Old Arrowheads Hint At How Humans Overtook Neandertals

Arrowheads hint at how modern humans overtook Neandertals

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Archaeologists excavating a South African cave have recovered remains of the oldest known complex projectile weapons. The tiny stone blades, which were probably affixed to wood shafts for use as arrows, date to 71,000 years ago and represent a sophisticated technological tradition that endured for thousands of years. The discovery bears on an abiding question about when and how modern human cognition emerged.

Fossils show that humans who basically looked like us had evolved by 200,000 years ago. Yet based on the cultural stuff they left behind, it looked as though anatomically modern humans did not begin reliably thinking like us until little more than 40,000 years ago. The new finds, which come from a site called Pinnacle Point 5-6 (PP5-6), indicate otherwise.

Kyle S. Brown of the University of Cape Town and his colleagues argue that the tiny points they found, which the ancient people at PP5-6 made by carefully heating and shaping stone, are a proxy for complex cognition and that the 11,000-year duration of the tradition indicates it was transmitted verbally from generation to generation.


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.


The findings, published online November 7, 2012, by Nature, add to mounting evidence that modern cognitive capacity evolved at the same time as modern anatomy, with various elements of modern behavior emerging gradually over the subsequent millennia. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) A competing hypothesis holds that modern human behavior arose far more recently as the result of a fortuitous genetic mutation.

Brown and his collaborators conclude their paper by noting that this projectile technology, which allows one to attack from a safe distance, would have given modern humans a significant edge during hunting and interpersonal conflict as they spread out of Africa into Europe and encountered the resident Neandertals equipped with handheld spears.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has 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
Scientific American Magazine Vol 308 Issue 1This article was published with the title “A Prehistoric Arms Race” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 308 No. 1 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0113-16a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe