Inlay, floral square
Description
Roman Period, 1st–3rd Century A.D. Mosaic glass. H. 2.6 × W. 2.6 cm (1 × 1 in.). From: Egypt. Credit: Gift of Helen Miller Gould, 1910.
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 small turquoise-blue rectangular/fragmentary inlay panel decorated with a central stylized floral motif and surrounding red and white leaf-like forms.
The image shows a light turquoise-blue glass or mosaic inlay fragment with painted/embedded decorative elements. At the center is a yellow four-petaled flower with a red outline and small white shapes around it. Surrounding the flower are symmetrical red leaf or feather-like elements (four larger red motifs) and additional small white leaf/flower shapes, all arranged in a decorative grid-like pattern. No clear Egyptian hieroglyphs, cartouches, Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text are visible. The fragment is broken on at least two edges, indicating it is part of a larger square or rectangular inlay panel. A faint vertical sequence of dark marks appears along the left edge, but it is unclear whether these are intentional inscriptions or damage/fragmentary decoration; no reliable sign identifications can be made. The overall appearance matches an inlay design rather than a figural scene.
Connections
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116252005 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 10.130.2699 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 551562 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.