Proper Burials & Undead Origins

Samloyal23

Adventurer
Your etymology sounds suspect.

I've not wanted to really deal with vampires because the historical vampire is so very different of a creature from the Brom Stoker inspired sexual horror that has come to dominate our imagination. The historical Romanian terror was a disease spirit, and not the creature of rape and lust we've invented as more emblematic of our times. Also, the exact details varied across the Slavic world. In Romania for example, the vampire was so associated with moths that it was believed that if a moth flew across the body of a dying person, or worse landed on the body, that the body would arise as a vampire. For this reason, they were careful to screen the sick beds of the dying to keep moths away.

Since vampires were associated with pestilence, if a plague broke out in village, the elders would meet to try to figure out if it was being caused by a vampire. If a likely candidate was discovered, they'd go and dig up the body of the suspect and inspect it for signs of vampirism, such as lack of decay, fresh blood in the mouth, or hair and nails that had continued to grow after death. If signs that the body had become a vampire was discovered, they'd take steps like putting a stake through the heart, cut off the head and place it under the feet, and putting holy wafers in the mouth to ensure that the spirit of the vampire would be trapped. They'd then rebury the body. If the plague continued, they would sometimes take the step of digging up the body yet again and burning it as a last and sure manner of eliminating the threat, but as burning bodies with wood is extremely expensive this was a very rarely undertaken step.

I think there are parallels here between the washing of bodies in Africa and the spread of Ebola, and how this sort of superstition in Europe would likely have led to spreading rather than suppressing a plague in a village.

Exactly why the superstition about moths arose I have no idea, but I do no that Brom Stoker mistranslated a ton of words when researching Dracula, for example he thought Dracula meant 'evil' and the Romanian word for 'moth' meant 'bat'.

The words bat and butterfly both derive from a word meaning "to beat", as in to flap wings. Just as a bat hits a ball, a wing strikes the air. It would be easy to see how a word of flying insect like a moth would be similar to the word for a bat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
The words bat and butterfly both derive from a word meaning "to beat", as in to flap wings. Just as a bat hits a ball, a wing strikes the air. It would be easy to see how a word of flying insect like a moth would be similar to the word for a bat.

Without a doubt. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to demean Stoker or his rightfully enduring work of horror. I'm just trying to note exactly the ease of confusion that you note here, that historical etymology is a very inexact science and that it's especially easy for an outsider to make mistakes. I grew up in Jamaica and there is a similar confusion in the vernacular 'Petwa' between moth ('bat') and bat ('ratbat'). We English speakers are used to a plethora of vocabulary options but I wouldn't be surprised to find in some languages the exact same word is used for both and it requires context and adjectives to identify between them.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
What are the odds of a person becoming undead if they are not killed by an undead creature such as a vampire, nor animated intentionally by a spell caster? Does a proper burial help prevent this? What makes a person turn into an undead creature without intervention?

I would say that, in general, the chance of a normal person becoming undead would be 0%.

However if I need an Undead creature in an adventure that increases the chance to 100%
 

Remove ads

Top