Bom Names: What Are The Chances?

[cinepro]

Let's not forget that in addition to the Shoshone chief "Lehi", there were also in the same tribe a Shoshone warrior named "Moroni", squaws named "Sariah" and "Mary", and a medicine man named "Kingbenjamin".

You may doubt this, but ultimately, my guess is as good as yours, and these Shoshone names stand as a strong evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. After all, what are the odds of those names randomly appearing among the same tribe?

Edited May 7, 2012 by cinepro

[bcuzbcuz]

Let's not forget that in addition to the Shoshone chief "Lehi", there were also in the same tribe a Shoshone warrior named "Moroni", squaws named "Sariah" and "Mary", and a medicine man named "Kingbenjamin".

You may doubt this, but ultimately, my guess is as good as yours, and these Shoshone names stand as a strong evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. After all, what are the odds of those names randomly appearing among the same tribe?

I refer you to http://www.native-la...shone_guide.htm The Shoshone language doesn't have the letter "R" (or anything that comes close to an R pronunciation). So the chances of them having names that go all the way back to BofM times that contain R is zero. The Shonsone language doesn't contain a "L" sound either. The "NG" sound also does not exist.

Edited May 7, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[cdowis]

Moroni (Maroni) River on the French Guiana/Suriname border. Of course this is just one of those coincidences, but interesting.

Does anyone know the origin of this name? Did a brief look at google but did not find it.

[Calm]

I refer you to http://www.native-la...shone_guide.htm The Shoshone language doesn't have the letter "R" (or anything that comes close to an R pronunciation). So the chances of them having names that go all the way back to BofM times that contain R is zero. The Shonsone language doesn't contain a "L" sound either. The "NG" sound also does not exist.

cinepro was being sarcastic, I suspect, especially with the "Kingbenjamin" claim (since it is highly unlikely that Nephites used the English word "King" even if they used "Benjamin," which is also anglicized I believe).

Your commentary on the letter "L" being absent from the Shosone language is important in my view due to it essentially preventing "Lehi" or "Limhi" from being original to the language and increasing the unlikelihood that the name "Lehi" continued unchanged with no alteration of the 'L" sound for over a thousand years if it was imported from the Nephites/Lamanites into the name heritage of whatever group the Shosone were the descendants of, but seems to be ignored as evidence by Log if I understand his lack of claim correctly.

Edited May 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Your commentary on the letter "L" being absent from the Shosone language is important in my view due to it essentially preventing "Lehi" or "Limhi" from being original to the language and increasing the unlikelihood that the name "Lehi" continued unchanged with no alteration of the 'L" sound for over a thousand years if it was imported from the Nephites/Lamanites into the name heritage of whatever group the Shosone were the descendants of, but seems to be ignored as evidence by Log if I understand his lack of claim correctly.

It is irrelevant, so far as I can tell - the Japanese likewise don't have "L" in their language, but that doesn't stop them from using it, nor us from understanding what is meant.

Playstation 3 = プレイステーション3 Pureisutēshon Surī

Likewise, even if the Shoshone adopted the name "Lehi," that would still indicate they were using, and could use, the letter "L," or some analogue thereof in some way.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[bcuzbcuz]

It is irrelevant, so far as I can tell - the Japanese likewise don't have "L" in their language, but that doesn't stop them from using it, nor us from understanding what is meant. Playstation 3 = プレイステーション3 Pureisutēshon Surī Likewise, even if the Shoshone adopted the name "Lehi," that would still indicate they were using, and could use, the letter "L," or some analogue thereof in some way.

You judge the question of a language lacking a letter as "irrelevant". Using a playstation analogy to a more than thousand year problem is hardly adequate. If you knew anything about linguistics or teaching or learning or using a language you would know that when a language lacks a sound, the likelihood of language users choosing a name using a completely unfamiliar sound is nill. Without a letter or sound a language speaker gains no experience in expression or pronunciation. The sound is virtually impossible.

Check out the Shoshone sound bites on Youtube.

And those are the easy sounds.

Go on line and listen to the

Now try to give a name to your child with such a click in it. Good luck with either you or anyone else saying it correctly

The reason why it is hard for Japanese students to hear or produce certain sounds is due to either the sound not existing in the Japanese language or two sounds being very similar and sounding the same to the Japanese. For example, [f] [v] [d] [r] and [l] sounds do not exist in the Japanese language. They are usually substituted with [h] [] [d] [r] (Japanese [r] and [l] both equal the Japanese [r]) which are the closest counterparts of each sound. The and [z] sounds are used in Japanese, but when they are followed by or , they are changed into [] and [d] in Japanese. Hence, it is hard for them to pronounce words such as sick and zipper; they pronounce them shick and zhipper. The flap [r] in letter and Betty is another example of sounds which do not exist in Japanese, and the Japanese student will need help with them.

