CHESMAYNE
Midi:
Someone - Melody: “Didn’t I Blow”
Chatrang
Persian: one of the early
versions of chess derived from the Sanskrit word ‘Chaturanga’. The Arabic word ‘Shatranj’
was used after the 7th century conquest of Persia. Early versions of chess: Sanskrit:
Quadripartite: divided into or consisting of four parts - involving four
participants. This word was used to
describe the Indian army of the Vedic
period in which a platoon had 5 foot soldiers, 3
on horseback, 1 chariot and 1
elephant.
Chaturanga was an early version of chess invented
in India around the 6th century.
Chatrang was the name the Persians used for the game when they modified
the rules during the 7th century.
On reaching Arabia the name of the game was modified yet again to Shatranj
when Islamic players dominated the game. The Sanskrit name ‘Chaturanga’ means
‘quadripartite’.
Let us compare here the Chatrang, ancestor of the European Chess, and the Xiangqi,
the Chinese Chess.
COMMON CHARACTERS
In both games, one can
find…….
- A first row of Soldiers.
- A leader, Shah or General, at the center.
- A second , Vizier or Advisor, at his sides.
- A pair of Chariots at
the aisles.
- A Horse beside each
Chariot.
- An Elephant or Minister beside the Horses.
In both games, the goal is to capture the opposing KI.
Despite these similarities,
they are noticeable differences which have to be discussed now.
Board Comparison…….
|
|
|
|
8 x 8 squares/cells
|
9 x 10 intersections |
|
Plain colour
|
Plain colour |
|
Sometimes, few squares/cells are
crosscut |
Important markings: a central river, a 3 x 3 Palace at each side, points to mark the position of Soldiers and Cannons |
|
The MPs/mps played on the
intersections |
The board in Persia had plain squares. It has been used unchanged
by the Arabs. The black
and white checkering is a European invention which occurred as soon as the game reached Europe.
The checkering is attested in the Einsiedeln manuscript in
990. In India
chess had been played on the Ashtapada board. The word means “eight feet” and is attested
in Sanskrit texts in relation to games since the 4th or 3rd
centuries BC. In the Buddhist Vinayapitaka
the only thing that we are sure of is that it was used for a dice game. Many paintings in
India show an 8 x 8 board with some crosscut squares/cells. However the oldest mention of this kind of
marking is the ‘Manasollasa’ which was only composed at the beginning of the 12th
century.
I plan to make a dedicated
page about ‘Ashtapada’ later on.
Even if we don’t know exactly what kind of game was played on the
Ashatapada board before 600 AD, it is certain that it was popular. Murray thought
that is was similar to several spiral race games
played in India on different board sizes
(5 x 5, 7 x 7, 9 x 9), but there is no direct evidence. The adoption of the 8 x 8 board was
probably due to this popularity.
Concerning “war games”, following Murray’s classification, it is agreed
among game historians that this category first
occurred in Greece with games like ‘Pettiae’ or ‘Polis’. The Romans continued with Latrunculi. The exact rules of these games are,
unfortunately, badly known. An agreed
point is the custodian capture - a man was taken when
sandwiched between two enemy pieces.
Another one was the use of the square for playing, not the intersections
like in more recent ‘Alquerque’, the ‘Draughts’
ancestor. Succeeding the huge
Alexander’s empire, the Hellenistic states continued for a long time their
influence in Bactria, Persia and North-West of India. For instance, Menandre
(160-140 BC.), Greek KI of Kabul, enlarged his kingdom
up to Pataliputra on the Ganges and changed his name to Melinda. One century later, the coins still
represented both Zeus and Buddha and the kings were
getting the double title of Basileus (like in Byzance!) and Maharadja! It is very likely that Chess, another war game, is played over squares because of the Hellenistic
cultural influence over these regions.
In China, the most popular games before the
appearance of Chess were ‘Weiqi’ and ‘Liubo’.
Weiqi was adopted by the Japanese under the name of ‘Go’
and it is under this name that it became one of the most strategic
games in the World. Liubo is an
extinct game and it remains very mysterious.
I plan to make a dedicated
page about ‘Liubo’ later on.
Weiqi is played on intersections, and it is possible that this fact influenced
the ancient Chinese to play their Chess.
Liubo used a heavily marked board and it is possible that this indicates
a relation with Xiangqi. For instance, there is a central square
on the Liubo board. Is it a mere
coincidence that there is a river in the center of the
Xiangqi board? And, the few that we
know from Liubo have more to tell us.
