>>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 ____________________________________________________________________