In domestic and foreign historiography, for a long time, the latifundia was considered the main type of economy in antiquity, which was depicted as a huge estate with hundreds and thousands of slaves, mostly convicts, with a pronounced subsistence economy and minimal ties with the market. It was this type of economy, scientists believed, that best of all reflected the most significant aspects of ancient production and society (V.S. Sergeev, S.I. Kovalev, N.A. Mashkin).

However, since the mid-60s, a different point of view on the nature of the main production cell in Roman agriculture has been established in Soviet antiquity (M.E. Sergeenko, E.M. Shtaerman). Modern Analysis historical material showed that the latifundia in the above form in the classical period (until the end of the 1st century AD) was not the dominant economic type. The most widespread and accumulating the main principles of developed slavery was a production cell of a medium-sized estate, serviced by slave labor and closely connected with the local market (commodity slave villa). The recognition of this fact led to a significant rethinking of the whole character of Roman agriculture, the entire Roman economy, especially the role of commodity production in it, in comparison with the previous concept, which was based on the economic type of a huge latifundia with subsistence production ...

Agricultural Italy lagged behind in the formation of a new economic type both from the Balkans and from Great Greece. Up to the III century. BC. in Italy, including the Etruscan urban centers, the dominant type of economy was the peasant allotment, where the owner himself, a stern and pious Roman, and his entire large family worked hard. Various data allow us to determine the size of such an allotment: it hardly exceeded 20-30 yugers (5-7.5 hectares) ... In early Rome, large land ownership in its structure was not so much a single centralized production, but a collection of plots dependent on the owner, in favor of which was a certain part of the harvest. The harsh debt law, the dependent position of the plebeians, the traditional custom of the clientele created favorable opportunities for the existence of such a structure. The Roman vocabulary did not even have the term villa itself and the concept associated with it. In any case, it is not in the laws of the XII tables. It most likely appeared in the 4th century. BC. in connection with the legislation of Licinia-Sextia (367 BC), which approved large land ownership and defined land ownership of 500 yugers as private property, which is at the complete disposal of the owner.

In essence, the legislation of Licinius-Sextius established the guarantees of large-scale landownership, created the conditions for its formation and distribution. Another such condition appeared after the abolition of debt slavery in 326 BC. among Roman citizens, which reduced to a minimum the sources that fed the archaic structure of large land ownership, and oriented the owners of large estates (up to 500 yugers) to the use of the labor force of slaves obtained from sources external to the civil collective.

Implementation of these conditions in Everyday life contributed to the intensive urbanization of Italy in the II-I centuries. BC, the transformation of patriarchal Italian towns into large craft centers with a large population and the active aggressive policy of the Romans, accompanied by mass enslavement. The general development of agrarian relations in Italy IV-II centuries. BC. followed the same path that the Greek policies had already passed in the 6th-4th centuries. BC, only the scope and depth of this development in Rome were an order of magnitude greater than in the Greek world. One of its results was the design, introduction and wide distribution of a new economic type in agriculture, namely the commodity slave estate. In principle, this was not a new type for ancient society, its main features matured and were embodied in the estates of Iskhomachus, the estates of southern Attica and Chersonese Tauride, the estates of the Sicilian slave owners of the III-II centuries. BC. However, it was under Roman conditions that the commodity slave-owning estate took on a finished form, formed its complete structure, revealed all the internal possibilities inherent in it, i.e. became a clearly defined economic type, most adequately expressing the deep features, the essence of classical slavery.

When developing the structure of a commodity slave-owning estate, the Romans made full use of the Greek experience in the functioning of similar farms. In the plays of Plautus, the slave-owning estate with a villa in the center is seen as a natural and habitual phenomenon. The data of Cato's treatise "On Agriculture", written at the beginning of the 2nd century BC, are more definite. BC. In this work, the phenomenon of a commodity slave-owning estate is developed with such completeness that subsequent agrarian writers (Varro, Columella, etc.) supplemented rather than reworked Cato's model) ...

Estate of the Catonian type in the 1st century. BC. from Campania and Latium is widely distributed throughout all regions of Italy, including Cisalpine Gaul and Sicily. This all-Italian experience of the operation of commercial villas was theoretically summarized in Varro's essay On Agriculture. In the 1st century AD this type of production cell began to take root in the agriculture of the Roman provinces, being the most important element of Romanization, a reflection and embodiment of the classical slavery of the Roman type. Archaeological excavations have uncovered several hundred villas of this (or close to it) type in almost all Roman provinces. Naturally, in the process of its spread, the commodity slave estate was not introduced mechanically, but was influenced by the local environment, local traditions, and local forms of agricultural organization. Therefore, it would be more fair to call this type, if we mean certain provinces, not Roman, but Roman-Spanish, Roman-Gallic, Roman-African, Roman-Egyptian, etc. However, with all the differences, these were variations within the same economic type.

