The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization (original) (raw)

Introduction: '-izations' 'Globalization', ironically, need not be worldwide. At least, this is a necessary convenience in its current definition, as it would be hard to establish definitively if and when every corner of the globe is connected. And this being the case, 'global' becomes a little less important in globalization's definition than does the idea of 'complex connectivity' (Jennings 2011: 2, citing Tomlinson 1999: 2). With complex connectivity, interactions have to be intense, forming dense networks-and they have to be between different regions and have the capacity to trigger social change if they are to be reckoned as globalization (Jennings 2011: 2). Given this set of features, one can see how archaeologists and historians have found it justifiable to take the idea of globalization back into the past, as there are many scenarios that fit the bill, as long as the 'global' aspect does not have to be taken too literally (e.g. Morris 2005; LaBianca and Scham 2006; Hodos 2010 and this volume). So we can now read of ancient globalizations from Rome (Versluys 2014) to the Andes (Jennings 2011 and this volume), and this move certainly has a lot of promise for strengthening cross-cultural approaches, and breaking down 'the great wall' between ancient and modern civilizations (Jennings 2011: 3). What then is the advantage of calling a process of complex connectivity 'globalization' if it doesn't really have to be fully global? It is a move that says not everything has to be connected, but everything could be. And if everything under the sun is up for grabs, then there is no a priori starting point-no assumed 'core' from which one then traces zones of influence and hence peripheries. This is very liberating for cultural analysis, because it allows a move away from civilizational histories that emphasise boundaries and boundedness, no doubt under the influence of our modern nation-states (Flood 2009: 2). With the focus instead on the cultural entanglements created by constant mobility and connectivity, we create much more dynamic and emergent histories. This flattening effect in globalization thinking is basically achieved by putting all 'cultures' for analysis in 'one single cultural container' (Versluys 2014: 12). So for the Roman world, for example, which is Versluys' focus, one does not start at Rome as the core and work out-one treats the entire world touched by Rome as a zone of intra-cultural, rather than intercultural, connectivity. The 'globe' is not the scale of this container, but perhaps Eurasia is-and so a centralizing term like Romanization is quite inaccurate in fact, and is currently resisted by