anthropology/archaeology.
Chato was always here defending the claims of these types of people whom share the sentiments they expressed again and again. I came across an article about how masses of these ‘scientists’ insisted that otzi the iceman’s (the ice mummy dug up in the 90s) bronze battle axe was a form of ‘currency’.
Keep in mind otzi was found covered in other people’s blood, including his axe(i’m almost certain), with a arrow in his shoulder.
His axe would have been somthing like this: 
If they meant it was currency as in, otzi bashed in people’s heads with it and took what he wanted than sure, it was the ultimate form of currency. But seriously, how ABSURD do these happy-go-lucky nobel savage ‘researchers’ get before they realize how fucking stupid what they’re suggesting is.
an axe as a form of currency alright. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Before you go too far with your claims of absurdity, are you aware that knives, and later symbolic knives were used as currency in Ancient China all the way down through S-E Asia and Oceania ( africadirect.com/productsdesc.php?ID=24625 , I would expect that if you reseach a little more you will find volumes, “masses” as you say, on this sort of thing all over the Old World.
I am sure that certain daggers and other weapons, very guilded weapons, just like today, would pass as prescious artifacts with the value of currency, but this does not prove that ALL axes were monetary currency, that they were not used as weapons at all or even in the mummy’s case.
There is enough information on and images of knife currency here: journals.aol.co.uk/ahala/RomanRe … rrency/286 , so that covers all the continents of the Old World. Ötzi is only five-thousand years old, it seems probable to me that he could have been familiar with metal currency.
Yes, I am well aware of that fact.
I am also well aware that someone whose covered in 3/4 other people’s blood wasn’t using their axe to make a trade. Was his other weapons that he certainly slaughtered people with for trade too? Would his best weapon in close combat, highest quality weapon, be used for trade, when ALL his other weapons were demonstratably used to wound other people? I sincerely doubt it.
some of the same people had claimed he had fallen asleep in the snow and died like that. I guess they could be called right, he might have passed out due to blood loss from the arrow in his shoulderor the severe blow to the head.
Don’t get me wrong obviously ceremony and even ceremonial mock battle has its place in history, but most weapons were created to be used as… weapons. Oh, as to the construction of otzi’s specific axe, well when an axe is constructed specifically as an efficient weapon, it shows.
You can talk about trade all you want but statistically, that long ago, most tribes were also engaging in inter-tribal conflict, and I don’t mean the ceremonial kind either.
Theres also mass graves of humans with their heads caved in, perhaps from ‘hard’ currency or a ceremonial mace/axe?
As far back as we can trace human history the brutal signs of violence are there. Which is probably why jericho, one of those oldest ancient settlements, had massive, massive, walls. For protection. As most early early settlements did.
hunter-gatherers are brutal, and then agricultural tribes are just as bad.
noble savage mythology is lulzable
Just need to seperate the claim from the implications. OK, so his axe was actually a form of currency. Then we conclude that the ignorant savages from his day went around beating each other’s heads in with rocks instead- not only were they brutal, but they weren’t even smart enough to use an axe for it’s obvious purpose!
It’s easier to deal with the silliness once you cut it off from the reason someone would want to say it.
Whats annoying is when that idiot etaoin busts in here acussing me of absurdity over claiming that someone covered in the blood of 3/4 other people, with all their other weapons having some traces of blood, that he used his axe for the exact same thing.
If I knew you i’d spit in your face for being so stupid. Seriously. Try becoming familiar with the specifics of a situation before accusing anyone of anything you hack.
Someone covered in other people’s blood who could apparently shoot or stab two people with a single arrow and whose knives had blood, was using his axe for… trade? with who? the people that killed him?
For someone using an axe for trade it strikes me as surprising elite that he somehow managed to wound 3/4 other people, its also suggestive that MAYBE HE WAS ARMED TO THE TEETH TO AVOID THE GRISLY DEATH HE MET.
When someone is armed to the teeth, and they’re apparently skilled in the use of weapons, and then end up dying from an arrow/caved in skull, and we dig them up in mint condition 5000 years later, the automatic assumption to jump to is ‘trade!’
simple lunacy.
