Are Mummies Zombies?

Yesterday I have watched Big Bang Theory and so I come up with this question here.

I have talked with one person about it and he gave me "no" as answer with the RPG-esque reasoning zombies are lesser undeads and mummies have their own will.

But that is an extremely generalized answer and wrong considering there are many types of mummies/zombies in fiction.

Be aware I am not talking about the actual mummy that we have - a dead person with bandages. Therefore "mummies are real" does not count.

Some zombies are animated through voodoo, some with a virus.
Some zombies have a consciousness and can learn, some don't. It is true that by now it is more of a wonder if it happens but in several cases they were people from the very beginning (in Pirates of the Caribbean IV for example).
Some zombies are hungry for flesh and some not. If they bite you depending on the story they might infect you. That is actually the only real thing that is not normally the case with a mummy but it is not like it is the case with all zombies. There are also many types of humans and still we are all humans because of some core aspects. Still we differ. Same goes for manay zombie types so basically a mummy is also just another wandering dead entity.

What is your opinion about it?

Mummies are desiccated and zombies are squishy. Opposites!

Mummies are historical and actually exist but don't actually come to life. Zombies are fictional and can "come to life". Mummies in fiction can come to life but are not interested in consuming human flesh in order to survive-- at least not in any horror film I have seen.

Mummies are individuals revived as a result of ancient religious ceremonies or curses who act as protectors of tombs, burial spaces, and possessions, or are themselves the owners/residents of these things. They are not zombies because, as Shiny, because they cannot consume flesh or become infected with zombie viruses, etc.

They aren't real, so there can't be facts about them. They aren't from a specific franchise, so there can't be canon about them. There can inherently be no answer to your question.

I can't believe that the counter argument "mummies are real" is used even though I have already explained in the starting post that it doesn't count because I am talking about the fictional mummy, the undead being and not a dead king with bandages in a pyramid that we have in our world or simply every being that was ever conserved. Or the thing that zombies eat flesh or come to life with a virus even though that is not the case in all stories. Especially not a classic zombie from long ago (which should be the voodoo zombie, which is also nothing but another form of religious ritual). So basically right now I feel like my starting post was not read at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Mummies are individuals revived as a result of ancient religious ceremonies or curses who act as protectors of tombs, burial spaces, and possessions, or are themselves the owners/residents of these things. They are not zombies because, as Shiny, because they cannot consume flesh or become infected with zombie viruses, etc.

---

I like this answer and I'm gonna go along with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

They aren't real, so there can't be facts about them. They aren't from a specific franchise, so there can't be canon about them. There can inherently be no answer to your question.

---

Yeah, but that's boring.

How dare you say such a thing about my mum :colbert:

The amount of effort going into ignoring the aspects posted in the first post is admirable but I would have wanted an actual though fitting to this post. By the way, even Mummies can consume people. Imhotep in the Mummy series always absorbed body parts of people. He did not need to eat them like some zombies do - which are not even all - but he still did something like that. So if not even all aspects are used for zombies and they are still called zombies basically mummies can also be zombies as it ultimately just breaks down to them being wandering undeads that have more in common than the two of them and undeads like vampires for example. Which is why the topic exists (which also exist in different versions and are still called vampires). Maybe that makes it more understandable.

They are all "undead" creatures, but they're just different brands. Boiling them down to undead creatures that wander around is inclusive of many monsters, but we still have distinctions between zombies and vampires even though they can both be described as such.

But a mishmash of what Shiny and Shorty said is probably the best answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shauna

They are all "undead" creatures, but they're just different brands. Boiling them down to undead creatures that wander around is inclusive of many monsters, but we still have distinctions between zombies and vampires even though they can both be described as such.

---

Vampires are not simply known in fiction as just wandering corpes that have been revived through some different ways while a mummy and a zombie has often many similiarities in fiction.

Quote:

---

But a mishmash of what Shiny and Shorty said is probably the best answer.

---

Going by what I said a few times, that I do not talk about real mummies which lie around in museums and the thing that many differences are between many zombies and they are still considered zombies it is not so easy to go with such an answer. A zombie can be an individual or not. A mummy can be one or not. A zombie can be revived religiously or not. A mummy can be revived religiously or not. A zombie can eat flesh or not. There are those types and then the other.

We weren't just talking about realistic zombies as the posts dictate. Basically no one agrees with you because mummies and zombies aren't the same. Side note Big Bang Theory is a terrible show.

I think Shorty gave the best answer in that zombies are infected and that infection allows their brains to function on a very primal level whereas mummies in fiction are just simply undead.

Ugh you guys over complicate everything. One is dry and dusty, one is gooey and moist. Hear that, Shorty? Mmmmmooooist.

