Global Classics

Jacques A. Bromberg, Global Classics (New York: Routledge, 2021). ISBN 9780367549268.

Reviewed by Goran Đurđević, University of Zadar, Croatia. goran.djurdjevich@gmail.com.

In Global Classics, Jacques A. Bromberg explores the challenges facing Classics in the 21st century, integrating the global turn into classical studies. His primary concerns include the question of what makes Classics global, and perhaps more importantly, what it means to study Classics within a global context. Global studies have seen significant advancements in the fields of antiquities and classics in recent years; there has been a proliferation of scholarly research exploring the connections between the Roman Empire and Qin-Han China, for example, as well as between Rome and India, Rome and Persia, India and China, and India and Persia. This research encompasses trade and maritime connections, coins and money, the dissemination of social views, and exchanges of military knowledge. Scholars such as Walter Scheidel¹ have emphasized the contacts and exchanges between these empires. Furthermore, Justin Jennings,² Michael Scott,³ and Eivind Heldaas Seland⁴ have discussed global ancient history and the concept of globalization in antiquity. Where comparative research has been undertaken, it typically focuses on only two political entities. This can be seen in the fields of linguistics,⁵ philosophy,⁶ art history,⁷ and historical disciplines.⁸ An exception to this trend is the work of Mu-chou Poo,⁹ who compared more than two states (Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China).

Bromberg has attempted to bridge this gap in his new book, which focuses on global Classics by truly integrating a global perspective into the study of Classics. This approach could contribute to the decolonization of Classics while also introducing new interdisciplinary methodologies, combining history, archaeology, and art history. Bromberg highlights key correlations and contrasts between Classics and global studies, proposing mutual cooperation where “global ways of thinking and teaching can enrich the study of the ancient world, and how Classics can offer perspectives that illuminate pressing global issues” (p. 12).

The most intriguing aspect of the book is its size; it resembles a compilation of three academic papers rather than a longer work. However, I do not present this as a criticism. In fact, it demonstrates the author’s skill in producing a valuable and significant book in a concise format. The format of the book is useful because the author uses case studies that could work as general ideas. His case studies combine textual, material and art sources with contemporary state of the field of Classics. The introductory chapter provides essential information about global studies, globalization studies, and Classics, offering clarity on the distinctions between global and world studies, as well as global and globalized concepts. It contains numerous contemporary references, making it useful for further reading.

The first chapter, “Transborder,” examines two important case studies which address the differences among terms like “global,” “international,” and “transnational” in antiquity. Although one could discuss the concept of globalization in antiquity, particularly in relation to the Silk Roads or Afroeurasia, Bromberg focuses on two specific types. The literary example he presents is Polybius, a Roman figure known for his global worldview; Bromberg skillfully discusses Polybius’s positions and later misinterpretations. The choice of Polybius is crucial because Polybius as a universal historian was often used as a narrative for the development of global/globalized Roman Empire. As Bromberg writes about Polybius,

Writing from Rome…Polybius conceived his project as documenting not only how events in all parts of the inhabited world came together into a series of causally linked interconnections, but also what systems and processes allowed the Romans of his day to achieve something “that never before can be found to have happened” (1.1.5–1.1.6). The analogy with modern histories of globalization is ready-made: the globalizing (equal to first hellenizing and then romanizing) of Polybius’ ecumene shifted into a higher gear during and in the centuries following the expedition of Alexander between 333 and 323 BCE and accelerated again during the period of Roman conquest that he narrated” (p. 29). 

Bromberg highlights hegemonic perspectives, viewing globalization as a hierarchical, uniform process on a broad scale. It demonstrates Bromberg’s core idea of inclusive and decolonizing Classics.

In contrast to the historical source, the archaeological example is the multicultural site of Ai Khanoum, located in present-day Afghanistan. This site is a paragon of globalization, as its archaeological findings reveal a blend of Greek, Indian, Bactrian, and Persian artifacts. Bromberg describes architectural remains, city plans, and inscriptions which show cultural diversity. While influenced by various cultural and political entities, the local communities in Ai Khanoum developed their own identity, which can be analyzed through the lens of globalization and glocalization. Glocalization, a term coined by Roland Robertson, refers to the interplay between globalization and localization, where global and local influences coexist and are adapted to fit specific geographic, cultural, or social contexts. The selection of Ai Khanoum serves as a compelling example of the interwoven and dynamic nature of identities—local, glocal, and global. The comparative analysis of written (Polybius) and archaeological (Ai Khanoum) sources reinforces the concept of globalization as a multiregional, multidirectional, interactive, and multidimensional process, challenging the traditional cultural domination model, which has typically been characterized as dispersive and centered. The central argument of Bromberg’s chapter involves a re-evaluation of the globalization model, offering valuable case studies that contribute to a deeper understanding of a transborder approach in antiquity.

The next chapter focuses on transhistorical approaches. Rather than concentrating on transnational perspectives, Bromberg challenges traditional chronological and temporal frameworks, distinguishing them from diachronies. He contends that traditional frameworks of periodization have not only led to the segmentation of privileged regions and time periods within antiquity but have also created a distinct separation between different eras (for example, antiquity and modernity). His understanding of the interaction between local and global methodologies and chronologies could be instrumental in constructing a global framework. These methodologies have shown both contrasts and overlaps between classical tradition and reception. The author explains, “The same politics of global historicism are visible in the contrasting temporalities of tradition and reception: studies in the classical tradition emphasize long-term continuity, while classical reception studies prefer disjointed contemporaneity” (p. 73). The chapter highlights a crucial aspect of the author’s critique of periodization frameworks centered around concepts such as the West or Western history, while also cautioning that globality does not necessarily equate to inclusivity.

The third chapter, “Transdisciplinary,” is particularly noteworthy. Bromberg distinguishes between the terms “interdisciplinary,” “multidisciplinary,” and “transdisciplinary,” emphasizing the limits of interdisciplinary approaches while highlighting the significant potential for reshaping Classics through transdisciplinary methods. He identifies several challenges facing the field, including fragmentation, hierarchical structures, and issues related to nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism. The author astutely examines the unique characteristics of the field of Classics, which traces its intellectual roots to German idealism and occupies a distinct status within academic disciplines. This status has been shaped by the perception of the ancient (Greco-Roman) world as a cohesive whole, often defined in opposition to the modern. Rather than evolving as a subject- or place-oriented discipline, Classics has developed as a period-oriented field with numerous subdisciplines. The lack of inner-disciplinary dialogue is also noted, with Bromberg advocating for a transdisciplinary approach as a means of fostering new forms of knowledge creation.

Additionally, I would like to mention the problem of fragmentation on multiple levels. At the institutional level, the field is dispersed among various schools and departments. For example, the classical world (Greece and Rome) is often taught in Classics or Art History departments, while Chinese archaeology, literature, and history are typically offered in East Asian departments. Indian antiquities are found in South Asian studies, while Persian studies fall under West Asian or Middle Eastern departments. In the United States, archaeology is often part of Anthropology, where Chinese archaeology may be taught but the classical world is overlooked. In Europe, archaeological instruction tends to focus on national archaeologies, as is the case in China, where significant departments focus exclusively on Chinese archaeology. Some Eastern European countries may include the classical world in their archaeology curricula, yet they often do not offer courses on Chinese or other non-European archaeological traditions. The concept of global antiquities can help bridge these gaps between departments and academic fields across the US, Europe, and China.

Another relevant issue is the intense focus on local sites within archaeology, art history, and anthropology, which can hinder broader understandings of the ancient world. Most scholars tend to concentrate on a single site within their region or country. Moreover, political entities in Mesoamerica, South America, or sub-Saharan Africa—such as the Maya, Chavin, Nok, Nasca, Muisca, and Moche—are often not considered part of antiquities or Classics.

I would also like to highlight the author’s activism and his proposal for a manifesto titled “Toward a Critical Global Classics” (pp. 88–97) as a crucial element for the future of Classics. It is based on Bourdieu’s approach of public intellectualism and is emphasized with examples of globalization scholars. The author then analyzed “reflexivity and transformative practices” within the Classics. He suggested two ways for integrating Classics: a response to global issues and participation in public debates (including podcasts, blogs, repositories). Bromberg’s work on globalizing classics underscores the importance of acknowledging alternative antiquities and amplifying voices from beyond the field’s traditional temporal, spatial, and epistemic boundaries. By integrating a transdisciplinary, problem-based approach to globalization with a deep historical perspective, the study of global classics provides a robust analytical framework.

