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

Sealing

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

Description

Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 12–13, ca. 1981–1640 B.C. Mud. From: Cemetery, Lisht North, Memphite Region, Egypt. Excavation: MMA excavations, 1920–22. Credit: Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1922.

The same text in other collections

Linked as the same object. Each record below describes this same artifact or text from a different angle.

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, irregular lump of dark material bearing an impressed/relief design with a horizontal band and curving incised lines that resemble a seal impression or stamp mark.

The image shows a roughly oval, broken fragment of dark gray-black material with a carved/impressed face. On the front surface there is a broad, slightly raised horizontal register containing a central motif formed by short, horizontal strokes and adjacent curved/arched lines; the overall layout suggests a seal impression rather than a free-standing figure. No clearly legible hieroglyphs, cartouches, Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text can be confidently identified from this low-resolution view. There are no visible deity figures. The fragment appears consistent with a Middle Kingdom mud sealing fragment (ground truth: catalogue title “Sealing”; material mud), though the exact seal content is not legible.

decorative Middle Kingdom (per catalogue ground truth; inscription content unclear) fragmentary
Materials mud

Connections

Found at Lisht
Materials Mud

Cross-references (1)

  • PNM-Object pnm:83899637 tier-2 (inventory-match)
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.