The "medieval economic revolution" theory which Mark Elvin put forward in The Pattern of the Chinese Past (hereinafter referred to as "The Pattern") deeply influenced the research on the social and economic history of the Tang and Song dynasties. The "economic revolution" has generated a wide range of academic discussions. However, there are totally different ideas on it. Proponents argue that it has opened up the horizons of scholars and driven awareness of research issues. Opponents claim that it has no contribution in terms of historical facts and has obvious flaws such as an attempt to integrate Chinese history into the trajectory of European development. So it's very necessary to re-evaluate the contributions and limitations of this theory. Almost all of the theories of economic "revolution" in ancient China put forward by scholars based on different perspectives focus on the Song dynasty. Many other scholars who do not use or endorse the term "revolution" also believe that there was a very obvious development and significant progress in economy of the Song. It is not an astonishing point of view that there was economic revolution during late Tang, Song and Early Yuan, especially the Song Period (referred to as Medieval by Elvin). It is not Mark Elvin that first put forward this idea. The Pattern is a theoretical work whose focus is on theory construction. The "medieval economic revolution" theory does not provide new historical facts and its specific conclusions also face challenges. However, it is a comprehensive study of the economic history of the late Tang, Song and early Yuan dynasties because it attempts to demonstrate the structure of the medieval economy based on the underlying logic of the relationship between the techniques and economy. As far as this is concerned, it should be acknowledged. The "medieval economic revolution" theory answers the framework questions of The Pattern and together with the "high level equilibrium trap" theory, makes up a complete theoretical system self-constructed by Mark Elvin. Some limitations of the theory provide opportunities for new researches. And others are congenital defects which Chinese scholars have to be alert to. We should not follow the specific conclusions of the "medieval economic revolution" theory directly, but should "remove the worst (Europe-centralism)" and absorb the reasonable core of its methodology.