Meat Is Good to Taboo ¤ Dietary Proscriptions as aProduct ofthe Interaction of Psychological Mechanisms and Social Processes

DANIEL M.T. FESSLER¤¤ and CARLOS DAVID NAVARRETE¤¤

ABSTRACT Comparingfood taboos across 78 cultures,this paper demonstrates that meat,though aprizedfood, is also the principaltarget of proscriptions. Reviewing existing explanations oftaboos, we Ž nd that bothfunctionalist and symbolic approaches fail to account for meat’s cross-cultural centrality anddo not reect experience-near aspectsof food taboos, principalamong which isdisgust. Adopting an evolutionaryapproach to the mind,this paperpresents an alternative toexisting explanations of food taboos. Consistent with the attendant riskof pathogentransmission, meat has special salience as a stimulusfor humans, asanimal products are stronger elicitorsof disgust and aversion than plant products.We identifythree psychosocialprocesses, socially-mediatedingestive conditioning, egocentric empathy , and normativemoralization ,each ofwhich likelyplays a rolein transforming individualdisgust responsesand conditioned food aversions into institutionalized food taboos.

Introduction Culturalunderstandings concerning food, edibility, contamination, and re- latedtopics exhibit enormous variation across groups (Barer-Stein 1999; Rozin2000; Simoons 1994). However, despite such evident heterogeneity, investigators(e.g., Rozin 1987; Haidt et al.1997; Simoons 1994; Tambiah 1969)have offhandedlysuggested that animals and animal products seem especially likely tobe the focusof foodtaboos. The possibility of uniformity

¤Harriet Whiteheadand Robert Aunger kindly suppliedus with draftsof their respective works.Paul Arguello assisted with research. FranciscoGil-White, RoyD’ Andrade,Robert Aunger,and Robert Sussman provided useful suggestions. We thank the many investigators whoshared taboo data and references. ¤¤Center forBehavior, Evolution, and Culture andDepartment ofAnthropology, UCLA, LosAngeles, CA 90095-1553. c KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2003 Journal of Cognition and Culture 3.1 ° 2 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE ina domainsubject to substantialvariation is ofgreatinterest, for such pat- ternscry out for explanation (Brown 1991). We have thereforeconducted the Žrstsystematic ethnological investigation of food prohibitions designed toevaluate the relative prominenceof animalproducts as a focusof taboos. Afterdescribing the methodsused in our investigation we present results demonstratingthat meat is indeed disproportionately represented in food taboos.Reviewing the twoprincipal existing explanationsof food taboos, weŽndthat neither functionalist nor symbolic approaches provides a com- pelling account.We thereforeconsider a variety ofpsychosocial processes thatmay contributeto taboo formation, highlighting the roleof emotions ineach process.Arguing that meat, while nutritious, is also potentially dangerous,we propose that natural selection has producedan ambiva- lence towardmeat such that, compared to other foods, meat is morelikely tobecome the targetof disgust. We then showhow this predisposition can articulatewith the psychosocialprocesses that generate taboos,thereby accountingfor the prominenceof meat in foodproscriptions.

ACross-Cultural Studyof theTargets of Food Taboos The Sample ofFood Taboos and the Problem ofNon-independence Anthropologistsoften subsume proscriptions of markedly differingtypes underthe rubricof ‘ taboo’(Valeri 2000:43-6).While thispractice elimi- nates distinctionsthat are vital forunderstanding the detailsof any given culturalsystem, becauseour goal is toinvestigate patternsof human belief attheir broadest, we adopt an extreme versionof this approach, treating all foodproscriptions as equivalentregardless of whether they applyto all orpart of society, all orpartof aspeciesor fooditem, or all orpartof the calendaror life span.To collectdata on tabooswe conductedan extended survey ofprint and electronic ethnographies and studies in related Ž elds. We alsocontacted investigators known to have workedon taboos, and em- ployeda snowballstrategy to learn ofothers possessing relevant data.So asnot to weightthe studytoward heavily-investigated societies,we avoided usingmany sourceson the same culture.While oursearch was, to our knowledge,the mostextensive ever undertaken,we make noclaim that it wasexhaustive. However,although there aredoubtlessly numerous sources thatwe did not encounter, there isnoreason to believe thatour methods biasedthe natureof the datacollected. Our search produced information MEATISGOODTOTABOO 3 onfood prohibitions (henceforth used interchangeably with ‘ taboos’) in seventy-eight cultures.For each culture,the ŽrstŽ ve taboosencountered inthe text(s) werenoted (if fewer than Ž ve tabooswere listed in the source, all werenoted). Limiting the numberof taboos per culture provided an initialconstraint on the disproportionatein uence ofsocieties having a largenumber of taboos; we selected Žve asthe cut-offbecause inspection suggestedthat this was slightly abovethe average numberof taboos re- ported.Because wehad previously demonstrated that taboos imposed on pregnantwomen focus primarily on meat(Fessler 2002),pregnancy taboos wereexcluded in orderto avoidprejudicing the results.Using foodgroups commonlyemployed in the nutritionliterature, the numberof taboos was talliedfor the followingcategories: meat, vegetables, fruit,sweets, dairy products,and starches. Because ourwork on pregnancy taboos suggested thatspicy foods have specialsalience asthe targetof taboos, we included thisas a seventh category.Results aredisplayed in the Appendix.For illustrativepurposes, Table 1 presentsthe average numberof taboos on meatversus taboos on all non-meatfoods. Note that, in each region,meat taboosare more frequent than non-meattaboos, and, with the exception ofSoutheast Asia, this difference is quitemarked. Ifall ethnographieswere independent sources of data,simple statistical tests couldbe performed on the Appendix.However, such an approach riskscommitting Galton’ s error,the assumptionof independence among societiesthat do not constitute independent data points. The possibilityof i)the diffusionof cultural traits between neighboring societies, and ii) the recentsplintering of once homogeneous groups makes any suchtest prob- lematic.Previous attempts to solve thisproblem employ autocorrelation techniquesto recalibrate in ated sample sizes (Naroll 1976) or contin- gency tablesthat collapse matrices by the amountof excess tobalance the numberof cells ineach independentcategory (Strauss & Orans1975). These techniquesunderestimate the varianceof data points within inde- pendentsamples and may skew conŽdence intervals infavor of the null hypothesis.However, these problemscan be managedusing bootstrapping techniques.Standard bootstrapping involves the samplingof the original data(with replacement), and the executionof some formula of interest to createa samplingdistribution of the statisticof interest on which hypoth- esis tests canbe performed (Fox 1997).Although this method solves the 4 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE Table 1 Average number ofmeat and non-meat taboosper societyby geographic region

Region Meat non-Meat Australia 4.44 0.33 C. America 2 0 East Asia 3 1.33 Europe 5 0 Mid. East 5 0 N. Africa 2.4 1.4 N. America 3.2 0.1 Oceania 2 0.85 S. Africa 3.33 0.58 S. America 3.5 0.1 S. Asia 2.6 0.4 S. E. Asia 1.88 1.63 Totals 38.35 6.72 Total Mean 3.2 0.56 S.D. 1.59 0.13

problemof non-normally distributed error, it does not solve the problem ofnon-independence, as bootstrapping too assumes that the originalset iscomposed of independent data points. We thereforedevised a novel bootstrappingtechnique that corresponds to a z-testfor proportions, uses all available data,does not underestimate variances by averaging out data pointsinto contingency tables, and minimizes Galton’ s problemof non- independence.

Methods ofStatistical Analysis

We organizedall ofthe societiesin our sample into twelve geo- graphic/culturalregions that we treat as roughly independent areas. This approachis conservative in that, by clustering societies in categorieslarger thancommonly-recognized culture areas, we decreasedthe likelihoodthat, ifwe compared two societies from different categories, they wouldshare substantivehistorical links. We wrotesoftware that randomly chose a geo- graphicalregion and then randomlyselected oneculture from within that MEATISGOODTOTABOO 5 region.1 Theprogram repeated this process with replacement until the numberof samples equaled the numberof geographic regions ( n 12). D The frequenciesof taboos for each foodcategory (e.g. meat, fruit, etc.) werethen convertedto proportions that describe the relative occurrence oftaboos in the meatcategory versus the relative occurrenceof taboos ineach non-meatcategory, resulting in a totalof seven tests ofdiffer- ences ofproportions. The processwas repeated 10,000 times to create, foreach comparison,a distributionof differences. p-values wereestab- lishedby calculating the percentageof cases (outof 10,000) in which the value differencesfor each comparisonwas less thanor equal to zero. One mightargue that each non-meattaboo does not represent a categoryfor a speciŽc tabooedfood, as some societies might deŽ ne food taboossimply with regard to meat versus non-meat. A test ofdifferences inproportions was therefore also performed for the differencebetween meattaboos and all otherfood taboos combined. The argument could also bemade that multiple meat taboos should not be treated as independent entities,as they may simplyrepresent one taboo against meat, with the diversityregarding different kinds of meat being merely aby-productof ageneral meattaboo. A morestringent test wastherefore performed as well. The numberof taboos was collapsed into binary categories signifying the presenceor absence of a given tabootype. If there was any instance ofa taboofor a particularfood-category in a given culture,then thiswas recordedas a “success”for that food-category; total absenceof taboos in agiven food-categoryfor a particularculture resulted in that category beinggiven a“failure.”The bootstrapsampling technique described abovewas employed to create a sampledistribution of the proportional differencesbetween meat taboos and each non-meatfood taboo. A test ofthe proportionaldifference between meat and all non-meattaboos combinedwas performed as well. The methodfor testing null hypotheses wasidentical to thatdescribed above. 2

1Softwareused in thisanalysis was written in Microsoft c VisualBasic 6.0. A free copy ° ofthe softwarecan beobtainedfrom the authors. 2Thisprocedure also addresses the problemthat, foreach culture, ouroriginal Ž veor fewer tabooswere catalogedwithout reference tothe relativeabundance of each foodtype inthe givenenvironment, informationthat isfrequently absentin ethnographic accounts. 6 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

Results ofStatistical Analyses Allof the tests generatedstatistically signiŽ cant results for each comparison. In 10,000sample iterations, not one case ever returneda differencein proportionsthat was not in favor of meattaboos. Since the value zeronever occurredin our frequency distribution, and p-values canbe estimated as the proportionof times the differencesare less thanor equal to zero out ofthe totalnumber of replicates, p-values wereestimated as a numberless than1 outof 10,000. The resultsof the analysis ofthe differencesin the proportionof general meattaboos present versus the presenceof other food taboos yielded statisticallysigniŽ cant results (Table 2). After 10,000 replicates, nocases ever returneda differencebetween the twoproportions not in favorof meat taboos.The test ofthe comparisonof the differencebetween the presenceof any meattaboo and the presenceof any non-meattaboo combinedalso revealed adifferencethat was statistically signiŽ cant. Out of10,000 replicates, the differencebetween the twoproportions was equal toor biased toward non-meat taboos in only 13cases, revealing a p-value of0.0013. We thereforeconclude that, compared toall other substances, meat is vastly more likely tobe the target offood taboos.

