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

Tool

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

Description

New Kingdom, Ramesside, Dynasty 19–20, ca. 1295–1070 B.C. Flint. From: Lisht North, Memphite Region, Egypt. Excavation: MMA excavations. Credit: Rogers Fund, 1909.

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.

The image shows a large, elongated stone implement with a flattened profile and one long edge, photographed in profile against a plain background.

The artifact appears to be a single-piece stone tool, most likely flint, with a rounded, slightly pointed end on the left and a wider, blunt right end. The surfaces are light gray to dark gray with visible toolstone texture and striations/scars consistent with flint knapping. No clear working edge, inset features, or hafting are visible in this image. There are no legible hieroglyphs, cartouches, or inscriptions on the visible faces, and no figures of deities or royal iconography are present. The object does not show any overt Greek/Coptic/Arabic text. Overall form and material appearance are consistent with a flint implement, matching the catalogue subject as a “Tool,” though the period details cannot be verified from the photograph alone.

daily life New Kingdom (Ramesside period), uncertain from image alone good
Materials flint

Connections

Found at Lisht
Materials Flint
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.