Talk:Lusitanian mythology

Article name
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.

Runesocesius
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)
 * 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)

Alleged Trinity
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)
 * 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)

Huge Long List
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)
 * "fail notability" and "probably not even deities" is by no means an argument to to reduce the list. Tameobrigus was a river God 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * .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)
 * 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)
 * Until and unless those individual gods can and do prove to meet WP:NOTABILITY standards themselves, and I acknowledge at least most will, there is a separate argument about how much material can be gotten from reliable sources about them. I do not say that in any belittling way. I have myself added material on several presumably real people, generally Coptic saints, where all I can basically say is the subject is named in the Coptic calendar of saints or a book about that subject, had a feast day on whatever day it was s/he had a feast day on, and, basically, that's it. That doesn't give us much of an article. I think what might work best in this instance is to maybe create a separate 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)


 * 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. Aleta  Sing 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

OK, I went ahead and moved the list to List of Lusitanian dieties. Now we can continue the discussion over there as to what does and does not belong. Aleta  Sing 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lusitanian as Opposed to Lusitania
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)

External links modified
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.

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