Hacker News Reader

Comment by woogiewonka | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if Otzi was the instigator in the described conflict. The piece describes him as someone who was not a laborer but did plenty of walking. I can imagine a vagabond type individual traveling place to place taking his pickings from the weaker groups (or perhaps stealing and stabbing in the process seeing how he had little upper body strength but carried a dagger). His clothing is made of multiple furs of multiple species yet he doesn't have a finished bow? I mean, it's possible he was an excellent trapper and caught all them animals OR did he take his possessions elsewhere? I can just picture him coming up on a small village, stealing some stuff and stabbing the individual who confronted him, then retreating back into the mountains. Upon discovery of a crime, a more practiced village member tracks the villain into the mountains and without so much as a flinch pierces him in the back from a distance far off.

View on HN

I love all the speculation in this thread so I thought I'd just chime in and say blood from four different people has reportedly been found on his weapons. I believe both axe and arrow heads.

This was on HN a few weeks back but I couldn't find that particular article, instead I found one on NatGeo[1] from 2003 saying the same thing.

1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1030_031030_...

Wow so Otzi was quite the badass, then.

yeah i was surprised they ignored that in the article. I disagree with 'they didn't steal anything because the village would recognize it'. that hasn't stopped much people in present day. they kind of ignore the fact that despite having a kills shot, they didn't go in to make sure he was dead like a zombieland double tap.

also, if he had a disabling wound 2 days ago, why wasn't he in the village getting care?

i had wondered if he was some sort of serial killer/robber and people were well aware of a killer in the mountains. perhaps they didnt go in closer for fear of some sort of curse or that he might not be dead

I think in the PBS documentary or something like it on youtube, they found a pretty big cerebral bruise on Otzi.

It's possible someone hit him with a rock to finish him off, or he hit his head on a rock when he was reacting to being wounded.

It seems that he was used to covering long distances and routinely got into fights. Otzi is probably similar to a cave raider from Oblivion :)

I disagree with him being a kind of raider, only because what does everyone do in Oblivion when they murder one of those cave raiders? Loot his corpse of anything valuable. Nobody looted Ötzi's corpse. I found the argument in the article of some kind of domestic incident compelling, especially in light of his valuables not being taken. And I think the "human sacrifice" argument seems like a real stretch.

Exactly, the lack of looting is the biggest detail in this case imo.

To me it speaks of a panicked crime. Combined with the season, spring or summer, I don't believe the crime was panicked due to bad weather conditions.

Maybe it was a very young person taking a revenge shot at him because of something Ötzi had done in the near past.

I think so too, INTPenis. With respect to your "young person taking revenge", I would think that a young(er) person would loot the belongings, and that an old(er) person would have the social/intellectual wherewithal not to come back to town carrying the chief's cousin's copper axe. I realize I'm speculating wildly here, though I completely agree that Ötzi not having been looted is the biggest detail.

I appreciate your perspective, and that of the commenter below as well!

I still think it is possible for Otzi to be a bandit/raider. He did not have a body for agricultural work, and he had clothes designed for surviving harsh (non-domestic climates).

My hypothesis is that he probably pissed off a few too many people and his reputation began spreading from town to town possibly.

He probably stole food and goods at night and then walked away with his haul to use or sell elsewhere.

Eventually, people figured out that they had a bit of a human vulture up in the mountains. When he came down to the village to get some goods and provisions, he was confronted by attackers, wounded, and escaped.

He fled high up into the mountains, stopping to eat and rest from his encounter.

Someone from the village, followed him, sniped him, and did not loot Otzi.

Why? I hypothesize probably because the person viewed Otzi as a nuissance, and viewed himself as more honorable than Otzi.

It honestly sounds like some kind of vigilante justice situation, or even a proto police force. Police aren't supposed to loot their kills (but these days they do, and auction off the items ;] )

Interesting. I grok what you're saying now and it does make sense. And though I do agree that people do exist who put honor before everything else, we know that kings were buried with the kinds of items that Ötzi had, especially the copper axe. It would have to be some kind of Klingon to put honor before looting that. I totally grok your perspective, though, and I don't think it's unreasonable.

> blood from four different people has reportedly been found on his weapons.

This article doesn't mention it, but he was also carrying a birch polypore, which is a styptic.

Is more probable that the polypore would be used as tinder

On the other hand, the use of ash wood in the knife is a smart move.

He was also carrying a tinder polypore, so it's unlikely the birch polypore was used for tinder.

That's very cool. 45 years old in good shape in those days must have been a status symbol in itself. 45 years today is pretty wise already but back then I'm sure your average wandering 45 year old knew basic field medical techniques just to stay alive.

Not necessarily. A lot of people died young, which lowered the average lifespan considerably, but once you got through your childhood and teens, your chances of living to an old age were reasonably high.

Actually, take away infant mortality (and maybe even not) and their lifespans exceed ours on average. Agriculture doesn't provide the same level of nutrition, no large groups to spread disease, etc.

I have absolutely no knowledge of the structure of societies at the time, but it strikes me as unlikely that someone could live as a travelling criminal and survive into his 40s. At some point, your skills stop mattering if you're involved in fights to death every few days.

I seem to remember a theory that he was something like a traveling merchant, which could explain his apparent wealth. No idea how that would have worked at the time, i. e. transport of whatever he was trading. Maybe small & valuable and therefore stolen by his assassin, who left personal artefacts behind after seizing the main prize?

