p-shoes-msg - 1/24/08
Period footwear. Period boots and shoes.
NOTE: See also the files: shoes-msg, shoemaking-msg, leather-msg, hose-msg, headgear-msg, hose-manu-MA-art, boots-msg, 2Shod-a-Shire-art.
************************************************************************
NOTICE -
This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.
This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org
I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.
The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.
Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).
Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous
Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************
From: mjl at rutabaga.Rational.COM (Matthew Larsen)
Date: 24 Jan 91 19:49:43 GMT
johnf at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (john feldmeier) writes:
> Being a mundane person who reads this newsgroup and has interest
>in the Middle Ages, I was wondering if one of you lovely people
>could tell me what English peasants of the 11th century wore on
>their feet. Did they wear common shoes, boots, loose rags or just
>walk around barefoot?
> Yours in Ignorance
> John Feldmeier
>John Feldmeier, University of Texas at Austin
>Internet johnf at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>Snail: 221 Simkins Hall, Austin Tx 78705
>Meaning of life:None, you create it or take 42
I would hazard a guess that they had shoes available to them, although I'm
sure that some people went barefoot, particularly during summer. There is
a book entitled "Shoes and Pattens" which covers shoemaking and shoes from
England during the period of roughly 11th or 12th century to 14th century.
The data which it is based on is mostly shoes which were found in digs
around or in London, and were mostly worn by common people. Now it is
possible that people in the country didn't have shoes, while people in
London did, but I think that's unlikely. Also, the authors say that a
person would go through about 6 pairs of shoes per year, so I would expect
that they were not very expensive items (although many of the shoes show
evidence of repair, so they were valuable enough to be worth fixing). I
don't have the book here with me at work, but if anyone is interested, I
can post more detailed information.
By the way, the book is an excellent source for anyone interested in making
shoes. It includes both information on period techniques and a great
number of patterns taken from the actual shoes. Since I got the book I have
made a half dozen pairs of shoes, and while I think I still have a lot to
learn, one can do a reasonable job without too much in the way of tools and
skills. I would encourage anyone to get the book and give it a try. Since
I don't have the book I can't give detailed bibliographic info, but if
anyone wants it, I will be happy to send it to you.
Matt Larsen
Geoffrey Mathias
mjl at rational.rational.com
From: rick at olivea.OLIVETTI.COM (Rick Meneely)
Date: 29 Jan 91 19:22:33 GMT
From article <43037 at ut-emx.uucp>, by johnf at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (john
feldmeier):
> My Lords Ladies and other Gentlefolk,
> Being a mundane person who reads this newsgroup and has interest
> in the Middle Ages, I was wondering if one of you lovely people
> could tell me what English peasants of the 11th century wore on
> their feet. Did they wear common shoes, boots, loose rags or just
> walk around barefoot?
> Yours in Ignorance
> John Feldmeier
Most did indeed wear shoes or boots. Shoes tended to be either very
low cut or ankle shoes (at or a little above the ankle). Boots tended to
be at about mid-calf.
Fasteners: 1100 ~ 1250 drawstrings were the most common
1250 ~ 1350 toggles were common
1200 ~ ???? side-laced (laces on the inner side)
1350 ~ ???? front-laced, latchets and buckles.
Most tended to have either small pointed toes or rounded ones, however
some examples of pointed toes (poulaines) reach 100 mm and were stuffed
with moss or hair.
If you wish to know more then e-mail me at the address below or better
yet if you can get ahold of it - the following book is BY FAR the best
source for information on english medieval shoes that I have found:
Shoes and Pattens
Medieval finds from excavations in London
Publisher: The Museum of London
Authors: Francis Grew and Margrethe de Neergaard
Copyright 1988
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rick Meneely | Internet: rick at olivee.ATC.Olivetti.Com|
| Olivetti Advanced Technology Center| |
| 20300 Stevens Creek Blvd. | A shoe by any other name, |
| Cupertino, Ca 95014 | would smell the same. - Me |
| Ph# (408) 366-3101 | |
Shoes (was Re: authenticity)
Date: 19 Jun 92
From: kuijt at umiacs.umd.edu (David Kuijt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Dave Aronson and Nicholas van Leyden speak and ask about shoes:
> NvL> Making soled shoes is obviously much harder than making moccassins
> NvL> because the sole leather is much tougher than what's
> NvL> required for the uppers.