Check here in the near future!
Set Comparison…….
|
|
|
|
16 MPs/mps |
|
|
8 Soldiers
|
5 Soldiers |
|
1 General and 2 Counsellors |
|
|
4 pairs of
major pieces: Elephant (or Minister), Horse, Cannon, Chariot |
The number of pieces is identical in both games
which is a strong indication of a kinship.
However, there is no equilibrium between major
and minor (Soldiers) pieces in the eastern
variety. Moreover, there are 5 and not
4 categories of major pieces in Xiangqi: the Cannon has no equivalent in western chess.
Piece by piece
comparison…….
|
|
|
|
The
King:
1 cell/step all 8 directions |
The
General:
1 cell/step, 4 orthogonal directions, within the Palace |
|
The
Vizier:
1 cell/step, 4 diagonal directions |
The
Counsellor:
1 cell/step, 4 diagonal directions, within the Palace |
|
The
Elephant:
2 cells/steps, 4 diagonal directions, can leap |
The
Minister
or Elephant: 2 cells/steps, 4 diagonal directions, can not leap, within its
side of the board |
|
The
Horse:
1 cell/step straight followed by 1 diagonal, can leap |
The
Horse: 1 cell/step straight followed by 1 diagonal, can not leap |
|
|
The
Cannons:
moves and captures othogonally.
Moves like a Charriot, captures by leaping over a 3rd piece. |
|
The
Chariot: slides all along lines and columns |
The
Chariot: slides all along lines and columns |
|
The
Soldier:
moves 1 cell/step forward, captures 1 cell/step diagonally forward, promotes
to Vizier on last row |
The
Soldier: moves and captures 1 cell/step forward within its side of the board,
moves and captures 1 cell/step forward or beside when beyond the river
|
The KI, or its equivalent [GE], has less mobility
in the Chinese form. This is also true for the Advisor/Vizier, the Ministers/Elephants and the Horses. The eastern Chess then looks like a
blockade game where the pieces are besieging a confined KI. It is completely different in the western chess where the KI is unbound and
really leads the operations on the battlefield.
The PAs (Soldiers - FSs)
are similar because they go 1 step ahead but their capture
mode and their promotion are very different. That makes the biggest difference in the
structure of the two games. In the
eastern Chess, with their increase of
power when they cross the river - they have a very
active role in besieging the fortress/palace. The western chess looks more like a subtle
mix between a war game and a race
game - within the battle, the PAs are racing to the last row to get to their promotion
as an officer [MP].
The use of carved pieces have been chosen in Central Asia and India
where China preferred the use of tokens bearing the name of the piece with an
ideogram. (Although carved pieces have also been used in China, but scarcely
and probably by Court people).
Old Islamic
Chessmen – Historical - religious and
artistic considerations about their shape and design.
By: Gianfelice Ferlito
Introduction
In this paper I shall dispute the theory that the old Islamic chessmen
made from the 7th to the 13th century in abstract and
stylized shapes were designed on account of the Muslim prohibition of
image. This theory attributes the
prohibition some time directly and wrongly to the Kur’an, but more often to
Muslim habits and their traditions.
This idea has generally been accepted by many chess scholars.
(1)
I shall try to clarify the complex problem of the Islamic attitude
towards representation of images as it was felt between the 7th to
the 13th century. I then
shall deal with testimonies of lslamic figures in art during the first half of
the 8th century. Among
which I shall mention those found at Qusayr ‘Amrah and at Khirbat al-Majfar in
the Jordanian desert.
I shall examine also other Islamic testimonies from Dar al Islam in
which artists have depicted animals and men in a very
realistic way for treasured gifts.
Usually these were beautifully carved pieces in ivory, works of ceramics
and of metallurgy.
All these testimonies will prove that depiction of images in Islam was
not considered sacrilegious for secular palaces and for secular objects. The
Islamic prohibition against images was observed only for holy places, such as
mosques or for holy books, like the Kur’an or for the Prophets or for Allah.
Theoretically, therefore, Islamic chessmen as secular objects could have
been by Muslim craftsmen in a representational way as many other secular objects. But they were not. This was a free choice.
