DOCSLIB.ORG

The Biomechanics of Spear Throwing: an Analysis of the Effects of Anatomical Variation on Throwing Performance, with Implications for the Fossil Record

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Biomechanics of Spear Throwing: an Analysis of the Effects of Anatomical Variation on Throwing Performance, with Implications for the Fossil Record Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) Spring 4-24-2013 The iomechB anics of Spear Throwing: An Analysis of the Effects of Anatomical Variation on Throwing Performance, with Implications for the Fossil Record Julia Marie Maki Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Maki, Julia Marie, "The iomeB chanics of Spear Throwing: An Analysis of the Effects of Anatomical Variation on Throwing Performance, with Implications for the Fossil Record" (2013). All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs). 1044. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/1044 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS Department of Anthropology Dissertation Examination Committee: Erik Trinkaus, Chair Ruth Clark Glenn Conroy Jane Phillips-Conroy Herman Pontzer E.A. Quinn The Biomechanics of Spear Throwing: An Analysis of the Effects of Anatomical Variation on Throwing Performance, with Implications for the Fossil Record by Julia Marie Maki A dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 St. Louis, Missouri © 2013, Julia Marie Maki TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xii ABSTRACT xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Research Questions and Hypotheses 3 CHAPTER 2: THROWING IN CONTEXT 8 CHAPTER 3: THROWING IN THE PALEOLITHIC 16 I. Evidence for Projectile Weaponry 17 II. Anatomical Evidence for Throwing 29 III. Evidence for Hunting 36 CHAPTER 4: BIOMECHANICS OF THROWING 41 I. Biomechanics of Throwing in Modern Humans 41 II. Relevant Anatomical Variation between Hominin Populations 47 1. Muscle Volume 47 2. Effective Mechanical Advantage 54 3. Body Proportions 61 CHAPTER 5: MATERIALS AND METHODS 65 MATERIALS 65 I. Human Subjects 65 II. Skeletal Materials 66 METHODS 71 I. Experimental Data Collection 71 1. Anthropometrics 71 2. Strength Testing 72 3. Kinematics and Kinetics 74 4. Electromyography 77 5. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 78 II. Skeletal Data Collection 79 III. Experimental Data Processing 82 1. Kinematics and Kinetics 82 2. EMG 95 3. MRI 96 ii 4. Statistical Analyses 104 IV. Skeletal Data Processing 105 CHAPTER 6: KINETICS AND KINEMATICS OF THROWING 111 I. Kinetics and Kinematics of the Legs and Torso 114 II. Kinetics and Kinematics of the Arm 118 1. The Shoulder 118 2. The Elbow 124 3. The Wrist 128 Discussion 133 1. The Legs and Torso 133 2. The Shoulder 133 3. The Elbow and Wrist 135 4. Effects of Object Mass on Throwing Performance 136 CHAPTER 7: THROWING PERFORMANCE AND ANATOMY 138 BALL RESULTS 138 I. Relationship between Anthropometric Variables and Ball Ke 138 II. Relationship between Anthropometric Variables and Ke at Each Joint 144 1. Ke of the Legs and Torso 144 2. Ke of the Arm 153 Discussion 159 1. The Legs and Torso 160 2. The Shoulder 162 3. The Elbow 163 4. The Wrist 165 SPEAR RESULTS 166 I. Relationship between Anthropometric Variables and Spear Ke 166 II. Relationship between Anthropometric Variables and Ke at Each Joint 169 1. Ke of the Legs and Torso 169 2. Ke of the Arm 174 Discussion 180 1. The Legs and Torso 180 2. The Shoulder 181 3. The Elbow 182 4. The Wrist 183 CHAPTER 8: EFFECTIVE MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE 184 I. EMA and Maximum Torque Production 184 Discussion 195 II. Skeletal versus Tendinous Estimation of EMA 198 Discussion 200 III. Static versus Dynamic EMA 201 Discussion 206 iii CHAPTER 9: EFFECTIVE MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE IN 210 PALEOLITHIC FOSSIL HOMININS I. EMA at the Elbow 211 II. EMA at the Wrist 222 Discussion 234 1. The Elbow 234 2. The Wrist 237 CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS 242 I. The Biomechanics of Spear and Ball Throwing 242 II. Throwing Performance and Anatomy 246 III. Energy Transfer Across the Kinetic Chain in Throwing 250 IV. The Relevance and Measurability of Effective Mechanical Advantage 251 V. Effective Mechanical Advantage in Paleolithic Fossil Hominins 253 VI. Spear Throwing Performance in Paleolithic Fossil Hominins 255 BIBLIOGRAPHY 257 APPENDICES 281 I. Subject Anthropometrics 281 II. Subject Muscle Cross-Sectional Areas Measured from MRIs 283 III. Subject Moment Arms Measured from MRIs 284 IV. Subject Strength Measured with Load Cell 286 V. Skeletal Measurements from Fossil Specimens 287 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Phases of a baseball throw 42 Figure 5.1 Strength testing apparatus 73 Figure 5.2 Set-up for throwing trials 74 Figure 5.3 Infrared marker positions