Originally posted by Shallow BlueNot just the Northern Isles but the Western Isles as well. The vast majority of our placenames on Lewis have Norse roots rather than Gaelic.
Yes, and their influence can still be felt on the Northern island groups more than in the rest of Scotland. Hence my suggestion: if these are Norse-crafted chess pieces which ended up in Scotland, Shetland (or possibly the Orkneys) is the first origin which springs to mind. Iceland? Well, it's possible... but something a bit closer to home seems more likely.
Richard
The Vikings left there mark in place names all over Britain.
Dunbar, Tranent, [East] Linton from the Lothians were Viking names.
Any tourists can jump on a boat at Queensferry and see the Viking graves
in the Firth of Forth.
I (and many others) have always maintained they were not chess pieces
and this now seems to have been accepted by all the experts.
The latest Lewis exhibition had them displayed on a Hnefatafl board.
Their origin has never really bothered me but I dug up quite
a few details when looking for proof that a scam had taken place.
The pieces were all white, every one of them.
Forrest dyed a handful of them red and passed them off as chess pieces
in the 1830's just about the same time as William Lewis
wrote a book about the Edinburgh v London corres match.
The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in their minutes of 11 March 1833
clearly express severe doubt they came from Lewis.
I'd put a lot of faith in these guys who included Sir Walter Scott.
They had met and talked with Forrest (who was selling the pieces).
His explanation from where they came from did not stand up under
examination.
So the Scots allowed the British Museum to buy the pieces from
under their very noses at a knocked down price from Forrest.
(and you can just see Sir Walter letting that happen if he thought they were
genuine. This man lived and breathed Scotland.)
And guess what happened next?
in 1835 Forrest turns up with 10 more pieces!
Still The Society of Antiquaries won't have nothing to do with him.
So to prove they come from Lewis he says he will go to Lewis
and find another piece.
The Society say no. You stay here, give someone else the exact
location and send him instead.
Enter Forrest's mate, a Mr Sharpe(!) and he is gone and back again in 3 days!
In 1840 travelling on 'good' roads it took 3 days to travel from
Edinburgh to London one way.
It took 4½ hours one way from Edinburgh to Glasgow.
This lad goes from Edinburgh to the North of Scotland by horse.
gets a boat to the Isle of Lewis (which today takes 3 hours to reach from
the mainland on a diesel powered ferry.)
He crosses Lewis to the exact spot, kicks the sand about and finds
a chess piece (a Bishop) he then returns to Edinburgh all in 3 days!
Now we have 11 pieces. The Society rather than let the BM get their
paws on these buy them.
Meanwhile in the 1850's some 'experts' are at last are examing the
pieces and state some of the pieces have been very recently dyed and
they are most likely NOT chess pieces. (No Rooks ).
Sir Frederic Madden who purchased the pieces for the BM was
having none of that, his reputation etc etc.
So the pieces remained chess pieces and the fleecing of the tourists began.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes but none of those places was actually under Norse rule late into Scottish history.
The Vikings left there mark in place names all over Britain.
Dunbar, Tranent, [East] Linton from the Lothians were Viking names.
Any tourists can jump on a boat at Queensferry and see the Viking graves
in the Firth of Forth.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Does the emphasis on the surname imply that the scammers chose the name of a contemporary chess author for their location? That would seem a lazy sort of conspiracy. Is this really more plausible than that they were found in Uig, a stopover on their trade route? In fact, 'Uig' isn't Gaelic so I'd bet it's a Norse word.
The pieces were all white, every one of them.
Forrest dyed a handful of them red and passed them off as chess pieces
in the 1830's just about the same time as William [b]Lewis
wrote a book about the Edinburgh v London corres match. [/b]
Originally posted by greenpawn34Agreed, that is very unlikely. It would be interesting to know if they stood to gain financially by withholding some of the pieces for a future private sale? Perhaps that's why they continued to 'find' more pieces. I don't know and in any case it might well be true that they're not even chess pieces but I don't see how that could be grounds to doubt the location.
...
in 1835 Forrest turns up with 10 more pieces!
Still The Society of Antiquaries won't have nothing to do with him.
So to prove they come from Lewis he says he will go to Lewis
and find another piece.
The Society say no. You stay here, give someone else the exact
location and send him instead.
Enter Forrest's mate, a Mr Sharpe(!) and he is gone and back again in 3 days!
As for the stories about a cow unearthing the find and so on, those are certainly apocryphal. But William Wallace didn't really wear a kilt: that doesn't mean he wasn't Scottish or didn't exist.
The facts behind the Lewis pieces may indeed be more interesting
than the myth. It would be great to discover where Forest actually got them from.
The more one looks into it the more one comes to the conclussion that there
is no actual proof at all they came from Lewis. None.
The British Museum once told me because they cannot prove they came from
Lewis it does not mean they never came from Lewis.
By that reckoning....
I cannot prove they came from Egypt, it does not mean they never came from Egypt.
In 1826 Forrest was trying to flog off these pieces
as part of Bonnie Prince Charlie's treasure dug up in Roxburgh.
No buyers there so in the wake of the Edinburgh - London match
dyed a few of them red...the rest is history.
True William Wallace never wore a kilt till the movies dressed him up in one.
Same as Greyfriars Bobby, another myth. The only record anyone can find
of a dog in greyfriars is in the Heriots school notices telling the kids to stop
feeding the stray dogs in the kirk.
(No dog is going to stray too far from a free meal.)
Afraid to say Disney's version with a court case and freedom of the city etc etc
just did not happen.
Don't blame me - blame the Edinburgh Evening News Journalist who
revealed it was all a scam about 15 years ago.
(The Loch Ness Monster is still real .)
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by pootstickAr, but William Wallace wasn't a true Scotsman - his spurtle circumambulated his porridge deiseil rather than widdershins. Also, he didn't believe the Lewis Chessmen came from Lewis nor were chessmen, and to make matters worse, as White he opened with the Colle. He must've been half Saes.
As for the stories about a cow unearthing the find and so on, those are certainly apocryphal. But William Wallace didn't really wear a kilt: that doesn't mean he wasn't Scottish or didn't exist.
Richard
Originally posted by greenpawn34It's an intriguing mystery. I think I'll look in at the Uig Historical Society next time and see if they have any real info on the local finder.
The facts behind the Lewis pieces may indeed be more interesting
than the myth. It would be great to discover where Forest actually got them from.
...
Nessie lives and breathes. I know this because I once saw a thorough documentary starring Ted Danson.