Just wondering: how do you propose we arrive at 'peer review' on a prehistoric hypothesis? Like evolution, it can never be conclusively proven, but for drawing a reasoned conclusion based on the evidence that we have (and the people in academia who will debate that). Stanford and Bradley stand awfully tall as far as their academic bona fides, which is why this hypothesis has an article in the first place. I'm going to seriously edit down the 'genetic research' subheading which is clearly wp:undue weight, if for no reason other than it doesn't begin to conclusively disprove Solutrean, even though its constantly flogged as being decisive by the agenda-driven types.