High school Essay Example for Free

High school Essay Many people would like to become a cheerleader, however, they are afraid of being stereotyped, and in turn, these stereotypes may affect ones chances of successfully becoming a cheerleader. â€Å"Stereotyping is so common in our society that when you meet someone for the first time you are often stereotyped before you even reach, ‘hello. ’ The way people perceive us can have a profound effect on how we see ourselves† (Mega Essays, 2008). Cheerleading has three common stereotypes as this sport gains in popularity. The first stereotype of cheerleading is a controversy that rages on about whether or not it is a sport. Next, cheerleaders are often times compared to people with unflattering and unintelligent personalities. Finally, there have also been questions about the inclusion of males upon cheerleading teams. Though many examples exist, the three examples listed above seem to be the most challenging stereotypes which keep many afraid of joining the sport of cheerleading. Cheerleading is very popular in middle schools all the way up to the university education level, but unfortunately, several observers often question a cheerleader’s athletic ability. Cheerleaders put in hard work by lifting weights, working up a sweat, and even facing possible injury. These athletes have a strong drive for determination and dedication by practicing at all hours of the day both with their team, and also individually. Some cheerleaders may often say they practice more than the teams they cheer for. So the question arises, why not give them the title and respect they strongly deserve? Independent cheerleaders also compete nationally in addition to high school and college cheer teams; however, many cheerleaders are left pondering whether or not they can gain the attention and recognition they need to officially declare cheerleading as a sport (Ninemire, 2008). Besides the questions of cheerleading as a sport, cheerleaders are often stereotyped from the moment they are met and identified as uneducated ditzy blondes. â€Å"She’s dumb,† â€Å"She’s ditzy,† â€Å"He’s feminine,† and â€Å"They’re snobs† are just some of the stereotypes that are often used. Many people who have been a cheerleader, met one, or have even watched a cheerleading team, have experienced these stereotypes. As stated by Mega Essays, (2008) â€Å"Stereotyping is most often someone’s perception of an individual or a group based on social status, education level, race or even looks. Therefore, why do they constantly defend their sport and themselves? † One of the stronger stereotypes within the cheerleading world is the placement of men on the cheer team. As males enter the world of cheerleading they are immediately labeled as being effeminate. They are faced with society’s overcoming stereotype of a male Barbie figure (Bluestein, 1994). Unfortunately, these qualities often lead to males defending their sexuality. â€Å"Against popular belief, females where [sic] not the founders behind the sport of cheerleading; instead males who were so eager to cheer while watching sporting events created this sport. In the 1890’s the first pep club was organized at Princeton University and it was there where the first organized yell was recorded† (Bluestein, 1994). In many high schools around the world, due to the stereotypes, very few males participate on a cheer squad. â€Å"There are more then [sic] 3,000 high school and college cheerleaders in the United States. 97% of all cheerleaders are female; however, approximately 50% of collegiate cheerleaders are male† (Bluestein, 1994). Over the years, there have been many stereotypes which have agonized and affected the cheerleading world. Some stereotypes of cheerleaders include the comparison of cheerleaders with uneducated ditzy blondes, the assumption that cheerleading is not an actual sport, and should males cheer on a team. Furthermore, one should be cautious when joining this sport because of the amount of rumors, whether true or not. According to About. com (2008), â€Å"Cheerleading has expanded from pom-poms and pep rallies into big business an estimated half-billion dollar industry. In addition to college cheerleaders who joke that they practice more than their football teams, there are also independent cheerleading groups not affiliated with schools, which compete nationally. † Cheerleading has been around since the first pep club in the1890’s and continues to grow and evolve each day. References About. com (2008). Cheerleading: controversy and competition. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://cheerleading. about. com/od/cheerinjuries/l/aa103102a. htm Bluestein S, (1994). Male Cheerleading is a sport Serendip. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://serendip. brynmawr. edu/exchange/node/1685 Mega Essays. (2008) Cheerleading stereotypes. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://www. megaessays. com/viewpaper/78441. html Ninemire V, (2008). Stop the stereotyping of cheerleaders. About. com. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from https://cheerleading. about. com.

