You didn't even read it. It is an excellent academic article with a pertinent bibliography. This is your modus operandi and it is transparent, disparage anything that refutes your poorly supported opinion and then a red herring.

No one can discredit you as effectively as you do to yourself Putin.

So zero supply isn't a shortage for a product in demand even though it fits your definition?

Whatever.

This is what you call an 'academic article'? Really, what journal was it published in? Its "pertinent bibiography" is mostly websites and it has no in-text citations for anything whatsoever.

This is your standard of academic rigor? How did you get a degree?

Hell your article doesn't even have an author!

J. M. Smith of LSU made this statement "It is widely believed Ötzi was a merchant or trader following an ancient trade route when he met his chilly death."
Obviously other learned academics dispute this theory, but the fact is the theory that Otzi was a trader is widespread.
It is entertaining to see Putin proclaim that he is an Otzi expert and that we can all discount the widespread belief that "Ötzi was a merchant or trader following an ancient trade route when he met his chilly death" because Putin "says so."
http://lsb380.plbio.lsu.edu/Highway%20markers%20folder/Otzi.html

Again you are a liar Putin. The author is listed at the bottom of the article. You are either to stupid or to lazy to conduct a basic investigation of the article before you make a fool out of yourself again and again and again.....

Gisella Casasnovas

"It is entertaining to see Putin proclaim that he is an Otzi expert"

I proclaimed no such thing. I also didn't post absurd unauthored poorly made student projects with illustrations and hokey font with no citations posted on a website and claim it was an "excellent academic paper". But I guess standards have slackened for free market religionists.

"but the fact is the theory that Otzi was a trader is widespread. "

So widespread that the Iceman exhibit in Tyrol says there is good reason to believe he wasn't a trader. I guess they haven't been enlightened by your "excellent academic articles" and compelling argumentation style of non-stop ad hominem attacks. You should go visit and inform them of their shoddy work in comparison to your standards of rigor.

http://lsb380.plbio.lsu.edu/Highway%20markers%20folder/Otzi.html

LOL! "Pretend you are on the Tyrolean alps". I will. And I'll also pretend that isn't another silly website that Emac is trying to pass off as academic work.

No you do claim to be an expert Putin. Your statement "I guess standards have slackened" is a proclamation of that the article does not meet your expertise. You also claim the expertise to determine that one source "the iceman exhibit in Tryol" is the definitive source and makes all other irrelevant when the fact of the matter is "it is widely believed Ötzi was a merchant or trader following an ancient trade route when he met his chilly death."
You continue telling lies. The piece does have an author and it has an extensive bibliography. You don't even put quotations around a quotes around a quote from any post in this thread when you posted "but the fact is the theory that Otzi was a trade is widespread." There isn't a quote like that in any post.

I shouldn't need to "investigate" an article for authorship. Authorship appears at the top of any academic paper. I have never seen anything where the author is buried in the middle of the paper under a bunch of subheadings. And just who is Gisella Casanovas? A PhD in archaeology I'm sure. Not some student doing a web project at American University. "Excellent academic article" indeed.

Putin, you are a lazy, disingenuous individual. I keep catching you in lie after lie and you can't even have the common decency to take responsibility for your own sloth. You are a child who posts before even bothering to look at a piece offered and then proclaiming you can reasonably refute it because of your own expertise and logic. You constantly make irrational claims that you've vetted sources and can determine which are legitimate and which are not while ignoring statements from academics working in the field.

You are an utter fool on display this morning Putin, and it is my pleasure to point it out.

"No you do claim to be an expert Putin."

Show me one sentence where I ever said I was an expert on the subject of the Iceman. Show me or shut up.

"Your statement "I guess standards have slackened" is a proclamation of that the article does not meet your expertise. "

This somehow suggests I'm an expert on the Iceman? Because I can recognize when a paper has no in-text citations, overwhelmingly uses websites as "bibliography", lists the author in the middle of the paper, is written by someone with no advanced or even basic degree in archaeology that anybody can discern, and is posted on a website rather than in an academic journal is not an academic paper? No, it's not a proclamation of my expertise on the iceman, it's proclamation on my basic recognition of what qualifies as academic work based on my own experience as an academic, having been forced to read untold numbers of academic articles in order to pass my comprehensive examinations, having been trying to publish my own academic work in peer-reviewed journals, and having taught at the university level. That point should be obvious to anyone who doesn't google search "ice man and trader" and instantly believe whatever crap they come up with because they are working backwards from ideologically motivated conclusions and retrofitting the evidence to support their religious devotion to the market.

