Manchester Museum — Egypt and Sudan collection · vessel

Vessel

Source of record: Manchester Museum — Egypt and Sudan collection — catalogued by the holding institution. View the original record →

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.

Photograph shows a small fragment of a light-colored ceramic vessel on a dark surface, with a hand-written accession/registration number on the fragment.

The image is a close, angled view of a single broken ceramic sherd. The sherd is wedge-like with a fairly flat, pale beige surface; no decorative relief or painted iconography is clearly visible. A black, handwritten character string and digits are present on the sherd (appearing like “256/ N” and “0508” or similar), which reads as a modern catalog/label mark rather than ancient text. No legible carved hieroglyphs, cartouches, or royal names are visible. No deities are depicted. The object is photographed next to a museum scale/label card (Manchester 1824) with a ruler in centimeters; this is modern documentation rather than ancient inscription. The catalogue description as a pottery vessel from the Predynastic Period is plausible given the material, but the period cannot be confirmed from the image alone.

daily life Predynastic Period (based on catalogue; not verifiable from visible features in image) fragmentary
Materials Pottery/ceramic (light beige sherd)
Signs Handwritten modern numbers/registration mark (not ancient hieroglyphs) ×2

Connections

Found at Armant

Cross-references (3)

  • Manchester-Accession 10308 tier-2
  • Manchester-IRN 107679 tier-2
  • Manchester-UUID 86022fa6-ac4e-37ec-8e35-bfa2724df0d9 tier-2
About this record's data
  • From the source institution — accession, description, dimensions, and dating are as catalogued by Manchester Museum — Egypt and Sudan collection.
  • 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.