If the Solutreans had the Clovis point it would have made a formidable harpoon weapon to ensure a food supply. Would modern Eskimo ever consider a five thousand kilometre journey across the Atlantic?
The answer it seems is yes - they have undertaken similar journeys many times.. Most encouraging was the realisation that Inuit people today rely on traditional boat building techniques. 'Unbreakable' plastic breaks in the unceasing cold temperatures whereas boats of wood, sealskin and whale oil are resilient and easily maintained. The same materials would have been available to Solutrean boat builders. Even if the Stone Age Europeans could make those boats, would it survive an Atlantic crossing?
Stanford believes the boats' flimsiness is deceptive. With the Atlantic full of ice floes it would be quite possible for paddlers in open boats to travel along the edges, always having a safe place to haul out upon if the weather turned in.
All this evidence was still essentially circumstantial, making the Solutrean adventure possible not proven. Douglas Wallace's DNA history bore fruit once more. In the DNA profile of the Ichigua Native American tribe he identified a lineage that was clearly European in origin, too old to be due to genetic mixing since Columbus' discovery of the New World. Instead it dated to Solutrean times. Wallace's genetic timelines show the Ice Age prompted a number of migrations from Europe to America. It looks highly likely that the Solutreans were one.
Why then, if this BBC series and the science was almost insurmountable back in 2002, does no one in the USA even know that this flip-flop of history occurred? More evidence of "weird science," propounded by a mandarinate of PC peer-reviewed patriarchs of group-think? How would evidence of a prior set of European emigrations to North America from 20000-10000 BC by a series of successful voyages break the leftist mantra of nasty colonialist English, French, Spanish, Portuguese invaders who invaded a pristine noble-savage paradise of peaceful "natives," free of all pollution from Old Europe.
Leaving aside the semantic differences between English colonists and Spanish colonialism, the larger point is that history dictated by left-wing academic petty dictators is never subject to evidence, as anyone familiar with the scientific method knows that all evidence must be sifted and accounted for, lest we get beguiled into Richard Feynman's famous Cargo Cult Science scenario where good intentions trump hard facts. Or established consensus trumps new findings throwing said consensus into doubt. An example of the second:
The traditional view of American prehistory was that Clovis people travelled by land from Asia.
This version was so accepted that few archaeologists even bothered to look for artefacts from periods before 10,000BC. But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. His findings were dismissed as erroneous; too astonishing to be credible. The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio's conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds.
Ten years later, Dennis Stanford is finally getting his own opinions out into the marketplace of ideas. And Jim Adavasio has promised to publish a book, which I haven't been able to find.
Citing The Solutrean Hypothesis, wikipedia gives a sort of convincing beatdown of the Stanford thesis. However, both sides of the debate seem to use the sort of high-school-debate arguments that are only indicative and not decisive. Bearing in mind the inherent conservatism of archeologists unless something hits them hard on the head [like Gobekli Tepe] and the PC arguments against a European immigration scenario prior to the Vikings, an open mind is still better than a closed one.
UPDATE Newest Evidence that several Europe and Asian based traditions were behind the Amerindian invasion of North America.