ArticlePDF Available

A new look at the Minoan “blue” monkeys

DOI:10.15184/aqy.2020.29
Authors:
Bernardo Urbani at Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research
Bernardo Urbani
Dionisios Youlatos at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Dionisios Youlatos
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

A review of Minoan frescoes and artefacts suggests interactions with two primate groups in sacred and leisure contexts, respectively. This demonstrates the early exchange of iconography and knowledge of monkeys between the Aegean and North Africa.
Figures - uploaded by Dionisios Youlatos
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Dionisios Youlatos
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Dionisios Youlatos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dionisios Youlatos on Apr 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Project Gallery
A new look at the Minoan ‘blue’monkeys
Bernardo Urbani1,
*
& Dionisios Youlatos2
1
Centre for Anthropology, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, Venezuela
2
School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
* Author for correspondence: ✉bernardourbani@yahoo.com
A review of Minoan frescoes and artefacts suggests interactions with two primate groups in sacred and leisure
contexts, respectively. This demonstrates the early exchange of iconography and knowledge of monkeys
between the Aegean and North Africa.
Keywords: Greece, Africa, archaeoprimatology, primates, blue, vervets (Chlorocebus), baboons (Papio)
Introduction
The term ‘archaeoprimatology’describes a relatively new sub-discipline that involves primat-
ology and archaeology (Urbani 2013). The blue monkeys found in Minoan frescoes have
been the focus of decades of research (e.g. Masseti 1980; Vanschoonwikel 1990; Rehak
1999; Greenlaw 2011; Pareja 2017). This study is paradigmatic in considering them as
part of the first reported interface of non-human primates with a European civilisation inha-
biting the major islands of the Central Aegean Sea.
Methods
As part of ongoing research that will be the focus of a forthcoming publication, we revisited
the literature on the representation of non-human primates on Minoan archaeological sites.
As part of this research we re-examined evidence from frescoes, seals (both handling parts and
printing surfaces), pendants, figurines and jewellery; undertook field visits to sites with fres-
coes of non-human primates in Crete and Thera; and studied the current taxonomic classi-
fication and distribution maps of North African primates (Mittermeieret al.2012, constantly
updated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature).
Re-examining the evidence
The frescoes at Akrotiri, Thera and Knossos, Crete, strongly suggest that Minoans were famil-
iar with two species of cercopithecid monkeys: vervets (Chlorocebus spp., probably C. aethiops
or C. tantalus) and baboons (Papio spp., possibly P. anubis or P. hamadryas) (Urbani &
Youlatos 2012; Pareja 2017)(Figure 1). Philips (2008a &b) and Greenlaw (2011)have
further identified portable objects that resemble baboons in this Bronze Age society. Both
primate groups were probably originally represented at Minoan sites after having been
Received: 16 October 2019; Revised: 18 November 2019; Accepted: 19 December 2019
© Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2020
Antiquity 2020 Vol. 94 (374): e9, 1–5
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.29
1
Figure 1. Two cercopithecids in Minoan frescoes: top) vervet monkey depicted in a fresco at Akrotiri, Thera; below)
baboon shown in a fresco at Knossos, Crete (photographs by B. Urbani).
Bernardo Urbani & Dionisios Youlatos
© Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2020
2
observed on the African mainland (Masseti 2003; Doumas 2013). There is alleged archaeo-
logical evidence for the presence of Minoans in North Africa, from the site of Avaris, present-
day Tell el-Dab’a, in Egypt (Bietak & Marinatos 1995).
Vervet monkeys are represented in Thera (Complex Beta) and are depicted in a landscape
context (Figure 1). Morphological features such as the rounded, short dark greyish/black
muzzle, rounded face and cheeks, white band on the forehead, white ventral area, as well
as elongated arms and limbs, and extended tail, are key characteristics for their generic iden-
tification. A versatile positional repertoire and non-terrestrial behaviours depicted at Complex
Beta support this identification.
