Well, I assume the lowest-budget way to deal with a corpse in ancient Egypt is to toss it into the Nile.

More generally, if what you're looking at is a cemetery for the poor, there should be a lot of remains, and there shouldn't be much in the way of decoration. If someone carved a tomb for the remains to be in ("The body was interred in a ceramic pot within a rock-cut tomb"), that already disqualifies them from being poor.

▲

andsoitis 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I assume the lowest-budget way to deal with a corpse in ancient Egypt is to toss it into the Nile.

You are wrong to think that the majority of Egyptians’ corpses were disposed of in the Nile.

▲

thaumasiotes 2 days ago | parent [-]

Is that something I said?

	▲	mrangle a day ago \| parent [-]
		You implied that lower class burials were likely in the Nile. To advance the argument that a pot burial likely didn't indicate a poor burial.

▲

throwawayffffas a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Culture matters a lot, the lowest budget is not necessarily the one that will be used. The cheapest way to dispose of a body is to eat it, but almost no cultures do that, I don't know the burial rituals of ancient Egyptian laborers, but tossing them in the Nile seems incredibly unlikely.

▲

PKop 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I assume the lowest-budget way to deal with a corpse in ancient Egypt is to toss it into the Nile.

So what, this didn't happen and isn't consistent with any historical practice. An irrelevant non-sequitur to the question at hand of whether pot burial is likely to be a poor commoner or even migrant worker or some representative of elite Egyptian society.

> that already disqualifies them from being poor.

No it does not, you're extrapolating way to much by way of some modern interpretation there's quite a lot of debate around these particular questions of provenance of remains that you're hand waving and trivializing as clear cut.