MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Noggin the Nog (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Looks like he is nibbling his shield.....

Admit it....
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

At this point it might be wort adding a few words of caution.

The Lewis Hoard is, after all, one of the most iconic exhibits in the British Museum.

Mr Chandler is a not a academic, and he is clearly enjoying his role as the boy who is pointing out the emperor is starkers.....

We will never know the exact conversation between our Mr Forrest and the BM. We do know there was an aquisition, and we know of various legends that have grown up round the pieces.

You might be interested how the BM classified its hoard of white (sic) pieces.

Here is Chandler..

Sir Frederic Madden of the BM hears about the find and approaches Forrest. "I'll take the lot,' says he, and a deal is done. "84.00 exchanges hands and the 83 of the pieces go to London. Upon examining them, Sir Frederic discovers that the pieces are all white, 'though some appear to have been recently dyed.' He logs the purchase as possible chess pieces: Kings, Queens, Bishops, Knights, Pawns and Warders(?). He can find no Rooks.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Prior to the BM aquisition, our Mr Forrest had tried to convive the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland to buy the Lewis Hoard. However the canny Scots having already refused a similar find, supposed to have been dug up in Roxburgh and belonging to Bonnie Prince Charlie, clearly were a tad more sceptical of the provenance than the BM....
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Another note of caution here, where Chandler is blogging his dates
appear a tad inconsistent are we 1831 or 1833 (?) ...come back to this when we hit the serious stuff.

Anyway having sold to the BM, Forrest and his close friend Sharpe reapproach the scots they have found 10 more pieces.....

lets see waht Chandler says....

"Sharpe shows the SAS the new pieces. A bit miffed at losing out to the BM but still unsure of the credibility of the tale, they require further proof. This is what Forrest and Sharpe had anticipated. 'I'll go to the Isle of Lewis and see if there are any more pieces,' offers a very confident Mr Sharpe. He leaves Edinburgh, arrives in Lewis, finds the exact spot where the pieces were discovered, unearths another piece and returns to Edinburgh. All within three days! In 1833! An incredible feat!

Now the finding of the eleventh piece is well documented, though nobody seems to query the three-day Edinburgh to Lewis and back again journey, or how Sharpe discovered the actual location of the site - which has eluded everyone ever since. My guess is that Sharpe laid low in some hide-out and should have stayed there till a more believable period of time had passed, but was either on the verge of being discovered, or thought three days would suffice"
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Just a couple more points on Micks post.

In actual fact not all the pieces are ivory, some are made out of a cheaper substitute...whales teeth.

It might be worth considering why any forger might want to produce a chess set?

Here Chandler presumably a chess player and good amateur sleuth, comes up with an interesting theory.......

Today most of the population takes an " about interesting as watching paint dry" view of chess....

However in the 1830s, things were very different.....here's Chandler...

" The very first sporting event between England and Scotland was a chess match. From 1823-28, the Edinburgh Chess Club were engaged in playing the London Chess Club at correspondence chess. Well, to be more exact, stagecoach chess. The moves were written on a pieces of paper, envelopes sealed, and then taken back and forth between Edinburgh and London by stagecoach. The Edinburgh Chess Club still has the complete set of its letters from the London Club.

Although officially it was Edinburgh CC v London CC, the newspapers of the day, The Scotsman included, were calling it the Scotland v England Chess Match and giving regular reports of its progress. Scotland won the match and to this day the opening used by Edinburgh to defeat London in the deciding game is called The Scotch Game."

I can add the match itself, was gripped with controversy, for example Scotland claimed the English had cheated, by putting a move in the envelope then trying to retract it before it had been delivered. Scandal....!

So chess was big news. How handy that the SAS has at least two offers of ancient chess pieces during these years.....Or maybe I suppose its possible they were the same pieces with a different backstory?
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Its all a bit of a saga.

So I suppose we can take a break for questions....

