|
Grand Fromage posted:The Christians did make a bigger show of snubbing the Roman traditions though. And he Roman authorities seemed to consider them more of a threat for whatever reason, I'm not sure exactly why. My guess would be because they were following someone deemed a criminal stirring up insurrection against the Roman state, which neither the Jews or Zororastrians were doing. It was probably because Christianity was new, millerianist, and focused on the private self, as opposed to Roman (and Hellenic) traditional, unchanging, and very public faith (pontifex maximus originally being a civic title as any other). Mike Duncan suggested that Romans had respect for ancient civilisations, like Egypt and the Hebrews, but Christianity was an explicitly "new" cult. Christians were for their part consciously transcesdental and millerianist, which would have led to contempt for temporal and public (i.e., civic) matters. Christians and Romans were mutually incompatible, until Constantine et al. e: But of course that's an amateur's interpretation. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Oct 24, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
One of the more iron-clad rules in Roman history (pre-medieval, anyway) is that the Romans don't care as long as you shut the gently caress up, don't start any trouble, and mind your own goddamn business. The Christians violated all of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Christians did make a bigger show of snubbing the Roman traditions though. And he Roman authorities seemed to consider them more of a threat for whatever reason, I'm not sure exactly why. My guess would be because they were following someone deemed a criminal stirring up insurrection against the Roman state, which neither the Jews or Zororastrians were doing. I always interpreted it as the Romans misinterpreted Christianity as Judaism (a understandable mistake as the overlap between the two for the first couple of centuries was considerable) who were something as enemies of the state as there were two (three?) major uprisings during the time in Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
It probably looked a lot like some new, weird militant Judaism to some people. It's a complex issue, everything all of us have stated so far probably was true. I don't think there's any one simple answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
I would offer an alternative explanation. We currently think of Christianity and Judaism as being two entirely separate faiths that no one could possibly confuse, but this distinction was not present at the time we are discussing, even to many who would call themselves Christian. I would argue that the only difference in Roman eyes between Christians and Jews was one of geography. Both groups offended Roman sensibilities in the same way, refusing to sacrifice to the Emperor and placing God's authority above that of the Emperor. Both implicitly rejecting Imperial authority with their stated beliefs and explicitly rejecting it with their actions. Take a look at the Wikipedia articles for Judaizers or the Incident at Antioch, where Paul basically gloats over having won the argument with Peter concerning whether Christians need to obey the Deuteronomic or Covenant Codes. There was a huge fight in the early church concerning whether they were an evolution of Judaism or something post-Judaism, for lack of a better word. While the two religions did grow apart eventually, at the time when persecution started under Nero, they would likely have been viewed as a Jewish cult/sect/offshoot at the exact same time that the Jews were challenging Roman authority in Judea. There were a whole mess of people claiming to be the Messiah in Roman Judea, of which Jesus of Nazareth was just one. It wasn't until the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 136 that Messiah claims stop coming up every few years. The national trauma of the destruction of the Second Temple would move Judaism towards what we know today just as the acceptance of Gentile converts would move Christianity towards what we know today, but this was a slow process, not an immediate break. As for Christians rocking the boat more than Jews, I really don't think that is true. It's just that the Jews were all geographically concentrated around Jerusalem, which was only recently conquered, whereas Christians were smaller in number and spreading into areas that had been Roman for far longer. Christians and Jews were defying Roman authority in the same way for the same reasons, but Christians were doing it in the very heart of the Empire, rather than a backwater province.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Is there evidence for this or is it supposition? Because I see a possibility of plenty of Celtic speakers in places outside of the large towns or cities. I mean mutually unintelligible regional dialects and remnant languages in the countryside remained a thing in a lot of countries up until the early 20th century with the advent of mass communication. Not to mention Breton is a thing. (Present tense, just)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:
You're on the ball except here, remember that Jews had been tapped into the Eastern Mediterranean before the Romans were even a thing. There were communities spread out all across the Roman and Parthian empires. These spread out communities were the first incubators for the spread of Christianity. Pre-Rabbinic Judaism was a lot less insular at the time, too. Romans would have a hard time differentiating for those early centuries because the two communities would be coexisting side by side in most places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:You're on the ball except here, remember that Jews had been tapped into the Eastern Mediterranean before the Romans were even a thing. There were communities spread out all across the Roman and Parthian empires. These spread out communities were the first incubators for the spread of Christianity. Pre-Rabbinic Judaism was a lot less insular at the time, too. Romans would have a hard time differentiating for those early centuries because the two communities would be coexisting side by side in most places. Thinking a bit more on this, I wonder if the Roman conquest of Judea had any bearing on how existing Jewish communities were expected to behave. My thought is that prior to the conquest, they were outsiders but at least nominally associated with a foreign power. But after the Romans took over, now they're all part of the same power. I can't help but wonder if that either changed what the Romans expected of them or gave them free reign to do what they wanted. I would be very interested to hear thoughts on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not to mention Breton is a thing. (Present tense, just) Breton is a thing in France because of Anglo-Saxons displacing Celts from Britain, it's not a remnant of a Gallic Celtic language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:Breton is a thing in France because of Anglo-Saxons displacing Celts from Britain, it's not a remnant of a Gallic Celtic language. Er, there's no reason to expect that the Celts in Britain didn't come from (and later on, trade with) mainland Celts of that area in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Er, there's no reason to expect that the Celts in Britain didn't come from (and later on, trade with) mainland Celts of that area in the first place. This is like saying German=English because they have the same ancestor language. Breton is closer linguistically to Welsh and Cornish than it is to the Gallic languages, indicating that its origin lies in the British Isles. That is also ignoring the legendary accounts of their arrival from the 4th century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Yeah Nintendo Kid just didn't know that but he's mostly a D&D poster so admitting it wouldn't occur to him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I would offer an alternative explanation. We currently think of Christianity and Judaism as being two entirely separate faiths that no one could possibly confuse, but this distinction was not present at the time we are discussing, even to many who would call themselves Christian. I really disagree with this but can't come up with a good argument otherwise right now. All I can say was it was probably more like Romans saying gently caress all this messiah poo poo coming out of Judaea and just put a blanket ban on any groups who claimed as much which is why Christians were banned along with Second Temple Jews from Jerusalem after the third rebellion in Judaea and destruction of the Temple. Yes in the beginning they were all Jews and converts but they made it pretty clear that they weren't following Jewish Law. And especially after the destruction of the Temple they were at that point clearly distinct religions from one another, with Pharisaic Judaism's power growing after the diminishing of the priestly classes from the destruction of the Temple, Saducees and Essenes fading away, and Zealots being the sect crushed in the revolt. That point Christianity and Judaism were about as far apart from each other as you could get and to me it would be a stretch for even Romans to say these folks were just two sides of the same coin considering how religiously conscious Romans were
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
SeaWolf posted:I really disagree with this but can't come up with a good argument otherwise right now. All I can say was it was probably more like Romans saying gently caress all this messiah poo poo coming out of Judaea and just put a blanket ban on any groups who claimed as much which is why Christians were banned along with Second Temple Jews from Jerusalem after the third rebellion in Judaea and destruction of the Temple. Yes in the beginning they were all Jews and converts but they made it pretty clear that they weren't following Jewish Law. And especially after the destruction of the Temple they were at that point clearly distinct religions from one another, with Pharisaic Judaism's power growing after the diminishing of the priestly classes from the destruction of the Temple, Saducees and Essenes fading away, and Zealots being the sect crushed in the revolt. That point Christianity and Judaism were about as far apart from each other as you could get and to me it would be a stretch for even Romans to say these folks were just two sides of the same coin considering how religiously conscious Romans were The destruction of the Second Temple was a bit more than 30 years after Jesus' crucifixion, and occurs at roughly the same time that the first books of what would become the New Testament are being written, with the primary purpose of many of the books being to either explicitly define what we would now call orthodox beliefs. Also, the kind of explicit theology presented in the Gospels was only just beginning to develop. Depending on which chronology one subscribes to, no more than two and more likely only one of the Gospels (Mark) was even written by then, and that without the current ending attached. I think that you are seriously discounting the variety of religious thought occurring, and while the Christianity envisioned in Paul's mind was definitely winning over the more Judaic Christianity of Peter and James, to say it was a settled issue by the destruction of the Second Temple is just factually incorrect. By the time the Romans crushed the Jewish revolts for good, 64 years had passed since the destruction of the Second Temple, and that only occurred after a thorough depopulation of the province. I also think you are seriously overestimating how centralized the persecution of Christians was, as most of it occurred at a more local level on the individual initiative of governors and even more local officials. For the vast majority of the time before Constantine, persecution of Christians was not official policy and even where it was occurring, it was far more sporadic than the then ongoing pacification of Roman Judea. Azathoth fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
