✦ South Netherlandish · 19th or 20th century (13th century style)
Medieval style. A later object.
A bronze matrix made in the nineteenth or twentieth century uses a thirteenth-century style. Its manufacture and the historical reference of its design need separate dates.
Rogers Fund, 1981 · CC0. Resized without cropping or recolouring.
Enlarge the photograph ↗✦ Photograph-based observations
Which century belongs to the object?
The photograph places two pointed oval forms side by side: an orange impression on the left and a dark metal matrix on the right. Their central figures and lettered borders run in opposite directions. The difference can be inspected without first assigning a name to the figure.
A haloed figure sits within the central scene. A small animal and star-shaped forms appear above it. This is included as comparative seal imagery, not as a newly identified coat of arms. A seal can carry a pictorial scene rather than the shield one expects in an armorial collection.
What the record tells us
The Met dates the bronze matrix to the nineteenth or twentieth century and separately describes its style as thirteenth century. It records manufacture in Ghent and a South Netherlandish culture, under accession 1981.291. The period qualification is part of the dating, not a parenthesis to discard. [1]
✦ Editorial interpretation
What follows from the arrangement?
A catalogue date has a job: to describe when the object was made. A stylistic comparison has a different job: to describe the visual language it uses. Here the museum places those statements next to each other. Copying only thirteenth century would reverse the record’s meaning and turn a later object into supposed medieval evidence.
The matrix and the impression also have different jobs. The cut face is used to make the relief image; pressing it reverses the arrangement. A letter sequence inspected on the matrix therefore needs to be distinguished from its impression. Do not silently flip a photograph and cite the edited view as though it were the supplied museum image.
The orange impression is helpful for reading the design, but it introduces another dating question. A later impression can show the form carried by a matrix without having been made when the matrix was manufactured. This catalogue’s date and medium identify the matrix. The pictured impression does not receive an independently verified date or material in our study.
A later object made in an earlier style invites questions about revival, collecting, reproduction, and deception. It does not answer them. A catalogue’s later date alone is not evidence that a named person intentionally forged a medieval seal. That stronger claim would require records of production, sale, representation, or use.
The value of this comparison is methodological. The bronze matrix is a witness to its own manufacture and representation, as catalogued. It should not be used as an unqualified thirteenth-century witness to an institution, person, or heraldic entitlement. State the historical question before deciding which object can answer it.
Claims and their evidence
| Claim | Evidence | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| The catalogue dates the matrix to the 19th or 20th century. | Museum date field [1] | The 13th-century description is stylistic, not the stated manufacture date. |
| The matrix and accompanying impression show reversed arrangements. | Object photograph | No separate date or material for the pictured impression established here. |
| The matrix is bronze and is catalogued as made in Ghent. | Museum medium and geography fields [1] | These catalogue statements are not material testing or provenance research undertaken by this project. |
| The object provides a comparison in seal imagery. | Editorial teaching scope and visible pictorial scene | No coat of arms, identified seal owner, or intention to deceive established in this study. |
✦ Your turn
Explain what supports your conclusion.
Write two catalogue fields: manufacture period and stylistic reference. Then write a separate entry for the accompanying impression, leaving its date and material unknown. Explain one historical claim that the matrix could help investigate and one claim for which treating it as medieval would be misleading.
Discuss your answer
A strong answer preserves the nineteenth- or twentieth-century date, places the thirteenth-century comparison in a style field, and treats the impression as a distinct witness. It avoids upgrading later manufacture into an accusation of forgery. It also labels the pictorial scene as comparative seal imagery instead of forcing every seal into a coat of arms.
Take the research further
Investigate earlier acquisition and catalogue records for this accession, then compare a securely dated matrix with a similar scene. Record whether the comparison is based on lettering, iconography, manufacture, or documentary context. Do not use a stylistic parallel as the sole reason to replace the museum’s date.
Return to the related Academy reading ↗Sources and image rights
- The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Seal Matrix, accession1981.291. Record consulted 2026-10-09. The date above describes the artifact or photograph, not the publication date of this webpage.
- CC0 — image rights. The individual collection record permits this image’s reuse under CC0. Catalogue prose is summarized in our own words. Image credit: Rogers Fund, 1981.
Show the BibTeX citation
@misc{jhheraldry_object-ghent-style-matrix,
author = {{The Metropolitan Museum of Art}},
title = {Seal Matrix (accession 1981.291)},
howpublished = {\url{https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/466069}},
url = {https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/466069},
note = {Original-language museum collection record. Accessed 2026-10-09.}
}