This chapter aims to establish a lower limit to the possible extent of horizontal specialization in the economy of classical Athens; in other words, the minimum plausible number of specialized jobs to do with production, exchange, and services. This exercise shows that even with a mindset sceptical to the idea of specialization, there cannot realistically have been fewer than 162 specialized full-time occupations in classical Attica. This demonstrates the complexity and dynamism of the classical Athenian economy.

This chapter challenges the default use of the language of professionalization with reference to the Roman army of the imperial period and argues that while certain usages of the term ‘professional’ may be valid, there are so many other unhelpful modernising connotations arising from such terminology that it is better avoided.

Xenophon’s interest in the role of elite Athenians in the democratic city is evident not only in his manifestly Athenian works where this is an explicit concern but also elsewhere in his corpus, most notably in his Anabasis, the focus of this chapter. Although this work tells the story of how a band of Greek mercenaries marched with Cyrus into the heart of the Persian Empire in 401 BC, Xenophon’s account is profoundly affected by his Athenian experience and interest in elite political behavior within the Athenian democracy. The Anabasis broadly evokes the political situation in Athens and the complex interactions of mass and elite as Xenophon depicts the importance of and challenges for elite leadership in the quasi-democratic setting of the Cyrean army. In setting forth how a versatile elite Athenian – Xenophon himself – succeeds as a leader of the Cyreans, it confirms in action the principles that Xenophon lays down elsewhere for effective elite leadership within the Athenian democracy. It portrays Xenophon not just as a talented general but as a capable democratic orator who wins over the Cyrean masses in deliberative and forensic contexts that recall their Athenian analogs.

Literary condemnations of manual work and commerce and trade were a discourse of social distinction that emphasized philosophical morality over avaricious money making. It did not matter socially beyond its immediate intellectual context, and neither prevented artisans and professionals from publicly displaying pride in their work nor imperial elites from treating traders, engineers, and artisans with dignity and respect in their personal interactions.

The prosperous harbour town of Ostia in the second and third centuries AD is a good example for demonstrating the areas of daily life and economic activities, and skilled individuals and professionals. One can expect a very distinctive society, with lots of merchandising activities to fulfil the needs and requirements of the people who lived and worked in the city. Inscriptions, reliefs and mosaics inform us about many occupations and skilled professions, as well as guilds and club houses in Ostia. The aim of the contribution is to discuss evidences of monuments and written sources on skilled professionalism in Ostia exemplarily. In general, the individuals represented themselves in an appropriate manner and in their professional environment.

If Xenophon employs Socrates’ conversations with elite Athenians as a vehicle for communicating with his reading audience concerning their responsibilities within the democracy, he adopts a more direct approach to this in his Hipparchicus and his Poroi, where he addresses his readers in his own voice as an expert who can help them succeed in specific leadership roles. Xenophon’s advice in Hipparchicus concerns how a cavalry commander can best carry out this important elected office. His ideal cavalry commander is an astute political actor who carefully and self-consciously manages his relations with individuals, the Council, and the public at large; and while he seeks to carry out his duties in keeping with existing democratic institutions and rules, he also works to modify these when this will benefit the city. The chapter then turns to the Poroi, written soon after Athens’ disastrous Social War (357–355 BC) in which Xenophon outlines an ambitious program of financial reform for the city and in so doing models for his elite reader how a public speaker could go about persuading the Athenian Assembly to embrace changes to improve the situation of Athenians at home and abroad.

Cities selected and recruited skilled workers for various tasks, offering them contracts, payment and rewards. These will all be examined as well as the technitai’s travels, and the poleis’ assessment and appreciation of individuals and professions as a whole (especially doctors, seers, and architects).

By the early third century BC, musicians and people of the theatre with varied specializations, who participated in the Greek music contests (technitai tou Dionysou), began to organize themselves into associations, which can be deemed as the first professional associations in the Greek world. These associations were acting on behalf of their members as their ‘art agents’, but also on behalf of the organizers of festivals and contests (cities, kings, confederations) as their intermediaries.

The title of this chapter may seem provocative. While aport society is typically perceived to be anunambiguous concept, it is an anachronistic one whenapplied to the ancient world. 1It has yetto be conclusively proven that societies living inareas connected by waterways, and therefore withaccess to major commercial routes, differedsignificantly from other land-based urbansettlements of equal size. However, we ought topause here a moment to observe an undoubted fact,especially evident for example in Hispania: thesocial behaviours of coastal cities differ fromthose of inland settlements of a similar scale. Theevidence related to social promotion is crucial inthis case, with freedmen playing a key role. Incontrast, the noted social conservatism of inlandsocieties has contributed to the creation of a powerstruggle between such open and closedsocieties.2 Perhaps this is not theforum to discuss and clarify these issues, but itcan be argued that the society of Narona was an openone, and its port access can be considered anessential determinant of this characteristic, as itwas for most coastal cities for which there issufficient historical information. Furthermore, itslocation at the midpoint of the north Adriaticmaritime trade route enhanced the significance ofthe city.3

Recent years have witnessed a growing scholarlyinterest in ancient seaports, which consequentlyhave become a research category of their own. Portcities are seen as a specific class of city: in ageographical perspective, ancient cities weretopographically and administratively self-containedsettlements with large populations which were basedupon specialization, division of labour and socialdifferentiation. The city functioned therefore as acentral focus for its surroundings in economic butalso in political, administrative, religious andcultural terms. These different functions led to amanifoldness of the urban fabric. Port cities areadditionally characterized by their geographicalposition at the waterfront and by the spatial andeconomic symbiosis between port and city. Becauseships provided the most convenient means oftransport, port cities served as communication nodesbetween terrestrial and maritime networks, and werethus the focus of supra-regional trade linksconnecting the local with the global. Beingdestinations for immigrants, they became religiousmelting pots with growing populations who demandedcommodities, foodstuffs and services. In view ofthis, it has been assumed that port societies sharedsimilar religious, social and economic structures.It is further argued that port cities weresufficiently distinctive to form a specific urbantype, with the implicit assumption that they wereall shaped by identical developments and settings.The aim of this chapter is to scrutinize thisunderlying assumption of uniformity by focusing on asocially, religiously and economically importantphenomenon of Roman port societies, the collegia, and their socialintegration.

This chapter concerns Roman sculptors and considers whether sculptors in the Roman empire fit the modern criteria for the term ‘professional’, as has been developed in the sociology of modern professions. While the lack of a regulatory system governing stone carving practitioners in the Roman world might make it hard to fit them into most modern definitions of professionals, it is argued that Roman sculptors saw their work as skilled and used their specialist knowledge to obtain social and economic rewards.