Rhode Island College

Digital Commons @ RIC

Faculty Publications Faculty Books and Publications

2-1-1994

Pigs and Their Prohibition

Richard A. Lobban Jr.
Rhode Island College, rlobban@ric.edu

Recommended Citation
Lobban, Richard A. Jr., "Pigs and Their Prohibition" (1994). Faculty Publications. Paper 128. http://digitalcommons.ric.edu/facultypublications/128

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Books and Publications at Digital Commons @ RIC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ RIC. For more information, please contact hbenaicha@ric.edu.

Pigs and Their Prohibition Author(s): Richard A. Lobban, Jr. Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 57-75 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/164052 . Accessed: 04/02/2011 13:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of Middle East Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Int. J. Middle East Stud. 26 (1994), 57-75. Printed in the United States of America

Richard A. Lobban, Jr.

PIGS

AND

THEIR

PROHIBITION

Little is more central to the study of the modern Middle East than religion. Amidst the differences between the Judaic and Islamic traditions, both are unified about the religious prohibition of swine as a source of food. This taboo is one of the more significant common markers of their ethnicity and religious code. Indeed, violations or poor adherence to the taboo can be considered as grave religious insults or cultural transgressions. In India, the meat of swine has been thrown on mosque steps and has provoked major intercommunal rioting. Even as one flies to the Middle East in modern, high-technology European airlines, the companies commonly inform all passengers that the meals contain no pork. In Spain, the ritual public slaughter of pigs, the matanza, has come to symbolize the resistance of Christians to the Muslim occupation. The matanza ritual has come to be a modern element in the formation of Spanish religious and cultural identity (Castaner 1988). Yet, the debate about the origins of this modern taboo is unresolved and still continues. This article accepts the task of trying to understandthis importantmodern taboo by investigating its deep roots in Middle Eastern antiquity. The data brought into this discussion require a journey back into periods that are more removed than normal for scholars of Islamic or Judaic societies. However, the discovery of the origins of the pig taboo is inherently liberating for those who seek scholarly reflection and inquiry on this subject. Thus, what may appear to be a study of irrelevant antiquity is, in fact, remarkablyapplicable to this contemporarypractice. Ultimately, this study is based upon a realization of the deeper unity of the peoples of this region rather than the divisions that so often predominate. Because no single discipline or explanation seems adequate to understand this practice, the search draws data from biology, anthropology, ancient history, mythology, religion, and ecology. Some have dismissed religious explanations as arbitrary and tautological, but the information provided in this article shows that religious beliefs are important. Others have rejected cultural and ecological materialism as reductionist, yet the rise of the taboo has a specific ecological context. In short, this is a fresh, synthetic, and historical look at a very old problem, which may find its solution in a multidisciplinary framework. The scientific quest to explain the origin of the taboo against eating pigs is at least as old as the ancient Greeks; however, scholars in the 20th century essentially have
Richard A. Lobban, Jr., is the Director of the Program of African and Afro-American Studies, Rhode Island College, Providence, R.I. 02908, U.S.A. ? 1994 Cambridge University Press 0020-7438/94 $5.00 + .00

58 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. fallen into three camps. One school of thought is provided by the religious explanations themselves, which state simply that the taboo was revealed by God/Allah/ Yahweh to his several prophets and no furtherdiscussion is requiredor encouraged. More reflective interpretationscan be found in the importantwork on this subject by Douglas (1966:41-57). She raises and criticizes three hypotheses. One is that the taboo is simply arbitrary,and it seeks to instill discipline and unity among the religious followers. Douglas also proposes an allegorical explanation that projects opposing forces of good/evil and right/wrong, so that mere mortals will have a degree of divine guidance in their lives. Her third explanation states that the taboo emerged in an effort to determine in-group/out-group identities for religio-ethnic reinforcement. Douglas then rejects these hypotheses and concludes that the taboo exists to establish a separate, holy, and supernaturalworld, which is given concrete expression in the taboo. The specificity of the dietary taboo, she believes, helps to ensure an orderly, "holy" world (Douglas 1966:54). This type of explanation, however, runs a certain risk of circularity in logic if it is understood that divine revelations of this taboo exist to prove a supernaturalworld. Continuing this debate about swine-taboo origins, Hunn (1979), seeks to find middle ground between the symbolic or idealist interpretationsand the materialist explanations of Harris, to be discussed later. Hunn (1979:112-14) concludes that the taboo reflects a religious version of a phylogenetic or taxonomic classification in which the "peculiar" nature of pigs is recognized by parallel etic and emic (scientific and religious) systems. This ethno-scientific approach is drawn from linguistic anthropology, which sees universal phonetic systems of description contrasting with culture-specific phonemic systems of meaning. Using this ethnoscientific approach, Hunn claims that he has achieved a synthesis of the symbolic and cognitive modes of explanation of the taboo. While one may be convinced that this congruence exists in some cases, these arguments may also be considered as tautological rather than historical or evolutionary. Still unanswered are the central historical questions of why, when, where, and how did the taboo emerge. In his explanation of the taboo, Harris (1974, 1977, 1985) adopts a materialist analysis that focuses on ecological, economic, and political sources of the taboo. It is common to criticize Harris on the basis of ecological determination. The views in this paper build from these perspectives, but the framework here is more integrated, interdisciplinary, and historical, especially as the research is refined relative to the centrally important case of ancient Egypt. Here, the work is synthetic and multicausal, and the analysis is based upon a complex, synergistic interaction and competition of several species of domesticated animals, a changed ecology by human intervention, political evolution, and symbolism in religion and mythology. One cannot mention Harris without noting the work of Diener and Robkin (1978). Their epistemologically rich paper surveys some contemporarythinking on the pig taboo and broadly challenges the theoretical framework and conclusions of Harris. On the other hand, some reviewers of their work, myself included, are not convinced that their epistemology substantially differs from Harris's. Specifically, the early Egyptian origins of the taboo are noted only in passing; the Muslims, who are the focus of their work, were hardly the first group in the region to have observed the taboo.

