[HN Gopher] Arabic document from 17th-cent. rubbish heap confirm...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Arabic document from 17th-cent. rubbish heap confirms semi-
       legendary Nubian king
        
       Author : wglb
       Score  : 135 points
       Date   : 2026-03-03 02:49 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | wglb wrote:
       | Paper at
       | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0067270X.2026.2...
       | from Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa
        
       | nephihaha wrote:
       | That was interesting, notwithstanding the editorialising comments
       | by Tomasz Baranski.
        
         | Tade0 wrote:
         | I would expect no less from a graduate of the University of
         | Warsaw.
         | 
         | This writing (and speaking) style permeates this institution.
        
         | fsckboy wrote:
         | > _That was interesting, notwithstanding the editorialising
         | comments by Tomasz Baranski._
         | 
         | you are upset by these comments which this article's author
         | chose to quote?:
         | 
         |  _As lead author Tomasz Baranski explains, however, this
         | transformation was far from sudden. "Nubia was not a marginal
         | or isolated region of the Nile Valley, but a pivotal corridor
         | connecting the Mediterranean world to sub-Saharan Africa.
         | Rather than a civilizational dead end, Nubia functioned for
         | millennia as a dynamic zone of movement for people, goods, and
         | ideas. Through Nubia passed commodities such as gold, ivory,
         | and enslaved people, but it also enabled the exchange of less
         | tangible elements: technologies, religious beliefs, and
         | political models._
         | 
         |  _" Moreover, Nubian communities were not passive recipients of
         | outside influence; they actively shaped and adapted the flows
         | passing through this corridor. This long history of exchange
         | helps us understand later cultural transformations in the
         | region, including Arabization and Islamization. These were not
         | sudden ruptures, but part of a much older pattern of
         | interaction, negotiation, and adaptation that has characterized
         | Sudan throughout history."_
         | 
         |  _Baranski notes that further discoveries may yet follow:
         | "Preliminary analysis of the letters from Building A.1 suggests
         | distinct patterns in the circulation of correspondence, hinting
         | at a coherent communication network. This network encompassed
         | not only the city's religious and administrative elites, but
         | possibly also the leaders of nomadic groups herding flocks in
         | the surrounding regions."_
         | 
         |  _Additionally, he adds, "the discovery of this seemingly
         | inconspicuous scrap of paper, when situated within the larger
         | context of gift-giving culture and traditional royal patronage
         | navigating local micropolitics, provides a vivid example of how
         | archaeological fieldwork continues to produce material that
         | bridges the gap between material culture and written history."_
        
       | Oras wrote:
       | The writing style (in Arabic) feels like a message in a chat.
       | It's a mix between dialect and official Arabic.
        
         | interstice wrote:
         | Like, modern and understandable? I ask because English from
         | more than a few hundred years ago is basically gibberish so I'm
         | curious about languages where that didn't happen.
        
           | wongarsu wrote:
           | Depending on the author 17th century English can also be very
           | close to modern English. A couple phrases will be off and the
           | spelling is different, but most of the difficulty is more the
           | author using constructions that have fallen out of use or
           | "showing off" with overly complicated sentences.
           | 
           | For example here's an excerpt from 1688's "Oroonoko"
           | I have often seen and convers'd with this great Man, and been
           | a Witness to many of his mighty Actions; and do assure my
           | Reader, the most Illustrious Courts cou'd not have produc'd a
           | braver Man, both for Greatness of Courage and Mind, a
           | Judgment more solid, a Wit more quick, and a Conversation
           | more sweet and diverting. He knew almost as much as if he had
           | read much: He had heard of, and admir'd the Romans; he had
           | heard of the late Civil Wars in England, and the deplorable
           | Death of our great Monarch; and wou'd discourse of it with
           | all the Sense, and Abhorrence of the Injustice imaginable. He
           | had an extream good and graceful Mien, and all the Civility
           | of a well-bred great Man.
        
