Summary The article pursues the question of how the concept of a Roman deity can be methodically validated. This fundamental problem of its description and definition is tested using the example of Ve(d)iovis, whose variability has so far eluded a satisfactory definition. Onomastic, ritualistic, temporalistic, topographical, actor-orientated and iconographic tests show how much these approaches not only prejudge a determination of the identity of a deity, but also that they cannot lead any further in the case of interest even through an integrating approach. The diversity of the conception of this god lies in the simultaneity of the supposedly non-simultaneous. This finding leads to the consideration of whether the competing conceptions of Ve(d)iovis were not particularly interest-led and whether the ambiguity of the identity of this god can be explained by this.
Frank Bernstein (Tue,) studied this question.