Philip II Iron Cuirass

[Matt Lukes]

"Yolk and Tube"

Sounds like breakfast! "Tube and Yoke" refers to the generally tube- or box-like body and the "yoke" like a horses harness that goes over the shoulders. I don't know who first coined the term, but its best because its lino-leather neutral. If you write T-Y everyone on here will know what you mean.

LOL it does at that- and of course I understand the meaning, but it does strike as rather combersome even as an abbreviation- I wish Linothorax weren't so controvercial a name. Perhaps a new one is in order= one that doesn't speak to the material but is still 'Greek'...

Unfortunately, iron plates are heavily rusted, and this makes assessment of original thickness very difficult, if not impossible. X-ray photos are often used to find out details of iron artefacts, but while this could reveal details of hinges, it most probably will not reveal original thickness.
I had seen this object in Vergina Museum and I can safely say that today it is much thicker than it was originally. Currently it is as much as 0,5-1cm. as far as I remember.

Indeed it was clear that the corrosion had altered things, but even knowing what the size is now can be helpful; with a limited amount of material to begin with, only so much 'expansion' is possible before something is structurally comprimised- for example, it's unlikely iron 1mm thick could ever end up 5mm thick and still be solid enough to excavate intact let alone display supporting its own weight. Plus looking at the folded-over edges helps as well since they're more likely thinner due to the forging to make them fold- if they're still intact, they couldn't have been super thin or the corrosion isn't so significant as it might otherwise appear. And then there's weight- that would uggest an upper limit and one can account somewhat for the corrosion to get at least a reasonable starting mass, and thus thickness. This is all if any of these measurements were recorded.

If presently it appears to be as much as 0.5-1cm thick, that surely says it wasn't extremely thin to begin with. I do hate to have to guess at least in the absence of any direct numbers, however much 'adjustment' is necessary to use them- but I guess there's little choice if the publication has been claimed to be in the works for however many years now.

Is there any dimensional data at all- even just the height of the thing, the diameter of the cast lion heads or the width of a sholder flap? Almost anything would help me at least print out a life-sized version from which I can extrapolate some of the dimensions that are in question. At least it'll allow me to make the gold decorative pieces correctly and not larger or smaller due to sizing the basic cuirass to fit, which is what I have now.