Talk:Ötzi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Confusion about what he was wearing

The article makes statements like "he wore a ... hat". It rather carelessly gives the impression that he was found wearing all these clothes. In fact, the film in the Bolzano museum shows that he was largely (entirely?) unclothed when found. The article needs to be a lot clearer about what he really was wearing when he was dug out of the ice, and where and when his (presumed) clothes were found. The text displayed in the museum says that his belongings were recovered many months later in more than one expedition. How do we even know that they were *his* clothes? There may be little doubt that they were his, but this needs to be justified. The article omits a lot of interesting and valuable information about the stages in which his belongings were recovered and where exactly they were found in relation to the body. The German version of this wiki page is a bit clearer on this point: it says his clothes were found nearby. But it still doesn't say how far away or when. It's frustrating that no-one seems to be addressing this important point: how did come to be undressed? Did he undress himself (unlikely)? Did someone else undress him? Or did his clothes just remove themselves after he died?

I'm not a valid source, but it's likely the glacial stuff that distorted his body/skin and removed his hair also removed his clothing. I've got a Scientific American article from 2003 that says (along with corroborating the 3300BC date given in the intro) that there was a second expedition in 1992 to get his stuff. I don't know how good Scientific American is as a source, though. (Also I can't be more helpful about the source because I have a pdf for a class, not the issue itself) 174.20.67.206 (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dried Fungus

Removed latter part of sentence stating that the dried fungus was to be used as tinder. There is no evidence to support this. In fact the maple leaves in the woodbark container contained charcoal, which catches fire much quicker than wood and thus would be used as tinder. Additionally the fungus was on a leather string, making it more likely to have been used as medicine then to have been burned. -http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/otzi-the-iceman-murder/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.67.233 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed Mlpearc MESSAGE 13:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Medical vs. Medicinal

Given the time period and the definition of each word, and the "assumed" reason Ötzi had and carried these items "Medicinal" seems to be the correct wording. Mlpearc MESSAGE 13:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ritual sacrifice

The infobox contains the statement that Ötzi was possibly the victim of "ritual sacrifice." As I understand it from current thinking [1], that possibility has almost certainly been ruled out. Is that not correct? MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm quite surprised that this banal edit was reverted and even more surprised that it was reverted due to a supposed lack of sources. The content of my addition is so trivial that I don't see the need to source it. In what universe is it dubious that Bolzano is the capital of the province of South Tyrol? I don't think that it's really necessary, but here are a couple of links [2] [3] [4].

My motivation for the edit was twofold: First I wanted to make it more evident, why the museum is called South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology. Secondly the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is just a loose commonwealth of the autonomous provinces South Tyrol and Trentino which are by far better known than the region. So the mention of South Tyrol makes the article preciser and the museum easier for readers to locate. Regards, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised you were reverted too - your edit did improve the article and is 100% correct. noclador (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"The body was at first thought to be a modern corpse, like several others which had been recently found in the region."

"The body was at first thought to be a modern corpse, like several others which had been recently found in the region." I wish this was sourced. Were modern bodies turning up in the region? How modern? Was it initially thought that Ötzi was a very recently deceased person? If only this were sourced, I might have a way of knowing. Goateeki (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

huh? "which had been recently found in the region"?? I am from the region, and there was no other corpses found there until years later - the only mummified other corpses I know off are 3 dead Austrian soldiers killed during the Battle of San Matteo found in 2004 on a flank of Punta San Matteo (around 100km south of where Ötzi was found). And if you read the BBC article about that [5] you have this line: "Bodies haven't been found in the ice around here for decades." What we find in the mountains are bones, ammunition and equipment from the fighting in WWI, but preserved mummies - the first I heard in my lifetime off were the 3 found in 2004. Thanks for finding this sentence; I will remove it as a) wrong and b) unsourced (which is obvious as it is a wrong statement).noclador (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Inventory

Otzi carried two finished longbows and one unfinished. Only the unfinished is mentioned in the entry. Can someone confirm this and correct the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maasha (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Body weight

The German Wikipedia reports a current body weight of 15kg (thats the weight they monitor in the museum). Unless he did not lose 23kg between his discovery and the display in the museum, which I think is unlikely, one of the weights is wrong. The German reference doesn't seem to be more reliable, so this needs an independent source.

thats the reference of the german version http://www.faz.net/artikel/C30156/oetzi-sie-hatten-ihn-eiskalt-erwischt-30496520.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahalalel895 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the "weight at recovery". Agentilini (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Agentilini

Memorial

Interesting is: how high is the memorial, what does its form stand for? --Helium4 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, does anyone expect that any reader would want to know the elevation of the body when it was found? I read the fascinating theories of this or that, but the article forgets this basic fact? How high was the body when found?