"The piece does have an author and it has an extensive bibliography. "

Extensive bibliography, right. A bunch of links, and a couple of books like these:

http://www.abebooks.com/9780385254625/Man-Ice-True-Story-000-Year-Old-0385254628/plp

Keep your day job.

"Putin, you are a lazy, disingenuous individual. I keep catching you in lie after lie and you can't even have the common decency to take responsibility for your own sloth."

You are the king of projection. You do a google search and post the first thing that comes up, demanding that it be taken seriously as academic work when it's a student web project. It's a sad joke, really. I would love to be a fly in the fall when you yell at professors about accepting wikipedia entries and encyclopedia britannica articles as "serious academic papers".

Again you are a liar. The information you provided "http://www.abebooks.com/9780385254625/Man-Ice-True-Story-000-Year-Old-0385254628/plp" is no where in the article at all. A total fabrication and falsehood on your part. You are a compulsive liar Putin.

Here is the entire bibliography to prove what a iiar you are Putin.
28. Relevant Literature

Spindler, Konrad: The man in the ice: the preserved body of a Neolithic man reveals the secrets of the Stone Age

Spindler, Konrad: The Man in the Ice: The True Story of the 5000-Year-Old Man Found in an Alpine Glacier.

Roberts, David (1993) The Iceman: Lone Voyager from the Copper Age. National Geographic

Fowler, Brenda: ICEMAN: Uncovering the Life and Times of a Prehistoric man found in an Alpine Glacier

Websites:


The Iceman: http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c5/c552/Forschung/Iceman/iceman-en.html

Italy's iceman comes home: http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_48000/48074.stm

The man in the ice http://www.cruithni.org.uk/feature/iceman.html

BBC-Italy's Iceman out of the freezer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/europe/newsid_940000/940751.stm

BBC-Italy's Iceman comes home: http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_48000/48074.stm

Discovery of the Iceman: http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/iceman.html

The findings of Otzi, the Iceman: http://www.st-agnes.org/~dcrank/student/oahn/Geo.htm

Iceman moves into new home- DISCOVERY: http://exn.ca/Stories/1998/01/19/05.asp

The Iceman: The Man from Hauslabjoch: http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c5/c552/Forschung/Iceman/iceman-en.html

Mosses and the Iceman: http://www.gla.ac.uk/ibls/DEEB/jd/iceman.htm

Otzi, The Iceman: A mystery solved: http://members.tripod.com/fmrez/id21.htm

Otzi, the Austrian Iceman: http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/more/bl-iceman.htm

South Tyrol Museum: http://www.archaeologiemuseum.it/p2100_uk.html

The world when the Iceman froze: http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/iceman.html

Yes Putin, you do claim expertise when you denounce sources and claim the knowledge to judge one as superior to another. You are too stupid to realize what you are doing, but you are doing it nonetheless.

" The information you provided "http://www.abebooks.com/9780385254625/Man-Ice-True-Story-000-Year-Old-0385254628/plp" is no where in the article at all."

It's the Spindler book you just referenced in your copy & paste job.

See the 2nd reference given (in no format whatsoever). And you call me lazy?

"Yes Putin, you do claim expertise when you denounce sources and claim the knowledge to judge one as superior to another."

So we can't judge articles posted in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of archaeology as superior to web projects that cite a bunch of links, unless we're experts on the Iceman?

Got it. Whatever you say.

Obligatory Emac response of a tirade of insults. Blah, blah, blah, I've wasted enough time with you. Go post your weblinks to your professors, I'm sure they'll be amused.

I've been fascinated by Otzi since he was first discovered. I have a folder entitled "Iceman" in my bookmarks and have read everything I can find on the web about him. My knowledge is completely non-academic. I never claimed anything. I don't attack your sources I simply offer my sources.

Putin I will keep exposing you as the liar and a disingenuous individual you are.

I consistently insult liars, and Putin you are a liar.

