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.