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

[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: