Summary of Comments On O Roubo Da História Como Os Europeus Se Apropriaram Das Ideias e Invenções Do Oriente

Summary of Comments on O Roubo da
História: como os europeus se apropriaram

das ideias e invenções do Oriente
Page: 9
Author: santi Subject: Durchgestrichen Date: 16.08.2019 09:28:20
Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 16.08.2019 09:28:57

Page: 10
Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 16.08.2019 09:33:24
objective
Page: 11
Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 16.08.2019 09:35:57
locus of enunciation, a critic from an anthropolog to modern hist

arg to divide Eu and asia ignores various data to justify a divergence
error see only difference [methodological error], similarities in mode of prod.,
communication, destruction
error see Af as isolated, is integrated even with out bronze age, in a commercial
route with mercantil cap of Ocident, irriged aricult and manufature urb eco of
orient. Not isolated in a economia da enxada
Page: 12
similarities in familiar structure Eu-Af
Historian have an etnocentric interpretation and low knowledge of the other,
leading to poor arg to justify specificity of west
notions like despotism asiatica blind to see that the big stds/civs are variations of
each others, these notions can't allow a rational comparison.
Differences exist, but search in a teleological way favorating Eu isn't a careful
comparison
Author: santi Subject: Textbox Date: 16.08.2019 10:00:18
2 points that lead to the lack of knowledge
Author: santi Subject: Oval Date: 16.08.2019 10:01:55

org xp by the one that were analysed. this can lead to etnocent
Page: 13
an major error of pos-col/mod, they were eurocentric about etnocentrism, saying
that only Eu were etno cen.
The problem is that the eucen was amplied by the apropriation of a particular
vision of the ancient Eu were absorved by the Hg eu, giving an apparent scientific
aspect to a commun phenomen.
understand when the notion of divergence rises
Page: 14
Author: santi Subject: Callout Date: 17.08.2019 21:05:20
new project of Hg vs teleological models

[like Gb hist]
world hist made by cat. made for Europe, a progressive periodization for internal
uses
rethink categories
Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 18.08.2019 09:57:54

Page: 15

new views on world hist that changed from old historians

Objective: show how europe neglect /bad represented world hist (and yours), and impose your own concepts and
periodization, difficulting our compreention of Asia (for the past and future). The author don't want to re-write hist, but
correct the way we see its development since the classic times, and try to connect the histo of Eurasia to the rest of the
world, arguing that is best redirect to a world hist.
Autor focous in the old world and Africa (others see with new world).Meta: like Burke to renascence, author search
search to review the big narrrative of the ascension of ocidental civ (ussualy seen as a triumphant conquest by the
greeks ). Review Eu cult as a culter among others, coexisting and interracting with the neighbours, that had their own
renascence
Page: 16

see the Eu conception of a socio-cult genealogy start in antiquity to cap and put
Asia in an exceptionality
see 3 big authors that try to analyses the relation of the Eu with the world:
Needham/Elias/Braudel- to show that critic Eu centrism fall on it

