Who were the Natufians?

The Natufians (15,000–11,500 years BP.) were hunter-gatherers, but they practiced semi-sedentism and proto-agriculture. They foraged wild cereals and hunted gazelles but did not cultivate crops or domesticate animals. Unlike earlier groups, they built permanent stone dwellings and stored surplus grain, showing early steps toward farming. Their sickle blades suggest intensive harvesting of wild plants. While not full-fledged farmers, their lifestyle set the stage for the Neolithic Revolution (~10,000 BCE) and the transition to agriculture. 🌾

The Natufians: An African People in the Ancient Levant

The Natufians (who lived approximately 15,000–11,500 years ago) were a mainly African population that had migrated into and settled in Southwest Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, and the Upper Euphrates (northern Iraq). Specifically, The Natufians were primarily an African-descended population, carrying East African and North African paternal and maternal lineages, alongside contributions from local Levantine hunter-gatherers. They were neither European nor Asian, as these geographic constructs did not exist at the time—in fact, the idea of “Europe” and “Asia” as separate entities only emerged with the Ionian Greeks in the 6th century BCE.

These populations carried mainly African paternal lineages, as the majority of Y-DNA studied belonged to E-M78 and E-M35, both of which originated in East Africa and the Eastern Sahara, according the results of Laziridis et al [1]. According to Cruciani et al. [2], E-M78 and E-M35 were already widespread in North Africa, the Eastern Sahara, and the Nile Valley between 23,900–5,900 years ago, well before the emergence of Indo-European groups. Cruciani’s work explicitly states that E-M78 originated in “Northeastern Africa” with a migration corridor between East Africa and North Africa, reinforcing its indigenous African status.

The mtDNA lineages found in the Natufians—N, U6, and M1—also trace back to Africa, with U6 and M1 being distinctly North African markers. These lineages further support the African origins of the majority of the Natufian population, confirming that their maternal ancestry was also rooted in populations that had dispersed from East and Northeast Africa before settling in the Levant.

The balance of the Natufian population composition came from other haplogroups of dark-skinned Levantine hunter-gatherers. 

Cultural Practices

This aligns with archaeological evidence identifying the influence of North Africans on Natufian culture such as dental ablation, Mushabian tradition, alongside Kebaran culture. 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 the late Pleistocene and early Holocene boundary”.[3] According to Isabelle De Groote and Louise Humphrey, Natufians practiced the Iberomaurusian and Capsian custom of sometimes extracting their maxillary central incisors (upper front teeth).[4]

Craniometric Assessments 

Anthropologist C. 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. Brace observed that the Natufian fossils lay between those of the Niger–Congo-speakingseries included and the other samples (Near East, Europe), which he suggested may point to a Sub-Saharan influence in their constitution.[5]

Trade And Material Culture

At Ain Mallaha (in Northern Israel), a separate team found parthenocarpic figs from Africa to the southeastern corner of the Fertile Crescent, c. 10,000 BC [6], and shellfish from the Nile valley implying either long distance exchange or long distance trade; while Anatolian obsidian and malachite of unknown origin was also found. 

Malachite, a copper carbonate mineral used since antiquity, was sourced across Afro-Eurasia. In Africa, major deposits were found in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sinai Peninsula, and Nubia. The Timna Valley in southern Israel also supplied malachite to ancient Egyptians. In Europe, notable sources included Cyprus (especially for Roman use), Serbia, and the Ural Mountains in Russia. In Asia, Iran’s Anarak region and parts of Central Asia provided malachite, often linked to early metallurgy and decorative use. The Sinai peninsula and Nubia are the closest land-route sources of supplying malachite to epipaleolithic Israel. 

Three of four objects traded by long distance to the Natufians sites therefore had a “more probable than not” African origin. 

Autosomal Genetic Studies: Looking At 99.5% of Ancestry

A later study by 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 to Omotic-speaking populations in southern Ethiopia, which reveals a plausible source for haplogroup E in Natufians. Whereas still according to Shriner, the Natufian samples had 61.2% ancestry related to Arabs and 10.8% ancestry related to West Asians.[7] In contrast to Y-DNA and mtDNA which accounts for a total of 0.5% of ancestry, autosomal DNA accounts for 99.5% total ancestry, therefore the study by Shriner is therefore significant.

