Magic Gem
Description
Caption: Magic Gem, 100–300 C.E.. Jasper, 13/16 x 5/8 x 1/16 in. (2.1 x 1.6 x 0.2 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.1756E. (Photo: Brooklyn Museum)
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.
Oval, dark stone gem engraved in relief with an image of a seated/standing deity or divine figure, framed by surrounding feather/wing-like motifs.
The object is an oval, polished, dark-colored gem (likely a carved intaglio/relief work) photographed against a light background. The design is centered: a central figure with an elongated, crowned headdress and a body drawn in symmetrical relief. Flanking elements and upward/downward rays or feather/wing-like forms appear on both sides, giving a radiating or protective composition. The stone surface looks matte to semi-gloss, with the carved lines appearing darker than the surrounding field. No clearly legible hieroglyphic text, Greek, Coptic, or Arabic inscriptions are visible in the photograph; any surrounding marks are part of the iconography rather than discrete lettering. No cartouche or royal name is visible. The catalogue identifies the material as jasper and the type as a “Magic Gem” from the Roman Period in Lower Egypt; the image is consistent with a carved gemstone with protective/divine imagery, though the exact material (jasper) cannot be confirmed from the photo alone.
Connections
Cross-references (2)
- BKM-Accession 37.1756E tier-2
- BKM-Object 118276 tier-2
About this record's data
- From the source institution — accession, description, dimensions, and dating are as catalogued by Brooklyn Museum — Egyptian, Classical, Ancient Near Eastern Art.
- 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.