If his theory is correct then why isn't he backing it up with pollen record/ lacustrian deposit information? Cultivation changes the proportions of species found in the record. We do have the record showing changes at the beginning of agriculture; the graminacea and the leguminous pollen numbers change quite dramatically, and there's a concommitant fall in the pollen of tree and shrub numbers as ground is cleared.
We know that there are specific sites, like the Fayoum in Egypt and the Fertile Crescent where there appears to be a natural richness (certainly from a human food point of interest) in the flora. As the climate changes and agriculture spreads we do see the record change. The production of linen and cotton is part of that record. Is it the reason for the change? Not enough evidence to say it's more than a theory.
As someone who spins and weaves by hand I do know that the amount of resources, time and effort required to make a piece of sound cloth is vastly underestimated and under regarded. If you are too busy trying to find food there's no time to be making cloth. Especially if animal, fish or bird skins are available. Linen and hemp both produce excellent fibre, but they *also* produce good nutritious seed. Humans don't exactly thrive on it but birds and beasts seem to do very well. Food and fibre? Why not?
cheers,
Toddy
