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

Ostracon

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

Description

Pottery, ink

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 reddish-orange pottery ostracon fragment covered with handwritten-looking dark ink signs arranged in several horizontal lines.

The object is a roughly rectangular piece of fired clay/ceramic with uneven edges, photographed against a light background. The surface shows multiple groups of dark ink characters forming lines across the upper and middle portions, with some signs partially preserved and others faded or blurred. No decorative relief, iconography, or figural imagery is clearly visible—only script-like marks. The writing appears Egyptian hieroglyphic or cursive Egyptian-like script, but individual signs are not reliably identifiable from the image resolution. No cartouche or royal name is legible. No Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text is visible. No identifiable deity figures are present, as the marks are confined to writing.

hieroglyphic only Late Period–Ptolemaic Period (consistent with catalogue; script is consistent with an Egyptian text but exact dating from image alone is unclear) fragmentary
Materials pottery/ceramicink (dark pigment)
Signs unidentified ink hieroglyphic/cursive sign groups ×20

Connections

Found at Hibis
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.