Stone tools dominate the surviving evidence for Paleolithic technology, but they were not the whole toolkit. At Schöningen, Germany, exceptional preservation reveals wooden spears, throwing sticks and other worked wood alongside flint tools and animal remains. The finds support describing Neanderthal-era Europe as a world that used both wood and stone—not claiming that wood was more important overall, or that surviving artifacts tell us their relative proportions.
Why wood belongs in the story of Paleolithic technology
Wood decays far more readily than stone, so the archaeological record is biased toward durable materials. A scarcity of surviving wooden artifacts cannot be read as evidence that people rarely used wood. Schöningen is unusually informative precisely because its conditions preserved organic materials that are missing from most sites. It offers a valuable window into woodworking, not a representative count of tools used across Europe.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
There is no defensible Europe-wide statistic showing what proportion of Paleolithic tools were made of wood rather than stone. The evidence instead establishes that woodworking and wooden weapons were part of a broader toolkit that included flint, bone and other materials.
What the Schöningen finds show
Researchers have recovered wooden weapons and other worked wood at Schöningen in archaeological contexts that also include sediments, pollen, seeds, animal remains, flint tools and marked bones. Together, these materials help reconstruct the environment and hominin activity at the site.
#1 Best Overall
The Lower Saxony State Office for Cultural Heritage reported in 2024 that a team used 3D microscopy and micro-CT to examine the Schöningen woods. Its account describes a wider range of woodworking than previously recognized: people split small pieces of wood and shaped them for processing hunted animals, made selected trunks into spears and throwing sticks, and repaired or recycled damaged implements. The office reported at least 20 spears and throwing sticks at the lakeshore, saying the new analysis doubled the number of wooden weapons known from the site. That is a site-specific count, not a European total. Lower Saxony State Office for Cultural Heritage, 2024
Schöningen’s excavation history also shows why published counts and interpretations need context. Senckenberg Nature Research records worked wood from another Schöningen locality in 1992 and finds from the spear horizon beginning in 1994. Ten spears and other worked woods were recovered there from 1995 to 1999. Senckenberg notes that the throwing-stick interpretation for the first wooden artifact from the spear horizon had not then been scientifically proven. These recovery-history figures and qualifications should not be confused with the later re-analysis count. Senckenberg Nature Research, Research Center Schöningen
How old are the Schöningen spears, and who made them?
The age of the spear horizon has been revised. A 2025 paper by Hutson and colleagues in Science Advances proposes an age of about 200,000 years, based on dating from the layer containing the spears. The authors argue that this would align the horizon with European Neanderthals and the Middle Paleolithic. It is a significant scholarly reinterpretation, not an uncontested date or proof that Neanderthals made every spear. Hutson et al., Science Advances, May 9, 2025; Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, May 12, 2025
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Some institutional pages still give older estimates. The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, for example, describes the Schöningen spears as about 400,000 years old and notes their association with stone tools and butchered horse remains. That figure reflects an earlier dating estimate; it should not be presented as settled in light of the 2025 revision. Smithsonian Institution Human Origins Program, “Oldest Wooden Spear”
Rank #3
The revised date makes a Neanderthal connection plausible, but the makers’ identities remain uncertain. Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist not involved in the 2025 study, told the Associated Press: “For the moment, I find the arguments interesting, but not absolutely convincing.” The study’s dating supports a possible attribution; it does not identify the makers directly. Associated Press, May 9, 2025
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Clacton-on-Sea shows that organic tools went beyond wood
Evidence from Clacton-on-Sea in the United Kingdom broadens the picture beyond wooden weapons. A 2022 study re-examined bone artifacts and reported microscopic evidence consistent with their use as knapping hammers—to shape or resharpen flake tools. The authors describe them as the earliest known organic knapping hammers associated with core-and-flake Mode 1 technology. The study supports a varied toolkit, but it does not identify a Neanderthal maker. Parfitt, Lewis and Bello, Scientific Reports, 2022
Rank #4
| Evidence | What it indicates | Important limit |
|---|---|---|
| Schöningen, Germany | Wooden weapons and other worked wood, including evidence of shaping, repair and recycling, in a context with flint tools and animal remains. | The exceptional preservation is not typical of Paleolithic sites. The proposed age of about 200,000 years and possible Neanderthal connection are revised interpretations, not settled facts. |
| Clacton-on-Sea, UK | Microscopic traces on bone artifacts are consistent with use as knapping hammers for flake tools. | The functional interpretation comes from a 2022 study; the evidence does not establish a Neanderthal maker or make the site interchangeable with Schöningen. |
What “a wooden age alongside a stone age” means
The phrase is useful if it counters the impression that Paleolithic technology consisted only of stone. Schöningen demonstrates substantial woodworking and wooden weapons; Clacton-on-Sea adds evidence for bone tools used in working stone. But preservation shapes what archaeologists can find: stone survives more readily, while wood and bone are less likely to endure. The surviving artifacts therefore establish the presence and range of organic technology, not its proportion relative to stone across Neanderthal Europe.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
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.