Vs see institutions as Eu origin: cities/uni/demo/individualism/emotions
Page: 30
Triple focous arg in this chapter:1- study ancient economy or society is an error,
they should be understand as a part of a larger chains of economical and political
interchanges centred in Med. 2- this economy isn't a pure type, moder historians
adapt historical facts to fit in teleological frames. In author tries to show the
limitations in the primitivist-modernist debate
Page: 31
Author: santi Subject: Highlight Date: 16.09.2019 18:50:18
Uses alphabet to write an etnocentric report of G vs Percia ( seen as different from
old uses of writing to just adm and not lit/hist).
See the Iaq as a decline and uncivilized came from grek sources (athenian), not
from persia and bab.
no arch evidence, Persians as civilized as greeks, and the lathers received
knowledge from the firsts
Division between arians and others encourages underestimate to the orient
prehist of Eu and other places, but in antiquity the classicists use concepts
exclusives to Eu, after bronze enters in Aintiquity, and Asia dont.
Page: 32
Various historians see the fall of antiquity, but not its start as a distinct period and
the theoric implications.
Southall says that the change was in the mode of production of med (asiatic to
antique, dont give further explanations).
Recent Eu:Sinthesis of Rome and tribal soc
Antiquity as fusion of bronze conditions with Arians tribes of doric invasions=
centralized urb cult+ rural tribes
Tribal designation indicates more a soc. org aspect (mobil, no std buro) than a eco
nature (can be hunther-gather, agricult, pastoril).
Antiquity has been seen as differen from tribal, more like micenic/etruscan (urban
advances of bronze age)
Page: 33
Urb rev affected the periferical tribes, giving origin to the greek soc
Child enfasis of commerce, links and diffuses cult, ideias, peoples
tribes interact with urb by changing and commerc or by attacking (simmilar patter
over eu until china). Tribes were not only predators, but developed notion of
solidarity, democracy and liberty (ussually linked only to greeks)
read
Page: 34
divide point, anterior collapse, hitherto greek starts to diferenciated from orient, no
more palace and more isolated
Existed changes- iron, fall of palaces. The problem is to make cathegoric
distinctions between archaic and greek (antique) society).
the changes was more evolutionary than radical.
Arcaic soc was from Bronze, greek from iron, but the period follow in the same geo
and commercial sphere, one emergion from the other
Found Cnossos, says that was a free and indep soc, a greek precedent
(teleological view). But in reality they were very dependent to oriental commerce
and egipt cult
Page: 35
Lack of perception in the semitic contributions to greeks, highlighting arian
invasion and the greek contributions -were ipmortant, like vogal, but not the
invention of alphabet, various renomed lit works were not dependent on greek
alphabet. Helenocentrism studies of Eu focus in G in a teleological way
Eu-cen connect alphabet with national development- in reality was a imperial multi-
Nç phenomena
Page: 36
Bernal doubt that was a time without alphabet in Greece, semitic was there before
the lost of linear B (but recognizes a cultural regression after Micenas).
The posterior renascence was possible because of the Fenican alphabet
Social importance of contacts: give models of development, oral to write,
emergence of logographic, silabic, alphabetic, paper, eletronic middles, theis forms
have a succession but don't exclude each other, like middles of productions. the
new don't make old obsolete, but modify it, like in the passage of oral to write soc.
The mentalities may change, but in eco and plt have great continuity
Page: 37
mesopo not centralized

Finley sees exepcional sequence in Eu:L bronze-archaic(new plt sists, ind
commerce)-classic.
Idea of a close temple-palace centralize has been rejected, were more hetero
[liverani fasa of more liberalization]= std contrlss productions of goods of prestige
in the cities, but not had an monopoly of manufacture, like ceramic.

reivindications that G had been influencied by orient but inovated converting in
original
Page: 38
etnocentric reivindications: art, individual, moral, plt, rational

others precedent big cult
in reality Eu discards greek art for about a millenia, not a progressive moment,
renascence needed to invent the past- christ/jud/isla were non iconic, recupered
only in secular sphere
Greek classic gave tech, mlt, communicational (easier alphabet, new world of
intellectual activities) advances
Page: 39
if finley was right about the greek rationality, ind and style, was the alphabet and a
major write/read/reflexion capacity that gave a rational base.
Greek was a culture that lost the capacity to read/write, and was ancious to
update. Alphabet allow that and gave different materials (no clay tablet),
expanding writen to other fields (more large use)
Authors uses tech and urb of G and R as indicators of civ. They are, but exist
others factor, more difficult to measure that is equally indicators of Civ, wich other
cultures have.
G were not the only city builds, in this period, with expansion of the iron, a large
number o places enlarge their buildings, less dependent of a large stad.
Page: 40
Singularity of Antiquity Eu is intrinsic to subsequent cap, for Finley. For others, the
singularity is Feudalism.
Finley: the xp of low middle age in tech, eco, values was unique in human hist,
only reached recently with big commerce era- this is an teleologic approach

Special status given today to G don't indicates a singularity, but a mistification of
post-renascentist erudites

Demo, theory, practice existed in arcaic G (not only classic) and in others cultures.
We can't neglect oral trad as a embrio of philosophy. Hg, retoric and abstract pls
thinking were dependent of writing, but formal discource and plt didn't needed the
greeks and writing to exist [Jack criticizing Osborne]. Osborne says that greeks
created the modern world, but the inverse is also true
Moral philosophy exited in chineses like Mencius
Page: 41
G were superiors in a lot of things, but not in eco. Finley shows differences of the
Ancient eco and of Bronze soc. in trad of debate Bücher (3 stages: domestic, urb-
commerce, territorial-Nç= antiquity, I.M, Modern) vs Meyer (Mercantil dimension of
G, modern aspect), like Weber of a political captalism of Rome.
Garlan says that modernizant theories are apologetic to cap. (seing market in
antiquity). Finley unlink G with middle orient and with cap.

