Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pitts y Versluys Caps 1 Inglés.

    Uploaded by

    Javier Nunez
    23 views20 pages

    Original Title

    - Pitts y Versluys caps 1 inglés.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    23 views20 pages

    Pitts y Versluys Caps 1 Inglés.

    Uploaded by

    Javier Nunez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 20
    GLOBALISATION AND THE ROMAN WORLD World history, connectivity and material culture CAMBRIDGE anti ny Prop be ety of Canter "eh Une minding aint pot ‘cn tp sn sad ego een ed chee ‘Mite ks ences ertios Caine Unmet Poss Atl sf ti ptm aa fom eh bay Ines s7ctp-ines Papas ‘cenit eo ‘Simi nersie bien a , . CONTENTS Contitorbigraphis age vi Acknowledgements a Pare eodtion Globalisation andthe Roman world: perspectives and opportuites Martin Pitt a Miguel Job Verslaye 5 Postcolonial and global Rome: che genealogy f empire Richard Higley 2 Paet Case sais CGlobalstion and che Roman economy Neve Morley ~ Globalisation, iclaion and mass consumption in the Roman world ‘Martin Pits 6 “The global an the local inthe Roman empize connectivity snd moby from an urban perspective Rey Laurence and Prncesco Tr 9” Poly’ lobal moment and human mobility through ancient aly lens Isayev a Roman vsol material cukure a globaising ine Miguel John Verhaye ur OIKOYMENH: longue durée perspectives on ancient “Medieeranean ‘global Michael Sommer us GR = Contents {4 Globalisation and Roman cukural heritage Robert Witcher Part Perspectives ro Ancient Rome and globalisation: dacening Rome Jam NedercenPieterse 11 Global, lcs and ia beeween: connectivity and the Mediteranean ‘Tamar Hodos Works cited Index 295 CONTRIBUTOR BIOGRAPHIES De Tamar Hodos Deparment of Archaeology and Anthropology, Univers of Bristol Material Caltre and Social Idee the Snciont Word (with Shelley Hales; Cambridge 3010) Profesioe Richard Hingley Department of Archaology, Durham» Universi Globulin Roman Culture: Unity, diversity end pire (Routledge, 2005) De Elena layer Department of Cassie and Ancient Hscory, Unversity of Exeter ‘Ancien Ia: Regio without boundaries wth Guy Bradley and Corinna ‘Riva, University of Exeter Pres, 2007) Profesor Ray Laurence Classi 8 Archcolopcl Sti, University of Kent “The City inthe Roman West e230 BC. AD 350 (with Simon Esmonde Cleary and Gareth Seuss Cambsidse, 2010) Profesor Neville Mosley Department of Classics & Ancien Hiscory, Univesity of Bisel Antguty and Modem (Blackwell, 2008) Professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse University of Caiforia, Santa Barbara Globalization and Caltre: Global melange Rowman and Lief, 2003) Dr Martin Pits Deparment of Cass and Ancient Histor, Univers of Exeter ‘Alen Cites: Consunption and Se origins of urbanian Reman Briain (with Domine Pereing: Spilheap Monograph 7, 2013) ~Contribur biographies — De Michal Sommer Insti ir Geschichte, Car von Osserky Universitit Roms oriewalsche Steppengrence. Palmyra ~ Edessa Hata (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2095) De Francesco Tri Clas & Archacolopical Seadis, Univesity of Kent Underatanding Age inthe Weslers Roman Empire: An epigraphic study (oth Ray Laurens in preparitin) De Miguel John Versi acuity of Archaology Leiden Urivescy Isis om the Niles Egypion gods in Heleisic and Roman Ey (ith Tauren Bricaul Bri 20r0) De Rober Witcher Department of Archaeology, Durham Univesey “Life of an Ancine Monument Fladsia’s wall in history” (Antiquity 86 (Gora) 60-71, with R. ingle and C. Nes ura Europes = rr ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This volume benefiued fom a long genesis, with the idea arising following conversations between the editors and other contebutors at the Theoreial Archaeology Conferences (TRAC) held in Amsterdam (2008) and Oxford (zor0} The main impetus was a rwoday workshop Feld atthe Devon and Exeter Insttion in Apnl 2007, for which we re indeed co the faancal assistance provided by the Department of ‘Ghasies and Ancient History and the College of Humanities at the Uniersiy of Exer. ‘Matin Pits would like co thank Professor Stephen Mitchel fr advice and praca assistance wih the organisation ofthe Exeter workshop, 2¢ ‘well as hit iellecualiapue atthe event. He also thanks Classics and [wien History sudens a Exeter who elle a early dat of this ok insur). Theva eactonsproveked sme unexpected new peropectves “nd helped improve the oveal cary ofthe volume. Miguel ohn Verlus would ike thank the Nederlands Organisation fog Scenic Reseach (NWO) for granting him a VIDI project ented *Caltal novation in «globaliing soe: Egypt inthe Roman word of wich cis book sa eesul as wel as Frederick G. Naerebout for the many ferce debates on ‘lobalistio and the Romaa world, and Thomas Sith for his kind invitation eo the Center for Global Seas in Been Both eitors would like to hank the contributors o this Book for their ‘various forms of eis and their iclcral engagement. Forte editing process we are cipecialyidebeed to Tamar Hodos and eo anoaymous ‘viewer, a well a to Beatrice Red and her editorial tam a Cambeidge Universiy Pres. We thale Antonio Montsant for combating several ‘lustatons, norably Fig. 1, and Marike van Acde for he assistance with ‘heraitng and indexing of he volume Exeter & Leiden, November 2013 INTRODUCTION GLOBALISATION AND THE ROMAN WORLD: PERSPECTIVES AND. OPPORTUNITIES Martin Pits and Miguel Jobm Versys ‘Westould ps the loblaion analog harder, sping the ancient [Modierasen the sae ough questo at scolt ask aout astedes nour om Isrropuction ‘Through a collection of essays this book explores the value of global scion theory to foster beter understandings ofthe Reman world and ite material cultuce Why i such an exploration worhwhile? We believe tlobalisation theory has the potential to add significantly co several racial debates in Roman archaeology and history. faking this stance ‘we are not alone: afer a jlting sare, the concepe of globalisation has Sppeared. with inceasing Frequency in publications addressing, very diferent aspects ofthe Roman world." However, using