From Aryan Mythology to Zoroastrian Theology A Review of Dumezil's Researciies
By Jehangir C. Tavadia, Hamburg
Since 1934, when the author published his booklet Ouranos-Varuna,
and more particularly since 1940, when he brought out a larger work
Mitra- Varuna, he has opened a new and fruitful branch of study in the
domain of Indo-European mythology and religion. The latter work deals
with the double conception of Divine Sovereignty to be observed in
various spheres of the Indo-European world, epic or political as well as
rehgious. Therein are collected several such parallels, particularly from
Latin sources and confronted them partially from Indian, Iranian, Greek,
Scandinavian, and Irish ones. But the Indian or Vedic data raised a new
problem for the author. There the couple Mitra- Varuna seems to exhaust
the import of Divine Sovereignty, but at the same time these figures are
not the only two sovereigns (asura-s). They are merely the two most
frequently named, the two principal ones of a little group of brothers
caUed aditya-a, who are aU of the same nature and of the same rank, if
not of the same importance. The problem was what distinguished theo¬
logically the couple from the group, the two grand Sovereigns from the
minor ones ?
This problem is attacked in the third volume of the series Les Dieux
et les Hommes, entitled Le troisieme Souverain, Essai sur le dieu indo-
iranien Aryaman et sur la formation de l'histoire mythique de I'Irlande
(Paris 1949, Maisonneuve). It is also fully solved as regards the principal
figure amongst the minor Sovereigns — Aryaman, for whom ample and
positive data are extant in Indian and also Iranian sources. By means of
critical examination and proper synthesis of these data Dumezil brings
out the real character of this god in his relation to Mitra and Varuna as
well as to the "third function" including marriage, and finally as the god
of the Aryan community, whereby also the researches of P. Thieme in
his Der Fremdling im Rgveda are laid under contribution and his con¬
clusions there rectified in certain respects.
In an earlier work, Naissance d'Archanges (Jupiter Mars Quirinus, III
— GaUimard 1945) the problem is approached from another angle, so
to say. Here DuM:fiziL examines the Iranian group of the six "Efficient
Immortals", popularly caUed the archangels, who surround the supreme
God "Ahura Mazäh". They are often supposed to correspond with the
Indian ädityas. Indeed, this supposition is doubted and controverted by
some Iranists, but even they do not offer any other solution as regards
the true relation and origin of those figures. To find this out was reserved
for Dumezil. According to the result arrived at by him Zarathustra has
based his group on the patron gods of the "three grand functions" cosmic
as well as social. Hence the group represents along with Mitra and
Varuna not their equals, the other ädityas, but a strong warrior god like
Indra, a goddess of multivalence or diverse virtues and powers, and the
two twin gods of health and prosperity like Näsatyas.
Originally it was my intention to examine in detail this startling dis¬
covery, which is also attractive and in a way even convincing. But since
the space at my disposal in ZDMG is very hmited I shall have to carry
it out elsewhere. However, the importance of the subject demands at
least a few observations.
The new comparison, so far as comparisons as such go, is justified; it
is neither wild nor irrelevent. But it certainly requires some modifications.
To accept it as it is, wholly and unconditionally, wül be a mistake ; and
something worse to apply it bhndly to the interpretation of the Gathas.
The basic or essential difference involved in the system of Zarathustra
should not be ignored. One may just consider the idea of zsadra "power,
dominion" as conceived by him beside the figure of Indra as described
by Vedic poets, and one at once sees that difference, as is done by the
author himself (s. below). The comparison becomes then a mere matter
of form, history, or antiquarian detail. It does not contribute to the
interpretation of the term used by Zarathustra. It does not help us —
rather the contrary — to grasp the teaching conveyed by that term, which
eminently belongs to ethical and spiritual spheres. So do the other terms
of the system. I do not mean to suggest that Dumezil has ignored this
fundamental difference ; he has rather emphasised it repeatedly, though
perhaps in other words (p. 80, 185f., etc.). Yet one might get also an¬
other impression and be led into another direction.
Apart from this general consideration one may find also some par¬
ticular drawbacks in the comparison set up by the learned author. The
comparison extends only to the six "figures" which surround the supreme God "Ahura Mazdäh", but not also to the supreme God himself. Dumezil
does account for this omission. Yet it seems to be an incongruity. If one
feels the necessity of finding out the origin of the surrounding figures,
how can one omit to do the same for the central one? It would be a
strange procedure to argue or even assume that Zarathustra was able to
think out his supreme God without any former model to base his thought
upon, whereas he was in dire need of models or paraUels for buüding up
26 ZDMG 103/2
346 Jehangir C. Tavadia
the surrounding group of the six. Logic demands that the supreme God
"Ahura Mazdäh" too should have a predecessor among the patron gods
of the three grand functions. On the other hand one may accept Du¬
mezil's explanation, which I give below so that the reader can judge for
himself.