CountMacula (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism

This page is often the target of vandalism. Can't this page be blocked from beeing edited by anonymous users (IP-adresses)?--Sajoch (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a historicaly relevant page, and if it is frequently targeted by vandals it should be protected.Meatsgains (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

His Longbow

From what I've read it takes years of practice and you have to develop the strength to draw a longbow. Does the body show stronger muscles which are involved with drawing a longbow of that size?72.201.19.165 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Eye colour etc

Copied here from my Talk page, as this is about the article, not me, and other editors here may want to comment.
Can you explain what you mean by "simple, bald statement" about his eye color? Surely a source that indicates they used genetic analysis to figure out his eye color is more useful than that Discovery reference with no real explanation of how they came to that conclusion? Hergilfs (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry, Hergilfs, I did not see your edit further down the page when I began by reverting this edit of yours. I saw only your deletion of the sentence about eye colour, especially since you had not given an edit summary. in my own edits I only intended to reinstate some coverage of the Discovery News article, with more than just eye colour emphasised. I did not see the collateral damage I was causing down the page. My silly fault, and I should have been more careful. Sorry. I see you put back the deleted material here so nothing is lost. I think our two additions live quite happily together in their separate sections now, don't you? Sorry again. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New Nova episode

NOVA episode "Iceman Murder Mystery" aired October 26, 2011. 99.190.85.15 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Altitude/Elevation of the discovery

Very simple, interesting, and relevant question of fact: at what elevation was the body found? CountMacula (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the question - that info was truly missing! I added it.--Sajoch (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Sajoch. But hey, I see you used what we Yanks call a decimal point instead of a comma. To us, 3.210 meters is about ten feet! Not sure of the convention in Britain, Canada, or Australia.CountMacula (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ötzi and his last meal; new findings

http://io9.com/5866987/tzi-the-iceman-died-on-a-suspiciously-full-stomach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.237.163 (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Better pic of Ötzi and his equipment is available

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Bozen_1_%28177%29.JPG

should maybe used (because it is more accurate) rather than the one from the Museum Bélesta, Ariège, France. kind regards --ManfredK (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copper axe

Inconsistency

Wickipedia article on the Copper Age say: "Since copper metallurgy was already known to have existed in Europe since 7000 BC, with heavy axes of natural bronze produced in bulk since 5500 BC, and since true bronze, made by deliberately alloying copper with tin had already been used in parts of east-central Europe since 3700 BC, Ötzi's axe came as no surprise to archaeologists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.250.252 (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Height and Weight

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 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed the weight to reflect what was found in this research. I could not change the reference on the page. Maybe someone can do it. [6]

Otzi's weight given in the article's panel differ from that given under the 'Body' heading. The weight figure in the panel does not seem to have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John11235813 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Health

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

Redundant yew

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

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

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)

date of death in infobox

"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)

Otzi's "curse"

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)

Otzi: Cause of Death

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

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

File:Clothes of Ötzi, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien.jpg

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)

Infertility and involvment in a fight

The article says, "it was discovered that he had genetic markers associated with reduced fertility. It has been speculated that this may have affected his social acceptance, or at least that his infertility could have had social implications within his tribal group, which could have played a role in the chain of events that led to the confrontation"

This sounds very,very far-fetched. His infertility can't even be confirmed. This is speculation, built on speculation, built on one possible trait. I don't think we should report everything that "has been speculated" in the article ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.21.225 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC) 

Fantastic ´theories´.

Seems more an attempt at writing a fantasy romance story than a reality.

If, then would you have left all those tools with the corpse? The answer is no, unless you had no room to spare, allready having your own.