a term because icis currently fashionable wil not salfce, Why showld this concep be ted, and what can ie add tae cusrene conceptal and methodological Spparatus lack? To anawer these questions we must critically examine the current state of globalisation theory to determine if i is for Purpose, Indeed, many Roman archaeologists and historians evoking the concepe have arguably done so suggestively, without detailed aten tion to the theoretical debate tha constiter globalisation sad, or forthe consequences that ‘lobalisig che Roman world implies for out tundersanding of anignity” Ths evocative approsc, ented on What Imay be descabed us butzward, hasbeen severely criticised by ocher Scholars and sometimes justifiably so." 5 gue 1 Th Roman wold in he axond cer AD, with onal pas ane in he ea el = Globalisation andthe Roman worl peepctives and cpporunites— Ics cri, cherefore, to resolve whether we ca wie globalisation heory to understand the Roman world, nd to determine if there is ‘ough value in the theory rouse i in an applid fashion. To address these questions we discuss che various definions of globalisation, the ‘rincial themes ia globalisation eeseazch and how the concept has been pried to other hitorcal period, as well as to the Roma word ‘Aithough we invariably identify potenti problems and dangers, 0 “answer confidently positive, Not only i methodologically sound t0 tn lobsisation theory inthe tu of Roman history and archacology, but thre are also many compelling reasons why it should be used and ‘added to our theorericsl toolbox. FROM CULTURES TO CONNECTIVITY: BEYOND ROMAN np NarWve. ‘There oging ick the fans thatonce upon atime shre were sce ‘herent ad pracy inegraed etal or ec comnts, eo In secent decades, Roman history and archaeology have been remendousy ces in deconsertng sereral oftheir fundamental promises The evelopment ofthe Remanssation debate testes to this at does the fact, th Romanisation is presenti one ofthe ental esearch theres in both ‘lili From this deconsricon no new dominant paradigm has frien In some rexpect this is heathy and timely, demonstrating increased ‘elfzefeivigy in Roman archacology a iemoves aay from the theoretical tchicologiny carcture st an atheoretial sub-dhspine dependent on ncn text.” However, in oer respet he concepal vacuum ete bythe dncreized concept of Romansation is discomfort. “This tate fai as clear lasrated by many esays and discussions athe (Theoretical) Roman Archaeology Conferences hel in Oxford in ‘March 2o1e (RAC DUTRAC XX) andin Frankfurt in March 20r2 (RAC XMTRAC XXID, In most cases, Romanisaion was steed ta the main tocil politcal and ell proces driving conics and changes in ‘matfal clare. Howeves, few choles were wig ous the word instead preferring. phases such 26 "Romanistion-erween-iveres-commas" oF Sehat we ded t0 call Romaaisation’. This situation undoubtedly ses from the impact of predominanly Anglo scholarship, which eogards the acid of Romanisaton a ‘defo and ‘nelly Izy” However, $ehere are good reasons to abandon Romanisaton instead of reformat = Martin Ps and Miguel Joba Versys ~ i, Romaniss shoul be blero come up withaernatves, This as been ied I the past espe by scolar working win postolonial studies, but noe oftheir proposal ach as ‘coosato, have found wide aceptance” Bailing on these approaches, salar buzword ent’ has gained populariyin recent years, yr te ws of en 36 an analytical paradigm Roballonoften evered to using the od terminalogy of Romankation” And the ving so the pesene daconoring saston. Many schol working inthe fl are aware of the pital of Romanisation as used the traditional Sense (es acclurtion)” and most ty understand che Roman work fom ‘perspective hat goes beyond Roman sd Native’ So fr this as manly enue, howerer in tore illdefned teminolog. The most common formulations suonse thatthe Roman world was dvese and muliculurl, Se tos immense connective. While there 5 nothing wrong with this Sandpoint, should be a poine of deparace rather than a conelsion in ielt-The emptinasof much commonly wed terminology in archaeological td histori sts becomes especialy clear when the processes and Inechanns underlying sch phenomena must be articulated. For example, itis common fo encounter tems sch as “terculwraliy, ‘rosroads of Caulurer, “ybedity, “onfucne”or, popular in the French tradion, ‘ransferts-ulureeoemiuge’~ mor of he te Widhout an adequate CSrplanason of wha then concopereacly mean or py espe forthe inrerpretion of material ule Ti summary, the Remanistion debate has come co ap unsatisfactory inmpase. Most scholars are aware that they should noe think in terms of the binary opponites of “Roman” and ‘Native’, most crucially regarding the interpretation of material cule, but since ao dominant alternative has arpen, and rif debates onthe alternatives seem co have stopped, [Romasation remains the defale framework for interpretation (een if is less explic), Scholars secking alteratves to Romansaton seem to {ake two directions. On the ane hand there are those favouring the pos ‘clonal view, developing approaches that tend 0 focus on illuminating indigenous ersjectores of change and identities, Although this remains Uefa ce sulle irony is that postcolonial perspectives often maintain the Roman-Natie dichotomy (bad, imperialit Romans versus good, tuthenuc Natives} and moseove, i privileging naeratves of colonialism find imperialism in Tat strengthor the dichotomy." On the other hand there are those exploring notions of “conaecvi’, but not alvays ‘desing i implication, as we have desclbed above, The popular ‘esignacion “hybrid x case in point. what in the Roman. world was rots in one way or another “yid'? One might well as. The expla {ory value ofthe term ae label therefore seems excremel limied.