There is, however, another doubt. I think it is a mistake to speak of the
supreme God as "Ahura Mazdäh". This is done almost universally —
I mean almost unanimously — in spite of pertinent remarks to the con¬
trary. It is a pity that Dum:6zil, like many others, does not take into
account what Maria Wilkins Smith has contributed to the theory of the
aspect terms ; — to the theory hinted at by various scholars (quoted by
me in ZDMG 100. 227 f.) that those surrounding figures are no figures but
attributes, sides, or aspects of the Godhead. Her new and important con¬
tribution is that the term mazdäh does not form part of the divine name,
but is just another aspect like aäa and others. The unimpeachable (?)
proof for this is the fact that the occurrence of mazdäh affects, exactly
like that of the other terms, the number of the verbal and pronominal
forms referring to the Godhead or Ahura. And yet strangely enough no
thought is given to the new view. Indeed it is starthng — it runs counter
to and does away with our long-estabhshed behef. But neither that nor
the modesty with which it is put forth, in a few hnes and without any
other halo of name and rank, should not be the reason for ignoring it.
Besides the argument of Maria Smith one should also take into account
what B. Geiger has already said. Die AmaSa spmtas (Wien 1916—20)
pp. 103ff. On the other hand I admit that the passages like Y. 31. 1—2
seem to support even the pre-Zoroastrian existence of mazdah as God,
for the prophet appears here as if he were above and beyond the two
contending parties, the worshippers of mazdäh and the followers of drug.
Yet this may be a dramatic way of putting things ; and in reality Zara¬
thustra not only belonged to the former party but very likely was even
its founder. Moreover, the anamoly can be removed by assuming that
the two strophes do not go together. This assumption may be justified
by the fact that Y. 31 is not a single united piece like various others but
a composite one. Anyhow, I may uphold the view expressed in that
article and elsewhere tül a new examination of the term in question
yields another result — when my doubts about the argument from
the use of grammatical numbers (pl. instead of sg.) wül also be
removed. In ZDMG 100. 238 ff. I have at least shown that mazdah is
not to be found as the divine name in an earlier source — neither
in Assyrian tablets nor in Vedic hymns. (As regards other data on the
point see my forthcoming article Zoroastrian, and Pre-Zoroastrian in
JBBRAS).
Thus Zarathustra has not borrowed an older name of an older god nor
changed it by a simple literary device — as we are repeatedly and con¬
fidently asked to believe. Rather the only conclusion from all those facts
and figures is that he, either by profound thinking or by sheer intuition
or by both, conceived his supreme God ahura "Sovereign" as endowed
with ethical attributes or aspects of mazdäh "Wisdom" and the rest.
Hereby he adopted for God one of his generic terms current at the time
and for aspects also only current words, some of which, like rta, had even
dllready a high rehgious sense. This state of things is quite natural; and
it is equaUy sufficient for our understanding and appreciating the new
conception.
Now neither this system nor the transformation it involved is an
ordinary affair; it is not just an evolution but a real revolution, not a
simple literary device but a result either of hard, clear thinking and heart-
searching or of experience and intuition. In the history of humanity
there do appear great poets, prophets or inventors whose achievement
does not consist of a little methodical step in advance but a sudden
genius-like change due to flash of insight and inspiration. Such was the
case with Zarathustra. Therefore, in a way, it is idle and futUe to ask
how he came to his teaching of God and still worse to argue whether he
created Him ex nihilo. Such clever questions silencing the opponents are
quite impertinent — beside the mark. If however science demands such
inquiry this should be carried on within related peoples and not among
some modern primitive tribes of Africa or America as a certain school
does in the name of the science of rehgions. Of course, any enlightenment
— wherever it may come from — cannot be but welcome ; but it should
be an enlightenment that enlightens the extant obscurities, not a chimera-
like one making confusion worse confounded and difficulties more
difficult.
Anyhow, Dumezil has circumscribed his great survey within the
sphere of the Indo-European world, and so we cannot quarrel about it.