Paternal Y-DNA and Maternal Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Genetic Studies: Looking At 0.5% Of Ancestry

A later study by Lazim et al. 2020 found that Arabs and Mesopotamians came from East Africa, and North Africa according to all migration routes. A 2020 genetic study by Lazim et al. analyzed 254 Iraqi males using Y-STR markers, and what did they find? They ran multiple migration models to trace gene flow, and every single model pointed to an East African origin of gene flow into Iraq, with the Levantine corridor as the primary route. This means that Iraq’s genetic roots aren’t “West Asian” in the way you think—they’re African. Here’s the direct quote:

“The migration models demonstrated that gene flow to Iraq began from East Africa, with the Levantine corridor the most probable passageway out of Africa.” (Lazim et al., 2020). [8]

Despite this overwhelming genetic evidence, researchers of the 2016 Lazaridis et al. have imposed misleading social constructs onto the Natufian genome, labeling them as “Basal Eurasian” or “North African.” These terms are anachronistic and flawed because, at the time, there was no concept of “Eurasia” as separate from Africa. The Natufians were not European, nor were they the Near Eastern populations that later emerged under Persian rule—the latter of which, according to Haber et al., carried 51.6% Chalcolithic Iranian ancestry and over 48.4% Neolithic Levantine ancestry.

Lazaridis et al. (2016) classified Natufians under ‘Basal Eurasian’ and ‘Unknown Western Eurasian hunter-gatherer’ labels, but failed to acknowledge that their dominant Y-DNA (E-M35) is unambiguously of East African origin.

Furthermore, the Indo-European language family and its associated populations did not arrive in the Levant until after 1800 BCE (3,800 years ago). Linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence confirms that the Indo-European migrations into the region occurred thousands of years after the Natufians lived, making it impossible for them to have been related to later Indo-European-speaking peoples.

The work of Cruciani et al. makes it abundantly clear that the genetic labels used by Lazaridis et al. (2016) are misleading, as they project modern social constructs onto prehistoric African-related populations. The Natufians were African settlers in the Levant, carrying African paternal and maternal lineages, and they played a crucial role in the transition to proto-agriculture in the region—long before any European or Asian groups were present.

The study by Lazaridis claims there was no affinity to Sub-Sahara Africa even though E1b1b1 and E1b1b indisputably originated from, and has been continuously present in, Sub-Sahara Africa. 

Though 100% competent and significant, Lazaridis et al. Continues the either unconscious or conscious hostility of Flinders Petrie and James Breasted to the word “African”. 

Skin Pigmentation Studies 

The Natufians were dark-skinned hunter-gatherers, not Indo-Europeans, not Europeans and not Asians in the sense that this term carried genetic, linguistic and cultural meaning after the 6th century BCE. 

Overwhelming evidence from 🔬 genetics, even ancient Europeans (Neolithic Europeans, Mesolithic Europeans, and Paleolithic Europeans) had dark skin until 3,000 Years Ago. 

According to Nina Jablonski’s research, depigmentation in human populations is primarily driven by reduced UV exposure in northern latitudes, which necessitates higher vitamin D synthesis. Selective pressure favored individuals with lighter skin, as melanin blocks UVB, reducing vitamin D production. Additional factors include genetic mutations in pigmentation genes (e.g., SLC24A5, SLC45A2, MC1R), dietary changes reducing vitamin D intake, and sexual selection favoring lighter skin in some populations. These processes occurred gradually over thousands of years after migrations out of Africa. Evolutionary pressure was therefore higher in Europe than the Levant and the Near East. 

👉🏿 A University of Ferrara study analyzing 348 ancient genomes confirms that most Europeans had dark skin, dark eyes, and dark hair until about 1,700–3,000 years ago.

👉🏿 Ötzi the Iceman (5,300 years old) and La Braña Man (8,000 years old) both had dark skin and blue eyes, proving that white skin was a very recent genetic development in Europe.

The Natufian Legacy: A Complex Influence on Early Civilizations

While Ötzi the Iceman (5,300 years old) and La Braña Man (8,000 years old) confirm that depigmentation was a recent evolutionary change, the Natufians represent an earlier chapter in human adaptation and cultural evolution. However, to understand their significance, we must avoid oversimplifications and outdated “heroic origin” models that wrongly attribute singular discoveries—such as agriculture or permanent settlements—to a single group.

The Natufians were not the first to build permanent settlements. In fact, evidence from Sudan suggests that semi-permanent and even fully settled communities existed as far back as 70,000 years ago. The Natufians did, however, establish the earliest known large-scale settled villages in the Levant, marking an important regional shift toward permanent habitation in Southwest Asia. This was significant for the later Neolithic societies of the Levant and Mesopotamia, but it was not a globally unique event.

