These two recent publications explore classical Rome by adopting, critiquing and adapting theories deriving from globalisation and/or glocalisation studies. As a background to this debate, these two deeply interconnected fields of theory have started over the past two decades to impact on archaeological studies of imperial Rome, while also having something of an impact upon ancient historians and classicists. Christensen’s volume is a sole-authored book, while the second volume is a collection of nine papers by ten authors from several European countries.
Christensen’s book is particularly to be welcomed. This study seeks to explore how the Roman state encompassed and maintained control over some five million square kilometres for half a millennium (p. 1). It addresses the durability and stability of the empire by examining how alike the cultures across this vast area really were. To avoid too narrow a focus on the nature of Roman imperial space, Christensen also seeks to compare his case studies using a framework deriving from the anthropological study of other pre-modern empires of South and Southeast Asia. Works of cross-temporal imperial comparison have become fairly common in classical studies over the past two decades. However, this volume focuses its comparison specifically on ‘the persistent interaction between a literary prestige tradition and a number of oral local traditions’ (p. 1).
An extremely interesting introductory chapter addresses the idea of ‘Pre-Modernity’, and four well-argued chapters explore the themes of language, material culture, deities and military service. Examples to illustrate the discussion in these chapters are drawn from across the entire Roman Empire, including Egypt (Qasr Ibrîm and the Fayum Oasis), North Africa (Hippo Regius and Lepcis Magna), Syria (Dura-Europos), Turkey (Phrygia and Pisidia), Austria (Flavia Solva), France (La Graufesenque), Spain (Peñalba de Villastar), Germany (Cologne, Trier and Mainz) and Britain (Vindolanda, Colchester and London). The concluding chapter summarises the issues of the universal and local that form the focus of the volume. Throughout, Christensen seeks to address linguistic and literary information alongside more specifically material aspects of society, arguing, however, that material culture shows diversity better than language (p. 94). The cross-temporal comparisons with anthropological studies from South and Southeast Asia are also highly informative, providing insights that extend the coverage into the broader field of pre-modern imperial studies.
The second volume is edited by an international team of ancient historians and archaeologists. It stems from a session titled ‘From Globalization to Glocalization: Exploring Provincial Identities under Rome’s Globalizing Empire’, which was held at the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference in Split in April 2022, and as such focuses mainly on studies of material culture. The introduction is written by the editors, and seven case studies by individual authors follow, ending with concluding remarks by V. Gasparini. The chapters include case studies based in Spain, Syria, the Danubian provinces and Britain.
For the remainder of this review I will focus upon the theoretical context of the ideas of globalisation and glocalisation addressed by all eleven authors contributing to these two volumes. By doing this, I will highlight the variety of ways in which these authors draw upon approaches to these two theoretical concepts in their research. Christensen’s introductory chapter has a lengthy discussion of the transition from past studies of Romanisation to current approaches to globalisation (pp. 4–11). Although some archaeologists still champion Romanisation as an approach to the Roman imperial past, the authors in the two volumes generally propose new models deriving from globalisation and glocalisation theories that avoid the pitfalls of older approaches.
Christensen’s introduction is one of the most well-informed reviews I have read of the deep change in perspective that has characterised Roman studies over the past 20 years. Christensen acknowledges the deep impact of globalisation studies on Roman archaeology in the work of scholars such as M.J. Versluys and M. Pitts. However, he also emphasises some of the criticisms that have developed of applications of this concept in social studies, commenting that the emphasis on connectivity in some studies draws upon theories that potentially sanitise the injustices of the neoliberal world order by failing to identify inequality and understating human responsibility for events (p. 10). This is an area that has been debated extensively in studies of globalisation in the modern world, and, as Christensen notes, this critique has also spilt over into Roman studies.
Christensen seeks to reconcile the gains made by adopting globalisation theory in Roman studies by focusing on the pre-modern nature of the Roman world. The comparison of Roman case studies with other agrarian societies in pre-modern Eurasia is intended to help the study escape the confines of the world of the early twenty-first century. Christensen observes that ‘comparisons that see the connectivity and cultural pluralism of the early twenty-first-century West echoed in ancient times … raise the uncomfortable question of whether history is only a room full of mirrors reflecting our own day and age back to us’ (pp. 10–11). The answer to this issue in Christensen’s volume appears, in part at least, to be that we should emphasise the distinct differences between pre-modern empires (such as Rome’s) and modern empires to bring out their distinctive features.
I found this discussion particularly significant since such issues of what historians often call ‘presentism’ seem increasingly current in philosophy and history but are only rarely discussed in accounts of classical Rome. Presentism is the idea that the interpretations built of the past tend to be subsumed within the concerns and interests of the present. Traditionally, most historians have viewed presentism critically, as something serious scholars should work to avoid. One way to do this is, as Christensen emphasises, to work on the contrasts between the ancient past and the present. Increasingly, the human and climatic crisis facing the world is driving some researchers to view presentism in rather more favourable terms, as a way to explore the individual’s motivations for studying the topics they choose, while also seeking to understand how that past differed from the present. I am particularly influenced in making these comments by N. Oreskes (‘Why I Am a Presentist’, Science in Context 26 [2013], 595–609). A whole body of innovative scholarship is addressing the positives and negatives of the theory of presentism in history and philosophy, and the topic deserves greater attention from archaeologists. Christensen makes a significant contribution in raising and discussing this ‘uncomfortable question’.
