Anthropology and the sub-discipline of archaeology are very fertile academic disciplines for plot devices in fictional works in the horror genre. From the written word to video games, TV shows, and feature films the life of an anthropologist is undoubtedly a dangerous one. Episode 36 – The Mummy(s) is the jumping point for our series on the depiction of anthropology in the genre.

The Mummy (1932) from Universal Studios was the first in a franchise that would come to include 10 feature films, two of which are considered remakes of the original. In the episode we discuss only the original and its remakes.

Archaeology is defined as the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of physical remains. Considering that The Mummy franchise can be boiled down to the resurrection of a cursed ancient Egyptian and the heroic academics that seek to stop it, these films and the characters within are inextricably tied to the academic discipline of archaeology. So, the question is, how well do these films represent the life and work of an archaeologist?

In 1932, when The Mummy made it to the silver screen, the entire world was at the tail end of ‘Tut-mania’ thanks to Howard Carter’s discovery and excavation of the boy king that began in 1922. When the curtain was raised on the Boris Karloff driven horror, coverage of the excavation had been a newsreel highlight for a decade. Throughout the 1920s Egyptian motifs found their way into everything from architecture, to diamond brooches, to the branding of fruit. While it can be argued that historical authenticity is not a hallmark of early cinema, The Mummy benefited from the writing credits of John L. Balderston. Before his full commitment to entertainment, Balderston was a journalist who covered the opening of King Tut’s tomb for the New York World. What’s more, Balderston worked on the scripts for both 1931’s Dracula and Frankenstein before tackling The Mummy. It is the amalgam of his journalistic familiarity with the historic subject matter and the other Universal Monsters that makes The Mummy deserving of the label “Classic”.

By the 1920s the fore front of archaeological theory argued that “cultures were not to be defined simply as artifact assemblages… archaeologists were urged to try to determine the nature of prehistoric lifestyles” (Trigger 239). Thoughts on archaeological purpose and procedure were advancing and Balderston’s time as a journalist likely informed his work on The Mummy’s script. At numerous times throughout the 1932 film, Sir Joseph Whemple, the archaeologist who lead the expedition that unearthed Imhotep, references the integrity of archaeological science. In the opening scene he admonishes a younger colleague for trying to jump ahead and get to the more noteworthy artifacts. When discussing the site with a prominent Egyptian occultist regarding the find and the translation of a curse that would affect  anyone who disturbed it, Whemple allays the occultist’s fears by stating, “In the interest of science, even if I believed in the curse, I'd go on with my work for the museum. Come back with me, and we'll examine this great find together.”

Along with characterization, certain scenes in the original film illustrate an emphasis on the culture of the ancient Egyptians as well as a peek into how 1920s excavations were undertaken. While in the guise of Ardeth Bay, Imhotep tells archaeologists from the British museum where to dig saying - that Egyptians cannot dig up their own, only foreign museums. In a flashback that Imhotep shows to Helen Grosvenor, a detailed funeral procession is shown on screen.  Now almost 88 years old, The Mummy is recognized as a corner stone of horror cinema. With the amount of insight into contemporary archaeology and ancient Egyptian culture, it should also be regarded as one of the best depictions of early 20th century archaeology in popular culture.

The Mummy (1999) is a love letter to the original. In its efforts to pay homage to 1932, this film also shows a modicum of insight into the late 19th and early 20th century approach to ancient sites and archaeology. With the benefit of historical hindsight and a much longer run time than the original’s 72 minutes, this remake shows more of the unregulated and unethical treasure-seeking side of excavation. Privately financed parties make a mad dash to discover the lost City of the Dead.

In addition to the casual misogyny displayed by the rival exploration team (“They’re led by a woman. What does a woman know?”) as well as the fictional Bembridge scholars who reject Evelyn Carnahan’s application due to lack of experience, the biggest nod to the state of the discipline at the time lies in the academic characters’ reliance upon ancient texts and architecture. To a Christian Europe, tales of Egypt from the Bible and other classical texts shrouded the North African civilization in mystery and danger. While the Egyptian civilization is much older than its Greek and Roman counterparts, it was not a focus of rigorous study until much later. In the early days, the sub-discipline of Egyptology modeled itself on Classical Archaeology – researchers concentrated more on political history, literature, and the art and architecture of the elite (Trigger 69).

The Mummy (2017) gets little right – and the depiction of archaeology is no exception. Set in the present day, the character of Jenny Halsey is an archaeologist in script description notes only.

The history and culture of Egypt has tantalized imagination for millennia. The Mummy 1932 and 1999 effectively played to this curiosity, both in regard to the subject matter and the academia behind it.  the original is now well past the 50-year rule – a guideline for significant objects and properties to be considered historic. Not only is it significant in the realm of cinema, its depiction of contemporary archaeology is admirable and potentially useful in the current study of the history of the discipline. The 1999 remake, which purposefully combined the original with the pop culture icon of the 1980s, Indiana Jones, did not harm the modern perception of the discipline and if anything helped to inspire a new generation of librarians, anthropologists, and archaeologists.

Text used

“John L. Balderston.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Mar. 2020, article link.

Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2010.