Do you still belive in Noggin, King of Nods?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTcStBUW2Ao

Hope you enjoy the magical video.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brilliant.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chandler has certainly scored a few hits. Let us give him one last shot....


"I am totally convinced the 'Lewis Chessmen' are not chess pieces. The BM experts keep repeating, 'they are chess pieces, they are chess pieces' every time the pieces are mentioned on the television. They know there are doubts about their authenticity, especially amongt serious chess players.

A spokesman for the BM 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.

Why don't they just admit they are wrong?"
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So Chandler doesn't reckon these are chess pieces. This is of interest as the BM has recently started referring to the Lewis hoard
(sic) and the latest research implies some or all of the hoard might not be chess pieces.

Let's take a look at Chandler's argument......
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

At this point I have to hope that Admin gives me a lot of leeway.

Normally I go for the direct and simple approach, but I hope to try and explain the difference between chess and Tafl or Hnefatafl, which is first recorded in 400 AD.

It is also played with pieces and foot soldiers......I hope some of you might find this interesting as you have an interest in the dark ages....However........I appreciate it's a bit of special pleading.....

My justification is that the latest research is now arguing along with Chandler that some pieces might be Tafl.......
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Frankly, my only interest is whether they are forgeries ie they were made in the nineteenth century rather than the thirteenth. What they are is of interest only insofar as it bears on this question. I should perhaps explain that the AE interest is not in the BM accepting them as genuine in the 1830's (a pardonable error) but in its refusal, ie its careful ignoral, to reconsider the matter now.

Interesting though if it is not labelling them as chess pieces.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hopefully we will both agree at the end that forgery is the most likely scenario.

If you read Chandler it seems to shout "forgery" at you, until he states they are tafl pieces..(why?)

So I guess we must take a look....
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"Tafl emk orr at efla" (tafl I am swift to play) begins Earl Ragnvald Kali's listing of the skills of a Norse nobleman.

This little verse is a succinct catalogue of the noble virtues. It includes playing the harp, poetry, storytelling and so on.

Tafl means table in old norse. It is occasionally mentioned in the sagas including... Beowulf. (Ha!)

By the end of the thirteenth century tafl referred to a variety of board games, such as chess (skak-tafl or "check-table"), backgammon (kvatru-tafl, introduced from the French as quatre), and fox-and- geese (ref-skak, "fox chess"). However, the term tafl was most commonly used to refer to a game known as hnefa-tafl or "King's Table. (thanks Viking Lady)

Before we get carried away, as a word of warning translators often confuse these games. They see the word Tafl and assume it must be say backgammon.....

Although I think it unlikely.... it could be that the Lewis pieces are or contain Tafl pieces.

Lets take a look.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Despite the fact that you can play modern "Tafl" on line and there are championships etc, we do not know the ancient rules.

There are some clues .....we have some archaeoligical evidence from boards with marking to central squares. There is the odd historical description of two participants playing....

The rest comes from experimental archaeology.....

The game that they have come up with, is similar to the one I know as fox and hounds.....


Basically the king (sometimes with protectors)starts in the middle...arh the marked sq....and tries to reach the edge of the board, the opposition tries to encircle it.

If the king reaches the edge it wins....
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

From the Tafl references I have discovered, it appears that the game of Tafl appears to have more than 3 (maybe 4) different type of pieces. I can find no logical reason why it should have 5 or 6.

I can find no logical reason why these pieces (with the exception of the king) would be shaped like the Lewis pieces, other than a single reference to the king being defended by maidens (queen like)?

The modern equivalent games to Tafl like "fox and hounds" are "best" played by counters.

It's all very strange, why the bishop and knights?

N8's explanation is that, unable to justify the Lewis chess pieces as chess men, the powers that be are falling back on the older (!) more mysterious game of Tafl as a last line of defence.

Of course when you argue the pieces are not Tafl, you now get told that the pieces are of a gaming set, both tafl and chess and they probably came with a board that you could turn upside down to act as either! Ingenious as Noggin.

This was going to bring me to the latest research.... However.....
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group