The Shoshone, with no letter "L" would be saying "Neehai". It looses something in the translation.

Edited May 8, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[mfbukowski]

The Shoshone, with no letter "L" would be saying "Neehai". It looses something in the translation.

For what it's worth.

Shoshone Lexicon

Source: Di Paolo, Marianna. The Wick R. Miller Collection: Returning to the Community (Shoshoni Project). University of Utah: Center for American Indian Languages.

Headword: nehi

Alternate Spelling(s): nehi

Author Label(s): PRO

Gold Concept(s): Pronominal

Definition:

English: us two.EXCL.OBJ

Semantic Note

Pronouns

Bibliographic Note

WSdict02.txt, Crum&Dayley1, Crum&Dayley2

http://legodev.lingu...pagefrom=browse

It was also the name of a really tasty soda I remember from my youth at least 800 years ago.

Edited May 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

If you are ever really nostalgic: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_7?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nehi+soda&sprefix=nehi+so%2Caps%2C322

[volgadon]

I went to the library today to track down the reference in the Fort Limhi book. Log might object to the cautious language of the footnote, but whether or not Te-ah-to-wah and Chief Lehi of the Bear River Massacre are one and the same, the reference leaves little doubt that Lehi was not a Shoshoni name, it was a name having everything to do with the church's missionary efforts. In other words, Lehi is indeed a Book of Mormon name, but it was introduced to the Shoshoni by the LDS. Any attempts to show otherwise will have to bear the burden of proof.

On pp. 102-103, there is a description of the Salmon River mission in 1856.

Next Snag's brother, Te-ah-to-wah, and nephew, Ten-toi... arrived with their families from the upper valley. Over the next six weeks, the missionaries baptized and gave English names to nearly thirty natives, all Bannocks and Shoshones. On the first Sunday in April, George Grant preached in the Shoshone language, which produced four for "washing," Te-ah-to-wah, Snag's brother, renamed Lehi;[28]... Among native women baptized were Te-ah-to-wah's wife, Jane... Po-e-chah, Te-ah-to-wah's mother, Esther; Te-ah-to-wah's wife, Elizabeth; Cu-e-bah, another of Te-ah-to-wah's wives, Louisa...

[28]Possibly the same Lehi who was killed by Col. Patrick E. Connor's command in the Battle of Bear River in 1863.

P. 149 contains more of the same.

In 1855 "Old Snag" had been among the first Indians baptized at Fort Limhi. The following year he had been joined by many of his family members, including his mother, Po-e-chah, given the name Esther, and three brothers, Te-ah-to-wah, Zemee, and To-buds, renamed Lehi, David, and Two-bits, respectively, by the missionaries.

There are no further references to Lehi in the book. I combed through several other works on the Shoshoni and the Bear River Massacre, including those by Hart and Madsen, but apart from an incident in which the city of Logan bought of the chiefs with provisions from the bishop's storehouse, the only mention of Lehi is his death. Unless one wishes to argue for Louisa being a Shoshoni name, the reference makes it clear that when the Shoshoni and Bannocks were baptized by Mormon missionaries their names were changed to non-Indian ones, mainly from the Bible and Book of Mormon.

It is funny how prescient Cinepro sometimes is. I ommited the reference, but one of the Indian converts was renamed Moroni.

[bcuzbcuz]

It was also the name of a really tasty soda I remember from my youth at least 800 years ago.

Nehi Grape Soda was the best!

[bcuzbcuz]

I went to the library today to track down the reference in the Fort Limhi book. Log might object to the cautious language of the footnote, but whether or not Te-ah-to-wah and Chief Lehi of the Bear River Massacre are one and the same, the reference leaves little doubt that Lehi was not a Shoshoni name, it was a name having everything to do with the church's missionary efforts. In other words, Lehi is indeed a Book of Mormon name, but it was introduced to the Shoshoni by the LDS. Any attempts to show otherwise will have to bear the burden of proof.

