Download The Roman Building Industry, Ancient World Modern Discipline

Jerrard and Milns
The Roman Building Industry, Ancient World Modern Discipline Testing the
Validity of Applying Modern Theory to the Past
M.A. Jerrard and R.D. Milns
Abstract: The primary evidence from the Roman building industry during the Empire
demonstrates that the high level of skill held by tradesmen (all building and construction
workers were male) in extremely narrow trade areas actually served to promote greater
worker control over their tasks and that this control was increased because of the various
layers of supervision on the building site which effectively distanced managerial control from
the workers. This is contrary to the deskilling hypothesis put forward by sociologists such as
Morel (1989) writing about ancient Roman workers and also suggests that the post-Fordist
theses of Mathews are more applicable to the Roman world of two millennia previously than
to the globalised market conditions of the, 1990s.
Introduction
When engaging in an inter-disciplinary paper covering areas as diverse as industrial relations and
ancient history, the arguments will necessarily be polemical. A second issue to note is that while a
number of terms will be defined for the purposes of arguments presented in this paper, word length
precludes detailed analysis of the ancient primary source evidence.
For over a decade post-Fordism has been the focus of a number of writers, including John Mathews,
who have contended that this theory based on new production concepts offers an alternative to
labour process theory with its emphasis on segmentation of the production process, deskilling of the
workforce, and a lack of worker autonomy and control. In response to this body of work, Australian
critics of post-Fordism have argued against Mathews on the grounds that the theory is not new
(Gahan, 1991) and is actually a threat to positive workplace change (Hampson et al., 1994) and
organised labour in Australia in the 1990s (Campbell, 1990; Fieldes and Bramble, 1992). While
these critics make some valid points as post-Fordism relates to Australia, in a wider geographical
and historical context, post-Fordism is neither an historical break (Fieldes and Bramble, 1992: 562)
nor a utopian fantasy (Fieldes and Bramble, 1992: 562) because it can be used to analyse work
practices and organisation in the Roman building industry during the Empire, a period well before
the industrial revolution and the development of Taylorism and the Ford assembly line.
Terminology and theory
Andrew Turner (1994) indicated that he did not believe that there was a system of industrial
relations operating in the Roman Empire. Turner did not provide any definition of industrial
relations and did not recognise that in a society where there is a labour market based on waged
labour, there is an employment relationship and therefore a system of industrial relations in
existence. Industrial relations are as old as industry and, being inherent in industry, will always
remain as a feature of industrial life (Richardson, 1965: 13), which raises a number of issues
regarding the use of modern terminology and modern theory.
Is it valid to apply a modern theory that relies on the occurrence of the industrial revolution and
the development of the assembly line to an industry in a period that precedes the eighteenth
century? The answer is that such application is valid, depending upon how the term 'industry' is
defined and how the operation of an assembly line is understood. If the conventional meaning of
industry as manufacture based on the use of power-driven machinery and dating from the mideighteenth century British Industrial Revolution is used, then the term is inappropriate when
applied to the Roman Empire; however, it is also appropriate to describe as an industry any
continuous and organised production of items or artefacts in large numbers or on a large scale, even
if the economy is pre-industrial (Harris, 1980: 127). Similarly, if an assembly line is understood as
being part of a mechanised production process aimed at mass output, then it is inappropriate to
191
Jerrard and Milns
apply this concept to the Roman Empire. However, if an assembly line is equated simply with mass
output and standardisation, then application to the Roman Empire is valid, particularly in the
manufacture of pottery (Morel, 1989; Garnsey, 1989), bricks (Morel, 1989), and some clothing and
textiles (Moeller, 1969, 1976) where mass production through standardisation of labour, process and
product was achieved by slaves and free labourers working repetitively on separate components or
aspects of a final product. Consequently, these three Roman industries relied on deskilled workers
who were allowed minimal independent initiative as they worked to direction under coercive
supervision. In a modern context, these industries would be termed Fordist and Taylorist.
