Apologies if this question has been asked here before.

On one of the original photos taken during Howard Carter's
"excavation?" of Tutankhamen's ante-chamber, with all the artifacts
bearing numbers, there is a photo of the folding stool (number 83) with
gooseshaped feet. On top of it, and unnumbered is an object that looks
like a bicycle cog with a long shaft through it (it overhangs the stool
either side). The sort of shaft seen on rear-wheel tricycles of the
past. I own several books on Tut plus the exhibit brochures for both
the London and USA exhibitions in decades past but this particular
article does not appear to be described anywhere in any of them
(despite the fact they describe pretty small artifacts minutely - a
reed picked by Tut, for instance).
Anybody got any ideas? I can supply a scan if needed.

Eugene Griessel

From:	eugene at dynagen.co.za
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	22 Jan 2005 13:14:16 -0800

Ken Down wrote:

>I recall the object you describe. I don't recall what it is thought to
be,
>but as it is made of wood I gravely doubt that it was a tricycle part:
in
>any case, it would be no use without a chain.

I do not suppose it was - but it comes closest to describing the object
as an axle and cog. I have been through Carter's lists with a fine
toothcomb and that object does not seem to be on them. I have three of
Burton's photographs (from different angles) showing the thing lying on
the folding stool and 2 architect's drawings also indicating it.

Carter rigorously describes other objects he found atop large objects
but in his description of stool No 83 he does not indicate that
anything was lying on it..
It is becoming a bit of an obsession with me .....

Eugene Griessel

From:	Martyn Harrison
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:13:14 GMT

Apparently on date 22 Jan 2005 13:14:16 -0800, eugene@dynagen.co.za said:

>Ken Down wrote:
>
>>I recall the object you describe. I don't recall what it is thought to
>be,
>>but as it is made of wood I gravely doubt that it was a tricycle part:
>in
>>any case, it would be no use without a chain.
>
>I do not suppose it was - but it comes closest to describing the object
>as an axle and cog. I have been through Carter's lists with a fine
>toothcomb and that object does not seem to be on them. I have three of
>Burton's photographs (from different angles) showing the thing lying on
>the folding stool and 2 architect's drawings also indicating it.
>
>Carter rigorously describes other objects he found atop large objects
>but in his description of stool No 83 he does not indicate that
>anything was lying on it..
>It is becoming a bit of an obsession with me .....
>
>Eugene Griessel

Best I could think up was:

1) something like a rein fastening post on a chariot
2) something to do with a boat, e.g. a wheel / windlass
3) some part of a portable pavilion / tent
4) remains of an umbrella
5) thing to hit animals with

Quite interested in seeing other, better ideas. Couldn't find it in the rest of
the objects on the site, either. Are we confident it is actually from tut's
tomb?

From:	Zasgar
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:34:48 +0000 (UTC)

"Martyn Harrison" wrote in message
news:p9n5v0hoge7kq020nb6hg7rllh21ref8m5@4ax.com...
> Apparently on date 22 Jan 2005 13:14:16 -0800, eugene@dynagen.co.za said:
>
>>Ken Down wrote:
>>
>>>I recall the object you describe. I don't recall what it is thought to
>>be,
>>>but as it is made of wood I gravely doubt that it was a tricycle part:
>>in
>>>any case, it would be no use without a chain.
>>
>>I do not suppose it was - but it comes closest to describing the object
>>as an axle and cog. I have been through Carter's lists with a fine
>>toothcomb and that object does not seem to be on them. I have three of
>>Burton's photographs (from different angles) showing the thing lying on
>>the folding stool and 2 architect's drawings also indicating it.
>>
>>Carter rigorously describes other objects he found atop large objects
>>but in his description of stool No 83 he does not indicate that
>>anything was lying on it..
>>It is becoming a bit of an obsession with me .....
>>
>>Eugene Griessel
>
> Best I could think up was:
>
> 1) something like a rein fastening post on a chariot
> 2) something to do with a boat, e.g. a wheel / windlass
> 3) some part of a portable pavilion / tent
> 4) remains of an umbrella
> 5) thing to hit animals with
>
> Quite interested in seeing other, better ideas. Couldn't find it in the
> rest of
> the objects on the site, either. Are we confident it is actually from
> tut's
> tomb?
>

What about 120g
http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/120g.html

From:	eugene at dynagen.co.za
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	21 Jan 2005 04:07:48 -0800

Tom McDonald wrote:

> A link to an image would help.

http://www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/BICYCLE.JPG

> I can see Item 83, but in this photo it is by itself. > Maybe you
could find what you mean from this site > and link to it here
I have searched that resource but the item I seek has eluded me!

From:	MarianneLuban
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	22 Jan 2005 23:47:36 GMT

>Subject: Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
>From: eugene@dynagen.co.za
>Date: 1/21/2005 4:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1106309268.013974.61680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>
>Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>> A link to an image would help.
>
>http://www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/BICYCLE.JPG
>
>
>> I can see Item 83, but in this photo it is by itself. > Maybe you
>could find what you mean from this site > and link to it here
>I have searched that resource but the item I seek has eluded me!
>

The stool is just an ordinary folding one--albeit very pretty. The object
lying on top of it is probably a component from a dismantled little chariot.
Juding from the six chariots found in the tomb of Tut [also dismantled] the
chariots of his time had the wheel in the middle of the pole that stood away
from the car. This was obviously for stabilization of the vehicle. The pole
also stuck out beyond the wheel[s], which were roughly in the middle of the
pole. This spiked things appear to me to be useful for keeping the wheel in
place.

From:	eugene at dynagen.co.za
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	23 Jan 2005 00:30:41 -0800

Marianne Luban wrote:

>The object
>lying on top of it is probably a component from a >dismantled little
chariot.
>Juding from the six chariots found in the tomb of >Tut [also
dismantled] the
>chariots of his time had the wheel in the middle of >the pole that
stood away
>from the car. This was obviously for stabilization of >the vehicle.
The pole
>also stuck out beyond the wheel[s], which were >roughly in the middle
of the
>pole. This spiked things appear to me to be useful >for keeping the
wheel in
>place.

You may well be on the right track. Item 152[=120g], described as "two
circular wooden check-rowels from harness" seems to fit the
description. But it must have been moved onto the stool because Carter
describes it as having been found near wheels 144 & 145.

Pity - I was becoming reconciled to a giant conspiracy to hide the
brilliance of early Egyptian tricycle manufacture.......

Eugene

From:	JerryT
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:16:28 +0100

skrev i meddelandet
news:1106469040.976822.224900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Marianne Luban wrote:
>
> >The object
> >lying on top of it is probably a component from a >dismantled
little
> chariot.
> >Juding from the six chariots found in the tomb of >Tut [also
> dismantled] the
> >chariots of his time had the wheel in the middle of >the pole that
> stood away
> >from the car. This was obviously for stabilization of >the vehicle.
> The pole
> >also stuck out beyond the wheel[s], which were >roughly in the
middle
> of the
> >pole. This spiked things appear to me to be useful >for keeping the
> wheel in
> >place.
>
> You may well be on the right track. Item 152[=120g], described as
"two
> circular wooden check-rowels from harness" seems to fit the
> description. But it must have been moved onto the stool because
Carter
> describes it as having been found near wheels 144 & 145.
>
> Pity - I was becoming reconciled to a giant conspiracy to hide the
> brilliance of early Egyptian tricycle manufacture.......
>
> Eugene
>

Appears to weak for any use on the chariot,
and not mounted on the chariot in this picture.
Rather positioned were the horses should be.

http://foley.ultinet.net/~gerry/egypt/tut/p4100168.html

JjT

From:	Kendall K. Down
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:58:38 GMT

In message <1106300713.199180.297870@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
eugene@dynagen.co.za wrote:

> On one of the original photos taken during Howard Carter's
> "excavation?" of Tutankhamen's ante-chamber, with all the artifacts
> bearing numbers, there is a photo of the folding stool (number 83) with
> gooseshaped feet. On top of it, and unnumbered is an object that looks
> like a bicycle cog with a long shaft through it (it overhangs the stool
> either side).

I recall the object you describe. I don't recall what it is thought to be,
but as it is made of wood I gravely doubt that it was a tricycle part: in
any case, it would be no use without a chain.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

From:	eugene at dynagen.co.za
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	23 Jan 2005 00:56:06 -0800

Doug McDonald wrote:

>Autochromes are B&W film. The color comes from >built-in filters.

