Because of it being the capital and all the historical events it has been throughout the hearts
Answer: Both have important elements of civilization in common — among the earliest of written languages, a network of interconnected cities, cooperating and conflicting, formalized government and religion, and so on — but these were very different civilizations, not least for geographical and climatological reasons.
Mesopotamia is a complex example of a river valley civilization — complex because it consists of not one river, but two, the Tigris and the Euphrates, but still I think we can call this a paradigm case of a river valley civilization. We also know that the earliest origins of civilization emerged here, or nearby (Anatolia may be the ultimate point of origin for civilization in this geographical region). The deep history of civilization originating in this region has meant repeated bifurcations in the history of the region, hence cultural and civilizational complexity.
The origins of Mayan civilization are as yet not sufficiently known to determine whether Mayan civilization was completely autonomous in its origins, or if the idea of civilization came to Mesoamerica by way of idea diffusion from the earliest sources of settled neolithic agriculture in the Rio Balsas valley (where corn originated in what is now southern Mexico). Whether or not a civilization emerged autonomously is not always a central question, but in the case of Mayan civilization it should be a central question, because one of the most distinctive things about Mayan civilization is that it is a civilization of a tropical rainforest. Most autonomously emerging civilizations appeared in river valleys, but Mayan civilization appeared and flourished in the jungles of Mesoamerica. There are few other examples of civilizations of the tropical rainforest in the world, the Khmer civilization being another, but in the case of the Khmer we know that it did not originate autonomously, as it comes much later in history when the idea of civilization was already diffused in Indochina.
Explanation: Please give me brainliest
Mark brainliest please
New Zealand's First World War memorials are part of the fabric of our lives. Virtually every township has one, usually in the main street. Excluding the many honours boards and plaques in schools and churches, there are well over 500 public memorials to the soldiers of the Great War, 1914 - 1918.
Inglewood First World War memorial
Inglewood First World War memorial
The design of and details on memorials were the result of much debate and thought. Memorials aroused deep emotions and had to be acceptable to a wide range of people. The local war memorial says much about the beliefs and values of New Zealanders in the years after the Great War. They are a clue to what that terrible event meant to the people of this country.
Over 100,000 young New Zealanders served overseas and some 18,000 lost their lives during the war. Sacrifice like this meant grief on a large scale. There were grieving parents, lovers, siblings and friends who wanted to have a memorial where they could lay their wreaths at Anzac Day and contemplate their loss. Returned men wished to honour their mates. And people wanted to recall with pride the way 'our boys' had given identity to a nation.
The powerful emotions of sorrow and pride produced much creativity. No two memorials are exactly the same and there is a rich variety of imagery in the memorials.
Check the reference link
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/interpreting-first-world-war-memorials