and descriptors 75 Figure 5.4 Skeletal measurement of moment arms at the elbow 81 Figure 5.5 Skeletal measurement of moment arms at the wrist 82 Figure 5.6 Method for determining ball/spear release frame 86 Figure 5.7 Local reference system and motion definitions for the shoulder 88 Figure 5.8 Local reference system and motion definitions for shoulder 89 internal/external rotation Figure 5.9 Local reference system and motion definitions for the wrist 90 Figure 5.10 Visualization of 3-D coordinates in Analyze 97 Figure 5.11 Selection of the center of rotation for the wrist 100 Figure 5.12 Measurement of moment arms in Analyze 101 Figure 5.13 Measurement of muscle cross sectional area in Analyze 102 Figure 6.1 Leg kinematics 116 Figure 6.2 Torso kinematics 118 Figure 6.3 Shoulder kinematics 119 Figure 6.4 Shoulder internal/external rotation 121 Figure 6.5 Shoulder abduction/adduction 122 Figure 6.6 Shoulder horizontal abduction/adduction 123 Figure 6.7 Elbow kinematics 125 Figure 6.8 Elbow flexion/extension 127 Figure 6.9 Wrist kinematics 129 v Figure 6.10 Wrist flexion/extension 132 Figure 7.1 Linear regression of RShoulder Ke against ball Ke 140 Figure 7.2 Diagram of the relationship between predictor variables and linear 147 kinetic energy (Ke) at each joint for ball throws Figure 7.3 Linear regression of RShoulder Ke against spear Ke 167 Figure 7.4 Diagram of the relationship between predictor variables and linear 170 Ke at each joint for spear throws Figure 7.5 Linear regression of triceps aCSA against residuals from regression 177 of Elbow Ke against Ulna Ke Figure 7.6 Linear regression of wrist flexor aCSA against residuals from 179 regression of RShoulder Ke against Spear Ke Figure 8.1 Linear regression of external force (Fe) measured with load cell, 186 against muscle cross sectional area (aCSA) multiplied by effective mechanical advantage (EMA) Figure 8.2 Linear regression of aCSA against Fe measured with load cell 188 Figure 8.3 Linear regression of skeletal r against tendinous r at the elbow 199 Figure 8.4 Linear regression of skeletal r against tendinous r at the wrist 200 Figure 8.5 Linear regression of static R against dynamic R at the elbow during 204 throwing Figure 8.6 Linear regression of 2nd metacarpal length against dynamic R at 206 maximum torque for the wrist Figure 8.7 Elbow angle during ball throwing 207 Figure 8.8 Variation in dynamic R at the elbow during throwing 208 Figure 9.1 Load arm (R) at the elbow 213 Figure 9.2 Moment arm (r) for triceps brachii (TB) 215 Figure 9.3 Effective mechanical advantage (EMA) for triceps brachii (TB) 217 Figure 9.4 Moment arm for brachialis (B) 218 Figure 9.5 EMA for B 219 Figure 9.6 Moment arm for biceps brachii (BB) 221 vi Figure 9.7 EMA for BB 222 Figure 9.8 Second metacarpal (2MC) length 224 Figure 9.9 Linear regression of r for flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) measured 226 from the hamate (rHam) against r measured from the pisiform (rPis) Figue 9.10 Moment arm for FCU (rHam) 227 Figure 9.11 EMA for FCU (from rHam) 228 Figure 9.12 Moment arm for flexor carpi radialis (FCR) 229 Figure 9.13 EMA for FCR 230 Figure 9.14 Moment arm for extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) 231 Figure 9.15 EMA for ECU 232 Figure 9.16 Moment arm for extensor carpi radialis longus and brevis (ECR) 233 Figure 9.17 EMA for ECR 234 Figure 9.18 Range of variation in r for human skeletal samples versus living 240 human subjects vii LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1 Fossil specimens 70 Table 5.2 Summary of MATLAB equations 93 Table 5.3 Muscle anatomy for moment arm calculations 103 Table 7.1 Correlation matrix of subject anthropometrics 140 Table 7.2 Stepwise multiple regression equations for the relationship between 142 anthropometric variables and ball Ke Table 7.3 Variables used to predict ball/spear Ke 146 Table 7.4 Stepwise multiple regression equations for anthropometric variables 149 and Ke at each joint for ball throwing Table 7.5 Stepwise multiple regression equations for relationship between 168 anthropometric variables and spear Ke Table 7.6 Stepwise multiple regression equations for anthropometric variables 171 and Ke at each joint for spear throwing Table 8.1 Stepwise multiple regression equations for EMA and muscle 187 aCSA against Fe for the elbow and wrist in flexion and extension Table 8.2 Correlation coefficients and partial correlations for elbow and wrist 190 aCSA and Fe Table 8.3 Correlation matrix for muscle aCSA values 191 Table 8.4 Stepwise multiple regression of muscle aCSA and EMA against Fe 192 for the elbow and wrist in flexion and extension Table 8.5 Correlation coefficients and significance values for linear regression 205 of static R against dynamic R
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Engineering-Design Oriented Exploration of Human Excellence in Throwing
