How did the pork taboo come about?

[Falecius]

I don't know about other European countries, but here in Belgium you can buy horse steak in just about every supermarket and I've never noticed any taboo about eating horse meat.

I'll add that in several areas in Italy horse meat, while generally not very common, is seen a somewhat normal part of the diet (usually as a relative luxury, I think; as a long-time vegetarian myself, I am not sure of how common it is, but I am pretty sure you can find it relatively easily in supermarkets).
There are parts of Europe where eating horse is considered very badly, and other parts where it is seen as an acceptable part of what you could legimately eat. Whereas you would never find, for instance, dog meat (illegal in Italy and considered extremely badly).

 

[Falecius]

which begs the question of 'why make a food taboo in the first place?' In ancient times, cutting off any source of potential food seems like a bad idea. Even if pigs aren't so great for a nomadic culture, saying no one can eat them seems weird... you might pass by some place that has pigs to eat, be a bit short on food, want to buy a few. If pigs were a totally new and unfamiliar animal, I could see a taboo popping up, but pigs weren't any of that....

I guess it's about a fair use of resources in a context where not only resources were limited, but the emerging religious regulations were, albeit erratingly, trying to skew their use toward a fairer share given to the "average commoner". The pork taboo damaged some (relatively marginal?) groups, but probably helped the majority to orient their resources somwhat more fairly to the benefit of the whole community. This, of course, was advantageous for the elite as well.

 

[LSCatilina]

Whereas you would never find, for instance, dog meat (illegal in Italy and considered extremely badly).

Actually, it existed in France up to the...30's I think, even if it was more seen as a "siege food" for most people; and considered as more sane than pork by doctors.

It is furthermore still legal and eaten in Switzerland.

 

[Falecius]

It's not clear ancient Hebrews were nomadic, at least once they formed a cohesive groups. Canaanites, that were culturally and originally really close from Hebrews, had very few issues eating pigs.


/QUOTE]

My understanding is that archaelogists use the relative abundance of pig bones in waste deposits to classify "Hebrew" or "Canaanite" settlements of the Iron Age. Arguably, Hebrews lived in hilly inland areas where pig was less useful, as opposed to "Canaanite" settlement in wetter (coastal plains and valleys) areas where pig herding remaing productive longer, but basically there seems to be little else differentiating the two. As far as we can tell, the language was largely the same and the material culture otherwise fairly similar.

 

[Falecius]

Actually, it existed in France up to the...30's I think, even if it was more seen as a "siege food" for most people; and considered as more sane than pork by doctors.

It is furthermore still legal and eaten in Switzerland.

I guess it it would be considered very badly in France nowadays.
As far as the evidence I know of goes, the "siege food" meat in Italy was probably mostly cat. The notion of eating cats is considered with extreme revulsion in Italy today, but there are several places (inclunding my hometown) where a historical fame of "cat-eaters" (a pretty bad rap overall) is reported about. There are also recipes about that.
However, cat meat is illegal as well. There has been a media shitstorm a couple of years ago about it (someone detailed some of those recipes on state TV and it did not go down well AT ALL).

 

[gianni_rivera]

Before I came to Xinjiang, I never realized they were essentially the same type of bird, but I guess my mental association of a pigeon is a usually grey-colored bird that tends to congregate in urban areas, but a dove is a whitish bird found in less populous areas, or a tamed white bird.

Another interesting sort-of taboo I've discovered is water buffalo meat in southern China. When I visited Hunan, I asked my local friend if people there eat water buffalo, but contrary to the stereotype that Chinese will eat anything, my friend told me that growing up, the water buffalo was regarded as too important as a work animal to be wasted on meat. He told me the meat wasn't considered tasty compared to the standard yellow ox. I eventually did find barbecued water buffalo skewers in a restaurant, and he was right - the meat was dry, stringy, and tasteless.

The reasoning is odd, however, considering that the horse is the most important beast of burden for Kyrgyz and Kazakh people yet they still eat horse meat. I would figure that a culture that values not wasting anything would make use of old water buffaloes.

One should use water buffalo for hot pot, not grilling.

 

[Blackfox5]

Taboo on eating pork is common in cultures based in desert or near desert probably because pigs require a lot of water and shade, and these are scarce commodities in such regions. Proscribing them for religion reasons ensures that the elite does not waste precious resources on raising pigs, because pork is delicious. Taking scarce water and land to raise pigs means taking them away from the common good. Other livestock are not so intensive on these resources, so they're allowed.

