DOCSLIB.ORG

Were Neandertal Humeri Adapted for Spear Thrusting Or Throwing? a Finite Element Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Were Neandertal Humeri Adapted for Spear Thrusting Or Throwing? a Finite Element Study University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses Dissertations and Theses November 2014 Were Neandertal Humeri Adapted for Spear Thrusting or Throwing? A Finite Element Study Michael Anthony Berthaume University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2 Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, Biomechanical Engineering Commons, Biomechanics and Biotransport Commons, Evolution Commons, and the Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Berthaume, Michael Anthony, "Were Neandertal Humeri Adapted for Spear Thrusting or Throwing? A Finite Element Study" (2014). Masters Theses. 72. https://doi.org/10.7275/5952474 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2/72 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WERE NEANDERTAL HUMERI ADAPTED FOR SPEAR THRUSTING OR THROWING? A FINITE ELEMENT STUDY A Thesis presented by MICHAEL A. BERTHAUME Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS September 2014 Department of Anthropology © Copyright by Michael A. Berthaume 2014 All Rights Reserved WERE NEANDERTAL HUMERI ADAPTED FOR SPEAR THRUSTING OR THROWING? A FINITE ELEMENT STUDY A Thesis Presented by MICHAEL A. BERTHAUME Approved as to style and content by: ________________________________________ Brigitte M. Holt, Chair ________________________________________ Laurie R. Godfrey, Member ________________________________________ Michael O. Sugerman, Member _________________________________ Thomas Leatherman, Department Head Department of Anthropology DEDICATION To my amazing family, Mom, Dad, Andy, Maria, Angie, there is no way I could be where I am today without your amazing love and support, whether it be taking me in, helping me move, listening to me drone on about teeth and FEA of biological systems, or making me crack up at one of our three hour long family dinners. Together, we make the craziest, happiest, and most powerful and loving group of people I know. Thank you. Insanity runs in my family. It practically gallops. -Cary Grant ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When I started in the anthropology program at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, I had three goals. First, to learn about the paleoanthropological record. Second, to learn how to teach. And third, to learn how to ask a relevant question. While I will never be able to fully achieve these goals in my lifetime, I am considerably closer to achieving them than I was three years ago. This thesis would not have been possible without the incredible support and guidance granted to me by my advisor, Dr. Brigitte Holt, and my committee members, Drs. Laurie Godfrey and Michael Sugerman, or finite element training I received from Drs. Ian Grosse, Elizabeth Dumont, and the Biomesh Workshop. For that I am forever in their debt. I would like to extend my thanks to NESPOS for access to Regourdou 1’s scans, Drs. Colin Shaw and Tim Ryan for access to the Norris Farms scans, and Dr. Brigitte Holt for access to Grotte des Enfants 4’s scans. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth R. Dumont and Dan Pulaski in the Mammology Department at UMass, Amherst for access to the computer programs necessary to construct the finite element models, and Carl Jewell and Dr. Joe Hamill for help in collecting the EMG data in the Biomechanics Lab at UMass, Amherst. Finally, I would like to thank the University of Massachusetts, Amherst for granting the Faculty Research Grant/Healey Endowment grant to Dr. Brigitte Holt in order to obtain the scans of Grotte de Enfants 4, Prof. Patrick Simon (Musée d'Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco) for access to GDE 4, Centre d'Imagerie Médicale de Monaco for taking the CT scans. v ABSTRACT WERE NEANDERTAL HUMERI ADAPTED FOR SPEAR THRUSTING OR THROWING? A FINITE ELEMENT STUDY SEPTEMBER 2014 MICHAEL A. BERTHAUME B.S., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST M.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Brigitte M. Holt An ongoing debate concerning Neandertal ecology is whether or not they utilized long range weaponry. The anteroposteriorly expanded cross-section of Neandertal humeri have led some to argue that their humeri were adapted to thrust hunting weapons, while the rounder cross-section of Late Upper Paleolithic humeri suggests modern humans threw their weapons. We test the hypothesis that Neandertal humeri were built to resist strains engendered by thrusting rather than throwing, using finite element (FE) models of one Neandertal, one Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) human and three recent human humeri, representing a range of cross-sectional shapes and sizes. Electromyography and kinematic data and articulated skeletons were used to determine muscle force magnitudes and directions during three positions of spear throwing and three positions of spear thrusting. Maximum von Mises strains, an indicator of bone remodeling, were