 A map of the Levant with Natufian regions across present-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, and a long arm extending into Lebanon and Syria | |
| Geographical range | Levant,West Asia |
|---|---|
| Period | Epipalaeolithic Near East |
| Dates | 15,000–11,500 BP |
| Type site | Shuqba Cave, inWadi Natuf |
| Major sites | Shuqba cave,ʿAin Mallaha,Nahal Ein Gev II,Tell Abu Hureyra |
| Preceded by | Kebaran,Mushabian |
| Followed by | Harifian,Khiamian,Shepherd Neolithic,Pre-Pottery Neolithic |
TheNatufian culture (/nəˈtuːfiən/[1]nə-TOO-fee-ən) is anarchaeological culture of the lateEpipalaeolithic Near East inWest Asia from 15–11,500Before Present.[2] The culture was unusual in that it supported asedentary or semi-sedentary population even before theintroduction of agriculture. Natufian communities may be the ancestors of the builders of the region's firstNeolithic settlements, which may have been the earliest in the world. Some evidence suggests deliberate cultivation ofcereals, specificallyrye, by the Natufian culture atTell Abu Hureyra, the site of the earliest evidence of agriculture in the world.[3]
The world's oldest known evidence of the production of bread-like foodstuff has been found at Shubayqa 1, a 14,400-year-old site inJordan's northeastern desert, 4,000 years before theemergence of agriculture in Southwest Asia.[4] In addition, the oldest known evidence of possiblebeer-brewing, dating to approximately 13,000BP, was found inRaqefet Cave onMount Carmel, although the beer-related residues may be a result of spontaneousfermentation.[5][6]
Generally, though, Natufians exploited wild cereals and hunted animals, notablymountain gazelles.[7]Archaeogenetic analysis has revealed derivation of later (Neolithic to Bronze Age) Levantines primarily from Natufians, along with substantial later gene flow fromAnatolia.[8]
Dorothy Garrod coined the term Natufian based on her excavations at theShuqba Cave atWadi Natuf.
_1928_Natufian_culture_discovery.jpg)
The Natufian culture was discovered by British archaeologistDorothy Garrod during her excavations ofShuqba Cave in theJudaean Mountains ofMandatory Palestine in theCisjordan, now theRamallah and al-Bireh Governorate ofPalestine.[9][10] Before the 1930s, the majority of archaeological work taking place inPalestine wasbiblical archaeology focused on historic periods, and little was known about the region's prehistory.
In 1928, Garrod was invited by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (BSAJ, now theKenyon Institute) to excavate Shuqba Cave, where prehistoric stone tools had been discovered byPère Mallon four years earlier. She found a layer sandwiched between theUpper Paleolithic andBronze Age deposits characterised by the presence ofmicroliths. She identified this with theMesolithic, a transitional period between the Paleolithic and theNeolithic well-represented inEurope but which had not yet been found in West Asia. A year later, when she discovered similar material atel Wad (now in theNahal Me'arot Nature Reserve), Garrod suggested the name "the Natufian culture" after theWadi Natuf, which runs close to Shuqba.
Over the next two decades, Garrod found Natufian material at several of her pioneering excavations in theMount Carmel region, including el-Wad,Kebara andTabun, as did the French archaeologistRené Neuville, firmly establishing the Natufian culture in the regional prehistoric chronology. As early as 1931, both Garrod and Neuville drew attention to the presence of stonesickles in Natufian assemblages and the possibility that this represented a very early agriculture.[10]
| TheMesolithic |
|---|
| ↑Upper Paleolithic |
| Europe |
| Epipalaeolithic Near East |
| Caucasus |
| Zagros |
| ↓Neolithic |
| ThePaleolithic |
|---|
| ↑Pliocene (beforeHomo) |
|
|
| ↓Mesolithic |
Radiocarbon dating places the Natufian culture at an epoch from the terminalPleistocene to the very beginning of theHolocene, a time period between 12,500 and 9,500BC.[12]
The period is commonly split into two subperiods: Early Natufian (12,000–10,800 BC) and Late Natufian (10,800–9,500 BC). The Late Natufian most likely occurred in tandem with theYounger Dryas (10,800 to 9,500 BC). TheLevant hosts more than a hundred kinds of cereals, fruits, nuts, and other edible parts of plants, and the flora of the Levant during the Natufian period was not the dry, barren, and thorny landscape of today, but ratherwoodland.[9]
The Natufian developed in the same region as the earlierKebaran culture. It is generally seen as a successor, which evolved out of elements within that preceding culture. There were also other industries in the region, such as theMushabian culture of theNegev and theSinai Peninsula, which are sometimes distinguished from the Kebaran culture or believed to have been involved in the evolution of the Natufian culture.
