70 thousand year old arrowheads found in Africa.

[kiwijim]

Check this out!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11086110

[Scowler]

I may be mistaken but I think this particular article was discussed a little while back.  Although the title of this article is "Oldest evidence of arrows found" there is no evidence that these points were, in fact, arrowheads.  They could just as easily be points for light throwing spears or even atlatl darts.  The article states that these points were "probably arrowheads" and were "tips of projectiles".  Unless stone/bone/wood(?) points are found attached, or near to, arrow shaft(s) or are found in conjunction with ancient art (petroglyphs, etc...) depicting bow and arrow use or even with the conclusivly proven remains of a bow it will be hard to prove any projectile point was in fact an arrowhead.   

[tattoo dave]

Any kind of points that old are still way cool!!

Tattoo Dave

[Dictionary]

I wish they'd discuss where they get 70,000 from. Do they just pull these numbers out of a hat? Why not 60,000, 50,000, 3,000?

[PatM]

I wish they'd discuss where they get 70,000 from. Do they just pull these numbers out of a hat? Why not 60,000, 50,000, 3,000?

They have methods of dating organic matter such as the blood or tissue on the arrow heads. They aren't looking at a piece of rock millions of years old and then telling when it was actually made into the arrowhead.

[dragonman]

I find it hard to believe that blood and tissue would be still around on rocks after a few thousand years, let alone 70,000ys.

Also they dont look much like arrowheads to me, just rocks. If those guys where bright enough to make the bow the arrow and the string, I'm sure they could make better points than that.  I take these archeologist types with a pinch a salt, my self

[PatM]

It might not be apparent to the naked eye but tissue and blood stick around for a long time if they are dried and stable.
 The early models of anything are going to look pretty crude relative to the more developed editions.
 The absolute best stone arrowheads from Eurasia never seemed to develop to the same levels of skill shown in NA.

[Bryce]

The dating method used is rather crude and inaccurate.
You can carbon date the stone(also crude) but that's all.
If there was organic tissue on the stone it would've needed a preservative covering it aiding in its preservation.

If they are in fact 65,000 years old I highly doubt the organic tissue would still be evident.
They don't look like points to me either.

[Pat B]

I find anything like this very interesting. I'd like to know that bows and arrows went back farther than 12K to 15K year ago. I'm open to all possibilities. 

[SLIMBOB]

Color me skeptical.

[PatM]

You guys need to do some more science reading. There is a lot more technology available when it comes to identifying and dating organic tissue.
 While it's nice to imagine everything turning back to "dust" or the basic compounds, it's not quite that simple.
 

[Dictionary]

Color me skeptical.

Im right there with you friend.

[dragonman]

everything returns to dust sooner or later.....its that simple....even for scientists!!       

[kiwijim]

Are these projectile points arrowheads? Maybe.
Are they 60-70 thousand years old? Absolutely.
Thats the good thing about Science; you don't need to believe it in it for it to be right.

[Dictionary]

Are these projectile points arrowheads? Maybe.
Are they 60-70 thousand years old? Absolutely.
Thats the good thing about Science; you don't need to believe it in it for it to be right.