A theoretical generalization of the general imperial experience of the functioning of such estates, the level of agricultural technology and profitability, and the organization of the labor force was given by Columella in his agricultural encyclopedia and by Pliny the Elder in the botanical books (XIV-XIX) of the monumental work "Natural History". A detailed development of the legal foundations for the existence of a slave-owning estate was carried out by Roman lawyers and preserved in the Digests ... This eloquently indicates the widespread (of this type of economy), deep penetration into the agricultural production system, turning it into a dominant economic type. In the period of classical slavery, the commodity slave estate became the dominant form of agricultural organization, but not the only one. Along with it, the small-scale production of free or dependent farmers continued to exist and occupied an important place in the general system of the economy, and traditional structure large land ownership with small land use, especially in the provinces, for example, in Gaul, the Danube region, Asia Minor, Egypt, i.e. where the influence of the old nobility and pre-Roman traditions was strong in the era of the Empire. As far as one can see, the fate of the commodity slave-owning villa as an economic type was closely connected with the movement of the slave-owning form of private property, the evolution of classical slavery. The commodity slave-owning villa arose along with the relations of classical slavery, being their realization in the main branch of ancient production, and when the relations of classical slavery had exhausted their internal potential, it was forced out of production by other types of farms.

What was the commodity slave-owning villa in terms of its legal, economic and organizational foundations? This is not some amorphous undivided whole, but a certain structure. The main divisions of this structure were the villa (estate) - the organizational and economic center of the estate, then - the land area on which the economy was conducted, and, finally, the equipment, which included the actual tools, animated tools (livestock) and talking tools. labor (slaves). Only the unity of these three structural parts created the economic complex and the legal status of the estate.

From the point of view of property relations, the estate was considered as the complete private property of the owner in all its structural parts. In Roman law in the middle of the 1st century. BC. developed a precise concept of private property. The full right of private ownership of living and dead inventory, as well as buildings, was established in Roman law from the time of the laws of the XII tables. However, the formation of the right to private ownership of land was hampered by the recognition of the right of supreme disposal of communal land by the collective of Roman citizens. In the post-Grakhan era, the principles of private ownership of land began to be established, and in the middle of the 1st century. BC. the transfer of the term private property to land, as it were, completed this difficult process. Since that time, the concept of private property has included the entire complex of the estate - living and dead inventory, buildings, plantings, land area as such. And one more important circumstance. The estate was considered as the complete private property of its owner personally, the master, but not of his clan, his family. Landed property in a slave-owning estate lost its tribal or family character. The estate ceased to be the property of the clan, oikos or surname, on the contrary, the surname, like the land, was considered as the property of a particular master. Characteristically, this new idea of ​​estates as personal property was entrenched in the new principle of naming them by the names of their owners. Such an estate, being an object of full ownership, was sharply separated from other neighboring estates, not only in a legal sense, but also in a territorial one. Varro reports that the boundaries of the estate were clearly fixed on the ground either by a stone fence, or by a row of trees, or by border posts. So, the boundaries of estates in Chersonese Tauride III-II centuries. BC. (the most typical area is 25 hectares) were capital walls about 1 m high and wide. It was possible to get inside the estate through specially made gates. Such an emphasized separation of it from the environment was the realization directly on the ground of the right of private ownership of land. It should be noted that in the Roman colonies, derived according to all the rules of Roman land surveying, whether it be centuration or scamnation-strigation, in which, as is known, the colonists received plots on the rights of full private ownership, the boundaries of these plots were strictly defined or by a border strip - a road , or next to trees, or special landmarks. This system of clearly fixing the boundaries of the estate as private property emphasized its fundamental difference from the traditional allotments of citizens or early large estates, which were dominated by the sovereignty of the communal collective and family traditions.

From an economic point of view, the full legal capacity of the landowner, the separation of his estate from his neighbors, the definition of borders as roads that make it possible to connect the estate with the city without infringing on the neighbors, unleashed the owner’s economic initiative, created favorable conditions for him to organize production of any scale and varying degrees rationalization.

What are the dimensions of a commodity slave villa? Most researchers define a commodity villa as an estate medium size, in one or two centuries (200-400 yugers \u003d 50-100 hectares). And indeed, studying the digital material and the nature of management based on the works of Roman agrarian writers, one cannot fail to notice that estates of 100, 200, 240, 300 yugers are mentioned by them most often, considered as the most typical, most common. A special study of the size of the estate of Columella showed that it hardly exceeded 400-600 yugers (100-150 hectares), apparently reaching the quantitative limit for this type of farms. The figures appearing in the sources are rounded and are in a certain relationship with the basic principles of Roman land surveying, where the initial unit was a centuria of 200 yugers (there are variants of a centuria of 210 and 240 yugers). Apparently, the process of establishing a new type of economy was accompanied by the formation of the basic principles of the Roman classical land surveying (centuriation), which took place in the same historical period (II century BC - I century AD) and asserted the main features of this new type.

The question of the size of a commodity slave-owning estate, of the size of its economy, is not a secondary, peripheral one. Its importance lies in the fact that it leads to the problem of the optimal size of production for a given society. At every stage of development social production the leading, main production cell - an enterprise, a farm, a workshop, an estate - has certain limits due to many factors: technical, economic, organizational, human, etc. moreover, its most frequent variant was an estate of 200-300 yugers (50-75 hectares). In absolute terms, this was an average farm, differing both from the peasant allotment (apparently, a maximum of 30 yugers), on the one hand, and from huge estates, latifundia (1000 yugers and more), on the other.

Variation in size from 100 to 500 yugers, apparently, was determined by a number of local conditions: soil fertility, location, climate, degree of proximity to the city market, sources of labor replenishment.

