* The lack of fossil evidence: We can't directly observe language in the past. We can only infer its existence from indirect evidence like:
* Anatomical features: The presence of the hyoid bone, crucial for speech, in Neanderthals and early humans suggests a vocal apparatus capable of complex sounds.
* Brain size and structure: The increasing size and complexity of the human brain over time suggests a capacity for complex thought, which could be related to language.
* Tool use: The creation of tools and complex technologies requires communication and collaboration, hinting at the presence of language.
* Art and symbolism: Early cave paintings and other forms of art suggest abstract thinking and symbolic representation, which may have been facilitated by language.
* The limitations of interpreting past behavior: Even with this indirect evidence, interpreting the exact nature and complexity of early human communication is challenging. We cannot know for sure if early humans had language as complex as modern human languages.
* The ongoing evolution of language: Language is constantly evolving and adapting. It's likely that language was much simpler in its early stages and has become more complex over time.
Therefore, while there is evidence to suggest that early humans had some form of communication, there is no definitive proof that they possessed language as we know it today.
Instead of searching for "evidence that man has always had language," it is more productive to focus on the fascinating journey of language evolution and the many hypotheses and theories surrounding it.