Talk:Origins of vampire beliefs

This redirect is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles

Eastern Europe Unassessed (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Occult

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles

Results of discussion: Request to merge Origins of vampire beliefs into Vampire: The result was merge, 4 vs 3 votes. Cleanup after paste/merge is added to the ToDo list. If you would like to discuss further, please go here

Political interpretation[edit]

I confess I have not read widely enough to strongly back up my claim for a political interpretation of the modern vampire myth. I find the idea convincing and a better scholar than I may be able to draw together historical sources to support it -- assuming someone has not already done so. If other editors want to delete this section (due to lack of supporting scholarship) that's fine by me. Wikid (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff. Does the ref ref the whole section or just the first bit. I put a tag there thought. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks -- I found a citation for the second bit. I suppose I should say I find Marxist political takes on vampirism at least as plausible as the occult theories, and certainly no less interesting Wikid (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I put over 600 edits into getting vampire to Featured status and pushed to include as much material on belief origin theory (eg porphyria, psychoanalysis etc.) as possible. This was the spinout article from the ever-growing parent article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

This page is under construction due to requests made at the Vampire FAC. The title may also need to be changed in case POV issues arise (Theoretical may mean OR to some people). Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic tag[edit]

I note that Calliopejen has placed this tag in the Psychopathology section. Musing on it I actually tend to agree. The article is on origin of beliefs i.e. how vampires came into being, whereas this section is on mass murderers, post-folklore 'vampires' in other words. Alhough, Gilles de Rais and Bathory have certainly become intermingled the other way and certainly infuenced some horror stories etc. Hmmmm...interesting.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The idea of destroying the initial vampire and subsequent suspected victims dates back to at least the twelfth century with William of Newburgh's report of the Berwick Vampire.

This statement is sourced to a modern author, but looking at Newburgh's report itself, I find no mention of "subsequent suspected victims" being destroyed.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed as it doesn't quite back up the contagion theory. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it might sort of back up the contagion theory (connecting the "vampire"/revenant and pestilence in one way or another), but the specific sentence about "destroying suspected victims" isn't backed up. So mentioning this story may well be relevant, just not as a source for that particular sentence.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious 2[edit]

During the 16th century the Spanish conquistadors first came into contact with vampire bats and recognized the similarity between the feeding habits of the bats and those of their legendary vampires.

This also appears to be sourced, though it might have been added later, I won't check. Now, in the 16th century there were two hundred years left until the popularization of the Serbian word "vampire", as well as the East European legend itself. So the conquistadors couldn't possibly have recognized the similarity between it and the bat or given it the name.

As I look at the cited source, I think that one problem with this thematic sphere is that people use too many sources with titles such as "Encyclopedia of Monsters", "The Ultimate Authoritative Academic Guide to Cool Scary Thingies", "How to Conjure a Vampire in your Apartment" or just "Boo!". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author cited is a reliable cryptozoologist. He has been on many expeditions, written a few books and is referred to by others in his field. I suggest you do some research before judging a book by its cover, or more specifically, its title. Have you even read his books? The sentence was not added later. However, you state that "So the conquistadors couldn't possibly have recognized the similarity between it and the bat or given it the name" - where in the text you've quoted does it say that the conquistadors gave the vampire bat its name? Nowhere is where and by legendary vampires, it is intended to mean those of myth before the term vampire was popularised. That debunks both your concerns. Maybe you should research and actually read material before passing comment on it. 202.180.71.138 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable cryptozoologist? A mainstream alchemist? Funny. I'm ready to believe you that he's referred to by others in his "field". This kind of sources suck and should be banned from Wikipedia, end.

As for the name - even if the paragraph isn't supposed to imply that the conquistadors gave the bat the name, the claim remains dubious and it is difficult to imagine what the evidence for it could be (an entry in Pizaro's diary: "Sept. 13. Butchered some Incas. Sept. 14. Saw a blood-drinking bat. It's funny - it looks precisely like that famous legendary creature of my home country whose name I don't know. Sept.15. Butchered more Incas.") The Spaniards couldn't have seen the similarity with their own vampire myth, because there was no Spanish vampire myth back then. If there had been one, then they obviously would have had their own word for "vampire" and they would have called the bat that. But somehow they waited for two centuries to give it the name. Face it, for God's sake - the reason why the word didn't exist in the West before being borrowed from the East in the 18th century is because the concept didn't exist in the West before being borrowed from the East in the 18th century. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another possible origin[edit]

I have no references or sources for this, but I remember reading somewhere about a possible connection between Neanderthal Man and the vampire myth, ie after Neaderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago, their memory lived on in us Homo Sapiens, which neatly explains why vampire legends are more prevalent en Europe. Maybe someone could investigate? sounds probable to me, but wouldn't include it in the article without sources. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]