Pigs and Their Prohibition

EGYPTIAN ORIGINS OF THE PIG TABOO

59

The Egyptian origin of the Mosaic taboo against swine flesh has been widely accepted for many years (e.g., Murdock 1959:19; Zeuner 1963:262). By the time of the Egyptian New Kingdom (16th century B.C.), there may already have been a formal taboo, at least for the nobility. Yet, it is importantto note that, concurrent with this prohibition, pork was still widely eaten by poorer people. The historical reconstruction of the Jewish prophet Moses places him in the role of a high-ranking civil servant during the reign of PharaohRamses II, thus exposing him to the upper-class food preferences and prohibitions. In the context of conflict within the Egyptian ruling class, Moses fled with his followers into the wilderness of the Sinai but saw no reason to abandon this already established taboo. As a markerof "civilized" social status and, later, of Jewish ethnicity, the strict observance of the taboo on swine flesh was given supernaturalsanctions. It also would be possible to argue, like Zeuner (1963:261), that, in comparison with settled agriculturalistswho raised pigs, the ancient pastoral nomads, such as Jews and Arabs whose economic life styles would preclude extensive pig raising, created a supernaturally backed value system that endorsed their prohibition against pig flesh. As Arab culture came to dominate the entire Middle East, this only became more exaggerated.
THE TABOO IN THE TORAH, BIBLE, AND QUR'AN

The formal pork taboo appears in the Old Testament (Torah), probably written in the mid-5th century B.C. In Leviticus 11:4-47, numerous animals are specified as "clean" and "unclean." These include "the swine, though he divided the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you." However, these emic categories of "clean" and "unclean" appear to have no known scientific basis. In any case, this passage clearly establishes the religious prohibition for Jews, and briefly for Christians, until the New Testament reforms noted in Acts 10:9-16 allowed early Hellenized Christians to abandon this food restriction. Later, Muslims, wanting, or needing, to distinguish themselves from Christians, sought to simplify and renew the former taboo against pig flesh. For Muslims, reference is made to Sura 5:3, the Table Spread: "Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swine flesh...." The taboo is repeated in Sura 6:145, Cattle, which indicates that swine flesh "verily is foul or the abomination which was immolated to the name of other than Allah. But who so is compelled (thereto), neither craving nor transgressing, (for Him) lo! your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful." One may conclude that Muslims may even raise pigs but not eat them unless compelled by emergency circumstances. Islamic practices also exclude scavenging and bottom-feeding animals from the diet. It is also critical for Muslims that the solemn slaughter of animals be done with an invocation to Allah and that blood flows, that is, the animal should not have died beforehand because of being beaten, strangled, gored, or have met death in circumstances that would cause it to be carrion. Animals sacrificed to gods other

60 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. than Allah are not to be eaten. In the case of hunting with falcons, Muslims ought to eat the game pursued and the name of Allah should be invoked when the falcon is released (Ali 1977:240-41, 330-33).
THE ANTIQUITY OF PIG DOMESTICATION

Because pigs are among the earliest domesticated animals, questions regarding when, where, why, and how they were domesticated are also relevant to this inquiry. However, a complete history of pig domestication is a major subject and one is referred to Clutton-Brock (1981), Cranstone (1969), Epstein (1971), Grigg (1974), Reed (1959, 1977), Spurway (1955), Ucko and Dimbleby (1969), and Zeuner (1963) for additional details. Here we can follow some of the summary conclusions of Flannery (1961, 1983) who states that pig domestication took place several times, but not earlier than 6500 B.C. It also took place in several places in the early Middle East including Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Despite these differences in time and place, the result was a similar swine phenotype (Flannery 1961:43-44). Probably pig domestication followed the domestication of sheep and goats and the evolution of small Neolithic villages (Bokony 1969; Clark 1971; Tringham 1969). Cattle domestication was either concurrent or slightly later (Reed 1960:143). In Chinese Neolithic sites, it is common to find pig and dog bones, but cattle and sheep bones are rare and were certainly domesticated much later. Almost all pig bones were of the young with very few over one year of age. Pigs were definitely domesticated but were still similar to the wild Sus scrofa (Watson 1969:393-94). In New Guinea and Indonesia, pigs were probably the first domesticated animals introduced. It is reasonable that the later success and widespread popularity of pigs and the lack of a taboo in eastern Asia and the Pacific is, in part, due to the temperate climates without encroaching deserts and the relative lack, or late arrival, of competing livestock. Interestingly, many Buddhists in Tibet-where water resources may be a limiting factor-have long had a religious taboo against eating fish. By common agreement, all prehistoric European and western Asiatic domesticated pigs are descended from Sus scrofa, but regional variation and some reversion to feral stocks have complicated this picture. To be taxonomically precise, pigs belong to the order of Artiodactyla, which are ungulates with an even number of toes such as deer and cattle have. The pig family is termed the Suidae, which is made up of several importantgenera. The study of the domestication of ancient pigs has concentrated on the analysis of teeth (especially molars) and jaws. These parts are more often preserved and they also help in the process of differentiation between wild and domestic varieties. These distinctions are critical in determining whether any bones in question are those of domestic, feral, or wild animals. Following basic research on this issue, Rutimeyer (1860), Amschler (1939), and Flannery (1961, 1983) have generally found that with domestication, the molar diastemmas and overall jaw length are relatively reduced; this is parallel to a similar trend in human evolution. No single theory explains just why this seems to be the case, except that a more-uniform and regular diet may require a more homogeneous or less robust structurefor mastication (Hemmer 1990).

Pigs and Their Prohibition

61

Pigs first entered Africa through Egypt from Asia, but it is not clear if they migrated on their own in wild packs, were driven or carried across the Sinai, or if they were conveyed by small coastal boats. The environment in the pre-Dynastic Egyptian delta was ideally suited for the domestication of pigs from wild stock (Flannery 1983:181), and perhaps as early as 5000 B.C.some domesticated pigs were established in Egypt (Boessneck 1988). Gilman (1976), working in Morocco, has found pig bones at Ashakar dating to the 7th millennium B.C., but it is assumed that these were wild animals. Bones of pigs in ancient Egypt have been found in the Fayum Oasis, at Macadi, Merimde, and at perhaps a somewhat later time pig bones appear in Badarian and Gerzean sites. At Hemamieh, near Badari, in Upper Egypt in about 4000-3500 B.C., sedentary Badarians with pottery and emmer wheat agriculture also had domesticated pigs, sheep, goats, and cattle (Flannery 1961:60-61, 1983:181). In the Gerzean site at Toukh (also in Upper Egypt), at about 3400 B.C., the domestic pig (S. scrofa) is also known. Hays (1984:68) claims that domesticated pigs were present at El Khattara,some eighteen miles north of Luxor in Upper Egypt in preDynastic times. On the northernshores of Lake Qarun in the Fayum Oasis there is clear proof of a people whose economy was based on barley and emmer wheat as well as domesticated animals, which Kees claims (1961:32) included pigs. Hassan (1984:59-62) agrees that there is the possibility of pig domestication in the Fayum pre-Dynastic era, and they were certainly hunted. However, the relative rarity of pig bones in the Fayum in these early strata can also be interpreted to mean that these were only wild varieties. Thus, even the experts disagree in marginal cases judged by frequencies in the archaeological record and even in marginal cases judged by anatomical features. Even when they are in agreement about the degree of domestication, there can still be debate over the issue of foreign introduction or local domestication. In Egypt or elsewhere, domestication is assumed in the context of a relatively large portion of juvenile pig bones, showing a systematic and regular culling. Hunters of wild boars usually have bone assemblages derived from older animals. At the same time, there were likely reversions from domestic to feral forms where the local habitat was suitable. Flannery (1961:63) states that "Egyptian herd pigs were domesticated out of the native wild stock which abounded in the papyrus marshes of the Nile. ..." Murdock (1959:19) states that pigs had certainly arrived in Africa in the early Neolithic period and were originally far more important than they are today. Epstein (1971:340-41) has pointed out that even a few pre-Dynastic grave sites in Upper Egypt have clay models of swine. He also notes that faience-glazed sows and boars are found in early strata at Abydos and Heirakonpolis at the start of Dynastic times, when boars appeared on cylinder seals.
PIGS IN A C-HANGING NILE VALLEY ECOLOGY

