<HTML>Perhaps I should file this message away. I've written it often enough elsewhere.
Back in the late 1970s Wendorf have across some grains that looked like they were of domesticated stock. Then they had the grindstones and the sickle gloss. Yes the information was published by Wendorf and Schild, and Hoffman picked it up and repeated the info. Slight problem though... Back then, all the way back at the start, there was a rumour going around that a student had planted the grains in the laboratory as a practical joke. Further investigation has shown the grains were indeed, to be politically correct, "intrusive" into the deposits examined (whether they were planted is another matter) and the grindstones and sickle gloss were the result of activities other than agricultural harvesting.
I submit that as Hoffman's book was 16 years old by the time FOG was released, Hancock should have sort independent confirmation for this information and inquired whether or not additional research had been undertaken into this matter. If he had done so he would have found that the academic who disproved the experimental agricultural idea was Fred Wendorf, nearly a decade before FOG was released..
Mike.</HTML>
