It\'s all Greek to me (Makedonians included) ...

[Macedon]

p.372
wohl im Hinblick auf eine moegliche Lokalisierung der Yauna Takabara in Thessalien/Mazedonien...

p.373
so dass sich die Vorstellung von “petasos-tragende Ioniern” etabilieren konnte, wobei diese ebenfalls vornehmlich im thessalisch-makedonischen Raum lokalisiert wurden.

In these pages Rollinger presents the two solutions proposed past the last 100 years: the petasos(hat)-wearing "Ionians" and the pelt?(shield)-wearing "Ionians", the former being the more popular view. The first quote is about a possible localization of Yaun? takabar? in Thessaly / Macedonia, the second one is about the established interpretation of "petasos-wearing Ionians" and the often suggested location in Thessalian-Macedonian space. But as I said, the author himself makes no suggestion (well, my command of German is not so good and I might miss something) these 'Ionians' were rather Macedonians than Greeks.

sources and quotes given in the same study...

That's merely the content of few footnotes presenting the previous scholarship, not Rollinger's own analysis of the term. But I can't help noticing you left aside many "sources and quotes" about these "Macedonians" of yours, in particular Cook's statement on the Yaun? takabar? "which must relate to Greeks of either part or the whole of the land between Thessaly and the Black Sea; unfortunately the evidence does not suffice to show whether or not the Persians regarded the Macedonians at that time as Greeks".

1. Ebenda.47 [...] 8. Band 1

:lol:
"Ebenda" is not a name, it means "ibidem". "Band 1" means "volume 1"

Would have been nice to have taken a look at it Rumo before starting passing judgment...

How about stop insulting others and follow your own advice? Thanks.

...Taking into account that it was you who insulted me first, I think your comments are not really proper... Had you read the studies you posted more thoroughly you would have seen that what you said was not suggested in reality was and multiple sources thereto were also given... Actually it is presented as the most prevalent theory by Rollinger, no matter whether he agrees wit it or not. I only used what was IN your posted study and didn't even mention Hammond and many others who suggest the same... I also like your use of "Ionians" as the translation of "Yauna" instead of "Greeks". I guess that this would exclude the Dorians in Asia Minor or do you accept that by "Yauna" the Persians meant "Greek" and as such if the Macedonians were indeed called "Yauna takabara" then the Persians considered them Greeks?

The same applies with the kausia phd thesis you posted, since in the writer's Zusammenfassung (Sie stammt aus Makedonien und verbreitete sich nach der Eroberung des Perserreiches (einschliesslig Aegyptens) durch Alexander den Grossen und daraus resultierenden gewachsenen Bedeutung Makedoniens seit dieser Zeit in den Laendern rund um das oestliche Mittelmeer und das Schwarze Meer sowie in Orient bis nach Afghanistan und zum Indus... p.259), he comes to the conclusion that the kausia was in use before Alexander III too and along Fredericksmeyer and Paliadeli he too challenges Kingsley's views... When I spoke of the kausia being shown on coins from the era of Alexander I I was wrong. It was, as I understand now, a petasos (they are mentioned by Ch. Paliadeli, p.129). Of course this does not change the arguments regarding the Yauna Takabara and is a common mistake as I now see, having read some about the kausia. Actually this mistake is said by Paliadeli to often occur. What can I say? I never really studied Macedonian garment and only remembered some things by heart...

The thing is you gave your sources... you announced that they proved your point, that the theory that the Yauna Takabara might have been Macedonians was not even mentioned and after a single reading everyone can see that this is not the case. You may have your opinions, which is commendable, but you should yourself try to be less aggressive if you want to be treated less aggressively. You could have at least admitted that you for some reason did not read the pages in question, instead of trying to again disprove the sources given (..actually by you), by stating they are some 100 year old obsolete theory, which again is not the case...

As for the way I presented the sources, it was a mere copy-paste from the study that did not even suggest that the Yauna Takabara were Macedonians and nothing more... Shouldn't you mention them since it was you who offered the said study?

As for 'yauna'-s, Die Yaun? takabar? tragen keinen Petasos: http://www.achemenet.com/actualites/25 % ... skript.pdf. Robert Rollinger has also a chapter in Blackwell's Companion to the Classical Greek World about the contact between Greeks and non-Greeks. The detailed discussion about 'yauna' and 'yauna takabara' suggests several interpretations, none related to Macedonians.

And I urge you to read it again... What the man says is that in order for the argument that "Takabara" could have been a hat, a proper etymology should have been found and that happened in 1950 with Roland Kent (p.374) Also read his conclusions where he clearly states that the Yauna Takabara being "Petasos tragende" Greeks is the most prevalent theory but can be challenged.

If your German is not good, you should not use German sources... my German is quite good. And to be perfectly clear... I never talked of any historical certainties, I just challenge your arguments that the Yauna Takabara being the Macedonians is an obsolete theory, not really supported by contemporary scholars and that the kausia did not exist before Alexander III, again according to contemporary scholarship, even if this fact does not have to do with the issue of the Yauna Takabara. Of course I do not challenge the fact that there are opinions to the opposite, but I do hold them as the minority here.