 |
Chandler Cornered
The Mystery of the 'Lewis' Gaming Pieces
"But it is evident, that to serve some purpose, contradictory statements
were circulated by the persons who discovered or who afterwards obtained
possession of these Chess-men, regarding the place where the discovery was
actually made."
From minutes read to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, llth March 1833.
"Why do you not display the Lewis Chessmen on a chessboard?"
A question often asked at the British Museum.
Answer:
"Because the fact is they do not look like chess pieces.
We do not want the tourists asking questions."
There are various accounts of where the Lewis Gaming Pieces came from.
I'm adding another. The names are the actual people who presented
the pieces to The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1831 and 1833.
Edinburgh 1831.
Mr Forrest an Edinburgh dealer was in Leith docks and happened upon a
Norwegian sailor. The sailor had a bag of carved figures with him.
A transaction took place.
Forrest took some of the pieces, stained them red with beetroot juice and
made up what would pass as a chess set. He now needed a romantic story
to boost the value of his chess set.
Chess was big news in Edinburgh at the time. Edinburgh had recently
beaten London in a correspondence chess match and a book containing all
the games had been published by one of the countries leading players.
William Lewis.
It requires little imagination to see Forrest's mind in action.
"I'll have these pieces discovered on the Isle of Lewis in a cave."
Lewis being the chess name of the moment.
(If the pieces had been unearthed in 1974 then the would have been
found in Fishers Close on the High Street.)
So the pieces were shown to The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland but
they mistrusted the method the pieces came into Forrest,s hands.
Undeterred Forrest sold most of the pieces to the British Museum.
Two years later The Society were given a chance to purchase the remaining pieces.
This they did without questioning where they came from, though they did
register a 'save ass' clause in their minutes.
The End
I think my legend, though it pales when compared with Isle of Lewis tale,
makes better reading. It is more plausible.
But before I continue. I must correct myself.
I said 'my' legend. Infact the seed was planted by Ken Whyld (1926-2003)
Ken Whyld is the co-author on one of the greatest books ever written
on the history of Chess. The Oxford Companion to Chess. by Hooper & Whyld.
On another site (the first Edinburgh site -now defunct) I first stated my fears that the
Lewis pieces were not Chessmen. It is the piece they call a Rook that I dislike.
It does not look like a Rook. It's too small to be a Rook.
At the time when the pieces were carved the Rook was the most
powerful piece on the board. (then the Queen moved like a King).
Indeed when the 11 pieces that were eventually purchased by The Society
they were logged thus:
Three Queens, two large, one small; one of the large holds a drinking-cup.
One Knight on horseback.
Two Bishops.
Two Kings.
Two Knights, one biting his shield."
No mention of a Rook. Yet the Rook, which was originally called a 'Warder'
by the British Museum, now exists as a knight biting a shield.
I added that the pieces were all white some were dyed as part of a con.
You cannot play chess with all white pieces. Ergo they are not chessmen.
A few days after I posted I was emailed by Ken.
He said my piece was amusing but I may have stumbled upon something.
He said there is no actual proof that the pieces were found on Lewis.
I was asked to keep this under my hat as he was still researching.
Ken sadly passed away In July 2003. But In the May 2003 edition of the
British Chess Magazine there appeared an article by Ken.
Now I do not want to use the name of Ken Whyd to add any weight to my
own theory. Nor do I wish to tarnish the memory of a great man by lifting
bits from the article that suit me.
Ken does not dispute wether or not they are chess pieces he disputes where
they are from. His article adds more mystery.
So I give it here the article in full.
I have added nothing except one change in grammar. [he then].
Fantasy Island?
"IS IT A FAIRY tale; or perhaps something more sinister?
The Lewis chessmen are one of the glories of our chess heritage.
Their brooding magnificence has a universal appeal;
The story of their resurrection is quite parochial.
Experts date them to the 12th century but they first became known on II April 1831,
when they were shown in Edinburgh by Roderick Pirie, a merchant of Stornaway
(or Captain Ryrie or Ririe - the uncertainty as to his name is typical of the whole story).
He told those present at the meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
that the carvings had been recently found in Uig bay, on the Isle of Lewis,
buried under 15 feet of sand. A letter about the discovery was read.
Immediately a contradictory story was given, and the letter disappeared.
In June 1831 a Scottish newspaper reported that the men were found by a
peasant digging a sandbank.
CK Sharpe wrote in 1833 that they were found close to where a nunnery
had stood, in a vaulted room about six feet long which had ashes on the floor.
In 1851 a different yarn was told. The spring tide of 1831 washed away part
of a sandbank exposing something like an oven. A local peasant broke into it,
and seeing what he thought to be a gathering of gnomes, fled in panic.
His wife persuaded him to go back and collect the loot.
The final version appeared in 1967, in a publication about the folklore of Lewis.
A herdsman saw one of his cows rubbing against a sand hill and pulling out some
white objects with her horns.
In September 1990 Bob Meadley of Australia made the three-hour boat trip from the
Scottish mainland to Lewis, and went to Uig bay to see for himself.
He made a video there. The locals did not agree about the site of the hoard,
dividing their votes between two sandy hills fairly near to the cemetery.
