Certainly not. Although it has become more prevalent in current times, Globalisation has really been around for centuries.

The first true corporations and multinational companies came about in India under the supervision of queen Elizabeth I.

The slave trade could be argued as another case of globalisation, and even as far back as Ancient Greece and Rome, there was trade and diplomatic channels with far eastern societies.

The European conquest of the south Americas in the 1400's and 1500's brought about a global source of revenue for European powers, often in the form of mines and raw minerals.

Globalisation might have not existed in it's current form, but prominent figures and companies were established hundreds of years ago.

Take a look at this thread for some previous responses to a very similar question.

As /u/bonejohnson8 has already mentioned, to answer this question it's vital to first define "globalisation." This is difficult because there are competing versions of the concept.

It's self-evident that some forms of international trade, politics, communication and interaction have always been around. The size of ancient trade routes is often amazing. IIRC, tin from Britain was being traded with the Mediterranean before 800BC. The Romans had an Empire stretching from the Levant to Britain, and could ship goods from one end to the other. It's arguable that they integrated the Mediterranean into a single economic and political system (though I still have questions over the depth of this integration). In the Middle Ages, the spice trade ran from the Pacific to Western Europe.

From 1492 we see the possibility of a truly global system, as Eurasia, Africa and the Americas could now interact. The fortunes of European powers could be closely linked to their endeavours in the Americas or the Pacific. Political and economic systems could stretch across the Atlantic and Pacific. We see the emergence of corporations such as the Dutch East-India Company (VOC), and then later the British East India Company. From at least the early 19th century, bulk goods could be shipped between continents, with cheap North American wheat and corn feeding British workers and depressing British agriculture.

Despite this, communications, travel and transport remained relatively slow and unreliable. Getting a message across the Atlantic could take months (if it arrived at all). Overland travel could be even slower - limited to the speed of a horse.

19th century technology changed this. Railways greatly increased the speed and quantity of goods and people that could be moved overland. Steamships were faster, or at least more reliable, than sailing ships (and also a lot better at navigating rivers). The 19th century communications technology was the telegraph. For the first time, communications over great distances could be instantaneous (or at least as fast as morse code could be used). The laying of the transatlantic telegraph cable in 1858 cut communications times from a minimum of 10 days to nothing. The "annihilation of space through time" was given as one of the defining features of globalisation by one very prominent academic, Anthony Giddens (the phrase actually originally comes from Marx).

The period from the 1890s up to WW1 is often considered one of globalisation. European empires and capital touched every part of the globe, even if they didn't always penetrate far into the hinterlands. Volumes of international trade and financial flows were very high.

So with all this history, how can you argue that globalisation is a recent phenomenon?

An important thing to decide is whether denotes a qualitative rather than a quantitative change. I don't think I can answer this question but here are some things to think about. These are all important features in some descriptions of globalisation.

• Globalisation is global. There is no competing system, there are no new areas to expand into. The only way to grow is to increase the intensity of interactions. This is an important distinction from the Age of Empire in the late 19th century. (This is fairly prominent in more Marxist interpretations, although it's pretty obvious from the word itself...)

• Multilateral institutions exist. The UN, the IMF, the WTO, the Bank of International Settlements, etc.... These are institutions open to global membership. They are agreements between multiple states and not established or dominated by a single state. (Not that I'd claim they are necessarily fair.)

• Transport is cheap and fast enough that it's economic to ship almost anything anywhere. Air freight can move goods between any two places with an airport within a day, fast enough for all but the most perishable goods. Cargo ships can move bulk goods between China and Europe or the Americas for a ridiculously low cost. The ability to move raw materials cheaply breaks the link between their location and the location of industry. (This is prominent in Giddens and Castells.)

• Communication really can be real-time, across multiple media. I mentioned earlier the importance of the telegraph. The telephone takes this further. Does the ability to talk to one another mean a qualitative difference in relationships? A step-change in the control a head office can exert, or a real difference in how family or friends can keep in touch? The 20th century also saw an increase in the range of communications media - radio, television, fax, the internet - all have become globally available. In a similar way to primary commodities, the ability to move large quantities of information breaks a physical link. A company operating in the US can have its call-centres or back-office functions in India. (Again, prominent in Giddens and especially in Castells.)

Ultimately, globalisation is a concept. The test of a concept is not so much whether it is "true" but whether it is useful. In other words, does using "globalisation" as a lens to look at bronze age trade tell us useful things? Can we look at culture in the Spanish Empire and learn useful lessons about the globalisation of culture in the modern world?

"Levitt is sometimes credited with coining the term “globalisation” in a 1983 article, “The Globalisation of Markets”. Although the term had undoubtedly been in use before—the New York Times said it was used in other senses “at least as early as 1944”—it was Levitt who first popularised (marketed?) it as referring to the spread of corporations around the globe."

http://www.economist.com/node/13167376

The idea of globalization has been present way before that though, it is about connecting all the lands or communities that we are aware of. For example, Europe trading and communicating with Asia and Africa while Americas were unknown is still globalization, as they knew it even though it's not technically the whole globe.

What if we discovered other communities outside of Earth? Maybe we'd say spacification or something but the concept remains.