Paper short abstract:

In my paper I want to complicate the question of what we consider diffusing. Do moving objects, horses, DNA bring something (meaning, practices, complexes, traits) along? And if not, what do we make of the results of our sophisticated large-scale comparisons?

Paper long abstract:

No doubt, ideas and objects do circulate across the world. However, we should carefully examine the concept of diffusion before retrieving it to our methodological toolkit. Diffusion is not simple an alternative naming for the movement of objects, ideas, data, people and what else, it is an approach and thus a certain perspective upon the world.

Diffusionists were not so much interested in the things as such (horses, potatoes, knifes, boats), they rather understood them as representations indicating the spread of so-called cultural complexes or elements. Several studies have shown that objects are actively appropriated and interpreted on the local level and not simply taken over together with predefined practices and meanings.

For sure, new technologies, tools and programs would allow to trace their movements and to collect and analyse big datasets in a much more sophisticated way than in the 1920s. Digital catalogues facilitate large scale comparisons and would certainly reveal unsuspected connections as well as wrongly assumed relations. But what is diffusing?

In my opinion the crucial question when reconsidering diffusion would be what do we consider diffusing? Do moving objects, horses, DNA bring something (meaning, practices, complexes, traits) along? Or do they come naked? If yes, what do we make of the results of our sophisticated large-scale comparisons?