Talk:Scottish pork taboo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This goes way off-topic toward the end. --70.18.54.9 07:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's putting the whole thing in context. --MacRusgail 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Verifiability

From what I can tell, only one person has made the claim that there was a Scottish Pork Taboo - this Donald A. MacKenzie, apparently a scholar of mythology in the early twentieth century. Aren't there any other scholars who've studied this? Sites like this [1] don't fill me with confidence. --Nydas 21:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The site doesn't fill me with confidence either, but some of the authorities quoted such as Dean Ramsay strike me as "kosher" (!) --MacRusgail 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If the article on British Israelism is right, then it started to take off during the C18th, the same time most of those quotes are from. They might just be a product of their time. The quotes are mostly second-hand as well - an un-named 'old Scottish gentleman', "I have often heard that the Scots will not eat it", patriotic songs. It has the whiff of an old urban legend about it.--Nydas 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Tagged for verification. Apart from Donald A. MacKenzie (who probably deserves an article) and a tiny handful of fringe theorists, there seems to be no other information on this supposed 'taboo'. Where is the interest from contemporary, mainstream historians? Where is the archeological evidence? Where are the reliable first-hand accounts from those who actually practiced this taboo? See the Celtic toe AfD for a similar example. --Nydas 18:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of this, but I am intrigued. If nothing else happens, I'll try verify this (i.e. check out the article, and see what sources are used) when I get access to big library next month. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article at the moment is incredibly dodgy. I'm gong to remove most of it and rewrite it as 'Donald A. Mackenzie' has asserted. Let's rebuild it from what we can be sure of. --Doc 17:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My impressions

I've had a look at Donald Alexander Mackenzie's 1935 text, Scottish Folf Lore and Folk Life Studies in Race, Culture, and Tradition. First off, the stuff about the pork taboo isn't just a few pages - he has two chapters devoted to it. The first two chapters, in fact. Interestingly, in the preface he dismisses the 'biblical origin' - that the pork taboo in the result of a literal reading of the Bible. He's also a race theorist, describing the Scots as a mix of Mediterranean, Alpine and Nordic, complete with hair colour percentages and the like.
Moving onto the two relevant chapters, whilst he has a decent amount of sourcing, the evidence isn't exactly compelling. The site above is selective with their quotes - Captain Burt, who says 'I have often heard that the Scots will not eat it' then goes on to say that clan followers will avoid pork if the chief declares against it, and that it is popular in the Lowlands. Burt reckons that there is not enough food to support pigs, whilst his annotator suggests that the Highlanders are unaccustomed to fat. Mackenzie dismisses both of these arguments.
There then follows a large story (several pages) about the appearance of the first pig in Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, causing villagers to panic and run from the 'diel' (devil) because they'd never seen a pig before. I forgot to note down the date - I think it was 1724. There is also a story from Dean Ramsay about a congregation muttering 'cauld airn' (cold iron) and touching things made of iron whenever swine were mentioned during a sermon, as if to ward off an evil spell.
Another comedic story follows, with a Highlander working for a Lowland farmer, and refusing to eat pork. Why, asks the farmer's wife, when you eat ham? Of course the Highlander didn't know that ham was pork, and starts vomitting. The Highlander's name was John Mackay, and this gives rise to the Gaelic saying 'You are like John Mackay, vomiting last year's pig'. Anyone heard of this saying?
Mackenzie at this point says that he is a Highlander who won't eat pork. So at least there's one first-hand account of this taboo - himself.
The next chapter deals with various pig cults and the origins of the taboo. Mackenzie dismisses the idea that it arrived because Scots are really a kind of Jew, so the Israelist site gets another black mark. He also doesn't think that it evolved indigeously from Pictish animal totems. He admits that archeological evidence suggests that pigs were eaten across Scotland in the early times (Skara Brae, etc). He thinks that the taboo was imported from the Near and Middle East, via Anatolian Celts. He draws a parallel between Attis and the Great Mother (probably Cybele) and the Gaelic story of Diarmaid (presumably Diarmaid mac Cearbhaill).--Nydas 20:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created an article about Donald Alexander Mackenzie - he wrote a huge number of books.--Nydas 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm possibly a bit unfair calling him a 'race theorist' above. Culture does seem to be his big thing.--Nydas 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Added, rewrote based on what I read. There's a lot more there, but my notes are pretty sparse. I will say that if no other supporters of this theory can be found, we should probably consider deleting the article. One man's view is seldom notable.--Nydas 18:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be worth a mention on his bio. But I think your right, if there's no evidence anyone bought his theory, then it is non really very notable at all. Certainly not worth a whole article. --Doc 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"He's also a race theorist, describing the Scots as a mix of Mediterranean, Alpine and Nordic, complete with hair colour percentages and the like." - to be fair, such ideas were common in pre-WWII Europe, and didn't necessarily indicate virulent quasi-Nazi tendencies. The use of the word "Aryan", pre-Hitler was also usually fairly inocuous, and often was used in the sense of Indo-Aryan, i.e. Indo-European.
I think this article should mention MacKenzie, but should also include more quotes from the authorities he mentions.
"this gives rise to the Gaelic saying 'You are like John Mackay, vomiting last year's pig'. Anyone heard of this saying?" - never heard of it, but that's not to say it doesn't exist. Not a famous one anyway.

