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.

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.

Small dark-gray mud sealing fragment with an impressed hieroglyphic design or text on one face.

The object appears as a broken, roughly conical/irregular lump of dark gray material consistent with mud. One side preserves an impressed motif of multiple incised signs arranged in a compact row; individual signs are worn/partly chipped and cannot be confidently identified. No clear royal cartouche, deity determinative, or readable spell is preserved in the available image. There is no visible Greek, Coptic, or Arabic text. The catalogue description as a mud sealing from the Middle Kingdom (Lisht North) is plausible given the material and the presence of impressed hieroglyphic signs.

religious Middle Kingdom (as catalogued); exact reign unknown. fragmentary
Materials mud (dark gray)
Signs Impressed hieroglyphic signs (unidentified due to wear) ×5
Visible text "Unreadable impressed hieroglyphic signs; no legible excerpt preserved."

Inscriptions (1)

Inscription #1 AI reading of the photograph

Visible text (machine reading)

Unreadable impressed hieroglyphic signs; no legible excerpt preserved.

Connections

Found at Lisht
Materials Mud
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.