Memory studies as a Bbroad convergence field^(Erll 2011, p. 11), incorporating a range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, has in the last decade or so increasingly sought to free itself from the weaknesses of its Bmethodological nationalism^(De Cesari and Rigney 2014, p. 11). The myriad of case studies produced by researchers in the field, it is argued, has tended to focus exclusively on memory as a means of fostering the cohesion of the (national) group, drawing on theoretical sources from Maurice Halbwachs, to Pierre Nora and Eric Hobsbawm, to the early work of Jan and Aleida Assmann, in which the national community takes centre stage. This focus on the mobilisation of memory as a means to Bpromote a commitment to the group by symbolizing its values and aspirations^(Misztal 2003, p. 51) has two significant weaknesses: it tends to work with a Bsimplistic understanding of culture as a reified, clear-cut, territory-based concept,^while also condemning memory studies itself to endlessly articulate the link between memory and the nation (Feindt et al. 2014, pp. 24-25). Furthermore, this approach often tends to conflate the nation with the nation-state, largely assuming that the latter acts as a container of a homogeneous national identity. However, it is also the case that scholarly work and theorising on transnational memory activism is far from new (Schwelling 2012) and has been gathering momentum since Levy and Sznaider (2002, p. 88) argued strongly that the B'Container of the Nation-State' […] is in the process of being slowly cracked^and that memories of the Holocaust Bprovide the foundations for a new cosmopolitan memory, transcending ethnic and national boundaries^. While the transnational frame deserves our attention and the shift in focus is to be welcomed, it also carries with it certain pitfalls.