* lobalsaion and the Roman worl: pespeaives and opportunities ~ ‘Warring ‘Roman’ tastory Us not 50 sery ong ago almost all hoy was nations hisor, bapposch that has been wef chracteed ss methodoloiel aton. ism" Is within shir tletual framework that Ares Stade fee developed and floured” Methedelopeal nao was bord it the aimeenh and twenhceunes tnd i dies comered to che Sergencs ofthe aw ste, Assich i telaced the conmnplitan nie ‘Since approach that chascerued mh of the eighth ce.” Methodclgeal nator bad an immense inact om hist dice nes wich ate now wey wing gbulason Sonepat develop oc ‘ayefthinking However cs argabl tha the impacto messed "atnam on srehacolgy even gree owing tothe very examen tthe dpe inthe unten ed wnat cena, rom ence Son, achaslogy had din oa) peeve and as elite need nthe race of dong aren suber trough the coleon sr ‘Eepin of acerca: Tas perspective has ely changed slow, “nds bequeathed he coded domme of abl nd interpre ioe oral cre The fw al he Famer of prosoncilRoman achacoloies = aif Bri, France, Spain, ori, Ey seen We wed Riel capo wo andeind Roman nated Sitare=is another casein pont, Archacologiy to paraphrase Appar, Sie good in making preter configurations of appre sabes Incr elue fr penance teens between scr, etary ad roa onanabon Ir inti seme tat much Cure conrptal Spar rote nation sate chinking and Ares Sue, isle Wiha Roman archaeology anhivory, weargueteretsan rps acd to mane pont coll apreaces and» geal conse wth en, and to engage more seioly with conte of connec Wiking ‘Roman history shuld move Beyond metodolga! naan pe: lly where concer th udetandng of mate care. We bv that bliin theory eminent ated odo hi Whe ooo of ies and clara xing til orm an seta pao this pros, the imporanequewons remus how and why? labalsaion oes ¢ ‘ier of pradigne ha ip roid ster. These praise espe Sy seleace beau we oui ow, one ofthe main strength Of tobalsaion thors stat ty concerns wold of djuncve ows Frnchy produce probe oar manfer shemaer x ites local anm bat have comet tht are aoting but lca (ot empha “Through an expan on undenanding diene the conten of pe ~ Manta Pits and Mig Joba Vetus procese lohaistion theories have she pteaial to elp Roman archae ‘logis and historian anscendofteied dichotomies suchas Roman [Native core-priphery and lalj-provinees, dichotomies that nonetheless fextre prominently nthe structure of curencundereandingrofthe Roman work BEFORE GLOBALISATION: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY AND ITS APPLICATIONS cfre concepts of globalisation gained curency,theze was wold systems theory. World sytem (or world systems} theory derives fom Immanuel ‘Wales's The Modern World Systm, a neo Marxist amass of the ‘ovigin of modern eapitisn.* A world system nites very large pop tions, spread over wide distances, through ether pliseal means (word ‘empires or economic ies alone (ocd economies). World systems theory ‘relevant che dicutsion of glbalistion for several reasons. Although they aren fat ect seprate concepts, world systems analysis and global ition have become increasingly intertwined. Word stems analysis might bebestcharacersed as specie methodology for studying globalisation as 2 histocal phenomenon. uc fecusing on the themes of macro-eonommis fin! political integration alone World sates theory Began ae a means of addressing the unique Kitorical dreumtances of modernity, but lke theories of slobalsacon, is application quickly acquired greater time- depth. While Walescein acknowiedged the extence of premodern ‘word systems, he regarded the present capitalist ea as special because i onsite the rst world economy stable nthe lang erm $30 eat) thac didnot disintegrate o become convered inc a World empite” For those withing to make a direct lnk berween globalisation and aptalem, Waller's date forthe fst world economy i often taken 35 the benchmarc forthe origins of globalisation: AD 1500. This view was challenged by Andee Gnder Frank and Bary Gils in the carly 19908 forts arocentic tance, and fallre to consider broader system connections before AD x500. In their edited vohume The World Sate: Five bundred years or fie thousand, Prank and Gil argued thatthe present (ing) ‘works was fone ater than 520 year old largely on he basis ofthe cxintence of long-distance trade celations"* Walerstci’s rebut to this rte reveals the main points of diferenceherween the ewo camps. Rather than being Burocentrs, Wallen claimed his poston merely cexotisd Europe, highlighting the unique historical scenario that led to the development of capital" Wallerstein’ posion steed. ® Globalisation and the Roman world perspectives and opportanities— substantial break rather than continuity or a shift inthe character of a preexisting wold system, Wallestein pointed out thatthe long-distance ‘Ende connections ced by Frankand Gils were nocunderpinned by single Aivsionoflaboor with iterated prodaction process. Furthermore, be stressed that such trade was in hry goods berveen largely separate systems and did aot involve the exchange of bulk goods and necessities a, ‘would be expected within an integrated sysem. While not denying the xistence of longterm inerconnecednes, Wallenti’s argument for ‘null waxing sad waning world ysems before AD x509 rather thas 3 Single word system note missing hyphen) is compelling. Frank and Gill? innstence an a single soco-yar-old world system deiven principally by Capital accumulation nor tustainable from current evidence, especially tien the previling view tha the predominant mode of exchange in p= ‘moder eabutary empires (orempiresystrs) wap socially embeded eather ‘than based on ee market or profi-dven principles” Crucially, neither Poston rales out the possibiny of premodern lobalisation, llowing Wallerstein, the principles of world systems theory have been attractive to archaeologists and historians working on pre-modern periods and ealsing the fundamental importance of connectivity" Signicant works applying the logic of woeld systems analysis to the Roman world ince Keith Hopkins” Conguerors and Slaves.” and Barry Cunlife’s Greeks, Ronsone and Barbara” Building om the fundamenesl world systems structural opposition berween core and periphery, such stale llanerate how asynmetial Bows of raw mate ts, goods and manpower from outer provinces to Rome were able to fustan usban populations and the military machinery of empire. Under