ThePuzzle: Whyare Animalsa Central Focusof Taboos and Dietary Avoidances? The pervasive centralityof meat in food taboos is surprising. Consistent withtheir nutritional value asa concentratedsource of protein and fat, meatand other animal products (hereafter generically referredto as‘meat’) arehighly valuedin the majorityof the world’s societiesregardless of theiractual dietary signiŽ cance (Jochim 1981; Harris 1985; Abrams 1987; Fiddes1991; Stanford 1999). It thus appears paradoxical that the same categoryshould contain both the mostprized and the mostproscribed foods.In addition,most societies seem notto exploit the fullrange of animalproducts available tothem (Haidtet al.1997; Rozin & Fallon 1987;Simoons 1994; Whitehead 2000)– many animalsare ‘ unconsciously tabooed’(Leach 1964)in that, while not explicitly proscribed,they are simplynot considered food (cf. Tambiah 1969). Two principal theoretical perspectiveson proscriptions, the functionalistschool and the symbolic school,have dominateddiscussions of food taboos to date. Below we MEATISGOODTOTABOO 7 t s a o 1 e o 0 b 6 7 0 M a 0 8 2 - t : 4 0 n 0 1 7 o n . . . e n o 0 0 < e r l l e w p z t A e o b t 1 l e a s 0 c e 0 u 1 3 n h 6 5 0 q e : c r e 3 1 r 0 e 0 8 f a e . . f t r i 0 0 < S a d s p e e h c t n 1 s e 0 r w 0 9 4 e y o f 1 9 0 c f : i i h 0 4 0 s p 0 8 d . . S 0 0 e < w s o e r p h t d t n 1 a o 0 h c 0 0 4 t r e 0 1 0 : u S y 0 5 t 0 o i . 0 8 l . . s S i e 0 0 < b l a p p b m o s a r o s 1 p o 0 b 0 s e 9 4 0 t a 0 h 0 4 6 t e t 0 : e 1 3 , 0 s d 0 0 8 w . . o 1 w S 0 0 2 o < o f f e h o p l f s t o b u a w s 1 o o n T 0 r o d 4 0 0 i y t d o 0 1 0 r r i : r o 2 3 i o f a 0 0 8 h p . . f D o 0 0 T < o r . P y s p r e i o r g 1 o e 0 g t e a 0 3 0 t t i c 0 4 7 a : u 4 0 c 0 r d 0 8 . . e F d o 0 0 < o o o p b f a r t e 1 h h e 0 l t c 3 1 0 o b a 0 a 0 1 e : e t 3 2 f e 0 h 0 8 t o g . . e f 0 0 < n o V o p i h t r c o a 4 t e p 1 a A A o e 5 / / n r 8 o p . N N M 0 s e o h o t e b s c a t n w ) f s e o o d r d o h e e t o n s l f n i a f a b i o e a a i t t w t - D a e o T r M e e r u o l n . l n l t s p m a a o s A v ( o e v r r i - n P M p F o 8 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE evaluate these perspectiveswith particular attention to their ability to explain the centralityof meat in food taboos.

FunctionalistExplanations of Animal Taboos IndirectBeneŽ t Explanations ofFoodTaboos Functionalistperspectives argue that proscriptions are explicable interms oftheir utility. In general, little attentionis paid to the detailsof emic perspectives,or the processeswhereby they comeabout, as these are seen asincidental to the long-termquestion of the survivalof a given practiceover time. Functionalist views canbe divided into those that postulateindirect beneŽ ts stemming from taboos and those purporting directbeneŽ ts. Prominentamong positions based on indirect beneŽ ts is the idea thatmeat taboos promote sustainable and/ orefŽ cient resource utiliza- tion,either by precluding husbandry of locally ecologicallydestructive or uneconomicalspecies (e.g. Harris 1985), by preventing disruptive over- exploitationof somefacet of the localecology, or by precluding inefŽ cient useof available resources(e.g. Colding and Folke 1997;Mcdonald 1977; Reichel-Dolmatoff1979; Ross 1978). Group-functional understandings of thistype couldconceivably be shaped by cultural group selection, and couldpersist if developed in conjunction with enforcement practices (Boyd andRicherson, in press). However, in a numberof prominent cases, the purportedecological beneŽ ts of foodtaboos have notheld upunder careful examination(Alvard 1995; Nietschmann 1978;Simoons 1994), and com- putermodels do notsupport these propositions(Colding 1998). Arguments basedon indirect beneŽ t alsohave difŽculty accounting for the existence ofproscriptions and ‘ unconscioustaboos’ on animals the consumptionof whichwould actually improve resourceavailability, such as snails, locusts, etc.in agricultural North America. Likewise, many indirectbeneŽ t per- spectives cannoteasily explain tabooswhich focus on animals that are peripheralto the means ofproduction – why shouldagriculturalists such asthe Navajo,or pastoralists such as the Maasai,proscribe the consump- tionof Ž sh (Simoons1994), when the maintenance ofŽ sh populationsis irrelevantto the sustainabilityof agriculture or pastoralism? One indirectbeneŽ t hypothesisthat addresses some of the above featuresyet has been largely overlookedto date is Moore’ s (1983)pro- MEATISGOODTOTABOO 9 posalthat the inefŽciency ofculturally constructed diets is itselffunctional. Mooresuggests that, by artiŽ cially constrictingthe diet,taboos and cul- turalconstructions of edibility limit population growth during periods of abundance(cf. Rosenberg 1980), thereby keeping populationlevels below the ecologically-deŽned carrying capacity. As a result,during periods of scarcityan adequatesupply of resources continues to exist inthe formof normally-avoideditems. This argument can be extended toaccount for the prevalence ofmeat asa targetof taboos by recognizing meat’ s nutri- tionalvalue –proscribingsome animals may bea means ofmaintainingan emergency supplyof high-quality foodstuffs (cf. Evans-Pritchard 1940:70). AlthoughMoore’ s proposalmay accountfor puzzling cases such asthe Navajoand the Maasai,it is bedeviled by several problems. First,unless territoriesare wholly exclusive andtrade does not occur, the hypothesizedadvantages of dietary constriction disappear if longtime neighborsexploit the tabooedfoods. In the Africancase, relations between Žsh-eatingand Ž sh-avoidingsocieties are long-standing (Simoons 1994:263- 265).Second, restriction of group size is a liabilityif it makes the group vulnerable tohostile neighboring groups (Soltis et al.1995); history does notreveal ashiftinginteraction between smaller taboo-possessingsocieties andexpansionist taboo-free societies. Thequestion of history is central to weak versionsof indirect beneŽ t explanations.For example, Carnerio(1978) argues that Amazonian Indian tabooson large game originallyallowed for the continuationof settlements nearŽ sh-richlakes andrivers even aftergame wasdepleted due to hunting;later, as game populationsrebounded, the taboocontinued due to“ an inertiaof its own,” (1978:20; cf. Braukamper 1988-1989). The difŽculty with such arguments, however, is that they supposethat the forcesgenerating functionality operated only inthe distantpast – ifindirect beneŽt factorssufŽ ced to produce the taboooriginally, why have they failed toeliminate the proscriptionnow that it has becomeunnecessary or,even worse,costly?

DirectBeneŽ t Explanations ofFood Taboos In contrastto the ecologicalarguments typical of indirect beneŽ t posi- tions,direct beneŽ t functionalistexplanations generally stressthe health- promotingaspects of meat taboos. Most famous is the explanationof the 10 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

Hebrewpork taboo as a means ofavoiding trichinosis (reviewed in Dou- glas 1966;Simoons 1994). Taboos might also beneŽ t speciŽc portionsof the populationwhose special characteristics change the cost/beneŽt ratio ofmeat-eating. For example, Speth(1991) argues that taboos on meat- eatingby pregnant women protect this at-risk group from the hazardsof excessive proteinconsumption, while Rappaport (1967) argues that Tsem- bagataboos channel beneŽcial protein to individuals facing psychological stress. Several problemsplague direct beneŽ t explanationsof food taboos. First,it is not clear that the beneŽts outweigh the costs– ifpork consumptionis more harmful than helpful,why isit so common cross- culturally?Second, purported beneŽ ts mustexplain all relevant practices– ifTsembaga men facingpsychosocial stress beneŽ t byeating meat, why, duringthe periodthat they have privilegedaccess to pork, is marsupial meattaboo to them? Third,even ifbeneŽts outweighcosts, it is notobvious why thisratio should pervasively characterizerelations with animals but notplants. Fourth, as Whitehead (2000:78)notes regarding the Seltaman ofNew Guinea,people use common sense andavoid foods that are bad forthem. Accordingly, direct beneŽ ts may explain avoidance,but, except incases wherethe beneŽt isunrecognizableto participants,they donotby themselves explain taboos.

