I’m gonna go with that absolutely classic Archaeological hit song:
“Ritual purposes, but in the sense that we know it’s definitely some sort of ritual but not what the fuck the ritual was but likely the act of ‘bringing’ since feet indicate movement in later hieroglyphs for the word ‘to bring’ which also incidentally is a pot on two legs, but this cannot be considered a direct correlation. *20 second instrumental* So yeah, ritual purposes because none of us know what the fuck Pre Dynastic Egypt was doing but it was definitely ritualistic in the same sense that some people having a preferred coffee mug is ritualistic. It’s not spooky we just don’t quite know why they did it.”
Sometimes you just don’t know why, and that’s history for you.
Yeah, that, basically.
I personally love the idea that the hieroglyphic sign for ini (pot with legs) might have been connected to this type of vessel, and that the verb in which the ini sign appears most commonly, “to bring”, is also thus connected.
But honestly? Fuck if we know.
Wait, so someone made a 3-D version of a hieroglyph? Like those emoji plushies, except in clay and hours of artistic work?
This pot is a Predynastic piece of pottery, and since in this period (Naqada I/early Naqada II) there is no evidence of a fully formed writing system, it’s somewhat likelier that the hieroglyph was based off this type of vessel, yes. But, again, it’s really just conjecture!
Archaeology
I know nothing about ancient Egypt but I bet you guys five shiny internet dollars this bowl is some kind of pun. I know a visual pun when I see one and in some afterlife some Egyptian potter is still getting shit from his friends about his dumb pun.
