Ancient Byzantine tomb believed to be 1,500 years old discovered in Syria — under a home
The grave site was found last month in the town of Maarat al-Numan — a key town between Aleppo and Damascus — in a house that was destroyed during the 14-year Syrian civil war that ended with former President Bashar Assad fleeing to Russia in December.
Residents notified Syria's directorate of antiquities, which deployed experts to investigate and secure the site.
Advertisement
Above the burial site sits a residential neighborhood of cinder-block buildings that were largely damaged in the conflict.
A pit next to one of the buildings leads down to the openings of two burial chambers, each containing six stone tombs. The sign of the cross is etched into the top of one stone column.
3 A guard inspects an engraved stone, originally found at a Byzantine underground tomb complex believed to be over 1,500 years old.
AP
Advertisement
3 A boy walks out of a pit after exploring the tombs from a Byzantine underground complex.
AP
3 Hassan Ismail of the Idlib Museum examines bones from a Byzantine
AP
'Based on the presence of the cross and the pottery and glass pieces that were found, this tomb dates back to the Byzantine era,' said Hassan al-Ismail, director of antiquities in Idlib.
The region is home to 'a third of the monuments of Syria, containing 800 archaeological sites in addition to an ancient city,' al-Ismail said.
Advertisement
The Byzantine Empire, which dates to the 4th century, was a continuation of the vast Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople — now Istanbul — with Christianity as its state religion.
The empire fell in 1453 and was replaced by the Ottoman Empire.
Abandoned Byzantine-era settlements known as 'Dead Cities' are scattered across Syria.
In the past, the owners of sites where archeological ruins were found often hid them, fearing their property would be seized to preserve the ruins, according to Ghiath Sheikh Diab, a resident of Maarat al-Numan who witnessed the moment when the tomb complex was uncovered.
Advertisement
Some locals, however, hope that the ruins could spark tourism in the war-torn area.
Abed Jaafar, who lives in the city, came with his son to explore the newly discovered tombs and take pictures.
'In the old days, a lot of foreign tourists used to come to Maarat just to see the ruins,' he said.
'We need to take care of the antiquities and restore them and return them to the way they were before … and this will help to bring back the tourism and the economy.'
With Post Wires
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Cameroon's election board bars main opposition candidate from presidential race
YAOUNDE, Cameroon (AP) — Cameroon 's electoral commission on Saturday rejected the candidacy of Maurice Kamto in the upcoming presidential election, fueling fears of unrest and increasing the likelihood of another Biya victory. Kamto, a former government minister, is seen as the main challenger to long-serving President Paul Biya. The electoral commission, ELECAM, said it approved 13 presidential candidates, excluding Kamto. No reason was given. Biya is included. Kamto, who has two days to appeal, was considered Biya's strongest rival in past elections. He came second during the last presidential election in 2018 with 14% of the vote, while Biya cruised to victory with over 70% in an election marred by irregularities and a low turnout. Biya, 92, the world's oldest serving head of state, said last month he would seek reelection on Oct. 12 despite rumors that his health is failing. He has been in power since 1982, nearly half his lifetime. Biya's rule has left a lasting impact on Cameroon. His government has faced various challenges, including allegations of corruption and a deadly secessionist conflict in the nation's English-speaking provinces that has forced thousands out of school. Security forces were deployed around the ELECAM headquarters and along major roads in Yaoundé, the capital, and in Douala, the economic hub. The United Nations Department of Safety and Security had warned Friday that the announcement could trigger protests in the capital.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Should universities negotiate with the Trump administration?
