Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2026 May 26;16:25257. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-54740-5

Natufian sickle blades (ca. 15,000–11,700 cal. BP) reveal cereal cultivation ca. 4.5 millennia before domestication

Iris Groman-Yaroslavski 1,✉, Tamar Krugman 2, Anna Belfer-Cohen 3, Reuven Yeshurun 4, Leore Grosman 3, Daniel Kaufman 4, Katerina Barshay 1, Maria Piliponsky 1, Jacob Vardi 5, Itay Abadi 3,6, Mina Weinstein-Evron 4
PMCID: PMC13470271  PMID: 42192189

Abstract

This study reveals a hitherto undocumented cereal procurement strategy employed during the Late Epipaleolithic Natufian culture of the Southern Levant, from ca. 4.5 to 1 millennia before systematic crop cultivation and domestication are identified in archaeological records. A comprehensive microscopic use-wear analysis of flint sickle blades from the sites of el-Wad Terrace and Salibiya I detected patterns generated by the harvest of semi-ripe and ripe cereals that are attributed to the shattering mechanism of cereals. Many sickle blades also featured traces of stripping, shown by our experiments to act as a threshing operation that removes the spikelets and extracts the grains. Based on observations of current wild cereal fields and experimental harvesting, we reconstruct a protracted harvest that begins in mid-spring, when cereals are semi-ripe, and continues to the very late spring, when unshattered specimens with yellow-dry stems are targeted. We argue that cereal harvesting was an intensive and well-organized enterprise. It was based on a deep and intimate understanding of the shattering mechanism of cereals, where mixed stands were harvested, similar to those prevalent in many places in the Levant today, with plants of various properties, including early or late shattering or non-shattering cereals. The Natufian groups were aware of this mixture, exploited it for planning their harvest strategy, and used it to replenish storages. This was a form of early cultivation where it was necessary to ensure minimal seed loss and stock seed reserves for sowing next year’s fields.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-026-54740-5.

Subject terms: Ecology, Ecology, Plant sciences

Introduction

The late Epipaleolithic Natufian culture of the Levant spanned about three millennia during the terminal Pleistocene epoch (ca. 15,000–11,700 cal. BP). Its early phase predates systematic crop cultivation and domestication characteristic of the following Neolithic period by ca. 4.5 millennia1. Nevertheless, it featured numerous traits that seem to have anticipated the crystallization of Neolithic agriculture2,3. This is the earliest cultural entity known to practice sedentism. The appearance of relatively large sites with durable architecture, rich artistic repertoire, the presence of commensal animals, intensified and diverse hunting patterns, and cemeteries exhibiting elaborate burial customs, all reflect a sedentary hunter-gatherer adaptation on the threshold of agriculture3–9. Occasional evidence of storage installations10,11, hewn bedrock features and ground stone assemblages, richer and more numerous than those of any previous prehistoric Levantine entity12,13, attest to the rise of a more sedentary lifestyle. This is also the time when flint sickle blades become a regular component of the local flint tool assemblages, attesting to the practice of sickle harvesting, with rare examples of Natufian sickle blades still attached to bone-made hafts14–16.

Sickle blades were widely regarded as a Natufian innovation, although rare occurrences are reported from earlier Epipaleolithic assemblages17,18, and conceived as a momentous technological breakthrough tied to early cereal cultivation19–21. In recent years, however, scholars dismissed this hypothesis because of the scarcity of supporting archaeobotanical evidence. Late Epipaleolithic cereal finds in south Levantine sites comprise a few wild barley, oat, and wheat grains from Hayonim Cave and Terrace22,23, el-Wad Terrace24,25, Raqefet Cave26, and Wadi Hammeh 2727. Also, in the Northern Levant they are quite rare28–30. Unique finds comprise a bread-like product reported from Shubayqa 1, associated with a large and diverse botanical assemblage that included a few cereal grains31, and the possible use of cereals for the production of beer in stone mortars at Raqefet Cave32. All in all, there is little data to be considered anything more than random, episodic occurrences in the otherwise extensive Natufian archaeological record.

Consequently, it has been occasionally suggested that the Natufian sickle blades may have been used for harvesting other plants, such as reeds and sedges, or that cereal collection was aimed instead at other forms of gathering and processing, such as straw for construction, craft, or fuel33–37. These suggestions have been reinforced by the appearance of Natufian sickle blades in low frequency compared to the Neolithic35, and recurring indications that Natufian ground stone tools have been used not only for processing cereals38–40 but also for a wide range of other substances, including ochre41, hides42,43, various wild plants, legumes, sedges, and small-seeded grasses42,44,45. With the appearance of domestic morphotypes in the archaeological record from the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB; 10,800–10,300 cal. BP) and beyond46 it seems much safer to assume that these glossy artifacts were used for cereal harvesting and in some way played a role in the process of their domestication47–49.

The present study, based on the use-wear analysis of an unprecedentedly large sample of Natufian sickle blades, approached the question of Natufian cereal harvesting through an independent proxy. Use-wear analysis is a high-resolution inspection of wear on the working edges of tools and the correlation of this wear with specifiable motions and materials. For sickle blades, the most distinctive traces comprise a type of surface polish produced by the abrasive action of cereal cutting50–52. Studying this polish can disclose various aspects of cereal harvesting: the types of plants that were harvested, the manner and the intensity at which the harvest was conducted, the construction of the harvesting tools, the effect of tilling the fields and the condition of the harvested cereals, including their ripeness and the height at which they were cut33,53–65.

We studied 158 sickle blades from two Natufian sites, el-Wad Terrace (EWT) and Salibiya I (SI) and conducted cereal harvesting experiments using 22 sickle replicas. These harvesting experiments addressed mainly the distinction between use-wear generated by cutting the cereals in semi-ripe and ripe conditions and the attribution of the resulting wear patterns to the cereals’ shattering mechanism47–49,66,67.

The differences in the characteristics of the use-wear polish are quite prominent and may be defined through the qualitative method using the metallurgical microscope and in recent year these differences were defined successful by the application of the quantitative method using the confocal microscope68–71. Past analyses have indicated that ripe cereal harvesting becomes dominant during the PPNB, which is consistent with the cultivation of domesticated non-shattering cereals72–74. By contrast, Natufian sickle blades featured use-wear patterns generated primarily by harvesting semi-ripe cereals, which corresponds to the view that cereal domestication and the exploitation of non-shattering morphotypes is later60,75–77. This position was challenged from an agronomic viewpoint by questioning the quality of cereals harvested in a semi-ripe condition78, but a growing number of qualitative and quantitative analyses, and especially experiments, have verified this variation in the use-wear observed on archaeological tools53,68,69,75, therefore it cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, data obtained from use-wear analyses is especially important for investigating the earliest evidence of cereal harvesting because archaeobotanical methods of measuring the proportions of abscission scar type (smooth vs. torn) or using grain size indicators, cannot be applied79–81. The present study therefore breaks new ground in the understanding of Natufian harvesting strategies and behavior by examining use-wear produced by a harvest of semi-ripe and ripe cereals acting as an indicator for the prevalence of early or late shattering or non-shattering morphotypes. Our results provide new, hitherto unobserved data, including unique wear patterns undocumented before that were overlooked quite likely because of too small sample sizes. Our experiments also provided functional explanations of the complexity of the Natufian harvesting based on the detected patterns, paving the way for new insights about the manner and extent of harvesting and the collection of grains.

