Relief block from a temple of Amenemhat I
Description
Relief, temple of Amenemhat I. Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 12, reign of Amenemhat I (coregency with Senwosret I?), ca. 1962–1952 B.C. Limestone, paint. H. 31 cm (12 3/16 in.); W. 171.5 cm (67 1/2 in.); D. 13.3 cm (5 1/4 in.). From: Pyramid Temple of Amenemhat I, re-used in foundation, Lisht North, Memphite Region, Egypt. Excavation: MMA excavations. Subject: Animals. Credit: Rogers Fund, 1908.
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.
A rectangular painted stone relief block showing parts of a painted scene with decorative border bands and faint hieroglyphic-like markings.
The image shows a long, horizontal relief block with a flat face. Traces of original paint remain in blue/green and red along the top and within the scene. A border band runs along the upper edge, and within the painted field there are recognizable stylized forms of figures or symbolic elements; several areas appear abraded, leaving only partial outlines. Black/blue linear markings resembling hieroglyphic signs are present but too incomplete to reliably identify individual signs. No clearly legible royal cartouche or full throne-name is visible in the current photograph. There is no Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text visible.
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116249525 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 08.200.7 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 544140 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.