Knowledge Transfer Within the Rural Artisan’s Household
The craft was a family business at its best. Sons not only took on a trade but also the artisan’s social position and culture. Even apprentices living under the same roof were part of the artisan’s household.
The universal attitude was that the artisan was a surrogate father to the apprentice, and he thus ought to raise the boy as he would his own son. The connection between skills and family was so close that the artisan’s own son was often not registered as an apprentice but simply as the artisan’s son. The son’s ability to do the craft was revealed only when he started his own career, which he often did since occupational continuity was widespread. Artisans’ sons also had privileges; it was easier for them to achieve the status of master artisan. A retiring father often asked to be replaced by his own son, or the son would receive other kinds of benefits. In some families, trade secrets were kept within the family. Especially in the smiths’ trade, it was not that easy to find a master who was willing to take on apprentices. After all, why would one train the future competitors of one’s own son?Expertise and skills were transmitted by the artisans’ own example and the learning-by-doing method. Therefore, even artisans’ daughters might have learned the secrets of their fathers’ trade. Girls, however, could not officially engage in handicrafts or be appointed as apprentices. Thus, the position of daughters was not equal to that of sons, so they were often forced to seek a livelihood outside their fathers’ household. Their role in occupational continuity was through marriage because artisans’ daughters often married other artisans. Especially when there were no biological sons to inherit the father’s trade, the son-in-law would help to keep the skills within the family and take care of the elderly parents-in-law.
Frequent occupational continuity—through both sons and daughters— indicated features of stability in the community; everyone had to know their own place.
In the early modern estate society, it was appropriate and even desirable that a son should follow in his father’s footsteps, while a daughter should marry within the same group. For rural artisans, the easiest way to provide for their sons’ welfare in the future was to give them occupational training. This was also a matter of practicality, familiarity, and experience. They grew up in the trade; even today, children often end up in the same line of work as their parents.Notes
1. Studies on crafts have generally concentrated on urban, guild-based artisans. On the literature, see Uotila (2014, 16–17).
2. According to a law enacted in 1680—when Finland was still a part of Sweden—the official institution for rural craft was organised by the parish artisans (sockne hantverkare) system, which lasted well into the Russian period of Finnish history (1809–1917). In 1879, freedom of trade liberated the exercise of craft trades. The necessary work licences were granted by provincial governors, but an applying artisan had to have a written testimonial from the local court (consisting of members of the local community), so the artisan’s customers had a say in regulating the number of craftsmen working locally. Permission was also needed when artisans gave up their position, moved to another parish, or wanted to take on an apprentice.
3. They did not pay craft taxes and were not entered in the official census records as artisans, even though they made craft artefacts. In the tax registers, unofficial artisans were listed as farmhands (dräng) or tenant farmers (landbonde or torpare) and the like but not designated by any artisanal title. In rural areas, official and unofficial artisans usually coexisted peacefully, and the number of unofficial artisans was sometimes considerable. See Uotila (2014, 79–81, 113–116).
4. There were also other artisans actively working in rural areas. The number of specialised artisans grew because the standard of living rose and demands for new goods increased.
In the Hollola parish, discussed in this chapter, the group of specialised artisans mainly consisted of weavers, tanners, carpenters, and masons. Of these, only masons had a legal opportunity to apply to be taken on as parish artisans, but sometimes other trades were permitted to work officially in rural areas. In 1824, the situation was alleviated, and the number of trades that were allowed to seek the parish artisan’s position grew. Uotila (2014, 108, 148–158).5. For more about the history of Hollola, see Kuusi (1937).
6. After that, it is more difficult to study their career choices because the HisKi database (http://hiski.genealogia.fi/hiski/8f06fx?en) used to define the children’s social status ends in Hollola in 1850. There are a few preconditions that come with the selection of the researched group. First, the artisans—children’s fathers, working officially or unofficially—had to have a long-running career in Hollola. Second, the research involves only children born in wedlock. The third prerequisite is that these children grew up in the parish, although training in a distant town is not an obstacle if information is available. This leaves out short-lived visits (some years) from this study. The original birthplace of the children is not an important factor, even though most of them were born in Hollola.