In my opinion, the book addresses three key questions—How, When, and Why regarding the transformation of contemporary Classics. Bromberg asserts that the purpose (and hope) of this book is conceptual, as he aims to provide a new trans-concept for the future of Classics. I wholeheartedly agree with this perspective. The book effectively outlines the essential conditions and elements for the development of global Classics. His approach challenges traditional Eurocentric visions of Classics, hegemonic globalization, and the dichotomy between ancient and modern periods. Bromberg establishes two levels of analysis: thematic (transborder, transhistorical, and transdisciplinary) and contentual (history and archaeology, historiography and perceptions of the past, knowledge formation). It should be considered mandatory reading for anyone interested in global antiquities and is comparable to works cited above by Michael Scott, Eivind Heldaas Seland, and Walter Scheidel.

Table of Contents

Preface 
Introduction (1–15)
What is global studies? (2–5)
What is global classics? (6–11)
Scope and outline of the book (12–15)
1 Transborder (16–48) 
Locating the global in antiquity (17–25) 
Global and ecumenical in Polybius (26–32) 
Glocalization at Ai Khanoum (33–40) 
Conclusion (41–48) 
2 Transhistorical (49–77) 
Time and place (50–60)
Tradition, reception, and beyond (61–70)
Conclusion: multiple antiquities (71–77) 
3 Transdisciplinary (78–97) 
Holism, ecumenicism, and the global (79–87) 
Toward a critical global classics (88–97) 
Conclusion (98–101) 
Epilogue (102–4)

Notes

1. Walter Scheidel, ed., Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Walter Scheidel, ed., State Power in Ancient China and Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

2. Justin Jennings, Globalizations and the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

3. Michael Scott, Ancient Worlds: An Epic History of East and West (London: Hutchinson, 2016).

4. Eivind Heldaas Seland, A Global History of the Ancient World: Asia, Europe and Africa before Islam (Abingdon: Routledge, 2021).

5. Martin Kern, “早期中國與比較古代學的挑戰：漢學和比較文學的對話” [The Challenges of Early China Studies and Comparative Antiquity: A Dialog between Sinology and Comparative Literature], 學術月刊 [Academic Monthly] 53, no. 8 (2021): 149–62; Griet Vankeerberghen and Michael Nylan, eds., Chang’an 26 BCE: An Augustan Age in China (Seattle: Washington University Press, 2015); Hans Beck and Griet Vankeerberghen, eds., Rulers and Ruled in Ancient Greece, Rome, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021); Hans Beck and Griet Vankeerberghen, eds., Place and Performance in Ancient Greece, Rome, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024); Haicheng Wang, Writing and the Ancient State: Early China in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).

6. Jiyuan Yu, “Virtue: Aristotle and Confucius,” Philosophy East and West 48, no. 2 (1998): 323–47; Jiyuan Yu, “The Language of Being: Between Aristotle and Chinese Philosophy,” International Philosophical Quarterly 39, no. 4 (1999): 439–54; Jiyuan Yu, “Soul and Self: Comparing Chinese Philosophy and Greek Philosophy,” Philosophy Compass 3, no. 4 (2008): 604–18; Alexander Beecroft, Authorship and Cultural Identity in Early Greece and China: Patterns of Literary Circulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Alexander Beecroft, “Eurafrasiachronologies: Between the Eurocentric and the Planetary,” Journal of World Literature 1, no. 1 (2016): 17–28; Zhihua Yao and Ithamar Theodor, Brahman and Dao: Comparative Studies of Indian and Chinese Philosophy and Religion (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2014).

7. Goran Đurđević, “Reflection in Qin-Han and Roman Art: A Comparison of Ancient Mirrors” (Ph.D. diss., Beijing, Capital Normal University, 2021); Anthony Barbieri-Low, Ancient Egypt and Early China: State, Society, and Culture (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2021).

8. Rebecca Robinson, Imperial Cults: Religion and Politics in the Early Han and Roman Empires (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023); Hyun Jin Kim, Ethnicity and Foreigners in Ancient Greece and China (London: Duckworth Books, 2009); Hyun Jin Kim, ed., Eurasian Empires in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Contact and Exchange Between the Graeco-Roman World, Inner Asia and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017); Hyun Jin Kim, Samuel N. C. Lieu, and Raoul McLaughlin, Rome and China: Points of Contact (London: Taylor & Francis, 2021); David Engels, Benefactors, Kings, Rulers: Studies on the Seleukid Empire between East and West (Leuven: Studia Hellenistica, 2017); Altay Coskun and David Engels, eds., Rome and the Seleukid East: Selected Papers from the Seleukid Study Day V, Brussels, 21-23 August 2015 (Brussels: Latomus, 2019).

9. Mu-chou Poo, Enemies of Civilization: Attitudes toward Foreigners in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005).