More generally there has been discussion of the similarities of these cultures with those found in coastal North Africa. Graeme Barker notes there are: "similarities in the respective archaeological records of the Natufian culture of the Levant and of contemporary foragers in coastal North Africa across thelate Pleistocene and early Holocene boundary".[13] According to Isabelle De Groote and Louise Humphrey, Natufians practiced theIberomaurusian andCapsian custom of sometimes extracting theirmaxillary central incisors (upper front teeth).[14]
Ofer Bar-Yosef has argued that there are signs of influences coming from North Africa to the Levant, citing themicroburin technique and "microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points."[15] But recent research has shown that the presence of arched backed bladelets, La Mouillah points, and the use of the microburin technique was already apparent in the Nebekian industry of the Eastern Levant.[16] And Maher et al. state that, "Many technological nuances that have often been always highlighted as significant during the Natufian were already present during the Early and Middle EP [Epipalaeolithic] and do not, in most cases, represent a radical departure in knowledge, tradition, or behavior."[17]
Authors such asChristopher Ehret have built upon the little evidence available to develop scenarios of intensive usage of plants having built up first in North Africa, as a precursor to the development of true farming in theFertile Crescent, but such suggestions are considered highly speculative until more North African archaeological evidence can be gathered.[18][19] In fact, Weiss et al. have shown that the earliest known intensive usage of plants was in the Levant 23,000 years ago atOhalo II on the shores of theSea of Galilee byKinneret.[20][21][22]
AnthropologistC. Loring Brace (1993) cross-analysed the craniometric traits of Natufian specimens with those of various ancient and modern groups from the Near East, Africa and Europe. The Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic Natufian sample was described as problematic due to its small size (consisting of only three males and one female), as well as the lack of a comparative sample from the Natufians' putative descendants in the Neolithic Near East, such as the PPNB. Nonetheless, Brace observed that the Natufian fossils lay between those of theNiger–Congo-speaking series included and the other samples (Near East, Europe), which he suggested may point to a Sub-Saharan influence in their constitution.[23] Subsequentancient DNA analysis of Natufian skeletal remains by Lazaridis et al. (2016) instead found that the specimens were a mix of 50%Basal Eurasian ancestral component (seeGenetics) and 50% West EurasianUnknown Hunter Gatherer (UHG) related to thewestern hunter-gatherers of Europe.[24] Natufians have also been described by other anthropologists as a Proto-Mediterranean population, being similar to the Kebarans.[25][26][27]
According to Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, "It seems that certain preadaptive traits, developed already by the Kebaran and Geometric Kebaran populations within theMediterranean park forest, played an important role in the emergence of the new socioeconomic system known as the Natufian culture."[28]
_rectilinear_structure_atop_Epipalaeolithic_1A_(13%2c300-12%2c800_cal_BP)_pit_dwellings_in_the_foreground._Abu_Hureyra%2c_Syria.jpg)
_pit_dwellings_showing_a_person_seated_on_the_open_bench_area_in_the_foreground._Abu_Hureyra%2c_Syria.jpg)
Settlements occur mostly inIsrael and the Palestinian territories. This could be deemed the core zone of the Natufian culture, but Israel is a place that has been excavated more frequently than other places hence the greater number of sites.[30] During the years more sites have been found outside the core zone of Israel and the Palestinian territories stretching into what now isSyria,Lebanon,Jordan, theSinai Peninsula and theNegev desert.[30] The settlements in the Natufian culture were larger and more permanent than in preceding ones. Some Natufian sites had stone built architecture;Ain Mallaha is an example of round stone structures.[31] Cave sites are also seen frequently during the Natufian culture.El Wad is a Natufian cave site with occupation in the front part of the cave also called the terrace.[32] Some Natufian sites were located in forest/steppe areas and others near inland mountains. The Natufian settlements appear to be the first to exhibit evidence of food storage; not all Natufian sites have storage facilities, but they have been identified at certain sites.[33] Natufians are also suggested to have visitedCyprus, requiring travel over significant distances of water.[34]
The Natufian had amicrolithic industry centered on shortblades and bladelets. Themicroburin technique was used. Geometric microliths includelunates, trapezes, and triangles. There are backed blades as well. A special type ofretouch (Helwan retouch) is characteristic for the early Natufian. In the late Natufian, the Harif-point, a typicalarrowhead made from a regular blade, became common in theNegev. Some scholars[who?] use it to define a separate culture, theHarifian.
