Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nice999 t1_ixdxbjg wrote

Reply to comment by IslandChillin in Ancient Egyptian mummification was never intended to preserve bodies by IslandChillin

I thought it was supposed to preserve the body for the afterlife? That’s what I was taught in school so this isn’t a 180 to me.

85

iamerudite t1_ixdybkz wrote

Isn't it? If the purpose isn't to "preserve the body for the afterlife," and is instead to guide the soul, and the preservation of the body is just a coincidental byproduct of their rituals, I would say that's a pretty significant 180.

16

onemany t1_ixe06es wrote

It's a complete 360!! This changes everything!!

44

Plop-Music t1_ixfbe7j wrote

It's called the xbox 360 because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away.

2

yellow52 t1_ixgr780 wrote

But if you turn 360 degrees you’ll walk straight into it

1

Plop-Music t1_ixhn0vk wrote

That was the joke, at the time, yes, back in 2005 or whenever it was exactly. At least that eventually became the joke, even if it wasn't initially. But it was just a way to make fun of the dumb name for the console when it was announced. Here's the know your meme page about it

Although yeah because of this, someone did make this animated gif of Michael Jackson walking up to an xbox 360, spinning 360 degrees, and then moonwalking away, so that the joke still fits.

Hope this is still animated as I upload it but if not you might have to Google "xbox 360 Michael Jackson gif"

Here's the gif

1

relefos t1_ixdyuzc wrote

I think it isn't a 180 simply because we were all taught about how basically every other part of the ritual, their tombs, etc. revolved around making their afterlife experience easier / better in some way shape or form

So learning that they may have mummified the bodies for the sake of that person's afterlife, with preservation being a byproduct, isn't really a huge revelation. It's neat and definitely different than what we all thought, but it's more like a 90, not a 180, if that makes sense

35

AnthonyTyrael t1_ixe8gke wrote

The difference here is between body and soul. As far as I'm understanding it. Preserving body meant to transfer both into afterlife, body intact and soul too. The new thesis is, it was just meant to preserve the soul, the body isn't needed in afterlife. That's a big difference in belief and religion.

Pre-Astronautics will be happy to hear about it.

What doesn't make sense to me here is, why take all the organs out if the body doesn't matter, just the spirit?

5

nice999 t1_ixdyyoz wrote

While it is true that the preservation could just be a byproduct of some very specific rituals, these rituals are still laid out to act the exact same as preservation. Could it not just be that it’s both?

13

SituationSoap t1_ixeflzj wrote

> If the purpose isn't to "preserve the body for the afterlife," and is instead to guide the soul, and the preservation of the body is just a coincidental byproduct of their rituals, I would say that's a pretty significant 180.

Is there significant evidence that early Egyptian cultures believed in the concept of a soul distinct from the physical body?

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the concept of a soul/body dichotomy was more of a Hellenistic Greek thing and wouldn't come around for a couple thousand years after the Egyptians started mummifying folks.

6

Koshindan t1_ixe1vc1 wrote

If we're operating on the idea that all the other items left in the tomb were to bring into the afterlife, then why wouldn't the believe the body could be brought as well?

6

nice999 t1_ixe21iu wrote

That wasn’t my point, my point was that the body was being preserved so it wouldn’t decay when going to the afterlife

5