Natufian sites and sickle blades

The Natufian sites from which the sickle blades for the current research were obtained are located well within the Southern Levant, where some of the earliest evidence of Neolithic cereal domestication and farming was documented46. These sites differ from each other in every aspect and, therefore, provide a unique platform for examining the Natufian cereal economy.

The site of el-Wad Terrace is located on the western slope of the Mount Carmel ridge, in the Mediterranean climate region82–84. The site includes a large cave and an adjacent terrace. This major base camp exhibits one of the most complete sequences of Natufian culture, dating to ca. 15,000–12,000 cal BP, including the Early (EN) and Late (LN) Natufian phases84. The front chambers of the cave and the central terrace underwent large-scale excavation by D.A.E. Garrod in 1929–1933, who defined the unique character of Natufian culture19,85. Further excavations were later conducted on both the terrace86 and in the cave87. The materials studied here come from the recent excavations conducted by M. Weinstein-Evron, D. Kaufman, and R. Yeshurun at the northeastern part of the terrace on behalf of the University of Haifa. The renewed excavation uncovered a rich and well-dated sequence of Natufian habitations84,88. The lower part of the EN occupation, dated to 14,950–13,820 cal BP, displays significant architectural remains, including dwelling remains and associated heaps and activity locales9,88,89. The LN occupation on site is dated to ca. 13,765–12,135 cal BP. The overlap between the EN and LN calibrated ranges likely stems from some movement of charcoals along the stratigraphy, especially in the EN-LN transition90.

The site yielded rich evidence of various everyday activities. The faunal assemblages attest to regular exploitation of a small ungulate, the mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella), and a diverse array of smaller game91–94. The EN and LN ground-stone assemblages include grinding stones as well as vessels and pestles, made mostly of basalt and less of limestone, showing consistency in forms, shapes, and raw materials, with no noticeable differences between the two phases95. The archaeobotanical assemblages include thousands of charred wood remains, especially varying abundances of evergreen and deciduous oak, as well as almond and buckthorn. Several hundred charred seeds represent mainly legumes and cereals of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum)25,96. The exploitation of local plant resources is further confirmed by the discovery, in the EN phase, of the earliest remains of the wild progenitor of faba bean97.

The site of Salibiya I was discovered in the course of a survey conducted in the region of Nahal Fazael and Kibbutz Na’aran during 1977–197898,99 and excavated in 1978 and 1989100,101. It is a single-phase site located at the low-lying Salibiya Basin in the arid southern Jordan Valley, at an elevation of 190–230 m bmsl, adjacent to other Natufian and PPNA sites102,103. The Epipaleolithic and PPNA sites begin to appear in fluvial or colluvial deposits99, chap5 above the soft lacustrine sediments of Lake Lisan. No direct radiocarbon dating related to Salibiya I was produced, but a nearby associated deposit provided dates that span a long period of ca. 9000 years99, p439. The detailed analysis of the Salibiya I flint assemblage104 confirmed the affiliation of the site to the LN, compared with similar assemblages from LN levels at Hayonim Cave and Terrace105,106, as well as at Eynan (Mallaha)107.

The site was estimated to exceed 1200 m2, and part of it has eroded into the Wadi Salibiya. Two main areas were excavated, one 1 × 1 m square area near the edge of the site, and one 2 × 2 m area at its center. The Natufian deposits reached a total depth of 95 cm and were subdivided into several distinct strata or interdigitated lenses, the lowermost exhibiting the most intensive occupation, although there were no unambiguous architectural features. Fragments of plaster, a section of puddled mud, and a concentration of small stones were recovered in the smaller edge area. A semi-circular concentration of artifacts and stones surrounded by a series of small, roughly circular areas of mud, exposed in the larger trench, suggested the possibility of a rudimentary structure100, p112. Other finds included two fragments of human bones, bone tools, bone and stone beads, shells, and a limestone fragment with an incised decorative pattern. A rich collection of animal bones indicates a wide range of animal species that were exploited. The vast majority of the fauna assemblage was of gazelle and other large mammals, such as wild boar, fallow deer, wild goat, and aurochs. Remains of smaller mammals, such as fox and hare, were recovered as well. Salibiya I was compared to Beidha, which was interpreted by Byrd108 to be a site of repeated short-term occupations over an extended period104. Based on the fauna distribution, it was suggested that Salibiya I was a repetitive seasonal macroband encampment, where inhabitants practiced intensive hunting mainly of gazelle and wild boar during a single season, relying intensively on gathering cereals and storing food100,109.

Results

All the sickle blades analyzed were found to bear use-wear consistent with cereal harvesting (Fig. 1), calling into question past claims that Natufian sickles were used for other purposes. Numerous sickle blades exhibit wide (< 4 mm), highly developed bands of polish along their edges (EWT, n = 34, 38%; SI, n = 35, 52%) exhibiting flat microtopography due to the continuous friction against the stems (Fig. 2a), indicating long-term use, compared to sickle blades exhibiting traces developed to a lower degree showing a more irregular microtopography (Fig. 2b). In our experiments we did not achieve such a developed polish, therefore we can estimate that the Natufian harvest clearly exceeded 10 h of work. Signs of re-sharpening and the application of retouch to strengthen the edges were also observed (EWT, n = 35; SI, n = 15), suggesting a level of maintenance during use, possibly associated with long harvests, perhaps even through several seasons.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Sickle blades from Salibiya I (a–f) and el-Wad Terrace (g–l), with the micrographs showing the cereal harvesting use-wear polish.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

2D micrograph captured by confocal microscope showing a wide height range of ca. 8 μm for wear developed to a low degree (a), compared to a low height range of 3 μm for wear developed to a high degree (b), with corresponding micrographs by reflected light metallurgical microscope (a1–2, b1–2).

The use-wear analysis detected patterns associated with two distinct but closely related activities: harvesting and, for the first time in the analysis of Natufian sickle blades, the action of stripping. Cereal harvesting use-wear consists of a smooth polish, which when developed to a low degree (Fig. 2b1–b2), appears partially linked, spreading in a reticular pattern with occasional domed surfaces that are the polished protruding surfaces of the natural topography of the flint (consequently showing high height variability as can be seen in the scan by the confocal microscope in Fig. 2b). When developed to a high degree (Fig. 2a1–a2), it appears flat (showing slight height differences in the confocal microscope scan in Fig. 2a), spreading as a band along the edge with no evidence of the natural surface of the flint and with a smooth rounded edge of the tool. Also indicative to cereal harvesting polish are the features resulting from the longitudinal, uni-directional pulling motion of the sickle (Fig. 3a), including comet-shaped pits (Fig. 3b) and long, shallow striations extending parallel to the working edge (Fig. 3c).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

The microscopic use-wear polish diagnostic of cereal harvesting observed on a sickle blade from Salibiya I (a), with focus on the comet-shaped pit (b) and striations (c) captured by scans by laser confocal microscope.

