8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
1/10
Communicative
and Cul tura l Memory
JAN AS S M ANN
1.
Memory: Individual, Social, and Cultural
Memory is the facu l ty tha t enab les us to fo rm an awaren ess o f se l fh oo d
identity ,
both on the personal and on the col lec t ive level . Ident i ty , in i ts
turn, is re la te d to time. A h u m a n se lf is a d i ac hr on ic ide nt i t y , bui l t o f
the
s tu ff of t ime (L uc km an n) . T hi s synth esis of time an d iden t i ty is ef-
fectuated b y me mo ry . F o r t ime , i d e n t i t y , a n d me mo ry we ma y d i s t i n g u i s h
among three levels :
Level
Time
Identity
Memory
inner n e u r o -
mental
inner,
subjective
time
inner self individual
memory
social
social
time
social self ,
person
as
carrier o f
social ro les
communicative
memory
cultural
historical,
mythical,
cultural
time
cultural
identity
cultural
memory
Figure
1
On th e
inner
level me mo ry i s a ma t t e r o f o u r n e u ro -me n ta l s y s t e m. Th i s i s
our p e r s o n a l me mo ry , t h e o n ly fo rm o f me mo ry th a t h a d b e e n r e c o g n iz e d
as such un t i l the 1920s . O n th e
social
level m e m o r y is a m a t t e r o f c o m m u -
nication
and soc ia l in te rac t ion . I t was the g rea t ach ievement o f the F rench
sociologist M a u r i c e H a l b w a c h s t o s h o w t h a t o u r m e m o r y d e p e n d s , li ke
consciousness
i n g e n e ra l , o n s o c i a l i za t io n a n d c o m m u n ic a t i o n , a n d t h a t
memory can be analyzed as a funct ion of our socia l l i fe
Les
cadres
sociaux;
La mem oire collective).
M em or y enab les us to l ive in g ro up s and
communities, and liv ing in g r ou ps and co m m un i t ie s enab les us to bu i ld a
memory. Du r in g t h e s e s a me ye a rs , p s y c h o a n a ly s t s s u c h as S ig m u n d F re u d
and
Ca r l G u s t a v J u n g we re d e v e lo p in g t h e o r i e s o f c o ll e c ti v e m e m o r y b u t
still
ad he red to the firs t, t he inne r and pe r son a l leve l , loo k in g fo r co l lec t ive
memory
n o t in the dyna mic s o f soc ia l l i fe bu t in the unc on sc i ou s de p th s
of the h u m an psyc he see a l so S t rau b , th i s vo lum e) .
Originalverffentlichungin: Astrid Erll, Ansgar Nnning (Hg.), Cultural Memory Studies. An International
and Interdisciplinary Handbook, Berlin, New York 2008, S. 109-118
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
2/10
110
Jan A s s m a n n
Aby
W arbu rg, how ever, the art historian, coined the term social
memory
with regard to the third, the
cultural level;
he seems to have been
the first one who treated images, that is, cultural objectivations, as carriers
of
mem ory. His main project was to study the afterl i fe
Nachleben)
of
classical
antiquity in W estern culture and he term ed this pro ject M ne m o-
syne, the ancient Greek term for memory and the mother of the nine
Muses.
As an art historian, Warburg specialized in what he called
Bildgeddchtnis (iconic memory), but the general approach to reception his-
tory
as a form of (cultural) memory could be applied to every other do-
main of symbolic forms as well (Gombrich). This is what Thomas Mann
endeavored to do in his fo ur Jo sep h novels, which appeared betw een 1933
and
1943 and which may rank as the most advanced at tempt to recon-
structa specific cultural mem ory in this case of peop le living in P alestine
and
Egypt in the Late Bronze Ageand, at the same t ime, to conjure up
our
Eu rop ean cultural m em ory and i ts Jewish foun dat ion s in times of
anti-Semitism
(J. Assmann,
Thomas
Mann . Ne i the r Warburg nor Thomas
Mann,
how ever, used the term cul tural m em ory ; this conce pt has been
explicitly developed only during the last twenty years. It is, therefore, only
since
then that the connection between time, identity, and memory in their
three dimensions of the personal, the social, and the cultural has become
more
and more evident.
