Crista Transversa

[Peroni]

No inscriptions that I know of.

The Sisak helmet has been re-worked on at least three occasions. The dead give away is the new browband strip that overlies the rivets on the side and the addition of a raised 'Italic' type of crest holder. The typical Gallic type would have been rectangular.

It looks like it has been from owner to owner and then into the ranks of the centurionate! Finally having a new crest holder and silver sheathing applied along with the side-mounted rings.

Here's a close up of the delicate silver work..

[caiusbeerquitius]

I think I just found out that the Gallic F from Besancon has 4 rings for crest attachment, which then again would make the Sisak helemt no longer a helmet to be mounted exclusively with a crista transversa ( ? has it rings in the front an back as well ? ), which then in turn would again leave us with no clear evidence for the crista transversa... ~ :?

[Peroni]

Which is what I allured to in my earlier post..

The Sisak helmet has been re-worked on at least three occasions. ...

It looks like it has been from owner to owner and then into the ranks of the centurionate! Finally having a new crest holder and silver sheathing applied along with the side-mounted rings.

( ? has it rings in the front an back as well ? )

Looking at the photos above showing the close-up of the silvering detail, it does not look to me to have any visible frontal tie attachment (ring or hook). H R Robinson does not give any details either. It may be that if it DID have them, the holes have been covered by the silver foiling.

It still doesn't detract from the evidence of a transverse crest IMO as we have the side-mounted rings.

[maarten]

Does anyone have more or more detailed pictures of the silver work on the Sisakhelmet or on bowls of other first/second century Roman helmets. Its a subject I would like to know more about.

Now we are mentioning crests for centurio's, what about the crests of the optiones. I've never seen any evidence for optio crests. Is there any?

Maarten

[jvrjenivs]

Now we are mentioning crests for centurio's, what about the crests of the optiones. I've never seen any evidence for optio crests. Is there any?

As far as I know it was first introduced by the Ermine Street Guard, and taken over by others, without any evidence. Just an example of re-enactors copiing re-enactors instead of original artifacts and sources.

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

@ Maarten.
The crest of the optio is a modern differentation between Centurios and Optios! The only really sign of an optio is the fustis, a long staff with a knob on his top.

[maarten]

Thanks, I knew about the fustis as a mark of distinction between a miles and an optio. I think it is a pitty that all Roman reenactment groups are copying something that is definately incorrect. Why not just reconstruct an optio with only the fustis?. Our group has decided to that our optio will not wear a crest.

Maarten

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

If any soldier who has a helmet with fittings for a crest can wear one, why an optio cannot?

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

Last year was my first year as Optio AND i wear a crista. But in next time i receive a new Carnuntum Helmet (Imperial-Gallic-I) and think that I don`t wear a crista from this year on. It`s more authentic than that what most of the other groups show. I´m tall enough and have got a very nice equipment to compensate that ´lack´

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Trajan's column at no point depicts a transverse crest nor does anything at Adamkussi that I know about. The column does depict the "Attic" helmet in several instances, including an apparent assembled group wearing such, being harangued by The Big T himself, and paying due rapt attention. A later 3rd century grave stone is attributed to a Centurion by having greaves present. There is also a crude "Attic" helmet. There may be more than this, and (interject here the argument about negative evidence).

Does it not strike anyone as odd that the Centurionate is not represented later that the 3rd quarter of the 1st century? Trajan cannot have been so dumb as to ignore this group in monumental architecture. By default, the representations of the "Attic" would be the only candidate for such a categorization based on distinctive style, the argument about artistic license not withstanding.

R. Izard

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

And during Trajans Dacian Wars, the Helmet of the Legionarys where modified with crossed reinforcing bars, clearly shown on the column. The Gallic-G Helmet from Berzovia shows clearly that the bars go directly over the crest-attachments, so no crest can be worn on this helmets. Maybe, some Centurions wear Crista Transversa and some don´t do it! I think, if you copy a Centurion from one of the gravestones with Crista, you make no mistake. If you don´t wear a crista, because it´s really not clear, you don´t make a mistake, too.

[caiusbeerquitius]

What I meant:
If the Sisak helmet has both front and back as well as side crest fitting points, how can we say that it was used for a crista transversa with certainty? Were the holes for the front and back fittings in the final state of the helmet really covered with the silver foil, so that the side fastenings were the only ones, or is that just an assumtion to explain the missing front- and back fastenings? - I cannot see it on the pics.
Although the silver foil makes this a good candidate for a centurion´s helmet, since centurions were richer than other soldiers, can we be sure that it actually was a centurion´s helmet? It may have also been worn by a duplicarius, or an Optio or whatever, it mustn´t necessarily be a centurion´s helmet, unless an inscription would say so, or it would have been found in a centurion´s grave. It would be a safe (<= hahaha) way to carry around your money this way, just like the belt.
The Eich helmet´s holes in the brow guard do not align with the crest knob, I think. :?:
IMO sound evidence for the crista transversa is still just not there.
(I would like some, since I think it looks neat, don´t misunderstand me )

[Peroni]

Ralph wrote..

Does it not strike anyone as odd that the Centurionate is not represented later that the 3rd quarter of the 1st century? Trajan cannot have been so dumb as to ignore this group in monumental architecture

There ARE centuriones depicted on the Adamklissi metopes. They do not have armour on or helmets, but they certainly have their swords on the left and carry the vitis.
Last picture at the bottom of this page..
http://www.leg8.com/Musees/Adamclisi_03.php

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

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" .
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.
Why should they not have existed?

[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?