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?
At the time Jane Austen’s novels
were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any
academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain
religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so-called
immoral characters so interesting that young readers would identify with them;
these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even
Coleridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when the asserted
that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s powers.”
These attitudes towards novels help
explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth-century
literary cities. (In any case a novelist published anonymously, as Austen was,
would not be likely to receive much critical attention.) The literary response
that was accorded to her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth-century
criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience,”
for example. Scott made an insightful remark about the merits of Austen’s
fiction.
Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to
the reader an accurate and exact picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth-century Flemish painting.” Scott did not use
the word ‘realism’, but he undoubtedly used a standard of realistic probability
in judging novels. The critic Whately did not use the word ‘realism’, either,
but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities
for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s ‘realistic method’ her
characters, wrote Whately, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are
ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that we feel an interest in their fate as
if it were our own.” Moral instruction, explained Whately, is more likely to be
effective when conveyed through recongnizably human and interesting characters
than when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whitely especially praised Austen’s
ability to create character who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whitely concluded his remarks by
comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Dickens’, starting his preference
for Austen’s.
Yet, the response of
nineteenth-century literary critics to Austen was not always so laudatory, and
often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century literary critics. An
example of such a response was Lewes complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of
subject and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added
that, nonetheless her focus was too often only upon the unlofty and the
commonplace. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain
about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper middle class.)
In any case having being rescued by literary critics from neglect and indeed
gradually lionized by them, Austen steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth
century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
The author would most likely agree
to which of the following as the best measure of a writer’s literary success?