           | dghf wrote:
           | Is six hundred years ago more than a few? Chaucer is still
           | more or less comprehensible. (Though Sir Gawain and the Green
           | Knight, from roughly the same time, not so much.)
        
             | biofox wrote:
             | The Middle English spelling and phonetic shifts are what
             | make it so painful to read. The words themselves though are
             | mostly comprehensible with a bit of effort.
             | 
             | Go back another four hundred years to Old English and
             | Beowulf and it becomes complete gobbledygook (to me at
             | least).
        
               | usrnm wrote:
               | I wonder what modern English would look like if the
               | battle of Hastings went differently
        
               | Bayart wrote:
               | Take a look at Frisian for the beginning of an answer.
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_languages
        
               | SoftTalker wrote:
               | Since spelling was not standardized at the time, I
               | suppose there would be no real loss of meaning if someone
               | were to rewrite these works using modern/standard English
               | spelling? Why are high schoolers forced to read these
               | archaic texts as written? It was just so _tiring_ to try
               | to read them; I could never get through any of them and
               | resorted to Cliffs Notes.
        
               | eszed wrote:
               | English nerd (and former English teacher) here, and I
               | think for high school students that's a good idea. It's
               | not actually an impossible text, and an introduction to
               | the real thing is useful and interesting, but forcing
               | teenagers to go through everything in the original is too
               | much of an obstacle for most students.
               | 
               | Also: _only_ reading the  "boring" bits. When I was in
               | high school I was excused English classes (took English
               | 101 at the local college instead - told you I was a
               | nerd), but overheard my classmates hating their way
               | through "The Wife of Bath's Tale", or "The Knight's Tale"
               | - one of those - and introduced them (nerd!) to "The
               | Miller's Tale" - broad scatalogical comedy - which they
               | loved. Later I did something similar for them with
               | _Gulliver 's Travels_, by showing them the bit where he
               | has fairly graphic sex with the giantess. (I think that's
               | an actual kink, but I certainly didn't know that at the
               | time!)
        
               | eszed wrote:
               | Yep. If you hear Chaucer read aloud by someone who knows
               | the phonetics and the meaning it's instantly like 75%
               | comprehensible. If they give you a bit (like, half a
               | class-period) more help, you'll get to ~90% without any
               | more effort than that. Chaucer is more or less as
               | incomprehensible as Glaswegian - that is to say, it's a
               | bit tricky, and you won't know all the slang, but you can
               | get used to it pretty quickly.
               | 
               | What's _really_ fun is that if you keep the dialect in
               | your head, and try reading it out loud with your best
               | "Chaucer accent" it feels like slipping on a pair of
               | glasses: you immediately "get" stuff that you'd have
               | thought was impenetrable just looking at the page.
               | 
               | Source: my medieval lit classes, with a teacher who was
               | really good.
        
           | asabil wrote:
           | Yes Arabic from 1000 years ago is very much understandable
           | today[1].
           | 
           | [1] https://fluentarabic.net/arabic-unchanged-1000-years/
        
             | Bayart wrote:
             | The article doesn't expound on it, but it very much depends
             | on what _Arabic_ means to you. Depending on the answer, it
             | 's really a dozen different languages. I know people who
             | only speak their own _darija_ and classical literature is
             | utterly obscure to them.
        
               | asabil wrote:
               | Sorry to disagree, but no, they are not dozens of
               | different languages. The challenge with Arabic is that it
               | has a rather large vocabulary, and different regions use
               | slightly different vocabularies.
               | 
               | That being said, Darija, or rather North African Arabic
               | is a messy mix of Arabic and Tamazight. Which can be
               | difficult for Middle East Arabic speakers to understand.
               | 
               | For reference, I speak Darija and understand both
               | classical and modern Arabic. It would take me a few days
               | to adapt my speech to other regional variations of
               | arabic.
        
               | Bayart wrote:
               | What's your prior exposure to Classical and Standard
               | Arabic ? The people I'm thinking about only have darija
               | exposure without any formal education in Arabic and
               | little exposure to pan-Arabic media.
        
