As i have been gathering inormation regarding Type IV armour for quite a while now, I also read this thread and looked at pictures of the Odryssian cuirass. Such being the case, I thought i might share my thoughts on said cuirass.
Looking at that section of the cuirass wich terminates in the raised chest panel, i.e. the middle section of the anterior half of the cuirass, one recognizes that the mentioned section terminates in the three short pteryges of the front. As three is an uneven number, the centre axis of the anterior half is congruent with the centre line of the middle pteryx.
The middle section of the rear ahlf of the cuirass consists of a section terminating in six short pteryges. Other than three, six is a even number, so the centre axis of the rear half is congruent with that slit wich seperates the third and fourth pteryx.
The right side of the cuirass is furnished with three long pteryges, whereas the left side is only equipped with two long ones. However, looking at this picture, there is a gap and a uneven border where one might expect the third long pteryx. So there might indeed have been three long pteryges on the left side.
Assuming that there have been three long pteryges on either side, the middle section (read: three and six short pteryges) of both the frontal and anterior half would be framed by the two sectionsthat bear three long pteryges.
In order to prevent the pteryx alignment from shifting and the chest panel or yoke/rear middle section from drifting away from the longitudinal axis, the two additional short pteryges on the right side of the armour have to overlap the first two short pteryges of the three pteryges wide section in a congruent manner. Only being aware of depctions showing one or two rows of pteryges along the whole cirumference, is another reason why I chose a congruent overlap instead of a staggered one. Said kind ov overlapping allows for a visual impression of a single layer running along the whole circumference, after all.
The following picture illustrates my thoughts. The upper illustration shows the armour folded in hal along the centre line; the second illustration shows the armour folded in a 2:1:2:1 manner. In both cases the orange/yellow pteryges are the long/short ones.
The above reconstruction proposal results in the closing seam being shifted by half a pteryx width from the mddle towards the left.
The closing seam shifted slightly to the left side of the wearer can also be observed in this Etruscan depiction (the read line is closer to the left ring):
Another pecularity: The construction principle I have suggested for the Odryssian cuirass (a raised chest panel as wide as three pteryges, the centre axss of the cuirass being congruent with the centre axis of the middle pteryx of the anterior half, a congruent overlap as wide as two pteryges) seems to be appllicable to the E 60 vase cuirass.
Looking at that section of the cuirass wich terminates in the raised chest panel, i.e. the middle section of the anterior half of the cuirass, one recognizes that the mentioned section terminates in the three short pteryges of the front. As three is an uneven number, the centre axis of the anterior half is congruent with the centre line of the middle pteryx.
The middle section of the rear ahlf of the cuirass consists of a section terminating in six short pteryges. Other than three, six is a even number, so the centre axis of the rear half is congruent with that slit wich seperates the third and fourth pteryx.
The right side of the cuirass is furnished with three long pteryges, whereas the left side is only equipped with two long ones. However, looking at this picture, there is a gap and a uneven border where one might expect the third long pteryx. So there might indeed have been three long pteryges on the left side.
Assuming that there have been three long pteryges on either side, the middle section (read: three and six short pteryges) of both the frontal and anterior half would be framed by the two sectionsthat bear three long pteryges.
In order to prevent the pteryx alignment from shifting and the chest panel or yoke/rear middle section from drifting away from the longitudinal axis, the two additional short pteryges on the right side of the armour have to overlap the first two short pteryges of the three pteryges wide section in a congruent manner. Only being aware of depctions showing one or two rows of pteryges along the whole cirumference, is another reason why I chose a congruent overlap instead of a staggered one. Said kind ov overlapping allows for a visual impression of a single layer running along the whole circumference, after all.
The following picture illustrates my thoughts. The upper illustration shows the armour folded in hal along the centre line; the second illustration shows the armour folded in a 2:1:2:1 manner. In both cases the orange/yellow pteryges are the long/short ones.
The above reconstruction proposal results in the closing seam being shifted by half a pteryx width from the mddle towards the left.
The closing seam shifted slightly to the left side of the wearer can also be observed in this Etruscan depiction (the read line is closer to the left ring):
Another pecularity: The construction principle I have suggested for the Odryssian cuirass (a raised chest panel as wide as three pteryges, the centre axss of the cuirass being congruent with the centre axis of the middle pteryx of the anterior half, a congruent overlap as wide as two pteryges) seems to be appllicable to the E 60 vase cuirass.
Quote:Overlapped so that the to flaps on the right fit between the three on the leftRegarding the overlapping, see above.
Overlapped so that only one flap of the left fits between the two on the right.
Quote:Firstly, it is clearly 'double-breasted'.There is indeed a double-layered part in the breast section. To consider the double-layered part as wide enough to result in a (deliberately) double-breasted cuirass is a matter of opinion, however.