Women and their Roles in Pre-Industrial Europe Essay -- essays researc

The Women, Family, and Household of Pre-Industrial Europe   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Many of people today feel trapped inside their homes, just how the women of Pre-Industrial Europe felt. Working day in and day out inside the homes, just to keep the family together, and make a little money on the side, these women were an integral part of Pre-Industrial families. Not only were the women important to Pre-Industrial European families, but so were the households. Much of the money was made in the households, and this is where families either succeeded or failed. The household and women of Pre-Industrial Europe played an integral role in the economy of the families, and more importantly, the women of these households kept them running smoothly. Without either of these important aspects of life in Pre-Industrial Europe, it is safe to say that the families would have collapsed, due to a lack of organization and structures. Pre-Industrial Europe, in which the women and the household were â€Å"the factories† per se, due to the income they generat ed, was much different from the Europe we know today. Leading into the Industrialization of Europe beginning in the late 1700's and lasting through the early 1800's, the household played an integral role in the family’s income. Without the household, the families would literally collapse, due to a lack of organization and stability. Within these important family sub-units, there was one married couple, their children, the family’s servants, and in some cases, depending upon the region of Europe, there were grandparents, aunts and uncles. Not only did the father and servants of the house work, but also the women and children. Also, in the case of there being more than one generation of family in a single household, depending upon the region of Europe, the grandparents, aunts, and uncles would also work within the house. Once the children of these households reached a certain age, usually the early teens, they were sent off to work in a house as a servant. These servants were different then the servants of today, as they worked for room, board, and food, not waiting on the family. Once they started to generate income, the teens would save up the money necessary to begin their own family. However, there were the few exceptions; teens that did not work as servants, and ended up marrying into an existing household. This however,... ...n everyday life. For example, because of the early marriages in Eastern European families, the new couples went back to their old home and lived there. However, in Northwestern European families, the newly married couples started their own households and families, because they had more time to gain the money necessary to start their own households. For these reasons, the families of Pre-Industrial Europe were very successful, and were able to produce enough money to keep the family thriving. Sources Cited   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner. The Western Heritage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. Patricia Ahmed, Rebecca Jean Emigh. Household Structure During the Market Transition in   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Eastern Europe. N/A.N/A.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/groups/ccsa/ahmedemigh.pdf Michael Mitterauer. Historical Family Forms in eastern Europe in European Comparison.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  N/A. N/A. http://dmo.econ.msu.ru/Data/mitterauer.html Richard Hooker. Women During the European Enlightenment. N/A. N/A.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/WOMEN.HTM

Different Approaches in Conflict Management

The case that is being analyzed is about the power issues between Lenore and Caroline. This paper will assess the power relationship between the two and explain in great detail the power balancing strategies that can be used. Also included in this paper, will be the Wilmot- Hocker assessment guide. The Wilmot – Hocker Assessment Guide will be the basic foundation for this paper. This assignment will explain the goals of each individual and the messages they use to achieve them. This case study will include examples from the conversation in order to back up certain ideas. Before Lenore and Caroline engage in conflict, Lenore felt she was being shunned from the family. This feeling of being shunned, resulted in Lenore having a hostile attitude toward Caroline and her family. Even though Lenore feels neglected, she will only state a few of the reasons why she † Feels a non-person in Caroline†s life and her kid†s.† The reason why she will not engage fully into conflict is she afraid of conflict. She views confrontation in a negative way. If she did not perceive conflict in a negative view, she would then be more direct on how she feels. When Caroline begins to defend herself and her family, Lenore instantly backs away and pretends to forget what she had previously stated. Lenore is denying that something was communicated because she is trying to ignore the existence of power (Interpersonal Conflict p. 87). Caroline is the exact opposite of Lenore. Although Caroline does not initiate the conflict, she does not back down from conflict. It is obvious that Caroline is not afraid of conflict. Since the relationship between her mother and her is important, she wants to understand why her mother feels the way she does. Caroline realizes in order to do so, a conflict between ideas will occur. She understands if the conflict is handled correctly, the relationship will gradually become stronger with her mother. Both of their ideas about how a family should be raised will brought out into the open in a conflict. After reading over the case, it was apparent that both Lenore and Caroline use metaphoric images when they are communicating to each other. Lenore states that parent†s are the best role models for children. If you†re not going to provide that model for them, who is? Caroline responds by saying, † I can not buy what you are saying.