University of Mogi das Cruzes
University of São Paulo, University of Mogi das Cruzes ALINE DE SOUZA MAIA
ABSTRACT
242243 PART II TRACK 2: STARCHITECTURE
Keywords: Great Egyptian Museum, contemporary architecture, repatriation, archeological collections. reference (SFRH/ BPD/111868/2015), based at Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), DINÂMIA’CET-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal.
The great Egyptian Museum
The Great Egyptian Museum (GME) can be considered a “pharaonic” architec ture located on the outskirts of the Giza Pyramids. The idea of building a Great Museum for Egyptology, which occupies an internal area of 90,000m², derivers from discussions started in the mid-1990s. In 2002, the Irish office Heneghan Peng Architects won an international architecture competition that included more than 1,500 proposals from architects around the world. Commonly called as “the fourth pyramid of Giza”, the GME´s construction started in 2005 and now is almost completed. The built of this mega museum structure aims to contribute to Egypt´s unique positioning as a first-class tourist destination considering the globalization processes. Furthermore, the GME must also be considered within a big strategy of building and renovating of nineteen museums in Egypt that includes, for example, the projects of the Nubian Museum in Aswan and the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization. This strategy was undertaken by the worldwide famous archaeologist Zahi Hawass, then Secretary-General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt. The construction of a mega museum architecture has been mobilized as an important argument for requesting the repatriation of Egyptian collections illegally removed from the country. Since 2010, Egypt has expressed interest in the return (or at least the loan) of some archeological antiques such as the Bust of Nefertiti and the Rosetta´s Stone. Even without being successful in these international negotiations, the architectural design assumes prominence for questioning one of the main arguments used to deny the repatriation requests: the lack of infrastructure for safeguarding and researching collections. The GME suggests the reflection about new challenges between global-local cultures that emerge in contemporaneity.
References
Berry, Ian (1989) Les Grands Travaux. Paris: édition de la réunion Charlet, Gerard (1990). L’Opéra Bastille. Paris: Moniteur Chaslin, François (1998) Les Paris de François Mitterrand. Paris: Gallimard Figueira, Jorge (2009) A Periferia Perfeita: pós-modernidade na arquitectura portuguesa, anos 60-anos 80. Coimbra: Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbrap.275 Graça Dias, Manuel (1984) Abstract representation, in Arquitectura nº152, maio/ junho 1984, p.75 Luste, Seloua Boulbina (2007) Grands Travaux à Paris 1981-1995. Paris: La Dispute Saraiva, Alexandra (2011) A influência de Louis I. Kahn na obra de Hestnes Ferreira Coruña: Universidad de Coruña. Saraiva, Alexandra (2020) Hestnes Ferreira’s proposal for Amsterdam City Hall Competition − analyzed in continuity with Louis Kahn. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 44(2), 138-144. https://doi.org/10.3846/jau.2020.12713 Verneret, Hubert (1984) available in ANX_011872.pdf,https://www.siv.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/mm/media/download/FRAN_consultedexpositions/naissance-dun-opera/construction-de-lopera-bastille#slideshow_587/1),(https://www.operadeparis.fr/visites/onDecember2,2019.
87
Contemporary Architecture as an Argument for the Repatriation of Collections BIANCA MANZON LUPO
The discussions about looting archaeological sites and dismantling ancient mon uments have become increasingly important during the 20th century. In the 1950s, the decolonization and independence movements in Africa have contributed to enhance the questioning about the illicit trafficking of cultural collections by international mobilizations to stop patrimonial appropriation. The decolonial perspec tive, understood as a “wayofresistancetocolonialismandimperialism” (Costa, 2019, p. 17), has been theoretically developed since the 1960s, by the contribution of Albert Memmi, Franz Fanon and Stuart Hall. The social museology has also been questioning historic narratives naturalized over time, maintaining imperialist and colonialist relations even after the end of political emancipation of col onization process. In 1964, UNESCO ensured a committee of experts to make recommendations for the Convention on Measures to be Adopted to Prohibit and Prevent the Import, Export and Transfer of Illicit Properties of Cultural Heritage (Paris, 1970), originally signed by Bulgaria, Ecuador and Nigeria1. This document establishes that “culturalgoodsareoneofthebasicexamplesofpeople´sculture andwhichcanbetrulyappreciatedonlywhentheyaremorepreciselyknownastotheirorigin,historyandenvironment” (Unesco, 1970, cf. Bueno, 2019, p. 8).
