Is bshistorian a closet vampirologist?

Although bshistorian's blog is devoted to 'Sceptical Commentary on Pseudohistory and the Paranormal', there's many clues indicating bsh has a thang for the undead.

Elizabeth Miller's shadow looms over the exaggerated connection between Vlad Țepeș' and Count Dracula. There's also the eagerness to expose 'antique' vampire killing kits for the fakes they are. And by eagerness, I mean devoting seven posts (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven) to the subject.

An interest in vampire archaeology's also on display, as seen in coverage of the so-called Venetian vampire unearthed at Lazzaretto Nuovo. The excavation made another appearance on the blog, culminating in a review of Revealed's 'Mysteries of the vampire skeletons' episode.

Let's not forget the entry about 'myth creep': 'The more paranormal ideas are milked for their intellectual and commercial appeal, the more we see them distorted and modified to incorporate unrelated bits of history and folklore.' In this case, applying the concept to the way vampires are given a 'greater antiquity, presumably because the early 18th century isn’t far back enough for the first sightings of beings who we now think of as immortal.' 

Culinary.net

As it happens, bshistorian also has the distinction of being the first blogger to mention this blog.¹ Remember, The BS historian is not supposed to be a vampire blog.

Oh, and if it wasn't for bsh, I wouldn't've written an entry about the first 'true' vampire, nor would I have gone on a search for the Cranswells. Apart from all that, bsh displays a keen insight into relatively obscure aspects of vampire study you don't normally see in 'outsider' historical discussions. A good effort for someone who'd have a passing interest in vamps, but in bshistorian's case, it's almost like they know too much...

If that's the case, I cordially welcome bsh to the fold. After all, the field needs a good kick in the pants. Or several. There's so much nonsense out there. Someone needs to clean it up. That's why I spend so much time doing it, even to the point of spotting bats where they shouldn't be. Join us, bishistorian. Join us. We have cake!

---

1 Second place goes to Everlost, Vampire news. Props goes to both of 'em. Thanks guys!^↩

My reading list

Current reading list

I've started collating a blog roll of recommended resources. They're all carry-overs from the old blog, but this time 'round, they'll be vampire-centric. Theresa Bane's blog made the cut, as did Andrew M. Boylan's Taliesin meets the vampires. Bertena Varney's The search for the lure of the vampire's in, and Niels K. Petersen's Magia postuma's a given.

As to the ones that didn't make the cut, it's not that my view's changed on their quality, it's that I'm not sure they'll be relevant to the direction I want to take this thing in. We'll see. Still, bshistorian's The bs historian's good value and I enjoy Curt Purcell's musings on The groovy age of horror and Brian Solomon's peeks inside The vault of horror. The others are good, too.

Ultimately, I want the list to serve as a 'library' of blogs devoted to vampire studies and/or to highlight the works of vampirologists, or, at least, authors prominent in the field. Therefore, I might create a separate list for 'entertainment' purposes.

The question is, am I being too restrictive? Would a broader representation of various disciplines be more suitable? That's why I struggle with omitting a blog like The bs historian, as their writings on 'nonsense' history—and occasional forays into vampire lore—are incredibly insightful and may enhance the study of the undead. We'll see.