On the other hand, baboons seem to be related to sacred contexts and are associated with
flower offerings or gathering, as well as using swords and playing music on lyre-like instru-
ments at Thera (Xeste 3) and Crete (Knossos) (Figure 1). A set of physical traits such as
short hair in the inguinal part, narrow waist, dorsal position of the tail base, elevated limb
configuration, long muzzle and prognathic face, expanded thorax in relation to the whole
torso, and hairless nasal dorsum are characteristics of papionins. Furthermore, baboons are
represented as terrestrial, reflecting their original behaviour in the wild.
Conclusions
In Minoan imagery, particular monkeys seem to be distinctly related to certain contexts. The
small-bodied, agile and naturalistically represented vervet monkeys were most often associated
with leisure activities. Whereas the larger, sturdier, more terrestrial baboons—monkeys that
were already deified in nearby Egypt (Philips 2008a; Greenlaw 2011; Pareja 2017)—were attrib-
uted more anthropomorphic behaviours and depicted in sacred or ritual events. This Aegean
Bronze Age society, then, was the first European civilisation to perceive, represent, socially con-
struct and, eventually, have contact with non-human primates.The representation of primates in
Minoan contexts confirms the early exchange of iconography and knowledge of monkeys among
Aegean islanders, and substantiates their interaction with human populations from North Africa
that might have had these primate species living around their coastal settlements.
The colour of the pelages (hair) of both baboons and vervets falls within the grey/olive-
grey range, but they are consistently represented as blue in Minoan frescoes. We suggest
that—as observed in other societies (e.g. Roberson et al.2005)—the use of blue to represent
Minoan monkeys might be explained as a colour abstraction within the grey/green scale (see
also Philips 2008a). In this way, vervets and baboons represent ideal living models for an
iconographic and chromatic hypothesis in which grey/green is represented by blue. In fact,
blue was also used by Minoans to represent metallic, grey-like surfaces (Peters 2008), such
as fish scales (Gill 1985). Moreover, the colour blue was widely and symbolically used by
Egyptians in divine contexts (Schenkel 2007; Concoran 2016); Minoans may have borrowed
it to represent exotic animals, such as monkeys (e.g. Greenlaw 2011).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the librarians at the Biblioteca della Scuola Archaeologica Italiana di
Atene, the Begler Library of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, and the
Historical-Archaeological Library of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki for their help
A new look at the Minoan ‘blue’monkeys
© Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2020
3
and support. Our thanks also go to the personnel at the National Archaeological Museum in
Athens, the Herakleion Archaeological Museum (Iraklio, Crete), the Museum of Prehistoric
Thera (Fira, Santorini) and the archaeological sites of Knossos and Akrotiri. B. Urbani was
funded by an I.K.Y. post-doctoral fellowship (Greek State Scholarship Foundation, Ministry
of Education of the Hellenic Republic). Travel to Crete was supported by the School of
Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. We appreciate the cooperation of Yoly
Velandria and Ana María Resnik, and the constructive comments of an anonymous reviewer
on earlier versions of this text.
References
Bietak, M. &N. Marinatos. 1995. The Minoan
wall paintings from Avaris. Egypt and the Levant 5:
49–62.
Concoran, L.H. 2016. The color blue as an
‘animator’in ancient Egyptian art, in
R.B. Goldman (ed.) Essays in global color history:
interpreting the ancient spectrum:59–82.
Piscataway (NJ): Gorgias.
https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463236632-008
Doumas, C.G. 2013. Akrotiri, Thera: reflections
from the East, in J. Aruz, S.B. Graff & Y. Rakic
(ed.) Cultures in contact: 180–86. New Haven
(CT): Yale University Press.
Gill, M.A.V. 1985. Some observations on
representations of marine animals in Minoan art,
and their identification. Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique 11: 63–81.
https://doi.org/10.3406/bch.1985.5270
Greenlaw, C. 2011. The representation of monkeys in
the art and thought of Mediterranean cultures: a
new perspective on ancient primates (British
Archaeological Reports S2192). Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports.
