Q: (Private Post): If the Egyptians didn't domesticate the ferret, then
   why the reference to Libya, and who did?
 
A: Satan did it at 4004 BC, sometime on October 21st. That's why albinos
   have red eyes, and they all go for socks.
 
There are two basic sources for the North African references (not the same
as Egyptian, BTW, any more than Canadians are the same as Americans) The
first comes from Strabo, and the other from Linnaeus, who is referring to
Strabo.  Strabo states the ferret was Libyan in origin, and Linnaeus states
the ferret is north African in origin.  Can these be true?  Maybe.
Certainly, the region had a different biotic setting than found today,
primarily due to deforestation and desertification.  So, the possiblity
exists that 2500 to 3000 years ago, polecats roamed the north of Africa and
they were caught and domesticated.
 
Is it possible?  Sure, just as it is possible I will win the next big
lottery jackpot or lawyers will tell the truth.  The major problem is a lack
of a fossil record.  There are polecat fossils in North America (Steppe
polecat/Blackfooted ferret), Asia (steppe polecats) and Europe (European
polecat and steppe polecats).  In North Africa, you can find fossils of the
types of weasels and polecats living there, but not of the steppe or the
European polecat.  And every study ever done indicate one of these two, and
most likely the European polecat, was the ancestor of the ferret.  We are
only talking of bones that are a few thousand years old; if the beasties
were there, so would the remains.  All sorts of scenerios could be invented
as to why the remains are not being found, but the excuses don't seem to
stop the remains from being unearthed in other locations.  The simplest
answer is they weren't there to begin with.
 
When Linnaeus was constructing his taxonomic system in the 1750s, the amount
of factual literature was very meager.  The philosphoy of science was just
being constructed, and scientists worked from a religious paradigm that
didn't allow domestication to have been performed by humans; it was presumed
all domesticates were placed on the earth in that condition.  Some early
naturalists wrote the wild forms were degenerated from the domesticated
forms, similar to the thought that Africans and Native Americans were
degenerated races.  Not having a clue to the origin of the ferret, Linnaeus
did what all scientists do; consulted the literature.  So his North African
reference came straight from Strabo.
 
If you think the excepted standards of scientific writing were rough at the
time of Linneaus, they were nonexistent by comparison at the time of Strabo.
Coincidentally written at about the same time as the New Testiment (or just
prior), Strabo's accounts put the origin of the ferret in the Libyan region.
Again, Strabo could not know the origin of the ferret any more than that of
the goat or the sheep; the origin was already lost in antiquity.  So what
was he describing?
 
Most ferret historians accept Strabo because he describes HOW the ferret was
being used; in this case as a hunter of rabbits, and in much the same manner
as ferrets have been historically used.  Thus, because ferretting today is
similar to what Strabo described, we ASSUME his discriptions to be accurate.
Based on that, we ASSUME his location to also be accurate.  Now, this is
from the same person who described giants, and cyclops, and all sorts of
mythical creatures within the same book.  So why accept anything as true?
 
Because Strabo, and other writers of the era, were essentially reporters
rather than scientists.  They reported the things they heard or saw, which
means, just like in today's modern society, lots of false information gets
in print.  Strabo was told of monsters, so he reported them.  You couldn't
just jump in the Suberban and drive over to the mountain to see if it were
real, much of your information came from second or third parties, and that
was all you had.  He was told the ferret came from North Africa, so he
reported it.  He saw or heard how the ferret was used, so he reported it.
Thus, the descriptions of the domestic nature of the ferret are probably
true, while the locations are less believable, and the monsters completely
unbelievable.
 
Could the ferret have come from North Africa?  I think it was there, because
the Phoenicans had a huge and very powerful city-state in the area; Carthage.
I think ferrets were in Greece 500 years earlier; its quite simple to see
ferrets being quite popular on the ships of the time, working as ratters.
Since the Phoenicans were bigtime sailors and traders, it is entirely
probable that they obtained ferrets for such that purpose.  BUT (and I do
mean BUT!) having them does NOT mean they domesticated them.  Maybe so,
probably not.  The European and steppe polecats are typically found north of
the Mediteranean, and I suspect the domestication of the ferret took place
there.
 
I think the Eqyptian myth gets much of its support from the Strabo account.
This illustrates a very real danger in science, that of making the facts fit
the data.  You read the ferret came from North Africa (Strabo, Linnaeus) and
saw a reproduction of a heiroglyphic that looked kinda-sorta like a ferret.
Ergo, ferrets were domesticated in Eqypt.  Right.  Sure.  And the batboy is
real; I saw his picture in the Weekly World News.
 
Mo' Bob and the 18 Mo' Sock Sharks
[Posted in FML issue 1852]