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

Cosmetic Dish in Form of Bound Oryx and Miniature Frog

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

Description

Object Label: Wood, Bone, and Ivory in the New Kingdom Egyptian artists were resourceful in overcoming the problems of working with difficult materials to make the objects seen here. Egyptian trees, such as acacia, sycamore, and tamarisk, are too small to produce large planks. Carpenters working with native woods thus had to develop complicated joinery techniques to build large objects like coffins and furniture. For expensive luxury items they used timbers such as ebony, cedar, and juniper, imported from Nubia and Punt to the south and Syria and Lebanon to the northeast. Ancient craftsmen used tools that would be familiar to modern carpenters, including adzes, chisels, reamers, and saws. Many ancient Egyptian wooden objects left in tombs as funerary offerings have survived remarkably well. Undisturbed tombs maintain extremely stable climatic conditions, slowing the effects of repeated expansion and contraction that are so damaging to wood. Egypt’s relatively dry climate also discourages the growth of mold, insects, and microorganisms that feed on wood. Ancient Egyptian ivory used for carving came from the tusks of elephants and hippopotami. Elephants had probably disappeared from Egypt by the end of the Predynastic Period (circa 3100 B.C.E.), so their ivory had to be imported from Nubia. Hippopotami remained common in the lower Nile Valley until the seventeenth century C.E. Some antiquities mistakenly said to be made of ivory are actually made of the bones or antlers of cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes. Egyptians used the often ideally shaped leg bones of these animals to create the handles of tools or weapons. Caption: Cosmetic Dish in Form of Bound Oryx and Miniature Frog, ca. 1390–1279 B.C.E.. Ivory, 13/16 x 3/8 x 1 3/4 in. (2.1 x 1 x 4.4 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 56.19. (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.

The image shows a small, carved animal-shaped cosmetic implement, rendered as a single seal-like form with a defined muzzle and head, viewed in profile.

A light-colored, polished carved object is photographed against a plain background. The visible surface forms a compact body with a prominent head at the left, including a short muzzle and small facial contours; the lower portion shows a projecting element resembling a tail or lower body extension. The overall silhouette suggests a bound or posed animal depiction rather than a flat dish. No clear bowl/dish cavity is visible from this angle. The object appears to be made of a hard, smooth material with tool marks and slight surface wear/polish consistent with carved ivory. No carved hieroglyphs or cartouches are visible. No modern inscriptions or Greek/Coptic/Arabic text appears. The photograph does not clearly show both an oryx and a miniature frog together; the figure depicted is closer to a single amphibian/animal form than a composite scene, making identification based on the image alone uncertain.

decorative New Kingdom (as catalogued); otherwise unclear from image alone good
Materials ivory (polished, carved)stone-like hard material (likely ivory)

Connections

Materials Ivory

Cross-references (2)

  • BKM-Accession 56.19 tier-2
  • BKM-Object 3622 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.