The fantasy in your ´sacrifice´ relationships, have not much to do with any reality relationships. Uncurable diseases, uncurable wounds, epidemic forms of viral infection, all which lead to instances of death accompanied with severe pain, made many of what you would call ´sacrifice´, not a ´sacrifice´ at all, but an assisted ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.8.124 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

Please change :

"Currently it is believed that death was caused by a blow to the head, though researchers are unsure if this was due to a fall, or from being struck with a rock by another person"

to

"Currently, it is believed that the cause of death was a blow to the head, however researchers are unsure of what inflicted the fatal injury."

The reason for this edit would be that the original sentence tries to make a guess about the origin of the injury without any real evidence to back it up. The author has trapped the reader into thinking that the injury could had been caused by either a fall or an assault when in reality it could had been anything. In contrast, my edited version is aimed towards leaving the cause of the injury up for more speculation than just two specific scenarios.

I am pulling my information from a English translation of the paper:

Publication: Lippert, A., Gostner, P., Egarter Vigl, E., Pernter, P., Vom Leben und Sterben des Ötztaler Gletschermannes. Germania 85-1 (2007) 1-21.

Which can be found here : http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1360-y

TheSteelGuru (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

Please add to the paragraph talking about Borrelia burgdorferi and the Lyme disease, that the B. burgdorferi discovery was probably spurious, as outlined in this paper: S. K. Ames, D. A. Hysom, S. N. Gardner, G. S. Lloyd, M. B. Gokhale, and J. E. Allen, “Scalable metagenomic taxonomy classification using a reference genome database,” Bioinformatics, vol. 29, no. 18, pp. 2253–2260, Jul. 2013. Sammy0740 (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Done -- TOW  20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ötzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110619001445/http://news.discovery.com:80/history/otzi-face-reconstruction-110225.html to http://news.discovery.com/history/otzi-face-reconstruction-110225.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

Skillet622 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC) it did not say he bled to death

Already done I think it does under Ötzi#Initial_data Cannolis (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - the only reference to bled to death in the article is this newspaper article entitled "Iceman bled to death, scientists say" - so who did not say "he bled to death" ? and where ? - Arjayay (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

Weight in stones/pounds as an alternate to kilograms? Really? Give the alternate weight in pounds.

 Done - Nunh-huh 06:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

May you please add the following reference at the end of the section titled Skeletal details and tattooing Deter-Wolf, Aaron; Robitaille, Benoît; Krutak, Lars; Galliot, Sébastien (February, 2016). "The World's Oldest Tattoos". Journal of Archaeological Science:Reports 5: 19–24. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.11.007. ( it is the peer reviewed article that corrects the misconception that a tattooed Chilean mummy may have been older than Otzi. it is not.

Benoit Robitaille (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Presumably this is the journal article of which the reference preceding it is the popular report? - Nunh-huh 02:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benoit Robitaille (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The proper name of the Journal in the reference is The Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. It is not the same as The Journal Of Archaological Science. Thank you for your time. Benoit Robitaille (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Iceman's name..

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 :) He was called Ötzi because of the place where he was found, i.e.at the end of the "Ötztal" (valley named after the river "Ötztaler Ache") at the Austrian-Italian border. It was believed that he was found on Austrian territory and so he was named "Ötzi" = one coming from/belonging to the Ötztal. --Aschland (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016

One sentence is missing a comparative and contains verb problems and comma splices. Change:

The leather loincloth and hide coat were made from sheepskin, a genetic analysis showed the sheep species is near to modern domestic European sheep than to wild sheep, the items were made from the skins of at least four animals.

to read:

The leather loincloth and hide coat were made from sheepskin. Genetic analysis showed that the sheep species was nearer to modern domestic European sheep than to wild sheep; the items were made from the skins of at least four animals.