Just to clarify I never said Otzi was a trader. I said that the implements he carried with him were from varying locales. Which means his society likely traded to acquire those tools.

Second the article you posted says nothing about the division of labour, it addresses the maintenance of his tools and clothing. Not the creation of them. His shoes, as I mentioned before are a perfect examples of a product that would have been dangerously time consuming to produce without the division of labor, and were actually quite complicated to make.

What does "fashion the tools himself" mean?

Also:

"http://www.iceman.it/en/node/286"

"Although it cannot be assumed that Ötzi made all the objects himself, he certainly could have collected and selected the materials himself."

If he could have selected the materials himself, from where do you base this notion that the materials must have been acquired through long-distance trade?

"Although it cannot be assumed that Ötzi made all the objects himself, he certainly could have collected and selected the materials himself."

This proves my point about local trade, and about division of labour. Thanks.

Regarding long distance trade I'm not saying long distance trade had to occur, however if you read through his equipment list you'll notice that many different types of wood were used, some of these types of wood, are not local to the region he is believed to have come from, which suggests that they may have been imported.

That is not what you said. I quote you from earlier:

"With all due respect there is evidence of both division of labor and of long distance trade in the tools and equipment the ice man was wearing. The iceman was found with various wooden tools made from woods that were historically not present together, or even nearby"

You very clearly said "long distance trade" and that the materials were not from nearby. Now when I quote the exhibit saying that he could acquired all the materials himself, you use this to claim that this "proves your point about local trade" - except your point wasn't about *local trade*, it was about long-distance trade.

And that quote doesn't prove your point about the division of labor either. It simply says we cannot assume they all made by the iceman. It doesn't say we can assume that they were not. How does that prove anything you said?

"You very clearly said "long distance trade" and that the materials were not from nearby. Now when I quote the exhibit saying that he could acquired all the materials himself, you use this to claim that this "proves your point about local trade" - except your point wasn't about *local trade*, it was about long-distance trade."

Let me start again, because clearly there is a misunderstanding.
I have three points:
1) Otzi's tools imply a division of labour
2) Trade/The Market was present in human society in Otzi's time
3) Long distance trade was likely present in Otzi's time.

My arguments have been consistent throughout all three posts.

I said the materials were not local, and I have repeated that.

I have said that there was evidence that long-distance trade was likely, and I have maintained that. Only, we have no way of knowing exactly what happened, thus I cannot say long-distance trade was necessary. Merely that it was probably due to the existence of wood from areas that were not close together.

Regarding the quote. On second glance I may have been reading too much of what I already know into it. Namely that the reason that we cannot assume he made them himself, is that due to time and complexity to create both the copper axe and the shoes he was his ability to feed himself would be greatly diminished if he made them himself. Thus the evidence suggests they weren't created by him. Again, we cannot be certain of this, however we are building an understanding based on the evidence available.

Similarly to how you might argue that Otzi is not a trader because the evidence suggests he had another profession, I can argue that trade both local and long distance and the division of labor is the best explanation for the production of his tools because the "lone man" and "pre-trade" society claims are less probable.

Finally, yes he could have collected the materials. However, because some of the materials were from areas that were far apart the more probable explanation is that his society was engaged in trade over a long distance.

"1) Otzi's tools imply a division of labour"

You have yet to address the fact that the exhibit claimed the Iceman could have fashioned the tools himself. In fact you earlier claimed that that section somehow said nothing about how the tools were made, only how they were maintained. Again you're making interpretations of statements that do not correspond to the actual statements. It just seems like whatever is said you'll interpret as proof that you are correct.

"2) Trade/The Market was present in human society in Otzi's time"

You've shown absolutely nothing about the presence of markets.

"I said the materials were not local, and I have repeated that. "

How is that possible that any long distance trade occurred if he could have acquired the materials himself? By what definition is that "long distance"?

"My arguments have been consistent throughout all three posts."

They have been unclear. You said you were making points about local trade when claiming there was evidence for long distance trade. You used a statement in which the exhibit said it cannot be assumed he made all the materials himself, but he could have collected the materials himself, as somehow 'proof' of trade and the division of labor, which is just nonsense. You read a huge number of things into that statement to make your comment completely unintelligible.