What are the basic principles economic organization this type of farm? These can be considered: the separation of craft from agriculture, the specialization of the economy in one (or two maximum) industries, connection with the local city market and the rational organization of all production. Let us consider in more detail how these principles were implemented on the estates, and, above all, the relationship between handicraft and agricultural production proper within the estate economy. None of the Roman authors of agricultural treatises reports the presence of artisans among the slave staff, the existence of craft workshops in the villa. Varro, specifically discussing this issue, says quite unambiguously that one should not engage in handicraft activities in the villa, it is unprofitable to support specialist artisans, it is better to purchase the necessary handicraft products outside the estate in the city market. These recommendations are a reflection of the reality of Italy II-I centuries. BC. From Cato's treatise, one can conclude that the owner of the villa was not engaged in handicraft activities. Among the many tips that relate to even the smallest jobs, up to culinary ones, there is not a single one about handicrafts. On the contrary, Cato recommends buying handicrafts and names cities and craftsmen who can do it. “In Rome, buy tunics, togas, cloaks, patchwork quilts and wooden shoes. In Kalakh and Minturni - capes and iron tools - sickles, shovels, axes and typesetting harness; in Venafra, shovels; in Suess and Lucania, carts; threshing boards - in Alba and in Rome; dolia, vats, tiles - from Venafre. Roman plows are good for strong soil, Campanian plows for loose soil, Roman yokes are the best, the best plowshare is removable. Trapets in Pompeii, in Nola, under the wall of Rufra, keys with constipation - in Rome, buckets, semi-amphoras for oil, jugs for water, wine semi-amphoras and other utensils - in Capua and Nola. Good Campanian baskets from Capua. Buy belts lifting the press bar and all sorts of sparta products in Capua, Roman baskets in Suessa and Casina ... however, the best will be in Rome ”(Cat. 135). For the manufacture of special ropes, Cato recommends the craftsmen Lucius Tunnius from Casinus or Gaius Mannius from Venafre, and for this it is necessary to transfer eight skins specially processed to them.

So, one of the fundamental principles of organizing this type of estate is the separation of crafts and handicraft activities from agriculture. At the same time, it cannot be assumed that absolutely no work of a handicraft nature was carried out on such an estate. The same Varro, who theoretically substantiated the expediency of separating agriculture and crafts, wrote: what is made of twigs and wood - baskets, baskets, tribules, winnowing machines, rakes, as well as what is woven from hemp, flax, rush, palm leaves and reeds, such as ropes, ropes, mats "(I, 22, one). At the villa of Cato there was a forge, there was a loom, torches, props were made, ropes were woven. On the larger estate of Columella, where there was also a larger slave staff, the amount of ongoing repair and ancillary work increased, so handicraft activities the whole villa was organised; there was a weaving workshop where clothes were made for the slave administration (and clothes for ordinary slaves were bought at the market), a specialist artisan worked, and raw bricks were formed.

However, even in the estate of Columella, it was repair work and routine maintenance agricultural process, which were of a third-rate nature and covered only a small fraction of the vast need for production equipment, tools and means of labor, which were mainly purchased in urban markets. A study of the inventory of Pompeian villas, earlier estates of Chersonese Tauride, small and medium-sized villas found in Pannonia, Dacia, Thrace, Gaul, Spain, shows how poor the set of tools that could be used for handicrafts is, and among the numerous premises of the villas there are no such , which would have been characterized by signs of a craft workshop.

Another basic principle of the local organization was the specialization of the economy in one (or two) industries. All agrarian writers, depicting the estate, do not report on agriculture in general, but primarily on viticulture, olive growing (like Cato), cattle breeding, poultry farming or arable farming (like Varro), viticulture (like Columella). Cato speaks with particular clarity about this specialization. He simply refers to the specialized estate as a vineyard or olive orchard. Columella writes about landowners who "rush about with their hay." Pompeian villas favored viticulture. Specialization depended on the need for a particular product, the abundance of labor (there were labor-intensive industries - viticulture, vegetable growing, fruit growing and less labor-intensive - arable farming, cattle breeding), soil and climatic conditions (for example, the Venafra region is unusually favorable for olives, and in the interior Etruria olive does not grow), etc.

The specialization of farms in one or two industries made it possible to make fuller use of specific conditions and to build local production in the most rational way. However, its extent and depth should not be exaggerated. According to literary data and archaeological evidence, the specialization of the estates was not deep. The vast majority of such farms, in addition to one, the leading industry, had others. In addition to vineyards, Cato's estate had a grain field, an olive orchard, a meadow, a vegetable garden, a forest, herds of cattle, etc. In the olive garden of Cato, a vineyard is laid out, bread is sown, herds of cattle roam, a meadow and a vegetable garden are cultivated. A similar picture is in the estates of grain, livestock or meadow direction. From the remains of rural villas, for example, in the vicinity of Pompeii, many services can be identified that provided various industries: storage for wine and oil, barns for grain, haylofts, stalls, wine and oil presses. In such a villa, in such an estate, all branches of agriculture were represented, naturally, as far as the soil and climatic conditions allowed (in a number of regions of Northern Italy, for example, olives do not grow, stony soil is not suitable for grain crops in Tauric Chersonese, etc.) . Thus, the specialization of estates in one industry did not imply the absence of others and did not turn into a monoculture: one industry became the leading, main one, while maintaining a multi-industry basis. The choice of the main industry was determined by specific natural and economic circumstances. The presence of many agricultural industries in such farms made it possible to provide the working staff of the estate and the city house of its owner with their own products, without resorting to the services of the market, and thereby ensured autarky and self-sufficiency of the entire economy as a whole. The leading industry, which stood out sharply in its specific gravity and the volume of the harvest, was specifically market-oriented, providing the master with cash receipts for purchase through the market for handicrafts. We can talk about incomplete and shallow specialization, about a peculiar combination of natural and commodity principles in the organization of farms of this type: most of the products received were distributed directly in the slave owner's oikos, a smaller part acquired a marketable appearance.

