Calls For Return Of Lewis Chess Set - Scotland Or Iom?

[Skeddan]

Freggyragh,

 

Who do you think could have been the owner? There are surely not taht many possibilities?

 

I agree that there is little awareness of KoMI. Lots and lots of people know about the Lewis chessmen though. Somehow KoMI just drops out of nearly all the histories.

do

IMO its not about promoting tourism (though that is a side effect). I think the whole region which was KoMI would benefit from promotion and proper display - perhaps in BM and touring. But the point is that this is not and will not be properly displayed as is - by calling for its return (even if doesn't happen) there is leverage to get these given a better display which is informative and also for these to visit IoM (and possibly Lewis if it comes under MNH and Manxies feel that's what should happen). Otherwise forget it. It will just be 'Scottish' or in a case in the BM without anything much at all that could be told.

 

IMO the issue has a great deal to do with Manks heritage. Look at the arguments between Scotland and Westminster over this. Has IoM been mentioned once? Has KoMI ever occured to anyone? Has the Culture Minister from Westminster even heard of KoMI? These little chessmen could do huge things for cultural awareness of KoMI - extending to heritage of IoM, and the Isles. Just letting them stay in London or go to Edinburgh does nothing. Having a discussion about them going to Lewis (which isn't going to happen under Scotland or Westminster) is just a pipe dream and purely academic hypothetical discussion. WHat is not unrealistic is to challenge Scotland for its claim to the chessmen - and make alternative proposals for what should be done with them.

[Freggyragh]

I see your point Skeddan - but ownership of the chessmen by the British Museum is not in doubt. I don't think Norway, Mann or Ireland has any realistic legal claim to ownership. But it would be great to see them here on loan.

 

The SNP is campaigning for their return not because they have any greater wish to promote the history of the KoTI than Westminster, but because they believe that the huge amount of money that is spent on culture (eg BBC, museums, Olympics, sport, defence, etc) is subsidizing London at Scotland's expense. I am not that bothered about who is subsidizing who - Lewis may end up keeping us all going anyway when the oil has gone and the wind farms are built .

[VinnieK]

We don't know if they were treasured by their original owners, or played a part in their lives - what makes you so sure that they weren't? They certainly have a very strong link to the local culture.

 

The Chessmen occupy a similar position in the local culture in Lewis as, say a piece of Norman or Roman jewellery has to a specific town in England - they're artefacts of a dominant culture that had a historical presence in the region. Certainly they have relevance, but they're no more uniquely connected with or belong to that local culture than they are and do anywhere else. A particularly fine example of Italian manufactured amphorae found in Sussex is as much part of the culture of, say, France, Italy, Spain or Turkey, as it is a part of Sussex's local culture, with little to recommend it belonging in Sussex other than it happened to turn up there. Were this an artefact that related directly to the Norse presence in Lewis, such as a document, or a unique example of local manufacture influenced by Norse forms, then a case could start to be made for its return there on the basis of cultural ownership, but this isn't so: What we have in the Chessmen is an example of Norse craftsmanship and belongs more properly to the story of medieval Scandinavian expansion in general than it does the specific history or culture of Lewis.

 

Could it be that the Chessmen were never lost, but actually Macleod family heirlooms - sold during the height of the clearances?

 

Perhaps, but perhaps is not a convincing argument. It could just as easily be said that perhaps the chessmen were the posession of a wealthy merchant that and were stolen en route to somewhere else, being hidden by the thieves.

 

In any case, what if we could say that they were genuine Macleod family heirlooms. In this case their connection with local culture, identity and history is still indirect at best, being curios more than important artefacts. As an analogy, a piece of furniture that's passed through generations of the royal family has little real connection with the UK's culture and history - it's nothing more than the posession of a private individual who happens to be a public figure. By way of contrast, the British crown does have public significance, being a public symbol of power in the land.

 

I know the British Museum bought their chessmen - and I am not saying that the Lewis has any legal entitlement to these pieces - but the British Museum is funded by the UK taxpayer, not Londoners.

 

That's why they're currently in the UK's premier national museum, which happens to be in London.

