# Talk:Lugus

The "wind with words, words with logic,..." passage seems highly contrived to me, as if it was produced by very amateur research. I will be removing it in one week if it has no verification. ~~~~ 09:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to concerns regarding the validity of my assertions as to what concept is embodied by the Pan-Celtic deity Lugus-Lugh-Lleu-Llew, I have cited the prestigious sources of the contemporary Proto-lexica of the universities of Wales and Leiden, the links to whose lexica are gladly inserted in the body of the sub-heading on etymology. 

I have absolutely no issue surrounding such a source.
I humbly pray that you forgive me my previous oversights in this respect, for which oversights i am most contrite. I have also attempted to improve the coherence of the sub-heading. It will become apparent upon reading it that the semantics of the name of this deity are as multifaceted as the deity himself.
Yours in good faith,
User:GeoffMGleadall08:35, 30th June 2005 [GMT].

I do, however, object to any original research which has been tacked on top of the etymology. I do not contest the etymology of the Proto-lexica, but I would like verification of the additional information to it, and evidence that it is not original research - i.e. that it is not you who is the source of the additional information.
However, the current state, at this moment in time, of the article is not disputed. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 07:43 (UTC)
But not the state it is in now ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
I'm going to look into the sources cited. I have no doubt that they identify the roots and their semantics, but I strongly suspect that the identification of the roots in question with the name of the god Lugus is original research and should not be here. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Lugus was a deity attested to by inscriptions in Gaul, Germany and Switzerland" 
Which inscriptions? I know that a problem concerning *Lugus is the missing of iscriptions with this name from celtic countries (except two inscriptions with the plural form "Lugoves" from Cantabrians). The name itself, *Lugus/*Lugos, has been rebuilt by scholars from the name of city of Lugudunum (Lyon, in France), in relation with Irish god Lúgh too. So, the real name of "Gaul Mercurius" is unknown, and *Lugus is an ethimological hypothesis only. - Holger Danske (contributing as 84.222.135.183 on 31 August 2006)

I whole-heartedly agree. Although this article reads fairly well as a synthesis and an essay, I think its tone is far too emphatic and self-assured for a serious encyclopedia. We must make clear both what we know and what we don't; concerning *Lugus there is plenty of the latter. (The Gaulish Mercury, however, is very well known by comparison.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What of Slavic Triglav? He is a triple god, consisting of (although this varies) Perun (which might be roughly equivalent to Taranis), Svarog (which, if the thesis that he is the grandfather of the Slavs is correct, might be the equivalent of Toutates), and Dazbog. - Zaebangad 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has deleted sourced text, which I have returned without further editing. Prtobably the same person deleted some references, including on-line references. I have returned these too. --Wetman (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC):

You've restored some good stuff, but you've also restored some bad stuff that was deleted with good reason. As the "sourcing" section above says, Lugus is not directly attested, but is inferred from place-names, inscriptions that seem related, and insular medieval parallels, and the importance of Gaulish Mercury. The material you complain was deleted was largely not deleted, but reorganised (the opening paragraph was too detailed about the Iberian inscriptions, and not balanced enough, for an introduction, so an "inscriptions" section was created for that material) and the references were moved into footnotes as per the Wikipedia manual of style. It still needs work, but it doesn't need that opening data dump. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the claim that his name is attested as "Lugo" is a misreading of the e-Keltoi article. When it says "this god is mentioned in three inscriptions from Sober and Otero del Rey (Lugo)" it is saying that both places are in Lugo in Galicia, not that the inscriptions read "Lugo". --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the final sentence is unclear - 'Lugus has also been suggested as the origin not only of Lugh and Lleu Llaw Gyffes, but also the Arthurian characters Lancelot and Lot. The relationship with the former is no longer widely accepted.' Is 'the former' referring to Lancelot or to Lugh? 86.139.161.23 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I touched up the sentence to clarify the matter. Cagwinn (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is highly misleading and makes so many disputed claims. Ronald Hutton, the preeminent historian of ancient British paganism, has traced the creation of "Lugus" to the Victorian era and has shown that the evidence for his widespread worship - including the inscriptions and etymology of place names - is scanty and questionable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androsblogger (talk • contribs) 05:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) 

That certainly explains his presence in numerous placenames including Lyon. — LlywelynII 01:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Androsblogger   is this only in the British context? Jamesks (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this figure is genuinely Celtic or a Victorian bungle, the guy's actual English name is Lug, not Lugus. There should be a redirect, sure, but the article should be parked at Lug (or Lug (deity) etc.) instead of here. If we're only using this as a natural dab, that's fine but it should be clear within the article. — LlywelynII 01:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

His "English name" is not Lug, and your Ngram doesn't say what you think it does. Lug is the older spelling of the Irish presumed deity we have at Lugh. This page is about the presumed Gaulish deity, who doesn't have an English name. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In spain they say that fiestas to Lug were replaced by those of San Lorenzo in the process of christianisation. Can anyone confirm and add this. Jamesks (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Previous versions of this article made a lot of hay about Lugus's depiction as a triplistic (triple-faced, triple-phallused) god. Certainly, some scholars point out triplistic aspects of Lugus (Irish Lugh is one of triplets, some altars to the Lugoves have three foculi), for example Tovar 1981, p. 598. However, this isn't a point which any of the sources I have come across make a lot out of. It is usually bracketed within discussions of the number of the Lugoves, or within attempts to identify Lugus as a trifunctional deity. While the Celts gave three faces to many of their gods (Watson, p. 63), I can't find any source which associates Lugus with tricephaly. 
Previous versions cited Courcelle-Seneuil's Les Dieux gaulois d'après les monuments figurés, but this only mentions one image in relation to Lug, the (non-triplistic) Mercury on the Kernuz Menhir. MacKillop's Dictionary says, in an entry on "Gaulish Mercury", that "the Celtic propensity for triplism is evident in his iconography, both triple-faced and triple-phallused" but all this says is that there are tricephalic depictions of Mercury from Gaul. There is no suggestion in the entry or in any of MacKillop's citations (so far as I can tell) that these triple-faced Mercurys were depictions of Lugus.
Other Wikipedia articles (and some unimportant, self-published stuff) reproduce the information about Lugus's supposed triplism, and even supposed tricephalic depictions of Lugus. Previously in the article were this image from Paris and this from Reims, both confidently identified as of Lugus. Two sources say there are no depictions of Lugus (Deyts 1992, p. 23; Le Duc 1999, p. 97). What were these images doing here? Does anyone have sources I have missed? Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so you're responsible for the images being gone! It's good to know I'm not going crazy or having a Mandela Effect moment. Thanks for your due diligence. I'd be disappointed if there is truly no known artifact thought to depict Lugus/Lugh, but nonetheless gladder to have the truth of the matter. In your research, did you find any actual scholarly suggestions or consensus on the three-faced images such as those you linked; of whom they are thought to depict, if not Lugus? I'd like to have some notion of what to associate with them instead. There are additional examples at Wikimedia under "Celtic deities" and related categories. There is also this page from some French document. The text shown seems to be a mere visual description, but maybe the source would indicate some hypothesis on other pages. Grønnøye (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)