THE SHEPHERD KINGS OP EGYPT. 237 



Jachath, who, as Iclithys, is still son of Atargatis. In Zeretli we 

 may probably find the Zoroaster king of the Bactrians, who lived in 

 the time of ISTinus and Sesostris, or Onam and Achashtaxi. Even 

 the later Zoroaster, who reformed the Persian religion, from the 

 names of his ancestors, seems to have had Ashchurite relationships. 

 The word Zareth Shahar sufficiently shows that Oxyartes, whom 

 Hyde, as we have seen, makes Achshur and Zoroaster, may be the 

 same person. I have found no representative of Zoliar, but Jay 

 Affi-am may be his son Ephron. Ethnan may be Tanaus, king of 

 the Scyths, whom Justin makes a contemporary of Sesostris, Ninus 

 and Zoroaster. ^^ I have not burdened these pages with geographical 

 names, which a mere glance at the map of Persia, ancient or modem, 

 will reveal as bearing upon them a well-defined Ashchurite stamp. 

 There is great confusion in the Persian annals, and I must leave to 

 those better versed in them the task of identifying the names of the 

 First Book of Chronicles with those of their heroes. Shah Keleev is 

 a Bible Caleb: Menoutchehr is Manahath and perhaps Meonothai, 

 for there are two of this name ; Feridun is perhaps Jered or Jor- 

 danus ; Selm is a reminiscence of Salma, the father of Bethlehem. 

 Ferud and Kai Khosrou, the sons of Siavesek, are Proetus and 

 Acrisius the sons of Abas; and Lohurasp or Aurvadagpa is the later 

 Horus of Egyptian monarchy. But these do not at present concern 

 the line of Ashchur. Much light has been shed upon early Persian 

 history by Indian mythology on the one hand, and the Arabian 

 records on the other. It also sets forth certain facts, such as the 

 position and relationships of Jehaleleel, more clearly than either of 

 these. It is not to be wondered at that no history or mythology 

 presents us with a complete account of the Ashchurites. This must 

 be made up by a comparison of the different records of historic 

 nations. 



India. ^^ — Many instances might be given of the original national 

 unity of Indians and Egyptians. With these, however, as set forth 

 by Sir W. Jones, Dr. Pritchard, Sir Gardner Wilkinson and other 

 writers, I presume the reader to be acquainted. The legends 



19 Justini, Hist. PhU. i. 1, 6. 



20 To save the labour incident upon reference to authority for every fact stated, and the per- 

 plexing effect of a large number of notes, I refer the reader to Muir's Ancient Sanslvrit Texts, 

 Wilson's Vishnu Purana, Pococke's India in Greece, Hardy's Manual of Buddhism, Guigniaut's 

 Religions de I'Antiquite, with tht Ider works of Crawford, Maurice, Wilford and Sir W. Jones, 

 •and the Journal of the Asiatic Society. 