Commodity specialization with a natural basis on estates of this type predetermined the appropriate level of agricultural technology and the production process as a whole, and one can speak of a certain duality in the approach to the organization of production. The presence of a leading market-oriented industry (viticulture, olive growing, etc.) posed a number of tasks for the owner: in order to get more income on the market, he had to supply competitive products there, i.e. High Quality. There was no point in bringing bad goods to market. And in order to obtain high-quality products, it was necessary to apply high agricultural technology, advanced (for that time) technology, the best tools, and use skilled labor. Roman agricultural writers gave a very detailed exposition of ancient agricultural technology. She had a very high level in these farms. It is curious that the author, a supporter of one or another specialization of the estate, also gives the most detailed description of the agricultural technology of the corresponding culture. Thus, Cato states best recommendations for the maintenance of the olive garden (lists the best varieties, the most favorable soils, writes about pruning techniques, establishing a nursery, improving varieties using grafting, etc.), Varro owns the best and most detailed guides on stall and transhumance cattle breeding (among the various tips for caring for livestock, Varro even has recommendations on what wives should be selected for shepherds and what breeds of dogs), as well as on home poultry farming.

None of the ancient authors gave such an exhaustive description, a real encyclopedia of viticulture, as Columella (as many as three books), whose advice was valid throughout the Middle Ages and at the beginning of the new time, and to this day amaze with its completeness and content.

Agrotechnics in a commodity slave-owning villa of the 2nd c. BC. - I century. AD had a very high level in general and the highest within antiquity. Let us note only three features of Roman agriculture that testify to its high level: restoration of soil fertility (fertilization of fields), the introduction of proper crop rotations, an increase in the variety of main crops through the acclimatization of foreign plants and through our own breeding work. The Romans mastered almost all types of organic fertilizers, including green manure and soil horizon, and even some mineral fertilizers (for example, in Gaul, marl - Plin. XVIII. 42-48), found in a particular area in finished form. Columella's recommendations for use different types fertilizers for various soils, their preparation and storage, application rates were not only the result of purely practical observations, but were comprehended from the point of view of a special concept of soil fertility. The system of restoring soil fertility by fertilizing fields, as formulated by Columella and Pliny the Elder in the middle of the 1st century BC. AD, remained virtually unchanged in Europe until the beginning of the use of chemical fertilizers in the 19th century.

The outstanding achievement of the Romans in agriculture was the understanding of the role of crop rotation as an important factor in increasing yields. Complex crop rotations were developed and put into practice, providing for a multi-field (usually four-field) alternation of crops, elements of fruit rotation and a grass-field farming system. The remarkable idea of ​​Columella that the correct cultivation of the land, which involves thoughtful cultivation of fields and skillful alternation of crops in skillfully chosen crop rotations, will ensure an increase (and not exhaustion, as many ancient agronomists believed) of soil fertility, reflected practical experience commodity slave villas.

The problem of using this type of equipment, agricultural implements on farms is somewhat more difficult for researchers. In historiography, both domestic and foreign, for a long time the point of view about the low level of ancient technology, including agricultural implements, dominated, since under the dominance of slave labor there were no incentives to improve it. First of all, on what are judgments about the low level of ancient agricultural technology based? Usually, researchers proceed from its comparison with the achievements of the 19th-20th centuries. But this approach is hardly correct. It will be more reliable to compare the ancient level of agricultural technology with the previous one, namely with the level of technology of the ancient Eastern countries, the Greek policies, the Hellenistic era. It will show significant progress. Not to mention the invention of the wheeled plow, which apparently received very limited use, the moldboardless plow of the time of Varro and Columella was not primitive, but provided high-quality (for that time) plowing. The latest discoveries of images of reaping machines in Belgium, special studies of individual agricultural implements (harrows, winnowing shovels, etc.) show a certain shift (from our point of view, quite significant) in this area of ​​agriculture, although slave labor itself did not contribute to the general technical progress.

In what farms were all these achievements applied: on peasant plots, in the open spaces of latifundia? Our sources, and above all the writings of Roman agrarian writers, quite definitely associate them with commodity slave-owning villas. The leading, main, commodity branch of the specialized estate was organized according to the latest agricultural technology of that time.

Since the products of other industries did not go to the market, they did not face such an acute problem of quality, and, consequently, the use of advanced agricultural technology, which required large expenditures and the use of skilled labor. That is why Columella, this brilliant agronomist and zealous owner, who received fabulous yields of vineyards, speaks directly about the unprofitability of grain, ridicules those who "rush around with their hay and vegetables." At the same time, Varro emphasizes the high profitability of livestock and poultry farming and is reserved about other industries (for example, olive growing). We would be making a mistake if, following Columella, we began to talk about the crisis of the grain industry in the 1st century BC. AD or following Varro - about the decline of olive growing in Italy in the 1st century. BC. Research evidence suggests that this was far from the case.

We are talking about the fact that viticulture was the advanced commodity industry on the Columella estate, and livestock farming in the possessions of Varro, while the rest of the industries were only maintained at an average, usual level: less fertilizer was applied, and care was less thorough, and plowing was not three times, but double and the workers were low-skilled. Thus, in the same economy, there was advanced technology and traditional methods, i.e. the dual nature of agricultural technology was observed, associated with the peculiarity of specialization, the selection of one commercial crop from all others.

In general, the commodity slave-owning villa, despite the deep dualism of its structure, acted as the most advanced economy for that time, the face of which was determined by the main, leading industry. It was here that they received the largest harvests, the most abundant collections. We have very little accurate data on the yield of different crops at our disposal, but these few data are very characteristic. Thus, Columella reports that he received 10 skins of wine (i.e. 200 amphoras) from the yuger, using advanced technology, but he also speaks of yields of 3 and even 1 skins within the framework of traditional agricultural technology (Col. III. 3. 7-11). Barron gives data on the yield of cereals for most of Italy itself-ten and for Etruria itself-fifteen (about 17-25 centners per hectare). And Columella says that in his time, the grain yield in Italy did not exceed sam-three, sam-four, i.e. was 3-4 times smaller. (However) Columella's data do not reflect the real situation with cereals in his time. In our opinion, he had in mind the culture of cereals on the estate, where the leading industry was viticulture (as, apparently, on his estates) or some other. Varro's data refers to estates where grain was cultivated for the market on the basis of advanced agricultural technology. The contrast between the yield of commercial crops and non-commodity crops is very large. Absolute values the yields of vineyards at Columella or cereals at Varro testify to the high efficiency of advanced technologies.

The described type of farming is defined by us as a commercial villa, since in the very structure of the estate, the sales-oriented culture stood out sharply in terms of its share. In general, the connections of this estate with the market were the basis of its economy, determined its internal structure. The rupture of these ties led to a radical restructuring of the economy, changing its very type and structure. Indeed, almost all products of the leading industry (and surpluses of the rest) were exported to the market, handicrafts, clothing, most of the inventory, work force. On the other hand, the growing cities of Italy, and then the provinces of the Empire (especially in its western part), the growing urban population needed all foodstuffs: bread, wine, butter, meat, vegetables. A study of one of the small Italian cities that was Pompeii shows that on its streets and in the shops there was a brisk trade in a variety of products: raisins, grapes, wine, oil, olives, wheat, barley, beans, vegetables, meat and many others.

The commodity estate was connected with the city market in a variety of ways, of which the main ones were three: 1) the production of a product in the villa (for example, the preparation of wine, oil) and its export to the neighboring city to the market, where it was sold; 2) preparation of the product in the villa and its sale here in the villa to the buyer, who then transported the product to the city market on his own; 3) selling the standing crop to a buyer who, on his own, harvested the crop, prepared the product, transported it to the city and sold it on the market. Apparently, the predominance of each of these three forms was determined by the local economic situation: the need of the urban population for products, crop yields, price fluctuations, and the state of the road network. Perhaps one should not underestimate the significance and prevalence of the last two forms of commercial relations of the estate (the sale of a finished product or harvest on the estate itself to the city dealer). These forms were already well known to Cato, they are very convenient from an economic point of view for the landowner. Indeed, for the independent sale of their products in the city market, usually separated by several tens of kilometers from the estate, additional transport and staff of merchants were required. Apparently, it is no coincidence that Roman agrarian writers report practically nothing about any additional funds allocated by the owners of estates to service their own trading operations. At the same time, they particularly emphasize the need to establish trade relations and unanimously recommend setting up farms near a busy road or on the banks of a navigable river. As you know, the Romans paid close attention to the condition of the road network. Even if we leave aside the famous Roman roads of imperial significance, which had not only military and administrative functions, but also commercial ones, in each region, in each municipality, an extensive road network was created that connected literally every estate with a local city or regional center. A striking example is the system of Roman centuriation, which legally considered all boundaries, from the boundaries of the smallest plots to the main planning axes, as roads, so that the territory of the colony was covered with a dense web of roads of various kinds.

Trade relations between commodity estates and cities were also facilitated by the improvement of money circulation, which reached particular intensity precisely during the heyday of this type of commodity villas. Emphasizing the importance of commodity relations between the estate and the city, their well-known scope in the 2nd century. BC. - II century. AD, one should not, however, exaggerate them, overestimate their importance in the general system of the economy. After all, there were also economic types with natural production ( peasant farms, latifundia with small land use), whose products were rarely released to the market. In addition, in the very structure of commodity villas, a significant part (at least half) was occupied by non-commodity industries. And one more circumstance. Regular commercial relations of this type of estate were established only with the neighboring nearest city, relations with other centers were only sporadic and played a purely auxiliary role. Campanian amphoras with wine and oil were found in the cargo of a ship that sank off the island of Grand Conluet near Massilia, they were discovered during excavations on the Istrian peninsula and in a number of other Roman provinces (in Gaul, Spain, the Danube), but only an insignificant part total agricultural output.

