M. L. Ryder

WHY WAS PIGMEAT REJECTED IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

MICHAEL L. RYDER

The influx of Moslems into Britain in recent years has made us realise that the rejection of pigmeat is not restricted to the Jews. It is part of a wider distaste for pork in the Middle East, although the oldest record of this taboo, in Judaism, appears in the Old Testament of the Bible. The pig is also regarded as ritually unclean in Islam, which began as recently as the seventh century AD. What is it about pigs in that area that makes whole groups of people consider that these animals are unclean on what are now regarded as religious grounds? The basis for this religious taboo against pigs is almost certainly not their over-rich fat, nor their habit of wallowing in mud to keep cool; neither is it their habit of scavenging for food. Douglas (1978: 30) pointed out that in the book of Leviticus there is no reference to the scavenging habit of pigs. She saw the answer in ritualistic and symbolic terms, pointing out that the Israelites considered as ritually unclean animals that did not fall clearly within certain categories. In the first few verses of Leviticus Chapter ii it is stated that only beasts which "parteth the hoof andchew the cud" may be eaten. The pig is anomalous because, although cloven- hoofed, it is not a ruminant. She further suggested that the pig symbolised prohibited exogamy, since it was eaten by neighbouring peoples with which intermarriage was forbidden. I am among those who consider that direct explanations of cultural differences are more likely to be true than those relying on symbolism. A more attractive explanation is the proneness of pigs to become infested with the intestinal roundworm Trichinella spiralis. This parasitic nematode reproduces in the intestine and the larvae produced bore through its walls and enter the muscles of the pig. Here they create cysts in which they lie coiled and dormant causing a condition known as trichinosis. People eating pork diseased in this way themselves

become infested with the intestinal worms, which in turn invade the human muscles, often fatally. This explanation was dismissed at a time when it was thought that primitive man is unlikely to have understood this connection, which was not thought to have been recognised (in Europe) until 1860, and in any case the cysts are destroyed by adequate cooking. Anyone who has studied zoology does not need to be told twice about the dangers (from parasites as well as bacteria) of eating uncooked meat - not just pork! Over 40 years ago the American geographer C. S. Coon suggested that the religious prohibition of pork among Middle Eastern nomads is more likely to have had an ecological explanation (Coon, 1952: 346). Pigs are unattractive to nomads because they are not easily driven and do not adapt well to the hot dry conditions of the Middle East. Unlike other livestock, pigs supply little more than meat and are difficult to skin. Since pigs can compete with man for food, they may threaten the whole subsistence economy (Harris 1986) Other domestic animals also provided milk, wool or transport, and sheep and goats could survive on the little food available in the austere environment of the area (Ryder, 1983: 195). The situation was different in Europe, where pigs were probably important in the Neolithic forest clearance carried out by the first farmers. Pigs eat tree seeds and uproot seedlings; their manure enriched the soil so that the trees were replaced with grass, which was either ploughed to grow crops or used to graze sheep as in the Bronze Age of Northern Europe. But did primitive man really not recognise the connection between diseased pork and human illness? He must for instance have learnt by trial and error which plants were poisonous. The Trichinella cysts are actually produced by the host animal as a reaction to the parasite and are coated with calcareous matter. Older livestock books describe how the gritty-like bodies can be felt when a piece of affected meat is cut with a knife, and the cysts are actually visible to the naked eye. The scholar San Isidoro who lived in Seville from about AD 560 to 636 described pork worms, which he called usia, and stated that their danger to man was the reason why the Jews were forbidden this meat. The late George Ordish thought that San Isidora’s knowledge of worms plus his discussions with Rabbis might have led him to the conclusion that there was a practical foundation for the Mosaic prohibition on the consumption of pork (Ordish, 1976). This knowledge had wide ramifications; San Isidor did not wish to eat pork, but it was dangerous for him to appear to be following a Jewish custom. Therefore whenever pork appeared on the menu he claimed to be a special fast, and as a ‘cover’ he became particularly hard on the Jews.