My thoughts exactly.
I don't want to step into the emo mess that the Pro-paleo vs. Anti-Paleo fights,, sorry, debates have become in this forum, but I do want to point out a couple of things:
1) Paleo doesn't necessarily focus on no-carbs or ultra-low carbs as much as a inherent carb reduction coming from the consumption of select type of carb-containing foods (read fruits and veggies), foods which also seems to contain low amounts of inflammatory compounds commonly found in higher carb-containing foods (read grains).
2) Although human consumption of grains may have started earlier than previously thought, and as was pointed out by Bushido Bad Boy that's not what the above-mentionned discovery means at all, there's still no evidence as to how common in the diet this was, or to how common to the human species this behavior was. Meaning there's no way to know if this was common the diet of our ancestor, or even if this was common to all of our ancestor at the time this was being done, 30 000 years ago. It's entirely beliveable that only pockets of population used it before it became more widespread, and no evidence whatsoever exist as to that. However, the fact that this stone mortar is the only artifact discovered dating back this far allows us to think this was pretty new and restricted to a certain geographical areas/populations.
3) There's no conclusive evidences that I know of (but I'm far from omniscient) that goes one way or the other as to what part of our paleolitic/neolithic ancestors' diet came from grains, veggies, fruits and meats. So a lot of that debate serves only to justifie what you, me or someone else ou're nut-hugging is currently doing. Like BBB said: find out what works for you.
Re-reading myself, I think I did a pretty good job of not stepping into that paleo debate, huh? (and yes, that was a sarcasm)