As we know, Egypt passed through a period of French occupation, since the end of the 18th century, and British occupation during the 19th century. These events have contributed to the dispersion of Egyptian archaeological collections in sever al museums around the world, specially the British Museum (United Kingdom), the Louvre Museum (France) and the Egyptian Museum of Turin (Italy). In addition, the consolidated institutions that house these collections are often constituted as important centers for research, teach and restoration. In this sense, “theEuropean preservation argument is strong and can only be challenged ‘tit for tat’, that is, Egypt must offer the same conservation conditions for the collections that are claimed” (Dias, 2011). As we can see by the construction of the Acropolis Museum (Athens,1999-2009) and the Benin Royal Museum (Benin, scheduled to 2021), the contemporary architecture of museums can be considered as an important argu ment for the repatriation disputes, and the Great Egyptian Museum (GEM) can be positioned within the international context.
For countries which had semi-colonial status until the middle of the 20th century, such as Greece and Egypt, it is hard to reverse colonial and imperialist processes.
According to this view, the United Nations General Assemblies Resolutions (197375) supported the restitution of artistic works to countries victims of expropriation. However, the UNESCO´s and ONU´s recommendations conflict with the negatives of some countries for returning cultural collections to their original territo ries, which demonstrates the continuity of colonialist relations in the international system. In 1978, the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution (ICRCP) encouraged the return of cultural heritage in cases of illicit appropriation. In 1980, the 22ª General Conference on the Return of Cultural Artifacts (Belgrado) can be consid ered an important international discussion about the parameters for guiding re patriation processes. In the following decade, the Convention of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit, 1995) stipulated that all stolen objects must be returned. So that, UNESCO published the International Code of Ethics for Cultural Goods Dealers (1999), which became a reference for art and antique disputes.
Discussions on the repatriation of collections have taken on new impetus on the 1990s, when decolonial historic approach got stronger, trying to consolidate national self-identities by reframing dominant ideologies encapsulated in these territories. Even though, the formation process of national narratives commonly come up against the absence of artifacts, sometimes taken up illegally during
1 Today, it is firmed by 140 countries.
244245 PART II TRACK 2: STARCHITECTURE imperialist or colonialist occupations. The cultural issue becomes a premise for the emancipation of imperialist relations, seeking to create favorable environments for the individual identification to national cultures. The concept of repatriation2 , defined as “returning something to its owner or place of origin that can occur internationally or between communities and institutions in the same country” (Costa, 2020, p. 3), is commonly considered as an effect of the decolonization processes. It is possible to point some successful cases of repatriation requests, such as the return of cuneiform boards from to the National Museum of Baghdad, of the statute of Cyrène´s Venus to Libya and of collections illegally removed from Machu Picchu.
Introduction. The repatriation of collections, a contemporary question
This issue is certainly controversial and involves conflicting interests in dispute, mainly in view of expanding the economic patrimonial appropriation through encouraging the global cultural tourism. Contrary to the repatriation claims, James Cuno signs out that “culturalobjectsdonothaveDNAandeveniftheydid,that would not determine their national identity” (Cuno, cf. Costa, 2019, p. 188). The concept of “world heritage” has been mobilized to justify the permanence of collections in foreign institutions. Peter Burke (2010), despite admitting that sometimes the expression ‘acquired collections’ often refers to looted objects, defends that the cultural heritage is part of the global culture and it do not need to be returned. These positions contradict the notion of identity and cultural belonging incited by the countries that request the return of certain patrimonial goods to their original territories, claiming the universality of the patrimonial discourse as justification for maintaining the status quo.
2 The term ‘repatriation’ can be differentiated from ‘restitution’, defined as “returning something within the same territory, usually as a compensatory measure for some type of claim” (Lima, 2020, p. 3).