Masseti, M. 1980. Le scimmie azzurre: la fauna
etiópica degli affreschi minoici di Santorino
(Thera). Mondo Archeologico 51: 32–37.
–2003. Taxonomic and behavioural aspects of the
representation of mammals in Aegean Bronze Age
art, in E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis,
P. Halstead & C. Gamble (ed.) Zooarchaeology in
Greece: recent advances: 273–81. London: The
British School at Athens.
Mittermeier, R.,A.B. Rylands &D.E. Wilson
(ed.). 2012. Handbook of the mammals of the
world. 3: primates. Barcelona: Lynx.
Pareja, M.N. 2017. Monkey and ape iconography in
Aegean art. Uppsala: Astrom.
Peters, M. 2008. Colour use and symbolism in
Bronze Age Crete: exploring social and
technological relationships, in C. Jackson &
E.C. Wager (ed.) Vitreous materials in the Late
Bronze Age Aegean: a window to the East
Mediterranean world: 187–208. Oxford: Oxbow.
Phillips, J.P. 2008a. Aegyptiaca on the island of Crete
in their chronological context: a critical review,
volume 1. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
–2008b. Aegyptiaca on the island of Crete in their
chronological context: a critical review, volume 2.
Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Rehak, P. 1999. The monkey frieze from Xeste 3,
room 4: reconstruction and interpretation, in
P.B. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis & R. Laffineur
(ed.) Meletemata: studies in Aegean archaeology,
presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65
th
Year: 705–708. Liège: Peeters.
Roberson, D.,J. Davinoff,I.R.L. Davies &
L.R. Shapiro. 2005. Colour categories:
confirmation of the relativity hypothesis.
Cognitive Psychology 50: 378–411.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.10.001
Schenkel, W. 2007. Color terms in ancient
Egyptian and Coptic, in R.E. MacLaury, G.
V. Paramei & D. Dedrick (ed.) Anthropology of
color: interdisciplinary multilevel modeling: 211–
28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.137.14sch
Urbani, B. 2013. Arqueoprimatología: reflexión
sobre una disciplina y dos localidades
antropoespeleológicas venezolanas. Boletín
de la Sociedad Venezolana de Espeleología 45:
66–68.
Urbani, B. &D. Youlatos. 2012. Aegean
monkeys: from a comprehensive view to a
re-interpretation, in A. Legakis, C. Georgiadis &
P. Pafilis (ed.) Proceedings of the 12
th
International
Congress on the Zoogeography and Ecology of Greece
Bernardo Urbani & Dionisios Youlatos
© Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2020
4
and Adjacent Regions: 160. Athens: Hellenic
Zoological Society.
Vanschoonwikel, J. 1990. Animal representations
in Theran and other Aegean arts, in D.A. Hardy,
C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis & P.M. Warren
(ed.) Thera and the Aegean world III. Volume one:
archaeology. 327–47. London: The Thera
Foundation.
A new look at the Minoan ‘blue’monkeys
© Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2020
5
... Moreover, no recent review (e.g. Papageorgiou & Birtacha, 2008;Phillips, 2008aPhillips, , 2008bGreenlaw, 2011;Pareja, 2015Pareja, , 2017Urbani & Youlatos, 2020a,b, 2022 has reported the existence of any Bronze Age frescoes depicting primates from mainland Greece, where the Mycenaean civilization flourished at that time. This is also the case of other works, such as Cline's (1991Cline's ( , 1995 study on the presence of Egyptian primatomorphic objects on Mycenaean sites, Wolfson's (2018) iconographical analysis on 'monkeys and simianesque creatures' from ancient Greece, and Urbani's (2021) recent comprehensive assessment on global archaeoprimatological patterns. ...
