WALTERS-EG
Walters Art Museum (Egyptian) · jewelry
Scarab with Three Columns of Pseudo-hieroglyphs
Description
<p>The ancient Egyptians believed that the dung beetle, the Scarabaeus sacer, was one of the manifestations of the sun god. Representations of these beetles were used as amulets, and for ritual or administrative purposes.This scarab has a special motif on the bottom, which is known as a-n-r-combination, because it consists of the sound-signs for 'ayn, n, and r. The signs are arranged in three columns, combined with lotus blossoms at the beginnings and ends; the columns are framed by an oval line. The bottom design is deeply incised, and the shape of the signs typical for the Second Intermediate Period: n with a horizontal line crossed by short vertical lines, c with a curved line, and an oval lop at the end.The highest point of the back is the elytron (wing cases); two side-notches at shoulder height define the partition between pronotum (dorsal plate of the prothorax) and elytron. The head is trapezoidal, and the clypeus has four frontal serrations and a central base notch. The design of the back is simple, the carved side-notches short and not totally aligned. The proportions are unbalanced, and the pronotum is short in comparison to the head section and the elytron. The raised extremities have natural form and vertical hatch lines; the background between the legs is hollowed out. The base is long-oval, and the head part smaller than the rear part.The scarab is longitudinally pierced, was originally mounted or threaded, and served as an amulet. Probably, it should grant magical and/or divine support (a-n-r-pattern) and regeneration (lotus). It is not possible to determine the exact meaning of the a-n-r-pattern, although several options, such as a relation to the name of the god Re, or to a magical formula, have been discussed. In this special case with the dominance of c and n, it would make sense to consider a magical formula, which should strengthen the recreative (scarab), and regenerative (lotus) function by repetition.</p><p>For the latest information about this object, <cite><a href='https://purl.thewalters.org/art/42.19' rel='external'>Scarab with Three Columns of Pseudo-hieroglyphs</a></cite>, visit the Online Collection of the Walters Art Museum.</p>
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 scarab seal with three vertical columns of pseudo-hieroglyphic marks on a light beige steatite surface.
The image shows a small, oval/rounded scarab-like object filling the frame. Across the face are three distinct vertical panels separated by raised/outlined lines, each containing rows of incised dark signs resembling hieroglyphs; the signs appear decorative/pseudo rather than forming a clearly readable full inscription. No clear cartouche, royal name, or figure of a deity is visible—only abstract sign-like motifs. The background is light beige with visible wear and mottling, and the incised lines are sharply outlined with dark pigment/ink or shadowing from the engraving. No Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text is visible.
hieroglyphic only
Unknown (likely Late Period to Ptolemaic scarab tradition, but not determinable from this image)
good
Materials
light beige steatite (as catalogued; surface appears mineral with wear)
Signs
pseudo-hieroglyphic incised motifs (multiple, non-readable as specific letters) ×30
Inscriptions (1)
Inscription #1
English description
[Inscription] Three columns of pseudo-hieroglyphs in the so-called a-n-r-combination (combination of the sound signs c, n, and r).
Connections
Deities
Ra
Cross-references (2)
- Walters-AccNum 42.19 tier-2
- Walters-id 5337 tier-2
Similar inscriptions · by content embedding
About this record's data
- From the source institution — accession, description, dimensions, and dating are as catalogued by Walters Art Museum (Egyptian).
- 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.