The base object is an anthropomorphic red tuff pebble, 35 mm long, which has had at least three grooves, possibly incised on it by a sharp-edged stone. One is a deep groove that encircles the narrower, more rounded end of the pebble, two shallower, curved grooves run down the sides. These grooves can be interpreted as marking the neck and arms of a figure. They closely resemble marks made in similar material by sharp-edged tools during exercises in experimental archaeology.
Interpretations
The assertion that the pebble has been incised to represent a human figure has been questioned in three ways:
Whether the scratched marks were made by humans or hominids at all.
If they were, whether they had any representational intent.
If they did, whether they were intended to represent a female figure.
It is disputed whether these can be clearly distinguished from naturally-created lines. In 1997, American researcher Alexander Marshack argued using microscopic analysis that the grooves around the "neck" and down the "arms" were human made. However, Steven Mithenin 1999 argued that Marshack's arguments "do not demonstrate that the lines are indeed intentional and that if they were that they were intended to represent a female figure". He took the view that research was yet to be done to determine whether "scoria found in non-archaeological contexts" could "carry incisions that might be confused with stone tools" It remains uncertain whether or not the pebble has been modified by human action. If it has, there is the separate question of whether the scratches had any artistic or symbolic intent, and if so, whether they sought to make the object resemble the female form, as do the much later and rather different Venus figurines of the Upper Palaeolithic. In 2000, d'Errico and Nowell argued that the incisions could be reliably identified as human-made, but a practical function related to tool-making could not be ruled out: "the use of different types of raw materials to produce a varied tool kit seems well documented." However, some of the abrasions "are not necessarily consistent with a functional use of the object", suggesting that symbolic intent is a serious possibility. They conclude that it is "problematic" to identify a human body, as the cognitive and cultural context is so alien, saying that probably there will never be any agreement about what was intended by the marks. Because it was found between two layers of ash, it has been dated by tephrochronology to at least 230,000 years before the present. If the artifact was intended to replicate a female figure, it would be the earliest example of representational art in the archaeological record. Rather than being made by modern humans, it would have been made by Neanderthals or perhaps by Homo erectus, hunter-gatherers and Acheulean tool users. There is some other evidence of an aesthetic sensibility during the period although compelling examples do not appear in the archaeological record until the emergence of behaviorally modern humans around 100,000 years ago.
