OTZI, THE ICEMAN: MURDER VICTIM, THAWS OUT BUT WHODUNIT AND WHY?

By Vittorio Brizzi DEAD men tell no tales, goes the famous saying. But, perhaps, a chilled-out Otzi, the 5,000-year-old iceman homicide victim, will still talk. A top Italian scientific team and American television Discovery Channel have been investigating. For, from a scientific point of view, Otzi is an absolute one-off: he is unique. Hundreds of mummified figures have been found throughout the world, some as old as himself, but none of them discovered in his exact circumstances. Almost all of these mummies had arranged burials in which the mummification process was carried out by man or brought about by particular climatic or environmental conditions. Such burials, in fact, tell us a great deal about a mummified person; giving extremely interesting facts about its physiology, biology and genetics. Yet, all such details act only as a pointers; evidence of ritual or religious procedures which, in turn, relate specific social or cultural characteristics. Otzi, in fact, is a 5,200-year-old photograph. His particular distinctiveness is that he was frozen deep in time physically along with objects of his relevant daily lifestyle. And those numerous functional artefacts found near his body allow us to conjecture about how he would have lived, his habits and even his personality. All, part of an enormous Copper Age culture scan which has already yielded so much information thanks to archaeological excavations which, earlier, has rarely allowed us to completely and comprehensively reconstruct a chain of knowledge. Just imagine. If it were not for favourable environmental conditions allowing Otzis very rapid thawing-out process and reappearance in this era which is particularly aware of research into the past (thanks to sudden temperature rises) this opportunity would probably have been lost. They would probably have found only a copper axe (minus its handle), two flint arrow heads (those miraculously still connected to their shafts with traces of feathers), some other stone utensils and a small dagger blade also made of flint. All of these relics probably spread over a wide area therefore making it difficult to identify as a killing-site. Everything fabrics, clothing and bones would obviously have been lost for ever. Nobody would have carried out examinations for blood on the blades and these, in turn, would have ended up in some museum basement, depriving us of significant data on which to conduct research. In May 2003, I was called in by BQP (Brando Quilici Productions) to act as a consultant for a documentary called Iceman: Hunt For A Killer for the American Discovery Channel. The documentarys aim was to look into the likely circumstances surrounding Otzis violent death which would depict on screen possible theories arising from new questions about his fate. My particular role, as an archaeologist specialising in reconstructing the elements of former sites, was to clearly identify the archery components used by the killer, ballistic problems associated with the presumed fatal shot and the composition of copper weapons used that that time, and the principal protagonists of this mystery.

In other words, I was really setting myself a real test of reverse engineering permitting me to speculate on the aspects of archery which led to the death of our subject. Supporting me were Annaluisa Pedrotti from Trento University (a member of the Iceman scientific committee who, from the initial discovery, had worked continuously on the project) and Professor Egarter Vigl, the administrator for the mummy. This upcoming documentary was to be the sequel to one of the best prizewinning awarded documentaries about Otzi called Iceman, The Ultimate Guide which went out in March 2002 incorporating the then very recent discovery of the arrow head stuck in his left shoulder. Brandon Quilici, the director for this documentary, wanted to introduce a mystery slant to the film involving laboratories and pathologists from Bolzano, Italy, where the mummy is jealously guarded. If the first documentary triumphed with the fascination of the scientific discovery (after more than 11 years), this would supersede it with the sheer spectacular side. This mystery is thrilling. The facts are many but difficult to interpret. Many of them will doubtless come to light in the future but, even now, it is possible to deduct logical explanations or, at least, exclude others which until today were thought to be possible. The task of recreating for scientific fiction the probable events leading up to the attack and fight had been an absolutely memorable experience. I would dare to venture an archaeological experiment without reservation. The 15-strong Discovery Channel film crew from Brando Quilici Productions hired professional stuntmen who, over several weeks, energetically reproduced likely outcomes. The scenario shot at 3,200 metres obviously not filmed at Otzis discovery location to avoid possible site disturbance was carried out in a similar area to the murder scene. The outcome was extremely realistic and, above all, allowed the historical investigators to indulge in a series of theories about the dynamics difficult to recall sitting at a desk. I darent think of the efforts put in by the poor Cinecitt actors and other people recruited in the Val Venosta area: impressive professionals dressed very accurately in animal skins and carrying objects of the day who heroically responded to our filming demands involving countless re-takes and action scene re-enactments as they came to mind. My precise task was to train the actors on the use of their neolithic weapons axes, knives, spears and, obviously, bows and arrows. A hail of fatal arrows during the spectacular hand-to-hand combat scenes, and I dont hide the fact that previous visits to backstage studios during filming by Nils Gaup, Howard Hill and Kevin Costner proved to be a great help to me. Additional to the documentarys storyline is the strong revolutionary Neolithic cultural theme whose effects are more than real during Otzis era. The passage of time between man, the hunter and food gatherer, and that of the animal breeding and agricultural ethic created increasingly evident violence among mankind: five to six thousand years ago man started to fight for his property while the hunter, used to employing weapons, became a warrior. Thus, private property, social order, the effects of jealousy, greed and desperation came into being (this confirmed by the sudden number of witnesses to massacres and violence which had not been seen in preceding eras). In essence, modern civilisation. It is very simplistic, perhaps rhetorical, to brand such an important event with this obvious phrase. In effect, there has been a change due to a population increase (thanks to a wealth of organised food production) and to the creation of settlements which began to be known as defended villages with fortifications and therefore protected against potential aggressors. But, before all of this, man lived safely with a great stability between himself and nature; he was a nomad who flexibly integrated with climatic changes and the movement of game. A little bit like the American Indians who, before the arrival of the white man, did not understand the concept of land or game ownership. But with the impossibility for a new science like archaeology to supply concrete evidence today, one has to proceed with extreme care with every inquiry and supposition

