The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Appreciation Thread (Bespoke only)

[PiedBeau]

1561 = Last quarter of the 16th century

 

[rabiesinfrance]

No evidence prior to the last quarter of the 16th century i.e. 1575 - 1600.

However you look at it it's splitting hairs.

 

[DWFII]



I think she's wrong.

I do hate the...because there's no evidence, it must be so...argument. The correct answer is that we should keep an 'open mind' when it comes to such things, and wait for the evidence to turn up. Problem is that academics make careers out of there being no evidence, and their credibility depends on it. It breeds an arrogant attitude.

http://blog.aurorahistoryboutique.com/tag/medieval-history/

Who is Aurora history? How many pairs of shoes have they looked at over the last 60 years (assuming June Swann is 80 and has done this her whole life, that's how long she's at it). How many digs have they been on?

For that matter do they have an in-depth technical knowledge of how shoes are/were made such that they can interpret second tier evidence such as engravings and illustrations and paintings, and so forth?

I've seen that scenario so many times it gets a little old--some one sees a painting or a sculpture and wanting to believe one thing or the other, interprets it with no real knowledge of the time, the culture, the possibilities.

People look at a leine and see a kilt.Sure it's a common and easy to understand mistake but it's a mistake based on ignorance.

I am sure that June Swann has seen all the evidence...spurious or otherwise...all the evidence, all the paintings and illuminated manuscripts and so forth--this was/is her life. If there was any real evidence for heels prior to the late 16th century I can see no reason why she would not acknowledge it. If nothing else it would be a feather in her academic cap.

I might also add that the head of the Shoemaking faculty at Colonial Williamsburg , and maybe the foremost shoe historian/authority in the US, agrees wholeheartedly with June Swann. I personally know that he visits digs all over the world and has yet seen anything to convince him otherwise.

Believe me, I know where you (and others) are coming from. I'd like to believe heels date from earlier. It would fit so much better into my, admittedly, speculative image of history.

But like the saying goes..."if there's no photos, it didn't happen." If there's no hard evidence, it has to be classified as fantasy.

I suspect we all need to remember that there's more mis-information on the internet than there is real information.

 

[DWFII]



No evidence prior to the last quarter of the 16th century i.e. 1575 - 1600.

However you look at it it's splitting hairs.

It was my mistake...I am not an academic....I should have said mid to late 16th century. 1560's is the right time frame.

 

[rabiesinfrance]

Link was useful simply as shot at what's out there. The painting is more suggestive! It's a feather in my cap, sir, if it can be proved! It's not physical evidence though. Long story, but a mate of mine dug a Roman shoe 'workshop' in London, England. Found stuff that suggested heels. Not definitive.

I have the same academic training, and am also an archaeologist. Once saw a Viking leather knife scabbard fresh from the spoil heap in Dublin, Ireland. A real beauty.

Medieval peasant ploughing with Oxen, pushing them along. Of course he had heeled boots!

 

[bengal-stripe]

Jan van Eyck “Arnolfini Portrait” (also known as “Arnolfini Wedding”) - dated 1434

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-the-arnolfini-portrait

That looks pretty much like a pair of heels to me:

Dame Swann.

Not quite - June Swann MBE (former Keeper of the Boot and Shoe Collection, Northampton Museum)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire

 

[DWFII]



Jan van Eyck “Arnolfini Portrait” (also known as “Arnolfini Wedding”) - dated 1434

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-the-arnolfini-portrait

That looks pretty much like a pair of heels to me:

I believe those are "pattens". They are worn over shoes to keep shoes and feet out of the mud. If I am correct this is exactly the kind of misinterpretation June talks about.

I might also remark that my caveat was "as we know them."

 

[bengal-stripe]



I believe those are "pattens". They are worn over shoes to keep shoes and feet out of the mud."

They are probably clogs, 'proper' footwear, I cannot believe, some old mud-kickers would have been featured in this portrait, where nothing is present by chance. There are quite a few cultures where shoes/footwear have sexual meaning.

