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 small, irregular fragment of carved stone with smooth/flat surfaces and remaining incised/relief edges along one side.

The image shows a broken rectangular block of light-colored stone (grey-white) with worn edges and a chisel-like fracture. One face appears relatively planar and smooth, while the right side retains clustered, angular depressions/relief marks, possibly the remnants of carved decoration or an inscription field; however, individual hieroglyphs are not legible at this resolution. No clear canopic-chest iconography (e.g., protective deities, lid shapes, cartouches) is visible. The fragment lacks any clearly readable modern or ancient text (no Greek/Coptic/Arabic) and no definite hieroglyphic signs can be confidently identified. Overall condition appears fragmentary with weathering/erosion on the fracture surfaces.

decorative New Kingdom, Ramesside (catalogue ground truth; inscription/signs not legible in image) fragmentary
Materials light grey-white stone (exact type unclear in image)

Connections

Royals Thutmose IV

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116234981 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 14.6.373h tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 577028 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.