A narrative model which breaks through Eurocentrism has yet to take shape in historical research of the Global Middle Ages. Photo: TUCHONG 

Since the inception of the 21st century, the international history community has taken an increasingly clear “global turn,” as exemplified by the conceptualization of the “Global Middle Ages.” Research on the Global Middle Ages, a term coined by Western scholars, underlines exchanges, connections, and the interplay between different regions, suggesting that academics should incorporate the history of non-European regions into medieval history studies. 

This not only broadens horizons in traditional medieval studies, but also allows scholars to acquire a more comprehensive knowledge of historical development worldwide during this period. Advocates of the concept hope to break traditional geographical constraints and estrangement between civilizations, encouraging academia to observe exchanges and interactions between different regions on economic, cultural, technological, and other fronts, thereby constructing a more inclusive and holistic historical landscape for the Middle Ages. 

In recent years, a growing number of scholars have tried to promote the Global Middle Ages concept, and textbooks and treaties have been published on the subject from time to time. American historian Jerry Bentley’s 1993 work Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times, American scholar of Islam Marshall Hodgson’s investigation into the centuries-old Islamic world, and the “World System” theory put forward by American sociologist Janet Abu-Lughod in her 1991 book Before European Hegemony: The World System can all be regarded as precursors to Global Middle Ages scholarship. However, this “global” concept is inherently flawed. 

Vague timeframe

First, the Global Middle Ages was defined rather vaguely in terms of periodization, with the development trajectory of non-European civilizations ignored. The timeframe of the “Middle Ages,” spanning from the 5th to 15th century, was selected by Western academics using the historical development experience of European civilization, and is thus not universal. Even among European history researchers, there is significant disagreement regarding the periodization and timeframe of the Middle Ages concept. 

Traditionally, it was held that the fall of the Western Roman Empire marks the beginning of the Middle Ages, while scholars who follow the “late antiquity” theory consider the Carolingian Empire the start. 

Based on the development of global history, other time periods might be more appropriate as the outset of the Global Middle Ages. For example, the 3rd century saw the demise of the Han Dynasty in China and the east-west split of the Roman Empire, the 4th century bore witness to the outbound transmission of Buddhism from India and the Christianization of the Roman Empire, and in the 7th century, the Arab-Islamic civilization and China’s Tang Dynasty expanded their clout massively. From the broader perspective of human advancement, these periods of time are more globally representative than the 5th century to commence the Global Middle Ages. 

When identifying the end of the European medieval era, opinions are even more divided. For example, French historian Jacques Le Goff stressed many times that after the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the French Revolution, Europe had completely overturned in terms of thoughts, politics, the economy, and social operations, so it was not until then that the prolonged Middle Ages came to an end. 

Certainly, some scholars argue that the “Middle Ages” in the “Global Middle Ages” is not a stage of European history, but a global phase. They contend that the term Middle Ages was created to draw public attention to cross-cultural exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations in pre-modern times. Therefore, the year 1000 was considered by many scholars to be the start of globalization. 

In the Old World Encounters, Bentley divides the post-classical age and the age of nomadic empires by the year 1000. John R. McNeill, another prestigious global history scholar, believes that the year 1000 signaled accelerated connections within the human network, which was a milestone epoch marked by growth and innovation across regions in all of Eurasia. American sinologist Valerie Hansen held a similar view in his 2020 book The Year 1000: When Explorers Connected the World—and Globalization Began.

In my opinion, from regional and global angles, the year 1000 indeed heralded the thriving of cross-cultural exchanges among civilizations, but vigorous inter-civilizational communication was still confined to Asia, Europe, and Africa. Thus, the Global Middle Ages is not truly a “global” concept. This era was characterized by regional development and the unity of the periphery. It merely saw an extension from the smaller Mediterranean to the continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa. 

Simplified history 

Some medievalists’ overemphasis on “exchanges” and “global” contacts risks simplifying complex historical processes and overlooking local history. To cover extensive historical and geographical scopes, some studies seldom scrutinize cultural disparities and complexities between regions. More importantly, the focus on interactions and exchanges among civilizations might weaken or overshadow distinct features of regional culture, even marginalize the history of the region concerned. Regarding research materials, medieval historians still rely heavily on extant documents about travel, business and trade, diplomatic corps, and missionaries. Consequently, historical narratives are more about observations by “others,” lacking in-depth understanding and analysis of the development of local history and culture, political systems, and social organizations. 