thereby avoiding ideological simplifications. The documentary wanted to highlight this drama as the prelude to the birth of a humanity which lets not forget has allowed the development of progress. Speaking about the main theme, those scenes dealing with the theories about Otzis death subsequent to his pursuit are very interesting. Poor Otzi, during his last 24 to 48 hours was probably involved in a really awful battle for survival. Not against the natural elements but against his fellow men. His wounds, apart from the arrow head in his shoulder, stand witness; the cuts on his hand and forearm; the bruises on his back and the blood from more than four separate men on his knife, jacket and the point of the broken arrow which he carried with him in his quiver. The lizard tail gambit (more about this later) has been well recreated in the documentary alongside the hand-to-hand knife fighting (substituted by a soft plastic-bladed knife for the close-to-camera sequences) which made me shiver, not for the fate of my flint-handled blade but for the magnificent professional nonchalance with which the actors waved their blades in front of each others faces while jumping one rock to another. The deadly arrow The documentarys aim was to gather and reassess the probable factors surrounding the killing of Otzi. From an archaeological problems to a forensic mystery. There were many doubts and puzzles but a lot of stimulation for thought. There were very few certainties and it was very difficult not to lose oneself in fantasy. Otzis shoulder wound, it would be fair to suggest, could have been the mortal blow even though it is well known that in certain cases people struck by a flow projectile can survive for a long time. One such example is Kennewick Man dating back 9,200 years who had a spear point embedded in his pelvis which was surrounded by regenerative bone tissue. Another was the woman of 11,000 years ago from Grotta di San Teodoro, Sicily, who had traces of a stone projectile probably an arrow head stuck in his side, surviving the wound for a long time. Again, in this case, bone tissue bears this out. My own hunting experience using prehistoric equipment and that of bowhunters with whom I am in contact could be useful but only up until a certain point (I have not been involved in a battle between humans and, on this topic, modern reference works are scarce). The impression I get from the wound and the penetration of the arrow, compared with examples of similar situations on wildlife, is that the injury could have been or become fatal even if the times and circumstances known today are unable to back up a positive verdict. In our case the facts are these. The arrow penetrated the jacket material at the shoulder, smashed the shoulder blade, stopping a few centimetres from a lung. Probably and this could be verified with the extraction of the arrow tip the arrow head cut tendons and vein or artery and that alone would mean the paralysis of the left arm and either a slow death through bacteriological infection or a death hastened by a haemorrhage. Certainly the wound was very painful, worsened by a heavy bleeding coupled with a progressive weakness. I think it very unlikely that Otzi would have been able to break the arrow shaft just by himself, from the look of his position, and above all the sheer pain of the wound. The fact that no broken arrow shaft has been found nearby would mean either a fall during his flight (I dare not think of the ensuing pain) and the eventual loss of the long shaft in another place or, gives rise to an automatic deduction that he pulled the arrow out differently. If the arrow striking Otzi had been a composite made up of several pieces and a foreshaft similar to that found in the quiver, the withdrawal of the shaft could have been possible with little suffering; or the agitated movements during flight could have worked the shaft loose by itself, as often happens with a wild animal which has been hit. The reason for making fitted foreshafts was deliberately done for the recovery of the shaft leaving the tip its small connecting piece inside clothing. The making of a

