Latest news with #Gordian
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
2,800-year-old royal tomb discovered near King Midas' home in Turkey
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Archaeologists have discovered an eighth-century-B.C. royal tomb of a relative of King Midas in the ancient city of Gordion, southwest of Ankara, Turkey. The burial mound contained dozens of rare artifacts and cremated human bones from an elite individual from the ancient kingdom of Phrygia. "Based on these artifacts, we estimate that the person in the tomb chamber may be a member of the royal family associated with Gordion and Midas," Mehmet Nuri Ersoy, the Turkish minister of culture and tourism, said at a news conference Tuesday (June 3), the Turkish state-run news agency Anadolu Ajansı reported in Turkish. Gordion was the capital of the Phrygian kingdom, which lasted from 1200 to 675 B.C. In the eighth century B.C., the kingdom was ruled first by Gordias, who was associated with the Gordian knot that Alexander the Great eventually cut, and then by his son Midas, who is famous for the story of turning everything he touched to gold. But Gordion, like ancient Troy, was occupied many times over the centuries, leaving archaeologists with a tangled web of fortification walls, tombs and houses to dig through. The largest tomb found at Gordion is called the "Midas Mound." One of more than 120 mounds, it was built around 740 B.C. and included the burial of a high-status person — possibly Midas' father, Gordias — in a log coffin on top of a purple textiles and surrounded by bronze treasures. The newly announced tomb is the 47th such mound excavated at Gordion. The mound is about 26 feet (8 meters) tall and 200 feet (60 m) in diameter, archaeologist Yücel Şenyurt, co-director of the Gordion excavation, told Anadolu Ajansı in Turkish, and it includes the oldest cremation to date at the site. "This shows the burial customs of the Phrygians," Şenyurt said, and "clearly shows us that the person buried here was not an ordinary person." Related: Ancient inscription reveals lost civilization in Turkey that may have defeated King Midas At the news conference, Ersoy said that the mound included a wooden burial chamber that measured 10.2 by 9.2 feet (3.1 by 2.8 m), along with dozens of bronze artifacts, including cauldrons and jugs, some of which were still hanging from iron nails on the walls of the burial chamber, Anadolu Ajansı reported. "These artifacts that we have unearthed are the most concentrated group after the findings in the previously excavated Midas Mound," Ersoy said. RELATED STORIES —2,600-year-old inscription in Turkey finally deciphered — and it mentions goddess known 'simply as the Mother' —Grand tomb of Roman gladiator found in Turkey actually contains the remains of 12 other people —3,500-year-old tablet in Turkey turns out to be a shopping list "It's possible that it belonged to someone in Midas's family because his tumulus is nearby," C. Brian Rose, Gordion excavation co-director and an archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said at the news conference, as reported by Anadolu Ajansı. "What's really interesting is that it's a cremation burial," Rose said, because "this is the only example from the 8th century" at the site. The newly discovered artifacts are now at the Gordion Museum, where they will be conserved and restored before being placed on display. Excavations at Gordion have been ongoing for 75 years, but archaeologists are nowhere near finished with their investigation of the numerous tombs and settlement structures. "The area that has not yet been excavated is much larger than the area that has been excavated," Şenyurt said.
Axios
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Arbitrators to enter firefighters contract talks
After working four years without a contract, the Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local 2 appears headed for a resolution this spring with the help of an arbitrator. Why it matters: Chicago needs firefighters, but the situation is super complicated. State of play: We've got a proudly pro-labor mayor negotiating with a union of revered professionals, but professionals who are seeing fewer calls for fire emergencies while calls for medical assistance have soared. Throw in the fact that Local 2 is not allowed to strike and it also represents paramedics (who work out of firehouses), and you've got yourself a Gordian knot. The latest: A process called "interest arbitration" starts Wednesday, when a third party will bring the two sides together to "try to find middle ground on unsolved issues," the Sun-Times reports. If they can't agree, each side will present its best offer and the arbitrator will decide. Zoom in: One of the biggest issues is a union call to reduce the number of daily "variances" that allow engines to operate with four rather than five staffers from 35 to 30. The city wants to double the variances. Local 2 also wants standard annual equipment purchases and 20 more ambulances to add to a busy fleet of 80. Between the lines: With medical calls outnumbering fire calls 3 to 1 due to better fire safety, among other things, everyone agrees the Fire Department needs more ambulances. The question is whether they should be secured at the expense of firefighting resources. Mayor Lori Lightfoot appeared to think they should after reading a 2022 report that recommended shifting staff from fire engines to ambulances, per the Tribune. But then she lost reelection. Despite initial reluctance, Mayor Brandon Johnson seems to have come to the same conclusion. What he's saying:"There's a greater need for ambulatory care than there is for traditional fire trucks," Johnson told the Sun-Times/WBEZ last week, noting that our infrastructure is "not as nimble and flexible as it needs to be." The other side:"Understaffing and overworking firefighters or paramedics leads to increased injuries and deaths," Local 2 president Pat Cleary tells Axios. "If the city can find the money to hire 800 additional CPS employees, they can find the money to keep our members safe. CFD employees should not be expected to sacrifice their lives. Their families should expect them to return home after their shift."
