A boyar was a member of the highest rank of the feudal Bulgarian, Moscovian, Wallachian and Romanian aristocracies, second only to the ruling princes from the 10th century to the 17th century. The rank has lived on as a surname in Russia and Romania, in Finland, where it is spelled Pajari. Known as bolyar. For the linguists, the title Boila is predecessor or old form of the title Bolyar. Boila was a title worn by some of the Bulgar aristocrats in the First Bulgarian Empire; the plural form of boila, bolyare is attested in Bulgar inscriptions and rendered as boilades or boliades in the Greek of Byzantine documents. Multiple different derivation theories of the word have been suggested by scholars and linguists, such as it having possible roots from old Turkic: bai, itself a derivative of beg, from the Indo-European Iranic word bagh, "lord" – whence, akin to Russian bog, Serbian bojh, "lord," plus Turkic är; the title entered Old Russian as быля. The oldest Slavic form of boyar—bolyarin, pl. bolyari —dates from the 10th century, it is found in Bulgaria, where it may have stemmed from the old Bulgar title boila, which denoted a high aristocratic status among the Bulgars.
It was transformed through boilar or bilyar to bolyar and bolyarin. In support of this hypothesis is the 10th-century diplomatic protocol of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, where the Bulgarian nobles are called boliades, while the 9th-century Bulgar sources call them boila. A member of the nobility during the First Bulgarian Empire was called a boila, while in the Second Bulgarian Empire, the corresponding title became bolyar or bolyarin. Bolyar, as well as its predecessor, was a hereditary title; the Bulgarian bolyars were divided into malki. Presently in Bulgaria, the word bolyari is used as a nickname for the inhabitants of Veliko Tarnovo—once the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire. In medieval Serbia, the rank of the boyars was equivalent to the rank of the baron; the etymology of the term comes from the word battle. With the rule of the Ottoman Empire after 1450, the Ottoman as well as the Austro-Hungarian terms exchanged the Serbian one. Today, it is an archaic term representing the aristocracy.
From the 9th to 13th century, boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, soon came to depend completely on service to the state, family history of service and, to a lesser extent, land ownership. Boyars of Kievan Rus were visually similar to knights, but after the Mongol invasion, their cultural links were lost; the boyars occupied the highest state offices and, through a council, advised the grand duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. After the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, the boyars from central and southern parts of Kievan Rus' were incorporated into Lithuanian and Polish nobility. In the 16th and 17th centuries, many of those Ukrainian boyars who failed to get the status of a nobleman participated in the formation of the Cossack army, based in the south of modern Ukraine. During the 14th and 15th centuries, the boyars of Moscow had considerable influence that continued from the Muscovy period.
However, starting with the reign of Ivan III, the boyars were starting to lose that influence to the authoritative tsars in Russia. Because of Ivan III's expansionist policies, administrative changes were needed in order to ease the burden of governing Muscovy. Small principalities knew their loyal subjects by name, but after the consolidation of territories under Ivan, familial loyalty and friendship with the boyar's subjects turned those same subjects into administrative lists; the face of provincial rule disappeared. Boyar membership, until the 16th century, did not require one to be Russian, or Orthodox, as historians note that many boyars came from places like Lithuania or the Nogais, some remained Muslims for a generation after the Mongols were ousted. What is interesting about the boyars is their implied duties; because boyars were not constitutionally instituted, much of their powers and duties came from agreements signed between princes. Agreements, such as one between Ivan III and Mikhail Borisovich in 1484 showed how allegiances needed to be earned and secured, rather than implied and enforced.