... The relationship of the inhabitants of the Mycenaean Greek mainland with primates remains tenuous, particularly when compared with the relatively ample primate imagery of the Minoans (Papageorgiou & Birtacha, 2008;Phillips, 2008aPhillips, , 2008bGreenlaw, 2011;Pareja, 2015Pareja, , 2017Urbani & Youlatos, 2020a,b, 2022Binnberg et al., 2021). The only other objects depicting monkeys found on Mycenaean lands are either imports from Egypt or directly influenced by Cypriot or Near Eastern artistic traditions. ...
... Moreover, the tail seems to be part of the animal, a continuation of the rump and not part of a costume, or furry garment, or attachment, which further highlights the animal nature of the bipedal figure. When compared to the descriptors suggested for Minoan papionins such as the 'narrow waist, dorsal position of the tail base (and) elevated limb configuration' (Urbani & Youlatos, 2020a: 3), the Tiryns image shows the general form of a baboon-like primate. ...
A Primate on a Fresco from the Mycenaean Acropolis of Tiryns
Article
The earliest Bronze Age Mediterranean primate representations on frescoes are found at the Aegean sites of Knossos (Crete) and Akrotiri (Thera). By contrast, monkeys have so far been missing from Mycenaean frescoes in mainland Greece. A fresco fragment of a cultic scene from Tiryns changes this; it depicts a bipedal partial lower body, with a hanging tail. This image, previously interpreted as a human wearing an animal hide, had already been suggested to represent a monkey. A re-examination of this miniature fresco identified various features that seem to confirm the representation of a monkey, most probably of a baboon-like primate. Assuming that the fresco from Tiryns is part of a cult scene, similar to those from Akrotiri, this adds a further image to a small corpus of Aegean depictions connecting monkeys with important female figures or deities. Furthermore, the Tiryns fresco fragment indicates that primates were not entirely absent from local Mycenaean iconography.
View
... Pareja et al. (2020a) also indicated other primates as the ones that had been suggested for Minoan frescos: Chlorocebus pygerythrus, C. aethiops, Papio anubis, and P. hamaydras. Chapin and Pareja (2021) also suggested that they identified langurs as part of a group of "Wild Animals from Indirect Exchange Networks;" c Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021) did not exclude vervets (Chlorocebus aethiops or C. tantalus) as suggested by Urbani and Youlatos (2020a, b). Although, in a comment article to Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021), Urbani et al. (2021) provided further evidence that the depiction of vervets is still more parsimonious in Room 6 of Complex/Building Beta. ...
... In contrast, langurs, and colobines in general, possess very short thumbs; c The cheek whiskers in the primates of Sector Alpha ( Fig. 10.7b, c) are very similar to those found in baboons, and more likely in the hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas). The images were published by Vlachopoulos (2007) and went unnoticed by Papageorgiou and Birtacha (2008), Phillips (2008a, b), Greenlaw (2005), Pareja (2015, and Urbani and Youlatos (2020a); d See Hunt et al. (1996) for the definitions of locomotion and postural modes inferred for the vervets (Fig. 10.8). The letters refer to labels in Fig. 10.8. ...
... (b) As mentioned in the text, Binnberg et al. (2021) proposed that the white ventrum in depicted vervets and baboons might be an iconographic amalgamation in Minoan primatomorphic representations that can be better explained by folk taxonomical clumping. Recently, Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021) suggested that, previously, the white inner thighs were not considered for identifying cercopithecines by Pareja et al. (2020a, b) and Urbani and Youlatos (2020a). This is certainly true, and as in the case of the white bellies in Minoan primate frescos, this depicted feature is also shared by both baboons and vervets (even if it is naturally present in the latter). ...