† Although this type of metaphoric image is not mentioned in the book, one must assume that this is an example of conflict as a product. By saying I can not buy what you are saying, Caroline is stating the metaphoric message that conflict is a product and can be bought if it is at the right price. When Lenore told Caroline that she is heading into fairly stormy waters, Lenore is using what is considered to be a negative metaphor. Stormy waters can be extremely destructive by being repetitive, powerful, and inescapable. The book would compare Lenore†s statement as being â€Å"Conflict is a Tide.† Both Lenore and Caroline do not use metaphoric images in a positive way. If both parties realized those metaphors can cast a negative tone, it would limit the possibility for productive conflict management. Neither party would have used the metaphors. Lenore is a senior citizen, which would make her over sixty-years of age. Taking her age and the way she communicates into consideration, one can assume that she is a conservative and an old fashion type of lady. She demands that Caroline and her children show her respect because of her age. It is even mentioned in the case, that Lenore would drop everything when her parents came to visit her. Caroline is thirty- years old, and it is obvious that she is more liberal then Lenore. Caroline can understand her daughter†s actions a lot clearer then can Lenore. The difference in generations is one of the main ingredients of the conflict. The older generation of people can not adapt to the change in families. For example, people in Lenore†s time were not so busy with † Car pools, tennis games, and trips that we†re really not crucial to any part of your life style.† This generation of families is on a lot more hectic schedule. Lenore and many other people from her generation, have a hard time adapting to the fast pace life many families endure. Lenore must understand and accept that Caroline†s parenting style suits the lifestyle of the family. Lenore†s parenting style may have worked in the fifties, but it will not work in the nineties. Until Lenore accepts this fact, there will always be a conflict between them. The event that triggers the conflict, is when Caroline†s daughter runs right past Lenore and does not say hello. Lenore interprets that the kid is â€Å"spoiled†, and that Caroline has failed at raising her children correctly. This is the event that brought the conflict into mutual awareness. Since Lenore is Caroline†s mother, she unarguably believes she knows what is best for Caroline†s family. This first event lead†s into a destructive spiral of more of Lenore†s problems with Caroline and her family. One of the other problems in the past that upsets her, is that she wants to feel a part of their lives. It seems that if Lenore is not the center of attention, then there must be something wrong. Caroline believes that there is nothing wrong with her family. Lenore is overreacting and she should just let her be her own person. However, Lenore feels that there is a crisis in the family. She gets even more upset and angry, when Caroline refuses to agree with her that there is a problem in the family. Because Caroline will not agree with Lenore, it adds fuel to the fire. Caroline will listen to her mother because it is her mother, but that does not mean she will agree or change her tactics. Caroline expresses the struggle in a rational state of mind. She does not ignore her mother; instead, she communicates the message she understands her mother has a problem. The mother expresses the struggle in an over-reacting and unrational state. It is overwhelming to her that her daughter will not conform to what she says. She interprets this as being a sign of disrespect. In order to understand what the incompatible goals are, we must understand what the relational goals of each party are. First of all, Lenore wants her grandchildren to † kiss and hug her every time they see her.† She also wants her daughter to show her much more respect. On the other hand, Caroline wants her mother to realize that her grandchildren still love and respect her, even though they do not kiss and hug her every time they see her. Since Caroline wants one thing and Lenore wants another, this leads into incompatible goals. Both Caroline and Lenore want different things and this causes a struggle over goals. The reason why there is a struggle over goals is because time is a scarce resource. The case study would imply that Caroline†s daughter lives a busy life. She has restraints on her time to play with her friends. When she is not playing tennis or going to school, she wants to spend her time with her friends. This is a normal response for children her age. The grandmother does not understand the time restraints on Tara. The granddaughter would rather spend some time with her friends and have fun, then sit around and listen to outdated theories of Dr. Spock. If both Lenore and Caroline were to engage over what goals are important to them, there would be less of a problem. The situation does not have to be Grandma versus the family. This particular case study lacks goal clarity. Lenore only discovers her goals during the course of the conflict. She only began to engage in conflict, when Tara ran past her and ignored her. Before this incident, she did not have a plan on how to become a bigger influence in the family. If Lenore really wanted to improve the relationship with the family, she would not have been so individualistic. She could have taken account for the family†s needs as well as hers. Lenore could have mentioned that she thought her knowledge on raising families could benefit Caroline and would also help Lenore feel a part of the family. Throughout the conflict, Caroline was defending herself and her family. Therefore, she used a lot of self-oriented tactics. She became very defensive when Lenore said that she was not interested in their advice or in their decisions. She was forced to defend herself and her family. By being defensive, it limited her to only being able to respond back. She was unable to make clear exactly what she wanted from her mother. Although the prospective goal was not mentioned, it was obvious that Lenore was upset with the behavior of Tara and Caroline. Lenore stated that her husband and her â€Å"feel like their a non-person in your life and your kids life.