>>I'd agree with Jim that this is too simple - hey, even with simple hunting, when a scout comes to report, when the hunters see him, they'll ask him "where's the animal". Or a courier may ask "who's the boss here to give message to".
>
>Perhaps. Keep in mind we're talking about Neanderthals here. Do you really think they communicated so richly?

Not in so many words. "Who chief?", rather, and "where game?", or something of that stylistic orientation. We can only guess.

>>But the specific question (which may not have been "why" but rather "why not", IMO)
>
>Yes, it may have been a specific question that triggered the explosion (maybe "why do I do what I do?" or "where did we come from?" or "what does it all mean?"), as opposed the general suggestion that asking any question to another human being for the first time set up a chain reaction.
>
>But I wouldn't underestimate the signifigance of that just yet.

These questions have too many words in English, but they can be very short in other languages, and it's quite possible that whatever linguistic apparatus was in use then, it was capable of putting such complex questions in a simple manner.

Or, it was quite possible that there have been many isolated cases where this or that was changed, and at some point the changes have gained the critical mass where they started spreading and gaining speed. Just what the old Marxist theory would call "quantity becoming a quality". May as well be that it wasn't the questions, inventions and changes in lifestyle, but their persistence and spread. Any ivention that dies with its inventor is lost for history. One that stays, is a foundation stone of a civilisation.

So, an alternate theory would be - the lucky break came when learning was invented, the passing of new tricks to next generation and neighbors. Once it started spreading, you could have rapid changes in lifestyle of a whole continent within just a few generations.