When Can We Speak of Cultural Appropriation?

Introduction – a Concept in Crisis?

“If someone is accused of cultural appropriation, people say that they have taken elements of another culture as their own” ^[*][1]. Thus, the ‘Collins Dictionary’ defines the term Cultural Appropriation, illustrating how the concept ^[2], advanced in the postcolonial studies, has shifted since its emergence: In the 1970s and 1980s, the term was originally developed – distinct from the notions of exchanges, inspirations, and mutual influences, which imply consensual agreements between the parties involved – to scrutinize the balance of exchange processes between different groups and to describe inappropriate and unjust appropriation of a cultural asset by one group from another. However, outside academia, it quickly evolved into a stronger and less descriptive form of critique or reproach, addressing behaviours perceived as inconsiderate or even racist. Consequently, the term has increasingly developed into a politicised rhetorical device ^[3]. The primary venues for this polemic are, to a large extent, the media, and today especially the social media ^[4].

Consequently, the concept of Cultural Appropriation as it was developed in academia has become blurred and many scholars across various disciplines have distanced themselves from the concept, criticizing the lack of unambiguous definitions as well as the indiscriminate usage of the term in non-scientific discourses ^[5]. Hence, the scholarly discourse on the concept remains relatively fragmented today and the concept itself under-theorized, as Rogers already bemoaned in 2006 ^[6]. This development is particularly unfortunate, as the concept – as this text argues – possesses substantial potential for describing specific types of complex interactions and dynamics, including their normative dimensions, that have yet to be adequately captured.

Originally, the concept of Cultural Appropriation was applied primarily to incidences after 1500 – when modern European colonialism emerged in the eyes of scholarship ^[7] – and to neo-colonial contexts ^[8]. Since the 2000s, it has increasingly been used in the study of earlier periods ^[9]. Yet, unlike other concepts in Colonial Studies, Cultural Appropriation has still not been established for these earlier periods and research on the concept remains here limited both theoretically and in terms of case studies. This is not only due to the general criticism of the term discussed above, but also due to specific objections regarding such applications as unfitting and anachronistic. A key focus of this critique lies in the personal power imbalances underlying Cultural Appropriation, which, as Elisheva Baumgarten argues, did not exist in this form during the Middle Ages ^[10].

This introduction and the following contributions to the volume challenge this restrictive position and assert instead that Cultural Appropriation is a valuable and academically fitting analytical tool for examining contexts across periods and political constellations. The aim here is neither to trace the origins of Cultural Appropriation nor to suggest there exists a continuity of the phenomenon, let alone to make teleological claims. Rather, Cultural Appropriation is to be presented as a heuristic tool, with a minimal definition, enabling a singling out of sufficiently similar occurrences for study.

As with any other concept or tool, however, its application requires careful and critical assessment – an approach often wanting in existing scholarship ^[11]. To address this gap, this introduction subsequently discusses the historical development and definitions of Cultural Appropriation, critically explores its broader applicability beyond modern colonial and neo-colonial contexts, and establishes a theoretical foundation for its usage as a heuristic tool. In the next step, Cultural Appropriation will be compared with other concepts that focus on the examination of transcultural encounters, their interactions, and their outcomes. In doing so, the author highlights the potential of Cultural Appropriation to reveal aspects of cultural interactions that remain overlooked in other concepts with other foci.

Building on this framework, the subsequent contributions evaluate the concept’s relevance and limitations through the examination of case studies. Together, these contributions represent the outcome of the conference ‘Premodern Forms of Cultural Appropriation,’ held from September 11^th to 13^th, 2023 at the Cluster of Excellence ‘Religion and Politics’ at the University of Münster and in cooperation with the university’s Institute of Jewish Studies and the Department of History ^[12]. The cases discussed range from the Egyptian Empire and early Mycenaean culture to medieval India and 16^th-century Mexico, and they are examined by an interdisciplinary group of scholars, including historians, art historians, egyptologists, theologians, and archaeologists. Accordingly, the papers test the relevance and applicability of the concept of Cultural Appropriation across a variety of periods, regions, and disciplines.

