For ancient Egyptians, burial was a ritual where the dead left the land of the living and entered the afterlife. Before the burial, the body had to be prepared. Not everyone could afford the same service. All ancient Egyptians had some type of funeral ceremony to make the transition to the world of the dead. People with little money gave their used clothing as payment to the embalmer (the person preserving the mummy). A family with more money could have more work done. The body would be kept for 70 days in a chemical to preserve it. For a middle-class family, the embalmer might inject the body with oil of cedar or other perfumes. The wealthy had a more complex mummification process that included careful work on the brain and organs. When the bodies were dried and wrapped, they were given to their families in wooden coffins.

How did the burial of a wealthy person differ from that of an enslaved person? Choose two answers.

The wealthy had a more complex process.
The wealthy were wrapped in their clothes.
The wealthy had a ceremony.
The wealthy had perfumes in their bodies.

A and D

Explanation:

I did the assignment and got 100%

not to sure thinking it would be a hope this

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is