From Chatrang men
to Shatranj men
No one yet
knows for certain how, when and where the game of chess was invented or developed from other tabula games. Certainly the Arabs, during their conquest
of the Persian Empire (638/651), discovered a fascinating board game, called by
the Persians ‘Chatrang’ from the Sanskrit word Chaturanga. In Persia Chatrang was played on an
unchcquered board 8 x 8 squares/cells by two people with 16 pieces each,
symbolizing a battle between Indian armies. An early description of that game is
documented in a Pahlavi text probably written around the middle of the 8th
century. In an old MS dated 1323, the
ancient text has a long title: “Vicarism-i-chatrang u nihisn-i-new-artaxser”
which means “Explanation of the game of Chatrang and invention of the game of
nard”.
Many scholars
often shorten the full title in “Chatrang Namak” or “Matigan i chatrang” or
“Vicarisn i chatrang”. From that early
document, it is related that such a game was devised by a group of several wise men of India for an Indian ruler. It was played by two people on a board with
16 emerald-men and 16 ruby-men, and it was sent by that ruler of India (not yet
identified by the historians) to the Persian Shahansha (King of Kings) Khusraw
I Nushirwan (531-579) as an intellectual challenge to the wisdom
of the Persians. They should have
explained, only looking at the pieces, the rules and the objectives of the
game.
In the Pahlavi
document there is no mention of the style and design of the chessmen, but the
pieces are described by what they represent:
“Two supreme
rulers: resemble KIs (shah), selected corps to right and to left are in the
shape of chariots, [ROs] (raxv), a commander in chief is a tent (parzen), the
commander of the rearguard is an elephant, [EL] (pil), the commander of the calvary
is a horse, [KT] (asp), and the foot-soldiers (piyada), [FSs] represent the
infantry”.
(2)
Knowing that
the Indian sculptures and paintings of the period were inclined towards realistic
styles, many chess scholars assumed that those Indian pieces are also “pictorials, with
naturalistic figures representing the names of the pieces”.
(3)
But Indian
chessmen of that period were, however, never found.
The famous carved ivory piece representing a KI on top of an elephant and dated
9th-10th century is certainly an Arabic work after an
Indian model as the kufic inscription testifies (“min ‘amal Yusuf al-Bahili”)
but “it is difficult to accept it as a chess pieces”.
(4)
It is quite
probable that Persian Chatrang-men were realistically carved in wood, bone,
ivory, precious and semiprecious stones.
Fortunately for our knowledge of the history of chessmen, the former Soviet
Union made important discoveries in 1977.
The well-documented book of Dr. Linder, “Chess in old Russia”,
illustrates with great care and detail the finding of Afrosiab (Samarkand),
Fergana and Khulbuk. These pieces were
carved “in
all probability from the 6th to the 8th century”
and testify than “Chatrang figures and apparently Chaturanga figures earlier were
originally given forms corresponding to the names: elephants, horsemen,
foot-soldiers, etc”.
(5)
Excavations in
Afrosiab under the leadership of Professor Bukariov in 1977 uncovered seven
ivory carved sculptures which left……. “no doubt as to the playing purpose of the figures”.
(6)
These sculptures correspond
to the roles of the Chatrang-men as described in the old text “Vicarisn”. According to Dr. Thomas Hyde (1636-1703),
in his “De ludis Orientalibus” (1694) in the middle on the 7th
century the design of Chatrang men was probably realistic, depicting therefore
their roles. He reported an
illuminating anecdote, which has been related by a preacher of the Mosque at
Aleppo (Syria), Sokeiker of Damascus, who died in 1579. The genuine nature of this anecdote was
accepted by Muslim traditionists. It
concerns the reaction of the 4th Orthodox Caliph ‘Ali (656-661),
cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet.
One day ‘Ali passing by some people who were playing chess, asked them “What images are
these which you are so intent upon?”
Evidently
Caliph ‘Ali was not acquainted with Chatrang, though some of his subjects were
already playing it. Was ‘Ali concerned
that these were small idols? From this
story Dr. Hyde and many others after him thought that the chessmen at the time
of ‘Ali were representational and pictorially carved. During the centuries of lslamic dominance, the game of Chatrang
was disseminated in all territories of Dar al Islam which consisted of two main
sectors: the West, known as “al’ Maghrib”, and the East, generally referred to
as “al Masriq”. The first comprised
the northern coast of Africa east of Egypt, a big part of Spain and Portugal
(Al- Andalus) and Sicily. The second
consisted of all countries to the east of the present-day Libya, including
Turkey and some territories of Central Asia.
