Ibis Mummy
Description
Object Label: Often, the more elaborate the wrapping, the less likely it is that the whole animal is inside, as the two CT scans shown here reveal. Perhaps the intricate wrapping substitutes for the animal. This ibis is the most elaborately wrapped of all the animal mummies on display here. The herringbone pattern linen, the beak, and the elaborate crown all cover a mummy made only from ibis feathers. In contrast, the simple circular wrapping of this cat, with a head modeled in linen, conceals a complete cat mummy. Caption: Ibis Mummy, 30 B.C.E.–100 C.E.. Animal remains, resin, linen, Ibis mummy with headdress: 30 5/16 × 5 1/2 × 8 1/4 in. (77 × 14 × 21 cm) a - Ibis mummy without headdress: 24 7/16 × 5 5/16 × 8 1/4 in. (62 × 13.5 × 21 cm) b - Headdress: 15 × 13 11/16 × 2 11/16 in. (38.1 × 34.8 × 6.9 cm) mount (display dims on support board): 7 × 9 × 34 1/4 in. (17.8 × 22.9 × 87 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 14.655a-b. (Photo: Brooklyn Museum (Gavin Ashworth, photographer)) Tags Brooklyn Icons
AI image analysis GPT-4o-2024-08-06
Machine-generated from the object's image on May 2026. Not curatorial; treat deities, names, and signs below as the model's best reading, not authority.
A mummified ibis with a stylized covering and decorated head.
The artifact depicts a mummified ibis with intricate woven patterns on its wrappings and a headdress featuring elaborate designs. The craftsmanship highlights the reverence for the ibis, associated with the God Thoth, in ancient Egypt. The meticulous patterning and careful preservation of the animal indicate a high level of skill and importance in religious or funerary contexts.
Cross-references (2)
- BKM-Accession 14.655a-b tier-2
- BKM-Object 8647 tier-2
About this record's data
- From the source institution — accession, description, dimensions, and dating are as catalogued by Brooklyn Museum — Egyptian, Classical, Ancient Near Eastern Art.
- AI-inferred — the image-analysis panel (deities, names, signs) is machine-generated and may be wrong.
- Approximate location — most map points are plotted at the site centroid, not the exact findspot.
- Inferred links — cross-references marked with a match method other than explicit-source-field were matched by us, not stated by the source.