Talk:Iouga

Iouga't to be kidding?

Am I the only one who can find no reliable references for this supposed deity? The only ref given is York Castle Museum, for which we have an article, as you can see. It seems to be a museum dedicated to the social history of the Modern period (post-medieval). I've checked their website and can find not an inkling of a source for this. Do they have the altar-stone? What is the inscription? For such an interesting find they seem to be very reticent. I suppose they could be emailed, but otherwise that ref seems a no-go (pretty dud ref anyway!). I've looked in various relevant books and on the web. Complete blank apart from this on a BBC page, about a book by an amateur researcher from North Yorkshire, which contains the phrase "Iouga (York's little known Goddess of the Confluence of the River Foss and River Ouse)." 'Little known' is the word!

The etymology really proves nothing: "Iouga is derived from the Proto-Celtic *jugā meaning 'yoke, join' [two pdf sources which you have to download and search and one which is dud, just a search page) from which the feminine Welsh word *iau is derived." Why iau is marked thus I don't know - it's a living Welsh word. According to Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, iau (i.e. this iau; there are two others, unrelated) has cognates in Breton and Cornish but not, apparently, in the Goidelic languages. It notes that it may be a loanword from the Latin iugum (< IE *iuog-m) or possibly cognate. But anyway, similar cognates can be found in most IE languages (yoke, yoga etc), so this proves absolutely nothing at all. And just who exactly says that she was the "female deification of junction" in "Celtic polytheism"?

To sum up, all this seems very dubious. The bottom line is that no reliable reference to her altar-stone - let alone the interpretation of that evidence by reliable scholars - can be found, apparently. If I were to prune this as it deserves very little would be left. Do we have enough evidence to support the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia, or should it be deleted or perhaps redirected? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was created by GeoffMGleadall, who created quite a few articles, and sections of articles, like this back in 2005 and 2006. Most of these have been removed or reworked. The crux of the issue was that he introduced a lot of etymological information that, while often interesting, constituted original research and was generally unsuitable for Wikipedia. I can't find anything on the Internet, and the sources given are either insufficient, irrelevant, or long since dead. I'll contact QuartierLatin1968, who is knowledgeable in the subject and ended up dealing with a lot of this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think by and large that Enaidmawr is right. This is a British inscription, so www.roman-britain.org is a good place to start. From there I find the citation RIB 656. Sweet. That means that from the EDCS we can get the text of the inscription, viz:

Numinib(us) Aug(ustorum) et Deae I{o}ug[3]/sius aedem pro parte di[midia 3]

A Google search on RIB 656 turned up this useful page by somebody who has studied the stone in question and has some thoughtful things to say about its interpretation. Among them, that the reading Ioug[ should be questioned, since what remains of the g is, in her view, just accidental damage to the stone.

As for what Dea Iou[ represented to ]sius, the person who dedicated the altar stone to her, I really don't see that we have much to go on. Certainly "female deification of junction" seems like a typical GeoffMGleadallism: verbose, pedantic, and rash. (By the bye, this goddess also gets a mention in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Volume 2; Volume 29, where she is described simply as "an unknown goddess".) Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

QuartierLatin1968, I can only say that I'm impressed and would like to thank you for taking the trouble to research this. I'll bear in mind the RomanBritain.org site for future reference. The article by Theresia Pantzer[1] was a delight to read, combining scholarship with a profound love of her subject and the ability to communicate clearly - a rare combination, alas! It seems, therefore, that we are left with Iou[—] and the description "an unknown [Celtic] goddess", plus the altar-stone inscription. Not a lot to go on and very unlikely to be expanded. Any suggestions as to what we should do with this? I(o)u(—) doesn't make for a catchy title! Perhaps a redirect and a note? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be a shame to lose the work. To spare our readers cognitive dissonance we could say something like "Iouga is a suggested reconstruction of the name of a Romano-British goddess known from a single fragmentary inscription on an altar-stone at York. The name appears as Ioug[...] or Iou[...] on the damaged stone, which reads..."--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote the above shortly before Q-L1968 rewrote the article. No problems with it now. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Does "Heavenly Battle Grave" sound like a likely name for a goddess (Usual Suspect!)? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Enaidmawr; it was a fun assignment, and I agree, the Pantzer article was an unexpected treat. You raise a good question, though – in general, what do we do with articles about deities attested in only one inscription? There are quite a few of them on Wikipedia. They appear on lists and templates of Celtic deities, skewing people's impressions of ‘the’ Celtic pantheon (as if there were only one) while also feeding into the stereotype of the Celts as having this unimaginable plethora of dime-a-dozen deities. Personally, I wouldn't start an article about a deity unless attested a significant number of times (say, 4 or 5) in inscriptions or depictions. But as for the ones that already exist – well, my MO has just been to help clean them up the best I can and hope people's overall impressions are not too imbalanced. Is this a satisfactory way of operating? I'm not sure. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, good work, a Chúchullain – your version does read better than mine. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, QL, and thanks for the work you've put in here and around the 'pedia; whenever I see your handle pop up on my watch list I know it'll be an improvement over what's there.

Perhaps some day we'll be able to merge stuff like this into a larger article on Celtic gods or religion. Which one, I've no clue, we've got several fairly weak articles on the subject so far. But we can dream...--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)