The term comm unica t ive me m ory was in t roduced in order to de-
lineate
the difference between Halbw achs's concep t of col lective mem -
ory
and our und erstanding of cul tural m em ory (A. Assm ann). Cultural
memory
is a form of collective memory, in the sense that it is shared by a
number
of people and that it conveys to these people a collective, that is,
cultural, identity. Halb wa chs, how ever, the inve nto r of the term collec-
tive m em ory , was careful to keep his con cep t of collective m em ory ap art
from
the realm of traditions, transmissions, and transferences which we
propose
to subs um e und er the term cul tural m em ory. W e preserve
Halbwachs s
distinction by breaking up his concept of collective memory
into
com m unicat ive and cul tural m em ory, bu t we insist on including
the
cultural sphere, which he excluded, in the study of memory. We are,
therefore,no t arguing for replacing his idea of collective m em or y with
cultural
mem ory ; rather, we distinguish betw een b oth form s as tw o
differentm od i me m orand i , ways of rem emb ering.
2.
Culture as Memory
Cultural memory is a kind of institution. It is exteriorized, objectified, and
stored
away in symbolic forms that, unlike the sounds of words or the
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
3/10
Communicative and Cultural Memory
sight o f ge s t u re s a re s t ab l e and s i t ua t i on - t r anscenden t : They m ay be t r ans -
ferred f r o m o n e s i t u a ti o n t o a n o t h e r a n d t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m o n e g e n e r a t i o n
to ano t he r . E x t e rna l ob j ec t s a s ca r r i e r s o f m e m o ry p l ay a ro l e a lr eady o n
the l e v e l o f p e r s o n a l m e m o r y . O u r m e m o r y , w h i c h w e p o s s e s s a s b e i n g s
equipped
w i t h a h u m an m i nd , ex i s ts on l y i n co ns t an t i n t e ra c t i on n o t on l y
with o t h e r h u m a n m e m o r i e s b u t a ls o w i t h t h i n g s , o u t w a r d s y m b o l s .
With re spe c t t o t h i ngs such a s M arce l P rou s t ' s f a m ou s m a de l e i ne , o r a r t i-
facts ob j ec t s , ann i ve r sa r i e s , f ea s t s , i cons , sym bo l s , o r l and scap es , t he t e rm
memory is not a metaphor but a metonym b a s e d o n m a t e r i a l c o n t a c t b e -
tween
a r e m e m b e r i n g m i n d a n d a r e m i n d i n g o b j e c t. T h i n g s d o n o t h a v e
a m e m o r y o f th e i r o w n , b u t t h e y m a y r e m i n d u s , m a y tr ig g e r o u r m e m o r y ,
because t h e y c a r r y m e m o r i e s w h i c h w e h a v e i n v e s t e d i n t o t h e m , t h i n g s
such as d i sh es , feas t s , r i t es , ima ges , s tor i es an d o t he r t ex t s , l an ds ca pe s , an d
other l i eux de m em oi re . O n t he soc i al l evel , w i t h r e sp ec t t o g r ou ps an d
societies t h e r o l e o f e x t e r n a l s y m b o l s b e c o m e s e v e n m o r e i m p o r t a n t ,
because g r o u p s w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , d o n o t h a v e a m e m o r y t e n d t o
make t h e m s e l v e s o n e b y m e a n s o f t h i n g s m e a n t a s r e m i n d e r s s u c h a s
monuments m u s e u m s , l i b r a r i e s , a r c h i v e s , a n d o t h e r m n e m o n i c i n s t i t u -
tions. T h i s i s w ha t w e cal l cu l t u ra l m e m o ry (A . A ssm an n) . In o rd e r t o b e
able t o b e r e e m b o d i e d i n t h e s e q u e n c e o f g e n e r a t i o n s , c u l t u r a l m e m o r y ,
unlike c o m m u n i c a t i v e m e m o r y , e x is ts a l so i n d i s e m b o d i e d f o r m a n d r e -
quires
i n s t i tu t i o n s o f p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d r e e m b o d i m e n t .