           | marginalia_nu wrote:
           | A lot of that is just that English along with much of western
           | vernacular wasn't given standardized spelling until fairly
           | recently, as most of the important writing was done in Latin.
           | 
           | If you get past the weird spelling it's still fairly
           | understandable.
           | 
           | Exception being maybe stuff like Shakespeare, but a huge part
           | of what makes that inaccessible is that his writing is full
           | of references to current events, double entendres, and
           | various 17th century memes. It's a bit like showing South
           | Park's world of warcraft episode to someone from the 2400s.
        
             | graemep wrote:
             | Shakespeare is sufficiently close to contemporary English
             | that audiences will watch and enjoy his plays. I have seen
             | plenty of kids and audiences in different countries enjoy
             | them.
        
               | Broken_Hippo wrote:
               | It isn't that it isn't enjoyable, but it just isn't
               | enjoyable in the same way. How often do you view the
               | jokes in shakepear's work as raunchy or sexual? Do you
               | think younger teens get the jokes? Do you think anyone
               | explains it to them?
               | 
               | It is more akin to watching television from a different
               | culture. I am American, live in Norway, with my Norwegian
               | spouse. We wind up watching British television from time
               | to time. We find the jokes funny, but we both realize
               | that we are missing references to people and places - but
               | understand the gist of the jokes.
               | 
               | The difference between shakespear and modern times is
               | even larger - you don't always know they are jokes
               | because you don't realize they are referencing anything.
               | Still enjoyable, but a different story without as much
               | comedy.
        
               | shagie wrote:
               | > It isn't that it isn't enjoyable, but it just isn't
               | enjoyable in the same way. How often do you view the
               | jokes in shakepear's work as raunchy or sexual? Do you
               | think younger teens get the jokes? Do you think anyone
               | explains it to them?
               | 
               | Yes... my own recounting of freshman high school English
               | (it was the late 80s)
               | https://everything2.com/node/1207826
        
               | hnfong wrote:
               | You had a great teacher. I learned something today :P
               | 
               | But I think that affirms the GP's point. The jokes needed
               | explanation, which is what you'd expect when the audience
               | is from a different culture and don't understand them
               | natively.
        
               | shagie wrote:
               | My apologies if I didn't make that clear - my "yes" was
               | to the question "Do you think anyone explains it to
               | them?"
               | 
               | And yep, she was a very good English teacher. It was a
               | more fun class than the other English classes I had
               | through the years. Composition was a pain, but that the
               | teacher was a stickler for _everything_ it helped with my
               | writing and communication skills today. English lit from
               | Beowulf to Pope was a slog. Ancient was ok (mostly
               | Ancient Greek which got into more philosophy rather than
               | word choice because it was a translation). Modern
               | literature was only enjoyable because of Thoreau - I
               | think that was also where I read Waiting for Godot and
               | Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead ... the other plays
               | weren 't as memorable.
               | 
               | Aside on that - read The Necklace (in English) in one of
               | those classes... I'm fairly sure that was senior year. In
               | college I took French to finish out my foreign language
               | requirement and the final exam was reading comprehension
               | for _La Parure_ in French. I knew the story and so was
               | able to quickly skim for vocabulary rather than needing
               | to read every page.
               | 
               | All in all, looking back it was good, but as with most
               | school classes, they weren't classes that I _enjoyed_
               | going to at the time.
        
               | graemep wrote:
               | Sexual and and current affairs references are the hardest
               | to get - euphemisms change, for example In spite of this
               | I do get a lot. Some are pretty obvious ("your tongue in
               | my tail", for example) I am sure I miss many. Some
               | productions try harder to make things obvious than
               | others. Then there is all the stuff you do get so the
               | comedies are still pretty funny overall.
               | 
               | I think Your TV analogy is probably pretty accurate. Kids
               | also do not get a lot of sexual references in TV comedy
               | too!
        
