It is doubtful that we will ever know when the first shoes were worn, or what those first shoes were like. As with all to many things, those records, if they were ever kept, have been lost to us. The traditions among shoemakers and historians have held that until relatively recently, shoes were probably just bag-like wrappings of fur or skins in the colder regions and that they remained like that until relatively recently. At least one source1 has described a cave painting (c.8000 BCE) showing "foot bags", presumably of leather, while another has shown images of shoes from Spanish cave paintings (??? BCE) that are interpreted to show furred boots.
The levels of sophistication on the items of footwear found so far, from the Fort Rock Cave,Oregon; Arnold Research Cave, Missouri; the Ice Man; the Warrior in the Cave; and from Buinerveen, the Netherlands, draws the traditions of primative footbags into question.
The Fort Rock Cave site, in Oregon, revealed a number of "sandals" of sagebrush bark, and these have been dated to c9000 BCE, although this date is argued anywhere from 9000 to 7000 BCE2. The Arnold Research Cave finds include a series of sandals and slippers ranging in date from 6000 BCE to roughly 1000 CE. many of these have been woven from plant fibers, neatly overlapping similar Anasazi footwear finds3.
The earliest European shoes we have archeological evidence for is the shoes worn by the so-called "Ice Man", who was found frozen in the Alps. His shoes consist of a rawhide bearskin sole, and an upper of woven plant fibers, and covered in the vamp by rawhide Deer. These date to about 3300 BCE.4
Nearly contemporanous with these are the shoes found on the so-called "Warrior in the cave" near Jericho. These consist of a compound sole that wraps up to the sides and front, and are secured by straps. The front seam was a thin leather thonging. They have been described as "sandals", but because of the wrapping up of the sides, and the fact that the toes are not involved in wearing that this counts as a shoe, and I believe that they are likely an example of the shoe called a KUŠ-E-SIR (or "outdoor shoe") in Sumerian. This find dates to the early fourth millenium.5
The Buinerveen shoes, which resemble more traditional views of European "bag shoes", gathered up by a thong, were dated (by pollen analysis by Groenman-van-Waateringe) to about 3000 BCE6. The Ice man's shoe, surprisingly, was made of multiple pieces of leather and woven quarters. The shoes we mostly see in finds from antiquity houwever, are single piece shoes, either like the Buinerveen shoe, wrapped up around the sides of the foot and tied with a thong, giving rise to the myth of the ubiquity of the bundschuh/hudsko, the "primative" single-piece "bag shoe" as it is even today sometimes referred to; or more often, center seam shoes, typified by those found in Greece and Rome. Even so, it may be noted that the single piece shoe has never totally faded from use, as can be seen in the forms of the bundeschuh, hudsko, or rifeling still in use. These are a shoe that was is carved or shaped from a fresh piece of "rawhide" (or untanned hide) that was laced to the foot, generally with the hair on the inside. These were, in later centuries, referred to as "cuaran" in Gaelic, "kreple" in Czech, "rifeling" in Saxon, also known as "riwelingas", "rewylynys", "rowlingas", "rulyions", "rullions", "rivilin" in the Shetlands, "rivelins" in Scotland and the Orkneys, "pampooties" in the Aran Islands, "skin-sko" in Iceland, and so on.
Based on the early dates of the shoes and sandals already mentioned, it seems odd that in the so-called "cradles of civilization", footwear seems to appear at different times in different places. A Syrian votive stature, shoes with upturned points seem to appear perhaps around 3000 BCE.8. In Sumer, by about 2600 BCE, Accadians were shown in art with upturned pointed shoes, and a pompom on the toe of the Hero who killed the most dangerous of creatures8. Sandals seem to appear by 2400 BCE. In the a number of texts from the First Dynasty of Isin (2300-2250 BCE), both shoes and sandles are referred to9 The shoes of the early Sumerian period were of two types, the KUŠ-E-SIR (or "outdoor shoe") and the KUŠ-MUL (or "indoor shoe"), a sort of slipper.5 Later, in Babylon and Assyria, shoes and boots were well known.