Both are far from the sea, and at a high altitude. Otherwise Meadley found a
reluctance to talk about the subject.
MYSTERY OF UIG BAY
All of the stories cannot be true, so why should we believe any one of them?
The constant factor is Uig bay, but anyone putting up a smoke screen would
probably choose a remote spot on the furthest side of a Gaelic-speaking island
that is itself difficult to reach. I suggest that the men were never in
the bay of Uig, and that is why the locals cannot be more forthcoming.
The chessmen are undoubtedly genuine, but the tale of their discovery seems
to me to be completely false. Sometimes subterfuges are used to deter an invasion
of trophy-seekers onto an archaeological site, but in those cases the truth emerges
after a few years.
Could the men have been obtained fraudulently? Were they stolen?
Anyone who holds that honesty could be taken for granted in such distinguished
company would do well to look at the next development.
Captain Ririe, who allegedly paid the herdsman, Malcolm Macleod, £30 for the hoard,
sold it to an Edinburgh dealer, TA Forrest, who offered it for £100.
Sir Frederic Madden of the British Museum was enthusiastic, and bought what he
believed to be the whole collection (67 chessmen, 14 draughtsmen, a belt buckle),
for 80 guineas (£84). However Forrest had sold secretly ten more pieces to CK Sharpe.
Who managed to buy a further bishop from Lewis, These eleven men eventually finished
up in the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh.
TA Forrest, who again behaved dishonestly at an auction of Sharpe's effects in 1851,
seems to have been the villain of the piece.
I offer the hypothesis that he was the man who originally acquired the hoard
(which had never seen Uig), and that Captain Ririe (if he existed) was his decoy man.
The only weakness in my theory is that Sharpe bought a single piece from Lewis.
In view of his enthusiasm, a con-artist could easily have set him up.
Given that obfuscation is the name of the game it is perhaps worth noting
that, after 1831, folklore was created in Lewis to explain the hoard's existence,
the yarns conflict.
In one, a herdsman witnesses a shipwreck, and sees a sailor swim ashore with a bag.
In the other the herdsman sees a ship laying at anchor, and at moonrise a boy rows
ashore with a bundle.
In both stories the Lewis resident slays the seaman,
buries but never recovers the bag,
[he then] descends into further depravity and even 'the abuse of women',
and is hanged at Gallows Hill, Stornaway.
The wicked man is named as 'Gille Ruadh', or Red Gillie.
Perhaps someone can find real evidence of the existence of the
'Red Gillie', Captain Ririe, or Malcolm Macleod.
There are many Macleods buried in Uig, according to Meadley.
You will note that Ken thinks the pieces are genuine but also
note in one of the tales the cow was pulling out some white objects
with her horns. Which fits my theory they were all white.
The British Museum document that they could find no trace of the
pieces being any other colour but white. However, Sir Frederic Madden
reported some of the pieces appeared to be stained red.
Also note that Ken himself finds a possible hole.
"The only weakness in my theory is that Sharpe bought a single piece from Lewis."
Sharpe said he went to Lewis and bought the piece.
Ken was being kind to Sharp saying he had been duped.
I think it is incredible that Sharp suddenly leaves Edinburgh and
returns a few days later with a Bishop.
So what are the 'Lewis' gaming pieces?
There exists a Viking game with many variations called Tafl or Hnefatafl
which is first recorded in 400 A.D. It is played with Kings and foot
soldiers. Versions and line ups vary on what ever saga the game is repeating.
Usually a game has 3 or four different pieces.
Remember 4 major pieces were found - they turned a Knight was a Rook.
One set up has a King and 8 defenders against 16 attackers.
The 16 attackers are depicted as simple pawns.
You need not have two different colours.
You do not need a board. The celtic board given with the Lewis set
is the fabric of some marketing guys imagination.
Let us go back to original find.
The full hoard is 8 Kings, 8 Queens, 16 Bishops, 15 Knights,
12 Warders (Rooks) and 19 Pawns. In addition, they are 14 plain disks
and 1 belt-buckle.
A belt buckle?
Lets us play a game.
First use the tool (belt buckle) to punch holes making a 9x9 board
on a piece of wood or the deck of a ship.
The game is set up thus.
...PPP...
....P....
....N....
P...N...P
PPNNKNNPP
P...N...P
....N....
....P....
...PPP...
K=(1)King, N=(8)Knights, P=(16)Pawns.
In the game I have, the 16 pawns are depicted by the pieces the
British Museum call Rooks. Shield Biters.
When I was researching Hnefatafl one lad on the net was explaining how to
make the pieces. He said why bother...
Use the pieces from a couple of sets they laughingly call the Lewis Chessmen.
I have a feeling a lot of people know they are not chess pieces but
are scared to put their head up over the barricade.
As for where they came from?
I'm with Ken Whyld on this one. There is no proof. No solid proof.
But he may have hinted at the reason why. To protect the site.
Let us suppose these beautiful carved pieces were found on Lewis.
If the real location was revealed then everyman and his dog would
be there digging up the countryside. Who knows?
One final thought.
The pieces were carved in the 12th. Century.
The Bishop was not introduced into the game of Chess until the 15th century.
So what was the Norwegian lad carving in the 12th century........OOPS!