SymbolicExplanations of AnimalTaboos Eschewingquestions of utility, symbolic approaches attempt to explain food taboosin terms of the meaningsthat their targets hold for actors. From thisperspective, the centralityof animal products can be seen asstemming fromthe networkof ideational associations that surround animals, while the ubiquityof this pattern cross-culturally can be seen asa reection of the importanceof animalsin human thinking. Ashas longbeen discussedin anthropology, many taboosrevolve aroundissues of purity and pollution (Douglas 1966; Durkheim 1926; Frazer1927; Smith 1894). Emic explanations of foodtaboos thus often fall intotwo broad categories, objects which the actordeŽ les (the sacred),and objectswhich deŽ le the actor(the profane).Many potentialfood sources areproscribed because they areseen ashaving specialsupernatural powers, asoccupying a highposition in a cosmology,or both. Prototypical of this MEATISGOODTOTABOO 11 classare totemic entities. Consistent with the patternevident inthe larger classof taboos, totemic beliefs are dominated by ideas about animals. One plausibleexplanation for this pattern is that totemism revolves aroundnotions of a sharedessence associatedwith a speciŽc patternof attributes.Because animalsare animate, they possessa fargreater number ofattributes that are potentially relevant toactorsin asocialworld (cf. Lé vi- Strauss1963; Willis 1990).Likewise, by virtue of being animate, animals aremore likely thanplants to Žgureprominently in origin myths involving dynamicevents. Magicalthinking whereinthe consumeris thought to acquire the propertiesof the objectconsumed appears to be pervasive, and this may contributeto many beliefsabout food (Frazer 1927; Rozin 1999). As in totemism,animals may bea moreprominent target for taboos resulting frommagical thinking because, being animate, they have awiderrange of attributesfrom which parallels to human behavior and character can be drawn(cf. Johnson & Baksh 1987:401-402;Schieffelin 1990:67-68; Valeri 2000:162).However, both the totemicexplanation and the sympathetic magicexplanation, while doubtlessly capturing a portionof all taboos, arenonetheless insufŽcient to account for the pervasive centralityof animalproducts in food taboos since many prohibitionsdo not overtly involve eithertotemic or sympatheticmagical reasoning (cf. Valeri 2000:95- 96). Aprominentclass of symbolicexplanations of food taboos emphasizes the categoricalambiguity of the targetsubstance. For example, Douglas (1966)argues that the Hebrewproscription on pork revolves aroundthe factthat, while pigs have cloven hoofslike ungulates,they donot chew theircud. Likewise, amphibians are at once aquatic and terrestrial, while waterfowl both  yanddive, and hence these creaturesare proscribed (cf. Radcliff-Brown1922). In asimilarvein, Leach(1964) proposes that taboos focuson entities classed at the peripheryof categories, the antitheses of prototypicality.By virtueof their branching phylogenetic trees andensuing patternsof similarity, species lend themselves tosystems ofcategorization basedon prototyperesemblance (cf. Mervis &Rosch1981). Leach suggests thatspecies that are poor exemplars oftheir category arouse a negative responsein observers. This response can result in ‘ unconscioustabooing,’ classiŽcation of certain species as ‘ notfood,’ or it can set the stagefor 12 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE symbolicelaboration and justiŽ cation that culminates in taboo formation. Tambiah(1969), following Leach, draws attention to the importanceof the human/animaldivide in taboo generation, and the roleof place inconceptualizing animals (see alsoBulmer 1967). Animals that live in closeassociation with humans are often identiŽ ed with humans such that eatingthem becomeslinked toeither cannibalism or animality, or both (Fiddes1991:132-143; cf. Whitehead 2000:111;but compare with Powers &Powers1986). Viewed in terms of prototypicality,such animals occupy a marginalspace, for they have been drawnby theirassociation with humans awayfrom the deŽning features of animals, namely that,as evidenced by theiramoral behavior, animals are the antithesisof humans. Sperber(1996b) argues that, because prototypicality plays an important rolein human categorical reasoning, anomalous animals are intrinsically intriguing.As a consequence,anomalous animals invite symbolicloading, andsuch ideas are likely tospread due to theirability to grabpeople’ s at- tention.It is plausiblethat a fascinationwith prototype-violating exceptions underliesthose aspects of food taboos identiŽ ed by Douglas,Leach, Tam- biah,and others. However, simply being fascinated by something does not inherently leadone to conclude that the objectis dangerous and must be avoided,or that it issacredand must not be eaten. Accordingly,although prototype-violationmay sometimesexplain why someideas about animals spreadand persist while others do not, it does not explain why these ideas shouldtake the formof taboos. Moreover, it is not clear that questions of prototypicalityand its violation fully explain the specialsalience ofanimals. Granted,by virtue of being animate, animals may exhibita widerrange ofsalient criteriathat facilitate categorization, and this may then leadto alargernumber of categorically ambiguous cases, and hence (via unspec- iŽed processes) to a largernumber of animal product taboos. However, asValeri (2000:74-83) points out in criticizing Douglas, the classiŽcatory criteriaby which anomalous animals are deŽ ned are highly variable,and aresometimes inconsistent within a given culture.If  exibility iseasily ex- ercised,it is no longer clear that the taxonomicaffordances of vertebrates canaccount for animals’ greater centrality. Moreover, the classiŽcatory perspectivealone cannotexplain why peopleseem largely obliviousto cat- egoricalambiguities in the plantdomain. Is atomatoa fruit?Is apeanut alegume? These arenot issues that have led totraditionsthat cause actors MEATISGOODTOTABOO 13 torecoil in revulsion at the prospectof eating a plantfood, yet they are noless logicallyproblematic than the factthat pigs have cloven hooves butdo not chew their cud. Likewise, the much-heralded‘ matter-out-of- place’issue is of little concernin the case ofplants – mostedible plants growon land, yet, despitegrowing in water, rice and water cress are not tabooedas dangerous and disgustingly impure substances, nor are they deŽned as outside the domainof foods.Similarly, in the West peoplecom- monly growherbs in potsin the kitchen, yet herbsare not then associated withthe ‘human/house’domain such that it would be unthinkable to eat them. Itis clear that symbolic processes underlie the webof meaning within whichexplicit food taboos exist, andthat the meaningof an object importantlyshapes individuals’ reactions to the prospectof eating it (cf. Rozin1999; Whitehead 2000).However, while many featuresof animals lend themselves tosymbolism, the aboveobjections indicate that, like functionalistapproaches, purely symbolic perspectives are ultimately unable toaccount for the pervasive centralityof meat in proscriptions.

EticPsychologies andthe Investigation of Taboos

Taboos,like otherelements ofculture, constitute information that is cre- ated,transmitted, and held byhumanminds (Aunger 2002). When similar ideasoccur in markedly disparatecultures it is likely thatthese ideasare a productof either 1) featuresof panhumanpsychology, 2) recurrentfeatures ofthe environment,or 3) the interactionof (1) and (2). Accordingly, any attemptto explain pervasive featuresof taboos must be groundedin an un- derstandingof the workingsof the humanmind and its relationship with the physicalworld. Functionalist approaches to taboos essentially ignore humanpsychology. The functionalistportrait is one in which useful prac- ticescome to predominate through poorly-speciŽ ed processes of cultural evolution– little orno attention is paid to the processeswhereby ideas arecreated, promulgated, and perpetuated by individual actors. Symbolic approaches,though premised on psychological assumptions, typically fail toprovide any explanationlinking individualexperience andshared belief. Itis assumed, for example, thathumans employ categorical prototypes, andthat violations of prototypes attract our attention, but no explanation isprovided as towhy actorswork to prevent othersfrom consuming foods 14 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE markedby such salience. Traditionalsymbolic approaches are based on aportraitof human psychology that operates in a socialvacuum. More compellingare applications of symbolic perspectives which explore how meaningsshape emotional experience andensuing behavior (e.g., how meatbecomes disgusting for proselytizing vegetarians – Rozinet al.1997; see alsoWhitehead 2000).However, such approaches still failto fully ac- countfor the processeswhereby individuals generate, acquire, and perpet- uatethose meanings. A theoretically-groundedmodel of the humanmind isneeded, one that includes an explanationof the forcesunderlying the creationand enforcement of proscriptions. Despiteanthropology’ s long-standinginterest in human evolution, to the extent thatanthropologists have attendedto the structureof the human mind,they have largely failedto ask why any particularfeatures of mind shouldexist, orhow they couldhave evolved. In contrast,the growing Želd ofevolutionary psychology analyzes the mindin light of the adaptive challenges thatconfronted our ancestors. In the sectionsthat follow we describea numberof likely avenues fortaboo genesis; ineach case,we seek toground our description in evolutionarily plausible explanations of humanpsychology.

SomeProcesses Whereby TaboosMay Arise, Persist, and Spread Normative Moralization In responseto acommonenvironment, a sharedpredisposition often leads topatterned behavior across members of a group.Observers may then notethe prevailingpattern and imbue it withrectitude, a processwe term normative moralization. Motivatedby moralsentiments, actors then proscribe violationsof the pattern.For example, right-handednesspredominates in all populationsand, in disparate cultures, the righthand is associated with purity,politeness, etc., while antithetical associations attend the left hand (Corballis1980). The humanpropensity to attribute moral weight to prevailing patterns ofbehavior is explicable withreference tothe beneŽts to be reaped by in- clusionin cooperative ventures. Complex human cooperation is predicated onadherence to shared standards for behavior. Once suchcooperation evolved, ittherefore became important to both identify and conform to MEATISGOODTOTABOO 15 many sharedstandards, since conformity across domains advertises the ac- tor’s predictability,thus increasing the likelihoodof recruitmentto coopera- tive ventures (Fessler 1999).Cooperation can only evolve when free-riding noncooperatorsare punished. However, because in icting punishment is costly,actors are tempted to let othersbear such costs, with the result thatpunishment fails to occur, leading to the collapseof cooperation.This situationis precluded by third-order punishment, i.e., punishing individ- ualswho fail to punish noncooperators (Boyd & Richerson1992). Once punishmentfor noncooperation exists, knowingthe natureof shared stan- dardsis doubly important, since this allows the individualto both reap the beneŽts of cooperation and avoid being punished; moreover, once third-orderpunishment exists, assigningmoral weight to standards is of increasedimportance, since this leads the individualto negatively sanction nonconformists,thereby avoidingthird-order punishment. Because many standardsare tacit, ancestral individuals who were predisposed to both attendto prevailing patterns of behavior and moralize them wouldhave hadan advantage,as they wouldhave bothreadily inferred the nature ofstandards and readily punished nonconformists. We thereforepropose thatall humanspossess a propensityfor normative moralization and at- tendantsanctioning behaviors. We thusexpect normativemoralization to have playeda rolein the genesis ofany taboosthat re ect spontaneously- occurringpatterns of behavior (cf. Bateson 1983).

EgocentricEmpathy

Asecondprocess that may contributeto taboo formation concerns the evocative powerof others’ behavior. Witnessing another’s actionsand imaginingoneself inthe other’s positioncan lead to two types ofsubjective response.In trueempathy, the observervicariously experiences the state ofthe observedother. In contrast,in what we term egocentricempathy, individualsexperience others’ behavior asif it were their own, yet ignore others’subjective states, relying ontheir own dispositions instead. For example, adultsexperience disgustwhen watchinga toddlerconsume his ownfeces even thoughthe childdisplays no signs of revulsion. A clueto the possibleevolutionary origins of egocentric empathy lies inthe observation thatdisgust and fear seem tobe the principalemotions associated with it (forexample, tryto generate ascenarioin whichyou would egocentrically 16 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE empathicallyexperience happiness).Disgust and fear relate tothe prospect ofharm. In ancestralenvironments individuals who placed themselves at riskoften endangered those around them –contractingdisease or attracting predatorsthreatens notmerely the actor,but the actor’s neighborsas well. The capacityto egocentrically empathically experience disgustand fear may thereforehave been advantageousin that it led individualsto either distancethemselves fromothers engaging in potentially dangerous actions orseek toprevent suchactions from occurring. If, as we suggest, this propensityis panhuman,then itisonly asmall stepto institutionalization – when asigniŽcant fraction of a groupexperiences the same aversive responseto a given action,egocentric empathy cancontribute to the formationof taboos, as observersseek toprohibit actors from doing things thatcause the observerspain (cf. Westermarck 1906:116-117).