               | mitthrowaway2 wrote:
               | Also, they're plays, not books. I think much of their
               | reputation for difficulty comes from generations of
               | English teachers making students study them like books
               | when they're meant to be acted on a stage. While it's
               | still poetry, it's much easier for laypeople to
               | understand when conveyed through acting.
        
             | simonklitj wrote:
             | Nah, you've got to go to Chaucer to get the really hard to
             | parse but still understandable stuff.
        
             | Cthulhu_ wrote:
             | Or reading Hitchhiker's Guide or Discworld as a non-Brit or
             | non-English speaker.
        
             | jkestner wrote:
             | > A lot of that is just that English along with much of
             | western vernacular wasn't given standardized spelling until
             | fairly recently
             | 
             | As many of us learned recently from this great article:
             | https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-
             | time-u...
        
       | xrd wrote:
       | I just love the sounds in sentence "...Arabization of Dongola in
       | the Funj period."
       | 
       | Dongola in the Funj period sounds like the place to be!
        
         | ameminator wrote:
         | Uh, probably it would have been a place to be avoided for a
         | non-Arab
        
           | nwhnwh wrote:
           | Why?
        
             | sach1 wrote:
             | because then your dongola would be all Arabized!
        
               | canadiantim wrote:
               | Sounds Funj!
        
         | philomath_mn wrote:
         | Reminds me of this quote from Tonya Riley's _The Staff
         | Engineer's Path_:
         | 
         | > In The Art of Travel (Vintage), Alain de Botton talks about
         | the frustration of learning new information that doesn't
         | connect to anything you already know--like the sorts of facts
         | you might pick up while visiting a historic building in a
         | foreign land. He writes about visiting Madrid's Iglesia de San
         | Francisco el Grande and learning that "the sixteenth-century
         | stalls in the sacristy and chapter house come from the Cartuja
         | de El Paular, the Carthusian monastery near Segovia." Without a
         | connection back to something he was already familiar with, the
         | description couldn't spark his excitement or curiosity. The new
         | facts, he wrote, were "as useless and fugitive as necklace
         | beads without a connecting chain."
        
           | goodmythical wrote:
           | That's kind of weird, isn't it?
           | 
           | Like, presumably you'd know something of monastaries,
           | materials, manufacturing...
           | 
           | ""the sixteenth-century stalls in the sacristy and chapter
           | house come from the Cartuja de El Paular, the Carthusian
           | monastery near Segovia." "
           | 
           | tells me that 500 years ago, the church reused either entire
           | stalls or perhaps materials from another presumably older
           | church that's near Segovia. I'd infer that there must have
           | been some importance to both the intitial act and the
           | preservation of the fact. Probably due to religious orders
           | preferring lineage and continuity.
           | 
           | Without knowing anything at all about either facility, the
           | countries involved, or really just anything at all, I can
           | still tell that we're observing the heritage of traditions
           | and know enough to ask after details of how this facility
           | relates to the one near Segovia.
        
             | atomicnumber3 wrote:
             | And yet still, while you remain mildly puzzled as you
             | surmise the above, someone more familiar with the area and
             | history standing right beside you will perceive the same
             | sentence with a completely different emotional reaction.
             | 
             | That gap - knowing this is probably fundamentally deeper
             | when perceived by someone else - is what the author is
             | getting at. He can feel that's missing for him. Even if
             | he's not completely left devoid of all comprehension of the
             | passage.
        
         | coldtea wrote:
         | Funj times!
        
       | romanhn wrote:
       | I did not expect the recovered order that confirmed the existence
       | of a (semi-)legendary Nubian king to basically be "Dear X, when
       | you get here, please take some sheep from Y in exchange for some
       | cotton cloths. Kthxbye! -King Qashqash".
        
       | nwhnwh wrote:
       | Dots?
        
       | coin wrote:
       | Please don't edit the title
        
       | syncsys87 wrote:
       | Great find. This is the kind of content that makes HN worthwhile.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-03-05 23:00 UTC)