Wright (1992) raised the question of whether it is appropriate to apply terms beyond the era in
which they were coined and used this as part of an attack launched at Mathews and based upon the
latter's (mis?)application of the term 'Taylorism' to work systems which appeared after Taylor's
death. Mathews' response to this criticism was to raise the idea of an organisational metaphor and
to draw a parallel with the accepted and continued usage of the term 'Fordism' after Henry Ford's
death. Taksa's work on scientific management (1992, 1995) also shows that a term can be
broadened from its original application and remain legitimate.
Since a term can continue to be validly utilised after the date of its original application, there is
also an argument that it can be applied in modern studies of periods before this date, provided that
there is at least a close similarity of conditions. Given that three Roman industries match the
conditions required by Taylorism and Fordism, there is no reason why these terms cannot be
applied in studies of work practices and industrial relations covering these industries. To make the
use of such terms historically exclusive alienates any modern study of work or industrial relations
on the period before the twentieth century from our academic discipline and necessitates the
coining of a whole new terminology to describe practices already identified, analysed, and theorised.
In the light of this argument, it is therefore appropriate to utilise the term post-Fordism with
application to an industry which meets the majority of the requirements established by Mathews
even Mathews himself does not demand that all requirements be met (1992: 106).
The application of modern theory to ancient evidence
Sociologists and historians writing about ancient Roman labour claim that there was a division of
labour so narrow that it separated tasks into piecework and allowed even unskilled labourers to
engage in trade work by merely following detailed instructions under the guidance of a few
technicians who co-ordinated their efforts (Morel, 1989). Jean-Paul Morel is a major exponent of
the thesis that Roman trades workers were unskilled, but he does not define how he arrived at this
essentially Taylorist position and nor does he specifically mention the Taylorist argument. This
lack of understanding of terminology may explain why Morel chose the building and construction
industry as the best example of Taylorist breakdown of tasks, when in fact this industry actually
saw a large amount of worker control and autonomy over tasks and a reasonable amount of skill
flexibility within related crafts. While the organisation of the Roman public building industry1 was
based to a degree on standardisation of product and on some unskilled labour, the greater part
involved small, specialised batch production and workers with high levels of flexible skill which was
reflective of both Mathews' concept of post-Fordism and Piore and Sabel's ideas expressed in The
Second Industrial Divide (1984).
The Roman public building industry saw projects divided into areas of specialisation which are
illustrated in the lists of Latin inscriptions available from Rome (Treggiari, 1980): mensores
(surveyors), subrutores (demolition experts), cavatores (excavators), sectores serrarrii (sawyers),
calcarienses (lime-burners), structores (builders), tectores/tignuarii (carpenters), lapidarii (stone
workers), marmorarii (marble workers), albarii (workers in stucco), plutiarii (makers of
balustrades), subaediani (workers who worked on interiors), plumbiarii (plumbers),
vitriarii/vitrici/specularii (glaziers), museiarii (mosaicists), intestinarii (inlayers), and
pavimentarii (paviours). While these trade areas appear to be relatively narrow, they did allow the
This term is used to describe the section of the building and construction industry that was ultimately
under the control of the Emperor.
1
192
Jerrard and Milns
tradesman to produce a finished article, albeit an article that was to be part of an entire
construction project, which meant that there was no fragmentation but an integration of functions
as required by Mathews (1989, 1984). It would appear to be this relative narrowness of trade
division which led writers such as Morel (1989) and Garlan (1980) to infer that ancient tradesmen
had little control over their work because they believed that the conception of the finished article
was divorced from the creation of the article and therefore its eventual ownership (Gahan, 1991:
159).
The output of the majority of the tradesmen was actually measured in small batches that required a
degree of uniqueness2 that clearly meets with Mathews' requirement for such. For example
lapidarii, marmorarii, albarii, plutiarii, subaediani, vitriarii/vitrici/specularii, museiarii,
intestinarii, and pavimentarii would each have been responsible for completing a specified number
of items that was unique to their current project with regard to design and technical completion.
