Crista Transversa

[caiusbeerquitius]

Why should they not have existed?

See, that´s the problem. Up there I don´t ask why they should not have existed, but why they should have existed. That´s a van Däniken argument. ( Why should THEY not have existed? )

If there one time will be found a helmet with left to right crest-holder attachments and the full inscription "i´m the centurio-helmet from centurio Marcus Dingsbums", there will be surely some Students and professors who say "maybe, it´s a mistake in writing" .

What do you want to say there? This is not really bringing the discussion forward, IMO. If you want to imply that academics are stupid and academic questions are useless, then why are you doing this hobby and why do you join this forum, where such questions are discussed? Without discourse there cannot be a solution to any problem, you know?

I´m only a litte re-enactor, but I think there are to many proofs for the crista transversa, the sisak-helmet, tombstones, the Adamklissi metopes, Vegetius.

The question is whether this "evidence" actually IS "evidence", or if people have seen what they wanted to see, because they read Vegetius´ account and remembered it when they saw certain things, which then in turn were used as source to prove Vegetius, whose text does not, as I said above quoting Obmann, withhold against source criticism.
And it is IMO worth to discuss this, since living history is a major teaching means nowadays, and it is hopefully not in the interest of us to colportate wrong information.
And where do the Adamklissi Metopes show a crista transversa? Did I miss something?