``In what follows you seem to range wildly as well as widely over the period of the origin of language (at least 40BP) and Egyptian civilization, Inuit wandering (the Inuit are NOT primitive; they are a _very_ advanced culture). This won't do. If you want to talk about the origin of language, stick to a period long before pottery making...''
Carrol -----------
I agree.
I wasn't arguing for the origin of language and culture as contemporary with the paleolithic migrations. That was Ramachandarn's hypothesis. I was dodging this timeframe issue because it requires a lot of background and makes a complicated argument. Instead, I concentrated on what I did agree with, which was the potential importance of mirror neurons and their physiological link to an empathic mind.
Since I disagree with a late appearance of language, I went on a long web search over the holiday because I am interested in the subject and found we are simply duplicating an argument (language early or late) that characterizes several different fields of study.
Here are two links. The first is a general summary of the current state of affairs on the origins of language. The second is on a related debate over Neanderthal. It turns out Homo neanderthalenis sapiens may have (weak) or probably (strong) had vocal anatomical features necessary for language. Check out the co-existence of both species for a 100k/yrs in the middle east.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1455?ck=nck
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1456?ck=nck
CG