Talk:Ötzi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Italy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Height[edit]

The height of Otsi is estimated to 1.58 +/- 2 cm in this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.02.001

This scientific paper should be used as source rather than the dated newspaper reference now used in 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkander59 (talkcontribs) 18:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Health[edit]

Lyme disease, though discovered through genetic testing and described there, should be mentioned under the health heading.

Redundant yew[edit]

Both the haft and the handle were made of yew. But a haft is a handle--doncha know? OK, the haft was perpendicular to the handle. --AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.241.205 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There does seem to be something wrong there. Most of that paragraph is uncited (WP:V), but there is a reference link regarding the axe. The source confirms it was 60 cm long. The axe article confirms that the haft of an axe is its handle. Ötzi's axe is complicated by the wooden right-angle. The cited source calls the part beyond the right-angle a 'forked shaft' at one point, then later refers to it as the haft again when talking about attaching the blade. It is not clear from the photo whether there is a woodworking joint at the right-angle of if is what might be called a 'grown crook'. In either case, saying the haft is made from 'yew tree bark' is clearly nonsense, as that would have no strength. the cited source says the haft is made from 'carefully smoothed yew', which implies wood. Therefore adding that 'the handle of the axe was made from yew branch' is redundant, and the leather binding is at the blade end, not the grip end as we imply. I'm going to try to improve what we have, based on the source. The second part of the paragraph, talking about metallurgy I cannot help with without a reference, but I shall remove the comment about whether archaeologists were 'surprised' or not, as it seems unnecessary and unencyclopedic without a source. --Nigelj (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2012[edit]


99.9.96.42 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC) In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the 'tools and equipment section' there is a slight spelling error. The line says something like, "arrow's HAFT". It is a slight mistake, but I believe the line should say something more like, "arrow's SHAFT." Thank you for considering it. -Grant Anderson. Danville, CA

Edit request on 21 June 2012[edit]


99.9.96.42 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC) In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the 'tools and equipment section' there is a slight spelling error. The line says something like, "arrow's HAFT". It is a slight mistake, but I believe the line should say something more like, "arrow's SHAFT." Thank you for considering it. -Grant Anderson. Danville, CA

Edit request on 21 June 2012[edit]


99.9.96.42 (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC) In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the 'tools and equipment section' there is a slight spelling error. The line says something like, "arrow's HAFT". It is a slight mistake, but I believe the line should say something more like, "arrow's SHAFT." Thank you for considering it. -Grant Anderson. Danville, CA

A "HAFT" is only usually acceptable when referring to the handle of a sword.

Done, but there really was no need to post the same thing thrice. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 07:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article only uses "haft" once, referring to the axe. It is correct. I have reverted it. Strebe (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request re: cause of death[edit]

Article contradicts itself by stating exsanguination as cause of death and later citing article which discredits the theory.

Citation for cause of death is a spurious documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.249.234 (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Occupation speculation[edit]

Based on the items found with the body, it appears he may had been an adventurer, until he took an arrow in the shoulder.

Iceman's name..[edit]

I've looked, but I can't to find anything about how they decided he's called "Otzi", should something like that be added? GWires (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Apparently he's called 'Ötzi' because the hikers who found him were hiking in the Ötztal Alps along the Austrian-Italian border. I think this should be added to the Wikipedia page, though. GWires (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC) This has been done :)

Otzi's "curse"[edit]

It should be noted with prejudice that the deaths of these people occurred over a course of a two decades and are not at all mysterious. There are very good, logical reasons they died that are no more unusual then any other deaths from accidents to cancer. I love when fringe people use terms like 'mysterious', 'unusual', 'unexplained', etc. in place of any actual science behind what they are saying. What they really mean is these are completely explained but not in a way that I want it to be so I will just call it mysterious unless some expert comes to the conclusion I most agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:293A:2CD9:9471:59E7 (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I love when skeptics try to disguise self-important barbs as actual fact. No one is saying "seven people died in the thirty years since Otzi was discovered; how very mysterious!" Seven people directly related to Otzi's discovery, removal from the mountain, and initial handling died in very dramatic, often ironic ways. That's unusual. Period. Even if you chalk it up to pure coincidence, seven coincidences in a row are still unusual. 74.77.27.153 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems a lot of people connected with the Kennedy assassination died suspiciously which has suggested a conspiracy. When the regicides of Charles I were rounded up 11 years later, out of 59 approx a third had died - notably Oliver Cromwell. It is interesting to compare the death rates with people associated with any event over the succeeding decades, especially as many participants are often middle-aged men (politicians, archaeologists etc.) or depending on the event may be in dangerous occupations, so we may be ;ooking at a particular demographic.Streona (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

date of death in infobox[edit]

"Died c3255 BC"? Seriously? with birth year estimated to approximately the closest century it does look a bit ridiculous to give an exact year for the poor guy's demise. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cause of Death[edit]

In June, 2013, scientists determined that the head wound caused Otzi's death. [Cause of Death 1] These scientists tested Otzi's blood and found Fibirin, a coagulation protein, in his brain tissue. Fibirin appears when a person is wounded, and quickly disappears, within 30 minutes or less. The fact that he still had Fibirin in his blood proves that Otzi died quickly, from the head wound, not from bleeding out due to the arrow as previously thought. [Cause of Death 2] Bleeding out from the artery severed by the arrow would have taken taken several days, not several minutes. They still don't know, however, if Otzi fell because of the arrow, was hit over the head by an attacker or otherwise injured his head. Regardless, this scientific discovery definitively proves that the head wound, not the arrow, killed Otzi. Hermansmom (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ woollaston, Victoria. "Ötzi the prehistoric iceman was killed by a blow to the head - and NOT by an arrow, claim scientists Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2339447/tzi-prehistoric-iceman-killed-blow-head--NOT-arrow-claim-scientists.html#ixzz2lhAc5plu Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook". Mail Online. Retrieved 11 June 2013. 
  2. ^ Gannon, Megan. "Otzi The Iceman Suffered Head Blow Before Death, Mummy's Brain Tissue Shows". Retrieved 11 June 2013. 
I tried to read the references, but could not find such definite conclusions. Fibrin was found, which suggests he died quickly, but that is all I could find. --LPfi (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Otzi: Cause of Death[edit]

In June, 2013, scientists determined that the head wound caused Otzi's death. [1] These scientists tested Otzi's blood and found Fibirin, a coagulation protein, in his brain tissue. Fibirin appears when a person is wounded, and quickly disappears, within 30 minutes or less. The fact that he still had Fibirin in his blood proves that Otzi died quickly, from the head wound, not from bleeding out due to the arrow as previously thought. [2] Bleeding out from the artery severed by the arrow would have taken taken several days, not several minutes. They still don't know, however, if Otzi fell because of the arrow, was hit over the head by an attacker or otherwise injured his head. Regardless, this scientific discovery definitively proves that the head wound, not the arrow, killed Otzi. Hermansmom (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Hermansmom (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in the form "change X to Y", and please identify your source(s). Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Language Spoken by Ötzi[edit]

