4 
MUSEUM BULLETIN NO. 16. 
Having demonstrated the nature of the original subject- 
matter of mythology, it was quite logical to argue that in those 
cases where divergent versions of the same myth occurred, that 
version which approached the original subject-matter most close- 
ly, was historically the older. Where there existed clear-cut 
references to celestial actors such an interpretation seemed natural 
enough. But how are we to deal with those myths where the 
references are either extremely attenuated or, to the naive eye, 
even absent entirely ? For these Ehrenreich provided by predi- 
cating certain criteria as distinctive of celestial actors and celestial 
activities. It is in these criteria and the use made of them that 
Ehrenreich seems at his weakest. Lowie has shown this quite 
clearly. But, after all is said and done, Lowie’s analysis merely 
makes it clear that Ehrenreich's position was not the only possible 
one, and that, for instance, it was possible to reverse the inter- 
pretation and insist that the activities of celestial heroes were but 
the transferred activities of human heroes. Ehrenreich realized 
this clearly and answered quite correctly that here we were dealing 
with a matter of opinion. Speaking of certain phenomena of the 
heavens, he says, "Fur manche Forscher, zu denen u.a. auch 
Lowie zu gehoren scheint, sind derartige Vorkommnisse freilich 
die natiirlichsten Dinge von der Welt, an dessen irdischer 
Unterlage nicht zu zweifeln ist. Das ist eben Ansichtssache, die 
keiner weiteren Diskussion bedarf .” 1 Ehrenreich, it seems to me, 
had a much better answer, for he might easily have pointed to 
the fact that celestial heroes and celestial events had of necessity 
to be represented in terms of human heroes and human activi- 
ties. 
In fact, any general critique of a theory like Ehrenreich’s 
hardly touches the core of his position. From his point of view 
it would represent merely another position. Even a more specific 
critique, like the demonstration of a literary tendency for a 
specific area, as in the case of the Pawnee, where practically all 
myths are interpreted as star myths, would fare no better, for 
Ehrenreich would conceivably answer that in so far as you chose 
to call this identification of myths with stars a literary tendency, 
it was a matter of opinion; for him it was a survival. 
1 “Allgemeine Mythologie,” pp. 104, 105. 