Yet here too one should remember that in comparing everything there is
danger of confusing something. By pressing one system into another by
force one is hkely to lose sight of some distinctive features. It may be
supposed that Dumezil has considered this possibility and just out of
this consideration has left out Ahura Mazdäh from the paraUeHsm he has
set up — allowing Ahura Mazdäh as the distinctive feature or item in the
system of Zaeathustea. In a way it is reaUy so. But his argument takes
a different course and does not solve the question I have raised. By
accepting the common view that the great God of the prophet has his
origin in one of the Aryan gods, Dumezil argues that by his being thus
amplified and sublimated from Varuna he has not preserved his place in
26*
348 Jehanoib C. Tavadia
the hierarchy but left it vacant. Moreover, since he dominates this place
as well as others from his new position, all of them must now be filled up
with other terms to suit his abstract and ethical character. It is thus that
in the Gathas we meet with asa, vahu manah, etc. Now asa is rta, cosmic
and moral order guaranteed by the ädityas, specially by Mitra-Varuna,
stUl more specially by Varuna. Hence asa replaces this Varuna. And since
vahu manah is often coupled with asa it may be taken as representing
Mitra, the other member of the old compound. The next item xsadra, as
its abstract notion "power, dominion" indicates and as its concrete value
"metal of arms" confirms, represents the second function and conse¬
quently the warrior god Indra. The pair harvatät and amrtät replaces the
twin Näsatya-s. Then aramati is joined to this pair just as xsadra to the
other. Her concrete value "earth" justifies this connection with the gods
of the third function. Dumezil also points out the suitability and there¬
fore the antiquity of the six opposite figures or terms which are met
with in later, Pahlavi works only. This general hypothesis is then veri¬
fied in detail in the subsequent chapters.
Mention may be made of a highly remarkable and instructive phe¬
nomenon. The distinction which already Beegaigne observed between
Mitra and Varuna and which Dumezil developed in his volume thereon,
is proved between vahu manah and asa also in spite of their quite different,
abstract character. The principal distinction is established from Y. 44. 3f.
and also from Y. 29: asa is more distant, rigid, other worldly; vahu
manah is nearer, friendly, this worldly. Other nuances are traced in
various places. The chapter on xsaOra is equaUy important ; inter alia it
does full justice to the view I expressed about the term above. The only
comment I have to make is that the battle it represents cannot be purely
mystic. Zarathustra preaches thereby the Kingdom of God not only in
heaven but also on earth, that is, good rulership and pure justice for the
man at large.
In short, the likely doubts and questions that arise on reading the
summary or the mere statement of comparison are removed and solved
on going through the detailed exposition. Moreover, the object of Du¬
mezil is not to give a new interpretation of the key-words but to trace
their origin and history ; and his effort, we are happy to say, is crowned
with success. Indeed side light is thrown thereby on their meanings also ;
but it does not repudiate what we have otherwise obtained; it rather
forms an additional help for getting a deeper and clearer view of the
Gathas. Thus, for instance, without changing anything in my detailed
exposition of the dramatic piece Y. 29 I can insert the new information on
asa and vahu manah and enlighten the matter further. It is not clear nor
right why Dumezil refuses to do anything with the double nature of the
keywords : aspects of God and virtues of man, the recognition of which
gives such a grand import to them. (Even recently he repeated his objec¬
tion in a letter to me concerning my article in ZDMG.) Similarly the
problem of mazdäh may well be taken up to find out some distinctive
features that may eventually show its origin and history as it is done in
the case of other terms. Even if one carmot go beyond the common com¬
parison with Varuna, the result may be accepted and somehow arranged
and assimilated in the system, — in spite of the fact that, according to
Dumezil, the latter is the original of asa; for the close relation between
this and mazdäh is not an unknown thing.
In the concluding chapter Dumezil characterises the two forms,
Roman and Zoroastrian, in which the Indo-European politico-rehgious
notions are preserved as well as developed. These and other comparative
details from the various branches of the same great family (which details
lie beyond me and are therefore passed over in silence) enhance the value
of the work in general and support the tripartite theory in particular.
The first chapter has another speciality in as much as it shows that
also the Aryan gods of Mitani (Mitra-Varuna, Indra, and the twin
Näsatya-s) represent the same system of threefold function, whereby all
sorts of Indian sources (including the ritual texts, let it be emphasised) are laid under contribution.
One may admit the importance of ritual and other later texts as reh-
able sources, but Dumezil goes a little too far when he declares that the
difference between them and the Vedic hymns is merely a literary one.