--MacRusgail 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of a large section of text

Can I ask why the paragraphs putting the taboo in a theoretical context are being repeatedly removed? The examples of the survival of tribal totems within Scotland are crucial to this article.

In addition, this article is not purely about DA MacKenzie's take on this matter!!! --MacRusgail 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, what other sources do you have for this theory? Who else believes it? Hinds from primary literature won't do, since that would be original research - we can record them here as MacKenzies's original research, but we can't do our own. Is their such a taboo, what other thinkers agree with MacKenzie?--Doc 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Doc. I haven't found a shred of evidence that anyone else supported this theory (or has even bothered to dismiss it), apart from the Israelists above. And they quote Mackenzie selectively, omitting the fact that he didn't think that Scots were a lost tribe of Israel.--Nydas 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
MacKenzie quotes Dean Ramsay and others on the topic. They wouldn't have called it the 'Scottish Pork Taboo' (the word 'taboo' probably not being in English at that point), but if they mention it, I hardly see how this is 'original research'. I repeat, this article isn't and shouldn't be solely about MacKenzie.
They don't all mention it. Many of the quotes from the Israelist site are misleading i.e. Captain Burt, and many of them could be interpreted in different ways. In any case, we only have Mackenzie's word that Dean Ramsay did tell these stories. Unless you have other sources? --Nydas 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The British Israelite site mentions Sir Walter Scott's Fortunes of Nigel. Now Scott was around long before MacKenzie, and if this is an accurate quote, I think it certainly refers to something similar. I doubt Scott would have used the word "taboo". I get the impression it was borrowed from Polynesian some time in the 19th century. --MacRusgail 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Electronic version of "Fortunes of Nigel"

[edit] The Fortunes of Nigel

(I have edited this piece down for practicality and brevity)

Firstly, the footnote says "The Scots, till within the last generation, disliked swine's flesh as an article of food as much as the Highlanders do at present. It was remarked as extraordinary rapacity, when the Border depredators condescended to make prey of the accursed race, whom the fiend made his habitation. Ben Jonson, in drawing James's character, says, he loved "no part of a swine."'

Chapter XXVII, The Fortunes of Nigel (1822)

"Ay, ay, sir -- Sir Munko, as you say; a pleasant, good-humoured gentleman as ever -- To be spoken with, did you say? O ay, easily to be spoken withal, that is, as easily as his infirmity will permit. He will presently, unless some one hath asked him forth to breakfast ... Ned keeps an eating-house, sir, famous for pork-griskins; but Sir Munko cannot abide pork, no more than the King's most Sacred Majesty,nor my Lord Duke of Lennox, nor Lord Dalgarno ... take heed, sir -- or any other person who asks him forth to breakfast -- but single beer he always drinks at Ned's, with his broiled bone of beef or mutton -- or, it may be, lamb at the season -- but not pork, though Ned is famous for his griskins. 'But the Scots never eat pork -- strange that! some folk think they are a sort of Jews.' There is a resemblance, sir, -- Do you not think so? Then they call our most gracious Sovereign the Second Solomon, and Solomon, you know, was King of the Jews; so the thing bears a face, you see. ... Way to Sir Munko's eating-house? -- Yes, sir; but it is Ned's eating- house, not Sir Munko's. -- The knight, to be sure, eats there, and makes it his eating-house in some sense, sir -- ha, ha! Yonder it is, removed from over the way, new white-washed posts, and red lattice -- fat man in his doublet at the door -- Ned himself, sir -- worth a thousand pounds, they say -- better singeing pigs' faces than trimming courtiers"