From about AD 80, a contract system operated (Loane, 1938) which saw projects divided into areas
of specialisation with each area being a separate contract awarded to an individual supplier of
material which also included skilled and unskilled labour. This meant that the redemptor3 had a
comparatively large degree of control over the hiring, remuneration, and organisation of his
contracted workers or slaves4 on the actual site. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the
contractor himself was likely to possess craft or technical skills beyond the ability to manage and
finance his contracted segment of the project.
If the contractor was not a tradesman, it is unlikely that he would have had the technical skills to
closely supervise his skilled workmen which would mean that these tradesmen would hold a larger
degree of control, and therefore autonomy, over their jobs on the site. Consequently, the narrow
and extremely specialised division of trades would have increased worker control rather than being
the means by which workers were controlled. Given the degree of precision required in stone
masonry and carpentry, the large number of techniques and skills evidenced in surviving
structures and buildings (Mosse, 1969), and the vast array of tools including carpenter's planes,
various types of hammers, various types of chisels, and measuring tools including squares and rules
which have survived (Mosse, 1969), skilled tradesmen would have been in a strong position to
maintain control over their work and to derive satisfaction and pride from it, as well as being better
able to negotiate with the redemptor over production processes and conditions.
The issue of control in the Roman public building industry was further complicated by the dual
nature and hierarchical structure of contract supervision which meant that there were a number of
managerial layers between the State as the primary employer and the building site. The redemptor
supervised his work gang and the mensor5 supervised the redemptor but had no control over
technical aspects at the worksite, even though he was directly responsible to the Emperor for what
happened at the worksite. The position of curator operum publicorum (supervisor of public works)
parallelled that of the mensor but was more of an administrative position that reported to the
Senate. While this situation apparently contradicts Mathews' (1989, 1994) claim that the
elimination of middle levels of supervision is a post-Fordist necessity, in practice both the redemptor
and the mensor were effectively removed from any direct supervisory role on the basis of a lack of
technical trades skill. This allowed the tradesmen to function as self-managing teams at the
worksite which meets with Mathews' requirement of worker autonomy and control (1989, 1994)
2
The Temple of Vespasian and Titus had three 15.20 metre high Corinthian columns which would have been
produced by a team of plutiarii or perhaps lapidarii.
3 'Redemptor' is the Latin term for an independent contractor.
4
Slaves were often paid money in return for their labour so that they could save for manumission. Once
freed, ex-slaves owed a 'debt' of patronage to their former owner which sawsocial convention sanctioned by
law plac[ing] the master-turned-patron in a position to exercise a substantial degree of control over the exslave (Garnsey, 1980: 34).
5 'Mensor' is the Latin term for the imperial slave who was first appointed to the position by the Emperor
Claudius to supervise the standard and efficiency of the work done by the independent contractors, or
redemptores.
193
Jerrard and Milns
because the redemptor and the mensor were effectively reduced to the roles of co-ordinator and
facilitator.
Answering Mathews' critics?
With regard to the criticisms levelled at post-Fordism, and Mathews' work in particular, some apply
to the Roman public building industry, but the majority are easily rebutted by using arguments
based on the available primary source evidence for work practices and work organisation in the
Empire.
Campbell (1990) and Gahan (1991) have challenged Mathews on the basis that he has selectively
drawn his evidence from industries dependent upon highly skilled and usually male workers.
Mathews (1992) answers this criticism with an analysis of other industries which are reflective of
the new production systems or post-Fordism, but the criticism raised by Campbell and Gahan is
tailor-made for an application of Mathews' ideas to Roman industry. While the building industry
meets the majority of Mathews' post-Fordist requirements, it employed only male workers, the
majority of whom were highly skilled tradesmen, and female workers were located in the semi- or
unskilled areas of the clothing and textile industry. On this basis, the Roman building industry can
be said to exhibit the systematic gender bias identified by Gahan (1991: 171).