This i n s t i t u t i ona l cha rac t e r does no t app l y t o w ha t H a l bw achs ca l l ed
collective
m e m o r y a n d w h a t w e p r o p o s e to r e n a m e c o m m u n i c a t iv e m e m -
ory. C o m m u n i c a t i v e m e m o r y is n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l ; i t is n o t s u p p o r t e d b y
any i n s t i t u t i ons o f l ea rn i ng , tr an sm i ss i on , and i n t e r p re t a t i on ; i t i s n o t cu lt i-
vated
by spec i a l i s t s and i s no t sum m oned o r ce l eb ra t ed on spec i a l occa -
sions; i t i s n o t fo rm a l i ze d and s t ab i l ized by any fo rm s o f m a t e r i a l s ym bo l i -
zation; i t l ive s i n eve ryday i n t e rac t i on a nd c om m un i ca t i o n a nd , fo r t h i s
very rea son , has on l y a l i m i t ed t i m e de p t h w h i c h no rm a l l y r each es n o
farther bac k t han e i gh t y yea r s , t he t i m e sp an o f t h ree i n t e rac t i ng gen e ra -
tions. S till, t h e r e a r e f r a m e s , c o m m u n i c a t i v e g e n r e s , t r a d i ti o n s o f c o m -
munication an d t hem a t i za t i on and , ab ov e all, t he a f f e c t i ve tie s t ha t b i n d
together fam i l i e s, g r ou ps , and gen e ra t i o ns .
A c h a n g e o f f r a m e s b r i n g s a b o u t f o r g e t t in g ; t h e d u ra b i li ty o f m e m o -
ries
de pe nd s o n t he du rab i l it y o f soc ia l bo nd s and f r am es . In h i s ea r l ie r
work H a l b w a c h s d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s o c i a l i n t e r e s t s
and pow er s t ruc t u re s t ha t a r e ac t i ve i n shap i ng and f r am i ng i nd i v i dua l
memories. In h i s l a s t w o rk on co l l ec t ive m em or y , how ev e r , he show s a
keen a w a r e n e s s o f i n s t i tu t i o n a n d p o w e r . 1 topogr phic legend iredes ev ngiles
en terre
sainte p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 4 1 d u r i n g t h e G e r m a n o c c u p a t i o n , d e a l s w i t h
the t r a ns fo rm a t i o n o f Pa l e s t i ne i n t o a s i te o f C hr i s t i an m e m o ry by t he
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
4/10
112
Jan A s s m a n n
installment of all kinds of mem orials a process w hich to ok place after the
adoption
of Christianity as the state religion by the Roman empire. In this
work he crosses the border which he himself had erected betweenm moir
and tr ditionand show s to wh at degree this kind of official m em ory is
dependent
on theological dogma and formed by the power structure of
the
church.
3.