[Skeddan]

I see your point Skeddan - but ownership of the chessmen by the British Museum is not in doubt. I don't think Norway, Mann or Ireland has any realistic legal claim to ownership. But it would be great to see them here on loan.

 

The SNP is campaigning for their return not because they have any greater wish to promote the history of the KoTI than Westminster, but because they believe that the huge amount of money that is spent on culture (eg BBC, museums, Olympics, sport, defence, etc) is subsidizing London at Scotland's expense. I am not that bothered about who is subsidizing who - Lewis may end up keeping us all going anyway when the oil has gone and the wind farms are built .

THe legal question could be interesting - but that isn't someting to get into here. As I said the point is a competing claim to that of Scotland. I don't think Scotland has put any legal claim as such - and may well get concessions despite not having a legal claim (assuming IoM just remains completely aloof in all this).

 

Salmond may be playing squeaky wheel - if Manxies did a bit of that rather than be doggedly self-effacing then the history and culture might be a bit less trampled on and neglected.

[monasqueen]

I can't see what the argument is - the originals were legitimately purchased, and are safe in London, and provided that they are readily available for viewing, and well labelled (this may be a problem area - why not write to them to point out any grouses about it?) then why not let them stay there.

 

There are not that many small museums now that exhibit original items - far too precious.

 

It is relatively cheap to produce exact replicas, and any museum with an interest (whether Edinburgh, Lewis, Norway, Ireland or IOM) should be given the opportunity to acquire a set of good copies for display.

 

The pieces (or their replicas) can then be seen by the maximum number of interested people. Those that are not satisfied by the exact replica can toddle off to London, whose museum owns (and hopefully displays) the originals.

[Freggyragh]

The British Museum is funded and answerable to the UK Department of Culture. The chessmen are in held in London for the benefit of Londoners and visitors to London, rather than in Lewis for the benefit of na Leodhasaich and visitors. Why would any Manx poster think this is right?

[Skeddan]

I can't see what the argument is - the originals were legitimately purchased, and are safe in London,

If someone purchases stolen goods that does not give them legal title even if the item was legitimately purchased. I'm not saying the chessmen were stolen (or even perhaps misappropriated) - but the point is that just having purchased an item isn't a conclusive argument.

 

It is also worth taking into account that there are 93 pieces in all - 11 in Edinburgh and 82 in London. So there are already a bunch in Edinburgh and LOTS in London - far more than 1 chess set. Why not let the Manx Museum and Lewis have a share also - maybe a dozen each? From what I can remember I don't think all 82 were even on display in London, just a selection of these. Anyway, seems a bit greedy to hog them all.

 

Realistically it is unlikely that ALL the Sodor Chessmen (or Manxie Chessmen as these are also otherwise known) will be returned to IoM, but there is no reason why a dozen or so might not be able to make a home run and escape the clutches of Westminster. Perhaps some replicas might be used to help them give the guards the slip - good plan!

[VinnieK]

The British Museum is funded and answerable to the UK Department of Culture. The chessmen are in held in London for the benefit of Londoners and visitors to London, rather than in Lewis for the benefit of na Leodhasaich and visitors. Why would any Manx poster think this is right?

 

Because many more people are going to visit London and be able to see and enjoy them there then would ever visit the Isle of Lewis, Chessmen or no.

[monasqueen]

Realistically it is unlikely that ALL the Sodor Chessmen (or Manxie Chessmen as these are also otherwise known) will be returned to IoM,

 

They were never in the IOM, so how can they be returned here?

[Skeddan]

They were never in the IOM, so how can they be returned here?

The Sodor Chessmen are date to abt. 1150-1200 and are in unused condition.

They were found in Lewis, which was part of Sodor, which was part of the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles in this period

(e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mann_and_the_Isles)

 

Various bits of territory got carved off KoMI - well just about everything except for the Isle of Man itself.

It is just by convention it is called Isle of Man - it is not a 'successor state' to KoMI as such, but rather a continuation of it.

(e.g. the Bishop is still the Bishop of Sodor and Mann).

Hence they should be returned to KoMI (now known as IoM) because that is where they were at the time they were buried.

