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

Mummified Cat

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

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: Mummified Cat, 750–400 B.C.E.. Animal remains, linen, pigment, 5 1/2 × 3 3/4 × 24 1/2 in. (14 × 9.5 × 62.2 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.1988E. (Photo: Brooklyn Museum)

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 cat wrapped in linen.

The image depicts a mummified cat, characterized by its elongated body wrapped in finely textured linen bandages. The wrappings are meticulously arranged, and the head is stylized to represent the features of a cat, with painted or sculpted eyes and ears. This artifact is indicative of the ancient Egyptian practice of animal mummification, which was performed for religious and ceremonial purposes.

religious Ptolemaic good
Materials linen

Connections

Found at Egypt
Materials Linen

Cross-references (2)

  • BKM-Accession 37.1988E tier-2
  • BKM-Object 4197 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.