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  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, this is the 'ever-moving defence'. Once you are committed to a false paradigm ie that the Lewis pieces are Viking-age gaming pieces, then each new explanation is quite rational. Indeed, these 'controversies' are often portrayed as though each explanation is a refinement of what went before based on further scholarly research.

But of course if all these objections had been hurled at the problem in 1830 or even 1980 then the whole thing would be exposed. It is vital to understand that in academic matters the status quo is always more powerful than the truth. That is the nature of teaching-by-authority.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes and they are now treating the public, to the let's look at the legends of the Lewis chess hoard (sic). You thought they were chess pieces (err that's what you told us) but WE now know better, it's more interesting and mysterious (oh right) than you thought.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I received an interesting email today from a co-conspirator that advised me, before the 13th century the Norse folk did not use cavalry.

I hadn't picked this up before... thinking.. well the Normans had plenty in 1066 so ....I sort of assumed that the Norse folk must have had a mounted force, but apparently not the case.

So what is the representational significance of the Knight type figures if not cavalry?

I had previously worked out the armour on the chessmen was wrong for the time and place. (come back to this later).

This could be another important argument. Unless anyone knows different....
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

https://www.wdl.org/en/item/14236/view/1/1/

https://thornews.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/berserker-chess-piece-norway.jpg

Has anyone else noticed the strange resemblance between the pawn of the mysterious Charlemagne chess set and the beserker (AKA rook/warder) of the Lewis chess men ?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is a bit strange this resemblance.... the current fashion is to date the Charlemagne set from the 11th century (the set was originally thought to be a present to Charlemagne but this theory has since been discounted)....and the Lewis to the 12th.

How do we know this.........?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry#/media/File:Odo_bayeux_tapestry.png

It's the iconic headwear.

Mick Harper wrote:
The Bayeux Tapestry, made within about ten years of the Battle of Hastings,


The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral


THe Charlemagne chess set appear in an invenory at St Dennis Abbey in 1534. "Originally" there were 30 pieces in the inventory.

However by 1794 following the turmoil of the French Revolution..... the number drops to 16 : 2 Kings, 2 Queens, 4 Elephants, 4 Knights, 3 Chariots and 1 Foot Soldier. They are now at the Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Alongside the 16 pieces there was also the magnificent Ivory King Elephant, once presented as belonging to the "Charlemagne set". It is thought now (whoops) to come from a different origin altogether.

http://www.saint-denis.culture.fr/img/sd_601.jpg
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

THe Charlemagne chess set appear in an invenory at St Dennis Abbey in 1534. "Originally" there were 30 pieces in the inventory.
However by 1794...

Since you can't play a game of chess with only 30 pieces, it is reasonable to start on the assumption that it is this inventory that is bogus. Salting the provenance is the oldest trick in the book. What else was in the 1534 St Denis inventory?

But don't take the 1794 date as set in stone either. 1794 was the height of the Robespierrist Terror and St Denis was the centre of the French King cult. In other words if you wanted somewhere guaranteed to have things appearing and disappearing at a giddy rate, this is the year, this is the place.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What strikes me as strange is that the first great chess historian Thomas Hyde (1636-1703), an Oxford professor of Hebrew and Arabic, describes the pawns as carrying muskets. He published in 1689 and 94 his thinking on the origin of the game. Fast forward to 1794 and all that remains is a solitary foot soldier.

https://www.wdl.org/en/item/14236/view/1/1/

Hyde's account is discounted.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:

Since you can't play a game of chess with only 30 pieces, it is reasonable to start on the assumption that it is this inventory that is bogus. Salting the provenance is the oldest trick in the book. What else was in the 1534 St Denis inventory?

But don't take the 1794 date as set in stone either. 1794 was the height of the Robespierrist Terror and St Denis was the centre of the French King cult. In other words if you wanted somewhere guaranteed to have things appearing and disappearing at a giddy rate, this is the year, this is the place.


