Content uploaded by Bernardo Urbani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bernardo Urbani on Mar 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Greek Archaeology 6 (2021): 100–127
Langurs in the Aegean Bronze Age?
A Review of a Recent Debate on Archaeoprimatology and
Animal Identication in Ancient Iconography
Julia Binnberg
Independent researcher
JuliaBinnberg1@gmx.de
Bernardo Urbani
Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research
bernardourbani@yahoo.com
Dionisios Youlatos
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
dyoul@bio.auth.gr
Eppur si muove [And yet it moves]
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Introduction
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.
Immediately after publication – and hence without having undergone full academic debate – the
arguments advanced by Pareja et al. garnered considerable attention from the international press
and were repeated on several popular science websites, where the new identification was taken as
evidence for the existence of ancient ‘international’ endeavours.3 In a subsequent paper by Chapin
and Pareja, published in the Aegaeum series, the langur identity was presented as a fact and was
1
Pareja et al. 2020a.
2
In the literature one often nds the former name of the genus Cercopithecus. In the following, the term ‘vervet’ is used to refer to all
monkeys in the genus Chlorocebus.
3
For example: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/curious-tail-of-monkeys-who-crossed-the-ancient-world-s0pqc7v78; https://
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7774709/The-unlikely-tail-Indian-monkeys-ancient-fresco.html; https://www.smithsonianmag.
com/smart-news/painted-bronze-age-monkeys-hint-interconnectedness-ancient-world-180973789/; http://www.thehistoryblog.
com/archives/57332. Accessed 26 August 2020.
Julia Binnberg, Bernardo Urbani and Dionisios
Youlatos
101
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
used to support the authors’ hypothesis regarding the depiction of exotic animal species of Indian
origin in Minoan art.4
Coinciding with the publication of these papers, an article on Minoan monkeys written by two
primatologists Urbani and Youlatos was published in the journal Antiquity.5 The authors identified
the monkeys depicted in Cretan and Theran frescoes as African species, namely vervets (genus
Chlorocebus) in Room 6 of Building Complex Beta at Akrotiri6 and baboons (genus Papio) in the other
frescoes. Confronted with the new identification suggested by Pareja et al., they published a critical
reply in which they elaborated on the morphological correspondences between the monkeys in
the fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta and monkeys of the genus Chlorocebus.7 They also
examined the proposed iconographic connections between the Indus River Valley and the Aegean
regarding monkeys, concluding that these provide insufficient, if any, evidence to support the
ideas put forward by Pareja et al. Their comments prompted a defensive reply written by Pareja
and two members of the original team of six authors, in which they insisted on the correctness
of their original identification, by focusing on some art historical considerations and eventually
questioning Urbani’s and Youlatos’ aptitude to conduct research on Aegean monkeys and to state
an opinion on this matter.8
At this stage, the debate seems to have reached an impasse since one primatologist’s word
stands against another’s, a situation which risks supporting the frequently voiced belief that the
identification of ancient depictions of animals according to zoological principles is futile. However,
such a view would not only be mistaken but also ill-advised, because if followed, important evidence
pertaining to various aspects, ranging from animal symbolism to the past range of a particular
species, might be missed. Therefore, this debate concerns both archaeologists/art historians and
zoologists/primatologists, as well as those scholars working at the interface between traditional
disciplinary divides, as in the novel field of archaeoprimatology.9
Animal identification in ancient iconography
What is more, the arguments exchanged during the debate offer an excellent opportunity to reflect
on the methodological framework of animal identification in past iconography. The following
quotations may illustrate this point. Although Pareja et al. emphasise that their identification is the
result of the collaborative effort of an interdisciplinary team,10 Urbani and Youlatos criticise this
in that they do not consider ‘the whole picture to provide a taxonomic identification’ and invoke
the principle of Occam’s razor in order to parsimoniously assess the likelihood of the respective
identifications.11 In turn, Pareja et al. allege that Urbani and Youlatos are not qualified to voice
their views on this matter since they are ‘two individuals who work in similar fields and rely on
traditional scholarship in disciplines other than their own.’12
This exchange raises the question as to how the vexed issue of animal identification in iconography
can best be approached, in order to get reliable results that are supported by all the different
disciplinary perspectives. In fact, a study by Binnberg proposes an integrative framework of
animal identification in art by using the expertise and insights from various fields such as zoology,
anthropology, and art history/archaeology.13 More specifically, it is suggested to first contextualise
4
Chapin and Pareja 2020: 220–224, see also Chapin and Pareja 2021: 131-132.
5
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a.
6
This also was Pareja’s (2015; 2017) previous opinion that was curiously abandoned in Pareja et al. (2020a, b).
7
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b.
8
Pareja et al. 2020b.
9
For archaeoprimatology see Urbani 2013; 2021.
10
Pareja et al. 2020a: 159; also 2020b: 770, 773.
11
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 763–764.
12
Pareja et al. 2020b: 770.
13
Binnberg 2017 (with references).
102
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
the image in question within related depictions, in order to identify iconographic types which are
characterised by the recurring combinations of multiple morphological features.14 These types
are then compared to ‘real’ animals as they are described and classified by zoology and its various
sub-disciplines (including ornithology, primatology, or entomology).15 It is further proposed that
the result of this analysis needs to be refined or modified by considering the principles of ‘non-
Western’ or folk taxonomies, and by taking note of the local artistic conventions, in order to avoid
misidentifications on the basis of false species-specific features.16
This approach seems to offer a suitable foundation on which to build the structure of the present
article, which has three main aims. First, to systematically review the arguments exchanged in
the debate, second, to complement the discussion by drawing attention to hitherto-overlooked or
underdeveloped aspects, and third, to adapt and extend Binnberg’s methodological framework by
including considerations that have emerged in the course of the debate. In the following sections,
we will first discuss the typological context of the contested monkey fresco, followed by a review
of the respective primatological analyses. Next, we will consider what insights can be gained from
the knowledge of folk taxonomies and the art historical evidence. In the final section, the proposed
origins of Aegean monkeys represented in their iconography are examined.
Monkeys in the context of Minoan and Theran iconography
The focus of discussion is a fresco from the Late Bronze Age town of Akrotiri on Thera (Figure 1).17
It once adorned two walls of Room 6 of Building Complex Beta, and shows eight monkeys moving
along rocks above a river. In their introduction, Pareja et al. state that the reason for selecting
this fresco from the extant repertoire of Aegean Bronze Age (monkey) imagery is its exceptional
depiction of species-specific characteristics, a trait which is contrasted on the one hand with the
overall tendency of Aegean Bronze Age iconography to depict animals in a more generic way and
on the other hand with the more detailed Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Mesopotamian images.18
Even if one agreed with the contention that Minoan iconography of animals is less accurate than
that from the circum-Mediterranean regions (e.g. Egypt),19 it can be said that the depictions usually
offer enough diagnostic traits that enable identification on some generic or even on a specific
level.20 Contrary to another statement by Pareja et al., this is especially true for wall paintings, due
to the medium’s affordance to render colour and the availability of space.21
Correspondingly, multiple studies have been devoted to the question of species attribution in
Aegean art, often with a special focus on wall paintings, due to their very detailed morphological
and behavioural representations.22 Monkeys are no exception, and their taxonomic identification
14
Binnberg 2017: 282.
15
Binnberg 2017: 280–281.
16
Binnberg 2017: 281–282. Cf. Morgan 1985: 6. Similar methodological aspects are mentioned by Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 764 when
they write ‘Considering comprehensive datasets and the cultural contexts that produced them appears as a more reliable approach.’
17
Marinatos 1969: 53–54; 1970: 36–37, 63–64; 1971: 45–46; Masseti 1980: 33–34; Marinatos 1987: 129–130; Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 332,
336; Doumas 1992: 110–111; Greenlaw 2005: 73; 2006: 66; 2011: 50; Pareja 2017: 85–92.
18
Pareja et al. 2020a: 159–160; similar Pareja et al. 2020b: 769.
19
For general discussions of monkeys in Egyptian art see Phillips 2008: 168–174; Greenlaw 2011: 7–34; Pareja 2017: 19–29. For monkeys
in Near Eastern imagery see Greenlaw 2011: 35–41; Pareja 2017: 31–49. In fact, some fundamental scholars in art history and primatology
– from McDermott (1938) to Groves (2008), respectively – acknowledged the degree of details of Minoan frescoes rendering primates,
even when considered from an extended circum-Mediterranean perspective.
20
Cf. Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 759.
21
Pareja et al. 2020a: 161. In her previous work, Pareja (2015: 252) actually provided a good example of the exhaustive examination of
details in Minoan frescoes, by very closely examining the small zoomorphic elements on the collar of the women in the fresco from
Xeste 3 at Akrotiri.
22
For animal identication in Minoan art see Binnberg 2019; Masseti 1997 (birds); Masseti 2003 (terrestrial mammals); Gill 1985 (marine
animals) and Binnberg 2021 (insects). The frescoes from Akrotiri frequently permit animal identication on the level of genus or even
scientic species. Identiable are thus dierent mammals (lions, leopards, antelopes, stags, cows, monkeys, dolphins), birds (mallards,
ferruginous ducks, rock doves, barn swallows, Egyptian geese), insects (dragonies, butteries), and sh (mackerels, small tuna) (cf.
Morgan 1988; Doumas 1992).
103
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
Figure 1. Monkeys in fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta at Akrotiri, Thera. Photograph by B. Urbani.
has been discussed by several scholars, for example by Masseti, Parker, Greenlaw, and Phillips.23
Given these observations, the monkey fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta, with its
purported species-specific traits appears less exceptional than implied by the authors; instead, its
characteristics fit in well with other Aegean animal imagery.24
In the extant corpus of Aegean Bronze Age art, there are six monkey frescoes:25 two have been found
at Knossos on Crete,26 while another four have been unearthed in the Cycladic town of Akrotiri on
Thera (from Room 6 of Building Beta, Rooms 3a27 and Room 4 of Xeste 3,28 and from Sector Alpha29).
Following Binnberg’s framework, it seems advisable to first determine whether there are different
iconographic types which can then be analysed with regard to their possible species-specific traits.
Although it is emphasised by Pareja et al. that the collaborators of the project have examined the
whole of Aegean Bronze Age monkey imagery, the wall painting from Room 6 of Building Complex
Beta is not further contextualised for the reader.30 Two other monkey frescoes are illustrated, but
23
Masseti 1980; 2003: 275–277; Parker 1997; Greenlaw 2005; 2011: 47–49 and Phillips 2008: 68–182.
24
Cf. Blakolmer 2020: 40.
25
Greenlaw 2011: 47–51, 57; Pareja 2017: 71–111; Urbani and Youlatos 2022.
26
Evans 1921: 265; 1928: 446–450; Cameron 1986; Pareja 2017: 71–77, 79–84.
27
Marinatos 1987: 123–124; Doumas 1992: 131; Greenlaw 2011: 50–51; Pareja 2017: 107–111.
28
Marinatos 1987: 130; Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 332, 336–337; Doumas 1992: 128; Rehak 1999; Greenlaw 2005: 73; 2006: 66; 2011: 50; Pareja
2017: 99–105.
29
Marinatos 1987: 127; 1990; Doumas 1992: 184; Greenlaw 2005: 73; 2011: 49–50; Vlachopoulos 2007: 134–135; Pareja 2017: 93–98. In
addition, a fresco fragment from Phylakopi has been seen as part of a monkey’s face (Greenlaw 2011: 57), but this could also depict a
dierent animal (cf. Urbani and Youlatos 2022).
30
Pareja et al. 2020a: 161.
104
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
a descriptive morphological comparison to the monkeys from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta is
notably lacking.31 By contrast, Urbani and Youlatos identify two different types of Minoan monkeys
and their descriptions are accompanied by a comparative illustration.32
Since the debate focuses on the fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta, it seems sufficient
to limit our typological enquiry here to the wall paintings from Akrotiri. When we compare the
monkeys with each other, we find that some morphological features are similar, while others are
different. Thus, all the monkeys have elongated limbs, a blue fur and a white belly, traits which
in fact reappear in all the frescoes, also the ones from Crete.33 There are, however, important
differences in facial attributes between the monkeys from Room 6 of Beta and those in the two
frescoes from Xeste 3 whose state of preservation allows a detailed comparison (Figure 2). Whereas
the other monkeys display a long snout and elliptically-shaped eyes, the monkeys from Room 6
have a rounded white face with a dark upper part and circular orange eyes.34 Moreover, the former
type appears more muscular and broad-shouldered with a shorter tail (where preserved), while the
latter type has a more slender build and a long tail which is curved upwards to form a C- or S-shape.
The combination of multiple morphological differences makes it likely that the two iconographic
types correspond to two different kinds of monkeys.
31
Pareja et al. 2020a: 161–162, 165, gures 6 and 11.
32
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a, gure 1.
33
Cf. Greenlaw 2011: 47.
34
Cf. Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 336; Greenlaw 2011: 48. Similar monkeys are depicted in Sector Alpha (Vlachopoulos 2007). A closer
examination of these monkeys by Urbani and Youlatos (2022) indicates that they are baboons.
Figure 2. Monkeys in frescoes from Akrotiri: a) Room 4, Xeste 3; b) Room 3a, Xeste 3; c) and d) Room 6 of Building Complex
Beta. Doumas 1992, figs 88–89, 95, 122. Image courtesy of the Excavations at Akrotiri, Thera.
105
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
Primatological analysis
In their paper, Pareja et al. emphasise that the decision to consult primatologists for their project
was prompted by a perceived ‘lack of nuanced species attributions in Aegean art’.35 This statement is
not further explained, however, and the reader looks in vain for a review of previous identification
attempts. Instead, it is implied that the traditional focus on Egypt is the main reason for scholars
to identify only African monkey species in Aegean art. However, this assertion is inaccurate, as
it disregards the fact that earlier studies of monkeys by Aegean Bronze Age scholars also drew
attention to morphological and behavioural characteristics in addition to the consideration of
other factors.36
Nevertheless, it is true that, until recently, previous studies have been characterised by generalizing
statements and a lack of precision regarding species identification.37 In this context, it should
be highlighted that this situation is not particular to the Aegean, but is part of a century-old
continuation of generalizations and likely misidentifications of ancient non-human primates
(hereafter referred to as ‘primates’) in the Mediterranean region, Mesopotamia, and the Near East,
which has had implications for the proper understanding of the cultural interconnections between
ancient societies in relation to different primate species in this large cultural area.38 Thus, in most
early studies of Aegean monkey imagery, figurines and most seals/sealings are seen as depicting
baboons,39 whereas the monkeys in frescoes are indistinctly identified as vervets.40
This predicament, however, seems to be as much the result of the absence of comprehensive studies,
including consistent comparative descriptions and concomitant typological considerations,
as to insufficient knowledge regarding primatological characteristics. It seems significant that
the studies which have (recently) offered a more nuanced view on the identity of the monkeys,
by drawing attention to different types/species, are synoptic works which discuss all or most
of the images/frescoes from Crete and/or Thera.41 This observation seems to corroborate the
importance of looking at the whole repertoire of depictions in the context of animal identification
in iconography.
Despite the uncertainties befalling Aegean monkey imagery in general, there is agreement among
scholars that the type depicted in the fresco from Room 6 represents vervets.42 This view is also
confirmed by the primatological perspective, which was first offered by the British-Australian
primate taxonomist Colin Groves (1942–2017).43 He indicated that in Room 6, the possible candidate
35
Pareja et al. 2020a: 160.
36
Cf. Masseti 1980; 2003: 275–277; 2012: 90; 2019: 28–30, 34–35; Parker 1997; Greenlaw 2005: 72–73; 2011: 47–49 and Phillips 2008: 168–
182.
37
Also noted by Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 757.
38
Cf. statements by foundational scholars in archaeology, primatology, physical anthropology, and art history such as Mackay 1938,
Schultz 1939, Ashley-Montagu 1940; or Langdon 1990. See also Urbani and Youlatos 2020c; 2021.
39
Cf. Vandervondelen 1994; Vanschoonwinkel 1996: 364. Cf. Urbani and Youlatos 2022.
40
For example by Marinatos (1987: 125, footnote 8; 1990: 421, footnote 17), Rehak (1999: 705), Masseti (1980: 33–34; 2003: 275–276; 2012:
90, referring to the wall painting from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta and the one from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos), Parker
(1997), and Blakolmer (2020: 39). Cf. Urbani and Youlatos 2022. In a recent comment, Masseti (2021) repeats his conviction that, despite
the iconographical variations, all the monkeys shown in the frescoes only represent one species, namely vervets.
41
Vanschoonwinkel (1990: 336) identies the monkey in room 3a of Xeste 3 as a baboon and notes that it is distinct when compared to
the monkeys from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta. Schmitz-Pillmann (2006: 25–26) notes the existence of two monkey types/species
in Theran art, Cercopithecus aethiops in the fresco from Building Complex Beta and a baboon-like monkey in other frescoes. Phillips (2008:
178–179) identies vervet monkeys and baboons in Minoan wall-paintings; the monkeys from the House of the Frescoes are said to be
Chlorocebus monkeys, although she simultaneously notes the presence of features indicating baboons. Greenlaw (2005: 72; 2011: 48)
identies the ones from Building Complex Beta as Chlorocebus monkeys and those from Xeste 3 (room 3a and 4) as probable baboons or
even patas monkeys. Pareja (2017) oers very detailed descriptions of all the frescoes and, although she does not provide a taxonomic
identication for the monkeys in every painting, notices important typological similarities and dierences. See also the review of this
issue by Urbani and Youlatos (2022).
42
Cf. Schmitz-Pillmann 2006: 25; Greenlaw 2011: 48 and Pareja 2017: 89. . Recently, Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021) reconrm the African
origin of the monkeys from Room 6; they also consider the possibility that members of dierent genera than Chlorocebus – most
notably L’Hoest’s monkeys (Allochrocebus lhoesti) or Diana monkeys (Cercopithecus diana) – may equally have contributed to the fresco’s
iconography
43
Groves 2008. Groves actually used the illustrations of Chlorocebus tantalus by Stephen Nash for comparison. Nash was co-author in
106
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
species are Chlorocebus sabaeus, C. aethiops, and, according to him, most likely C. tantalus. He wrote
that ‘everything else about them is accurate. Their faces are black. They have a white blow-band,
separated by a black line from white fan-shaped check whiskers. The underside is sharply white,
and this zone extends onto the backs and inner aspects of the thighs (…) the black stripe from eye
to ear and fan-shaped cheek whiskers suggest that they are Chlorocebus tantalus.’44
Urbani and Youlatos continued this approach by presenting descriptions of the Minoan monkeys
from a primatological point of view.45 In their paper published in Antiquity, they describe the physical
characteristics of vervets as they are found in the fresco from Room 6 as follows: ‘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 identification’ (Figure 3).46 They also note that the variety of
poses and the fact that some individuals are shown climbing and leaping, correspond to the typical
behaviours displayed by these kinds of monkeys. The other type, which appears in frescoes from
both Thera and Knossos, is said to resemble a baboon, because it displays 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’ (Figure 4).47 The blue fur colour which is shared by all the monkeys in
the depictions is said to be consistent with the greyish green pelage of both vervets and baboons.
In the primatological analysis by Pareja et al., the views of the primatologists, whose insights are
said to be ‘drawn from a scientifically demonstrable set of biological simian qualities’, appear at
first largely in accord with these observations.48 Thus, they endorse traditional interpretations of
monkey imagery found in the Aegean (including seals and other media) as depictions of baboons.
Significantly, they also concede that the general characteristics and facial patterns of the monkeys in
the fresco from Room 6 closely correspond to those of vervets. Nevertheless, their characterisation
of these monkeys as ‘lemur-ish [with] buggy yellow eyes, a cat-like nose, and round ears’49 leaves
the reader puzzled, because it is neither an accurate description nor does it follow the standards
and terminology commonly used by primatologists for such an analysis. With this, they perpetuate
the long-lasting problem concerning the lack of detailed and normative descriptions of Minoan
monkeys, that has characterised decades of research.
The primatologists then diverge from the conventional identification, because they treat a seldom-
mentioned aspect of the monkeys’ anatomy as a diagnostic feature of an entirely different genus. In
their own words: ‘one trait distinguishes the depicted monkeys from any of the suggested species
from Egypt: the tail. Vervets carry their tails straight behind them with a slight downward curve at
the end (…), whereas the Aegean monkeys carry their tails upward in a C- or S-shaped curve. With
these clear divergences in posture, we identify a new taxonomic attribution: these primates are
likely grey langurs or Hanuman langurs (Semnopithecus sp.)’ (cf. Figure 5).50
Pareja et al. (2020a), where a similar illustration of his was used, but he did not participate in the reply (Pareja et al. 2020b).
44
Groves 2008: 18.
45
Urbani and Youlatos 2012; 2020a.
46
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a: 3.
47
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a: 3.
48
Pareja et al. 2020a: 160–162. Signicantly, typological observations made previously by Pareja (2017) also agree with these ndings.
Thus, she noted general morphological similarities displayed by the monkeys in the two frescoes from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri (2017: 76) and
in the two frescoes from Knossos (2017: 83). By contrast, the monkeys in Room 6 of Building Complex Beta were clearly identied as
‘vervets’ (2017: 15, 89–91).
49
Pareja et al. 2020a: 161.
50
Pareja et al. 2020a: 161–162. In their reply, Pareja et al. (2020b: 767–768) argue that the media misinterpreted and overemphasised that
attribute, presenting it as the main criterion. However, the fact that many dierent news agencies identied the tail as fundamental for
the identication of the primates of Room 6 as langurs does not support this allegation.
107
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
Figure 3. A green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus) with a characteristic C-shaped tail and a frontal view of the head of a grivet
(Chlorocebus aethiops). Photographs by Charles J. Sharp, Wikimedia Commons-CC BY.
Figure 4. Characteristic features of baboons as shown in the original parts of the frescoes from Knossos and Akrotiri (cf.
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a:3). Photographs by Zde [upper left corner and upper center]; ArchaiOptix [lower right corner and
lower center]; Klearchos Kapoutsis [right], Wikimedia Commons-CC BY.
108
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
Figure 5. A Hanuman langur (Semnopithecus entellus) with a characteristic inverted U-shaped tail and a frontal view of the
head. Photographs by J. Hałun [left] and Gunjanbonde [right], Wikimedia- Commons-CC BY.
Figure 6. Lateral representations of Chlorocebus´ species heads: a) C. aethiops; b) C. tantalus
(formerly C. cynosures). Pocock 1907: Plate XLII; c) and d) Original plasters with complete lateral
views of the heads of the monkeys in Room 6 from Building Complex Beta. Photographs by B.
Urbani.
109
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
Thus, their identification is based on a single feature, a fact also criticised by Urbani and Youlatos.51
In their reply, these scholars describe (and illustrate) some more morphological correspondences
of the faces and heads of the monkeys from Room 6 and vervets (cf. Figure 6). They mention that
‘the heads are rounded and have very short fringes’.52 In the faces seen in profile, the following
characteristics are said to be evident: ‘dark greyish/blackish masks and muzzles/noses, the
presence of capillary mustaches, as well as white cheeks, chins, jawlines, and band foreheads.’53
In the one face that is shown in frontal view ‘the upper two-thirds of the face are rounded with
conspicuous and visible ears, a feature also typical of vervets’.54 In addition, they highlight the
close correspondence of the colour of the eyes, a reddish orange, to that observable in members of
this genus. Regarding the tail postures of vervets, they explain that these are more variable than
suggested by Pareja et al. and that at least the C-shape can often be observed in these animals.55
In addition to listing the traits that are characteristic of vervet monkeys, they also draw attention to
the fact that several morphological features which one would expect, if the identification proposed
by Pareja et al. were correct, are demonstrably missing from the painting.56 Thus, the monkeys
from Room 6 neither display typical facial features of langurs, nor do they show the tail-carriage
in which the tail forms an inverted U-curve, with the tip touching or overlapping the back which
is unique to this primate genus. Moreover, they do not exhibit the stark colour contrast between
black hands/feet and light fur which is typical of the genus Semnopithecus. Finally, their pelage
which is rendered in blue is said to be more compatible with the greenish-grey fur of vervets rather
than the yellowish one of langurs.57
In their response, Pareja et al. assert that they considered ‘many significant details illustrating
the langur identity’, but fail to mention what these other traits are.58 Instead, they cast doubt on
Urbani’s and Youlatos’ analysis of the facial characteristics by highlighting the reconstructed nature
of the fresco,59 an argument that is subsequently used to speculate on the possible depiction of a
tail forming a U-shape on one of the lost parts of the wall painting.60 These propositions, however,
contradict the lead author’s own analysis of the fresco’s state of preservation in her book, where
it was stated that all the monkeys (their faces included) seem to be of the same recognisable type
and the author persuasively argued for the tail postures of the individual monkeys as consistently
forming either C- or S-curves.61 Instead of engaging further with the arguments put forward by
Urbani and Youlatos, Pareja et al. focus on the colour blue and contest its significance as a species-
specific feature.62 They suggest instead that the blue pigment is a symbolic reference to the east,
ultimately imitating the colour of lapis lazuli which – like langurs – also came from Asia, and more
precisely the region of Badakhshan in modern-day Afghanistan.63
This review demonstrates that there are several differences between the two primatological
analyses, which have implications for the reliability of the respective identifications. While Urbani
and Youlatos compare and contrast the monkeys from Room 6 with other frescoes depicting
51
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 758, 764. . Recently, both Masseti (2021) and Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021) agree with this assessment and
reject the identication as langurs.
52
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 759.
53
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 759.
54
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 759.
55
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 758–759. cf. also Pareja 2017: 15. Urbani and Youlatos use the same reference (Bernstein et al. 1978) cited
by Pareja (et al. 2020a: 162) to prove that the Chlorocebus tail repertoire is far more diverse than implied by them.
56
Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 758–760.
57
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a; 2022.
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).
60
Pareja et al. 2020b: 768–769.
61
While Pareja (2017: 15, 87–88) clearly described the tail postures of seven out of eight monkeys, in Pareja et al. (2020b: 768) it is stated
that only ve are reasonably well preserved to oer information.
62
Pareja et al. 2020b: 771.
63
A region with no natural populations of langurs.
110
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
primates, thereby identifying two different iconographic types, Pareja et al. overstate the fresco’s
unique character and neglect to contextualise it properly. Moreover, the former scholars use
detailed descriptions of multiple characteristic features which are supported by comparative
illustrations, whereas the latter focus on a single trait which is taken as the diagnostic feature for
identification, even though the monkeys’ remaining characteristics are admittedly not consistent
with this attribution. In the light of these observations, the confidence with which Pareja et al.
present their new identification seems unfounded and surprising, and warrants further assessment.
Insights from the study of folk taxonomies
In their reply, Pareja et al. state that the publication of their original paper in a primatological
journal was motivated by the desire to stimulate discussion ‘among specialists who are qualified to
examine the morphological traits of the depicted primates.’64 In this context, the primatologists’
role is positively contrasted with that of Aegean Bronze Age scholars, because they ‘are not steeped
in a tradition of art history and archaeology’ and their input is said to ‘minimise bias and expand
the expert knowledge base’.65 It seems indeed undeniable that primatologists have a more intimate
knowledge of monkeys than scholars specialising in other disciplines, and it is most likely true that
they are not subject to the influence of the same traditional views and prejudices as art historians/
archaeologists, but the question remains whether they may not be affected by different biases
which are due to the scope and limitations of their own discipline.
The primatologists in Pareja’s team are further introduced as researchers who ‘specialize in the
study of live primates’,66 thereby inadvertently pinpointing a potentially serious problem: here,
the subjects of identification are not live primates but man-made artistic representations of
monkeys. Zoologists usually focus on the observation of living animals in the field or of preserved
specimens in museum collections and their methods of identification have developed accordingly.
They are able to distinguish and document the morphological and behavioural details of different
animal species in a hitherto unprecedented manner. Connected with this, zoologists are familiar
with a special type of illustration, namely the artistic representations of animals in field guides.
The involvement of a taxonomic illustrator, who was consulted for Pareja’s project due to being
‘particularly aware of the traits an artist may choose to emphasize or to look for when rendering a
particular species of monkey’,67 therefore seems a sensible step.
However, in the context of animal identification in ancient iconography, we need to be aware
that the experience of many modern-day zoologists is far removed from the way a Bronze Age
person would have encountered and perceived animals. For example, it seems unlikely that the
artists conceiving the design of the fresco from Akrotiri, were motivated by similar intentions
as a draughtsman creating the specialised illustrations in a field guide, which overly focus on
diagnostic details of anatomy and posture that are used to distinguish the multitude of different
scientific species from one another.
Also, it seems essential to remember that modern Western scientific taxonomy is a historically
grown system, which is more subjective and in flux than implied by Pareja et al. In fact, its basic
principles, categories (species, genus, family, order), and nomenclature were only standardised by
Carl Linnaeus and others in the 18th century.68 Moreover, analysis of folk taxonomies has revealed
that these systems often use other criteria for recognising animals in addition to morphology,
which is the traditional focus of scientific taxonomy.69 In such classification systems, the animals’
64
Pareja et al. 2020b: 767.
65
Pareja et al. 2020a: 160.
66
Pareja et al. 2020a: 160. Similar to Urbani and Youlatos who are also eld primatologists. Urbani originally trained as an archaeologist.
67
Pareja et al. 2020a: 160.
68
Atran 1987.
69
Berlin 1992, Atran 1998; Medin and Atran 1999.
111
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
behaviour, physical features, or their use by humans can be more or equally important, thereby
resulting in groupings that may or may not correspond to the levels of zoological taxonomy. Also,
it has been found that often it is not the scientific species but a slightly ‘higher’ category (roughly
corresponding to the concept of ‘generic species’ or ‘organisms with similar attributes’) which is
generally the focus of folk taxonomies.70 In fact, the growing evidence from the ethnoprimatological
realm seems to support this finding, as ethnoclassification of primates usually departs from the
perspective of Linnaean taxonomy.71
Since the subject of discussion is a fresco from the Bronze Age, it seems important to be aware
of such potential differences in the perception and categorisation of animals, as they probably
influenced the depictions.72 Therefore, it seems advisable to concentrate first on the level of
the generic species, before attempting to identify an image as a particular scientific species.73
In the case of Minoan and Theran monkey depictions, Urbani and Youlatos explicitly state that
the morphological traits observable in the frescoes are ‘key characteristics for their generic
identification.’74 Similarly, the primatologists in Pareja’s team note that the baboon-like monkeys
in iconography are not identifiable as a particular scientific species and neither are the purported
langurs for which only the genus (Semnopithecus) is given.75
These generic identifications in turn suggest that the Minoans and Therans probably did not
differentiate in their folk taxonomy between the various scientific species that are today identified
as belonging to vervets and baboons. Similar generic groupings are known from Classical Greece,
where we find three terms denoting monkeys: κῆβος (cebus) corresponding to tail-bearing monkeys
(including vervets/grivets), κυνοκέφαλος (cynocephalus) corresponding to baboons, and πίθηκος
(pithecus) corresponding to tail-less primates. Moreover, it is possible that they perceived them both
as generic species and as belonging to the same group of animals (maybe corresponding to our term
‘monkeys’ or an equivalent term that denominates a group of animals that share attributes) since,
despite their differences, members of the genera Chlorocebus and Papio have several morphological
and behavioural features in common.76 Such a folk taxonomical grouping would explain some of
the physical amalgamations that have been noted in the rendering of the Minoan monkeys, for
example the white underbelly, which is observable only in vervets and not in baboons.77
Another insight gained from the study of folk taxonomies is that these are usually highly localised.
By contrast, the international scope of modern zoology means that primatologists can draw on a
much larger knowledge base than a Bronze Age person. It seems likely that it makes a difference
whether one needs to be able to distinguish dozens or even hundreds of different monkey species
or just a few. Since the position and shape of the tail is a conspicuous trait of grey or Hanuman
langurs, it seems comprehensible that the primatologists involved in the project would seize
on this assumed species-specific feature. However, as can be inferred from the artistic record
described above, the Cycladic artists and their audience were only familiar with two types of
monkeys. Thus, they may have depicted and/or emphasised other distinguishing features than
illustrators of modern field guides. Applied to the Theran frescoes, it seems significant that vervets
70
Berlin 1992: 19 (here called ‘folk generics’); Atran 1998: 549–550.
71
Cf. Dore et al. 2017; Urbani and Lizarralde 2020, and chapters therein.
72
VanPool and VanPool 2009. Cf. Legendart 2020.
73
Cf. Binnberg 2017: 281.
74
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a: 3. Using current and updated geographic range maps, they also suggest possible primate species.
75
Pareja et al. 2020a: 161–162. In this context, their reticence to describe the baboons in more detail is allegedly based on their perception
that they ‘are not comfortable proposing new identications for extremely small items that lack adequate features for accurate
attribution, or highly fragmentary wall paintings lacking integral details of a primate’s morphology’ (Pareja et al. 2020b: 770). However,
the papionin sample is no less small or fragmentary than the fresco from Room 6 (see also Figure 2).
76
Ethnoprimatological studies suggest that in dierent indigenous societies there are terms referring to distinctive animals groups, in
which dierent primates and/or primate-like mammals are lumped together based on their common features (cf. Urbani and Lizarralde
2020, and chapters therein).
77
Amalgamations in the rendering of baboons were also noted by Pareja et al. 2020a: 161.
112
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
have a conspicuously longer tail than baboons,78 which may have inspired the artists to especially
highlight this distinguishing feature in the fresco from Room 6.
Art historical considerations
The interdisciplinary project by Pareja et al. seems to have been initiated by the team’s art
historian/archaeologist, who is also the lead author. In this context, they claim that their work
benefitted from a team composed of ‘primatologists, a taxonomic primate illustrator, and an art
historian/archaeologist’,79 and that ‘by pairing primatologists, with knowledge of live animals
(platyrrhines and catarrhines), with a taxonomic illustrator, and an art historian/archaeologist
who can interpret ancient artwork, we have created a team that is well equipped to explore the
nuances of prehistoric depictions of primates’.80 Despite the collaborative nature of this endeavour,
Pareja readily accepted the identification suggested by the primatologists and limited her input
to adducing possible corroborative evidence for the Aegean-Indus connection.81 Significantly,
the identification was not cross-checked with the artistic conventions and pictorial ‘language’
of Theran iconography. However, since it is to be expected that art historians/archaeologists
are more familiar with Bronze Age Aegean art than zoologists, this important task would have
fallen into their area of responsibility. This point also raises questions about the cross-disciplinary
communication within the team, an impression compounded by the indistinctive use of the terms
‘monkeys’ and ‘apes’ in the article; a differentiation known by primatologists (all Minoan species
considered are monkeys and not apes –a term which only denominates tailless hominoids like
chimpanzees).82
When we look at Cretan and Theran depictions of monkeys, we find that they also display other
characteristics than the naturalistic features described above. Greenlaw, for example, made the
observation that the monkeys are not differentiated according to their sex,83 a trait which sets
them apart not only from Egyptian images of monkeys but also from representations of other
animals in the wall paintings from Akrotiri such as birds (e.g. ducks and swallows).84 Another
aspect is their anthropomorphised rendering in the Theran frescoes.85 This is especially apparent
in their behaviour; thus, baboons are engaged in rituals and other human activities. These features
indicate that the prime motivation behind these images was not only to depict a particular species
with the utmost morphological accuracy, but that aesthetic and symbolic considerations played a
critical role in the creation of these images.86
It is only in their response to Urbani and Youlatos that Pareja et al. reflect on the ways in which cultural
attitudes and artistic considerations influence animal depictions (and hence their identification),
citing as examples the unrealistic ‘boot-like appendages’ of the monkeys’ feet and the depiction of
individuals with two left or right hands.87 In this context, they also mention another feature which
is supposed to cast doubt on the reliability of the primatological analysis by Urbani and Youlatos.
This is the blue colour of the monkeys’ fur which is said to be of symbolic significance. According
to the authors, it imitates lapis lazuli from Afghanistan/the Indus River Valley and thus highlights
the elite status of the people commissioning the wall painting and the exotic/mystic connotations
of the subject matter (langurs). They thus contradict Urbani and Youlatos, who used this feature as
78
Also noted by Greenlaw 2005: 71; 2011: 48 and Pareja 2017: 15.
79
Pareja et al. 2020a: 160.
80
Pareja et al. 2020b: 772.
81
Pareja et al. 2020a: 162–165.
82
Pareja et al. 2020 b:772. A point also criticised for the Aegean by Greenlaw 2006: 63 when referring to McDermott 1938. See also
footnote 38.
83
Greenlaw 2011: 48.
84
Vlachopoulos 2000; Harte 2000.
85
Parker 1997; Greenlaw 2006: 66; 2011: 48.
86
Greenlaw 2011: 49; Pareja 2017: 115–123.
87
Pareja et al. 2020b: 771.
113
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
a taxonomic criterion to argue for vervets, the blue being explained as ‘a colour abstraction within
the grey/green scale’ as it is observable in many indigenous societies and ancient cultures.88
In fact, it is widely agreed among scholars that the use of blue for a spectrum of colours ranging
from green to grey and blue is an artistic convention found in all the wall-paintings from Akrotiri
and Knossos.89 This is evident from the list of elements that are represented in this way, which
includes plants, rocks, and fish/dolphins.90 Contrary to Pareja et al., this colour is not only used for
exotic creatures or those specifically connected to the elite; instead, the native rock dove (Columba
livia), whose plumage is of a dark greyish tone, is likewise painted a bright blue colour. 91 Moreover,
if the blue pigment used to render this colour was really supposed to imitate lapis lazuli and thus
refer to the purported Asian origin of the monkeys, the question remains why African baboons
display the same shade of fur. It seems therefore that this feature is more dependent on physical
aspects than symbolic factors and can justifiably be used as a (folk) taxonomic criterion.
Pareja et al. also mention the possibility that the U-shape of the tail which is observable in langurs,
but notably lacking in the fresco, was not represented because the ‘more extreme range of tail
movement may be of less importance to the artist than the most frequently observed tail carriage:
the S- or C-shape’.92 While they thus reflect on the artistic dimensions of an argument in favour
of vervets, Pareja et al. notably fail to apply such rigorous thinking to their own attribution. Yet,
considering the fact that the identification as langurs is based on a single unusual feature, it seems
imperative to examine the possibility that this trait is the result of aesthetic/stylistic considerations
or symbolic notions, rather than being a species-specific feature.
When we thus return to the fresco from Room 6, we find that the artistic focus lies on the monkeys’
movements, in fact so much as to warrant the label ‘motion study’93 and prompting Greenlaw to
observe that ‘These monkeys look like acrobats with long tails and vervet faces.’94 A more detailed
analysis of the monkeys, which are shown climbing rocks, leaping and running about, reveals that
they are distinguished primarily by the adoption of various locomotor modes and postures.95 This
is apparent, although not all of them are preserved in their entirety.96 Thus, some are holding onto
rocks with more or less out-stretched arms while flexing their legs as if about to leap. Others may
be shown in mid-air because their feet are off the ground. One monkey seems to have jumped to the
ground, arching its back, while two others are depicted in an almost upright position, apparently
running in opposite directions.
The tails significantly contribute to the impression of incessant motion, forming either C- or
S-curves. Comparable to the monkeys’ other body parts,97 there is subtle variation in the precise
position of the tails between individual monkeys, depending on the animal’s overall pose and
action. Thus, the tails which form S-shapes belong to monkeys that are climbing rocks by putting
their extended hands on ledges, pulling their bodies upwards and moving forward with a leap.
These actions are underlined by the tails that end in a hook-shape, thereby symmetrically
mirroring the contours of the strained shoulder section, upper body, and extended arms/hands.
Two of these monkeys have their knees flexed as if about to leap, and correspondingly the tails
88
Urbani and Youlatos 2020a: 3; 2022.
89
For the colour blue and the pigments used see Vlachopoulos and Sotiropoulou 2012 (with references). Contrary to the assertion by
Pareja et al. (2020b: 771), no Egyptian blue was used for the monkeys from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta.
90
Cf. Pareja et al. 2020b: 771.
91
Barret (2009) pointed out that the presence of Minoanising pottery in Egypt suggests that foreign inuences permeated dierent
socioeconomic groups, so it is possible that other commodities that are usually considered special might also have been exchanged
between Minoans and Egyptians without the “lter” of the ruling class.
92
Pareja et al. 2020b: 771.
93
Schmitz-Pillmann 2006: 24.
94
Greenlaw 2006: 66.
95
Urbani and Youlatos (2022) list the positional modes of all the monkeys in Room 6 .
96
Cf. Pareja 2017: 87–88.
97
Cf. Pareja 2017: 88–92.
114
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
are more strongly curved in the lower part. Three monkeys are shown with tails that form a large
C-shape. Strikingly, these monkeys all interrupt the flow of movement in some way. One of them
seems to be briefly halting its forward motion by turning its head and looking back. The second
one is depicted on the ground, possibly also with its head reverted (unfortunately lost), and the
third one is standing almost upright in the middle with its head shown in an unusual frontal view.
In short, the monkeys with the more mobile S-shaped tails seem to be the ones pressing ahead,
while the ones with the C-curved tails function like anchors, which countercheck the overall
sense of ceaseless movement. Since the tails are by nature the most flexible parts of the monkeys’
anatomy, their shapes could be effectively modified in order to underline the positions adopted
by individual monkeys, without overly compromising the general naturalistic appearance of the
painting.98
In fact, the coexistence of naturalism and embellishment of anatomical features in order to express
dynamic motion is a consistent theme in Minoan art.99 A well-known example from Akrotiri is a
fresco from Room 2 of Building Delta, which shows seven barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) in flight
among lilies growing on rocks (Figure 7).100 When these are compared to real swallows, it is notable
that the plumage patterns of the wings appear slightly altered so as to more effectively underline
the quickly-changing contours of the flying birds. Moreover, the swallows’ tail streamers end in
small loops which are not found on actual barn swallows.101 In this case, scholars have not proposed
98
Urbani and Youlatos (2020b: 758) also note that the dierent tail postures are associated with specic behaviours (see Bernstein et al.
1978). In fact, the tail pointing backwards, as presented by Pareja et al (2020) as the primary tail position of vervets, is less common and
related to walking and leaving, whereas curved tails can be observed when the monkeys are engaged in active social interactions, as
shown in the fresco.
99
Cf. Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951: 191–205.
100 Marinatos 1971: 20–25, 49–51; Doumas 1992: 100–101.
101 Harte 2000: 693.
Figure 7. Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) in the fresco from Room 2 of Building Delta, Akrotiri. Doumas 1992, figs 72–76.
Image courtesy of the Excavations at Akrotiri, Thera.
115
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
a different identification based on this single unusual feature, and for two reasons: first, all the
other morphological traits such as the black-and-white colour contrast and the red throat patch
are entirely consistent with the appearance of barn swallows. Second, there is no swallow species
that has such loops on their tail streamers. Instead, the loops seem to have been added for aesthetic
reasons, in order to draw the viewer’s eye towards the tails, whose form mirrors the outline of the
swallows’ moving bodies. In sum, one can argue that the appearance of the vervets’ tails in the wall
painting from Room 6 might have been comparably modified, thereby giving rise to the monkeys’
misinterpretation as langurs by Pareja et al.
Aegean monkeys as exotic animals
Monkeys are not native to the Aegean and up to now no zooarchaeological remains have been
identified in Bronze Age levels of the region. This leaves a lot of room for speculation on the origin of
the monkeys depicted and in what ways these images are dependent on monkey iconography from
other regions, where these animals were a more familiar sight. Accordingly, these questions were
discussed at length in the debate concerning the monkeys from Room 6. Based on the geographic
distributional patterns of the species identified, Urbani and Youlatos advocate an African origin,
most likely mediated via Egypt, whereas, using the tail as the key factor for attribution, Pareja et al.
claim that the Indus River Valley served as another source of monkeys and their imagery.102
In this context, Pareja et al. criticise the fact that previous studies did not consider Asia as a region
contributing to Aegean monkey imagery, because of ‘the traditional Egyptocentric outlook’ of
the field.103 This bias, however, is not simply due to tradition, but reflects the state of the data
regarding trade and other cultural influences (a point also raised by Urbani and Youlatos).104 Thus,
while there is ample evidence for direct trade (and other) links between Egypt and the Aegean, the
same cannot be stated regarding Mesopotamia, much less the Indus River Valley.105 The authors
also neglect to mention the fact that there are iconographic reasons for assuming that Egyptian art
influenced Theran and Cretan monkey imagery to a considerable degree.106
Based on the naturalistic elements of the painting, including the monkeys’ liveliness and
individualisation, Pareja et al. suggest that the artists must have observed these animals first-
hand.107 Due to the admittedly scarce evidence for direct trade, Pareja et al. introduce the relatively
vague notion of ‘indirect exchange’ by which special raw materials such as carnelian and lapis
lazuli reached the Aegean from the Indus, and hypothesize that the Cycladic artists must have
102 Pareja et al. 2020a: 162–166; Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 761–763.
103 Pareja et al. 2020a: 160, 162–163. Cf. also Chapin and Pareja 2020: 220. However, the authors fail to mention that Asia was indeed
previously considered as contributing to Aegean monkey imagery. For example, Papageorgiou and Birtacha (2008: 289–291) examined
the links of the Early Minoan iconographic type of the squatting monkey to imagery of the Near East (cf. also Marinatos 1987: 128–129,
footnotes 17 and 18, and Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 336–337). Moreover, Greenlaw (2005: 72–73; 2006: 64; 2011: 49) noted that the monkeys
in the frescoes from Knossos in some ways resemble a type of Asian monkey, more specically the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta)
with a western-most range in present-day Afghanistan and part of northwestern India, partially overlapping with the western-most
distribution of langurs in India. However, the fact that rhesus macaques have a much shorter tail than the monkeys in Aegean depictions
speaks against this identication.
104 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 760. The zooarchaeological record from Minoan Crete also provides evidence for the presence of African
animal parts, for example elephant ivory (Reese 1985), a hippopotamus canine (Reese 1985; 1998), and Red Sea shells (Reese 2006; Reese
and Betancourt 2008). A study on ancient DNA conducted on elephant tusks from Late Bronze Age Cyprus proved that the ivory was of
African (Loxodonta) and not Indian/Syrian (Elephas) origin (Baleka et al. 2016; Baleka 2019). Ostrich eggshell originating from north Africa
or the Levant also occurs frequently in the Bronze Age Mediterranean (e.g. Hodos et al. 2020).
105 Cf. Cline 1994. Davaras (2003) sensibly called his book ‘Parallels and Anities between Crete and India in the Bronze Age: Some
Speculations’. In this context, Urbani and Youlatos (2020b: 763) mention the probable presence of Minoan artists in the Levant, and
possible Minoan material culture in Mari.
106 Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 336; Cline 1991: 38–40; Greenlaw 2005; 2006; 2011: 51–53; Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 761–763. Cf. the fresco
fragments from Akrotiri showing monkeys in front of a shrine with an Egyptianising capital (Marinatos 1990: 418; Phillips 2005: 45;
Vlachopoulos 2007).
107 Pareja et al. 2020: 166. Chapin and Pareja (2020: 223) even claim that the fresco shows ‘the intimate knowledge of Cycladic artists with
a species indigenous to the Indus’. See Pareja (2017: 12–16, 92, 113–114) for a description of the realistic elements in the monkeys’
anatomy.
