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

[Macedon]

Actually we know that the kausia was worn by the Macedonians at least since the time of Alexander I (coins have been found depicting the kausia in these times) and according to my knowledge, the most prevalent theory by far is that the term "Yauna Takabara" is used for the Macedonians, while a single "Yauna" is used for the Greeks in Asia Minor. Of course one may doubt everything, but this is the case here.

[Ghostmojo]

Actually we know that the kausia was worn by the Macedonians at least since the time of Alexander I (coins have been found depicting the kausia in these times) and according to my knowledge, the most prevalent theory by far is that the term "Yauna Takabara" is used for the Macedonians, while a single "Yauna" is used for the Greeks in Asia Minor. Of course one may doubt everything, but this is the case here.

Indeed George, and my view as well. The generic yauna (Greek) and the specific takabara (Makedonian) seems credible to me.

[Rumo]

Actually we know that the kausia was worn by the Macedonians at least since the time of Alexander I (coins have been found depicting the kausia in these times) and according to my knowledge, the most prevalent theory by far is that the term "Yauna Takabara" is used for the Macedonians, while a single "Yauna" is used for the Greeks in Asia Minor. Of course one may doubt everything, but this is the case here.

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


Bonnie M. Kingsley, "The Kausia Diadematophoros", AJA 88.1 (1984), 66-68

• The hundred-odd terracotta figurines which represent boys and youths wearing the military chlamys and krepides, many also the kausia, appeared suddently in the eastern Mediterranean at the beginning of the last quarter of the fourth century. Those excavated in Athens have been carefully dated

• No statement mentioning the kausia diadematophoros can therefore safely be taken to apply to the Macedonian kings who preceded Alexander.

She goes on and suggests the kausia was part of the new Macedonian costume with Persian and Indian elements, and kausia was adopted by Macedonians in 320s in north-western India.

This latter hypothesis was criticized by E. A. Fredricksmeyer in "Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Kausia", TAPA 116 (1986): 215-227. Let's see the part about archaeological evidence:

• Next, is it in fact true that there is no compelling evidence for the Macedonian kausia before Alexander? The archaeological evidence, it must be acknowledged, seems inconclusive. There is very little of it, and what there is does not allow a sure distinction between kausia, the Greek petasos, and yet other varieties of cap. But we should beware of making an argument from silence. The paucity of the evidence may be attributable to the fact that before the Hellenistic age things Macedonian did not attract much attention in the Greek world.

Hmm, so even if we say archaeology and iconographic interpretation is not good enough, we still don't have evidence before late 4th century. Moreover, when browsing literary accounts, the oldest mention is about Memnon of Rhodes, a Persian mercenary commander of Greek origin wearing the kausia around 336/5 BC.

Chryssoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli in "Aspects of Ancient Macedonian Costume" in JHS 113 (1993), 122-147 discusses the iconographic evidence for kausia at large, and while she also argues against Kingsley's theory, she finds the earliest iconographic depictions in the late 4th century, also pointing out that some earlier so-called kausia representations are in fact showing other types of cap such as petasos. She also points to a ~500 BC graffito (having a line ending in KAUSI) from Crimea(!!) allegedly referring to this type of cap, with no interpretation or proof at all.

More about kausia: http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2008/janssen/janssen.pdf

• Sieht man von den unterschiedlich interpretierbaren Darstellungen auf den Grabreliefs der Achämenidenkönige, dem Graffito auf einer Schale aus Berezen (um 500 v.Chr.) und einen vielleicht zu einem Choregen-Monument gehörenden Relief der Zeit um 340 v.Chr. aus Athen, das komische Tänzer, die einen Stock und eine kleine dosenförmige Mütze tragen und versuchsweise als tanzende makedonische Soldaten mit Speer und Kausia gedeutet worden sind, ab, ist die Kausia mit Hilfe des archäologischen Materials erst seit etwa dem letzten Drittel des 4. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. nachweisbar. In der literarischen Überlieferung wird sie erstmals für ein Ereignis des Jahres 336/5 v.Chr. erwähnt.

So we have Persian reliefs (which we don't know they refer to Macedonians or to this type of cap, they are about various 'yauna'-s), a graffito in Crimea (which we don't know it refers to Macedonians or to this type of cap) and Greek and Macedonian evidence from the second half of the 4th century and later.

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.

I'm adding one more reference, a study by Christopher Tuplin: http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books ... -11-tuplin . While not specifically about ancient headdresses or 'yauna'-s, it's a good read and it's also about Persian iconography. However, "the most prevalent theory", as you put it, is about "the petasos-hat that current orthodoxy takes to be reference of takabara and its Akkadian translation".

[Macedon]

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

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.

...

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.

sources and quotes given in the same study...

1. Ebenda.47 : “Schliesslich bezeichnet der Name Yauna mit Petasos die Makedonen”
2. Hinz, 1973, 152 : “Petasos (schildfoermige Kopfdeckung) tragende Ionier... Gemeint sind vielleicht die Makedoner
3. Balcer, 1988, 4f : “..petasos wearing Macedonians”
4. Junge, 1942, 18 Anm. 1 “..., dass es sich um die Kausia handelt...Die makedonisch-thrakische Kopfdeckung lokalisiert diese Hellenen auch gleichzeitig...”
5. Altheim - Stiehl, 1970, 398f. “Aber zweifellos geht es um die Kausia, die nationale Kopfdeckung der Makedonen.”
6. Buechner, 1920, 57 “Auf die Makedonen, besser vieleicht noch auf die Thessaler, passt die Bezeichnung “Petasos-tragende Griechen” sehr gut...”
7. 7 more with no quotes...then :
8. Band 1, 230 gibt die Yauna Takabara ohne Kommentar als “Makedonien” wieder
9. Bei Young 1988a,2 (Map1)..im thrakish-makedonischer Raum lokalisiert...
10. Zahrnt, 1992, 250f. “...Makedonen...
11. Herzfeld, 1938,49...erblickte darueber hinaus in den Yauna Takabara Makedonier oder Thessaler

...hmm... 10-17 named sources mentioning the Macedonians as Yauna Takabara in this study...

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

[Paralus]

I think also perhaps just the general established way of life up until Philip started to change the Makedonian state might account for this. It seems intially the Makedones were largely transhumant pastoralists, later working the land and managing the forests - lifestyles more in common with their immediate northern rather than more distant southern neighbours. ...

With which I'm in agreement. You see it is this view of the "Macedonians" - addressed by the speech Arrian puts into Alexander's mouth - that coloured the view of "urbanised" (Athenian) and city state Greeks. There is absolutely no doubt - Macedon's protests aside - that the vast bulk of "Macedonians" down to Philip II were a peasantry beholden to their masters. These masters - the "barons" or whatever - were those that Archelaus may have lost his life to trying to "Hellenise". These hetairoi - "all the Macedonian cavalry" - were the "Makedones" of Fifth century; the others - armed as best as possible for the purpose - were a barbaric rabble to a city state Greek. Especially an Athenian.

Philip's genius, evident in his beating Bardyliss, was to find its bloom in the expansion of the Macedonian hetarioi. He well knew that an army needed some ideal, some purpose. Not only did he expand the "companionate" (in cavalry terms) he expanded it to the infantry and created a propertied infantry with a stake in the national interest. They never forgot him.

[Rumo]

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.

[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.

[Rumo]

...Taking into account that it was you who insulted me first, I think your comments are not really proper...

When and how did I do that?

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". I guess that this would exclude the Dorians in Asia Minor?

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

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?

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...

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.

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...

What is aggressive in having an opinion?

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 a theory, 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!). In case it's still unclear, Rollinger mentions only a possible location in Thessaly and/or Macedonia, not that these people were the Macedonians (the Temenid kingdom)

If your German is not good, you should not use German sources... my German is quite good.

Yeah, tell me more about that Ebenda guy :lol:

[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?

[caiusbeerquitius]

And please keep it all civilized, folks... ^^

[Paullus Scipio]

Just to add some confusion to this matter of 'petasos wearing' or 'shield wearing', here are a couple of coins of the Ainianes, a northern Thessalian people from 400-344 BC.The coins show the legendary hero King Phemios throwing javelins, and possibly carrying a 'petasos' hat, also interpreted by some as a 'sakkos' type convex shield, or perhaps even a 'petasos' hat being used as a shield !! :wink: :wink:

He is also shown similarly armed, but using a sling with the javelins stuck in the ground behind him

[Rumo]

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 you went ad hominem against me and ridiculed my opinions and arguments repeatedly (in that particular case by insinuating I'm just doubting everything). Why you feel insulted if I ask you to stop that?

