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

Fragment of a votive tile with cartouche of Ramesses IV

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

Description

Faience

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 fragment of a turquoise-blue faience tile with a partial cartouche-like oval/loop motif and blackish incised or painted linework.

The object is a broken, irregular piece with a turquoise-blue surface and an exposed reddish-brown ceramic body underneath. On the visible face there are traces of dark (black or very dark green/blue) linework and a partial rounded/oval element, resembling part of a royal cartouche or decorative enclosure, though most of the inscription is missing due to fragmentation. No complete cartouche text is visible, and there are no clearly identifiable deity figures. No Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text is present; only possible Egyptian hieroglyphic/cartouche elements are suggested by the surviving outline and adjacent lines.

unclear New Kingdom, Ramesside period (based on catalogue context; inscription not fully legible here) fragmentary
Royals Ramesses IV (catalogue attribution; not legible/confirmable from this image)
Materials turquoise-blue faience surfacereddish-brown ceramic/frit body (broken core)
Signs partial cartouche/enclosure-like oval and surrounding linework (exact signs unclear)

Connections

Royals Ramesses IV

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116416574 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 09.182.19.36 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 550217 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.