Archaeologica.org

Why do we tend to see the obvious Min and the 'experts' don't. Any ideas?

Digit wrote:Why do we tend to see the obvious Min and the 'experts' don't. Any ideas?

Because you boys have too much time on your hands?

Speaking on behalf of retirees everywhere I say,

To Min, with love.......




Michelle

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.......

Getting a little feisty there, boss.

May I at this point extend my thanks to the leader of the Retired Peoples Association and offer my support in this matter.

Or the arrow shaft could have broken off during a rolling fall into an obscure area where the body wouldn't have been found to be robbed, and the head trauma happened during the fall as well.

An arrow shaft of that time was close to half inch in diameter, not easily broken RW.
He would have know that he had been hit, what he wouldn't have known was how serious was his injury, but he would have known for certain that he had some thing between 2 and 3 ft long sticking out of his back!
Every move he made, every step he took that shaft would be moving, levering on the point and further increasing the damage and reducing his chances.
He would have pulled the shaft out!

He would have wanted to, but could he?
I have a hard time just getting a washcloth between my shoulder blades.
I don’t know that I could pull something in that deep out of such an inconvenient place.
The head trauma coming from the fall makes sense to me.
But the is the need to study impact angles, force involved, etc. Where are the CSI people when we need them? We could get this tied up in a neat box in half an hour.

You don't have to grab the front of the arrow to pull it out, kb. Getting a hand on the back end will work just as well.

The fact that the copper axe was still with the body convinces me that his attacker was not close enough, or in good enough condition himself, to follow.

With the recent reconstruction of the 'crime' scene as shown on UK TV he could have reached the shaft quite easily KB, as Min argues, the likelyhood of of pursuers leaving him with his axe etc is rather unlikely.
One of the comments in the report that surprises me is in referrence to the head injury, blunt force injuries that kill can take quite a long time to do so, many hours in fact. If the brain is not directly struck the usual cause of death is blood pooling on the outside of the brain and building up sufficient pressure on the brain that ultimately restricts blood flow and that part of the brain dies.

If the attacker did deal the head blow, it makes me wonder if Oetzi wasn't carrying something of very great value, which made the axe pale by comparison. It all goes back to the reason he was killed in the first place.

Beagle wrote: If the attacker did deal the head blow, it makes me wonder if Oetzi wasn't carrying something of very great value, which made the axe pale by comparison. It all goes back to the reason he was killed in the first place.

What "something of very great value" might a highland herder – and I mean highland herder, apparently all by himself, be carrying?

Wouldn't someone carrying "something of very great value" choose a less remote route?

Wouldn't someone carrying "something of very great value" be accompanied? Even travelling in a group (safety in numbers)?

What artefacts or material "of very great value" would be portable by one man, given the extremely difficult, very high altitude terrain he was traversing? Was gold a commodity then?
What would a highland herder be doing carrying gold at very high altitude?

Sofar, that "something of very great value" scenario doesn't look too promising imo, Beag.

Yeah, it's a stab in the dark alright. I'm just trying to think why the axe wasn't taken.

Perhaps the thief was Oetzi, and the odject of great value was a religious icon of sorts. And the person/persons who chased him recovered it but chose not to steal from the dead.

Another stab in the dark.

As the lawyers would say, you are asserting facts that are not in evidence, Beags.