Ibis-Form Mummy in Jar
Description
Object Label: Ceramic jars were common, inexpensive coffins for animal mummies. There were two types of lids. In the first, a lid for an ordinary jar could be fashioned from mud and straw. In the second, an opening could be made in the jar while the clay was still wet; both the jar and its cover could then be fired together. Caption: Ibis-Form Mummy in Jar, 510–210 B.C.E.. Clay, animal remains, linen, 6 5/16 × 3 3/8 × 2 3/4 in. (16 × 8.5 × 7 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.1952Ea-c. (Photo: Brooklyn Museum (Gavin Ashworth, photographer))
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.
The image shows two views of an Egyptian funerary animal mummy: a reddish-brown clay jar fragment and a separate bundled, bandaged form shaped like a bird/small animal, likely an ibis. No clear inscriptions are readable.
On the left is a terracotta/red-brown container (jar) with a flared rim; its interior appears hollow, and the exterior has light surface patches or residue. The rim and upper body are chipped and abraded. On the right is a narrow, elongated bundle wrapped with linen-like fabric strips arranged in vertical and horizontal bands. The bundle has a pointed or tapered end at the bottom and a rounded top that suggests it is inserted into or associated with the jar form. The wrapping includes dark brown/black strokes or marks and a banding pattern resembling stitched or painted lines, but no clearly legible hieroglyphic characters, cartouches, or Greek/Coptic/Arabic text can be confirmed from the image.
Connections
Cross-references (2)
- BKM-Accession 37.1952Ea-c tier-2
- BKM-Object 118456 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.