otzi

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:35 pm

None of the arrows had points affixed to them. Possibly he had shot what he did have.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:41 pm

Seems logical. Otherwise it would be like a hunter or a soldier going off with blanks in his rifle.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:16 pm

I was thinking about this earlier, but I wasn't near my computer. Oetzi's killer did two things that may be significant. He did not take the axe, and he evidently rolled the body onto its' stomach to pull out the arrow, minus the arrowhead.

Given the low population density of the time, the people tended to know everybody for miles around them, other villages, etc. I'm thinking that the arrow may have identified him or his clan, and having the hand axe would also identify him as Oetzis' killer.

If true, the deed is even more dastardly.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:45 pm

Possible.

ravenwing5910 · Post by **ravenwing5910** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:49 pm

That seems to be a rather good interpretation Beagle. Now is there any evidence that would suggest motive?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:33 am

Oetzi would have had to have been dead for someone to have removed the arrow shaft Beag unless it was the act of a friend. If he had been dead I think he would have been robbed. The arrow shaft was in a position where he could have removed it for himself.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:52 am

Digit wrote:Oetzi would have had to have been dead for someone to have removed the arrow shaft Beag unless it was the act of a friend. If he had been dead I think he would have been robbed. The arrow shaft was in a position where he could have removed it for himself.

OK, let's go back to the most recent article about this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/ ... Demise.php

The researchers believe the Iceman fell over backward, but was then turned over onto his stomach by his aggressor who then pulled out the arrow shaft while leaving the arrowhead imbedded in Oetzi's shoulder.

In a paper published in the archaeological magazine Germania, the researchers said they had determined that Oetzi assumed his final position before rigor mortis set in. They also said that based on his good health and equipment found with him, that he belonged to a social class not accustomed to manual labor.

It would take a lot of force to pull out an arrow that was affixed to an arrowhead that was likely barbed. If it did puncture the brachial artery he would have been too weak to attempt it. As far as the act of a friend, that sounds pretty far out. If friends had found him, they would have taken him down the mountain and buried him.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:05 am

Unfortunately Beag that seems to conflict with the rerun of the supposed crime scene. It's perfectly possible of course but alternatives fit just as well, and on this one I'm with Min, regardless of whether he was the victim or the original asailant I find it difficult to accept that some one would trail him to recover an arrow shaft and then leave him with his axe.
Possible but seems unlikely.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:08 am

That's cool Dig. All opinions are open for consideration, but I'm gonna go with the researchers on this one.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:55 am

As I commented earlier Beag, on another thread, it pisses me off when the experts use a throw away line like, 'the comet wiped out the big animals' followed by, 'mean time, back at the ranch'.
Oetzi suffered a head wound, fine, I'll buy that, now, how do you distinguish between an injury caused by falling and striking your head, from being struck by a rock that was thrown, from one that was held in the hand, from one that was attached to a length of wood, from one on the end of a rope!
That has to be pure supposition on behalf of the reasearchers unless they are not telling us everything, and it is damn bad science.
I concede the possiblity that they propose, but as we know he was engaged in close combat, being attcked from the rear fits the evidence as well as their alternative and seems rather more likely.
Also, as they weren't present at the time how the hell do they know he was rolled over?
Fitting a flint point into a slot in a piece of wood results in a loose fit unless you're rather lucky, so binding and/or glueing is to stop them dropping out, and not infrequently the shaft would fall free in use. Arrows were frequently marked for indentification so if you missed the target you couldn't claim otherwise.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:14 am

The problem with all of this speculation is that they had concocted a perfectly reasonable natural death scenario. Then, they found the arrow.
Now they have found the knife wound. Now they have found the blood of others on his clothing.

What's next?

Perhaps they will find a diary in which Oetzi records who killed him?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:38 am

What's next?

Tune in next week folks for another griping-gripping episode of your favorite cave man show!

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:52 am

OK: My scenario based on what we know so far:
Something bad happens at a lower level. Otzi, and maybe a companion, get into a knife fight. Maybe Otzi gets hit in the head with a rock.
Otzi decides to run for the mountains and fight another day, but is pursued.
Someone gets off a good shot and Otzi has an arrow in his back as he is climbing.
He manages to get the arrow out, maybe with the help of his companion, and he keeps climbing.
But he is in bad shape, and he knows it. In the best Hollywood tradition, if he has a companion, he sends him (her?) on without him.
He either falls into a spot, and hurts his head in the process, or finds what he thinks is a defensible spot, and gets ready to fight.
But he has lost too much blood, he rolls over, curls up, and dies.
It starts to snow.
10 second fade to black followed by 10 second fade to bright white snow field.
Off camera voice says” Hey, Gertrude, come look at this.”
Cammera pulls back to show modern hiking boot next to old peice of lether.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:58 am

Right? Wrong? Who knows, it certainly fits better than the 'official' view I think.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:14 pm

They also said that based on his good health and equipment found with him, that he belonged to a social class not accustomed to manual labor.

I'm not happy with that. I'm doubtful there was a 'social class not accustomed to manual labor' high up in the Alps in 3.200 BC.
Even 100 years ago there wasn't a 'social class not accustomed to manual labor' high up in the Alps.
You don't survive high up in the Alps without fuckin' hard, physical work. Mountain people can't afford the luxury of an elite class. Especially not in 3.200 BC.

So going by his condition and equipment that could indicate that he was not a mountain man. But from the lower plains. Where there were many more people. And consequently social stratification. Including an elite, a 'social class not accustomed to manual labor'.

In that scenario Oetzi wasn't 'from around there', but passing through. A traveller. Maybe a messenger. And the message he carried could have been the object of his assailant's interest. Maybe Oetzi carried an important, political?, message for his master to someone across the mountains?
We all know politics kill!