4 ms·

I will hasard that yes, they are against. The practice is barbaric. I still fail to see how it relates to their very valid comment that having your dogs buried

I will hasard that yes, they are against. The practice is barbaric. I still fail to see how it relates to their very valid comment that having your dogs buried next to you as their owner is fundamentaly different that having a burial for your dog.

Beijinger 2y ago
As far as I know, the dogs were not killed but were buried there before their master died.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the dogs were not killed but were buried there before their master died Sure. There is still a massive difference between a burial for a King having someone or something buried with them and conducting the ritual entirely for a pet. (And looping back to OP, several cultures conducted funeral rites entirely for beloved pets. The Egyptians and Romans come to mind.)
  - whtsthmttrmn 2y ago
    Forgive my ignorance, but is the difference because a burial FOR a dog implies some meaningful significance since the focus is on the pet, whereas being buried WITH the dogs is just a way for the dogs to be sent to the afterlife with the deceased (and the focus isn't on them, they're just along for the ride)?
    - collingreen 2y ago
      Yes. The one is focused on the pet, elevating it to the same level of respect and dignity as funeral rites for people. The other is not - it could be respectful (I loved my pet please bury them by me) or not (bury my jewels and slaves with me) but it still isn't the raising of the pet status to that of your own species.