7. On prosopography, see Keats-Rohan (2007).
8. Unfortunately, they are not without shortcomings. For instance, the individuals’ social standing is generally referred to according to the head of the household, so artisans’ offspring were merely sons and daughters, not labelled according to their real occupations. It is also difficult to pinpoint exactly when a new member of the household arrived or left a household because this is established by records of his/her attendance at communion, which was a yearly act, but still a vague time measurement. There are also practical obstacles connected to the parish registers. It is sometimes a challenge to decipher the handwritten text since entries were crossed out when people changed their dwelling place.
In addition, the same register might be used for ten years. The ministers did not always record a changed situation; if they did so, it was only after some delay that they changed the communion registers of Hollola.9. Specific pre-confirmation registers were not used in all Finnish parishes; rather, they were a characteristic feature of this part of Finland.
10. On the other hand, in his licentiate thesis, Veikko Laakso has examined occupational continuity in two rural parishes in Finland in the eighteenth century, see Laakso (1974).
11. There were some self-taught artisans who sometimes had to prove their skills by making a masterpiece in front of a court audience to support the testimony from the local populace.
12. The last guild order (skraordning) is from 1720.
13. NA, Province of Uusimaa and Häme, Governors’ Secretariat, Records of Applications 1790–1830.
14. Those guild-trained journeymen (gesäller) appearing in the rural sources were independent workers who were either intending to apply for positions as parish artisans or were working unofficially.
15. Veikko Laakso has also noted the fluctuating use of these terms. To make things even more complicated, the same person could also be called lärogosse (literally translated: a trainee boy). Laakso (1974, 129).
16. It was customary that boys entered their father’s workshop early in their life and followed their father’s work. No formal agreements or enrolments on the guild records were needed. On the contrary, artisans’ sons could be registered in and out of apprentice records on a same day. Papinsaari (1967, 262); Edgren (1987, 152).
17. Rural masters were obliged to report their apprentices as new members of their households to parish priests, who registered them as part of the artisan’s household; in the towns, apprenticeship began after enrolment on the guild’s apprenticeship records. Even when a young boy’s parents lived nearby, the boy’s name was still transferred to the household of the master craftsman.
Uotila (2014, 220).18. The enforcement of apprenticeship contracts was usually the guild’s responsibility. Epstein (1998); De Munck and Soly (2007, 9–10); Epstein (2013, 31). Cf. Humphries (2003, 81–86); Wallis (2008, 851–853).
19. However, the boys’ biological family supervised their sons’ well-being, training, and upbringing and pressed charges if they were not satisfied with their sons’ treatment or the quality of their training. Epstein (2013, 29).
20. As long as this did not interfere with their training, it was acceptable. However, the most common complaint by an apprentice against his master was excess involvement in ordinary household chores. Papinsaari (1967, 265–266); Wallis (2008, 843–844).
21. In other words, was the apprentice paying for the knowledge? In this research area, there is only scant evidence of paid premiums.
22. Smiths, on the other hand, did not usually make rounds to visit their customers but kept their own smithies, to which customers brought work.
23. Journeymen with families become more common in the nineteenth century. Edgren (1987, 164–169).
24. Thus, the number of successors is quite small when compared with the total number of artisans. In 1810–1840 in Hollola, only a fifth of artisans had an artisanal background. Uotila (2014, 247–256).
25. Unmarried craftsmen often had a stain on their reputation; occasionally illegitimate children explain their marital status. Uotila (2014, 191).
26. Gustaf Herkepeus’ grandfather had been a village smith in the Kalliola village. This smith dynasty continued strongly since Gustaf’s two sons, Samuel and Malachias, both became professional smiths. The younger brother of Gustaf, Johan, also worked together with Gustaf and their father.
27. Johan Salomonsson’s son received training from his stepfather. For this exceptionally close-knit family, see Uotila (2006).
28. Often urban-trained apprentices from different social backgrounds returned to the countryside because they could not establish their position in towns.