....There are no further references to Lehi in the book. I combed through several other works on the Shoshoni and the Bear River Massacre, including those by Hart and Madsen, but apart from an incident in which the city of Logan bought of the chiefs with provisions from the bishop's storehouse, the only mention of Lehi is his death. Unless one wishes to argue for Louisa being a Shoshoni name, the reference makes it clear that when the Shoshoni and Bannocks were baptized by Mormon missionaries their names were changed to non-Indian ones, mainly from the Bible and Book of Mormon.

Thank you. Good post. The natives that I worked amongst resented being called ”indians”. The common group reference that was accepted was ”Dené”; which means ”the people”. The suffix (enne) meaning 'people of' was added to their tribal or band name: Tl'azt'enné from Tl'azt'en. Many felt quite upset about their names being changed by the Europeans. This was not just some behavior of hundred(s) of years ago but was common right up to the end of ”residential schools” sometime around 1975. Priests, nuns, preachers and bishops tried to ”take the indian out of the indian”. Hair was cut, native foods from home were taken away, siblings were separated, uniforms administered and names were changed. Students were automatically de-liced, divided into groups based on gender and age and forbidden to use their native tongue. One elder told of being punished for coughing, she had to bury her head in her pillow, to cough, at night to avoid being whipped by the nuns. Another told of the sorrow of being separated from his younger sister and never being allowed to talk to her for the whole school year.

Many band members had three names. The first name was what they were called by the priests or nuns and the general community, the second name was the name they were given by their parents, often at birth, often with an attribute they hoped the child would learn and a third, secret name, that was only spoken by a chosen few friends. I had overheard this third name of one student and was severely rebuked by an elder for using it. ”You have Not been given permission to use that name!” I was told.

Very common, as well, is a fourth name, a nickname, sometimes in English, like ”Fat man” or ”Stretch” or in their own tongue, like ”Bene Hooloh” (no brains) or ”Mary Cho” (big Mary). These nicknames were often spoken with a wry twist to pronunciation that turned the name into a gently prodding, running joke. One very elderly man was called ”Ts'nghi” which means 'dried meat' and all the older ladies would giggle amongst themselves when his name was called out at Pow Wows. One was called ”Walking Eagle” and everyone would stifle a smile because we all knew the eagle walked because he was too full of it to fly. I was called ”Dené Cho” which means 'big man' but I was often introduced as ”Duné Cho”, which means 'big idiot' and I know all too well how appropriately the name fits.

”Taking the Indian out of the Indian: U.S. Policies of Ethnocide Through Education” by Donald A. Grinde, Jr.

is just one of many books about the subject.

This is one of many about the Residential Schools and the horrors they created.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/05/16/f-faqs-residential-schools.html

Edited May 9, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[Robert F. Smith]

As for myself, I am not talking about statistics. Let's take anthropology or archeology, where they often draw conclusions with very few data points.

Modern analytical archeology and anthropology are heavily based on statistics, and are not disposed to draw conclusions on a mere few data points.

They find a few arrowheads or pottery from two locations which are very distant from each other. In one case they may conclude that they traded with each other. Or possibly that they are the result of a migration, having common ancestors. This was a discussion on the origins of the Native Americans when Clovis arrowheads were found both in North America and in Spain. See http://www.pbs.org/s...ents/1406-4.htm for example.

Actually, what Smithsonian senior scholar Dennis Stanford is talking about is the French & Spanish Solutrean precursors to Clovis in America. Both have been known for a long time. You can read about the issues involved in Dennis Stanford and Bruce A. Bradley, Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture (U.C. Press, 2012); see Vimeo of their presentation Feb 29, 2012, at the Smithsonian, at

(Kogainon Films, 2012); Norman Hammond, “Where Did the New World's First Settlers Really Come From?” The Daily Beast, April 2, 2012, online at http://www.thedailyb...-come-from.html .

It could be just a coincidence, but I do not see any statistical analysis. There IS a discussion on the functional difficulties, such as how they emigrated from Europe to the Americas. And we can have a similar discussion on how an Akkadian word found itself among the Nephites. So, "coincidences" are found throughout archeology and anthropology, not only with the BOM.

One seldom gives much credence to isolated "coincidences." One must show them to be part of a system -- as Betty Meggars (also a senior scholar at the Smithsonian) has done with the clearcut diffusion of Japanese Jomon pottery to the Pacific Coast of South America (Valdivia). For scholars "coincidences" don't count.

Finally, the acceptance or denial of the BOM as scripture is not a casual issue. Our decision in that regard could have serious consequences not only in this life, but in the next. So you can put the burden of that important decision on my shoulders, but you will be disappointed when I put that decision where it ultimately rests. That is something between yourself and Deity.

