South Africa is richly endowed with rock art, with three specific rock art traditions having been identified. This chapter is based on one of those rock art traditions, most specifically, the Bushmen rock art. There are many motifs made by Bushmen, ranging from animals, human figures, to schematic images. For the purpose of this chapter, I focus on the representation of primates in the rock art made by these peoples. Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus), as the other primates represented in the rock art, are not found in large quantities. Even in locations where they are relatively well represented, their numbers are still much lower than other animals that were incorporated into rock art imagery. Furthermore, I address three other aspects. First, to provide evidence that shows that some of the baboon features were incorporated into human figures to produce what are known as therianthropic images, that is, half-human and half-animal images. Second, to explore how the representation and significance of baboons have been understood by scholars over the years. Third, to examine their geographical distribution in southern African rock art.

While various primates may have originally roamed in the formally lush prehistoric landscape of Egypt, by the Old Kingdom period, baboons and other monkeys were not native to Egypt proper and only available through foreign import from further south. Yet monkeys remained a recurrent feature in the iconography of this and later periods. A motivation of great religious significance was likely behind the baboon’s continual importation. Of a more secular nature, however, are reliefs from both royal and non-royal tombs where they are inserted into traditionally human scenes, exhibiting their own natural behavior, or imitating human actions, often rather humorously. This study examines the type of primate behaviors observed by the Egyptians and recorded on the walls of their tombs for eternity.

Archaeoprimatology – a term originally coined by one of the editors – explores the interface between humans and nonhuman primates (hereafter referred to as ‘primates’) in antiquity. Hence, archaeoprimatology embraces, both theoretically and methodologically, the disciplines of archaeology and primatology. Archaeoprimatological research is still relatively limited despite its significant implications that range from the art history realm of past iconographic identification of primates to a better grasp of current primate conservation issues. Archaeoprimatology is a discipline that offers multiple perspectives to understand the roots of our perception and apprehension of our own taxonomic group, the order Primates. The edited volume in your hands –the first fully devoted to this discipline – is thus intended to serve as an effort to promote and expand archaeoprimatological studies.

Depictions of nonhuman primates on religious architecture of the Indian subcontinent concern mainly rhesus monkeys in the northern half, and bonnet macaques and langurs in the southern half of the region. The earliest representations of monkeys are those of the Indus Valley civilization (c. 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE) of Pakistan and northwestern India, in the form of small earthenware figures or toys. Especially macaques figure widely in narratives in various roles and functions, on Buddhist as well as Hindu religious architecture. In narrative stone reliefs, monkeys can be a symbol of exemplary compassionate behavior, as in the Story of the Great Monkey King (e.g. at the Buddhist relic shrines at Bharhut, Sanchi and Nagarjunakonda). Monkeys can also be portrayed as witty or clever, as in the Story of the Monkey and the Crocodile (Buddhist and Hindu), or as extremely foolish, as in the Story of the Gardener and the Monkeys (Buddhist), or symbolize the relativity of beauty, as in the Story of the Flying Buddha (Buddhist). They can also merely be used for decoration or indicating a forest setting. Monkeys also figure regularly in erotic sculptures on Hindu temples, where they stand for the unbound desires. Langurs are easily recognized in religious architecture by their long limbs, extremely long tail, and prominent and undulating eyebrows. The vast majority of langur sculptures concerns the monkey god Hanuman, hence the sacredness of this monkey in India. Most langur sculptures are narrative bas-reliefs on Hindu temples of peninsular India, depicting an episode of the epic Ramayana in which Hanuman leads the monkey army and assists Prince Rama and his brother Lakshmana to rescue Rama’s abducted wife Sita. Independent statues or steles of Hanuman as the main character are commonplace throughout India, but especially in the south. Here, Hanuman is generally depicted either as a fierce warrior about to attack, or as a devout, peaceful character in adoration of Rama.

Although the North Coast of Peru and the Amazon basin are separated by hundreds of kilometers and a massive cordillera, they were never worlds completely apart. Imagery of monkeys, one of the most conspicuous inhabitants of the South American tropical forest, provides evidence of interaction among those regions. This chapter examines the presence and meaning of monkeys in the Lambayeque and Chimú cultures, two Late pre-Hispanic societies that developed on the North Coast between 900 CE and 1450 CE. The focus is in particular on figurative depictions of monkeys carried by humans, bearing litters, and holding fruits. A peculiar indigenous early Colonial depiction has also been identified wherein a monkey is portrayed pulling the ear of a roaring feline. A review of zooarchaeological and visual data permits an exploration of the symbolism of monkeys for the Late pre-Hispanic and early Colonial indigenous populations of the northern Peruvian coast. This interpretative exercise leads us to recognize the monkey as both a living sign of dependent relationships and hierarchies and a captive being subject to the construction of meanings based on its corporality, otherness and behavior.

Pachylemur is a large extinct lemur once widespread on Madagascar that survived in pockets until at least 500 years ago. The role of humans as agents of megafaunal extinction on Madagascar is heavily debated. Here we evaluate human impacts drawing from research on lemur hunting today combined with evidence from Madagascar’s oral history as well as its archaeological and paleontological records. Living lemurs are hunted throughout Madagascar, primarily for subsistence but also for commercial trade. Wildlife consumption is driven primarily by poverty and resultant food insecurity. Protected status, wildlife consumption taboos, and broad preference for domestic meats appear insufficient to buffer most lemur taxa from extinction at current harvest rates in the Makira region, if not elsewhere. Single-factor explanations for megafaunal extinction, such as rapid overkill or climate change, are not viable. There was long temporal overlap for Pachylemur and humans on Madagascar. There was no island-wide drought when the megafauna began to crash around 1,200 years ago; some parts of Madagascar were unusually wet while others were unusually dry. Stable isotope (δ15N) values for radiocarbon-dated Pachylemur bones also show no evidence that aridification contributed to its demise. Butchered bones of Pachylemur from the paleontological site Tsirave spike in frequency just over 1,000 years ago, indicative of sustained exploitation over a ~100-year period. Pachylemur shared many traits with its closest living relative, variegated lemurs (Varecia), including frugivory. Oral histories of an animal presumed to be Pachylemur indicate it dwelt in the largest trees in the forest, was active at twilight, and exhibited highly aggressive antipredator behavior. Like Varecia, Pachylemur was likely dependent on large, patchily distributed trees for fruit, and possibly also for reproduction (e.g. to nest and stash non-clinging young), making it especially vulnerable to habitat degradation. We thus conclude that both habitat degradation and hunting played a role in the extinction of Pachylemur.

In this chapter, we explore the patterns of nonhuman primate exploitation in Early to Mid-Holocene East Java by looking at the faunal assemblage recovered from excavations in Braholo Cave. Cercopithecid specimens account for more than 50% of the animal remains recovered from the site. Of these, 90% were identified to represent the Javan langur (Trachypithecus auratus), suggesting deliberate hunting of this arboreal species. Age-at-death profiles demonstrate targeting of prime-aged adults and skeletal element representation suggests onsite carcass processing. We observed consistent placement of butchery marks on specific skeletal elements, indicative of routine carcass processing that also involved preparation of skeletal elements for bone tool manufacture. We discuss our findings in the framework of early hunter-gatherer subsistence economies in the region.

Twenty-nine petroglyphs found in 15 archaeological sites in Brazilian Amazonia, previously selected as possible representations of primates, were analyzed in detail in search of shapes or postures that could be used for identifying taxa. Identification was based on the assumption that each artist would have depicted local fauna. After genera had been determined, geographic distribution of the respective species in the region was examined. This method allowed for the identification of nine species, in addition to one animal at genus level and another to family level. Archaeological publications dealing with representations of animals often disregard methodological procedures used for taxon identification. A more refined procedure would include examining taxon diagnostic characters, life history and behavior, and geographic distribution. All observed taxa are endemic to Amazonia. Among the identified species, three are currently considered vulnerable to extinction. Two species were found to be represented in sites located in geographic areas where they supposedly do not occur, which suggest the need for more thorough faunal inventories and should stimulate research on the displacements of ancient human communities in those regions.

Nonhuman primate subfossils have been excavated from 20 prehistoric (37,000– 2,940 BP) cave sites across Sri Lanka. These nonhuman primates were sources of food for the inhabitants. One of these sites, the Sigiriya Potana cave situated in the intermediate climatic zone in north central Sri Lanka, belongs to a complex of 12 caves located in the Central Province at 70 m above sea level. An excavation was conducted between 1990 and 1991 by the Post Graduate Institute of Archaeology, Colombo. The cave deposits were dated at ca. 6000 BP and the calibrated age ranges from cumulative probability (one sigma) 3913–3727 BCE (UA 5685) and 3913–3709 BCE (UA5686) using carbon-14 dating techniques. These nonhuman primate subfossils were found along with two complete human skeletons. These nonhuman primates are suspected to be the equivalents of the three diurnal species currently present in the area; namely two langur species (Semnopithcus vetulus, Semnopithecus priam thersites) and a macaque (Macaca sinica). The total number of nonhuman primate subfossils found were 23 mandible fragments with teeth and 6 maxillary fragments with teeth. The postcranial material was badly fragmented, rendering impossible any meaningful analyses. Some of this material was burnt, and it is presumed that the human inhabitants consumed these nonhuman primates during their occupation of the cave. Odontometrical comparison of the dental morphology of these subfossil samples with those of the three extant nonhuman primate species confirmed that these are the same species. Consistent with other sites in Sri Lanka and elsewhere in South Asia during the Terminal Pleistocene/Holocene (~12,000 to 3000 BP) nonhuman primates are considered to have been an important food resource.

