Right at the moment, for me, the most important question of cultural artifacts is what idiot devised the foil seal that i'm having to pluck at with my fingernails to get the coffee opened so i can make a cup of joe.
No, i'm not wrong--Solutrean is a specific term for an array of cultural artifacts (not just stone tools) which succeeded
the Aruginacian. You are using the term loosely, much too loosely. Whereas i don't claim to be an archaeologist, pre-history is a part of history, too, and this is a subject to which i have given a great deal of attention. In addition to having made stone tools using a bi-facial, pressure flake method, their culture also produced a wide array of small bone, antler and wooden artifacts which are characteristic. For example, they made needles, and i believe i am correct in saying that needles were not seen before the Solutreans. They made fish hooks, and i believe it is correct to say that previously, gaffs were used--attempting to "set the gaff" by pulling sharply on the fishing line so that a long sliver of stone, wood, bone or antler would lodge in the fish's throat. Fish hooks were a dramatic improvement on this method. They also made burins for carving. Their carving on wood, bone and antler are also characteristic cultural artifacts.
You are incorrect to say that burins were used in pressure-flake tool production. They used a long piece of wood, bone or antler to spall the stone, rather than striking it directly with the hammer stone. This is using a punch, not a burin. The hammerstone would be used to rough out the flake to be worked, and then spalls would be removed with a punch--using a hammerstone to strike the punch rather than striking with the hammerstone directly on the core or flake to be worked. A burin-like tool would be used to remove very small, very precise spalls for edge finishing. (I tried to find a good video for this, but every one i've looked at so far the knappers are "cheating"--they are using steel point tools.) Technically speaking, though, a burin is an engraving tool. The tools for edge finishing are sometimes referred to as billets.
You imply a lack of precision in the definition of the term Solutrean, as though it were just a vague label. That is incorrect. Their array of cultural artifacts, with which they are identified had not appeared previously; and in some cases, especially with regard to their stone tool technology, did not appear afterward for quite some time. The Magdalenian culture, which succeeded the Solutrean, used a much less sophisticated, one might say a more primitive tool-making technique. It is precisely because their cultural artifacts are unique, and appear only within a range of about 5000 years, that they are strictly distinguished from the Aurignacian which preceded them, and the Magdalenian which succeeded them. Of course, the Solutrean is also specifically located in one region of western Europe. I have no idea what leads you to claim (apparently just on the authority of your say-so) that the Solutrean is some kind of loose term for a transitional culture. Transitional between what and what? If it was just a transitional culture, why did the Magdalenian produce much less sophisticated stone tools?
As for any connection between the Solutrean and the Clovis technologies, that has always been one part of the hypothesis which i found ridiculous. I don't believe in cultural diffusion as it is classically described by archaeologists. Many technologies, techniques and designs in the manufacture of cultural artifacts have appeared widely separated in space, and often widely separated in time. To me it is ridiculous to assume that only one man or woman will have an idea and act upon it, with all others being merely imitators. I think there is very good reason to assume that the Clovis technology was developed independently, simply based on the fecund inventiveness of humans.
I'm sorry, but once again, i consider you to be engaged in sloppy assessments. This find is interesting. But it has nothing to do with the Solutreans, who did not yet exist, and it says absolutely nothing about culture or technological development among prehistoric Europeans and Asians.