However, I am not certain that everyone is capable of making that decision based on a scientific appraisal. Most people haven't the disposition or training. Better to read it and to pray about it.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

Modern analytical archeology and anthropology are heavily based on statistics, and are not disposed to draw conclusions on a mere few data points.

However, I am not certain that everyone is capable of making that decision based on a scientific appraisal. Most people haven't the disposition or training. Better to read it and to pray about it.

I've waited for someone to post in response, but I'll bite.

There are several gaps in Dennis Stanford's thinking but it mostly comes down to this; Merely finding similar artifacts does not make a link. The Clovis technology although similar between Europe and 'some' finds in North America only shows a similarity in development and invention but does not imply a link between source.

In order for there to be proof of a positive link between European weaponry and technology to North American finds, there would have to be other links, most notably in pottery, since pottery can withstand the tooth of time. But there is no such link.

More recently, there are no links in mitochondrial-DNA finds in North America (or any Americas) to anything European. Hundreds of tests of many thousands of Native peoples in North and South America show no links to European mitochondrial-DNA. These tests do, however, link back to five mitochondrial-DNA strains from Siberian peoples.

So what we are left with is similar technology between two groups and nothing else. History is resplendent with similar technologies being developed independently without other links.

The major criticisms to Stanford's ideas are that the Solutrean hypothesis is nothing more than a hypothesis. Stanford remains one of only a few who see any such link.

[bcuzbcuz]

Modern analytical archeology and anthropology are heavily based on statistics, and are not disposed to draw conclusions on a mere few data points.

Actually, what Smithsonian senior scholar Dennis Stanford is talking about is the French & Spanish Solutrean precursors to Clovis in America. Both have been known for a long time. You can read about the issues involved in Dennis Stanford and Bruce A. Bradley, Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture (U.C. Press, 2012); see Vimeo of their presentation Feb 29, 2012, at the Smithsonian, at

(Kogainon Films, 2012); Norman Hammond, “Where Did the New World's First Settlers Really Come From?” The Daily Beast, April 2, 2012, online at http://www.thedailyb...-come-from.html .

Further to my critique of Stanford's theory, the 'Clovis* spearheads are not merely defined by careful flaking of the active edge, nor of the convex mid spearhead sides, but by the 'fluted' concave base, a fluted channel on either one or, more commonly both sides.

Note the differences between the first picture, a Clovis projectile, and the second picture of 'Solutrean' tools of France and Spain. Where is the characteristic fluting in the French and Spanish spearheads/arrowheads? I don't see the connection?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clovis_Point.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solutrean_tools_22000_17000_Crot_du_Charnier_Solutre_Pouilly_Saone_et_Loire_France.jpg

[cdowis]

More recently, there are no links in mitochondrial-DNA finds in North America (or any Americas) to anything European. Hundreds of tests of many thousands of Native peoples in North and South America show no links to European mitochondrial-DNA. These tests do, however, link back to five mitochondrial-DNA strains from Siberian peoples.

We have discussed this many times in other threads and it is not as simple as you portray it.

There is a significant sampling error from the Amerindians. The samples are only done to those extant survivor groups, and preclude samples from the hundreds/thousands of groups which had become extinct.

A couple of examples:

The Chicago study showed that a full blood American Indian has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

The study on haplogroup X showed differences between the Siberian samples and Amerindians, and concluded that the common group needed to be found elsewhere.

Edited May 12, 2012 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

We have discussed this many times in other threads and it is not as simple as you portray it.

There is a significant sampling error from the Amerindians. The samples are only done to those extant survivor groups, and preclude samples from the hundreds/thousands of groups which had become extinct.

A couple of examples:

The Chicago study showed that a full blood American Indian has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

The study on haplogroup X showed differences between the Siberian samples and Amerindians, and concluded that the common group needed to be found elsewhere.

Granted, as you state, I over-simplified my presentation of mtDNA. But your idea that haplogroupX (Ojibway natives) should relate to a woman from Greece was in a study that was premature in its judgement. Recovering mtDNA is not possible from skeletons so you rightly state that the sampling excludes extinct groups. Whether there were hundreds or thousands of such extinct group is also wild speculation. But the library of mtDNA is ever increasing, as are the now millions of artifacts from early populations. So far, the links to Europe are the matter of fringe research that has found little support.