    Sådhanå (2018) 43:28 Ó Indian Academy of Sciences https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-018-0788-z Sadhana(0123456789().,-volV)FT3](0123456789().,-volV) An engineering-design oriented exploration of human excellence in throwing SUSHEEL DHARMADHIKARI1,* and ANINDYA CHATTERJEE2 1 Structural Dynamics Team, Eaton Technologies, EON IT Park, Pune 411014, India 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 208016, India e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] MS received 3 November 2016; revised 12 March 2017; accepted 19 July 2017; published online 10 March 2018 Abstract. Humans are fast throwers, and their bodies differ correspondingly from those of other hominids. One might ask why humans evolved to throw fast while others did not; whether the design of a fast thrower is unique or special and whether indeed humans remain fast within broader comparison sets of non-hominid throwers. As a non-hominid comparison set, we consider a random population of five-link robots with simplified joint angle and torque constraints. We generate 20,000 such robot models and sequentially optimize their throwing motion. Since good initial guesses are needed for each optimization, the robots are first arranged in distance-minimizing sequences in design parameter space. Each robot’s optimal throw then serves as an initial guess for the next one in sequence. Multiple traversals of these sequences, and random perturbations, are used to avoid local optima. Subsequently, regression models are used to predict throwing performance as a function of robot design parameters. From these regression models, the dominant heuristic predictor of fast throwing is found to be a long and light last link.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Greek Hoplites and Their Origins
    Ancient Greek Hoplites and their Origins By Jordan Wilde Senior Seminar (HST 499W) June 6, 2008 Primary Reader: Dr. Benedict Lowe Secondary Reader: Dr. Lorie Carlson Course Instructor: Dr. David Doellinger History Department Western Oregon University 1 The ancient Greek hoplites were heavily armed infantry soldiers, known for wearing extensive armor, carrying a large rounded shield, spears, and a sword. By looking at armor, weapons, tactics, and vases recovered from archaeological digs, along with literature of the time, such as Homer’s Iliad (ca. 700 B.C.)1 and Hesiod’s Shield of Heracles (ca. end of the late 8th century B.C)2, who and what a hoplite was can be defined. The scholarly consensus has been that eighth century B.C. is crucial in exploring the origins of hoplites. The eighth century sees a dramatic increase in population leading to the rise of city-states and hoplites. In this paper I am going to consider the evidence for the existence of hoplites during the eighth century B.C. and whether or not there is any evidence for their existence before this. When examining evidence for defining when hoplites first appeared, it’s important to understand what makes a hoplite unique, specifically his equipment, weapons, and tactics. In the article “Hoplites and Heresies,” A.J. Holladay looks at the overall view of the hoplite on the battlefield and some forms of military tactics the Greeks might have had. Holladay examines what is typically assumed as hoplite customs, fighting in a close pack, with their shields in their left hand protecting themselves and their neighbors as well as carrying a spear in their right hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Evolution to Revolution: from a Slowly Developing Finite Communication System with Many Words to Infinite Modern Language
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/166520; this version posted July 20, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Language evolution to revolution: from a slowly developing finite communication system with many words to infinite modern language Andrey Vyshedskiy1,2* 1Boston University, Boston, USA 2ImagiRation LLC, Boston, MA, USA Keywords: Language evolution, hominin evolution, human evolution, recursive language, flexible syntax, human language, syntactic language, modern language, Cognitive revolution, Great Leap Forward, Upper Paleolithic Revolution, Neanderthal language Abstract There is overwhelming archeological and genetic evidence that modern speech apparatus was acquired by hominins by 600,000 years ago. There is also widespread agreement that modern syntactic language arose with behavioral modernity around 100,000 years ago. We attempted to answer two crucial questions: (1) how different was the communication system of hominins before acquisition of modern language and (2) what triggered the acquisition of modern language 100,000 years ago. We conclude that the communication system of hominins prior to 100,000 years ago was finite and not- recursive. It may have had thousands of words but was lacking flexible syntax, spatial prepositions, verb tenses, and other features that enable modern human language to communicate an infinite number of ideas. We argue that a synergistic confluence of a genetic mutation that dramatically slowed down the prefrontal cortex (PFC) development in monozygotic twins and their spontaneous invention of spatial prepositions 100,000 years ago resulted in acquisition of PFC-driven constructive imagination (mental synthesis) and converted the finite communication system of their ancestors into infinite modern language.