Italy's national calendar has undergone a marked transformation in the last 10 years, with the inclusion of new holidays and the assignment of new meanings and celebratory practices to the old ones. This article analyses these changes by focusing on the recent debates about a shared past, involving state leaders as well as intellectuals. After an analysis of the forms of symbolic conflict concerning memory and the relevance of cultural constraints in shaping this conflict, and a brief assessment of the new form of the Republic's calendar, the article examines three major days that deal with the State's treatment of the past: 25 April (Liberation Day); 2 June, seen as the birthday of the Republic; and the recently introduced national Remembrance Day (10 February), which remembers the foibe or killings and emigration of Italian people on Italy's eastern frontier with former Yugoslavia. The article concludes by identifying the major trends in the public management of memory in the context of Italy's Second Republic.

Archaeologists have explained the spatiality and spread of traditions primarily in terms of conflict-free transfers of knowledge. This article critiques the sociospatial conceptualization of tradition implicit in many of these explanations and re-theorizes tradition as a relational process of symbolic conflict. Of particular concern are hierarchical approaches to traditional knowledge that set the more durable unconscious or ‘embodied’ elements of tradition apart from ‘symbolically invested practices’ and attribute to each a unique spatiality, with that of embodied tradition involving largely benign mechanisms of transmission. This article proposes instead that the spatiality of tradition is the outcome of continuous reflexive transformation of embodied traditional knowledge in contested social and symbolic relationships between groups. This transformation unfolds in conflict over the meaning, ownership, and value of symbolic inventories (knowledge, names, practices, symbols) within social fields. Ethnographic and archaeological data are used to argue that strategies of symbolic conflict propel traditions along the relational pathways of fields.