Tim e Frames
Jan Vansina an anthrop olog ist w ho work ed with oral societies in Africa
devoted
an important study to the form in which they represent the past
and
observed a tripartite structure. The recent past which looms large in
interactive
com mu nication recedes as t ime goes by m ore and m ore into
the background. Information becomes scarcer and vaguer the further back
one
mo ves into the past. A ccord ing to Vansina this know ledge of affairs
that are told and discussed in everyday communication has a limited depth
in t ime reaching not beyo nd three generat ions. Con cerning a m ore re-
mote past, there is either a total lack of information or one or two names
are produced with great hesi ta t ion. For the most remote past , however,
there is again a profusion of information dealing with traditions about the
origin of the world and the early history of the tribe. This information,
however, is not committed to everyday communication but intensely for-
malized and institutionalized. It exists in the forms of narratives, songs,
dances, rituals, masks, and symbols; specialists such as narrators, bards,
mask-carvers, and others are organized in guilds and have to undergo long
periods of initiation, instruction, and examination. Moreover, it requires
for its actualization certain occasions when the community comes to-
gether for a celebration. Th is is w hat we pro po se calling cultural me m -
ory. In oral societies, as Vansina has shown, there is a gap between the
informalgenerational me m ory referr ing to the recent past and the form al
cultural memory which refers to the remote past, the origin of the world,
and the history of th e tribe, and since this gap sh ifts w ith the succession
of generation s, Vansina calls it the floating gap . Historical conscious-
ness, Vansina resumes, operates in oral societies on only two levels: the
time of origins and the recent past.
Vansina s
floating ga p illustrates the differ ence betw een social and
cultural frames of memory or communicative and cultural memory. The
communicative
m em ory contains mem ories referring to Vansina 's recent
past. These are the memories that an individual shares with his contem-
poraries. This is wh at Halbwachs understood by collective m em ory and
what forms the object of oral history, that branch of historical research
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
5/10
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
6/10
114
Jan A s s m a n n
generational, po l it i ca l , an d cu l tu ra l l eve ls . W he re th i s re l a t io n is abse n t , w e
are n o t d e a li n g w i t h m e m o r y b u t w i t h k n o w l e d g e . M e m o r y is k n o w l e d g e
with
a n i d e n t i t y - i n d e x , i t i s k n o w l e d g e a b o u t o n e s e l f , t h a t i s , o n e ' s o w n
diachronic iden t i ty , be i t a s an ind iv id ua l o r a s a m e m b e r o f a fami ly , a
generation,
a communi ty , a na t ion , o r a cu l tu ra l and re l ig ious t rad i t i on .
Groups a re fo rm e d a n d c o h e re b y t h e d y n a m i c s o f a s s o c i a t i o n a n d
dissociation w h i c h i s a l w a y s l o a d e d ( t o v a ry i n g d e g re e s ) w i t h a f f e c t i o n .
Halbwachs,
t h e r e f o r e , s p o k e o f comm unautes affectives. T h e s e a f f e c t i v e
ties l e n d m e m o r i e s t h e i r s p e c i a l i n t e n s i ty . R e m e m b e r i n g is a r e a l i z a t io n o f
belonging, e v e n a s o c i a l o b l i g a t i o n . O n e h a s t o r e m e m b e r i n o rd e r t o b e-
long:
T h i s is a l s o o n e o f th e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n s i g h t s i n N i e t z s c h e ' s Geneal
yof Mo rality. A s s i m i l a t i o n , t h e t r a n s i t i o n o f o n e g ro u p i n t o a n o t h e r o n e ,
is u s u al ly a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n i m p e r a t i v e t o f o r g e t t h e m e m o r i e s c o n -
nected
wi th the o r ig ina l i den t i ty . Inve rse ly , t h i s k ind o f a ss imi l a to ry fo r -
getting
i s p r e c i s e ly w h a t is m o s t f e a r e d a n d p ro h i b i t e d i n t h e b o o k o f
Deuteronomy, w h i c h d e al s w i t h s u c h a c h a n g e o f f r a m e b e t w e e n E g y p t
and C a n a a n a n d t h e f ir s t a n d s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n s o f e m i g r a n t s f r o m
Egypt.
