In past episodes we saw how Historical Linguistics and Archaeology,  advanced by Western Academia, are sometimes wrought with irreconcilable technical problems. 

One of the pitfalls of these fields of study, is that they excite political and nationalistic feelings.  Under such conditions, unbiased scientific views are difficult to sustain. This is unfortunate because this prevents impartial scientific evaluation of the evidence, methods and theories. 

In previous episodes, which revolved around the "Reed" theme "The Odeyssey of the Reeds,"  we discovered that a cluster of basic terms, like Herb, reed, rush, wood, hay, grass, shoot, along their derivatives  (with the exception of the Ancient Egyptian "qenna",  cane)  were never suspected to be Arabic in origin. In addition, six of these terms,  present in the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) language, were thought to be of Germanic origin. 

As one reaches further and further back into the past, very quickly one finds that the Western approach in reconstructing languages have always been tailored to exacting Western specifications 

Because of this approach, many linguists are not able to see beyond the perimeters of Greek, Latin, and to a lesser degree, to Sanskrit.   These are often wrapped in pseudo scientific logic which has one aim: To prove the validity of Indo-European theories. 

The result, tremendous confusion about linguistics and cultural origins, has come about from these unsubstantiated Western theories, and the time has now come to question more seriously whether the hitherto various attempts by Westerners to prove these linguistic theories have any sound basis. 

To further test their hypotheses,  here is the latest example which was the subject of our latest quiz, "The Riddle of the Rein" 

What was omitted from this assumption was a simple well known fact which occurred in the development of the grammatical spelling in the transition from the Old French language into the present Modern French. 

Many French words which once contained the letter "s" have long disappeared and were replaced by a circumflex accent in their place.  By this time, the term which was once resne became rêne and passed on to Middle English without the accent. Hence the case of "rein" from the French "rêne." 

For etymologists imbibed with Indo-European theories, this is a blatant case of bending the facts in order to attribute the term to a Latin source, while ignoring the possibility of another source such as the Classical Arabic term "RSN" with the same meaning and spelling.

We already know that two unrelated languages such as Old French and Classical Arabic are unlikely to invent the same word "Resne/RSN", with the exact meaning independently from one another. 

Adding to this travesty is the paucity of Arab linguists who are fluent in, or interested in scrutinizing, the so-called Indo-European theories and putting them to the test. Orientalists are equally under this historical linguistic cultural spell.  For whatever reason,  they equally failed to see the connection. 
 

In this respect, I mention eminent linguistic minds of the caliber of Sir William Jones, the father of historical linguistics and the translator of "A Thousand and One Arabian Nights"; as well as the brilliant lexicographer Edward William Lane.   Ironically,  the situation is further compounded (ziyd al-tiyn balla) when Arab speakers, involved in Arab/ English and French lexiconography, the likes of Elias and Yuwsuf Khayyat, follow blindly in the footsteps of their western counterparts. 
 

The result is that they never catch onto the obvious connection.  A classical case of taking for granted what others have to offer without having the slightest interest in testing the validity of the theories of others.   Hence, according to various lexicon estimates, all that has been found in the various Western languages,  like French, English, German, Italian, Gaelic etc., are few hundred Arabic loan terms (around 400). Selection of these terms are quoted ad infinitum by a score of modern scholars, mostly Arabs, who are eager to make a point, but who always fail to present their case in a lucid fashion that would scientifically challenge the reconstruction of many Indo-European linguistic theories, including the many erroneous etymologies offered. 

The result of this investigation indicates that the equestrian correspondant term "Resne," which exists exclusively between Old French and the classical Arabic RSN, cannot be fortuitous, nor attributed to independent development, but was the result of direct contact between Arabs, Franks and Normans in the La Perche school of equestrian in Normandy, which was established by William the Conqueror in preparation to his Invasion of England. 

Percheron horses like the Andalusian "Jennets"  have been used ever since for the European cavalry. This infusion of Arabian blood was not the only improvement introduced in Normandy.  Along with the breeding program, came the use of various Arab equestrian implements such as the Arab double reins, girth, stirrups, and last but not least, the Bedouin tactics of horsemanship (manège, and/or Dressage) which were readily and enthusiastically adopted.  All of these came to play decisively in the battle of Hastings  (1) and the conquest of England.

For Military historians, the similarities between the Norman tactics used by their cavalry at the battle of Hastings against the Anglo-Saxons, were reminiscent of the tactics of the Arab cavalry led by al-Mughiythat the battle of Umm al-Hakiym (Shiyduniyah) against the Wisigoths in 711.  Then, the Moorish cavalry won the battle against the Visigoths by fainting retreat only to dislodge them from their high postions of the surrounding hills into battle on the plain. 

In such a case, the Old French term "Resne" (incidently one of  host of terms in this field, which will be the subject of future quizzes) would appear as a by-product of an area of cultural convergence of a cluster of equestrian terminologies. These terms  subsequently were transmitted into other languages.  This methodology helps delineate sequences of events in the past.  It also stresses their importance in providing evidence for in-depth contact, within this context, between Arabic and Norman speech communities  pinpointing a relative date for this contact which predates the Crusaders arrival in the Middle east.

This is based on the fact that the linguistic examples provided in Classical Arabic predate their counterparts in the Frankish, Norman and English languages.

 Here we have instances where the transmission of specific Arabic cultural elements can be historically documented and verified. The Arab inroads into Europe, which began in the early part of the eighth century A.D., coincide with the beginning of great changes in Western and Northern Europe. Considering the discoveries of these linguistic data, the significance of the Arab impact in these areas can no longer be ignored. 

For these data cannot be dismissed as a simple case of a "trading goods" language being diffused sporadically, but rather as highly specialized linguistic references to equestrian vocabulary, corresponding consistently and systematically, layer upon layer, in a remarkable pattern of agreement with Classical Arabic. 
 
