Taweret Amulet
Description
Amulet, Taweret. New Kingdom, Ramesside, Dynasty 19–20, ca. 1295–1070 B.C. Steatite. H. 1.5 cm (9/16 in.); W. 0.8 cm (5/16 in.); D. 0.6 cm (1/4 in.). From: Cemetery, Lisht North, Memphite Region, Egypt. Excavation: MMA excavations. Subject: Taweret. Credit: Rogers Fund, 1915.
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 blue-green faience/stone amulet shaped like an animal-like figure with a raised head and a long vertical suspension loop, consistent with a Taweret-style protective amulet form.
The object is photographed against a light background and appears as a single, handheld amulet with a glazed surface in a turquoise/blue-green color. The figure has a prominent head/upper body facing left or front-left, with rounded ears and a curved back. A large circular/oval depression or feature is visible on the upper head area. The body tapers downward and includes a clear vertical line/slot through the lower portion consistent with a suspension or attachment feature. No readable hieroglyphic, Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text is visible in the image. The glaze shows wear and discoloration at edges, especially along the silhouette. Overall form and protective-amulettype silhouette are consistent with the catalogue identification as a Taweret amulet, though exact Taweret iconographic details (e.g., specific limb/breast/hip markings) are not fully confirmable from this single view.
Cross-references (4)
- Wikidata-Q Q116243688 tier-1
- Collection-QID Q160236 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- Inventory-Number 15.3.551 tier-2 (wikidata-mediated)
- MET-Object 555415 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.