Ideally, pigs prefer cool and humid conditions; to the extent that these factors are limited in a swine ecosystem, their territory and ability to thrive will likewise be reduced. They require protection against cold (fat and hair are found on wild boars) and against hot and dry climates (hence their association with mud). Pigs have no

62 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. natural ability to sweat and they have little protective hair so they often cover themselves with protective mud to avoid direct sunlight (Harris 1974:34, 1985:73). It happens that beginning well before 15,000 years ago, before the Dynastic period, the climate in the Nile valley and adjoining Saharanlands was clearly much wetter. The area had permanent sources of water and supported vast numbers of grazing and marsh animals. Hunting and gathering were the only human modes of economic production. Gradually, the Sahara began its long process of desiccation, which is portrayed by the central Saharan rock drawing in the Fezzan and in the Tessili plateau, which presumably show the beginning of the replacement of hunting and gathering by pastoralism as early as 5500 to 5000 B.C. Perhaps as early as 7000 B.C., the desert began to encroach upon the narrow river valley habitat, which could be most lush but at the same time sharply limited. Carniero (1970) has spoken of the importanteffect this can have on domestication and state formation. Wendorf, Schild, and Close (1985:140) propose that the final phase of aridification of Nubia began at about 3400 B.C., or in other words, immediately prior to the process of dynastic state formation. Elsewhere (Lobban 1989) I have elaborated on the apparent "tiggering" correlation between ecological impactation, state formation, raiding for livestock (especially cattle), and the intensification of agriculture to produce sufficient livestock fodder. It was in these early Neolithic times in the Sahara that the semisedentary life of riverine Nile peoples emerged. Also developed during this period were sophisticated hunting and fishing techniques in the river with a broad-spectrumrevolution in the use of natural foods and materials and a still substantial role for hunting in the adjoining savanna and desert. At the close of the Mesolithic, the harvesting and grinding of seed grains in the pre-Dynastic cultural horizons of the Amratians, Badarians, Gerzeans, Nagadans, Tasians, and the Nubian A-Group had taken place (Adams 1976). The ancestors of modern cattle, the aurochs (Bos primigenius) appear to have been first domesticated in central Anatolia as early as 6000 B.C. (Perkins 1969). But, by 3500 B.C., either by diffusion and evolution of this strain or by an independent domestication of another long-horned variety, cattle became widespread among North African and Nile-valley pastoral peoples (Braidwood & Willey 1962:15; Clutton-Brock 1990). There is also evidence from the so-called Khartoum Mesolithic (really, early Neolithic) that goats were also domesticated by about this same period. In the ancient Middle East, as early as 5000 B.C. and certainly before the Egyptian Old Kingdom (ca. 3100 B.C.), the areas for free grazing were already starting to become limited (Harris 1985:76). Egyptians had begun to abandonfree-range grazing, which was replaced by regular production of animal fodder in the form of Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum), berseem in modern Arabic. Even today, berseem remains the most important single crop by cultivated area (Ikram 1980:175). Steadily, the production of livestock fodder-especially for cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys-became and still is the major emphasis for Nile-valley farmers. In anthropological studies of the rise of the ancient state, the central role of the domestication of plants and animals is well known. However, it is often assumed that increased human population density directly caused an expansion of agricul-

Pigs and Their Prohibition

63

tural production. It is generally not emphasized that the greatest consumers of agricultural production from antiquity to the present are not people but domestic animals. As a function of this need, the human demand was to bring more land into fodder production for their valuable livestock. Just as today, marshes were drained, swamps filled in, and the ecology transformed. One of the earliest animals to face this ecological transformationwas the pig. Pre-Dynastic Egyptian pigs needed little, if any, fodder, and the marshy ecosystems of the undrained Nile Delta and Fayum Oasis provided an ideal habitat for this animal requiring moist soil for protection from the intense sun. But the combined processes of (1) desertification, (2) the expanding search for grazing land, (3) the transformationof forest and marsh lands into fodder production, and (4) the increasing importance of cattle, all steadily served to reduce the pigs' ecosystem and represented an increasing competition for suitable ecosystems for humans and their cattle versus the pigs. Initially, the increased production of cattle, sheep, and goats brought ever larger numbers of herdsmen to the formerly less cultivated marshes of the Fayum and the delta in the summer months. In the winter months, the herders would drive their animals back south along the banks of the Nile following a regular seasonal pattern of transhumance. Cattle were held in the highest regard for economic, religious, and cultural reasons, although cattle herders were considered a rough and lowly pariah group (Erman 1971:438-39). This may parallel the status of cowboys and nomads today. Pastoralists in general, especially nomads in arid climates, very rarely herd pigs, even if they are not Muslims (Harris 1974:34-35). When pigs can be found in arid lands, such as the Saharan Cape Verde Islands or parts of Senegambia, they are either penned or they forage freely in farmlands or human garbage. Alternatively, they may live on cooler mountain slopes or in river valleys. If they are wild-as they are in portions of the eastern Atlas mountains in modern northwestern Tunisia-they are usually hunted for sport, or they are killed to curb their foraging on farmlands. Often, as in 19th- and 20th-century Egypt, wild pigs have been hunted to extinction. In this ecological competition, pigs were usually the losers. As long as there were moist marshes, their numbers could be sustained at the former levels once seen in the wild. However, once pigs were trapped by the desert to the east and west, and then were further confined by the marshdraining herders and farmers seeking cattle-grazing land, then their future as freeforaging, or even domesticated, pigs became limited. They had no advantages over cattle as beasts of burden and traction, their hides were not as useful as cowhides and sheepskins, their milk was not used, and the rare sacrifice of pork to the gods conferred little status. Despite the ecological limitations faced by Egyptian pigs, it would be a mistake to conclude that they vanished from the scene. In the Twelfth Dynasty (Middle Kingdom, 2050-1786 B.C.), a steward's stela at Abdyos describes the people and animals he oversees, but, typically, pigs are at the bottom of the list (Janssen 1989:35). Yet the temple to Osiris at Abydos fairly regularly received pigs as tribute. In another case, during the time of Sesostris I, the nomarch Hepdjefi at Assyut received taxes based upon the sacrifices of low-status goats and pigs (Kees 1961:91).

