Don Wiss wrote:

> Correct. The evidence is they started gathering them 17,000 years ago, and
> started growing them 11,000 years ago. The 17,000 years is still too short
> to consider these a Paleolithic food.

The evidence at 17,000 years is pretty slim, a few tools
with silicon polishing marks, typical of stone edged sickles
used later in Egypt. And a few grinding stones. I can
imagine a dozen other uses for similar tools.

But I do agree that paleo people probably ate some grains
whenever and wherever they found them, just as people
continue to eat all kinds of things today that cause
indigestion if overconsumed. Small amounts of grains, eaten
seasonally or occasionally wouldn't have caused disease in
most people. Our current problems are due to the
omnipresence of grains, and the shortage of other
nurtricious foods, which over the course of years harms some
people. If we were limited to the occasional loaf of bread,
a treat in the fall or winter, all our lives from childhood,
I don't believe anyone would notice ill effects, except in
the rare person with true allergies.
>
> Grains cause so many health problems I don't understand why people are
> coming up with arguments to justify them in the diet. See Ron Hoggan's book
> Dangerous Grains.


They do not harm most people unless overconsumed. I think
Andrew is right, beer seems to be the original use grain was
put to, at least there is very early evidence of beer
production in the fertile cresent. I imagine it made a
pretty good trade item with passing bands of hunters. Beer
is also very nutricious, and the side products are too.
Typical "value added" product. Take something previously
almost useless, and turn it into something with high demand.
I read recently of actual villages that formed at sites
where wild grains grow well. Archeologists speculate that
the wild production was sufficient to support year-round
occupancy. Not far from there to the neolithic, then the
long skid downhill... ;--)