That pork is also prone to trichinosis and other diseases that can spread to humans is probably the pretext given to them being unclean, but the resources issue is probably the real issue.

You don't see many taboos against pork coming from non-arid region cultures.

 

[DónalCam]

my "favourite" being the Irish rite about a king fucking an horse, then killing it, then boiling it in water, then swimming in the mix while driking the soup

Oh dear. After eight centuries, the unsubstantiated propaganda of Giraldus Cambrensis haunts us yet.

Could you at least amend it with 'alleged'!?

 

[LSCatilina]

Oh dear. After eight centuries, the unsubstantiated propaganda of Giraldus Cambrensis haunts us yet.

Could you at least amend it with 'alleged'!?

From what I gathered so far, without being as knowledgable in Irish medieval history as I'd want, the most debatable points isn't the rite described itself (while it's possible some parts were "interpretated") as you can find equivalent elsewhere in Indo-European cultures, than arguing it was still practiced by the XIIth century which is clearly less believable.

Would have been an isolated description, I would have agreed on the possibility of blunt invention. But I don't think Girald went trough study Indo-Europeans practices just for troll readers.

It's interestingly similar to the human sacrifices in Antiquity, which many people nowadays claiming that is only propaganda for what mattered to their ancestors, even in face of evidence or likeness.

So, putting this simply, it's not because they had a ritual that was shared by many other peoples, that makes them "lesser" in my opinion.

 

[DónalCam]

From what I gathered so far, without being as knowledgable in Irish medieval history as I'd want, the most debatable points isn't the rite described itself (while it's possible some parts were "interpretated") as you can find equivalent elsewhere in Indo-European cultures, than arguing it was still practiced by the XIIth century which is clearly less believable.

Would have been an isolated description, I would have agreed on the possibility of blunt invention. But I don't think Girald went trough study Indo-Europeans practices just for troll readers.

It's interestingly similar to the human sacrifices in Antiquity, which many people nowadays claiming that is only propaganda for what mattered to their ancestors, even in face of evidence or likeness.

So, putting this simply, it's not because they had a ritual that was shared by many other peoples, that makes them "lesser" in my opinion.

Agreed, sorry I should have (horse)fleshed that out. We get a bit oversensitive at times here about Giraldus' work. I have always had reservations about the chieftain putting his 'bit' in the mare. It may have happened, just wouldn't accept it as proven historical fact; it just seems too convenient for the author, given his (perfectly understandable) motives.

If you haven't read this already, here's a link to a decent paper exploring another native source. I'll add the caveat, though, that it'll take about 20 minutes to finish. Though the author makes some rather large leaps to conclusions (especially in regard to equine hanky-panky), nonetheless it makes for interesting reading.

The evidence points to the Cenéll Conaill, ancestors of Clann Ua Dhómhnaill in what is now central Donegal. That would put it up to Xth century at the latest anyway.

www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/04Fickett-Wilbar(315-343).pdf

 

[LSCatilina]

I have always had reservations about the chieftain putting his 'bit' in the mare. It may have happened, just wouldn't accept it as proven historical fact; it just seems too convenient for the author, given his (perfectly understandable) motives.

While I seem to have a (deserved?) reputation there about being too much critic on sources, when we have too few of them and no material traces (which would be hard to have for this kind of rites) I tend to follow them would it be because it's the only thing we have at disposal (which doesn't exclude caution, of course).

Because what they tells us seems outlandish to us, people living centuries afterwards, doesn't mean something is wrong. The "world moved on", indeed.
I would even tend, considering the intronisation nature of the rite, that outlandish may be expected : it's not part of the daily life, but an act of establishing power which especially in the sacred gaelic kingship and the marriage with the land, could tend to push a bit the concept with a horse.
(Or not, but you gotta admit, there's room for that).

Now, was it convenient? Certainly. But that doesn't mean it have to be wrong : using more (relativly speaking) exemples, we could argue that human sacrifices never existed in Gaul or in Mesoamerica, because their conquerors definitely used as justification of conquests. And we'd be wrong.

That the rite was misunderstood (on pruprose or not will probably remain unknown) is a good possibility, would it be only given the relativly limited exchanges before the XIIth century. But calling it a forgery is one step I wouldn't make without more evidence or analysis.