The Development of the Concept

The term Cultural Appropriation first appeared in 1945 in Arthur E. Cristy’s book ‘The Asian Legacy and American Life’, where Christy explored the rootedness of European cultural outcome – literature, philosophy, art, and science – in Asia and Asian objects ^[13]. Yet, Christy’s understanding of the term aligned in fact more closely with the notion of a mere ‘appropriation’ as it is often employed in literary studies and art history and which – according to the Tate Gallery – denotes “the practice of artists using pre-existing objects or images in their art with little transformation of the original” ^[14]. In this sense, appropriation is understood as ‘influence,’ as a process of ‘adaptation,’ ‘copying,’ and, at times, ‘assimilation’ ^[15]. In examining appropriations, scholars have primarily focused on identifying the origins of an artefact – its source of inspiration, the idea provider, whether material or immaterial – by analysing the outcome of the appropriation, such as a literary work or piece of art. In doing so, comparatively little attention has been paid to the appropriation process itself ^[16]. Importantly, although not always, the term is generally used as a neutral – if not implicitly positive – description of this act.

This perspective aligns with the broader linguistic understanding of the word ‘appropriation,’ deriving from the Latin verb appropriare, meaning ‘to make one’s own’. Here too, the term is typically regarded as a neutral descriptor of the act of taking. Nevertheless, not all interpretations of appropriation share this neutrality. For instance, the ‘Merriam-Webster Dictionary’ highlights the notion of exclusive possession inherent in acts of appropriation, describing it as something conducted for a “particular purpose or use” and often involving a taking “without authority or right” ^[17]. Similarly, in legal contexts ‘to appropriate’ can refer to the unauthorized – and therefore illegal – taking of something, effectively rendering an appropriation an act of theft ^[18].

In the 1970’s, scholars – particularly in literary studies and under the influence of postcolonial discourse – began to challenge this interpretation of appropriations as mere influence and inspiration. They argued that such a perspective oversimplified the diversity of actions associable with the term. Instead, they noted that these actions could occur under widely varying circumstances and with differing intentions. Furthermore, they highlighted how this interpretation overlooked the associated responsibilities and failed to address the injustices often inherent in such processes. Central to this discourse was the recognition of the unequal power dynamics inherent in exchanges between dominant and marginalised cultures. Additionally, these scholars began to emphasise the intersectionality of appropriation with questions of identity, representation, and authenticity ^[19]. One of the most prominent voices in this discourse was Edward Said ^[20].

From the 1980s onward, this notion was discussed under the term Cultural Appropriation ^[21]. Formative voices here were Bruce Ziff, Pamela Krueger, and Pattima V. Rao ^[22]. They primarily employed the term to analyse contexts of modern colonialism. However, the term was never limited to these settings. Instead, it was understood to describe broader inequalities between minorities and majorities, with divisions cutting across categories such as “ethnicity, race, nationality, class, and gender” ^[23], whereby the minority groups were defined as “disempowered, colonized, peripheral or subordinate” ^[24].

Acts of cultural transfer occur under diverse circumstances and within complex social networks. Consequently, not every instance of such transfer – even when involving a majority or dominant culture and a minority – necessarily occurs under unequal terms and indicates oppression, exploitation of, or a lack of respect for a minority group and its possessions ^[25]. Against this backdrop, some critics reject the concept of Cultural Appropriation, arguing that all encounters between cultures inevitably involve exchange, including the transfer of both material and immaterial objects, and which is captured under the term transcultural transfer, which will be discussed further below ^[26]. It is important to highlight, however, that the concept of Cultural Appropriation does not oppose this idea. Rather, it advocates for a distinction between different types of appropriation in transcultural contexts, differentiating cultural appropriation from cultural appreciation ^[27]. Achieving this requires nuanced debates about the contexts of appropriation, about boundaries between borrowing and stealing, genuine homage, and commodification. A key challenge in this regard is the lack of a universally accepted definition. The following section will introduce and compare existing definitions and ultimately propose a working definition of its own.

