Cosmopolitanism and Eurocentrism in Historical Fiction and Recreation

As part of her critique of neoliberalism and its cosmopolitan aspects, Inderpal Grewal discusses In an Antique Land, a book by Amitav Ghosh combining narrative ethnography of two Egyptian villages in the late 1980s and historical fiction about a 12th-century Jewish trader.  In her discussion she critiques especially the ways in which Ghosh romanticizes the cosmopolitan situation of the medieval spice trade.  

Specifically, she argues that, despite an attempt to reject the colonial narratives of medieval Europeans, his book is “guided by colonial narratives of migration and trade and the forms of travel, which...are the only way to reach histories of connection between Egypt and India.”  She is thus saying that his conceptions of cosmopolitanism are very similar to those of the Western conception that he is trying to be rid of.  She does, however, stress that part of the reason this is so is because of the fact that the sources he is using are either medieval European sources or sources from medieval Egypt that are being held by Western institutions.  The Cairo Geniza, a rich source of documents (letters, wills, trousseau lists, marriage agreements, etc.) illuminating the daily life of 12th-century Jews in Cairo, is still held mainly in institutions in Britain and the United States, with some portions held in other European countries.  

Grewal’s critique of Ghosh’s methods and attitudes toward medieval cosmopolitanism is especially interesting to me, as a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism.  The SCA is an educational organization focused on learning about and recreating pre-17th century activities and practices.  These range from fighting to dancing to blacksmithing to embroidery.  Currently the range of available regions and practices is limited to those of peoples who had demonstrable contact with Europe during the time period the SCA covers.  Aztec, Persian, and Ethiopian personae and practices are acceptable, as are Roman, Norse, and French.  

While the range of acceptable personae is increasing as more evidence is found for contact with non-European peoples, it still excludes a number of areas of the globe.  And more importantly, it still puts the focus on Europe and Europeans for determining the acceptability of any given persona.  Someone who wanted a Māori persona would thus have to prove that the Māori were in contact with Europe before the 17th century.  Absent this proof, that person would need to change to a persona with a level of proof acceptable to the SCA.  Any kind of trade or traffic between the Māori and other groups in any region other than Europe, would be interesting but not relevant to this proof.  Despite the theoretically cosmopolitan nature of the SCA and its interests, then, the key factor of acceptability is contemporary European knowledge of the existence of the peoples.  

What relevance might the fact that most people involved in the SCA are of European descent have to this decision?  What relevance might this decision have to the fact that most people involved are of European descent?  How does the fact that much mainstream Western scholarship about history has focused on the West affect the kinds of criteria for determining cosmopolitanism or acceptability?  How can authors and historical recreators find historical scholarship on non-Western peoples that does not fall into these sorts of traps?  Why might it be problematic that the Cairo Geniza documents are held in Western institutions rather than those in Egypt?