assmann communicative and cultural memory 2008

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


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


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


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


5/10


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


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

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


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


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.

assmann communicative and cultural memory 2008

Documents