Instead of the grand prince overseeing his lands, he had to rely on his captains and close advisors to oversee day-to-day operations. Instead of the great voice the boyars had in their advisory roles, they now had less bargaining power and mobility, they answered questions posed by the grand prince, Ivan III made sure to get their approval on special events, such as his marriage to Zoe Paleologa, or the attack on Novgorod. This was to ensure the boyars and their military power remained loyal t
Streltsy were the units of Russian firearm infantry from the 16th to the early 18th centuries and a social stratum, from which personnel for Streltsy troops were traditionally recruited. They are collectively known as streletskoye voysko; these infantry troops reinforced feudal levy pomestnoye voysko. The first streltsy units were created by Ivan the Terrible sometime between 1545 and 1550 and armed with arquebuses. During his reign, Russia was fighting wars continuously, including the Livonian War in the North and wars against the Khanates in the South, they first saw combat at the Siege of Kazan in 1552. The streltsy were recruited from among the free tradespeople and from the rural population. Subsequently, military service in this unit hereditary. Thus, while earlier in the 16th century they had been an elite force, their effectiveness was reduced by poor training and lack of choice in recruiting. Streltsy were subdivided into vyborniye, or gorodskiye, or municipal; the streltsy of Moscow guarded the Kremlin, performed general guard duty, participated in military operations.
They carried out general police and fire-brigade functions in Moscow. Grigory Kotoshikhin, a Russian diplomat who had spied for and defected to Sweden in the 1660s, reported that they used axes and buckets and copper pumps as well as hooks to pull down adjacent buildings so that fires would not spread, but Adam Olearius, a Westerner who travelled to Russia in the 17th century, noted that they never used water; the municipal streltsy performed garrison and border duty and carried out orders of the local administration. Streltsy came under the control of the Streltsy Department; the municipal streltsy were under the jurisdiction of the local voevodes. The largest military administrative unit of the streltsy forces was pribor, that would be renamed into prikaz and in 1681 – into regiment. Commanders of the Streltsy unit and colonels in charge of regiments were chiefs of prikazi, they had to be appointed by the government. The regiments were subdivided into desyatki, they could be unmounted. Streltsy had identical uniforms and weapons.
Uniforms consisted of blue or green coats with orange boots. Their primary weapon was an arquebus or musket, they carried pollaxes or bardiches, sabres for defense; the longer weapons were used to support the arquebus or musket while firing. The Russian government was chronically short of cash and so did not pay the streltsy well. While "entitled" to an estimated four rubles a year in the 1550s, they were allowed to farm or trade in order to supplement their incomes; this reduced their combat effectiveness and their desire to go on campaigns. Streltsy and their families lived in their own neighborhoods or districts settlements and received money and bread from the State Treasury. In certain locations, Streltsy were granted strips of land instead of money; the Streltsy settlement in Moscow was located near where the main campus of Moscow State University now stands. Military commanders deployed the streltsy in static formations against set formations or fortifications, they fired from a platform and employed a mobile wooden "fortification" known in Russian as a "Gulyay-gorod".
They fired in volley or caracole fashion. At the end of the 16th century, there were 20,000-25,000 streltsy. Streltsy’s engagement in handicrafts and trade led to a significant proprietary inequality among them and their blending with tradepeople. Though Streltsy demonstrated their fighting efficiency on several occasions, such as the siege of Kazan in 1552, the war with Livonia, the Polish-Swedish invasion in the early 17th century and military operations in Poland and Crimea, in the second half of the 17th century Streltsy started to display their backwardness compared to the regular soldier or reiter regiments. Military service hardships, frequent salary delays, abuse on the part of local administration and commanders led to regular Streltsy's participation in anti-serfdom uprisings in the 17th and early 18th centuries, such as the peasant wars in the beginning of the 17th century and in 1670–1671, urban uprisings. At the same time, those streltsy, on top of the hierarchy enjoyed their social status and, tried to hold back the regular streltsy forces and keep them on the government’s side.
In the late 17th century, the streltsy of Moscow began to participate in a struggle for power between different government groups, supporting the Old Believers and showing hostility towards any foreign innovations. The streltsy became something of a "praetorian element" in Muscovite politics in the late 17th century. In 1682 they attempted to prevent Peter the Great from coming to the throne in
Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order. It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority; the term comes from the Latin verb rebellō, "I renew war" (from re- + bellō. The rebel is the individual that partakes in rebellion or rebellious activities when armed. Thus, the term rebellion refers to the ensemble of rebels in a state of revolt. A rebellion originates from a sentiment of indignation and disapproval of a situation and manifests itself by the refusal to submit or to obey the authority responsible for this situation. Rebellion can be individual or collective, peaceful or violent In political terms and revolt are distinguished by their different aims. If rebellion seeks to evade and/or gain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power, as well as its accompanying laws; the goal of rebellion is resistance. As power shifts relative to the external adversary, or power shifts within a mixed coalition, or positions harden or soften on either side, an insurrection may seesaw between the two forms.
