The aim of this paper is to discuss two historiographical issues pertaining to the history of science in the European periphery. The first issue concerns the wide use of the centre‐periphery dichotomy in historical accounts discussing the diffusion and institutionalization of science across the world. The second issue concerns the use of appropriation (instead of transfer, or adaptation) as a means to overcome the diffusionist model in history of science. Recent work at the intersection of history of science with post‐colonial studies will provide the framework for reassessing these matters. As it will be shown, theoretical discussions about the history of science in post‐colonial context can help historians overcome the centre‐periphery dichotomy and turn European periphery into a privileged standpoint for showing the actual diversity of ‘European science.’ At the same time, the experience of post‐colonial studies can also help sharpen the historiographical tool of appropriation. The assumption that will be made is that by focusing on appropriation rather than on discovery and innovation (the favourite categories of much of mainstream historiography), or on transfer and adaptation (the favourite categories of the diffusionist model), historians of science can not only set aside the artificial distinctions of the diffusionist model, but also bring forward the re‐inventions, the conceptual shifts and the cultural adjustments, which are responsible for the emergence of science as a global phenomenon in the periphery. Especially concerning European periphery, the use of appropriation may bring forward the particular historical circumstances under which certain knowledge patterns gained universal epistemic authority as constitutive elements of an imagined European intellectual identity.