CATEGORYDESCRIPTION EXAMPLES
A preliminary glance at the GEM supposes consider it within the theoretical context of architectural criticism to megaprojects associated with cultural uses, demanding spectacular architectures that involve high budgetary forecasts, linked to slow building processes that often last for decades, being highly susceptible to the impacts of political and economic crises on a global scale. The demand for colossal museums reflects attempts to insert cities into global economic circuits through encouraging the mass tourism. Formalism and imagery potential have become a real problem for architecture in the second half of the 20th century, aiming to create self-referential architectural languages (Jencks, 2006). Creating architectural buildings aimed to leisure, recreation and entertainment stimulates the need to occupying free time in the post-industrial capitalist society, so that the museum architecture joins the multifunctional building program, including cafeterias, restaurants, auditoriums, studios, concert halls, bookstores and stores.
PART II
MuseumCivilizationRegional Dedicated to the entire Egyptian history Nubia Museum, Civilization Museum of Alexandria, Aswan National Museum, Site Museums Located close to ar chaeological sites Imhotep Museum, Kom el-Shoukafa Site Museum, Siwa Site Museum MuseumsSpecialized Focused on specific cultural aspects Ikhenaton Museum, Royal Jewellery Museum, Luxor Museum Greek and Roman, Coptic and MuseumsIslamic Renovation of museum facilities Greek and Roman Museum, Museum of Islamic Architecture, Coptic Museum Cairo MuseumsGreat Cairo museums National Civilization Museum, Egyptian Museum, GEM
The Egyptian contemporary architecture dialogues with the concept of “decolonial cosmopolitanism”, that is, the coexistence between contemporary architectural aesthetics and the recovering of figurative symbolisms regarding to the so-called Pharaonism, Islamism or Arabism. This perspective can be considered as a synthesis between nationalism, relativism, universalism and ethnicity. The architectural conceptions that incorporates hybrid identity schemes are related to Cairo´s transnationalization, regarding to the idea that “decolonization and cos mopolitanismaretwoinseparablefacetsinthearchitecturalpracticeinEgypt´s21 st century” (El-Ashmouni, n.d., p. 19). In the 1990s, the dialogue between architectural design and the decolonial perspective was strengthened, so that the architectural trends concentrated both designs that simulated history (such as the Faisal Bank); designs based on personal impulses (such as the Ministry of Finance and Tax Department) and the inclusion of traditional techniques. Indeed, it is possible to glimpse the heterogeneity of architecture that emerges in this
246247 TRACK 2: STARCHITECTURE period, seeking to oppose the dominant styles imposed during the colonial past by adopting contemporary architectural language. Nonetheless, the claiming for the repatriation of archaeological collections gained notability from the action lead by Zahi Hawass3, who directed the pyramid complex of Giza and Saqqara in 1987 and assumed the General Secretary of the Supreme Council of Antiquities – currently, the Ministry of State for Antiquities – during the government of Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011). Hawass dedicated himself to the international media promotion of Egyptian culture through documentaries shown on History Channel, CNN and Discovery Channel. The partnership established between the Ministry of Tourism and the Discovery launched a global promotional campaign to promote the GEM´s construction. In this period, Hawass undertook the guideline of consolidating and expanding the Egyptian museal system, signaling that “overrecentdecades,archaeologyinEgypthasbeenmovingfromanera ofexplorationandexploitationintoaneweraofconservation,preservationand education” (Unesco, 2005, p. 8). So, the Egyptian museums would be organized according to the following categories presented (Table 1). The organizational and infrastructural strengthening strategies to safeguard the Egyptian archaeological heritage were fundamental for developing an important campaign for the repatriation of antiquities.
The Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) and the claims for repatriation
3 Zahi Hawass started his undergraduate degree in Egyptology at the University of Cairo in 1978. He studied Masters in Egyptology and Syrian-Palestinian Archeology (1983) and PhD in Egyptology, both in the United States, at the University of Pennsylvania (1987).
Table 1 – Actions to consolidate the museological structure in Egypt undertaken by Zahi Hawass Creation based on (Unesco, 2005, p. 21-23).
The research adopted the study case methodology to analyze the relation estab lished between the theoretical concepts of repatriation and contemporary architecture by investigating the GEM (Yin, 2001). Firstly, we will analyze bibliographic references about the main interested topics. Secondly, we will deepen the analysis about the Great Egyptian Museum, an important case the theoretical discussions. So, we will investigate the Heneghan Peng architectural design, whose construction is being finalized, and the requests for the repatriation of Egyptian collections. The main research sources selected to guide the investigation will be the architectural designs. This study will raise the hypothesis that contemporary architecture can be considered as an important argument for claiming the repa triation of collections.