5. Institutions and Carriers
The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o m m u n i c a t i v e a n d c u l tu r a l m e m o r y e x p r e s s e s
itself a l so in the soc ia l d imens ion , i n the s t ruc tu re o f pa r t i c ipa t ion . The
participation o f a g r o u p in c o m m u n i c a t i v e m e m o r y is d i f fu s e . S o m e , i t i s
true, k n o w m o re , s o m e l e ss , a n d t h e m e m o r i e s o f t h e o l d r e a c h f a r t h e r
back t h a n t h o s e o f t h e y o u n g . H o w e v e r , t h e r e a r e n o s p e c i a l i s t s o f i n fo r -
mal,
c o m m u n i c a t i v e m e m o r y . T h e k n o w l e d g e w h i c h is c o m m u n i c a t e d i n
everyday i n t e r a c t i o n h a s b e e n a c q u i r e d b y t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a l o n g w i t h l a n -
guage a n d s o c i a l c o m p e t e n c e . T h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f a g r o u p in c u l t u r a l
memory,
by co n t r as t , i s a lways h igh ly d i f f e re n t i a t ed . T h i s ap p l i e s even an d
especially
to o ra l and ega l i t a r i an soc ie t i e s . The p rese rva t ion o f t he cu l tu ra l
memory o f t he g roup was o r ig ina l ly the t a sk o f t he poe t s . Even today , t he
Africang r i o t s fu l f il l t h i s f u n c t i o n o f g u a r d i a n s o f c u l t u r a l m e m o r y .
The
cu l tu ra l memory a lways has i t s spec ia l i s t s , bo th in o ra l and in l i t -
erate soc ie t i e s . T he se inc lu de sh am an s , ba rd s , and g r io t s , a s we l l a s p r i e s t s ,
teachers, a r t i s t s , c l e rk s , s c h o l a r s , m a n d a r i n s , r a b b i s , m u l l a h s , a n d o t h e r
names
fo r spec ia l i zed ca r r i e rs o f memory . In o ra l soc i e t i e s , t he degree o f
specialization o f t h e s e c a r r i e r s d e p e n d s o n t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e d e m a n d s
that a r e m a d e o f t h e i r m e m o r y . T h o s e d e m a n d s t h a t i n s i s t o n v e r b a t i m
transmission a r e r a n k e d h ig h e s t . H e r e , h u m a n m e m o r y i s u s e d as a d a t a -
base i n a sense approach ing the use o f wr i t i ng : A f ixed t ex t i s ve rba l ly
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
7/10
Communicative and ultural M emory
115
written into the highly specialized and trained memory of these special-
ists. This is typically the case when ritual knowledge is at stake and where
a
ritual m us t strictly follo w a scr ipt, even if this script is no t laid do w n in
wridng.
The Rgveda consti tutes the most prominent example of a codifi-
cation of ritual memory based solely on oral tradition. The magnitude of
this
task corresponds to the social rank of the ritual specialists, the Brah-
min
who form the highest caste, higher even than the aristocratic class of
warriors
(Kshatriya) to which the rulers belong. In traditional Rwanda, the
scripts
for the eighteen royal rituals had to be memorized by specialists
who
ranked as the highest notables of the kingdom. Error could be pun-
ished by death. Those three notables who knew by heart the full text of all
eighteen
rituals even partook of the divinity of the ruler (Borgeaud).
In
the co ntex t of rituals, ther efo re, w e observ e the rise of the oldest
systems of memorization or mnemotechniques, with or without the help
of
systems of notation like knotted chords, tchuringas, and other forms of
pre writing.
With the invention of full-fledged systems of writing, it is
interesting to see ho w differe ntly various religions have beha ved vis a vis
this
new cultural technique. In the Indo-European tradit ions, from the
Indian
Brahmins to the Celtic Druids, we observe a general distrust and
shunning
of writing. Memory is held to be by far the more trustworthy
medium to hand down the religious (that is, ritual) knowledge to later
generations.
The reason normally given is that too many mistakes may
creep
into a text by copying. The true reason, however, seems to be that
writing always implies the danger of dissemination, of giving away a secret
tradition to the profane and uninitiated. This distrust in writing is still very
prominent
in Plato. In the ancient Near Eastern societies such as Meso-
potamia Israel, and Egypt, on the other hand, writing is eagerly grasped as
an ideal medium for codifying and transmitting the sacred traditions, es-
pecially
ritual scripts and recitations.