The structure of production in the commodity estate bore obvious features of a rational organization, subordination to the action of economic laws, pursued the goals of self-sufficiency of the master's oikos, on the one hand, which was used for at least half of the output, and making a profit in monetary terms, on the other hand, since the other half of the output taken to the market. With such an orientation of the economy, naturally, the problem of its profitability, the degree of its profitability, arose. She stands at the center of attention of all Roman agricultural writers, from Cato to Columella and Pliny. In fact, their extensive treatises are written to solve the problem of the profitability of the estate. We have two calculations at our disposal, which allow us to more accurately represent the profitability of a commercial villa. So, Varro reports that the death of a skilled craftsman takes away the annual income of the entire estate. A skilled craftsman-slave cost on average about 20-30 thousand sesterces. This is the estimated income figure; however, we do not know the size of this estate. In another place, Varro says that the estate of Senator Axius in Sabinia with an area of ​​​​200 yugers brings 30 thousand sesterces (i.e. 150 sesterces per yuger). If we consider that one yuger was worth 2000-3000 sesterces, then the profitability of the estate was about 6% - approximately as much as the usurious interest on capital gave. In the 3rd book of Columella, a detailed calculation of the profitability of vineyards is given, which he considers to be the most profitable crop. According to the author's own calculations, this yield reached 34%. However, a careful analysis of his calculations showed that Columella did not take into account many expenditure items. This reduced the yield figure to 7-10%, and yet it exceeds Varro's data by 1.5-2 times. A yield of 5-10% made it possible to recover the cost of capital expended over 10-20 years. In other words, the owner of an estate of 200 yugers could earn 30-60 thousand sesterces a year, which should be recognized as a high profitability, allowing him to accumulate half a million fortune in 10-20 years.

The transition from the organization of production and placement of equipment, focused on technological process, to the organization of production on the principle of group technology involves three stages.

1. Grouping product components into families that have common processing steps. This stage requires the development of a computerized system for classifying and coding parts. This is often the most expensive step, even though many companies have developed short procedures for identifying and generating families of parts.

2. Determination of the structure of the dominant flows of component families, on the basis of which technological processes are placed or redeployed.

3. Physical grouping of equipment and technological processes into cells. At this stage, sometimes some components cannot be included in any family, and specialized equipment cannot be placed in one of the cells due to the fact that it is often

used to perform work related to different cells. Such non-groupable components of the product and equipment are placed in a separate cell of "residues".

The scheme in fig. 10.13 illustrates the process of developing 1 technological cells, which is used in the company Rockwell Telecommunication Division – manufacturer of waveguide components.

Into parts BUT rice. 10.13 shows the original placement, oriented to the process; on the IN - a plan for the redeployment of technological operations based on the commonality of the stages of processing the components of the product, united in families; on C - placement of equipment and operations in a technological cell in which all operations are performed, except for the last one. The organization of a technological cell in this case is the most appropriate, since:

there were separate product component families;

there were several machines of each type, so removing any machine from the cell did not reduce it bandwidth;

work centers were easily moved free-standing machines, heavy, but quite simply fixed on the floor.

These three features of production should always guide the decision on the advisability of creating cells.

"Virtual" process cell

If the equipment is not so easy to move, it is not included in a set of homogeneous pieces of equipment when forming a technological cell. If, in addition, homogeneous families of components are produced for a short time, say, two months, temporary conditional ("virtual") cells of group technology are formed, consisting, for example, of one drilling machine in the drilling section, three milling machines in the milling section and one assembly line at the assembly site. At the same time, in accordance with the principle of group technology, all work with a specific family of product components should be carried out in a specific cell.

4. Placement of equipment according to the principle of servicing a fixed object

Placement of equipment according to the principle of servicing a fixed object is used with a relatively small number of units of output, but, as a rule, large-sized and complex. When designing the placement of equipment for the production of a fixed product, you can mentally imagine it as a wheel hub with materials and equipment located concentrically around the point of production in the order of their use and the need to move them. For example, in shipbuilding, rivets used in the entire structure of a product must be placed close to or directly in the hull. Heavy parts of the engine that are brought to the hull only once can be located at a greater distance, and cranes, since they are constantly used, should be located near the hull.

To organize the production of a fixed product, it is necessary to establish the order of work, which is determined by the production stages. The placement of equipment and components around a fixed object should be designed to group materials according to their technological priority. This principle is used when installing large-sized equipment, such as a stamping press, installation work which is carried out in strict sequence. The same principle is followed when assembling products, when it starts from the very base of the product, and then components are added to it in the form of building blocks.

With regard to the use of quantitative methods when placing equipment around a fixed object, little attention has been paid to this problem in the relevant literature, although the principle of placement has been used for hundreds of years. However, for specific situations, it is possible to define objective criteria and develop the placement of equipment around a stationary object using quantitative methods. For example, if the cost of transporting materials is significant and the construction site allows for more or less movement of materials in a straight line, then the CRAFT method can be applied.

Books and articles about lean manufacturing the term U-Shape Cell (U-shaped or horseshoe-shaped production cell) flashes quite often. Frequent mention may suggest that this way of organizing the process is the best in terms of Lean. Is it so?

The U-shaped cell, under certain conditions, may be the optimal production method. Advantageous features of such a line can be:

• low level of work in progress (WIP);
• single piece flow;
• flexible capacity planning and the number of operators involved;
• convenient supply (presentation) of the material
• etc.