SociallyMediated Ingestive Conditioning

One ofthe keys toour species’ success is omnivory, as dietary  exibility has allowedus toexploit widely varying habitats.However, omnivory also carriesthe liabilityof exposing the organismto a widerrange of toxins than istrue of more restricted diets (Rozin 1976). Apparently in response tothis dilemma, omnivores rely uponsocial information in responding to novel foods(Strum 1983; Visalberghi et al.1998), as attention to adverse reactionsby conspeciŽ cs allows the individualto identify toxic substances withoutpaying the costsassociated with ingestion. Social transmission of dietaryavoidances has been documentedin a numberof omnivorous species(Hikami et al.1990; Mason et al.1984; but see alsoGalef et al. 1990). Many creatures,including humans, possess the abilityto rapidly learn toavoid substances that induce nausea (Bernstein 1999).Humans oftenexperience nauseaand disgust when witnessinganother’ s vomiting. While the abilityto manipulate both a theoryof mind and symbolic representationsdoubtlessly affects our reactions in such circumstances, the nonhumandata suggest that, beneath these complexapparati, we likely sharewith other omnivores a mechanismwhereby vicarious learning oftoxicity takes place.By making the sightof toxicosis nauseogenic, naturalselection has bootstrappedan existing mechanismto serve a newpurpose. We referto the vicariousacquisition of food aversions MEATISGOODTOTABOO 17 as sociallymediated ingestive conditioning. Because the experiences ofa few actorscan be observed by a largeaudience, a fewcases oftoxicosis can contributeto the generationof widespread avoidances. In humans,such widespreadavoidances can function as precursors to food taboos since, oncean avoidanceis common,both normative moralization and egocentric empathy may comeinto play, i.e., widespread avoidances may beimbued withmoral rectitude, and actors may seek toprohibit actions that they Žnd aversive.

Biased Transmission, DirectObservation, and Self-Serving Manipulation Sociallymediated ingestive conditioningallows individuals to exploit the experiences ofothers.While humansapparently share this domain-speciŽ c mechanismwith many species,we are unique in the extent towhich we rely onconspeciŽ cs as a sourceof information.Moreover, the fooddomain isonein whichcultural transmission can be expected tobe particularly im- portantgiven the highcosts of erroneous selections during individual ex- perimentation(Aunger 2002). However, this reliance is notunproblematic since,in a worldof heterogeneoussocial actors, the individualmust decide whichrole model to imitate. 3 Boydand Richerson (1985) have shownthat twostrategies allow individuals to choose effectively froma smorgasboard ofimitatable social models. First, because locally successfulbehaviors of- ten persistwhile unsuccessful behaviors often disappear, actions that are commonin the localpopulation frequently possess high adaptive value. Accordingly,one useful strategy is ‘ When inRome, do as the Romans do.’The uniquelyhuman emotions shame and pride motivatean aware- ness of,and a conformityto, prevailing patterns of behavior(Fessler 1999), thereby actualizingwhat Boyd and Richerson term conformisttransmission. Second,because, for the majorityof our species’ history, social position wasachieved ratherthan ascribed, in ancestral populations prestige was oftenan accurateindex ofthe utilityof a given actor’s behaviors.In such circumstancesan effective strategyis prestige-biased transmission, imitatingthe

3Aunger(2002) recently demonstratedthat, in onesociety, an actor’s adherence to speciŽc foodtaboos is explicable primarily in terms ofthe individual’s socialroles, i.e., individualsimitate those whom they viewas possessing a similarculturally constructed identity. 18 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE beliefsand practices of high-status individuals (typically ofthe same gen- deras, and sometimes of similar age to,the imitator). Admiration forms the coreof a clusterof attitudes and motivational states crafted by natural selectionthat underlie this pattern of information acquisition (Henrich & Gil-White 2001).Hence, ifa criticalmass of individuals avoids a given fooditem or (later inthe process)subscribes to a proscription,individual experiences ofshame andpride may enhance the spreadand perpetuation ofthis behavior (see Whitehead 2000for examples). Likewise,if high-status individualsavoid a fooditem or subscribe to the taboo,the same results may beproduced via experiences ofadmiration (see Aunger2000; Kelly 1993;Whitehead 2000). In additionto our dependence on socially transmitted information, humansseek outcausal relationships between events. Associatedwith this propensityis a tendency toclassify,particularly in the socialworld. Accord- ingly, witnessinganother’ s nauseaand vomiting following the consumption ofa particularfood item is likely tooften lead people to conclude that a) the given individualshould not consume the given item,and b) people similarto the given individualshould not consume the given item.For example, anumberof foodtaboos associated with pregnancy are emically justiŽed with reference tothe vomitingthat follows ingestion during preg- nancy (see Fessler 2002).Finally, patriarchyand other power disparities probablyinteract with direct observation, as arbiters of tradition are more likely toseize onobservationsthat, when generalized,lead to proscriptions thatbeneŽ t them atothers’expense.

Experience-Distant Versus Experience-Near inEmic and Etic Accounts We believe thatemotions hold the key tounderstanding taboos. Simoons (1994:299)cites disparate ethnographic and historical examples inclaiming that,while violations of plant food taboos may leadto loss of status, powerfulfeelings ofrevulsion accompany violations of animal food taboos (cf.Whitehead 2000:107).Functionalist explanations offer no reason why actorsshould associate particular emotions with food taboos. Symbolic explanationsare no more experience-near, since emic accounts often failto foreground the reasoningprocesses that symbolists claim underlie taboos.For example, when Moslem Bengkulu informantsare asked why MEATISGOODTOTABOO 19 they avoidpork, they Žrststate that it is forbidden, then remarkon the repugnanteating habits of the animal(Ž rst author’ s Želd notes). 4 Like the ancientGreeks (Simoons1994:310), they respondlikewise withregard to dog,as do Seltaman (Whitehead 2000:89)and Matsigenka (Johnson& Baksh 1987)informants. Hindus (Simoons 1994:150-151) and Matsigenka (Johnson& Baksh 1987:402)have the same responseregarding chickens, as doKaŽrs and Tibetans (Simoons 1994:280, 289) regarding Ž sh.In general, itappears that informants’ initial explanations as to why someanimal is noteaten isoftensimply “ It’s disgusting!”The underlyinglogics discovered bysymbolists may infact exist, andsome informants may beable to articulatesome portion thereof. However, these conceptsseem unlikely to beforemostin informants’ minds when reactingto the prospectof eatinga tabooedor avoided food (see alsoWhitehead 2000:94;cf. Bulmer 1967:21). Matterout of placeor categoricalanomalies may well betiedto contagion ideationand disgust reactions, but, contrary to prevailing perspectives, it is notclear that the formercauses, oreven precedes, the latter .Toexplain the link betweendisgust and the centralityof meatin food taboos, we returnto the premisethat each featureof the humanmind is a responseto anadaptive challenge facedby ourancestors.

AnEvolutionary Psychological Explanation of theSpecial Salienceof Meat Meat is Dangerous Asa class,animal food products pose unique threats. Animals harbor a widerange of bacteria and protozoans, either as parasitized hosts or as symbionts(cf. Schantz & McAuley 1991).Because all animaltissues share acommonbiochemical makeup, organisms that exploit features of one species’tissue are often able to do likewise withthe tissueof another species.Furthermore, when an animaldies, its immune defenses diewith it,allowing for the proliferationof pathogens, whether they arepresent in the animalat death or simply ubiquitous in the environment.Granted, meat isnot the only ingestiblesource of danger in the environment,

4Thisexplanation of the Hebrew porktaboo is ancient (seeSimoons 1994:65-66); althoughDouglas (1966) initially rejected this argument, she later concededthat the pig’s dietwas a contributingfactor (Douglas1975:272). 20 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE asmany plantsare poisonous. However, many hazardousplants have highly detectableproperties (Hladik & Simmen1996). This is likely not accidental,as most plant toxins are secondary compounds produced to prevent ordiscourage consumption by vertebrates and insects, hence naturalselection has favoredthe useof clear signals of toxicity that warn potentialconsumers. In contrast,in the case ofpathogens, depending uponthe modeof transmission, natural selection is either neutral with regardto detectability or else favorscrypsis. Although bacteria produce detectableodors when proliferatingon meat, detection is generally not possiblewith regard to pathogens (particularly protozoa) present at death. Lastly,although cooking meat can greatly reducethe riskof pathogen transmission,this is only truewhen meatis cooked thoroughly and handsand implements are disinfected prior to consumption. For most ofhuman history, neither criterionis likely tohave been consistently met,hence cookingwill not have eliminatedthe dangersof meat eating. Animalfoods have thusposed a distinctrisk of pathogen transmission. In the evolutionof nonhuman and human alike, thisrisk appears to have selected forpsychological mechanisms generating particular caution toward meat.

Meat as aStimulus in NonhumanAnimals In rhesusmacaques, a speciesthat generally doesnot eat meat,experimen- tallesions of the amygdalalead to increases in exploration, coprophagia, andmeat-eating, suggesting that all three behaviorsare normally restricted byan inhibitingmechanism that has been destroyed(Aggleton and Passing- ham1981). In the domesticcat, a carnivore,stimulation of the amygdala resultsin strong aversions to meat, in contrast to more muted reductions inmilk andcereal consumption(Lewinska 1968).Protein deprivation in rhesusmacaques leads to increased consumption of many otherwiseun- palatablefoods, yet, despiteits high protein content, consumption of meat remainsdepressed relative tomost foods (Hill &Riopelle 1975).Common chimpanzees,white-faced capuchins, and baboons are all avidhunters yet, withfew exceptions, none ofthese animalsscavenge, apparentlyview- ingfound carcasses as largely inedible(S. Perry,personal communication; Muller et al.1995; Stanford 1999:121; Strum 1983). Although olive ba- boonsreadily consume novel vegetable foods,meat consumption, partic- MEATISGOODTOTABOO 21 ularlyof novel preyspecies, is highly dependenton social cues (Strum 1983)– indeed,even domesticcats may displayneophobia towards raw meat(Bradshaw et al.2000). Lastly, rats develop conditioned aversions morereadily to high-proteinfoods than to high-carbohydrate foods (Bern- stein et al.1984). Meat isthus treated in a uniquelycircumspect manner bymany nonhumanspecies.