By a linguistic process of Arabization the game became known in Dar al Islam as
Shatranj and it seems that it was always played with Islamic pieces as we call
them today.
Through
commercial and diplomatic contacts the game was introduced, probably during the
8th century, directly into Al-Andalus and Sicily by the Muslims and
indirectly into Bysanzium by traders and soldiers.
The name of the game, by a process of natural adaptation to the different
languages, became Zatrikion in Bysanzium, Ajedrez in Spain and Xandrez in
Portugal. The rest of Europe, in which
Latin was the official language of the ruling class, the Arab word Shatranj was
discarded in favour of a shorter word, the Persian ‘Shah’. In the game a warning like ‘shah’ (check) and ‘Shah wa Mat’ (checkmate) were
cried out quite often. It was easier
to adopt the sound of such warnings to indicate the game itself. The
name ‘shah’ was Latinized into ‘scac’ or ‘scach’ with the usual termination of
‘scacum’, ‘scachum’, meaning a “check”.
The termination of “us” as in ‘scacus’, ‘scachus’, meaning “checked” and
the termination of “are” as in ‘scaccare’, ‘scachare’, meaning “to check”.
The word
“scaci”or “scachi” (plural) indicated the game of chess itself. The Persian word ‘mat’ was adopted with the
usual terminàtion of “us” and became in Latin ‘mattus’, i.e. mate. With great probability in the last part of
the 7th century the chessmen started to be carved by Muslim
craftsmen in abstract and geometrical shapes.
Shapes which vaguely suggested the original roles they had in Chaturanga
and in Chatrang.
On Islamic
attitude towards the representation of images
In the book, “The formation of Islamic art”, Professor Oleg Grabar says: “Much has been
written about Islamic attitudes toward the arts. Encyclopedia or general works on the history of arts simply
assert that, for a variety of reasons, which are rarely explored, Islam was
theologically opposed to the representation of living beings. While it is fairly well known by now that
the Koran contains no prohibition of such representations, the undeniable
denunciation of artists and of representations found in many traditions about
the life of the Prophet are taken as genuine expressions of an original Muslim
attitude”.
(7)
In the Kur’an there are only few passages dealing explicitly with
representations of idols, images, statues and sculptures. And none of these passages are clearly
stating any prohibition for making artistic figural representations of men or
animals. The first passage usually
quoted is in Surah 5, “The Table”, ayat 90-93.
“O
believers, wine, maysir sacrifical stones (ansab) and devining arrows are
abominations devised by Satan. Avoid
them. Perhaps you may prosper”. According to the chess scholar Prof. Duncan
Forbes (17981868): “Now, all the eminent Musalman commentators on this passage say that -
by the term images - the Prophet alluded to “the game of Chess”, and that the
interdict applied not to the game itself, in which chance had no part, but to
the little carved figures or images of men, horses, elephants etc. Then used on the board as imported from
India and Persia, all of which, in the opinion of the Prophet, savoured
strongly of idolatry. The Muhammad
casuists and expounders of the sacred text, however, with a degree of sense and
enlightenment much to their credit, have managed to rescue the game of Chess
from the very degrading position assigned to it by the Prophet, as one of the
“abomination of Satan”. At the same
time the more rigid and orthodox among the “true believers” - in order to avoid
all appearances of scandal, play with plain blocks of ivory or wood variously
cut, but not bearing to any living creature, so the term images may not
apply”.
(8)
In the first place it should be noted that historically Surah 5 was
“transmitted” to Muhammad around 631-632.
Most probably Chatrang was played in Persia in those years, but we do
not have any certain documentation that it was already known among the Arabs
and therefore the Kur’an could not “transmit” to Arabs an allusion about a ‘so
far’ unknown game. In my opinion, if Chatrang was already
known to the Arabs it would have probably been mentioned explicitly in the
Kur’an as in the case of maysir, the old Arabic social game in which the luck
of drawing the right arrows was a deciding factor. Interesting to note that from the passage of the Kur’an all
gambling, like maysir, is forbidden (haram) in Dar al-Islam. A second point about the above mentioned
interpretation is that the term images (ansab) is nowadays translated as
sacrificial stones or more simply idols.
We know that the worship of idols was for the pre-Islamic Arabs a long
standing tradition. In the mosque of
Mecca, where the Kaba is located, the old Arabs worshipped Allah, Hubal, Manat,
al-Uzza and many other gods and goddesses.
