Talk:Lusitanian mythology

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

I think this article should be changed to the name Lusitanian gods, and Lusitanian mythology should include references to Lusus, legends about Viriathus, Sertorius, and some Renascence literary myths of the portuguese and spanish scholars about their primitive atlantic ancestors.

Is this god real? I see him mentioned on lots of websites but I can't find any record of any dedications to him except one, it doesn't give any location and all it has is the name. How do we get the idea that he was the god of javelins and formed a triad of supreme deities with Endovelicus and Ataecina/Ataegina? Can anyone help here? Paul S (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found Runesocesius at last: Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de la France, 1899 pp. 269-273 by someone (Portuguese) calling himself J.L. de V. He describes a Roman dedication SANCTRVNESOCESIOSACRVGLIC...QVINTCINV...BALS which he interprets at containing two Celtic elements *run- meaning "mystery" and cesius as an allograph for 'gaesius' from *gaiso- meaning a spear or javelin. Hence the "mysterious javelin god". But why he is put in a trinity with Endovelicus and Attaegina I can't yet discover... can anyone else?

J L de V appears to be José Leite de Vasconcelos - can anyone comfirm this? Paul S (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endovelicus is arguably one of the most important gods, as he has the most dedications from the Roman period, but why is Attaegina placed up there, along with this alleged Runesocesius, as part of a trinity? Why is Bandue/Bandi - who has the most dedications of any apart from Endovelicus, not even in the list? Whose idea is this trinity? Paul S (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the first section having discovered the reason behind Runesocesius being placed in a "trinity" with Endovelicus and Ataecina/Ategina. See the Runesocesius page. Paul S (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a very long list of deities, some of which probably "fail notability" on the grounds that they are just names on one or two inscriptions. Some are probably not even deities. There are never going to be separate articles on obscure ones like Tameobrigus or Candeberonio, so perhaps the list should be reduced - by quite a lot. Paul S (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"fail notability" and "probably not even deities" is by no means an argument to to reduce the list. Tameobrigus was a river God [1] worshiped by the river Tâmega near the town of Tameobriga. They will never be notable if people keep hidding their existence and if they had not been notable in their time no one would bother to worship their names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.111.27 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the list is set out as if there is eventually going to be a page for every one of these deities, which there obviously isn't. If it were simply an index of names it would be less cumbersome. Without some very significant archaeological finds, most of these will never have their own pages because they are simply a single word on a Roman dedication. I also doubt if Lamas de Moledo's CROUCEAI can be read as theonym and reconstructed as Crouga, for instance. Paul S (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If " and "eventually" are no arguments. You find problems in the list set out? that is another issue. They are not roman dedications , those were native gods not Roman. About the list being cubersome, there are more than 2000 deities, that would be cubersome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.230.63 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that these single words you cite as deities do not merit and are not going to get their own pages. Therefore, the list in its current form is a waste of space. Also, RIPE tells me you are a sock puppet... Paul S (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.Less sock puppet than you are. A deity does not need to have a full page. And your edit in Trebaruna was nice , that country called Lunfarda is full of gods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.107.98 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point - the way the list is set out, every deity is being given its own page! Why not have links to the most important ones like Endovellicus and Bandi/Bandue and just leave the rest under "others" with their name and location of the dedication? Paul S (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until and unless those individual gods can and do prove to meet

List of Lusitanian gods where they can all be named, and maybe a short description of each given. Then, in time, if we do find enough reliably sourced material about some of them to generate separate articles, a link can be added and the bulk of the existing material transferred to the new separate article. That's generally the best way to proceed in instances like this one. John Carter (talk

) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC

I agree with John Carter. The Ogre (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think John makes a lot of sense. The list as it is now is distracting to the eye, which is a minor point. More importantly, there are simply a lot of redlinks with no information about them whatsoever. Far more useful (i.e. informative) would be a page listing all of these with at least a brief description of who the god is, and/or where it is mentioned. The most important ones could be summarized here.

^Sing 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, this is probably the best idea. We can argue on the List of Lusitanian gods page what does and does not belong and the notability issue can be sidelined, temporarily at least. While many are and will likely remain, simply names on stones and tablets, it can't be contested that they were gods or goddesses. Paul S (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not trying to be in any way difficult here, maybe it could if it weren't clear that those names on stones or tablets were necessarily those of gods/deities/whatever. I don't know the area that well, but it is possible that under some circumstances names of non-gods could have been ascribed for other reasons. That's one of the reasons why we want everything to be sources to

reliable sources. If we can find an RS which identifies the names as those of gods, no problem. If not, then the names should be dropped, as we wouldn't have been able to find sources that say they were in fact what we're, probably rightly, assuming them to be. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Should the page draw the distinction between Lusitania, the Roman province, which included Celtiberian and Tartessian/Turdetanian areas, and the region where inscriptions in the Lusitanian language appear, along with a particular set of theonyms (which also extend to Gallaecia)? This seems to have confused a moderator on the Runesocesius page. Paul S (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lusitanian mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]