Glen clutching at straws (was Athena, Tritos ...)

Piotr wrote

> > 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).

Glen

> 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.

Glen, I would hardly call the world authority on comparative
mythology, Joseph Campbell an "inane pseudotheory"! Once again you
are trying to tailor reality to fit your theory Glen, as Piotr's post
shows the "hullupa tree" story is firmly Sumerian, not Suero-Akkadian
or Semitic. The borrowing went

Sumerian ---> Akkadian ---> West Semitic

Glen continues

> 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.

Great Glen, except they flowed intio the Balkans from Anatolia

> 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, that was what C-S waned to see with the genetic studies, was it
trade, or did it mean a movement of people with their bodies (hence
gene movements). Sorry to say it wasn't just trade, it was demeic
movements of people that spread in the ways I have been suggesting.

Regards

John