However, U-Shape is not the only way organization of production and not always the best way location of workstations (equipment, machines, etc.). For example, arranging tables in a “U” shape in a call center will not speed up work or reduce customer waiting times.

So what is the most lean way to organize production?

There are several fundamental ways to organize the production process:

1. Production in batches and queues: a process consisting of sequential operations, between which work in progress accumulates (WIP 1). The amount of work in progress is at best equal to the size of the batch that moves from operation to operation.
2. Line (or cell) production: A process consisting of interconnected operations, between which material moves piece by piece or in small controlled batches. An important feature of this process is that the amount of work in progress is strictly limited.
3. Production at one point: on one universal machine (like a “pit” for an auto mechanic) or the so-called.

Point 2 - production in a line (or cell) - implies many configuration options. Here are the most common ones:

1. straight line (I-shaped cell);
2. horseshoe line (U-shaped cell);
3. T or Y-line;
4. C or L-shaped line.

As mentioned above, option 2b is mentioned most often in books on lean manufacturing, however, as you can see, it is not the only one possible:

In addition, the entire production cycle can consist of several sections, each of which can implement a different production method or a different type of line (cell). For example, at McDonalds, you can watch the checkout - D-shop - and guess that something like work is going on in the kitchen in the cells, the configuration of which depends on the layout of the kitchen. It connects the kitchen and the checkout in a kind of supermarket:

How to choose the best option for organizing the production process in the conditions of your enterprise?

Under the organization of the production process, we mean the organization of everything that is between the warehouse of raw materials and the warehouse of finished products. In a simplified version, this is the flow of material from one warehouse to another. The organization of such a flow means the elimination of the maximum number of obstacles on the way. In lean manufacturing, these obstacles are called waste.

The goal of eliminating waste (obstacles to the flow) is to speed up the flow of materials. Thus, as a result of eliminating losses, the material should “flow” along the shortest trajectory, without encountering obstacles on the way (read, without stopping).

What is the shortest material flow path in your facility?

If, for example, at your enterprise, the warehouse of raw materials and finished products are separated - located at different ends of the building - then the shortest trajectory will go in a straight line:

The ideal material flow path in this case would be a straight line. This is how many automobile factories work: on the one hand, bodies are brought in; on the other, finished cars are moving out. This is how a lot of Cross-Docking warehouses (ports, auto and railway stations) work: on the one hand, containers are unloaded, and on the other hand, they are loaded onto the next transport. Even your favorite supermarket can be divided into two areas: a warehouse and a trading floor. On the one hand, from the side of the warehouse, products are unloaded, and on the other, from the side trading floor- launch visitors.

If the warehouse of raw materials and finished products are located on the same side of the production site, then the shortest trajectory of the flow of materials will resemble a horseshoe:

Of course, you can say that both methods are not applicable in the conditions of your enterprise. For example, the first one is not suitable for you, since the distance between warehouses significantly exceeds the length of the production line. And the second one is not suitable because your company has more than one line.

Reasons why not? there is a mass. However, it is important that in your search for the most lean way of organizing production, you first choose a method - a concept, and not immerse yourself in details. Often we tend to go into the elaboration of details. Every detail requires careful weighing and thought, and I assure you, this road leads nowhere.

Solve the problem conceptually - choose a method, and only then work out the details and solve problems as needed. Often, a lot of unsolvable elements will subsequently not require any solution from you at all, or the solution will be known. In other words, determine how the material should move, and then think about how to “fit” individual operations, cells or D-shops into this flow:

And if you need to reorganize a little warehouses, then why not?

Of course, the choice of a conceptual solution for the movement of material through the production area does not mean that you have achieved an optimal production process. But a start has been made, and the first step has been taken correctly. And this is the main thing!

Layout features.

HJP for turning, for drilling-milling and boring machining of prismatic parts are unified and self-contained high-performance

production systems. Them distinguishing feature in the fact that several homogeneous, fully interchangeable machining centers are connected into one common system through a common automatic supply of workpieces and tools, as well as integrated computer control (See Fig.5.2.1.1. And rice. 5.2.1.2.).

Rice. 5.2.1.1.

Computer-controlled flexible production cell "GPS 500-4" by Werner with 4 machining centers and automatic supply of workpieces and tools

Fig.5.2.1.2. Flexible production cell.

Automatic processing of products on several identical interchangeable machines with flexible material flow connection, tooling and integrated computer control

Thus, GPOs are autonomous, practically independent from other processing devices of the system. The integrated components of the system are coordinated both in their design and in their functions. These components are machining centers, part storage and transport system, tool supply system, system control, as well as additional

devices: washing machines and a coordinate measuring machine, a machine for preparing technological bases, a device for measuring tools.

Independence service personnel from the cycle of machine operation, due to the presence of a pallet storage with blanks and finished products clamped in fixtures. In standard versions, pallets for products are stored in waiting areas located along the linear path of transport carts. The number of waiting places, as well as the processing time of all parts fixed on pallets in the waiting places, is determined by the time during which the installation can work without service personnel. For example, if the line tact is one part per hour and on the 3rd shift, the FMS operates in an unmanned mode, then it is necessary to have at least nine pallets with clamped workpieces plus one empty pallet place to receive the workpiece.

Areas of use of the GPO.