The following theories broadly build on the Marxist interpretation of rebellion. They explore the causes of rebellion from a wide lens perspective. Rebellion is studied, in Theda Skocpol's words, by analyzing "objective relationships and conflicts among variously situated groups and nations, rather than the interests, outlooks, or ideologies of particular actors in revolutions". Karl Marx's analysis of revolutions sees such expression of political violence not as anomic, episodic outbursts of discontents but rather the symptomatic expression of a particular set of objective but fundamentally contradicting class-based relations of power. Indeed, the central tenet of Marxist philosophy, as expressed in Capital, is the analysis of society's mode of production concomitant with the ownership of productive institutions and the division of profit. Marx writes about "the hidden structure of society" that must be elucidated through an examination of "the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers".
The mismatch, between one mode of production, between the social forces and the social ownership of the production, is at the origin of the revolution. The inner imbalance within these modes of production is derived from the conflicting modes of organization, such as capitalism within feudalism, or more appropriately socialism within capitalism; the dynamics engineered by these class frictions help class consciousness root itself in the collective imaginary. For example, the development of the bourgeoisie class went from oppressed merchant class to urban independence gaining enough power to represent the state as a whole. Social movements, are determined by an exogenous set of circumstances; the proletariat must according to Marx, go through the same process of self-determination which can only be achieved by friction against the bourgeoisie. In Marx's theory revolutions are the "locomotives of history", it is because rebellion has for ultimate goal to overthrow the ruling class and its antiquated mode of production.
Rebellion attempts to replace it with a new system of political economy, one, better suited to the new ruling class, thus enabling societal progress. The cycle of rebellion, replaces one mode of production by another through the constant class friction. In his book Why Men Rebel, Ted Gurr looks at the roots of political violence itself applied to a rebellion framework, he defines political violence as: "all collective attacks within a political community against the political regime, its actors or its policies. The concept represents a set of events, a common property of, the actual or threatened use of violence". Gurr sees in violence a voice of anger. More individuals become angry when they feel what Gurr labels as relative deprivation, meaning the feeling of getting less than one is entitled to, he labels it formally as the "perceived discrepancy between value expectations and value capabilities". Gurr differentiates between three types of relative deprivation: Decremental deprivation: one's capacities' decrease when expectations remain high.
One example of this is the proliferation and thus depreciation of the value of higher education. Aspirational Deprivation: one's capacities stay the same when expectations rise. An example would be a first generation college student lacking the contacts and network to obtain a higher paying job while watching her better-prepared colleagues bypass her. Progressive deprivation: expectation and capabilities increase but the former cannot keep up. A good example would be an automotive worker being marginalized by the automatisation of the assembly line. Anger is thus comparative. One of his key insight is that "The potential for collective violence varies with the intensity and scope of relative deprivation among members of a collectivity"; this means that different individuals within society will have different propensities to rebel based on their particular internalization of their situation. As such, Gurr differentiates between three types of political violence: Turmoil when only the mass population encounters relative deprivation.
In this case, the degree of organization is much higher than turmoil, the revolution is intrinsically spread to all sections of society, unlike the conspi
The Sobornoye Ulozheniye was a legal code promulgated in 1649 by the Zemsky Sobor under Alexis of Russia as a replacement for the Sudebnik of 1550 introduced by Ivan IV of Russia. The code survived well into the 19th century, when its articles were revised under the direction of Mikhail Speransky; the code consolidated Russia's slaves and free peasants into a new serf class and pronounced class hereditary as unchangeable. The new code prohibited travel between towns without an internal passport. Russian nobility agreed to serve in the army, but were granted the exclusive privilege of owning serfs; as the Time of Troubles ended, a new dynastic government, the Romanovs, commenced active law-making. An intensive growth in the number of edicts since the Sudebnik of 1550 can be seen from the following data: In the period of 1550-1610 only 100 edicts were issued, but in the years 1611-1648 the number of edicts was 348. In total there were 448 edicts; this led to the situation in the Russian state that many edicts were not only obsolete, but sometimes contradicted each other.