The Global, the Local and the Glocal focuses specifically on accounts that explore glocalisation in Roman studies. In pursuing this concept, the volume builds on several earlier studies in both cultural studies and archaeology (Mazzilli, pp. 3–6). It is interesting to note that Christensen specifically avoided using the concept of glocalisation, referring to it just twice, and observing that the term suggests a secondary counter-effect to globalisation, as if local traditions would ‘have remained stagnant had Roman conquerors not established a supralocal realm’ (p. 34). Christensen prefers an approach that supposes a much ‘weaker intensity of top-down cultural pressure’ in societies before the invention of nationalism, that locates the impetus for change in both the local and the supralocal spheres (p. 35). The concept of ‘prestige tradition’, Christensen argues, allows a compromise between an emphasis on either connectivity or hierarchy by integrating the two approaches.
Nevertheless, glocalisation theory has become increasingly influential in studies of the Roman past. So how is the term glocalisation defined in the papers included in The Global, the Local and the Glocal? And how useful is this concept? The introduction includes a helpful outline of the concept, drawing in particular on the influential work of Versluys (who is mentioned 119 times in the book). It emphasises that the volume seeks, by critically examining and applying glocalisation concepts, to shed new light on the complexities of globalisation in the Roman world, moving beyond conventional Romanisation frameworks (p. 9). Thus, the volume follows earlier inspirations by seeking to test new tools to overcome the top-down associations of Romanisation theory and the persistence of an inherent Roman/native divide in some recent accounts (p. 157). This is an important innovation for areas of the former Roman world, such as several provinces addressed in the case studies in this book, where the conventional top-down models of Romanisation have survived the impact of critical theory over the past 30 years.
Glocalisation approaches have the potential to model agency in local and provincial contexts, as several of the chapters in the volume clearly and effectively articulate. As noted above, these papers draw in particular on the work of Versluys. One of Versluys’s most recent articles (‘Glocalization, Embedding, Anchoring: On the Cognitive Impact and Experience of Globalization’, Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation [2025]), drawing upon the work of S. Benhabib, argues that glocalisation approaches serve to link globalisation theory to the ‘postcolonial toolbox’ by giving a voice to the colonised. Not all commentators in cultural studies agree, however, that glocalisation approaches provide a full answer to post-colonial critiques. Discussing the processes described under the term glocalisation, P.H. Tapang argues that glocalisation: ‘is often presented as a neutral or even positive force that allows for local cultures to adapt global influences for their benefit. However, this framing overlooks glocalization as a tool for perpetuating global inequalities and reinforcing hegemonic power structures’ (‘Assimilative Glocalism’, Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation [2025]). Although these comments relate to the use of glocalisation approaches to model the contemporary world, they echo the concerns mentioned by Christensen and others about neoliberalism and Roman studies (Christensen, p. 10). It is therefore important that we study how the incorporation of individuals and societies into Roman imperial space served to amplify and transform power relations and inequality.
What I found lacking in the introduction to The Global, the Local and the Glocal is any critical reflection on responses that have arisen to the use of glocalisation to model change in the contemporary and Roman worlds. Many researchers have been reflecting for some time on the so-called ‘dark forces’ of the Roman Empire, including military violence, enslavement, increased inequality and epistemicide (cf. Christensen, p. 10). These critical aspects of imperial incorporation tend to be sidelined by interpretations that emphasise the enabling aspects of Roman imperial incorporation in many accounts of globalisation and glocalisation. It is important not to take these theories as value-free or neutral approaches.
The majority of the interesting chapters in The Global, the Local and the Glocal follow the approach addressed in the introduction to the volume by exploring glocalisation as a positive force that allows local cultures to adapt global influences for their own benefit. This approach follows the influential perspective of Versluys and other authors. F. Machuca Prieto addresses memories of the Phoenician past in Spain, investigating how the local past is integrated into the Roman global present through an investigation of cultural memory. Elements of cultural continuity are seen in these terms as having to do with the effective process of provincial integration of the local elite rather than forming part of an approach developed in resistance to Rome. D. van de Zande explores apotropaic displays in rural domestic elite architecture in cities in Roman Syria, exploring how incorporation in the Roman Empire added to the material and immaterial diversity by expediting networks of communication. C. Szabó’s chapter uses glocalisation theory to address the transformation of Roman religions in the Danubian provinces, through case studies of Mithras and the ‘Danubian Riders’ cult. L. Pérez Yarza addresses the idea that the god Jupiter Dolichenus was ‘re-Syrianized’ as a result of glocal intersections in the Danubian Limes. A. Esposito considers the role of religious collegia in Britannia, exploring the variability of the uses of such organisations to promote the status of their (highly connected) members.
The chapter by F. Moreno-Navarro on peasant communities in central Spain follows a more critical path by emphasising that research traditions in the study of the Roman-period countryside have privileged villas and the market economy. By looking at sites of (apparently) lower status, the paper also includes an analysis of the concept of active or passive resistance to explore the variability of responses that are studied through network analysis (Mazzilli, p. 41). The idea of resistant individuals and communities is rejected by several of the other authors in the volume (also by Christensen, p. 98), but the focus on the variability of rural responses to imperial incorporation in Moreno-Navarro’s paper is an important counter to the traditional focus on the buildings and art of the elite. Sokołowski’s insightful chapter on portraiture, inscriptions and art in Roman Syria also raises comparable issues by addressing the importance of searching for perspectives other than those of the ruling classes when addressing the forces of globalisation and glocalisation.
The strength of Christensen’s volume, by contrast to the majority of papers in The Global, the Local and the Glocal, is that it seeks to address individuals and communities, both privileged and marginalised. However, it is notable that enslaved people are only mentioned seven times in Christensen’s volume, compared to a single mention in the edited volume.
Despite some of the critical observations made in this review, both volumes constitute significant contributions to the available literature on culture and cultural change in the Roman Empire. They form part of a growing body of theoretically informed research that is building new perspectives in what is becoming a period of true innovation for studies of Roman power and cultural change.
