What is your theory of Oetzi, the 5,000-year-old mummy found in the mountains in 1991?

Question

Scientists now posit that the man was a hunter and that he died of a head trauma instead of by an arrow. They further state that the rest of the arrow (only the tip was seen in the mummy) was retrieved by his attacker.

My question is, if his attacker retrieved that arrow, why did he not take the quiver and arrows and copper axe that were found with the mummy?

Answer 1

One of the reasons not to take his quiver, arrows, etc is that it is believed you could identify the maker by distinctive styles and manufacture.  Among some modern groups, you can tell who made what, even if they are making the same type of thing.  For example, if  a group of people all drew a picture of a tree, even though it was the same tree, they would all look slightly different.  If Oetzi was in fact murdered, the attackers would have removed the arrow, so they could not be identified, and not taken his instruments, because that would be a dead giveaway as to who killed him.

Answer 2

It was my impression that he may have been able to escape and hide.  It also may very be that he was murdered and the murderer didn't want anything from him that might be used as evidence.  Perhaps he simply wanted to kill him for some reason.

Answer 3

I have no theory, but I do have a regret. It's such a pity that the p***s and testicles of Oetzi were not found.

I heard that there were many women who volunteered to be impregnated by his frozen sperm. Now that would have been an interesting (but not very ethical) experiment!

Answer 4

My boyfriend and I are both very interested in such things and read a lot of the newer material that is re-interpreting traditional, orthodox archaeology.

These are all just guesses based on the various interpretations of the evidence.  Most of what we know (or THINK we know)   about the ancient world is based on speculation which, in turn, is based on the opinions of those who have garnered enough prestige in the field to qualify as "authorities".  That does not mean that any of it is or isn't correct.

Opinions and ideas that do not get accepted into the enclaves of orthodox mainstream science are often just as potentially valid and worthy of public acceptance (In fact, in many cases, they actually make MORE logical sense!) as those we see published and taught with the sanctions and blessings of those "authorities".  

One can only wonder how the archaeologists of the distant future will see OUR ruins.  Will they interpret Mickey Mouse as one of our "Gods" with Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny as lesser members of the same pantheon???  Will the pc you are reading this on become a "ritualistic object" on which we summoned images of our deities?

Will our domed stadiums become "burial mounds?  Will Wal-Mart and Safeway stores be interpreted as the temple storehouses where we brought offerings to our deities?

Will tupperware parties and baby showers be interpreted as fertility rituals?  Of course, Christmas trees will be the ultimate symbol of nature worship!  Health clubs could easily be seen as torture chambers and high-heeled, pointy-toed shoes as devices worn as an act of pennance when a particular god or goddess has been offended.

Well, you get the idea!

Answer 5

There are 6 theories about his death. as you know archeologists found several tools include: a longbow made of yew, a chamois hide quiver, fourteen arrows (only two finished) , a copper ax , a flint-bladed dagger with a woven sheath, a tool for sharpening (retouching) flint, a larch wood frame and cords of a backpack (pannier), ibex bones, two birch-bark cylinders, a calf leather belt pouch, a tassel made with a white marble bead and twisted hide strips, two pieces of birch fungus (each threaded with hide strips) and other tools...

The theory that I like is the 6th theory. Walter Leitner thinks he was a shaman, but I think Ötzi was actually part of an armed raiding party. I argue that why did a shaman need to carry so many tools? Therefore, he should be part of an armed raiding party. As you know DNA, analysis revealed traces of blood from four other people on his gear: one from his knife, two from the same arrowhead, and a fourth from his coat. I think the attackers tried to hid their crime. Therefore, they took the arrow out and hoped none would find out what happened to him or who killed him.

Here are all the theories about his death:

  Theory 1: Ötzi Froze to Death Peacefully

At first, scientists believed that Ötzi was caught in a heavy snowfall, fell asleep, and froze to death. They concluded this because there were no signs of predator attacks (and because they did not find conclusive evidence of other wounds). They believed that the body must have been covered with snow almost immediately or else the body would have been preyed upon.

Theory 1: Discarded. The first theory was put to rest in June 2001 when the Iceman was x-rayed by a different team of scientists (in Bolzano). They discovered that he had an arrowhead buried in his left shoulder. In June 2002, they also discovered that the Iceman had a fairly debilitating wound to one hand.



Theory 2: Ötzi Was Injured in a Fight or a Fall Before He Froze to Death

Early x-rays (done in Innsbruck) appeared to show broken ribs on his right side. This caused endless speculation about his death: Were these fractured ribs the result of a fight or a fall shortly before his death? Could this fight or fall have led to his death? Or did he receive the broken ribs after he died? Konrad Spindler wrote about this theory in quite dramatic fashion in The Man in the Ice and Human Mummies.  