This chaos was contributed to by the scattering of normative acts throughout different state institutes. There was an absence of coordination in law application: a new article in this book was known only to the statesmen of the given prikaz; the casual character of legal rules was becoming inefficient. The legislators now sought to regulate legal rules, that is, to pass on to a normative interpretation of legal rules; the Salt Riot, which broke out in Moscow in 1648 contributed to the promulgation of the Sobornoye Ulozheniye, one of the demands of the rioters being to call the Zemsky Sobor and to make a new legal code. The riot was suppressed, but as one of the concessions to the rioters, the czar called the Zemsky Sobor, which continued to work until the promulgation of Sobornoye Ulozheniye in 1649. A special committee headed by Prince Nikita Odoyevsky was created to draft the new legal code. Members of the committee included Prince Semyon Prozorovsky, an Okolnichy Prince, Fyodor Volkonsky, as well as the scribes Gavrila Leontyev and Fyodor Griboyedov.
At that time, the practical job of the Zemsky Sobor began. The Zemsky Sobor was intended to consider the bill of Ulozhenie, it had many members, including representatives of posad people communities. The Zemsky Sobor consisted of two houses; the Tsar, Boyar Duma and Consecrated Sobor comprised one house, elected people of different ranks took part in sessions of another house. Deputies of the Nobility and posad people had a major impact on the adoption of many of the norms of the Ulozhenie. On 29 January 1649, the editing of the Ulozhenie concluded; the original of this historical document is a scroll consisting of 959 narrow columns. At the end of the document are 315 signatures of Sobor members; the signatures of the scribes are located at the margins of the columns. Centuries during the reign of Catherine II, a silver ark was created to store this original scroll. At the present time, the original of the Sobornoye Ulozheniye is housed in the Kremlin Armoury. A copy of the scroll was transcribed in book format.
From this book, the Ulozhenie was reprinted twice with 1200 copies made each time. The Sobornoye Ulozheniye of 1649 is considered a new stage in the development of Russian jurisprudence. All Sobor members endorsed handwritten copies of the Ulozhenie with their signatures, these copies were distributed to all state offices in Moscow as a guide for policy and law. Elected people sent their own additions to the Duma as petitions of Zemstvo; some of these were enacted in cooperation with the Duma and the Tsar. Vasily Klyuchevsky singles out several technical stages at process of lawmaking of Ulozhenie: Codification — by the committee headed by Prince Odoevskiy. Conference — bringing up petition for discussion. Revision — revision and editing of bills by Duma and Tsar. Legislative decision — a common decision about one or another article of the Ulozhenie. Hand signing — signing of code of laws unanimously by members of the Sobor; the Sobornoe Ulozheniye represents the first attempt by Russian legislators to form system of norms and classify them by areas of law.
Significant attention was given to procedural law. The sources of the Sobornoe Ulozhenie originated both from international law. Books of orders of prikazes - from the moment of the appearance of a prikaz, the current law in the corresponding area of law was fixed in accordance with that prikaz Sudebnik of 1497 and Sudebnik by Ivan IV. Statutes of Lithuania had been used as model of legal technicality Petitions Excerpts from The Code of Law of 1649
In trade, barter is a system of exchange where participants in a transaction directly exchange goods or services for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money. Economists distinguish barter from gift economies in many ways. Barter takes place on a bilateral basis, but may be multilateral. In most developed countries, barter only exists parallel to monetary systems to a limited extent. Market actors use barter as a replacement for money as the method of exchange in times of monetary crisis, such as when currency becomes unstable or unavailable for conducting commerce. Economists since the times of Adam Smith, looking at non-specific pre-modern societies as examples, have used the inefficiency of barter to explain the emergence of money, of "the" economy, hence of the discipline of economics itself. However, ethnographic studies have shown that no present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, nor have anthropologists found evidence that money emerged from barter, instead finding that gift-giving was the most usual means of exchange of goods and services.