Minoan Monkeys: Re-examining the Archaeoprimatological Evidence
Chapter
  • Aug 2022
The present chapter provides a detailed review of the available material evidence concerning the representation of primates and their context in the Minoan civilization. More specifically, we analyzed the depictions of primates in two frescos from Knossos, Crete, and four frescos from Akrotiri, Thera/Santorini. Furthermore, we studied primate representations in portable objects from Crete. The material consisted of 2 figurines, 2 pendants, 2 pieces of jewelry, 12 seals with primatomorphic handles, and 17 seals/sealings with primatomorphic printing surfaces. In these pieces, we identified two kinds of monkeys, vervets (Chlorocebus spp.) and baboons (Papio spp.). Our analyses concur with previous reports and support the contentions that: (a) there was an extensive cultural exchange between Minoans and Egyptians, (b) Minoans were either first-hand observers of primates or were painters of detailed narratives, (c) some monkeys (vervets) are related to a leisure –yet naturalistic– context and some others (baboons –by then deified in Egypt) act as mediators in ritual contexts, (d) primates reach Minoan imageries in two time periods, and (e) the representation of primates among Minoans is an example of the earliest transmission of exotica into Europe. Keywords:Akrotiri, Archaeoprimatology, Baboons, Chlorocebus spp., Egypt, Knossos, Papio spp., Vervets
View
... In fact, Pareja et al.'s new identification as langurs concerned only the wall painting of Akrotiri's Room 6 of Building Complex Beta (Santorini/Thera, Greece). By contrast, Urbani and Youlatos (2020a,b) identify those same monkeys as vervets in this specific site at Akrotiri, and the monkeys depicted in all the other frescoes from Crete and Thera as baboons (Urbani and Youlatos 2020a). At some points, Masseti (2021 p.1,3) mentions the articles of Pareja and collaborators when referring to the challenges posited to Urbani and Youlatos' ideas, by (a) highlighting that " Pareja et al. (2020b) reply to the criticism of Urbani and Youlatos (2020b), on the basis of arguments which are not fully convincing," and (b) noting "that Pareja et al. (2020b), while acknowledging the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration in archaeoprimatology, they do not seem to follow this statement confidently, insisting on justifying their taxonomic attribution of the Minoan 'cultural representation of monkeys' to langurs." ...
... Second, Masseti (2021) corrects Urbani and Youlatos (2020a) in their assertion that he did suggest that the primates were observed in Africa before being depicted in Minoan art. However, Masseti (1980Masseti ( , 2003 had indeed suggested that Minoans observed (exotic) fauna in their native lands, probably Africa, or in Minoan enclosures. ...
... At the same time, there are Minoan artistic elements that might have been influenced by the circulation of iconographies, most likely from Egypt, and the current data support the connection between the Aegean and Egypt (Binnberg et al. 2021;Urbani and Youlatos 2022). Egyptian influence on Minoan primate imageries is well-known since the early years of the exploration of Knossos, has been expanded on primatomorphic artefacts from various art historical perspectives (Phillips 2008;Greenlaw 2011;Pareja 2017), and is currently reexplored in Urbani and Youlatos (2012, 2020a,b, 2022 and Binnberg et al. (2021). ...
View
... It is in this spirit that we have participated in a recent debate that was prompted by an article written by Pareja et al. (2020a) and published in Primates. To recall, the authors identified the monkeys depicted in a fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta in the Bronze Age town of Akrotiri (hereafter referred to as ´Room 6´) as Indian langurs (genus Semnopithecus), whereas Urbani and Youlatos (2020a, b) argued for the identification as African vervets (genus Chlorocebus). Since an extensive review of the arguments exchanged between Pareja et al. (2020a, b) and Urbani and Youlatos (2020a, b) can be found in Binnberg et al. (2021), this comment merely intends to present thoughts on a recent article by Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021). ...
... To recall, the authors identified the monkeys depicted in a fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta in the Bronze Age town of Akrotiri (hereafter referred to as ´Room 6´) as Indian langurs (genus Semnopithecus), whereas Urbani and Youlatos (2020a, b) argued for the identification as African vervets (genus Chlorocebus). Since an extensive review of the arguments exchanged between Pareja et al. (2020a, b) and Urbani and Youlatos (2020a, b) can be found in Binnberg et al. (2021), this comment merely intends to present thoughts on a recent article by Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021). In their study, Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021) first elaborate on the morphological attributes of the monkeys from Room 6, and propose that, in addition to the vervets suggested by Youlatos (2012, 2020a, b), two other African species could equally be considered as possible models for the monkeys in the painting. ...