the late Republi, he system was chought to be underpinned by ericoril txpansion bore of continuous sucesfal warfare. Whea the empire Acquied more stable boundaries, the essential inequality ofthe Former fystem was maintained though the imposition of taxes, which guaran teed equivalent flows of resource fom the provinces tothe cente. Taxes Collected in rich provinces sucha Spain, northern Africa and Egype ete Spent on provsioing frontier armies and other essential state infrastruc ture, This in tun was thought to encourage inter-regional rade asthe ot provinces sought co recoup hee lenses to pay further axes. Tn newly ‘Scaled erste lacking manetised economies, taxes cold evi in tind in the foum of suepos agricultural prodce, which coud in tara be ‘converted into mosey ehrough sale inuthan makers. Thus the impets {or the orgie of urbaninm in area lacking cites before Roman conquest ‘was sen as tate driven and tp doven inorder goarantec the efecaire ‘xplotation of new eritoieg™ = Mantn Ps and Miguel Joba Versys Although ffs in explaining how the Roman exaomy may have bee | inggrated hiough plcllyderermined means (ve. exstion) 38 opposed Imatket fore" the application of worldsjtems modesto the Roman word Tas not been without ontoners. lathe Bre place, the modal arccalated by Hopkins makes several asumprions tha have yet be hstoxially proven Forexample, he degree of met dependency berween Rome ad the Wester provincedpeiphry is unclear, both forthe inward sappy of rae materials tnsavestothe-core’on the one hand and the outward How of axa gods tothe periphery’ on the other” Likewise, the extet co which tines encour ged economic iteration has been cat into doubt" A second major ‘cin of te approach i that i priegesceonomic and polite forcs at the expene ofthe cultural and socal® World systems models phy Issue cultural homopenition overtime (clare i arse 3 all [Promoting a macroscale view cat to unwiyto explain regional and Ivealised variations in maternal eure. Moreover, the models swenghen ‘etre periphery thinking that research on deny and memory se out fo tundenine eis fr that very reason, fom the md-rages onward, when ‘lentiy and memory developed into key concepts, ha world systems models feloutof fashion. Tiss in some ways unjust despite ther weaknesses, the ‘models addesed the grand nama of ior head on, isl haresing ‘he potential ofarchacloocal evidence aswel as writen sources. and deve oping ways of thinking ojo "methodological natonalm’ (ee above) Building on world sytem approaches the spifant challenge i to ads ‘he universal of tute and practice inthe Roman works while snl peowsy explaining de daloguts and divergences thar defined oa experience Witar is GLosauisaTion? From the eatly 19906 the use of the word ‘globalisation’ grew exponen: tially, from academic obscurity to mass-media ubiquity. In popular “scours itisa buzzword invoked to secount for a varity of phenomena fslokal economic recessions, the relocation of Western manufacturing faaliies to “developing” counties, che erosion of local heritage in the face of capitalit consumer culture, and dhe future consequences of tichecked global warming, Globalisation i often linked transnational Corporate capcalsm in the public imagination, aka the “globalisation projec’ which has edo ange of "counter globlising’ political move rents, rangng from international terrorm to aai-poveey protests aod tthial consumerism. Inshore, globalisation i seen by many as ines- ‘able, unstable and uncontollabe;an ever-looming spete of large-scale ~ Globalisation apd the Roman worl perspectives nd opportniin— change inthe contemporary world. While hin viewpoint canbe Found ina burgeoning acay of academic Iteratare, cher sao fa greater diversity and debate surounding how globalisation is defined, when ic began, the ature ofits elfecte and wheter these at good” or bad" Inthe mostsimple of terms, globalisation ean be described as processes by which locales and people become increasingly interconnected and imterdependene. Common denominators inmost defnicions a connectivity and deverstoralisation. Variations and di Gren ar che concept has been reisterpeted within diferent academic tcadtions typically depending om what i being globalised’ This im ura has ramiations for determining when and where globslsing processes began. For example, inthe field of economics, some regard globalisation ‘sa matte of market integration leading t sng global economy, at ‘demonstrated, for example, by the aceurrnceof global common pice “convergence nthe early nineteenth entry.” However other economists have contested che methodology tnderlvng this view, aging for he key stew be pushed back to AD 1571 with the establishment ofa rade ink berween Asia and America at Manila" As discussed above others have argued tht single global economy existed a early a8 foe Yeas 380," following some of che principle of Wallerstein’ wor systema theory and taking even les stringent economic erteria and focusing Purely on iongrditance exchange. Simul diseepancies ae also evident in'soe™ Approaches to plobainasion within the humanities and socal sciences, ‘Ata basic level, che classic 19908 sociocultural defitons of global isaton share the same cove characteristic of inctessing connectivity, omeimes stesing the ides of greater global consciousness through the compression of ime and space. Here ae some examples 1. the ienicaion of workdwide sca elations whic In diane lacie sch «way hata hapenings are shaped by eens os ‘ingle sway a cere (ides 390,69 2 “Bape devdopng snd vr deen scl of neconnesion ad ‘Redan at chartered sole Toi 99.) 