Stripping is a method used to separate the spikelets from the stem. Stripping with a sickle entails transversally shaving off the spikes (Fig. 4a, b). Until now, the task of stripping was known to be done by hand110 or with designated tools, such as the mesorias72,111, and through occasional use-wear studies that revealed this activity on a notched bone112–114 or a flint blade114. Past experimental examples51,56,114 align with the results of our experiments, showing that the most indicative stripping use-wear consists of polish characteristic to the contact with cereals and especially the striations extending perpendicular or sightly oblique to the working edge (Fig. 4c). However, when used in combination with harvesting, the stripping wear pattern is erased and the only indication to the stripping action are the perpendicular or slightly oblique striations along the edge (Fig. 4d–f). Twenty-seven blades of Early Natufian EWT (40%), one of the Late Natufian EWT (4%), and 36 of SI (53%) exhibited stripping use-wear (Fig. 5, Table 2). The perpendicular striations appear in various patterns, mainly isolated on the actual edge (Fig. 5d, f), very close to it or slightly away (Fig. 5e), or they appear in clusters (Fig. 5a–c).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Experimental stripping: (a) stripping close-up showing the accumulation of the spikelets stripped-off the stem; (b) stripping domesticated wheat standing with the stems held against the body; (c) stripping -only polish and striations by confocal microscope scanning showing the transversal polish with arrow marking the striations on the edge; (d) harvesting and stripping combined with oblique striations near the edge; (e–f) harvesting and stripping combined with oblique striations near the edge by confocal microscope scanning.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Cereal harvesting polish with perpendicular and oblique striations associated with the activity of stripping (marked by the arrows) captured by scans of confocal laser microscope (a) and reflected light metallurgical microscope (b–f).

Table 2.

Distribution of sickle blades with and without stripping use-wear by cereal ripeness.

EWT Early Natufian EWT Late Natufian S1
With stripping Without With stripping Without With stripping Without
Semi-ripe 11 (41%) 20 0 11 7 16
Ripe 16 (59%) 17 1 12 29 16
Total 27 37 1 23 36 32
42% 58% 4% 96% 53% 47%

The co-occurrence of harvesting and stripping use-wear on the sickle blades indicates that the tools were used for both tasks, and provides evidence that cereals were harvested for their grains (straw may then be used for other purposes).

Variations in the use-wear polish differentiate between the harvest of semi-ripe and ripe cereals (Fig. 1) replicated in experiments (Fig. 6). Harvesting semi-ripe cereals produces a domed or undulating polish, smooth in texture and bright in reflectivity because of their contact with green, soft stems with high water content (Fig. 6a–d). Harvesting ripe cereals produces a flat polish with comparatively dull reflectivity with a pitted and rough texture given the low water content in the stems, which makes them dry, tough, and more abrasive (Fig. 6e–h. See also Fig. SUP1 for a preliminary result by confocal microscope scanning for microtexture measurements).

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Experimental cereal harvesting and the resulting diagnostic polish by cutting semi-ripe (a–d) and ripe (e–h) cereals.

All studied specimens bear use-wear traces indicative of distinctive cereal ripening stages, except for four with mixed features semi-ripe and ripe cereals (Table 1), and all three studied assemblages feature use-wear typical of harvesting both ripe and semi-ripe cereals. Though this is a bimodal distinction, it is possible that the use history of some items differed, with some discarded following the early harvest, and some (or most) tools used for the ripe cereals were also used for semi-ripe earlier in the season. In the latter case, we expect that the traces would be erased during contact with the tougher ripe stems later in the harvesting season, and therefore the traces observed indicate the last action. Nonetheless, whereas the distribution of ripening conditions in the EWT assemblages features a ca.1:1 ratio, the distribution in the LN SI assemblage features a 1:2 ratio in favor of ripe cereals. Statistically, the SI distribution differs significantly from the EN EWT assemblage only (χ2 = 4.33, DF = 1, p = 0.04). Furthermore, stripping use-wear is considerably more common on tools with ripe-cereal harvesting use-wear (Table 2; χ = 6.88, df = 1, p < 0.01).

Table 1.

Distribution of use-wear type on sickle blades by ripening condition.

EWT Early Natufian EWT Late Natufian Total EWT SI Late Natufian Total
Semi-ripe 31 (46%) 11 (46%) 22 (32%)
Ripe 33 (50%) 13 (54%) 44 (65%)
Undiagnostic 2 (3%) 2 (3%)
Total 66 24 90 68 158
42% 15% 57% 43% 100%

The high frequency of use-wear attributed to the harvest of ripe cereals is puzzling. Unlike domesticated morphotypes, the wild specimens collected by the Natufians must have shattered when ripe, therefore, they were unfit for sickle harvesting or stripping. To solve this quandary, we launched an experimental program to replicate the cereal harvesting use-wear observed on the archaeological specimens, paying close attention to the specificities of the timing of the harvest in a field of wild species (Fig. 8, SUP1 Table). Specifically, we used sickle blade replicas to harvest wild cereals throughout their ripening process and identified the time window when the stems of wild cereals had already dried up whereas their spikelets were still intact (unshattered). We achieved this by weekly surveying fields where wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum and Hordeum bulbusom) and oat (Avena sterilis) grow together. In mid-April, we began close monitoring the maturation of the grains, noting that by late April-early May, they turned from “milky-ripe”110,115 to semi-ripe (i.e., dehydrated, green, and hard); oat began shattering at the beginning of April, followed by wild barley, in the second or third week of the same month. We observed that half the population in the field shattered by early May, retaining only the lowest spikelets, while the other half was still intact (Fig. 7a, b). Thus, the latter could be harvested without its spikelets shattering. This allows for an effective harvest by focusing on plant clusters with complete spikes, producing use-wear consistent with ripe cereals.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Section along the N–O line showing the sample squares cutting through the entire Natufian sequence of the NE Terrace, including the superimposed living floors at the lowermost attained strata.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

The Hordeum spontaneum field in early May in ripe condition (a, b); the greenish-brown grain of Hordeum spontaneum stripped off the glume (c), close-up on a spike with empty glumes due to stripping (d) and general view of a complete spike after stripping (e).

The grains of these intact spikes are still immature—soft, quite moist, and greenish brown, having lost their milky appearance (Fig. 7c), while their stems are yellow dry. This is the time window when grains are almost ripe but have yet to lose all their water and shrink to their fully dehydrated state. Catching this stage depends on careful observation, mainly because the occasional hot spring easterly winds (khamsin) can accelerate the ripening process and shattering.

Our replication experiments demonstrated that sickles are effective tools for separating the spikelets from the spike by applying the stripping method (Fig. 4). We observed that using sickles to strip semi-ripe cereals separates the entire dispersal unit, requiring further drying and purposeful separation of the glumes with pounding tools, but applying them to dry cereals with moderately hydrated grains breaks the dry glume and extracts the seed (Fig. 7d, e). Thus, when applied to cereals in this advanced ripening stage, the sickle blade also functions as a threshing device, after which the grains are winnowed to separate them from the rest of the debris.

