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

[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.