Summary and comparison

The Abominable Pig
“Why did the lord of the ancient Israelites forbid his people to savor pork or even to touch a pig alive or dead?” This question along with, “Why is it the pig alone that suffers Allah’s disapproval?” were author Marvin Harris’s main questions that he tried to find the answers to throughout this article. He began with giving the readers the reason the Islamic will not eat pig. The Islamic found swine flesh to be filthy due to them eating their own feces. Harris gave Maimonides side of the story and then countered it with how pigs eat and live actually. Harris also gave the readers insight as to other animals that were forbidden to be eaten however pig was the major topic of this article. Harris showed the scientific justification that was done on the pig taboo but the scientist theory soon fell through. Harris let us in on his view on this subject which was that all animals are potentially hazardous and there are multiple diseases you can get from all of them.
“Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven footed and chews the cud among animals, you may eat.” this was taken from the Old Testament and was a particular point of discussion throughout the rest of the article as to what fell into these categories and what were the exceptions. Jahweh felt that animals needed to be cud chewers due to the cleanliness and simplicity that came with it. Pig’s dietary needs didn’t make it possible for them to be cud chewers without feces. Harris also pointed out that the Middle East was not a suitable habitat for the pig any ways and that pigs cannot do labor so they are not as helpful of an animal as others. Harris stated that he believed that Leviticus was mostly formed from preexisting food prejudices. He then went on to describe the taboos on eating camels along with certain types of birds. The Egyptians did not partake in eating pigs either due to their expense that went into raising them. Harris noted that Islam did not spread into areas that raised and ate a lot of pig. Overall Harris concluded that food aversion was mostly due to a balance between nutritional and ecological welfare of the people who chose to partake in it.

Deciphering a Meal
In this article Mary Douglas is trying to offer an explanation for dietary laws of Hebrews. She begins with classifications for the food groups; land, water, and air. She then explained how to classify foods worthy enough of eating in each food group. There were different levels of holiness the food could have such as it being a table food or an altar food. Douglas then gave us the meaning of abomination and the criteria for it, “those creatures which inhabit a given range, water, air or land, but do not show all the criteria for a or b in that range are abominable.” Douglas states that the creature not being fit for altar or table is simply mosaic code. She then began to classify humans and animals and the difference between the two. Douglas illustrates all her categories with figures to help you easily see the difference between the categories.
Douglas then gives the rules for an orthodox meal; the first rule being the rejection of particular species of animals such as types of birds. The second rule states that the meat that goes on the table must be drained of all blood because only god can have blood. The third rule is the separation of meat and milk. Douglas brings up the pig as a particularly important animal to not consume and to why this is still up held while so many of the other rules have been forgotten or ignored. Her main reasoning is that the pig pollutes for multiple reasons. Douglas ends us with a passage from a poem to sum up her reasoning of why pig is still abominable “the rules of the menu are not in themselves more or less trivial than the rules of verse to which a poet submits.”

Comparison
In the article written by Harrison he brings up the Islamic taboo against eating pig. Throughout the article he tries to shed light on the reasoning for not eating pig but eating other meats. He uses scientific facts and the Old Testaments views along with his own to come to the conclusion that nutritional and ecological factors have a lot to do with their reasoning for eating and not eating certain foods.
In the article written by Douglas she defines abominable as well as breaks the foods into three categories and those specific categories specifications as to what foods are acceptable at the table or altar. She goes on to give the three rules for an orthodox meal. Douglas brings up the fact that only pig is the main concern for people today and that most other unorthodox foods are being consumed.
These two articles cover similar topics. Harris talks about multiple reasons why they might believe in not eating pig over other types of animals while Douglas gives us reasons as to how they viewed and actually classified the animals as being appropriate enough to eat. Harris focused more on multiple perspectives as well as the environments influence while Douglas stated the categories and stuck with explaining their significance. Douglas’s article helps put Harris’s in perspective a bit more.