... We welcome the scholarly observations provided by Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021), and we are glad that, apart from expanding interpretations on what we proposed in our previous work (Urbani and Youlatos 2020a, b), our initial goal for igniting a fruitful and insightful archeoprimatological conversation was fulfilled. We also welcome the fact that this debate borrows the pages of a primatological journal which allows sharing this discussion among colleagues and eventually benefits from an exchange of diverse academic approaches for postulating/rejecting hypotheses. ...
Galilei’s mutter, archeoprimatology, and the “blue” monkeys of Thera: a comment on Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021)
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2021
A recent debate on the taxonomic identiication of the monkeys depicted in a fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta in the Bronze Age town of Akrotiri, Thera (Greece) has triggered a multitude of diferent interpretations deriving from a fruitful exchange of diverse academic approaches. Thus, Pareja et al. (Pareja et al., Primates 61:159–168, 2020a) identiied those Aegean monkeys as Asian langurs (Semnopithecus spp.), whereas Urbani and Youlatos (Urbani and Youlatos, Antiquity 94:e9, 2020a) and Binnberg et al. (Binnberg J, Urbani B, Youlatos D, J Gr Archaeol 6:in press 2021) argued for the identiication as African vervets (Chlorocebus spp.), and recently Pruetz and Greenlaw (Pruetz and Greenlaw, Primates, 2021) introduced the African L’Hoest’s monkeys (Allochrocebus lhoesti) and Diana monkeys (Cercopithecus diana) into the debate. This comment intends to present thoughts on the latter contention. In this context, our approach encompassed the morphological analysis of speciic features of the face and torso, the cultural context of the use of the blue color for representing the Aegean monkeys, the detailed artistic rendering of Aegean painters, the geographical distribution ranges of the potential candidate monkey species, and the historical context of trading monkeys or exchanging monkey imageries in the eastern Mediterranean region and Africa. All this evidence supports our contention that vervets still represent the most parsimonious models for the monkeys depicted in Room 6. This debate, based on multidisciplinary research, stands as a constructive example for the perspectives that need to be followed for the development of archeoprimatology.
View
... Discovering long-distance trade relations gives a deeper insight into the economies of ancient civilizations. For example, lead ingots were traded between Sardinia and Israel (Yahalom-Mack et al. [13]), and the Minoans on the island of Crete traded vervet monkeys and baboons with eastern Africa (Urbani, and Dionisios [12]) and cumin (Cuminum cyminum) with India (Tsafou and García-Granero [11]). Together with the exotic goods, their names also spread as loanwords [1]. ...
Data Science Applied to Discover Ancient Minoan-Indus Valley Trade Routes Implied by CommonWeight Measures
Article
  • Jan 2022
This paper applies data mining of weight measures to discover possible long-distance trade routes among Bronze Age civilizations from the Mediterranean area to India. As a result, a new northern route via the Black Sea is discovered between the Minoan and the Indus Valley civilizations. This discovery enhances the growing set of evidence for a strong and vibrant connection among Bronze Age civilizations.
View
... 58 Pareja et al. 2020b: 768. 59 In fact, the descriptions in Urbani and Youlatos (2020a, b) were based on the originally preserved parts of the Minoan primatomorphic frescoes (cf. their gures 2, 4, and 6). ...
Langurs in the Aegean Bronze Age? A review of a recent debate on archaeoprimatology and animal identification in ancient iconography [Journal of Greek Archaeology]
Article
  • Dec 2021
Recently, an article was published in the journal Primates, in which an interdisciplinary team consisting of primatologists, a taxonomic illustrator, and an art historian/archaeologist suggested a new identification of the monkeys depicted in a wall painting from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta in the Bronze Age town of Akrotiri on the Cycladic island of Thera.1 Briefly summarised, Pareja et al. argued that the monkeys represented are to be identified as grey or Hanuman langurs (Semnopithecus spp.), a monkey genus native to the Indian subcontinent. With this, they diverged from the traditional identification as green monkeys/vervets/grivets of the genus Chlorocebus from Africa.2 It was claimed that the new identification as langurs provides (further) evidence for links between the Aegean and the Indus River Valley during the Bronze Age, with Mesopotamia as a likely intermediary region. According to the authors, the Cycladic artists could have seen langurs on their travels, and monkey iconography could have reached the Aegean via objects originating from these regions.