Meat as aStimulus in Humans Like olive baboons,Western experimental subjectsare more likely toreject novel foodsof animal origin than other novel foods(Pliner & Pelchat 1991).Persuasive arguments can overcome such neophobia with regard toother food types, but have noeffect with regard to foods of animal origin(Martins et al.1997). Simoons, who suggests that neophobia may lie behindmany tabooson meat, cites examples ofneophobia towards foodsof animal origin among the GuianaIndians, Carib Indians, and ancientAssyrians (1994:305-307). In NorthAmerican, Japanese, Dutch, andSumatran subjects (Angyal 1941;Fallon &Rozin1983; J. Haidt, personalcommunication; Rozin & Fallon 1980;Ž rstauthor’ s Želd notes), animalproducts are prototypical elicitors of disgust. Asin the rat,meat has specialsalience asa targetof conditioned aversionsin humans.Mattes (1991),Rodin and Radke-Sharpe (1991), and Logue(cited in Midkiffand Bernstein 1985)report that, in NorthAmerican samples,meat accounts for more than 1/3ofall acquiredaversions, triplethe proportionof any othercategory. Midkiff and Bernstein (1985) obtaineda similarresult, then comparedthe salience ofeach foodtype withits frequency in subjects’ diets, Ž ndingthat meat is signiŽ cantly over-representedas a targetof aversions. Data provided by de Silva and Rachman(1987) indicate that animal protein constitutes 29% of acquired aversionsamong Londoners, while Fessler andArguello (n.d.) found that, at26% of aversions, meat andrelated animal products were the most commontarget among Californian students. Flaxman andSherman (2000) conducteda meta-analysis of20 studiesof foodaversions developed during pregnancy.Sampling 5,432 women across both Western andnon-Western societies,they foundthat meat is the single mostprominent target of aversions,being nearly asfrequent as all othertargeted foods combined (see alsoFessler 2002).Meat issimilarly central in aversionsresulting from 22 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE nauseaand/ orvomiting induced by medical procedures: Among clinically obesepatients who undergo gastric bypass surgery, meat is the principal targetof aversions (Burge et al.1995), and meat is likewise prominentin conditionedaversions stemming from chemotherapy (Boakes et al.1993).

TheInterplay of Evolved Predispositions TowardMeat and Processes ofTaboo Formation Thereis substantial evidence that,like otheromnivores, humans possess a psychologicalmechanism that heightens the salience ofmeatas a targetfor disgustand conditioned aversions. In lightof this, how well dothe taboo- generatingprocesses discussed earlier account for the existence oftaboos onmeat? First,although normative moralization probably plays acentral rolein the genesis ofmany proscriptions,it is unlikely toaccount for the originsof taboos on the consumptionof particularanimals. While evolved mechanismsappear to predispose individuals to caution and aversion learningin response to meat, at the same time,meat is of enormous importanceto Homosapiens .Paleoanthropologicaland morphological data supportthe conclusionthat meat has constituteda signiŽcant part of the dietof our species since its inception. Although portions of some societiestoday are vegetarian, all available evidence indicatesthat meat wasa criticalpart of the dietof every memberof our species prior tothe advent ofagriculture (Cordain et al.2000; Mann 2000),and, whileagriculture may have diminishedthe importanceof meat, it has noteliminated it. Correspondingly, as noted, in most societies meat is valuedvery highly. Hence, whilehumans are cautious about novel animal foodsand quick to develop aversions to meat, they arealso generally attractedto meatconsumption. Accordingly, while a given individualmay, asa resultof idiosyncratic experiences, avoida particulartype ofmeat, it isunlikely thata signiŽcant proportion of that individual’ s groupwould spontaneouslyavoid exactly the same type ofmeat, hence normative moralizationis probably not the Žrststep in the processof meat taboo genesis. Similarly,egocentric empathy alone cannotexplain the originsof foodtaboos on particular animals – given thathumans are both attracted toand potentially repulsed by meat, there isno reason to suppose that a signiŽcant number of individuals in a groupwould experience anegative reactionupon seeing someoneeat agiven type ofanimal. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 23

In contrastto normativemoralization and egocentric empathy, socially mediatedingestive conditioningdovetails well withthe specialsalience ofmeat: Because poisonedindividuals and witnesses share a common propensityto learn aversive associationswith meat, avoidance of meat ismore likely tooccur, and more likely tospread, than is avoidance ofother foods. Once apatternof meat avoidance is common in a population,normative moralization may leadmany individualsto seek toinstitutionalize the avoidance,justifying their perspective through the creationof cosmologicalor otherexplanatory schemas. Egocentric empathy may likewise leadto institutionalization,as individuals may seek toprevent othersfrom engaging in behaviors that elicit an aversive responsein themselves. In turn,socially mediated ingestive conditioningmay then contributeto the spreadand perpetuation of taboos and avoidances, as observersmay acquirethe responsesof those who are nauseated at the prospectof violating the tabooor eating something that ‘ isnot food.’ Conformisttransmission and prestige-biased transmission are both congruentwith the specialsalience ofmeat, as the lattercan provide an initialbias in the targetsof avoidances, thus increasing the likelihoodthat taboosthat ultimately result from these processeswill focus on meat. 5 Likewise,direct observation may augmentother processes in generating taboosand, given botha) the hazardsentailed by meat-eating, and b) the specialsalience (forboth sufferer and observer) of meat asastimulus,there arelikely tobe plenty ofopportunities to observe negative reactionsand outcomesin association with meat. Finally, self-serving behavioron the partof the arbitersof culture can further reinforce the salience ofmeat as atargetof proscriptions since, being a highly valuedfood, the arbitersof cultureare more likely toerect taboos that allow them tomonopolize meat than they areto do the same withregard to other foodstuffs (O’ Laughlin 1974).

5Whilethe specialsalience of meatmakes it likely that many prestige-basedavoidances willfocus on animals, compared to the other processesdiscussed, prestige-biased transmis- sionpotentially introduces greater cross-populationheterogeneity in the targetof taboos. Thisis because the number ofindividuals contributing to the content oftaboos is smaller, andhence idiosyncraticinclinations achieve greater prominence dueto an incomplete samplingof the population(R. Boyd, personal communication). 24 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

Emotionand the Direction of Causality in the Generation of Beliefs

While bothfunctionalists and symbolists suppose that emotions are re- cruitedby cultural traditions, we propose that emotions, the productsof evolved psychologicalmechanisms, often both precede cultural traditions andimportantly shape them. A growingmovement views complexpropo- sitionalreasoning as frequently the consequence,rather than the cause, ofemotional responses to the world(cf. Damasio 1994; Haidt 2001; also Cosmides& Tooby2000; Greene et al.2001). Highly intelligent, symbol- relianthumans are capable of, and inclined towards, the generationof elaboratecosmologies and intricate chains of explanation. While weagree thatmuch understanding can be gained from the explicationof these schemas,investigators would do well topause before assuming that such culturalrationales are the principalfactor motivating the generation,ac- quisition,and perpetuation of attitudes and behaviors – they areas likely, ifnot more likely, tobe justiŽ cations rather than causes. Likewise, while evolved predispositionsmay sometimeslead to culturalpractices with con- siderableutility, many culturalpractices may arise,spread, and persist not becausethey beneŽt the holdersor their groups, but because they elicit orare congruent with intuitions generated by panhuman features of mind. Hence, toreŽ ne oneof the symbolists’under-speciŽ ed explanations, some ideas are ‘goodto think’ precisely because they interdigitate well with evolved psycholog- ical mechanisms, the outputsof which are oftenexperienced as emotions, and it is this that accountsfor the widespread distribution ofa small number ofconcepts across dis- parate cultures (cf.Boyer 2000;Sperber 1996a; compare with Barkow 1989; Tooby& Cosmides1992). 6 Thus,because all humanspossess evolved psy- chologicalmechanisms that predispose them toview meat as potentially disgusting,taboos and avoidance practices that focus on animals are not

6Theoristswho conceptualize socially-transmitted information as gene-like ‘ memes’ (e.g.,Brodie 1996; Blackmore 1999)have noted that ideasconcerning food,sex, and powerare likely to spread because they elicitattention by activating evolved psychological mechanisms.However, such observations are too broad to be analytically useful – evolved psychologicalmechanisms dealnot with generaldomains, but with speciŽc inputsand outputs(Tooby & Cosmides1992), and it is these which mustbe speciŽ ed if we are to understandthe relativefrequency ofdifferent ideas. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 25 only morelikely toarise, they arealso more likely tobe maintained, and to diffuse.

Conclusion AsRadcliff-Brown(1922) notes in describing the beliefsof the AndamanIs- landers,eating is apotentiallydangerous activity. From an eticperspective, acrosspopulations, some categories of ingestibles have consistentlyconsti- tutedmore signiŽ cant threats than others.Natural selection, exquisitely sensitive tosuch differences, has equippedhumans with an intrinsicam- bivalence towardsmeat, privileging it asthe targetof acquired conditioned aversions.Processes of socially-mediated ingestive conditioning,evident in nonhumananimals, correspond with human aversive responsesto others’ nausea.Together, these patternssuggest that, for many taboos,disgust wasthe sparkthat initiated a cascadephenomenon in which normative moralizationand egocentric empathy then playedlater roles. In addition, animals’animate nature makes them an attractivesource of symbols and afocusof sympathetic magical reasoning, providing additional starting pointsfor the same processes.These variousroutes of taboo formation createopportunities for the exercisingof other propensities, including  ex- ibleattention to both categorical ambiguity and causal relationships (cf. Laderman1981); taboo delineation also provides an avenue forthe ex- erciseof power by self-interested parties. In turn,the resultingpractices andbeliefs are subject to cultural evolution. The survivaland spread of ideasare fundamentally shaped by the degreeto which they arecongruent withpropensities shared by prospectiveadherents, including a readinessto acceptthat speciŽ ed animal products are disgusting. Itis likely thatprocesses similar to those described above apply in many domains.Valeri notes that taboos seem “toconcernpreponderantly the bodyin its exchanges withother bodies (through eating, reproduction, bleeding,excreting, decomposing) and to deŽ ne certainbasic social rules involved inthose bodily exchanges orsymbolized by them” (2000:48). These areprecisely the Želds inwhich we Ž ndthe stimulimost likely to elicitdisgust (Fallon &Rozin1983; Curtis & Biran2001), a constellation thatis unlikely tobe accidental given the riskof microbial contamination thatsuch objects and relations have posedthroughout human history (Curtis& Biran2001). We thereforeconclude that the type ofexplication 26 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE employedhere may usefully contributeto the understandingof avariety of taboos.More generally, wesuggest that anthropologists would do well toconsider the contributionof evolved psychologicalmechanisms and predispositionsto the generation,perpetuation, and diffusion of a wide rangeof cultural beliefs and practices (cf. Whitehead 2000:6-10;Barkow 1989).