I think the simplest explanation is best here. The Romans required everyone of all religions to sacrifice in honor of living and dead emperors and to sway wars and poo poo to their side all the time, figuring that somebody's pantheon might be taking a break from relentless debauchery long enough to help out. Jews and Christians would not do this for obvious reasons and this was rather treasonous behavior to the Roman mind. Monotheism also doesn't play well with syncretic polytheism; compared to Roman polytheism, monotheism is one step away from /r/atheism and was received similarly. This made Jews and Christians bad neighbors and bad citizens even if they were decent enough people - which plays interestingly into a dynamic where state officials would basically triple-check that a Christian who hadn't sacrificed and presented his certificate of sacrifice to the official really, seriously wanted to die over the matter. If they sacrificed - which most Christians agreed was okay to save your life, later, but then they were the ones who lived long enough to say so - then everything was fine, Christian or not. The Roman problem with Christianity was that it required treason, no more and no less. If you could live with yourself being a good citizen and believing you were also a Christian then the Romans didn't really care about the last part, because you weren't one of the nasty ones committing supernatural terrorism against the state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
I bet there were a lot of pagans who felt vindicated when Rome was sacked in 410, plus stuff like the defeat at Adrianople.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
I think the particulars of Christian beliefs probably didn't matter too much to the Romans, insofar as they were beliefs. The Romans put up with the Epicureans, for instance, whose basic teachings included that nothing can happen through divine power and you should live on a commune with other cool Epicurean bros and forget about political life. So I have a hard time believing that Romans would hate Christians because monotheism in and of itself. It makes more sense to me that Christian beliefs about the transience of this life translated into a fearlessness and disregard for Roman authority. I can't imagine an Epicurean deciding to die when faced with the choice of performing an internally meaningless action like sacrificing to the spirit of Caesar, but I can easily imagine a Christian making that decision, since the sacrifice would be a sin, not meaningless. Octy posted:I bet there were a lot of pagans who felt vindicated when Rome was sacked in 410, plus stuff like the defeat at Adrianople. 410 Sack It
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
I think age did also play a part. Judaism was ancient even to Rome, while the Epicureans had Greek philosophical tradition behind them. Early Christianity tended to be referred to as a superstition, rather than a religion. The Jews' religious place in the empire generally boiled down to keeping their god happy and his cult running. The Christians weren't even seen as having a valid god or cult. They were probably considered on par with weirdo Eastern fortune telling, but writ large and political.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I think the particulars of Christian beliefs probably didn't matter too much to the Romans, insofar as they were beliefs. The Romans put up with the Epicureans, for instance, whose basic teachings included that nothing can happen through divine power and you should live on a commune with other cool Epicurean bros and forget about political life. So I have a hard time believing that Romans would hate Christians because monotheism in and of itself. That's exactly what I said, isn't it? Romans didn't like monotheistic religions specifically because they tended to tell their followers that an action like sacrificing to other gods was not allowed. A hypothetical monotheism (and for all I know there were others in the Empire, but I don't think we know of any) that did not care about you doing your duty would have been fine. The theology did not matter except insofar as it required you to commit treason. Didn't the Jews work out a deal where they wouldn't sacrifice to anybody but God, but would be sure to ask him to do the emperors (who were definitely not gods) a solid? I think that is one of the reasons that Jewish persecution dies down and Christian persecution remains a thing off and on until Constantine. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:That's exactly what I said, isn't it? Romans didn't like monotheistic religions specifically because they tended to tell their followers that an action like sacrificing to other gods was not allowed. A hypothetical monotheism (and for all I know there were others in the Empire, but I don't think we know of any) that did not care about you doing your duty would have been fine. The theology did not matter except insofar as it required you to commit treason. My understanding of it was that Romans respected tradition so certain religions that predated the founding of the Republic were given a certain protected status, Judaism being one of them. As long as Christians identified as a Jewish sect, they were also protected, but once they split they were on their own. Supposedly the Jews formally disowned the Christians at a conference at Jamnia ca. 95 AD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Octy posted:I bet there were a lot of pagans who felt vindicated when Rome was sacked in 410, plus stuff like the defeat at Adrianople. No need to bet...Augustine's The City of God is an explicit defense of Christianity against pagans arguing that Rome was sacked in 410 as a result of its abandonment of its pagan roots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1623717/120-arrested-1300-relics-seized-biggest-ever-tomb-raiding-investigation Some modern news about ancient China. Next three kingdoms post is currently divided between my two computers. Again there's far too much going on and I think I'm already at nine pages including the outline and everything I've already written.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