178.83.216.80 (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Link incorrect

The link to the is South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology http://www.iceman.it/ not http://www.archaeologiemuseum.it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.251.111 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017

otzi the ice man is a eco fact not an artifact 121.208.246.225 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2017

Please change "By current estimates, at the time of his death Ötzi was approximately: 1.65 metres (5 ft 5 in) tall,[10] weighed about 61 kilograms (134 lb)[11] and was about 45 years of age." to "Prevailing research estimates that Ötzi, at the time of his death, was approximately: 45 years old, 1.60 meters (5 feet 2 inches) tall, and weighed about 50 kilograms (110 pounds)." or the same information rephrased as "By current estimates, at the time of Ötzi's death; he was approximately 45 years old, about 1.60 meters (5 feet 2 inches) tall, and weighed around 50 kilograms (110 pounds)." This information should be changed because creditable sites (as listed following) are the most up-to-date and reliable sources available. <ref:http://www.iceman.it/en/the-mummy/#health> <ref:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/iceman-reborn.html> Alexandra Adams Horgan (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits for Cause of Death

New radiographic evidence shows Otzi's cause of death is much more likely to be because of exposure, not exsanguination. As shown here: http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2017/session20/ruhli-2017-radiological-and-forensic-re-evaluation-of-the-cause-of-death-of-the-iceman-c-5300-bp.html and here: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/otzi-iceman-froze-death

However, I do not have the necessary expertise to comment on the subject and understand the key details of the evidence. Could someone please review this new information and update the article as appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksamus8 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that the cause of death recorded in the infobox does not match up with the body of the article. Also, the linked abstract does not say that he died primarily of hypothermia: "Based also on comparative modern forensic data, one can assume now that the laceration of the subclavian artery lead [sic] within minutes to hours to a massive mostly external trauma, and in combination with hypothermia, to his death." Moioci (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

whats up

hi guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.165.253 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"around 3,300 BCE"

In the lead, there's a hyperlink associated with "around 3,300 BCE." But the link points to the 31st century, which was 3,100 - 3,001 BCE. Shouldn't it point to the 33rd or 34th centuries? I'd edit, but I don't have an account and the page is locked.68.80.130.184 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The midpoint of the more precise estimate is 3172, which I think is in fact in the 32nd century BC? I also think the age estimate should not be solely in the lead, but expanded and referenced somewhere in the main body of the article. But well spotted. I'd advise you to create an account as soon as you can. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

It says cause of death: Hypothermia due to freezing temperatures but he actually died from being shot by an arrowhead and with no other people to help he bled out and died. There he was preserved. Just a suggestion to change it. 211.30.14.6 (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The infobox COD is sourced, but according to the body of the article this isn't universally accepted. I would suggest getting consensus from people more familiar with this article before making this change to the infobox. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Note, the article does say, with a supporting source: "Currently, it is believed that the cause of death was a blow to the head, but researchers are unsure of what inflicted the fatal injury." So it might be valid to change the cause of death in the info box? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You seem to be more involved with this article than I am, so I wouldn't be opposed to you initiating a BRD on this. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request re: cause of death

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) Otzi could have been murdered by someone in his tribe. Since he had the copper axe, witch indicates power in the Stone Age, a tribe member could have been jealous. Hoping to end his glory and power, and have it for himself killed him. That's why he left the axe, others would know who killed Otzi. So he left it with him hoping someone would find him. But, no one in his time period ever found it so the axe was gone forever.05:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Lionlike1 (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C3%96tzi&action=edit&section=6#

Ambiguous reference to "arrowhead"

In the cause of death section, the paragraph that talks about the DNA found on his gear says "two from the same arrowhead". This could be interpreted as meaning the arrowhead lodged in his shoulder. It could be reworded as something like "two from one of his arrowheads". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.174.53 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated Genetic analysis (Y Paternal DNA updated tree)

The recent analysis of Ötzi the Similaun iceman DNA mutations relative to the updated Y-G DNA tree show that the iceman was from the Y paternal haplogroup: G2a2a1a2a1a (L166/FGC5672+). The Ötzi's sample Y DNA haplogroup is G-L166 under the G-L91 tree here: https://yfull.com/tree/G-L91/ --Giovannamax (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovannamax (talk • contribs) 14:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