Discussion

Investigation of cereal cultivation and domestication in the Levant is complex, and questions of when and how these processes started are widely debated (for a recent review, see116). Our analysis of wear traces on Natufian sickle blades, supported by experimental harvesting, produced new data that contribute to this debate. Based on our results, we reconstructed a purposeful and knowledgeable exploitation of cereals by the Natufians, in a period from about four and a half to one millennia before the advent of agriculture and full cereal domestication. We rely on use-wear consistent with both semi-ripe and ripe cereals, indicating that the Natufians implemented a strategy of a protracted harvest; in our estimation, it began in mid-spring (late April), when the grains turned semi-ripe and soft, the ideal time for harvesting wild cereals, before the spikelets begin shattering and while the stems are still green. Grains at this point are perhaps poorer in their nutritional value78,117, but this is gradually complemented with the continuation of harvesting for several weeks into late spring (early to late May), during which time the cereals ripen, the stems turn yellow-dry, and the harvester’s attention shifts to the unshattered specimens. Our experiments proved that this approach is possible and practical. We regard Natufian engagement with cereals as a carefully planned, extensive undertaking that continued through the ripening process further than previously thought. Together with the evidence of sickle blades with highly developed polish, a protracted harvest is a sign of intensive exploitation of stands of wild cereals that leaves no traces in the archaeological record, except for the “silent” evidence of use-wear polish on flint sickle blades.

Not all the quandaries can be answered through wear analysis of sickle blades, but our effort in reconstructing the process of cereal domestication may profit from examining several aspects of a protracted harvest in wild cereal stands. Most important in our view is the effect of a protracted harvest on the natural process of seed dispersal, e.g., involuntary sowing49. In wild stands of mixed species, even if a portion of the field was left untouched to enable natural seed dispersal, we expect a severe reduction in next year’s crops. Our observation of the natural fields confirmed this. Initiating the harvest before natural shattering commenced in semi-ripe condition is essential to ensure minimal seed loss, therefore in order to maintain field capacity, stocking seed reserves for sowing next year’s fields is similarly essential. The evidence of a protracted harvest should be conceived in this case as a type of early cultivation that also requires some storage method, about which we know very little in the Natufian culture10,11. This is not to say that other collecting methods were not used110, however the evidence of semi-ripe combined with ripe cereal harvesting reveals a more calculated and field-dynamic oriented method.

Our finds indicate that mixed wild stands, similar to those prevalent in many places in the Levant today, produced seeds with various properties, including early shattering, late shattering, or non-shattering and suggest that the Natufians were aware of this mixture and exploited it for planning their harvest strategy. Wear analysis cannot indicate whether the sowing was selective by genotype or mixed, and therefore the degree of Natufians’ engagement in crop breeding, if any. But a protracted harvest may be conceived as a method for producing sufficiently abundant yields, and it indicates that the Natufians possessed agronomic knowledge that lay at the bottom of relatively advanced methods of coping with potential crop failure and of manipulating productivity. Our study also demonstrates that sickles were indeed a technological breakthrough, even more than previously believed35, serving both as cutting and threshing instruments, reaping and stripping devices.

To conclude, for the first time, our findings suggest a type of late Pleistocene cereal cultivation in the Southern Levant in the form of a protracted, intensive harvest. Cultivation was previously assumed only at Northern Levant sites because of preserved archaeobotanical remains49,118. Our findings offer a glimpse into a cereal procurement strategy that builds on intimate knowledge and understanding of ripening and shattering patterns. We found this evidence at the EWT site, in a long occupation sequence, and at the more short-lived SI site, indicating that this strategy was used without relation to the amount of time spent in a certain camp. It was also without relation to site setting, at the area around Mount Carmel or in more desertic areas, at the margins of the Mediterranean zone. Further study of Natufian sickle blades is expected to reveal the scope of protracted harvesting and sickle-threshing in various locations, help consolidate site-environment relationships, and deepen our understanding of how full-fledged agriculture developed.

Methods

Typology and sample selection

In prehistoric toolkits, among types of flint tools, sickle blades are defined first and foremost as tools exhibiting glossy edges19,21,119, which is the use-wear polish produced by contact with the cereals. Therefore, this is the only tool type defined by visible use-wear in combination with particular technological modifications. In the case of Natufian culture, sickle blades are mainly blades and bladelets, with modifications that may include a Helwan retouched back and truncations or an abruptly retouched back19,120, although there are also unmodified blades and flakes with that specific gloss on them121. The artifacts selected for the use-wear analysis exhibit the gloss visible to the naked eye (Table 1).

The sample from EWT comprises 90 specimens, which amount to all the sickle blades retrieved from Squares O–P/6–7, excavated until the year of 2012. This was a clear and undisturbed stratigraphic sequence, encompassing the Early and Late Natufian phases (Fig. 8).

The SI sample consists of 68 specimens, comprising all the sickle blades found at the site.

The use-wear analysis protocol

Use-wear analysis determines the function of the tools by discerning and defining microscopic wear produced by their use. The underlying principle is that wear is indicative of the materials that came in contact with the edges of the tools, making functional reconstruction possible. Analysis protocols define abrasions, edge rounding, linear features and especially edge removals on the macroscale. Then, polish and features associated with the polish, including edge rounding, striations and pits are characterized on the microscale. The microscopic polish is the main concern here, analyzed following the conventional use-wear analysis protocol51,62,122,123, commonly applied in sickle blades research (e.g.,17,18,54,61–63,74,77,124–127. Cereal use-wear polish is a prominent wear type, distinctively different from other polishes, with characteristics that define the polish by its topography, distribution pattern, texture, and reflectivity. For the key aspect discussed here, namely, differentiating the ripeness of the cut stems as a proxy of shattering or non-shattering condition, the attributes of the wear produced a clear separation between semi-ripe and ripe (Fig. 7). This distinction was possible for almost all sickle blades, except for four tools with mixed features, probably because the sickles were used throughout the harvesting period for both semi-ripe and ripe cereals.

The functional interpretation is based primarily on a comparison between archaeological traces with experimentally produced ones. We conducted cereal harvesting and stripping experiments that produce a reference collection to be used for understanding wear formation process and interpret the traces observed on the archaeological tools (Figs. 4 and 6). Furthermore, we ruled out non-cereal harvesting use-wear based on the extensive reference collection of experimental flint tools at the Wear Analysis Laboratory at Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa. The collection comprises hundreds of tools that were used for diverse tasks with various plants, animal materials, minerals, and more. Especially, our emphasis was to distinguish the cereal use-wear from other wear-types by siliceous plants such as reeds and small seeded grasses that may produce overlapping features.

The analyzed tools were washed with soap water, rinsed in an ultrasonic tank for one minute, and dried before observations. Occasional cleaning using alcohol was applied repeatedly during the analysis to remove external contamination. The sickle blades were then inspected under high magnification (100–200 ×) using a metallurgical microscope (Leica DM 1750 M) at the Wear Analysis Laboratory at the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa. To characterize the use-wear polish, we produced micrographs using the microscope camera and used the Helicon Focus © software (version 8.3.11, http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-focus) to produce full focus images.

The confocal microscope (a Sensofar S neox microscope with the ISO 25,178 3D optical profilometer under a Nikon—EPI 50 × lens) was used for illustrational purposes only, to show the topographic characteristics of use-wear features (polish, striations, and comet-shaped pits; see Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5) with 2D images with height data, and to generate full focused images for both the experimental (Fig. 4c, e–f) and archaeological wear (Fig. 5a) located at highly angled surfaces. It was also used on representative experimental and archaeological sickle blades selected based on the results of the observations with the metallurgical microscope to show the differences between polish micro-texture of semi-ripe compared to ripe cereal harvesting polish by selected roughness measures described in supplemental material and Fig. SUP1.