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, sought to demonstrate that markets pre-existed the state, hence should be free of government regulation. He argued. Markets emerged, in his view, out of the division of labour, by which individuals began to specialize in specific crafts and hence had to depend on others for subsistence goods; these goods were first exchanged by barter. Specialization depended on trade, but was hindered by the "double coincidence of wants" which barter requires, i.e. for the exchange to occur, each participant must want what the other has. To complete this hypothetical history, craftsmen would stockpile one particular good, be it salt or metal, that they thought no one would refuse; this is the origin of money according to Smith. Money, as a universally desired medium of exchange, allows each half of the transaction to be separated. Barter is characterized in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" by a disparaging vocabulary: "higgling, swapping, dickering." It has been characterized as negative reciprocity, or "selfish profiteering."Anthropologists have argued, in contrast, "that when something resembling barter does occur in stateless societies it is always between strangers."
Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit. Marcel Mauss, author of'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter. Everyday exchange relations in such societies are characterized by generalized reciprocity, or a non-calculative familial "communism" where each takes according to their needs, gives as they have. Since direct barter does not require payment in money, it can be utilized when money is in short supply, when there is little information about the credit worthiness of trade partners, or when there is a lack of trust between those trading. Barter is an option to those who cannot afford to store their small supply of wealth in money in hyperinflation situations where money devalues quickly.
The limitations of barter are explained in terms of its inefficiencies in facilitating exchange in comparison to money. It is said that barter is'inefficient' because: There needs to be a'double coincidence of wants' For barter to occur between two parties, both parties need to have what the other wants. There is no common measure of value In a monetary economy, money plays the role of a measure of value of all goods, so their values can be assessed against each other. Indivisibility of certain goods If a person wants to buy a certain amount of another's goods, but only has for payment one indivisible unit of another good, worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a barter transaction cannot occur. Lack of standards for deferred payments This is related to the absence of a common measure of value, although if the debt is denominated in units of the good that will be used in payment, it is not a problem. Difficulty in storing wealth If a society relies on perishable goods, storing wealth for the future may be impractical.
However, some barter economies rely on durable goods like sheep or cattle for this purpose. Other anthropologists have questioned whether barter is between "total" strangers, a form of barter known as "silent trade". Silent trade called silent barter, dumb barter, or depot trade, is a method by which traders who cannot speak each other's language can trade without talking. However, Benjamin Orlove has shown that while barter occurs through "silent trade", it occurs in commercial markets as well. "Because barter is a difficult way of conducting trade, it will occur only where there are strong institutional constraints on the use of money or where the barter symbolically denotes a special social relationship and is used in well-defined conditions. To sum up, multipurpose money in markets is like lubrication for machines - necessary for the
An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee within a system of unfree labor, bound by a signed or forced contract to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. The contract lets the employer sell the labor of an indenturee to a third party. Indenturees enter into an indenture for a specific payment or other benefit, or to meet a legal obligation, such as debt bondage. On completion of the contract, indentured servants were given their freedom, plots of land. In many countries, systems of indentured labor have now been outlawed, are banned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a form of slavery; until the late 18th century, indentured servitude was common in British North America. It was a way for poor Europeans to immigrate to the American colonies: they signed an indenture in return for a costly passage. After their indenture expired, the immigrants were free to work for another employer, it has been argued by at least one economist that indentured servitude occurred as "an institutional response to a capital market imperfection".
In some cases, the indenture was made with a ship's master, who sold on the indenture to an employer in the colonies. Most indentured servants worked as farm laborers or domestic servants, although some were apprenticed to craftsmen; the terms of an indenture were not always enforced by American courts, although runaways were sought out and returned to their employer. Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures. However, while half the European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired, thus free wage labor was the more prevalent for Europeans in the colonies. Indentured people were numerically important in the region from Virginia north to New Jersey. Other colonies saw far fewer of them; the total number of European immigrants to all 13 colonies before 1775 was about 500,000.
Of the 450,000 or so European arrivals who came voluntarily, Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured. About 75% of these were under the age of 25; the age of adulthood for men was 24 years. Regarding the children who came, Gary Nash reports that "many of the servants were nephews, nieces and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labor once in America."Several instances of kidnapping for transportation to the Americas are recorded such as that of Peter Williamson. As historian Richard Hofstadter pointed out, "Although efforts were made to regulate or check their activities, they diminished in importance in the eighteenth century, it remains true that a certain small part of the white colonial population of America was brought by force, a much larger portion came in response to deceit and misrepresentation on the part of the spirits." One "spirit" named William Thiene was known to have spirited away 840 people from Britain to the colonies in a single year.
