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

Double Stamped Sealing

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

Description

Mud

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, irregular grey-brown clay sealing fragment with two recessed stamp impressions on one face and a rounded knob-like area above.

The object appears to be a broken piece of mud/clay, photographed against a plain light background. One side shows two main circular/recessed areas: an upper rounded protrusion/knob and a larger lower depression containing faint incised/raised patterning that could relate to the sealing’s stamps. The surface has cracking and granular texture consistent with fired or dried mud. A red handwritten inventory number-like marking is visible on the upper-left of the face (reads approximately “178.82”), not an ancient inscription. No clearly legible hieroglyphs, cartouches, or Greek/Coptic/Arabic text are visible, and no deities or royal names can be securely identified from the stamp impressions.

decorative New Kingdom (catalogue ground truth) fragmentary
Materials mud (clay)

Connections

Found at Deir el-Ballas

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116281159 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 17.6.82 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 558068 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.