But even where the sacred tradit ion is committed to writ ing, memori-
zation plays the central role. In ancient Egypt, a typical temple library
contained
no more books than may be known by heart by the specialists.
Clement of Alexandria gives a vivid description of such a library. He
speaks
of forty-two indispensab le or absolutely necessary
ip ny
anankaiai)
books that formed the stock of an Egyptian temple library and
were all wri t ten by Thot-Hermes himself. The priests were not supposed
to
read and learn all of the books, but to specialize in certain genres corre-
sponding
to their rank and office. In describing a procession of these
priests Clement shows both the hierarchy of the priesthood and the
structure of their library Stromateis 6.4.35-37). The highest ranks are held
by
the
stolistes
and the
prophetes,
corresponding in Egyptian terminology to
the
lector prie st and the high priest. It is the boo ks of the stolist that
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
8/10
116
Jan Assmann
serve
as a codificat ion of r i tual memory proper, complemented by what
Clement calls edu catio n. Th e bo ok s of the high priest, on the oth er
hand
are said to contain normative or legal literature concerning the laws,
the gods, and priestly education. The library, thus, is divided into norma-
tive knowledge, which ranks highest; ritual knowledge, which comes a
close second; and general knowledge concerning astronomy, geography,
poetry,
biography, and medicine, which occupies the lowest rank among
this canon of highly indispensable literature.
There is, however, still another sense in which the participation in
cultural memory may be structured in a society. This concerns the ques-
tion of restricted knowledge, of secrecy and esotericism. Every traditional
society
knows areas of restricted knowledge whose boundaries are not
simply
defined by the different capacit ies of human memory and under-
standing,
but also by questions of access and initiation. In Judaism, for
example, general participation is required in the Torah which every (male)
member
of the group is supposed to know by heart. Specialized participa-
tion concerns the world of Talmudic and Medieval commentaries, codices,
and
midrash, a vast body of literature that only specialists can master.
Secrecy, however, shrouds the esoteric world of kabbala, to which only
select adepts (and only after they have reached the age of forty) are ad-
mitted.
The participation structure of cultural memory has an inherent tendency
to
elitism; it is never strictly egalitarian. Some are almost forced into
participation and have to prove their degree of admittance by formal exams
(as
in traditional China); or by the mastery of linguistic registers (as in
England); or of the Citatenschat^ des deutschen olkef (treasury of G erm an
quotations) as in nineteenth-century Germany. Others remain systematically
excluded fro m this distinguished knowledge, such as w om en in ancient
Greece, traditional China, and orthodox Judaism, or the lower classes in the
heyday
of the German
Bildungsburgertum
(educated bourgeoisie).
As to the media of cultural memory, a more or less pronounced ten-
dency can be discerned towards a form of intra-cultural diglossia, corre-
sponding to the distinction betw een on e great traditio n and several
little tradition s as pro po sed by R ob ert Redfield. Until the creation of
modern Iw rith, th e Jew s h ad always lived in a situation o f diglossia, since
their G reat Trad it ion was writ ten in He brew and for their everyday
communication
they used vernacular languages such as Yiddish, Ladino,
or the various languages of their host countries. To a similar or lesser
degree,
this situation is typical of virtually all traditional societies, be it in
the fo rm of two diff ere nt languages, such as H ind u an d Sanskrit or Italian
and
Latin, or tw o d iffer en t linguistic varieties, such as Qu r'anic and ver-
nacular Arabic or classical and modern Chinese. Modern societies tend to
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
9/10
Communicativeand ultural Me mory
7
diversify this binary structure by introducing more linguistic varieties ac-
cording
to the multiplication of cultural media such as film, broadcasting,
and television. The following list with its clear-cut binary structure, there-
fore, doe s no t do full justice to the m od er n situation:
Communicative
Memory
Cultural
Memory
Content history
in the frame of
autobiographical memory,
recent
past
mythical
history,
events in absolute
past
( in illo
tempore )
Forms informal
traditions and
genres of everyday
communication
high
degree of
formation,
ceremonial
communication;
Media
living,
embodied memory,
communication
in
vernacular language
mediated
in texts,
icons, dances, rituals,
and
performances of
various
kinds;
classical or oth-
erwise
formalized
language(s)
Time
Structure
80-100years, a moving
horizon
of 3-4 interacting
generations
absolute
past,
mythical
primordial
time, 3000 years
Participation
Structure
diffuse specialized carriers of
memory,
hierarchically
structured
Figure2
Transitions
and transformations account for the dynamics of cultural
memory.
