Thank you, that's a term I had heard before, and I could infer the basics of its meaning, but having a more precise definition is useful. Absolutely that's a major part of what gives most myth its staying power (Jordan Peterson makes a point about how much intertextuality there is just within the Bible itself, for example). But I wasn't just stating that the references within a given myth give it more depth, but also something about what kind of depth those references might be trying to evoke. To go slightly farther afield for an example, I'm meditating my way through the Mabinogion for JMG's Dolmen Arch books. The book The Four Branches of the Mabinogi by Will Parker does an absolutely fantastic job of laying out how each story simultaneously has elements from 1) half-remembered ancient Celtic history, 2) myths and folktales, 3) references to recent history/dynastic politics, and 4) individual psychological processes. Many of these layers are accomplished simultaneously through things like intertextuality (like referencing the Welsh Triads), but from your description, it doesn't sound like the inclusion of those different takes is necessarily intertextuality itself - or have I misunderstood?