Observer
14-05-2025
- Business
- Observer
Trump to remove US sanctions on Syria
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would order the lifting of sanctions on Syria at the behest of Saudi Arabia's crown prince, a major US policy shift ahead of an expected meeting with Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Trump is set to say hello to Sharaa on Wednesday in Saudi Arabia, a White House official said. Two Syrian presidential sources told Reuters they would meet on Wednesday morning. "I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria to give them a chance at greatness," Trump told an investment forum in Riyadh, at the start of a tour of Gulf Arab states. "It's their time to shine. We're taking them all off," Trump said, "Good luck, Syria, show us something very special." Trump said he made the decision after discussions with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, whose governments have both strongly urged the lifting of sanctions. Removing U.S. sanctions that cut Syria off from the global financial system will clear the way for greater engagement by humanitarian organizations working in Syria, easing foreign investment and trade as the country rebuilds. Trump said he would remove all sanctions, saying they had served an important function, but it was time for Syria to move forward. He said steps were being taken to restore normal relations with Syria, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio would meet his Syrian counterpart this week. Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani, in a statement to Reuters, said it marked a turning point for the Syrian people in their efforts to rebuild. "We ... stand ready to foster a relationship with the United States that is rooted in mutual respect, trust, and shared interests," Shibani said. He also said Trump could get a "historic peace deal and victory for U.S. interests in Syria," without elaborating. Joseph Aoun, president of neighbouring Lebanon, hailed Trump's "bold move" as another step on Syria's path towards recovery and stability. Alex Zerden, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said Trump's announcement would unwind a "Gordian knot" of sanctions, export controls and terrorist designations that had made Syria one of the most economically restricted countries, along with Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.
The Advertiser
11-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Australia doesn't need to be 'great', and that's good
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place? I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors. This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail. Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want. If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would. That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count). Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese. All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign. In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: "This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" Could that happen here? MORE OPINION: One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors. We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader. Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen. When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place? I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors. This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail. Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want. If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would. That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count). Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese. All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign. In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: "This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" Could that happen here? MORE OPINION: One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors. We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader. Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen. When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place? I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors. This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail. Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want. If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would. That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count). Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese. All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign. In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: "This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" Could that happen here? MORE OPINION: One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors. We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader. Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen. When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place? I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors. This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail. Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want. If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would. That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count). Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese. All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign. In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: "This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" Could that happen here? MORE OPINION: One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors. We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader. Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
Russia Today
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Ukrainian envoy asks for 30% of Germany's military equipment
Germany should donate 30% of its available armored vehicles and military aircraft to Kiev, according to Andrey Melnik, Ukraine's envoy to the UN. His appeal comes as EU nations seek ways to boost support amid uncertainty over whether US President Donald Trump would continue backing Ukraine. Melnik, who served as ambassador to Berlin from 2015 to 2022, addressed his plea in an open letter to Chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz, published in Welt am Sonntag on Saturday. 'It is in your hands, as peacemakers, to stop this damn war by the end of 2025,' he wrote. The diplomat outlined a series of steps he believes Merz must take to 'cut the Gordian knot and force [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to make peace.'According to Melnik, Germany should donate 30% of its Bundeswehr stock of armored vehicles and aircraft to Kiev, including around 45 Eurofighter Typhoon and 30 Tornado fighter jets, 100 Leopard 2 main battle tanks, and 115 Puma and 130 Marder infantry fighting vehicles. He also called on Berlin to defy 'the expected resistance' from the Social Democrats (SPD) and send 150 Taurus cruise missiles. The SPD has opposed the missile deliveries, citing concerns about further escalation with Russia. The Social Democrats and Merz's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) are currently engaged in coalition talks. Melnik urged Germany to commit 0.5% of its GDP – or €21.5 billion ($24.5 billion) annually – toward military aid to Ukraine through 2029. 'These funds should be invested in the production of state-of-the-art weapons in both Germany and Ukraine,' he wrote. He also called for the 0.5% benchmark to be adopted across the EU as a 'huge warning signal' to Russia. Merz recently expressed openness to delivering Taurus missiles, prompting criticism from SPD leader Matthias Miersch and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. Meanwhile, Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev warned that such shipments would 'bring no changes to the battlefield' but would further implicate Germany in the conflict.