 

(This probably wasn't very clear in the original post.)

[VinnieK]

Hence they should be returned to KoMI (now known as IoM) because that is where they were at the time they were buried.

 

(This probably wasn't very clear in the original post.)

 

That's pretty tenuous. By similar reasoning, more or less anything discovered in France that dates from 50BC to the 5th Century AD should be shipped off to Italy, since at that time they were a province of the Roman Empire.

[Freggyragh]

Skeddan - I know you know a fair bit about the law on this kind of thing - but your argument seems to be a bit far fetched to me.

 

Incidently, having travelled extensively in the Hebrides I can say that the Islanders have a relatively strong regard for the Manx - I was in a pub in Skye when Mark Cavendish won his commonwealth gold medal - and the locals were all cheering for the Manxman over the Scot. I doubt if their feelings stretch so far as to agree to us taking the chessmen.

 

I like your phrase 'Sodor Chessmen' - but I still see them as 'Lewis Chessmen' - but either is better than 'The London Chessmen'.

[Freggyragh]

... or 'Edinburgh Chessmen'!

[Skeddan]

That's pretty tenuous. By similar reasoning, more or less anything discovered in France that dates from 50BC to the 5th Century AD should be shipped off to Italy, since at that time they were a province of the Roman Empire.

 

Skeddan - I know you know a fair bit about the law on this kind of thing - but your argument seems to be a bit far fetched to me.

 

The argument was that these were originally in KoMI and I was clarifying the point about 'returning' in response to monasqeen's post that they never were in IoM. I've not given a legal argument. There is one, but it would be a bit tenous and not straightforward, and so haven't detailed this. One might have to consider who might have been the owner - or intended recipient, whether they were lost or deliberately hidden for recovery, Treaty of Perth, treasure trove, intertemporal international law, EU Law, etc. etc.

 

I'll say it again - the slippery slope argument is not at issue here - it is the Sodor chessmen that is the current topic being discussed by Culture Ministers - not some new principle to apply to all cultural artefacts.

 

Also remember there are 93 pieces. It is not necessarily an 'either-or'.

 

VinnieK - it might be right for some items to stay in France, but also for some to be considered as 'Roman' and part of Roman history etc. Even if in France they shouldn't be presented as being part of Gaulish history. Equally Sodor chessmen should not be 'Scots' or 'British' but are Norse-Gael. The better analogy might be with unique Minoan items found in Corsica, now being displayed in Brussels as EU items, with the French wanting them to go to Paris as these came from French territory. In that case I could see the argument for these going to Corsica and Crete - but not Brussels or Paris - at least not any more than maybe the argument for the Smithsonian or British Museum. I think the claim to keep these in London or Edinburgh is similar.

 

What is relevant is whether the argument that some of Sodor chessmen be returned to IoM (with some to Lewis) is any better or worse than the current argument that they should go to Edinburgh. I think there is an objection to the Scottish claim on the grounds that there is greater cultural claim for these to be in IoM and Sodor and treated as part of Norse-Gael heritage. That is not so much legal argument - it is a cultural one - and I think is a valid and legitimate competing claim to that presented by the Scots Cultural Minister.

 

That cultural argument is an important one (and itself may be a legal one under EU law, especially with Lisbon Treaty). Neither Scotland nor London have provided proper care and regard in exhibiting these - and the call for their return is valid in that respect. To return to the Minoan analogy, consider that such items were displayed with complete disregard for these being Minoan - or even any mention of that culture, civilisation and heritage, but were instead simply presented as 'found in Corsica'.

 

In that case one might conjecture that France may have political reasons for obscuring anything which shows Corisca has an cultural and political heritage independent from France. In the case of KoMI and the UK such a view might have even more foundation. One doesn't have to be a nationalist to find such disregard and effacement objectionable - whether it is for political reasons or simply lack of concern and respect for a nation's culture and history.

 

IMO the Sodor chessmen are part of the culture and history of the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, and in the current discussions between Edinburgh and London, there is good reason to argue that that should not be overlooked. Calling for these to be returned to IoM (and Lewis) is IMO the most effective way of doing this.