REFERENCES

ABRAMS JR, H.L. 1987The preference foranimal protein and fat: A cross-cultural survey.In M.Harris &E.B.Ross (eds.), Food andEvolution: Towarda Theory of HumanFood Habits , pp.207-223. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. AGGLETON, J.P. & PASSINGHAM, R.E. 1981Syndrome producedby lesions of the amygdalain monkeys(Macaca mulatta). Journal of Comparative& Physiological Psychology 95(6):961-77. ALVARD, M.S. 1995IntraspeciŽ c prey choiceby Amazon hunters. Current Anthropology 36(5): 789- 818. ANG YAL, A. 1941Disgust and related aversions. Journal of Abnormal& Social Psychology 36: 393- 412. AUNGER, R. 2000The lifehistory ofculture learning in aface-to-facesociety. Ethos 28(2):1-38. 2002Exposure versus susceptibility in the epidemiologyof “ everyday”beliefs. Journal of Cognition andCulture 2(2):113-154. BARER-STEIN, T. 1999 You EatWhat You Are:People, Culture andFood Traditions .Buffalo,NY: Firey. BAR KOW, J.H. 1989 Darwin, Sex,and Status: Biological Approachesto Mindand Culture .Toronto:University ofToronto Press. BATESON, P.P.G. 1983Rules for changing the rules.In D.S.Bendall (ed.), Evolution fromMolecules to Men, pp.483-507. New York:Cambridge University Press. BERNSTEIN, I.L. 1999Taste aversion learning: a contemporary perspective. Nutrition 15(3):229-34. BERNSTEIN, I.L., GOEHLER , L.E. & FENNER, D.P. 1984Learned aversions to proteins in rats ona dietaryself-selection regimen. BehavioralNeuroscience 98(6):1065-1072. BLACK MORE, S.J. 1999 TheMeme Machine .New York:Oxford University Press. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 27

BOAKES, R.A., TARRIER, N., BARNES, B.W. & TAT TERSALL M.H. 1993Prevalence ofanticipatory nausea and other side-effectsin cancer patients receivingchemotherapy. European Journal of Cancer 6: 866-70. BOYD, R. & RICHERSON, P.J. 1985 Culture andthe Evolutionary Process .Chicago:University ofChicago Press. (In press)Solving the puzzleof human cooperation.In S.Levinson(ed.), Evolution and Culture.CambridgeMA: MITPress. BOYER, P. 2000Evolutionary psychology and cultural transmission. AmericanBehavioral Scientist 43(6):987-1000. BRADSHAW , J.W.S., HEALEY, L.M., THORNE, C.J., MACDONALD , D.W. & ARDEN- CLAR K,C. 2000Differences in foodpreferences betweenindividuals and populations of domestic cats Felis silvestris catus. AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 68(3):257-268. BRAUKAMP ER, U. 1988-1989The Islamicizationof the Arssi-Oromo.In T.Beyene (ed.), Proceedings of theEighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, University of AddisAbaba, 1984 , pp.767-777. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies. BRODIE, R. 1996 Virus of theMind: The New Science of theMeme .Seattle:Integral Press. BROWN, D.E. 1991 HumanUniversals .New York:McGraw-Hill. BULMER, R. 1967Why isthe cassowarynot abird? Aproblemof zoological taxonomy among the Karam ofthe New GuineaHighlands. Man 2(n.s.)(1):5-25. BURGE, J.C., SCHAUMBURG, J.Z., CHOBAN, P.S., DISILVESTRO, R.A. & FLANC - BAUM, L. 1995Changes in patients’taste acuity after Roux-en-Y gastricbypass for clinically severeobesity. Journal of theAmerican Dietetic Association 95(6):666-70. CAR NEIRO, R.L. 1978Comment onRoss’ ‘Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy.’ Current Anthropology 19(1):19-20. COLDING, J. 1998Analysis of hunting optionsby the useof generalfood taboos. Ecological Modelling 110(1SI):5-17. COLDING, J. & FOLKE, C. 1997The relationsamong threatened species,their protection,and taboos. Conservation Ecology (online) 1(1): 6. CORBALLI S, M.C. 1980Laterality and myth. AmericanPsychologist 35(3):284-295. CORDAIN, L., MILLER, J.B., EATON, S.B., MANN , N., HOLT, S.H. & SPETH, J.D. 2000Plant-animal subsistenceratios and macronutrient energy estimationsin world- widehunter-gatherer diets. AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition 71(3):682-92. 28 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

COSMIDES, L. & TOOBY, J. 2000Evolutionary psychology and the emotions.In M.Lewisand J.M. Haviland- Jones(eds.), Handbookof Emotions, 2ndEdition ,pp.91-115. New York:Guilford. CUR TIS, V. & BIRAN, A. 2001Dirt, disgust,and disease: Is hygiene in ourgenes? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44(1):17-31. DAMASIO, A.R. 1994 Descartes’Error: Emotion, Reason, andthe Human Brain .New York:Putnam. DE SILVA, P. & RACHMAN , S. 1987Human foodaversions: Nature andacquisition. BehaviourResearch & Therapy 25(6):457-468. DOUGLAS, M. 1966 Purity andDanger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution andTaboo .London:Routledge & K. Paul. 1975 Implicit Meanings:Essays in Anthropology .Boston:Routledge & Paul. DURKHEIM, E. 1926 TheElementary Forms of theReligious Life ,J.W.Swain (trans.). New York:Macmil- lan. EVANS-PRITCHARD, E.E. 1940 TheNuer: ADescription of theModes of Livelihood andPolitical Institutions of aNilotic People.Oxford:Clarendon Press. FALLO N, A.E. & ROZIN, P. 1983The psychologicalbases of food rejections by humans. Ecology of food andnutrition 13: 15-26. FESSLE R, D.M.T. 1999Toward an understandingof the universalityof second order emotions.In A.L.Hinton (ed.), Biocultural Approachesto theEmotions ,pp.75-116. New York, NY,US: CambridgeUniversity Press. 2002Reproductive immunosuppression and diet: An evolutionaryperspective on pregnancy sicknessand meat consumption. Current Anthropology 43(1):19-39. FESSLE R, D.M.T. & ARGUELLO, A.P. (n.d.)Motion sickness susceptibility and conditioned food aversions: A testof Treis- man’s poison-responsetheory ofmotion sickness. Unpublished manuscript. FIDDES, N. 1991 Meat,a Natural Symbol .New York:Routledge. FLAXMAN, S.M. & SHERMAN, P.W. 2000Morning sickness: A mechanism forprotecting mother andembryo. Quarterly Reviewof Biology 75(2):113-48. FOX, J. 1997 AppliedRegression Analysis, LinearModels, andRelated Methods .ThousandOaks, CA: SagePublications. FRAZER, J.G. 1927 TheGolden Bough: AStudy in Magicand Religion .New York:The MacmillanCo. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 29

GALEF, B.G., MCQUOID, L.M. & WHISKIN, E.E. 1990Further evidencethat Norwayrats donot sociallytransmit learnedaversions to toxicbaits. AnimalLearning & Behavior 18(2):199-205. GREENE, J.D., SOMMERVILLE, R.B., NYSTROM, L.E., DARLEY, J.M. & COHEN, J.D. 2001An fMRIinvestigation of emotionalengagement in moral judgment. Science 293 (5537):2105-2108. HAIDT, J. 2001The emotionaldog and its rational tail: A socialintuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814-834. HAIDT, J., ROZIN, P., MCCAULEY, C. & IMADA, S. 1997Body, psyche, and culture: The relationshipbetween disgust and morality. Psychology &DevelopingSocieties 9(1):107-131. HAR RIS, M. 1985 Good to Eat: Riddlesof Food andCulture .New York:Simon and Schuster. HENR ICH, J. & GIL-WHITE, F.J. 2001The evolutionof prestige: Freely conferred deferenceas a mechanism for enhancing the beneŽts of cultural transmission. Evolution &HumanBehavior 22(3): 165-196. HIKAMI, K., HASEGAW A, Y. & MATSUZAWA, T. 1990Social transmission of food preferences in Japanesemonkeys (Macaca fuscata) after mere exposureor aversiontraining. Journal of ComparativePsychology 104(3): 233-237. HILL, C.W. & RIOPELLE, A.J. 1975Protein deprivationin primates:VI. Foodpreferences ofadult rhesus monkeys maintainedon low-proteindiets. Perceptual& Motor Skills 41(1):199-204. HLAD IK, C.M. & SIMMEN, B. 1996Taste perception and feeding behavior in nonhuman primatesand human populations. Evolutionary Anthropology 5(2):58-71. JOCHIM, M.A. 1981 Strategiesfor Survival:Cultural Behaviorin anEcological Context .New York:Academic Press. JOHNSON, A. & BAKSH , M. 1987Ecological and structural inuences on the proportionswild foods in the diets oftwo Machiguenga communities. In M.Harris &E.B.Ross (eds.), Food and Evolution: Towarda Theory of HumanFood Habits ,pp.387-405. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press. KELLY, R.C. 1993 Constructing Inequality: TheFabrication of aHierarchy of Virtue amongthe Etoro . Ann Arbor:University ofMichiganPress. LADERMAN, C. 1981Symbolic and empirical reality: a new approachto the analysisof food avoid- ances. Americanethnologist 8(3):468-493. 30 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

LEACH, E.R. 1964Anthropological aspects of language: Animal categoriesand verbal abuse. In E.H.Lenneberg (ed.), Newdirections in thestudy of language ,pp.23-63. Cambridge, MA:M.I.T. Press. LÉV I-STRAUSS, C. 1963 Totemism.Boston:Beacon Press. LEWINSKA, M.K. 1968The effectof amygdaloid stimulation on daily food intake in cats. ActaBiologiae Experimentalis 28(2):71-81. MANN , N. 2000Dietary lean red meatand human evolution. European Journal of Nutrition 39(2): 71-79. MARTINS, Y., PELCHAT, M.L. & PLINER, P. 1997“ Try it;it’ s goodand it’ s goodfor you” : Effectsof tasteand nutrition information onwillingness to try novelfoods. Appetite 28(2):89-102. MASO N, J.R., ARZT, A.H. & REIDINGER, R.F. 1984Comparative assessment of food preferences andaversions acquired by black- birdsvia observational learning. Auk 101(4):796-803. MATTES, R.D. 1991Learned food aversions: A familystudy. Physiology &Behavior 50(3):499-504. MCDONALD , D. 1977Food taboos: A primitiveenvironmental protectionagency. Anthropos 72: 734- 748. MERVIS, C.B. & ROSCH, E. 1981Categorization of natural objects. Annual Reviewof Psychology 32: 89-115. MIDKIFF, E.E. & BERNSTEIN, I.L. 1985Targets of learned food aversions in humans. Physiology &Behavior 34(5): 839- 841. MOORE, J. 1983Carrying capacity,cycles andculture. Journal of HumanEvolution 12:505-514. MULLE R, M.N., MPONGO, E., STANFORD, C.B. & BOEHM, C. 1995A noteon scavenging by wildchimpanzees. Folia Primatologica 65(1):43-47. NAROLL, R. 1976Galton’ s Problem andHRAFLIB. BehaviorScience Research 11(2):123-148. NIETSCHMAN N, B. 1978Comment onRoss’ ‘Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy.’ Current Anthropology 19(1):23-24. O’LAUGHLIN, M.B. 1974Mediation of contradiction: why Mbumwomen do not eatchicken. In M.Z. Rosaldo& L.Lamphere(eds.), Woman,culture andsociety ,pp.301-318. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 31

