Moron;  Instead of simple-minded contradiction, pretend
you can think and explain to us how YOU suspect that
agriculture might have developed.

You can cheat and use Google, but we both know that
won't work because you have no reading comprehension.

Anyhow, shit for brains, most people seem to believe that
it began with harvesting wild grasses. Yup. most seem to
believe that it wasn't a case where somebody woke up
just sort of deciding, "Hey, I'm going to collect some seeds
and then try and plant them next year!" It started with
picking the wild grasses ("Wheat") and eventually they
figured out that they could control where they grew.

Who knows? All of this may have originally occurred for the
animals. It may have been a case where the wild grasses
were first harvested -- then cultivated -- to feed the animals,
and it was only during lean times or after raiders stole their
livestock when they were forced to eat the animal feed...

   ....or it could have even been {*filter*}. Yup. Ergot is associated
with many grasses, including Wheat, and it is an effective
hallucinogen.

http://www.***.com/ :Ergot01.jpg

Anyway, you being & idiot and all, I should point out:

All of these scenarios have one thing in common, and that's
with "Agriculture" beginning with collecting wild plants, and
NOT with fully blown farming.

You're welcome, shit for brains.

The citation clearly says the oldest human remains are "beneath" the
ash, and this dishonest troll, JTEM, types in "around" instead of
"beneath,
changing the original meaning by thousands of years. By paraphrasing,
instead of making a direct quote, this lying moron can make any claim
to fit the needs of his dishonest argument.

Read correctly by someone with a brain:
Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

Yes, your own citation says 10,000, not "around" 6,700.
You are one dishonest son-of-a-{*filter*}. Or maybe you are just too
stupid to know the difference between 6,700 and 10,000?

BTW,  I haven't seen your evidence that the 11,250 date at Marmes
wasn't Clovis. But I'll be willing to bet the farm you will come up
with a mis-quote somewhere, since you are too dishonest to make
a direct quote.

Pinch the "Rich" sock puppet and the "Lee" puppet
cries ouch...

Posting as "Rich" you keep saying a lot of incredibly stupid
things -- demanding explanations you already read, quoted
and responded to, for example, and premising claims on
everything from Lions to agriculture on sheer ignorance --
and I was address one of those incredibly stupid things in
particular.

As usual, when confronted with THE INESCAPABLE FACT
THAT YOU ARE WRONG you retreat into a fantasy world,
one where instead of making a bunch of retarded claims
about the Marmes Rockshelter, I instead was on the wrong
side of a "age" argument that never happened.

You're sick.

 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
 at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

The citation clearly says "beneath" the ash, and this dishonest
troll,
JTEM, types in "around" instead of "beneath, changing the original
meaning
by thousands of years. By paraphrasing, instead of making a direct
quote, this lying moron can make any claim to fit the needs of his
dishonest argument.

Read correctly by someone with a brain:
Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

Yes, your own citation says 10,000, not "around" 6,700.
You are indeed mentally ill.

Cute, isn't it, how offended this "Lee" gets at anyone
revealing the stupidity of "Rich".....

Remember?

So answer the question, you twisted freak; how does
that deranged mind of yours imagine that agriculture
got started?

Go on, {*filter*}, I dare you to take your meds and answer.

The moron JTEM thinks he reads
"at around 6,700 years of age:"

1) What part of "about 10,000 B.P." can't you read?

2) What part of 6 feet "beneath" are you having a
problem with?

3) Burial 23 about 10,000 in layer I/II isn't burial 6 or burial 1
"around"
6,700.

Fryxell (yes, the man who excavated the remains inside
the shelter): " Exploratory work to date shows conclusively
that the specimins lie in situ in undisturbed  sediments
beneath a thick layer of rockfall fragments. Mussel shells
from the overlying layers of rockfall and talus have been
dated by the radio carbon method as 10,000-11,000 years old,
and the human remains must be older than that age."

Fryxell et al. 1968
A HUMAN SKELETON FROM SEDIMENTS OF
MID-PINDALE AGE IN SOUTHEASTERN WASHINGTON
American Antiquity Vol. 33, No. 4.

The rock fall is at 88 feet, 6 feet "beneath" the ash.

Page 11 Hicks et al. 2004:
"A carbon date of 10,750+/-100 B.P.1 (WSU 211) had been obtained
from the earliest cultural stratum in the rockshelter (Fryxell 1968a;
Sheppard 1987).

Tracing the deposits outward onto the floodplain,
Fryxell demonstrated that the human remains lay between these
deposits making them among the oldest yet discovered in
North America.

Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

Sheppard, yes that's right, 1987. Maybe someday your caretaker will
teach you  how to turn a page. See page 122.

It's also a strawman that you invented. It has nothing to
do with me or what I was arguing.

You're a psycho.

The citation clearly says "beneath" the ash, and this dishonest
troll,
JTEM, types in "around" instead of "beneath, changing the original
meaning
by thousands of years. By paraphrasing, instead of making a direct
quote, this lying moron can make any claim to fit the needs of his
dishonest argument.

Read correctly by someone with a brain:
Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

Yes, your own citation says 10,000, not "around" 6,700.
You are one dishonest son-of-a-{*filter*}.