1890.] 
A  Strange  Wooden  Object. 
9 
J.  DUNCOMBE,  drawings  and  information  in  regard  to  this  remark- 
able article,  for  which  I  desire  here  to  express  to  him  and  the 
management  of  the  Museum  my  warmest  thanks. 
This  object,  which  is  described  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Mu- 
seum as  "a  Persian  puzzle",  was  purchased  in  Persia  in  1876. 
Upon  my  renewed  request  to  be  informed  if  the  article  was  un- 
mistakeably  a  Persian  one,  Mr.  Duncombe  confirmed  the  fact  and 
added,  "it  has  always  been  considered  as  Persian  work".  It  is 
made  of  walnut  wood  and  cut  out  of  a  single  piece;  no  joints 
are  seen  in  its  arms.  Its  age  is  unknown  but  it  must  of  course 
be  a  modern  bit  of  work. 
This  Persian  article  is  illustrated  in  fig.  6  opened,  in  the  same 
position  as  the  Evebo  specimen  when  it  was  discovered,  and  in 
fig.  7  in  a  folded  position,  viewed  from  two  sides.  We  imme- 
diately  find  that  the  idea  is  absolutely  the  same  in  these  two  speci- 
mens.  Certainly  the  Persian  specimen  presents  some  variations, 
but  none  of  them  are  material;  they  are  only  later  developinents 
and  adornments  of  the  idea  represented  in  its  simplicity  in  the 
Norwegian  article. 
The  difference  that  first  strikes  us  is,  that  the  Persian  specimen 
has  eight  arms  while  the  Norwegian  one  has  only  four.  Upon  closer 
examination,  however,  it  is  seen  that  that  does  not  alter  the  principle 
of  the  apparatus;  the  four  parts  are  simply  split  throughout  their 
entire  length  so  that  each  may  be  separated  into  two.  The  same 
thing  may  easily  be  done  with  the  Evebo  specimen  without  its 
character  being  thereby  changed.  That  the  Persian  article  has  its 
arms  four-branched  whilst  ours  is  only  three-branched,  is  also 
evidently  accidental;  there  is  not  the  least  difficulty  in  making  a 
similar  acticle  with  more  or  fewer  branches.  Further,  the  foreign 
specimen  has  its  ends  rounded.  To  round  the  ends  of  the  square 
wooden  block  from  which  the  apparatus  is  made,  is  an  ornamental 
detail  that  might  easily  be  hit  upon,  but  as  the  ends  of  the  arms 
are  really  bent  inwards,  in  such  a  manner  that  each  of  them  follows 
the  external  rounded  contour  of  the  article  when  folded,  that  feature 
is  a  real  difference  from  the  construction  of  our  specimen,  and 
has  not  been  without  causing  difficulties  in  the  construction. 
But  that  feature  cannot  have  been  of  any  consequence  for  the  idea 
connected  with  the  apparatus;  it  is  evidently  only  a  subse- 
quently  added  difficulty,  which  imparts  an  appearance  of  impos- 
sibility  to  cut  the  article  out  of  a  single  block,  while  it  at  same 