3. “he compraion af the word and she imtendon of comin athe word ara woke CRaberoan £9928) 4. eck procs in which he conan of grogeaphy 0 socom pola cl nd sats ctanpeent ec eo cn Sci te hat hy a sig nd whith oe ing Watr2t 5. ‘Sword of dnjencre dows which produce problems shat mnie ‘hr tn a oa sie a a Martin Pts and Mig John Versys — Despite the quoted defnionsexhibng significant overap this coherence breaks dow on closer analysis On the one hand theres such 5 Giddens and Tomlinson (definitions t and, spectively, above) regard globalisation 4 4 fundamentally new phenomenon, unique coadiion of modernity facltated by twentieth cenaryeshnological developments, most noaly inerconinental je teal and instancaneous mas media eleronic comm rican. In contr, while dr primary interes also layin the pid of moderns othe leading figures such as Robertson, Waters and Appa [desinsione 5 to srespectivly abow)appet to concede thatthe processes, {tions and socal oecs now understood as lobalsation had precursor the past and have been under way for several centuries i not milena Buiking on thee views, Nederveen Pictee was one of he Fist co suggest thar globabstion should he understood fram 3 deep historical perspectne, ‘ticsing the ‘globalisation ae modernity” approach for is Eurocetrst, ‘whi he argues to describe a phenomenon of westeriaton rather than true plobalistion® Sinsarhy Andee Gunder Frank damised the nk Iptween globaliation and moder, presenting 4 powerful thesis forthe leading cole of Asia sxher than the Westin longterm global economic story.” Shami even proposed the metaphor ‘preistriso loblisacon to uderlne the ed for stor understanding ofthe process, which In considering the concn clims fo lobasation’s origins, i shoul be borne in ind thatthe hcorit driving sch debates rarely have sufcient ‘rounding in story [et slonearchaology to make measured assessments ‘f premodern developments, Nowhere i this ore stking than in Case ‘onclading remarks to the edited volume Connect x Antigua? 2 welume that explores the application of tories of networks aad global ination a varios archaeological stds. Castells freely admit in conta dbetionofhisearier work, that networks ae not just cial component of the modem ‘Information Age pobaliraton is not new: under decent foes, it appeats co have happened noe only in the roth cen of the common ee, bu thousands of year go! A similar sift can be seen in the wrngs of Roland Roberson and David Tags, who turned ther tenon t the existence ofa global consciousness or ani thatch feterised Greco-Roman though, in which Rome i coneived at a ly "global cy’ by modern standards Thew examples demonstrate the Fragile presentsm of many of the seminal globalisation texs ofthe 19908, but Dethape more cially emphasise the current need foe historians and Srchacologis to engage with and contbute ro the changing intelectual ‘gerd on che subjact This calli in part answered by Jennings, who Inamester the idea of plural globaation t characterise the origin of ~ Globalisation and the Roman worl: prspecies ad opporanites~ lrbansm in Uruk, Mississippian and Wari civilisations. Using. a his fark example the Urs civisaton, a context which had long before teen described in terms of bing the ret orld ater Jenings makes the case forthe cxstene of sll the defining characterises of modem lobalsation including eie-space compression.” Alknough ape ith fe usual caveats and diclaimers to disingush ancient from moder, the work of Jennings demonstrates how the debate over dhe origins of tflobalsation has ured upside down, What were once sen asthe disinet, Sharacerinics of later twentieth cencury globalisation are incressingly being sed to define the ery stat of whan Gvilisaton* Tt chronology of lobalsation contentions (ce slo further bow) e0 ‘coi its geography. Concerns over both the sme and space of lobalsaton “mately depend on whether the concepts epaded as option A~a process thar can only begin once the bare Bones of single iotgrted wortwide Economy have been exis, or option Ba procs simpy involving che ‘Scseton of human nerwors. fee Former it fllows chat fully globalised Iodecnig i somthing rather diferent from the more geographically esiced archai’or ‘pot-slobalistion’ that preceded it?” If ee acer, is fenble to suggest thatthe phenomenoa does no have‘ be tuly soba © exis all as Robbe Roberson sugested ‘the origins of globalization bein the smepconnectons tha have slowiy enveloped humans since he caret tines. Hod standpoints atc noe without her flaws Whereas option Beaks 1 ole view of global human development, encourages an evoktionary Perspective, which, at wort, implies a eamles and id nea rom an ti to modenity, glowing over the substan qualietive and quantiane Uiferencesbermotn the io eras. Likewise, akbough option A recogpises the dincvenes of contemporary slabaliztion, is myopic focus on mod iy is at one with te fae tht many ofthe ees of glbalsation are hot exclsivet thelist 20 years, Ether way ax Nederveen Pieters pias fut ie lear that deep historical perspective i Walco the proper ‘characterisation of conditions of connect diferent epochs. ‘THEMES IN GLOBALISATION RESEARCH: CONVERGENCE, LUNEVENNESS AND GLOCALISATION [Globalis] x marked yw oor the imagination in ial ie they sh Compared with world systems approaches fctsing on economic networks snd exchange mechanisms, the 199osstudies of globalisation instead ended 8 Martin Pes and Miguel Joba Versys to explore the effects of increased connectivity. Although these effec are rolarious, a general consensus is that gloalsation san uneven proces, reconfiguring socal relations and polite insitaons, and Totering eal {oral diversity and socal inequality. Inthe srady of modern globalisation, theris and decining importance of the nation-state has been a major theme for analjsi, although ina longer-term perspective there is 90 reason © assume the existence ofthe nation-state as a prerequisite of glbalsaton (On the theme of unevenness snd soireconomic inequality, Bauman, among many others, highlights the ental paradox of globalisation to ‘Smulancously create igy and division, suggesting thatthe collective process creates socal fault ins cording wo social sd spatial moby Some regard being local na globalised werld tobe a sige of social dep ‘ration and degradation, wheres eltes ae seen at being defined by dh ‘xtateritoiay nd isolation from lal commutes” This iewpoine Consistent with, for instance, epidemiological Ieraure underining the Serious heh comsequences of deepening inequality is coatemporary ‘world soci dexpt the mcrenedsvalbiiry of more advanced heath care!" However, nether inceasd inercoanecton nor escalating nega iv ate new hsorcal phenomena; both have simply become more apparent inthe recent era of accelerated globalisation’. “The imac of sloblsaton on clare represents an important focus for _lobalsation erature. Akhough te poplar image ofthe faceless comport Imachine of plobal capcalsm desoying local dstinctiveness has received much ateadon (sowalled MeDonalston or Cocs ‘Moreover, the characterisation Hopkins provides ofthe period. 