Sickle blades also appear for the first time in the Natufian lithic industry. The characteristicsickle-gloss shows that they were used to cut thesilica-rich stems of cereals, indirectly suggesting the existence of incipient agriculture. Shaft straighteners made ofground stone indicate the practice ofarchery. There are heavy ground-stone bowlmortars as well.
TheAin Sakhri lovers, a carved stone object held at theBritish Museum, is the oldest known depiction of a couple having sex. It was found in the Ain Sakhri cave in theJudean desert.[35]
Natufiangrave goods are typically made of shell, teeth (ofred deer), bones, and stone. There are pendants, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and belt-ornaments as well.
In 2008, the 12,400–12,000 cal BC grave of an apparently significant Natufian female was discovered in a ceremonial pit in theHilazon Tachtit cave in northern Israel.[36] Media reports referred to this person as a "shaman".[37] The burial contained the remains of at least threeaurochs and 86 tortoises, all of which are thought to have been brought to the site during a funeral feast. The body was surrounded by tortoise shells, the pelvis of aleopard, forearm of aboar, a wingtip of agolden eagle, and skull of abeech marten.[38][39]
At Ain Mallaha (in Northern Israel), Anatolianobsidian and shellfish from theNile valley have been found. The source ofmalachite beads is still unknown.Epipaleolithic Natufians carriedparthenocarpicfigs fromAfrica to the southeastern corner of theFertile Crescent,c. 10,000 BC.[40]
There was a richbone industry, includingharpoons andfish hooks. Stone and bone were worked into pendants and other ornaments. There are a few human figurines made oflimestone (El-Wad, Ain Mallaha, Ain Sakhri), but the favorite subject of representative art seems to have been animals. Ostrich-shell containers have been found in theNegev.
In 2018, the world's oldest brewery was found, with the residue of 13,000-year-old beer, in a prehistoric cave nearHaifa in Israel when researchers were looking for clues into what plant foods the Natufian people were eating. This is 8,000 years earlier than experts previously thought beer was produced.[41]
A study published in 2019 shows an advanced knowledge of lime plaster production at a Natufian cemetery in Nahal Ein Gev II site in the Upper Jordan Valley dated to 12 thousand (calibrated) years before present [k cal BP]. Production of plaster of this quality was previously thought to have been achieved some 2,000 years later.[42]
The Natufian people lived by hunting and gathering. The preservation of plant remains is poor because of the soil conditions, but at some sites such asTell Abu Hureyra substantial amounts of plant remains discovered throughflotation have been excavated.[43] However wild cereals likelegumes,almonds,acorns andpistachios have been collected throughout most of theLevant. Animal bones show thatmountain andgoitered gazelles (Gazella gazella andGazella subgutturosa) were the main prey.
