>>It's actually pretty significant, since 23,000 years ago is certainly
within the paleolithic period, and at least 10,000 years before
agriculture. This in fact squarely refutes the claim that wheat and
barley consumption started in the neolithic. Now we know that
hunter-gatherers in at least one locale gathered them, which raises the
question of just how far back the practice goes.<<

It may refute the claim about the consumption, but not the claim about the
mass consumption. 
I am neither a paleontogist or an archaeologist, but it would seem to me that
in order for 
agriculture to gain any degree of prominence, there would have had to be a
reason for it, i.e. 
that the discovery of edible grains had happened quite a bit earlier. The
cultivation is what 
started 10,000 years ago, not the eating. Additionally, from what I've read it
appears that the 
first bowls and containers didn't appear until about 9500 years ago or so,
which still means that 
there would have been no way to process or cook the grains or store them in
large quantities 
prior to that time, anyhow.

Remember, if we've been around 2.5 million years, 10,000 or 23,000 years is
not that big a 
difference, especially if we were eating grains in the extremely small
quantities that would have 
been possible before agriculture became widespread.

While it's certainly a significant find in its own right, I don't see it
having any real import on the 
theory or science behind the paleo diet.

Mike



____________________________________________________________________