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.

Fragment of a small object with worn, incised/painted decoration; no clearly legible inscriptions are visible in the provided image.

The image shows a small, irregular fragment with a rough surface and weathering. The object appears brownish-orange with darker smudges and possible remnants of color or surface treatment. A rectangular recessed/inscribed zone is faintly visible on one face, with light-colored marks inside, but the motifs and any potential hieroglyphs cannot be confidently read. No cartouches, royal names, or recognizable deity iconography are clearly present. There is no visible Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text. The catalogue identifies the object as a 'Fragment of a votive bracelet' made of faience (New Kingdom, Ramesside; from Serabit el-Khadim); however, the photo’s surface appears more stone/clay-like than glossy faience, and no distinctive faience fabric or mold features are clearly visible, so agreement with the material is not fully confirmable from this image alone.

unclear New Kingdom (Ramesside) per catalogue; image features too unclear to verify fragmentary
Materials unclear mineral/ceramic-like surface (faience not clearly confirmable)

Connections

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116442708 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 09.182.19.29 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 573217 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.