Experimental cereal harvesting and stripping

The experiments involved replicas of Natufian sickles, based on archaeological specimens with flint inserts still attached to their hafts. The archeological sickles were recovered from Natufian sites, for example, Kebara Cave14, el-Wad Cave15, and Wadi Hammeh 2716. The replicas were used to harvest different cereal morphotypes. Each sickle had one to four flint blade inserts produced from local flint outcrops, fitted into bone or wood hafts. Our experiments sought to produce use-wear patterns consistent with those observed on the archaeological specimens, distinguishing harvesting semi-ripe cereals from ripe ones and their stripping (Figs. 4 and 6).

We conducted 17 experiments using 22 sickles (a total of 48 flint inserts) in various locations in Israel, including Mount Carmel, Galilee (northern Israel), the Western Negev (southern Israel), and the Shephelah (west-central Israel) (Table SUP1). The resulting experimental collection spanned the harvest of semi-ripe and ripe wild cereals (Avena sterilis, Hordeum spontaneum, Hordeum bulbosum) and their stripping. Experiments also included harvesting ripe domestic wheat (Triticum aestivum) to create comparative traces of the driest conditions (which can be achieved only by domestic morphotypes). The distinction between the two ripening states relies on the condition of the stem which is in direct contact with the sickle blade. Accordingly, the semi-ripe wild morphotypes were harvested starting from mid-April when the stems were green, fully grown and seeds clearly observed. The ripe wild morphotypes were harvested in early May, a state in which the stems are dry and the grains were green–brown but still moist (Fig. 6). Domesticated cereals were harvested in late May to the beginning of June, when the stems were fully ripe and the grains dehydrated and brown.

Each experimental harvesting was conducted by students and lasted between 30 min and 10 h. In some of the experiments, the yields and the rate of use-wear development were measured against the number of sickle strokes. The experimental stripping was also conducted by students, using the sickle held by hand with pressure against the body, but with no direct contact, ensuring the sickle slides on the cereals at all time. A cloth was placed on the ground where the grains and the spike debris accumulated.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (303.5KB, docx)
Supplementary Material 2 (582.2KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgements

El-Wad Terrace is located in the Nahal Me’arot Nature Reserve, managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The EWT material published here corresponds to IAA permits G-28/2004, G-20/2006, G-3/2007, G-2/2008, G-4/2009, G-5/2010, G-6/2012, G-4/2015, and G-3/2016. The work was partially funded by the Gerda Henkel Foundation (grant no. AZ 48/F/21 to I.G.Y) and Israel Science Foundation (grant 511/22 to R.Y.) . We thank Johanna Sklar from Pokroy Lab, the Bio-Inspired Surface Engineering and Biomineralization Lab, at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) for conducting the scans with the Sensofar S neox confocal microscope.

Author contributions

Author contributions: I.G.Y., T.K., A.B.C., L.G., R.Y., D.K., M.W.E. designed research; I.G.Y., J.V., I.A., K.B, M.P. performed experiments; I.G.Y. analyzed the data; I.G.Y, A.B.C., L.G., R.Y., D.K., J.V., I.A., K.B, M.P., M.W.E., T.K. wrote and reviewed the paper.

Funding

The work was partially funded by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 511/22 to R.Y.) and Gerda Henkel Foundation (grant no. AZ 48/F/21 to I.G.Y).