Defining Cultural Appropriation

As previously noted, some definitions frame Cultural Appropriation as a rhetorical tool in sociopolitical discourses, either using it to highlight racism or portraying it as a prime example of so-called ‘cancel culture’. These perspectives are crucial for understanding the historical evolution of the term, its current interpretations, and the debates it has sparked. However, they deviate significantly from the original meaning and conceptual focus of the term, which was developed within academic discourse and which rather emphasises the process of Cultural Appropriation itself. These scholarly approaches can be broadly categorized into two distinct types:

One stream of definitions regards the unjust and potentially disrespectful nature of Cultural Appropriation, stemming from a power imbalance between the groups involved, as constitutive of the concept. These definitions do not imply that all forms of transcultural exchange and transfer between groups carry such connotations. However, they assert that these characteristics are intrinsic to Cultural Appropriation.

Thus, ‘Cambridge Dictionary’ writes: “The act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture” ^[28]. Ziff and Rao, two law professors who published their groundbreaking work ‘Borrowed Power’ in 1997, further elaborate on the nature of the groups involved in the act of appropriation: a privileged group – where privilege may be economic, political, or institutional – appropriates from a suppressed or marginalised group ^[29]. The power dynamics arising from privilege and the lack of privilege are identified by these two legal scholars as key to distinguishing between “misappropriation” ^[30], as they also refer to Cultural Appropriation, and “assimilation” ^[31].

These definitions emphasise the inherent unfairness in this form of appropriation, which stems from a power imbalance that prevents the act from being fully mutually accepted. Especially the ‘Cambridge Dictionary’ underscores the negative implications, attributing it to a lack of empathy or ignorance on the part of the dominant culture in its treatment of the other culture and its artefacts. Theresa Jäckh and John Aspinwall refer to this as the “violent dynamics of cultural appropriation” ^[32]. Another key element of these definitions is that the subjects involved in the exchange of an object belong to two groups that perceive themselves as distinct and identify with different communities, referred to as cultures ^[33]. The appropriated objects, in turn, must be specific to the respective culture, whether through their design, function, concept, etc. ^[34].

The ‘Oxford Companion to English Literature’ offers a more narrow discussion regarding the nature of the communities involved: Thus, it states: “It is in general used to describe Western appropriations of non-Western or non-white forms, and carries connotations of exploitation and dominance” ^[35]. By employing the terms exploitation and dominance, this definition incorporates the previously discussed negative impacts, too. However, with regard to the specific attribution of the groups involved, this paper identifies this definition as a distinct subgroup. The use of the terms ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western,’ increasingly criticised for their lack of precision ^[36], seeks to highlight relationships shaped by colonialism, whether as colonisers and colonised, groups with a colonial or colonised past, or instances of neo-colonialism. For this reason, the definition appears to be too narrow, being overly restrictive regarding specific temporal, regional, and conceptual delineations of the groups involved in appropriation. As a result, the definition does not adequately represent colonial contexts and overlooks the multiplicity and interconnection of marginalization and privilege. These dynamics extend beyond the binary categories of ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’.

The second group of definitions emphasises that not every act of Cultural Appropriation must carry negative connotations. Proponents of this view emphasise the natural exchange and subsequent transformation of goods, ideas, and symbols in transcultural contexts – an argument previously mentioned and also put forward by scholars who reject the concept of Cultural Appropriation. Thus, Rogers writes: “[ T ]he use of a culture’s symbols, artefacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture, is inescapable when cultures come into contact, including virtual or representational contact” ^[37]. Even more notably, James O. Young, one of the leading scholars on the subject, writes in the introduction to his book ‘Cultural Appropriation and the Arts’:

[ … ] [ C ]ultural appropriation [ … ] does not necessarily carry with it any moral baggage. Someone might prefer to use the concept of cultural appropriation to designate an objectionable class of transactions. Such people would distinguish cultural appropriation from cultural exchange or cultural borrowing, which could be unobjectionable. I will apply the concept of cultural appropriation to any use of something developed in one cultural context by someone who belongs to another culture. I will then try to distinguish between objectionable and unobjectionable cultural appropriation ^[38].

