reply to these comments (both the comments and reply are included in the manuscript). The discussion around the Venus of Berekhat Ram concerned three questions: Whether the scratched marks were made by humans or hominids at all. If they were, whether they had non-utilitarian/symbolic intent. If they did, whether they were intended to represent a female figure. Anthropogenic origin 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. Marshack argued in favor of this hypothesis already in his earlier study of the object. Symbolic vs. utilitarian d'Errico and Nowell's argument that the "arm"-shaped grooves suggest a symbolic nature of the object was questioned by three commentators: João Zilhão from the Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Thomas Wynn from the University of Colorado, and Steven Mithen from the University of Reading. All of them suggested that the object and its grooves could have a utilitarian purpose. Zilhão hypothesized that the object could be used to produce pigment and that the grooves could be byproducts of this process. Wynn suggested that the object could be a result of "someone passing time with a stone tool and a pebble". Mithen also stated that our symbolic understanding of the object does not imply that it was considered as such by early humans who produced it, because the cognitive processes for symbolic thinking we use today may differ from the ones used by early humans. d'Errico and Nowell argued, however, that, although their analysis and results cannot refute a functional interpretation of the object, there are too many inconsistencies in this interpretation to investigate it any further. 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. This contradicts the hypothesis of Zilhão. 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. Representational nature Zilhão, Wynn, and Mithen rejected the hypothesis on the symbolic nature of the object and, thus, rejected the idea that the object is iconic. Angela E. Close from the University of Washington also could