Does anyone know the source of the controversy? Are people concerned about the implications this may have on the current historical narrative of human development?
It’s probably around whether the pendant aspect was a liberal interpretation. This still fits within the current hypothesis on human development.
It's so hard to know if it was used as jewellery, or if it had some practical application as well, and was also decorated. We'll likely never know. I agree that calling it a pendant just because it has two holes, is a bit of a leap.
For all we know, it was a fishing line (or net) float.