Brooklyn Museum — Egyptian, Classical, Ancient Near Eastern Art · papyrus

Papyrus Fragment Inscribed in Aramaic

Source of record: Brooklyn Museum — Egyptian, Classical, Ancient Near Eastern Art — catalogued by the holding institution. View the original record →

Description

Catalogue description: Culture Aramaic Caption: Aramaic. Papyrus Fragment Inscribed in Aramaic, 5th century B.C.E.. Papyrus, ink, 4 x 1 9/16 in. (10.1 x 3.9 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Bequest of Theodora Wilbour from the collection of her father, Charles Edwin Wilbour, 47.218.153. (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 vertical papyrus fragment preserves a block of ink inscriptions in a non-hieroglyphic script with short, stacked signs and wedge-like marks.

The image shows a torn papyrus strip photographed against a plain light background. The fragment retains multiple horizontal bands of dark ink sign groups arranged in rows, with marks that resemble wedge-shaped or cursive strokes rather than clear Egyptian hieroglyph pictorials. No legible cartouche or royal titulary is visible. There appear to be no explicit depictions of deities, only writing. The papyrus fibers and torn edges are visible, with some areas faded or washed out by the photographic exposure.

hieroglyphic only Late Period (as catalogued) fragmentary
Materials Papyrusink
Signs wedge-shaped/cursive inscription signs (exact script unclear)
Visible text "Unclear/non-legible from image; stacked dark ink signs arranged in rows (script not confidently identifiable as Aramaic from this image alone)."

Connections

Found at Elephantine
Materials InkPapyrus

Cross-references (2)

  • BKM-Accession 47.218.153 tier-2
  • BKM-Object 60791 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.