"because some of the materials were from areas that were far apart the more probable explanation is that his society was engaged in trade over a long distance. "

How far is far apart? I asked a while ago for some kind of evidence of this and I haven't gotten anything. What is 'long distance' for you? How far is far? I don't see how if he could have collected 18 kinds of wood by himself to fashion these objects, that these materials were by any definition a long distance away from each other.

"You have yet to address the fact that the exhibit claimed the Iceman could have fashioned the tools himself. In fact you earlier claimed that that section somehow said nothing about how the tools were made, only how they were maintained. Again you're making interpretations of statements that do not correspond to the actual statements. It just seems like whatever is said you'll interpret as proof that you are correct."

Because it didn't say that, because if it had said that, it would poor scholarship on their part, and likely wrong.

Let us begin with the ax. The ax is cast in copper, to make an ax out of copper one requires a number of things, Ore, Fire hot enough to smelt the ore (a campfire can't do that you need a fire of >200C), A mould in which to pour the molten copper, or a method of collection such that the copper could later be reheated and beaten into shape. Now, Otzi as he was found did not have any of the things required to produce the Ax. (Except perhaps a tool to beat the copper into shape). This means he either had those tools at some point, or acquired the tool from someone else, by means of trade (a market place)

Now let us pretend that Otzi did have these tools at some point and left them behind. There are two more pieces of evidence which suggest he must have traded.

Bread, the remnants of wheat and worn teeth in a pattern indicative of bread consumption were found with Otzi. If we assume that Otzi did in fact act as prospector, finding metal ore, he would not be in a position to farm for grain, farming for grain requires an incredible amount of work to tend the land during the growing season.

Finally Otzi's shoes were produced from bearskin and woven grasses. Weaving grasses is an incredible time consuming activity, making shoes similar to his by hand takes 100s of hours, during that time he also had to kill and skin a bear. While farming and prospecting, and smelting and making tools.

Even if you believe he could accomplish more than one of the roles needed to produce all of these goods. (Plus the many others, including clothes made from cowhide and deer). A more probable and simpler explanation as per occam's razor is that he traded for these supplies, from others who performed specialized functions, such as hunting, farming, herding or prospecting.

Regarding the distance, I will have to try and find the original source. As my present source is notes I had taken on the subject.

What is this debate about? Did prehistoric humans trade? We know they did because archaeologists have found artefacts made of materials that must of travelled long distances, like obsidian found along way from its source. It doesn't necessarily mean that one individual travelled that entire distance by themselves, working as a professional trader. I would imagine that in most cases items would have been swapped from group to group, gradually making their way from one region to another.

Does this trade constitute a market? Define market. I would argue that it could be conceived as a "market", but this could just be a question of semantics.

Would the price of such items increased or decreased with respects to supply and demand. How could the price have conceivably not changed? Thus the price of obsidian for example would have increased the further it travelled from its source as it became scarcer and scarcer. Does Putin33 dispute this?

But really, how many cavemen can dance on the head of a pin?

Spyman, Putin disputes this. He says "There's nothing natural or normal about markets. Markets came to exist after states/bandits/politicians, not before. Long distance trade on a large scale didn't develop until fairly late in the game. Most trade was limited to a small sector of the economy in market towns specifically designed for this purpose on a limited number of days." He offers nothing whatsoever to support this and claims this is accepted fact and if you dispute it the burden of proof is on you not him.

I offered the definitive text on this subject - Karl Polanyi's the Great Transformation. I also offered William McNeil's The Pursuit of Power. Both are relatively short reads, despite the wealth of information and sources. Read them. Both confirm that states preceded markets.

As for what markets are, this is a rather shocking question. I already defined them earlier. A market is a mechanism of exchange based on price determined by supply & demand. It is a form of economic organization that is in contrast to reciprocity (gift exchange), redistribution (resources are centrally collected first and then distributed), or householding (self-sufficiency). The argument is that the other forms of economic organization were much more prevalent in the internal economies of early societies than markets, which played a limited role.

The argument is not that long-distance trade didn't exist in early states, but that to the extent that it did, it wasn't based on price, but rather equivalencies set by the state. In effect, a mechanism similar to that of command economies was set up in which the state determined how much of something would be traded for an amount of something else.