Additionally,deer,aurochs andwild boar were hunted in thesteppe, as well asonagers and caprids (ibex). Waterfowl and freshwater fish formed part of the diet in the Jordan river valley. Animal bones from Salibiya I (12,300 – 10,800 cal BP) have been interpreted as evidence for communal hunts with nets, however, the radiocarbon dates are far too old compared to the cultural remains of this settlement, indicating contamination of the samples.[44]
A pita-like bread has been found from 12,500 BC attributed to Natufians. This bread is made of wild cereal seeds and papyrus cousin tubers, ground into flour.[45]
According to one theory,[37] it was a sudden change inclimate, theYounger Dryas event (c. 10,800 to 9500 BC), which inspired thedevelopment of agriculture in the region. The Younger Dryas was a 1,000-year-long interruption in the higher temperatures prevailing since theLast Glacial Maximum, which produced a sudden drought in the Levant. This would have endangered the wild cereals, which could no longer compete with dryland scrub, but upon which the population had become dependent to sustain a relatively large sedentary population. By artificially clearing scrub and planting seeds obtained from elsewhere, they began to practice agriculture. However, this theory of the origin of agriculture is controversial in the scientific community.[46]
At the Natufian site ofʿAin Mallaha in Israel, dated to 12,000 BC, the remains of an elderly human and a four-to-five-month-old puppy were found buried together.[47] At another Natufian site at the cave of Hayonim, humans were found buried with two canids.[47]
Ancient DNA analysis of Natufian skeletal remains found that the Natufian ancestry could be modelled as a mix of about 50%Basal Eurasian ancestry and 50% from a West-Eurasian Unknown Hunter Gatherer (UHG) population, which was related to thewestern hunter-gatherer group of MesolithicEurope.[24] Vallini et al. (2024) modeled the amount of Basal Eurasian ancestry among Natufians at roughly 15%, with the remainder being associated with West Eurasian sources.[49]
The Natufian population also displays ancestral ties to PaleolithicTaforalt samples, the makers of the EpipaleolithicIberomaurusian culture of theMaghreb, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture of the Levant, the Early NeolithicIfri N'Amr Ou Moussa and the Late Neolithic Kelif el Boroud culture of North Africa, with samples associated with these early cultures all sharing a common genomic component dubbed the "Natufian component", which diverged from other West Eurasian lineages ~26,000 years ago, and is most closely linked to the Arabian lineage. Possible bidirectional geneflow events between these groups has also been suggested, with particular evidence for affinity between the Natufians and Iberomaurusians.[50][51] Taforalt individuals belonged to theY-DNA haplogroupE1b1b1a1 (M78), which is closely related to the E1b1b1b (M123) sublineage that has been observed in skeletal remains belonging to the Epipaleolithic Natufian andPre-Pottery Neolithic cultures of theLevant, possibly suggesting geneflow.[52]
Contact between Natufians, otherNeolithic Levantines, Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG), Anatolian and Iranian farmers is believed to have decreasedgenetic variability among later populations in the Middle East. Migrations from the Near-East also occurred towards Africa, and the West Eurasian geneflow into theHorn of Africa is best represented by the Levant Neolithic, and may be associated with the spread ofAfroasiatic languages. The scientists suggest that the Levantine early farmers may have spread southward into East Africa, bringing along the associated ancestral components.[53] Lazaridis et al. (2016) did not find a greater genetic affinity between Natufians and modern sub-Saharan Africans than that existing between modern-day sub-Saharan Africans and other ancient populations of Western Eurasia, and also stated that the ancestry of a primitive population from North Africa could not be tested because modern North Africans are largely descended from late migrant populations from Eurasia.[54][55] However, Daniel Shriner (2018), using modern populations as a reference, found 28% autosomal African ancestry in Natufian samples, with 21.2% related to North Africa and 6.8% related toOmotic-speaking populations in southern Ethiopia, which reveals a plausible source forhaplogroup E in Natufians; still according to Shriner, the Natufian samples had 61.2% ancestry related to Arabs and 10.8% ancestry related to West Asians.[56]
As summarized by Rosa Fregel (2021), a later preprint from Lazaridis et al. (2018) has contested Loosdrecht's conclusion and argues for a minor sub-Saharan African component in Natufians, stating "that [the Iberomaurusians of] Taforalt can be better modeled as a mixture of a Dzudzuana component and a sub-Saharan African component" (or an ancient and now-extinct North African component that diverged prior to the Out-of-Africa migration) and "also argue that (...) the Taforalt people (...) contributed to the genetic composition of Natufians and not the other way around", which, according to Lazaridis et al., would be consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a dissemination of morphological characteristics and artifacts from North Africa to the Near East, as well as explaining the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in Natufians and Levantine farmers. Fregel summarizes that "More evidence will be needed to determine the specific origin of the North African Upper Paleolithic populations".[57][58] Later, Iosif Lazardis documented that the Natufians had a total of 9.1% non-Eurasian ancestry, and the explanation by the geneticist was because of their partial descent from the Paleolithic Iberomaurusians, whose contributions were estimated at 22% in Natufians. In fact, a total of 41.4% non-Eurasian ancestry is present in Taforalt from Morocco.[59]
