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

[Macedon]

When and how did I do that?

I think that your

George, can you make your points without going ad hominem? Thanks.

is an insult. I never degraded anyone to disprove his arguments, not you nor anyone.

But I did read them and your insistence that I did not is offensive. To be sure, what I read and how read is none of your concern, what should concern you is the topic of the discussion.

I wrote "read them more thoroughly" which is not offensive any way you look at it. I also may have missed some things, having read 20 studies in just 10 hours, some in German and I also may have made mistakes I wouldn't had I read through them more thoroughly and it's up to you to pinpoint them in my answer. This is what a debate is all about. I do not care what you read and how you read it but when it has to do with the topic of discussion you surely cannot expect me to just take your word for it? After all you yourself admit that your German is not that good and you might have missed something...

I quoted Rollinger's own conclusion: that yaun? takabar? were wearing a petasos, not a kausia as you and others claimed. Where and how does Rollinger present "the most prevalent theory" of these yauna takabara as Macedonians?

You did not quote Rollinger... you stated :

The detailed discussion about 'yauna' and 'yauna takabara' suggests several interpretations, none related to Macedonians.

which means you talked about the discussion in general. So, his mentioning the possibility that they were Macedonians giving over 15 sources and clearly stating in his conclusion (read it!, Schlussfolgerung (conclusion), pages 385-387 . These are the last two sentences and he is clear in the sentence preceding the one you give : "Auf jeden Fall, sollten die "Petastostragenden Ioner" in der kuenftigen Diskussion nicht mehr ohne weiteres unkritisch zur Kenntnis genommen werden." How do you interpret that if not that this is the most prevalent opinion according to Rollinger?)

Yes, he does challenge the north-western Indian origin theory, but Jansen too does not bring evidence for kausia earlier than second half of the 4th century. There's that Crimean graffito, but neither Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, nor Jansen proved this inscription is related in any way to the Macedonian kausia.

No evidence? What you perceive as evidence is not what others may perceive as some... The texts about Memnon and Craterus, the evidence from Philip II's times you may dispute, but they are much more than what Kingsley uses as evidence and gets criticized for. Am I 100% certain that Kingsley is wrong? Of course not, but if we are talking about prevalent opinions then I guess we have a winner...

What is aggressive in having an opinion?

If you did not understand that I would find your comment regarding my posts offensive then you are right to ask. I answered that above and I now hope you understand why I became more aggressive too.

And I actually said "[t]he detailed discussion (Rollinger's, of course) about 'yauna' and 'yauna takabara' suggests several interpretations, none related to Macedonians." If a scholar presents the history of research, it does not mean he agrees with every single author he quotes for reference. And I said nothing of "old obsolete theories" (Rollinger, too, subscribes to the 'petasos' view!).

The "petasos-wearing" (or according to some the "kausia wearing") Greeks are the Thessalians or the Macedonians, most probably the Macedonians according to the sources Rollinger gives and this is one of the 2 theories he proposes and, as I pointed out, the most prevalent one he challenges (but not disproves) himself. As for "obsolete", this is my interpretation of the comment below which I now understand was flawed:

"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.

I concentrated on your "100 year" theories, wanting to show that actually the theory in question is the latest one, not the oldest one, but I don't understand your description of the two propositions above... It seems as though you interpret "the pelte bearing Ionians" as "the petasos wearing Ionians".... (fast typing, or can it be that your English is not that good? )

Yeah, tell me more about that Ebenda guy

Fast copy pasting does that... ebeso... it is a long time since I took my Abitur... what exactly is your level in German?