64 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. During the New Kingdom (1568-1080 B.C.) the domestic pig is portrayed at Thebes and other places, and emmer wheat was reported as pig food (Kees 1961:88). In one report from the Seventeenth Dynasty, the nomarch Renni of El Kab in Upper Egypt reported that he owned, or received as tribute, 122 cattle, 100 sheep, 1,200 goats, and 1,500 pigs (Kees 1961:87). From the Eighteenth Dynasty, a stela records that the chief steward of Amenophis III offered 1,000 pigs to the lower-temple personnel of his master; at Tel al Amarna, excavations have revealed farrowing pens for pigs; and in most towns of the New Kingdom there are plenty of pig-bone remains (Janssen 1989:34). Nonetheless, pork was "poor man's food." Drawings in the tomb of Paheri, also in Kab, depicted a poor swineherd at work. Even in the late Saite, or Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, sows were depicted in faience amulets, probably to ward off or absorb evil forces. In the glorious Eighteenth Dynasty (1570-1305 B.C.) swine were depicted in various scenes including their role in trampling seeds at planting time. The Greek writers Herodotus and Eudoxus also reported this Egyptian practice of sowing seeds and then deliberately herding pigs in the field to trample the seeds into the fertile soil. This association of pigs and seeds can also be seen in sculpture dating to about 4500 B.C. in the Dniester valley in eastern Europe (Gimbutas 1982:211). A biblical reference (Matthew 7:6) reminds us "neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.... " During Greco-Roman times in Egypt (333 B.C.-A.D. 324), the taboo against swine flesh was generally not observed and evidently large numbers of pigs were raised for food. Pre-Islamic Berbers, some Rifian Moroccans, Neolithic Guanche in the Canaries, as well as North African European populations (other than Jews) all raised and ate pigs (Epstein 1971:330-31). The arrival of Islam across North Africa, in the 7th and 8th centuries A.D., probably reduced pig populations considerably, yet Islam traveled more slowly southward across the desert and up the Nile. In Nubia the medieval Christians raised considerable numbers of pigs, having no prohibition against them. During the Arab invasion of Ibrim in Nubia in 1173 by Turan Shah (the brother of Saladin al-Ayyubi), some 700 pigs were reported slain. Pigs are still raised in the Nuba mountains of Sudan today. The pre-Nilotic ancestors of the Sudanese Funj sultanates raised swine and may have, in fact, developed a pig subspecies (S. scrofa sennarensis). Greek and Coptic villages and merchants in Sudan have continued to raise pigs for market during Islamic times. James Bruce, the Scottish explorer in the Sudan in the late 18th century, reported ironically that "hog's flesh is not sold in the market; but all the people of Sennar eat it publicly; men in office, who pretend to be Mahometans [sic], eat theirs in secret" (Bruce 1978:371). Wild boars were still reported in Lower and Middle Egypt, in delta marshes, and in the Fayum Oasis until the end of the 19th century. The last known case of a wild pig being shot was in 1902, and throughout the 19th century there were reports of crop damage by pigs. For example, in 1846 a substantial campaign was launched by 832 soldiers and 19 officers that resulted in the killing of 756 wild pigs in Gharbiya and Menufiya and another 104 were killed in Sharqiya and Dakhliya (Epstein 1971:326). Wild boars (sangliers) are still hunted today in Tunisia; they are sometimes eaten after the hunt.

Pigs and Their Prohibition

65

Sudanese and Egyptian Copts today raise pigs for their own consumption and for sale. Pigs are still kept in Cairo by the largely Coptic zabbaleen (garbage collectors). The zabbaleen originate from the Christian communities in the Assiyut governorate in Middle Egypt. They moved to areas in greater Cairo in the 1940s, but by the mid-1960s local officials opposed their practice of raising pigs and forced them to move to more remote locations such as the vast burning dumps near the Muqattam hills where they still reside (Oldham, El-Hadidi, & Tamaa 1987). Many non-Islamic populations of southern Sudan also raise pigs today. More often they are raised by the technique of free foraging ratherthan by herding. They are consumed domestically or locally rather than sold to a market. The minority ethnic positions of pig herders, the peripheral nature of the pig economy, and the low status in the trade of pigs follow the trends established thousands of years earlier (Hecker 1982; Redding 1990). Thus, despite the Islamic taboo, pigs are found, raised, and consumed in numerous Islamic regions on the African continent and especially in the non-Islamic regions in western, central, and southern Africa. Of course, for the majority of Muslim or Jewish populations in these areas they are usually not kept at all. On the other hand, there is recent journalistic evidence of large numbers of Jewish immigrants from cool and moist Russia, some of whom have started at Kibbutz Mizra near Nazareth a pork-packing factory with 120 employees that does a booming business in 130 meat products, including ostrich flesh ("Soviet Jews Boost Pork Sales" 1992). The 10-percent increase in their pork sales in the last two years is in spite of the great outcry from the religious orthodox and the strengthened "pig law of 1962," which sought to block even raising pigs in Israel. These data point to a rathercontradictorysituation. Pigs are widely consumed yet broadly opposed as a preferredfood. No doubt some of this contradiction can be explained by the fact that there is probably no other animal that can convert a greater diversity of foods into flesh more economically than pigs. Pigs are virtually omnivorous, and they eat many items rejected by other animals and discarded by humans. The energy conversion from diverse foodstuffs to pork is greater than all comparable domesticates. Pigs convert grains and tubers into high-grade fats and protein better than any other animal, according to Harris (1974:28). However, the significance of this claim has been broadly debated by Diener and Robkin (1978). In any case, the pig can be presented as a cost-effective, ecologically sound, energyconversion machine. In lands favoring pig production and consumption, they are famed for their very high yield of calories in their fat and meat. According to Flannery (1969:84), some common animals generate the following number of calories/kilogram of meat: pigs, 3,710 cal./kg; cattle, 2,020 cal./kg; sheep, 1,490 cal./kg; ducks, 1,390 cal./kg. In other terms, 100 lbs. of feed can become 20 lbs. of pork, but only 7 lbs. of beef (Harris 1977:131). In Europe and North America, pigs, cattle, and poultry are the main animals that convert the vast output in feed grains into meat. For pig eaters, virtually all parts can be eaten, down to the feet, ears, face muscles, organs, and intestines. Other parts such as hides and bristles also have commercial uses. Beyond this, the domestication of pigs also seems to increase their litter size and to accelerate the onset of the first litter (Hemmer 1990; Spurway 1955:349). Aside

