Damnatio memoriae


Damnatio memoriae is a modern Latin phrase meaning "condemnation of memory" or "damnation of memory", indicating that a person is to be excluded from official accounts. There are and have been many routes to damnatio memoriae including the destruction of depictions, the removal of names from inscriptions and documents, and even large-scale rewritings of history.

Etymology

Although the term damnatio memoriae is Latin, the phrase was not used by the ancient Romans, and first appeared in a thesis written in Germany in 1689 by Christoph Schreiter and Johann Heinrich Gerlach. The thesis was titled Dissertationem juridicam de damnatione memoriae, praescitu superiorum, in florentissima Philurea.

Ancient world

Today's best known examples of damnatio memoriae from antiquity concern chiselling stone inscriptions or deliberately omitting certain information from them.

Ancient Mesopotamia

According to Stefan Zawadzki, the oldest known examples of such practices come from around 3000–2000 BC. He cites the example of Lagash, where preserved inscriptions concerning a conflict with another city-state, Umma, do not mention the ruler of Umma, but describe him as "the man of Umma". Zawadzki sees this as an example of deliberate degradation of the ruler of Umma to the role of an unworthy person whose name and position in history the rulers of Lagash did not want to record for posterity.

Ancient Egypt

Egyptians also practiced this, as seen in relics from pharaoh Akhenaten's tomb and elsewhere. Akhenaten's sole worship of the god Aten, instead of the traditional pantheon, was considered heretical. During his reign, Akhenaten endeavoured to have all references to the god Amun chipped away and removed. After his reign, temples to Aten were dismantled and the stones reused to create other temples. Images of Akhenaten had their faces chipped away, and images and references to Amun reappeared. The people blamed their misfortunes on Akhenaten's shift of worship to Atenism, away from the gods they served before him. Other Egyptian victims of this practice include Hatshepsut and the pharaohs that immediately succeeded Akhenaten, including Smenkhkare, Neferneferuaten, and Ay. The campaign of damnatio memoriae against Akhenaten and his successors was initiated by Ay's successor, Horemheb, who decided to erase from history all pharaohs associated with the unpopular Amarna Period; this process was continued by Horemheb's successors. Tutankhamun was also erased from history in this way, even though he had restored Egypt to the Amun god, because he was one the kings who succeeded Akhenaten; he may also have been Akhenaten's son.

Ancient Greece

The practice was known in Ancient Greece. The Athenians frequently destroyed inscriptions which referred to individuals or events that they no longer wished to commemorate. After Timotheus was convicted of treason and removed from his post as general in 373BC, all references to him as a general were deleted from the previous year's naval catalogue. The most complete example is their systematic removal of all references to the Antigonids from inscriptions in their city, in 200BC when they were besieged by the Antigonid king Philip V of Macedon during the Second Macedonian War. One decree praising Demetrius Poliorcetes was smashed and thrown down a well.
After Herostratus set fire to the Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of antiquity, the people of Ephesus banned the mention of his name.
At Delphi, an honorific inscription erected between 337 and 327 BC for Aristotle and his nephew Callisthenes, two philosophers who were closely associated with the Macedonians, were smashed and thrown in a well after the death of Alexander of Macedon in 323BC.

Ancient Rome

In ancient Rome, the practice of damnatio memoriae was the condemnation of emperors after their deaths. If the Senate or a later emperor did not like the acts of an emperor, they could have his property seized, his name erased and his statues reworked.
Compounding this difficulty is the fact that a completely successful damnatio memoriae results—by definition—in the full and total erasure of the subject from the historical record. In the case of figures such as emperors or consuls it is unlikely that complete success was possible, as even comprehensive obliteration of the person's existence and actions in records and the like would continue to be historically visible without extensive reworking. The impracticality of such a cover-up could be vast—in the case of Emperor Geta, for example, coins bearing his effigy proved difficult to entirely remove from circulation for several years, even though the mere mention of his name was punishable by death.
Difficulties in implementation also arose if there was not full and enduring agreement with the punishment, such as when the Senate's condemnation of Nero was implemented—leading to attacks on many of his statues—but subsequently evaded with the enormous funeral he was given by Vitellius. Similarly, it was often difficult to prevent later historians from "resurrecting" the memory of the sanctioned person.
The impossibility of actually erasing memory of an emperor has led scholars to conclude that this was not actually the goal of damnatio. Instead, they understand damnatio:
These emperors are known to have been erased from monuments:
EmperorReignNotes
Caligula37–41Disputed whether per senate decree
Nero54–68hostis iudicatio
Domitian81–96per senate decree
Commodus177–192per senate decree
Clodius AlbinusUsurper
Geta209–211per his brother Caracalla
Macrinus217–218Usurper
Diadumenian217–218Usurper
Elagabalus218–222
Severus Alexander222–235Only during the reign of Maximinus Thrax
Maximinus Thrax235–238per senate decree
Maximus ICaesar only
Philip the Arab244–249
Philip II247–249Philip the Arab's son
Decius249–251
Herennius Etruscus251Decius' son
Hostilian251Decius' son
Aemilianus253
Gallienus253–268
Aurelian270–275Briefly
Probus276–282
Carus282–283
Carinus284–285
Numerian283–284
Diocletian284–305
Maximian286–305per senate decree
Galerius305–311
Valerius Severus306–307
Maximinus II308–313per senate decree
Maxentius306–312
Licinius308–324
Constantine II337–340
Constans337–350
MagnentiusUsurper
Magnus Maximus383–388

Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages, heresiarchs could have their memory condemned. The Council of Constance decreed the damnatio memoriae of John Wycliffe.
The practice of replacing pagan beliefs and motifs with Christian, and purposefully not recording the pagan history, has been compared to damnatio memoriae as well.
In her book Medici Women - Portraits of Power, Love and Betrayal, Gabrielle Langdon also presents compelling evidence concerning a probable damnatio memoriae issued against Isabella de' Medici, a prominent female figure of the 16th century Renaissance Medici court.

Americas

Ancient Maya

Several apparent damnatio memoriae incidents occurred within the Maya civilization during the Classic period as a result of political conflicts between leaders of the local kingdoms.
One notable incident occurred in the kingdom of Paʼ Chan in the middle of the 8th century. In June 742, the k'uhul ajaw of Pa' Chan, Itzamnaaj Bahlam III, died after a 60-year-long rule, during which he turned his kingdom into one of great riches after a large number of military campaigns which were recorded and illustrated on multiple high-quality stelae, lintels and hieroglyphic steps of temples which he dedicated to his military success and his family. Though he had a son who eventually ascended to the throne after his death, there was a mysterious decade-long interregnum period in which Pa' Chan did not record the existence of any king. Itzamnaaj Bahlam's son, Yaxun Bʼalam IV, also known as Bird Jaguar IV, ascended to the throne in April 752, nearly ten years after his father's death.
This interregnum period may be explained by a text from the nearby northern kingdom of Yokib. Panel 3 of this city, largely regarded as one of the most beautiful pieces of Mayan art, was carved approximately in 782 and illustrates an episode of the reign of Itzam Kʼan Ahk II, in which he celebrated his first kʼatun as king, on 27 July 749. Panel 3 claims that the celebration "was witnessed by Sak Jukub Yopaat Bahlam, Holy Lord of Paʼ Chan." Also known as Yopaat Bahlam II, this mysterious ruler does not appear anywhere else in the historical record, not even in his supposed homeland. Moreoever, his respectful presence at a celebration in Yokib, Paʼ Chan's centuries-old and bitter rival, as well as the depiction of Itzam Kʼan Ahk apparently addressing a speech toward a party from Paʼ Chan—which included his son and "heir to the throne" of Paʼ Chan, Sihyaj Ahkteʼ—, possibly indicate that he ruled as a vassal of Itzam Kʼan Ahk, or that he used the celebration as an opportunity to ask for Itzam Kʼan Ahk's support against Yaxun Bʼalam IV, his political rival. This has led to the conclusion that if this man truly ruled Paʼ Chan, any records of his existence were destroyed during the reign of Yaxun Bʼalam IV, who notoriously led a massive propaganda campaign throughout his rule to claim legitimacy over the throne, which involved the rewriting of his kingdom's dynastic history and restoration of several historical records of previous kings. The immense texts writing Yaxun Bʼalam's own version of his kingdom's dynastic history may have been carved over existing records which would have been intentionally erased with plaster, possibly destroying the records of the king of the interregnum.
It is possible Yopaat Bahlam and his son lived the rest of their lives in exile at Yokib, and that the "heir to the throne" never rose to power. Yopaat Bahlam may have been buried in Burial 13 of the city, judging from a text carved on four Spondylus limbatus shells found within it which bears his name and mentions that he had previously visited the city in January 747, also within the interregnum.