1600~ "00 ie generally considered one of she main features ofthe Heleisc | riod at well?" Both charscerations share several tats consigned | peal of earier forms of lobalisation increased connectivity the ex | incr ofa common market, the domestic impact of marker integration, the ‘ex of Belonging to one word, a stesso the local asa part of slob ‘developments the eniveraisation ofthe parsculae in combination with pasiculrisation ofthe universal relatively dramatic time-space compres ons and cosmopalism. Ir wecan study the world fom around AD 1600 ‘onveads trough these themes, then sve can ceresinly study the Roman (and Hellenistic) world fom very smile perspectives. In steuetoral terms, vith regard othe topics hae ners us as ndieators of glalscion, the Roman world fis this framework very well? Through this approach ‘option Ais bypassed wil the evolutionary perspective (and very general ‘natue) of option B is evaded leading us to option C "We take globalisation therefore, asa relative concep: connectivity has slays been present to some depre but in certain historical penods, ‘haraterised hy such dramatic punctuation’ that we can describe these a flobal (option C) Jennings shares a similar poine of view and discusses "ule globalsations'~his most important point being, 25 we ses hat theres no long-term historical tend leading co moder” Globalisation Js neither single universal epoch for word hintory, nr is a constant evolutionary condition for hrankind For Jennings an instanceof global ‘Seon should ivolve both a significant lap in interregional ineacton snd social changes that ae associated with che creation of global eu ‘ue. The Roman er was sch a period. A concen with clare es in ‘with another argument Yor seeing the Roman world as ‘globalised, as ‘opposed to simply being ahistorical period wih increased connect ~ Mann Pits and Migue Joba Versys = the domain of perception. Did Romans perceive their word 36 global land act accordingly? This question addressed in the neat section, which Slo provides an overview of resrone of Romanists to globalisation and ‘loalieaon sides 0 ft, GLosAUSING THE ROMAN WoRLD? "Now ncurses tb wos history had conse so 0 pea of eis fouled eps, the wigs and es uh being wey spa aed ti cscs but om th oir afer the Second Punic War story bcos rani woke thes of aly and Aes are Shere ithe of Aa and of Grose, and allevens beat areatonhip Secombe toa singh end Plan 3) ‘Often quoted in the context ofthe question posed above is his passage from Polybis's world history, conceived between 160 and 120 BC.” “The iden behind thie text i srkingly similar to what, for instance, the Enlightenment scholar Johaon Gortried von Herder wrote about the ‘ghteenth cencry in is teatie Auch ei Philosophie der Geschichte ‘ar Bldag der Menschhet ia 74-"When bas theese earth ever been felony joined together, by en few thread’ evmgthening the cane for stuctual similares berweenthe Roman word and eater punta sions of globalisation” alter the Middle Ages: Moreover, the area seen {sruled or influenced by Rome was considered to be the orbis eran. Using a globalisation perspective to study a society chat defined its {ectitry as imperiem sn fie and oikmone hus certainly makes sense From thie prspective, This global network, moreover shared a common cataral framework, which pt notions of paidela and bumanitas ‘entra. The Roman perception of India ~ a being a the edge ofthe ‘world ~ i casein point here. Although India wa not "Roman? ia a Political sense andthe Romans were not aware of is extent and ge Faphy in detail it was very mich par of cei "woe ina mental sense” ‘Around AD 150, this global perspective characterising the Roman empire ie described bythe theto Aloe Aristides (XXVI ror-r03) 38 follows ‘And now indeed theres no need towrites descripcion ofthe worl, nor to enumerate the laws ofeach people, bet you have become universal ‘geographers fr all by opening up the gater ofthe oltumone and by fngansing the whole oikumene ikea single household.” In he Roman period itself, therefore, there cleriy was an idea of living in a novel Punctuation of connective: they perceived their world as guntesse bully globalised. * | = Globalisation ad he Romsn worl perspecties ad oppor — “To date there have been several atemprs by Roman archaeologists and binant introduce globalisation an er conceptual paras tothe ety tf the Roman empie. As seen above, the sedaciveness of global model Enxlain change across the wide expan of rsorin controlled and inuenced typ Rem nr new, a5 wellilstated b the application of cor peiphery model and word syzems theory.” Inthe major of cane in which lob ation i die evoked, ce concep i used as an alteasve wo wadstonal counts of clara change based on Romasistion™™ As a paradigm for Undestanding che Roman world, Rormanisation came tobe sen o he prob Temas because i overprivegs the rle of Roman ropa clare in ‘Sorcerer of change wich atypical nae (om Rome tthe Provinces, and neglect the noite and aspects of change in ober spheres Foch a clas and gender." In contrast, apeoacies o Reman loblsaion Fave offen focused nos poe eo offer a new perspective which cultural changes viewed as being muléiecona, simultaneous festering nity and {irene inthe ares of provincia” ocietes and the ‘ente:*™ Iain to calturldynamscs, globalisation ha also found application in providing new perspectives onthe extent of economic integration ia the Romnan empires" However, the bigest impact of tJobliation studies hae arguably Been indivec. As Marangly