Popular media attributes many of the great, labour-intensive achievements of the ancient world either to the work of extra-terrestrials or slaves, and only rarely are free workers considered. Although this may be due to the lack of entertainment value accorded to workers in certain types of media, academic scholarship has long been guilty of a similar infatuation with reading the ancient world as a predominantly slave-based society. The Finleyan model of the ancient economy still has many merits, but its categorical denial of the existence of free (waged) labour is unfortunately not one of those. While historians' interest in the Roman labour market has peaked in recent years (notably prompted by the work of P. Temin), the volume under review gives proper emphasis to this theme, both by evaluating scholarly dogmas in the role of labour in the ancient world, and by introducing new and exciting avenues for future research.

The volume is the second major output of the research network ‘Structure and Determinants of Economic Performance in the Roman World’, funded by the Flanders Research Foundation. As discussed by the editors in the preface, it is concerned with ‘the empire's ability to mobilize, train, and direct human efforts’ (p. viii). The volume shows its value within the larger research framework by illustrating the importance of a study of work in the Roman world, whether as a social or as an economic phenomenon. By strongly adhering to a neo-institutionalist framework, the editors manage to combine a range of sub-disciplines, ranging from economic history to archaeology, into a varied and inspiring collection of papers dealing with the labour history of the Roman Empire.

The difficult concepts of work, labour and professionalism are tidily dealt with by the editors in Chapter 1. They highlight the hazy nature of these terms, both in the ancient world and in modern scholarship, and settle for a definition of the history of work as ‘the study of societies’ conceptualisation of efforts as work, the mobilization of power, the organization of co-operation between workers, and the institutions that regulated this co-operation’ (p. 6). Such a definition, however, immediately stresses the vices and virtues of the study of labour in the ancient world. On the one hand, it covers the study of all aspects of the ancient world, thereby adhering to the sociological notion that the study of work is the study of society itself, yet on the other hand, such a wide-ranging conceptualisation defies falsifiable categorisation. The editors, however, rightly leave the more precise definitions of work, labour or professionalism to the individual authors.

The problems with the long-dominant Finleyan model of the Roman economy are addressed by a variety of contributors, who each argue for a revision of Finley's view. A. Zuiderhoek (Chapter 2), for instance, discusses the ‘plethora of labour statuses’ in the Roman East. While Finley believed this profusion of worker types was due to the lack of a labour market, Zuiderhoek argues that it is instead a response to an existing, albeit underdeveloped, labour market. The various types of labourers are also addressed by C. Hawkins (Chapter 3), in consideration of the Roman artisanal firm, where he questions why workshops employed slaves, persons that required constant maintenance, even though the work was often seasonal and plagued by uncertainty of demand. Drawing on theoretical scholarship about ‘the firm’, Hawkins concludes that the labour markets in which artisans were embedded were relatively tight, while a small and permanent workforce was necessary; the reason slaves were preferable to workers on long-term contracts, was the coercive power an owner held over his slave, which made slave labourers easier to control and thereby reduced transaction costs. S.G. Bernard (Chapter 4) likewise tackles the issue of the provenance and type of labour forces, this time in relation to the Roman building industry. Although slaves were similarly an important presence within the labour force, they were few in number and limited to skilled jobs. The bulk of the labour force, according to Bernard, consisted of day labourers coming from the cities' poor or from corvée labour enforced by the state, often as part of military service or as punishment. This is developed by S. Bond (Chapter 11) in her paper on the mint workers of the later Roman Empire, proposing that although the mints were staffed by slaves in the early Principate, they transitioned to employing forced labourers, controlled by the state. In exchange for their lack of choice on the labour market and lower reputation, they received social privileges. Again, therefore, the use of slaves was different only in name from the workers, who in case of the mints, were likewise coerced.

Unlike Zuiderhoek and Hawkins, who are sceptical about the full development of a labour market, Bernard sees an efficient labour market, governed by the laws of supply and demand (p. 63). This matches the conclusion of M.J. Groen-Vallinga and L.E. Tacoma (Chapter 6), who offer an excellent discussion of Diocletian's Price Edict. They successfully bring out the importance of short-term hired labour, and also address the lack of a strong distinction between slave and free labour in this context. They argue that there was much economic differentiation, both among the workers and in the type of remuneration, and determine that ‘price formation could and did take place’ (p. 123). C. Holleran (Chapter 5) complements these statements, by discussing the ways in which labour or labourers were gathered up in the city of Rome, focusing on advertising, congregation, clientelism and networks.

Networks are elaborated upon by J. Liu (Chapter 10), in a network analysis of Roman collegia, but here she warns against overestimating their role in the face of informal networks, such as those provided by the family, friends or patronage. V. (Chapter 9) by contrast sees more power lying in the hands of the collegia. Comparing them to medieval guilds, he finds that although the collegia never achieved the same status and were therefore never formally part of public administration, they were powerful informal organisations that pooled resources and reputation, and managed these through the mechanism of control and protection. They further formed an important bridge between the middle classes and the civic elites.

The relationship between the Roman elites and the working population is addressed by N. Tran (Chapter 12) and by C. Lis and H. Soly (Chapter 13). All vehemently argue against the generally accepted idea that ‘work’ was looked down upon in the Roman world and an activity that one should ideally abstain from. By tracing the status of craftsmen, Tran shows that for the Roman elites those who ‘mastered an art’ were indeed praiseworthy due to their dexterity, knowledge and talent. This discourse at the same time allowed for the craftsmen to take pride in their own occupations. The elite's apparent appreciation of craftsmen, however, was of course not enough to bridge the gap between the two classes, but the notion of Roman hostility to work should definitely be revalued. Lis and Soly (Chapter 13) argue against the idea that non-agrarian work was disdained in the Classical world, on the basis of the proud manifestation of occupational identity that is visible in Roman evidence. They furthermore compare Roman occupational self-representation to that in the West European Middle Ages, where it was only allowed if it was in the service of God, arguing that Roman society was indeed one in which one's profession could be a source of pride and self-identification.

Occupational identity is further discussed from an archaeological point of view by E.A. Murphy (Chapter 7) and M. Flohr (Chapter 8). Both authors take the archaeological remains of tabernae as their starting point. Murphy advocates using the approach of household archaeology in relation to workshops. The workshop in itself, she argues, is not enough of an analytical unit; instead, we should discuss workgroups and how they related to the communities of which they were part. The workshops were staffed by friends and neighbours, whose houses were often adjacent, and performed functions beyond that of labour, serving in some cases as burial grounds or religious spaces. Flohr, too, deals with the tabernae, but argues that these units, due to their proximity to daily life, fostered the formation and negotiation of occupational identities. This, he proposes, is in strong opposition to the larger production halls, with their large division of labour, and lack of contact with consumers. Although both papers identify the utility of this type of archaeological evidence, their conclusions show that it is not a key source to be employed in the study of labour in the Roman world.

This useful volume provides a range of highly informative accounts of the role of work, labour and professionalism under Rome, but with a view applicable to a wider context. Although the quality of the papers varies, they are all worthy of scholars' attention, and live up to the volume's aim of putting the study of labour in the Roman world back on the scholarly menu. Covering a wide range of topics and periods, with papers offering contrasting viewpoints and different interpretations, the volume makes for an inspiring and exciting read. Much recommended.