". . . the popular depiction of Kennewick Man as a pre-Columbian Caucasoid in the New World, coupled with the discovery of haplogroup X as a founding Native American lineage, fueled premature speculation about early European migrations to the New World. Genetic evidence does not support such a migration. "

Mitochondrial DNA Studies of Native Americans:

Conceptions and Misconceptions of the

Population Prehistory of the Americas

JASON A. ESHLEMAN, RIPAN S. MALHI, AND DAVID GLENN SMITH

[cdowis]

Granted, as you state, I over-simplified my presentation of mtDNA. But your idea that haplogroupX (Ojibway natives) should relate to a woman from Greece was in a study that was premature in its judgement.

Haplogroup X and the Greek connection are two completely unrelated. I was only using them as two different examples.

Recovering mtDNA is not possible from skeletons so you rightly state that the sampling excludes extinct groups. Whether there were hundreds or thousands of such extinct group is also wild speculation. But the library of mtDNA is ever increasing, as are the now millions of artifacts from early populations. So far, the links to Europe are the matter of fringe research that has found little support.

The fact remains that the sampling error has not been resolved. It is "fringe" science to pretend otherwise.

". . . the popular depiction of Kennewick Man as a pre-Columbian Caucasoid in the New World, coupled with the discovery of haplogroup X as a founding Native American lineage, fueled premature speculation about early European migrations to the New World. Genetic evidence does not support such a migration. "

Nor does it preclude it. "We just don't know" but you asserted that we do know. In any case, I am not making the the claim that the original inhabitants were European, only asking for proof of the Asian only claim.

Edited May 14, 2012 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

Granted, as you state, I over-simplified my presentation of mtDNA. But your idea that haplogroupX (Ojibway natives) should relate to a woman from Greece was in a study that was premature in its judgement. Recovering mtDNA is not possible from skeletons so you rightly state that the sampling excludes extinct groups. Whether there were hundreds or thousands of such extinct group is also wild speculation. But the library of mtDNA is ever increasing, as are the now millions of artifacts from early populations. So far, the links to Europe are the matter of fringe research that has found little support.

First, mtDNA can and is recovered from human skeletal remains, and is a very active and productive area of physical anthropology. See the following typical examples:

Shook, Beth Alison Schultz, and David Glenn Smith, “Using ancient mtDNA to reconstruct the population history of northeastern North America,” American journal of physical anthropology, 137 (2008):14-29.

Kemp, Brian M., Tiffiny A Tung, and Marshall L Summar, “Genetic continuity after the collapse of the Wari empire: Mitochondrial DNA profiles from Wari and post-Wari populations in the ancient Andes,” American journal of physical anthropology, 140 (2009):80-91.

Perez, S. Ivan, Valeria Bernal, and Paula N Gonzalez, “Morphological differentiation of aboriginal human populations from Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia): implications for South American peopling,” American journal of physical anthropology, 133 (2007):1067-1079.

Lewis, Cecil M Lewis, Raúl Y Tito, Beatriz Lizárraga, and Anne C Stone, “Land, language, and loci: mtDNA in Native Americans and the genetic history of Peru,” American journal of physical anthropology, 127 (2005):351-360.

Bolnick, Deborah A., and David Glenn Smith, “Unexpected patterns of mitochondrial DNA variation among Native Americans from the southeastern United States,” American journal of physical anthropology. 122 (2003):336-354.

Second, the evidence for very early (ca. 20,000 bp) migration from Europe to the east coast of America is not by any means a fringe idea: See, for example,

Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce A. Bradley, Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture (U.C. Press, 2012).

Hammond, Norman, “Where Did the New World's First Settlers Really Come From?” The Daily Beast, April 2, 2012, online at

http://www.thedailyb...-come-from.html

Edited May 14, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

First, mtDNA can and is recovered from human skeletal remains, and is a very active and productive area of physical anthropology. See the following typical examples:

Shook, Beth Alison Schultz, and David Glenn Smith, “Using ancient mtDNA to reconstruct the population history of northeastern North America,” American journal of physical anthropology, 137 (2008):14-29.

Kemp, Brian M., Tiffiny A Tung, and Marshall L Summar, “Genetic continuity after the collapse of the Wari empire: Mitochondrial DNA profiles from Wari and post-Wari populations in the ancient Andes,” American journal of physical anthropology, 140 (2009):80-91.

Perez, S. Ivan, Valeria Bernal, and Paula N Gonzalez, “Morphological differentiation of aboriginal human populations from Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia): implications for South American peopling,” American journal of physical anthropology, 133 (2007):1067-1079.

