A Comment on “Fluted Point Relationships“ by John Witthoft

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
A typescript of Witthoft's article (see p. 271) was sent to me in March, 1953, with a request for criticisms. These were freely offered, and, although quite strong in some respects, accepted by him with good humor. Witthoft had himself suggested (and I agreed) that his article might be premature and should not be published until other studies of fluted points, comparable to his excellent technological study of the Shoop artifacts (see Witthoft, 1952, in Bibliography above) had been made for related complexes. He eventually decided, however, not to change his article, but to publish it with my main comments following. He believed that our disagreements would prove more stimulating to further research than no article at all.The wording of some of Witthoft's passages is quite puzzling, and perhaps I have misunderstood his meaning. It appears to the writer that he is advancing three principal exploratory generalizations on the meaning of Shoop site fluted points and associated artifacts: (1) that the Enterline Chert industry (which includes the fluted points) is a “blade industry without microliths,“ and as such is unique for early man in the New World, but may have important connections with the Old World; (2) that Shoop points resemble the Clovis fluted type in some ways but constitute a new type; (3) that the Shoop points may represent the oldest fluted points in America.