The shoemakers in particular in Hollola were guild-trained journeymen or apprentices. Uotila (2014, 224–225).29. Although, for instance, Lars Edgren has stated that many apprentices in towns were sons of rural artisans. Edgren (1987, 151). See also De Munck and Soly (2007, 11, 17).
30. Moses Mosesesson was fifteen and the younger son, Erik, only seven when their father passed away.
31. There were also other ways to acquire a farm, such as inheriting or buying it.
32. It is not possible to detect women’s work other than in exceptional circumstances. Uotila (2014, 85).
33. On the marriage registers, artisans’ daughters are not always referred to as such but rather according to their last employment—e.g. servant—so it is often difficult to find them on these registers. To examine the family connections, an individual approach and following the life-course in detail is needed. This can be seen as one of the benefits of the prosopographic method.
34. The reason for moving was clearly stated in migration records. NA, Hollola church archives, records of migration 1824. Joran Thomasson spent his last years with his daughter’s family. Most likely, he did not have very good relationship with his stepson because the family split apart when Joran Thomasson’s wife died. A daughter’s marriage to another smith was a way to arrange the smith’s security in old age because staying with the stepson does not seem to have been an option. Uotila (2014, 192).
Archival Material
Archives of Hollola District Court 1810–1840. Finnish National Archives (NA).
Hollola church archives, records of migration 1824. Finnish National Archives (NA).
Hollola parish census records 1780–1840. Finnish National Archives (NA).
Communion registers of Hollola, Asikkala, Lammi, Nastola, Orimattila, Hämeenkoski, Kärkolä Churches 1780–1860. Finnish National Archives (NA).
Church registers of births, deaths and marriages of Hollola, Asikkala, Lammi, Nastola, Orimattila, Hämeenkoski, Kärkolä Churches 1780–1860. Finnish National Archives (NA).
Province of Kymenkartano, Governors’ Secretariat, Records of Applications 1810–1830. Finnish National Archives (NA).
Province of Uusimaa and Häme, Governors’ Secretariat, Records of applications 1790–1830. Finnish National Archives (NA).
References
Crowston, Clare. 2008. “Women, Gender and Guilds in Early Modern Europe: An Overview of Recent Research.” International Review of Social History 53, supplement: 19–44.
Daniels, Christine. 1995. “From Father to Son: Economic Roots of Craft Dynasties in Eighteenth-Century Maryland.” In American Artisans: Crafting Social Identity, 1750–1850, edited by Howard B. Rock, Paul A. Gilje and Robert Asher, 3–16. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
De Munck, Bert and Hugo Soly. 2007. “ ‘Learning on the shop floor’ in Historical Perspective.” In Learning on the Shop Floor: Historical Perspectives on Apprenticeship, edited by Bert De Munck, Steven L. Kaplan and Hugo Soly, 3–32. New York: Berghahn Books.
Edgren, Lars. 1987. Lärling, gesäll, mästare. Hantverk och hantverkare i Malmo 1750–1847. Lund: Dialogos.
Epstein, Steven R. 1998. “Craft Guilds, Apprenticeship and Technological Change in Pre-Modern Europe.” Journal of Economic History 53 (3): 684–713.
———. 2013. “Transferring Technical Knowledge and Innovating in Europe, c.1200—c.1800.” In Technology, Skills and the Pre-Modern Economy in the East and the West: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of S. R. Epstein, edited by Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten van Zandern, 25–67. Leiden: Brill.
Gadd, Carl-Johan. 1991. Självhushall eller arbetsdelning? Svenskt lant- och stadshantverk ca 1400–1860. Goteborg: Goteborgs universitet.
Humphries, Jane. 2003. “English Apprenticeship: A Neglected Factor in the First Industrial Revolution.” In The Economic Future in Historical Perspective, edited by Paul A. David and Mark Thomasson, 73–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Juutila, Ulla-Maija. 1997. “Blev skomakarens son vid sin last? Hantverkasmästarnas ättlingars social mobilitet i Abo under slutet av 1700-talet och under 1800-talets forsta ar.” In Fundera tar längsta tiden, sa skräddarn, da han sydde byxor, edited by Ulla Heino and Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen, 145–67. Turku: University of Turku.
