Roman Memory And Collective Memory

There exists a symbiotic relationship between history and collective memory, whereby historians become the undertakers of this memory for preservation. In the predominantly oral culture of Ancient Rome, the conventional model for historical production was exclusive to the noble historian, whereby history would be an amalgamation of the public Roman memory and his own memory and assertions. For as sociologist Halbwach surmised, the individual memory does not alone have control over recovering the past, needing social interaction and the views of milieu through constructs such as language to create history. Further, the created collective memory mythicises history, unable to provide an objective outlook on truth due to its predispositions of emotions and ideological surroundings. Thus, collective memory exists according to social frameworks, namely rituals, ceremonies and narratives, whereby they are skewed to become an inaccurate reflection of history.

In the Punic Wars, Polybius constructed his history originating around the Roman collective memory to engender a cultural identity of Roman superiority and dominance. Thus, this parallels how collective memory is selective in order to forge an identity for …show more content…
In the guerrilla war, revolutionaries minted coins, which addressed Bar Kokhba’s title as Nesi Yisrael, denoting Prince of Israel, as well as inscriptions that read “For the Freedom of Jerusalem”, along with symbols of stars above temples, alluding the meaning of Bar Kokhba’s name. Thus, Schafer surmises that the coins represented the Zionist yearnings of the Jewish people, and the figure Bar Kokhba became so important to them as the population perceived him as their saviour out of their demise. This aligns with Novick’s ideal that collective memory is a form of myth-making in order for a community to form an identity, namely the hope of freedom and preservation of