I still want to be fossilized, but now I think I want to be fossilized in tableau! Stick me in some silt, along with a dead tiger, or a grizzley bear, four or five feet to my rear, in attack stance. Add a bunch of tracks in the silt, to present a scene of predator stalking prey.
Insectoid archaeologist speaks:
And so, just as the great beast was about to strike, both predator and prey were drowned in an apparent flash-flood, preserving for us this remarkable prehistoric scene of life-and-death.
The person who decided that human dead must be buried in dirt was the first guy to try it. Once he realized that a a buried body doesn’t stink up the joint the way a decomposing corpse does, the idea caught on.
But what about those who died accidental deaths or murders that would cause them to not have a complete body anymore? Examples would be being burned in acid, burning to death in a fire, etc. I don’t find that fair.
Burials have been both above and below ground since the first. Look at the Egyptians. And later the Celts and Mayans. Dirt, no dirt, kings cut up to provide relics for each prince as a relic; lots of variations.
Well, if you put somebody in a structure above ground, you’re not burying him or her, you’re entombing them. That’s why “Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb” is a trick question
I have made it known that I desire to be cremated and have my ashes scattered. I have no desire to be taking up space when I am gone so this seems the way to go. I don’t mind being turned into fertilizer once any re-usable parts are taken.
This topic has brought up an interesting side issue, that being, how much space do the dead take up on this planet? In some places the dead are buried in an upright or standing position as to to take up less space.
We may reach a point in our history where the bodies of our dearly deceased will have to be more completely disposed of because of a lack of burial space. If and when this happens I can see a gret deal of opposition to the idea.
I think the practice of burying our dead has been with us since the dawn of mankind (as someone else noted). Once buried beneath the soil a corpse will be less likely to attract scavengers, cause a terrible smell, or spread disease.
I would think that if smell was the issue, burial at sea would be the best option. You wouldn’t smell them,the fishes could eat them, and the salt water would dissolve them.
As I read somewhere, the 4 major ways of disposing of the dead (not including canibalism) reflect the four major “elements”: burial (earth), the sea (water), cremation (fire), and leaving them out in the open (air).
I’m not even thinking of this in relationship to myself. I figure “Hey, it won’t be my problem.”
Burial in the ground is a Jewish tradition of long standing, probably stemming from Genesis 3:19 - “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
It is stated as a commandment in Deuteronomy 21:23 - “you must not leave his body (of a criminal who was hung for his crime) on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.”
So the Christians almost certainly got this from the existing Jewish tradition.
What about the possibility that Jesus was explaining things to people with very simple minds and limited world experience? Or just generalizing? His listeners probably were most familiar with burials so it was easier to explain it in such a simple way.
Was this commandment dictated by a person who was considered a high priest or zealous follower of the religion? If that was the case, being human, with having been steeped in the traditions, morals, laws and education of the times, it is very possible that he translated his ‘inspiration’ accordingly. It is, as we well know, possible to become fanatical about religion and to narrowly interpret scriptures along the lines of personal opinion, personal morals and personal beliefs.
In the land of the times, wood would not have been all that abundant in most areas, so cremation would be expensive in terms of fuel. Most people had not been over 20 miles from their birth place, so cluttering up the landscape with above ground burials would not have been practical on many levels. The sight alone would have been unpleasant to survivors.
I am very vague here, but was there not once a people who practiced burying their dead in poor land to enrich it to grow crops? I know it is very common in some areas to use human waste as such. In nutrient poor lands, almost anything which can add to the soil is returned to it. Even here, animal bones and flesh are rendered, pulverized and turned into fertilizers.
Burial commandments could have been ‘interpreted’ by Holy Ones interested in stopping the spread of disease, interested in renourishing the land, or even giving solid meaning to ‘resurrection of the dead’ in their own way. Around 2000 years ago, and more, even the most learned scholar did not have the education of today’s 4th grader and the basic maturity level of a 16 year old.