Similarly, Ashley and Plough, editors of one of the few volumes dedicated to medieval instances of Cultural Appropriation, write in their introduction: “The essays in this special issue avoid the reductive model whereby every act of appropriation must be one of imposed power [ … ] ^[39].” The two authors call this “a more nuanced view” ^[40]. However, these definitions ultimately reduce the concept to what ‘appropriation’ already implies – a notion deemed insufficiently specific by postcolonial studies in the 1970s for certain contexts. In contrast, this introduction argues that a truly nuanced perspective requires distinguishing between different forms of appropriation, with Cultural Appropriation identified as one subcategory.

For this reason, it advocates adopting the open first group of definitions as the guiding framework, as it refrains from narrowly determining the lines along which the groups involved in Cultural Appropriation are distinguished, while also not dissolving the distinction between broader appropriation and the specific subtype of Cultural Appropriation. Building on this foundation, the following section will present a working definition, which primarily aligns with the first type of definition while incorporating additional specifics and clarifications on certain aspects.

Cultural Appropriation – a Working Definition

Cultural Appropriation as a Heuristic Tool: A Comparative Conceptual Analysis

As a result of the postcolonial turn, various disciplines developed or revived concepts aimed at describing “forms of cultural interaction” ^[62] in their full complexity, while also addressing colonial, neocolonial, and other social and historical forms of injustice. These concepts share many similarities, yet each carry slightly different connotations and emphases. This section seeks to provide a brief comparison between the concept of Cultural Appropriation and similar frameworks to carve out its unique characteristics and to identify its advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, it will propose concepts that complement the study of incidents of Cultural Appropriation.

Cases of Cultural Appropriation are often also understood as examples of Cultural Transfer ^[63]. This concept, developed in the 1980s ^[64], focuses on the processes of exchange of both material and immaterial objects through space and beyond boundaries. A key focus of the research on the concept is the transformation that the cultures involved undergo through the transfer ^[65]. While the concept receives to this day plenty of attention, it is also criticised for reducing complex processes to a “unilateral sender-receiver model” ^[66]. Furthermore, the positive connotation of the concept, which emphasises the inspirational and cooperational character of such transfers for all cultures involved, must be critically examined. Additionally, the framework of Cultural Transfer places less emphasis on the causes and contexts of such interactions, framing them instead as developments that always occur in spaces of transcultural encounters ^[67]. By contrast, the notion of Cultural Appropriation challenges these assumptions, requiring careful differentiations based on context, intent, and effect.

Similar to the concept of cultural transfer, Acculturation – a term originating in the nineteenth century ^[68] – is now predominantly understood as describing the mutual influence and adoption of cultural elements among culturally distinct individuals and groups. Hereby, this concept is highly focused on the result or product of those interactions: i. e., the merging of societies or individual aspects such as the development of language. Although the process is often understood as natural, it carries a form of intentionality. Furthermore, the result of an acculturation process implies a cultural convergence towards a form of equality. While Cultural Appropriation can result in Acculturation, it differs in its focus, as it highlights how transcultural contact often perpetuates or reinforces differences and marginalization ^[69].

A more nuanced concept than Acculturation is that of Transculturation, which examines the interweaving of cultural traditions in terms of societal relationships, processes, practices, and artefacts ^[70]. A major difference between Transculturation and Acculturation is their understanding of culture. While the latter understands it as static, Transculturality emphasises its constantly changing character, leading to the continual reformation of these cultural interaction spaces. The concept was introduced by Fernando Ortiz ( 1881–1969 ) ^[71] and later revived by the philosopher Wolfgang Welsch, who saw it particularly at work in today’s globalised world. Welsch envisions the dissolution of distinct entities, proposing fluid transitions between boundaries and identities, between the foreign and the familiar, or even the ‘dissolution’ of such distinctions. Although transculturality also affects the micro level, the concept primarily focuses on the macro level ^[72]. As such, it is not well suited to address the effects of specific encounters. Yet, the notion of Cultural Appropriation emphasises that it is crucial to consider the specific contexts of encounter, such as the features and meaning of an appropriated artefact as well as the relationship of the communities involved in the transfer.

