i suoi sviluppi, Acta XVI Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, 
Roma, 1853-1862.
Topalilov 2016c I. Topalilov, “The importance of the so-called ‘Eastern Gate’ complex for the Christians and Christianity in LA 
Philippopolis”, M. Rakocija (ed.), Cities and Citizens in Byzantine World, Niš and Byzantium 14, (Niš: NKC), 
265-274.
Topalilov 2018 I. Topalilov, “On the Eirene mosaic from Philippopolis, Thrace”, JMR 11, 273-285.
Topalilov 2020a I. Topalilov, “Porta triumphalis v kasnoantichna Trakija”, N. Kanev (ed.), Vladetel, darzhava i tsarkva na 
Balkjanite prez Srednovekovieto. Sbornik v chest na 60-godishninata na Prof. d-r Plamen Pavlov, tom 1, Veliko 
Turnovo, 304-324.
Topalilov 2020b I. Topalilov, “The Mosaic pavements in Philippopolis, Thrace, in 6th c. CE. Some considerations”, JMR 13, 
257-279.
Topalilov 2021 I. Topalilov, “The Early Christian basilicas in Philippopolis and Herakleia – two pieces of work of an unknown 
metropolitan mosaic workshop”, (in press).
Westphalen 2016 St. Westphalen, Die Basilica am Kalekapi in Herakleia/ Perinthos. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von 1992-
2010 in Marmara Ereğlisi, IstForsch 55.
Valeva 2011 J. Valeva, “Elitna zhilishtna architectura i dekor v dioceza Trakija (IV-VII v)”, St. Stanev - V. Grigorov - V. 
Dimitrov (eds.), Studies in honour of Stefan Boyadzhiev, Sofia, 17-56.
Yasin 2017 A. Yasin, “The Pilgrim and the Arch: Channeling Movement and Transforming Experience at Late Antique 
Holy Sites”, T. M. Kristensen - W. Friese (eds.), Excavating Pilgrimage: Archaeological Approaches to Sacred 
Travel and Movement in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near East, London, 166-186.
Yeşil-Erdek 2014 S. Yeşil-Erdek, “Perinthos-Herakleia Bazilikası Taban Döşemelerinin Konservasyonu”, JMR 7, 61-75.