Why Was the Ferret Domesticated?
 
Of all the questions regarding the domestication of the ferret, this
one--at least on the surface--seems the easiest to answer.  At first
glance, a long history of using the ferret for rabbiting would indicate
that specific purpose was the reason behind domestication.  The oldest
reliable documents, those of Strabo and Pliny, say ferrets were being
used for rabbiting, so it naturally follows ferreting was the purpose
for their domestication, and many ferret books flatly state ferrets
were domesticated to hunt rabbits.  If we could prove ferrets were
domesticated in Spain, there would probably be universal agreement that
ferrets were meant to be used capturing rabbits for the stew pot.  That
is, IF they were domesticated in Spain.
 
The problem is that the historical records do not place ferrets in Spain;
not even in the Balearic Islands mentioned by both Strabo and Pliny--the
residents of the Balearics had to write to the Emperor Augustus for
soldiers to combat the plague of rabbits.  Consider these implications
for a moment.  The Emperor Augustus was born Gaius Julius Octavius,
living from 63 BC to AD 14.  His mother Julia was a sister of Julius
Caesar.  At 16, Octavian served with Julius Caesar in the Spanish
campaign of 46 BC, so he knew Spain (Iberia) and its people as a young
man.  Eventually, Octavian shared power with Marc Antony, ruling the
western provinces, including Spain, until he solidified his power,
defeating Antony, and eventually becoming Augustus in 27 BC.  The point
here is not to initiate a class in Roman history, but to point out Spain
and its customs were extremely well known by the Romans at the time of
Strabo and Pliny, who did not indicate the ferret was from Spain, but
rather termed them "Libyan Ferrets."  If ferrets were in Spain in
appreciable numbers, I think the two historians--who were quite specific
in their comments about ferrets--would have mentioned it.  Even if for
some reason they neglected to make mention of them in Iberia, we still
know the residents of the Balearic Islands requested help from Augustus.
This means they either did not have ferrets, or the number of ferrets
in their possession was inadequate for the job.  In either case, it
is unlikely Spain was much of a "center for ferret domestication"
considering the islanders requested help from the east rather than
looking west to the Spanish mainland.
 
Why is this important?  Because at the time of Strabo and Pliny, cats
found outside Egypt were rare, oddities really, and rabbits were confined
to the extreme west of Europe on the Iberian Peninsula (Iberia).  So, you
have rabbits, but no (or not many) ferrets.  This is important, because
if the Romans had or knew about ferrets, and there were no rabbits, then
what were they used for?
 
There are three plausible solutions to the question: 1) ferrets were used
to hunt animals (other than rabbits) in their burrows, such as hamsters
or susliks; 2) ferrets were used as mousers; 3) ferrets were used in both
capacities.  Don't you just love multiple-choice questions?
 
In previous discussions, avenues of investigation have indicated the
ferret was probably domesticated in a rather large region centered above
the northeastern Mediterranean.  There are a number of reasons for
selecting this area, but paramount among them is the history of the area
around the time of ferret domestication.  Note that both Strabo and Pliny
mention the Romans had the ferret, ferrets were used to hunt rabbits, and
that a ferreting technology existed.  The Romans even had different names
for the polecat and the ferret, which means they saw them as distinctly
different animals.  This means that by the time of Strabo and Pliny,
ferrets were already domesticated.  It follows that if ferrets were
domesticated at the time of Strabo and Pliny, domestication had to have
taken place at some time prior to their historic records.  When we look
at earlier records, such as Aesop, Aristophanes, and Aristotle, we find
descriptions of all sorts of animals, including weasels and polecats, but
no mention of an animal used to hunt rabbits in their burrows.  On the
other hand, there are centuries of Greek references to "house-weasels"
that might date as far back as the Homeric story of the Battle of the
Frogs and Mice.  Aesop probably mentioned "house-weasels," as well as
Aristotle, Aristophanes, and probably Herodotus.
 
By this time, the cat was already domesticated in Egypt, and there seems
to be solid evidence a limited number of them made it to other areas,
including Greece.  Nonetheless, there are hundreds of lions in North
American zoos, yet their presence in a domestic setting would not be
considered common.  Cats were a rarity--more of an item of conspicuous
consumption for the elite than a pet of the masses.  Nonetheless, what
the cat was and what it could do would have been well known among the
wealthier landowners who had recently implemented crop rotation, vastly
increasing their grain surpluses.  It is a very easy and logical step to
take a known invention and modify it to the needs of a particular area.
 
There is an old saying that an invention will fail if it is created
before or after its time.  The timing for domesticating ferrets was
perfect.  There was no real competition from other animals that could do
the same job.  Ferrets were good at mousing.  Grain surpluses were common
and financing the rise of Greek civilization.  Greeks and Phoenicians
were trading throughout the Mediterranean, and ferrets would have been a
good trade items as well as valuable in protecting stores of grain in the
ships.  The Egyptians has cats to do the same job, and cats were rare,
but the idea was there to use a small carnivore to protect grain stores.
Of the available cat-like animals, there was the wild cat, the polecat,
the genet, and one of several mongooses.  The selection of the polecat
for the job may have been an accident of history, or perhaps it was just
the easiest to work with, but why it was selected over the others has
been lost to history.  I guess ferret owners were just lucky.
 
How did the Roman's get ferrets?  I presume they simply took them, either
in trade or as spoils of war, but there is another possibility.  The
Greeks had colonies in what is now Italy.  If the Greeks took ferrets
to their Italian colonies, it is possible the Romans had ferrets simply
because they were already a domesticated animal in their country when
Roman civilization arose.
 
The shift from mousing to hunting subterranean animals would have been a
simple one because ferrets were already predisposed to go after food in
burrows.  A couple of ferrets would have been economically important to
small households as a mouser and provider of protein rich foods, such as
susliks (ground squirrels) and hamsters.
 
The bottom line it is extremely unlikely the ferret was domesticated to
hunt rabbits.  A more likely idea is that it was initially domesticated
as a mouser, and perhaps as a hunter of small rodents.  It is possible
that as the Romans occupied Spain, they adapted the ferret for rabbiting,
but at that time, the ferret was already domesticated.
 
Bob C  [log in to unmask]
 
"It was a stronger, fiercer influence: the inordinate love of money"
a passion within bounds useful; but, uncontrolled, like Aaron's rod;
or, to drop such a hackneyed figure, like a badly-trained ferret in a
barn-yard, killing the rats and driving off all vermin, but, in its
insatiable blood-thirsty rage, throttling and destroying, right and
left, young and old, the defenceless denizens of the poultry-ground
and the hen-house.  --William Starbuck Mayo, 1873 "Never Again."
[Posted in FML issue 4771]