A study in 2025 by researchers from theMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology inLeipzig sequenced two individuals fromTakarkori (7,000 YBP), and discovered that most of their ancestry was from an unknown ancestral North African lineage, related to the non-Eurasian admixture component found in Iberomaurusians and Natufians. The study concluded that the Takarkori people derive 93% of their ancestry from an unknown population native to North Africa that diverged there before the Out-of-Africa migration that gave rise to Eurasians, but never left Africa and became mostly isolated (both from sub-Saharan African and Eurasian groups).[60] According to the study, the Takarkori people were distinct, both from contemporary sub-Saharan Africans and from non-Africans/Eurasians, and had "only a minor component of non-African ancestry" but did "not carry sub-Saharan African ancestry, suggesting that, contrary to previous interpretations, the Green Sahara was not a corridor connecting Northern and sub-Saharan Africa."[61]
In their 2017 paper,Ranajit Das,Paul Wexler,Mehdi Pirooznia andEran Elhaik analyzed the Lazaridis et al. (2016) study concluding that the Natufians, together with one Neolithic Levantine sample, clustered in the proximity to modernPalestinians andBedouins, and also "marginally overlapped" withYemenite Jews.[62] Ferreira et al. (2021) and Almarri et al. (2021) found that ancient Natufians cluster with modern Arabian groups, such asSaudi Arabians andYemenis, which derive most of their ancestry from local Natufian-like hunter-gatherer peoples and have less Neolithic Anatolian ancestry than Levantines.[63][64] Sirak et al. (2024) found that medievalSocotra (theSoqotri people), similar to modern Saudis, Yemenis and Bedouins, have a majority component that is "maximized in Late Pleistocene (Epipaleolithic) Natufian hunter–gatherers from the Levant".[65]
Alexander Militarev,Vitaly Shevoroshkin and others have linked the Natufian culture to theproto-Afroasiatic language,[66][67] which they in turn believe has a Levantine origin. Some scholars, for exampleChristopher Ehret,Roger Blench and others, contend that theProto-Afroasiatic homeland is to be found inNorth Africa orNortheast Africa, probably in the area ofEgypt, theSahara,Horn of Africa orSudan.[68][69][70][71] Within this group, Ehret, who like Militarev believes Afroasiatic may already have been in existence in the Natufian period, would associate Natufians only with theNear EasternProto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic.[72]
John Bengtson documented that archeological and physical anthropological evidence showed Natufians are closely related to modern Semitic-speaking people from the Levant. Under his hypothesis, Afro-Asiatic branches originated in North Africa proper (Egypt), and the age of these languages can be dated to the periods of the Natufian culture around ~12,000 years ago. He postulated this based on the biological discontinuity between Pleistocene and Holocene North Africa, where there was population replacement and admixture in this region involving external migrants from northern areas, who were the ancestral Afro-Asiatic speakers.[73]
The Natufian culture has been documented at dozens of sites. Around 90 have been excavated, including:[74]
The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East... the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic)
supplementary data 1-15; 11
However, a preprint from Lazaridis et al. (2018) has contested this conclusion based on new evidence from Paleolithic samples from the Dzudzuana site in Georgia (25,000 years BCE). When these samples are considered in the analysis, Taforalt can be better modeled as a mixture of a Dzudzuana component and a sub-Saharan African component. They also argue that it is the Taforalt people who contributed to the genetic composition of Natufians and not the other way around. More evidence will be needed to determine the specific origin of the North African Upper Paleolithic populations, but the presence of an ancestral U6 lineage in the Dzudzuana people is consistent with this population being related to the back migration to Africa.
Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources. ... and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional 'Deep' ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.
A likely explanation is the partial derivation of the Natufians from Paleolithic Iberomaurusian (48) North African-related ancestors as suggested in (49) Indeed, the average proportion of this component in all Natufian individuals (including those for which it is less than the detection threshold of 10%) is 9.1%, while in Taforalt from Morocco it is 41.4%, thus suggesting ~22% of North African influence, similar to the ~27% inferred using an admixture graph framework in (49)
Modern Saudi Arabian and Yemeni samples clustered tightly, overlapping with the three Natufian samples, and were close to the Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and C (PPNB and PPNC) and Levant Bronze Age samples.
Syria topics | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
.svg)
