Human evolution

Time’s arrows

Some pieces of ancient weapons may illuminate modern man’s evolution

See article

Readers' comments



"Homo sapiens alive at that time were not, psychologically, very different from those alive today"... does this mean that if you could take a homo sapiens from 70 000 years back and bring him into today's world, he would be able to comprehend it on par with present specimen?

Some animals do unbelievable things, like constructing enormous (by their standards) structures as bees, ants and termites do, but they are unable to come up with or understand anything new.

If you took an adult homo sapiens from 70,000 years ago and dumped him or her into Times Square, probably not.

But if you took an infant homo sapiens from 70,000 years ago and raised him or her in a modern family, the result would (if the theories expressed in this article are correct) be no different from any other adopted child.

Terence Hale

Human evolution. Time’s arrows. Or bones and arrows? This seems to contradict Stanley Kubrick instigation of Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey 2001.

Feedback Comment

From the archaic instrument we might conclude that homo sapiens had an intelligent mind. However, i am confused how the author make some sort of relation with self sacrifice with these instruments.


Interesting to think that perhaps something changed in human evolution that was not visible physically and does not show up in the fossil record.
If there were more modern humans who thought differently from say 60-50000 bc, did they live happily alongside older humans who looked the same, but did not have the extra creative ability?

EJG1975 in reply to bas1715

This is still happening today and it's very obvious. Just go visit a maximum security prison if you want to see what one end of the current human mental capability looks like. Then imagine that 90% of society functioned on the same level and only 10% functioned on an average modern level. At that point it's easy to see how/why humans stayed in a barbic state for so long. In fact via study of DNA and genetics we are even beginning to determine some of the very many genetic factors that go into the 'basis' of a persons creativity, memory, ability for abstract thought, propensity for violence, etc.


As Stephen Pinker points out in his book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature', there is a real payoff to being warlike in pre-state hunter-gatherer societies. Violence is not irrational if it results in expanded territories, increased wealth, more mates and slaves, etc., and it is necessary for survival if defending against aggressors who seek the same. So it's quite plausible that warlike people, or at least people with the capacity for being warlike, would survive and reproduce more successfully. But of course to be successful in war (or in child-rearing), a people must have a capacity for altruism.

simon says

I find it a real stretch that these stone chips indicate the development of something as sophisticated as a bow and arrow and thus the timing of the jump from really smart two legged ape to fully social abstract-symbology thinking human. I believe I read that the bow and arrow did not originate in the Americas until just 800 years ago (interestingly, to me at least) only 100 to 200 years after Vikings showed up in Newfoundland). So if these chips indicate the bow and arrow exsited 71,000 years ago, some 50,000 to 60,000 years before humans crossed into the Americas (depending on whose arrival date you choose to believe), then why didn't these immigrant Asian ancestors to Native Americans carry their bows and arrows with them and instead wait until less than 1000 years ago to start making them. It would seem that if these chips were really arrow heads and not just light spear points or knife blades, then 50,000 years would have been plenty of time for the technology to spread to all humans in Africa, Europe, and Asia and thus the boaw and arrow would have been carried into the Americas during the human migration across the Beringia (or along its coast, again depending on what theory you like). So I'm a long way from being convinced this shows that mentally modern humans were around 70,000 years ago.

guest-issials in reply to DullerBill$

I cannot say anything about these arrow heads but the existence of bows and arrow is confirmed in the antiquity, not this early though. As for native Americans, people forget. There are many instances of technologies being developed, forgotten and then reinvented. Take for example the construction of small boats without which it would not be possible to cross from Asia into Australia for prehistoric people but when the British went to Andaman Islands, the knowledge of boat or fishing was lost in those tribes. So it might be possible that the knowledge of archery was lost some time in the past and then reinvented. Also these could be heads for darts in spear throwers which are much older than bows.


Such "sacrifices" are more related to defending the territory.All living organisms tend to mark and then defend their territories.
Evolution of tools may relate to freeing of front legs and their evolution in to hands.Hands could have fashioned the tools and also the idea that it is possible to extend/enhance the work of hands with tools.This idea could have "induced " the brain to get busy from then on.That could have been the time when our evolution was put on steroids by mother nature.Where do we go from here? When we have this complete TAKE OVER by the tools.Will those future intelligent computers send us back in to our past?

Keith Aumiller

Extreme Altruism is hardly a human specific trait. i.e

And I agree that making major explanations about psychological evolution from a few stones is a bit of a leap.

