With a single suite of exceptions (the Greek references), all references
to ferrets from Pliny onward have two things in common: they identify the
ferret as being something different than the polecat, and they identify
the ferret as a mouser, ratter, or rabbiter.  ALL references to a ferret
origin from North Africa are ultimately traceable to Pliny and Strabo's
original remarks (the two references are harmoniously similar and may
cite a single source).  This means all historic documents, except
perhaps the controversial Greek references, discuss the ferret AFTER
domestication, the development of hunting technology, and even the
trade and exchange of the animal.  That makes those historic sources
essentially useless for the identification of a point of origin.  We
must then resort to a review of the prehistory of the ferret.
 
Many of the areas that have promise for being the region of domestication
for ferrets have had extensive archaeological excavations done.  While
it is hard to say those excavations were particularly flawed (at least
judging them from a historic point of view), from a modern-day
zooarchaeological perspective, great errors had been made.  For example,
in the days before archaeologists pushed dirt through screens, it was
common for smaller bones to be simply thrown away.  When screening was
finally introduced, it was almost always done using a 1/4th screen;
these screens were notorious for allowing small bones and teeth to pass
through, biasing the resultsyou wouldn't see ferrets in the archaeology
not because they were not there, but because they were not being
recovered.  Another serious problem was the hacking through historic
layers to get to the older stuff; I've seen and wept over historic layers
bulldozed off Bronze Age sites, with potentially important artifacts left
to languish in the back-fill dirt piles.  Another serious problem is the
lack of published reference material on how to distinguish the difference
between polecats and ferrets; I've been working on the problem for years
and while I can distinguish some populations, others remain elusive.
Finally, much of the region most likely to have been the region of
domestication has been embroiled in war or has been lost behind the Iron
Curtain for much of the last century.  I remain convinced the material
has been recovered, but either not recognized, studied, or curated.
However, until more study is done, perhaps even new excavations,
archaeology cannot be used to determine the region of domestication.
Thus, what is left is the results from a study of the comparative
morphology between the wild and domestic forms.
 
Skull and dental comparisons are almost universal in suggesting the
progenitor of the domesticated ferret is the steppe polecat, implying
the region of domestication is anywhere within the distribution of the
steppe polecat (Mustela eversmannii).  Pelage comparisons are almost
universal in suggesting the progenitor is the European polecat (Mustela
putorius), implying the region of domestication is anywhere in Europe.
The post-cranial studies I have done suggest the progenitor is
intermediate between the European and steppe polecats, implying the
region of domestication can either be Europe, Asia, or anywhere in
between.  Genetic studies have not yet been able to distinguish the
ancestral species, mostly because of extreme hybridization
(introgression), again implying the region of domestication can either
be Europe, Asia, or anywhere in between.  If the Greek records can be
interpreted correctly, they imply the process took place in the overlap
zone between the two species of polecat, which today corresponds to the
region of immediately north and slightly to the east and west of Greece.
Nonetheless, because there is no archaeology to back up any claim, we
are forced back to our default positionthe region of domestication
cannot be definitively deduced with current information or evidence.
 
It is not all that bleak.  We know the genetics of the ferret is so close
to both the European and steppe polecats that a progenitor cannot be
distinguished.  That implies a region of domestication at or near the
overlap zone between the two wild species.  We know the oldest historic
records indicate a northeastern Mediterranean-southeastern Europe origin
that places us in roughly the same region.  We know that the oldest
historic citations from the same general region show a pattern of
reference that shifts from "wild" to "domestic." We know this shift in
reference corresponds to increased crop surpluses due to agricultural
intensification and crop rotation.  All these lines of evidenceand
moremay be circumstantial, but it is the best evidence we currently
possess.
 
The bottom line is that while current evidence cannot pinpoint a region
of domestication, circumstantially it appears that area was roughly the
northeastern parts of the Mediterranean region, ranging an unknown
degree into southeastern Europe.  This region could be as far north as
present-day Hungary, as far east as some of the ex-Soviet republics, as
far west as the Italian peninsula, and as far southeast as modern Turkey.
It could be larger, perhaps encompassing all of southern Europe, but
while there exists circumstantial evidence showing a region of
domestication roughly north-northeast of ancient Greece, there is none
for any other location.
 
Bob C  [log in to unmask]
 
"Dogs, cats, ferrets, and weasels, are their natural enemies; and though
such useful animals destroy great numbers, yet the killing or taking of
rats furnishes employment to many skillful men, who pursue different
ways of catching them; and who are known under the name of Ratcatchers."
Anonymous.  1803 Useful Information Respecting Rats, Including Various
Methods of Driving Them From Houses, Or Destroying Them.  Philadelphia
Repository and Weekly Register
[Posted in FML issue 4768]