New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Humans Made Poisoned Arrowheads Thousands of Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

The use of poison on arrows marked a revolution in human hunting technology—new evidence suggests it happened tens of thousands of years earlier than previously known

Closeup of the five quartz backed microliths

Quartz arrowheads dated to 60,000 years ago from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter in South Africa have traces of toxic plant alkaloids.

“Direct Evidence for Poison Use on Microlithic Arrowheads in Southern Africa at 60,000 years ago,” by Sven Isaksson et al., in Science Advances, Vol. 12. Published online January 7, 2026

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Researchers have found traces of what appears to be plant-derived poison on tiny stone arrowheads from South Africa dated to 60,000 years ago. The finding pushes back the origin of this revolutionary hunting technology by tens of thousands of years.

Scientists have long been fascinated by the development of poisoned hunting weapons. For one thing, they would have seriously leveled up our ancestors’ foraging game. For another, they offer a window into cognition: poisoned weapons represent a highly sophisticated technology that requires knowledge of how to extract poison from plants, how poison affects prey and how to exploit those effects to increase hunting efficiency.

Previously the oldest direct evidence of poisoned weapons came from bone arrowheads in an Egyptian tomb dated to little more than 4,000 years ago and bone arrowheads from Kruger Cave in South Africa dating to around 6,800 years ago. Researchers had reason to suspect the technology might be significantly older than that, however, because they had found much older bone and stone arrowheads that closely resemble the poisoned ones in their size, shape and wear patterns. But scientists didn’t have direct evidence of poison on these older weapons.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In a paper published today in Science Advances, Sven Isaksson of Stockholm University and his colleagues report on their microchemical and biomolecular analyses of residues found on 60,000-year-old quartz arrow tips from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Their analyses revealed toxic compounds from members of the Amaryllidaceae family of flowering plants that are indigenous to southern Africa. The authors surmise that the ancient humans who made these arrowheads used secretions from the bulbs of Boophone disticha, an Amaryllidaceae species that is well known to have been used for centuries as an arrow poison .

Isaksson and his colleagues observe that these poisoned arrows probably did not kill prey animals instantly, if more recent examples of poisoned arrows are any indication. Instead they would have weakened the animals over time. Hunters would have needed to track the wounded animals as they ran.

“Poison is a breakthrough adaptation for humans, and here we see it appear by at least [60,000 years ago],” says Curtis Marean of Arizona State University, who was not involved in the new study. He notes that the fact that the poison was found on microliths—tiny stone tools—is also important. Miniaturization of stone tools was another key advance for humans, one that helped lead to bow and arrow technology, for instance. According to Marean the new finding raises the question of whether the development of microlith technology is related to the development of poison. “I think that seems likely,” he says.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe