During the summer of 2008, archaeologists uncovered some remnants of musical prehistory in the caves of Hohle Fels, Germany. There, among burnt animal bones and flint-knapping debris, they found fragments of three flutes (Conard, Malina, and Munzel 2009). One was remarkably complete. This delicate instrument, discovered in twelve pieces, had been fashioned from a vultures wing bone. It was thirty-four centimeters long (roughly the length of a piccolo), with several finger holes and a notched mouthpiece (like the Japanese shakuhachi and other end-blown flutes; see Figure 1). The other flutes at the site were less complete but represented more complex manufacturing. They were made from pieces of mammoth tusk that had been split, hollowed out, and then rejoined. Yet headlines about the Hohle Fels flutes focused on neither their present condition nor their refined construction. Instead journalists and scholars emphasized the artifacts' age. These flutes were more than thirty-five thousand years old--the earliest musical instruments then known. (1) Incidentally, one of the earliest examples of figurative art, an ivory sculpture called the "Venus of Hohle Fels," was found less than a meter away from the bone flute (Conard 2009). Together these artifacts give compelling evidence for musical and artistic practices in the Upper Paleolithic Era. Writing and the wheel, by contrast, would not appear until almost thirty thousand years later, during the early Bronze Age (that is, around the fourth millennium BCE). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Of course, such evidence is always incomplete, and these instruments reveal only traces of Paleolithic music making. Their sounds and social functions have not been preserved. They are tokens of a culture that can be reconstructed only provisionally, through a kind of principled speculation. For example, given the flutes' technological sophistication, it is unlikely that they are the first instruments of their kind. Earlier specimens have surely been lost, presumably including instruments made from less durable materials. Indeed, a multidisciplinary review of archaeological evidence for the emergence of music, language, and symbolic behavior concludes that such instruments must, even at around 35,000 years, be several conceptual stages removed from the earliest origins, even of instrumental musical expression, to say nothing of those universal vocal, manual-percussive and dance forms which must have existed independently of--and before--any need for such tools. (d'Errico et al. 2003, 46) "And before." With this aside, the review's twelve coauthors suggest that musicality originated with the body alone, that instrumental play came after singing. This claim is ubiquitous in writings on music and human evolution. Ian Cross (2007, 663), for example, argues that "the use of musical artifacts will have been preceded by the expression of musical capacities by voice and body." The idea has a long history. Charles Darwin himself wrote, "With man song is generally admitted to be the basis or origin of instrumental music" (1871, 2:333). But this idea already appears in the eighteenth century in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's reflections on human and musical origins. This essay critically examines claims for the precedence of voice in musical prehistory, juxtaposing Rousseau and twenty-first-century authors. Though centered on music and evolution, this investigation more generally explores voice-instrument relations and their implications for a philosophy of musical technology--or, more precisely, musical "technics." The term "technics" refers to technical matters in the broadest sense. It is an English equivalent to the German "Technik" or the French "la technique" which, depending on context, may be translated as either "technique" or "technology." Lewis Mumford's (1934) Technics and Civilization, for example, explores the interplay of technology and technique, bringing out continuities between hand tools and machines. …