PLINER, P. & PELCHAT , M.L. 1991Neophobia in humans andthe specialstatus of foods of animal origin. Appetite 16(3):205-218. POWERS, W.K. & POWERS, M.N.M. 1986Putting onthe dog. Natural history 95(2):6-16. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R. 1922 TheAndaman Islanders: AStudy in Social Anthropology .Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. RAP PAPORT, R.A. 1967Ritual regulation of environmental relationsamong a New Guineapeople. Ethnology 6(1):17-30. REICHEL-DOLMA TOFF, G. 1979Desana animal categories, food restrictions andthe conceptof color energies. Journal of LatinAmerican Lore 4(2):243-291. RODIN, J. & RADKE-SHARPE, N. 1991Changes in appetitivevariables as a function ofpregnancy. In M.Friedman, M.G.Tordoff & M.Kare (eds.), ChemicalSenses: Appetiteand Nutrition ,pp.325-340. New York:Marcel Dekker. ROSENBERG, E.M. 1980Demographic effects of sex-differential nutrition. In N.W.Jerome, R.F. Kandel &G.H. Pelto(eds.), Nutritional Anthropology: Contemporary Approachesto Diet and Culture,pp.181-203. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Redgrave. ROSS, E. 1978Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy:The adaptationto animals in Amazon cultural ecology. Current anthropology 19(1):1-16. ROZIN, P. 1976The selectionof food by rats, humans andother animals.In R.A.Hinde, C. Beer &E.Shaw(eds.), Advancesin theStudy of AnimalBehavior ,pp.21-76. New York:Academic Press. 1987Psychobiological perspectives on foodpreferences andavoidances. In M.Harris &E.B.Ross (eds.), Food andEvolution: Towarda Theory of HumanFood Habits , pp.181-205. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1999Food is fundamental, fun, frightening, andfar-reaching. Social Research 66(1): 9-30. 2000Evolution and adaption in the understandingof behavior, culture, andmind. AmericanBehavioral Scientist 43(6):970-986. ROZIN, P. & FALLO N, A.E. 1980Psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: a preliminary taxonomyof foodrejections. Appetite 1: 193-201. ROZIN, P., MARKWITH, M. & STOESS, C. 1997Moralization and becoming a vegetarian:The transformation ofpreferences into valuesand the recruitment ofdisgust. Psychological Science 8(2):67-73. 32 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

SCHANTZ, P.M. & MCAULEY, J. 1991Current statusof food-borne parasitic zoonoses in the United States. Southeast Asian Journal of TropicalMedicine & Public Health 22Suppl.: 65-71. SCHIEFFELIN, B.B. 1990 TheGive and Take of Everyday Life:Language Socialization of Kaluli Children . New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. SIMOONS, F.J. 1994 EatNot ThisFlesh: Food Avoidances fromPrehistory to thePresent .Madison:University ofWisconsinPress. SMITH, W.R. 1894 Lectures on theReligion of theSemites .London:A. &C.Black. SOLTIS, J., BOYD, R. & RICHERSON, P.J. 1995Can group-functionalbehaviors evolve by cultural groupselection? An empirical test. Current Anthropology 36(3):473-494. SPERBER, D. 1996a Explaining Culture: ANaturalistic Approach .Cambridge,MA: Blackwell. 1996bWhy areperfect animals,hybrids, and monsters foodfor symbolic thought? Methodand Theory in theStudy of Religion 8(2):143-169. SPETH, J.D. 1991Protein selectionand avoidance strategies of contemporary andancestral for- agers:unresolved issues. Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society of London B Biological Sciences 334(1270):265-269. STANFORD, C.B. 1999 TheHunting Apes:Meat Eating andthe Origins of HumanBehavior .Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. STRAUSS, D.J. & ORANS, M. 1975Mighty sifts: a critical appraisalof solutions to Galton’ s problemand a partial solution. Current Anthropology 16(4):573-594. STRUM, S. 1983Baboon cues for eating meat. Journal of HumanEvolution 12(4):327-336. TAMBIAH, S.J. 1969Animals are good to think andgood to prohibit. Ethnology 8(4):423-459. TOOBY, J. & COSMIDES, L. 1992The psychologicalfoundations of culture. In J.H.Barkow, L. Cosmides& J.Tooby(eds.), TheAdapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology andthe Generation of Culture , pp.19-136. New York:Oxford University Press. VALERI, V. 2000 TheForest of Taboos: Morality, Hunting, andIdentity amongthe Huaulu of theMoluccas . Madison:University ofWisconsinPress. VISALB ERGHI, E., VALEN TE, M. & FRAGASZY, D. 1998Social context andconsumption of unfamiliarfoods by Capuchin monkeys( Cebus apella)overrepeated encounters. AmericanJournal of Primatology 45(4):367-380. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 33

WESTERMARCK, E. 1906 TheOrigin andDevelopment of theMoral Ideas.Volume 1 .London:Macmillan. 1926 AShort History of Marriage .New York:Macmillan. WHITEHEAD, H. 2000 Food Rules: Hunting, Sharing,and Tabooing Gamein PapuaNew Guinea . Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press. WILLIS, R.G. 1990 Signifying Animals:Human Meaning in theNatural World .Boston:Unwin Hyman.

Appendix –FoodTaboo Data & References from 78Societies

Table A The Žrst5 orfewer foodtaboos collected for78 societies, byregion and target

Culture RegionMeat Veg’ s FruitsDairy Sweets Sour Spicy Starches Aranda1 Australia5 0000000 Arakurta*2 Australia5 0000000 Murngin3 Australia5 0000000 Larrekiya4 Australia2 0000001 Maung5 Australia4 1000000 Binbinga6 Australia5 0000000 Kaitish7 Australia5 0000000 Warramunga8 Australia5 0000000 Euahlayi9 Australia4 0001000 Kuna10 C.America 20000000 China11 E. Asia 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Chukchee12 E. Asia 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TaiwanHokkien 13 E. Asia 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Russia14 Europe 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HasidicJews 15 Mid.East 5 0000000 Amhara16 N.Africa 10020000 Dogon17 N.Africa 00000001 Tiv18 N.Africa 20300000 Falasha19 N.Africa 40010000 Mambila20 N.Africa 50000000 Netsilik21 N.America 20000000 Tlingit22 N.America 30000001 Blackfoot23 N.America 30000000 Ojibwa24 N.America 40000000 Hopi25 N.America 10000000 CopperInuit 26 N.America 20000000 Yoruk27 N.America 20000000 34 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE Table A (Continued)

Culture RegionMeat Veg’ s FruitsDairy Sweets Sour Spicy Starches Maidu28 N.America 50000000 Yokuts29 N.America 50000000 Nomlaki30 N.America 50000000 Trobriands31 Oceania1 0200011 Tikopia32 Oceania2 0000000 Kaluli33 Oceania5 0000000 Bimin-Kukusmin 34 Oceania1 0000000 Ndumba35 Oceania1 0000000 Awa36 Oceania5 0000000 Tsambunwuro 37 Oceania1 0000000 Tambaran38 Oceania0 0101003 Vanatinai39 Oceania5 0000000 Maori40 Oceania2 0000001 Nissan41 Oceania1 0000000 Ndreketi42 Oceania1 1000000 Tokelau43 Oceania1 0000000 Swazi44 S.Africa 40010000 Azande45 S.Africa 50000000 Beni Amer46 S.Africa 50000000 Gurage47 S.Africa 10000000 Suk48 S.Africa 40010000 Ekoi49 S.Africa 50000000 Timne50 S.Africa 30100000 KorankoKuruma 51 S.Africa 30000000 Bhaca52 S.Africa 01010000 Bomvana53 S.Africa 30010001 Lango54 S.Africa 50000000 Nandi55 S.Africa 20000000 Kogi56 S.America 10000000 Mataco57 S.America 10000000 Bororo58 S.America 10000000 Tukano59 S.America 50000000 Shokleng60 S.America 50000000 Kagwahiv61 S.America 50000000 Shipibo62 S.America 30000000 Achuara63 S.America 41000000 Cashinahua64 S.America 50000000 Matsigenka65 S.America 50000000 Sinhalese66 S. Asia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alor67 S. Asia 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEATISGOODTOTABOO 35 Table A (Continued)

Culture RegionMeat Veg’ s FruitsDairy Sweets Sour Spicy Starches Garo68 S.Asia 0 0100000 Arunachal Pradesh 69 S.Asia 3 0000000 Havik70 S.Asia 5 0000000 Dayak71 S.E. Asia1 0000000 Ifugao72 S.E. Asia1 1100000 S. Toraja73 S.E. Asia0 0000003 E. Toraja 74 S.E. Asia0 1100001 Kapauku75 S.E. Asia1 1201000 Andaman76 S.E. Asia5 0000000 Huaulu77 S.E. Asia4 0100000 Agta78 S.E. Asia3 0000000

CITATIONS FORTABLEA 1Spencer &Gillen 1927. 2Gillen &Spencer 1968. 3Warner 1969. 4Basedow1975. 5Berndt 1964. 6Spencer 1904. 7Spencer 1904. 8Spencer 1904. 9Parker 1905. 10Nordenskiöld 1938/1998. 11Chang 1978. 12Bogoras1904. 13Harrell 1975. 14Smith 1984. 15Harris 1985. 16Messing1985. 17Van Beek,2000; Jacobson-Widding & Van Beek1990. 18Bohannan 1954. 19Shack 1974. 20RehŽsch, Farnham n.d.,unpublished Ž eldnotes,archived online at: www.era.anthropology.ac.uk/Era_Resources/Era/RehŽsch/ Notes/fnotes1.html#AUTINDX_323_ . 21Balikci1970. 22DeLaguna 1972. 23Wissler1910. 24Hallowell1976, 1991. 25Titiev 1972. 26Jenness1995. 27;28;29Kroeber1953. 30Goldschmidt 1951. 31Malinowski1922. 32Firth 1930. 33Scheiffelin 1990. 34Poole 1982. 35Hays 1982. 36Boyd 1982. 37Gewertz 1982. 38Tuzin 1980. 39Lepowsky1985. 40Anderson1907. 41Spriggs1997. 42Hocart 1952. 43Huntsman 1996. 44Kuper 1986. 45DeCalonne-Beaufaict 1921/ 1998. 46Shack 1974. 47Shack 1974. 48Beech 1911. 49Talbut1912. 50;51Thomas1916. 52Hammond-Tooke 1962. 53Cook 1931. 54Driberg1923. 55Hollis1909. 56Reichel-Dolmatoff1951. 57Alvarsson 1988. 58Lowie 1946. 59Godman 1963. 60Urban 1981. 61Kracke 1981. 62Abelove1981. 63Kelekna1981. 64Kensinger1981. 65Johnson1999. 66Tambiah1991. 67DuBois 1960. 68Playfair1909. 69VonFurer-Haimendor 1982. 70Harper 1964. 71Geddes1972. 72Barton 1946. 73Nooy-Palm1979. 74Kruyt 1951. 75Pospisil1978. 76Radcliffe-Brown 1922. 77Valeri 1992. 78Peterson1978.35

REFERENCESFOR TABLEA

ABELOVE, JOAN AND ROBERTA CAMPOS 1981Infancy relatedfood taboos among the Shipibo.In Kenneth M.Kensingerand WaudH. Kracke (eds.), Working Paperson South AmericanIndians: Food taboos in lowlandSouth America .Bennington: Bennington College. 36 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