Methodology and Materials
6 The following professionals composed the jury: A. Galal, G. Gaballa and S. Said (Egypt), G. Aulenti and S. Donadoni (Italy), J. Kiim (Korea), A. Zahariade (Romania), F. Cachin (France). These actions intended to demonstrate the Egyptian capacity of properly re ceiving, preserving and exhibiting its own archaeological collections. The biggest project was the GEM, “the largest and most visited museum in the world belonging to a single historical civilization, contributing to transform Egypt into a first-class tourist destination and a global cultural centre” (Stylemate, 2020). The museum would be implemented in an expanded archaeological development zone, including Hassana Dome, Pyramids Plateau, Sakkara, Abu Rawash and Abu Sir. The project accords to the guidelines established by the Master Plan for the Development of the Greater Cairo Region (1989) which aimed to create a “green belt” with recreational, tourist and cultural uses. Ratified by the Ministry of Culture in 1991, the Master Plan sets out as broad objectives “toremedythenegativeper ceptionofsatellitecitiesinthedesertinpublicopiniontoencouragetheirreloca tion to new cities” (Moneim, n.d.). The GEM was located at an area of more than 100,000m² on the outskirts of the Giza Pyramids, occupying an internal area of 90,000m² of which about 45% is destined for exhibition areas. In January 2001, an international architectural competition was promoted by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture, supervised by both UNESCO and International Union of Architects (UIA). The GEM expects to display around 150,000 items that the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (1897-1902) did not have enough infrastructure to exhibit. In addition, experts indicate that only about 70% were still not excavated.
248249 PART II TRACK 2: STARCHITECTURE
The first competition´s stage consisted of a preliminary conceptual project. In August 2002, more than 1,500 proposals were submitted by architects around the world, including participants of great international prestige that were neither selected nor awarded4. The winning projects were announced only in May 20035. According to the jury6 , “theprojectselectedshouldmeettheexpectations oftheEgyptiancultureandtradition,andoftheuniversalconcernaltogether[…]Whateverthegeneralarchitecturalinterestoftheprojectssubmitted,therep-resentativecharacterofthefuturebuildinganditsmeaningweretheprevailingcriteriathroughthetwophasesofthecompetition” (Competition Results, 2003).
4 A. Isozaki, H. Hollein and Z. Hadid, for example, were not classified.
The Heneghan Peng´s project, head by the Chinese master Shih-Fu Peng, was the competition´s winner (Figures 4 to 6). The museum can be considered as a portal between the contemporary megalopolis and the ancient world. The architectural design “uses the level difference to construct a new ‘edge’ to the plateau, a surfacedefinedbyaveiloftranslucentstonethattransformsfromdaytonight” (Heneghan Peng, 2020). The disappearance strategy undertaken by the architects coexists with the contemporary and monumental language adopted.
The GEM will showcase a remarkable collection of works from prehistory to the Greco-Roman period, including about 5,500 pieces of Tutankhamen’s treasure, of which 60% had never been exhibited. According to the guidelines established for the competition, “themuseumshalldialoguewiththeGreatPyramidsinGiza” (GEM, 2020). The architectural program included permanent and temporary exhibition areas, auditorium, research center, virtual galleries, laboratories, leisure areas, cafeterias, retail stores and souvenirs, as well as outdoor areas and parking lots. There is also the Arts and Crafts Center, dedicated to traditional handicrafts and educational programs, and the Conservation Center, containing technologically equipped laboratories for the development of actions aimed at the resto ration, conservation and storage of archaeological collections. The land, donated by the Egyptian Army, had a large 50m gap, and the architectural volume should not exceed that gap (Figure 3). The project should be constructed with local traditional techniques, that is, reinforced concrete. The architecture should also provide enough flexibility to the diversity of collections, that included from largescale monuments, such as the Ramsés II statue, to small objects.