I reverted an edit and it has been reverted with "There surely are many more people related to Ötzi living today (not necessarily carrying those specific mutations); In fact the Most recent common ancestor of all living mankind might have lived later than Ötzi (4,000 to 2,000 years ago) so he or a close relative might also be a contender for the title." This is editorialising based on two sources, neither of which mention Otzi. They also do not support the impossible claim that the the Most recent common ancestor of all living mankind might have lived later than Ötzi. The first is about a computer model and the second 'JC Virus Evolution and Its Association with Human Populations', says "this virus should not be used as a marker for human population history". I think this edit should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr, @Dudley_Miles I think you should consult the article Most recent common ancestor and Identical ancestors point. May be your wisdom is needed there or may be you will learn something. Deleting my contribution here (which essentially was to point where Ötzi belong in the timeline of that event, so we can understand better our relationship to him) amounts to objecting to that articles content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanyastigi (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr, Dudley Miles, and Cobanyastigi: - Cobanyastigi, sources must discuss the subject of the article. It's as simple as that. If you were writing an essay your edit would be ok, but it isn't here. I'm not entirely happy with the two articles you point to. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Cause of Death

In June, 2013, scientists determined that the head wound caused Otzi's death. 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. 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) I really don't think this is valid.

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)

I really don't think this is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarmChocolatechipcookie (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

2605:E000:3CCA:7500:FC96:439A:3960:7927 (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please advise what it is that you think needs changing as your request does not indicate anything. thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Meals eaten before death

There are two meals listed, one of which was eaten 8 hours before he died and the other was eaten 2 hours prior, and both say that that was his last meal- it's contradictory and confusing. Mross0012 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to make this a bit clearer. But it still seems to be somewhat contradictory - we have chamois meat, red dear and goat, but only two meals. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Sophisticated clothing"?

By what measure are his shoes and clothing considered to be "sophisticated"? There's no woven clothing in evidence, with the exception of his straw rain cape. The paragraph that follows the initial statement only serves to describe his clothing, and does nothing to support the initial statement. I've inserted an "OR" statement there in hopes that this will be cleared up.

Kortoso (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Language of otzi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.19.82 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mushrooms

The page mentions that Ötzi carried two species of polypore mushrooms, birch fungus for medicinal purposes, and tinder fungus, which allegedly would be used together with a 'firelighting kit' (the Retoucheur?). The Museum webpage states that Ötzi had two medicinal fungi (http://www.iceman.it/en/node/288), but does not talk about the tinder fungus.

Where does this information come from?

in Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms, Paul Stamets does mention the use of polypores being for fires and medicine.

Excellent question. There is full wikipedia article on this fire starting fungus, called amadou, which references this article. I will add a reference to the amadou article.

In a Joe Rogan interview available on Youtube, Stammets confirms that he wears a hat made of amadou mushrooms.

Phersh (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References Update

Please consider linking directly to the DOI for reference number 71 in Antiquity Journal. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0010016X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.202.27 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Iceman movie

It looks like a movie is coming out based on his life: Iceman

Kortoso (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

His Age

Otzi was 85/76 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.124.38 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dating? Reply

How can this person be born 3345 bce and die at 3300 bce tell me how and your evidence shows nothing it's actually real Pastel purple (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Dates BCE are negative numbers on the great number line of history. This means that 3300 BCE is a later date than 3345 BCE. He lived from 3345 BCE to 3300 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.220.11 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Pastel Purple. the evidence you are requesting is in the sources to the article - try reading for example link 4, or link 8. Cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Article by leading glacial archaeologists

Might be some content of interest for the article.

https://secretsoftheice.com/news/2018/07/04/otzi/

41.5.8.133 (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

It is stated under the tattooing section that Ötzi is the oldest mummy found with tattoos. However, this is no longer the case after the Deir el-Medina mummies were discovered in 2018 in Egypt. Smithsonian link here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/infrared-reveals-egyptian-mummies-hidden-tattoos-180973700/ INyawira (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this information! I've gone ahead and made the change to the article. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way - if you want to stay and contribute some more, feel free to ask me for help anytime. :) Just leave a note on my talk page. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Since it's not entirely clear, if the Egyptian mummies or Ötzi are older, the article in the Journal of Archaeological Science remains cautious (...positioning [the Egyptian mummies] amongst the bearers of some of the oldest preserved tattoos in the world). The superlative in the article title (Natural mummies from Predynastic Egypt reveal the world's earliest figural tattoos) refers to the word figural :-) I changed the article accordingly. Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Neanderthal Ancestry

The referenced article about higher degree of Neanderthal ancestry was self refuted by the author as stated on the article linked page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbn79 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Fbn79, thank you! I've removed the claim in question. Good catch! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Legal

According to the German Wiki of Ötzi, the legal dispute did not end in 2008, but rather in 2010. It ended with a settlement of 175.000. There are numerous references about that (in German). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.117.250 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

How He Died: Was the arrowhead removed or not?

