Origion of Werewolf Legend?

WolfVanZandt · Post by **WolfVanZandt** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:13 am

Adinkidu...adinkidee....adinkidoooooooooo

Anyway, the only thing that would lead to the conclusion that Enkidu was a Werewolf was that he was shaggy. The Mesopotamians knew what wolves were. If Enkidu was in some way similar to a wolf, why didn't they say so? All the pictorial references I've been able to find gives him hooves. It's a pretty far stretch to consider him a Werewolf - a Werebull or a Weregoat, maybe.....

I dunno. I'm seriously unimpressed by these "scientific" theories of lycanthropy. They don't seem to be too based on any substantive evidence. I think their sorta a scholarly version of comspiracy theories - lotsa hype - little substance.

BTW, if anyone's interested, Gilgamesh is available on line for your perusal.

Jamie · Post by **Jamie** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:03 pm

WolfVanZandt wrote:THat's another thing I don't understand. I've been all over Gilgamesh and I have yet to find a Werewolf. Inkidu is the closest I've been able to find but the Epic doesn't indicate that he's in anyway related to wolves. In fact, old pictures make him look like he might be related to those winged bulls on the Ishtar gates.

Enkidu is often cited as a Bigfoot-type creature by Bigfoot believers, and as a werewolf-type creature by people writing about werewolves. He also gets cited as a surviving Neandertal by cryptozoologists. Basically, he is a weird, quasi-human being who can represent a lot of different things to different people, but since he is not a shapeshifter, he doesn't count as a werewolf to me.[/url]

WolfVanZandt · Post by **WolfVanZandt** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:40 pm

Right. Whatever he was, there's no reason to believe that he was a Werewolf.

vrikasatma · Post by **vrikasatma** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:37 pm

On ergot: you might be thinking of datura.. That *will* kill you if you're not super super super super super SUPER SUPER SUPER careful: I've met "loadies" who swore they'd do opium before they even vaguely considered doing datura. Which I firmly agree with. Don't do it, just leave it alone.

As for ergot, it is thought this was one of the substances that LSD was originally derived from. Ergot "poisoning" was actually a "bad trip" where the victim might get hallucinations that he is turning into something bestial or demonic.

And sorry...the word "werewolf" is not Latin, it's Old English.

On the article: I have it bookmarked, it's good if somewhat flippant in parts. Definitely well-researched and -written, though.

WolfVanZandt · Post by **WolfVanZandt** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:01 am

Aye, yer right. Datura is bad stuff. You're also right that LSD is an ergot analogue. Still, ya'll aren't addressing the primary question - why choose the ergot theory over all the others out there. Frankly, I've talked to several sociologists and anthropologists (one of my minors was in social psychology) and I haven't been able to find any legitimate scholar who takes the ergot theory serious. Of course, I'm pretty much limited to the southeastern US, but I see nothing that lends itself to credibility there. And most damning - it does absolutely nothing to explain earlier Werewolf reports.

So, even if there is some distant chance that it is the explaation for the insanity of the post-15th century Werewolf activity - it does nothing to explain the earlier reports which might actually be about Werewolves. And it certainly doesn't come anywhere near explaining modern Therianthropy. So if it explains anything, it isn't Werewolves and it most certainly is not any kind of origin of Werewolves (because Werewolf reports existed long before the ergot outbreaks).

vrikasatma · Post by **vrikasatma** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:17 am