Glued Linen Armour- a simple test

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

At first it was that "leatherophiles" were suggesting that since no direct evidence exists for linen,this armour and the properties that it shows could also have been leather. Especially since leather cuirasses existed in Thrace and Skythia. Then there was that big debate here in RAT where all known(to us) mentions of either linen and leather armour were extensively examined and there came that lexicon that defined "spolas" (a word used by Xenophon who says that a greek soldier wore it when he was killed by an arrow) as a "thorax of leather (?? ????????) attached (???????????) to the shoulders." And also says "...as Xenophon says 'and spolas instead of thorax'..."
So this reference was thought conclusive for all the "leatherophiles" and even some of the "linophiles",who then on are not even turning their head to any mention of linen thorakes. Not even the latest one,who clearly suggests that people in a city were provided arms,cloaths and linen armour.

No, not parading alone, but most likely the only one parading in such fine armor. Whoever owned the armor must have had quite an affinity for it (or it at least was highly significant or suggestive of something else) since it was buried along with them. If this was something other than ceremonial display armor we surely would have found other extant copies in other tombs or in a cache of temple offerings.

I don't see why this should have been so. Extraordinary men had extraordinary armour and they fought in it. And if it was great armour,they were burried with it. Other soldiers weren't burried with such armour firstly because they weren't burried with armour(except for the royal family in Macedonia,it seems), and secondly because they couldn't afford it. Iron plate armour was extraordinary even by the mere fact that they were iron. I know of only one more iron cuirass of that time,and that happened to be a muscled one. Should we asume it was also ceremonial just for this? It also had gold fittings.

@ To Paul M, who ironically implied in an older post that "stolas" could mean leather thorakes, well he wouldn't have said so if he knew that the form of the word isn't correct to be used in this context. Even if we asume that "spolas" has the same root as "stolas" then the plural of this would have been "stoladas". In the text the word is (plural) stolas which is the plural of (singular) "stola" or "stole" that can mean a range of things like "uniform" or "cloak" but NOT the same as (singular) "spolas"(=the leather thorax)

Khairete
Giannis