Gahan (1991) criticises the concept of the mass production system and its necessary link with the
creation of mass markets, but despite Mathews' obvious reliance on the traditional definitions of
terms such as 'mass production', 'assembly line', and 'industry', the concept does apply to the
Roman Empire. As the Empire spread, the market for manufactured goods pots, lamps, clothes
grew to a level never seen before (Finley, 1985)6, as did the demand for housing and public
buildings, yet the public building industry chose not to pursue functional flexibility and
standardisation of product as did other manufacturing industries.
Gahan (1991: 163) also points out Mathews' failure to explain why having greater control and more
responsibility, and therefore more work to do, makes workers more willing to work and gives them
greater satisfaction from work. In the Roman building industry where patronage and obsequium7
ties dominated, skilled slaves saved money to buy their freedom and to establish a business once
freed and free workers also saved money to establish their own business perhaps as a redemptor
and to purchase property. Roman society was governed by wealth and status so that freeborn
and freed workers were at the lowest end of the social hierarchy just above slaves, and the only way
that they could increase their position was by saving and taking pride in the craftsmanship
involved in producing a finished item. Consequently, Gahan's criticism on this point of Mathews'
version of post-Fordism does not apply to the Roman building industry because the workers
willingly sought additional responsibility, and therefore work, in order to gain additional
opportunities to exhibit their workmanship, thereby earning a higher wage and increasing their
status and reputation within their own trade and perhaps in society as a whole.
While the link between worker autonomy and increased skill requirements was criticised by
Campbell (1990), it is clear, as Mathews says (1992: 110), that the two frequently do go together and
this is demonstrated in the Roman public building industry as the redemptor and mensor are
prepared to relinquish control over a trade component of a project to the skilled tradesmen because
their own lack of technical skill effectively precludes any control by close directive supervision.
Fieldes and Bramble (1992) raise doubts about the effectiveness of self-managing teams and
collaboration between the worker and the employer on ideological grounds (Mathews, 1992). The
Roman public building industry operated in an extremely class conscious society which at first
6
Of course the world population during this period was much smaller than it is today but the growing
market of the time was equivalent to a modern mass market.
7 The compliance by a freed slave with their former master's wishes which was made semi-legal by custom
and practice in Roman society.
194
Jerrard and Milns
instance should support the criticisms of Fieldes and Bramble. Actual industry practice shows
otherwise, since the employer (the Emperor) devolved responsibility to middle management
represented by the mensor who devolved responsibility to the redemptor who then, on the grounds
of lack of technical skill, devolved responsibility to the skilled tradesmen who worked in teams
based on trades. The position of the worker was further strengthened if he belonged to a collegium8
which could virtually control the awarding of public building contracts, therefore guaranteeing
members work.
Conclusion
The choice of post-Fordism as the theoretical framework showed that a theory which developed
during the 1980s and 1990s to explain current industrial relations trends can actually have a much
broader historical application, depending again upon the use of terminology, and need not be
confined only to studies of contemporary work practices and work organisation.
A number of the criticisms of Mathews' version of post-Fordism have been shown not to be relevant
when the theory is applied to the Roman public building industry which shows that the theory
albeit without a name during the Roman Empire
has succeeded in practice, so that it is not a
Utopian fantasy and nor is it an historical break, but rather more of a return to the past, but a past
further away than that discussed by Gahan (1991).
Given that post-Fordism, particularly as developed by John Mathews, does apply to most aspects of
work practice and work organisation in the Roman public building industry, there is definitely a
valid argument for applying modern industrial relations theory to the past. The utilisation of
modern terminology in describing past trends allows for a continuity of academic analysis and
enables inter-disciplinary studies to be undertaken in fields which would otherwise remain
unlinked, so that the scope of these academic disciplines can be effectively broadened by these new
dimensions.
The benefits of applying theories from a modern discipline to the past are that new ways of viewing
current theory and the industrial relations discipline itself are opened up, and comment and input
from outside the industrial relations discipline are attracted. In this instance, this can only be of
benefit to both industrial relations and ancient history because it enables inter-disciplinary
research to be undertaken. While it is valid to apply modern theory to the past in an interdisciplinary study such as this one on the Roman public building industry, the proviso must remain
that it is necessary always to define discipline-specific terminology to avoid the problems
encountered by Turner and Morel in their research.