South Africa is host to no less than seven extant primate species and also boasts a long history of findings of hominin fossils. Large primates, such as baboons and hominins, have coexisted and interacted for some three million years in the region. This coexistence changed radically over the millennia. During the Plio-Pleistocene, baboons and hominins were both prey to predators, such as leopards and saber-toothed cats, and they often slept in caves at night to escape predation. By the Later Stone Age, baboon remains are anthropologically modified, and the new social connotations are likely associated with ritual contexts. The potential ritual role of baboons changed with the arrival of the Iron Age farmers, when baboons were attracted to cultivated fields. Ethnoprimatologically, baboons became known as familiars of evil persons, reflecting largely a negative image of these primates. Europeans introduced rifles to South Africa, and this new technology assisted in the extermination of baboons in many parts of South Africa. Today, baboons are confined to nature reserves and rural areas.

One’s apprehension of the natural world, of ecosystems, and the species living therein, almost always takes shape in the contexts of (1) interspecific relational practices, (2) modalities and forms of naturalistic knowledge, and (3) institutionalized practices of encounter with nonhuman animals. The elaboration of particular cultural representations of nonhuman primates is no exception: it too largely depends on cultural variables. Scientific thought as disseminated for popular consumption, blockbuster films, and bourgeois entertainments, such as zoos and circuses, have contributed substantially to modern humans’ conceptions of primates, especially anthropomorphic apes. The ancient Roman world between the end of the first millennium BCE and the beginning of first millennium CE, however, was characterized by relational practices, cultural categories, and forms of scientific knowledge of nonhuman primates very different from those now operating in the Western imaginary. It is significant, for example, that the Romans most commonly interacted not with gorillas and chimpanzees, but with macaques and baboons. By investigating how nonhuman primates were integrated into Roman cultural encyclopedia, this article will center not on ape lore per se but instead upon the distinct cultural matrix within which primates were perceived, their behavior interpreted, and their relationship to humans understood.

This chapter presents a comprehensive review of the interaction between circum-Caribbean indigenous peoples and nonhuman primates before and at early European contact. It fills significant gaps in contemporary scholarly literature by providing an updated archaeological history of the social and symbolic roles of monkeys in this region. We begin by describing the zooarchaeological record of primates in the insular and coastal circum-Caribbean Ceramic period archaeological sites. Drawing from the latest archaeological investigations that use novel methods and techniques, we also review other biological evidence of the presence of monkeys. In addition, we compile a list of indigenously crafted portable material imagery and review rock art that allegedly depicts primates in the Caribbean. Our investigation is supplemented by the inclusion of written documentary sources, specifically, ethnoprimatological information derived from early ethnohistorical sources on the multifarious interactions between humans and monkeys in early colonial societies. Finally, we illustrate certain patterns that may have characterized interactions between humans and monkeys in past societies of the circum-Caribbean region (300–1500 CE), opening avenues for future investigations of this topic.

Primates are mammals with high cultural significance in ancient societies. The objective of this research is to explore the material culture and biological remains of primates found in Teotihuacan, one of the largest pre-Hispanic urban areas of Mexico. Remains of Mesoamerican spider monkeys (Ateles cf. A. geoffroyi) were found in the Pyramid of the Moon, Xalla, and the Plaza of the Columns. Portable material culture that resembles primates was recovered elsewhere within Teotihuacan, but mostly in Tetitla and La Ventilla. Murals with representations of monkeys were found at these last two Teotihuacan sites. Possibly, primates reached Teotihuacan because of relationships with peoples from more distant lands such as the Mayan region as well as the Oaxacan province ruled by Monte Albán. The rise of the presence of primates in Teotihuacan occurred during the Classic period (~200–550 CE); however, it is relatively scarce considering the large size of the city and the long period of time in which Teotihuacan had been researched. Nevertheless, the existence of monkeys in Teotihuacan, either as exotic animals or as portable objects, does also seem to indicate that they were disseminated within different parts of the city. Thus, living primates and their representations circulated with their symbolic value in Teotihuacan, particularly among members of the ruling elite, and likely among members of other neighboring Mesoamerican societies.

After a rapid survey of the contents of the Baboon Catacomb at Saqqara in Egypt, most of the remains of an estimated 180 monkey individuals (the surviving 40%) were temporarily removed for further study. The predominant species is Papio anubis, but 21 Macaca sylvanus and 2 Chlorocebus aethiops were present. Late Dynastic Egyptians employed a unique method of encasing linen-wrapped baboon mummies in plaster at the catacomb, but most of the monkey corpses were probably macerated before interment. Most of the skulls show symptoms of dietary deficiency or sunlight deprivation; some show signs of violence. The disproportionate male representation indicates that little breeding occurred. Males were probably preferred because of human reverence for the characteristic sitting posture, often with penis erect, that monkeys adopt when advertising land occupancy. Humans once displayed in a similar manner, later using effigies as stand-ins, but as civilization developed, this territorial behavior was suppressed.