Aramaic Papyrus
Description
Catalogue description: Culture Aramaic Caption: Aramaic. Aramaic Papyrus, July 6, 451 B.C.E.. Papyrus, ink, frame: 14 1/8 x 17 1/2 in. (35.8 x 44.4 cm) Object: 12 5/8 x 10 3/16 in. (32.1 x 25.9 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Bequest of Theodora Wilbour from the collection of her father, Charles Edwin Wilbour, 47.218.152. (Photo: Brooklyn Museum)
AI image analysis GPT-5.4-nano
Machine-generated from the object's image on Jul 2026. Not curatorial; treat deities, names, and signs below as the model's best reading, not authority.
A sheet of papyrus covered with dense black ink writing in lines, fragmented along the edges.
The image shows a rectangular papyrus fragment laid flat against a light background. The papyrus surface is visibly fibrous and brown/tan, with missing areas and jagged breaks along all sides. Over most of the preserved surface there are multiple horizontal/irregular lines of dark ink text. The characters appear as cursive script rather than formal Egyptian hieroglyphs; no clear cartouches or royal names are discernible, and no clearly identifiable divine iconography is present. No Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text is legible. A small museum label-like mark appears in the bottom-right corner, but it is too small to read reliably. Overall, the object is consistent with a written papyrus document (ink on papyrus), matching the catalogue’s identification as “Aramaic Papyrus,” though the specific language/script cannot be confirmed with certainty from the provided resolution alone.
Cross-references (2)
- BKM-Accession 47.218.152 tier-2
- BKM-Object 60790 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.