Scarab Finger Ring
Description
Ring, scarab. Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 12–13, reign of Amenemhat III, ca. 1850–1750 B.C. Lapis lazuli scarab set in gold plate and on a gold wire ring Lapis-lazuli. diam. 2.5 cm (1 in); scarab: l. 1.8 cm (11/16 in). Probably from: Dahshur, Memphite Region. Excavation: de Morgan excavations, 1894–95. Subject: Scarabs. Credit: Purchase, Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1926.
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.
Photograph of a small scarab-shaped/oval seal set in a blue lapis-lazuli face, mounted on a thin gold wire finger ring.
The image shows a gold wire ring with a hooked join on one side. The bezel holds an oval, domed blue stone with lighter streaks and a faint central line; the stone’s surface appears polished. The stone is consistent with lapis lazuli and is presented as the primary decorative/seal element, consistent with a scarab finger ring where a lapis inlay or carved scarab would be set in gold. No clearly legible inscriptions or hieroglyphs are visible in this photograph. No cartouches or named royal figures can be confirmed from the visible stone surface. The object is well lit against a plain background and appears intact, though fine details of any scarab carving are not clearly resolvable at this resolution.
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116281869 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 26.7.755 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 546149 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.