The second paragraph of Arrowhead and blood analyses provides different explanations that cannot both be true:

1. Ötzi killed two people with the same arrow: Presumably this is the arrowhead that he had been shot with.

2. Ötzi's posture in death ... turned onto his stomach in the effort to remove the arrow shaft: Suggests that he died before the arrowhead was removed.

Can anyone clarify this aspect or resolve the contradiction based on more recent research? None of the 7 references cited is newer than 2017. Martindo (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see a contradiction. One of the sources states that the arrow with the blood of two people was one of the ones in his quiver, not the one he was shot with. I have edited to clarify this. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Ricostruzione otzi.jpg — false face

Hi, I'm not entirely sure how to go about this as I've had this account for some time but have never used it enough to be autoconfirmed, but upon looking at this page it would seem to me that someone edited the image of a mannequin reconstruction of Otzi and replaced the face in the mannequin with an edit of either their face or someone else's face, and not the face of the actual mannequin.

A simple reverse image search of the image in question yields the original image, though I have not as of yet found the copyright on the image.

I apologize if this is not formatted in the most appropriate manner, I just found the fact that someone had edited their face onto the reconstruction in this article very objectionable and wanted to see it righted.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase Ochoa (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like you may well be right! I'm going to remove the image from the page for now while we look into this. Thanks for bringing this up, Chase Ochoa! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DeathOnArrakis. Peer reviewers: Rag138.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Other

Not directly relevant to this article, but currently a search for 'Otze' (nickname of Frank Ordenewitz) redirects to here. What's the best way to disambiguate those? NJHartley (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You could change the redirect to a disambiguation and put links to both articles on the 'Otze' page. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have now done this. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

The third paragraph in Section 2.4 "Clothes and shoes" needs a citation regarding 6,500 year old leggings found in Switzerland. The following link should be a sufficient enough source for the page:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/new-details-emerge-about-neolithic-age-in-alps/1014380

Bechtel, Dale (21 August 2008). "New details emerge about Neolithic age in Alps". swissinfo. 2A02:1210:16DD:300:2563:38F1:7043:6325 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you for the good suggestion, I've made the change to the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Dating

I wanted to add the mean year of death to the "Discovery" section (and add it to the infobox), however there is an odd contradiction. The cited article for the statement "More specific estimates stated that there was a 66% chance he died between 3239 and 3105 BC, a 33% chance he died between 3359 and 3294 BC, and a 1% chance he died between 3277 and 3268 BC", states "The mean of all of our measurements is 4550 ± 27 bp". Taking the article Before Present by its word that BP is 1950 years ahead of BC, that would mean 4550 BP = 2600 BC, which is many centuries ahead of the years currently mentioned in the WP article. Am I converting dates wrong, or have editors or vandals inserted false dates into this article? Koopinator (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I figured it out. 4550 BP is the uncalibrated date. Koopinator (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Was the axe cold forged?

Paragraph three of the ‘Tools and Equipment’ section includes the following sentence:

The 9.5 cm (3.7 in) long axe head is made of almost pure copper, produced by a combination of casting, cold forging, polishing, and sharpening.

The next citation is to an article in The Telegraph which makes no mention of forging, polishing or sharpening. The following citation is to an archived copy of a page on the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology’s Iceman website which says ‘The narrow end was produced by cold-hammering after the blade was cast.’ Cold hammering is cold forging, so this may be where this information came from. Similarly, the nearest current equivalent page on the Iceman site says ‘The blade was cast in a mould, cooled and then compressed by hammering’.

