Thank you for citing relevant passages. However, I find it all very unconvincing. The conclusion that these objects must have been dice is leaped to based on th

Thank you for citing relevant passages. However, I find it all very unconvincing. The conclusion that these objects must have been dice is leaped to based on that very flexible morphological definition, and there is no consideration of alternative explanations. He even includes objects that don’t meet his own definition and still calls them “probable dice”! Tally marked counters, coins, scrapers, prizers, jewellery, weapons, biface hand axes, totems, chisels, measuring devices… there is a huge array of possible tool types that meet this morphological definition. They may well have been dice but the certainty expressed in the paper is unwarranted.