straight, feathered shaft is much more difficult and a long-winded (therefore uneconomical) than just making the arrow head and then arming it with a foreshaft.. From this stems the need to recover the feathered shaft. If the analysis of material removed produces traces of different wood attached to the arrow head (generally, the foreshaft is made with a tougher wood than that of the shaft) or even corniolo like the complete shaft, we would have some more clues that could suggest how the different shaft found in the quiver is one of the arrows belonging to Otzi which he had recovered during his flight with the intention of later use. Before the discovery of the arrow head in his shoulder, theories as to Otzis death pivoted on three differing suppositions: the most discounted today is that in which our exhausted subject on the long climb up the Tisental fell asleep and was overcome by a sudden heavy snowfall. A death caused by the progressive loss of senses and then frostbite. This hypothesis is thought to be more realistic and suggests a very hurried escape from the village and an attack (based on on the finding of unfinished weapons and the presumed right rib fractures discovered on the first Austrian x-rays); an outcome which has been partially re-assessed. The first academic who took on the Otzi mystery, Konrad Spindler, suggested it in his scientific publications and was mentioned in the book The Iceman published in 1993. Professor Spindler theorized on a fight or a brawl even if these were based on incorrect or incomplete data and he, without knowing it, was proposing something very close to the truth. Others (particularly Johan Reinhardt, an expert on South American mummies) suggested a ritual sacrifice by way of justifying that that our ice man, evidently someone of importance within his community, had nothing stolen from him, especially the copper axe. Today, in light of the discovery (and later that of an injury to the right hand has been put down as a stone knife wound because of his irregular edge) that Otzis violent death is more probably the result of a fight. The circumstances, however, remain to be determined. Looking back at the most significant possibility, the first is that an accidental hunting injury caused by a hunting companion. A careless shot and the hiding of the body by Otzis partner who caused the accidental death. Obviously, he could not take Otzis belongings back to his home. This theory seems weak to me (given the perfecting of shooting and other wounds on the body) but we can never exclude them. The second proposition is of an accidentally self-inflicted wound; the possibility that Otzi was accidentally hurt by one of his own arrows appears to be extremely remote in my opinion. As an archer and hunter it seems to be absolute fantasy that an accidental arrow can perforate a thick fur jacket, shatter the shoulder blade and then deeply penetrate the shoulder muscles, finding itself in the position it was when the body was detected. Fanciful, even if it were virtually possible. Experience shows that a modern hunting arrow (and those flint arrow heads were certainly no less effective) can be dangerous if badly handled. A flight from a position in a tree (falls from tree-stands are the most common cause of hunting accidents) with the arrow nocked, ready to be shot, can certainly be dangerous, but likening this scenario of the Iceman seems decidedly hazardous and it would be the first case of this kind due to its characteristics. Subsequent interpretations evidenced violent situations: the headlong flight from the village under attack from enemies or marauders. The pursuit, the wounding and the death in a concealed position (and therefore the discovery of the equipment which was not stolen) and the possible murder by another shepherd who wanted to get possession of Otzis flock. Or, our seriously wounded man fled and hid himself (and therefore the axe was not stolen) but died from his wounds caused by the sudden lowering of the temperature.

