Relief fragment from the mortuary temple of Amenemhat I
Description
Relief, Amenemhat I. Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 12, ca. 1981–1952 B.C. Limestone, paint. h. 50.8 cm (20 in); w. 59.7 cm (23 1/2 in). From: Cemetery, Lisht North, Memphite Region, Egypt. Excavation: MMA excavations, 1908–09. Subject: Hieroglyphs. 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.
A carved limestone relief fragment showing parts of a columned register and multiple hieroglyphic signs, with remnants of paint on the stone surface.
The image shows a roughly rectangular relief fragment with one long side broken and the top and right edges damaged. Incised hieroglyphic signs and architectural-like vertical elements appear across the fragment, including a central band with stacked sign groups and a lower register with horizontal lines. On the upper left, faint outlines of signs (possibly including a cartouche-like or seated-figure-related element) are present but too incomplete to read confidently. The right side contains a vertical, column-like cluster of carved strokes and repeated sign forms, and there are traces of red/ochre coloration in small areas consistent with paint remnants. No clearly preserved cartouche with the king’s name is fully legible in the provided view.
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116248303 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 09.180.114 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 544197 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.