Page: 42
Finley: G and moder Eu eco, steps relation

Finley-G dont invent eco, like they did with demo/alphabet. They haven't market
eco, but have a different form in relation to bronze, wich inlfu the singularity of Eu
(Gis a preparatory fase). Market appear only with cap/burg, but is a next step
(marxist base) of G (that differs from others regions without cap).
Finley sees ancient ori as pre-hist, hist start with G (Eu civ is a distinct object)-
Nothing justify this divisin, not even a greater use of slave and write (but not the
only one)

Finley downplay connection of G in Nw's, the loans aren't great evidences of
strong connections. To Jack the connections must be enfatized. Process of
transferention from orient was the base of the changes of ocident. division pre and
histneglect important questions in the transition of bronze cultures
Page: 43

Finley: palace eco had monopoly of indus prod and commerce- it org life eco/mlt/
plt/religious by a burocratic operation of register with a racionament (not racional).
this was strage to G-R until Alex. G had prop private, water from rain and agricult;
ori need a complex despotic org to the irrigation sist.
In reality meso had a lot of rain agricult. Templary complex aren't in all middle
orient, but they existed in classic soc too. A pure type eco never existed, but was
likeness between various eco practices in different societies
Page: 44
Actual reinterations of Finley: polis as unique in hist, questioning the institution of
economy, don't exist, change of goods had a different form from today, a pre-eco,
without market system.
Pre-eco category was a influence of Polanyi. He shows 3 forms of integration:
reciprocity, redistribution, simple change. They were associated to institutional
models. The primitive soc is the first and second, the third is only cap.
To Jack even Arfica pre-bronze had market in the villages, like the majority of
historians and anthropo says

Page: 45
Debates of market substantive (concrete place) and abstract (simple change), to
Jack the are mutually dependent.
Polany denotes in pre-cap soc a "fit" (encaixe) of eco in social sist, not
differentiate. But he ignore the market element in this economies. Oppenheim
critics he about Mesopo, and others about Greece
Alternative to Polany

Gledhill e Larsen suggest a more dynamic view of economy than Polanyi: see the
process that lead to centralized to fedalizant cicles, that old imp was subjected, not
show only essencial and static like institucionalization of eco process, a long
duration shows that ancient imp were more dynamic and complex than the
common supostions put. See the importance of commerciants to the kings and to
themselves (see the incentivation by acadian and astecs kings)

The problem: eco cat. lead to put exxclusivities in relation to others, see ancient as
redistributive lead to undertake the market transition (Polanyi and Finley, by the
socialistic ideology have aversion of market)
Page: 46
Neolitic soc don't exclude comerce and market transaction. We can think in
substantive markets that don't operate like today's, but had offer/demand
pressure- can't divide physical market and principles of market and other modes of
transactions.
Snodgrass uses a limited definition of commerce: movment of goods with out
identified buyers. by this the majority of changes was no commercial to him.
Bad def to Jack. the alternative isn't see commerce like today's, but an
commercial aspect is ever present. exist a payment (in diverse form) for services
and the dispences involved (not equal but simmilar to modern)

Page: 47
some try to differentiate interest of importation and commerce, they can br
complementary. Hopkin try to complement Finley, adding 7 clausures to see eco
modest growing and decline , changing the Polanyi character of Finley by seeing
dynamic (goody says that he only want to appear as moderate, but discard
primitivists)

sees comercial activity and pop growth of VIII as critics to G development, leading
to the polis, limited market system, private prop, alienation of land, debit and the
redistributive colapse. IT is the star of cap world. But pre-arch period had the oikos
economy to him, as a ausence of market (Jack disagree, still puting cap eco as
european)

problem of cat distinction like ancient eco and predecessors (tandy) or sucessors
(Finley). 2 problems: primitive soc are diverse, various urb soc of bronze and
hunting and gathering- see all as primitive is to simplist, like tandy comparing
achaic G and Kalahari as primitive org.
second:it is an error don't see the coexistence of reciprocity (like contemp family)
and transaction market. this don't means that political eco was capitalis in XIX
sense, means only that substantive markets are very commun to low and high
distance commerce.
Weber saw the growth of latifund with the exedent as the born of agrarian cap.,
following Mommsen (differing from Marx, cap need industry)
Page: 48