I wrote "read them more thoroughly" which is not offensive any way you look at it.

Of course it is, moreover as you further added "you could have at least admitted that you for some reason did not read the pages in question".

You did not quote Rollinger... you stated :

I did! That paragraph of mine starts with "As for 'yauna'-s, Die Yaun? takabar? tragen keinen Petasos ..." which is Rollinger's own conclusion (page 388)

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?)

Not about the discussion in general, but about Rollinger's own arguments and interpretations from this paper and the chapter he authored in A Companion to the Classical Greek World. He refers several times to some possible geographic locations, but not to the identity of these people as Macedonians. And yes, the most prevalent opinion is that takabara is to be identified with petasos, not with kausia. That some scholars asserted the petasos-wearers were Macedonians (with no further evidence to substantiate this claim), it's a different question, however there's no assessment in this paper whether this view is most popular or not. Those "15 sources" of yours are cherry-picked from two footnotes supporting two widely held views: about the cap being a petasos and about the geographical location. Not about the identity of the people, a question which Rollinger does not really try to answer. Maybe you can understand better this assessment of his:

• According to external criteria two groups of 'Greeks' are distinguished, both of which find expression in a representation differently depicted each time on royal tombs at Nashq-i Rustam and Persepolis. The distinction between Yauna and Yauna takabara becomes clear in the first place through the headdresses. This seems to be confirmed by the terminology, although the difficult-to-interpret Old Persian takabara and the corresponding Babylonian terminology - the other 'Greeks' who wear maginnata (plural) on their heads - still pose problems. Klinkott one the one hand suggests that the term refers to a headdress, specifically the petasos, a felt hat with a wide brim. Schmitt on the other hand raises the possibility that it refers to a shield, the pelte, because the wide brim does not seem to be a characteristic iconographical element.

however

• The Yauna, who are distinguished according to geographical criteria, are by far more difficult to identify. [...] Here recent scholarship has produced divergent attempt at identifications, none of which has been able to clarify the issue satisfactorily. Even though it is not possible to go further into detail at this point, it might be instructive to distinguish two models of interpretation, which have been presented recently. In one case the meaning of Yauna is understood as a homogeous ethnic term and is the equivalent of the Greek world. Therefore Yauna, with its various attributes, would refer to the regions that lie in the west and northwest of Asia Minor. The second interpretation construes the original meaning of Yauna in a broader sense and interprets it as multiethnic. It refers to far-distant peopls in the west, who are to be found both in Asia Minor and in the northern Aegean. In addition to the Greeks this included the Phyrgians, Mysians, Aeolians, Thracians and Paionians.

So, as I pointed earlier in the thread, it's not even certain that yauna refers to Greeks only (which is probably also why this author writes of 'Ionians' and 'Greeks'), even less certain is that yauna takabara is a special term for Macedonians.

Back to the book,

• However much one wished to judge this incongruity, it is possible nevertheless to regard a few observations as certain. Yauna refers to an ethnos or a conglomeration of peoples, who lived at the western fringes of the empire and possibly beyond. It is therefore likely that the various terms may go back to differing situations of conquest. The terminology may betray a constructed artificiality for order, such as one finds otherwise for another border people, the Scythians.

No evidence? What you perceive as evidence is not what other may perceive as ones... 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...

I have never said kausia was introduced in fashion by Alexander III, I only claimed it is attested in late 4th century and all the authors I mentioned presented evidence for late 4th century and later. Those texts are of events from late 4th century, also.

If it's evidence, then it must be obvious. Please read that graffito and then show it refers to Macedonians and their caps. And please explain what others haven't, why would an element of the Macedonian costume be first attested in a north-Pontic Greek colony, more than one century before the first secure attestation in its Macedonian homeland?

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.

If we choose to read 'yauna' as Greeks, there were many Greek colonies on Macedonian and Thracian coasts (Macedonia expanded eastwards at the expense of Thracians). Check An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (edited by M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, Oxford UP 2004).