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript file and supplementary information files.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Grosman, L. & Munro, N. D. The Natufian culture and the threshold for early farming. In Quaternary Environments, Climate Change and Humans in the Levant (eds Enzel, Y. & Bar-Yosef, O.) (Cambridge University Press, 2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bar-Yosef, O. The Natufian Culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins of agriculture. Evol. Anthropol.6(5), 159–177. 10.2307/530343 (1998). [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Belfer-Cohen, A. & Bar-Yosef, O. Early sedentism in the Near East. A bumpy ride to village life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation (ed. Kuijt, I.) 19–38 (Springer US, 2002). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bar-Yosef, O. Natufian: A complex society of foragers. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter- Gatherer Settlement Systems (eds Fitzhugh, B. & Habu, J.) 91–147 (Kluwer Academic, 2002). [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Belfer-Cohen, A. & Goring-Morris, A. N. Breaking the mold: Phases and facies in the Natufian of the Mediterranean Zone. In Natufian Foragers in the Levant (eds Bar-Yosef, O. & Valla, F. R.) 544–561 (International Monographs in Prehistory, 2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Weissbrod, L. et al. Origins of house mice in ecological niches created by settled hunter-gatherers in the Levant 15,000 y ago. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.114(16), 4099–4104. 10.1073/pnas.1619137114 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grosman, L. & Belfer-Cohen, A. Insights into Natufian Social Identity: A case study from the graveyard of Hayonim Cave. Camb. Archaeol. J.33(2), 247–264. 10.1017/S0959774322000282 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Munro, N. D. et al. The emergence of animal management in the Southern Levant. Sci. Rep.10.1038/s41598-018-27647-z (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yeshurun, R. et al. A Natufian demographic cycle at el-Wad Terrace, Israel: The rise and fall of the architectural compound. Archaeol. Res. Asia10.1016/j.ara.2025.100599 (2025). [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kuijt, I. What do we really know about food storage, surplus, and feasting in preagricultural communities?. Curr. Anthropol.50(5), 641–644. 10.1007/978-1-4020-8539-0_11 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Grosman, L., Raz, T. & Friesem, D. E. Tomorrow’s mundane is today’s extraordinary: A case study of a plastered installation during Neolithization. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.7(1), 1–13. 10.1057/s41599-020-00579-8 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rosenberg, D. & Nadel, D. The sounds of pounding: Boulder mortars and their significance to Natufian Burial Customs. Curr. Anthropol.55(6), 784–812 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wright, K. Ground-stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia: Implications for the transition to farming. Am. Antiq.59(2), 238–263. 10.2307/281929 (1994). [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Turville-Petre, F. Excavations in the Mugharet El-Kebarah. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel.62, 271–276 (1932). [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Garrod, D. A. E. Note on three objects of Mesolithic Age from a cave in Palestine. Man30, 77–78 (1930). [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Edwards, P. A 14 000 year-old hunter-gatherer’s toolkit. Antiquity2007(81), 865–876 (2006). [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Snir, A. et al. The origin of cultivation and proto-weeds, long before Neolithic farming. PLoS ONE10(7), e0131422. 10.1371/journal.pone.0131422 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Weiss, E. & Nadel, D. Composite sickles and cereal harvesting methods at 23,000-years-old Ohalo II, Israel. PLoS ONE11(11), 1–21. 10.1371/journal.pone.0167151 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Garrod, D. A. E. The Natufian culture: The life and economy of a Mesolithic people in the Near East. Proc. Br. Acad.43, 211–227 (1957). [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bar-Yosef, O. The Natufian of the Southern Levant. In The Hilly Flanks and Beyond (eds Smith, P. E. L. & Mortensen, P.) 11–42 (Chicago University Press, 1983). [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Claire, C. M. Les Faucilles préhistoriques du Proche-Orient Données morphologiques et fonctionnelles. Paléorient9(1), 63–79 (1983). [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Buxó, R. Reflections on paleobotanical remains from Hayonim terrace (Upper Galilee). In Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches (ed. Anderson, P. C.) 152–155 (Los Angeles. Institute of Archaeology, 1999). [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hopf, M. & Bar-Yosef, O. Plant remains from Hayonim Cave, Western Galilee. Paléorient13(1), 117–120 (1987). [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Caracuta, V. et al. Charred wood remains in the Natufian sequence of el-Wad Terrace (Israel): New insights into the climatic, environmental and cultural changes at the end of the Pleistocene. Quat. Sci. Rev.131, 20–32 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Belli, C. et al. Archaeobotany of el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel (Israel): Insights into plant exploitation along the Natufian sequence. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot.10.1007/s00334-023-00905-5 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Belli, C. et al. A Late Pleistocene high-resolution paleoclimate reconstruction: Insights from the archaeobotanical assemblage and the carbon isotope analysis of wild almond (Amygdalus sp.) from Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Quat. Sci. Rev.268, 107138. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.107138 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Colledge, S. Plant remains and archaeobotanical analysis. In Wadi Hammeh 27, an Early Natufian Settlement at Pella in Jordan (eds Edwards, P. C. & Brill, N. V.) 353–366 (Brill, 2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hillman, G. C. The plant food economy of Abu Hureyra 1 and 2; Abu Hureyra 1: The Epipaleolithic. In Village on the Euphrates, from Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra (eds Moore, A. M. T. et al.) 327–398 (Oxford University Press, 2000). [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hillman, G., Hedges, R., Moore, A., Colledge, S. & Pettitt, P. New evidence of Late Glacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. Holocene11(4), 383–393. 10.1191/095968301678302823 (2001). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tanno, K., Willcox, G., Muhensen, S., Nishiaki, Y., Kanjo, Y. & Akazawa. T. Preliminary results from analyses of charred plant remains from a burnt building at Dederiyeh cave in northwest Syria. In Natufian Foragers in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 19 (eds. Bar-Yosef, O., Valla, F. R.) 83–87 (2013).
  • 31.Arranz-Otaegui, A., Gonzalez Carretero, L., Ramsey, M. N., Fuller, D. Q. & Richter, T. Archaeobotanical evidence reveals the origins of bread 14,400 years ago in northeastern Jordan. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.115(31), 7925–7930. 10.1073/pnas.1801071115 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liu, L. et al. Fermented beverage and food storage in 13,000 y-old stone mortars at Raqefet Cave, Israel: Investigating Natufian ritual feasting. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.21(May), 783–793. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.08.008 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Anderson, P. C. Harvesting wild cereals during the Natufian as seen from experimental cultivation and harvest or wild einkorn wheat and microwear analysis of stone tools. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant (eds Bar-Yosef, O. & Valla, F. R.) 521–556 (International Monographs in Prehistory, 1991). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Arranz-Otaegui, A., González Carretero, L., Roe, J. & Richter, T. “Founder crops” v. wild plants: Assessing the plant-based diet of the last hunter-gatherers in Southwest Asia. Quat. Sci. Rev.186, 263–283. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.02.011 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Maeda, O., Lucas, L., Silva, F., Tanno, K. I. & Fuller, D. Q. Narrowing the harvest: Increasing sickle investment and the rise of domesticated cereal agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. Quat. Sci. Rev.145, 226–237. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rosen, A. M. Natufian foragers and the ‘Monocot Revolution’: A Phytolith perspective. In Natufian Foragers in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 19 (eds. Bar-Yosef, O. & Valla, F. R.) 638–648 (2013).
  • 37.Winter, H. & Ronen, A. Reed harvesting experiment. In Le Gisement de Hatoula En Judee Occidentale, Israel: Rapport Des Fouilles, 1980–1988. Memoires et Traveaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem No. 8 (eds. Lechevallier, M. & Ronen, A.) 271–275 (1994).
  • 38.Rosen, A. M. Natufian plant exploitation: Managing risk and stability in an environment of change. Eurasian Prehist.7(1), 113–127 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Terradas, X. et al. Late Natufian bedrock mortars at Qarassa 3: Preliminary results from an interdisciplinary methodology. In Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East 7th Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries (eds Borrell, F. et al.) 449–464 (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Servei de Publicacions, 2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Eitam, D. & Schoenwetter, J. Feeding the Living, Feeding the Dead: The Natufian as a Low-Level Food Production Society in the Southern Levant (15,000–11,500 Cal BP). Vol 50 (2020). https://about.jstor.org/terms