Some studies reduce global connections to relationships between Europe and other regions, neglecting these regions’ own historical development course. The exaggerated role of cross-cultural communication usually leads to the ignorance of local resources and intrinsic driving forces. In research on the Global Middle Ages and even global history as a whole, long-distance business and trade activities and cross-regional imperial rule are disproportionately focused upon. 

For example, Xu Shanwei, a professor of world history at Shanghai Normal University, noted that Western academia tends to overemphasize theories of cross-cultural interactions, hence overlooking inheritance inside each civilization and its role. Liu Wenming, a history professor from Capital Normal University in Beijing, introduced the concept of “subjective civilization,” highlighting the premise of deeming each civilization as the subject of action for composing a pluralistic civilizational history with cross-cultural interactions as the main thread. 

To adopt a truly global approach, it is essential to further underscore the combination of regional studies and a global vision. Efforts are needed to delve deeply into regional history and culture, and contextualize them against global history to explore the connections and interplay between each region and the globe. 

Studies of the Silk Roads have set a good example for the construction of a global history through regional connections. As a vital thoroughfare for commercial and trade exchanges between the East and the West, the ancient overland and maritime Silk Roads connected China, Central Asia, India, West Asia, and the Indian Ocean, stretching as far as to the Mediterranean and linking together vast regions including Eurasia and North Africa. 

The Silk Roads not only channeled commodity exchanges, but also facilitated the circulation of culture, knowledge, techniques, and religion. Particularly from the 11th to 13th century, the cultural spheres of Confucianism in East Asia, Indian influences in South Asia, Islam in the Arab world, Byzantine Orthodoxy, and Latino Catholicism went through renewals and transformations in different ways. Their initial close-mindedness and stubbornness were continually broken, hence reinvigorating the maritime Silk Road and leading to its prosperity rapidly.  

In this grand context, connections were further strengthened among these cultural spheres. With the dissemination of new ideas and technologies and the flow of knowledge, their internal traditional structures were also challenged, prompting cultures to update and revolutionize their knowledge systems. This process was more concerned with specific local historical traditions, as well as social and political factors. 

Homogenous historical interpretations

Apart from information overload and fragmentation, scholarship of the Global Middle Ages also faces the challenge of homogenous historical explanations, especially when medievalists overemphasize the commonalities between civilizations. To pursue universal explanatory applicability, some global historians neglect or deliberately smooth out differences between cultures. This will result in misinterpretations of historical events and phenomena against certain cultural backgrounds. 

Religious communication is a key area in research on the Global Middle Ages, but the role played by religion differed fundamentally in China and Europe. Western academics are inclined toward European religious culture, consciously or unconsciously viewing the dissemination and development of Christianity as the predominant paradigm. 

For example, Catholicism greatly influenced the reconstruction of Europe and the formation of the Latino Western civilization in the early Middle Ages, profoundly shaping their political construction, economic organization, social management, and cultural mentality. In contrast, Buddhism didn’t exert a similarly radical impact on the political legitimacy, social and economic organization, and other aspects of Chinese dynastic empires. A crucial reason for this difference was that the spread of Catholicism in Europe bore the dual tasks of Christianizing and civilizing the continent, while Buddhism encountered an ancient civilization with rich cultural heritage, a highly developed governance system, and unique intellectual and cultural traditions when it was introduced to China. Therefore, Buddhism was actively indigenized in China to enhance its influence. 

To conclude, the Global Middle Ages is by no means a precise and proper concept because its connotations, extensions, and core features are not yet clarified. Nonetheless, it is illuminating to revisit relationships among civilizations in the Middle Ages through a global lens. Western scholars initiated this study probably to understand and interpret the complexity and diversity of human history from broader perspectives and multiple dimensions, but their restrictive knowledge system and thought failed to generate a narrative model which breaks through Eurocentrism. When applying global history methodologies to traditional world medieval history research, it is likewise necessary to avoid the above negative effects and recognize the limitations of pertinent perspectives and approaches, thereby making sense of human history more comprehensively and accurately. 

Li Teng is a professor of world history at Shanghai Normal University. 

Edited by CHEN MIRONG