Archaeologica.org

Hi ya'll, I'm back and I am still confused (no surprize huh?). This Otzi thing, I thought we've known this for a while now, is the popular news really this slow or am I missing something new?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 060607.php

No, they detected the arrow head a while ago but there has been a lot of speculation over how serious the wound would have been.

These guys seem to be suggesting that he died fairly quickly.

I would have to go back a couple years to my first anthropology class and dig out my notes to be absolutely positive, but I recall that we discussed it rather fully, and the placement of that arrowhead was such (having entered beneath the scapula and then traveling upward) that he should have died shortly after being shot. I also recall there being a bit of hoopla about him being murdered. This I found to be quite a fantastic assumption. The presence of an arrowhead in someones back does not mean murder, but I would think more likely to indicate a skirmish between rival bands. The others just were not preserved or haven't been found yet. (wish I knew where those notes were), I am sure that we discussed the cause of his death as a known.

It would be hard to ignore an arrow in the body as a cause of death, though.

There was a special not too long ago where some expert archer was re-creating the shot at a side of beef or something. The speculation there was that he was able to evade his pursuers and die later on.

I think they were trying to come up with a rational reason why the body had not been robbed. That copper axe would have been exceptionally valuable.

Minimalist wrote:
These guys seem to be suggesting that he died fairly quickly.

Being mortally wounded at several thousand feet altitude in freezing temperatures I would think it's a safe bet that he died "fairly quickly".

Amen, RS
I do think there is a bit of braging in this news story, though.
"We got to use this new machine, and it sure works great."
When you are sucking up public funds, you have to keep your good side to the public and justify your existance.
Why would an outfit dedicated to Oetzi need more funding if everything had allready been learned about him?

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Minimalist wrote:
These guys seem to be suggesting that he died fairly quickly.

Being mortally wounded at several thousand feet altitude in freezing temperatures I would think it's a safe bet that he died "fairly quickly".

That still does not address the question of why he was not robbed.

Minimalist wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Minimalist wrote:
These guys seem to be suggesting that he died fairly quickly.

Being mortally wounded at several thousand feet altitude in freezing temperatures I would think it's a safe bet that he died "fairly quickly".

That still does not address the question of why he was not robbed.

Why! That's obvious: he was jumped by 2 highwaymen who intended to rob him. One of 'm shot him with that arrow at close quarters, while he – at the same time – wounded one of them. Then the fight was over with the one highwayman supporting his wounded comrade back to their camp fire and treatment, while Ötzi sank into a rock nook for protection against the elements. Where he died. Unrobbed.

That would make a marvelous screenplay.

Wouldn't it!

Anyway, that little scenario may serve to illustrate there could have been any number of perfectly good reasons "why he wasn't robbed". We just don't know it, precisely. But do we need to know it precisely? I posit we don't neccessarily. There's no indication that might fundamentally change our understanding of him.

That still does not address the question of why he was not robbed

That may have been the point of the attack in the first place. Otzi was found to have the blood of two other individuals under his fingernails, if I remember. Sounds like he may have given a good account of himself and then climbed up a steep mountainous slope.

It may have been getting dark or they jumped him after he made camp. They may not have known that one of their arrow shots got him.

But I'm waiting for the movie to come out.

Not having been robbed of what would have been a significant prize, the copper axe, seems to infer that he escaped who ever shot him. That also seems to infer that he didn't die that quickly.

Yes.

It also could imply that he was an attacker who was wounded and could not keep up with the rest of the group during a subsequent retreat.

It does indeed Min. Bring on time travel!

I'll let Rokcet write that into his screenplay. I can see the title now:



OTZI - The Pre-Hun