stone age hunter

Credit: Gorodenkoff on Shutterstock

Stone age humans were using poison for hunting far longer than previously believed.

In A Nutshell

  • Chemical traces survived for 60 millennia because the toxin’s molecular structure resists decomposition, and acidic soil conditions at the site helped preserve organic compounds.
  • Researchers detected two toxic compounds from the poison bulb plant on five tiny quartz arrowheads excavated from a rock shelter in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
  • The same plant poison was still being used by indigenous hunters when European explorers arrived in the 1770s, showing a 60,000-year tradition of poisoned arrow technology.
  • The poison doesn’t kill instantly; it weakens prey gradually over hours or days, requiring hunters to track wounded animals across long distances using sophisticated planning skills.

Hunter-gatherers in South Africa were coating their stone-tipped arrows with deadly plant toxins at least 60,000 years ago, according to chemical analysis of ancient weapons unearthed from a rock shelter in KwaZulu-Natal. The discovery pushes back direct evidence of poisoned hunting technology by more than 50,000 years and shows that our ancestors possessed surprisingly sophisticated knowledge of toxic plants during the Stone Age.

Researchers from Stockholm University, Linnaeus University, and the University of Johannesburg found traces of Boophone disticha poison on five tiny quartz arrowheads excavated from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter. They detected one plant toxin called buphanidrine on five of the stone points, and a second toxin called epibuphanisine on one of those. Both compounds come from a plant native to southern Africa whose bulb exudate has been documented as arrow poison by indigenous hunters for centuries.

The stone points, measuring roughly the size of a thumbnail, were recovered from sediment layers dating back 60,000 years. Previous archaeological evidence suggested these stone tools functioned as arrow tips, but researchers had never confirmed the presence of poison residues on weapons this old until now.

Deadly Chemicals That Lasted 60,000 Years

Lead researcher Sven Isaksson and colleagues analyzed ten quartz arrowheads with visible residues using a technique that separates and identifies individual chemical compounds. To verify their findings, the research team also tested modern Boophone disticha bulb exudate and four older poisoned bone arrowheads from museum collections, including two probably collected by early European traveler Carl Peter Thunberg in the 1770s. The historical arrows contained the same chemical fingerprint found on the 60,000-year-old stone points.

Boophone disticha, known locally as “gifbol” or poison bulb, grows throughout southern, eastern, and northern regions of South Africa in grassland and savanna habitats. The plant produces a thick, milky exudate when its bulb is cut. Historical accounts describe hunters processing the bulb exudate into a sticky poison and applying it to arrow tips. Some preparations involved heating it or mixing it with other plant or animal ingredients to alter its strength.

Tests on arrows treated with Boophone disticha poison show that even small quantities can kill rodents within 20 to 30 minutes. In humans, symptoms include nausea, impaired vision, breathing difficulties, and in severe cases, respiratory paralysis. The chemical structure of buphanidrine makes it unusually resistant to breaking down, which may help explain how traces survived for 60 millennia on the stone weapons.

ancient poison arrowhead
Both sides of one of the arrowheads analyzed. The left-hand image shows the organic remains in which the arrowhead residues were identified. (Credit: Marlize Lombard)

A Clever Delivery System

One arrowhead showed particularly clear evidence of how ancient hunters applied the poison. Chemical residue appeared along the dorsal backed portion of the tool, suggesting the toxins were mixed into the glue used to attach the stone point to an arrow shaft. This placement pattern matches examples from 2,000-year-old arrows found elsewhere in South Africa.

The study, published in Science Advances, also identified impact scars and microscopic scratches on the sharp edges of the arrowheads, damage consistent with impact after being shot from a bow. Along with the poison residues, the analysis detected plant-based fatty compounds on the arrowheads, likely from resins or plant gums used in the adhesive mixture.

Why Poison Changed Everything For Ancient Hunters

Stone Age hunter-gatherers needed detailed knowledge about toxic plants in their environment. Identifying which species contained poisons, understanding how to extract and prepare the active compounds, and knowing the optimal application methods required accumulated experience passed between generations.

Poisoned arrows do not kill prey instantly like modern firearms. Instead, they deliver toxins into an animal’s bloodstream through a small puncture wound. The poison does the real damage inside the body, not the tiny wound. This kind of poison often works slowly, so hunters likely tracked animals after the shot. Historically documented poisoned arrows from southern Africa were intentionally designed as small, lightweight projectiles engineered to break loose from the shaft and remain lodged under an animal’s skin. The hunter would then follow the wounded prey over distances of several kilometers, sometimes for more than a day, as the poison gradually weakened the animal.

Whether these 60,000-year-old arrows employed the same delayed-action strategy remains uncertain. However, the Umhlatuzana arrowheads closely resemble more recent examples in size and shape. By using similar poisons, Stone Age hunters likely adopted comparable tactics.

Using poison for hunting demonstrates sophisticated cognitive abilities. Hunters needed to understand that the toxin’s effects would occur out of sight after the prey had fled. They also needed to recognize animal behavior patterns to predict where wounded game would travel as the poison took effect. This kind of abstract thinking about invisible chemical actions happening beyond view represents a remarkable level of mental complexity.

Earlier indirect evidence hinted at Stone Age poison use. Researchers previously identified residues on a wooden “poison applicator” from Border Cave in South Africa dating to approximately 24,000 years ago, though the source plant remains debated. A lump of beeswax from the same site dating to around 35,000 years ago also showed traces of poison compounds. The Umhlatuzana discovery provides the first direct chemical confirmation that hunters were deliberately applying plant-derived toxins to stone weapon tips 60,000 years ago.

This technology appeared during a period of rapid innovation in southern Africa that saw the development of symbolic artifacts, advanced adhesives, and sophisticated stone tool industries. While no direct plant evidence proves Boophone disticha grew near Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter 60,000 years ago, the plant is indigenous to the region and has an evolutionary history stretching back 10 to 20 million years. The species thrives in grassland environments similar to those surrounding the rock shelter and can withstand droughts and fires. Individual bulbs may live for over a century.

Archaeological analysis confirms that although minor disturbance from animal burrowing occurred at the site, the ancient layers remained largely intact. Acidic soil conditions in the ancient layers, combined with deposits that were less exposed to moisture, may have helped preserve organic compounds including poison residues for 60,000 years. The researchers sampled only 10 arrowheads from one layer containing 216 such artifacts, preserving the rest for future analysis. Thunberg’s travel accounts from 1772-1774 describe indigenous hunters using Boophone disticha poison to hunt springbok, confirming the plant’s long-standing role in southern African hunting traditions.


Paper Notes

Limitations

The researchers cannot determine whether other plants containing similar plant toxins might have been used, though only Boophone disticha bulb exudate has authenticated historical use as arrow poison. The analysis detected buphanidrine on only five of ten sampled arrowheads, raising questions about selective poison application, differential preservation, or variation in original poison concentration. Unsaturated fatty acids present in one sample could derive from recent human handling, though other skin oil markers were absent.

Funding and Disclosures

The authors report no competing interests. Anders Högberg received support from the Swedish Research Council (grant 2014-02100); the others report no external funding.

Publication Details

The research was conducted by Sven Isaksson of Stockholm University Archaeological Research Laboratory, Anders Högberg of Linnaeus University Department of Cultural Sciences, and Marlize Lombard of the University of Johannesburg Palaeo-Research Institute.

The paper was published in Science Advances, Volume 12, on January 7, 2026, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adz3281. Artifacts are curated at the KwaZulu-Natal Museum, and access requires approval from the KwaZulu-Natal AMAFA and Research Institute.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Reply