Metropolitan Museum of Art — Egyptian Art (Open Access) · other

Die

Source of record: Metropolitan Museum of Art — Egyptian Art (Open Access) — catalogued by the holding institution. View the original record →

Description

Dice. Roman Period, 30 B.C.–A.D. 364. Ivory (?). 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 cm (5/16 × 5/16 × 5/16 in.). From: Oxyrhynchus (Bahnasa), Middle Egypt, Egypt. Excavation: EEF excavations 1902–03. Credit: Gift of Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903.

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, carved cube-like object with dark incised line motifs on a light ground and several red-painted markings; it is presented on a plain background.

The object appears as a small, rectangular/cube-shaped carving with worn edges. The surface is decorated on multiple visible faces with repeated, curving line motifs resembling stylized rosettes or circular glyph-like forms. There are also distinct red pigment patches or painted marks on at least two faces, with the pigment partially abraded. No clearly legible hieroglyphs, cartouches, or alphabetic text are readable in the available resolution/angle. The catalog title identifies it as a 'Die,' and the visible design pattern is consistent with a small game/inscribed die having incised and painted symbols, though the exact symbol identities are unclear.

unclear Roman Period (per catalogue; specific dating not verifiable from image alone) poor
Materials light-colored carved material (possibly ivory; exact material unclear)pigment (red)
Signs Unidentified incised symbol/motif (rosette/oval glyph-like forms) ×10

Connections

Found at Oxyrhynchus
Materials Pigment
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.