Q:"My question is, some books say ferrets have been domesticated for two
thousand years and I was wondering where were they all this time, before
people began having them as pets....were [they] bred from the European
Polecat, and became domesticated....*more recently*?"
 
A: Asking a zooarchaeologist to define "more recent?" Got 10,000 years?
 
Where were the ferrets 2000 years ago?  I wish I knew, because then I
would dig them up and solve the sticky problem once and for all.  It is
my *opinion* that they were common only where early European large scale
agriculture was taking place, because it seems clear they were not
domesticated for hunting rabbits, but for rodent control.  The two best
likely places are Spain and Central to Eastern Europe.  The best studies
suggest the ancestor of the domesticated ferret was the European polecat,
*but* there are alternative scenerios that have not been disproven.
 
The record between 2000 years ago and about 750 years ago is quite, well,
sparce.  A couple of mentions here and there, but in all honesty, it is
hard to prove (scientifically impossible to prove) the ferrets mentioned in
the various texts prior to the Middle Ages are even the ancestors of OUR
ferrets.  I'm not kidding.  For example, without a clear line of evidence
between Aristophanes' ferrets to Strabo's ferrets, or from Strabo's
ferrets to Isadore's ferrets, we could be speaking of *3* or more separate
domestication events (which DOES NOT disprove *OUR* ferret is a
domesticated animal; it just may shift the timetable a little).  Note that
while *I* am not advocating that position, it is a theoretical possibility
that cannot be eliminated without better archaeology; I doubt if many more
texts will be found to support the historical record.  About the only way
it can be proved is through DNA analysis, comparing recovered remains to
present-day ferrets.  And since there are no recovered remains....
 
Starting about 800 years ago, the historical record does start to get
better; it seems ferrets were primarily used as ratters and to a lesser
degree in ferreting rabbits.  However, as the cat become more plentiful
and accepted, the ferret is removed to the primary role of rabbit bolter.
Rabbits are yet not domesticated, so ferrets are very important in their
hunting.  The few archaeological finds of ferrets date to this period, and
were recovered from castle middens.  It is unknown if ferrets were used by
both commoners and the titled, but it is likely.  As hunting weapons and
dogs become more popular, and as the rabbit was domesticated, ferrets
become less popular with the titled, and references shift from the nobility
towards common usage.
 
As for the majority of ferrets of the time, it *seems* that they were one
large breeding pool, with some individuals used for ratting and others for
rabbit bolting (ferreting).  The ferretter and ratter did not want ferrets
killing prey; they wanted them to chase the prey out for the terriers or
men with clubs to kill.  So ferrets were bred to *bolt* animals, not hunt
them.  It is my *opinion* that one reason ferrets have such a musky body
odor is to scare the prey before they can get close enough to kill them;
few predators stink as much as the ferret.  There is no proof for this
opinion, but you are invited to sniff predators if you wish.
 
Except for a very few instances, there is no evidence ferrets were
maintained primarily as pets.  In that regard, they were treated pretty
much like other domestic animals, including cats and dogs.  Ferrets were
considered working animals, and they probably had short and hard lives as
a result.  Also, people of the time were very sensitive to accusations of
witchcraft, and since witches were "known" to have animal familiars, many
people were afraid that a pet might be mistaken as a familiar, so didn't
take the risk.  There is a paper chronicling Middle Age treatment of
animals, comparing animal injuries to fear of witchcraft.  Although I think
it is simplistic, it does show some neat data linking the nasty treatment
of animals to certain cultural taboos.  Overall, the archaeological record
suggests *ALL* groups of people mistreated domestic animals kept for food
or work, while treating *pets* as a family member, including the suckling
of hounds, pigs, sheep, goats and other animals by human wet-nurses.
 
Until the later half of this century, ferrets where maintained for two
basic purposes; ferreting and ratting.  Now, I am sure that during the last
2500 years, individuals would keep a ferret as pets, but such instances
were minor compared to the numbers kept as working animals.  All early
books on ferrets, and I have more than 50 of them, discusses ferrets as
working animals ONLY.  That pattern changes in the late 60s to early 70s,
when ferrets first started getting large scale advocation as pets, and one
could argue the founder of the "ferrets as pets" movement was the late Dr.
Winstead (Perhaps a person who knew her could expand on this point).
 
So, only in the last 30 years or so have ferrets been seen *PRIMARILY* as
pets.  This is supported by the recent increase in colors and body types,
historically absent, which suggest breeding for fancy rather than for
function.  A similar phenomenon took place with dogs and cats, where "fancy
breeds" developed only after the animals shifted from a "working" to a
"pet" category.  I believe we are at that point in ferret domestication
history where "fancy breeds" are starting to be developed, which is
supported by the very recent advent of angora hair and different body
types.
 
Bob C and 20 More Undifferientiated Carpet Monkeys
[Posted in FML issue 2565]