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.

A small rectangular/curved fragment of turquoise-blue material with orange-brown deposits, consistent with a faience artifact fragment.

The image shows a single object fragment photographed against a neutral background. The fragment has a roughly rectangular shape with rounded edges and uneven break surfaces. The dominant surface color is a mottled turquoise/blue-green, with widespread dark speckling and patches of orange-brown discoloration consistent with weathering or residue. No clear decorative pattern, perforation, or ornamental form is visible at this resolution; likewise, no legible hieroglyphs or other script appear on the fragment. The surface texture and coloration are consistent with a glazed ceramic such as faience, though the exact bracelet design cannot be confirmed from the photograph. No identifiable deities or royal names/carthouches are visible.

decorative New Kingdom (Ramesside), as catalogued; visually not confirmable from the fragment alone fragmentary
Materials faience/glazed ceramic (turquoise-blue surface glaze)orange-brown weathering/residue

Connections

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116442701 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 09.182.19.24 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 573212 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.