Having discounted Hyde, the belief endures that the pieces were a present to Charlemagne as a gift from Caliph Harun al-Rashid, this is the very same caliph who features in “The Thousand and One Arabian Nights” tales (this neatly resolves the problems of mixing circular and linear ).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Who started this 'belief'? Clearly, if genuine, the set could have come from anyone and been given to anyone. But if they're from the most famous early medieval Muslim to the most famous early medieval Christian the market value goes through the roof.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Who started this 'belief'? Clearly, if genuine, the set could have come from anyone and been given to anyone. But if they're from the most famous early medieval Muslim to the most famous early medieval Christian the market value goes through the roof.


The pieces were in the treasury (yes it was a treasury) of the Abbey at St Denis. In a history of the abbey dated 1625 by Jacques Doublet he notes the gift. There was a hell of a lot of other Charlemagne and Charles the Bald stuff as well as relics of St Denis and other items.

You can get an overview of the range and scale here.

http://www.medart.pitt.edu/texts/Saint-Denis/Conway2.html

The most famous manufacturer of chess sets was Jacques of London. 1795. (I will anticipate the Jacques Doublet question)
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Keep in mind there is very little archaeological evidence that the Franks ever existed independently of what orthodoxy calls the late Roman period, except coins gifts. Charlemagne issues a lot of charters etc.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote


The strange thing is that this new piece was bought for a fiver in 1964 and it then sat in a drawer. Nobody spotted its likeness to the other Lewis chessmen.

Why would they? I mean it's not like anyone has heard of or seen the Lewis Chessmen in Scotland.




A family spokesperson said: “My grandfather was an antiques dealer based in Edinburgh, and in 1964 he purchased an ivory chessman from another Edinburgh dealer. It was catalogued in his purchase ledger that he had bought an ‘Antique Walrus Tusk Warrior Chessman’. From this description it can be assumed that he was unaware he had purchased an important historic artefact. It was stored away in his home and then when my grandfather died my mother inherited the chess piece. My mother was very fond of the Chessman as she admired its intricacy and quirkiness. She believed that it was special and thought perhaps it could even have had some magical significance. For many years it resided in a drawer in her home where it had been carefully wrapped in a small bag. From time to time, she would remove the chess piece from the drawer in order to appreciate its uniqueness.”


What are the odds of two (!) antique dealers situated in Edinburgh, (where 11 Lewis chess pieces are displayed) classifying a piece as an ‘Antique Walrus Tusk Warrior Chessman’ but not realising that its part of the set?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sothebys wrote:
“Based upon a close visual comparative study with the extant chessmen in UK public collections, and in consideration of views expressed by leading academics in the field of medieval ivories… we propose that there is a strong case that the present warder probably formed part of the Lewis hoard itself.”

It adds that there are “clear parallels… accepting the point that all the pieces have differences from each other… The present warder is the only known chessman of the Lewis type which has not been cleaned and this clearly sets it apart from those in the hoard.

“It is a logical deduction that the present warder could be one of the lost pieces… However, in the absence of a recorded find site… there is and will continue to be healthy scholarly debate on this subject.”

Alexander Kader, Sotheby’s co-worldwide head of European sculpture and works of art, said: “There is certainly more to the story of this warder still to be told, about his life over the last 188 years since he was separated from his fellow chessmen.”

They are not sure. Notice that they are saying the new piece is different, but that does not matter as many of the pieces are different eg of the so called existing Lewis chessmen, (gaming pieces) all the warders look forward, except one who nose and glance points to the side. Err...Castling was invented according to ortho in the 14th century, so our sideways glancing warder is unlikely to have been contemplating castling, unless the pieces are after that date......
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

“Based upon a close visual comparative study with the extant chessmen in UK public collections, and in consideration of views expressed by leading academics in the field of medieval ivories"


I was not consulted on authenticity, in case you were all wondering.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 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