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

Bead or amulet

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

Description

Gold, wood, green feldspar, lapis lazuli, jasper and beryl

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 segmented bead/amulet composed of alternating colored cylindrical segments strung on a rod or remaining support.

The image shows a long, narrow object consisting of multiple short cylindrical segments in alternating colors (dark brown/black, green, and reddish-brown), with overall wear consistent with a small bead string or segmented amulet. The leftmost end appears broken or eroded, suggesting fragmentation. There is no clear depiction of a deity figure, no cartouche-like oval, and no obvious Greek/Coptic/Arabic text. The central segments include dark markings or incised/printed markings that are not sufficiently legible to identify as specific hieroglyphs. No separate backing or panel is visible; the object reads visually as a bead or bead-like amulet rather than a larger inscribed monument.

decorative Middle Kingdom–Early New Kingdom (as catalogued; exact dating unclear from image alone) fragmentary
Materials green feldspar-like stonedark/black stone (possibly lapis or jasper; uncertain)reddish-brown stonewood or organic core/support (unclear)
Signs incised/painted mark of unknown script or decorative device ×3

Connections

Found at Lisht

Cross-references (4)

  • Wikidata-Q Q116280024 tier-1
  • Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • Inventory-Number 15.3.86 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
  • MET-Object 559328 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.