 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serious editing
editAll of these articles on Lusitanian deities are in need of serious editing. Unfortunately, I have no resources available regarding the mythology of the Lusitanians and thus am not able to do more than correct some of the spelling and grammar. Please feel free to expand this article in any way you can.
- I can find no credible sources that this deity even existed. Can anyone else? Paul S (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, I can find him: 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 this "mysterious javelin god". How is he part of a trinity, though? Can anyone else discover more? Paul S (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It all becomes clear: someone's Spanish is even worse than mine (which is saying something) 91.84.79.51 (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, I can find him: 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 this "mysterious javelin god". How is he part of a trinity, though? Can anyone else discover more? Paul S (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit War
edit95.69.111.27 reverts all my changes without explanation, putting them back to unsourced neo-Pagan fluffy-bunniness. Reversions reverted, and the admins will have to sort it out. Paul S (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
More Editing
editOkay, re-written again, hopefully there are now enough sources and explanations and the article is now completely neutral. The amount of debate this obscure god is generating is all out of proportion to what we know about him. Paul S (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
- Do have in consideration that [1] [2] the Tartessian language is also open to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.77.101 (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, nobody's 100% sure what Tartessian was. A year or two ago someone said they could read it as Celtic, but I've heard nothing else on that since then and imagine that this theory sank without trace in the end. I don't think I've heard anyone suggest that Tartessian was Lusitanian, though. Paul S (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do have in consideration that [1] [2] the Tartessian language is also open to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.77.101 (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)