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?

I missed this in my first draft of my reply. I meant "petasos wearing" as I translated "petasostragenden
Ioniern" (with footnote 36) which are located in Thessaly-Macedonia (with footnote 37).

what exactly is your level in German?

I don't know. I only have formal education in English and Russian (which is rusty, I had to study it in school because it was mandatory at that time), but I can have decent reads of materials written in German, Italian, French and Spanish.

[Rumo]

Just to add some confusion to this matter of 'petasos wearing' or 'shield wearing', here are a couple of coins of the Ainianes, a northern Thessalian people from 400-344 BC.The coins show the legendary hero King Phemios throwing javelins, and possibly carrying a 'petasos' hat, also interpreted by some as a 'sakkos' type convex shield, or perhaps even a 'petasos' hat being used as a shield !! :wink: :wink:

He is also shown similarly armed, but using a sling with the javelins stuck in the ground behind him

Very interesting. As for my debate with George, I'm inclined to believe an iconographic survey of Western Anatolia and Balkans would find too many candidates for these 'takabara' people (if Persian "ethnographic" classifications match the local views, which is by no means certain).

[Ghostmojo]

... The Yauna, who are distinguished according to geographical criteria, are by far more difficult to identify. [...] Here recent scholarship has produced divergent attempt at identifications, none of which has been able to clarify the issue satisfactorily. Even though it is not possible to go further into detail at this point, it might be instructive to distinguish two models of interpretation, which have been presented recently. In one case the meaning of Yauna is understood as a homogeous ethnic term and is the equivalent of the Greek world. Therefore Yauna, with its various attributes, would refer to the regions that lie in the west and northwest of Asia Minor. The second interpretation construes the original meaning of Yauna in a broader sense and interprets it as multiethnic. It refers to far-distant peopls in the west, who are to be found both in Asia Minor and in the northern Aegean. In addition to the Greeks this included the Phyrgians, Mysians, Aeolians, Thracians and Paionians.[/list]

So, as I pointed earlier in the thread, it's not even certain that yauna refers to Greeks only (which is probably also why this author writes of 'Ionians' and 'Greeks'), even less certain is that yauna takabara is a special term for Macedonians ...

This discussion is getting a little too detailed for my knowledge of this particular phrase yauna ... but regarding the Aiolians or Aeolians - aren't we on much firmer ground including them within the known Greek groups? One of the four main 'ethnes' surely (alongside Achaians/Dorians/Ionians)? ...

On other matters, set phasers on stun gentlemen, please :wink:

Five pages now! Mac[size=50:4wntl2re]e[/size]Donians ... I'm lovin' it :lol:

[Rumo]

This discussion is getting a little too detailed for my knowledge of this particular phrase yauna ... but regarding the Aiolians or Aeolians - aren't we on much firmer ground including them within the known Greek groups? One of the four main 'ethnes' surely (alongside Achaians/Dorians/Ionians)? ...

That part made me wonder, too. I can't find the study referred for bibliography, to see what was actually meant.

I looked for more studies by Rollinger to see if and how he further argues on these points. Thus I found Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies (2009). In the first section of the volume, chapter 3, "Near Eastern Perspectives on the Greeks", is authored by him.

George may note with satisfaction that at one point the long time held theory that Yaun? takabar? were petasos wearing 'Greeks' is further explained by "Thessalians and Macedonians" (but noting that this location has been heavily disputed). However the author continues the discussion and his criticism even further, not only with valueable observations on Persian points of view, but also adducing epigraphic evidence for few Yauna individuals.

Thus, in a recently published Babylonian inscription there's one Iddin-Nabû (or Arad-Nabû) who is a 'Greek' , but the name looks Babylonian. Another inscription mentions the fields of Ušt?na who has an Iranian name. On the second line, in a broken context, it can be read 'the Greek' (if it's the gentilic of Ušt?na, and not some other name). Of course, the name is just a name, it may tell nothing of the maternal language or the ethnic identity (or identities) of its wearer, nevertheless a 'Greek' with an Iranian name owning land in Babylonia is something to think about. Such situations may be aspects of the multi-ethnic Persian society, but at the same time they justify a strong warning against the simple Yaun? = Greeks equation.