() is a modern Latin phrase meaning "condemnation of memory" or "damnation of memory", indicating that a person is to be excluded from official accounts, or remembered after death in a way contrary to what that person may have desired. There are and have been many routes to including the destruction of depictions, the removal of names from inscriptions and documents, and even large-scale rewritings of history.
Etymology Although the term 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 (lit. "A Legal Dissertation on the Condemnation of Memory, Foreknown by Superiors, in the Most Flourishing Philurea").
Ancient world
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 (an ancient city-state founded by the Sumerians in southern Mesopotamia), 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
Ancient 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, his name was erased, his reign referred to as "the time of the enemy of Akhetaten", 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.
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 (Philip V's great-grandfather) 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 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 (normally defaced).Harriet I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace & Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (University of North Carolina Press, 2006).
A completely successful 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: Emperor Reign Notes Caligula 37–41 Disputed whether per senate decree Nero 54–68 hostis iudicatio (posthumous trial for treason) Domitian 81–96 per senate decree (96)Avidius CassiusUsurper Commodus 177–192 per senate decree (192) Didius Julianus193per senate decree (193)"Didius Julianus". Livius.org. Retrieved 31 March 2019. Pescennius Niger Usurper Clodius Albinus Usurper Geta 209–211 per his brother Caracalla Macrinus 217–218 Usurper Diadumenian 217–218 Usurper Elagabalus 218–222 Severus Alexander 222–235 Only during the reign of Maximinus Thrax Maximinus Thrax 235–238 per senate decree (238) Maximus I Caesar only Philip the Arab 244–249 Philip II 247–249 Philip the Arab's son Decius 249–251 Herennius Etruscus 251 Decius' son Hostilian 251 Decius' son Aemilianus 253 Gallienus 253–268 Aurelian 270–275 Briefly Probus 276–282 Carus 282–283 Carinus 284–285 Numerian 283–284 Diocletian 284–305 Maximian 286–305 per senate decree (310) Galerius 305–311 Valerius Severus 306–307Partially rehabilitated by Galerius Maximinus II 308–313 per senate decree (313) Maxentius 306–312 Licinius 308–324 Crispus 317–326Caesar; briefly Constantine II 337–340 Constans 337–350NepotianUsurper MagnentiusUsurper Decentius Caesar only Procopius UsurperMagnus Maximus384–388UsurperFlavius Victor384–388Son of usurper Magnus MaximusEugenius392–394UsurperPriscus Attalus409–410414–415Puppet emperorJoannes423–425Usurper in the westBasiliscus475–476Michael V1041–1042
The damnatio memoriae was also subjected to non-emperors:
Person Date NotesLonginus42 BCOne of Caesar's assassinsBrutus42 BCMost famous of Caesar's assassinsMark Antony30 BCPolitician and generalCornelius Gallus? first prefect of egyptPiso20 ADAccused of murdering GermanicusSejanus31Praetorian prefect of TiberiusGaius Silius48Lover of Claudius's wifeMessalina48 Wife of ClaudiusPerennis185Praetorian prefect of CommodusCleander190Praetorian prefect and favorite of CommodusPlautianus205Praetorian prefect of Septimius SeverusFausta326Wife of Constantine IPhilippus351Rehabilated by Constantius IIEutropius399Per senate decreeBury, J. B. A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, Vol. I (1889), 85-86Stilicho408 (?)It is known that his statues were destroyed and his name was removed from inscriptions
Middle Ages
In the Middle Ages, heresiarchs could have their memory condemned. The Council of Constance decreed the of John Wycliffe.
The practice of replacing pagan beliefs and motifs with Christian, and purposefully not recording the pagan history, has been compared to as well.
After usurping power, the Yongle Emperor began a propaganda campaign and attempted to erase the reign of the Jianwen Emperor. The education system itself was revised, with no mention of the previous civil war that had preceded his era. Zhu Di's treatment of loyalists of the preceding ruler such as Jing Qing later became a proverb "瓜蔓抄" or "gourd vine search" owing to his brutal actions such as wiping out entire towns to erase the Jianwen from records. However, with the advent of the Qing, the martyrs of the Jianwen era had not only become revered as deities, but they also became openly praised in order to discredit the Ming Dynasty.
In her book Medici Women – Portraits of Power, Love and Betrayal, Gabrielle Langdon also presents 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 (AD 250–900) as a result of political conflicts between leaders of the local kingdoms.
One notable incident occurred in the kingdom of Paʼ Chan (modern-day Yaxchilan, Mexico) in the middle of the 8th century. In June 742, the k'uhul ajaw (Holy Lord, i.e. king) 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 (e.g. Temple 44) and his family (e.g. Temple 23). 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 (modern-day Piedras Negras, Guatemala). 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 (also known as Pawaaj Kʼan Ahk II), in which he celebrated his first kʼatun (period of 7200 days) 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. Moreover, his respectful presence at a celebration in Yokib, Paʼ Chan's centuries-old and bitter rival (which had, in fact, scored a victory in battle against Itzamnaaj Bahlam III in 726), as well as the depiction of Itzam Kʼan Ahk apparently addressing a speech (now hardly readable, but probably involving an event of Paʼ Chan's past) toward a party from Paʼ Chan—which included his son and "heir to the throne" of Paʼ Chan (chʼok paʼchan ajaw), 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 (or kings) of the interregnum.