So far so clear. However, a 2017 paper, ‘Long-distance connections in the Copper Age: New evidence from the Alpine Iceman’s copper axe’ from a respectable peer-reviewed journal strongly suggests this is wrong:

The neutron diffraction study clearly indicates that the Iceman blade was produced by casting copper in a bivalve mold, it never underwent mechanical hardening, and it was repeatedly used in the soft state, as testified by the non invasive texture analysis of the cutting edge. More extensive studies on Copper Age axes carried out by standard metallographic techniques show that in many cases a recrystallized microstructure is observed, produced by heat treatment of sufficient intensity to erase the strain and deformation caused by use, perhaps followed by slight mechanical hardening of the blade and edges. Although metal hardening in the fourth millennium was technically already developed for daggers, and metal working was certainly used for ornaments, apparently the axe blades were mostly used in the soft state to favor ductility over hardness

Mechanical hardening is an inevitable consequence of cold forging, and sometimes the specific reason you would opt to cold forge a cast artefact. In the case of an axe, hardening makes a blade blunt less rapidly, but also makes it fracture more readily. Ideally you want the former without the latter, but that wasn't an option with Copper Age technology, so a compromise is needed. This paper makes it clear that, both in general and in this specific case, a shock-resistant axe which needed more frequent sharpening was preferred.

My guess would be that the Iceman website was written before this somewhat non-obvious detail came to light, and has not been updated in light of it. Absent a more recent scholarly source contradicting the 2017 paper, can I suggest that as a minimum striking the words ‘cold forging’ from the article? If we're feeling more confident, we might add the following after that sentence, citing the 2017 paper:

In common with most Copper Age axeheads, it has not undergone cold forging.

– 185.219.110.178 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not clear on whether the conclusion is directly supported by the source or if this is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I have requested review by an expert, please leave this request marked "answered" until we get a response. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

otzi

Otzi had tattoos 103.182.40.218 (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Lithic assemblage figure

This either ought to be removed, as it is misleading, or corrected. Unfortunately the original authors of the article have confused the pieces in their caption. The small flake is c, and the borer is f. European Prehistorian — Preceding unsigned comment added by European Prehistorian (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've corrected the caption. The text in the original paper specified the correct items in the figure, despite the error in the caption. I'll add a note on Commons and here to explain why the caption no longer matches the article - but I'll get to it later as I'm on mobile currently. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by European Prehistorian (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

video

A longish late 2023? video, apparently narrated by a very good artificial voice can be heard at ancient origins on Youtube (Wik forbids linking to it) . 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D415:DC68:1444:3949 (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

About the expert needed tag regarding the axe blade

Disclaimer: I have an archaeology degree but metals are not my specialty

I took a look at Talk:Ötzi/Archive 4#Was the axe cold forged? and yeah the IP address user is correct in their assessment. I found the first study of the axe, which said it had been produced using "extensive thermal annealing, probably due to several alternate cycles of cold working and thermal softening" (p.50-51). But sources published since then say the axe was cast and wasn't subject to any mechanical hardening after casting (see this 2014 source in Italian (p.72) (I machine translated it), and the 2017 source (p.2) on the source of the copper.

Let me know if you think my assessment is accurate. In a few days I will edit the paragraph citing the 2010 website for the haft, and the 2017 source (open access) for the axe and the copper source instead of a newspaper. Merytat3n (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks for your improvement! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Genetic analysis section, please link: BAM → Binary Alignment Map. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Bacon

"It is believed that Ötzi most likely had a few slices of a dried, fatty meat, probably bacon, which came from a wild goat in South Tyrol, Italy."

Bacon is widely recognized as a pork product. Suggest everything after "fatty meat" be removed. 2603:8001:6400:7B0:8DF1:C55C:148E:C35F (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ötzi's "bacon" seems to have been made from wild goat, however. Although "bacon" is often used to mean cured meat from animals other than pigs, I think it is not particularly helpful in this context. Perhaps the words probably bacon could be removed. I suddenly feel hungry...  Tewdar  09:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have removed them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

While we cannot know one for sure one way or the other...

...shouldn't the sentence on Y-chromosome DNA be phrased so as to reflect the possibility that some, at least, of the blood donors whose Y-chromosome DNA matched might have been directly descended from Ötzi himself?-Tawaki (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)