demonstrates, the last decade or svat sen shift in scholarship on Roman archacology way from using {he erm Romanisation in favour of approaches olen." Such concer ‘vith density did mot ocurinavacaut- Rather, is tself sign of te tmes, ' onifying theme in historical and socal science rescarch from the 19908 hac arguably developed in response tothe rapid pace of contemporary flabalsacon and it eft om society” Ina similar fashion, recent Spprosches to ancient Mediterranean hiscory have effectively adoped ome ofthe concepual apparatus of labaisaion wih he recent populrty ‘of new paradigms hihhahting the rle of networks and coasectity € explain changes inthe region, Horden and Parcells The Comping Ses ‘ey wodk in hie espest although they donot evoke (or commento) the Soncepeof globalisation, and have righty beea eid for their rather ‘historical approach wards Mediterranean connecsivig. "= ‘Given the dece and indict iflaenceof lbalsatonconcepsin he elds ‘of Reman arcaeoogy and history might appear thatthe application of tlobalistion theory to the Roman emp is uncontroversial and widely [ccopted. This snort ese. The extant Inerstare on Roman gabon ‘consists ofa handful of journal arcles and chapters, many of which are “smite explorative in mature’"” Ths sone monograph onthe subject by Hingly, containing valuable dscsion of Romanisaion and enti in the context of approaches to globalisation, bar whih, perhaps estate for ~ Matin Pits nd Migua Joba Vestas the debate far, dows ely del with globalisation Ii eatin his later work and inbis contribution co this olume tht Hinge’s objec snot ‘ranch ro we globabsaton 383 theory eo explain the Roman emir, but father rouse the analogy at bass to challenge tess about the madera ‘word Indeed, cating globalisation as an alee to Romanisation i Fihly unas inthe content ofthe we ofthe em in other historia periods, Alnertngthe parochial concerns of many Reman, anda fale reog tse the broader uty ofthe concep. ‘And ete we encounter something ofa paradox. Whereas there has been nundoubeed paradigm shiftowads deny connectivity and networks in ‘ur understzaing of the Roman world the very concept that widely ‘Sicuned and debated in the soil snd higoricalseienes to understand all ‘his~plobalscion is largely evaded."° On the onehandthere are scholars “sggetvely putting forward plobalsaion; but perhaps noe really exploring the concept ands implications see above) On the other hand there are the ‘lent majorey, apparently perceiving globalisation asa distinctly modern phenomenon that has nothing to do with the Roman wold" Exceptions tothe later category andy no means slent~azethe review aves of Nacbourand Greene which ses the fag of approaches Roman globalisation "= Both Grane and Nacrebou are dsmisive ofthe fermomthe eal ground that the Roman empire was not lob, whereas the later presents» dete criticism of heel formltons of Hlingley fd Wicher: Naccbour seses that che concept will only outve ‘citrent fashionablenes if i ofr helpful oos in the sad ofthe ancient sword bth eso pent here In his opinion plbalsation should not th ued outside the context of modern society, bebeving chat the concept ‘anno be rescued asa analytical ox heuristic tol option Ay see above)? ingly’ lobatsation rejected on the grounds thai offers nothing new, as Nacbour argues tha the ide chat there was diversity andeaying unity inthe Roman empite ie long extablahed. Smilasy, akthoogh prising aspects of Wicher’s appeoach, he critics t for a lack of clacky over ‘whether or not globalisation i specie condition of moderiy. Despite Nacichours delbertely proveatve stane, he rates several pertinent pins that must he addres fhe application of plalsaton in Roman Erchacology ito become something more hana pasting fad. ‘Tue coNcerTUAL CHALLENGE “There is a clear concepual challenge tobe fced in applying the concept ‘of gobalston tothe Roman world. Ths volume takes up the challenge = Globalation and the Roman world peepcies and opportunities — “This necessary asthe evocaivewie of lbaltation a description of what 00 om in the Roman word is quickly Becoming popular se Witcher, this ole). Ofen, chose evocations are pecs what Greene and Naceboot {an Mode, this volume) warn abou new buzz word urcicaly applied byl longing for anakernative wo (or jst another name for) Romanisatio, uddig litle othe dete and dong poe harm by mis tepesenting oF ‘ering discussion in an unkelpfldieion Alchough we sympathise with tals foe restaint and proper ceoreccalreleton, we also ble that the Srgumets to noe gobaliaion have been countered inthis chapter. We ‘sex concepe developed to describe present day phenomena forthe stay ‘of other periods ~ as many globlsiton scholars presen Bele, while sonne exp ask for such an exploration; the concepe of loaliston bas been used convincingly to describe other periods of history globalisation i tot exclusively ed up with modenity or explant ca be eucally| $ppie tothe Roman world." What remains then the rel challenge: he problematic nature ofthe concep of globalisation ise" "The observation that scholars now sues fragmentation i as much con- ‘exe (and, probably ideological) a wa the focus om iyi large pars of theninetent and ewer centuriin thi respec theres no essing the ticle borrow rom Gadame)Juslikeany ote, this bok severy inch put ofthe intelectual cite in which twas coneve. As archaeolowss td ancient storians Sealyingglbalaation we aso daly follow develop- ‘ment within he socal and seni sciences. Why would cha venture not thea failure from the stare? We have two answers go sch crisis, The st. ‘nee avarenet being aware of the conceptual challenge means erahting the rks of wsng 2 partclar concep. Having devoted stendon to the problem ofthe concept for the study ofthe Roman word, we believe that thatthe same discussion exposs is reat ptencal. We should use global baton therefore and this our second awe) as aa additonal alernatne once sone. Concepts Hk mperiar, Remanicton and crecliaion ae scontextua (and sugestive and misleading as lobalstion wil meviably ‘urn out tobe. But applying