Silences permeate acts of remembrance, which my colleagues and I have termed mnemonic silence (see Stone, Contextualizing silence: a psychological approach to understanding the mnemonic consequences of selective silence in social interactions. In: Contextualizing human memory. Psychology Press, pp 23–36, 2015; Stone et al., Toward a science of silence: the consequences of leaving a memory unsaid. Perspect Psychol Sci 7(1):39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611427303, 2012). Critically, not all mnemonic silences are created equal. Using the psychological literature on social memory research, it will be demonstrated that mnemonic silence may facilitate forgetting in certain circumstances—in others, it does not. This line of research will then be extrapolated to cultural artifacts (e.g., monuments, museums, etc.). Based on, for example, the design of a monument, what might be the mnemonic consequences associated with what the designers remained mnemonically silent about? To this end, a focus will be on three pertinent factors to explore the mnemonic trajectory of mnemonic silence: intentionality (refusing to overtly mention vs. failing to overtly mention), covertness (e.g., remaining mnemonically silent but covertly remembering), and relatedness (i.e., remaining mnemonic silent about information related or unrelated to what was overtly mentioned). This entry will then end by further highlighting the complexity associated with how mnemonic silence may or may not lead to forgetting: even with these factors in mind, there are still caveats about when mnemonic silence facilitates (or not) forgetting. Ultimately, the mnemonic process (e.g., covert remembering) undertaken by the rememberers will likely dictate how and when mnemonic silence will shape how individuals and groups remember the past.