† Lenore†s first goal would be an example of a relational goal. Lenore wanted her grandchildren and her own daughter to treat her with respect. The conflict was about who Lenore and Caroline are to each other. If Lenore is Caroline†s mother, she should treat her like a mother. However, Caroline feels Lenore should stop telling her what is best for her and her family. This is also an example of a relational goal. Since Caroline and Lenore have opposing views on their relationship, a conflict developed. The transactive goals that developed in this conflict happened while the conflict was taking place. Caroline was not aware of how her mother felt about their relationship. Even though this conflict took place, Caroline still does not know how the mother feels about the relationship. In the beginning stages of the conflict, Caroline†s goal was to explain why her daughter did not say hello. That was a relational goal. After Caroline realized that her mother was upset about how Caroline is raising her children, the goal drastically changed from being a relational goal to an identity goal. Who is Caroline to her mother? When Caroline said,† Just because you†re my mother does not mean that we have to think exactly the same,† it showed Caroline was trying to clarify their relationship. During the conflict, Caroline was trying to save face. In order to do so, she had to stick up to her mother. Her mother ,however, wanted to still have control of Caroline and the way she raised her family. When a valid point was made, her mother would find a way to change it around. For example, when Caroline said, â€Å"You brought me up to understand that I am my own person,† her mother responded by saying, † I hope I threw in some training sessions on respecting other people†s authority.† Lenore was accusing Caroline of being a poor mother and having a poor daughter. Lenore could not accept that her daughter could make good decisions, without her assistance. Since it is not known what exactly the retrospective goal is, one must assume that Caroline realized she should have handled the conflict differently. If the goals in the beginning were clarified, there would not have been such a dispute. Neither party specialized in any type of goal. By the end of the conflict, both parties still did not know what the other party wanted. The power issue between Lenore and Caroline is not discussed. Lenore, who has less power then Caroline, is trying to take away Caroline†s power. Lenore uses an either/or approach. Caroline is trying to move Lenore against her will. What this means is she is trying to force Lenore to do what she says. If Lenore says that Caroline is not raising her family correctly, she better change something. Caroline and Lenore are in a conflict over who should have power in the relationship. The mother believes that she knows best on how to raise children and Caroline should listen to her. French and Raven would describe this source of power as expertise. Since Lenore is the mother of Caroline, she believes she has the wisdom, knowledge, and expertise on how a family should operate. Caroline refuses to accept her mother†s opinion and that leads into a struggle over power. When Caroline was younger, her mother was able to punish (coercion) her when she did not like her behavior. Now that she is older her mother is unable to do that and it causes Lenore to be less powerful. Her mother can only verbally attack Caroline, and that is exactly what she does. A currency that Caroline did not realize she had was her interpersonal linkage. She serves as the bridge between Lenore and Tara. Lenore would not know how Tara felt if it was not for Caroline. If Caroline choose not to tell Tara how Lenore felt, there is nothing Lenore could do about it. This would make Lenore even have less power. Lenore and Caroline have a power imbalance. Lenore†s goal is to strive for higher power. She even mentions if she was the mother, the children would not be acting this way. Lenore communicates to Caroline in what is called competitive symmetry. This means that she uses a repeated pattern of one-ups. An example of this would be when Lenore said, â€Å"This your mother talking.† Lenore attempted to have Caroline be submissive and to agree with her by communicating with one-downs. Instead, Caroline attempted to communicate in what is called a complementary pattern. She would say, † Your are twisting this all around to make me see your point of view. So what if we disagree with minor things.† She was using a one-up pattern at first by saying how she truly felt, but she then use a one-down pattern when she explained her reasoning and she hoped her mother would agree. The type of style that Lenore uses is called competitive. She is highly concerned for her own needs and she really does not have a high concern for others. For example she says, â€Å"We just have begun to realize that we are going to start looking out for our own needs-alone.† This statement is implying that her needs must be meet first and foremost. What makes this case interesting, is that Lenore also uses an avoidance technique throughout the argument. When Lenore said, â€Å"Nonsense! I†ve never ever told you what to do or when to do it.† This remark indicates that Lenore decided that she would avoid continuing in the argument. She is using what is called a nonconsensual avoidance. She is ignoring everything that Caroline has to say. Caroline uses a collaborative style when she communicates with her mother. She has a high concern for her needs, but she also has a high concern for her mother†s needs. The problem is her mother and her can not clarify what they want. So it makes it impossible for Caroline to find an integrative solution that will satisfy them both. What results from this is a symmetrical â€Å"attack-attack† patterns, were they are trying to one-up each other. Caroline, Lenore, and Tara are involved in what is known as a toxic triangle. Tara and Lenore are at the top corners, while the grandmother is at the bottom corner. The results from a toxic triangle can be devastating to the relationship. If the grandmother would accept Tara withdrawing from the triangle, it would give Lenore and Caroline time to discuss their current relationship. The focus would not be about Tara, but instead them. This one to one communication could result in the two collaborating. All and all, both parties need to realize in order to accomplish their goals, they need to know exactly what their goals are. Lenore uses the avoidance and competitive style, while Caroline uses the competitive and collaboration style. They will only further damage the relationship if they keep competing with each other over who has power.