Two typical directions have a structural significance and should
at least briefly be mentioned in this context. One concerns the transition
from
autobiographical and communicative memory into cultural memory,
and the other concerns, within cultural memory, the move from the rear
stage to the forefront , from the periphery into the center, from latency or
potentiality
to manifestation or actualization and vice versa. These shifts
presuppose structural boundaries which are to be crossed: the boundary
between
embodied and mediated forms of memory, and the boundary
8/10/2019 Assmann Communicative and Cultural Memory 2008
10/10
118
Jan
Assmann
between
wha t we pro pos e call ing wo rking and reference m em ories or
canon and arch ive (see also A. A ssm ann , this volume ).
References
Assmann, Aleida. M em ory, Individual and Collective. The Oxford and-
book
of
Contextual
Political Analysis. Eds. Robert E. Goodin und Charles
Tilly. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. 210-24.
Assmann,
Jan. D as kul turelle Ge dach tnis . Erwagen Wissen Ethik 13
(2002): 239-47.
. Daskulturelle Gedachtnis: Schrift Erinnerung undpolitische Identitat in friihen
Hochkulturen.
Beck: Munich, 1992.
. Thomas Mann undAgypten:M ythos undMonotheismus in den Josephsromanen.
Munich:
Beck, 2006.
Borgeaud,
Philippe. Po ur une appro che anthropologique de la m em oire
religieuse. Ea memoire desreligions. Ed s. Jean-Claude Basset and Phil-
ippe
Borgeaud. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988. 7-20.
Clemens von Alexandria. Stromateis. Trans. Otto Stahlin. 3 vols. Munich:
Kosel
& Pustet, 1936-38.
Gombrich
Erns t H . Aby
Warburg:
An
Intellectual Biography.
Chicago: U of
Chicago P, 1986.
Halbwachs Maurice. Eescadres sociaux de lamemoire. 1925. Paris: Albin Mi-
chel
1994.
.
On
Collective Memory.
1925. Ed. and trans. Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: U
of Chicago P, 1992.
.
Ea
memoire collective.
1950. Paris: Albin Michel, 1997.
. Ea topographie legendaire desevangiles en terre sainte.1941. P aris: Presse s
universitaires
de France, 1971.
Luckmann
Th om as . Re ma rks on Perso nal Identity: Inn er, Social and
Historical T ime. Identity: Personal andSocio-Cultural. Ed. Anita Jacob-
son Widding.
Adantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1983. 67-91.
Nietzsche
Friedrich. On the
Genealogy
of
Morality.
Trans. Maudemarie Clark
and
Alan J. Sw ensen. Indianapolis: Ha ckett , 1998.
.
The Use and Abuse of
History.
Trans. A drian Collins. Ne w York: M ac-
millan 1957.
Redfield Rober t . Peasant Society andCulture:An Anthropological Approachto
Civilisation.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1956.
Sen Amartya. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. N ew York:
Norton
2006.
Vansina Jan . OralTradition as History. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1985.
Welzer
Harald. Das
kommunikative Gedachtnis.
Munich: Beck, 2002.