 

(Also should bear in mind that SNP support is particularly important in the Isles, and politically this point may be one which SNP and Salmond might accept - i.e. the Norse-Gael Manks-Isles cultural recognition. With IoM participating in the discussions, the goalposts might then be moved to where they should be).

[Skeddan]

OK folks, here is what might be put as a legal argument:

 

1. Here is the basics of what I can gather about the ‘chain of title’:

 

The ‘Sodor chessmen’ were discovered in 1830, by a Calum nan Sprot, aka Malcolm Macleod who handed over to a Captain Ryrie, or Pirie, who sold them for £30 on Macleod's behalf to an Edinburgh antiques dealer called TA Forrest. They were then sold by Forrest to the British Museum for 80 guineas.

 

Forrest kept 10 pieces in reserve, which he sold to a Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe. Sharpe somehow inexplicably also acquired one more piece, a bishop making 11. Sharpe's collection was bought by another antiquarian and was then sold again at auction in 1888 by Christie's to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.The Society donated the figures to the Royal Museum of Scotland, which is now the National Museum of Scotland.

 

2. Here is the legal issue in very broad terms:

 

When they were originally found it seems they should have been treated as ‘treasure trove’. The laws on this in Scotland and England (and IoM) are broadly similar. The finder – or anyone who comes to learn about a valuable find – is obliged to report the matter to a coroner in England or Procurator Fiscal in Scotland.

 

Going by an article of 1858, I take the principles discussed in relation to Scotland at this time to have been applicable in 1830. That is that “every ancient relic, from a bone pin to a gold torque” must be treated in this manner.

 

Once the find is reported an inquest is held to determine whether the proeprty was lost – e.g. dropped and mislaid (in which case until recently it would then generally belong to the finder - but that depends), or whether it had been buried intentionally and hidden for subsequent recovery (as seems to be accepted as having been the case with the Sodor chessmen).

 

In a case where the treasure was intentionally hidden, then provided the true owner was dead and the heirs undiscoverable, the property would then belong to the Crown. Otherwise it would be returned to the owner - or the rightful heir of the owner.

 

Firstly there was no inquest. Hence, it seems until this has been done, legal title to this is unsettled. The British Museum should have known better than to purchase items with such dodgy provenance.

 

If they were buried intentionally do they then belong to the Crown? Not necessarily.

 

Dr Barbara Crawford, who is a member of the Norwegian Academy, suggested the pieces might have been a gift from the archbishop of Norway to the bishop of Man.

 

This seems quite likely for various reasons which can be detailed.

 

If so, the new Bishop of Sodor and Mann would be the heir to the previous bishop - and it is quite easy to trace him. See new island Bishop

 

Even if not the bishop it would seem the owner would have been the King of Mann and the Isles or an important figure in KoMI. At the least it would have been someone in KoMI – whether in Lewis, elsewhere in Sodor or in Mann itself. If that person were without an heir, the Manks Crown would then have been their heir. Thus in such an inquest, this heir is discoverable - and arguably it would now go to the Manx Govt.

 

So, as far as I can see, neither the National Museum of Scotland nor the British Museum has proper legal title to any of the Sodor chessmen (even though they might have bought them in a dodgy deal). They belong either to the Crown or, I would argue, the Bishop of Sodor and Mann or perhaps Manx Govt. If both bishop and IoM govt join together, or the one assigns any rights they might have to the other, then there would be a pretty strong legal case to assert a claim as the heir to whoever the Sodor chessmen belonged to. IMO from what I can gather, the best claim seems to be that of the Bishop of Sodor and Mann.

 

Hence in legal terms I think there is a lot more in favour of these going to IoM (the seat of the Bishop of Sodor and Mann and Manx Govt) than for these to stay in the British Museum or National Museum of Scotland as at present, since neither has valid legal title to the Sodor chessmen.

 

IMO that's a good and perfectly respectable basis for a claim to the Sodor and Mann chessmen. (I think better than anything advanced by the Scottish Minister - or any counter-argument to this put forward by the British Museum or Westminster).