DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49270#0298
Ancient Egyptian Fishing 211.
sion to fish, the familiar shores of the ancient Mediterranean may afford some examples,36
while modern Africa provides others of peculiar interest. Thus, one finds that “the sale
of fish is limited in Bunyoro because pastoral people may not eat fish, nor indeed may they
have it in their kraals: all people who drink milk abstain from eating fish and from touch-
ing it.37 The agricultural peasants, therefore, are the only people able to eat fish.” 38
Among the Suk, to the southwest of Lake Rudolph, “if a rich man eats fish the milk of
his cows will dry up. Such a superstition ”, says the author who records it, “would appear
to be based on an unwritten law that the rich man must not 'take the poor man’s lamb’”.39
This explanation credits the Suk aristocracy with a charitable forbearance which it would
be hard to parallel among any people in their stage of culture. That the true reason for
this abstention lies in an irrational dislike, is indicated by the fact that fish are eaten
not only by the poorer Suk but by pregnant women of the aristocracy as well.40 From
such a usage it is plain that the upper class entertains ideas regarding fish which are essen-
tially foreign to those held by their inferiors. Even when such ideas are absent, or unre-
corded, a marked difference in the amount of fish consumed by rich and poor may
sometimes be observed. Thus, among the Baganda, fish formed a staple article in
the diet of the poor, while among the wealthy it was less used.41
The origin of the prejudice against fish as food which prevailed among the Egyptian
nobility of the Old Kingdom is indeterminable: its nature, however, can perhaps be dis-
cerned. At a much later period, when the decay of the old state religion allowed the
popular superstitions of Egypt to find a freer expression, there is ample evidence to prove
that certain religious ideas were attached to fish in general, that a few particular kinds of
fish were especially regarded, and that in many instances these ideas tended in some
slight measure to restrict the consumption of fish.42
36 It has been inferred, because of the absence of fishhooks among their remains, that the Terramare people of
Italy abstained from fish; W. Helbig, Die Italiker in der Poebene, Leipzig, 1879, p. 74 sq.; cf. 0. Schrader, Sprach-
vergleichung und Urgeschichte,2 Jena, 1890, p. 165-167. As the absence of hooks does not preclude the possi-
bility that fish were taken by means of weirs, weels, and nets, the case here is not conclusively proved. Yet that
an aversion to fish existed in some parts of ancient Italy, e. g. among the early Romans, can hardly be denied; cf.
Ovid, eel. P. Burmann, Amsterdam, 1727, Fasti, VI, 173 sq., and — for shellfish — Varro up. Nonium Marcellum,
ed. L. Quicherat, Paris, 1872, p. 223 = 216 M. For the Homeric prejudice against fish cf. G. Lafaye, ‘Piscatio et
Piscatus’ in Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquitds grecques et romaines, Paris, n. d. vol. 4, pt. 1, p. 489,
and C. Tsountas and J. I. Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, Boston, 1897, p. 334.
37 This reminds one of the Siwan belief that he who eats fish cooked with milk will be afflicted with taenia; M. M.
'Abd Allah, ‘Siwan customs’ (Harv. Afr. Stud., vol. 1, p. 1-28) p. 25.
38 J. Roscoe, The northern Bantu, Cambridge, 1915, p. 77.
39 W. M. Beech, The Suk; their language and folklore, Oxford, 1911, p. 9 sq.
40 Ibid., loc. cit.
41 J. Roscoe, The Baganda, etc., London, 1911, p. 391.
42 Those who regard the fish hieroglyphs as general determinatives for words meaning “shame”, “evil” etc.—
cf. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, ed. G. Parthey, Berlin, 1850, § 32 — will perhaps wonder at my not here adducing
sion to fish, the familiar shores of the ancient Mediterranean may afford some examples,36
while modern Africa provides others of peculiar interest. Thus, one finds that “the sale
of fish is limited in Bunyoro because pastoral people may not eat fish, nor indeed may they
have it in their kraals: all people who drink milk abstain from eating fish and from touch-
ing it.37 The agricultural peasants, therefore, are the only people able to eat fish.” 38
Among the Suk, to the southwest of Lake Rudolph, “if a rich man eats fish the milk of
his cows will dry up. Such a superstition ”, says the author who records it, “would appear
to be based on an unwritten law that the rich man must not 'take the poor man’s lamb’”.39
This explanation credits the Suk aristocracy with a charitable forbearance which it would
be hard to parallel among any people in their stage of culture. That the true reason for
this abstention lies in an irrational dislike, is indicated by the fact that fish are eaten
not only by the poorer Suk but by pregnant women of the aristocracy as well.40 From
such a usage it is plain that the upper class entertains ideas regarding fish which are essen-
tially foreign to those held by their inferiors. Even when such ideas are absent, or unre-
corded, a marked difference in the amount of fish consumed by rich and poor may
sometimes be observed. Thus, among the Baganda, fish formed a staple article in
the diet of the poor, while among the wealthy it was less used.41
The origin of the prejudice against fish as food which prevailed among the Egyptian
nobility of the Old Kingdom is indeterminable: its nature, however, can perhaps be dis-
cerned. At a much later period, when the decay of the old state religion allowed the
popular superstitions of Egypt to find a freer expression, there is ample evidence to prove
that certain religious ideas were attached to fish in general, that a few particular kinds of
fish were especially regarded, and that in many instances these ideas tended in some
slight measure to restrict the consumption of fish.42
36 It has been inferred, because of the absence of fishhooks among their remains, that the Terramare people of
Italy abstained from fish; W. Helbig, Die Italiker in der Poebene, Leipzig, 1879, p. 74 sq.; cf. 0. Schrader, Sprach-
vergleichung und Urgeschichte,2 Jena, 1890, p. 165-167. As the absence of hooks does not preclude the possi-
bility that fish were taken by means of weirs, weels, and nets, the case here is not conclusively proved. Yet that
an aversion to fish existed in some parts of ancient Italy, e. g. among the early Romans, can hardly be denied; cf.
Ovid, eel. P. Burmann, Amsterdam, 1727, Fasti, VI, 173 sq., and — for shellfish — Varro up. Nonium Marcellum,
ed. L. Quicherat, Paris, 1872, p. 223 = 216 M. For the Homeric prejudice against fish cf. G. Lafaye, ‘Piscatio et
Piscatus’ in Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquitds grecques et romaines, Paris, n. d. vol. 4, pt. 1, p. 489,
and C. Tsountas and J. I. Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, Boston, 1897, p. 334.
37 This reminds one of the Siwan belief that he who eats fish cooked with milk will be afflicted with taenia; M. M.
'Abd Allah, ‘Siwan customs’ (Harv. Afr. Stud., vol. 1, p. 1-28) p. 25.
38 J. Roscoe, The northern Bantu, Cambridge, 1915, p. 77.
39 W. M. Beech, The Suk; their language and folklore, Oxford, 1911, p. 9 sq.
40 Ibid., loc. cit.
41 J. Roscoe, The Baganda, etc., London, 1911, p. 391.
42 Those who regard the fish hieroglyphs as general determinatives for words meaning “shame”, “evil” etc.—
cf. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, ed. G. Parthey, Berlin, 1850, § 32 — will perhaps wonder at my not here adducing