All pre-Islamic idols, made in stone, were of human aspect and adorned
with different coloured clothes and perfumed.
(9)
The passage in Surah 5 is a clear prohibition to Muslims for the
adoration of any kind of religious idol.
But the Kuranic condemnation is not indiscriminately directed at all statues
and images, if these do not have any religious reference. Certainly Moses was
more explicit when he delivered to the Israelite people the famous ‘Decalogue’
on Mount Sinai:
”Do not have
any other idol beside Me (Yahweh). You
will not make any idol or any image of anything which is high in the sky nor
low on the ground nor in the water below the ground”.
(10)
Again the prohibition was intended for idols but Moses forbade
literarally any images and this fact had a negative influence on graven images
in Jewish art forever. In Surah 34,
“Sheba”, ayat 12-13 there is a passage in which the word statues is mentioned: “To Solomon We
(i.e. God) subdued the wind, travelling a month’s journey morning and
evening. We gave him a spring flowing
with molten bras, and jinn who served him by the leave of his Lord. We shall chasten with the torment of the
Fire. They made for him whatever he
pleased: shrines and statues (timthal), basins as large as watering-troughs,
and built-in cauldrons”. Now if
King Solomon could have had statues and costly vessels, made by the servile
jinn at his will, this implies that artistic statues were allowed by God for
Salomon’s own pleasure and grandeur. A
mention of the term sculpture is in Surah 3, “The ‘Imrams”, ayah 47 where it is
said: “From clay I (Jesus Christ) will make for you
the likeness (hi’ya) of a bird, I shall breath into it and, by God’s leave, it
shall become a living bird”. In
this case the sculpture of a bird becomes a living being as a “sign” of the Lord. But also from this ayah we cannot assume
any Kuranic prohibition referred to all other mortal artists for representing
birds or living creatures. However in
Dar al-Islam doctors of theology and knowledge (ulema) considered all painters,
sculptors, carvers, book decorators, poor “imitators” of AIlàh, because only
God was the Creator, the Modeller, the Fashioner (Surah 59, ayah 24). The Islamic idea of prohibition of any
picture and image comes from some Muslim traditions (hadiths) such as: “Whosoever makes an image, Allah will give him as
punishment the task of blowing the breath of like into it, but he is not able
to do this, “or” those who make these pictures will be punished on the day of
Judgment by being told: Make alive what you have created”.
(11)
The shari’ah considered therefore all images, created by the hand of an
artist, poor imitations when they were depicting any living creature having a
soul (nafs) or a breath (ruh). The
artist, copying living models, could have been regarded as “guilty of trying
to usurp the creative activity of God”.
(12)
Imitations of trees, flowers, leaves were however allowed by the
ulema. To a non Muslim like me, it is
very difficult to imagine a more creative activity than these geometrical and
floral creations, arabesques and decorations in which human fantasy has no
limit.
Muslims, from the beginning of their Islam (submission to Allah), have shown a
love for liberating themselves from classic forms of a world which they
conquered and probably despised. They
re-employed forms already in use by inventing new geometrical compositions,
figuring out proportional measurements in completely abstract forms and
simplifying without ambiguity of meaning.
They expressed perfectly this tendency in the astonishing care they took
with their unique calligraphy.
Calligraphy for the Muslims was considered to be a gift of Allah as
stated in the first Surah revealed by Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad, Surah 96,
“Clots of blood”, ayah 2: “Your Lord is the Most Bountiful One, who by the pen taught man what he
did not know”. The early coarse
Arabic “Jazm” script, derived from Nebatean forms of letters, was gradually and
elegantly transformed into geomctrical graphic styles. The Kufic script emerged as the sole script
for copying the Kur’an. Calligraphy in
Islam became a science, an art which permeated the general taste of the
artistic Islamic societies, leading to ideals of geometrical perfection and
beauty. “Arab calligraphy reflected their genius and
attracted their best artistic talents”.
(13)
In my view the Islamic chessmen, made in elegant abstract forms,
were expression of such taste and style.
They were made in “abstract” design and form because they were primarily
responding to the geometrical taste of the Muslims as well as responding to the
expectations of an ‘Ideal Beauty’ already expressed in their calligraphy.