ALVARSSON, JAN-AKE 1988 TheMataco of theGran Chaco: An ethnographicaccount of changeand continuity in Mataco socio-economic organization. Uppsala:Academiae Upsaliensis. ANDERSON, JOHANN ESS C. 1907 Maori lifein Ao-Tea. Melbourne:Whitcombe and Tombs, Ltd. BAL IKCI, ASEN 1970 TheNetsilik Eskimo .Garden City, NY:Natural History Press. BAR TON, R.F. 1946 Thereligion of theIfugao. Menasha:American AnthropologicalAssociation. BASEDOW, HERBERT 1925 TheAustralian Aboriginal. Adelaide:F.W. Preece andSons. BEECH, MERVYN W.H. 1911 The Suk.Oxford:The Clarendon Press. BERNDT, RONA LD M. AND CATHERINE H. BERNDT 1964 Theworld of theŽ rst Australians: anintroduction to thetraditional lifeof theAustralian aborigines.Chicago:University ofChicago Press. BOGORAS, WALD EMAR 1904 TheChukchee: Material culture PartI, Region. New York:E.J. Brill, Ltd. BOHANNAN , PAUL 1954 Circumcision amongthe Tiv. London:Royal Anthropological Institute. BOYD, DAVID J. AND PHILIP L. NEWMAN 1982The makingof men: Ritualand meaning in Awamale initiation. In Gilbert H.Herdt (eds.), Rituals of manhood:Male initiation in PapuaNew Guinea . Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. CHANG, K.C. 1978 Food in ChineseCulture .New Haven:Yale University Press. COOK, P.A.W. 1931 Social organization andceremonial institutions of theBomvana. Capetown:Juta and Co., Ltd. DE CALO NNE-BEAUFAICT, ADOLPHE 1921/1998 Azande:Introduction to ageneralehtnography of Ubangi-Ueleand Aruwimi basins. Bruxelles: InstitutsSovay, Travaux del’ Institut deSociologie/ New Haven: Human RelationsArea Files. DE LAGUNA, FREDERICA 1972 UnderMount SaintElias: Thehistory andculture of theYakutat Tlingit. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press. DU BOIS, CORA 1960 Thepeople of Alor .Cambridge:Harvard University Press. DRIBERG, JACK H. 1923 TheLango, anilotic tribeof Uganda .London:T. FisherUnwin, Ltd. FIRTH, RAYM OND 1930Totemism in Polynesia. Oceania 1, 291-321. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 37

GEDDES, W.R. 1972 Nine DayakNights .New York:Oxford University Press. GEWERTZ, DEBORAH B. 1982The father whobore me: The roleof Tsambunwuroduring Chambri initiation ceremonies.In Gilbert H.Herdt (eds.), Rituals of manhood:Male inititiation in Papua New Guinea.Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. GILLE N, F.J. AND BALDW IN SPENCER 1968 Thenative tribes of CentralAustralia. New York:Dover Publications, Inc. GOLDMAN, IRVING 1963 TheCubeo: Indians of thenorthwest Amazon .Urbana: University ofIllinois Press. GOLDS CHMIDT, WALTER 1951Nomlaki Ethnography. University of Californiapublications in Americanarcheology and ethnology 42,303-443. HALL OWELL, A. IRVING 1991 TheOjibwa of Berens River, Manitoba:Ethnography into history .FortWorth: Jarcourt Brace JovanovichCollege Publishers. 1976 TheRole of dreamsin Ojibwaculture .Chicago:University ofChicago Press. HAMMOND-TOOKE, W.D. 1962 Bhacasociety. Capetown:Oxford University Press. HAR PER, EDWARD B. 1964Ritual pollution as an integrator ofcaste and religion. In EdwardB. Harper (eds.), Religion in South Asia .Seattle:University ofWashington Press. HARRELL, CLYD E STEVEN 1975 Beliefand unbelief in aTaiwanvillage. Ann Arbor:Xerox University MicroŽlms. HAR RIS, LIS 1985 Holy days: Theworld of aHasidic family .New York:Summit Books. HAYS, TERRENCE E. AND PATRICIA H. 1982Opposition and complementary ofthe sexesin Ndumbainitiation. In Gilbert H.Herdt (eds.), Rituals of manhood:Male inititiation in PapuaNew Guinea . Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. HILGER, M. INEZ 1951 Chippewachild life and its cultural background .Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing OfŽce. HOCART, A.M. 1952 Thenorthern states of Fiji. London:The RoyalAnthropological Institute of Great Britain andIreland. HOLLIS, A.C. 1909 TheNandi, their language and folk-lore .Oxford:Clarendon Press. HUNTSMAN, JUDITH AND ANTONY HOOPER 1996 Tokelau: Ahistorical ethnography. Honolulu:University ofHawai’ i Press. JACOBSON-WIDDING, ANITA AND WALTER VAN BEEK 1990 Thecreative communion: Africanfolk modelsin fertility andthe regeneration of life. Uppsala: UppsalaUniversity. 38 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

JENNESS, DIAMOND 1995 Thelife of theCopper Eskimos .Ottawa:F.A. Acland. JOHNSON, ALLE N 1999 Familiesof theforest: Apsycho-ecological study of theMatsigenka of thePeruvian Amazon. In press. KELEKNA, PITA 1981Achuara foodtaboos. In Kenneth M.Kensingerand Waud H. Kracke (eds.), Working Paperson South AmericanIndians: Food taboos in lowlandSouth America . Bennington: Bennington College. KENSINGER, KENNETH M. 1981Food taboos as markers ofage categories in Cashinahua.In Kenneth M. Kensingerand Waud H. Kracke (eds.), Working Paperson South AmericanIndians: Food taboos in lowlandSouth America .Bennington: Bennington College. KRACKE, WAUD H. 1981Don’ t let the piranhabite your liver: A psychoanalyticapproach to Kagwahiv (Tupi)food taboos. In Kenneth M.Kensingerand Waud H. Kracke (eds.), Working Paperson South AmericanIndians: Food taboos in lowlandSouth America . Bennington: Bennington College. KROEBER, A.L. 1953 Handbookof theIndians of California. Berkeley: CaliforniaBook Company, Ltd. KRUYT, ADRIANI AND ALBERT C. KRUYT 1951 TheBare’ e-speaking Toradja of central Celebes,vol. 2. Amsterdam:Noord-Hollandsche UitgeversMaatschappij. KUPER, HILDA 1986 TheSwazi: A South AfricanKingdom. New York:CBS CollegePublishing. LEARY, JAMES R. 1981Cross-cultural studiesof factors related to differential food consumption. New Haven,CT: Human RelationsArea Files, Inc. LEPOWSKY, MARIA A. 1985Food taboos, malaria and dietary change: infant feedingand cultural adaptation ona PapuaNew Guineaisland. Ecology of food andnutrition. LOWIE, ROBERT H. 1946 The Bororo. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing OfŽce. MALINOW SKI, BRONISLAW 1922 Argonauts of thewestern PaciŽc: An Account of nativeenterprise andadventure in the archipelagoesof MelanesianNew Guinea .London:George Routledge and Sons, Ltd. MESSING, SIMON D. 1985 Highlandplateau Amhara of Ethiopia. New Haven:Human RelationsArea Files. NOOY-PALM , HETTY 1979 TheSa’ dan-Toraja: A study of theirsocial lifeand religion .The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff. PAR KER, LANGLOH K. 1905 TheEuahlayi tribe. London:Archibald Constable and Co., Ltd. MEATISGOODTOTABOO 39

PETERSON, JEAN TRELOGGEN 1978 Theecology of social boundaries .Chicago:University ofIllinoisPress. PLA YFAIR, MAJOR A. 1909 The Garos. London:William Clowes and Sons, Ltd. POOLE, FITZ JOHN P. 1982The ritualforging of identity: Aspects of person and self in Bimin-Kuskusmin maleinitiation. In Gilbert H.Herdt (eds.), Rituals of manhood:Male inititiation in PapuaNew Guinea .Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. POSPISIL, LEOPOLD J. 1978 TheKapauku Papuans of West NewGuinea .New York:Hold, Rinehart, and Winston. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R. 1922 TheAndaman islanders: AStudy in social anthropology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. REICHEL-DOLMA TOFF, GERARDO 1951 TheKogi: Atribeof theSierra Nevada de Santa marta, Colombia .Bogota:Editorial Iqueima. SCHIEFFELIN, BAMBI B. 1990 Thegive and take of everydaylife: Language socialization of Kaluli children. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. SHACK, WILLIAM A. 1974 Thecentral Ethiopians, Amhara,Tigrina and related peoples .London:International African Institute. SMITH, R.E.F. AND DAVID CHRISTIAN 1984 Breadand salt: Asocial andeconomic history of food anddrink in Russia. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. SPENCER, BALD WIN AND FRANCIS JAMES GILLE N 1904 Thenorthern tribes of central Australia. London:Macmillan and Co., Ltd. 1927 TheArunta: Astudy of astone agepeople .London:Macmillan and Co., Ltd. SPR IGGS, MATHEW 1997 Theisland Melanesians .Cambridge:Blackwell Publishers,Ltd. TALB UT, P. AMAURY 1912 In theshadow of thebush .London:William Heinemann. TAMBIAH, S.J. 1991 SriLanka, ethnic fraticideand the dismantling of democracy .Chicago:The University of ChicagoPress. TITIEV, MISCHA 1972 TheHopi Indians of old Oraibi:Change and continuity .Ann Arbor:University of MichiganPress. THOMAS, NORTHCOTE W. 1916 Anthropological report on SierraLeone, PartI: Lawand custom of theTimne and other tribes . London:Harrison andSons. 40 DANIELM.T.FESSLERANDCARLOSDAVIDNAVARRETE

TUZIN, DONALD F. 1980 Thevoice of theTambaran: Truth and illusion in IlahaitaArapesh Religion. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. URBAN, GREG 1981The semioticsof tabooedfood: Shokleng. In Kenneth M.Kensingerand Waud H. Kracke (eds.), Working Paperson South AmericanIndians: Food taboos in lowland South America .Bennington: Bennington College. VALERI, V. 1992If we feed them, wedo not feedon them: aprincipleof Huaulu taboo and its application. Ethnos. VAN BEEK, WALTER 2000 Harmony versus autonomy: Models of agricultural fertility amongthe Dogon andthe Kapsiki . New Haven:Human RelationsArea Files. VON FURER-HAIMENDOR, CHRISTOPH 1982 Highlandersof ArunachalPradesh .Delhi:Vikas Publishing House. WARNER, W. LLOYD 1969 Ablackcivilization: Asocial study of anAustralian tribe .Gloucester,Mass: Peter Smith. WISSLER, CLARK 1910 Materialculture of theBlackfoot indians. New York:The Trustees.