> NvL> (It had better be or what's the point?) You're going
> NvL> to need heavy tools and work much harder to sew it.
> NvL> (Unless you use glue or nails, which pose their
> NvL> own complications.)
>
>What I had in mind for a design of mine was to sew the uppers to the top of a
>sole, then glue in an insole, and finally glue another layer of leather on the
>bottom. The pattern of the uppers winds up basically like a boot version of
>wallabees, but without the gumsoles. (At least, externally. I was also
>considering putting a pair of flipflops inside for comfort, under the insole so
>it doesn't make the foot sweat so much.) Also I was considering having the
>bottom portion laceable separately from the top.
>
>Does anybody know if anything even close to that (with or without separate
>lacing) is at all period? Is the concept of separate laceability period? And
>does anybody have any similarly simple patterns for GOOD (comfortable, and will
>hold out for a few Pennsics worth of use) period shoes?
Statements I am about to make are based upon my experimentations with,
and reading of, the book _Shoes_and_Pattens:_excavations_from_medieval_
London_ (subtitle may not be exactly correct), published by the
London Museum, and highly (HIGHLY) recommended. The finds examined
date from between 1250 and 1450, and are very complete (hundreds of
shoes are catalogued; tens are examined in great detail).
This book has been described (by me, and others) as being "The London
Museum Textbook for Shoe Laurels." It is very readable, and very
useful in a practical way as well.
In the period examined, and the location examined, glue was never used.
Further, all the shoes examined are turn-shoes: they are sewn together
inside out on a last (foot-shaped wood block). This makes turning the
shoe right-side-in very hard if you put a hard sole on it, even when you
do it with the leather soaking, sopping wet (as you should).
I have constructed several pairs of shoes using the techniques described
in the book, and one pair of thigh-high 15th century boots. The boots
use turn-welt construction, where an extra strip of leather (the welt,
or rand) is sewn between the inner sole and the vamp (top part of the
shoe) so that it protrudes when the shoe is turned; the welt is then used
to attach an outer sole that can be heavier (as the shoe has now been
turned). This method of construction came in in the 15th century.
The boots I have constructed are both very comfortable (more so than
my modern boots) and durable. Plus very fashionable.
Dafydd ap Gwystl David Kuijt
Barony of Storvik kuijt at umiacs.umd.edu
Kingdom of Atlantia (MD,DC,VA,NC,SC)
Shoes (was Re: authenticity)
19 Jun 92
From: ewright at convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
In <708926439.F00003 at blkcat.UUCP> Dave.Aronson at f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson) writes:
>Is the concept of separate laceability period?
I don't know what you mean by "the concept of separate laceability," so
I'm going to assume you mean shoe laces. The answer, then, is yes, shoe
laces are period. I don't know when shoe laces were invented, but I do
know they were in use by Elizabethan times. Satin ribbons were used as
laces, although I suspect that leather was also used when a less fancy
but more reliable lace was desired. Men who were smitten wore green shoe
laces (green being the color associated with lust or sexual desire.) By
the early 1600's, laces were often disguised with satin roses; whether
these roses were worn prior to 1600 is uncertain.
The American Footwear Association (that's probably not the right name,
but it's close -- the shoe industry association) has a booklet called, I
believe, "Shoes Through the Ages." You can buy a copy from the Amazon
Vinegar and Dry Goods Company in Davenport, Iowa (call Davenport information
for the number -- sorry, it's not toll-free) for a couple of bucks.