66 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. from rabbits and chickens, pigs are the most prolific of the larger farmyard animals; certainly pigs are far more fecund than goats, sheep, and cattle. In fact, more than other animals, the main limiting factor for pigs is in the general requirements for a suitable ecological niche. Pigs are also very flexible domesticates and they can be raised in a sty or allowed free foraging with relatively little supervision or care. As already noted, pigs are not often herded. A survey of the ethnographic literature reveals no case of regular drinking of pig's milk, or making it into cheese or yogurt. On the other hand, some women of New Guinea will suckle piglets from their own breasts. Ancient Egyptians are also known to have drunk milk and then force fed piglets with mouth-to-mouth contact. Harris (1977:131) points out that pigs are hardly ever harnessed or used as beasts of burden. If greased, pigs are sometimes raced at country fairs, and humorists have noted that pigs do not even catch mice, nor can one make a silk purse from a sow's ear! Even the production of pig manure, an asset in China perhaps, was of marginal importance to ancient Egyptians with their fields replenished annually from the Nile flood. In short, Egyptian domestication of pigs was mostly concerned with seeking to limit, rather than increase, their population. Having reviewed some of the salient points about the biology, economy, history, and ecology of swine, it seems appropriateto turn to the role of pigs in ancient Egyptian mythology. Long before the appearanceof the Mosaic taboo, one can see a long history of negative roles for pigs in Egypt. Parallel to the cattle and pig competition for a suitable ecosystem in the delta was the conquest by the falcontotem nomarchs of Upper Egypt who conquered the Seth/pig-totem nomarchs in the Lower Egyptian delta. The falcon, represented by the god Horus, and the pig, represented by the god Seth, were forever devalued in this historic contest. One can imagine, says Kees (1961:37), that the falcon-totem pharaohs would forbid sacrifice of pigs as inappropriateto their god. Other evidence of this historical struggle is offered by the stela of Peripsen, sixth king of the Second Dynasty in the Early Dynastic period, even before the Old Kingdom. On the serekh containing his name one finds a figure of Seth, ratherthan the customary Horus, the patron god of the unitary Nile. Was Peripsen of delta origins? The very next king, Khasekhem, restored Horus to his former position and he noted that both Horus and Seth were content with him (James 1979:43-44). Not until the foreign Hyksos rulers did Seth reappear in association with a pharaoh of Egypt. Although pigs were raised and eaten in pre-Dynastic times, there is no evidence that they, or dogs, were shown any special reverence. Smith (1969:311) says that the same was true in Dynastic times, although he does claim that they were sacrificed, but as low-status animals. A measure of this low status was expressed by Herodotus, who wrote that swineherds were not allowed to participate in the important Thinite Sed festivals. The main mythological link to the low status of pigs rests with the god Horus's opposition to swine, because they are closely associated with the god Seth. As just noted, this may have something to do with the historic clash between the swinetotem nomarchs of the Lower Egyptian delta versus the falcon-totem nomarchs of Upper Egypt.

Pigs and Their Prohibition

67

Seth (or his variant spellings of Set, Suth, and Setesh) was one of the mythical children of Geb and Nut. Just as his brother Osiris married his sister Isis, Seth marriedhis other sister Nephthys. These primordial creation myths have important parallels with the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and the fratricide of Cain and Abel, and Christian theology in general can find many of its roots in the Nile valley. Seth was also represented by the crocodile (at) and the hippopotamus (khab), but the Old Egyptian word for the latter was the same as for pig (rer). Upon Judgment Day (another ancient Egyptian concept), the soul (ba) would be appraised by Osiris and other empaneled gods; if one's life was judged to have been a bad one, one would be thrown to the awaiting jaws of at or khab, made even more fearsome by the potential for spending eternity in their stomachs. Pigs seldom had this exact mythological function; however, New Kingdom and Late Period tomb drawings sometimes showed a pig being carried away on a boat on Judgment Day. This was meant to symbolize that any evil in the soul being judged was being carried off by the pig, and the soul could pass happily to the "other world." In any case, the role of pigs was somewhat more benign than that of hippopotami. This may add to the reasons for changing the name of hippopotamus from rer to khab. The hellish role cast for at and khab may help to explain their extinction in Egypt. All three were water- or marsh-loving animals whose mythological and real enemies were the desert sun and drying winds; these forces were sometimes also represented by the deceitful Seth (Thomas 1986:60). In Egyptian mythology, Seth had treacherously murdered his older brother, Osiris, who was also the father of Horus. Seth, perhaps hiding in the form of a pig, also blinded one of Horus's eyes. As a result of these crimes, Horus had assumed the eternal responsibility of seeking revenge for his father's death. This moral tale taught the lesson of the relentless pursuit by the forces of good of the forces of evil. Thus, as early as the Old Kingdom, Seth was associated not only with pigs but also with connotations of evil and deception. With reference to the Book of the Dead, Erman (1971:441) confirms that Seth assumes the form of a pig, one of his sacred totems. Occasionally, in tombs, the deceased is shown spearing the pigSeth to be sure his good soul will not be carried away by the force of evil (Epstein 1971:342). Seth (in the form of a hippopotamus) is also seen being harpooned in the head and testicles by Horus (Budge 1987:361). Yet Seth was worshipped by common people, especially from the Fifth to Nineteenth dynasties. Representing and controlling the destructive power of the sun's heat, Seth's complicated nature could simultaneously represent the enemy of the water-loving mammals he symbolized and the animals themselves. This potential underscores his treacherous and deceptive nature. As if to be especially provocative, the foreign Hyksos invaders of Egypt (dynasties Fifteen and Sixteen in the 17th century B.C.)adopted Seth to be one of their favored gods. Not surprisingly, the usual Hyksos capital was in the well-watered delta area. To Egyptians, the Hyksos invasion only offered further proof of Seth's evil and treacherous nature. In the subsequent New Kingdom, the glorious Egyptian empire was rebuilt, but the association between Seth and the enemies of Egypt was not forgotten.

