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

Fragment of a Canopic Chest of Queen Tiya

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

Description

Travertine (Egyptian alabaster)

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.

Photograph of a light-colored stone fragment with shallow carved/relief decoration and faint vertical groove/relief lines; no clear figures are discernible.

The image shows a roughly rectangular, irregularly edged fragment of pale stone (light gray-white). A large central field appears smoother with faint, low-relief incised/raised linear elements: one prominent vertical line/groove near the center and broader shallow relief forms around it. The surface is worn and lacks clearly legible hieroglyphs, cartouches, or identifiable iconography at this resolution. No canopic container lid or chest inscriptions are clearly visible. No Greek/Coptic/Arabic text is apparent. The overall appearance could be consistent with a carved architectural/containers fragment, but specific identification to a Queen Tiya canopic chest cannot be confirmed visually from the provided photo.

unclear New Kingdom (Ramesside), unclear from visible details fragmentary
Materials stone (light gray-white; likely travertine/egyptian alabaster as catalogued)

Connections

Royals Thutmose IV

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116234984 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 14.6.373d tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 577024 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.