References
Badham, R. and Mathews, J. (1989) 'The new production systems .' Labour and Industry 2(2):
194-246.
Campbell, I. (1990) 'The Australian trade union movement and post-Fordism.' Journal of
Australian Political Economy (26): 1-26.
Fieldes, D. and Bramble, T. (1992) 'Post-Fordism: historical break or Utopian fantasy?' Journal of
Industrial Relations 34(4): 562-579.
Finley, M.I. (1985) The Ancient Economy, 2nd edn. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gahan, P. (1991) 'Forward to the past? The case of new production concepts .' Journal of
Industrial Relations 33(2): 155-177.
Garlan, Y. 'Le travail libre en Grece ancienne.' In P. Garnsey (Ed.), Non-Slave Labour in the
Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, pp. 6-22.
Garnsey, P. (1980) 'Non-slave labour in the Roman world.' In P. Garnsey (Ed.), Non-Slave Labour
in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, pp. 34-47.
Hampson, I. (1991) 'Post-Fordism, the French regulation school , and the work of John Mathews.'
Journal of Australian Political Economy 28: 92-130.
8
Collegia were the earliest form of industrial organisation (Jerrard forthcoming).
195
Jerrard and Milns
Hampson, I., Ewer, P. and Smith, M. (1994) 'Post-Fordism and workplace change: towards a
critical research agenda.' Journal of Industrial Relations 36(2): 231-257.
Harris, W.V. (1980) 'Roman terracotta lamps: the organisation of an industry.' Journal of Roman
Studies 70.
Jerrard, M.A. (forthcoming) 'Collegia: the first trade unions?'
Loane, H.J. (1938) Industry and Commerce of the City of Rome. New York: Arno Press (1979
reprint of Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press).
Mathews, J. (1989a) Tools of Change: New Technology and the Democratisation of Work. Sydney:
Pluto Press.
Mathews, J. (1989b) The Age of Democracy: The Politics of Post-Fordism. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Mathews, J. (1989c) 'New production concepts.' Prometheus 7(1): 129-148.
Mathews, J. (1989d) 'From post-industrialism to post-Fordism.' Meanjin 48(1): 139-152.
Mathews, J. (1992) 'New production systems: a response to critics and a re-evaluation.' Journal of
Australian Political Economy (30): 91-128.
Mathews, J. (1994) Catching the Wave: Workplace Reform in Australia. St Leonards: Allen and
Unwin.
Moeller, W.O. (1969) 'Male weavers at Pompeii.' Technology and Culture 10: 561-566.
Moeller, W.O. (1976) The Wool Trade of Ancient Pompeii. Leiden: Brill.
Morel, J-P. (1989) 'The craftsman.' In A. Giardina (Ed.), The Romans, 2nd edn. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Mosse, C. (1969) 'Artisans in the Hellenistic cities and in Rome.' In The Ancient World at Work.
London: Chatto and Windus, pp. 97-111.
Piore, M.J. and Sabel, C.F. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
Richardson (1965) An Introduction to the Study of Industrial Relations. London: Allen and Unwin.
Taksa, L. (1992) 'Scientific management: technique or cultural ideology?' The Journal of
Industrial Relations 34(3): 365-395.
Taksa, L. (1995) 'The cultural diffusion of scientific management: the United States and New South
Wales.' The Journal of Industrial Relations 37(3): 427-461.
Treggiari, S.M. (1980) 'Urban labour in Rome: Mercenarii and Tabernarii.' In P. Garnsey (Ed.),
Non-Slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, pp.
48-64.
Turner, A. (1994) 'How to manage an empire: just do as the Romans Did.' Business Review Weekly,
December 12, pp. 80-82.
Wright, C. (1992) 'Taylorism reconsidered: the impact of scientific management within the
Australian workplace', Working Paper No. 90. Kensington, NSW: School of Industrial Relations
and Organisational Behaviour, University of New South Wales.
196