RESUMEN
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.