The clear details of the former are said to be not always a development
of the allusive references in the latter ; they are rather due to the style
and diction of two different types of literature — prose treatises and
poetical lyi'ics (p. 70). The addition of "always" makes his position as
well as the matter safe; yet one may be led to the other extreme. Sim¬
ilarly the author is right about the double nature, abstract and concrete,
of the aspect terms ; but it wiU be a mistake to deny any difference be¬
tween the Gathic and the later views thereon. Indeed there lies some¬
thing essential behind the poetic and prophetic vision and the prosaic
and priestly matter-of-fact dogmatic details. Anyhow it is a retrograde
step to declare not only the loose use of ahura and mazdäh but also the
repetition of the aspect terms as the meaningless play of words. Dumezil
quotes the weU-known strophe Y. 47. 1 as a clear case of the poet's
desire to make a grand show, a grand collection of key-words (p. 74ff.).
But whether a grand show and collection or not, the strophe is certainly
a prayer inculcating some grand truths as I interpret it elsewhere (see
above, pp. 318—343). Our difference is not about an isolated detail or a
single strophe but about the entire principle or method of interpretation.
f>
350 Jehangir C. Tavadia
Dumezil seems to deprecate all such efforts (strictly based on gram¬
matical usage) to get a clear and comprehensive view of the prophetic
words, when he asks "Que conclure de lä?" and answers "Simplement
que I'important, pour le poete et pour nous, ce n'est pas le sens pr6cis de
Vohu (ou Vahista) Manah, son orientation soit vers la nuance "aspect of
God", pour parier comme M^e M. W. Smith, soit vers la nuance "virtue
of men"; c'est la presence de ce mot-clef dans un groupement avec
d'autres mots-clefs" (p. 76). The answer is perhaps to be restricted to the
strophe in question. Anyhow the author himself hastens to correct the
Avrong impression which (as he admits) one might get from his remarks
by adding a glowing tribute to the Gathas contrasting them not only
with the Avesta but also with the Veda (p. 79 f.).
Besides the above-mentioned exclusion of mazdah from the survey
there is another item which, as Dumezil himself admits, is not clearly
or fully accounted for in Naissance d'Archanges. I mean aramati which is
said there to have been joined to the twin "figures" of the third function
because of its concrete value "earth", the source of fecundity. This
problem is tackled by him in a later work, Tarpeia, to which I may now
turn.
This volume forms the third part of the series Les Mythes Romains
but it falls also under the sphere of another series, Jupiter, Mars, Qui¬
rinus, — that is to say, concerning the tripartite conception of the
universe as well as the society, with which we are made so famUiar by
the author's epoch-making researches in Indo-European sources. A part
of the volume will appeal especially to classical scholars, whereas an¬
other to Indianists and Iranists also. This deals with religion, with gods
and their worship ; whereas the other covers the field of history or legend
pertaining to some heroes and their doings. I shall naturaUy restrict my¬
self to the Indo-Iranian part of the book.
It is in the first chapter, "De Janus A Vesta", that the unsolved
problem oi aramati is taken up. Starting from the suggestion of P. de Me¬
nasce and Stig Wikandee that since there is an Iranian goddess of
fecundity, namely Anähitä, Zarathustra might have based the idea of
aramati on her, Dumezil shows that such an additional goddess of the
third function is met with also in Indian sources, and hence concludes
that she must have figured already in the Aryan pantheon. Even in the
Rg Veda there are hymns where the usual list of the tripartite gods is
diversely increased, especially those of the third group by Püsan, the
god of cattle, and more often by Sarasvati, the goddess of fecundity. Her
connection with Näsatya-s is moreover confirmed by the hturgy. But at
the same time she is also the patroness of piety and the hke — exactly as
Anähitä in the Avesta and aramati in the Gathas.
II
The next point here examined is the order of gods in the sacrifice,
whereby new combinations or couples like Indra- Väyu are also brought
to light. These new finds are then searched in Iranian sources, with the
result that the author's efforts are crowned not only with ordinary
success but with such success as leads him to other excellent and far-
reaching conclusions. Apart from minor observations like the division of
all the functional gods into two (as opposed to the usual three) groups
in the Vedic hymns, which reminds one of the similar divisions of their
Gathic substitutes, it is remarkable as a general fact that just hke the
Indian ritual texts also such a late Iranian one as Yasna 1 has preserved
ancient notions about the pantheon. In both Fire holds the final place
in the sacrifice, whereas the intial one is occupied by Väyu in India but
by manyu (spantatama) in Iran. The juxta-position of Väjm and manyu
seems on the surface quite hopeless for any effort at further comparison.
But the pursuit has proved valuable far beyond any expectation.
