Lewis Chess Men: Fact or Fiction?

 The Isle of Lewis Chessmen are some of the most controversial discoveries in chess. They were discovered on the Isle of Lewis in 1831. They were supposedly found in Uig Bay, where a farmer found them in a sack after a cow ripped it open. No one knows how the sack got there.

1. Nobody truly knows where they came from. There are many stories, but absolutly NO certainty. There are even some which claim they are not chess pieces at all, but some form of celtic, chess-like game.

2. Nobody believes the stories which do exist, and question everything about them.

3.Whats all this about Bishops not being pieces until 1500? In the original game (The one from India/Persia), there were six different pieces. So guess how many different pieces the Lewis Chess Men have? Six! Just because it was not yet called a Bishop does not mean they did not look/act alike! the argument could be made, "Then what is his massive hat? Not to mension the staff!". But does a Counseller not also have similar items? Items showing his position. In the original Indian game, that's what he was: a Counseler. And anyway, that is another fact which makes them so interesting; It is one of the first known sets with pieces looking similar to a Bishop.

  And in the Scottish Museum, the Rooks there are not original Isle of Lewis, no. But the Scottish have 11 Chess Men: 3 Queens, 1 Knight on horseback, 2 Bishops, 2 Kings, and 2 Knights. We have 5 different Men here, excluding pawns. so one must be a Rook, right? The 2 Knights then have to be rooks. So why are they castle-like structures in the Scottish museum? they only had 2 Rooks. That is not enough for a complete set, and it would be quite confusing to have one side with original Rooks and the other with castles. So they went with all castles. Seems logical to me.

  So why question them? It is conviction that they are not original chess men. Some claim they are a set of pieces for the celtic game Tafl, with 16 pawn-like pieces, attacking a King, with 8 foot soldiers. This could be perfectly true, but they can also be used for chess. But if they are not game pieces, what are they? Little play things for children? They have too much effort in them for that. Small statues? Why have 78 tiny statues when you could have a good sized one? They almost have to be some form of game pieces, they are the right size, but there is space for them to be something else. All of the stories say they are chessmen, so that pulls a little weight.

 Do these things mean they ARE chessmen? No.

Do these things mean they ARE NOT chessmen? No.

 The only certainty about the Isle of Lewis Chessmen is that we will never know what they were originally made for, or under what circumstances, but we will never know.

I saw them when they were displayed in America two years ago. Whatever they are, they're pretty darn cool.  I especially like the Berserkers.

Pretty obvious to you?

Hmm...

"obvious"

oh boy 2Q.  thats a let down.  you didn't even know they were 'lewis' -instead of 'louis'.  and now you know MORE than the archealogists that dug them up and spent their time researching them.

stick to fashion.

cuz you never answered my question (in that thread)...

documentary?

ok.

link??

Well I'm glad we got THAT out of the way.  You have NO idea how much sleep I have lost over that documentary. "Hear-ye, Here-ye, let it be known from this day forward to all lands far and near that an official decision has been concluded by a 16 gay person. Its "official". Its a hoax because we should "trust" troll 2Q.  Holy Crap!!  you mean he didn't start another thread about it??  Has someone notified Chess.com about this ??  No Thread?   Oh I gotta go lay down.  I'm SOOo sorry

thats a hoot!

you make it sound like the just started digging and burying their valuable prized "artwork" on purpose... NO surely they didn't .. 

actually there's some really interested googling about why archaeologist have to dig things out of the ground in the first place.

the answers to that vary by place... but lets just say funk have the tendency to create actually layers of dirt, dust, trash, etc in large amounts of time.

a more complete answer can be found at the "strait dope"'

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/813/how-come-archaeological-ruins-are-always-underground

but my point IS that the lack of finding ALL the chess peices is hardly conclusive. I occasionally lose chess peices from time to time.  and surely in future years they would struggle to find a whole set (and a board)....

instead a few spare pawns would be proof enough that I diligently played chess as I become more absentminded; and prone to lose a piece or so.  later in life they might clean my house of the chess set; not finding the well hidden "lost pieces"

 I'm NOT convinced 2Q that you can prove that they weren't.   if you decide that the experts are wrong- when they can't find a chess board or carved instruction on how they played chess on the isle of chess.

you're going to need a lot of aluminum.

science works by making theories than allowing people to either prove or disprove them.

your skeptcism is scientific, but you disbelief isn't.  you can't simply disbelieve something because they are a very nagging questions.  science  is full of these.   does "gravity" not exist because scientist can't exactly explain it?

it those pieces aren't chess then what are they- and where is the proof?

that's the kind of debate science allows.

I'm with Not Mark Twain on this one. If they're not chess pieces, they are sure doing a bloody fine job of looking like such. Let's see, you've got an obvious King, Queen, Bishop, Knight,....Perhaps they represent an earlier stage of European chess we know little about?

It's just a three years old thread. It does a very nice troll thread but that's not what it was originally for. It is a way to get some attention from it.

I did.

its not convincing. though a little skepticism is warranted.

the 12th century was a long, long time ago.

What should chess pieces look like? They are representations of what the pieces are. Any and all chess sets have that in common. The form, is a matter of taste or when organizations come into it, by rule.

In the other topic, I linked to a couple of old chess sets that share the same form, but different than these or what are more familiar now. Just look at the various types of sets there have been over the years. That style is as easily recognizable as a chess set as pretty much any other style.

Lack of a board doesn't mean anything either. Boards can be made out of a lot of materials that would never show up in the archeological record.

Nope, I might do it later. It's gonna take some pretty convincing argumentation to change my mind though. But I'm all for finding out new facts.

look at the shields on the Lewis chess pieces ,possibly norman but

i see viking , now most accept as known vikings raided many islands Lewis being one of them , a seafaring race , islands often had strategic importance ,

ok time to myth this

vikings came to Lewis the chessmen represent this time

none of this is proven , take it with a pinch of salt

The Lewis Chessmen represent a time when Lewis was attacked by vikings

If so, Vikings didn't traditionally have kite shields, so they got that bit wrong (AFAIK)

 I'm gonna believe THESE guys before I believe 2Q.                                                                                                                                

cheers ed , im thinking maybe they have but i appreciate the questioning , brb see if i can find similar shaped viking shields

all round on this page still looking

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=viking%20shields&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=viking%20shields&sc=8-14&sp=-1&sk=

tenuos

id say mainly round , but the few pics ive found dont back me up