No person named Otzi can be verified to have existed. And even so, there are a host of far older human remains, so that’s not a viable suggestion even with regard to your own interpretation.
By your definition, “the oldest person we know in history” may be depictedhere.
I can verify that a man named Ötzi existed. True, that was probably not his name at the time he lived. But a name was not part of the question in the OP. Considering the requirements stated in the OP, Ötzi is more ancient and more verifiably existed than a Pharoah. In addition it is possible to create a very realistic costume to portray him.
I’m guessing that the OP did not consider the intricacies of nomenclature in historical academia.
Yeah, I think this is a fair way to approach it. After posting the thread I realised it was going to be quite an ambiguous task, which is quite regrettable. I don’t think the person who is putting on the fancy dress party will mind if I turned up as Otzi. 
But I understand where the posters who are saying he’s not a ‘historical’ figure are coming from.
Interesting. This guy is said to have reigned around 3200BC. Doesn’t seem too concrete though.
In any case the debate on what constitutes a ‘historical’ figure it interesting. How would oral history factor in? Or does it have to be recorded somehow?
I’ve gotta say - that’d make a fantastic costume But yes. If we define ‘oldest historical person’ as just the oldest person, then the earliest bones we have available must count. I don’t think this is quite what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of people we have historical accounts of, that we can verify aren’t just mythological portions of a nations history.
Rather foolishly, I did not!
Let me tell you one thing: If you show up at your party dressed like this:
you’ll practically own the place. It’s a chick magnet, too!
Would you Adam and Eve it?
The pharoah with the scorpion seal was the first that came to my mind too.
Written history is a relatively modern thing.
Oral history has been around a lot longer. There could be a group in the Amazon who still speak about someone who lived twenty thousand years ago.
That said, there would almost certainly be a “Chinese Whispers” effect as the story passed on.
And what about Biblical characters?
Interesting question, but I suspect we’ll never get a definitive answer
Even the historicity of Jesus has been disputed. The earliest written accounts which mention him were produced more than 20 years after his death (IIRC), the gospels even later.
In China writing only shows up in Shang era, so probably after 1500 BCE or so; anything before that is iffy/too hard to separate mythology from record.
Japan-- absolutely not; historical record starts rather late, in 6th c CE or so.
But as I said, even given your interpretation of the OP, Otzi isn’t remotely close to a correct answer. There are many far more ancient human remains. Even just considering mummified remains, the Chinchorro mummies of Chile date back 7000 years, or around 1700 years older than Otzi.
If you want the oldest remains of a human, the earliest member of our own genus Homo goes back about 1.9 million years ago, and the earliest Homo sapiens to 190,000 years ago. (I would rule out Lucy as not being really human, since she belongs to a different genus.)
Whatever the answer is, it isn’t Otzi.
No argument there. The oldest named mummified remains I knew of was Otzi. He’s probably the most well known though and would make the best costume. Unless the OP wants to go dressed as a tooth.
In other words, you didn’t actually know the answer to the OP, yet you’ll continue to defend it even though it’s clearly wrong even by your own interpretation.
The OP did not ask for the “best known” ancient person, or which would make the best costume.
Since he asked about historical people, that’s probably not what he had in mind. You’re the one who suggested that that bones should be considered to be historical people.
In other words you have nothing to offer in this thread and want to continue a pointless argument. The first response posited a pharoah as the oldest historical person and he wasn’t. Otzi is older. Either you are wrong about your initial interpretation or there are some mummies and bones older than Otzi. Take your pick.
It’s hardly pointless as long as you keep trying to defend an erroneous answer. I don’t know why some people feel compelled to do this, but it’s not really best practice for GQ.
Who was, then? The pharaohs are reasonable candidates, along with some Sumerian rulers. It depends on how much evidence you require to consider a named person to be mythological or historical.
He is not a historical person, so the answer is wrong by my interpretation of the OP.
He is not as old as the oldest known mummies or the oldest human remains, so the answer is wrong by your interpretation of the OP.
I can’t really figure out what your point is here. My “initial interpretation,” as that of others, is that the OP was asking for people whose names appear in history. Other posters have given possible answers to that question. As for your second clause, yes, there are mummies and bones older than Otzi, which makes that answer wrong.
I’ll take my pick: regardless the way the OP is interpreted, Otzi is not a correct answer.
You are wrong again. First the answer was provided in GD, not GQ. But that doesn’t matter. I haven’t defended my answer that Otzi is the oldest known person at all. I’ve defended my answer that he is an older known person than the pharoahs.
The pharoahs are reasonable answers, but wrong depending on the interpretation of the question. And Otzi is absolutely real while the pharoahs are questionable.
You are using the creationist interpretation of history. I use the actual one, history is that which was, not that which somebody may have claimed was.
I never said he was. That is your specious argument to defend your interpretation.
I claimed Otzi was the oldest known person to actually exist, that I knew of. I also pointed out that there bones older than that. Something you admit to depending on which side of the argument you choose to use at the moment.
Since you say that you’re not defending the idea that Otzi is the oldest person known to have existed, then you’re acknowledging that your initial post was wrong. You posted that in response to the OP, and made no mention of the pharaohs. Otzi is not a correct response to the OP.
Seriously, knock it off with the Otzi crap. That’s done and irrelevant for the thread.
My initial post cited Otzi as an example and clearly stated that I knew there were older examples. So no, my post was not wrong. It provided some of the information by which the correct answer could derived with further clarification of the terminology. You simply assumed that your one interpretation of the question was the correct one and then have been making the same pointless argument since.
Nah, it was just wrong.
Brilliant argument.