Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More from AOL Travel:
Airline tickets,
Hotel reservations,
Rental cars,
Vacation packages,
Discount cruises,
Travel deals
Travel Guides:
New York City,
San Francisco,
Las Vegas,
Boston,
Chicago,
Washington, DC,
London,
Venice,
Beijing,
Dubai,
Rio de Janeiro,
Bangkok,
Costa Rica
Travel Ideas:
Adventure,
Asia Travel,
Beaches,
Cruises,
Europe Travel,
Foodie Travel,
Healthy Travel,
Holiday Travel,
International Destinations,
National Parks,
Skiing,
Travel Blogs,
Travel Tips,
Travel Photography,
US Destinations,
Weekend Getaways
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | Advertise With Us | About Our Ads
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-25-2011 @ 2:14AM
taaruoort said...
To think that roman dominance in Egipt passed without signs, is not only incorrect but also unintelligent: in those portraits - like in anothers expressions of art in Egipt, during the roman period - the faces, the clothings and others objects, are propers to egiptian tradition, but the people portraited partecipates to the dominant climate, which roman archetype of portraits - that has a long tradition - was one of several expression.
Eugenio
Reply
7-25-2011 @ 2:19AM
Sean McLachlan said...
And where in my article or comments do I say the Romans passed though Egypt without a trace? This sort of comment (along with calling me unintelligent), and the fact that you have given no hard evidence that the portraits are only Roman beyond simply saying so, shows that you aren't arguing from any real knowledge, but an insecure nationalism that has no place in archaeology.