11-30-2010, 02:45 PM
Quote: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.
Drago?