Theory 2: Re-examined. The second theory suffered a set back, though when the new x-rays did not show any sign of broken ribs (though it is possible that the broken ribs did not show up as sometimes happens). The Italian radiology team believes that the original x-rays merely show the results of (1) compression (snow and ice pressing against the Iceman's ribcage) and (2) a misreading of the original x-ray (two ribs are overlapping, which can give the appearance of a fracture when none is actually there).  

Even if there are no broken ribs, the Iceman showed obvious signs of a fight of some kind.  

Other theories were proposed:

Theory 3: Ötzi was shot accidentally

According to author Brenda Fowler, Dr. Annaluisa Pedrotti (University of Trento) speculated that the Iceman may have been shot by a hunter who buried Ötzi immediately.

Theory 3: Discarded. Studies suggest that the Iceman was a victim of homicide.

Theory 4: Ötzi was a victim of homicide

Again, according to Fowler, Dr. Markus Egg (Romano-Germanic Central Museum) offered the theory that Ötzi was a shepherd who was killed by another shepherd who wanted a larger flock of animals. Dr. Eduard Egarter Vigl proposed other possibilities: a returning shepherd, he arrived home as his village was being attacked, or he arrived home to find that "another man had taken his wife during his absence" (Smithsonian).

Theory 4: Incomplete. No one doubts that the Iceman was a victim of homicide at this point. The issue is the motive and the circumstances...and both remain unclear.

Theory 5: Ötzi was a victim of attempted robbery and devised an unsuccessful plan (the Lizard Tail Gambit) to ensnare his assailant.

Petr Jandácek suggests that the Iceman was the victim of attempted robbery. Someone wanted his copper axe. Ötzi fought him off, injuring his hand in a knife fight. As he retreated up the mountain, the robber shot him in the shoulder with an arrow and followed him.

According to Jandácek, Ötzi  planned a strategy to save himself. Using something like the Lizard Tail Gambit (a chess strategy, in which a pawn or two are sacrificed to achieve a better position), the Iceman placed his belongings (his backpack, bow, and his highly desirable ax) on top of some rocks; he positioned his quiver on the ground a few feet away. Ötzi took only his dagger and his container of hot coals. He covered himself in a snowdrift, using a peephole to watch for his attacker. He placed his left arm under his chin and his right arm straight at his side, his right hand grasping a dagger in self defense, in case the gambit failed.

The snowfall was heavy, however, and the attacker gave up. Ötzi waited, until perhaps he fell asleep and froze to death, protected from predators by the snowdrift he had used for cover. But these theories were superceded by

Theory 5:A possibility. This is as good a theory as any. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove it.

  Theory 6: Ötzi was a victim of a power play

According to Walter Leitner of the Institute for Ancient and Early History at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, Ötzi may well have been a shaman and a highly respected member of his group. In a power play, another group of individuals wanted to

assume that power--what better way than killing the Iceman. Leitner believes Ötzi was a shaman because of the possessions he had with him, in particular the copper axe which was not a common object.  

Leitner also believes that the attackers kept at a distance during their attack, perhaps because they were afraid of the shaman and what he might do. When Ötzi was wounded, he may have tried to descend the mountain but was overcome (Leitner believes that it makes sense for Ötzi to have tried to go down the mountain, once he was wounded, rather than up to a higher position).  By killing him in the mountains, well out of sight, his attackers may have hoped that his death (or disappearance) was seen as an accident.

Theory 6: A possibility. This, too, has possibilities, and is a variation of Theory 4. Could the Iceman have been a shaman (a recent study suggests that he was a shepherd)? Evidence suggests that he was attacked by multiple assailants. This theory offers a good possibility.

Answer 6

If the trauma to the head is worse than that produced by an arrow, I would think it would have been obvious.  It makes no sense that they would leave the guy's belongings, especially the copper ax.  It would seem more logical that he got attacked and did enough damage to the attacker that he wasn't followed.  He managed to find shelter where he died of his wounds and was buried under the snow.  He probably pulled the arrow out himself.

Answer 7

Really GOOD question...the first one that popped into my head when I read the article.  Another question...couldn't the Icemen have pulled the arrow out himself and escaped his attackers?  It didn't kill him immediately and if I'd been him my first impulse would have been to pull the arrow out.  This might explain why the Ice man still had all his possessions. The head trauma could have been due to a fall I suppose.

Answer 8

maybe he was sufficiently supplied - or - maybe there were rules/beliefs/traditions/laws against taking property of others and or the dead.

not that i know about this case/ whole area.