That has barely to do with my specific point. The researcher in TFA said if they were doing complex counting then blah blah blah.

The general insight is that complex counting would force some kind of Bayesian or probabilistic reasoning even one that is informal, intuitive, rudimentary or partly incorrect. Whereas a theory of divining stones usage would have very little actual complex counting involved, maybe they had the tribal equivalent of fortune slips, and so they would not be cognitively challenged to reason about dice. What constitutes complex counting, I don't know, ask the researcher. But IMO it's not out realm of impossibility and time and again we have discovered the old ones of Homo sapiens were more cognitively/intellectually sophisticated than these kinds of scientists assumed earlier. I'm not wedded to this, it would be hard to prove, especially as a hypothesis involving human cognitive constraints/evolution, but I won't dismiss it as completely implausible either. It is an interesting if-then "archaeological cognitive science" argument, that's all.