Also Imhotep is kind of sex in his ancient Egyptian underpants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shauna

They are all "undead" creatures, but they're just different brands. Boiling them down to undead creatures that wander around is inclusive of many monsters, but we still have distinctions between zombies and vampires even though they can both be described as such.

---

Vampires are not simply known in fiction as just wandering corpes that have been revived through some different ways while a mummy and a zombie has often many similiarities in fiction.

Quote:

---

But a mishmash of what Shiny and Shorty said is probably the best answer.

---

Going by what I said a few times, that I do not talk about real mummies which lie around in museums and the thing that many differences are between many zombies and they are still considered zombies it is not so easy to go with such an answer. A zombie can be an individual or not. A mummy can be one or not. A zombie can be revived religiously or not. A mummy can be revived religiously or not. A zombie can eat flesh or not. There are those types and then the other.

---

I don't really get at what you're going for here. People gave you the answers of their opinions. Okay, sure, in the fictional realm of mummies, I guess they can be revived religiously or not. Sure, I guess in the realm of possibilities of a fictional world it might be plausible for zombies to not eat flesh (but that wouldn't really mean it's a zombie to me, just another undead creature). However, as these two things are pretty astute defining characteristics of each of these ghoulies in which you asked for public opinion on, I'm not really sure at what you're getting at by mentioning these two hypothetical possibilities for zombies and mummies.

Mummies are associated with curses on those who have broken into a tomb or a sacred place. Zombies are associated with the eating of flesh and are primarily infected with viruses to form. Both of them are undead, and these are the usual circumstances we would find for these beings in media. What further clarification do you need?

I would just like to say that you can't discount the fact that mummies are real. The existence of the historical Egyptian mummy connects heavily with the way mummies are portrayed in fiction as well, and this will most likely shape many of our opinions on the topic. I think what is seen as the traditional mummy in fiction nowadays is something akin to what Shorty said. They are often tied into Egyptian mythology (however loosely or incorrectly) as well, hence how the historical mummy has importance in defining the fictional mummy. They seem to have a will and aren't spreading this mummification to those around them.

What is seen as the traditional zombie nowadays is something that seems to move around more on instinct and hunger as it doesn't have much of a will of its own. Zombification seems to be a viral thing, and this illness spreads to others in the world.

It's possible that the origins of these two horror creatures have very similar roots to one another, but they've developed into different things over the years. Heck, if I remember right, witches and werewolves have a common origin, but those are both defined very differently now as well. There can also be variations depending on how authors want to define them in their own stories. As an author, I could say that mummies, zombies, vampires, and any other kind of undead creature are the same. That would be okay if I can make it make sense in the world I've created. This definition would be an outlier compared to the more common definitions of mummies and zombies though. If we include all of the outliers though, then the conversation becomes mostly meaningless since the word "mummy" and "zombie" could mean literally anything undead at that point.

Long answer short: Based on the current common definitions of the two, no they are not the same. If you go by different definitions, then they can be the same I guess.

Lord Raptor and Anakaris have completely different movesets and playstyles. How could anyone get them confused as the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scotty_ffgamer

I would just like to say that you can't discount the fact that mummies are real.

---

Of course I can discount the fact that mummies are real because a dead real mummy and a wandering fictional mummy still are two different things, the latter one also does not exist no matter what is is based on and exactly this one shares many traits with zombies. Which is why I said multiple times, if there are different zombies and they are still called zombies as the core aspects of a zombie obviously is not used for all zombies a mummy can pretty much also be seen as just another type of zombie. So, yes, I very much can discount the fact that mummies are real because the argument "mummies are not zombies, mummies are real" completely misses the point of which mummies I am talking about, undead mummies. Does it matter what a mummy is based of? No. Zombies are also based of something. And now many types of zombies exist in fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiny

I think Shorty gave the best answer in that zombies are infected and that infection allows their brains to function on a very primal level whereas mummies in fiction are just simply undead.

---

Which is wrong because it is too generalized since not all zombies are infected. And even now those types of zombies are used in fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

I don't really get at what you're going for here. People gave you the answers of their opinions. Okay, sure, in the fictional realm of mummies, I guess they can be revived religiously or not. Sure, I guess in the realm of possibilities of a fictional world it might be plausible for zombies to not eat flesh (but that wouldn't really mean it's a zombie to me, just another undead creature). However, as these two things are pretty astute defining characteristics of each of these ghoulies in which you asked for public opinion on, I'm not really sure at what you're getting at by mentioning these two hypothetical possibilities for zombies and mummies.

Mummies are associated with curses on those who have broken into a tomb or a sacred place. Zombies are associated with the eating of flesh and are primarily infected with viruses to form. Both of them are undead, and these are the usual circumstances we would find for these beings in media. What further clarification do you need?