Keats-Rohan, K. S. B., ed. 2007. Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.
Kuusi, Sakari. 1937. Hollolan pitäjän Historia. Muinaisuuden hämärästä kunnallisen elämän alkuun 1860-luvulle. Toinen osa. Porvoo: WSOY.
Laakso, Veikko. 1974. Loimaan ja Huittisten suurpitäjien käsityoläiset vuosina 1721–1809. Unpublished licentiate thesis. University of Turku.
———. 1994. Suur-Loimaan historia II. Isonvihan Päättymisestä 1900-Luvun Alkuun. Alastaro: Alastaron kunta.
Minns, Chris and Patrick Wallis. 2013. “The Price of Human Capital in a Pre-Industrial Economy: Premiums and Apprenticeship Contracts in 18th Century England.” Explorations in Economic History 50 (3): 335–50.
Papinsaari, Raimo. 1967. “Turun räätälien ammattikunta vuosina 1721–1809.” Turun Historiallinen Arkisto XX: 246–341.
Prak, Maarten. 2013. “Mega-Structures of the Middle Ages: The Construction of Religious Buildings in Europe and Asia, c. 1000–1500.” In Technology, Skills and the Pre-Modern Economy in the East and the West: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of S. R. Epstein, edited by Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten van Zandern, 131–59. Leiden: Brill.
Ranta, Raimo. 1978. Pohjanmaan maaseudun käsityoläiset vuosina 1721–1809 I. Käsityoläiseksi pääsy ja käsityoläisten lukumäärä. Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society.
Rosenberg, Antti. 1966. Muuttoliike Uudenmaan läänissä esi-industrialistisen kauden lopulla (1821–1880). Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society.
Tommila, Päivio. 1959. Nurmijärven pitäjän historia, II osa: Itsenäisen Nurmijärven pitäjän vaiheet. Nurmijärvi: Nurmijärven kunta.
Uotila, Merja. 2006. “Ammatti käsityoläisten identiteetin rakentajana 1800-luvun alun maaseudulla.” In Aika ja identiteetti. Katsauksia yksilon ja yhteison väliseen suhteeseen keskiajalta 2000-luvulle, edited by Laura-Kristiina Moilanen and Susanna Sulkunen, 117–41. Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society.
———. 2014. Käsityoläinen kyläyhteisonsä jäsenenä. Prosopografinen analyysi Hollolan käsityoläisistä 1810–1840. Jyväskylä: Universtity of Jyväskylä.
———. Forthcoming. “Apprenticeship in a Rural Economy: Finland.” In Apprenticeship in Early Modern Europe, edited by Maarten Prak and Patrick Wallis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vainio-Korhonen, Kirsi. 1994. Kultaa ja hopeaa mestarien tyokirjoissa. Suomen kultasepäntyo Ruotsin ajan lopulla valtakunnallista taustaa vasten. Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society.
———. 1997. “Yrket i arv? Släkt—och äktenskapets betydelse i rekrytering av nya hantverkare.” In Fundera tar längsta tiden, sa skräddarn, da han sydde byxor, edited by Ulla Heino and Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen,169–77. Turku: University of Turku.
———. 1998. Käsin tehty—miehelle ammatti, naiselle ansioiden lähde. Käsityotuotannon rakenteet ja strategiat esiteollisessa Turussa Ruotsin ajan lopulla. Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society.
———. 2000. “Handicrafts as Professions and Sources of Income in Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Turku (Abo).” Scandinavian Economic History Review 48 (1): 40–63.
———. 2010. “Kaupan ja käsityon ammattikasvatus.” In Huoneentaulun maa-ilma. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa keskiajalta 1860-luvulle, edited by Jussi Hanska and Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen, 221–57. Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society.
Wallis, Patrick. 2008. “Apprenticeship and Training in Premodern England.” The Journal of Economic History 68 (3): 832–61.