Abstract
Memory of past does not reveal itself to all people in the same manner. For the Sasanians in Late Antiquity (200-651 CE), what they came to profess was their ancient past and for the people they were ruling over, was drastically different from what the Romans understood as history of the Bygones. For Iranians a historical tradition had developed, which was far removed from Greek and Roman historiographical tradition. History revealed itself in a different manner for the late ancient Iranians, from those living in the Mediterranean, with a different narrative. In a sense, history of the past, as a set of real events, was "Balkanized" in the memory of people in late antiquity. This Balkanization of the past led to the creation of multiple views, where conflicts and brotherhoods were defined in nativist terms, which the Sasanians used for dealing with their neighbors. The most important element in this divergent development of history and memory was the impact of Zoroastrianism in late antiquity, where the sacred traditions, constructed a "history" which attempted to explain who the Iranians were, and where they came from. But did the Sasanians remember the Achaemenids? If they did not, we must ask how did this "historical amnesia" come to prominence and what was put in their place as the historical memory of the Persianate past? Were the Achaemenids accidentally forgotten, or was there a planned program to provide an alternative past? If they are remembered, how are they placed within the Iranian tradition? Rather than denying or confirming Sasanian memory of the Achaemenids, I would like to suggest that the process was more complicated and that there were several streams of history and memory working together to bring about a new view of the past.