 

We can learn more about the development of civilizations if we keep ourselves to a strict scientific inquiry.  If words give us a notion of what people were talking about, words can thus offer us precious opportunities to unlock events of the past.  However, language by definition leaves no prehistoric fossils.  In fact, “an artifact other than a written record is silent on the language of its user,” hence it follows that any similarities in languages can only be attested through written records.  These similarities have to be further scrutinized by subjecting them to vigorous verification extended to a constellation of synonyms, and derivations. 

This in-depth method ensures that similarities between words can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt and can not be attributed to mere chance.  We can then discern similar linguistic patterns and successfully challenge the Western hypothetical Proto-Indo-European language theory and the backward Western methods of extrapolation used to reconstruct languages. The great bulk of what is commonly handled and offered as historical evidence is in written form. However, written evidence falls into two distinct groups, (a) intentional and (b) unpremeditated.  Intentional pieces of written evidence, such as chronicles, tales, and sagas, are meant to record a sequence of events for future perusal, presumably with an interest in furthering a specific view of the events.  This can result in deliberate propaganda and distortion of historical facts 

To rule out any case of accidental homonym in a datum, the investigation is further extended to a constellation of synonyms and derivatives.  This will establish sets of equations, known as identical correspondences, in a consistent and systematic manner.  Since cognates combine the arbitrariness of sound and meaning, lexical innovations are particularly important. 

Any scientific argument based on concrete and real data would eliminate the hazardous postulate of the hypothetical reconstruction of a word which is assumed to have existed, but due to the absence of any documentation, there is no way to prove or deny its previous existence. 

Conversely, ancient recorded languages as depicted in old dictionaries are not premeditated pieces of historical writing.  Their sole intended use was as a reference guide to languages, and as such they are unpremeditated transmitters of facts.  A word, then means what it refers to in a given context or situation.  As unconscious evidence, the lexicons become an integral part of historical facts. 
 
 

(1) The year was 1066,  Harold was king of England. Like the Visigoth king Roderic some 355 years ago, he had learnt that Duke William of Normandy had landed at Pevensey in the south of England when he was in the north of the country.  Like Roderic, who hurried south to meet Tariq, Harold marched his troops south as fast as possible, stopping in London for reinforcements. and subsequently taking up position at Caldbec Hill, along the Sentlache Ridge, a few miles north of Hastings. This  posed a similar dilemma , like the one faced by Tariq at the mouth of the Barbate river in Southern Spain. As the ridge had deep ravines, streams and marshy ground on either side, Harold blocked William's only road out of the Hastings peninsula so forcing him into a frontal attack.  By positioning his army at the top of the hill, Harold like Roderic before him had clear visibility all around him and forced William's army into continually running up the hill to attack. Harold built a shield wall that stretched in rows along the ridge and which was made up of his housecarls, thegns and fyrdmen. Being skilled fighters, the housecarls and thegns were positioned in between the fyrdmen who were unskilled, poorly armed and inexperienced peasant soldiers. Harold expected the wall to hold firm against assault and for William's men  tired and weakened from having to attack uphill. This  eventually allowed Harold's army to launch a counter-attack with relatively fresh troops strong enough to defeat their opponent.  William was unprepared for Harold's speedy arrival at Caldbec Hill but quickly gathered his troops and went to meet him at Senlache. His army was divided into three sections, each with a commander. The left section comprised mainly of Bretons, the central section were Norman under Willliam's command and the right section was made up of the French and Flemish. Each section was divided into three rows - the archers, the infantry and the cavalry. William's plan is to use the archers first to send their arrows into the English ranks, follow by the infantry in hand-to-hand combat and to finally advance with the cavalry who has the height and power of being on horseback. The effect would be a three pronged attack and a gradual build up in power that would demoralise the English. The battle took all day beginning early in the morning of 14th October 1066 with William's archers firing the first arrows into English ranks. William followed up his plan with an attack by the infantry and then by the cavalry, but Harold's army was stronger than expected and William's army sustained many casualties.  It was at this moment that William used the classic stratagem used by the Arab cavalry in the battle of Shiduwniyah, fainting retreat and then suddenly quickly turning around their horses in full speed against harold advancing army which as a result  failed to keep in line and got ahead of the other two sections on their right. In their panic they began to retreat. Harold's less experienced fighters broke rank when they saw the Bretons retreating and William's army slaughtered them. Despite his battle plan and his choice of a strategic location,  Harold's men were not trained and did not have the distant attack advantage the power and the maneuverability of the Norman cavalry. In accordance with English tradition, those of Harold's army who were on horseback rode to the battle location and then fought on foot while William's cavalry used the Bedouin tactics by walking to the location and then mounting for battle.  For six hours the battle was undecided, though victory seemed imminent for the more technically advanced Normans. William now threw his main energy into attacking the more lightly armed Saxon troops on the wings. His archers sent repeated flights of arrows over their heads. This inflicted heavy losses among the ranks of the English peasantry, who were not protected by the chainmail of the housecarles; nevertheless they stood their ground. Then the cunning duke gave his knights a signal. The whole cavalry wheeled round and appeared to flee. This was too much for the Saxons in the shield wall. With shouts and whoops they broke formation and began to pursue the enemy down the hill, heedless of Harold's shouted orders to stay where they were. As soon as the Saxons began to follow them, with a great roar the Norman knights turned back and rode them down. As a historical event,the outcome of the battle of Hastings was very significant . considering that the prize was the throne of England.  The Battle of Hastings in 1066, just as was the battle of Umm al-Hakiym (Shiyduniyah) in 711 which sealed the fate of the Visigoths in Spain,  utterly changed the course of English history.