determined at the 35% and 50% cross-sections of all models. During throwing and thrusting, von Mises strains produced by the Neandertal humerus fell roughly within or below those produced by the modern human humeri, although the Neandertal experienced significantly higher strains during one stage of thrusting. The EUP humerus performed similarly to the vi Neandertal, but slightly poorer during spear thrusting. This indicates the Neandertal and EUP human humeri were just as well adapted at resisting strains during throwing as recent humans and just as well or worse adapted at resisting strains during thrusting as recent humans. We also did not find any correlation between strains and biomechanical metrics used to measure humeral adaptation in throwing and thrusting (retroversion angle, Imax/Imin, J). These results failed to support the hypothesis that the shape of Neandertal humeri reflects thrusting loads, and suggest they were capable of using long distance weaponry. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ v ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Background: Evidence of long range weapons by Neandertals ............... 1 1.2.1 Lithic Evidence .......................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Faunal Evidence ........................................................................ 4 1.2.3 Skeletal Evidence ...................................................................... 5 1.3 Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 7 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................... 9 2.1 Materials and Sample ............................................................................... 9 2.2 Finite Element Model Construction ....................................................... 12 2.3 EMG: Spear Thrusting ............................................................................ 19 2.4 Interpreting the Finite Element Models .................................................. 22 3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 25 3.1 Muscle Activation Patterns During Spear Thrusting.............................. 25 3.2 FEA Simulations .................................................................................... 25 4. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 31 5. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX: NUMERICAL STRAIN RESULTS DURING SPEAR THRUSTING AND THROWING................................................................36 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................... 39 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Morphological characteristics of the five humeri used to create FE models ..........10 3.1 R2 values for the Imax/Imin ratio, J, J normalized, and the retroversion angle vs. maximum von Mises strain at the 3 positions of spear throwing and spear thrusting at 35% and 50% of the length of the humerus. *=p<0.0126 .............................................................................................29 3.2 Number of times one of the cross-sections was primarily in torsion, bending, or neither .................................................................................................30 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 Increasing robustness and ellipticity in humeral cross-sections. ....................6
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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Throwing, the Shoulder, and Human Evolution
    A Review Paper Throwing, the Shoulder, and Human Evolution John E. Kuhn, MD, MS harles Darwin once said that apes “...are Abstract quite unable, as I have myself seen, to Throwing with accuracy and speed is a C throw a stone with precision”.1 Yet humans skill unique to humans. Throwing has can throw with precision and speed, a skill that many advantages and the ability to throw likely had significant advantages: throwing can has likely been promoted through natural affect change at a distance—something few selection in the evolution of humans. species can do. Throwing can provide protection There are many unsolved questions re- against predators and can allow for predation for garding the anatomy of the human shoul- food resources. Throwing would be important in der. The purpose of this article is to review contesting other hominids for scarce resources. many of these mysteries and propose As such, throwing has been critically important in that the answer to these questions can be human evolution and likely is a skill that has been 2-5 understood if one views the shoulder as a promoted through natural selection. joint that has evolved to throw. In the orthopedic literature, most published work on throwing will ask proximate questions: “how, what, who, when, and where?” Evolutionary biologists are concerned with ultimate questions6,7: “why?” Asking ultimate questions provides insight into how a behavior might offer advantages under natural selection, which can then improve our understanding of the proximate questions for that behavior. With regard to the shoulder, a number of mys- teries exist that, to date, proximate studies have not been able to solve.