Tandy and Finley made anthropological comparison in a anti hist/sociological way,
in one side primitive and other Antique society. This approach was stimuled by
moder-primitiv controversy; work Marx (payed little atention to pre-cap form); Work
of Weber (sees soc trad as residual cases of more complex sists); Work of
Polanyi, that trated trad soc as inverse of market soc. This were highly ideological
positions, Jack don't assume a modernist approach, only commun element of
commerce and market
Page: 49
utopi view like primitive communism
portos como marginais. not, the commerciant in it interact with the rest of the city
and eco, marine credit
Page: 50
Polanyi: exist adm commerce in meso, fix price, speciic money and ports (not
market)- palace monopoly. Gledhil show an error. Even without fisical market,
market exist. commerciant act by they-own, see private arch
show diversity of commerce. meso import material trough river- rev transport,
found colony and diffund cult (commerce reune humanity)
Page: 51
Author: santi Subject: WolkeDate: 20.08.2019 08:55:47
Polanyi and follwere, problem: holistic and cat approach, not historical, of eco
activity, saw as redistributive (opose to market, in pratice this division don't exist).
See different practices at same time in different societies (family reciprocity/
market/ state redistribution). Different enfasis in this form refer to different modes
of prod (like in eco of cultive and eco of arado), but this changes don't excludes
market.
Need more nuanced treatment of continuity and descontinuity in modernism and
primitivism, see problems of transaction of change in terms of a frame, impricit or
explicit, and only then access the chains of the possibility (in colums) in relation
with the specific societies or modes of prod (in lines). By this approach we can test
hypotesis of singularity greek in a sactisfatory way

Page: 52
Strict view of plt as basic programs searched by a state, and not the process that
sustain the adoption of these programs. This excludes societies without state and
various activities (the primitive demo was excluded)
Finley: don't exist class (need market), only groups of status of weberian type
(characterized by the style of life)- contradict himself in viewing hopplite as middle
class. For him Greece give demo/liberty to moder Plt.
Greek was important to Eu/world, but enclose the plt activities to G (as a
sepaarated inst) and exclude eco is doubtful. Author like Finley/ Polanyi consider
only valid and existent spheres highlly divided and defined like eco and plt in own
institutions- Jack disagree, this don't mean that they don't exist in periods
previously to this division
Page: 53
don't exist only after separation ins institutions

1 democracy

3 aspects of classics plt view as transmited to Eu: demo (vs despotism old and
now), liberty, law.
Finley recognize possibility of other demos (tribal/mesopo), but with low impact,
only G diffuses (Eu apropriation of distovery of Demo).
Jack: other places had Demo (G don't invent the practice), even if they don't
diffuses to Eu, the diffuses to other places (Africa tribal demo, normal to agricult
enxada cultive soc_)- Ex: LoDagaa . Appear in complex sist to (bronze) in shores
hard to form central gov (G dont discover ind lib)
Page: 54
demo like examples (margin of state)

Even in large states, concepts of freedom arrives in the plt, protest, resistence and
movement
Anthropo problem of delegation/impositions of Pw in centralized regimes
Page: 55
Effect of classical world was not direct to world hist.
Demo was not the only G regime. To Finley Tirany prepare way to demo. In reality
the two don't succeed, but alternate (much prefer tirany)- in Eu only made sucess
in the end of XIX, when gov needed money and support of the masses.
Difference of G viewed as rev atheniens of correct thinking (Davis), Castoriadis: G
create Demo and start the interess with others and refleting about own ints (Jack
says that was an anthropo character interes of other)
Page: 56

see societies without states of Af- Demo representative and direct, distributive
justice. Cartago/Tiro had vote of magistrates.
Normal comparison G with semits of Fenícia, similar geo, territorry, no central plt,
little states; contrast with burocratic despotism- JAck says that mesopo was to
formed by little states and municipal autonomy (continues in parts in N-a empire),
Assiria was a republican state in start
Page: 57
mesopo too formed by little states

No clear division between depostism and demo: King Uruk divides the power with
assembly.
Forms of Representation are anthropologic, even ever in side with autoritary elites
(like today elites in demo by profissionalization of plt)
second

