Metropolitan Museum of Art — Egyptian Art (Open Access) · jewelry

Fragment of a votive bracelet

Source of record: Metropolitan Museum of Art — Egyptian Art (Open Access) — catalogued by the holding institution. View the original record →

Description

Faience

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.

Rectangular fragment of a small faience object with a faded decorative/inscribed area on one face.

The image shows a small, roughly rectangular, vertically oriented artifact with rounded edges. The surface is light turquoise/greenish with speckling and patches of discoloration, consistent with a glazed ceramic. On the lower portion of the visible face there is a poorly preserved circular/oval motif containing vertical and curved light-colored elements; elsewhere the surface appears largely unpatterned or too eroded to read clearly. No clear cartouche, royal titulary, or legible hieroglyphs are visible, though the circular motif may be part of a larger decorative or votive design. No inscriptions in Greek, Coptic, or Arabic are apparent. The overall appearance is consistent with a fragment from a faience votive bracelet, though the exact bracelet form and complete motif cannot be reconstructed from this single fragment.

unclear New Kingdom (Ramesside), per catalogue; exact period not confirmable from image alone. fragmentary
Materials faience/glazed ceramic (turquoise/green glaze visible)
Signs unidentified motif (circular/oval with vertical elements)

Connections

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116440279 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 09.182.19.1 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 567966 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
About this record's data
  • From the source institution — accession, description, dimensions, and dating are as catalogued by Metropolitan Museum of Art — Egyptian Art (Open Access).
  • 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.