Secondly this abstract design was adopted worldwide because the chessmen of
this shape were easy to handle, well balanced for moving on the board, easy to
store, convenient to carry even on a camel and resistant to bad handling. At last but not least they are easy to make
and therefore reasonably priced.
Another reason for not accepting the conventional idea expressed by so
many chess scholars about the genesis of abstract Islamic chessmen (ie. evasion
from a supposed prohibition of images), is that so far we have not found any
realistic and pictorial Muslim chess set defying such supposed
prohibition. Instead we have found
many Islamic works of art, during the same centuries, defying that supposed
prohibition. And so one may wonder why
such defiance was never tried for chessmen.
The answer is that the Islamic design for chessmen was not dictated by religious
restraints on images but by a deliberate choice of a popular propensity for
simplification of shapes into abstract and geometrical forms already well
reflected in their calligraphy. The letter represented a figurative path to
‘Ideal Beauty’ and to Allah. Muslim
chess players considered their abstract chessmen beautiful in their simplified
shapes and extremely functional to handle, with a low centre of gravity for
maintaining equilibrium on the board, with a minimal differentiation of shapes
thus enabling them to concentrate on the game without distractions of
decorative and ornamental carvings. These deliberate and free modifications of
shapes from pictorial pre-Islamic Chatrang-men (Indian, Persian), into
abstract-geometrical Shatranj-men lasted for many centuries and not only in Dar
al-Islam but even in Europe. And the
game of chess progressed tremendously fast maybe due to these Islamic
shapes.
Old Islamic Chessmen – Historical -
religious and artistic considerations about their shape and design.
Second part
By: Gianfelice Ferlito
Some examples of
realistic images in Islamic artistic works…….
Human and animal images in Islamic art were not as rare as we will
see. We must distinguish Islamic
religious art, destined to Holy Mosques, Holy Books (Kur’an), Sacred Places,
from secular art with objects ordered by the rich of the time for personal
amusement, pleasure, display and grandeur.
Chessmen belonged from the very beginning to the category of goods and
tools made for amusement and pleasure.
We have many examples of lslamic defiance of the prohibition of images
in secular society. Among them, I cite
the realistic figurations found in Qusayr Amrah (Red Casle), east of
Amman. This building was one of the
famous desert palaces which were really “retreats for and other princely pleasure”.
(14)
In this castle the interior is completely covered with wall paintings:
on the west we see an image of a Caliph seated on a throne with two attendants
at his side, above is a herd of wild asses and below acrobats and a
semi-nude girl emerging from a bathing pool.
On the south wall six figures identified as the ‘Kings of the World’
including those of Bysanzium, Persia, Abyssinia, Spain (the Visigote ruler
Roderic) are shown offering submittance to the Islamic lord, the Caliph.
(15)
Another astonishing testimony is that of Khirbat al Mafjar at Jericho
(Jordan), where stucco decorations with floral and geometrical motifs are
developed together with figures of fantastic animals and even sculptures of six
topless ladies. The entrance to the
Palace was graced with stuccos of dancers (fig. 1) and “animals, winged horses, dog-headed senmurvs,
and an armoured warrior”.
(16)
Fig.
1
From 8th century, we have an Iranian silver
dish (fig. 2) with repoussé figures, to-day at the British Museum we see a
prince taking his ease in the open air with a lady and his attendant.
Fig. 2
From
Al Andalus we have:
- an ivory pixies (fig. 3/4/5)
…….which was made around 968 in Cordoba for al-Mughira, brother of the Caliph
al Hakam. The pixies today are at the
Louvre.
The Cordoba stage dated 2nd half of the 10th century, is
to-day at the Cordoba Museum, (fig.6).
Fig.
6
-The Pamplona casket, ivory,
dated 1004/5, is to-day at the Museum of Navarra, Pamplona. (fig. 7\8\9\).
Fig.
7
Fig.8 
Fig.9
The Griffin, Taifa period (11th
century) to-day at the Museo dell’ Opera del Duomo of Pisa (fig. 10).
Fig.
10
The Monzon lion, a bronze of
the Almohad period (12\13th century), is to-day at the Louvre. (fig.11).
Fig.
11
Examples of realistic
Islamic cast bronzes were frequently found in Khurasan. These include a bird (fig.12).
Fig.
12
…….and an elephant (fig. 13).
Fig.
13
The first is dated 10/11th century, the second 11\12th
century.
A large number of animals on birds in the round were made in eastern Iran
during 10/11th century.