If they had domesticated wheat, they were already moving away from hunter-gathering and towards settled civilization, if not fully settled. It's possible they weren't quite farming, but reached the level of pure pastoralists, where they tended herds but didn't plant.

I think that kind of movement along elevations in such a short time period seems like his last few days were very, very frantic.

Doesn't explain why Otzi's valuable possessions weren't taken by the avenger. The artifacts were likely left behind because Otzi had ties to the village. Taking those possessions would have tied the avenger to his actions, likely putting the avenger at risk all over again.

Could be difference between owning your dead fathers axe and owning the axe that a vagabond used to kill people in the village.

The value of a metal axe in that time was immense. It seems unlikely that such sentiments would be sufficient justification to just leave it there.

I tend to assume if metal tools were extremely expensive then they would be not commonly in use.

3500 years after Otzi, there are Roman prices for stuff.

https://www.academia.edu/23644199/New_English_translation_of...

This gives a days unskilled labor at 25 Denarii, where a lb of Hammered Bronze was 60 Denarii.

3500 years is a very big difference in terms of metallurgy, though.

Note that all other blades that Otzi carried were stone. I suspect they were used a lot more than that axe. On the other hand, if you're really someone who moves a lot alone or in small groups, having (and using) a tool like that would make the difference between having and not having dinner quite often, for example. In essence, the value of the tool comes from actually using it.

3500 after Otzi is late Iron age. Otzi was pre Bronze-age. Borderline neolithic.

Perhaps he was shot with the arrow on the edge of a cliff and then fell down into/onto the glacier. The killer wasn't able to take his effects because they were irretrievable from the place into which he fell.

This seems by far the most likely reason. Few scenarios would explain why such valuable possessions were left alone.

He had obviously been involved in an altercation with some controversy, otherwise he would have seeked treatment rather than go up into the mountains. So his slaying would not have been a secret that needed to be covered up, as this article posits as the reason for his belongings being untouched.

"Inspector Horn reckons Ötzi was in no hurry. At 10,500 feet, he made what appeared to be a camp in a protected gully on the mountain saddle, spreading his belongings around and sitting down to his last meal."

It seems the site where he was found was the actual camp site.

How do they determine that, though? All of the artifacts appear to be belongings that he would be carrying with him, as far as I can tell. Perhaps the location is inherently very accessible? But that could have changed over millennia (which might also explain why he turned up after so long).

Perhaps it's the way his belongings were scattered around - not like they fell from his hands after a fall but like he had put them down and camped.

> Inspector Horn reckons Ötzi was in no hurry. At 10,500 feet, he made what appeared to be a camp in a protected gully on the mountain saddle, spreading his belongings around and sitting down to his last meal.

Of course, it's also possible that his killer was the one who camped there after klling him, went through his belongings, and discarded the ones that were found. Although why would they leave his axe behind? At the very least I would've taken the bronze blade, from the axe.

>(or perhaps stealing and stabbing in the process seeing how he had little upper body strength but carried a dagger).

I have a lot of doubts about estimating upper body strength from his remainins. You can tell if he was a body builder (or not) yes, but you can have two people with similar muscle mass, but two to nervous system adaptations one might bench 50% more than the other (this is why when you start strength training strength gains out pace muscle gains). Also consider that body builders often complain they look flat of their hydration, sodium or glycogen is low and this guy has been in a dehydrator for thousands of years... TL:DR I'm skeptical of their ability ability to estimate his power generation from his remains.

> His clothing is made of multiple furs of multiple species yet he doesn't have a finished bow? I mean, it's possible he was an excellent trapper and caught all them animals OR did he take his possessions elsewhere?

Thats a pretty big stretch, maybe is last bow broke and he is finishing his new one?

"Ötzi’s longbow was only half a day’s work from completion, he added"

The facts themselves are pretty interesting, Ötzi, unhurried, was shot at prime long distance bow range (33 yards). Possibly while he was bending over, for from someone below him (slope side?).

Those concerns would be somewhat mitigated because they were able to compare his upper-body to his own lower-body.

then there is the question of what is a normal upper-body to lower-body strength ratio in pre-wheel times

My theory is that he was an senior elder of his tribe who was either challenged or challenged the leader. (evidence: the expensive furs)

He lost (contrary to the article), was expelled and was followed by some younger member or members and killed to make sure he didn't come back. (evidence - no good bow and only some headed arrows)

His belongings were left either out of respect or that the killers didn't want it known that they killed such a respected elder.

I'm not going to argue that you're wrong, but I don't know if your evidence is very conclusive. Do we know back then the furs were that valuable? I can imagine a lot of hunting going on and lots of fur to be crafted. It's still labor intensive but is the fur worth more than the meat?

I don't know what him crafting a bow means either. It surely means he didn't have one at the time and was making a new one. He could have broke the last one, traded it, lost it, had it stolen, etc.

Agreed, in no way conclusive.

I have a bunch of theories that fit the facts.

I think that's my favourite, and coincidentally the most entertaining.

If he was a thief, why did his killer not take his valuables? If a stranger robs a village and gets killed by the villagers I very much doubt that they would leave anything valuable behind.

Perhaps he took what was his and left his other stuff behind? We'd never know if he did take something back of value (just not everything). Honor among men? I don't know...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com