Fig. 1 – 3D view of the site for the establishment of the GME. Source: (Unesco, 2005, p. 37)
5 The following architecture offices also received honorable mentions: M. R. A. Mateus (Portugal), R.Verdi (Italy), Vigliecca & Quel (Brazil), M. Zimmermann (Germany), F.Calvo (Spain), N. Monteiro (Portugal) and M. Roubik (Czech Republic).
The project of the Great Egyptian Museum, in this sense, expands and corroborates for discussion brought by the Museum of the Acropolis of Athens and by the Benin Royal Museum, constituting itself as an important argument for the repatriation of Egyptian collections, although it was not the main focus of the Fig. 2 to 4 – 3D model of the Great Egyptian Museum. Source: (https://bit.ly/33adCzb); (https:// bit.ly/3k26Pi5)
250251 PART II TRACK 2: STARCHITECTURE
Hemiunu Statue Pelizaes-MuseumRoemer-und- -Hermann Junker
WORKCOLLECTION
Bust of Ankhaf Museum of Fine Arts 2520-2492 B.C. Boston Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University
Final considerations. Is architecture an argument for repatriation?
In 2007, Zahi Hawass applied for loaning the Bust of Nefertiti and the Rosetta´s Stone for the opening of the GME, at the time scheduled for 2011. The successive negatives are based on justifications that incorporate the fragility of the pieces to transfering, the relationship of the local populations with their own assets, the political instability in Egypt and the lack of structure to shelter the collections, so that “the mention of the infrastructure of the great European museums and the worksofconservationandrestorationoftheobjectswererememberedasfactors fornotrepatriating” (Costa, 2019, p. 187). In a debate promoted by Oxford Union (2016), this argument was refuted by Hawass due to the investments in modernization and construction of new cultural facilities. In 2010, the city of Cairo hosted the International Cooperation for the Protection and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage, including several countries interested in returning historical assets, which resulted in a document expressing the idea of belonging to cultural heritage to their country of origin, which should not expire or meet any prescription period. Both authenticity and unicity were considered as values attributed to the cultural heritage associated to the original cultural contexts of the objects, in addition to sharing efforts to curb illicit trade in cultural heritage. Until now, none of the works have been returned or even loaned for the GEM´s inauguration. Despite efforts to strengthen the Egyptian heritage structure symbolized by the mega-construction of the museum, other arguments have been mobilized to maintain the refusal of requests to return collections.
Bust of Nefertiti Neues Museum c. 1345 B.C.Ludwig Borchardt Rosetta´s Stone British Museum c. 196 B.C. Napoleon Bonaparte (expedition)
The stone foundation designed to the museum resumes the traditional use of this material as a guarantee of eternal life, and the color specification of the outer shell dialogs with the desert Sahara´s landscape. The project is conceptualized by a contemporary approach of the pyramid´s symbolism, archetype incorporated by Egyptian culture whose geometric purity symbolizes the ascension to eternal life (Beqiraj, 2019). As we know, the Egyptian pyramid of quadrangular base is a prism formed by four triangular shapes. The triangle, which symbolizes God and represents the Syrian star, means the channeling of the sun’s rays to support the mummification processes in ancient Egypt culture. The number three is recurrent in ancient Egypt, spatially ordering the pyramids of Giza. The GEM´s implementation departs from a triangular shape, oriented to potentialize the Pyramid´s plateau vies. In fact, the entire architectural envelope incorporates a complex multifaceted set of transparencies and reflections from the shattering of the pyramid shape on triangular faces. The façade´s design includes triangular shapes, that were commonly found in the decoration of tombs and funeral corridors. The arrangement of pyramidal niches along the façade, in contemporary language, resumes the geometric purity of the traditional volume. Incorporating the pyr amid theme, it recovers the monumental capacity of representing architecture as a symbol of power. Through the recovery of a traditional symbol, there is a renewed interest in the celebratory use of pure forms that demonstrate, however, the expected technological approach. Inside, the internal circulation is structured around a shaded entrance courtyard, followed by a grand staircase that reaches the summit of the route, in order to frame the magnificent view of the Pyramids of Giza. This mega architecture would be a great argument for the claiming of repatriation, especially of the most desired objects (Table 2).