They were designed to function as vessels in their own right (e.g.
incense burners) or as a decorative element on larger objects.
Another cast bronze with realistic figures is a jug from Jazira (Syria) dated
13th century (fig. 14).
Fig.
14
From Egypt, we have two examples in wood. Both works are dated 11th century. The first at the Museo Nazionale in
FIorence (fig. 15).
Fig.
15
…….and the second at the Islamic Museum in Cairo (fig.16).
Fig.
16
Notes:
1) Here in chronological order, a few
statements on Islamic chessmen by some chess scholars:
H. J. Murray
“The Sunnite Muslim sees a prohibition of carved chess-pieces which
actually reproduce the King elephants, horses etc., in the prohibition of
images. Persian commentators, however
have explained the term as referring to idols, and the Shi’te and Moghul
chess-players have no objection to using real carved chessmen. The Summite player on the contrary will only
use pieces of conventional type in which it is impossible to see any
resemblance to any living creature”. (A
History of Chess, Oxford 1913 p. 188).
M. D. Liddell
“From the ancient pieces that have come down to us, there is no doubt
that the earliest men represented living forms and that the conventionalisation
came from motives of economy, from the desire for portability (too elaborated
men cannot be carried in a bag on a camel) from religious scruples”. (Chessmen, Usa, 1937, p. 11).
H. &S.
Wichmann
“The motives leading to the creations of these novel, abstract chess
pieces were religious. Since the Koran
prohibits any kind of imagery, the Mohammedans had to create new forms, which
had to reinterpret in abbreviated form the realistic-naturalistic models. This metamorphosis caused the sectional
structure of Indian sculpture to be condensed and the intricate and visually
striking outer surface to be reduced to elementary curves. The moulded mass became rounded under the
influence of the basic forms of the sphere and the cylinder”. (Chess, Munich 1964, p.16).
A. E. J.
Mackett-Beeson
“Chess did not become known to the Arabs until their conquest of Persia
in the 7th century, and therefore any reference to the game in their
Sacred Book is impossible. Since the
Koran strictly forbade all the believers to handle figures in any shape or
form, it is not surprising that when chess did became known, the legitimacy of
the game among the Arabs was suspect because of its image association, and it
was only after many years of debate that judicial decision was reached. It was finally decreed that the game of
chess was perfectly legitimate provided that chess pieces used were of simple
geometric shapes, and that the game was not played for the purpose of gambling
- (Islamic) chess pieces can be of simple form and yet pleasing to the eye;
they have a delightful symmetry, they are well balanced”. (Chessmen, London 1968, p. 71).
F. Lanier Graham
“While the Arabs were developing the literature of the game, they also
were developing the design of chess sets.
The designs they inherited from Persia and India in the 7th
century were naturalistic images. The Muhammadans,
being extremely fond of the game, developed an alternative. They designed their chess pieces
abstractly”. (Chess sets, New York,
1968, p.14).
C. K. Wilkinson
and J. Mac Nab Dennis
“The pieces may well have been made in a not entirely realistic manner so
that they would be easy to handle in playing.
Incidentally, it is wise not to put too much stress on the non
representational character of Muslim pieces, for the taboo on representation in
things that were not strictly of religious nature was not particularly
strong, especially in Persia with its never dying pictorial tradition”. (Chess, East and West, Past and Present,
XXVIII, 1968).
Dr. I. Linder
“Under the influence of prohibitions, chess from the east was basically
devoid of images, and instead of battle elephants and horsemen, shahs and foot
soldiers, there were symbolic and abstract pieces”. (Chess in Old Russia, Moscow 1975, p.28).
F. Greygoose
“The Koran forbids any form of imagery and therefore Mohammadans were
forced by their faith to turn the Persian like figures into abstract
forms”. (Chessmen, London 1979, p.
18).
V. Keats
“The whole of Muslim art, including the shapes of chess pieces, has been
guided by the Koranic law, which in turn derives from pre-Islamic civilization,
stating that no likeness of man may be created. Consequently, chess pieces throughout the Muslim world have
remained strikingly similar in shape, from the advent of Islam right up to the
present day”. (Chessmen for collectors,
London 1985, p. 43).