68 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. Sometime between the Twenty-First and Twenty-Fifth Dynasties (1080-664 B.C.), the wake of the great Rameside epoch and the contemporary flight of the Jews led by Moses, a violent reaction took place against Seth worship. His statues and figures were smashed, and his image defaced as he was identified as the embodiment of evil and the opponent of good. This extreme reaction may also explain the paucity of pig representations in this period. Virtually no bronze or faience figures of Seth are found after this period, although pig representations in faience may be an exception. Budge (1926:116) noted that pigs were kept in "tolerably common" numbers in ancient Egypt. Both pigs and asses were eaten by slaves and swamp dwellers. Pork was eaten in the state's workers' village in the Theban necropolis during the Rameside epoch, while a prohibition on their flesh was rigorously observed by kings and nobility. Smith (1969:312) adds that pigs were not even hunted by royalty and were not specially kept for fattening or offered as special temple tribute or sacrifices. Equally, there is no indication that pigs were kept as pets. Subsequently, in classical Greco-Roman mythology, Seth (and pigs in general) began to be associated with the monster-god Typhon. The Greek god Zeus, or the Roman god Jupiter, waged continual war against the evils of Typhon. Smith (1969:313) considers that these limited or negative roles for pigs proves that their "Tyhponian" nature was deeply institutionalized, and they were not utilized for temple sacrifice because their flesh was already taboo. Other "Typhonic" food prohibitions were placed against the flesh of horses and asses. Indeed, pigs were rarely depicted and their bones never found in tombs, and only on very special occasions were they featured in temple offerings. On the other hand, Herodotus and Plutarch, writing in post-Dynastic times, report that pigs were sacrificed in Egypt on special annual occasions, such as the Sokaris festival at Memphis when pigs were sometimes offered at full moon to Osiris or Seth/Typhon. Perhaps because pigs signified her brother, Seth, it was considered by some that pigs were also sacred, in special contexts, to Isis herself (Sauer 1952:343). Other Egyptian folk beliefs, which survived at least until the 19th century, managed to preserve the belief in the ambiguous, yet evil, nature of pigs, for example in the practice of raising them with horses for the health of the horses. Apparently, the presence of pigs helps to ward off, or attract, evil forces that may otherwise afflict the horses. Pork flesh was reputed to have medicinal value for horses and asses. This would parallel the earlier role of pigs carrying away evil at Judgment Day. Readers may also be interested in the works of Frazer (1959), Gimbutas (1982), and Walker (1983, 1988) for further study of the evolving role of pig sacrifice and symbolism in Greco-Roman mythology. A very common and persistent explanation for the pig taboo rests in their association with disease. But, in examining actual diseases, one may see that this explanation must be rejected on a scientific basis, although it is sustained by mythology. Even assuming that Smith (1969) is correct that the "Typhonian" nature of pigs was accepted broadly by the late New Kingdom, it is not surprising that the Ptolemaic Greeks, who were the next to admire and rule over Egypt, would have reached a similar judgment about swine. Within Greek mythology, Typhon, son of Typhoeus, was a monster capable of producing a fever or vapor from which we

Pigs and Their Prohibition

69

have inherited the term "typhoid fever." Actually typhoid fever is caused by a bacillus, usually transmittedin foods, that causes catarrh,an extreme intestinal infection. Another early notion, propounded by Tacitus, falsely attributedleprosy as a result of contact with pigs. In Book II of his famous history of the Middle East region, Herodotus said: The pig is regarded amongthemas an uncleananimal,so muchso thatif a manin passing accidentallytouches a pig, he instantlyhurriesto the river, and plunges in with all his that clothes on. Hence, too, the swineherds,notwithstanding they are of pure Egyptian to blood,areforbidden enterinto any of the temples,whichareopen to all otherEgyptians; in to or no and further, one will give his daughter marriage a swineherd, take a wife from are amongthemselves.They do amongthem, so that the swineherds forcedto intermarry not offer swine in sacrificeto any of theirgods, exceptingBacchusand the Moon, whom pigs to both of them at the same full they honorin this way at the same time, sacrificing moon, and afterward eating of the flesh.... To Bacchus,on the eve of his feast, every Egyptiansacrificesa hog before the door of his house, which is then given back to the and swineherd whomit was furnished, by him carried away. (Komroff1956:98). by Others (Dawson 1928; Epstein 1971; Janssen 1989) have offered various interpretations about the famed remarks of Herodotus. Even the often-noted association of pigs with the trichinosis nematode infestation should be recognized to equally affect other livestock and man. Trichinosis is usually not fatal, and as long as pigs are properly slaughtered, stored, and cooked there is no greater danger from eating pigs than any other livestock. One very serious livestock and human disease, anthrax, does not affect pigs at all. Notions about "clean" and "unclean" meats really have no scientific basis. Certainly we must conclude that any strictly monocausal explanation of the rise and evolution of the pig taboo based solely in either religion, ecology, ancient history, disease theory, or mythology will not be sufficient to understandthis practice. However, the main thesis here is that all of these factors together do provide the basis for a new, integrated perspective on this very old problem. In this article several explanations for the source of the pig taboo have been presented. The symbolic framework, that sees pig/Seth as a totem of the usually defeated nomarchs of Lower Egyptian marshlands has been accepted as the long-term adoption of the negative images of pigs, which, like an endlessly defeated mascot of a sports team, came to be an image of derision adopted by Egyptian nobility. Subsequently, the pig assumed a supernaturalrole, representing evil itself. Thus, Douglas is correct in her discussion of symbolic/supernatural dichotomies, but she seems not to be aware of the earlier Egyptian social and political history. The ethnoscientific approach by Hunn is likewise not inconsistent with these findings, but he did not investigate the ecological transformation brought on by livestock competition in the Nile valley, which was being reflected in these emic categories. On the other hand, the ecological emphasis in the works of Harris is not so much incorrect as it is incomplete; mythology and political and social history are also needed to see the fully integrated picture. By turning toward livestock competition and historical, religious, mythological, political, and ecological data, such as that explored by Diener and Robkin (1978), Harris (1974, 1977, 1985), Rappaport (1967), Shnirelman (1988), and Vayda

70 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. (1968, 1971), we have made more concrete progress in resolving this issue. In these works, the discussion has turned toward the complex historical evolution of the taboo. Despite important disagreements about interpretation and emphasis, all of these scholars would likely agree that there is a relationship between pig demography in the regional ecosystem and the need to control their relative population size by sacrifice, taboo, hunting, or other social, religious, or ideological restraints. Without some restraints, the need to produce food for pigs would finally exceed human capacity or interest in meeting it. The common solution to the problem of controlling the domestic pig population is to eat the vast majority of piglets and young pigs before they are one year of age. Care is taken only to preserve a favored boar and a number of sows for farrowing. This has been the approach by most pig producers from ancient times up to the present (DuCos 1969:271), especially in moist, temperate areas with no other special restrictions on pig production. The Egyptian or Middle Eastern case became confounded by environmental peculiarities, a complex mythology, and a very long social and political history in which pigs were steadily devalued and finally shunned by followers of the great religious systems born in the southeastern Mediterraneanregion. In a review of the status of pigs from a world perspective we find that in the cases of Melanesia and New Guinea, where there are no other major livestock, pigs became highly valued for social status. These cultures still faced the contradictory problem of wanting pigs, but needing to limit their population. There can be little doubt that their wars to either seize or kill pigs and the huge pig feasts all rest upon various configurations of pig demography, as Harris (1974:42-49) would probably agree. In the case of China, where pigs are very popular as food and no taboo exists, hundreds of thousands are slaughtered annually; in the New Guinea case cited by Rappaport(1967) where pigs actually confer high status, there are cyclical slaughters of hundreds on a single day. Without such measures, soon the human population would be spending a very large proportion of its time just supporting pigs (these points can be summarized in Table 1).
SUMMARY

The history of domesticated pigs in Egypt clearly placed these animals in the moist soils, river banks, and marshes of Egypt well before Dynastic times. With a relatively sparse population of hunters and fishermen, the pigs thrived as a domestic and wild species, but as agriculture and irrigation was intensified for increased production of cattle, sheep, and goats, the pressure mounted to drain and otherwise incorporate the ideal habitat of the pigs and transformit to other types of cultivation. In these early times, pigs were rathernumerous and available as a popular food. It was common that certain regions of Egypt were known by the animals which occupied them; thus it was not surprising that the delta and Lower Egypt had a pig totem. However, since the impulse for ancient state formation probably came from Upper Egypt with its own totems, especially the royal falcon Horus, the pig was socially and politically devalued. Indeed, it was probably early in Dynastic times

