Archaeologica.org

That too would seem to slot into the evidence very well RS.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

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!

The researchers were: Andreas Lippert, a prehistory professor at the University of Vienna, Dr. Paul Gostner, a radiologist at the Bolzano regional hospital, Dr. Eduard Egarter Vigl, a pathologist at the Bolzano hospital, and Dr. Patrizia Pernter, a radiologist at the hospital.

Why would these people say something like that?

Beagle wrote:

The researchers were: Andreas Lippert, a prehistory professor at the University of Vienna, Dr. Paul Gostner, a radiologist at the Bolzano regional hospital, Dr. Eduard Egarter Vigl, a pathologist at the Bolzano hospital, and Dr. Patrizia Pernter, a radiologist at the hospital.

Why would these people say something like that?

Because that apparently is their conclusion from those data.
It ain't mine.
I think my reasoning sounds more logical.

Did they give a basis for their conclusion?
Tooth wear?
Joint wear?
Even in Louis IV's court, they had bad teeth and joints!
But they didn't work very hard.

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.

The researchers were: Andreas Lippert, a prehistory professor at the University of Vienna, Dr. Paul Gostner, a radiologist at the Bolzano regional hospital, Dr. Eduard Egarter Vigl, a pathologist at the Bolzano hospital, and Dr. Patrizia Pernter, a radiologist at the hospital.

Oetzi was found in 1991 by accident by a group of hikers. In 2000, his body was temporarily thawed so that researchers could take samples to study. They have found that his last meal included unleavened bread made of einkorn, a type of wheat, as well as some greens. DNA from the contents of his intestines showed he had also consumed venison as one of his last meals — strengthening the theory that he was a hunter.

That's what they said KB. Unfortunately I can once again argue against their conclusion.
There are a number of different methods of drawing a bow, give a child a small bow and arrow and inevitably they 'pinch' the arrow between thumb and forefinger, and yes, you can draw a bow this way.
Military arrows were frequently 'volley fired' which meant aiming was of secondary import, with enough shafts in the air and enough targets their efficiency as killing machines was somewhat better than the musket. This meant that powerful bows could be used as the shaft was released as soon as the bow was at full draw, many of these bows were far too powerful to be held at full draw for the pupose of aiming.
'Pinch' pulling has the same problem.
Most archers soon learn to pull the string with the first two fingers, one above the shaft and one below, this was the draw method used by the classic English archer and why the French removed those same fingers from captured archers, and is said to be the origin of the two fingered salute.
And to finally get to my point, a hunter would need to practice, and that same practice normally produces callouses on the two fingers. Which is how the French identified English archers.
There is no mention of callouses on Oetzi's fingers!

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.

And they would know this how? How many other bodies have they recovered from the time period for comparison? The only thing that seems out of the ordinary is the (non-stolen) copper axe. And who is to say that Oetzi didn't steal that from someone he ambushed?

His stealing the axe Min could be whole reason for the fight and pursuit scenario, it fits.

Why would these people say something like that?

I'm sorry, but my slight sarcasm was missed. These people are able to tell beyond any doubt that Oetzi was not a heavy laborer. CT scans are specific in viewing the strain on tendon and ligaments in the body. They are even able to determine, in a general way, what sort of labor was performed, i.e., lifting , pulling, bending, running, etc.

I'm willing to accept the notion that he was not a laborer.

Likewise Beag, the evidence speaks for its self. Likewise the apparent lack of callouses normal to archery.

So now we have a young, urban, professional, dressed to the nines in the latest mountain climbing outfit and gear, out for a weekend walk.
The locals check him out as he goes by and see a easy way to improve their outfits.
Ambush.
Knife fight.
Runs away.
Shot in back while running away…… (See my previous post for from this point)

Did they have YUPPI tourists wandering around the bad parts of town in those days?

I don't know how I did that!

Three times for emphases?

kbs2244 wrote:I don't know how I did that!

Three times for emphases?

I'll fix it, kb. Sometimes the board is too slow to respond and the temptation to keep clicking "Submit" becomes overwhelming.

And to think that I used to have for the mailman!

kbs2244 wrote:
Did they have YUPPI tourists wandering around the bad parts of town in those days?

You don't go into the high mountains for fun. Especially not if you're not familiar with the terrain (which, BTW, must also have badly affected his progress, and his ability to fight, because of the lack of oxygen that he, as a lowlands man, was not accustomed to!). Even without having been attacked it was questionable he would have made it. As an ill-prepared low lands man he was definitely in the danger zone. So there must have been a very specific, a damn important, reason for him to be/go there.
Oetzi was a man on a mission.

The unfinished arrows may indicate he embarked on his trek suddenly. In haste. Under pressure. Ill prepared. He nevertheless went. So there was a lot of pressure to do so.
Was he perhaps on the run? Had his village/society/people/nation been overrun by enemies and was Oetzi one of the few who managed to escape, if he managed to cross the mountains to be safe?
Was he a war refugee, killed on the run?

Let's not turn this into Hannibal crossing the Alps, eh?