Evidence for American Human Settlement Before Clovis

Pre-Clovis culture is a term used by archaeologists to refer to what is considered by most scholars (see discussion below) the founding populations of the Americas. The reason they are called pre-Clovis, rather than some more specific term, is that the culture remained controversial for some 20 years after their first discovery. Up until the identification of pre-Clovis, the first absolutely agreed-upon culture in the Americas was a Paleoindian culture called Clovis, after the type site discovered in New Mexico in the 1920s. Sites identified as Clovis were occupied between ~13,400-12,800  calendar years ago (cal BP), and the sites reflected a fairly uniform living strategy, that of predation on now-extinct megafauna, including mammoths, mastodons, wild horses, and bison, but supported by smaller game and plant foods. There was always a small contingent of the Americanist scholars who supported claims of archaeological sites of ages dating between 15,000 to as much 100,000 years ago: but these were few, and the evidence was deeply flawed. It is useful to bear in mind that Clovis itself as a Pleistocene culture was widely disparaged when it was first announced in the 1920s. Changing Minds However, beginning in the 1970s or so, sites predating Clovis began to be discovered in North America (such as Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Cactus Hill), and South America (Monte Verde). These sites, now classified Pre-Clovis, were a few thousand years older than Clovis, and they seemed to identify a broader-range lifestyle, more approaching Archaic period hunter-gatherers. Evidence for any pre-Clovis sites remained widely discounted among mainstream archaeologists until about 1999  when a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico called Clovis and Beyond was held presenting some of the emerging evidence. One fairly recent discovery appears to link the Western Stemmed Tradition, a stemmed point stone tool complex in the Great Basin and Columbia Plateau to pre-Clovis and the Pacific Coast Migration Model. Excavations at Paisley Cave in Oregon have recovered radiocarbon dates and DNA from human coprolites which predate Clovis. Pre-Clovis Lifestyles Archaeological evidence from pre-Clovis sites continues to grow. Much of what these sites contain suggests the pre-Clovis people had a lifestyle that was based on a combination of hunting, gathering, and fishing. Evidence for pre-Clovis use of bone tools, and for the use of nets and fabrics has also been discovered. Rare sites indicate that pre-Clovis people sometimes lived in clusters of huts. Much of the evidence seems to suggest a marine lifestyle, at least along the coastlines; and some sites within the interior show a partial reliance on large-bodied mammals. Research also focuses on migration pathways into the Americas. Most archaeologists still favor the Bering Strait crossing from northeastern Asia: climatic events of that era restricted entry into Beringia and out of Beringia and into the North American continent. For pre-Clovis, the Mackenzie River Ice-Free Corridor was not open early enough. Scholars have hypothesized instead that the earliest colonists followed the coastlines to enter and explore the Americas, a theory known as the Pacific Coast Migration Model  (PCMM) Continuing Controversy Although evidence supporting the PCMM and the existence of pre-Clovis has grown since 1999, few coastal Pre-Clovis sites have been found to date. Coastal sites are likely inundated since the sea level has done nothing but rise since the Last Glacial Maximum. In addition, there are some scholars within the academic community who remain skeptical about pre-Clovis. In 2017, a special issue of the journal Quaternary International based on a 2016 symposium at the Society for American Archaeology meetings presented several arguments dismissing pre-Clovis theoretical underpinnings. Not all the papers denied pre-Clovis sites, but several did. Among the papers, some of the scholars asserted that Clovis was, in fact, the first colonizers of the Americas and that genomic studies of the Anzick burials (which share DNA with modern Native American groups) prove that. Others suggest that the Ice-Free Corridor would still have been usable if unpleasant entryway for the earliest colonists. Still others argue that the Beringian standstill hypothesis is incorrect and that there simply were no people in the Americas prior to the Last Glacial Maximum. Archaeologist Jesse Tune and colleagues have suggested that all of the so-called pre-Clovis sites are made up of geo-facts, micro-debitage too small to be confidently assigned to human manufacture.   