If you haven't read this already, here's a link to a decent paper exploring another native source. I'll add the caveat, though, that it'll take about 20 minutes to finish. Though the author makes some rather large leaps to conclusions (especially in regard to equine hanky-panky), nonetheless it makes for interesting reading.

That's really interesting, thanks, even If I struggled for the gaelic sources parts on which I have to rely on the author giving my lack of knowledge on this period : I'm far more of a EMA continental western Europe myself.
The leaps to conclusions may certainly ask for more analysis (and implies the possibility of median sources between BMD and Gerald, if we doubt the permanance of the ritual up to the XIIth century) but tying up two different sources on a same subject doesn't seem that problematic (unless we consider one of them as dubious from the beggining, but that create more problems in turn).

 

[Nialironarm]

Taboo on eating pork is common in cultures based in desert or near desert probably because pigs require a lot of water and shade, and these are scarce commodities in such regions. Proscribing them for religion reasons ensures that the elite does not waste precious resources on raising pigs, because pork is delicious. Taking scarce water and land to raise pigs means taking them away from the common good. Other livestock are not so intensive on these resources, so they're allowed.

That pork is also prone to trichinosis and other diseases that can spread to humans is probably the pretext given to them being unclean, but the resources issue is probably the real issue.

You don't see many taboos against pork coming from non-arid region cultures.

I think the resources argument is reasonable.

However I can't really see the disease angle as counting for much.

Prior to the advent of scientific investigation linking diseases to actual causes and methods of transmission was more or less unknown.

Unless trichinosis and other diseases were incredibly common amongst pork eating communities I can't see the link being made.

Again it is necessary to point out that plenty of peoples in the Tropics
eat pork and seemingly have always done so.

 

[BlondieBC]

I read somewhere that another reason why pigs were considered unclean was that unlike mutton-providing sheep, which you can shear for wool, or beef-providing cows that you can milk, the only thing pigs were good for were pork, and so the Israelites and Arabs forbade keeping them because it was more economical to raise other animals that have multiple uses besides food.

These animals occupy different ecological niches. Cows are great at converting inedible grasses to meat and milk. They are great in grassy areas that are not too cold. Pigs eat what humans do, and are great ways to store surplus human food for the winter. Less sure on sheep, but they do provide wool and seem to be associated with more rugged terrain in colder area.

I don't buy your explanation.

 

[BlondieBC]

1) Pigs' habit of bathing in mud gives people the impression that they are dirty, even though it's the swines' own method of keeping clean. (Mr.C)

Pigs don't really bathe in mud any more than any other animal. Pigs are dirty because how we keep them in small dirt pen. Go look up US cow stockyard pictures for counter example.

3) Swine's diet overlaps with that of humans, as both could consume roots, fruits, flowers, corn and soybeans. So in societies where resources are scarce, like the ancient near east, feeding the pigs by the wealthy means taking food away from the poor. Therefore they developed the pork taboo to avoid contentions between social classes. (Mr. L)

In societies with continuous levels of resources, pigs may not make sense. In societies with abundance/shortage cycles, they make a lot of sense. Say in a temperate climate, you can grow more squash/tomatoes/berries than you can eat. You feed these items to pigs in the summer. The other option is that the food rots. Then you eat the pigs in the winter.

 

[BlondieBC]

Notice the peoples who ban or harshly regulate the use of pork as a part of their history tend to be from very hot climates where its even harder to preserve meat then say central Europe or even Italy.

How do you explain central and south China?

 

[BlondieBC]

Pork costs about 1/5 as much as beef (see a recent issue of National Geographic magazine).

Cost are not stable, either over time or space. If you are in a grassland, then beef is very cheap since it is using inedible grass. In other areas, pork will be cheaper.

 

[BlondieBC]

Yeah ... Cattle was critical for their argiculture, due to their massive force multiplier when it comes to workforce, without them they wouldn't be able to get enough food out the farms (given the terrain and climate and argicultural package, or all of the above) without stavation following.

Well sounds nice, but not really true. Cattle population will grow at 30% plus rate per year. It is easy to find spare cattle (steer normally) to eat. You can easily protect all the cows (as modern USA dairies have), have plow animals, and eat at least 10% of population per year. Also, old cows that go lame are quite edible and provide a good bit of protein. Quite chew, but edible.