Iranian texts speak of Väyu as a double, as having two aspects — one
belonging to the Beneficent Spirit, the other to the (Evil-working)
Inimical Spirit, or simply as Good Wind and Bad Wind. This representa¬
tion is almost unique ; it is comparable only to the great doctrine of the
two Spirits (manyu-s) Good and Evil themselves, who are further char¬
acterised as initial. It is worth while to add that this trait of priority re¬
ceives a sort of novel interpretation at the hands of Dumezil. His chief
conclusion, however, is that both traits, duality and priority, are in¬
herited from a figure in the polytheistic and naturahstic rehgion which
Zarathustra replaces by a monotheistic and ethico-inteUectual system.
In other words, manyu is a philosophic substitute of the atmospheric
Väyu. This one can easily admit and also his further suggestion that the
Iranian twofold Väyu is probably represented in India too by the Vedic
couple or group Indra- Väyu, and thus goes back to the Aryan period.
Here again Dumezil pays a just tribute to the decisively advanced step
taken by the prophet (p. 90f.), whose very choice of the term is sig¬
nificant : manyu is a spirit, but not a static one, rather dynamic, moving
and working; it is Gr. thumos rather than psyche, Lat. animus rather
than mens. (For a detailed examination of the whole Gatha concerning
the Two Spirits, Y. 30, see my Indo-Iranian Studies II pp. 22—26,
88—113; for a few remarks ZDMG 100. 232—238, and for further ones
my forthcoming article Zoroastrian and Pre-Zoroastrian).
The appearance of the additional figures beside the well known func¬
tional gods in the two branches of the Indo-European world demands
the inquiry whether that is not the case in other branches too, especially
in that of ancient Rome. In other words, are there not mentioned other
divine beings before and after Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus? The reply
352 Jehangib C. Tavadia
as to "before" or the initial god is at once clear and affirmative. Janus,
Janus the double-faced often heads the hst of Roman deities. The epithet
of the god and in a way also the etymology of the god's name enhance
the similarity with the Aryan. Then as to "after", a ceremonial rule lays
down that Vesta should be mentioned at the end of the list. Now it is
just Vesta that is connected with fire on the one hand and is also the
goddess of fecundity and purity on the oth'er — exactly as the Indo-
Iranian parahels require.
Here I may stop my survey of this volume, mentioning only that the
Indianist will find further interesting and instructive matter in it, for
instance about the sauträmani ritual in the chapter on Suovetauriha, and
explanation of various Vedic and epic texts in another book entitled
Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus IV. But a couple of details may still be given
from the work on Aryaman referred to above. This contains, inter alia,
a new translation by Duchesne-Guillemin of the four principal prayers
from the Avesta, which are also treated of by the present writer in Indo-
Iranian Studies II pp. 114—124. In one departure from the usual inter¬
pretation both of us agree: in taking abl. instead of gen. in Y. 54. I c
(p. 57, my page 129), which construction can be applied also in Y. 27.
13 c. But there are various other differences. Here however I shall restrict
myself to what Dumezil has gathered from the short but excellent prayer
ä aryama isyo (pp. 50ff.). Briefly, he finds therein the confirmation of
what he has obtained about the relation of Aryaman to Mitra and Varuna
from a number of Vedic hymns. The prayer contains not only the same
grouping but also the same peculiar nature of the individual members.
Thus in spite of the use of the new terms, asa and vahu manah, introduced by Zarathustra it reveals the knowledge of the earlier, pre-Zoroastrian
state of affairs, and consequently that relation goes back to the Aryan
period. Yet, as the author himself admits, the Avestan prayer does not
merely repeat or imitate an ancient myth but contains something more.
I would rather say something quite different, because that something is
of a very essential nature. It is not only theology in its ordinary sense
that has taken place of mjrthology therein but ethical theology or ethics
itself.
Another conclusion drawn from the silence of the Zoroastrian Gathas
as well as of the Mitani inscription as regards a god Aryaman is this that
he and other minor aditya-s are only what they are, namely just second¬
ary figures hke the Marut-s beside Indra, or Püsan and others beside the
twin Näsatya-s. They cover one or another part of the domain of the
two Sovereigns, Aryaman and Bhaga that of Mitra, and Daksa and Amsa
that of Varuna — to judge from the scanty evidence afforded by a verse
or two of theRg Veda in the latter case. Bhaga too plays an insignificant
role but his importance can be measured from the history he makes in
Iran. It is instructive to remark that there not only Mitra but also his
close associates are prominent — not so Varuna and his, which fact may
modify what is said about his substitute above.