Another concept that remains highly influential today is Homi Bhabha’s notion of Hybridity, which he defines referring to products of transcultural encounters. These products emerge from complex processes of cultural and identity negotiation that, in his view, occur within the interstitial spaces between cultures, referred to as the ‘Third Space’. Hybridity challenges the notion of fixed, stable identities and cultural boundaries. Instead, it emphasises the fluidity and ongoing construction of identity and culture through the interaction and blending of diverse cultural elements, resulting in the creation of hybrid objects, both material or immaterial amalgamations ^[73]. Thus, Peter Burke distinguishes between ‘hybrid artefacts,’ ‘hybrid texts,’ ‘hybrid practices,’ and ‘hybrid people’ ^[74]. An issue with the concept is its continuously strong separation of the different entities that contribute to the hybrid result. Additionally, the concept implies a certain harmony within these amalgamations, while paying less attention to the context in which the conflation occurred, as well as to its effects and the perception of the resulting ‘hybrid product’. Cornejo Polar even goes so far as to argue that the concept serves to obscure instances of violence ^[75]. While Cultural Appropriation can also result in what are understood as hybrid products, identifying hybrids as such does little to reveal the conditions of their formation or to assess their afterlife following the process of hybridization – an aspect that the concept of Cultural Appropriation, by contrast, strongly emphasises.

As the image of an entanglement suggests, the concept of the same name – also referred to as Entangled Histories ^[76] – proceeds from the assumption that transcultural interactions develop organically, continuously weaving and dissolving connections. Hereby, the strings that get entangled are mutually involved in the creation of a net. Thus, this approach attempts to understand the creation of culture within a space of transcultural interaction as a product equally generated by all parties involved. Furthermore, it argues that all entities involved in the entanglement undergo a transformation through the new connections – an important difference to Hybridity. It is a process that continually unfolds, with threads connecting and then separating, indicating that the connections are temporally limited ^[77]. In this context, the concept does not imply a complete dissolution of the entities but rather refers to specific points of contact in which the entities become entangled ^[78]. In doing so, the concept aims to challenge the notion that cultural exchange is primarily driven by the dominance of the majority or dominant group within a context of power imbalance. Instead, all entities possess agency ^[79]. While this is an important angle that is all too often overlooked, it also poses the risk of romanticizing those interactions. Who, for instance, decides on and thus regulates these entanglements?

Cultural Appropriation does not deny mutual influence but emphasises the lack of agency experienced by the dominated minority group. At the same time, these two concepts can complement one another through their different emphases. Thus, one can plausibly argue that instances of Cultural Appropriation occur within entangled contexts and during processes of disentanglement. Another interesting consideration results from the German denomination of the concept as ‘Verflechtung’ which carries the impetus of being trapped in the net of interaction. This does not deny the agency and active involvement and impact of a minority group in an act of Cultural Appropriation but emphasises the potential lack of voluntariness involved ( too ) ^[80].

Another concept that can complement the study of Cultural Appropriation is Intersectionality, coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw ^[81]. Since its inception, intersectionality has been integrated into feminist and postcolonial theories to analyse how overlapping socially constructed categories, such as gender, race, sexuality, ability, class, nation, ethnicity, and age, determine identity, belonging, and thus political power relations and social relations. These categories are not “discrete and mutually exclusive entities, but rather build on each other and work together” ^[82]. Decoding individuals’ and groups’ identities and affiliations through these categories enhances our understanding of privilege and marginalization, exclusion mechanisms, and power structures ^[83]. Therefore, it can also be of great heuristic value to understand the axes along which Cultural Appropriations happen.

