Talk:Ötzi the Iceman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ötzi the Iceman article.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Acupuncture

Someone purged all references to acupuncture and Ötzi from both this article and the acupuncture article. Check the Talk page for Acupuncture, as well as (among many other links) http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iceman/evidence/tattoos.html

Also, the Smithsonian Natural History Museum makes the same claims in their Oetzi exhibit about acupuncture and tattoos. -S

That paragraph was apparently restored at some point. Jorge Stolfi 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There should clearly be an acupuncture reference here. It's what I came to this page looking for, as it's common knowledge xod 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See one of the myriad inane Wikipedia BLP-type policies for lengthy irrational explanations of why ignorant admins purge relevant material that violate their narrow minded belief systems

[edit] An Ancient Crime?

I have removed the following text from this section:

Consider the evidence. The man was wearing a uniform, (his bearskin hat), and he was armed to the teeth with antipersonnel weapons. His copper axe was only good for hitting people over the head. Pure copper is too soft to hold a sharp edge. His flint dagger is only good for stabbing people. His bow and arrows, while good for hunting are also excellent for killing people. Witness his wound and its inevitable results.

This is entirely speculation, as far as I can tell:

  • The concept of a uniform is a relatively recent innovation; it is unlikely that someone in a prehistoric culture would have a special uniform to differentiate him from his antagonists, if such there were. Since we have no idea what his fellows wore, speculating that the hat had some special significance is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.
  • If a copper axe is good enough for killing people, it's good enough for killing animals and possibly still better for cutting down saplings than a plain rock or even a flint knife.
  • A flint dagger is good for cutting many things; anyone with wilderness survival experience knows that a knife is one of the most essential tools to have when fending for oneself.

, indicating he did not make his own clothing (uniform?)

Or that he repaired it in haste after a fight? Again, purest speculation. Furthermore, even if he did not make the clothing himself, that does not support further speculation.

The only ancient criminal here was him, although it might not be correct to place 20th century morality onto a stone age human.

This is unencyclopedic in tone and is not supported. There are any number of reasons why he might have been attacked that do not require him to be a "criminal."

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO It's higly unlikely for a man to intentionally start a battle being equipped with an unfinished bow and only two usable arrows out of fourteen. It's evident that he estimated to have time to finish his equipement during the trip (also to have something to do, next to the fire, first to sleep) and so, that the trip was expected to be several days long. One of the hypotesis is that he was a merchant, this is the more probable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.228.251 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Held up by 34th century BC highwaymen? LamontCranston (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They're wrong, if the bow was unfinished he wouldn't have been able to shoot two people with the same arrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.36.248 (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copper-stone Age or Bronze Age?

The article used to state that Ötzi offers "an unprecedented view of Chalcolithic (Copper-stone Age) Europeans". An anonymous editor has changed this to "Bronze Age Europeans". Would someone knowledgable about this subject like to confirm wehther this fact is correct? Thanks. Cheers, Jacklee 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longbow

In this article the length of the longbow is described as "3 feet 2 inches (one metre)", refering to Davies, Norman (1996). Europe: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198201710. In his book "Der Mann im Eis" from 1993 Konrad Spindler on sites 100/101 gives a detailed description of the longbow, mentioning the length of 182 cm. Pictures of the bow also leave the impression the length is significantly longer than 1 m. Who is right? 217.94.187.119 09:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the Davies book. If you've got a more accurate figure from Spindler, do update the article accordingly, citing Spindler as authority (please indicate the page number from the book if possible). Cheers, Jacklee 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Died of Arrow Wound and After Effects

Article: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/06/iceman_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070606164030&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000 "Researchers from Switzerland and Italy used newly developed medical scanners to examine the hunter's frozen corpse to determine that the arrow had torn a hole in an artery beneath his left collarbone, leading to a massive loss of blood.

That, in turn, caused Oetzi to go into shock and suffer a heart attack, according to the article published online in the Journal of Archaeological Science." Altonbr 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to a Yahoo news article he died of Head Trauma not the arrow wound. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070829/ap_on_re_eu/italy_iceman_s_demise This article also describes his wieght and such. The current article states he died from cardiac arrest. This should be looked at and possibly changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.112.84.161 (talk) 17:41, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His weight?

