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 reddish pottery ostracon fragment with dark ink writing arranged in horizontal lines and a small decorative/boxed element near the top edge.

The object is a roughly triangular, broken piece of fired clay (ostracon) photographed against a light background. The surface is reddish-brown with visible fabric/pottery texture and scattered chips along the edges. Dark ink covers much of the face in multiple horizontal bands of cursive/drawn signs; near the upper section there is a curved line and what may be the end of a larger sign or cartouche-like grouping, but the characters are too unclear to identify precisely. No clearly readable royal name (cartouche) or deity determinative can be confirmed from the image. No non-Egyptian scripts (Greek, Coptic, or Arabic) are legible; the writing appears consistent with Egyptian hieroglyphic or hieratic sign forms, but exact identification of individual signs is not secure. The bottom and left portions show additional short horizontal strokes and grouped marks consistent with inked text. No pigment other than the dark ink is visibly distinct.

hieroglyphic only Late Period–Ptolemaic (per catalogue; exact signs unreadable) fragmentary
Materials pottery (reddish fired clay)ink (dark black/brown)
Signs unclear Egyptian script/hieratic-like horizontal text

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.