thm has brought our understanding of he Roman world much furthers globalisation potentially promisesto do. We onder this expel important ac the current tage ofthe ‘Romanisaion’ Aehate, where contemporary dscusions of connetvgy often ren £0 (a ‘eiventon of inctendh century daha, ke the on on iperalsm. We ‘hethese development ae no the bet way forwatd, asthe mtck-naligned Roman-Native dichotomy soften reinforced by them. Theres ood reason, therfore, to make globalsation par of our concepeual challenge is pos ‘echt she concep an provide a beter understanding of Romanian! bur this only par of what eis hook explores F- ~ Manta Pesan Miguel Joba Vey — PERSPECTIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES ‘As scholars concerned wih acl, ciation, and compan, we redo make a dest shea rom what we mac wa eogaphce towhat we coud el roc’ geographic potas 71" Ar the sar ofthis chapter we asked ursles if we cam use globalisation theory to understand the Roman word and, subsequent ifthe is enough ‘aleinitsconsitvent theoretical approaches use tina more applied sense ‘Ouranswer sys in both espe Let us summarise why we think lob ‘sation theory should become important for the tod of the Roman Woeld: 1. Theresa lange and imporane group of globalisation scholars shat donot accep thatthe elaioshp berweengobalistion and mod> emi i an exclusive one, and cll fora deep historical understand ing and cootexualiation ofthe proceses avoved ia the past. At ‘the same time the focus within globalisation suds has shifted from topics that are notso relevant othe Roman world the internet for example) subjects thacarehghly evant the Roman word as ‘Sones, ident, inequality and entra imagination). 1: Wihin historia rewareh there hae boon pars sh from ‘Area Studies towards lobal istry that has sen the rl appl cation of globlisaon theory in hisorial contexts which are in terms of globalisston characteris, strectarally very much like the Roman worl. 4. Wirhin Roman studies we are inthe mide ofa similar paradigm | shife fom ‘Roman versus Native’ towards connectivity, necworks ‘nd ides In several repects = ety and indirectly this she is inerewined with globalation, both as a contemporary process anda subject for academic study. We hereoresimplycannotaford { evade the debate, ln ether words: we need to push the labal- ‘sation analogy harder From his summary ic becomes lear chat with some important exceptions) the two approaches that Reennits have so far aken towards plobalsation ‘ores are unsatisfactory. The Fist could be std tbe impressionistic and even opporenisic and he second is probably too reductionist: neither helps 1o push the globalisation analogy harder. The question of how eo ‘move forward rom point 3 is perhaps most imporant. For some, using tlobatsation as acral lens through which to view the current state of esearch on cultural and economic dynamics inthe Roman petiod may Globalisation and the Roman worl: prspesives and opportiin~ sali” Alurnaively, explicit using loblisation theories to describe ‘Saf explain aspects of the Roman world and is material clare may be efrable, provided the rewards are sulfsent. Such rewards need not, [lvrever, be strictly confaed o those with an stcestinthe Roman pio. Tring this ineecton we are mind of he general tendency towards {Be writng of soba history” Although there no reason why Roman [ehnvologts and historians cannot contibuce co this endeavout, ou fevew of gobaiatin literature suggests hat ther voices are not aces fy being Bead, or understood. Engagement with globalisation and is {oreical apparatus cern provides one portal means of breaking ‘down the“natonalisic’ and dscplinary boundaries that have diionally Separated Romaniss from othe Scho Beck hat argued cha within che socal sciences the concep of global: ition har gone shroagh three phen fw wa. dima; second as a see ofconcepealclarieation; and thd an epistemological turn" We {ave the impression chat Roman archaeology i at present somewhere een phases and 2 in Beck's framework. Is hoped hat his volume ‘wilmake aval contribution to the seady of the Roman world by moving Forward cartent debates and evaluating the potential for globalisation to ‘nga genuine future paradigm shi ‘THe INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS “The historia’ cottons he ny of lobia should teefone {eto eind that ne maybe ving anol he ee (bt proba aot the lan} of lobalaaen's dere and diconneted re Nos, iar “The book has a ripasitesrstare. The firs pare provides two introduc ‘ns. The preset chapter set the inllectual agenda ad olines the main ‘hore question. Maay ofthe pots and sues outlined here are ‘developed farther by de individal authors, often with diferent emphases fin outcomes. A second intodson is provided by Higley, who takes, Up the ducstion and cridcism of his book Globalis Romar culture In conerat to our introduction, whichis primarily concerned with the pplication of heconcepto the Roman world, Higley stesssthe dangers [volved in attempting to separate knowlege ofthe cass pst rom the Cntemporary context in which Meas about the past aze conceived. In paricule, Hingey rests the need for posecolonialeiigue, and argues {hat in presenting the Roman pas as globalised” or ‘lobia’, achae- ‘logit and historians rik providing an aii for global capital inthe 2 Martin Pits and Miguel John Versys present, Taken together, the introductions cover the swo substantial ‘lene of current scholarship onthe opi. ar I consis of seven chapters presenting casestudies with the aim of craluatng the wsefulass of globalisation wbin emase areas of stad Roman esonomtc hor (Move), mass consumption ad ceramics (it), trbunism and connestty (Laurence and Teil), demography and mgr tion sper, and visual material clr (Versus). Adatonaly, Sommer ‘xamincr connectivity inthe Medieranean in earier periods and works fom the Phoenicians to the Roman enpireto examine hw spec (or not tras the connectivity ofthe Roman world in comparton to what happened bore and Witcher makes «connection tothe present-day world (and a

    You might also like