This clearly predates MacKenzie, and there is no way in which Walter Scott took it from him. --MacRusgail 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Three things. One, it's very, very dodgy to rely on a reference from a work of fiction written two hundred years after the time it is describing. Two, as I mentioned before, British Israelism would seem to have been in full flow by Scott's time, and thus could be the main source of this supposed taboo. Three, King James hated tobacco, mustard and ling as well.
That said, I've no objection to including this in the article as long as it is presented in the form of a theory, rather than an established fact. --Nydas 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
British Israelitism is tangential to this, and I'd better make it clear I am not religious myself. I don't believe that it was "in full flow by Scott's time" at all. But that's by the by. If you wish to present it in the form of a theory, that is fine by me, just as long as you don't attribute it all to MacKenzie, and replace some of the contextual material that was removed.--MacRusgail 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How can British Israelism be tangential when the only source of online information on this supposed taboo is an Israelist website? The contextual material, as you put it, was removed by Doc, not me. I think removing it was the right thing, though. The sources for this article are so extraordinarily weak that adding 'background info' would be bad idea. --Nydas 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link to Folk Lore: Superstitious Beliefs in the West of Scotland within This Century[2] by James Napier in the C19th. It doesn't appear to contain any mentions of a pork taboo. And it contains many, many superstitions relating to animals. It does have one mention of pigs - "To meet a sow the first thing in the morning boded bad luck for the day."--Nydas 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Who cares about online information? I'm talking about sources which are available in hard copy. There's still much which is not available online, and Wikipedia's unfortunate tendency to judge its academic qualities by the commercial service Google is hardly doing itself any favours. When I wrote this article I based it on written sources. Not online. --MacRusgail 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's Project Gutenberg. Hardly some random blog. No doubt the printed version can be found in some library somewhere.--Nydas 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If you're replying to me, I was referring to "the only source of online information on this supposed taboo is an Israelist website" - --MacRusgail 16:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacKenzie again!

MacKenzie should be called a theorist, because as the Scott quote above proves, the concept hardly originates with him. --MacRusgail 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further evidence against MacKenzie invention

It turns out that Trevelyan refers to the taboo as well. An awful lot of people must have time travelled to MacKenzie's time to hear about his "assertion".--MacRusgail 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Where? And which Trevelyan?--Nydas 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archeology

This can be proved or disproved by checking the frequence of pig bones among Scottish archeological digs. Are there such studies? --Error 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute even by MacKenzie that pigs have been eaten since antiquity in Scotland, only that there was a dislike of them in some quarters, bordering on taboo. --MacRusgail 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
He says it was a fierce taboo, not merely bordering on one.--Nydas 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That's MacKenzie's view. As I have said before, this article is not solely about MacKenzie, and will be rewritten to reflect that soon. --MacRusgail 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
MacKenzie is the only scholar to have studied this 'phenomenon'. Sifting through centuries of literature for a few lines and quotes of questionable origin is original research. --Nydas 20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. Many of these quotes have already been sifted through by other people and are therefore not original research. At least they would be references, unlike the majority of Wikipedia's "popular culture" articles. The fact that Sir Walter Scott had already researched this supposed tendency long before MacKenzie counts for something.--MacRusgail 09:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Who else but MacKenzie has sifted through them? No-one. Scott hadn't 'researched' it, he make an oblique reference to it in a work of fiction, hardly a reliable source.--Nydas(Talk) 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Scott researched his historical novels before writing them, and the reference is also in a factual footnote on the subject. While Scott can be accused of various biases, he was not without acclaim as an historian, as for example his biography of Napoleon was. That was hardly a work of fiction, although no doubt some fiction encroached on it, as it does in all historical works.--MacRusgail 11:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no such note in the Project Gutenberg text linked above, which includes them. Number of note, please. Septentrionalis 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Do a text search for 'swine' and it comes up eventually.--Nydas(Talk) 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it's a footnote to Malagrowther's speech, not an endnote: Footnote: The Scots, till within the last generation, disliked swine's flesh as an article of food as much as the Highlanders do at present. It was remarked as extraordinary rapacity, when the Border depredators condescended to make prey of the accursed race, whom the fiend made his habitation. Ben Jonson, in drawing James's character, says, he loved "no part of a swine." Septentrionalis 18:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other writers

This topic has been niggling me - and I ended up looking round a bit. First I found an article which argues against the taboo idea, but suggests it's not just DA Mackenzie's bee-in-the-bonnet. (The Riddle of the Scottish Pig, by Eric B. Ross, in BioScience, Vol. 33, No. 2. (Feb 1983), pp. 99-106.)

