IMAGINING that the Lewis chessmen belonged to someone in Lewis opens up all sorts of other possibilities. A belief that the hoard was a merchant’s stock implied that the chessmen were brand new when lost, and all from the same source. If the hoard belonged to a great man, then the pieces may have been of some age when buried and might be from more than one source. They might not all be the same date, and include pieces which are substitutes for ones lost or broken. A recent research project by the authors has considered these very issues.
So far no evidence for wear and tear on the pieces, consistent with them being used in gaming, has been detected. This is not surprising. Walrus ivory is a very tough substance and it would arguably take constant playing over many years for such wear to be observable.
Differences in the pieces resulting from the work of different craftsmen and workshops appears a much easier thing to trace, although there are obvious problems in trying to compare, say, a bishop with a warder, since they both have different clothing and equipment. This is why it is important to concentrate on the faces. The authors supposed that craftsmen carving chessmen, day in and day out, would tend to give them the same faces, in the same way as a cartoonist nowadays, or the carver of holiday souvenirs. Grouping the face-pieces by their faces would clearly be a very subjective business if we relied solely on a visual examination. Instead, we have employed Caroline Wilkinson’s skills as a forensic anthropologist to make a comparative study, assessing and comparing each face with the aid of magnification and measurements. The aim was to characterise and describe the different faces, sorting them into groups, principally by checking the proportions of mouths, noses and eyes, both vertically and horizontally.
It was possible to group 50 of the 59 face-pieces on this basis. The remaining nine were either too damaged and indistinct or too different from the identified groups to be included in any of them.
GROUP A British Museum warder showing Group A face (BM 116). (Source:© The Trustees of the British Museum)
A long straight nose with a flat base, inferiorly placed nostrils and a high nasal root (between the eyes); round open eyes; a down-turned mouth; and a long naso-labial distance (the distance between the nose and the upper lip). Similarity in vertical and horizontal proportions between all the pieces. [Fig. 14]
GROUP B National Museums Scotland bishop showing Group B face (NMS 26).
A bulbous nose with round alae (the fleshy part of the nose surrounding the nostrils) and visible nostrils; a wide short face; round open eyes; a down-turned mouth; a retrusive chin; and asymmetrical eye heights. Similarity in vertical proportions between all the pieces, but variations in horizontal proportions between them. [Fig. 15]
GROUP C National Museums Scotland queen showing Group C face (NMS 22).
A long narrow nose with an up-turned base, flat alae and visible nostrils; round open eyes; a downturned mouth; an infraorbital crease (crease below the eyes); a clear philtrum (column-like hollow between the nose and the upper lip); and an upright facial profile. Similarity in vertical proportions between all the pieces, but variations in horizontal proportions between them. [Fig. 16]
GROUP D National Museums Scotland king showing Group D face (NMS 19).
A wide short face; a straight nose with a rounded tip, round alae and visible nostrils; round open eyes; a down-turned mouth; an infraorbital crease; a clear philtrum; nasolabial creases; and an overbite (malocclusion where the upper teeth are more prominent than the lower teeth). Similarity in vertical and horizontal proportions between all the pieces. [Fig. 17]
GROUP E National Museums Scotland warder showing Group E face (NMS 28).
A defined nose with straight flat profile, visible nostrils and shaped nasal base; round open eyes; and an infraorbital crease. Similarity in vertical and horizontal proportions, except for the one bishop in the group. [Fig. 18].
It is our contention that these groups represent the work of five different craftsmen. If we also grade the face-pieces by size to apportion them into four sets, we produce the following distribution pattern:
GROUPING OF LEWIS CHESSMEN BY GROUPS AND HEIGHT
|
SET 1 |
SET 2 |
SET 3 |
SET 4 |
Kings |
AD |
DX |
BB |
CX |
Queens |
CC |
DD |
BB |
CX |
Bishops |
CDDD |
CCDE |
BCCC |
BBBD |
Knights |
AAAX |
AAAX |
ACXX |
BCC* |
Warders |
AA** |
ADEX |
BCCE |
DX** |
X = ungrouped pieces * = missing pieces
Since there are no clear divisions between our putative sets, this may be evidence that most of the chessmen were manufactured in the one workshop with four or more master craftsmen working on ivory chessmen at any one time. It is possible the workshop received a commission to make four chess sets, or that the same patron gave the workshop repeat orders over a period of several years.
The latter scenario might help to explain the range of design details in the individual pieces. Some things, like the bishops’ mitres and the shields carried by the knights and warders, seem to reflect changing fashions over a period of time extending from the mid-twelfth century into the early thirteenth century. This does not mean that any of the pieces are necessarily as early as the mid-twelfth century, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that some are later than has hitherto been supposed. In the case of the bishops, two with mitres with low sides, relatively high peaks and a peaked front bottom edge, would seem to belong in the early thirteenth century [Figs 4.26 and 4.30]. The same is true for those knights and warders with relatively narrow shields with a straight top edge [cf. Fig. 14].
At least two of the face-pieces which could not be grouped are particularly deserving of further consideration. One, a king [Fig. 4.7], assigned to Set 2, seems so different in the appearance and large size of its head that it can readily be imagined to be a piece from another workshop, perhaps even another centre of manufacture. The warder has a unique type of kettle-hat, carinated, and seemingly covered with cloth with diamond-shaped piercings [Fig. 4.55]. It is difficult to parallel, but broadly similar kettle-hats are depicted in the Morgan Picture Bible in the Morgan Library in New York. It is believed to have been produced in Paris in the 1240s.
This king and warder may well be replacements for missing or broken pieces. The warder may also be used as evidence for how long the chessmen remained in use before being hidden – certainly the 1240s, if not even later.
Another thing which is evident from a detailed study of the chessmen is that they are not all of the same quality of design and execution. The craftsman who carved the pieces with Group D faces (for instance, Fig. 4.4) was clearly a man of very considerable artistic ability, producing chessmen which can be regarded as works of art. The crudest pieces, with grotesque faces and awkwardly executed clothing, were produced by the craftsman who did the Group C faces (for example, Fig. 4.58). In producing one of his bishops, the latter showed so little understanding of what he was representing that he carved him with a chasuble to one side of his crosier but not the other [Fig. 4.25].
There are other errors of execution which may be attributed to a busy workshop working under pressure to fulfil orders. These include a knight and a bishop whose hair has not been properly completed [Fig. 4.63], and a knight with a deep groove in the neck of his horse caused by over-cutting when the piece was first blocked out.
The scarcity and value of walrus ivory is indicated by the evident desire not to waste any part of the tusks, which might have averaged about 400 to 500 millimetres in length. Walrus tusks have a dense hard outer layer of dentine and a core of less dense, sponge-like or granular dentine. The best results were achieved by carving all of the details of the chessmen in the outer dentine, and certainly the faces. In many of the pieces the division between outer and inner dentine can be clearly seen, the former appearing smooth and cream coloured, the latter rougher and darker. In Fig. 19, of a king, it can be seen that his face and throne are carved in the outer dentine, while most of the rest of his head and body are cut into the inner dentine.
Considerable skill was involved in getting the maximum number of chessmen out of a tusk, sometimes two pieces from one segment of a tusk. One of the queens [Fig. 20] has one side of her throne attached as a separate piece, probably by the original maker. This may demonstrate the lengths to which he was prepared to go to utilise an inconveniently small piece of tusk.
Not all the chessmen are made of ivory. At least three, including a warder in the collection of National Museums Scotland [Fig. 4.48] have been carved from whales’ teeth which may have been regarded as a cheaper material.