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction Athletics is an exclusive collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking. The most common types of athletics competitions are track and Field, road running, cross country running, and race walking. The simplicity of the competitions, and the lack of a need for expensive equipment, makes athletics one of the most commonly competed sports in the world. Track and field events are generally individual sports with athletes challenging each other to decide a single victor. The racing events are won by the athlete with the fastest time, while the jumping and throwing events are won by the athlete who has achieved the greatest distance or height in the contest. The running events are categorised as sprints, middle and long distance events, relays, and hurdling. Regular jumping events include long jump, triple jump, high jump, and pole vault, while the most common throwing events are shot put, javelin, discus and hammer. There are also "combined events", such as heptathlon, and decathlon, in which athletes compete in a number of the above events. Track and field events are divided into three broad categories: track events, field events, and combined events. The majority of athletes tend to specialise in just one event (or event type) with the aim of perfecting their performances, although the aim of combined events athletes is to become proficient in a number of disciplines. There are two types of field events: jumps, and throws. In jumping competitions, athletes are judged on either the length or height of their jumps. The performances of jumping events for distance are measured from a board or marker, and any athlete overstepping this mark is judged to have fouled.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Feeding and Breeding, and the Evolution of Executive Control
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Cooperative feeding and breeding, and the evolution of executive control Krist Vaesen Philosophy & Ethics Eindhoven University of Technology The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] http://home.ieis.tue.nl/kvaesen/ forthcoming in Biology & Philosophy Abstract Dubreuil (2010b, this journal) argues that modern-like cognitive abilities for in- hibitory control and goal maintenance most likely evolved in Homo heidelbergensis, much before the evolution of oft-cited modern traits, such as symbolism and art. Dubreuil's argument pro- ceeds in two steps. First, he identifies two behavioral traits that are supposed to be indicative of the presence of a capacity for inhibition and goal maintenance: cooperative feeding and cooper- ative breeding. Next, he tries to show that these behavioral traits most likely emerged in Homo heidelbergensis. In this paper, I show that neither of these steps are warranted in light of current scientific evidence, and thus, that the evolutionary background of human executive functions, such as inhibition and goal maintenance, remains obscure. Nonetheless, I suggest that coopera- tive breeding might mark a crucial step in the evolution of our species: its early emergence in Homo erectus might have favored a social intelligence that was required to get modernity really off the ground in Homo sapiens. 1 Introduction There is a growing trend against the model known as the \Human Revolution", according to which modern behaviors (such as art and symbolism) emerged suddenly some 50,000 years ago, an event supposedly signaling a dramatic cognitive advance, most likely triggered by a reorganization of the human brain (see, most notably, McBrearty and Brooks, 2000, and the collection of essays in Mellars et al., 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Determinants of Track and Field Throwing Performance
    Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology Review Biological Determinants of Track and Field Throwing Performance Nikolaos Zaras 1,*, Angeliki-Nikoletta Stasinaki 2 and Gerasimos Terzis 2 1 Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Life and Health Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia 1700, Cyprus 2 Sports Performance Laboratory, School of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Athens, 17237 Athens, Greece; [email protected] (A.-N.S.); [email protected] (G.T.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +357-22842318; Fax: +357-22842399 Abstract: Track and field throwing performance is determined by a number of biomechanical and biological factors which are affected by long-term training. Although much of the research has focused on the role of biomechanical factors on track and field throwing performance, only a small body of scientific literature has focused on the connection of biological factors with competitive track and field throwing performance. The aim of this review was to accumulate and present the current literature connecting the performance in track and field throwing events with specific biological factors, including the anthropometric characteristics, the body composition, the neural activation, the fiber type composition and the muscle architecture characteristics. While there is little published information to develop statistical results, the results from the current review suggest that major biological determinants of track and field throwing performance are the size of lean body mass, the neural activation of the protagonist muscles during the throw and the percentage of type II muscle fiber cross-sectional area. Long-term training may enhance these biological factors and possibly Citation: Zaras, N.; Stasinaki, A.-N.; lead to a higher track and field throwing performance.
    [Show full text]
  • “Won by the Spear” the Importance of the Dory to the Ancient Greek Warrior
    ПРАКТИКА ОБУЧЕНИЯ ВОЕННОМУ ДЕЛУ В ДРЕВНЕЙ ГРЕЦИИ “WON BY THE SPEAR” THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DORY TO THE ANCIENT GREEK WARRIOR Steven Ross MURRAY The spear, or dory, was the major weapon of the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greek warrior, especially the hoplite, was known for his prowess in using the dory as a thrusting weapon in hand-to-hand combat and as part of the formidable Greek phalanx, but the dory, too, could be used as a missile weapon, when necessary. Other spe- cialized throwing-spears were commonplace among the ancient Greeks’ arsenal of weapons. The Greeks incorporated a throwing loop, called an ankyle, that was used to maximize the distance that a spear could be thrown, enhancing the ancient Greeks’ military domi- nance on the battlefield. The dory, and its athletic kin, the javelin, or akon or akonition, were fixtures in ancient Greece, and often Greek soldiers would carry two spears into battle for an edge over their ad- versaries. The following is a description of the dory, its construction and development, and how modern-day experiments indicate how impressive the ankyle was at helping the ancient Greeks to achieve victory that was “won by the spear”. Sophocles, in his fifth century BCE tragedy, Ajax, forever immor- talized the importance of the spear, or dory (δόρυ), to the ancient Greeks. The dory was the weapon of choice for the ancient Greek warrior, espe- cially the hoplite, who would typically be fitted with a helmet, greaves, and a shield for protection1, but used the spear as his main offensive weapon.
    [Show full text]
  • Phalanxes and Triremes: Warfare in Ancient Greece by Ancient History Encyclopedia, Adapted by Newsela Staff on 08.08.17 Word Count 1,730 Level 1230L
    Phalanxes and Triremes: Warfare in Ancient Greece By Ancient History Encyclopedia, adapted by Newsela staff on 08.08.17 Word Count 1,730 Level 1230L A lithograph plate showing ancient Greek warriors in a variety of different uniforms. Photo from Wikimedia. In the ancient Greek world, warfare was seen as a necessary evil of the human condition. Whether it be small frontier skirmishes between neighboring city-states, lengthy city-sieges, civil wars or large-scale battles between multi-alliance blocks on land and sea, the vast rewards of war were thought to outweigh the costs in material and lives. While there were lengthy periods of peace, the desire for new territory, war booty or revenge meant the Greeks were regularly engaged in warfare both at home and abroad. Toward professional warfare The Greeks did not always have professional soldiers. Warfare started out as the business of private individuals. Armed bands led by warrior leaders, city militias of part-time soldiers provided their own equipment and may have included all the citizens of the city-state. Eventually, the conduct of warfare started to move away from private individuals and into the realm of the state. This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. In the early stages of Greek warfare in the Archaic period, training was haphazard. There were no uniforms or insignia and as soon as the conflict was over the soldiers would return to their farms. By the fifth century B.C, the military might of Sparta provided a model for all other states to follow.
    [Show full text]
  • Carthaginian Mercenaries: Soldiers of Fortune, Allied Conscripts, and Multi-Ethnic Armies in Antiquity Kevin Patrick Emery Wofford College
    Wofford College Digital Commons @ Wofford Student Scholarship 5-2016 Carthaginian Mercenaries: Soldiers of Fortune, Allied Conscripts, and Multi-Ethnic Armies in Antiquity Kevin Patrick Emery Wofford College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/studentpubs Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, and the Military History Commons Recommended Citation Emery, Kevin Patrick, "Carthaginian Mercenaries: Soldiers of Fortune, Allied Conscripts, and Multi-Ethnic Armies in Antiquity" (2016). Student Scholarship. Paper 11. http://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/studentpubs/11 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Wofford. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Wofford. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wofford College Carthaginian Mercenaries: Soldiers of Fortune, Allied Conscripts, and Multi-Ethnic Armies in Antiquity An Honors Thesis Submitted to The Faculty of the Department of History In Candidacy For An Honors Degree in History By Kevin Patrick Emery Spartanburg, South Carolina May 2016 1 Introduction The story of the mercenary armies of Carthage is one of incompetence and disaster, followed by clever innovation. It is a story not just of battles and betrayal, but also of the interactions between dissimilar peoples in a multiethnic army trying to coordinate, fight, and win, while commanded by a Punic officer corps which may or may not have been competent. Carthaginian mercenaries are one piece of a larger narrative about the struggle between Carthage and Rome for dominance in the Western Mediterranean, and their history illustrates the evolution of the mercenary system employed by the Carthaginian Empire to extend her power and ensure her survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Throwing and Jumping for Maximum Horizontal Range Nicholas P
    Throwing and jumping for maximum horizontal range Nicholas P. Linthornea) School of Sport and Education, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom (Received 2 January 2006) Optimum projection angles for achieving maximum horizontal range in throwing and jumping events are considerably less than 45°. This unexpected result arises because an athlete can generate a greater projection velocity at low projection angles than at high angles. The range of a projectile is strongly dependent on projection speed and so the optimum projection angle is biased towards low projection angles. Here we examine the velocity-angle relation and the optimum projection angle in selected throwing and jumping events. I. INTRODUCTION projection angle is sufficient to lower the optimum projection angle to substantially below 45°. Several throwing and jumping activities involve projecting The present article summarizes recent work on the a ball, implement, or the human body for maximum horizontal optimum projection angles in the shot put, long jump, standing range. One might expect that the optimum projection angle for long jump, and soccer throw-in.15–18 We used video these activities would be about 45°. However, video measurements to experimentally determine the dependence of measurements have revealed that sports projectiles are usually projection velocity on the angle of projection.19 The athlete’s launched at angles much lower than 45° (Table I). optimum projection angle was calculated by substituting the velocity-angle relation into the equations for the flight Table I. Typical projection angles in throwing and jumping events. trajectory of the projectile. This method produced good agreement between the calculated optimum projection angles and the athletes’ preferred projection angles.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Warfare Battle Manual Table of Contents 1
    Ancient Warfare Battle Manual Table of Contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. The Game Interface ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.1. The Menus ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.2. The Toolbar..................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. The Status Bar ................................................................................................................ 8 3. The Units ........................................................................................................................................ 8 3.1. Definition of Unit Types :................................................................................................. 8 4. Commanding Your Forces ........................................................................................................... 10 4.1. Issuing Orders............................................................................................................... 10 4.1.1. Move ................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.2. Charge ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Homeric Way of War: the 'Iliad'
    !"#$%&'#()*$+,-$&.$+,(/$!"#$012),30$,43$5"#$%&62)5#$7",2,48$911: ;<5"&(9=:/$%,4=$>,4$+##= ?&<(*#/$@(##*#$A$B&'#C$?#*&43$?#()#=C$>&2D$EFC$G&D$H$9I*5DC$FJJE:C$66D$FKFLFMM 7<N2)="#3$N-/$O,'N()3P#$Q4)R#(=)5-$7(#==$&4$N#",2.$&.$!"#$O2,==)*,2$;==&*),5)&4 ?5,N2#$QBS/$http://www.jstor.org/stable/643010 ;**#==#3/$FTUVWUHVFV$VT/VM Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome.
    [Show full text]