Are Mummies Zombies?

[Scotty_ffgamer]

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.

[Vermachtnis]

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

[Sephiroth]

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.

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.

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.

[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", 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.

[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.

[Sephiroth]

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.

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.

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.

[Shauna]

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:



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:

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.

[metagloria]

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.

[Freya]

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.

[metagloria]

Ghouls have more HP than Zombies.

[Skyblade]

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.