The article says his weight was only 84 Lbs. This does not seem reasonable. It certainly needs a better specific reference. I would direct attention to http://www.mummytombs.com/otzi/health.htm for a reference of 110 Lbs, which sounds much more reasonable. I doubt he would have been on a mountain in fighting condition at 84 Lbs with his given height. Lance May

I did think the weight of 84 lbs, which was stated in a newspaper article, seemed a little on the low side too. I suspect that this was the weight of Ötzi's corpse rather than his weight when he was alive, but this was not clear from the newspaper. Cheers, Jacklee 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infertility Link in Iceman's DNA

Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4674866.stm

I was simply going to quote some parts of the article here, but I am not sure if it would be deleted due to a copyright violation.

In short, a new study found that Oetzi may have been infertile. Now that we know for sure he died due to an arrow puncture which caused internal bleeding, does this information warrant an addition to the article?

Even without the new information, should it be included anyway? (Sonaro 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Of course it should be added--any additional factual information should be added--, and I have tentatively put it under "health" without the speculation about his death. DGG 03:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. Sonaro 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ötzi's penis

How's that for a subject line. Anyway, I read somewhere once that although it was thought that Oetzi had no penis, he did in fact have one, but it had suffered an understandable amount of shrinkage. Seriously. If anyone actually knows something about this, then could they change that sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.59.207 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

the story about his discovery by Rastbichler-Zissernig can has been online 2001.[5]

I'm not sure what this is referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraithcraze (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant portion of the article has been rewritten. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerously underweight

Even though Ötzi is short by today's standards, the estimate that he weighed just six stone at the time of death struck me as very low, so I worked out his BMI and it comes out at just under 14, which is below the starvation threshold. I won't edit the article because I don't have time to go looking through the sources to see if anything is said about him being extremely underweight, but there is a short 'health' section that doesn't mention this, and I think it should. Given that we have height and mass figures in the article, it's not original research to make the trivial connection that reveals Ötzi to have been exceptionally thin, and I think given the other theorising that's done about his life and death, this fact demands explanation. It seems he had an active life in the mountains, and just before his death had eaten what seem to be a couple of decent meals. How is this reconciled with his strikingly undernourished state? 79.68.202.189 (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that's totally OR. You'd need a source for something like that, even putting in his BMI would be iffy. WLU (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the section "His weight?" above, I agree that the weight of 84 lbs, which was stated in a newspaper article, seems rather low. I suspect that this was the weight of Ötzi's corpse when it was found rather than his weight when he was alive, but this was not clear from the newspaper. If a more accurate source can be found, the figure can be corrected. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, if a source that clearly stated it was pre- or post-freeze weight, that would be a good addition, but as is it's unclear. WLU (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be OR, dude. The height and weight are given in the article, it is only a matter of providing clarity to the reader to point out that he was extremely underweight. That's only the case, of course, if that weight figure is accurate. Given what's been said, I suspect it actually refers to the weight of his preserved body and doesn't necessarily reflect his weight at the time of death. I would suggest rewording the sentence in question to remove the assertion that he weighed 38 kg at the time of death. The source given isn't clear on this, so our leap to calling that his death weight is what's OR, if anything. I can't do it because someone has protected the article. 79.68.202.189 (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you portrayed the material and sources as presenting any conclusion as to his weight and health status, that'd pretty much be a WP:SYNTH, which is original research. For clarity, what source would you be basing these conclusions on? If the only source is this page, you can't really say anything about his health status due to weight because they don't. If you suspect it refers to something, but don't have a reliable source to prove it, again I would say that is original research. The source says nothing about his weight beyond the gross figure. That's all that we can say from my understanding of WP:OR. What would you suggest as a change, and what would your sources be? WLU (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of anything to clarify the information in that Guardian article, what I would do if I could edit the page is just remove anything about weight from the sentence, because the article currently asserts that it refers to his weight at the time of death, which is not necessarily borne out by the source and seems unlikely for the reasons discussed. Can someone remove it please? 79.68.202.189 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Two weeks later and no one has made the edit requested, despite it having been clearly pointed out that the sentence as it stands is no good and detracts from the article. I once read a Wikipedia advocate's assurance that most Wikipedians would rather eat broken glass than allow an error that had been noted to go uncorrected, but all I've had here is "dude, that's totally OR." Wikipedia needs to make its mind up: let your editing be open to all and live with the chaos, or lock things down a bit and use the breathing space to take care of your content. In the case of this article we have a page protected from unregistered editors, but when a reader points out an error they're unable to fix because of this protection, they get ignored. 79.68.191.40 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The weight comment is reliably sourced, but the underweight comment is not. Therefore, the article is fine as it is. Two editors have responded that there is a problem with your suggested changes. Wikipedia's not broken, your edits do not comply with policy. Feel free to bring this up at WP:RFC, with an admin, or on the relevant wikiproject page. Or Talk:WP:OR. WLU (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, 79.68.191.40. I've had a look at the article and some sources, and have revised the infobox and article text as regards the Iceman's weight. Permanent protection from unregistered editors was requested for this article because of almost daily vandalism. It's unfortunate that no registered editors watching the article were able to deal with your concerns in a timely fashion, but (at least for me) "real life" takes priority. Also, you could have become a registered editor and made the change yourself. Do think about taking that step! :-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I visited the Iceman exhibition at the ANMM over the weekend, and the display indicated that Otzi weighed about 50kg whilst alive, while the mummy now weighs 13kg. I'll see if I can find a source for this and possibly edit based on this Bruiseviolet (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who knows if that was his actual weight? the methods used to find his weight at time of death might have been erronous; scientists screw up all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not for Wikipedia editors to decide whether the scientists have done their job properly or not, just to report the facts based on reliable sources. If it turns out that there has been a mistake and that is reported, the article can be updated at that stage. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad organization

The details of the bickering between the discoverers over money etc. does not belong at the beginning of the article. It is totally irrelevant to the significance of the mummy, which is the primary topic of interest to most readers. That whole section needs to be stuck somewhere at the end of the article, in keeping with its importance, or lack of it. Haiduc (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is more logical for the information on disputes relating to the discovery of the mummy to be under the "Discovery" heading. And having a "Miscellanea" section is an invitation for all sorts of trivia to be stuck into the article: see "Wikipedia:Trivia sections". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The reader does not prioritize information according to some arbitrary logical scheme (and there are other possible logics that could be applied to the article). The reader comes in to read about a find with historical and anthropological significance. Those topics must first be exhausted before launching into a legalistic discussion about who may or not have rights to the mummy. I think we can afford to be somewhat flexible in the arrangement of the material so as to serve the interests of the reader before those of the archivist. As for the "miscellanea" section being a magnet for trivia, if it invites material that previously did not fit, that may be a plus, and if something is posted that is inappropriate it can always be deleted. There are no fail-safe strategies. Haiduc (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather than having them as sub-sections on the page, I think they're both sufficiently notable to have their own sections - it eliminates the temptation to add more trivia and doesn't try to link separate sections with no real need to be linked. I edited the page with this in mind. WLU (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's that difficult for readers to locate the information on Ötzi's historical and anthropological significance since there's a table of contents, but have no objections to the article being left as you revised it. I was also going to suggest that the subsections under the "Miscellanea" section be made full sections in their own right, but am glad to see that WLU beat me to it. :-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this is a good solution. Haiduc (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otzi's bow

The article refers to otzi's bow as being unfinished, but this is probably not the case. This was assumed because the bow was determined to have drawn about 166# at 28 inches. however, it is unlikely that a man from this time period would wander this far away from home without being fully equipped; aside from the bow he also had an axe, 14 arrows, a knife, medicinal mushrooms and a firestarting kit. he was equipped for a journey, so it wouldn't make sense for him to have had an unfinished bow. also, one arrow had blood from 2 different people on it, indicating that he had obviously fired the arrow as it is unlikely that he had used it as a melee weapon when he also had a knife and an axe on him. The bow had no nocks, but bows from this time period often didn't have nocks, but instead had the string tied tightly to the sharply tapered ends, sometmimes aided by a buildup of sinew under it. 166 pounds is alot, but only compared to modern bows. modern bow hunters use 50-60# bows, which is extremely weak in comparison to the majority of ancient bows, among which a bow under 80# is rarely found. humans back in this age were a little shorter than modern humans, but were much stronger due to a superior lifestyle and diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Any references for these views, so we can mention it in the article? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In what way was it 'unfinished'? This suggests it could be a quick and easy job but hardly one to do while traveling. LamontCranston (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They say it's unfinished because it lacks a grip and they don't know how he attached the string, pretty weak argument if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.36.248 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)