Acta Archaeologica 1985 I-II. [antikvár]

J. MAKKAY DIFFUSIONISM, ANTIDIFFUSIONISM AND CHRONOLOGY: SOME GENERAL REMARKS "At a time when the peoples of Europe were, so to speak, without any civilization whatsoever, the Orient and particularly the Euphrates region and the Nile were already in enjoyment of a flourishing culture. The civilization which gradually dawned on our continent was for long only a pale reflection of Oriental culture.These, are the words of Oscar Montelius, who in the second lialf of the nineteenth century was a strong advocate of outside and eastern influences and invasions. However, neither he, nor anybody else for that matter, ever gave a clear-cut definition of the category of diffusionism or of its proofs. Especially not in the case of specific types of artefacts. Thus, ' 'the onus of proof is on the diffusionist, to show that the trait is the same in the two areas, that CO mmunieation between the two was possible, and that there are no difficulties in the relative dates."^ Accordingly, in giving our proofs we must rely on the two main, but at the same time, most uncertain domain of archaeological research, namely typology and chronology. It is fairly obvious that diffusionism is the characteristic scientific upshot of the second half of the 19th century, which saw the flourishing of coloniahsm. "It was born out of the colonial experience in which the industrial nations of Europe looked for markets and raw materials in «backward» parts of the world, at the same time intending to bring the blessings of civilization there. Diffusionism limits the rise of advanced cultures to a few places, whose distinctive features are then carried outward to less advanced areas. Normally the process of diffusion is accomplished by the direct movement of colonists."^ The lack of a general consensus on.this issue is further enhanced by the many superfluous expressions used to define the theoretically possible models of cultural diffusion: when we speak of internal developments brought about by invasion, migration, colonisation, stimulus diffusion, interaction, absorption, adaptation, blending or very simple external influences. These empty expressions were best filled with reality and buttressed with the archaeological material by Gordon Childe. His concept of diffusion was infinitely more than just a simple scientific approach, or to use the current term, a research model. It has been suggested that Childe's concept of diffusion was in a sense a weapon against the nationalist interpretation of German national socialism: "He beheved that demonstrating that Europe owed its early technological development to the diffusion of knowledge from the Near East served to counteract the myths of European, and specifically Teutonic, superiority that played such an important role in European politics during most of his professional career and which had been introduced in an overtly political fashion into archaeology by the nationalistic interpretations of prehistory of the German archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna."^ We have only quoted two opinions about the history of diffusionism; both tend to view diffusionism as a reflection of the political and economic conditions of modern societies, rather ' Glyn Daniel: From Worsaao to Childe: the = L. E. Stover—B. Kbaig: Stonehenge. The Indo- models of prehistory. PPS 37 (1971): 2, p. 143. European heritage. Chicago 1978, p. 37. ' W. Bray—D. Tbump: The Penguin Dictionary " B. Tbiogeb: If Childo were alive today. BIA 19 of archaeology. Harmondaworth 1973, p. 74. (1982) p. 3. 1 * Acta Arcliaeologlca Academiae Scienliarum Httuoaricae 37,19S5 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest