See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231980877

Pigs and Their Prohibition

Article  in  International Journal of Middle East Studies · February 1994

DOI: 10.1017/S0020743800059766

CITATIONS READS
28 2,077

1 author:

Richard A. Lobban
Rhode Island College
56 PUBLICATIONS   290 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

African Insurgencies. Praeger Press, Co-authors Dr. Richar Lobban, and Lt. Col Christopher H Dalton View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard A. Lobban on 21 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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 mod-
ern 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 nor-
mal for scholars of Islamic or Judaic societies. However, the discovery of the ori-
gins 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 an-
tiquity is, in fact, remarkablyapplicable to this contemporarypractice. Ultimately,
this study is based upon a realization of the deeper unity of the peoples of this re-
gion 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, my-
thology, religion, and ecology. Some have dismissed religious explanations as ar-
bitrary and tautological, but the information provided in this article shows that
religious beliefs are important. Others have rejected cultural and ecological mate-
rialism 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 expla-
nations 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 es-
tablish a separate, holy, and supernaturalworld, which is given concrete expres-
sion 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 (sci-
entific and religious) systems. This ethno-scientific approach is drawn from lin-
guistic anthropology, which sees universal phonetic systems of description
contrasting with culture-specific phonemic systems of meaning. Using this ethno-
scientific 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 inte-
grated, interdisciplinary, and historical, especially as the research is refined rela-
tive 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 ob-
served the taboo.
 Pigs and Their Prohibition 59

EGYPTIAN ORIGINS OF THE PIG TABOO

The Egyptian origin of the Mosaic taboo against swine flesh has been widely ac-
cepted 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 for-
mal 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 recon-
struction 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 set-
tled 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, Mus-
lims, 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 abomina-
tion 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 in-
quiry. 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 Zeu-
ner (1963) for additional details. Here we can follow some of the summary conclu-
sions 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 domesti-
cated pigs are descended from Sus scrofa, but regional variation and some reversion
to feral stocks have complicated this picture. To be taxonomically precise, pigs be-
long 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 mi-
grated 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 Egyp-
tian 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 estab-
lished 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 do-
mesticated 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 pre-
Dynastic 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 domes-
ticated 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 frequen-
cies 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. Hunt-
ers 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 lo-
cal 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 eco-
nomic 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 hunt-
ing 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, imme-
diately prior to the process of dynastic state formation. Elsewhere (Lobban 1989)
I have elaborated on the apparent "tiggering" correlation between ecological im-
pactation, state formation, raiding for livestock (especially cattle), and the inten-
sification 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 sophisti-
cated 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 indepen-
dent 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 be-
come 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 ag-
ricultural 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 ecosys-
tems 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 com-
bined 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 pat-
tern of transhumance. Cattle were held in the highest regard for economic, reli-
gious, 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 Sene-
gambia, they are either penned or they forage freely in farmlands or human gar-
bage. 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 mod-
ern 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 usu-
ally the losers. As long as there were moist marshes, their numbers could be sus-
tained 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 marsh-
draining herders and farmers seeking cattle-grazing land, then their future as free-
foraging, 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 trib-
ute. 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 consid-
erably, 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 Ghar-
biya 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 some-
times 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 collec-
tors). The zabbaleen originate from the Christian communities in the Assiyut gov-
ernorate 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 ear-
lier (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 ex-
plained 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 om-
nivorous, 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, energy-
conversion 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 be-
come 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 ani-
mals; 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 con-
tact. 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 humor-
ists 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 an-
nually 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 falcon-
totem 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 ori-
gins? 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 sac-
rificed, 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 im-
portant 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 swine-
totem 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 val-
ley. 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 hippopot-
ami. 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 pig-
Seth 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 Nine-
teenth 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 (dynas-
ties 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 Egyp-
tian 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 Rame-
side 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 sacrifi-
ces. 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 associ-
ated 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, man-
aged 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 sac-
rifice and symbolism in Greco-Roman mythology.
A very common and persistent explanation for the pig taboo rests in their asso-
ciation 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 my-
thology. 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 in-
fection. 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 regardedamongthemas an uncleananimal,so muchso thatif a manin passing

accidentallytouches a pig, he instantlyhurriesto the river, and plunges in with all his
clothes on. Hence, too, the swineherds,notwithstandingthat they are of pure Egyptian
blood,areforbiddento enterinto any of the temples,whichareopen to all otherEgyptians;
and further,no one will give his daughterin marriageto a swineherd,or take a wife from
amongthem, so that the swineherdsare forcedto intermarryamongthemselves.They do
not offer swine in sacrificeto any of theirgods, exceptingBacchusand the Moon, whom
they honorin this way at the same time, sacrificingpigs to both of them at the same full
moon, and afterwardeating 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
swineherdby whomit was furnished,andby him carriedaway. (Komroff1956:98).

Others (Dawson 1928; Epstein 1971; Janssen 1989) have offered various interpre-
tations about the famed remarks of Herodotus.
Even the often-noted association of pigs with the trichinosis nematode infesta-
tion 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 se-
rious 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 his-
tory, 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 sev-
eral explanations for the source of the pig taboo have been presented. The sym-
bolic 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 demog-
raphy 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 hu-
man 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 far-
rowing. 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 slaugh-
ters of hundreds on a single day. Without such measures, soon the human popula-
tion 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 rela-
tively sparse population of hunters and fishermen, the pigs thrived as a domestic
and wild species, but as agriculture and irrigation was intensified for increased pro-
duction of cattle, sheep, and goats, the pressure mounted to drain and otherwise in-
corporate 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 71

TABLE 1 Correlates of pig ecology and prohibition

Ecosystem/Region Social Status of Pigs Means of Population Control

Moist, warm very great social rank complex taboos; mass periodic
(Melanesia) for large numbers owned slaughter of young and adults;
sweet potatoes grown for pig food
Moist, cool highly valued for meat and few specific taboos; constant
(China, Europe) other products harvesting of young and juveniles;
pigs eat wastes and grains
Hot, wet some value for scavaging few taboos for non-Muslims;
and for food periodic harvesting of pigs; some
are fed, but most are free-foraging
Hot, dry limited value for meat and sacrifice young pigs eaten by lower social
(except in marshes strata; some utilitarian value;
and river banks; prohibited for upper classes; pigs
ancient Nile valley) were herded
Hot, dry very low status very strong taboos; pig population
(Middle East, at present) at minimum by hunting and
confinement; fed wastes and some
foods

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 em-
bellished 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 ob-
servance 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 mod-
ern tropical sub-SaharanAfrica great numbers of pigs are raised even in areas un-
der 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 desir-
able, such as specific sexual partnersor foods. This is often achieved by establish-
ing 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 re-
strict 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 pha-
raohs. The rivalry between pigs-in the form of Seth and Horus, who was end-
lessly 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 dis-
gusting. Meanwhile, out of need or preference, pigs were still raised, donated,
consumed, and extensively found throughout the Nile valley. It was in these cen-
turies-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, con-
structive 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 73

REFERENCES

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 (Lon-
don: 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 Pub-
lishing 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 Re-
search, 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 Hop-
kins 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," Sci-
ence 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 Par-
able 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 Prehis-
toric 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, Settle-
ment, and Urbanism, ed. Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, and Ruth Tringham (London: Duck-
worth), 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).

View publication stats