View
... Greenlaw (2011) also identifies the fresco monkeys as vervets but notes that the match is not perfect, pointing out the all-black face of vervets but that the fresco monkey faces are black only down to the upper lips. While L'Hoest's and Diana monkeys also have black chins, their white necks are more exaggerated than those of vervets, even the West African green monkey, which is a better morphological match than C. tantalus or C. aethiops, as suggested by Urbani and Youlatos (2020b). If the Diana monkeys were, as they are now, only found in the areas of Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire, it is almost impossible that they would have been known anywhere in the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age. ...
Occam’s razor revisited: guenon species morphology supports evidence for an African influence in Bronze Age Aegean fresco primate iconography from Akrotiri, Thera
Article
In a recent exchange, Pareja et al. (Primates 61: 159–168, 2020a; Primates 61: 767–774, 2020b) and Urbani and Youlatos (Primates, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-020-00825-2, 2020a) dispute the re-interpretation of the primate species depicted in a Bronze Age fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta at Akrotiri, Thera. They review the history of interpretations of this artwork and combine the expertise of scholars that traditionally focus on such research with the scientific expertise of primatologists to reexamine the artwork. Additionally, they emphasize the morphological traits exhibited by these painted primates. We review and expand their list of candidate primates here in a decision table to demonstrate that the African link is better supported by the morphological traits than the Asian one proposed by Pareja et al. (2020a, b). Using such evidence, we show that other guenons of the tribe Cercopithecini, such as L’Hoest’s monkey (Allochrocebus lhoesti) and the Diana monkey (Cercopithecus diana), provide equal support for the African link as the vervet monkey proposed by Urbani and Youlatos (2020a). However, the historical context supports the traditional interpretation that the Akrotiri fresco depicts vervet monkeys from this region. This discourse provides an open forum for scholars in various fields to contribute to an important problem that crosses disciplinary boundaries.
View
... This, however, is not enough to be considered a diagnostic phenotypic character of primates other than representatives of the genus Chlorocebus. Urbani and Youlatos (2020a) quote Masseti (2003) as saying that the monkeys were probably originally represented at Minoan sites "after having been observed on the African mainland". However, I did nothing more than note that green monkeys were exotic primates very likely imported from sub-Saharan Africa into the Aegean region through trade with Egypt, and not that they were directly observed by the Minoan artists in Africa. ...
View
Part II - Europe
Article
  • Aug 2022
Archaeoprimatology intertwines archaeology and primatology to understand the ancient liminal relationships between humans and nonhuman primates. During the last decade, novel studies have boosted this discipline. This edited volume is the first compendium of archaeoprimatological studies ever produced. Written by a culturally diverse group of scholars, with multiple theoretical views and methodological perspectives, it includes new zooarchaeological examinations and material culture evaluations, as well as innovative uses of oral and written sources. Themes discussed comprise the survey of past primates as pets, symbolic mediators, prey, iconographic references, or living commodities. The book covers different regions of the world, from the Americas to Asia, along with studies from Africa and Europe. Temporally, the chapters explore the human-nonhuman primate interface from deep in time to more recent historical times, covering both extinct and extant primate taxa. This anthology of archaeoprimatological studies will be of interest to archaeologists, primatologists, anthropologists, art historians, paleontologists, conservationists, zoologists, historical ecologists, philologists, and ethnobiologists.