Advertisement Understanding the current turmoil requires holding in mind several distinct realities despite the tensions between them. First, higher education, particularly major research universities, is central to American preeminence in many scholarly and economic domains. Wildly exaggerated claims that they've been reduced to organizations promoting woke and Marxist indoctrination, are simply absurd, captured in the phrase ' That said, major problems in higher education have evolved to threaten our capacity to develop new knowledge and transmit existing knowledge to students and the broader society. Some fields within the humanities and social sciences have unfortunately evolved to resemble intellectual monocultures wherein engagement with legitimate alternative perspectives is rare, and a culture of self-silencing replaces vigorous engagement. Real and attempted Advertisement These and other problems must be addressed, and this requires internally-driven reform, as difficult as that is in the complex and Byzantine culture and governance of higher education. Accelerated by problems identified in the aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023, progress on these matters has been made, though much more slowly than ideal. In that setting, the second Trump administration announced a war on higher education and made clear its intention to employ all the financial and regulatory weapons at its disposal to profoundly transform the university in a direction far from one dedicated to truth-seeking, but rather subservient to its specific ideology. The federal government has enormous power in this regard, some of it wielded in a manner that should be rejected by the courts, a direction that I fully support. But a reality causing confusion to many is that some of the inappropriate and illegal federal demands do overlap with real problems previously identified by many of those promoting internal reform. Given the disruption and crisis caused by the government stopping awarded grants, taxing endowments, threatening accreditation and other actions, and the attention drawn to this conflict by those extreme actions, might a settlement that accomplishes desirable outcomes, while defending against interventions that are inappropriate and illegal be possible? That is indeed the key question. Advertisement It is certainly possible that the pace of appropriate reform could be accelerated by the current moment of turbulence. Indeed, many of the external demands from the president, such as a policy of But the integrity and sustained impact of those reforms would be undermined if they are seen as responses to demands — 'capitulation' — rather than appropriate and justified university actions. There are internal constituencies content with current realities and opposed to such reforms, and they are more than happy to proclaim any actions as capitulation. And the Trump administration would gladly claim victory for any internal reforms as well. Navigating a path to produce appropriate reform acceptable to both skeptical elements of the faculty and a combative Trump administration will be a formidable challenge to Harvard President Alan Garber's leadership. Beyond the immediate reaction to a particular settlement, another issue looms. Is there good reason to believe that follow-up to such a settlement will not include additional demands and punishments based on claims that many vague negotiated terms have been insufficiently achieved? Should such reasonable concerns about the integrity of the other side cause a university like Columbia or Harvard to eschew negotiations, endure the profound punishment in the hope that the legal system comes to the rescue? This is not an entirely unreasonable position. But it's not the path I currently support. Let's take Harvard, reported now to be in negotiations of some kind. I'd like to see university leadership identify issues in response to federal demands that they are prepared to support and defend on their merits . As described above, some of these have already been announced, others, such as a possible university-wide institute to promote open inquiry, have been in development and could be announced in this setting. Advertisement If so, the reasons for taking such actions must be articulated and defended with great clarity as advancing core university values. And nothing beyond that should be agreed to. As in any negotiation, some issues will reside at the fuzzy border, requiring the judgment expected of strong leaders and for which they should be held accountable. But clear lines to protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy must be drawn and articulated. The reality is that we are at a totally unanticipated moment of both opportunity and threat to higher education. The mounting need for reform is confronting demands from a powerful and illiberal government that is using real problems to justify interventions designed to bring the institutions under their control. The threats are real, and immediate. And so is the opportunity. With eyes open, and their deepest values held close, university leaders and the communities that support them should explore the boundaries for reform offered by this rare moment of opportunity, fully cognizant of the threats of both action and inaction. The world is watching.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Democrats' approval rating craters to 35-year low: WSJ poll
Democrats' approval rating with registered voters has plunged to a 35-year low, while Republicans maintain an edge on most of the top issues Americans care about, a new poll found. A whopping 63% of registered voters view Democrats unfavorably, dramatically eclipsing the 33% who had a positive impression, marking the lowest rating they scored since 1990, according to a Wall Street Journal survey. That abysmal rating for Democrats comes against the backdrop of lackluster figures for President Trump and Republicans. Trump's approval rating sits at 46%, with 52% who disapprove of the commander in chief. The figure is higher than this point during his first term, which was 40%. Republicans' approval rating clocked in at a net seven points unfavorable. If congressional elections were held today, 46% of voters indicated they'd back a Democrat, compared to 43% who would support a Republican. 3 The poll suggests that House Democrats have their work cut out for them to ensure they can flip control of the lower chamber. AP 3 Democrats are also carefully eyeing pickup opportunities in Senate races. AP A majority, 51%, also said the change Trump is bringing has resulted in dysfunction and chaos, compared to 45% who agreed the president was making positive adjustments. Still, across the board, voters preferred the GOP approach over the Dem position on a range of key issues. Voters trusted Republicans over Democrats on inflation by about 10 points; on immigration by 17 points; and handling illegal immigrants by 17 points, the survey found. In one unique finding, respondents disapproved of Trump's tariffs by 17 points and Republicans still scored 7 points higher than Democrats on that issue. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey, told the outlet. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone teamed up with Republican Tony Fabrizio, Trump's trusted pollster during the 2024 campaign cycle, to conduct the survey for the Wall Street Journal. 3 President Trump's approval rating was underwater but higher than at this point during his first term, the poll showed. REUTERS One area where congressional Democrats topped Republicans was vaccine policy and healthcare, per the poll. Democrats are still reeling from their 2024 election loss, and key figures within the party have openly vented that the party doesn't have a strong message or sense of direction. Typically, the party out of power in the White House is favored to have a strong performance in the midterm elections, which is why many observers believe the Democrats are well-positioned heading into 2026. However, the Wall Street Journal poll shows Democrats are still remarkably anemic as the party struggles to find its footing. Around this time in 2017, voters called themselves Democrats over Republicans by 6 percentage points, per the poll. Democrats later went on to flip 40 House seats in the 2018 midterm elections. This go-around, Republicans have a 1-point edge in party identification over Democrats. Republicans have a threadbare 219 to 212 House majority and are scrambling to defy history by retaining control during the 2026 midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll sampled 1,500 registered voters between July 16–20 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