These few details, meant only as iUustrations, will give at least some
idea of the importance of the numerous researches so ably conducted by
I^UM^)ZIL. Let us also hope that due attention will be paid to them by all
concerned. From certain quarters the author has already found an ex¬
cellent echo. And his theory has proved itself fruitful for the solution of
other problems also. For instance, now it is no longer a puzzle when
Strabo speaks of the shrines of Anaitis and Omanus (and also of the
image or idol of Omanus), for Omanus is not (or not only) the Gathic
vahu manah, "a colourless abstraction" that cannot be coupled with
Anaitis, the Avestic goddess Anähitä, but is another or new name in¬
troduced by the Zoroastrian "reform" for Miöra who is usually paired
with her. Then the first and last few chapters of the Videvdät are not
thoughtlessly added by the later redactors "devoid of art and intelli¬
gence" to this code of purification, but they are perfectly justified in a
work that deals, broadly speaking, with aU that pertains to the earth or,
in other words, with the third function of Dumezil's phraseolopy (see
Marian Mole, La Structure du Premier Chapitre du Videvdät in JAs 1951
p. 283ff.).
Gab es einen König ,, Menes"?
Von Wolfgang Helck, Göttingen
Die frühramessidisciien Königslisten^ wie die griechische Überlieferung^
kennen als ersten König der ägyptischen Geschichte einen König Mnj,
Menes. In jüngerer Zeit ist nun von verschiedenen Seiten Zweifel daran
geäußert worden, daß es jemals einen König gegeben habe, der den
Namen ,, Menes" geführt habe. Hall^ sah in „Menes" eine legendäre
Figur, in der Züge verschiedener Köiüge der beginnenden ägjrptischen
Geschichte zusammengeflossen seien. Schakite* wie Emery^ erwogen die
MögUchkeit, daß sich hinter dem Namen ,, Menes" ein frühgeschichtlicher
Königstitel verbergen könne. Gegenüber diesen Überlegungen soll hier
erneut die Überheferung daraufhin geprüft werden, ob in dieser Frage "~
nicht eine sichere Entscheidung getroffen werden kann.
Mitbestimmend für die zweifelnde EinsteUung war die Tatsache, daß
auf den Denkmälern aus der Zeit der beginnenden Geschichte ein Königs¬
name „Menes" nicht eindeutig feststellbar ist. Allerdings hatte man sich
häufig auf das sog. ,,Negade-Täfelchen", einen Etikette-Anhänger aus
der Zeit des Königs Hör Aha* berufen, auf dem Ereignisse als Jahres¬
datierung niedergeschrieben sind. Darunter erscheint auch eine Zeichen¬
gruppe, die die beiden Schutzgöttinnen des Königs und die Hieroglyphe
„mn" in einem gebäudeartigen Zeichen eingeschrieben darstellt. Noch
Scharff sah hierin, Sethe folgend', den Beweis, daß Mnj, Menes, der
Geburtsname des Königs gewesen sei, der bei der Thronbesteigung den
Namen Hör Aha angenommen hätte; denn die Könige der zweiten
Hälfte der 1. und die der 2. Dynastie verbinden ihren Geburtsnamen mit
den beiden Schutzgöttiimen. Doch war damit das Gebäudezeichen nicht
erklärt; Grdsbloff deutete es als Begräbniszelt für den Vorgänger^,
Vikentiev wiederum' behauptete, daß überhaupt nicht das Zeichen
1 Liste im Totentempel Sethos' I. in Abydos und im Turiner Königs¬
papyrus; zerstört in der Variante im Totentempel Ramses' IL in Abydos;
in der Liste aus dem Grab des Tivrj in Saqqara fehlt Menes. Zur Literatur
vgl. Deioton-Vandier, L'6gypt6 p. 160.
2 Zusammengestellt bei Pauly-Wissowa RE XV 846 unter „Menes".
' Hall in Cambridge Ancient Hiatory p. 267.
■*Scharfe AO 41 p. 40 Anm. 14; vorsichtiger formuliert in Schabff-
MooETGAT, Ägypten und Vorderasien im Altertum p. 39.
' Emery, Tomb of Hör Aha p. 1—7. " Naville ÄZ 47, 65 ff.
' Sethe, Beiträge zur ältesten Oeschichte Ägyptens p. 23.
' Grdseloff Ann. Serv. 44, 279.
» Vikentiev Ann. Serv. 33, 208 ff.; 34, 28 ff.