View
Archaeoprimatology: The Longue Durée Interface Between Humans and Nonhuman Primates
Article
Full-text available
Archaeoprimatology explores how humans and nonhuman primates coexisted in the past. This discipline has profound roots in texts of early scholars. Archaeoprimatological research examines the liminality between humans, apes, monkeys, and prosimians deep in time before the rise of the Anthropocene. By exploring the beginning of the relationship between modern Homo sapiens and primates, which possibly dates to approximately 100,000 BCE, I survey the evidence, ranging from portable objects and 2D surfaces with primatomorphic depictions to primate remains at archaeological sites worldwide. For example, an overview of ancient frescoes and mosaics with primate representations reveals that the vast majority of them were rendered in locations where primates were not part of the local fauna. An extensive review of primates in the zooarchaeological record shows as a global pattern that traded primates were usually young individuals and frugivorous/omnivorous species. Local primates yielded at sites of regions they naturally inhabited were mostly hunted. Thus, examining past patterns of the human–nonhuman primate interface provides insight into major questions about human niche construction and primate conservation today.
View
View
Color categories: ConWrmation of the relativity hypothesis
Article
Full-text available
The question of whether language aVects our categorization of perceptual continua is of particular interest for the domain of color where constraints on categorization have been pro- posed both within the visual system and in the visual environment. Recent research (Roberson, Davies, & DavidoV, 2000; Roberson et al., in press) found substantial evidence of cognitive color diVerences between diVerent language communities, but concerns remained as to how representative might be a tiny, extremely remote community. The present study replicates and extends previous Wndings using additional paradigms among a larger community in a diVerent visual environment. Adult semi-nomadic tribesmen in Southern Africa carried out similarity judgments, short-term memory and long-term learning tasks. They showed diVerent cognitive organization of color to both English and another language with the Wve color terms. More- over, Categorical Perception eVects were found to diVer even between languages with broadly similar color categories. The results provide further evidence of the tight relationship between language and cognition.  2004 Published by Elsevier Inc.
View
Color Categories: Evidence for the Cultural Relativity Hypothesis
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2005
The question of whether language affects our categorization of perceptual continua is of particular interest for the domain of color where constraints on categorization have been proposed both within the visual system and in the visual environment. Recent research (Roberson, Davies, & Davidoff, 2000; Roberson et al., in press) found substantial evidence of cognitive color differences between different language communities, but concerns remained as to how representative might be a tiny, extremely remote community. The present study replicates and extends previous findings using additional paradigms among a larger community in a different visual environment. Adult semi-nomadic tribesmen in Southern Africa carried out similarity judgments, short-term memory and long-term learning tasks. They showed different cognitive organization of color to both English and another language with the five color terms. Moreover, Categorical Perception effects were found to differ even between languages with broadly similar color categories. The results provide further evidence of the tight relationship between language and cognition.
View
View
View
View
View
Color terms in ancient Egyptian and Coptic
Chapter
  • Jan 2007
The examination of the ancient Egyptian-Coptic color terms, their grammatical identification, their range of usage, and their etymologies permit the following conclusions: There are four BCTs, all verbs, 'black,' 'white,' 'red' and 'green,' as traditionally translated. The focus of 'red' is in the red range and not in the middle of the red-with-yellow range. The focus of'green' lies in the green range and not in the middle of the green-with-blue range nor in the pale green range. In the final, Coptic, stage, the partition of the red range into 'deep red' and 'light-red' must be assumed. The traditional written language allowed additional place for further verbal color terms, but these never entered the colloquial language as BCTs. Among these alternatives, the use of'lapis lazuli-colored, blue' is strikingly common; that of'charcoal-like, black' and 'golden' is less common. Egyptian did not develop a BCT for either blue or yellow. Basically Egyptian-Coptic remained at B&K Stage IIIa.
View
View
The Monkey Frieze from Xeste 3, Room 4: Reconstruction and Interpretation
Article
This study presents a new reconstruction of the monkey frieze from Xeste 3, Akrotiri, Thera, as a satire of human action.
View