String of 3 amulets and 1 cylindrical bead
Description
Green feldspar, beryl, faience, glazed steatite, and carnelian
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.
The image shows a long cylindrical green object, likely a glazed stone/faïence amulet component, with a small orange-red bead or amulet element attached at one end and a pointed/tufted end at the other.
A single horizontal cylindrical rod in a light green/teal color is photographed against a white background. At the left end there is an orange-red rounded bead-like element attached to a small cluster of darker green/blue-green fragments (possibly additional amulet pieces or connectors). The right end tapers to a pointed tip and appears to have pale residue or a small fastening. In the center-left area of the green cylinder, there are dark-blue/black marks that could be incidental surface decoration or modern recording marks; however, they are not clearly legible as hieroglyphs. A red number-like inscription is visible on the cylinder (appears as “15:3:301” or similar), which is likely an inventory/recording label rather than ancient text. No other clear Greek/Coptic/Arabic text is visible. No obvious cartouches or royal names are discernible, and no explicit deity figures are apparent from this image.
Connections
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116281611 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 15.3.301–.304 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 557389 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.