Zodiac of Dendera Louvre Museum c. 50 B.C. Napoleon Bonaparte (expedition)
LOCATIONINTERNATIONAL DATINGAPROXIMATE DISCOVERY DATE AND LOCATION
Table 2 – EgyptianWishList. Creation based on (Costa, 2019, p. 23).
Sitting Ramsés II Statue Egyptian Museum of Turin c. 1279-1213 B.C. Bernardino Drovetti
Moneim, W. (n.d.). The Grand Museum of Egypt and the Challenge of Sustainability.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful both to the UMC and to the FAU USP. Thanks to prof. Luciano Migliaccio, Hector Vigliecca, Luciene Quel, Cintia Marino and Karine Lima. I would like to dedicate this text to Cristina Lupo. References Beqiraj, S.(2019). La simbologia della piramide in differenti contesti geografici. Università degli Studi dell´Insubria. Laurea in Scienze della Comunicazione. Bueno, Mariana (2019). Museu e colonialidade: a repatriação museológica como instrumento de luta. Revista Neiba, pp. 1-20.
Competition Results (2003). The Great Egyptian Museum. In: <https://bit. Costa,ly/39rCoQ7>K.(2019). Caminhos para a descolonização dos museus: a questão da
252253 II TRACK 2: STARCHITECTURE repatriação das antiguidades egípcias. Tese (Doutorado em História). UFSC. Costa,Florianópolis.K.(2020).
O Egito na Europa: caminhos para a repatriação das Antiguidades Egípcias. Oral presentation. Dias, F. (2011). Egito busca repatriar antiguidades expostas em diversos museus do mundo. El-Ashmouni, M. & Salama, A. (n.d.) Contemporary architecture of Cairo (19902020): mutational plurality of ISMS, decolonialism and cosmopolitanism. Emerald EgyptPuslighing.Today (2019). Pyramids Plateau development project to be opened in late 2019. Egypt Today. Great Egyptian Museum (2020) In: <gem.gov.eg>. Henhegan Peng Architects. In: <https://bit.ly/3lC7iYy>. Jencks, C. (2006). The iconic building is here to stay. Routledge, City, vol. 10, n. 1.
Ministro egípcio desmente incêndio no Museu do Cairo. Portal de Notícias Terra. Unesco (2005). Heritage landscape of Egypt. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. Unesco (2011). Unesco alerta sobre artefatos roubados de museus egípcios. Unesco (2020). Dossiê Grande Museu Egípcio. 2025. Yin, R. (2001). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. Porto Alegre: Bookman. intervention. Until now, no action has been taken to return Egyptian collections. It is possible to see that the construction of a mega museum of architecture un dermines the argument about the lack of infrastructure to preserving cultural arti facts. It also contributes to repositioning the country’s image in the international context through the architectural recovery of the pyramid, symbolic-traditional element that takes center stage in the creation of a facade representing the great ness of Egyptian culture in contemporary times. The mega architectural structure turns the maintenance of colonial-imperialist relations evident. Building such a monumental and technological contemporary architecture represents the claim of power associated to the repositioning of Egypt in the global context. Realizing an international competition allows us to glimpse the desire for representation through building a global architecture. However, the recovery of traditional symbolic forms and the preference for using local materials and construction tech niques can be associated with the decolonial perspective evoked by this architecture. The GEM is recognized by Unesco “asthemainmuseuminacountrywith such intense activity in the search for the repatriation of its heritage, the Great EgyptianMuseumispresentinthestruggletorecoveritsartifactsthatweretaken abroad illegally” (Unesco, 2020). Its construction symbolizes a specific contemporary strategy to recover the theme of national identity by connecting actions that connect media conglomerates interested in specificities of local cultures and initiatives to enhance tourism as an alternative to overcome economic crises in the global context. The museal architecture can be, in this sense, understood as a symbol of the country’s technological development, seeking to attest its own capacity to manage collections in its own territories.
Nesbitt, K. (2013) Uma nova agenda para a arquitetura. Antologia teórica 19651995. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, Pires, K. (2018) A defesa de uma presença: a disputa pela repatriação dos mármores do Parthenon. TCC em Museologia. UFRGS. Porto Alegre. Stylemate (2020). The Grand Egyptian Museum: one of the biggest cultural openings of Terra2020.(2011).
PART