I think perhaps you are thinking of the earlier colour system invented
by James Maxwell. The Lumiere brother's Autochrome sytem introduced in
1905 was a true colour film (actually it used plates) using a single
camera, single lens and single film. It worked by having primary colour
sensitive grains in some sort of a colloid on the plate. Some very
impressive photos were made using it - but Godowsky and Mannes'
Kodakchrome of 1935 was it's death knell and probably the first easily
used colour system. By 1935 there were other colour films available
but all had drawbacks which Kodachrome easily overcame.

Eugene

From:	eugene at dynagen.co.za
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	22 Jan 2005 13:09:33 -0800

Ken Down wrote:

> Did Howard Carter have colour film?

I think some of the early autochromes were available - though not in
widespread use at the time. As Burton seems to have developed his
plates on site (probably so as to be able to rephotograph if necessary)
I doubt that would have been an option.

Eugene Griessel

From:	Doug McDonald
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:05:54 -0600

eugene@dynagen.co.za wrote:

> Ken Down wrote:
>
>
>>Did Howard Carter have colour film?
>
>
> I think some of the early autochromes were available - though not in
> widespread use at the time. As Burton seems to have developed his
> plates on site (probably so as to be able to rephotograph if necessary)
> I doubt that would have been an option.
>
> Eugene Griessel
>

Autochromes are B&W film. The color comes from built-in filters.

Doug McDonald

From:	Tom McDonald
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:41:32 -0600

eugene@dynagen.co.za wrote:
> Apologies if this question has been asked here before.
>
> On one of the original photos taken during Howard Carter's
> "excavation?" of Tutankhamen's ante-chamber, with all the artifacts
> bearing numbers, there is a photo of the folding stool (number 83) with
> gooseshaped feet. On top of it, and unnumbered is an object that looks
> like a bicycle cog with a long shaft through it (it overhangs the stool
> either side). The sort of shaft seen on rear-wheel tricycles of the
> past. I own several books on Tut plus the exhibit brochures for both
> the London and USA exhibitions in decades past but this particular
> article does not appear to be described anywhere in any of them
> (despite the fact they describe pretty small artifacts minutely - a
> reed picked by Tut, for instance).
> Anybody got any ideas? I can supply a scan if needed.
>
> Eugene Griessel
>

A link to an image would help. Is the photo one of the ones
shown in this link:

http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/050-099.html

I can see Item 83, but in this photo it is by itself. Maybe you
could find what you mean from this site and link to it here?

--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/

From:	Peter Jason
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:57:57 +1100

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
news:815Id.2632$8a2.368@fe03.lga...
> eugene@dynagen.co.za wrote:
> > Apologies if this question has been asked here before.
> >
> > On one of the original photos taken during Howard Carter's
> > "excavation?" of Tutankhamen's ante-chamber, with all the artifacts
> > bearing numbers, there is a photo of the folding stool (number 83) with
> > gooseshaped feet. On top of it, and unnumbered is an object that looks
> > like a bicycle cog with a long shaft through it (it overhangs the stool
> > either side). The sort of shaft seen on rear-wheel tricycles of the
> > past. I own several books on Tut plus the exhibit brochures for both
> > the London and USA exhibitions in decades past but this particular
> > article does not appear to be described anywhere in any of them
> > (despite the fact they describe pretty small artifacts minutely - a
> > reed picked by Tut, for instance).
> > Anybody got any ideas? I can supply a scan if needed.
> >
> > Eugene Griessel
> >
>
> A link to an image would help. Is the photo one of the ones
> shown in this link:
>
> http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/050-099.html
>
> I can see Item 83, but in this photo it is by itself. Maybe you
> could find what you mean from this site and link to it here?
>
>
>
> --
> Tom McDonald
> http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/

Why are these photos in black & white.
Did the objects fade?

From:	Kendall K. Down
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:07:32 GMT

In message
"Peter Jason" wrote:

> Why are these photos in black & white.
> Did the objects fade?

Did Howard Carter have colour film?

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

From:	Peter Jason
Subject:	Re: King Tut's Tricycle.....
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:40:46 +1100

"Kendall K. Down" wrote in message
news:54bc1f314d.diggings@diggingsonline.com...
> In message
> "Peter Jason" wrote:
>
> > Why are these photos in black & white.
> > Did the objects fade?
>
> Did Howard Carter have colour film?
>
> Ken Down
>
> --
> ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
> | Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
> | http://www.diggingsonline.com |
> ========================================================

Tsk. Are Carter's photos the only ones available?
Even if we sink so low as to read the 'National Geographic' we could do
better than Carter!