Pigs and Their Prohibition

TABLE Ecosystem/Region Moist, warm (Melanesia) Moist, cool (China, Europe) Hot, wet

71

1 Correlates of pig ecology and prohibition

Social Status of Pigs very great social rank for large numbers owned highly valued for meat and other products some value for scavaging and for food limited value for meat and sacrifice Means of Population Control complex taboos; mass periodic slaughter of young and adults; sweet potatoes grown for pig food few specific taboos; constant harvesting of young and juveniles; pigs eat wastes and grains few taboos for non-Muslims; periodic harvesting of pigs; some are fed, but most are free-foraging young pigs eaten by lower social strata; some utilitarian value; prohibited for upper classes; pigs were herded very strong taboos; pig population at minimum by hunting and confinement; fed wastes and some foods

Hot, dry (except in marshes and river banks; ancient Nile valley) Hot, dry (Middle East, at present)

very low status

that pigs were mythologically and politically linked to Seth, who, in this form, or others, became the embodiment of evil and treachery. Thus, as a major ecological transformation unfolded, perhaps in association with a political or even military defeat for the delta nomarchs represented by the pig totem, then swine began to be less and less desirable by comparison with other livestock. The early growth of Egyptian religion and mythology anchored and embellished these perceptions. As Egyptian society passed through its millennia, the status of pigs slipped further, from indifference to avoidance, and then to limited prohibition and taboo. This trajectory was aided when the foreign "shepherd king" Hyksos invaders of Egypt adopted Seth as one of their gods. This act thereby added to the future repugnance of pigs when the Egyptian people were later able to restore their empire to its greatness. When the Jewish leader Moses came on the scene shortly afterward,he accepted the dietary values of the Egyptian ruling class he served. Once these revelations were written, it subsequently led to the continued observance of the taboo for the Jewish people. One might wonder if Jewish or Muslim capitals had been located in cooler, moister, or more temperate climates for a millennium or so, would the observance of the revealed taboo against swine also slip? If we look at modern France for some data, we find that far more pigs are raised in the cooler north than in the warmer and drier south (Duckham & Masefield 1970:268-69). There is also the case of the widely nonobservant Jews from the former Soviet Union. In modern tropical sub-SaharanAfrica great numbers of pigs are raised even in areas under Islamic influence. In the case of Christians, one may also wonder if the relocation of the capitals of Christendom to cooler Rome and Constantinople,

72 Richard A. Lobban, Jr. rather than the desert environment of Mecca or Cairo, may have been a factor in the loss of the early Christian observance of the taboo. In general, taboos exist to control access to something that is otherwise desirable, such as specific sexual partnersor foods. This is often achieved by establishing symbolic, scientific parametersbetween the domains of sacred and profane as the idealists have noted. In the case of potentially edible and-delicious pigs in Egypt, the changing ecology and economy were built around the drainage of swamps for increased fodder production and cattle grazing. This meant a loss for pigs, and importantly, a genuine and increasing need to control their populations by (1) excluding or marginalizing them as a socially desirable food; (2) destroying their ecosystem and habitat; (3) actively hunting their wild or feral relatives until very recent historic times; (4) sacrificing and eating the largest portion of suckling or immature pigs; and (5) creating socioreligious taboos that would severely restrict pig production and consumption. To conclude, the process of ancient Egyptian state formation included processes of ecological transformation, livestock competition, mythological evolution, and territorial conquest. Pigs, a totemic symbol of the conquered delta were defeated by the falcon-god Horus, the totem of Upper Egypt and of all subsequent pharaohs. The rivalry between pigs-in the form of Seth and Horus, who was endlessly pursuing and distrusting Seth, who had murderedhis brother and his father Osiris-is one of the very oldest and most enduring features of ancient Egyptian religion, which continues in the eternal combat of good and evil in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Through the centuries Seth became increasingly identified with all elements of treachery and evil. A late step in this progression was the Hyksos acceptance of Seth, giving the Egyptians still another reason to find Seth loathsome. At least for the rulers and their allies, both Seth and pigs were thoroughly disgusting. Meanwhile, out of need or preference, pigs were still raised, donated, consumed, and extensively found throughout the Nile valley. It was in these centuries-around the time of Ramses II or Ramses III-that Hebraic populations coalesced around a clear ethnic identity, and perhaps because of their link to, or admiration of, Egyptian aristocracy they also accepted and codified the taboo. The taboo was subsequently transmittedfrom the Egyptians to the Jews and was observed by the early Christians until reforms were introduced that allowed the consumption of pig flesh. With the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the taboo was also reborn in a simplified and refortified version that has become emblematic of this new religion until the present.

Author's note: Appreciation is gratefully acknowledged for practical assistance, information, constructive comments, and reflective criticism of early forms and parts of these ideas. Especially helpful have been Lois Bardsley-Sirois, Myra Blank, James Brougham, Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Linda Green, Terence Hays, Gunter Meyer, Karen Murphy, Jaganath Pathy, Marga Praxmarer, Andrew Rowan, Calvin Schwabe, Victor Shnirelman, Joan Undeland, and Gregory White.

Pigs and Their Prohibition

REFERENCES

73

Adams, William Y. (1976). Nubia: Corridor to Africa (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press). Ali, A. Yusuf. (1977). The Glorious Koran: Translation and Commentary(Washington, D.C.: American Trust Publications). Amschler, J. W. (1939). "Tierreste der Ausgrabungen von dem 'Grossen Konigshugel' Shah Tepe," in Nord-Iran, Publication 9 (Stockholm: Sino-Swedish Expeditions). Boessneck, J. (1988). Die Tierwelt des Alten Aegypten (Munich: C. H. Beck). Bokony, S. (1969). "Archaeological Problems and Methods of Recognizing Animal Domestication," in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, ed. Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham (London: Duckworth), 219-29. Braidwood, Robert J. and Gordon R. Willey, ed. (1962). Courses toward Urban Life (Chicago: Aldine). Bruce, James. (1798). An Interesting Narrative of the Travels of James Bruce into Abyssinia to Discover the Source of the Nile (American abridged version) (Boston: Etheridge). Budge, E. A. Wallis. (1977 [1926]). The Dwellers on the Nile (New York: Dover). . (1987 [1893]). The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Carneiro, Robert. (1970). "A Theory of the Origin of the State," Science 169, 3947: 733-38. Castaner, Ana Pamplona. (1988). El libro del jam6n y la matanza (Madrid: Editorial Alianza). Clark, J. Desmond. (1971). "A Re-examination for the Evidence for Agricultural Origins in the Nile Valley," Proceedings of the Prehistorical Society 37: 34-79. Clutton-Brock, Juliet. (1981). Domesticated Animals from Early Times (Austin: University of Texas Press).
. ____ (1990). The Walking Larder (London: Heinemann).

