To what do we call «history» and to what do we call «civilization» (and who calls it?)?
How does the living make the dead (what kind of “other” is the dead?)?

What notion does the appropriator have of what he appropriates (what does it show? How and for what purposes does it show?)?

At the invitation of ZDB, Brito exhibits a set of illustrations from the hypothetical museum’s catalog of an ancient civilization invented from the novel (called «Budonga») which, during the ’80s, his colleague Proença extrapolated from a silly anecdote.

The name «Budonga» is used in an anecdote that speaks of humiliation and/or death for ritual anal violation.
It arrives at the homeostetic dictionary in the novel «Budonga» (1985), in which Proença narrates the escape of a bored white man to the heart of sub-Saharan Africa.
In Brito, soon after, it names a city prior to the Mesopotamian civilization, from the catalog whose excavation (pompous document of colonialist archeology) here shows illustrations of architecture, bas-relief, equipment and statuary.
In homeostetic everyday, «Budonga» (which gives the term «Budongguian»), becomes an immoderate use «cliché» whose meaning does not occur to anyone wanting to fix it.