Plaque, two cartouches with names of Amenemhat II
Description
Faience, blue-green glaze
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.
Small blue-green glazed faience plaque fragment showing a raised cartouche-like motif with remnants of hieroglyphic signs on a broken object face.
The image depicts a small, broken ceramic/faience plaque with a blue-green glaze applied over a light fabric body. The glazed surface preserves two rectangular areas separated by a central vertical element; each area contains incised/raised hieroglyphic-like markings that resemble cartouche borders or interior signs, though the characters are not fully legible due to abrasion and breakage. A thicker, protruding strip rises from one side, suggesting the fragment is missing parts of the original plaque (including possibly the ends of one or both cartouches). The glaze shows wear and loss at edges and corners, and there are small traces of red paint pigment at least along the left side and near the base. No clear Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text is visible. No readable royal name or definitive deity identification can be confirmed from the current image quality, though the presence of cartouche-shaped framing aligns with the museum catalogue’s description.
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116281087 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 34.1.29 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 558075 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.