Arrowheads, which are ancient
hunting tools, are often themselves ‘hunted’ for their interesting value both
as artifacts and as art. Some of the oldest arrowheads in the United States
date back 12,000 years. They are not very difficult to find. You need only to
walk with downcast eyes in a field that has been recently tilled for the spring
planting season, and you might find one.
Arrowheads are tiny stones or pieces
of wood, bone, or metal which have been sharpened in order to create a tipped
weapon used in hunting. The material is honed to an edge, usually in a
triangular fashion, and is brought to a deadly tip. On the edge opposite the
tip is a flared tail. Though designs vary depending on the region, purpose, and
era of the arrowhead’s origin, the tails serve the same purpose. The tail of
the arrowhead is meant to be strapped onto a shaft, which is a straight wooden
piece such as a spear or an arrow. When combined, the arrowhead point and the
shaft become a lethal projectile weapon to be thrown by arm or shot with a bow
at prey.
Indian arrowheads are important
artifacts that give archeologists (scientists who study past human societies)
clues about the lives of Native Americans. By analyzing an arrowhead’s shape,
they can determine the advancement of tool technologies among certain Native
American groups. By determining the origin of the arrowhead material (bone,
rock, wood, or metal), they can trace the patterns of travel and trade of the
hunters. By examine the location of the arrowheads, archeologists can map out
hunting grounds and other social patterns.
Arrowheads are commonly found
along riverbanks or near creek beds because animals drawn to natural water sources
to sustain life were regularly found drinking along the banks. For this reason,
riverbeds were a prime hunting ground for the Native Americans. Now, dry and
active riverbeds are prime hunting grounds for arrowhead collectors.
Indian arrowheads are tiny pieces
of history that fit in the palm of your hand. They are diary entries in the
life of a hunter. They are museum pieces that hide in the dirt. They are
symbolic of the eternal struggle between life and death.
As used in paragraph 2, which is
the best definition for
projectile?
I am writing in response to response
to the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this
spring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would
like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that
can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,
more accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti
usually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your
author does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act
of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the
images themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the
ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though
graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or
travel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive
payment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are
available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider
random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is
just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is
breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes
great talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists
just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they
cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is
vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out
of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,
graffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and
enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,
such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the
public might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the
victims of a crime.
Based on its use in paragraph 4,
which of the following accurately describes something that is intricate?
I am writing in response to response
to the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this
spring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would
like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that
can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,
more accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti
usually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your
author does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act
of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the
images themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the
ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though
graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or
travel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive
payment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are
available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider
random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is
just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is
breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes
great talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists
just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they
cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is
vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out
of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,
graffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and
enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,
such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the
public might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the
victims of a crime.
According to the writer, random
words sprayed on stop sings are not