Heqanakht Papyrus Fragments
Description
Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 12, reign of Senwosret I, ca. 1961–1917 B.C. Papyrus, ink. Fragment A: H. 8 cm (3 1/8 in.), W. 3.5 cm (1 3/8 in.); Fragment B: H. 4.3 cm (1 11/16 in.), W. 6.3 cm (2 1/2 in.). From: Tomb of Ipy (TT 315, MMA 516B), Tomb of Meseh, Deir el-Bahri, Upper Egypt, Thebes, Egypt. Excavation: MMA excavations, 1921–22. Subject: Documents, Hieratic. Credit: Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1922.
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 several small, irregular papyrus fragments bearing dark ink hieroglyphic marks arranged in short lines and blocks.
Multiple torn papyrus pieces are photographed against a light background. On the largest upper-right fragment, black/dark ink characters form dense horizontal groupings consistent with Egyptian hieroglyphic text; smaller fragments also show clusters of similar ink signs, with some areas too fragmentary to reconstruct complete words. No clear figural scenes or named cartouches are legible at this resolution. No Greek, Coptic, or Arabic script is visible. The object appears consistent with a papyrus document or inscription fragment rather than a painted textile or carved stone.
Inscriptions (1)
Visible text (machine reading)
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116244145 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 22.3.523a–f tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 545452 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.