Piotr:
> Huluppa is usually identified as a linden-tree; its fruit isn't
> >mentioned in the myth (the Sumerian 'oak' word was allaan, borrowed >from
>Akkadian).
Yes, alot was borrowed from Akkadian, wasn't it. Now, one wonders about the
origins of this Sumerian... or should I say, _SumeroAkkadian_ myth. As far
as I understand, Akkadian is Semitic, n'est-ce pas? Would it be so frightful
to suspect that this dumb tree originates somehow from something in Semitic
myth? That perhaps, this myth traveled like such:
Balkans -> Semitish (N Semitoid) -> Semitic -> Akkadian -> Sumerian
It could maybe also travel like this at the same time:
Balkans -> IndoTyr or IE (starting 7000 BCE)
I know that there are other myths out there that use a great mountain
instead (mountains and trees don't look very much alike to me) but one
wonders whether we can consider the Mountain as a version of the World Tree
or whether it is a totally seperate myth. Certainly, the Mayan Tree with the
five cardinal directions (north, west, east, south, center) really has
nothing to do with IE's world tree so let's not confuse issues with inane
pseudotheories, John. Keep to the Old World.
On further thought, the Balkans would be a perfect place to spread the World
Tree myth (as well as the Goddess) out into far away places. Further, the
mesolithic is supposed to have spread west to east, as John keeps repeating
ad nauseum. It makes complete sense that religious ideas may have flowed
this way too. As for language, unfortunately for John, things went the other
way, but how could I get this across to him that the west->east thing is
simply an indication of trade? Hmmm...
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com