Venus of Berekhat Ram

Goren-Inbar[1] and Marshack[2] suggested that the object resembled a female body and was artificially modified by hominids to emphasize its anthropomorphic features.

d'Errico and Nowell[3] confirmed the artificial nature of modifications of the object, but refrained from identifying it with a human body.

Still, they stated that the longitudinal symmetrical U-shaped grooves (supposedly representing the "arms") are hard to explain functionally.

So, similarly to Goren-Inbar and Marshack, d'Errico and Nowell argued in favor of the non-utilitarian and symbolic nature of the object.

[3] The discussion around the Venus of Berekhat Ram concerned three questions: All commentators of d'Errico and Nowell's study were convinced by their analysis and results and accepted the hypothesis that the object was modified by early humans.

For example, d'Errico and Nowell suggested that, based on the existing Acheulean archaeological record, pigment "would have been more quickly and effectively produced by grinding one face of this object against a basalt flake or smashing it with a similar tool", which is different from the process used to create the observed grooves.

d'Errico and Nowell also believe that the grooves on the object are the result of a deliberate motion rather than of non-purposive behavior, as suggested by Wynn.