Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A Neanderthal buried at Shanidar Cave about 75,000 years ago appears to have died from a penetrating wooden-spear injury, but the evidence cannot establish murder. The same individual had previously survived a serious facial injury, suggesting that other Neanderthals may have helped them recover. The combination offers unusually close evidence of both lethal violence and social support in one prehistoric life.
What happened to Shanidar A?
Emma Pomeroy and colleagues identified a previously unknown Neanderthal individual, designated Shanidar A, in excavations conducted in 2019 and 2022 at Shanidar Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan. The remains were found beneath approximately 7.5 metres (24 feet) of sediment and include a left shoulder blade, a mostly complete right hand, ribs and seven teeth.
The individual was an older adult, estimated at about 45 years old. The researchers could not determine the person’s sex. Deposition occurred roughly 75,000 years ago, according to the study published in Scientific Reports on 15 October 2026.
Why researchers infer a wooden spear injury
A circular perforation about 15 millimetres wide passes through the left scapula. Refitted bone fragments, the rounded opening and the associated fracture pattern fit a rounded wooden spear better than a stone-tipped weapon. A stone point would generally be expected to produce a more angular or lozenge-shaped opening.
#1 Best Overall
The inferred trajectory begins at the front of the chest, travels through the lung and probably major arteries, and exits through the shoulder blade. Cambridge archaeologist Emma Pomeroy said the wound would have caused rapid death. The trauma is described as perimortem, meaning it occurred around the time of death, rather than long before or after burial.
Wood rarely survives archaeologically, so the finding is indirect evidence for wooden technology. It does not preserve a spear or identify the weapon’s maker. The study’s authors also note that experimental work is still needed to test the force and exact mechanism that could have produced the perforation.
Rank #2
Was this a Neanderthal murder?
Possible homicide is one explanation, but “murder” is not a settled conclusion. The injury is compatible with a thrusting or projectile wooden weapon entering from the front of the body, and therefore with lethal interpersonal violence. However, the evidence cannot identify an attacker, establish intent or show that the event was a deliberate killing.
A hunting accident remains possible. A spear used against prey could have struck another person during a close-range encounter, or a projectile could have travelled unexpectedly. The physical evidence shows the wound and its likely path; it does not reveal whether the act was intentional, accidental or defensive.
Rank #3
| Question | What the evidence supports | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Weapon | Rounded perforation and fracture pattern are consistent with a wooden spear. | The spear itself, its exact design and whether it was thrust or thrown. |
| Timing | Perimortem trauma, occurring around the time of death. | The precise sequence of events. |
| Intent | A front-on penetrating injury compatible with lethal interpersonal violence. | Whether the injury was homicide, self-defence or a hunting accident. |
Evidence that Shanidar A had received care
The same individual had an earlier severe facial injury. A split tooth contains calculus and signs associated with healing, showing that Shanidar A survived for a substantial period after the injury. Survival alone does not record a caregiving act, but the researchers interpret it as consistent with assistance from other Neanderthals.
One possibility is that companions prepared soft food while the injury made chewing difficult. That is an inference from the injury, dental evidence and survival interval, not a directly observed behaviour. Even with that qualification, it adds to evidence that some Neanderthal groups supported injured or impaired members instead of abandoning them.
Rank #4
What the burial tells us about Neanderthal mortuary behaviour
Adding Shanidar A raises the minimum number of Neanderthal individuals represented in the Shanidar cluster to five. The spatial pattern and repeated deposition led the study’s authors to describe the cave’s mortuary behaviour as complex and potentially meaningful.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
That wording matters. Repeated placement of bodies can indicate deliberate treatment of the dead, but it does not by itself prove a symbolic ritual, a shared religious belief or a specific funerary ceremony. Earlier Shanidar discoveries helped overturn the idea that Neanderthals were incapable of care or social complexity, while interpretations of older pollen finds—including claims about “flower burials”—remain debated. The source and meaning of that pollen should not be treated as settled evidence of ritual flowers.
Best Value
Why this discovery matters
Shanidar A brings several normally separate archaeological questions together in one individual:
- Technology: the scapular opening provides rare indirect evidence that wooden weapons could be used in the Middle Palaeolithic.
- Violence: a penetrating chest wound may record lethal conflict, though the motive cannot be reconstructed.
- Care: healing after a serious facial injury is consistent with support from other group members.
- Death treatment: placement within a cluster of at least five individuals supports the possibility of deliberate mortuary behaviour.
The result is not a simple story of a prehistoric murder. It is a constrained reconstruction: a roughly 45-year-old Neanderthal appears to have survived one major injury with possible help, then died from a separate penetrating wound about 75,000 years ago. The physical evidence is strong enough to make a wooden-spear injury plausible, but not strong enough to name a killer or prove homicide.
Key facts at a glance
| Fact | Finding |
|---|---|
| Site | Shanidar Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan |
| Individual | Shanidar A |
| Age at death | About 45 years; sex undetermined |
| Approximate deposition date | About 75,000 years ago |
| Scapula perforation | About 15 millimetres across |
| Overlying sediment | About 7.5 metres (24 feet) |
| Minimum individuals in the Shanidar cluster | Five |
Sources and scientific qualifications
The principal evidence comes from Pomeroy and colleagues’ peer-reviewed article, “Evidence for funerary behaviour and lethal trauma in a new Neanderthal individual from Shanidar Cave,” published in Scientific Reports on 15 October 2026. A University of Cambridge release published the same day explains the proposed spear trajectory, while a CNN Newsource summary provides the approximate age estimate and broader context. Their interpretations distinguish measured features—such as the 15-millimetre hole and refitted bone fragments—from conclusions about weapon type, caregiving and intent.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