---

Classic zombies were meant to be revived by voodoo and they did not have all those popular characteristics so I think it is too important to not think abot this aspects when we think about how the fictional zombie was created. Even now, and again it is fascinating that people continously think what I do not understand even though pretty much everything in my first post which already has shown that I knew these things and still was ignored by the posters, even now it is fascinating that somehow that I know these things is ignored. You focus too much on saying "x is not y because x has this and y has that". But that is the problem. There is so much fictional stuff around there that is official and known by people and there are so many different types of mummies, so many different types of zombies and zombie a is completely different from zombie b, is not revived the same way, has an actual will, is not just driven by the desire to eat flesh and zombie b is - now with such things why would there not be a reason to just see another different type of a zombie in a mummy if even what is called zombie itself has so many different types? And while what you do not see as a zombie when it does not have certain traits is absolutely fine for you, don't get me wrong, it still won't change that these things (like PotC zombies) are called zombies so I have to use them as an example. Zombies being revived in some hocus pocus manor and not as a hungry undead still are a thing, no matter if the other ones are more popular. I see no reason in a super class "zombie" not having a sub class "mummy" just because the mummy does not have exactly the same traits of sub class "viral zombie" when even the subclass "magical zombie" has not the same traits. I would normally agree with everyone who says "thing x has a very important aspect that thing y does not have" but those "virus" things and "flesh eating" things and such are not even present for all zombies. I would agree if you say "mummies are not like modern zombies" but that doesn't really answer it because, as mentioned, if you look at the sub classes of zombies and notice that what is so popular about zombies is pretty much just part of one sub class and they are still called part of the super class "zombie" then the super class can be broken down to "an undead revived through something" and the branches of sub classes all individually explain by how (hocus pocus zombies by magic/rituals, viral zombies by an infection, etc.), if they are individuals when they wander around, if they eat flesh, et cetera. Just like there are different types of humans because, while we all do not share the same traits we share some core aspects. Yet, sharing core aspects does not means there is no specific trait on each sub class branch - as the voodoo zombies and viral zombies also show. That is nothing hypothetical because different types of zombies are introduced in fiction so of course that is important for the comparison in the fictional realm.

It sounds to me you're talking about "zombies" more as mindless beings controlled by another source or something like in the 1932 film White Zombie, where the female lead is put into a "zombie trance" with some Haitian voodoo and doesn't consume flesh or is technically undead. That's all fine, but you can't really call that a "classic zombie", because those are not the characteristics that define classic zombies. George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead defines classic zombies and he hits two of the big marks - flesh-eating and undead. The zombie virus is something we've cultivated more recently with zombie lore but still has become a generally-accepted characteristic within the realm of zombies. You saying "classic" isn't really accurate because again, Romero's zombies are definitively considered classic and ground-breaking for their time, and have been highly influential in defining the cinematic zombie. "Origin" would be more appropriate for the Haitian voodoo reference.

To me the issue here is that instead of having a general undead class, you have a zombie class and are trying to shunt mummies in there underneath a bullet point when really, there are plenty of reasons here laid out as to why that does not line up properly. Which is fine if that is what you prefer in your fictional worlds, but as you can see, several of us have differing opinions on that.

You're asking our opinions on the distinctions between mummies and zombies, and we are giving you that. Just because you don't like the responses you're getting doesn't mean that we're ignoring what you're saying.

Yes, there are many different kinds of zombies who are raised under different circumstances. But they are distinct from mummies for reasons that have already been said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

It sounds to me you're talking about "zombies" more as mindless beings controlled by another source or something like in the 1932 film White Zombie, where the female lead is put into a "zombie trance" with some Haitian voodoo and doesn't consume flesh or is technically undead. That's all fine, but you can't really call that a "classic zombie", becau those are not the characteristics that define classic zombies. George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead defines classic zombies and he hits two of the big marks - flesh-eating and undead. The zombie virus is something we've cultivated more recently with zombie lore but still has become a generally-accepted characteristic within the realm of zombies. You saying "classic" isn't really accurate because again, Romero's zombies are definitively considered classic and ground-breaking for their time, and have been highly influential in defining the cinematic zombie. "Origin" would be more appropriate for the Haitian voodoo reference.

---

Yes, "Origin" is fine by me. As long as the same thing is meant. I get that you think of a virus-infected being. Come on, of course I know that those types "exist". But the other story of zombies exists as well. And some of those stories do also touch the realm of "being undead" and not just the "zombification" of someone who was not really dead. I would say, if this whole "reviving" thing would be more clear here to be two different things then okay. But we are not talking aboiut what people really have tried but what those methods are used for in just stories. And we know in stories we can have dead people revived through rituals and stuff as we add more power and simply the sentence "it happens" to it. So yes, the "not really undead" zombies - here I agree with you. But even that just seems like an additional branch of the voodoo branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

To me the issue here is that instead of having a general undead class, you have a zombie class and are trying to shunt mummies in there underneath a bullet point when really, there are plenty of reasons here laid out as to why that does not line up properly. Which is fine if that is what you prefer in your fictional worlds, but as you can see, several of us have differing opinions on that.