Cranstone, B. A. L. (1969). "Animal Husbandry:The Evidence from Ethnography,"in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism,ed. PeterUcko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham(London: Duckworth),247-63. Dawson, W. R. (1928). "The Pig in Ancient Egypt: A Commentary of Two Passages of Herodotus," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society ?: x?-?x Diener, P., and E. E. Robkin. (1978). "Ecology, Evolution, and the Search for Cultural Origins: The Question of Islamic Pig Prohibition," Current Anthropology 19: 493-540, with discussion and commentary. Douglas, Mary. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Duckham, A. N., and G. B. Masefield. (1970). Farming Systems of the World (New York: Praeger). DuCos, P. (1969). "Methodology and Results of the Study of the Earliest Domesticated Animals in the Near East (Palestine)," in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, ed. Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham (London: Duckworth), 265-75. Epstein, H. (1971). The Origins of the Domestic Animals of Africa, 2 vols. (New York: Africana Publishing Corp.). Erman, Adolf. (1971 [1894]). Life in Ancient Egypt (New York: Dover). Flannery, Kent V. (1961). "Skeletal and Radiocarbon Evidence for the Origins of Pig Domestication" (Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago). ____ . (1969). "Origins and Ecological Effects of Early Domestication in Iran and the Near East," in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, ed. Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham (London: Duckworth), 73-100. ____ . (1983). "Early Pig Domestication in the Fertile Crescent: A Retrospective Look," in The Hilly Flanks and Beyond, ed. T. C. Young Jr., P. E. L. Smith, and P. Mortensen. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36 (Chicago: Oriental Institute), 163-88. Frazer, James George. (1959). The New Golden Bough (New York: Criterion Books). Gilman, A. (1976). "A Later Prehistory of Tangier, Morocco," in American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 29 (Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum). Gimbutas, Marija. (1982). The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images (Berkeley: University of California Press). Grigg, D. B. (1974). The Agricultural Systems of the World: An Evolutionary Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

74 Richard A. Lobban, Jr.

Harris, Marvin. (1974). Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture (New York: Vintage Books). . (1977). Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures (New York: Random House). . (1985). Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture (New York: Simon and Schuster). Hassan, Fekri A. (1984). "Environment and Subsistence in Predynastic Egypt," in From Hunters to Farmers, ed. J. Desmond Clark and Steven A. Brandt (Berkeley: University of California Press), 57-64. Hays, T. R. (1984). "A Reappraisal of the Egyptian Predynastic Period," in From Hunters to Farmers, ed. J. Desmond Clark and Steven A. Brandt (Berkeley: University of California Press), 65-73. Hecker, H. M. (1982). "A Zooarchaeological Inquiry into Pork Consumption in Egypt from Prehistoric to New Kingdom Times," Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 19: 59-69. Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hunn, Eugene. (1979). "The Abominations of Leviticus Revisited," in Classifications in Their Social Context, ed. Roy F. Ellen and David Reason (New York: Academic Press), 103-116. Ikram, Khalid. (1980). Egypt: Economic Management in a Period of Transition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). James, T. G. H. (1979 [1964]). An Introduction of Ancient Egypt (New York: Harperand Row), 43-44. Janssen, Rosalind, and Jack Janssen. (1989). Egyptian Household Animals (Aylesbury, U.K.: Shire Egyptology). Kees, Hermann.(1961). Ancient Egypt: A Cultural Topography(Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Komroff, Manuel, ed. (1956). The History of Herodotus, Book II (New York: Tudor Publications). Lobban, Richard A., Jr. (1989). "Cattle and the Rise of the Egyptian State," Anthrozoos 2, 3: 194-201. Murdock,George Peter. (1959). Africa: Its People and Their Cultural History (New York: McGraw Hill). Oldham, Linda H., H. El-Hadidi, and H. Tamaa. (1987). "InformalCommunities in Cairo: The Basis of a Typology," Cairo Papers in Social Science 10, 4 (whole issue). Perkins, Dexter, Jr. (1969). "Faunaof Catal Huyuk: Evidence for Early Domestication in Anatolia," Science 164, 3876: 177-79. Rappaport,Roy A. (1967). Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press). Redding, Richard A. (1990). "The Role of the Pig in the Subsistence System of Ancient Egypt: A Parable on the Potential of Faunal Data" (Unpublished manuscript). Reed, Charles A. (1959). "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," Science 130, 3389: 1629-39. ____. (1960). "A Review of the Archaeological Evidence on Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," in Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, ed. Robert J. Braidwood and Bruce Howe (Chicago: Oriental Institute), 119-45.
____.

ed. (1977). Origins of Agriculture (The Hague: Mouton).

Rutimeyer, L. (1860). Untersuchungender Tierreste aus den Pfahlbauten der Schweiz. Mitteil. Antiguar, vol. 13 (Zurich: Gessellsch). Sauer, C. 0. (1952). Agricultural Origins and Dispersals (New York: American Geographical Society). Shnirelman, Victor A. (1988). "Primitive Warfareand Ideology: Why the Maring Avoid Seizing Pigs," Human Peace 6, 3: 3-7 Smith, H. S. (1969). "Animal Domestication and Animal Cults in Dynastic Egypt," in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, ed. Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham (London: Duckworth), 307-314. "Soviet Jews Boost Pork Sales, Non-Kosher Factory Even Busier as More Flock to Israel" (November 1992). Providence Sunday Journal (reprinted from the Baltimore Sun). Spurway, H. (1955). "Causes of Domestication," Journal of Genetics 53: 325-62. Thomas, Angela P. (1986). Egyptian Gods and Myths (Aylesbury, U.K.: Shire Egyptology). Tringham, Ruth. (1969). "Animal Domestication in the Neolithic Cultures of the South-West Part of European USSR," in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, ed. Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham (London: Duckworth), 381-92. Ucko, Peter, and G. W. Dimbleby. (1969). The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.).

Pigs and Their Prohibition

75

Vayda, Andrew P. (1968). "Hypotheses about Functions of War," in War: The Anthropology of Armed Conflict and Aggression, ed. M. Fried, M. Harris, and R. Murphy (Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press), 85-91. . (1971). "Phases of the Process of War and Peace among the Maring of New Guinea," Oce____ ania 42, 1: 1-24. Walker, BarbaraG. (1983). The Woman'sEncyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (New York: Harper and Row). _____. (1988). The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects (New York: Harper and Row). Watson, William. (1969). "Early Animal Domestication in China," in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, ed. Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham (London: Duckworth), 393-94. Wendorf, Fred, Angela E. Close, and Romuald Schild. (1985). "Prehistoric Settlements in the Nubian Desert," American Scientist 73: 132-41. Zeuner, F. E. (1963). A History of Domesticated Animals (New York: Harperand Row).