Liberty of G, even with slavery (like Eu, even after Rev indus). I. Berlin show
distinction of the negative (personal realization bring to coation) and positive (no
interference and coerction) concept of liberty.
Lewis agr about lack of liberty block mulçumans to modernize because of
fundamentalism. Uses a generic concept of freedom, Jack sees that Eu opened
itself and ultrapass Orient in Nw commerce pacific-atlantic and rev indus
Page: 58
Liberty is cultural relative, det by a arbitrary majority of electorate- liberty to
majority. Election was not representative, liberty to one could be subordination to
others
Page: 59

Slave mode of prod made imense constructions, but others forms of org can do
that, exist other forms of labor in classic world. We don't have the level of uses of
slaves in bronze age, Finley says that was only in classical world that it became
dominant, this can be an exagerated statement of classic med (not unique as inst)
Finley recognizes others types of labor(temporally pay), but more advanced state
uses slavery. Jack says that it was not predominant inG
Page: 60
Finley: G dont have irrigated agricult, and discovery ind liberty and practice
slavery. Justify G exclusive because of the exclusivity of the term (eleutheria),
Jack says that don't need a world to recognize the difference (free/slave)
Child highlight the ind importance too, by the advent of iron tools and money, but
localizes the existence in stone age (not exclusive G)
Don't see law code only in a writing form, Af had various orals
3 law
Page: 61
Prive prop wasn't Ro invention, near every agrary soc needed. LoDagaa mark
space and uses legal procedment to solve conflicts. China had contracts of land
transfer.
Page: 62
Mommsen, weber, marx- only communal condition before romam law. This was
XIX theories, now we see, like Maine, a hierarchy of rights of lands (of ind and
groups)- not dichotomy view of individual/communal. pre-writen soc had hierarchy
of law
connection solution. Not ignore the relations with G by undertaking its commercial role

A solution to the problem of G culture is see not the singularity, but connections
and continuities with Egeu/orient (that other historians ignore in lowing the merkant
and economical role with wider contexts, like Bernal arg in Black Athenas

Bernal classify as standard model of interpretation of greece cul. by the comming
of arians and excluding smitic influ and Af connections- making a G hist and its
relations to Levant/egipt in accord to XIX racism
Page: 63

Bernal propose a revised model: accepting egipt and phenician colonization of G,
affecting language, writen, cult, like Herodoto suggested
Problem with Bernal: see the emphasis in Arian model only in XIX (growing
racism) with philology of indo-Eu (1840) producing a explanation of G division with
other Languages.
To Jack this rejection of orient is related to more general etnocentric problems by
Isla expansion of VII, lost of cruzades- opposition in form of Eu cristian and As isla
(heritage of steriotips of Eu demo and Asia isla).
Bernal recognize the source to renascence was classic lit, putting on side the links
with oriental and semitic cult. Antiquity was G and R to medieval Eu.
nice statement
Page: 64
Jack critices Vernal conclusion of G religion came from Egypt, a risk and
dangerous comparison. Religion had so many invenctions and declines that gives
little support to generic comparison. To jack G was influ by egypt in arch, but not in
religion.
See multiple influ, Egypt influencied by Levant and by Creta
Frreud see the influ of Egypt in eurasian religion- Moses influ by Akenaton. Jack
put this theory as pausible, but Judaism not necessarily needed egypt to make
monotheism, because the creator myth had one single act
Page: 65
Freud- plt centralization leads to religious centralization. Anthropologs see
existence of supreme divinities in various simple cultures- in this context is easy to
come to a monotheism
Most important Bernard affirmation that jack agrees: racial factors motivate
negligences (but the origins of the negligence were older than Bernal puts, liked to
notions of cult/racial superiority)'connection of G and middle east was frequently
neglect, marginalization of phoenicia and cartago
strutural view of med ugarit with crete. Phoenician settlement in tebas

