A New Look at the Berekhat Ram Figurine: Implications for the Origins of Symbolism instruments (Turk 1997). For some proponents of the discontinuity model, many of the objects often inter- preted as symbolic are in actuality the result of natural processes, e.g. carnivore activity, chemical alterations, root marking, etc. This view has been supported in some cases by comparing bone objects possessing putative anthropogenic engravings or per- forations from Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites with bone fragments altered by known causes (Chase 1990; d’Errico 1991; d’Errico & Villa 1997; d’Errico et al. 1998b). In addition, discontinuity proponents argue that, even if humanly made, some objects described as ‘symbolic’ by the gradualists can have a purely utilitarian function (Chase & Dib- ble 1992). The paucity and uniqueness of these ob- jects is taken as further proof of the absence of a symbolic tradition which would require a spatial and temporal continuity in the production and use of symbols (Chase & Dibble 1992; Noble & Davidson 1996, 210). A further critique of the gradualist viewpoint is that ‘art’ objects are often not considered in the con- text of the assemblage as a whole. A contextual ap- proach is needed to ‘eliminate the possibility that the piece, far from being an idiosyncratic example of Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10:1 (2000), 123–67 123 Francesco d’Errico & April Nowell This article addresses the nature of the evidence for symbolling behaviour among hominids living in the Near East during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Traditionally, Palaeolithic art and symbolling have been synonymous with the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe. The Berekhat Ram figurine, a piece of volcanic material from a Lower Palaeolithic site in Israel, described as purposely modified to produce human features, challenges the view of a late emergence of symbolic behaviour. The anthropogenic nature of these modifications, how- ever, is controversial. We address this problem through an examination of volcanic material from the Berekhat Ram site and from other sources, and by experimentally reproducing the modifications observed on the figurine. We also analyze this material and the figurine itself through optical and SEM microscopy. Our conclusion is that this object was purposely modified by hominids. In Palaeolithic archaeology much debate surrounds the origin and development of hominid symbolic behaviour. For some researchers the emergence of this capacity is associated with the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Europe (e.g. Chase & Dibble 1987; Davidson & Noble 1989; 1993; Noble & Davidson 1996; Mellars 1989; 1991; 1996; White 1989; 1992; 1993; Stringer & Gamble 1993; Byers 1994; Klein 1996; Mithen 1996a). According to these authors, anatomically modern humans arriving in Europe developed the use of body ornaments and a complex repertoire of abstract and depictional art. These behaviours imply the use of symbols for the first time. An alternative view is that the emergence of symbolling is a gradual process whose roots can be traced back to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic (Marshack 1976; 1988; 1991b; 1995a; Bednarik 1992; 1994; 1995; 1997; Bahn 1996; Duff et al. 1992; Simek 1992; Hayden 1993; Wolpoff & Caspari 1996). Taking a discontinuist or gradualist approach depends greatly on one’s evaluation of the evidence for symbolling prior to the Upper Palaeolithic. This evidence includes utilized pieces of colorant, ‘curated’ fossils, crystals and shells, putative engraved and perforated bones and stones, and possible musical