ArticlePrimates; journal of primatology2021
Galilei's mutter, archeoprimatology, and the ´blue´ monkeys of Thera: a comment on Pruetz and Greenlaw (2021).
Article in Primates; journal of primatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent debate on the taxonomic identification of the monkeys depicted in a fresco from Room 6 of Building Complex Beta in the Bronze Age town of Akrotiri, Thera (Greece) has triggered a multitude of different interpretations deriving from a fruitful exchange of diverse academic approaches. Thus, Pareja et al. (Primates 61:159-168, 2020a) identified those Aegean monkeys as Asian langurs (Semnopithecus spp.), whereas Urbani and Youlatos (Antiquity 94:e9, 2020a) and Binnberg et al. (J Gr Archaeol 6:in press, 2021) argued for the identification as African vervets (Chlorocebus spp.), and recently Pruetz and Greenlaw (Primates 62:703-707, 2021) introduced the African L'Hoest's monkeys (Allochrocebus lhoesti) and Diana monkeys (Cercopithecus diana) into the debate. This comment intends to present thoughts on the latter contention. In this context, our approach encompassed the morphological analysis of specific features of the face and torso, the cultural context of the use of the blue color for representing the Aegean monkeys, the detailed artistic rendering of Aegean painters, the geographical distribution ranges of the potential candidate monkey species, and the historical context of trading monkeys or exchanging monkey imageries in the eastern Mediterranean region and Africa. All this evidence supports our contention that vervets still represent the most parsimonious models for the monkeys depicted in Room 6. This debate, based on multidisciplinary research, stands as a constructive example for the perspectives that need to be followed for the development of archeoprimatology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.