Has anyone proposed a hypothesis as to what language Ötzi spoke in life? Was it Proto-Indo-European? MerscratianAce (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely. No known model locates Proto-Indo-European anywhere close to northern Italy. The most favoured Kurgan hypothesis has Proto-Indo-European spoken ca. 3400 BC in the southern Ukraine (at the northern shore of the Sea of Azov west until the mouth of the Dnieper River or so). From there, it spread into all directions, reaching Central Europe by way of migrations along the valley of the Danube. Ötzi most likely lived in the 33rd century, or possibly a century earlier or later, and almost certainly died before 3100 BC, and by 3100 BC, Indo-European dialects were hardly spoken further west than the Pannonian Basin (modern Hungary). So Ötzi lived indeed roughly at the same time as Proto-Indo-European or early Indo-European, but in the wrong location to interact with its speakers. Too far away from the Black Sea in any case.
He must therefore have spoken one of the many Pre-Indo-European languages native to the region. The closest known such language is the North Picene language, unfortunately essentially only known from a single substantial inscription, whose meaning and purpose is elusive. Alternatively, he might also have spoken a relative of Basque/Aquitanian, whose origin apparently lies in Southern France. Rhaetic and Etruscan are geographically most close, but often suspected to be a late introduction (ca. 1000 BC) from the Aegean Sea region. Some place-names in the Alps, and perhaps some dialect words, are sometimes ascribed to unknown "Alpine" Pre-Indo-European substratum languages, which may or may not be identical with some of the named/identified groups.
Ötzi's genetic link to Corsica and Sardinia may be telling: Pre-Indo-European languages with uncertain affiliation were spoken on Corsica and Sardinia in the Bronze Age and certainly as late as the Iron Age, but nothing but scant traces in modern Corsican and Sardinian dialects are left from them. While some of these languages may have been introduced through immigration from North Africa, the Iberian peninsula or Southern France, and some of the non-Latin elements of Corsican and Sardinian seem to point into these directions, including a few words resembling Basque, there is also evidence for immigration from what is now Italy, and since this is also the region from which Corsica and Sardinia were easiest to access, a very early (perhaps even Paleolithic) migration from northern Italy to Corsica and Sardinia is very likely and would best explain the genetic similarity (a migration from Corsica or Sardinia being much less probable).
The exceptionally high contribution of Neanderthal genes in Ötzi's genome indicates that his group was deeply rooted in Europe and makes it less likely that his group descends from a later (Mesolithic or Neolithic) migration from elsewhere, especially the Middle East or North Africa. It is thought that agriculture was spread in Europe through a migration from Anatolia, accompanied by the spread of the Linear Pottery culture, and probably a language family as well. This language family, to which could well have belonged the unknown languages of the Old European cultures of the Balkan (Vinča and Cucuteni-Trypillian), might have been related to ancient Hattic, or the languages of the Caucasus. Certain substratum traces in Germanic, Celtic and Italic point to a language which may have typologically resembled Hattic and (Northwest) Caucasian languages (per Schrijver especially). The Minoan language of Bronze Age Crete (whose texts can be analysed structurally and phonetically with some probability, but are not understood) could belong to the same group, as it appears typologically similar. It appears that Ötzi belonged to the older, pre-Neolithic population of Europe, and therefore it seems less likely that he spoke a language of the family presumably spoken by the agriculturalists from Anatolia who are associated with the Linear Pottery.
According to the rival Anatolian hypothesis of Indo-European origins, however, agriculture (at least in Europe) was spread by early Indo-Europeans, and Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Anatolia ca. 7000–6000 BC. This would mean that the family supposedly spoken by the agriculturalists of Old Europe was simply Indo-European. If this hypothesis is true (despite the serious problems found with it), Ötzi could have spoken a very early Indo-European language, presumably some ancestral form of Italic or Celtic. But he would not have spoken Proto-Indo-European.
Apart from the two major hypotheses, there are various lesser proposals for Indo-European origins, but none whose conclusions substantially differ.
However, you are touching on a somewhat surprising gap in the coverage of Ötzi. Was Ötzi "Neolithicised"? Was he a member of a farming society who went on a hunting trip (farming societies frequently supplement their diet with hunting, especially in bad times)? Or was he a member of a group of hunter-gatherers? Who were in contact with farmers and traded with them? Which archaeological culture could he belong to? I have no answers to these questions, even though they seem relevant. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, OK – I missed the proposal that he was a mountain shepherd. So he does not seem to have been from a hunter-gatherer culture. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I have now read up on Ötzi's Y-chromosomal haplogroup and considering it is haplogroup G2a2b (formerly known as G2a4), he is really a descendant of the first European agriculturalists, whose origin is in West or South Asia. (Interestingly, this subgroup has now been found in individuals from the southwestern corner of Tyrol.) So it appears most likely that he either spoke an "Old European"/"Linear Pottery" language (for want of an established name – terms encountered in the literature are "North Balkan Substrate", "A1", "European", "Atlantic" or "language of bird names"), or, per Renfrew's revision of the Anatolian hypothesis, some form of (North-)Western Indo-European – (Pre-)Proto-Italic? – Venetic is the closest attested ancient Indo-European language besides the Celtic languages Lepontic and Noric. Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic are both very different from Proto-Indo-European, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Reconstruction of what Ötzi may have looked like

Should this image be included somewhere? Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: The last paragraph under the genetic analysis, while an accurate statement of what appeared in the popular press, is unfortunately misleading and uninformative. What was actually found in the survey cited was 19 local modern Tyrolean men who were Y-chromosome haplotype G-L91. As mentioned in the first paragraph under genetic analysis, Otzi falls in this haplogroup which is actually more abundant in South Corsica than in Tyrol. Haplogroups are generally 10s of thousands of years old and widely distributed. So this match says very little about how closely these men are related to Otzi. 128.143.250.150 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)