It is undoubtedly true that pre-Clovis sites are still relatively few in number compared to Clovis. Further, pre-Clovis technology seems extremely varied, especially compared to Clovis which is so strikingly identifiable. Occupation dates on pre-Clovis sites vary between 14,000 cal BP to 20,000 and more. Thats an issue that needs to be addressed.   Who Accepts What? It is difficult to say today what percentage of archaeologists or other scholars support pre-Clovis as a reality versus Clovis First arguments. In 2012, anthropologist Amber Wheat conducted a systematic survey of 133 scholars about this issue. Most (67 percent) were prepared to accept the validity of at least one of the pre-Clovis sites (Monte Verde). When asked about migratory paths, 86 percent selected the coastal migration path and 65 percent the ice-free corridor. A total of 58 percent said people arrived in the American continents before 15,000 cal BP, which implies by definition pre-Clovis. In short, Wheats survey, despite what has been said to the contrary, suggests that in 2012, most scholars in the sample were willing to accept some evidence for pre-Clovis, even if it wasnt an overwhelming majority or whole-hearted support. Since that time, most of the published scholarship on pre-Clovis has been on the new evidence, rather than disputing their validity. Surveys are a snapshot of the moment, and the research into coastal sites has not stood still since that time. Science moves slowly, one might even say glacially, but it does move. Sources Braje, Todd J., et al. Finding the First Americans. Science 358.6363 (2017): 592–94. Print.de Saint Pierre, Michelle. Antiquity of mtDNA Lineage D1g from the Southern Cone of South America Supports Pre-Clovis Migration. Quaternary International 444 (2017): 19–25. Print.Eren, Metin I., et al. Refuting the Technological Cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing Hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science 40.7 (2013): 2934-41. Print.Erlandson, Jon M. After Clovis-First Collapsed: Reimagining the Peopling of the Americas. Paleoamerican Odyssey. Eds. Graf, Kelly E., C.V. Ketron and Michael R. Waters. College Station: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas AM, 2013. 127-32. Print.Faught, Michael K. Where Was the Paleoamerind Standstill? Quaternary International 444 (2017): 10–18. Print.Fiedel, Stuart J. The Anzick Genome Proves Clovis Is First, after All. Quaternary International 444 (2017): 4–9. Print.Halligan, Jessi J., et al. Pre-Clovis Occup ation 14,550 Years Ago at the Page-Ladson Site, Florida, and the Peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 2.e1600375 (2016). Print.Jenkins, Dennis L., et al. Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley Caves. Science 337 (2012): 223–28. Print.Llamas, Bastien, Kelly M. Harkins, and Lars Fehren-Schmitz. Genetic Studies of the Peopling of the Americas: What Insights Do Diachronic Mitochondrial Genome Datasets Provide? Quaternary International 444 (2017): 26–35. Print.Morrow, Juliet E. After Anzick: Reconciling New Genomic Data and Models with the Archaeological Evidence for Peopling of the Americas. Quaternary International 444 (2017): 1–3. Print.Potter, Ben A., et al. Early Colonization of Beringia and Northern North America: Chronology, Routes, and Adaptive Strategies. Quaternary International 444 (2017): 36–55. Print.Scott, G. Richard, et al. Sinodonty, Sundadonty, and the Beringian Standstill Model: Issues of Timing and Migrations into the New World. Quaternary International 466 (2018): 233–46. Print.Shillito, Lisa-Marie, et al. New Research at Paisley Caves: Applying New Integrated Analytical Approaches to Understanding Stratigraphy, Taphonomy, and Site Formation Processes. PaleoAmerica 4.1 (2018): 82–86. Print.Tune, Jesse W., et al. Assessing the Proposed Pre-Last Glacial Maximum Human Occupation of North America at Coats-Hines-Litchy, Tennessee, and Other Sites. Quaternary Science Reviews 186 (2018): 47–59. Print.Wagner, Daniel P. Cactus Hill, Virginia. Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology. Ed. Gilbert, Allan S. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2017. 95–95. Print.Wheat, Amber. Survey of Professional Opinions Regarding the Peopling of America. SAA Archaeological Record 12.2 (2012): 10–14. Print.