Byzantine Anatolia: Stratonikeia & Iznik

The archaeological footprint of the Turkey_Byzantine samples spans late antiquity into the medieval era (262–1400 CE). Excavations at Stratonikeia and Lagina (Aegean, Muğla; Yatağan district) reveal reused classical civic and sacred architecture transformed into Christian contexts, while the basilica at Iznik (ancient Nicaea, Marmara; İznik) and burials at Ilıpınar (Marmara; Orhangazi) speak to regional continuity and shifting religious landscapes. Material culture—basilica plans, reused columnar fragments, and cemetery architecture—traces a world remade from Roman provincial life into Byzantine institutions.

Cinematic layers of stone and soil record waves of continuity and change: urban centers that once hosted imperial administration became seats of ecclesiastical power; coastal towns remained hubs of trade and cultural exchange. Archaeological data indicate local traditions persisted alongside imported fashions in pottery and liturgical architecture. Limited evidence suggests that some sites saw intermittent population turnover, but the overall picture is one of a region adapting older infrastructures to new political and religious realities.

Taken together with historical sources that document Byzantine administration, these sites form a geographically coherent snapshot of western Anatolia where ancient urbanism and medieval transformation met along trade routes and shorelines.

Fourteen ancient genomes from sites in western Anatolia (Stratonikeia, Lagina, Stratonikeia-West Church, Iznik basilica, and Ilıpınar) provide a first-order genetic portrait of Byzantine-era communities in this region. Maternal lineages are dominated by western Eurasian haplogroups: H (3 counts including H5f), U (3), X (2), and J (1). These mtDNA profiles are consistent with broader Mediterranean and Anatolian maternal ancestry observed in a number of ancient and modern datasets.

Y-chromosome haplogroups were not consistently reported across these 14 samples, so paternal-line patterns remain less certain for this dataset. With a modest sample size, interpretations must be cautious: the 14 genomes offer valuable signals but cannot capture the full demographic complexity of Byzantine Anatolia. Archaeogenetic analyses indicate a mixture of local Anatolian ancestry with continued gene flow from Mediterranean and, at times, Balkan or eastern influences—reflecting trade, migration, and imperial connections.

Importantly, the mtDNA composition suggests continuity of local maternal lines through centuries of cultural change rather than wholesale population replacement. Still, finer-scale admixture modeling and larger sample counts would be needed to resolve contributions from specific source populations (e.g., Anatolian Neolithic descendant groups, Aegean populations, or post-Roman migrants).