A significant variation on this theme describes a fairly clear and fascinating scenario; lizard tail gambit, so-called by Petr Jandacek, in which our man is attacked by a bad person who wanted to steal is valuable copper axe, wounds Otzi in hand-to-hand fighting who is chased and then hit by the arrow but is still able to run off and plan a defensive strategy. Very similar to the chessboard move in which the pawns are sacrificed to improve defence and counter-moves. Otzi red himself of some of his things nearby bow, quiver, rucksack and the precious axe to serve as bait. He kept only his knife and the birchwood container with warm coals and hid himself under the snow, leaving himself a small spy hole. The attacker failed to find him and overtaken by bad weather, Otzi fell asleep and, becoming weakened by his wounds, he passed out and froze to death. I believe that imagination and creativity can suggest endless variations to the drama of Otzaler Alps. It will be impossible to establish the true circumstances. The only sure thing (at least no other evidence exists to contradict it) is that research continues on the arrow wound and, on that, one can carry on analytical and scientific speculatation. The arrows in Otzis quiver Otzi carried a 14-arrow quiver - a dozen rough-hewn Viburnum Lantana shafts each with a single incision for the arrow head, and two complete but broken shafts. One of these was entirely made of Viburnum, the other a composite, with a a corniolo foreshaft .which was armed with the arrow head. There are those that say the addition of such extensions were needed to re-use a shaft which had been previously broken in its last 10cm. I would rather believe the evidence of a technique for creating a twostage missile, already well-noted in primitive societies, for the reasons stated earlier. The last two had another difference: helicoidal or flattened spiral feathering, fastened to the shaft with birchwood resin and reinforced with an wrapping of lambs hair, one of them in a right helical twist, the other in a left helical twist. This is supposed by Arm Paulsen (the first reconstructor of the Otzis personal archery effects) which had been produced by two different people, one of them right-handed, the other, left-handed. Apparently, this appears perfectly reasonable at first glance. Then, one day, I glanced at my arrows that I use for hunting, some made a long time ago by those whom I dont clearly remember, and I found the same thing. In an old goatskin quiver there were some right-wing feathered arrows, others with left-wing arrows. The meaning: the binding process is absolutely unimportant in the process or if the spiral is left or right. It depends only on where you want to start the binding from the nock or at the opposite end of the shaft. Anyway, this does not mean that the two arrows could not have been made by two different people. Other colleagues interested in primitive archery have confirmed the same thing to me. The above-mentioned arrow heads found equipping the arrows in the quiver were part of two shafts broken in more places. On closer examination the breaks did not seem to me to be the result of a fall (the other non-feathered shafts seem3d to be intact and were in the majority but rather suggest arrows repaired several times (the analysis of blood traces present up to 50cm from the tip would seem to confirm this) and finally shot against a missed target, becoming broken and on which work was done to recycle valuable bits. They could have been the fired arrows that missed our fleeing man which were quickly collected up by him for re-use (Otzi only had unfinished equipment, but kept with him all the necessary tools for its rebuilding and assembly). The murderous arrow head

Of the arrow that killed Otzi nothing remains (for now) except the small flint arrowhead, shown up by Professor Gostners x-ray at Bolzano which was rebuilt by a rapid prototyping process based on three-dimensional tomography. Naturally, xrays pass undisturbed through organic materials for which it is not possible to know if and how much organic material is attached to the arrow head. From the pictures of my reconstruction you can see how this is really very poor; 2.1cm long by 1.7 wide. I was forgetting: those reports showing the amazing amounts of Otzis archery accessories cause one to think of sub-alpine traditions, because the arrow heads fitted to the only two complete arrows in the quiver (supposing they are his and not collected during his flight) both culturally belong to the southern alpine slopes and not, therefore, are not north Tyrolean arrow heads. Moreover, also the arrow head in the shoulder, even though shorter, is of the same type. It appears that the ancient Austrians (of the Cham and Altheim civilisations) preferred flat-bottomed or slightly curved arrow heads minus a central stem. These, according to archaeological evidence, were used in the vast majority. This 7/ characteristic, purely cultural and non-functional, clearly identified it allowing the gory incident to Otzi to be recorded as the result of a clash between people on the slopes of the southern Alps. On the other hand, investigation of food remains eaten by Otzi allowed, with reasonable accuracy, to plot his route which began at the valley Venosta , continued in the direction of the present artificial lake of Vernago, then along the Tisental (the valley of Tisa) as far as Giogo di Tisa, the murder scene on the crest between the Punta di Finale and the Hauslabjoch, which mark the borders between the northern and southern slopes of the Otzaler Alp mountain range. This tells us in all probability that Otzis attackers were part of a group called protoitalica. If the arrows in the whole quiver, those fitted with arrow heads, were owned by our man even he could, with great probability, be from same ethnic background. Having said that, the doubt about the small arrow head remains. It is at this point I return to my uncertainties. Work in progress My objective nowadays is to develop an prediction model that can help interpret ballistic equipment (and from this all the consequences of it that can be imagined) that hit our man, thereby defining the test standards and effects while waiting for information that could emerge after the autopsy on the mummy, before making a realistic comparative result. One sure fact: the arrow head is really quite small yet it penetrated 50mm of cloth and smashed the left shoulder blade. And then we still do not know if the impact passed through other cloth or fabrics and the damage it caused. And here is the doubt: Was it a last chance strong bow and arrow fir for a real warrior or a light bow for weedy men?. A theory about the angry lover? The first is that such an arrow head was the result of a corrective adjustment to allow its re-use. In other words, the arrow head formed part of archery equipment similar to that used by Otzi and that the propulsion unit of a bow and arrow partnership wich allowed a solitary hunter (or, at most , one who tracks game with fellow hunters) wich allows the shooting of an arrow at short to-medium ranges thus helping in the retrieval of bigger game. Up to now, everithing seems to make sense: I would never dream of going off to hunt large game (like the black bear, the european red deer or the big alpine Stambecco Capra Ibex) with an bow weaker than 70 pounds and with arrows lighter than those found in Otzis Quiver.