Mike Hoy in reply to Keith Aumiller

That video clip is hardly an example of altruism, never mind the 'extreme' kind. The poor calf was pulled at by lions and a crocodile for 5 minutes before the whole herd came back. The human equivalent would be a victim being abandoned to their fate by friends/family until they could return with an army in overwhelming numbers.

Connect The Dots

The Tool Artifacts does not prove Altruism.
Rather it reflects another strength of Man: Technology.
Along with the evolution of the brain, the evolution of the hand enabled the implementation of Ideas.
And the use of Tools.

All technology, gadgets and tools are made for the hand.
Most inventors know about material science, metallurgy, bonding technology, the history of design, electronics, battery technology, production factors, and software.

BUT they know very little about hand anatomy, physiology, limitations of motion, muscles and tendons, joints, bones, arthritis of the hand and other diseases.
For instance the pinky finger functions similarly to the thumb, though it is less strong.
And the Index finger is more coordinated and stronger than any of the other three fingers.
And without a thumb, your hand losses much of its function--try using a door knob without your thumb. Or butter your bread. Or use an iPhone.

A supercomputer cannot fathom the function of a hand.
And we concentrate too much on cranial capacity and fail to see the hand that feeds it.
It is like developing the next generation of memory processors and neglecting robotics.
Nothing can be accomplished unless we can physically manipulate our world.
Technology comes only by hand.
And that is what makes us human.
And successful.

It is the difference between Theory and Applied Science and Engineering.

Though Mr Hawking is paralyzed, I am sure ready hands prepare him, move him and sustain him from dawn to dusk--just not his own.

He is not just a brain in a jar.


Why does everything we do need to have an evolutionary explanation? I have no problem with the concept of evolution, I am just wondering why we have to minimise wonderful human emotions and acts such as self sacrifice and good works to evolution. Its like going on a date and spending the whole time making pbservations out loud about your partners body language or body chemistry.

Omricon in reply to Melissia

Because it has a danger of debasing the act. It may not be logical but I can easily imagine someone saying: 'You are not really being nice, it is just an evolutionary impulse/side effect', and 'I will take advantage of you, my selfishness should be applauded as it is an evolutionary side effect which ultimately benefits the gene pool'. That person would then go on to write a book called 'Atlas Shrugged'*

Focusing on evolution can be very dangerous as it gives people excuses for their actions and allows people to practice the ethics of 'not being caught' over not doing something unethical in the first place.


Sid L in reply to Omricon

We are all made of cells, which are composed of molecules governed by biochemical reactions based upon the laws of chemistry and physics. That there is a scientific reason behind the workings of life, the mind, and human behavior does not diminish the uniqueness of every living being. This provides no excuse for behavior. Children's mind are immature and only partially developed, yet we laud them for their accomplishments and reprimand them as well.

pansapiens in reply to Omricon

An evolutionary explanation does not replace or minimize other kinds of explanation. We can have both, and both can remain perfectly valid. For example, from my point of view I might look after my children because I love them, whereas from the gene's point of view I do so because this enables certain genes to replicate. However, that the latter explanation is true does not in any way imply that I don't love my children, or that this love does not cause me to care for them. Here BOTH explanations are correct. To put this more generally, explanations at different levels of analyses are COMPLEMENTARY, not in competition with one another. Effective scientists look for multiple explanations targeting different levels of analysis to get the fullest possible understanding of the phenomenon they are studying.
Some further reading on this general notion (from some very different disciplines):

pumpkindaddy in reply to Omricon

"Why does everything we do need to have an evolutionary explanation?"

Because there is no competing, serious, scientific explanation to evolution as to how living organisms got to be the way they are now. You explain traits, physical or mental, with evolution.

Melissia in reply to Omricon

"Because it has a danger of debasing the act."

Aquinas was an arrogant fool whose standards were stupidly high, so I hope you're not arguing from his particular ethical viewpoint.

Omricon in reply to Melissia

I am not aligning myself with anyone in particular but evolution on its own can lead to some very dark places such as Eugenics and of course it is ultimately about my genes winning at all costs. It is very easy to justify all sorts of actions by saying they are evolutionary.

I have no problem with the science here, I am talking more about ethics.


No Internet to store and share information.

One "Super Hunter" figures out how to make cheap simple arrows and spearheads and then dies of a tooth abscess and your back to pointy sticks and berries for a thousand years. At some point, increases in populations and trade allow the sharing of information and "Civilizations" begin to coalesce. And their begins the ebb and flow of people sharing and mixing information that is then stored in the Homo Sapiens identity and begets the scourge we call "culture".


