Roman Builders: A Study in Architectural Process

by Rabun Taylor

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003

ISBN: 0-521-00583-3

(Amazon)

Read by the author in May. 2025, bought for $21.36

"And four chambers were in the Beit Hamoked, like bedrooms opening onto a central room, two were in the holy territory and two in the regular territory. And a mosaic divided between the holy and regular." (Mishna Middot 1:6)

"וארבע לשכות היו בבית המוקד כקיטונות פתוחות לטרקלין, שתים בקדש ושתים בחול, וראשי פספסין מבדילין בין קדש לחל."

In architecture school, one of the important lessons we were taught was that your design must be buildable. It's not enough to make a visually compelling design; you need to also be aware of how it will be assembled, and think through the stages of construction to make sure it is possible. 

Rabun Taylor takes us on this thought experiment in his eye-opening book, Roman Builders: A Study in Architectural Process. I was initially drawn to this book when researching the role of drawings and models in Roman design. The book deals with this topic in its first section and is very informative in this regard, drawing on earlier works in a concise manner. He points out that the use of concrete meant that Roman buildings had to be designed in advance, both because its plasticity meant that more creativity was possible, and it demanded a well-ordered building site to maximize efficiency. (p. 39) 

 

This is followed by chapters discussing the various parts of Roman construction from the ground up. Taylor discusses how sites were selected, the work needed to prepare a site for construction, foundations, how Roman builders coped with the need for tolerance in design, the surprising amount of conduits and systems in place in Roman buildings, and of course the various building styles used for masonry construction in the Roman world. Like John Fitchen, he spends a good amount of time discussing scaffolding and centering. All these are interesting and well written.

The book really shines in the chapters that discuss, step-by-step, a theory for how the Colosseum and Pantheon were constructed. The author suggests where cranes and winches were placed, how the geometry was set out, and how teams of workers could have collaborated without getting in each other's way. This is truly a topic that in which architects and project managers can revel. None of this is to say that Taylor is correct, but that is not really the point. The idea is that his proposal is possible, and it is the thinking through the process which is so valuable and thought-provoking. 

In his chapter on ornamentation, Taylor discusses wall and floor design. He discusses the expensive opus sectile style, which used finely cut stones inlayed on floors. This type of paving has been found by archaeologists and volunteers sifting the remains of the Temple Mount, and was likely used in at least part of the flooring within. (See ArchitecTorah  358-360 for more on this topic). He explains that 

"opus sectile was the richest of all decorative techniques, reserved for the most opulent spaces. Its materials were more expensive than any other, and the labor involved in producing and installing its close-fitting elements the most exacting." (233) 

 However, because it was pre-cut and repetitive, it could be put together quickly. Taylor therefore suggests that opus sectile was especially suited for central and heavy-trafficked areas. In such locations, it would be prominent, but it could also be left until the end of the construction, since it could be quickly assembled. In this way, it could be left to the end and protected from the damage that naturally occurs on a building site. Side rooms, however, "were given over to the patient work of the mosaicists" who needed more time and therefore had to begin work earlier. 

Tractate Middot, which relates the design of the Temple in Jerusalem, mentions mosaics three times, as a method used to demarcate holy space for ordinary territory. The first, quoted above, occurs in a side entrance to the Temple, the Beit Hamoked. A second can be found in the attic above the central Temple, marking the boundary between the Holy and the Holy of Holies below. This too was a less-trafficked area that fits with Taylor's premise. The final space, however, is one that is more central, marking the line between the Israelite Court and the Priestly Court, which does not necessarily fit with Taylor's theory. The many mosaics that appear in synagogues and churches around Israel in the Roman and Byzantine periods also do not fit with this paradigm, but nonetheless the idea is compelling and certainly indicative of the way architects think when determining how buildings are to be constructed and adorned.