Historian Lerone Bennett, Jr. notes that "Masters given to flogging did not care whether their victims were black or white."Indentured servitude was used by various English and British governments as a punishment for defeated foes in rebellions and civil wars. Oliver Cromwell sent into enforced indentured service thousands of prisoners captured in the 1648 Battle of Preston and the 1651 Battle of Worcester. King James II acted after the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685, use of such measures continued in the 18th Century. Indentured servants could not marry without the permission of their master, were sometimes subject to physical punishment and did not receive legal favor from the courts. To ensure that the indenture contract was satisfied with the allotted amount of time, the term of indenture was lengthened for female servants if they became pregnant. Upon finishing their term they were set free; the American Revolution limited immigration to the United States, but economic historians dispute its long-term impact.
Sharon Salinger argues that the economic crisis that followed the war made long-term labor contracts unattractive. His analysis of Philadelphia's population shows how the percentage of bound citizens fell from 17% to 6.4% over the course of the war. William Miller posits a more moderate theory, stating that "the Revolution wrought disturbances upon white servitude, but these were temporary rather than lasting". David Galenson supports this theory by proposing that the numbers of British indentured servants never recovered, that Europeans from other nationalities replaced them; the American and British governments passed several laws that helped foster the decline of indentures. The UK Parliament's Passenger Vessels Act 1803 regulated travel conditions aboard ships to make transportation more expensive, so as to hinder landlords' tenants seeking a better life. An American law passed in 1833 abolished imprisonment of debtors, which made prosecuting runaway servants more difficult, increasing the risk of indenture contract purchases.
The 13th Amendment, passed in the wake of the American Civil War, made indentured servitude illegal in the United States. Through its introduction, the details regarding indentured labor varied across import and export regions and most overseas contracts were made before the voyage with the understanding that prospective migrants were competent enough to make overseas contracts on their own account and that they pre
An artisan is a skilled craft worker who makes or creates things by hand that may be functional or decorative, for example furniture, decorative arts, clothing, food items, household items and tools or mechanisms such as the handmade clockwork movement of a watchmaker. Artisans practice a craft and may through experience and aptitude reach the expressive levels of an artist; the adjective "artisanal" is sometimes used in describing hand-processing in what is viewed as an industrial process, such as in the phrase artisanal mining. Thus, "artisanal" is sometimes used in marketing and advertising as a buzz word to describe or imply some relation with the crafting of handmade food products, such as bread, beverages or cheese. Many of these have traditionally been handmade, rural or pastoral goods but are now made on a larger scale with automated mechanization in factories and other industrial areas. Artisans were the dominant producers of consumer products before the Industrial Revolution. In ancient Greece, artisans were drawn to agoras and built workshops nearby.
During the Middle Ages, the term "artisan" was applied to those who made things or provided services. It did not apply to unskilled manual labourers. Artisans were divided into two distinct groups: those who operated their own businesses and those who did not; those who owned their businesses were called masters, while the latter were the journeymen and apprentices. One misunderstanding many people have about this social group is that they picture them as "workers" in the modern sense: employed by someone; the most influential group among the artisans were the business owners. The owners enjoyed a higher social status in their communities. Shokunin is a Japanese word for "artisan" or "craftsman", which implies a pride in one's own work. In the words of shokunin Tashio Odate:Shokunin means not only having technical skill, but implies an attitude and social consciousness... a social obligation to work his best for the general welfare of the people, obligation both material and spiritual. Traditionally, shokunin honoured their tools of trade at New Year's – the sharpened and taken-care of tools would be placed in a tokonoma, two rice cakes and a tangerine were placed on top of each toolbox, to honour the tools and express gratitude for performing their task.
Applied art Artist Arts and Crafts movement Caste — Tarkhan Guild Handicraft Tradesman Artian.com /Prezzy The dictionary definition of artisan at Wiktionary History of Artisans