Lewis, Cecil M Lewis, Raúl Y Tito, Beatriz Lizárraga, and Anne C Stone, “Land, language, and loci: mtDNA in Native Americans and the genetic history of Peru,” American journal of physical anthropology, 127 (2005):351-360.

Bolnick, Deborah A., and David Glenn Smith, “Unexpected patterns of mitochondrial DNA variation among Native Americans from the southeastern United States,” American journal of physical anthropology. 122 (2003):336-354.

I stand corrected.

Second, the evidence for very early (ca. 20,000 bp) migration from Europe to the east coast of America is not by any means a fringe idea: See, for example,

Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce A. Bradley, Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture (U.C. Press, 2012).

Hammond, Norman, “Where Did the New World's First Settlers Really Come From?” The Daily Beast, April 2, 2012, online at

http://www.thedailyb...-come-from.html

My original criticism stands. Merely finding clovis like artifacts in two places does not create a link. Furthermore the clovis tools found in Europe do not contain the concave groove at the base as found on thousands (50-100 thousands) of clovis finds in the Americas.

Just how Stanford would have these first settlers make it across these Atlantic ices, with attention to survival along a glaciers edge, would be entertaining to read, Since I have no intention of buying said book, please cut and paste the appropriate quotes.

[Storm Rider]

I read these types of conversations and I always come away shaking my head. It appears that the fact is that neither side has any definitive statement on an exclusive expansion into the Western Hemisphere. Each time someone tries to use science to exclude any European, Middle East, African migration it is quickly determined that science does not support that type of exclusive claim. Why is anyone so eager to claim an exclusive location of migration? Does it make sense to use science to prove this type of agenda WHEN CURRENT SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM?

I am still shaking my head and just wish it would all go away except for scientific journals. Just let science speak for itself and leave off on all the agenda related hubris.

[Robert F. Smith]

I stand corrected.

My original criticism stands. Merely finding clovis like artifacts in two places does not create a link. Furthermore the clovis tools found in Europe do not contain the concave groove at the base as found on thousands (50-100 thousands) of clovis finds in the Americas.

Just how Stanford would have these first settlers make it across these Atlantic ices, with attention to survival along a glaciers edge, would be entertaining to read, Since I have no intention of buying said book, please cut and paste the appropriate quotes.

Sorry, I don't have a copy of Stanford & Bradley. My point is that, with senior scholars such as these, in addition to the recently retired Norman Hammond taking the Solutrean theory seriously, this is no longer a "fringe" matter, even though conclusive evidence is lacking (no DNA from Clovis or Solutrean cultures yet).

You are correct, of course, that there is no fluting of Solutrean projectile points. But then pre-Clovis points in America are likewise unfluted (as at Meadowcroft Rock Shelter), and fluting may merely be a later Clovis development. After all, fluting is also absent from Siberian points. The whole question turns on the technical similarity of pressure flaking in both the European Solutrean tradition, and the pre-Clovis tool-kit in America. See Wm J. Hranicky, Prehistoric Projectile Points Found Along the Atlantic Coastal Plain, 3rd ed. (Boca Raton: Universal., 2011).

Aside from all that, however, it is certain that human diffusion occurred across the oceans from the Old World to the New and vice-versa (probably many times). The genetic characteristics of a wide range of biological items which could not have come across Beringia prove this with finality:

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen, “Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages,” in Victor H. Mair, ed., Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press, 2006), 238-297.

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen, World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492 (N.Y./Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009).

Here is the Amazon.com blurb on the second book:

People moved into America very early across the Bering Strait. By the fifth millennia B.C.E. tropical sailors brought diseases to America and took plants and animals in both directions. Long before Columbus, tropical sailors carefully selected crops from New World highlands and shorelines, wet and dry climates, and took them to the Old World where they were grown in appropriate environments. Medicinal and psychedelic plants were traded and maintained in Egypt and Peru during separate, 1,400-year periods. This implies that maritime trade was continuous. In this groundbreaking book, learn about: 84 plants that were taken from the Americas to the Old World. What plants and animals were brought to the Americas. Why world trade was essential for transfer of so many. Interconnectedness of civilizations had to result from world trade. Dating of 18 species by archaeology with radio carbon shows dispersal. And much more! Plants, diseases, and animals from America were distributed throughout the world, across the oceans before 1492. It is time for scientists, teachers, and students to reconsider their beliefs about the early history of civilization with World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492.