  • 41.Weinstein-Evron, M. & Ilani, S. Provenance of ochre in the Natufian layers of el-Wad Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci.21(4), 461–467. 10.1006/jasc.1994.1045 (1994). [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dubreuil, L. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: A use-wear analysis of ground stone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci.31, 1613–1629. 10.1016/j.jas.2004.04.003 (2004). [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dubreuil, L. & Grosman, L. Ochre and hide-working at a Natufian burial place. Antiquity83(April 2008), 935–954. 10.1017/S0003598X00099269 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Power, R. C., Rosen, A. M. & Nadel, D. The economic and ritual utilization of plants at the Raqefet Cave Natufian site: The evidence from phytoliths. J. Anthropol. Archaeol.33(1), 49–65. 10.1016/j.jaa.2013.11.002 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Power, R. C., Rosen, A. M. & Nadel, D. Phytolith evidence of the use of plants as food by late Natufians at Raqefet cave. In Wild Harvest: Plants in the Hominin and Pre-agrarian Human Worlds (eds Hardy, K. & Kubiak-Martens, L.) (Oxbow Books, 2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zohary, D., Hopf, M. & Weiss, E. Domestication of Plants in the Old World 4th edn. (Oxford University Press, 2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hillman, G. C. & Davies, M. S. Measured domestication rates in wild wheats and barley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological implications. J. World Prehist.4(2), 157–222. 10.1007/BF00974763 (1990). [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hillman, G. C. & Davies, M. S. Domestication rates in wild wheats and barley under primitive cultivation: Preliminary results and archaeological implications of field measurements of selection coefficient. In Prehistory of Agriculture (ed. Anderson, P. C.) 70–102 (Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1999). [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Willcox, G. Sowing, harvesting and tilling at the end of the Pleistocene/ beginning of the Holocene in northern Syria: A reassessment of cereal and pulse exploitation. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot.10.1007/s00334-023-00984-4 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ollé, A. & Vergès, J. M. The use of sequential experiments and SEM in documenting stone tool microwear. J. Archaeol. Sci.48, 60–72. 10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.028 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 51.van Gijn, A. The Wear and Tear of Flint: Principles of Functional Analysis Applied to Dutch Neolithic Assemblages (Universiteit Leiden, 1989). [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Yamada, S. The formation process of “use-wear polishes.” In Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrovés (eds Anderson, P. C. et al.) 433–445 (Universite de Liege, 1993). [Google Scholar]
  • 53.D’Errico, D. New perspectives for recognizing use wear from cereals. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.13, 199–210. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.03.043 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ibáñez, J. J., González-Urquijo, J. & Rodríguez, A. The evolution of technology during the PPN in the Middle Euphrates: A view from use-wear analysis of lithic tools. In Systèmes Techniques et Communautés Du Néolithique Précéramique Au Proche-Orient (eds Astruc, L. et al.) 153–165 (Éditions APDCA, 2007). [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ibáñez, J. J. & Mazzucco, N. Quantitative use-wear analysis of stone tools: Measuring how the intensity of use affects the identification of the worked material. PLoS ONE16(9), e0257266. 10.1371/journal.pone.0257266 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Jensen, J. Flint Tools and Plant Working (Aarhus University Press, 1994). [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Korobkova, G. F. Cycles of agriculture economy as seen from experimental and use-wear analyses of tools. In Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches Vol. 40 (ed. Anderson, P. C.) 183–182 (Monograph, 1999). [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Unger-Hamilton, R. The Epi-Palaeolithic Southern Levant and the origins of cultivation. Curr. Anthropol.30(1), 88–103 (1989). [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Unger-Hamilton, R. Natufian plant husbandry in the southern Levant and comparison with that of the Neolithic Periods: The lithic perspective. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant (eds Bar-yosef, O. & Valla, F. R.) 483–520 (International Monographs in Prehistory, 1991). [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Unger-Hamilton, R. Harvesting wild cereals and other plants: Experimental observations. In Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches Vol. 40 (ed. Anderson, P. C.) 145–152 (London, Monograph, 1999). [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Yamada, S. Right or left? Front or back? Use-wear analysis of flint sickles in the Biblical period of the Levant. Cuad. Prehist. Arqueol. Univ. Granada27, 167–175 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Yamada, S. Development of the Neolithic: Lithic Use-Wear Analysis of Major Tool Types in the Southern Levant (Harvard University, 2000). [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Yamada, S. Use-wear analysis of sickles and glossed pieces from Abu Ghosh. In The Neolithic Site of Abu-Ghosh. The 1995 Excavations Vol. 19 (eds Khalaily, H. & Marder, O.) 47–57 (Israel Antiquities Authority. IAA Reports, 2003). [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mazzucco, N. et al. Use-wear evidence for the use of threshing sledges in Neolithic Greece. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104579 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ibáñez, J. J., Pichon, F., Mazzucco, N. & Anderson, P. Leaning on to rise up: From high to low cutting at the origins of cereal agriculture in the Near East. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.61, 104962 (2025). [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Fuller, D. Q. et al. Convergent evolution and parallelism in plant domestication revealed by an expanding archaeological record. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A111(17), 6147–6152. 10.1073/pnas.1308937110 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Harlan, J. R., de Wet, J. M. J. & Price, E. G. Comparative evolution of cereals. Evolution (N Y)27(2), 311–325 (1973). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ibáñez, J. J., Anderson, P. C., González-Urquijo, J. & Gibaja, J. Cereal cultivation and domestication as shown by microtexture analysis of sickle gloss through confocal microscopy. J. Archaeol. Sci.73, 62–81. 10.1016/j.jas.2016.07.011 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Pichon, F., Ibáñez-Estevez, J. J., Anderson, P. C., Douché, C. & Coqueugniot, É. Harvesting cereals at Dja’de el-Mughara in the northern Levant: New results through microtexture analysis of Early PPNB sickle gloss (11th millennium cal BP). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102807 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Pichon, F., Ibáñez Estevez, J. J., Anderson, P. C. & Tsuneki, A. Harvesting cereals at Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and the introduction of farming in Northeastern Iran during the Neolithic. PLoS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.0290537 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ibáñez-Estévez, J. J. et al. Sickle gloss texture analysis elucidates long-term change in plant harvesting during the transition to agriculture. J. Archaeol. Sci.10.1016/j.jas.2021.105502 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Ibáñez, J. J., Clemente-Conte, I., Gassin, B., et al. Harvesting technology during the Neolithic in south-west Europe. In Prehistoric Technology 40 Years Later (2008).
  • 73.Pichon, F. Exploitation of the cereals during the Pre-pottery Neolithic of Dja’de-el-Mughara: Preliminary results of the functional study of the glossy blades. Quat. Int.427, 138–151. 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.01.064 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Shmuel, M., Paz, I., & Vardi, J. A “life history” of sickle blades from the Early PPNB site of Aḥihud, Northern Israel.
  • 75.Anderson, P. C. Experimental cultivation, harvest, and threshing of wild cereals: their relevance for interpreting the use of Epipalaeolthic and Neolithic artifacts. In Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches Vol. 40 (ed. Anderson, P. C.) 118–144 (Monograph, 1999). [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Arranz-Otaegui, A., Ibáñez, J. J. & Zapata, L. Hunter-gatherer plant use in Southwest Asia: The path to agriculture. In Wild Harvest: Plants in the Hominin and Pre-Agrarian Human Worlds (eds Hardy, K. & Kubiak-martens, L.) 91–110 (Oxbow Books, 2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Mazzucco, N. et al. Migration, adaptation, innovation: The spread of Neolithic harvesting technologies in the Mediterranean. PLoS ONE15(4), 1–27. 10.1371/journal.pone.0232455 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Abbo, S., Peleg, Z., Lev-Yadun, S. & Gopher, A. Does the proportion of shattering vs. non-shattering cereal remains in archeobotanical assemblages reflect Near Eastern Neolithic arable fields?. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.284, 104339. 10.1016/j.revpalbo.2020.104339 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Peleg, Z., Abbo, S. & Gopher, A. When half is more than the whole: Wheat domestication syndrome reconsidered. Evol. Appl.15(12), 2002–2009. 10.1111/eva.13472 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Abbo, S. et al. Plant domestication versus crop evolution: A conceptual framework for cereals and grain legumes. Trends Plant Sci.19(6), 351–360. 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.12.002 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Abbo, S., Lev-Yadun, S. & Gopher, A. Plant domestication and crop evolution in the Near East: On events and processes. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.31(3), 241–257. 