The timeline for ferret domestication is constructed similarly, although
eBay is not of much use except for some of the historical periods. The
problem here is not just provenience, but also extended gaps of time.
In order to prove the age of domestication of the ferret, not only do
the oldest known records need reliable provenience, but the chain of
evidence must be able to be extended from point to point in order to
prove our ferret is the same animal as discussed in the past. It is not
an improbable idea that in the past ferrets have been domesticated at
more than one point in time. For example, it is possible ferrets were
domesticated 2400 years ago, died out, were domesticated again about 2000
years ago and died out, and were then domesticated yet another time about
1000 years ago. The ferret is a yearly breeder and domestication in such
animals can be done within a single person's lifespan simply by breeding
for tameness towards humans. THAT is why it is critically important to
maintain provenience and eliminate gaps in the ferret domestication
timeline: proof requires continuity.
The final problem with timelines is how to define the degree of
resolution. In a perfect domestication timeline, the resolution would
be from litter to litter, which in the case of ferrets, would basically
be from year to year. Like the Biblical "begat" lineage, you would just
trace your ferret back to the first one. If only. On the other hand,
tracing the ferret back 2400 generations using a 1-year resolution is
kind of redundant. So, what type of resolution is appropriate? ANY
degree of resolution except generational is absolutely arbitrary; there
is no rule.
One way to decide time resolution is to look at the time resolution of
other domesticated species. What you find as you go backwards in time is
the resolution becomes more and more tenuous, slowly widening until it
shifts from years to decades to centuries. In this respect, the historic
data for the ferret is very similar to that of the dog, cat, or any
number of other domestic species. The difference is that for most
species there is archaeology to fill in the gaps between the holes in
the historic record.
Without archaeology, the timeline resolution for the ferret is pretty
good with solid references until about AD 1245, with a reference to
ferreting associated with Emperor Frederick II of Germany. Then begins
a large gap that ends at AD 600 with Isidore of Seville who referred to
ferreting. The next good allusion to ferrets is Pliny (AD 23 to 79),
followed by Strabo (63 BC to AD 24). Finally, four Greeks, Aristotle
(350 BC), Aristophanes (425 BC), Aesop (600 BC), and Homer (800 BC) all
mentioned an animal that was probably, maybe, and might have been a
ferret. After that, there is nothing known. These types of gaps are
common in historic records relating to animals, and they do not mean the
animal was not present. For example, dogs were rarely mentioned in the
Bible, and cats not at all, yet both were well known to the ancient
Hebrews.
One remark should be made about the ferret in Greek literature. As
far as I know, there has never been a classical Greek scholar that has
specifically investigated ferrets in Greek literature (there have been a
few articles on weasels). I have copied and read dozens of translations,
and there seems to be a bit of controversy on the exact meaning of some
of the references. For example, in Homer's Iliad (Book 10, line 335),
most references use the translation "ferret" skin or fur, while others
use "marten." A similar problem exists with Aesop, were ferret, marten,
marten-cat, house-ferret, house weasel, weasel, and cat has all been
used. My position is that as individual references, they may be suspect,
but as a pattern of reference, they may have some validity. In either
case, we are talking about a period of time of about 600 years (800 if
you toss in Homer), and by the time of Strabo and Pliny, the references
to ferrets are considered by all experts to be valid. I think the
pattern of the Greek references is valid BECAUSE the citations are
controversial; it is exactly what should be expected if an animal is
just becoming domesticated. You see similar confusion with the recent
domestication of many species, including cats, rabbits, skunks, mink,
and hamsters. At one point they are domesticated, and at another they
are not; it is rather presumptuous to assume language references would
not convey that type of confusion. So, with the Greek references, there
is confusion, and by the time of the Romans, the confusion is gone. If
there were no confusion with the Greek references, I would start looking
for earlier records.
Considering the literacy of the people at the time, long gaps in the
historical record would not be unusual. Again, that would not be
evidence the ferret was not present. However, it does beg one question:
how do we know the ferrets mentioned in AD 1245 were related to those
mentioned by Pliny and Strabo, or that either was related to those
mentioned by the three Greeks? Or, put another way, how do we know
ferret domestication was continuous during this time period?
[Posted in FML issue 4732]
|
