That might well be right. However, my point is less about whether or not there is a statue, and more about the fact that linking Alexander's name to the area will resonate more with people than using the name of an Assyrian king whom no-one has ever heard of. That, I surmise, is one of the reasons for suggesting a statue of Alexander - irrespective of whether one agrees with it, or with creating a statue at all.Semiramis wrote:I am not advocating building anyone's statue. I don't think a newly built statue of will have much impact on attracting tourists. If India decided to build an Alexander statue next to Jhelum, I doubt it would have a noticeable impact on the tourist numbers there.marcus wrote:My point is that the majority of people will know (or think they know) much more about Alexander than they will about any of the Sumerian, Assyrian or Babylonian civilisations. Therefore his name would be more of an identifier than proudly boasting a statue of Hammurabi.
Not so. Iraq isn't like Egypt because Egypt has large, prominent buildings built of durable stone, that people can see and visualise easily. Iraq's cities were built of mud brick, and even where foundation layers can be seen, there is little beyond the basic layout of a site to be seen. Most of the reliefs, if they aren't in the Baghdad museum, are in the Louvre, the British Museum, or private collections - they certainly can't be seen at the sites themselves; and I can assure you that the ruins are intrinsically more dull than almost all Roman ruins - at least to a 'regular' visitor (as opposed to someone who has studied the history, or an archaeologist) - because there basically isn't anything to see. I really don't wish to sound pompous, but I have seen the pictures, taken by the British Museum guy over the course of the past year, as he made a professional assessment of the state of the Iraqi sites.semiramis wrote:Iraq isn't like Egypt because it hasn't been marketed like Egypt. Most people know of the Pharaohs, and that's the reason why ancient ruins to do with them are exciting to the visitors. Looking at the pictures on the internet, Iraqi reliefs and ruins are in no way intrinsically more or less dull than the Roman ones I've seen. It's simply a matter of value that an education system and obliging media can attach to them. As for monuments, I have to point out that well-preserved palaces, mosques and other monuments of considerable size and beauty from the Islamic era can be found pretty easily in Iraq.marcus wrote:Indeed it is not the lack of attractions. Having said that, and as I was at a lecture a couple of weeks ago by the Lead Curator of the British Museum, on the state of archaeology in Iraq today, to most people the remains of the ancient civilisations will be meaningless and, dare I say it, dull. There are no monumental temples, and even where there were ziggurats there is little remaining to be seen - it isn't like Egypt!
ATB
There are indeed buildings and other monuments from the early Islamic era, which would certainly interest me; although I think you'll find that there isn't as much left of Medieval Baghdad as you might wish - and Medieval Baghdad was the city that 'made' the Caliphate.
But you must remember that, on the whole, people just do not know much, if anything, about Iraq's history, and the country is never likely to attract a large-scale tourist industry, certainly nothing of the scale that Egypt attracts. Therefore, if there is a 'hook' then I imagine they are keen to use it.
ATB