Intersectionality questions the static concept of culture, as the latter shapes identities and belonging, as well as group identities based on very broad categories such as language, borders, nations, etc., a rigidity that is also inherent in the concept of Cultural Appropriation, endangering cultural essentialism as discussed previously. This tends to take too little account of the fluidity of groups and belonging and, on the contrary, endangers to lead to rigidity, separation, and possibly to the continuation of exclusion. Thus, it may also provide a framework for exploring how the mechanisms carved out for Cultural Appropriation function within what is perceived as one community or ‘culture,’ for instance, along boundaries defined by gender, sexuality, social class, or other axes of differentiation – contexts that have been less frequently considered as potential instances of Cultural Appropriation. Intersectionality, which questions common understandings of group affiliation and stresses the complexities of belonging, is valuable to circumvent making hasty and overly simplistic decisions regarding group affiliation and basing the evaluation of contexts of Cultural Appropriation on such judgements.

While the previously introduced concepts address transcultural interactions and forms of exchange, the concept of Cultural Appropriation distinguishes itself by delving deeper into interactions that occur within specific cultural relationships – namely those characterized by unequal power dynamics, which often translate into general dependencies. Moreover, it specifically examines the products that arise from these relationships, as well as their effects, which may persist over the long term. The combination of these focal points, alongside its call to critically interrogate processes within such dependencies, defines this concept. At the same time, it can be integrated with other approaches that focus more strongly on different aspects of transcultural contexts to achieve a deeper understanding.

Cultural Appropriation beyond Periodization Boundaries?

While other postcolonial concepts have already been successfully applied to precolonial contexts without much contention ^[84], the concept of Cultural Appropriation, as mentioned earlier, faces various doubts. Thus, the concept’s application to times before modern colonialism is considered anachronistic and unfitting, as personal constellations are understood to differ from those colonial contexts ^[85]. With regard to the first critique, however, I would argue that almost all historiography involves some degree of anachronism. The crucial question, rather, is whether the previously described criteria – those determinatives for Cultural Appropriation – were at play in the context in question. With regard to the second point, I would like to emphasise that the purportedly limited applicability of the concept of Cultural Appropriation is, in fact, primarily a result of its conceptual history. The original ideas behind the concept instead envisioned broad applicability without temporal restrictions, while its application over the past decades has primarily focused on modern colonial and neo-colonial contexts. It is certain that the relationships between privileged and marginalised groups differed in contexts. This, however, is also the case for modern colonialism – a point that applies even more strongly to neo-colonial contexts. Yet, the applicability of the concept is not called into question for either of these phenomena. Thus, it seems both reasonable and justified to understand the concept as a valuable heuristic tool for examining the relationship between minorities and majorities, its implications for the production of cultural goods and cultural identity, as well as its instrumentalization – regardless of fixed historical periods or specific regional contexts. As such it provides a valuable lens for analysing the individual components involved in Cultural Appropriation: actors, artefacts, and spaces.

A final example from Toledo will illustrate the extent to which the strict separation of historical periods and the associated applicability of the concept of Cultural Appropriation are interconnected: In 2013, the Federation of Jewish Communities in Spain approached the Catholic Church with a request to restore a medieval building in Toledo, today best known under its Christian name ‘Santa María la Blanca’, to its original function as a synagogue. The building had been confiscated in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, a time of several violent persecutions and riots against the Jews of Castile, and had subsequently been converted into a church ^[86]. Although the building at the time of the petition was and is no longer used as a church, Toledo’s archbishop denied the request ^[87]. How can we understand the confiscation of the synagogue, its subsequent conversion into a ( Catholic ) church, and the archbishop’s recent decision to keep the building in Christian property? How are these events interconnected and what do they tell us about Cultural Appropriation and the phenomenon of Cultural Appropriation in pre-colonial periods?

The decision to retain possession of a building that was confiscated and repurposed during a period of persecution bears significant parallels to other contested properties discussed within the framework of Cultural Appropriation. The preservation of numerous objects in museums across Europe is just one such example ^[88]. The temporal gap between the expropriation of an appropriated object and the subsequent debate over its restitution, as well as the decision against its return, is central to this discussion. The fact that the building now houses a museum under the auspices of the Toledan bishopric makes the situation all the more contentious. Thus, it underscores how non-Jewish authorities utilize the building to present the history of Iberian Jewry from its own perspective, thereby appropriating the authority to narrate that story ^[89]. Against this backdrop, the bishopric’s decision to retain the building and reject its restitution can justifiably be classified as an act of Cultural Appropriation.