10.1080/07352689.2011.645428 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Weinstein-Evron, M. et al. After 70 years: New excavations at the el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, Israel. J. Isr. Prehist. Soc.37, 37–134 (2007). [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Weinstein-Evron, M., Kaufman, D. & Yeshurun, R. Spatial organization of Natufian el-Wad through time: Combining the results of past and present excavations. In Natufian Foragers in the Levant (eds Bar-yosef, O. & Valla, F. R.) 88–106 (International Monographs in Prehistory, 2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Weinstein-Evron, M. et al. After 80 years: Deeper in the Natufian Layers of el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, Israel. J. Isr. Prehist. Soc.48, 5–61 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Garrod, D. A. E. & Bate, D. M. A. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel Vol. I (Clarendon, 1937). [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Valla, F. R., Bar-Yosef, O., Smith, P., Tchernov, E. & Desse, J. Un nouveau sondage sur la terrasse d’El Ouad, Israël. Paléorient12, 21–38 (1986). [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Weinstein-Evron, M. Early Natufian El-Wad Revisited Vol. 77 (ERAUL, 1998). [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Weinstein-Evron, M., Yeshurun, R., Kaufman, D., Eckmeie, E. & Boaretto, E. New 14C dates for the Early Natufian of el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, Israel. Radiocarbon54(1–2), 1–10 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Yeshurun, R., Bar-Oz, G., Kaufman, D. & Weinstein-Evron, M. Purpose, permanence, and perception of 14,000-year-old architecture. Curr. Anthropol.55(5), 591–618. 10.1086/678275 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Kaufman, D., Yeshurun, R. & Weinstein-Evron, M. The Natufian sequence of el-Wad Terrace: Seriating the lunates. J. Isr. Prehist. Soc.45, 143–157 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Bar-Oz, G. Epipaleolithic Subsistence Strategies in the Levant: A Zooarchaeological Perspective (Brill Academic Publishers, 2004). [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Weissbrod, L., Bar-Oz, G., Yeshurun, R. & Weinstein-Evron, M. Beyond fast and slow: The mole rat Spalax ehrenbergi (order Rodentia) as a test case for subsistence intensification of complex Natufian foragers in Southwest Asia. Quat. Int.264, 4–16 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Yeshurun, R., Bar-Oz, G. & Weinstein-Evron, M. Intensification and sedentism in the terminal Pleistocene Natufian sequence of el-Wad Terrace (Israel). J. Hum. Evol.70, 16–35. 10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.02.011 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Lev, M., Weinstein-Evron, M. & Yeshurun, R. Squamate bone taphonomy: A new experimental framework and its application to the Natufian zooarchaeological record. Sci. Rep.10(1), 1–13. 10.1038/s41598-020-66301-5 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Rosenberg, D., Kaufman, D., Yeshurun, R. & Weinstein-evron, M. The broken record: The Natufian groundstone assemblage from el-Wad Terrace (Mount Carmel, Israel)–Attributes and their interpretation. Eurasian Prehist.9(1–2), 93–128 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Caracuta, V. et al. 14,000-year-old seeds indicate the Levantine origin of the lost progenitor of faba bean. Sci. Rep.10.1038/srep37399 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Caracuta, V. et al. 14,000-year old seeds indicate the Levantine origin of the lost progenitor of faba bean. Sci. Rep.6, 1–6 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Schuldenrein, J. & Goldberg, P. Late Quaternary paleoenvironments and prehistoric site distributions in the Lower Jordan Valley: A preliminary report. Paléorient7(1), 57–71. 10.3406/paleo.1981.4287 (1981). [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Schuldenrein, J. Late Quaternary Paleo-Environments and Prehistoric Site Distribution in the Lower Jordan Valley (University of Chicago, London, 1983). [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Crabtree, P. J. & Campana, D. V. A note on the first season of excavation at the Late Natufian site of Salibiya I, Jordan Valley. Paléorient16(1), 111–114 (1990). [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Crabtree, P. J., Campana, D. V., Belfer-Cohen, A. & Bar-Yosef, D. E. First results of the excavations at Salibiya I, Lower Jordan Valley. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant (eds Bar-Yosef, O. & Valla, F. R.) 161–172 (International Monographs in Prehistory, 1991). [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Bar-Yosef, O. et al. (eds) Gilgal Early. Neolithic Occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley: The Excavations of Tamar Noy (Oxbow Books, 2010). [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Bar-Yosef, O. & Gopher, A. An early neolithic village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. In Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (eds Bar-yosef, O. & Gopher, A.) (Harvard University, 1997). [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Belfer‐Cohen, A. & Grosman, L. The lithic assemblages of Salibiya I. J. Isr. Prehist. Soc.27, 19–41 (1997). [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Belfer-Cohen, A. The Natufian Settlement at Hayonim Cave: A Hunter-Gatherer Band, on the Threshold of Agriculture (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988). [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Valla, F. R. Les Fouilles de La Terrasse d’Hayonim (Israel) 1980–1981 et 1985–1989 (De Boccard, 2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Valla, F. R. Les Industries de Silex de Mallaha (Eynan) et Du Natoufien Dans Le Levant. Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 3 (1984).
  • 108.Byrd, B. F. The Natufian Encampment at Beidha: Late Pleistocene Adaptation in the Southern Levant Vol. 23 (Jutland Archaeological and Society Publications, 1989). [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Lieberman, D. E. et al. The rise and fall of seasonal mobility among gatherers the case of the Southern Levant. Curr. Anthropol.34(5), 599–631 (1993). [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Kislev, M. E., Weiss, E. & Hartmann, A. Impetus for sowing and the beginning of agriculture: Ground collecting of wild cereals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.101(9), 2692–2695. 10.1073/pnas.0308739101 (2004). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Peña-Chocarro, L. The use of mesorias to harvest hulled wheat by stripping: an ancient tool. In Exploring and Explaining Diversity in Agricultural Technology (eds Anderson, P. C. & Peña-Chocarro, L.) 103–105 (Oxbow Books, 2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Anderson-Gerfaud, P. A few comments concerning residue analysis of stone plant processing tools. Early Man News9–11, 69–81 (1984). [Google Scholar]
  • 113.d’Errico, F., Giacobini, G., Hather, J., Powers-Jones, A. H. & Radmilli, A. M. Possible bone threshing tools from the Neolithic levels of the Grotta dei Piccioni (Abruzzo, Italy). J. Archaeol. Sci.22(4), 537–549. 10.1006/jasc.1995.0051 (1995). [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Anderson, P. C. Neolithic tools used for stripping ears from hulled cereals: An update. In Regards Croisés Sur Les Outils Liés Au Travail Des Végétaux An Interdisciplinary Focus on Plant-Working Tools 89–102 (2013).
  • 115.Percival, J. The Wheat Plant (Duckworth, 1974). [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Gopher, A., Lev-Yadun, S. & Abbo, S. Breaking Ground. Plant Domestication in the Neolithic Levant: The “Core-Area One-Event Model” (Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Millet, E. & Pinthus, M. J. The association between grain volume and grain weight in wheat. J. Cereal Sci.2(1), 31–35. 10.1016/S0733-5210(84)80005-3 (1984). [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Willcox, G. The roots of cultivation in Southwestern Asia. Science341(6141), 39–40. 10.1126/science.1240496 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Garrod, D. A. E. A new mesolithic industry: The Natufian of Palestine. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel.62, 257–269 (1932). [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Belfer‐Cohen, A. The Natufian in the Levant. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.20, 167–186. 10.2307/530343 (1991). [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Abadi, I. & Grosman, L. Sickle blade technology in the Late Natufian of the Southern Levant Itay. In Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move. Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions (eds Astruc, L. et al.) 295–304 (ASTORM EDITIONS, 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Keeley, L. H. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis (University of Chicago, 1980). [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Keeley, L. H. & Newcomer, M. H. Microwear analysis of experimental tools: A test case. J. Archaeol. Sci.4, 29–62 (1977). [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Mazzucco, N., Capuzzo, G., Petrinelli Pannocchia, C., Ibáñez, J. J. & Gibaja, J. F. Harvesting tools and the spread of the Neolithic into the Central-Western Mediterranean area. Quat. Int.470, 511–528. 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.04.018 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Groman-Yaroslavski, I. The Transition to Early Neolithic Economy Reconstructed by Functional Analysis of Blades: A Case Study of Late Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Sites in the Salibiya Basin (Southern Jordan Valley. University of Haifa, 2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Barshay, K., Klimscha, F., Garfinkel, Y. & Rosenberg, D. Sickle construction technologies at Middle Chalcolithic Tel Tsaf, Jordan Valley, Israel. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci.10.1007/s12520-023-01931-0 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Borrell, F., Ibáñez, J. J. & Bar-Yosef, O. Cult paraphernalia or everyday items? Assessing the status and use of the flint artefacts from Nahal Hemar Cave (Middle PPNB, Judean Desert). Quat. Int.569–570, 150–167. 10.1016/j.quaint.2020.05.007 (2020). [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material 1 (303.5KB, docx)
Supplementary Material 2 (582.2KB, xlsx)

Data Availability Statement

Data is provided within the manuscript file and supplementary information files.


Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES