I am a biological anthropologist with a specialisation in nonhuman primate responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Phone: 01443 482933 Address: School of Applied Sciences
University of South Wales
Pontypridd
CF37 4AT
Bronze Age Aegean wall paintings depicting monkeys from Crete and Thera show the animals in a var... more Bronze Age Aegean wall paintings depicting monkeys from Crete and Thera show the animals in a variety of roles, from wild to possibly trained, to cultic or sacred. These images, while stylistically Aegean, are closely related to—and seem to be descendant from—Egyptian and Near Eastern monkey and ape iconography. While monkey depictions in these latter regions often provide species-specific characteristics, Aegean wall paintings often lack this distinct level of identification. In order to better understand the relationships between the monkeys in Aegean wall paintings and those that live(d) in the Aegean, Near East, and Egypt, several primatologists were consulted to more accurately identify species-specific visual characteristics. When these identified traits are coupled with collaborators’ expertise in primate cognition, behavior, ecology, habitat, and history, a new region is recognized as a contributing source for monkey iconography: Harappa and the broader Indus River Valley. With an emphasis on the primatological aspects and the growing corpus of Indus goods and species found in the Aegean, an image emerges of an even broader iconographic and socio-religious sphere of interaction. In this expanded system, the Near East functions both as an independent source of iconography and as an intermediary that facilitated a dissemination of monkey iconography, belief systems, and possibly the creatures themselves.
Of primary importance to the methodology employed is the cooperation of scholars from seemingly disparate disciplines—the stitching together of the results of various projects and experiences to attempt to answer new (and the previously unanswerable) questions. This type of interdisciplinary approach could certainly be used for other species, sites, paintings, and objects to hone our understanding of period, place, animal, movement, and trade.
In replying to our 2019 publication: “A New Identification of the Monkeys Depicted in a Bronze Ag... more In replying to our 2019 publication: “A New Identification of the Monkeys Depicted in a Bronze Age Wall Painting from Akrotiri, Thera,” Urbani and Youlatos (2020) argue for the traditional identification of the monkeys depicted on the north and west walls of room 6 of Building Complex Beta at Akrotiri, Thera, as vervet monkeys (Fig. 1). Their argument is based largely on previous scholarship and their analysis of monkey morphology as it appears in the Bronze Age artwork. Here, after clarifying some misconceptions and misquotations, we thoroughly contextualize the wall painting in question, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between disparate disciplines for a multifaceted and rigorous approach. The nature of the item in question is key in this reply: we are studying artwork. Because this is a cultural representation of monkeys rather than a study of live primates or preserved specimens, consideration of artistic choice, color conventions, and the agency of the artist are important for answering the questions raised by Urbani and Youlatos, stimulating further cross-disciplinary discussions.
Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3500-1100 B.C.) wall paintings from the islands of Crete and Thera depict ... more Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3500-1100 B.C.) wall paintings from the islands of Crete and Thera depict monkeys in a variety of roles such as running wild in nature, possibly following (trained) commands, and participating in sacred activities. These images, while stylistically Aegean, are traditionally considered closely related to—and descendant from—Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Mesopotamian monkey imagery. While monkey depictions in the latter regions may provide species-specific characteristics, Aegean wall paintings typically lack this level of detail. In an attempt to better understand the relationships between the monkeys depicted in Aegean wall paintings and the species that were encountered by the Aegean, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian peoples, a collaborative team of primatologists, a taxonomic illustrator, and an art historian/archaeologist identified species-indicative visual characteristics. This collaborative approach led us to identify a new region that serves as source for monkey iconography: the Indus River Valley. With an emphasis on the primatological aspect and the growing corpus of possible Indus goods and possible species found in the Aegean, a broader iconographic and socio-religious sphere of interaction emerges. In this expanded system, Mesopotamia functions as an intermediary that enables the movement of goods, raw materials, people, and iconography between the east and west. Mesopotamia may have even afforded an opportunity for Aegean peoples to encounter the creatures themselves, first-hand. Of primary importance to the methodology employed for this project is the cooperation of scholars from disparate disciplines—the stitching together of various projects and experiences in attempt to answer both new and previously unanswerable questions. This type of interdisciplinary approach can be applied to other species, sites, paintings, and objects to hone our understanding of period, place, animal, movement, and trade.
Uploads
Of primary importance to the methodology employed is the cooperation of scholars from seemingly disparate disciplines—the stitching together of the results of various projects and experiences to attempt to answer new (and the previously unanswerable) questions. This type of interdisciplinary approach could certainly be used for other species, sites, paintings, and objects to hone our understanding of period, place, animal, movement, and trade.