C. Schafroth
“The abstraction of naturalistic chessmen by Arabian artists was largely
due to the beliefs and tenets of Islam. The use of images was considered
sacrilegious and believers were forbidden to handle graven images. This posed a serious problem for the Muslim
chess player. The solution was to
significantly abstract the forms of the pieces. The resulting chessmen were somewhat blocky, with knobbly
projections and smoothly modelled surfaces”. (Sculptures in miniature, Chess
sets from the Maryhill Museum of Art, Goldendale 1990, p.17).
A. Chicco
“On the other hand, it is neither exact (to say) that the typical
stylised form taken by the Arabic chess pieces must be necessarily associated
with the prohibition of the Kur’an, which, as it is well known, forbade the
images of living being. A great deal
before the Hegira (622AD) the Arabs had the opportunity to know religions which
were forbidding statues and simulacrums.
There are no prejudicial reasons which exclude a priori the existence of
“stylised” chessmen even before the Hegira or even their presence in a tomb of
Roman age”. (Storia degli scacchi in
Italia, Milan 1990, p.7).
M. Pastoreau
“L’Islam en effect utilisait des pieces stylisees, non figures, suivant
en cela les principes (non coramiques) qui interdis aux Musulmans de
representer la figure humaine ou animale.
Les Occidentaux ont d’abord utilisé ces pieces musulmanes non
figurées, puis ils les ont imithees”.
(Pieces d'echecs, Paris 1900, p. 13).
A. Sanvito
“Who ever suggested the idea of Islamic design to the carver, surely was
concerned with the aspect of practicality and simplicity, but probably tried to
convey, even in the abstract and stylised form, the original realistic
figures. The fact that before the
birth of the chess game, thought to be around the 6th-7th
century many tabula games were in existence, some of which requiring pieces
whose forms may well have influenced the chessmen models which followed. Those stylisations made in the East for
practical reasons or, maybe and more than anything else, for religious
reasons”. (Figure di scacchi, Milan
1992, p.16 and 24).
K. Whyld
“It is often said that the
shape of chessmen became simple because of Muslim religious objection to the
making of images of living creatures, but, with the exception of the relatively
recent horse’s head for the knight, this has always been the case with playing
sets. The main criteria have been
simplicity of the design and ease of production”. (The Oxford Companion to chess, London 1992, p.76).
(2) “La letteratura Persiana” Pagliaro/Bausani,
Milan 1968, p.126.
(3) “Chess sets” Graham, New York 1968, p.13.
(4) “Pieces d’echecs” Pastoureau, Paris 1990, p.11.
(5) “Chess in old Russia”, Dr.I. Linder, Zurich. 1975, p.24/28 (6) idem, p.24.
(7) “The creation of Islamic art” O. G. Grabar, Rev. ed.1987, p.72.
(8) “The history of chess” D. Forbes, London 1865, p.166.
(9) “Vita di Maometto” Tabari, Milano 1985, p.85.
(10) Deuteronomio, V, 7-8 (11) “Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam”, H.A.R. Gibb and
J.H. Kramers, 2nd ed. 1974.
(12) “Islamic art” B. Vrend 1991 p. 26.
(13) “Islamic calligraphy” Y. H. Safadi, p. 7.
(14) “Islamic art”, B.Brend, p.26 (15) idem, p.28.
(16) idem, p. 29.
BIBLIOGRAPHY on Islam.
The Koran, translated with notes by NJ.Dawood, Penguin books,1993.
Il Corano, translated with notes by A-Bausani, BUR, 2nd ~d ed.
1990.
“L’arte dell’Islam”, M. Dimand, Sansoni 1972.
“Historie et civilisation de l'Islam en Europe”, F. Gabrieli, Bordas
1983.
“Le arti nell’Islam”
G.Curatola e G. Scarcia, NIS 1990.
“L’arte dell’islam”, C. Du
Ry, Rizzoli 1972.
“Gli Arabi in Italia”, R.
Gabrieli e U. Scerrato, Garzanti 1985.
“Principles of Islamic
jurisprudence” M.H.Kamali, Cambridge 1991.
“L’Islam”, A. Bausani,
Garzanfi 1987.
“La sfida dell’Islam”, G.
Rizzardi, CdG 1992.
“The mediation of Ornamenti”,
Oleg Grabar, Princeton Un. Press,1992.
[Pubblicato su Homo Ludens,
vol. IV, 1994, pp. 29-47].
BACK TO
THE HOME PAGE
GO TO
THE SECTION'S INDEX Historical Studies
From ‘Chess
Variants’ web page.