Did the Romans have parade armour?

[Urselius]

Comparative anthropology is not as amenable to formal proofs as physics or mathematics are.

But to logic. It certainly is amenable to logic.

there is no way of proving or disproving my hypothesis

As I said: If you want others to believe or accept your hypothesis, proove it. If you for some reason say it cannot be prooven, accept that others will disagree or not take you for serious. It is not the job of others to disprove your hypothesis, it is your job to back it up, and, if you want, to defend it by answering to ALL critique. The latter is something you do not, you just do so wherever you deem it to be worthwhile to help your argumentation. As soon as you leave the realm of logic, which is what you do here, the discussion is obsolete anyway, IMO. With that arguing you might want to start a new religion, I suggest.

By using the word 'human' the implication was, as you are no doubt aware, "Modern Human."

No, Í was not aware. There are / were cultures we know near to nothing about. Trying to find a general rule that would apply to these is IMO not possible. Also you didn´t answer my question about people that do / did not use charms, i.e. "non-behaviours". I can guess, why.
And this, neither:

Well, yes. Then one first would have to find out, how homogenous such societies were, and where and how they were following certain behaviours. Very complicated for Antiquity.

Anyway, have fun in further arguing with others. :-)

You seem to be somewhat fixed on the idea of proof, I'm not trying to prove anything. What I am trying to do is provide an alternative to ex-cathedra type statements such as "no archaeological remains exist, therefore it did not exist," by providing parallels culled from other societies that might suggest otherwise. This is a perfectly valid thing to do.

Consider that a novel species of small cat is discovered - I was trained, initially, as a Zoologist. The question might be asked "does this cat scent-mark its territory." Presume that no evidence has been found that the cat behaves this way, as observation has been minimal. Is it then logical to say, "no direct evidence is available, therefore the cat does not scent-mark" or is it more useful and logical to observe that scent-marking has been recorded in related species of cat, therefore it is possible or indeed probable that the cat does scent-mark?

The parallel, as a logical argument, is identical to the case of Roman parade armour.