Seems illogical to think that sacrificing oneself would lead to ones genes being propagated after ones death, thus increasing ones self sacrificing gene pool in the future. Obviously the opposite is the case. If every human with the self sacrificial gene died in heroism prior to conceiving any children, the that gene would quickly disappear from the gene pool. Teach me what I am missing.

Extropy in reply to Frank Lowther

In fact, I can envision the tendency to self-sacrifice would increase after procreation because of the results of that very act. Even more, and I'm guessing here, conscious self-sacrifice likely requires a great deal of discipline- a trait that bolsters the survival of an individual before getting to the procreation part.

Marcia Malory

The propagation of religion and the concept of an afterlife probably has a lot more to do with why people are willing to risk death while trying to kill people they have never even met. If I were going to give an example of altruistic behavior, war sure as hell wouldn't be it. (Maybe providing food and medical care to refugees would be.) Chimps engage in small-scale war, BTW, so they make similar "sacrifices".


Humans all too often are absolute rubbish at trying to see ourselves with any clarity at all. Variously we fetishize love, altruism, tool use, and anything else that seems to provide some slender difference between us and other species. But in the end it always turns out that any particular trait is not unique. What is unique about humans is our capacity to think abstractly and to act on those thoughts to a greater extent than other animals. But that's about it. Aside from that we're just as bound by evolved behaviors as any other animal on the planet - only we can't generally see it because we're all doing it in the same way.

Frank Lowther in reply to CA-Oxonian

The case can be made that human uniqueness is not just "our capacity to think abstractly and to act on those thoughts" but our ability to communicate those abstract thoughts to others. The evolution of spoken language is by definition absent from the fossil record, but that may well be the significant breakthrough that occurred well after the physical evolution of homo sapiens.

Jameel on Wheels in reply to CA-Oxonian

Taken from Ishmael by Daniel Quinn


We are the only species that systematically deny/destroy resources to our competitors, and the only species that harvests organisms simply for nourishmnent. That is what sets us apart

hench in reply to Omricon

I am a dog. It is obvious to me and most other dogs whom I know that we are unique. I myself believe it to be down to our superior sense of smell, while other dog_people of my acquaintance put it down to factors such as our scent, speed, proximity to humans or diversity of form. There is an ongoing dispute about this, but of course we never let it impinge on our confidence in our uniqueness.

Omricon in reply to hench

very clever but ultimately this argument doesn't help you. What I say remains true. If you ask almost anyone they would agree with my statement and it neatly explains why people want to know how and why. They don't need to know that they are different, they already know this. We have known it for so long that our laws, often thousands of years old, represent this. You cannot steal from a dog.

Not sure ... but don't some termites and ants do both these things? In fact, since resources is more or less equal to territory don't all territorial animals do the former? Don't all animals (since they all eat) do the latter? AFAIK no animals survive on sunlight and minerals ... only plants. You lost me.

Okay, Bird A and Bird B may compete for the same worm. They may even kill eachother over it. However, Bird A will never go to Bird B's nest and kill its eggs, it will never deny it the twigs to build, nor will it play loud music while Bird B is trying to sing a song and mate. We made that next step to, "total war" in an animal kingdom. We want to farm in a forest, by god we'll burn it down destroying everything in it.

hench in reply to Omricon

I lied (on the internet nobody knows you are a dog). Really I am an eighteenth century British gentleman. It is obvious to me and really to all *civilised* people that the white races are superior to others. In fact we *know* this to be a fact, though we cannot definitively put our finger on the source of our superiority. Of course our laws and the laws of the lands that we subjugate (even unto the laws of God himself) reflect this truth. Overwhelming consensus confirms what we know to be true.

Note: the comment above is a rhetorical device. I am not really what I purport to be. Nor do I personally hold those views. My point is to demonstrate that consensus is not the same as truth. Consensus is especially suspect when the status quo supports a position of power to the group that holds it. In this case every human person knows that human persons are superior to other species, therefore it must be true, is a spurious argument. It reminds me of the common fallacy that says humans are the most evolutionarily advanced species. Whereas all extant species are in fact equally advanced, purely from an evolutionary point of view.

Omricon in reply to hench

The conensus in this case should be encouraged regardless of whether or not we have evidence as it encourages humans to treat other humans with some form of dignity.

Besides my original point was answering why people are so obssesed with the topic (consensus thinking). Not whether or not it was factually correct.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America 2 hrs 14 mins ago
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