>And does anybody have any similarly simple patterns for GOOD (comfortable,
>and will hold out for a few Pennsics worth of use) period shoes?
There is a Laurel from one of the eastern kingdoms who sells patterns
for several styles of shoes (Tudor, Elizabethan, and, I think, an earlier
style also). She sold the patterns at last year's Pennsic and had some
sample shoes on display. As I recall, though, they were constructed of
a rather light leather and probably wouldn't take very much outdoor wear.
-- Nicholas van Leyden
Shoes (was Re: authenticity)
20 Jun 92
Nicholas van Leyden (ewright at convex.com (Edward V. Wright)) writes:
NvL> Dave.Aronson at f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org [...] writes:
DA> Is the concept of separate laceability period?
NvL> I don't know what you mean by "the concept of separate laceability,"
The idea of using one shoelace for the foot-part and ANOTHER one for the shin-part of a boot, so that for instance one may tie the foot snugly and the shin loosely.
From: huff at bronze.lcs.mit.EDU (Robert Huff)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Shoes, right and left (was: Hats and Dry History)
Date: 13 Jul 1993 23:34:27 -0400
Organization: The Internet
Ave!
"T. Archer" <PA142548 at utkvm1.utk.edu> says:
> Well, I think the footgear has the added deterrant that the difference
> between the left foot and the right foot was not detected until just
> before the American Civil War.
Respectfully, not so. Find:
_Shoes and Pattens_
(Medieval finds from excavations in London #2)
Francis Grew and Margrethe de Neergard
ISBN = 0-11-290443-2
Look at pages 60-74.
According to the professional re-enactors at Old Sturbridge
Village (early 19th century) undifferentiated shoes came in about the
time of the American Revolution. (I _think_ that's what was said.
Permission to quote is _not_ granted.)
> Or so I'm told. I "learned" that in a
> "class" at an SCA event, and the "instructor" wasn't a Degreed
> Historian, so her contributions Have No Value, and of course,
In this case, they are diminished by the (subjective) value of
the inacuraccy.
(Depends on when the course was taught, there may have been no
published material readily available. _S and P_ was published in 1988.
I have yet to find comparable documentation before then.)
Respectfully,
Diego Mundoz
Carolingia
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: houghtom at hfsi.hfsi.com (Mike Houghton)
Subject: Re: Hats and Dry History
Organization: HFSI
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 16:45:57 GMT
PA142548 at utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>Well, I think the footgear has the added deterrant that the difference
>between the left foot and the right foot was not detected until just before
>the American Civil War. Or so I'm told. I "learned" that in a "class" at
>an SCA event, and the "instructor" wasn't a Degreed Historian, so her
>contributions Have No Value, and of course, I'm
There are numerous examples of footwear from period with left and right shoes.
I believe that the Museum of London book on Shoes and Pattens will make this
clear. Perhaps others can give a more precise citation.
Herveus
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Hats and Dry History
From: vnend at nudity.UUCP (David W. James)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 07:53:48 -0500
T. Archer writes:
> Well, I think the footgear has the added deterrant that the difference
> between the left foot and the right foot was not detected until just before
> the American Civil War. Or so I'm told. I "learned" that in a "class" at
> an SCA event, and the "instructor" wasn't a Degreed Historian, so her
> contributions Have No Value, and of course, I'm
> Annoyingly Clueless
Well then, rather, I'd say that *that part* of the persons contribution
has *negative* value, rather than no value. A quick check of "Shoes and
Pattens: Medieval Finds from Excavations in London" finds, on page 10:
"All the shoes in the present collection, unlike those from 12th-century
Mittelburg described in Groenman-van Waateringe (1974, 113-4), can be
easily identified as either left or right; similarly, a right-food boot
and a left-foot last are reported from Anglo-Scandinavian York
(MacGregor 1982, 138 & Fig. 72 No. 627;144-5 & Fig.74)."