Why the last chance? Even earlier accounts reveal eye witnesses telling of how in emergency situations, hunters emptied their quivers against a target, If, like every good hunter, he carried many arrows on his shoulders and, among them, even those destined for small game when it deep need after having shot his best arrows, he empties his quiver using only destined for big game. In Denmark, near lake Vig, they found a very beautiful Mesolithic auroch or urus rib (Bos Primigenius) with a trapezoidal arrow point struck in it (the classical transversal cutting edge, a trapezius with the bigger side corrsponding to the impact edge). It is easy to imagine how that poor bison, already wounded by the other arrows and about to be killed like a bull full of banderillas or barbed darts, felt when this extra arrow hit him during though. In theory, it was not meant for him. The hunter had certainly targeted him firing every available arrow. (I would have done exactly the same thing with a wounded and very angry bison in the middle of the water) not worrying about the how. I only thought that the arrow head was the result of a repair job after previous use stems from the fact that its basic dimension is very close to the others wich are longer. As far as I know, new arrow heads with a design wich could be contained in a square (I mean the body of the arrow head without the stem) have virtually never been found in burials sites where you can find many arrow heads with an isosceles triangle shape base twice or more the body length. On the contrary, they are common enough in the shallow ground surfaces where, presumably, they where witness to hunting and fighting episodes. Comparing the above arrow heads to those in Otzis equipment you can see at once that the basic length is more or less coincidental, while the live area length is almost doubled. As you can see in the photo of my reconstruction, the length is not bad. The one thing common to all three of the originals I think is the system of reutilisation, wich is obvious from the approximation of the finishing touches and the evident signs of impact (this assumption is backed up by blood traces found in two of the items from the quiver). The shoulder arrow head taken from the shoulder could be characteristic of the more advanced re-utilization process, the natural reshaping naturally concerns not only the arrows head but its shoulders, too, wich when they strike reveal further weak points. In many hunting scenarios, it happened to me and I had to reshape the arrow head edge and even make some stronger adjustment to arrows shot earlier missing their targets or arrows wich hit their targets but lost their wholeness. During these very hurried situations (I had neither the time nor the equipment to hand) I often adjusted the arrow head after having checked out its structural firmness with the shaft by simply supporting myself on a tree trunk using as a support and using an improvised deerantler tip to reshape by pressure damaged or deformed arrowheads. Up to a certain limit, it is possible to continue without compromising the arrows ballistic performances, but when the live area length becomes smaller than its width, the arrows becomes downgraded. Personally, I reuse these arrows for hunting small game (and winged game, replacing the tail feathers with three having bigger surface, so that their penetration capability is less (or null) than needed for big game. The second prposition wich I ironically call the lovers hypothesis is one based on structural differences in arrow head tips taken from other examples wichi could be as specifically weaker equipment. A woman, or young man may use the apparatus suited to their pyhiscal strenghts and use it mostly against small game. In this case, doubt arise. An arrow tip as that in the should ha a really small piercing profile, but but, therefore , I reserve that right for future suppositions - as soon as I will able to verify personally the embedded arrowhead and also find out how much of the cutting edge remains and what there is as evidence by way of skin, flesh, dlood, clothing fabric when the arrow is extract from the shoulder. Having a naturally limited discerning capability, I am studying a mathematical prediction model wich

calculated the lower limit of kinetic and amount of movement that an arrow must have to pierce clothing and a shoulder to a depth of about 50 mm.