The rise of Christianity is always an interesting topic, but my original question (which I believe revived the discussion of that topic) was how Roman beliefs in the afterlife evolved. Wikipedia just glosses over it, and what literary tidbits I've read implies that the Greeks and Romans saw the afterlife as an endless drab gray wasteland. I figure someone must have developed something different or more intricate over thousands of years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The rise of Christianity is always an interesting topic, but my original question (which I believe revived the discussion of that topic) was how Roman beliefs in the afterlife evolved. That was the Sumerian view of the afterlife, so it does have a long tradition behind it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
I managed to pull some time out of the day to drop by the British Museum before closing, and woah. I can't help but feel that a lot of the stuff there was obtained by bad archaeology though, considering how old the Museum is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:I managed to pull some time out of the day to drop by the British Museum before closing, and woah. I can't help but feel that a lot of the stuff there was obtained by bad archaeology though, considering how old the Museum is. I think Greece dropping millions to build a facility to house these (among other things of course) is international relations at it's best: extremely catty and passive aggressive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:I managed to pull some time out of the day to drop by the British Museum before closing, and woah. I can't help but feel that a lot of the stuff there was obtained by bad archaeology though, considering how old the Museum is. Pretty much. Archaeology (prior to at latest the 60s, depending on where you look) was basically a formalised system of looting. The easiest way to think about it is that there's plenty Egyptian material in the British Museum but not exactly much British material in the National Museum of Egypt. Lots of PR problems remain on this front - plenty indigenous groups have zero willingness to co-operate with archaeologists and it's hard to blame them given our track record. The best example of this today would be some Native American groups and their opposition to anything involving human remains that pre-date Columbus, given that they see archaeologists as literal grave robbers. You may have heard of Kennewick Man. In museum terms it's also pretty bad. A lot of that stuff wasn't even obtained by archaeologists and was instead bought from 'artefact traders'  by rich collectors who willed them to museums on their deaths. To study these things meaningfully you need to know their 'provenance' (where they were found and in what sort of context) and as a lot of these were obtained in the Victorian equivalent of falling off the back of a lorry we know next to nothing about them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Obviously a lot of museums would lose their raison d'etre if they started a wholesale return of foreign artifacts. I went to the Hunterian museum in Glasgow and saw bits of the Antonine Wall and miscellaneous Roman artifacts. It was great, especially because they're in their "homeland".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The rise of Christianity is always an interesting topic, but my original question (which I believe revived the discussion of that topic) was how Roman beliefs in the afterlife evolved. Plato's Socrates tells a few stories about the afterlife, such as that souls go through a sort of purgatory, choose a new earthly life based on their character (with wicked people making choices that seems superficially what they want, like "I want to be a tyrant," but having their wish twisted so that they live the life of a tyrant who's forced to eat their own children), and then drink magic water to forget everything in preparation to start their new life. It seems to me like Plato uses the story as a metaphor to justify the philosophical life and argue against the claim that would say that "ethics is for suckers, it's best to be perceived as a good/just man but in reality profit by being wicked/unjust". That is to say, I don't think it's a "religious" claim about the afterlife in the same sense that the endless gray wasteland was. I don't know whether or not he dreamt up the story himself or whether that it was a notion that would have been familiar to people in his time from some other context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Obviously a lot of museums would lose their raison d'etre if they started a wholesale return of foreign artifacts. This is of course true and it's a delicate balancing act: stuff like the Elgin Marbles is very debatable but a lot of museums are now working to repatriate stuff that has just sat in storage for the last fifty years or so, which is a good start. If you are in Glasgow, the Burrell Collection is probably the best example of what I'm talking about re: provenance: it's a lovely place and I recommend it (the life-size ceramic Chinese bodhisattva is my favourite) but even the people who work there have little to no idea about the origins of a lot of the items as Lord Burrell basically hired a bunch of guys to travel the world and bring back cool-looking stuff from local markets. They couldn't easily repatriate half of it if they tried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
On the other hand in countries like China or Iraq or even Egypt had museums responded to repatriation requests those collections might have been destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Interesting article about the Elgin Marbles from a man with truly fabulous facial hairquote:Amal Clooney should back off. Lord Elgin was a hero who saved the marbles for the world http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...-for-the-world/ Here's another, from Paxo quote:The Elgin Marbles belong in Britain, Mrs Clooney http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/museums/11185897/The-Elgin-Marbles-belong-in-Britain-Mrs-Clooney.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
I've always been against forced repatriation because where does it end? The museums of the world belong to everyone, there's no need to destroy them on nationalist grounds. What's done is done. Museums that want to send back stuff they aren't even displaying, sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
The more i think about museums the more uncomfortable i'm becoming with them. Like those statues from the Parthenon being in England, it simply makes no sense. You can write three paragraphs about what they are, place it next to them and it still doesnt make it any less weird to see those statues in England. I never had much trouble with museums until last year, when i visited the Dutch National Museum of Ethnology. I couldnt help but feel kinda uncomfortable looking at room after room of items that used to hold real meaning to real people and here they are, presented as something exotic to look and marvel at, but with hardly any context or meaning left to them. I dunno, i should probably dig into some of the literature surrounding it to see some better formulated arguments for and against museums.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
One thing is museums aren't just display cases. The majority of what they do is research work that takes place in those back rooms nobody gets to see. A lot of that stuff is also there precisely because it did not hold any meaning to the people where it came from. They got rid of it. Not everything in a museum was looted by guys in pith helmets. There's also plenty of stuff that wouldn't survive if it weren't for museums. There are artifacts saved from places that actively destroyed their heritage (China), or ones from countries that simply don't have the resources to take care of their own stuff (Greece since we're on the subject, but this is a long long list). Museums also serve as a way of globalizing human culture. Most people are not going to have the resources to travel to Greece to see Greek stuff, which is as much a part of the cultural heritage of a Canadian as it is a Greek. However, far more would be able to travel to... I don't know where the big museums are in Canada, Toronto? You get the point. That's another point specifically about the Elgin Marbles, or anything from Greece/Rome. I don't think those artifacts are any more the cultural heritage of people living in those places than of any other westerner. I honestly don't think there's any significant difference between having a Greek statue in London or Paris or Athens. All those people have an equal claim to Greek legacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:The more i think about museums the more uncomfortable i'm becoming with them. Like those statues from the Parthenon being in England, it simply makes no sense. You can write three paragraphs about what they are, place it next to them and it still doesnt make it any less weird to see those statues in England. Counterpoint: the Parthenon exploded. Funny that toronto should have come up because it is one of the safest places in the world. There have been no active theaters of war in that area for almost 200 years, and it's one of the most geologically stable places on the planet and 1000 miles inland. The Canadian government is stable and friendly with its neighbors and serious natural disaster or destructive violence is almost unthinkable. When you contrast that with the recent political situation in europe, asia, the middle east, or africa, canada starts to look like a good place to stash priceless artifacts. Britain has similar advantages, really, but they lose points for being within range of european violence. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:The more i think about museums the more uncomfortable i'm becoming with them. Like those statues from the Parthenon being in England, it simply makes no sense. You can write three paragraphs about what they are, place it next to them and it still doesnt make it any less weird to see those statues in England. It has things in common with arguments for zoos -- seeing the real thing generates more interest and sympathy and understanding than a picture and a paragraph. The Elgin Marbles in England may well have generated more interest in the Classics and even downstream tourism dollars for Greece than they would have if they'd stayed in Greece for the past 200 years. I don't think that argument addresses how something similar could be accomplished by having the artifacts go on tour, nor is it an automatic justification, but there is sense to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I've always been against forced repatriation because where does it end? The museums of the world belong to everyone, there's no need to destroy them on nationalist grounds. What's done is done. That's a slippery slope argument and I think the issue is important enough that we should go case by case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
homullus posted:It has things in common with arguments for zoos -- seeing the real thing generates more interest and sympathy and understanding than a picture and a paragraph. The Elgin Marbles in England may well have generated more interest in the Classics and even downstream tourism dollars for Greece than they would have if they'd stayed in Greece for the past 200 years. I don't think that argument addresses how something similar could be accomplished by having the artifacts go on tour, nor is it an automatic justification, but there is sense to it. Also they would have been in Greece for 200 years of war. When was the last time an invading power stored ammunition in a British landmark? Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
euphronius posted:That's a slippery slope argument and I think the issue is important enough that we should go case by case. Using what criteria? Are objects inexorably linked to the geographical area or to a political entity? Who gets Roman artifacts from Egypt taken by Napoleon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:13
|
|
