Shrew Mummy Bundle
Description
Object Label: Shrews and ichneumons both prey on snakes and therefore won the Egyptians’ admiration and worship. Though snakes could turn their powers to protecting kings and queens, serpents also threatened the sun god Re on his journey through the next world. Egyptian religion made room for both the positive and negative aspects of certain animals. The shrew mummy bundle shows that more than one animal was sometimes included in one package. Caption: Shrew Mummy Bundle, 664–30 B.C.E.. Animal remains (Crocidura flavescens, C. nana, C. olivieri, or C. religiosa), linen, 2 15/16 x 8 1/4 x 4 3/4 in., 1 lb. (7.5 x 21 x 12.1 cm, 0.45kg). Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn Museum Collection, X1179.2. (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 horizontally oriented mummified bundle wrapped in deteriorated linen, photographed against a light background.
The image shows a compact, cylindrical/oval shroud-like bundle with layered textile wrapping. The wrappings appear brownish and degraded, with visible knotting/straps and uneven folds; several loose ends hang along the sides. No clear anatomical features of a specific animal remain are visible in this photo, and there is no legible text or iconography. The cataloged interpretation as a “shrew mummy bundle” (with small animal remains inside) cannot be directly verified from the exterior wrapping alone, though the form is consistent with a small mummified animal bundle. No clear hieroglyphs, cartouches, or inscriptions are visible.
Cross-references (2)
- BKM-Accession X1179.2 tier-2
- BKM-Object 184723 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.