This topic reappears here every few weeks, it seems. And understandably so, of course. This time, however, rather than respond directly, I'm going to approach this from the opposite end. How have we come to define vampires as we do today... and is this really what defines a "vampire"?
The bottom line is, we identify "vampires" with blood drinking and rising from the grave because the Eastern European accounts that first coined the term "vampire" stated that they did. We took this blood-drinking and undead traits as factual and then proceeded to attempt linking any and all other mythical beings who do either likewise or similarly to also be types of "vampires," regardless of cultural context or any other traits that would entirely disqualify them as any such.
This was the first great leap of illogic taken in defining what is a "Vampire."
In this manner, today we feel we have identified as "vampires" almost every conceviable bugaboo and ghostie found in the nightmare legends of all cultures worldwide, regardless their unique context and other characteristics of each. If it rose from the grave and bothered the living... then its a type of vampire. If it was considered bloodthirsty or flesh eating in any way (and what "monsters" weren't?)... then it, too, was also a type of vampire. If it also had fangs or preferred to only come out at night (again, extremely common traits of any "monster" belief)... then, again, it's also a vampire.
This was the second great leap of illogic taken.
The end result? Vampires, vampires, vampires... everywhere and throughout all of Human history.
This is how we have come to the modern depiction and definition of "Vampire." All of this forgetting entirely that both the term "vampire" and the creature defined as such was identifiable by all its many common traits only in one general geographic area (primarily Eastern Europe and Russia).
And yet... what if at least one of these foundational traits, that of drinking blood... arguably the most foundational vampire trait of all... were historically proven to be completely wrong? What if, in fact, there were other traits far better documented in the original Eastern European accounts that are never mentioned in the vampire fictions we all know today?
What if... in other words... vampire seekers have been following the wrong trail all these years for having identified as most "vampiric" the wrong trait(s)?
The fact is, the trait of blood drinking only appeared after graves began to be opened of suspected vampires and, upon piercing the corpse with stakes, etc., blood-like liquid was seen gushing from the body as though the corpse were filled ... with blood. In fact, it was not blood at all but, instead, the natural result of decomposition that had liquified the internal organs causing the body to fill with such blood-like liquid. This was what the villagers saw each time they unearthed and staked a supposed "vampire." As there were absolutely no accounts of vampires attacking and drinking blood prior to this, it was solely from medical ignorance that Slavic villagers concluded that the vampire must also drink blood from its victims.
Thus, this trait was born and then later perpetuated by pulp-fiction writers worldwide... and so this error has grown only stronger and stronger over time.
So the question then becomes... what were "vampires" really doing before they had the blood-drinking trait erroneously slapped on them? What was happening that caused female "victims" to appear "exhausted and emaciated" following an encounter with a vampire and that motivated the villagers, though ironically not their female "victims," to hate and hunt "vampires" to begin with?
What truly constituted a vampire "attack" if they weren't drinking blood? Only after this truly foundational vampire trait is recognized for what it truly is can we hope to actually DEFINE what it was... and still is... to be a "Vampire."
- Upir'
