This paper will give an insight into the practice of the so-called "damnatio memoriae". Therefore, I would like to explain at the beginning the general handling of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire with their deceased, to subsequently show the origin of the memorial punishments and the term "damnatio memoriae". Based on some examples from the imperial house, the virtually archaeological part of the memorial punishments will be clarified. It should be shown which monuments were destroyed and reworked. Finally, these examples illustrate the theoretical concept of memorial punishments and the goals that have been pursued.
To investigate the question of the importance of remembrance and how to deal with the deceased in the Roman Empire, I have consulted various sources. Inscriptions as well as monuments and portraits, as well as modern ethnological and socio-cultural approaches were examined and pursued. Unfortunately, it became clear during my research that the various scientists were unable to agree on a uniform terminology or a way of dealing with the ancient remains. This lack of interdisciplinarity made the research difficult and painted a clear picture of the research landscape. A comprehensive publication dealing with both the archaeological findings and the socio-cultural component of "damnatio memoriae" is still missing. Although this was attempted in the beginning, most of the arising problems were ignored.
In this paper, I would therefore like to give an overview, not only about the findings and discoveries, but also about the state of research. Finally, I would like to try to address the issue of memorial punishment not just as an archaeologist, but also, by embedding the issue in our senior seminar, with a cultural-scientific approach.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Dealing with the deceased in the Roman Empire
3. The origin of the damnatio memoriae
4. Examples
5. The concept and its purpose
6. The damnatio memoriae in modernity
7. Conclusion
8. Literature
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper examines the practice of "damnatio memoriae" to determine its true nature within Roman memory culture, arguing that it functioned less as a literal punishment of forgetting and more as a powerful tool for the political reinterpretation and control of history.
- Analysis of ancient Roman customs regarding the deceased and commemorative practices.
- Exploration of the historical origins and terminology of damnatio memoriae.
- Case studies of Roman imperial figures and the archaeological evidence of defaced monuments.
- Comparison of ancient commemorative manipulation with modern iconoclasm and political censorship.
Excerpt from the Book
3. The origin of the damnatio memoriae
Although the term damnatio memoriae has been used in research for many decades as terminus technicus, it is by no means antique. One of the first uses of this term is found in a German dissertation from the 17th century, since this publication it is spoken almost exclusively in the German-speaking countries of a damnatio memoriae. This terminus technicus denotes all official punishments that cause a deviation of memory.
Already in cultures that preceded the Roman Empire types of damnatio memoriae, or to the deliberate manipulation of the memory of someone are known. In Egypt of the 14th century BC the Pharaoh Akhenaten introduced a completely new monotheistic religion and forced it upon his people. He built his capital Achetaton in honor of the sun god Aton and changed the cultural way of life. After his death, these changes were reversed under the rule of his son Tutankhamun. and Memphis to the new capital. The name of Akhenaten fell into oblivion for a long time, and although his song of the sun is reflected in the Bible's psalms, he remained unknown to us for a long time. This is one of the examples of what has long been considered damnatio memoriae; an extinction of the memories of someone. Less successful were those who wanted to punish the Greek Herostratos, because he had set fire to the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. He did this to become immortal. After he confessed his motive a damnatio memoriae should make that impossible. Although many historians - such as Plutarch or Strabon - comply to the prohibition to use his name, others wrote it down and helped Herostratos so to his goal.
At the beginning of Roman history, ie in the 4th and 5th centuries, no case of an organized memory punishment is handed down. Only with the stronger exchange with the Hellenistic world in the 2nd century can we understand such a kind of punishment. G. Sempronius Gracchus and M. Fulvius Flaccus are commonly considered the first "victims" of damnatio memoriae. After her failed candidacy for a third tribunal and bloody clashes that ended in her death, many of her political and legal investments were withdrawn, leaving no achievements to commemorate her.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the research interest in Roman memory culture and the destruction of monuments, stating the objective to provide both an overview of findings and a cultural-scientific analysis of memorial punishment.
2. Dealing with the deceased in the Roman Empire: This chapter discusses the role of necropolises and funerary inscriptions in Roman society, highlighting how the preservation of memory was vital for social status.
3. The origin of the damnatio memoriae: This chapter traces the historical development of memory manipulation from early cultures like Egypt to the emergence of organized memorial punishments in Rome.
4. Examples: This chapter examines specific cases of memorial punishment, including Emperors Nero and Geta, focusing on the archaeological evidence of destroyed or reworked portraits.
5. The concept and its purpose: This chapter analyzes the power dynamics behind the damnatio memoriae, suggesting it was used by the elite and imperial house to monopolize memory and legitimize their rule.
6. The damnatio memoriae in modernity: This chapter connects the ancient practices of memory erasure to modern political events, such as the destruction of statues and the airbrushing of photographs in the USSR.
7. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, asserting that damnatio memoriae was a form of political reinterpretation rather than a successful means of forcing total oblivion.
8. Literature: This section provides a comprehensive list of the academic sources consulted for this research.
Keywords
Damnatio memoriae, Roman Empire, Memory culture, Iconoclasm, Imperial portraiture, Memorial punishment, Roman history, Historiography, Cultural memory, Archeology, Political legitimation, Erasure, Monument destruction, Propaganda.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the practice of damnatio memoriae, a "punishment of memory" in Ancient Rome, where symbols, inscriptions, and monuments of political opponents were destroyed or altered.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the importance of legacy in Roman society, the political use of memorial punishment, and the broader, timeless concept of controlling historical memory through censorship and iconography.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to analyze whether damnatio memoriae was an effective legal sanction to induce forgetting or if it functioned as a nuanced political strategy to reinterpret the past to suit the needs of current rulers.
Which methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a cultural-scientific approach, combining an archaeological review of portraits and inscriptions with an examination of historiographical sources and modern social theories on memory.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It traverses the origins of memory manipulation, details specific archaeological case studies (e.g., Nero, Geta), discusses the concept of elite monopoly over memory, and draws parallels to modern iconoclasm and political purges.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Relevant keywords include damnatio memoriae, Roman Empire, iconoclasm, memory culture, imperial portraiture, and historical erasure.
How does the author evaluate the "destruction" of monuments?
The author treats monument destruction as a form of "transformatio memoriae," arguing that it served to discredit competitors and legitimize a new power transition rather than truly forcing the total forgetting of the individual.
What distinguishes ancient damnatio memoriae from modern "Bildersturm"?
The author suggests the main difference is one of authorship and motivation: the Roman practice was typically defined by political and dynastic objectives, whereas the "Bildersturm" of the Reformation was an insurrectionary, religiously motivated movement.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the effectiveness of these punishments?
The author concludes that damnatio memoriae was never a truly successful "punishment of forgetting," as it did not induce total oblivion, but rather demonstrated the power of the ruling elite to control and manipulate historical narratives.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anna Grosch (Autor:in), 2018, Ancient Memory Culture and its History in Research. Damnatio Memoriae, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1306260
