> ...and not doesn't make any sense at all Sam! -
> remember your evidence free speculation about the
> AE culture and religion is just imaginary fantasy.
Evidence free, eh?
But still the object in question has every attribute of a floating oil lamp for turbulent water and none that are unnecessary to that function! You say no evidence but the actual people who made and used this spoke of rising for work when something (fire pan) burned and that something (mks-sceptre) commanded the living. They said that when the fire was swamped they could see and they said that the way went over the flames under which the gods create. Seeing as how we know for a fact there were no ramps and stones were pulled up step pyramids it's logical to assume they were correct when they said the light that illuminated the pyramid came from the "battlements".
"I will prepare your path in the sky, and its waters will come down so that you may navigate your bark in it by night."
"I have swamped the fire, I have lightened the darkness among those who come with offerings when ma'at is brought to him who crosses the waterway."
To you it's merely a coincidence that the actual people said EXACTLY what I'm saying. It's NOT A COINCIDENCE; I am simply saying what they said because they said it and meant it. Maybe people say what they say because they bwelieve it and maybe they believed the water falling down lighted the way because falling water kept the fire pan lit and lighted the way.
They even said the water in which this floated was called "the Lady of the Magic Lamp", Flaming One, Awakener (remember those with ready hands stand to make an offering to the dead king), Inspirer of Men, Lady Of The Waters Of Life, sekhmet, Who Rouseth The People, The One Who Holds Back Darkness, The Beautiful Light, and Lady Of All Powers. Never mind ANY OF THESE SIMPLE FACTS because you read somewhere that it must be a ritualistic bowl. This stands to reason that stionky footed bumpkins would need ritualistic bowls more than oil lamps so obviously you know you're correct and all these FACTS are mere irrelevancies.
Evidence free is the superstition that this thing is a "ceremonial bowl". Never mind there's a hole in it and the fins are in the way of access to it. Never mind the part we can see is crudely done. Never mind that it's stupid looking as a bowl because ignorant savage stone dragging bumpkins would use something just like this for their superstitious rituals and therefore it must be a ceremonial bowl.
Egyptology is wrong and the longer they insist on being wrong the sillier they are going to look.