In Egypt, sandals appear in the so-called "Narmer Palate" from the 1st Dynasty (about 3000 BCE), held behind the Pharoah, and on an ivory tag. There appears to be some argument whether there are any early hieroglyphs meaning "sandal".7 They do not appear on the wall art, however before the 12th Dynasty (about 1990 BCE) while shoes don't seem to appear at all. However, in the 12th Dynasty, and afterwards, though, they are highly visible. In fact, there is some thought that sandal makers might have been highly regarded, based, on the monuments to shoemakers left from the New Kingdom (c. 1575-1087 BC)8. However, the tomb of Rekh-mi-Re, a Vizier from the 18th Dynasty, (c.1450 BCE), which gives us the earliest representation of a leather-sandal maker and his tools, doesn't display shoemakers any more prominantly than the many other trades it protrays, including that of a leather tanner.*7a A number of his tools, however, including his awls and his "head" knife, are easily recognisable.
Sandals in Egypt through its history take on a variety of forms, and ideotechnic aspects, for example women may not have worn them in general, although there is a portrait of at least one woman who did (although admittedly this is quite late, in the 5th C BCE). It may have been improper to wear sandals before social superior. Sandals have been found with soles made from leather, papyrus reed, and palm bast. Sandals with upturned points may have come in with the Hyksos (14th and 15th Dynasties (about 1674 - 1567 BCE)), who brought with them numerous other technological changes to Egypt, including weapons, armor, the horse, and the chariot8,12. These may have been assembled in a manner known as "stitchdown" construction in which the outer seam (in this case of hide lacing) is stacked and forms an outer seam along the edge. This gives an impression of a welted shoe, without the necessity of actually making a welted shoe.
There is an example of a one set of green leather "sandals" displayed in the "Salt Collection" in the last century resembling the triangular Hittite slippers with turned up toes made in this fashion. Their outer edge looks like it was stitched together with leather lacing.10 The Hittites were known for their upturned, pointed toe shoes by middle of 2nd millenium, and from them, the style became very popular throughout the Middle East8.
Shoes with upturned and pointed toes were very important through out the entire east, although it is not absolutely clear why this should be. It has been suggested that they were a vestigal "snow shoe" that simply caught on8, although I'm not certain that this is entirely plausible. It has also been suggested that this might have had something to do with phallic symbolism, although I am not convinced of that either.
The Greeks wore a wide variety of shoes and sandals. They were less impressed than their neighbors with pointed upswept toes, in general, believing these to be "eastern". Their preference was for sandals "Pedilia", and open toed shoes. When they wore shoes, they sometimes wore a shoe called a "Persikai", which implies a Persian origin. The Greeks should be noted, however for the marriage between the sandal and the center-lacing carbatina style that they called the "Krepis". By adding a sole to the center-laced design, they marked the way for the development of other soled shoes. Based on a painting on one vase, some authors have suggested that the Greeks wore shoes and boots made on lasts8, but to be honest, I'm less willing to make that assertion based on a vague picture of what might just be a pair of boots. According to Xenophon, shoe were made with sewn uppers, using sinew for the stitching9. Xenophon also describes the standardized division of shoemaking tasks, which is not documented again until the 16th century.
I should point out at this point that by referring to "shoe", I have been using a term that has a certain meaning, without solidly ascertaining that the meaning has its expected value. When we refer to a "Shoe" it seems often expected that we are referring to a garment, made from a separate upper and sole, made on a last, and sewn together, possibly in some form of welted construction. As far as I am aware (although I am continuing to research this topic), we have very little physical evidence to support that meaning this early on. Mostly these perspectives are based on a lack of archaeological data and pictures that do not contradict this impression. My suspicion is, and at this point this is simply speculation, the earliest assembled shoes were, like the Ice man's, a separate upper and sole, perhaps with a separation between vamp and quarters. Now, I realize that basing an opinion on the few items items we have, based on material from thousands of years apart is a risky proposition, and so I am more than happy to be proven wrong by anyone who actually has access to ancient (preferably pre-Roman) Middle Eastern and Levantine shoes.
|
BETA