By accepting the Greek references, we can now look at the geographic
distribution of the polecat to see if it can provide any clarity to the
question.  According to modern species distribution maps, neither polecat
is currently found in Greece.  However, both polecats are found in areas
of Europe that correspond to ancient Macedonia, just to the northeast.
Paleontological and zooarchaeological evidence suggest that once the two
polecats had a wider distribution that extended into northern Greece, but
the data are skimpy.  However, even if polecats were not found in ancient
Greece during the time of Aristotle, Aesop, and Aristophanes, trade was
extensive in that region and time, and it would not be a stretch to
assume polecats could be frequently imported.  Besides, who said the
Greeks domesticated the polecat?  It could be that at the time of the
Greek writers, the ferret had already been domesticated, and they had
simply been traded into that country.
 
There is a historic document from 1826 that is of interest, which
describes an AD 1221 Mongol hunting circle at Termed (or Termez, now
in Afghanistan).  In this account, Genghis Khan used ferrets to drive
animals out of burrows during his "lets kill every animal within our
circle" hunts.  If this document is correct, it raises some interesting
implications, most importantly, where did he get the ferrets?  If ferrets
were domesticated in the west, did he trade for them, or were they spoils
of war?  If so, since the lifespan of ferrets is relatively short, were
they bred to steppe polecats to increase numbers or continue possession?
Or, were they independently domesticated, with only the idea of
domesticating ferrets moving eastward?  These questions lack an answer,
but they do imply that there was a considerable amount of steppe polecat
bred into the ferret.
 
There still continues to be some modern ferret book authors that persist
in insisting that the ferret was domesticated in Egypt sometime before
the cat.  Can this be possible, and if so, can it answer questions of
which polecat was the progenitor of the ferret?  For the ferret to be
domesticated, there has to have been a progenitor, yet Egypt--indeed
the entire region from the mountains of Morocco to the mountains of
Lebanon--lacks polecats of either kind.  There is no word in ancient
Egyptian for polecat or ferret, there are no ferret or polecat mummies,
and the hieroglyphs used to support the idea actually illustrate various
mongooses or otters.  Polecats lack the physiology to survive in such a
dry and hot climate.  There are no historic documents describing ferrets
or their use in Egypt.  In short, there is no linguistic, archaeological,
paleontological, zoological, physiological, or historic evidence
supporting the idea.  It is a hypothesis that has been falsified; ferrets
were not domesticated in Egypt, so looking to that region will not help
us determine the progenitor.
 
So, even by using multiple points of attack, including historic records,
genetics, geographic distribution, linguistics, and morphometrics, we
still haven't been able to identify the progenitor of the ferret.  But
that is also a very important clue, and one few students of domestication
have perused.  In fact, I believe it gives us the answer if we look at it
in the correct way.
 
First, what are the actually possibilities utilizing the available
evidence?
1) The ferret could have been domesticated from the steppe polecat, then
later hybridized with the European polecat.
2) The ferret could have been domesticated from the European polecat,
then later hybridized with the steppe polecat.
3) The ferret could have been independently domesticated from both
polecats, then later the domestic forms could have been hybridized.
4) The ferret could have been domesticated from European polecat_x_steppe
polecat hybrids, and later independently hybridized with both species.
5) Any combination of the above.
All these possibilities explain the historic documents, the genetic
findings, the physical similarities to both species, and the geographic
distribution of the progenitors and the early domestic versions.  In
short, it is probable at least one of these possibilities provides the
best answer to the question.  The bad news is that it will be extremely
difficult to identify the exact possibility.  The good news is, while the
exact mechanism of domestication may not be known, we can still be sure
of one thing: during the ferret's long history of domestication, both
polecats were utilized to develop our beloved pet.
 
So, what does all this mean?  It means the ferret is probably neither
a domesticated European polecat, nor a domesticated steppe polecat.
Ultimately, it is probably a hybrid of both.  Because the keeping of
ferrets shifted westward with the Romans and the introduction of the
rabbit and rat in greater Europe, introgression with the European polecat
has influenced many of the characteristics of the ferret, making the
western species appear to have a greater genetic contribution.  In the
final account, because introgression to both polecats has made the
distinction quite difficult--if even possible--and because the ferret is
most likely a hybrid of both, the most suitable scientific name for the
domesticated ferret would be "Mustela furo."
 
Bob C  [log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 4730]