116
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
encountered langurs on their travels to Mesopotamia and, after their return home, immortalised
their impressions in the fresco at Akrotiri.108
This course of events presupposes that langurs were habitually brought from their native habitat
in the Indus River Valley to Mesopotamia.109 However, thus far, the zooarcheaological evidence
does not support any potential past trade of langurs from the Indian subcontinent to the West.
This may have to do with the fact that, other than stones, animals are living commodities that
have individual needs and require care, which means that some species are easier to transport and
keep than others. In this context, it seems significant that langurs are highly folivorous and very
difficult to keep in captivity.110 These physiological and nutritional constraints probably impeded
the trade of langurs.
By contrast, macaque remains have been confirmed in the Harappan site of Kanmer (Gujarat,
India)111, a rhesus macaque burial is known from the Iranian Bronze Age site of Shahr-i Sokhta,112
a Barbary macaque was found in the 3rd millennium BC Syrian site of Tell Rad Shaqrah,113 and
two species of macaques were discovered in a Roman pet cemetery of the 1st to 2nd century AD
at the Red Sea port of Berenike in Egypt.114 This last and very recent finding is the first and only
direct evidence of Indian primates traded to Africa. Macaques are frugivorous primates that can
be easily cared for and are, therefore, more suitable for long maritime travels. Recently, Urbani
completed an assessment of the presence of primates in archaeological sites around the world.115
A relevant finding was that the only potential allochthonous116 folivorous primates were doucs in a
Cambodian site and howler monkeys in two archaeological sites in the Americas. In the first case,
doucs were probably native near the site in the past and became subsequently extinct there, which
means they were likely not allochthonous at the time of deposition. In the other cases, it needs to
be said that howlers can also rely on fruits rather than on a predominantly folivorous diet. Thus,
there is no single evidence of strictly folivorous allochthonous primates, like langurs, in the global
zooarchaeological record.
The variable diets (fruits, seeds, flowers, tubers, arthropods, etc.) of both vervets and baboons
make them comparatively easy to transport and keep, a fact also attested by the regular depiction
of vervets and baboons as pets in Egypt.117 Given the evidence for direct trade, people from the
Aegean probably came across these monkeys in various ways, both in the context of travelling and
occasionally as live animals brought to Crete and the islands.118 In this scenario, the Therans were
not unfamiliar with these animals, meaning that they would also have been able to appreciate
the naturalistic qualities and morphological accuracies of the painting; something which seems
doubtful in the case of langurs.
108 Pareja et al. 2020b: 769.
109 An encounter taking place further east is in theory possible, but not likely given the existing factual evidence. Currently, to our
knowledge, the only direct evidence on the earliest proven presence of people of Cretan origin in central Asia (western Himalaya) dates
from Ottoman times (Harney et al. 2019), over three thousand years after the Minoan civilization. In addition, there is recent evidence of
the presence of a person from Central Asia in the Levant in the 2nd millennium BC (Skourtanioti et al. 2020). Recently, Scott et al. (2021)
reported that vegetable foods/seeds were traded since the 2nd millennium BC from Asia to the Near East. Also, according to Groves
(2008: 35), ancient Greek and Roman polymaths reported ‘Indian grey langurs (…) 5th century B.C. (Ctesias, quoted by Pliny); ca. 300
B.C. (Megasthenes); ca. 200 A.D. (Aelian, white pithekos pithekos in the country of the Prasii)’. However, this limited information does not
support the physical trade of langurs or the exchange of their visual imagery.
110 Cf. Hill 1964.
111 Goyal et al. 2013.
112 Minniti and Sajjadi 2019.
113 Piątkowska and Koliński 2015.
114 Osypinska et al. 2021: 12.
115 Urbani 2021.
116 Primates found in regions where they do not naturally range.
117 Cf. Dominy et al. 2020. In addition, there is (pictorial) evidence that African monkeys were brought to the Near East. Cf. Pareja et al.
2020a: 166; Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 762; 2021.
118 Cf. Blakolmer 2020: 40, Urbani and Youlatos 2022. Interestingly, the Cretans bringing gifts in wallpaintings from the tomb of Rekhmire
are placed in between people from Punt and Nubia who are accompanied by monkeys (baboons and vervets). According to
Panagiotopoulos (2001) these paintings may have been inspired by actual events at the Pharaonic court.
117
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
In order to bolster the case for their identification, Pareja et al. devote the final section of their paper
to adducing (further) evidence for the alleged Indus-Aegean connection.119 More specifically, the
authors aim ‘to review the iconographic connections between Indus and Aegean with a particular
emphasis on monkeys to demonstrate that this animal served as an adopted and adapted motif
between the Indus east and the Aegean west and the regions between.’120 In this connection, they
mention three images, two of which are also discussed in the paper by Chapin and Pareja, where
they are introduced as ‘outliers that do not quite fit with the model of Aegean iconography as
largely Egyptianized’.121
The first of these is a weathered Prepalatial zoomorphic seal from Trapeza on Crete (CMS II,1
435)122 showing a slender long-tailed monkey sitting upright with its hands on its knees (Figure
8a).123 According to Pareja et al., the special pose of the monkey is comparable to that shown on
metal seals from Bactria (northwest of the Indus River Valley) dating to the late 3rd to early 2nd
millennium BC. Moreover, they allege that the motif on the seal face, a cross-and-chevron design,
which is said to be rare in the contemporary Cretan repertoire,124 ultimately derives from the art of
the Near East, Mesopotamia, and Bactria.125 They therefore interpret the seal as a marker of ‘elite
personal identity that seeks to both maintain and negotiate ties further east.’126
In their reply, Urbani and Youlatos concede that the seal from Trapeza appears distinct when
compared to other contemporary monkey-shaped seals from Crete.127 However, they clarify that
the figures depicted on Bactrian seals are predominantly human-like128 and that the monkey
which, according to them,129 is shown on a single seal can equally be compared to the monkeys on
openwork-earrings from the Aegina Treasure, which were possibly inspired by Egyptian amulets
in the shape of baboons.130 They also consider the possibility that the monkey from Trapeza is
supposed to show a young baboon,131 a species which in Egyptian art is often depicted with its
hands on its knees. To this may be added that some scholars have noted that the seal could also
represent a vervet instead of a baboon, thus explaining the difference in pose and the long (partly
lost) tail on which the monkey is apparently sitting.132
In their response, Pareja et al. imply that the sitting humanoid/hybrid figures on the Bactrian
seals are to be connected with the motif of the seated monkey as found further to the west in
Susa, the capital of Elam, and ultimately in the seal from Trapeza.133 To support this contention,
they cite Pittman’s work on the art of the Indus River Valley and Harper et al.. who suggest that
seals with primate-like animals from Bactria and monkey imageries from central Asia would have
reached Susa via their close cultural interactions.134 However, Pittman never mentions any Aegean-
119 Pareja et al. 2020a: 163–165.
120 Pareja et al. 2020a: 163–164.
121 Chapin and Pareja 2020: 220.
122 CMS refers to the Corpus of Minoan and Mycenaean seals.
123 Canciani 1973: 107–108; Greenlaw 2005: 72–73; 2006: 64; 2011: 44; Pareja 2017: 53.
124 Chapin and Pareja 2020: 221.
125 Pareja et al. 2020a: 164.
126 Chapin and Pareja 2020: 221–222.
127 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 761.
128 Pittman 1984: 56.
129 Cf. Urbani and Youlatos 2020:gure 5a.
130 Langdon 1990: 416–417. More recently, the monkeys have been compared to both Egyptian and Near Eastern iconography (cf. Fitton
2009: 44 and 62).
131 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 761; 2022.
132 Canciani 1973: 108; Greenlaw 2011: 44. Phillips 2008: 174, 251 (cat.no. 509).
133 Pareja et al. 2020b: 770.
134 Pittman 1984; Harper et al. 1992: 97–98. In fact, Urbani and Youlatos (2020b: 762; 2020c) advocate that Susa was very likely a trading
post of primates and for the exchange of their imageries. In Susa, depicted primates are usually shown in natural seated postures (not
on stools) and date from the proto-Elamite and Elamite period, predating the Theran primate fresco of Room 6 of Building Complex
Beta by almost 10 centuries (Urbani and Youlatos 2021). Urbani and Youlatos (2020c) also describe two allegedly Middle Bronze Age
Elamite marble chimpanzees (although they propose that if they are not from Elam, they could either be of more recent Roman origin
or possible forgeries). Depictions of monkeys continue in that region during the Neo-Elamite (9th–6th centuries BC) and Sassanian
(3rd–7th centuries AD) periods (Urbani and Youlatos 2021). This evidence strongly indicates the circulation of primates and their
118
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
Indus connections (nor does she refer to primates or reproduces a primatomorphic seal), and the
statement in Harper et al. is based on Sarianidi’s research on the representation of anthropomorphic
deities in Bactria, not on depictions of primates.135
Pareja et al. further make the surprising statement that the jewellery of the Aegina Treasure ‘houses
some of the earliest and clearest evidence of Aegean-Indus exchange’.136 However, the authors
seem to conflate the evidence from this hoard with that of another which is of Early Bronze Age
date and (also) includes carnelian beads.137 By the time the later Aegina Treasure was created
(probably in MM II-III), carnelian was well-known as a material for local-style jewellery and seals
and it seems doubtful whether the remote origin of the material was still the primary motivation
for its inclusion in the ornaments.138
The authors further elaborate on their suggestion that the cross-and-chevron motif on the Trapeza
seal can be read as part of a long-time transmission of Indus iconography to the Aegean.139 However,
contrary to their statement, this motif seems completely at home in the local glyptic repertoire
(there are over twenty seals with this design, e.g. CMS II,1 428 or CMS V 486). Moreover, similar
basic geometric motifs (cross, chevron, meanders, swirls, etc.) represent natural and cultural
symbols across societies around the globe and have likely appeared independently.140 For example,
today, lowland South American indigenous peoples use seals with the cross-and-chevron motifs
(Figure 8b), but certainly no one would imply analogous cultural connections between central Asia
or elsewhere and South America.
The second image discussed by Pareja et al. is a Cretan seal stone of LM I date (CMS III 357).141 It
depicts a long-tailed squatting monkey with a belt and leash which is tied to a standing male figure
(Figure 9).142 The authors hypothesize that this composition was adopted from the Near East/
Mesopotamia and probably originated further east, likely in the Indus River Valley. Urbani and
Youlatos agree that similar scenes are indeed known from these regions, but emphasise that the
imageries, either African (baboons) or Asian (macaques), in Elam, but not that of langurs.
135 Sarianidi 1983.
136 Pareja et al. 2020b: 770.
137 Reinholdt 2008.
138 Pieniążek (2017: 54–55, 57) mentions that carnelian also circulated in Egypt already in the EBA and that the carnelian beads of the
later Aegina Treasure are mostly of Aegean manufacture.
139 Pareja et al. 2020b: 770.
140 Cf. Jung 1964.
141 Pareja et al. 2020a: 164–165.
142 Marinatos 1987: 127; Greenlaw 2011: 46; Pareja 2017: 62.
Figure 8. a) Seal from Trapeza on Crete
(CMS II,1 435) (not to scale). Photograph
by Aeleftherios, 2019. Wikimedia
Commons-CC BY. b) Contemporary
Cariban stamp seal (wooden pintadera)
from the Orinoco region, Venezuela (scale
equals 3cm). Collection of Bernardo and
Ana María Urbani-Resnik.
119
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
monkeys shown in them are probably identifiable
as both Asian (macaques) and African monkeys
(baboons).143 What is more, leashed monkeys are said
to be frequently depicted in Egyptian art, so there is no
exclusive link of the seal motif to the east. Urbani and
Youlatos also state that although the combination of a
monkey with a man appears indeed unique in the extant
Cretan glyptic repertoire, the image bears important
similarities to other Aegean Bronze Age art such as the
inclusion of flowers and the way the monkey faces a
person.144 Their observations can be complemented by
noting that there are comparable glyptic depictions of
belted monkeys next to women (e.g. CMS II,8 262, or
CMS II,7 024).145 Furthermore, it seems significant that
there are no attributes to suggest that the monkey in
the composition on the seal is a langur.146
Finally, a fresco from Akrotiri is compared by Pareja
et al. to scenes depicted on Mesopotamian cylinder
seals.147 The wall painting from Xeste 3 shows a woman
seated on a platform and accompanied by a large griffin
(Figure 10). A monkey is stepping on the platform and offering saffron to the woman, while a girl
is emptying some crocus flowers into a basket.148 The authors argue that this scene was inspired
by Near Eastern ‘Presentation Scenes’ and illustrate a cylinder seal from Ur, saying that ‘The basic
composition of these two images is nearly identical, and it bears great implications for the artistic
and perhaps even ideological and ritual parallels between the Aegean and Mesopotamia’.149 Urbani
and Youlatos, however, emphasise that monkeys or monkey-like animals rarely occur in these Near
Eastern/Mesopotamian scenes.150 Moreover, the monkey depicted in the scene illustrated by Pareja
et al. is certainly no langur since it has no tail, while the monkey depicted in the fresco from Xeste
3 can be identified as an African species, namely a baboon (cf. Figure 2b: lower left corner, Figure
4: right, and Figure 10).
Nevertheless, Pareja et al. insist that ‘The Aegean appropriation of the scene’s composition is
integral to understanding Aegean monkey iconography’.151 However, it can be further argued that
the basic compositional similarity shared by the Xeste 3 fresco and the Presentation Scenes seem
to naturally result from depicting people approaching a person of high status. Moreover, the scene
illustrated by Pareja et al. differs from the Akrotiri fresco in several important aspects. Not only
does the Mesopotamian composition lack the reference to saffron, it also features a long-necked
bird instead of a griffin. Importantly, the monkey is simply shown squatting in front of the seated
person; it does not play an active role comparable to the anthropomorphised monkey in the wall
painting from Akrotiri.
143 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 762.
144 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 762.
145 Cf. Marinatos 1987: 124–128, Greenlaw 2011: 44–47; Pareja 2017: 60–70.
146 In a critical re-examination of the Minoan glyptic repertoire, Urbani and Youlatos (2022) indicate the presence of vervet-like monkeys
on seal/sealings from Minoan Crete. These pieces have been overlooked in the major reviews on Minoan primates (Greenlaw 2011;
Philips 2008; Pareja 2017), and provide further evidence that the Minoans were familiar with vervets as they were represented in
another media besides frescoes.
147 Pareja et al. 2020a, 165 and Chapin and Pareja 2020: 223. See also Pareja 2017: 122–123.
148 For the role of the monkey see Marinatos 1987: 123–124.
149 Chapin and Pareja 2020: 223 (plate XXXIXe). Similar: Pareja et al. 2020a: 165 (gure 12).
150 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 762–763. They also point out that a Syrian seal from Mochlos of northern Syrian origin reported by
Davaras and Soles (1997) which is cited as a fundamental piece for supporting Pareja et al.’s (2020a: 165) comparisons does not show a
monkey, but a hare.
151 Pareja et al. 2020b: 770.
Figure 9. Seal from Prassa on Crete (CMS III
357). Image courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.
120
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
In their reply, Urbani and Youlatos also mention some general observations, which go to the core
of the alleged Indus-Aegean connections regarding primates. For example, by revisiting the glyptic
repertoire from the Bronze Age site of Mohenjo-Daro in the Indus River Valley, they find that it
contains no primates, although it readily represents bovids, elephants, and rhinoceroses.152 Also,
there is only one figurine in the Harappan artistic record that is clearly depicting a monkey.153
To these observations can be added the fact that the presence of primate remains in the
zooarchaeological record of Harappan sites is virtually nil.154 In a review of faunal remains from 18
Harappan sites in Gujarat, Thomas et al. report the presence of langurs [Presbytis (=Semnopithecus)
entellus] in only one site (Kuntasi) but as ‘species doubtful’.155 Goyal et al. also report the presence
of rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) remains at only one Harappan site (Kanmer) in Gujarat.156 This
evidence indicates that monkeys were not an integral part of the culture of the Harappan people.
152 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 763 referring to Marshall 1931. In response to this, Pareja et al. (2020b: 4) claim that ‘nevertheless, glyptic
art specialists have previously identied monkey images on small media as Hanuman langurs (Barnett 1973; Van Buren 1939)’. However,
Barnett (1973) never proposed this idea, but cited Van Buren (1939) when referring to the allegation of the presence of langurs on seals
of that area. As Van Buren (1939) lacked a primatological perspective, the primate-like animals he found must be fully reevaluated, and
no evidence points to the representation of langurs. Recently Urbani and Youlatos (2021) state that in ‘the ancient Near East, there is a
signicant corpus of seals with depictions of monkey-like animals. These seals have been variably identied not only as primates (Van
Buren 1939), but also as hares (Davaras and Soles 1997), or mongooses (Porada 1948; Hamoto 1995). However, this material still awaits
further comparative studies for identifying those diagnostic features that will dene them as either primates or other mammals (see
also Dunham 1985; Spycket 1998; Pruzsinszky 2016).’
153 See Mackay 1938: plate LXXX-2.
154 Cf. Meadow 1991, Goyal et al 2008, Joglekar and Goyal 2011, Joglekar et al. 2013, Sharada 2012.
155 Thomas et al. 1997: 773. In southeast India,far away from the Indus River Valley, remains of langurs were discovered at the site of
Jwalapuram Locality 9 Rockshelter in the state of Andhra Pradesh (Clarkson et al. 2009: 336). They were found in a Late Neolithic-early
Iron Age/Megalithic stratum. Since langurs are native to this region, they were not traded as allochthonous primates.
156 Goyal et al. 2013.
Figure 10. The fresco from Room 3a of Xeste 3 at Akrotiri. Photograph by Klearchos Kapoutsis, Wikimedia Commons-CC BY.
121
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
In fact, monkeys became central to the culture of the Indian subcontinent only with the expansion
of Hinduism, when langurs were represented as the god Hanuman.157 According to Lutgendorf, the
worship and devotional representation of Hanuman emerged in the 2nd millennium AD, a very
long time after the creation of the monkey fresco of Room 6 of Building Complex Beta in Akrotiri.158
Thus, although carnelian and lapis lazuli may have circulated from the Indus River Valley to the
west, this was not the case for primatomorphic motifs.159
To sum up, the potential iconographic links between the Indus River Valley and the Aegean regarding
monkeys appear tenuous and the archaeological evidence does not support the conclusions drawn
by Pareja et al.160 In their critique, Urbani and Youlatos call these theories ‘hyperdiffusionist’.161 Even
if one wanted to avoid this term which implies pseudoarchaeology,162 the proposed Indus-Aegean
connections regarding monkeys bring to mind a quote by Rowe, who wrote that for diffusionists ‘a
dozen similarities of detail prove cultural contact, and time, distance, and the difficulties of navigation
are assumed irrelevant.’163 Applied to our case study, this means that even if it could be persuasively
demonstrated by art historians today that, for example, the cross-and-chevron motif was conceived
in the Indus River Valley hundreds of years before it eventually diffused into Aegean iconography,
it seems doubtful that such a connection would have been remembered by the locals. Similarly,
although carnelian and lapis lazuli were apparently sourced in the Indus River Valley or Afghanistan,
these materials were traded over a very long distance, probably involving multiple middlemen,
before they finally reached the Aegean. It seems questionable that the stones’ remote origin in the
Indus River Valley (and not simply in Mesopotamia or any other region in between) would have been
communicated and thus played any significant role for the local use of these minerals, which were
also valued for their material properties such as attractive colour, hardness, and shine.
Concluding remarks
In the beginning, we stated that this article has three aims, namely to review the arguments
exchanged in the debate, complementarily discuss previously omitted aspects, and expand the
methodological framework of animal identification in iconography. The review of the evidence
suggests that there are many valid reasons to think that the new identification of the monkeys
from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta proposed by Pareja et al. is unfounded. Rather than being
depictions of Indian langurs (Semnopithecus spp.) it is more likely that the monkeys represent
African vervets (Chlorocebus spp.). This result is based on the integrative study of a number of
aspects, following the framework for animal identification in iconography as proposed by Binnberg.
Firstly, the analysis of Minoan and Theran primate iconography points to the existence of two
monkey types which display a number of recurring features. Secondly, detailed primatological
analysis demonstrates that the two types exhibit multiple morphological correspondences to
baboons and, in the case of the fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta, vervet monkeys.
By contrast, the proposed identification as langurs appears unlikely because it rests on a single
feature and disregards several traits that do not fit this attribution. Thirdly, this misconception
seems to partly result from an insufficient awareness of the differences existing between (ancient)
folk taxonomies and modern scientific taxonomy/zoology. Fourthly, when analysing the painting
from an art historical perspective, the monkeys’ tail shapes turn out to be likely influenced by
artistic considerations aimed at the depiction of dynamic movements, rather than constituting a
langur-specific feature.
157 Keul 2002.
158 Lutgendorf 2007.
159 This is also conrmed by previous studies of this topic, e.g. by Dunham 1985 and Wolfson 2018.
160 Therefore it seems no coincidence that the objects and images discussed in this context have not been singled out or seen as ‘outliers’
in previous studies of Aegean monkey iconography.
161 Urbani and Youlatos 2020b: 760–761.
162 Cf. Pareja et al. 2020b: 769–770.
163 Rowe 1966: 334.
122
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
Although the consideration of these four aspects seems sufficient for the purpose of identifying
animals that are native to a given region, Binnberg’s framework should be complemented by a
further step when dealing with the representation of exotic animal species. Broadly speaking, this
step entails contextualising these animals and their depictions within the existing interregional
networks of the culture in question. In this context, it should first be determined whether it is
likely that the artists observed live animals in their natural habitat, or whether the representations
are the results of iconographic transfer. In the first case, both naturalistic traits and features that
are typical of the region’s iconography should be present in the animals’ rendering (as in the fresco
from Room 6). Then, one needs to consider the ways in which people could have encountered these
animals, based on the contextual evidence for cultural contacts. Importantly, since we are dealing
with animals, this analysis should also take relevant zooarchaeological and zoological data, such
as, for example, the different species’ suitability for transport and living in captivity, into account.
In the case of iconographic transfer, the depictions should be clearly distinct when compared to
other animal iconography of a given culture and instead display multiple features that are specific
to the art of another culture or region.
Importantly, the two alternatives, ‘direct observation’ and ‘iconographic transfer’ represent ideal
scenarios at either end of a spectrum of possible combinations.164 However, it is usually the case that
one takes prevalence over the other, which helps assess the likelihood of any proposed scenario
(and hence the reliability of any identification linked to this). In the present case, it seems that
the Theran artists observed monkeys firsthand and were also – to a lesser degree – influenced by
the circulation of iconographic formulae originating elsewhere. The data on Mediterranean trade
networks suggest the existence of regular relations between the Aegean and Egypt, whereas there
is no evidence for any direct contact between the Aegean and the Indus River Valley. In addition,
zooarchaeological and zoological data allows us to think of various ways in which people from the
Aegean may have encountered members of the African fauna, whereas they call into question the
hypothetical course of events that would have been necessary for Aegean people to come across
langurs in Mesopotamia (or further east). Finally, the transmission of monkey iconography from
Egypt to the Aegean is well-attested, whereas the suggested links of Aegean monkey imagery with
the Indus River Valley are inconclusive at best.
Without such a thorough assessment and – if necessary – refutation, (mis)identifications of animals
in iconography are bound to be perpetuated in the literature and thus have serious implications
for scholars’ accurate understanding of cultural patterns.165 In the present case, the (probably
misguided) attempt to prove implicit connections of Aegean monkey imagery with the Indus River
Valley may mean that we lose sight of the features that are unique to Minoan and Theran primate
iconography, such as the emphasis on movement, variety, and anthropomorphised anatomy/
action. However, it is these aspects which primarily deserve our attention, because they reveal
ancient people’s actual agency and illustrate cultural particulars regarding monkeys.
The present overview also reinforces the observation that animal identification in iconography
can only come to reliable results if we use a holistic and integrative approach, combining insights
and knowledge stemming from various fields. Significantly, this is not a given when experts from
different disciplines are simply consulted for a one-time project. Rather, ongoing cross-disciplinary
communication and discussion are necessary to reach truly interdisciplinary conclusions which rest
on a sound methodological basis. Newly emerging integrative fields such as archaeoprimatology
seem to provide an excellent basis for such conversations.
164 Cf. Marinatos 1987: 128, footnote 17.
165 Cf. Urbani and Youlatos 2020a; b; c; 2021; 2022.
123
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. Julia Binnberg
thanks Professor Andrew Gosler from the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford for
drawing her attention to the importance of ethnozoology in the context of human-animal studies.
Bernardo Urbani and Dionisios Youlatos thank the personnel of the Museum of Prehistoric Thera
(Fira, Santorini), the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, the Herakleion Archaeological
Museum (Iraklio, Crete), and the archaeological sites of Knossos and Akrotiri. In addition, thanks
go to librarians at the Historical-Archaeological Library of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
the Begler Library of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, the Biblioteca della Scuola
Archaeologica Italiana di Atene, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign library for
their support. Bernardo Urbani received travel support to Crete by the School of Biology at the
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and was funded by an I.K.Y. Post-doctoral Fellowship (Greek
State Scholarship Foundation [I.K.Y.], Ministry of Education of the Hellenic Republic). Thanks are
also due to Davis S. Reese for sharing Minoan zooarchaeological references and Segundo Jiménez
(Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research) who contributed to the preparation of Figure 8. After
completing his undergraduate studies in anthropology with major in archaeology and later doctoral
studies in anthropology with a focus in primatology, Bernardo Urbani thanks the teachings of his
former professors and mentors at the Central University of Venezuela, the Venezuelan Institute of
Scientific Research, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
References
Ashley-Montangu, M.F. 1940. Knowledge of the ape
in antiquity. Isis 32: 87–102.
Atran, S. 1987. Origins of the species and genus concept.
Journal of the History of Biology 20.2: 195–279.
Atran, S. 1998. Folk biology and the anthropology
of science: cognitive universals and cultural
particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21.4:
547–609.
Baleka, S. 2019. Palaeogenetic analyses of extinct
Elephantidae from temperate and subtropical
climates. PhD dissertation, University of Iceland,
Reykjavik.
Baleka, S., D.S. Reese and M. Hofreiter 2016.
Preliminary Results of the Genetic Analysis of a
Bronze Age Elephant Tusk, in C. von Rüden, A.
Georgiou, A. Jacobs and P. Halstead (eds) Feasting,
Craft and Depositional Practice in Late Bronze Age
Palaepaphos: 369–373. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag
Marie Leidorf.
Barnett, R.D. 1973. Monkey business. Journal of
Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia 5: 1–5.
Barrett, C. E. 2009. The Perceived Value of Minoan
and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 22: 211–234.
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles
of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional
Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bernstein, P.L., W.J. Smith, A. Krensky and K. Rosene
1978. Tail positions of Cercopithecus aethiops.
Ethology 46: 268–278.
Binnberg, J. 2017. Animal identification in
iconography: an interdisciplinary approach
combining zoology, anthropology and
archaeology, in R. O’Sullivan, C. Marini and J.
Binnberg (eds) Interaction, Integration & Division:
Archaeological Approaches to Breaking Boundaries.
Proceedings of the Graduate Archaeology of Oxford
(GAO) conferences 2015–16: 279–289. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports.
Binnberg, J. 2019. Like a duck to water – birds and
liquids in the Aegean Bronze Age. Annual of the
British School at Athens 114: 41–78.
Binnberg, J. 2021. Metamorphosis, transformation,
and regeneration – butterflies, bees, and beetles
in the Aegean Bronze Age. Journal of Prehistoric
Religion 27: in press
Blakolmer, F. 2020. Gab es Löwen und Affen im mino-
ischen Kreta? Ein ikonographisches Problem, in
L. Berger, L. Huber, F. Lang and J. Weilhartner (eds)
Akten des 17. Österreichischen Archäologentages am
Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaften, Klassische und
Frühägäische Archäologie der Universität Salzburg
vom 26. bis 28. Februar 2018: 39–49. Salzburg: Uni-
versität Salzburg.
Cameron, M.A.S. 1968. Unpublished paintings from
the ‘House of the Frescoes’ at Knossos. Annual of
the British School at Athens 63: 1–31.
Canciani, F. 1973. Scimmie a Creta, in Antichità
Cretesi: Studi in onore di Doro Levi 1 (Chronache di
Archeologia 12): 107–110.
Chapin, A. and M.N. Pareja 2020. Peacock or
poppycock? Investigations into exotic animal
imagery in Minoan and Cycladic art, in B. Davis
and R. Laffineur (eds) NEΩTEΡOΣ – Studies in
Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor
124
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
of Professor John G. Younger on the Occasion of his
Retirement (Aegaeum 44): 215–226, Leuven:
Peeters.
Chapin, A. and M.N. Pareja 2021. Betwixt and beyond
the boundaries: an ecosocial model of animal-
human relations in Minoan and Cycladic animal
art, in R. Laffineur and T. Palaima (eds) Zoia –
Animal-Human Interactions in the Aegean Middle
and Late Bronze Age (Aegaeum 45): 125–134,
Leuven: Peeters.
Clarkson, C., M. Petraglia, R. Korisettar, M. Haslam
and N. Boivin 2009. The oldest and longest
enduring microlithic sequence in India: 35
000 years of modern human occupation and
change at the Jwalapuram Locality 9 rockshelter.
Antiquity 83: 326–348.
Cline, E.H. 1991. Monkey business in the Bronze Age
Aegean: the Amenhotep II faience figurines at
Mycenae and Tiryns. Annual of the British School
at Athens 86: 29–42.
Cline, E.H. 1994. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea:
International Trade and the Late Bronze Age
Aegean.Oxford: Hadrian Books Ltd.
Davaras, C. 2003. Parallels and Affinities between
Crete and India in the Bronze Age: Some
Speculations.Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert.
Davaras, C. and J. Soles 1997. A new Oriental
cylinder seal from Mochlos. Archaiologike
Ephemeris 134 (1995): 29–66.
Dominy, N.J., S. Ikram, G.L. Moritz, P.V. Wheatley,
J.N. Christensen, J.W. Chipma and P.L. Koch 2020.
Mummified baboons reveal the far reach of early
Egyptian mariners. eLife 9: 60860.
Dore, K.M., E.P. Riley and A. Fuentes (eds) 2017.
Ethnoprimatology: A Practical Guide to Research
at the Human-Nonhuman Primate Interface.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doumas, C. 1992. The Wall-paintings of Thera. Athens:
The Thera Foundation.
Dunham, S. 1985. The monkey in the middle.
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische
Archäologie 75: 234–264.
Evans, A. 1921. The Palace of Minos (Volume I).
London: Macmillan.
Evans, A. 1928. The Palace of Minos (Volume II.2).
London: Macmillan.
Fitton, J.L. (ed.) 2009. The Aigina Treasure.
Aegean Bronze Age Jewellery and a Mystery
Revisited.London: British Museum Press.
Gill, M.A.V. 1985. Some observations on
representations of marine animals in Minoan
art, and their identification, in P.Darcque and
J.-C. Poursat (eds) L’Iconographie minoenne. Actes
de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983): 63–
81. Athens, Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.
Goyal, P. and P.P. Joglekar 2008. Report on the faunal
remains recovered from Kanmer, Gujarat, during
the second field season (2006-07), in T. Osada
(ed.) Linguistic, Archaeology and the Human Past:
Occasional Paper 5: 25–43. Kyoto: RIHN.
Goyal, P., A.K. Pokharia, J.S. Kharakwal, P.P. Joglekar,
Y.S. Rawat and T. Osada 2013. Subsistence system,
paleoecology, and 14c chronology at Kanmer, a
Harappan site in Gujarat, India. Radiocarbon 55:
141–150.
Greenlaw, C. 2005. How monkeys evolved in Egyptian
and Minoan art and culture, in C. Briault, J.
Green, A. Kaldelis and A. Stellatou (eds) SOMA
2003 Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: 71–
73. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Greenlaw, C. 2006. Monkeying around the
Mediterranean: a fresh perspective on ancient
primates, in J. Day, C. Greenlaw, H. Hall, A. Kelly, L.
Matassa, K. McAleese, E. Saunders and D. Stritch
(eds) SOMA 2004 Symposium on Mediterranean
Archaeology: 63–67. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Greenlaw, C. 2011. The Representation of Monkeys in
the Art and Thought of Mediterranean Cultures.
A New Perspective on Ancient Primates. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Groenewegen-Frankfort, H. 1951. Arrest and
Movement. An Essay on Space and Time in the
Representational Art of the Ancient Near East.
London: Faber and Faber.
Groves, C. 2008. Extended Family, Long Lost Cousins:
A Personal Look at the History of Primatology.
Arlington: Conservation International.
Hamoto, A. 1995. Der Affe in der altorientalischen Kunst.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Harney, E., A. Nayak, N. Patterson, P.P. Joglekar, V.
Mushrif-Tripathy, S. Mallick and N. Rai 2019.
Ancient DNA from the skeletons of Roopkund
Lake reveals Mediterranean migrants in India.
Nature Communications 10: 3670.
Harper, P.O., J. Aruz and F. Tallon 1992. The Royal City
of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre.
New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Harte, K. J. 2000. Birds of the Thera wall paintings,
in S. Sherratt (ed.) The Wall Paintings of Thera.
Proceedings of the First International Symposium,
Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas,
30 August 4 September 1997: 681–698. Athens: The
Thera Foundation.
Hill, W.C.O. 1964. The maintenance of langurs
(Colobidae) in captivity; experiences and some
suggestions. Folia Primatologica 2: 222–231.
Hodos, T., C.R. Cartwright, J. Montgomery, G.M.
Nowell, K. Crowder, A. Fletcher and Y. Gönster
2020. The origins of decorated ostrich eggs in
the ancient Mediterranean and Middle East.
Antiquity 94: 381–400.
125
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
Joglekar, P.P. and P. Goyal 2011. Faunal remains from
Shikarpur, a Harappan site in Gujarat, India.
Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1: 15–25.
Joglekar, P.P., C.V. Sharada and G.S. Abhayan
2013. Faunal diversity during the Harappan
Period in Haryana: A review. Heritage Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 262–287.
Jung, C.G. 1964. The Man and his Symbols. New York:
Doubleday.
Keul, I. 2002. Hanuman, der Gott in Affengestalt:
Entwicklung und Erscheinungsformen seiner
Verehrung. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Langdon, S. 1990. From monkey to man: the evolution
of a Geometric sculptural type. American Journal
of Archaeology 94: 407–424.
Legendart, A. 2020. Une classification animale
crétoise à l’âge du bronze? Le point de vue
des Minoens par le prisme de l’iconographie.
Anthropozoologica 55: 247–255.
Lutgendorf, P. 2007. Hanuman’s Tale: The Messages of
a Divine Monkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackay, E.J.H. 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo-
daro (Volume I: Text). New Delhi: Government of
India Press.
Marinatos, N. 1987. An offering of saffron to the
Minoan goddess of nature: the role of the monkey
and the importance of the saffron, in Proceedings
of the Uppsala Symposium 1985: 123–132. Uppsala:
Academia Ubsaliensis.
Marinatos, N. 1990. The monkey in the shrine, in V.
Niniou-Kindeli (ed.) Πεπραγμένα του ΣΤ΄ Διεθνούς
Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 24-30 Αυγύστου
1986) (Volume A1’): 417–421. Chania: Philologikos
Syllogos.
Marinatos, S. 1969. Excavations at Thera II (1968
Season). Athens: The Archaeological Society at
Athens Library.
Marinatos, S. 1970. Excavations at Thera III (1969
Season). Athens: The Archaeological Society at
Athens Library.
Marinatos, S. 1971. Excavations at Thera IV (1970
Season). Athens: The Archaeological Society at
Athens Library.
Marshall, J. 1931. Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus
Civilization. London: Arthur Probsthain.
Masseti, M. 1980. Le scimmie azzurre: la fauna
etiopica delgi affreschi minoici di Santorino
(Thera). Mondo Archeologico: 32–37.
Masseti, M. 1997. Representation of birds in Minoan
art. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7:
354–363.
Masseti, M. 2000. Forum article: did the study of
ethology begin in Crete 4000 years ago? Ethology,
Ecology and Evolution 12.1: 89–96.
Masseti, M. 2003. Taxonomic and behavioural
aspects of the representation of mammals in
Aegean Bronze Age art, in E. Kotjabopoulou, Y.
Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble and P. Elefanti
(eds) Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances:
273–281. London: The British School at Athens.
Masseti, M. 2012. Forum article: did the study of
ethology begin in Crete 4000 years ago? Ethology,
Ecology and Evolution 12.1: 89–96.
Masseti, M. 2019. Monkeys in the ancient Greek
world (2000–500 B.C.), in C. C. N. Casanova, F.
M. C. Scalfari and C. Veracini (eds) History of
Primatology: Yesterday and Today. The Western–
Mediterranean Tradition: 21–51. Canterano:
Aracne.
Masseti, M. 2021. An analysis of recent literature
regarding the Minoan “blue monkeys”
represented in Aegean Bronze Age art. Journal of
Anthropological Sciences 99: 1–4.
McDermott, W.C. 1938. The Ape in Antiquity.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Meadow, R.H. 1991. Faunal remains and urbanism
at Harappa, in R. H. Meadow (ed.) Harappa
Excavations 1986-1990. A Multidisciplinary Approach
to Third Millennium Urbanism (Monographs
in World Archaeology 3): 89–106. Madison:
Prehistory Press.
Medin, D. and S. Atran (eds) 1999. Folkbiology.
London: Bradford Books.
Minniti C. and S.M.S. Sajjadi 2019. New data on non-
human primates from the Ancient Near East:
the recent discovery of a rhesus macaque burial
at Shahr-i Sokhta, Iran. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 29: 538–548.
Morgan, L. 1985. Idea, idiom and iconography, in
P. Darcque and J.-C. Poursat (eds) L’iconographie
minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes 21-22 avril
1983: 5–19. Athens: Ecole française d’Athènes.
Morgan, L. 1988. The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera:
a Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Osypinska, M., M. Skibniewski and P. Osypinski 2021.
Ancient pets. The health, diet and diversity of
cats, dogs and monkeys from the Red Sea port
of Berenice (Egypt) in the 1st-2nd centuries AD.
World Archaeology: 1–15.
Panagiotopoulos, D. 2001. Keftiu in context: Theban
tomb-paintings as a historical source. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 20.3: 263–283.
Papageorgiou, I. and K. Birtacha 2008. Η
εικονογραφία του πιθήκου στην Εποχή του
Χαλκού. Η περίπτωση των τοιχογραφιών
από το Ακρωτήρι Θήρας, in C. Doumas (ed.)
Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Τριάντα χρόνια έρευνας 1967-1997.
Επιστημονική συνάντηση 19-20 Δεκεμβρίου 1997:
287–316. Athens: The Archaeological Society at
Athens.
126
Julia binnberg, bernardo urbani and dionisios youlatos
Pareja, M.N. 2015. Monkey and Ape Iconography
in Minoan Art. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
Temple University, Philadelphia.
Pareja, M.N. 2017. Monkey and Ape Iconography in
Aegean Art. Uppsala: Åström.
Pareja, M.N., T. McKinney, J. Mayhew, J.M. Setchell,
R. Heaton and S. Nash 2020a. A new identification
of the monkeys depicted in a Bronze Age wall
painting from Akrotiri, Thera. Primates 61: 159–
168.
Pareja, M.N., T. McKinney and J.M. Setchell
2020b. Aegean monkeys and the importance
of cross-disciplinary collaboration in
archaeoprimatology: a reply to Urbani and
Youlatos. Primates 61: 767–774.
Parker, P. 1997. African vervets on Crete and Thera
during MM IIIB–LM IA. American Journal of
Archaeology 101: 348.
Phillips, J. 2005. A question of reception, in J. Clarke
(ed.) Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission
and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern
Mediterranean: 39–47. Barnsley: Oxbow Books.
Phillips, J. 2008. Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete
in Their Chronological Context: a Critical Review.
Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Piątkowska J. and M.R. Koliński 2015. The animal
economy of people living in the settlement of
Tell Rad Shaqrah (Syria). Polish Archaeology in the
Mediterranean 24: 675–692.
Pieniążek, M. 2017. Amber and carnelian: two
different careers in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 52: 51–66.
Pittman, H. 1984. Art of the Bronze Age: Southeastern
Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. New
York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Pocock, R. I. 1907. A monographic revision of
monkeys of the genus Cercopithecus. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London 1907: 677–746.
Porada, E. 1948. The Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern
Seals in North American Collections. The Collection of
the Pierpont Morgan Library. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Pruetz, J. D. and C. Greenlaw 2021. Occam’s razor
revisited: guenon species morphology supports
evidence for an African influence in Bronze
Age Aegean fresco primate iconography from
Akrotiri, Thera. Primates: 703–707.
Pruzsinszky, R. 2016. Musicians and monkeys:
Ancient Near Eastern clay plaques displaying
musicians and their socio-cultural role, in A.
Bellia and C. Marconi (eds) Musicians in Ancient
Coroplastic Art: Iconography, Ritual Contexts, and
Functions: 23–34. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra
editore.
Reese, D.S. 1985. Hippopotamus and elephant teeth
from Kition, in V. Karageorghis (ed.) Excavations
at Kition V (The Pre-Phoenician Levels II): 391–
408. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.
Reese, D.S. 1998. A Hippopotamus tooth from Hala
Sultan Tekke, Cyprus, in P. Åström (ed.) The Wells:
140–146. Jonsered: Åström.
Reese, D.S. 2006. The invertebrates, in E. Hallager and
B.P. Hallager (eds) The Greek-Swedish Excavations
at the Agia Aikaterini Square Kastelli, Khania 1970-
1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008: 396–417. Stockholm:
Svenska Institutet i Athen.
Reese, D.S. and P.P. Betancourt 2008. The neritid
shells. Hesperia 77: 576.
Rehak, P. 1999. The monkey frieze from Xeste 3,
room 4: reconstruction and interpretation, in
P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur
and W.D. Niemeier (eds) Meletemata. Studies in
Aegean Archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener
(Aegaeum 20): 705–708. Liège: Peeters.
Reinholdt, C. 2008. Der frühbronzezeitliche
Schmuckhortfund von Kap Kolonna: Ägina und die
Ägäis im Goldzeitalter des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.
Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Rowe, J.H. 1966. Diffusionism and archaeology.
American Antiquity 31.3: 334–337.
Sarianidi, V.I. 1983. Anthropomorphic divinities of
Ancient Bactria, in P. Snoy (ed.) Ethnologie und
Geschichte: Festschrift fur Karl Jettmar: 515–525.
Stuttgart: Ergon.
Schmitz-Pillmann, P. 2006. Landschaftselemente in
der minoisch-mykenischen Wandmalerei. Berlin:
Willmuth Arenhövel.
Schultz, A.H. 1939. (Review of) W.C. McDermott
1938. The ape in antiquity. Journal of Mammalogy
20: 114.
Scott, A., R.C. Power, V. Altmann-Wendling, M.
Artzy, M.A.S. Martin, S. Eisenmann, R. Hagan,
D.C. Salazar-García, Y. Salmon, D. Yegorov, I.
Milevski, I. Finkelstein, P.W. Stockhammer and
C. Warinner. 2021. Exotic foods reveal contact
between South Asia and the Near East during
the second millennium BCE. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 118: 2014956117.
Sharada, C.V., P.P. Joglekar and V.S. Shinde 2012.
Faunal remains from Late Harappan Phase at
Mitathal, Bhiwani District, Harayana. Man and
Environment 27.1: 31–41.
Skourtanioti, E. 2020. Genomic history of Neolithic
to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and
Southern Caucasus. Cell 181:1158–1175.
Spycket, A. 1998. ‘Le carnaval des animaux’: on some
musician monkeys from the ancient Near East.
Iraq 60:1–10.
127
langurs in the aegean bronze age?
Thomas, P.K., P.P. Joglekar, Y. Matsushima, S.J.
Pawankar and A. Desphande 1997. Subsistence
based on animals in the Harappan culture of
Gujarat, India. Anthropozoologica 25–26: 767–
776.
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. 2021. Archaeoprimatology, the longue
durée interface between humans and nonhuman
primates. Annual Review of Anthropology 50in
press.
Urbani, B. and M. Lizarralde (eds) 2020. Neotropical
Ethnoprimatology: Indigenous Peoples’ Perceptions
of and Interactions with Nonhuman Primates. New
York: Springer Press.
Urbani, B. and D. Youlatos 2012. Aegean monkeys:
From a comprehensive view to a reinterpretation,
in Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on
the Zoogeography and Ecology of Greece and Adjacent
Regions: 453.
Urbani, B. and D. Youlatos 2020a. A new look at the
Minoan ‘blue’ monkeys. Antiquity 94: 1–5.
Urbani, B. and D. Youlatos 2020b. Occam’s razor,
archeoprimatology, and the ‘blue’ monkeys of
Thera: a reply to Pareja et al. Primates 61: 757–765.
Urbani, B. and D. Youlatos 2020c. On the earliest
representations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes):
were African apes traded to Bronze Age Elam?
International Journal of Primatology 41(4): 654–663.
Urbani, B. and D. Youlatos 2021. The primates
of Susa: The depictions of monkeys in stone
statuettes from Elam. قرشلا Ash-sharq, Bulletin of
the Ancient Near East Archaeological, Historical and
Societal Studies 5: 1–9.
Urbani, B. and D. Youlatos 2022. Minoan monkeys:
Re-examining the archaeoprimatological
evidence, in B. Urbani, D. Youlatos and A. Antczak
(eds) World Archaeoprimatology: Interconnections
of Humans and Nonhuman Primates in the Past in
press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Buren, D. 1939. The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia
as Represented in Art. Rome: Pontificum
Institutum Biblicum.
Vandervondelen, M. 1994. Singes accroupis: étude
de quelques statuettes de la période prépalatiale
crétoise. Studia varia Bruxellensia 3: 175–183.
VanPool, C. and T. VanPool 2009. The semantics
of local knowledge: using ethnosemantics
to study folk taxonomies represented in the
archaeological record. Journal of Anthropological
Research 65.4: 529–554.
Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1990. Animal representations
in Theran and other Aegean arts, in D.A. Hardy,
C. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis and P.M. Warren
(eds) Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of
the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece,
3-9 September 1989 (Vol. 1: Archaeology): 327–347.
London: The Thera Foundation.
Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1996. Les animaux dans l’art
minoen, in D.S. Reese (ed.) Pleistocene and
Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers: 351–
412. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Vlachopoulos, A. 2000. The reed motif in the Thera
wall paintings and its association with Aegean
pictorial art, in S. Sherratt (ed.) The Wall Paintings
of Thera. Proceedings of the First International
Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre,
Thera, Hellas, 30 August 4 September 1997: 631–656.
Athens: The Thera Foundation.
Vlachopoulos, A. 2007. Disiecta membra: the wall
paintings from the ‘Porter’s Lodge’ at Akrotiri,
in P. Betancourt, M.C. Nelson and H. Williams
(eds) Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of Joseph
and Maria Shaw: 131–138. Philadelphia: Instap
Academic Press.
Vlachopoulos, A. and S. Sotiropoulou 2012. The blue
colour on the Akrotiri wall-paintings: from the
palette of the Theran painter to the laboratory
analysis.Talanta 44: 245–272.
Wolfson, E.G. 2018. Pictorial Representations of
Monkeys and Simianesque Creatures in Greek
Art. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia
University of Missouri.
