|
Celtic Hist. Newsletter: Lewis "Chessmen" Revisited
|
hist-@historicgames.com
|
Dec 01, 2009 09:07 PST
|
The Celtic History Newsletter
Brought to you by
The Celtic Croft
http://www.kilts-n-stuff.com/
&
MacGregor Historic Games
http://historicgames.com
-----------------------
Isle of Lewis "Chessmen" Revisited
The month leans more toward an opinion piece than previous articles.
One of my first articles since taking over the Celtic History
Newsletter was about the Isle of Lewis Chessmen (Original article:
http://tinyurl.com/yk4bw6z ) These have long been considered one of
the more important early Chess sets found in Europe. There are about
six different stories told about how they were found, but all of them
claim that the pieces were found on the Isle of Lewis. Recently I have
run across a couple articles claiming that they are not actually Chess
pieces. One even denies the Lewis connection supports the an opinion
that they should be returned to a Scandinavian country where scholars
agree they were most likely manufactured. In fact a possible Swedish
connection has been found in recent years. A fragment of a knight?s
piece bearing a very close resemblance to the Lewis knights has been
found in Lund, Sweden.
One of the articles I found appeared on the BBC News website:
http://tinyurl.com/yf44f76
The other article I discovered was by Scottish Chess writer Geoff
Chandler http://tinyurl.com/yar83vc who suggests that there was some
form of conspiracy surrounding the "discovery" of the Lewis pieces. He
shows that they were "discovered" during a period when Chess was a
topic in Scottish newspapers due to an on-going competition between
the Edinburgh Chess Club and the London Chess Club in the 1820's.
While I agree it's an interesting coincidence, and there is obviously
controversy as to how, or where they were truly discovered, but at
this point I don't see a smoking gun that would justify to turning
them over to Norway, or Sweden.
But his argument that they are not Chess pieces, but rather intended
for the Viking game Hnefatafl is what I really find to be ridiculous.
The Lewis find consisted 78 pieces: 8 kings, 8 queens, 16 bishops, 15
knights, 12 "rooks"(footmen), and 19 pawns. (Also included was an
ivory belt buckle, and 14 ivory disks believed to be Backgammon pieces.)
There are twice as many bishops and knights as there are kings and
queens, just as there are in a standard chess set. That sounds a lot
like multiple incomplete chess sets to me. And as one of the earliest
anthropomorphic chess sets, identifying the foot-soldier pieces as
rooks would seem a reasonable interpretation. (There are examples of
4-player chess games going back at least as far as the 13th century,
but the numbers the Lewis pieces do not seem to reflect the surviving
descriptions)
Hnefatafl games use only a single king and twice as many attacking
?pawns? as there are defender "pawns". The number of Lewis pieces
certainly do not seem to reflect that type of game. Further, If this
is a set of Hnefatafl pieces why are there queens, bishops and knights?
Chandler argues the pieces "were all white. It?s impossible to play
chess with pieces all the same colour. For this Viking game
(Hnefatafl), you do not need to have to have two different colours."
Okay, I'll admit that if the shapes of the pawns are different enough
you can play Hnefatafl with all the pieces the same color, but this
ignores the fact that there are a number of early chess pieces
surviving that seem to have little difference in their colors
remaining on them: http://history.chess.free.fr/first-european.htm
Also, I have personally experimented with dying bone game pieces (
http://tinyurl.com/ykqjbfw ) and would find it believable that the
original vegetable dye, or stain on the ivory Lewis pieces may have
worn/washed off while they were buried -or perhaps their maker simply
had not yet colored the pieces?
He also says "Another moot point. Where is the chessboard?" That's a
silly argument. Where are the boards for all of the other historic
Chess pieces pictured on the history of Chess website I cited in the
previous paragraph? They got separated from the pieces over the course
of the centuries.
He goes on to say
"A spokesman for the BM (British Museum) stated in a recent interview
with CHESS magazine remarked that he is often asked why the pieces are
not displayed as a chess set on a chess board. (They are shown in
their groups, Kings, Queens, Bishops, Knights and ?Rooks? - foot
soldiers.) He added that, when set up on a board, the Lewis Chessmen
do NOT look like chess pieces."
Pish posh. They are the pieces for at least 8 incomplete Chess sets
-of course they do not look like chess pieces when all grouped
together. But if you simply divide them and set them up on a chess
board it's obvious what they are. I agree that my first thought would
be to display them set up for a game, with the extra pieces displayed
around it, but it would also be a valid argument as a museum curator
that they should stand alone since there was no game board found with
them.
Certainly, similar pieces could be used to play Hnefatafl, I myself
have made and sold tafl games using a Lewis king and pawns that I cast
using commercial molds. But I find find no reason to believe the Lewis
game pieces are not Chessmen -even if they were never on the the Isle
of Lewis.
-----------------------
If you enjoy our monthly newsletter, please support it by visiting out
our online stores, or seek us out at the events listed on our web sites.
The Celtic Croft
http://www.kilts-n-stuff.com/
&
MacGregor Historic Games
http://historicgames.com
|
|
 |
|
