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.

Terracotta ostracon fragment with faint brown ink marks that may form short lines of hieroglyphic or cursive Egyptian writing.

The image shows a roughly triangular/irregular piece of fired clay (ostracon) on a light neutral background. The surface is reddish-brown with small inclusions and firing pores. Across the face are several small, dark brown to black ink strokes/marks, but they are too faint and fragmentary to reliably read as specific hieroglyphs or as a clearly legible script. No cartouche, royal name, or deity figure is clearly identifiable. The marks appear more like writing than decorative patterning, consistent with an ostracon used for short texts. No Greek/Coptic/Arabic text is visible. No additional pigments or coatings are apparent beyond the ink marks. Condition appears worn and abraded with some chips along edges, but the writing area remains present.

hieroglyphic only Late Period–Ptolemaic (per catalogue); specific script/hand not readable from image good
Materials pottery/terracottaink (brown/black)
Signs unreadable ink strokes (likely hieroglyphic/cursive Egyptian writing)

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.