Conclusions This is why I am working on my theories about the fabric penetration and knife wounds, helped by pathologist and forensic ballistic experts. This small mathematical prediction model could probably help us with the actual physical experimentations. Assimilating ballistic firearms formulas would be misleading and the tearing of the fabric caused by spherical or pointed projectile is not helpful. If, however, when the experiments continue with trying to identify, by observational and not theoretical experiences, those inconsistencies connected with the morphology (and the cutting capacity thanks to functional analysis) should be able to correct the formulas. Moreover, following the extraction of the arrow tip from the shoulder we before entering the body. This does not take into account whether some wood particles will be found in the arrow head and if the shaft is made up from a hardwood like cornel as was one of the two found in the quiver. We will also be able work out if the arrows in Otzis quiver are his recovered by him during his escape the failed messengers of death thereby abandoning my lovers supposition. Taking into consideration the arrows in the quiver, I refer to the undamaged ones with fixed heads which are the most macho you can have at your disposition. let us be clear, based on current knowledge you could imagine a very powerful weapon system with a bow boasting 38 to 45 kg tension, worthy of an English bowman during the hundred years war! Different from Arm Paulsen who has tried to reproduce Otzis unfinished bow, supposing that to be a standard version bow from that civilisation. I rather consider it to be a transitory prototype, an incomplete expedient destined for use in an emergency (the flight and the lack of time to equip himself with effective equipment) because by virtue of their large number in the quiver, their length and diameter, without going into too many theoretical considerations, were more suitable to a very strong bow. From these facts and wishing to do a bit of nit-picking, the kinetic energy calculation (and that of the amount of motion or momentum) from the arrow is but a short step. You would easily be able to calculate the draw of the bow that has discharged its arrows with reasonable accuracy. Attention, however, there are distinguished ethno-anthropologists who could demolish these theories which appear to be so clearly logical. from decisive scientific studies carried out by PH Blyth in 19901 on various Egyptian bow and arrow equipment, a wonderful rebus jumps out. The weights and the dimensions of the arrows studied absolutely do not match up with those of the bows found on the site. This makes you think (I obviously speak as a modern bowman and physicist who is amazed just looking at an arrow weighing 15 grams, with a section of 0.5cm coupled with a 20 kg bow). Remember the spine and the Archers paradox? Theoretically, it should have been fitted for a 7.5kg bow and many examples so that you can think of a rule. To keep it short, the author theorises that your Egyptians, for more than 1,500 years (such are the likely digressions of the time among studied reports, comprising those from Tutankhamuns tomb) bypassing the lack of mechanical abilities, amending the lack of technology with a particularly effective shooting technique which allowed shooting apparently tiny arrows against the enemy succeeding in inflicting casualties. On the other hand, there have been verified archery achievements on the bow effectiveness, so that we can think that bows and arrows have been one of Egypts weapons which had been constantly used for thousands of years. This has also been confirmed by other ethnographical tests
1

Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, volume 23, 1980

(see the Ishi technique). This further endorses the great importance of the human variable. Human ability can reach where technology cannot. Talking about Otzi gives credence to the measurements of very heavy and sturdy shafts found in the quiver. Here, the comparison with the Egyptians, is completely reversed. It should not seem possible, therefore, to make comparisons between the observations about the Egyptians and the Alpine archery equipment but, observing and reproducing the arrow head even though lacking further data, it is better to take all of this into consideration. Bibliography Franco Rollo etc; Otzi Last Meals: DNA, Analysis Of The Intestinal Content Of The Neolithic Glacier Mummy from the Alps in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99,n. 20, pp 12594-2599, 1 October 2002. Various authors, the Copper Age mummies. New research on the iceman, decisions from the international convention, Alto Adige archaeological museum, Bolzano 1999. Paul Gostner, Eduard Egarter Vigl, Insight: report of radiological forensice findings on the iceman in Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, n 3, pp 323 326, March 2002. James H Dickson, Klaus Oeggl, Linda L Handley, The Return of Otzi, Scientific American, n 418 June 2002, pp 66-77.

The author: Vittorio Brizzi as phisic and matematician, works in computational archaeology and experimental archaeology at the University of Ferrara, Italy. He is a flintknapper and primitive bowhunter since 1985.