Recent "global" narratives of science have powerfully challenged traditionally Western-centric accounts of scientific development. In global history, "global" now reflects a committed effort to decentralize perspectives by recognizing contributions from beyond the “West”. More importantly, global perspectives aim to disrupt linear, progressive narratives that celebrate Western science, questioning the idea that knowledge flows exclusively from central hubs to peripheral regions. By emphasizing complex dynamics like translational cooperation, knowledge circulation, and cross-cultural exchange, global accounts reveal a world far more fragmented and unpredictable than traditional Western-centric historiographies typically acknowledge. In this talk, I argue that the concept of "global," as commonly employed by global historians of knowledge, might be even more nuanced, multifaceted, and polysemic than most globalist—or non-Western-centric—perspectives suggest. Specifically, I claim that the concept of "global" carries at least three connotations: evolutionary, interactionist, and systemic (which will be duly defined in the talk). Historians of science have frequently addressed—or implicitly assumed—the first two connotations, but they have rarely explored the third. In contrast, systemic approaches have gained traction among heterodox economic historians, who analyze the spread of global economic systems through networks of interdependent regions and specialized areas of production or surplus extraction. I contend that for the global historian of knowledge, these approaches are not contradictory but can instead be complementary. The systemic view may be especially well-suited to understanding how scientific knowledge circulates within recent and contemporary geopolitical networks. In short, I suggest that historians of science might learn some important lessons from “global” economic historians.

Sigmund Freud famously remarked that humanity had undergone a step-by-step process of being decentered from its privileged position. First Copernicus had taken humans out of the center of the universe, then Darwin removed them from the crown of creation, and finally Freud himself crashed their unique rationality. History of science seems to be following a similar process: it has first dethroned Europe as science’s unique birthplace and is now decentering science as a special form of knowledge.

But where does this leave previous conceptions? Were they mere self-complementary narcissisms? In this paper I address this question by examining the work of an outlier of the earlier age: George Sarton (1884-1956). For Sarton too, Europe held no privileged position. He believed science had always been produced everywhere. In his general textbook he included contributions from all over the globe, and in his specialized research he sought to restore the significance of Arab scholarship. At the same time, Sarton’s historiography was no inclusive history of knowledge, and he insisted on drawing a sharp boundary around science. I will trace the implications of this demarcation for the global character of his enterprise. And this will lead me to further unpack what exactly Sarton’s globality meant – and how its meaning was shaped by the geopolitics of the First World War.

Among the various research and writing challenges that a global history of knowledge entails, the geographical question of how to assess the global knowledges from their local contexts requires particular attention. By considering different and recent historiographical backgrounds, I contend that the concept of “contact zones” holds significant profitability, since it provides a valuable framework for writing compelling stories about the dynamics of the multifaceted processes involved in the creation, transmission, and transformation of knowledges in a world characterized by diversity and interdependence. Early modern Spanish America will be highlighted as an exemplar case for analyzing the practices of exchange, translation, and negotiation emerging in contact zones of knowledges.

This paper will focus on the ways in which some recent work in Art History has been decentered through the impact of methods from History of Knowledge, Anthropology and Area Studies. It highlights the study of artifacts from the so-called Global South in relation to ecological approaches drawing on early modern examples.