Try to see too a similarity of mediterranean soc: studies ugaritic, evidence of the
first alphabetic writen. he connects Ugaritic settlements with crete. Increas
research on Phoenician Settlements over G
Page: 66
Increas research on Phoenician Settlements over G on X, and even the existence
of commercial relations in second millenium. Herodotus legend of Cadmo, bring
alphabet to G.
Classists don't see the influ of semits in the G alphabet and their lit productions,
marginalize imp cartagean as barbarian (because of children sacrifice- present in
jude/roman/G trad too)
Phoenician Nw trade
Page: 67
Low docs survived about cartage and phoenicians (even with large use of writing-
joseph says), perecible material or destructed by rome. but we have evidence of
their presence , that classists rejected
Page: 68
Conclusion: G defined as different by themselves and posteriority Eu in relation to
East. Plt difference dont explain this enphasis. Erudits don't explan who and why
Eu/Med diverge (in soci type and prod mode) from othes societies after bronze
age. Knowledge prod (influ semitic), slavery (not so different), diffusion of metal
(happens to all soc), hidraulic/agricult tech dont justify.
Exepcionalism of Asia and normal ocident have in the Bg an Eu unjustify
perspective- supouse a unique Eu way to cap. To Jack this reasoning is the result
of the fusion of captalism (in an ample braudelian sense) and the indus production
(an specific eco event linked to productive investment)= Eu became exceptional
only in XIX, that was not the case of before periods- with the exeption of big
navegations, resulted of tech development in ships/weapons and imprense (that
existed in china). This develpment allows the circulation and acumulation more
fast of information, and advantage that earlier (china/arab) civs had already
experiencied (due to paper and press).
Tying to find a big difference had 2 problems: can't create a explanation to it and
push origins of cap to the roots of ocidental culture, that east deviated. Eu cult
emmerge from G conquest (linked to the invention of alphabet, logic/science- all
reffuted)- this explanations appeal to middles of communications, that contributed
to posterior periods, like renascence, but in antiquity is hard to accept categorical
distinctions like ocidental/east conquest (maybe after renascence)= The
mercantilist cap, ubr, lit were present in other places in the same degree

Summary of Comments On O Roubo Da História Como Os Europeus Se Apropriaram Das Ideias e Invenções Do Oriente

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Summary of Comments On O Roubo Da História Como Os Europeus Se Apropriaram Das Ideias e Invenções Do Oriente

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Summary of Comments on O Roubo da

História: como os europeus se apropriaram

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 16.08.2019 09:28:57

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 16.08.2019 09:39:07

Author: santi Subject: Oval Date: 16.08.2019 10:01:55

Author: santi Subject: Oval Date: 17.08.2019 21:04:43

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 17.08.2019 21:08:24

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 17.08.2019 21:32:56

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 09:57:21

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 09:57:26

Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 18.08.2019 09:57:54

Author: santi Subject: Textbox Date: 18.08.2019 10:05:21

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:04:06

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:04:09

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:04:21

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:04:35

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:05:32

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:06:04

Author: santi Subject: Callout Date: 18.08.2019 10:15:51

Author: santi Subject: Oval Date: 18.08.2019 10:19:16

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:20:45

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 18.08.2019 10:20:51

Author: santi Subject: Oval Date: 18.08.2019 10:21:36

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 19.08.2019 15:06:52

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 19.08.2019 15:15:55

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 19.08.2019 15:24:14

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 19.08.2019 15:29:11

Author: santi Subject: Durchgestrichen Date: 19.08.2019 17:04:43

Author: santi Subject: Highlight Date: 16.09.2019 18:52:50

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 19.08.2019 17:12:58

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 19.08.2019 17:23:40

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 19.08.2019 17:23:43

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 19.08.2019 17:45:39

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 19.08.2019 17:51:06

Author: santi Subject: Durchgestrichen Date: 19.08.2019 17:52:22

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 19.08.2019 18:13:14

Author: santi Subject: Durchgestrichen Date: 19.08.2019 18:16:46

Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 19.08.2019 18:18:18

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 19.08.2019 18:18:14

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 19.08.2019 18:24:20

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 19.08.2019 18:41:30

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 19.08.2019 18:37:58

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 19.08.2019 19:14:10

Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 19.08.2019 19:23:32

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 19.08.2019 19:47:08

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 19.08.2019 20:11:26

Author: santi Subject: Pfeil Date: 19.08.2019 20:04:13

Author: santi Subject: Highlight Date: 16.09.2019 18:52:50

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 20.08.2019 08:55:56

Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 20.08.2019 08:57:05

Author: santi Subject: Textbox Date: 21.08.2019 00:11:00

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 20.08.2019 20:03:31

Author: santi Subject: Squiggly Date: 20.08.2019 19:55:58

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 20.08.2019 20:02:23

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 20.08.2019 20:43:09

Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 20.08.2019 20:42:42

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 20.08.2019 20:54:39

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 20.08.2019 21:14:26

Author: santi Subject: Highlight Date: 16.09.2019 18:52:50

Author: santi Subject: Rechteck Date: 21.08.2019 09:00:20

Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 21.08.2019 09:03:23

Author: santi Subject: Unterstrichen Date: 21.08.2019 09:08:33