Similarly, while the Natufians engaged in proto-agriculture, managing and intensively harvesting wild cereals, they were not the sole inventors of farming. The latest archaeological research confirms that agriculture emerged independently in multiple regions, not solely in the so-called “Fertile Crescent.” African agriculture saw early domestication of sorghum, millet, yams, and oil palm, while the Americas cultivated maize, beans, potatoes, and cacao. In Asia, rice, millet, and taro were independently domesticated. The Natufians contributed to early agrarian practices in the Levant, but their methods were part of a broader global transformation, not its singular origin.

The Natufians’ material culture, however, did have a distinctive impact on later populations. Their ground stone tools, used for grain processing, were later refined by Neolithic farmers in the region. Their elaborate burial traditions, including red ochre use and grave goods, reflect early social differentiation, a pattern that reappears in later civilizations. Yet, these practices were not unique to the Natufians—similar burial rites are found in both North Africa and Iberomaurusian cultures.

One of their most fascinating cultural links is their dental modification practices. Natufian dental ablation—the removal of upper front teeth—closely mirrors the customs of Iberomaurusian and Capsian North Africans. This suggests an interconnected cultural sphere between Northeast Africa and the Levant, reinforcing the African origins of key Natufian populations.

The genetic legacy of the Natufians further challenges simplistic narratives. The fact that most Natufian men carried African paternal Y-DNA (like E-M78 and E-M35) confirms their origins in Northeast Africa. Yet, modern classifications such as “Basal Eurasian” or Unknown Western Eurasian Hunter Gatherer attempt to redefine these African-descended populations under Eurocentric constructs, ignoring the continuity between the Natufians and earlier Saharan and Nilotic populations. The work of Cruciani et al. proves that E-M78 and E-M35 had already been circulating in Northeast Africa, the Eastern Sahara, and North Africa for thousands of years before the Natufians emerged.

Additionally, the linguistic implications of their existence remain under-explored. According to work by Christopher Ehret, the Natufians likely spoke an early form of Afroasiatic, which developed in Africa and later spread through the Levant and into Mesopotamia [9]. Their role in the transmission of agricultural and cultural innovations may have influenced crops adopted by early Semitic and Egyptian-speaking populations, creating a bidirectional bridge between African and Levantine societies long before the Indo-European expansions.

Rethinking Origins: Beyond Eurocentric Frameworks

The Natufian case invites us to rethink the frameworks through which we interpret early human history. Rather than forcing prehistoric populations into modern constructs of “Middle Eastern,” “European,” or “Asian,” the evidence calls for a more fluid, Afro-centered lens that recognizes Africa as not just the origin of humanity, but also a driver of cultural and technological innovation across continents. By acknowledging the African genetic and cultural presence in the Levant, we move beyond outdated heroic-origin myths and toward a more honest, interconnected story of human development.

Though they were not Indo-European, not European, and not Asian in the later sense of these categories, the Natufians contributed to regional developments that would shape the future civilizations of the Levant and Southwest Asia. Their impact was regional, not global, and they existed alongside other independent cultures that were making similar advances elsewhere. Their role in early agrarian transitions was significant, but not singular, and they must be understood within the broader mosaic of early human innovations across Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

Citations 

[1] Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (17 June 2016). “The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers”. bioRxiv 10.1101/059311. – Table S6.1 – Y-chromosome haplogroups

[2] Cruciani, F., La Fratta, R., Trombetta, B., Santolamazza, P., Sellitto, D., Colomb, E. B., et al. (2007). Tracing past human male movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New clues from Y-chromosomal haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24(6), 1300–1311. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm049

[3] Barker G (2002) Transitions to farming and pastoralism in North Africa, in Bellwood P, Renfrew C (2002), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, pp. 151–161.

[4] De Groote, Isabelle; Humphrey, Louise T. (22 August 2016). “Characterizing evulsion in the Later Stone Age Maghreb: Age, sex and effects on mastication” (PDF). Quaternary International. 413: 50–61. Bibcode:2016QuInt.413…50D. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.082. ISSN 1040-6182. S2CID 130343302.

[5] Brace, C. Loring; et al. (2006). “The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form”. PNAS. 103 (1): 242–247. Bibcode:2006PNAS..103..242B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509801102. PMC 1325007. PMID 16371462. “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)”

[6] Kislev, ME; Hartmann, A; Bar-Yosef, O (2006). “Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley”. Science. 312 (5778): 1372–1374. Bibcode:2006Sci…312.1372K. doi:10.1126/science.1125910. PMID 16741119. S2CID 42150441.

[7] Shriner, Daniel (2018). “Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity”. Frontiers in Genetics. 9: 268.

[8] Lazim, H., Almohammed, E.K., Hadi, S. et al. (2020). Population genetic diversity in an Iraqi population and gene flow across the Arabian Peninsula. Sci Rep 10, 15289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72283-1

[9] Christopher Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia