Mr. Chauncey’s History Classes

18 responses so far ↓

• 1    Chris U. // Dec 9, 2006 at 1:46 pm

  I think no because you need to beable to produce or surplus food before you have any artisans.

  Mr. C- Chris can you expand upon this idea more fully…..explain yourself.

• 2    Jacqui // Dec 9, 2006 at 5:35 pm

  I think that they would not be able to have artisans if they were not able to produce a surplus on a regular basis. I believe this because artisans are people that are gifted or skilled in making certain items. So if someone was gifted in making baskets, but there was no surplus, he would have to farm every day to be able to live (he would not have any time to make baskets). In addition, the person would not have the materials to make the items (they would be used for that person’s necessities) or have time to get the materials to make the items (no time to make extra). Now, think of the same situation, except there was a surplus. That person would have time to make baskets because he would not be farming every day and he would have extra materials to make the items.

  Mr. C- Great response!

• 3    Chris U. // Dec 9, 2006 at 9:01 pm

  No they can’t have artisans because an artisan is a skilled worker at produsing and surplusing food. If an artisan can’t do any of those things how is he supose to be an artisan. Thats like saying be a Sidny Crosby but that kid doesn’t know how to skate.

   Mr. C- Who produces the surplus?  What might an artisan do?

• 4    Diana // Dec 10, 2006 at 10:11 am

  Ancient societies would not be able to have artisans if they could not produce a surplus. If there were very little food all the artisans would have to spend their time farming or hunting instead of making art. With a surplus they could be fed by the extra food of other peoples farming and not worry about getting producing their own food.

  Mr. C- Good answer….might add that artisans exchange their work for the food that the farmers produce…They support one another.

• 5    kyle // Dec 10, 2006 at 2:29 pm

  I do not think that ancient societies would have artestians (artisans) if they (farmers?) did not produce a surplus. In order for a civilization to survive they need to focus on the basic needs of food, water and shelter. If they were unable to grow a surplus of crops they would have to spend all of their time either hunting or trying to farm too survive. A surplus allows people to focus on other aspects of life. Art is example of an area that people would have time to focus on.

  Mr. C- Nice job, Kyle!

• 6    emily c // Dec 10, 2006 at 3:43 pm

  I don’t think you would be able to have artisans without surplus. This is because people wouldn’t have any time for selling things they crafted (let alone make them!). They have to worry about getting food for themselves. No one else is going to get food for them.  

  Mr. C- Good answer…perhaps add-A surplus allows artisans to work and exchange what they make for the surplus food produced by farmers.

• 7    Jake // Dec 10, 2006 at 5:32 pm

  I would say no (to what?). I would say that because if people don’t have much food they have to produce more. If you have to produce more you can (or cannot?) do other jobs such as blacksmithing or luxurys like that.

  Mr. C- I know what you mean, but not everyone will.  Take a little more time to express yourself fully and clearly!

• 8    maria // Dec 10, 2006 at 8:33 pm

  I think they can’t have a artisan if they cant produce a surplus because the artisans would not beable to do there jobs because they would not have there supplies to do there work. They also could not afford to have them because they don’t produce essential life goods.

  Mr. C- Good response….Try to be more specific with who “they” are.

• 9    Chandler // Dec 11, 2006 at 8:58 am

  I think they wouldn’t be able to produse artisans on a regular basis if there wasn’t any surplus because for a civalization to survive, they need basic foods, and shelter. The artisans would not be able to go out, and bulid, or constuct if they had nothing to live on, and they need to make items to keep their other items well. The surplus basically keeps everything in place…from not falling apart…..or allows some people the flexibility to do things other than produce food.

  Mr. C- Good job

• 10    Diana // Dec 11, 2006 at 10:32 am

  Jacqui-I agree with you because artisans would spend all their time farming and would have no time to make art or to even get supplies. With a surplus their time is much more free to make art.
  They would be able to use their skills towards what they were very good at. I also think this would really advance their civilization.

  Mr. C- Excellent feedback!

• 11    Nicole // Dec 11, 2006 at 5:17 pm

  No, they would not be able to have artisans because they need to collect food and water and many other products to survive. Example: If there weren’t any food stores left, will your father be able to do his job? No because he would be too busy helping with the gardening or hunting for the family because we would not want to starve. We would want to have food and live.

   Mr. C- Good illustration of an absense of a surplus.

• 12    Connor // Dec 11, 2006 at 5:41 pm

  If the society didn’t have a surplus, artisans wouldn’t be around. When the area doesn’t have enough food then they need more farmers to make sure they have enough food. When they take in more farmers they are takign in the people that would be artisans.

  Mr. C- Straightforward logic….Good.

• 13    David // Dec 12, 2006 at 1:35 pm

  no, i think there would not be any(any what?) if there was no surplus. but maybe we might of found a way around that dilemna so maybe we could have a few more artisans than none at all.

  Mr. C- So why can’t you have artisans with no surplus….you do not explain yourself.

• 14    David // Dec 12, 2006 at 1:38 pm

  i agree with Jaqui but i think they could fit in some time to do other stuff just like they need to squeeze in time to wash laundry or cook food.

  Mr. C- Can you restate the idea you agree with in basic terms?

• 15    Jacqui // Dec 12, 2006 at 3:44 pm

  I agree with Chandler. I think she gave a good, and thoughtful answer. I think this because she gave her answer, then explained it. One thing that I don’t agree is that her opening sentence said “I think they wouldn’t be able to produce artisans on a regular basis” This sentence is true but you can’t produce artisans, artisans are people.
  I think that Chandler could have expanded on her answer a little more (by giving an example), but I think it was good otherwise. She put thought into it and explained her answer.
  Nice Job Chandler!

  Mr. C- Positive and constructive feedback!

• 16    nicKKKKKK // Jan 16, 2007 at 7:39 pm

  No they would not because if there is no surplus then there is no extra food. If there is no extra food then the artisans all have nothing to eat so they starve and die, leaving no artisans left. This leaves only farmers, if there is only farmers then there will be extra food because 1 farmer can produce food for 10. This creates surplus and that leads back to the artisans. but there still needs to be enough farmers for surplus.

  Mr.C- Make sure that you introduce your response appropriately and clearly so that the reader knows exactly what you are responding to!

• 17    zac // Jan 22, 2007 at 10:09 am

  No, the ancient societies would not be able to have artisans if they were not able to produce a surplus on a regular basis because if there was not enough extra food to eat and the artisans would have to spend there time hunting and farming instead of making art.

• 18    Allison // Jan 22, 2007 at 6:56 pm

  No one would not be able to have artisans if they did not have surpluses of food. The artisans would have to be farming and hunting rather than doing special skills that they have. It would be hard to not have food and try to practice special skills while starving. It would be useless to the people of the empire to not have food but baskets.

Leave a Comment