 

[DónalCam]

Because what they tells us seems outlandish to us, people living centuries afterwards, doesn't mean something is wrong. The "world moved on", indeed.
I would even tend, considering the intronisation nature of the rite, that outlandish may be expected : it's not part of the daily life, but an act of establishing power which especially in the sacred gaelic kingship and the marriage with the land, could tend to push a bit the concept with a horse.
(Or not, but you gotta admit, there's room for that).

LSCatalina,
thanks for the detailed reply. I'm an avid reader (if more a sporadic poster; very rarely do I feel qualified enough...) of this forum, and EMA Europe is my favourite period/region by far, so your name and depth of knowledge are very familiar to me!

I should add that my doubts re the sex bit, rather than excessively thin Hibernian skin, were very much based on how I cannot imagine a man maintaining the...eh...arousal necessary for the performance. Nor being tall enough, but the first part in particular. Especially seeing that, as taoiseach in waiting, presumably one would have one's pick of the (human) ladies.

However, I had fallen completely into the trap of imposing modern day criteria on the world a millenium ago. Further, if there was anything in common with the Vedic asvamedha ritual, where the king abstains from intercourse for a year, then who knows, it mightn't seem so outlandish after that long...

Anyway, this has nothing to do with pork, so I'll leave it at that!

 

[pa_dutch]

How do you explain central and south China?

These areas aren't arid and deserted, they're generally well-shaded and full of water. Also, they were assimilated by the core of Han Chinese civilization in the northeastern part of the country, which consumes pork. In that way those regions can be compared to places like Indonesia or Albania which are full of pigs but due to their adoption of an Arabian religion abandoned pork consumption.

I've found it more peculiar that many non-Islamic cultures, such as Hindus and Orthodox Ethiopians, appear to have adopted the pork tabboo simply due to their proximity to the Islamic world. Does anyone have any information about this?

It isn't clear to me whether the Ethiopian Orthodox objection to pork came earlier or later than Islam's rise. I used to think that they gave up pork due to Leviticus, and that the continuation of pork consumption in Europe was one of the compromises that Christianity had to make there due to the extreme commonality of pigs in Europe. Yet, Islamic countries like Indonesia that are full of pigs gave up pork despite it being a practical food source.

As far as I know, Hindus in South Asia unofficially abstain from pork simply because they're not accustomed to eating it, after centuries of being surrounded by and coexisting with Muslims, but Hindus raised in Western countries where bacon and ham are everywhere have no qualms about eating pork unless they're full-fledged vegetarians. Am I right or wrong?

 

[Summoner]

These areas aren't arid and deserted, they're generally well-shaded and full of water. Also, they were assimilated by the core of Han Chinese civilization in the northeastern part of the country, which consumes pork. In that way those regions can be compared to places like Indonesia or Albania which are full of pigs but due to their adoption of an Arabian religion abandoned pork consumption.

I've found it more peculiar that many non-Islamic cultures, such as Hindus and Orthodox Ethiopians, appear to have adopted the pork tabboo simply due to their proximity to the Islamic world. Does anyone have any information about this?

It isn't clear to me whether the Ethiopian Orthodox objection to pork came earlier or later than Islam's rise. I used to think that they gave up pork due to Leviticus, and that the continuation of pork consumption in Europe was one of the compromises that Christianity had to make there due to the extreme commonality of pigs in Europe. Yet, Islamic countries like Indonesia that are full of pigs gave up pork despite it being a practical food source.

As far as I know, Hindus in South Asia unofficially abstain from pork simply because they're not accustomed to eating it, after centuries of being surrounded by and coexisting with Muslims, but Hindus raised in Western countries where bacon and ham are everywhere have no qualms about eating pork unless they're full-fledged vegetarians. Am I right or wrong?

Regarding Ethiopian Orthodoxy, it is my understanding that this church places a heavier emphasis on the old testament of the bible and therefore its followers adhere to many of the food laws jews adhere to. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is considered a semetic language too. My research shows the ethiopian church was established in the 4rt century and therefore before any islamic influence.

My only anecdote regarding Indians and pork comes from a girlfriend I had a long time ago who was southern indian (tamil and telegu) family. There was no religious directive banning pork but they still did not eat it. Where she came from, pigs were seen as the garbage cleaners of the cities, regularly eating filth, garbage and even corpses. For the preservation of their own health, these people avoided pork which was seen as unclean. She did say that the lower castes ate pork and to avoid associating themselves with a lower caste, they also abstained from pork. In their eyes, the best meat was goat.