Patterson: Bone flutes dating to the Upper Paleolithic are the earliest evidence for music. Thus it is likely that mu...

on December 15 at 12:20AM

I get why A is correct, but why is B incorrect?

Doesn’t Garza offer counter evidence - the fact that wood was also used to make instruments?

4 Replies

on December 15 at 12:21AM

And therefore, the truth of his premise (earliest evidence for music) is disproven, since we have evidence of wood being used?

Skylar on December 15 at 12:34AM

@kristinsmith04, thanks for your question.

(B) is incorrect because of the word "evidence." Garza provides a speculation that wood instruments could have been used for early musical instruments but failed to survive well in archaeological contexts throughout time. If this were the case, it could be true that music began earlier than Patterson stated but the instruments decomposed. However, this is a speculation, not evidence. Garza offers no actual evidence that wood instruments existed before those that Patterson refers to. Garza only points out that they could, not that they did.

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have additional questions!

on December 15 at 12:39AM

Thank you !

Ravi Thursday at 09:53PM

@kristinsmith04, let us know if you have any other questions!