---

I see no reason to call "zombie" a super class an issue simply because it is a fact that multiple sub classes of them exist and they pretty much have nothing in common except being revived through methods. It does not seem very fair to say there is not another sub class for another being that just has as much in common as voodoo zombies and viral zombies have: Almost nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shauna

You're asking our opinions on the distinctions between mummies and zombies, and we are giving you that. Just because you don't like the responses you're getting doesn't mean that we're ignoring what you're saying.

Yes, there are many different kinds of zombies who are raised under different circumstances. But they are distinct from mummies for reasons that have already been said.

---

If something is continously used even though it has already been shown to be a thing known by the thread maker who says "as those are obviously different things that are still part of one super class" then it is still partially ignored. That has nothing to do with me not liking it. I like to be convinced - if one of the argument covers an important aspect that I have not thought about. And the reasons mentioned are not really enough because what you call a reason to differ them is really not more of another reason just to make another branch. I mean, why it is not simply a reason to make another branch - I have also not heard a counter argument for that.

Mummies have ties to real world mummies whether you like it or not, which is where the distinction lies and which ties in to what both Shorty and Scotty have said on multiple occasions.

They are similar, nobody is disputing that, and they do share some characteristics. But if you said to someone that this is a zombie:

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...ster_Squad.jpg

They would disagree and say that it is a mummy, because there is enough of a distinction in popular culture that this is a mummy because of real world ties and associations.



Like I said before, you could try and redefine vampire as zombie for the same reasons you're trying to redefine mummy. I mean, your reasoning behind why it totally couldn't work was:

Quote:

---

Vampires are not simply known in fiction as just wandering corpes that have been revived through some different ways

---

Well, vampires are technically wandering corpses. This could just be another revival means, and if that's enough for you to lump mummies under zombies, then vampires can too. In fact, vampires spread from biting others - which a common zombie transmission means! And actually, they're even more like zombies because they need to consume living flesh to survive - I have seen plenty of movies in which vampires eat people as opposed to just drinking blood. Yes, vampires can keep their consciouness, but you've said yourself that zombies can do that too. So, from all these vague tick boxes, it sounds like vampires could also be classed as zombies.

If you're insisting that vampires definitely can't be zombies, well then, why is that? Do you have a specific reason? I'd imagine that your reasons would have lot to do with popular culture defining what the two of them are, and what makes them distinct. Which is the exact same reason for why mummies and zombies are considered as two distinct monsters.

Mummies are preserved corpses, zombies are unpreserved corpses. We can reasonably conjecture that the preservation of the body has some effect on the mental capacity of the undead creature as well, hence why mummies operate with more self-directed willpower.

Here's an important question: Is a Ghoul a Zombie?

They are two different things but are very similar. They are usually revived by magic and eat flesh, which is like a zombie, but they would be more akin to a mummy in the way it was raised. A zombie is one that has been infected and eats flesh, a ghoul is a creature that was raised magically that eats flesh. They aren't the same but they are similar.

In a broad spectrum I wouldn't say either is the other but I would put them under the "Undead" category. They are all different: ghouls, zombies, Mummies, liches, vampires, skeletons etc etc But they are all undead.

Ghouls have more HP than Zombies.

I felt this was relevant.



Anyway, no. Mummies are not zombies. The stem from different cultural roots, have different traits connected to them, and have very little connecting them overall.

The argument that "oh, different portrayals have different traits" is irrelevant. This is true of every monster out there. The "vampires" in Twilight are vastly different from EVERYTHING THAT DEFINES WHAT A VAMPIRE IS. So does any individual with sparkly skin suddenly qualify as a vampire? No.

You don't get to cherry-pick this sort of argument. It doesn't work out, because that means we get to pull everything you left out to use against you, and there are far more instances showing how different the two monsters are than there are showing their similarities. This leaves you with two main avenues for your argument:


Option 1: Focus on what the monsters are at their roots. Where they came from, what inspired them, how they came to be a monster, etcetera. Zombies actually give you two versions to work with, as the voodoo zombie is different enough from the virus zombie that you can make a distinction and probably have it allowed. However, neither is a mummy. They have different roots, are formed through different means, have different driving forces and motivations, and vastly difference appearance and abilities.

Option 2: Focus on the monsters as they exist as a mainstream pop culture icon. Again, this turns against you, as there is a very clear mainstream difference. In common culture, zombies can spread the disease that fuels them via bites, turning more people into zombies. This is the entire basis of the "zombie apocalypse" trope, and you simply cannot get away from it. Mummies cannot do that, and never have been able to in any portrayal, mostly because doing so would ignore the mummification process, and therefore ignore what makes them a mummy.