    [Show full text]
  • Throwing Or Rabbit Stick
    Throwing Stick Variations of the throwing stick or rabbit stick can be found in many cultures all over the world, also known as a throwing club, throwing wood, baton, kylie, or the well known returning and non-returning boomerangs of the Australian aborigine’s. Used for hunting small mammals and birds, typically made from medium or hardwood, 12 to 24 inches in length with one end either weighted by a thicker heavier section or a curve. This extra weight or curve imparts momentum to the stick when thrown, increasing flight stability. I don’t fully understand the physics and subtleties of the various different designs, but there seems to be four basic styles: club, equal single bend (a stretched ‘V’ shape, less than 45 degrees), unequal single bend (a stretched ‘L’ shape) and double bend (a stretched ‘Z’ shape), examples are shown in figure 9.1.1. From reading around and searching the web, you don’t normally see a straight, constant diameter throwing stick, the exception to this is when metal, typically lead is used weight one end. Throwing sticks having a bend are normally thinned downed flat i.e. a bi-convex or thin oval, improving their aerodynamic profile, reducing weight, therefore, allowing them to travel greater distances. This profile is optimised for the returning boomerang, forming an aerofoil profile i.e. a flat bottom and a curved top, allowing the boomerang to generate lift. A common characteristic of these throwing sticks is that their edges are thinned down to a point, concentrating the kinetic energy on impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 31: Survival of the Adaptable
    CHAPTER 3 SURVIVAL OF THE ADAPTABLE HEN I FIRST EXCAVATED IN THE RIFT VALLEY, IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT W human ancestors emerged on the dry African plains,” wrote Rick Potts about his work on Olorgesailie in Kenya. “Yet scrambling up even a single gully, I couldn’t help but notice the evidence of vast change over time in the layers of that eroded landscape. Above the white silts of an ancient lake was the brown soil of a dry environment, covered by a gray ash violently spewed from a nearby volcano; then the lake returned, followed by a hard white line when the waters dried up completely. Was it the constant survival challenge of the savanna—or was change itself the more potent force behind the defining qualities of our species?” The living world is a display of astonishing adaptations. These adaptations embrace all the structures and behaviors that have favored the survival and reproduction of organisms in the times and places in which they evolved. Powerful claws and a long, sticky tongue do a lot to assist an anteater in digging up and capturing ants. The short “flippers” of penguins are useless for flight, but along with the birds’ insulated, bullet-shaped bodies, they help them catch fish in icy Antarctic water. The idea of adaptation extends also to behavior and interactions with other species. The African honeyguide, for example, possesses a keen instinct for finding bee nests; while the honey badger, following the bird, is capable of ripping open the nests to get to the honey, which both honeyguide and badger feed upon.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Thrown Weapons Instructions for Axe, Knife, Javelin
    ADVANCED THROWN WEAPONS INSTRUCTIONS FOR AXE, KNIFE, JAVELIN AND THROWING STICKS by Lord John Robert of York (Jerry Gilbert) Barony of Arn Hold Deputy Marshal – Thrown Weapons Kingdom of Artemisia Society for Creative Anachronism December, 2014 (First Edition: March, 2013) TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 2 Understanding What Happens When You Throw a Knife or Axe ……………. 5 Concept of Weapon Rotation …………………………………………. 5 Weapon Release Height ………………………………………....……. 7 How to Throw a Knife or Axe …………...…………………………………… 8 Seven Elements of a Throw …………………………………….…..… 9 Setting Up the Throw …………………………………...…….. 9 Executing the Throw...……………………………………….... 13 Identifying Throwing Problems ……………………………...……….. 18 Alternate Throwing Styles ………….………………………………..……….. 20 Closing Thoughts ……………………………………………………………… 23 Javelin Throwing Techniques …………………………………………………. 24 Throwing Stick and Throwing Club Techniques ……………………………… 29 Appendices • Appendix 1 – Basic Axe and Knife Throwing Grips …………………. 36 • Appendix 2 – Summary- Knife and Axe Throwing Techniques …..…. 37 • Appendix 3 – Throwing Techniques for Different Target Heights …... 42 • Appendix 4 – Setting Throwing Form ....…………………………….. 47 • Appendix 5 – How to Select a Throwing Knife or Axe ………………. 52 • Appendix 6 – Javelin Selection and Construction .…………………… 64 • Appendix 7 – Self-Made Throwing Knives and Axes ………………… 69 • Appendix 8 – Scabbards ………………..............................…………... 82 • Appendix 9 – Target Stand and Target Panel
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Throwing
    THROWING: FUNDAMENTALS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Roger Bartlett Sport Science Research Institute, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Hall Sheffield, UK This paper focuses on those sports or events in which the participant throws, passes, bowls or shoots an object from the hand and discusses the factors that influence improving the performance of throwers and reducing their time off through injury. In the context of improving performance, the paper evaluates optimum release models, proximal-to-distal sequencing and the role of movement variability. Consideration is also given to technique factors that cause injury and how their effects might be avoided or reduced. KEY WORDS: Throwing, Performance improvement, Injuries INTRODUCTION: This paper focuses on those sports or events in which the participant throws, passes, bowls or shoots an object from the hand. The similarities between these activities and striking skills – such as the tennis serve – make much of the research into the latter also relevant to applied work in throwing. Throwing movements are often classified as underarm, overarm or sidearm. This paper will concentrate on overarm throws; much of the material presented can be extrapolated to underarm or sidearm throws. Overarm throws are characterised by lateral rotation of the humerus in the preparation phase and its medial rotation in the action phase (e.g. Dillman et al., 1993). This movement is one of the fastest joint rotations in the human body. The sequence of movements in the preparation phase of a baseball pitch, for example, include, for a right-handed pitcher, pelvic and trunk rotation to the right, horizontal extension and lateral rotation at the shoulder, elbow flexion and wrist hyperextension (Luttgens et al., 1992).
    [Show full text]