Zombies, as popularly conceived since Night of the Living Dead, are of course not zombies at all. Zombies, up until George Romero came along, were understood to be reanimated corpses permanently enslaved to the houngoun who did the resurrecting. There was no brain-munching involved, and their mindless behavior was definitely not self-directed.
That’s not the epiphany, by the way, just a general run-down.
After Romero, zombies became something completely, wholly, and utterly different. About the only similarity between a pre-NotLD zombie and a post- was the involvement of an inanimate corpse. Hell, even voodoo had been disposed with, when previously it had been an element as essential as the moldering stiff itself.
So what happened, where did the new type of zombie spring from, and how did they take such a strong hold in popular consciousness that the more traditional zombie has pretty much been consigned to the cultural dustbin? That had been bugging me for a while, whenver it crossed my mind, and then the big E came.
Zombies after Night of the Living Dead are vampires before Dracula. Before Stoker’s work came along and humanized the critters of the night, beginning a process that saw vamps becoming increasingly more urbane and less corpse-like, vampires were mindless, flesh-eating, contagious revenants who emerged willy-nilly from the grave and spread their rotting-fleshed terror hither, thither, and yon. I don’t have the citations for it, but I think it possible that Dracula set in motion cultural gears that, working increasingly away from the legendary source material, saw the creation of a (very successful) brand-new archetype in the 20th-century vampire. I’m not sure that anything like it had existed before, and it managed to wholly displace the prior conception of the creatures.
But, of course, in doing so there was left a vampire-shaped hole in the cultural consciousness. A generation[1] passed without undead fiends driven by primal savagery, unbound by any trace of humanity, when George Romero came along and (consciously or not) resurrected the traditional vampire under the guise of the new-fangled zombie.
So, a generation later, one might wonder whether the traditional zombie will rise again. Me, I doubt it; they were (as I understand it) useful as story elements only in their figuring as villainous native opposition to white colonials, and we don’t like telling stories where the oppressors are overtly heroes any more. Anyway, traditional zombies were really more interesting as window dressing than as active players, as there’s not a whole lot you can do with a shambling corpse that spends most of its time plowing the field or picking beans.
[1] I’m counting the time between NotLD and the Browning/Lugosi film of Dracula, not the publication of Stoker’s novel. While the novel was the impetus for the change in public conception, the first film adaptation of the work, Nosferatu, suggests that the figure-of-unholy-terror conception of vampires was not completely undone by the book alone. It took Bela Lugosi’s swankification of the character to really push the public mind over to the new way of thinking.