Fectio
Index
|
|
click here
|
Testing Late Roman
Plumbatae 1 - Veerse Dam By Robert Vermaat
|
Test 1 – Veerse Dam,
Zeeland, Saturday 20th October, 2007.
A picture of the
testing site.
Plumbatae types:
Fectio I/II, Len Morgan I/II, Deepeeka I/II.
All plumbatae are of the ‘Burgh Castle-Catterick’
tanged type and have barbed heads.1-Fectio II
2-Len Morgan I
3-Len Morgan II
4-Deepeeka I
5-Deepeeka II
|
 |
FI
came apart at the first throw and has been left out of
the test.
1 - F II:
Length: 63 cm (tip-tail), 51 cm (shaft), 10 cm (shaft
behind stabilisers).
Weight: 240 g, 3 feather stabilisers of 7.5x1.5 cm.
LM I and II are nearly identical. For commercial purposes,
the iron head continues into the wooden shaft, making the
missile more shock-resistant, but thereby also affecting
the overall balance.
2 - LM I:
Length: 67 cm (tip-tail), 52 cm (shaft), 12 cm (shaft
behind stabilisers).
Weight: 220 g, 4 leather stabilisers of 7x2 cm.
3 - LM II:
Length: 67 cm (tip-tail), 53 cm (shaft), 12 cm (shaft
behind stabilisers).
Weight: 226 g, 4 leather stabilisers of 7x2 cm.
For commercial purposes the iron head continues far into
the wooden shaft, thereby making the missile more shock-resistant,
but severely affecting the overall balance. DP I has
broad stabilisers, DP II has adapted smaller stabilisers
to improve the overall distance.
4 - DP I:
Length: 52 cm (tip-tail), 35 cm (shaft), 9 cm (shaft
behind stabilisers).
Weight: 274 g, 4 leather stabilisers of 7x4 cm.
5 - DP II:
Length: 52 cm (tip-tail), 35 cm (shaft), 9 cm (shaft
behind stabilisers).
Weight: 268 g, 4 leather stabilisers of 7x2.5 cm.
(I have an original plumbatae (no shaft) that weighs 146
g, other recorded finds weigh between 40 and 180g).
The main
aim of the test was to see how far the Fectio
plumbatae could be thrown against the Len Morgan
and Deepeeka plumbatae, and also to see how the
Deepeeka plumbatae behaved.
While the other pairs were identical, the
Deepeeka plumbatae had different tails. I cut
down the leather stabilisers of DP II to half the
size of the original product, since these looked
overly large.
No attempts were made to aim the plumbatae at a
specific target; the tests were purely aimed at
distance.
Tests were conducted on a flat beach with almost
no wind.
Throwing was done in modern clothing and from a
stationary position. |
The testing range |
Test results:
F II may have landed straight here. |
LM I |
LM II at a nice angle. |
DP I |
The modified
tail of DP II. |
Test 1.1 – underarm
| Throw |
F II |
LM I |
LM II |
DP I |
DP II |
| 1 |
(15) |
(25) |
30 |
(25) |
(25) |
| 2 |
32.5 |
32.5 |
29.2 |
28.2 |
32.5 |
| 3 |
39.5 |
(26) |
29.0 |
(11) |
27.5 |
| 4 |
37.5 |
34.1 |
33.6 |
31.7 |
32.2 |
| 5 |
40.8 |
39.9 |
38.1 |
33.2 |
37.1 |
| 6 |
43.5 |
40.1 |
40.2 |
30.1 |
36.7 |
| 7 |
44.6 |
40.3 |
40.2 |
30.5 |
34.8 |
| 8 |
42.6 |
40.1 |
40.1 |
31.5 |
35.0 |
| 9 |
39.5 |
40.0 |
40.7 |
32.4 |
32.3 |
| 10 |
38.9 |
41.1 |
37.0 |
32.3 |
31.1 |
| 11 |
34.6 |
41.7 |
42.8 |
32.4 |
33.8 |
| avg. |
39.4 |
38.8 |
36.4 |
31.4 |
33.3 |
Test 1.2
– overarm
| 12 |
34.4 |
29.7 |
29.8 |
30.4 |
30.2 |
| 13 |
35.2 |
35.5 |
35.4 |
29.0 |
32.3 |
| 14 |
35.0 |
31.3 |
29.1 |
27.5 |
32.3 |
| 15 |
34.5 |
36.9 |
34.5 |
29.7 |
32.4 |
| 16 |
33.0 |
31.1 |
32.7 |
31.8 |
33.2 |
| avg. |
34.4 |
32.9 |
32.3 |
29.7 |
32.0 |
After
the initial throws that clearly reflect the thrower (me)
having to get used to throwing the darts, they began
reaching distances that would eventually prove to be
their maximum range of the day. Throwing them 16 times
each took more than an hour, after which fatigue of the
throwing arm set in. I felt that maybe the range could be
stretched a bit, up to 50m with some tail wind. This test
will be repeated at some future date.
Although I prepared a range of 80m, it soon became clear
that this distance had been highly optimistic. The
maximum range (Fectio I) turned out to be just over 44m.
Reading back about the distances achieved by John Eagle
in 1989 with almost identical plumbatae, the distances
turned out to be comparable.
Overarm throwing resulted in shorter distances, which was
no surprise to me – the trajectory seems to be more
flat, and the initial swing when the missile is thrown
may well cost some velocity. That the distances reached
lay a 10% below the distances achieved underarm proved
the theory. Although I have the feeling that here, too,
better distances can be reached.
I tried a running throw but that proved so unsuccessful
that I discontinued that attempt.
I even attempted a throw while holding the point, but
this did not lead to any comparable distance, so I
discontinued that technique soon.
Landing was another surprise – I had expected the
missiles to land almost vertical, at least the Fectio and
Len Morgan ones. However, the actual angles were much,
much shallower than expected. When reading back the tests
done by John Eagle however, I learned that his plumbatae
had landed at angles between 30 and 76 degrees, which
compared to my results.
One part of the test was behaviour, something invisible
to me as I conducted the tests alone. A few days later my
wife shot some video footage of each plumbata (one throw),
which revealed that especially the Deepeeka plumbatae
turned over more than once while in flight.
I think the
weather was exceptional for plumbatae testing. |
Conclusions:
1 – Surprisingly, the distances of 60-80m
that I had in mind were by no means reached. The
reason for that may well be that the shafts of
these plumbatae are too long and/or that the
weight is too small. Or that I can’t throw
properly.
2 – As expected, throwing underarm gets far
better results than throwing overarm, the extra
distances vary between 5 and 9 m.
3 – As expected, the Deepeeka plumbatae came
of less than the other models, probably due to
their weight and/or the balance due to
construction.
4 – The modified Deepeeka stabilisers did
better (distance-wise) than the original one.
Both however behaved erratically in flight.
5 – Unexpectedly, most plumbatae did not
land at a high angle.
6 – Besides shaft length, weight may be an
issue. Heavier missiles may fly a greater
distance, however, original plumbatae (head plus
weight) seem to weigh less than modern
reconstructions.Aims:
1 - In future I will use shorter shafts and both
more and less weight for the next generation
Fectio plumbatae.
2 - I will modify the Deepeeka plumbatae further,
experimenting with weight as well.
3 – I want to try the cestosphendron.
|
|