However, is this an example of one, ongoing act of Cultural Appropriation, given that the building has remained in Christian hands for over six centuries? Or is it a reaffirmation of a historical act of Cultural Appropriation, or even an entirely new act? How can the case of the synagogue-church of Santa María la Blanca in Toledo be interpreted without overstepping periodical boundaries, while also avoiding the suggestion of direct continuity, which would require the actors involved to be the same or at least from the same community? This example highlights the challenges of establishing strict rules for its applicability. Instead, the concept of Cultural Appropriation, with its analytical focus, provides nuanced insights into cultural interactions, such as the case of the synagogue-church of Santa María la Blanca. It sheds light on how specific acts of appropriation were committed‚ while also highlighting the intentions behind and the effects of cultural transfers. Moreover, it deepens our understanding of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of such transfers and offers valuable tools for evaluating their outcomes.

The Contributions to the Volume

The outcomes of the conference are being published in this and the journal’s next issue ( scheduled for 2026 ), bringing together contributions that approach Cultural Appropriation from different disciplinary, temporal, and regional perspectives, while collectively questioning the adequacy of established models for describing cultural contact, transfer, and transformation.

In the present volume, Angelika Lohwasser revisits the transformation of the Egyptian god Amun into a central deity in Nubia. It traces a long-term process of Cultural Appropriation that unfolds not as a single act, but as a structured sequence of adaptation, recontextualization, and re-signification. The article sets the stage for understanding appropriation as a dynamic process of religious and political integration, shaped both by shifts in power and by local meaning-making.

A different kind of appropriation – discursively constructed and polemically charged – is addressed in Wolfram Drews’ analysis of Paulus Alvarus’ writings in ninth-century Córdoba. Cultural Appropriation appears here as a rhetorical accusation used by Christian polemicists against Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Christians. This contribution adds the dimension of Cultural Appropriation as a strategy of boundary defence, employed from a Christian minority position.

Shifting to the context of late medieval and early modern Ireland, Marcel Bubert explores the intersection of Cultural Appropriation and racialization. Focusing on English settlers in Ireland who adopted Irish cultural practices, the study shows how such appropriation became the basis for new forms of ethnic stereotyping. This essay thus broadens the conceptual scope of the volume by linking cultural adoption to emerging structures of exclusion and identity policing.

Neta Bodner’s chapter turns to Jewish and Christian architecture in medieval Cologne, proposing a theoretical model that draws on both appropriation and creolization to analyse material and stylistic exchange. Focusing on synagogues, ritual baths, and shared urban space, it shows how religious architecture reflects broader social processes and theological imaginaries. In doing so, the chapter challenges binary models of integration versus isolation and calls for a more nuanced understanding of shared technological and aesthetic environments.

Matthias Maser’s contribution examines the concept of Cultural Appropriation through the lens of medieval Iberian numismatics. He proposes a broader, semiotic understanding of appropriated objects as transcultural signifiers that mediate between cultural systems. This theoretical framework is applied to Christian imitations of Islamic coinage, which, while visually mimicking Almoravid models, were modified to assert Christian supremacy. Against this backdrop, the analysis challenges conventional understandings of Cultural Appropriation and illustrates how such acts can involve both adaptation and ideological assertion.

Acknowledgment

Both the conference and the subsequent publication of its contributions is the result of many and plenty of support: First, I would like to thank the conference speakers and the engaged audience for their valuable discussions ^[90]. Second, none of this would have been possible without the generous funding provided by the Cluster of Excellence through the German Research Foundation, as well as support from the International Fund of the University and the Faculty of Philology, to whom I extend my profound gratitude. Thirdly, I would like to thank the journal ‘Frühmittelalterliche Studien’ and its editors as well as the student assistants for their support with the publication. Lastly, I am deeply grateful to Evelyn Grossberg and Anna Maj Blundell for their meticulous editing of the texts in English.