The only sane conclusion is that he was armed to the teeth for self defence or offense.
they built weapons specifically to destroy other humans… only to trade them…
even if people traded weapons, it was because there was a massive demand for agood axe to cave someone’s face in with.
The blood could have been on the clothes and arrow for any length of time. If he was murdered why didn’t his killers steal his flint knife and copper axe?
There is no “IF he was murdered” he was found in the snow with an arrow in the shoulder and a caved in head, theres no ‘ifs’ about it. Like if you walked up and found a person with a spear impaled through their throat, maybe they died of a heart-attack, but its very fucking probable that they died from the spear to the throat. so probable infact, that to suggest anything else is idiotic.
Especially when all subsequent testing shows it to be the most likely cause. So, theres is no ‘if’ so lets not cast any doubt on that. As to the ‘blood’ could have been there forever, well thats ignorant on a lot of levels too.
I suppose the people had their own weapons, and exactly what makes you think the other people were in any condition to steal his weapons? He had blood all over his weapons, he could have mauled them badly before getting taken down, infact, the fact that he was killed violently, with people’s blood all over him, might suggest a story along those lines, even if not, maybe they were afraid to stick around as maybe otzi had friends, it doesn’t matter, your question “why didn’t they steal his stuff” isn’t a sufficient doubt-caster to quesiton whether he was murdered.
When you find someone beaten to death and the wallet is still there, obviously it can’t be murder right? Fuck, whats wrong with you?
They took the arrow shaft, but not the axe. Why?
Because the axe was considered currency, and thus, worthless!
A copper headed ax wasn’t an every day tool. It represented a great deal of wealth. Why must a weapon be considered only currency or a weapon? Has anyone thought of the fact that it might be both depending on the circumstances? Even today, what is currency can also be a weapon - if you have enough of it. 
Yeah, obviously a copper axe could be used for trade or for a weapon. The point is, its obvious most of these people were using them as weapons, and idiotic to suggest anything otherwise. one tribe isn’t likely to trade an axe with a second tribe, a lot more common occurance is war.
Cyrene,
Well, I can think of any number of circumstances where an artifact is worth more as currency than as a weapon. If the common ax is still stone, then a copper ax is currency if I am trading with a smaller group than mine. I may lose the advantage of a superior weapon, but if I have more stone axes than the group I am trading with, my numbers in inferior weapons trumps a copper headed ax. Perhaps I need more food animals because my tribe has more mouths to feed. To the extent that my trading partners are no threat to me, I can afford the luxury of letting go a weapon in trade for needed food. This is just pragmatic, not idiotic.
Back when I was real real active on these pages, in those pre Diluvian days of 2003 and early 2004, I was also really actively reading about the archaeology of violence and the formation of the state. A couple of things I will add to this thread.
Funny that this thread comes up today. Just a couple of hours ago I was looking through my old uni’s website, looking for alumni friends of mine’s addresses. I noticed that they had promoted to tenure this dumbass prof who I got into an argument with at a debate I attended. He’s a 55 year old anarchist (which is a joke in and of itself) and he was scheduled to debate Anarchy with my friend who was on the poli sci faculty. The debate came around to a variant noble savage point where 55 year old anarchist man said that American Indians weren’t violent or some such thing. I raised my hand and said "uh, the Aztecs…? " And away we went… My old university made that guy a full prof. Must have been short on applications…
Hey Hermes,
Saw that you were back kinda sorta. Still in Florida where all those wicked people are being punished by God with hurricanes?
At best, early man in Europe was opportunistic. Violent when it served his interests, and a trader/farmer/hunter/ whatever the hell worked kind of human. Sort of like humans today left to their own devices… But I agree. The Noble Savage is bullshit. Violence has always been a human trait. I wouldn’t have gotten into this thread till I read that weapons couldn’t be currency. Man has always traded anything he could if he saw an advantage. That the currency could be used to kill was just an added benefit…