"In the years of the eighteenth century and probably earlier, swine were rarely raised in Scotland, particularly in the Scottish Highlands, and subsequent writers have gone so far as to postulate the operation of a taboo on the eating of pork. Unfortunately there is almost nothing known today about local sentiments of that era, and we have only the intellectual rationalizations of educated writers who all too easily found an explanation for the scarcity of pigs in the assumption that a 'foolish prejudice' was at work."

It looks as if the author is going to explain it all "in terms of the historical and ecological conditions of the Scottish Highlands" and cultural materialism, but I've only skimmed through the article. He refers to several other writers who mention this prejudice/superstition/taboo including Smout - A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830, p 132, - "a universal superstitious prejudice".

Then in the Scotsman archives there's a letter (8th October 1921) from Dr. W. Mackay Mackenzie, a historian arguing against DA Mackenzie, but agreeing there has been anti-pork prejudice on and off, in some areas - but no full taboo - gives examples pro and con pork prejudice, including historical refs to herds of pigs, pork eating etc. - and suggests economic factors from about 1500 contributed to people's prejudices. He also led me to these:

  • "The deep rooted prejudice against swine's flesh is now removed: most of the farmers rear some of that species, which, not 30 years ago, they held in the utmost detestation" (Ardchattan, County of Argyle. Account of 1791-99, volume 6, page 177)
  • "The people of this part of Scotland had formerly a superstitious prejudice against swine; but now there are a number reared and fed in this parish."(Lesmahago, County of Lanark. Account of 1791-99, volume 7, page 426)
  • "As the prejudice against eating swine's flesh is in a great measure overcome, a considerable number of pigs is reared here." (Kiltearn, County of Ross and Cromarty. Account of 1791-99, volume 1, page 265)
  • "the country people still retain some prejudice against pork; but it is wearing out gradually."( Longforgan, County of Perth. Account of 1791-99, volume 19, page 497)

WMM's letter also quotes this book: The historie of Scotland / wrytten first in Latin by Bishop Jhone Leslie, and translated in Scottish by James Dalrymple ... 1596

  • "As swyne flesh is uset in uthir countries, of quhilke our cuntrie peple has lytle plesure."

So - you learn something new every day. --HJMG 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant research, HJMG. Are you going to integrate your findings into the text? And good work finding out more about Donald Alexander Mackenzie as well.--Nydas(Talk) 18:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - but I was mostly just trying to satisfy my own curiosity! I probably will add some of it to the article in a couple of days (I'm busy today), but MacRusgail may be planning something with real books. I still don't feel very clear about it, and don't know if there is a "mainstream academic" view of it all. --HJMG 13:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Nydas' compliment. I think that the article has to be balanced. Some info on the anti-argument would be good. --MacRusgail 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks to you, I have now heard of this "taboo". I find Mackenzie a bit wacky (hope my POV is under control), but it's interesting that a good number of people agree on a "prejudice". --HJMG 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And there's a problem with Mackenzie's theory from the other end: the initiates of Attis and the Great Mother abstained from pork for a period before their ceremonies, not year around. (Julian, 5:177b). Septentrionalis 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Very good rewrite, HJMG. I'd say that this article is just about as good as it's likely to get. On another note, I came across another Mackenzie book whilst working - his account of the First World War. Flipping through it, it seems like a very poor book. Glaringly one-sided and simplistic, it's basically British Empire propaganda. He says that the war had a silver lining; bringing the peoples of the empire closer together. Hmm, not exactly.--Nydas(Talk) 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misspellings?

I noticed that in the following section;

Other writers referring to a prejudice against pork

That there are spelling errors which are in the quote.

Bishop John Lesley's History of Scotland talks of "our cuntrie peple" having "lytle plesure" in pork in the 1570s. [7]

Is there a reason for this or is just an oversight? Thanks. Sirtrebuchet 20:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Using Ockham's Razor, I'd suggest that the fact that Bishop Lesley lived centuries ago, and that it was translated in 1596, probably explains why the spellings are so odd. :) --MacRusgail 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
So should it be fixed or left alone? I think it looks a bit odd..... Thanks. Sirtrebuchet 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an exact quote from Leslie/Dalrymple with original spelling preserved by Mackenzie (see footnote 7). Perhaps we could add a clarifying comment to that footnote - like: (Scots spelling from Dalrymple's 16th century translation). I prefer that to modernising, but I guess it's mostly an editorial taste question. Any more opinions?--HJMG 09:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to retain the old spelling, since a fluent English speaker should be able to make it out. Also if there is any ambiguity with the spellings, as there sometimes is, it's best to leave that. --MacRusgail 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)