HJPs are used in particular in the processing of small and medium-sized parts. The purpose of their application is the manufacture of a wide range of parts. The batches of products of the largest sizes are produced, in accordance with the need and conditions for setting up and rhythm of production. This results in a constantly changing workpiece sequence.

The structure and operation of the cell are characterized by:

Simultaneous control big amount production orders (tasks) (synchronous work).

Direct transfer of CNC programs and tool data between cell control and machine control (CNC).

Automatic and timely tool change on CNC machines during useful machine time.

At the same time, the goal is to switch to a batch of processing new parts without additional readjustment and continuous manufacturing process detail processing. This is achieved by timely and targeted tool changes. In advance, before the expiration of the tool life or before changing a new batch of other parts, only those tools are taken from the magazine of the CNC machine (automatically) that are worn out and will not be needed to machine a new batch of other parts. To replace this cycle, newly needed tools are introduced within the order of their application.

All this happens in real time, which allows you to directly take into account the current cycles at the moment. Such a tool change is carried out simultaneously with a parallel machining process, without, as a rule, leading to a stop in work. The method of changing the tool by a robot from the warehouse has a great advantage in that it significantly reduces the tool stock and a significant drawback - the system is complex and expensive.

A large number of already implemented GPS working on this basis has shown that:

Automation in the area of ​​production of small and medium series, which is inaccessible to rationalization, has become possible and is being successfully implemented;

The use of cells with only two machining centers is more economical than with separate machines;

Cells with an optimal expansion of up to six machining centers have proven themselves in operation as well-functioning, reliable and cost-effective;

In practice, it was possible to achieve the maximum use of the workload time, and along with the above criteria, production with a small number of service personnel on the third shift, as well as the continuation of work during breaks, played a significant role.

Typical users of HPP are instrument and apparatus engineering, machine tool building, as well as electrical engineering, transport engineering, and engine production. The range of parts covers all kinds of levers, covers, flanges, gearbox and motor housings, which are automatically produced by machining centers in small and medium batch production. As a rule, the volume of an order (task) ranges from 5-100 details, which are repeated in different versions. For complete processing, some parts have to be re-fixed two or even three times.

Because automated, computer-controlled tooling has made it possible to change batches of parts without lead time, it is possible to cost-effectively produce batches of smaller sizes, allowing

significantly increase the rhythm of production, reduce the volume of work in progress by 20%.

In addition, other benefits are identified, such as a significant reduction in organizational interference, more rational use equipment, as well as improving the quality of production. Compared to the use of unrelated machines, the savings achieved by reducing production costs reach 20-30%.

Placement of equipment according to the principle of group technology

When placing equipment according to the principle of group technology, or forming technological cells, various equipment is grouped into cells to perform operations with several products that are homogeneous in terms of design and technological features. Currently, this principle is widely used in metalworking, the production of computer chips and assembly work. The greatest advantages and benefits from the placement of equipment according to the principle of forming technological cells are obtained by production, working on orders, and small-scale production. These benefits include:

1. Improved human relationships. The cell consists of several workers who form a small work team that performs a completed block of work.

2. Rapid acquisition and accumulation of production experience. Workers deal with a limited number of different types of parts. Therefore, due to the frequent repetition of work with the same parts, workers quickly learn.

3. Reducing work in progress and the cost of transporting materials. The cell combines several production operations, so the parts in it are less delayed in processing and do not require a large stock of them.

4. Fast changeover of production. The limited number of types of work performed requires a relatively small set necessary tools, which can be quickly replaced when switching to the production of other products.

The transition from the organization of production and placement of equipment focused on the technological process to the organization of production according to the principle of group technology involves three stages.

1. Grouping product components into families that have common processing steps. This stage requires the development of a computerized system for classifying and coding parts. This is often the most expensive step, despite the fact that many companies have developed short procedures for identifying and generating families of parts.

2. Determining the structure of the dominant flows of component families, on the basis of which technological processes are placed or redeployed.

3. Physical grouping of equipment and technological processes into cells. At this stage, sometimes some components cannot be included in any family, and specialized equipment cannot be placed in one of the cells due to the fact that it is often

used to perform work related to different cells. Such non-groupable components of the product and equipment are placed in a separate cell of "residues".

The scheme in fig. 10.13 illustrates the process of developing 1 technological cells, which is used in the company Rockwell Telecommunication Division– manufacturer of waveguide components.

Into parts BUT rice. 10.13 shows the original placement, oriented to the process; on the IN - a plan for the redeployment of technological operations based on the commonality of the stages of processing the components of the product, united in families; on C - placement of equipment and operations in a technological cell in which all operations are performed, except for the last one. The organization of a technological cell in this case is the most appropriate, since:

- there were separate product component families;

- there were several machines of each type, so the removal of any machine from the cell did not reduce its throughput;

- work centers were easily moved free-standing machines, heavy, but quite simply fixed on the floor.

These three features of production should always guide the decision on the advisability of creating cells.

"Virtual" process cell

If the equipment is not so easy to move, it is not included in a set of homogeneous pieces of equipment when forming a technological cell. If, in addition, homogeneous families of components are produced for a short time, say, two months, temporary conditional ("virtual") cells of group technology are formed, consisting, for example, of one drilling machine in the drilling section, three milling machines in the milling section and one assembly line at the assembly site. At the same time, in accordance with the principle of group technology, all work with a specific family of product components should be carried out in a specific cell.