Unusual Thracian Tube-and-Yoke corselet

[Paullus Scipio]

Xenophon talks about cutting out part of the shoulder of a cuirass to make it easier to throw a javelin.

An excellent observation!.....I had forgotten this until your reminder ("Art of Horsemanship" XII.6 "But the right hand must be raised when the man intends to throw his javelin or strike a blow. Consequently that portion of the corselet that hinders him in doing so should be removed; and in place of it there should be detachable flaps at the joints, in order that, when the arm is elevated, they may open correspondingly, and may close when the arm is lowered.." - and I think that is highly likely the correct reason,albeit a slightly different Thracian solution, since it is fairly obvious this is probably a cavalry corselet - the relatively short waist and the shortened 'pteryges' front and back can hardly be for anything else. ( c.f. Xenophon XII.5 "About the abdomen and middle, let the pteryges be of such material and such a size as will keep out missiles."- indicates variable sizes for the pteryges, perhaps)
Giannis noted this point:

Note how short the pteryges are to allow the sitting on the horse,and that only two pteryges in each side are long to cover the thighs (or the saddle,when seated)

...and also....

It is very interesting the way the right shoulder is cut. It doesn't seem to allow it to be tied in any convenient way but what i recently thought is that being so short and fully scaled,it doesn't need to be tied down!

If one right-clicks on each image, as well as a copyright notice, one gets the option to see the picture larger, or even 'original' size - which is in effect a 'blow-up'.

From shots that show the right shoulder, it is clear that the conservators have 'edged' what is there with leather, but I have serious doubts as to whether this is the original edge. It seems to me that this irregular edge is more a sign that many scales are missing (c.f. missing scales on the gorget) and maybe a hinged/detachable 'flap' such as Xenophon describes is missing (especially if it is detachable, like some Japanese shoulder pieces) - perhaps reduced to just some odd scales on the floor.....

Otherwise, the front of the right shoulder, a very vulnerable point, would be unprotected.

Paul,where did you base that this is mostly original? That it looks so? Well,it looks original to me too,given that the iron sword and handle that was found with it are in an excellent condition. I guess they wouldn't add a wooden handle to the sword? However,i also find it very plausible that only the scales were found and were put on a leather backing in the 30's as the rumour goes...
Info please!!!

Well, I posted this because I too was looking for more info !! The panoply comes from a tomb mound known as 'The Big Tumulus' from 'Golyamaka Mogila' and is dated c. 350 BC. The tomb also contained spear and javelin heads, as well as many small scythian-type bronze arrowheads, and swords (plural), as well as the greave (just one?) and the silver rhyton ( drinking vessel) and gold crown/wreath. All the contents point to Royalty, a King perhaps.
The reasons I thought it was largely original are the form - not one conservators might guess at from a pile of loose scales - I imagine most were rusted together, retaining the shape of the corselet, and the 'original' size photos show that much of the leather seems damaged and worn, hence likely original perhaps ( again, c.f. the gorget) but some is clearly newer/replacement, or so it appears to me.
Plus this statement :
"made of more than 1600 separate pieces and assembled by the restorers of the Regional Museum in Yambol and the National Museum of History, " implies that the scales at least are all original, and not 'replacement' scales for missing parts.....

As to the edging, I suspect that originally there were traces, but much of what we see (that 'irregular' pattern on the right shoulder for instance), is the conservators doing, so I think it uncertain as to whether the bottom of the pteryges had edging originally or not.
Also, although I cannot find the date the tomb was excavated, I get the impression that like the Seuthes III tomb it is fairly recently, not back in the thirties.....anyone know?