In a footnote. Since I don't recall a reference to an Amer. Civil War
in the early 10th century, I believe she was just wrong (either due to
lack of research or reliance on old, out of date research. Just between
you and me, I find the date she gave to be rediculously modern...)
Kwellend-Njal
Occational maker of shoes...
From: kuijt at umiacs.umd.edu (David Kuijt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Shoe myths
Date: 20 Jul 93 17:14:36 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Master Dafydd ap Gwystl greets the rialto after travelling for some
time without contact with its denizens.
Several people have written about shoes in the time I have been absent
from the rialto; here is my tuppence.
Undifferentiated shoes (shoes without a left/right foot) appear in the
seventeenth century, or _possibly_ in the late sixteenth. The probable
reason for the introduction of undifferentiated shoes is the new fashion
for heels, and their side-effects upon shoe construction. The reasoning
goes like this:
Throughout the medieval and rennaissance shoes were made on wooden lasts
(forms) shaped like a foot of the appropriate size. Raised heels did
not exist (exceptions noted for patens, which are really clogs or
overshoes, and not fully formed to the foot. Patens also did not have
a raised "heel" so much as a raised "foot"). A shoemaker would need
to have a pair of lasts for every size of shoe; perhaps a dozen or less
sizes (this is my guess, not scholarship).
Beginning in the late sixteenth century fashionable shoes began to have
heels. This caused major problems for shoe manufacturers, as they would
need a different last for every different height of heel (the shape of
the inside of the shoe changes significantly as the heel is raised and
the front of the foot stays on the ground) _in_each_size_. This would
vastly increase the number of lasts needed for a shoemaker. Instead
of needing, say, 12 sizes (all with no heels), he or she would need
12 sizes with perhaps 4, 6, or 8 heights of heel (number of different
heel heights are purely my guesswork). This would be 4-8 times as
many lasts as before.
Fashions in shoes changed significantly starting in the 16th century,
going from a more-or-less pointy-toed style to a very rounded toe,
and (in the middle of the 16th C.) even a deliberately blunt-toed
style. Pointy toes had been the rule from the 12th century or a little
earlier until the late 15th C.
During the late 15th C. shoe construction changed also. Up to that
point (from Viking times or earlier--I'm not sure about the starting
date) all shoes were made in the turn-shoe method. The introduction
of turn-welt construction allowed the introduction of heavier soles
in the late 15th century and the 16th century. This information
is well covered in _Shoes_and_Patens_ (van Niergaard).
So we have a bunch of changes happening in the early 16th century:
- rounded-toe shoe styles reappear in fashion
- turn-welt construction replaces turnshoes, allowing heavier soles
in the very late 16th century more changes occur
- raised heels start to appear in both shoes and boots
- turn-welt construction is replaced by true welted shoes
(modern mens black leather business shoes are welted shoes)
The last two changes must have necessitated extensive changes in
the construction of lasts for shoes. My belief is that the introduction
of undifferentiated shoes and boots in the early 17th century (this
date is not exact--perhaps +/-25 years) was driven by the shoemaking
industry trying to reduce the number and complexity of the lasts that
were needed. Needless to say, other reasonable theories exist. By
the middle 17th century, however, both shoes and boots were produced
without right and left feet, from undifferentiated lasts.
Some observations on undifferentiated shoes:
-- you need only 1/2 as many lasts to produce them (no L/R lasts, just one)
-- they are much less comfortable than the shoes produced with a left and
a right, at least until they have been worn in (a lot!)
It is tempting to think that undifferentiated shoes may have been
connected to the introduction of heels on shoes--introducing heels
more than doubles the number of lasts necessary to be a shoemaker;
having only one last per size/heel rather than a L/R version would
cut the number of lasts by 1/2. I like this theory, but I don't have
enough evidence to confirm it yet.
I apologize for being unable to produce citations to support the
statements I make here--much of the information I produce is from
van Niergaard. I am working in the Outlands for a month, and I