According to Harbison , the removal of shoes associated with the candle and the statue of St Margaret could all reflect “the couple’s love, sexual union, and the fruitfulness of the woman.

But, leaving that aside...............what is a 'heel' on footwear?

If we define it as a device to place the heel (of the foot) higher than the ball (of the foot), then this footwear fulfils the requirement: of a 'heel': the ball is placed distinctly lower than the heel (of the wearer).

 

[rabiesinfrance]

In all probability there were shoes and boots going way back when with heels, the point is whether they were in common use or not. That, I think, is a far more interesting point. Let Occam's Razor be your guide!

 

[emptym]

FWIW, one advantage of heels, leather or rubber, seems to be some measure of shock absorption.

 

[DWFII]



They are probably clogs, 'proper' footwear, I cannot believe, some old mud-kickers would have been featured in this portrait, where nothing is present by chance. There are quite a few cultures where shoes/footwear have sexual meaning.

They are not clogs. Forgive me, but you seem to be dismissing something you don't understand. There is a whole website here devoted to paintings of pattens. and in fact this painting from which the above pattens were taken was done by Jan van Eyck and is accompanied by the following description;

"Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife by Jan van Eyck, 1434
Both Giovanni and Giovanna have taken off their pattens -- they're indoors, after all. His wooden pattens are better visible in this detail, and hers, slightly more elegant and covered with red leather (or cloth?) are easier to find in this detail."​

Here are just a few of the many illustrations, paintings and...ahem...insights into pattens.

But, leaving that aside...............what is a 'heel' on footwear?

If we define it as a device to place the heel (of the foot) higher than the ball (of the foot), then this footwear fulfils the requirement: of a 'heel': the ball is placed distinctly lower than the heel (of the wearer).

That may be a good layman's definition but it's not technically correct nor is it correct from the standpoint of the shoemaker. Pardon me if I point out the obvious but this is again a matter of misinterpretation. If nothing else, and I can only speak as a shoemaker not for June Swann, the heel must be an integral part of the shoe.The fact that all these pattens are being worn with heel-less shoes tells you that heels are not part of the shoe concept yet.

 

[DWFII]



In all probability there were shoes and boots going way back when with heels, the point is whether they were in common use or not. That, I think, is a far more interesting point. Let Occam's Razor be your guide!

No evidence...it didn't happen. One of the reasons there is so much dreck on the net is because people conceive ideas that have no basis in reality or substantiating evidence and then make up scenarios to support those ideas.

Maybe there were heels everywhere. Maybe kilts were worn in the time of William Wallace. Maybe wrist watches were invented in 900AD. Maybe pigs do fly.

It's all fantasy until you can prove it. That's the point. Not what might have been...not what we wish it were.

 

[bengal-stripe]



No evidence...it didn't happen.

Where is your evidence for any additional footwear worn by the Arnolfinis?

Giovanni Arnolfini stands there in his sock. Do you really think that was an oversight by the artist?
Particular in a painting, where the whole iconography is worked out in the smallest detail.

Here are her shoes. Those are sandals which could be still worn today. Again the heel is higher than the ball
(not by a great deal, but nevertheless). In modern terminology we can talk about 'a slight wedge heel'.

Various features of The Arnolfini Portrait are associated with matrimony: the couple has removed their shoes in recognition of its sanctity, transforming the bedchamber into a holy place.

Can you give me an explanation, why the couple, wearing their Sunday-best, wanted to be featured with their mud-kickers? Those filthy and stinking pattens would have been left just inside the house at the door and not taken into their bedchamber. The footwear they have taken off, might have been their ‘slippers’ to potter about the house, but there is no evidence those would have been worn with additional footwear.

Outside the house, things might have been totally different.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those are pattens (utility footwear) of the Regency period. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to show off those.

http://www.janeausten.co.uk/magazine/page.ihtml?pid=456&step=4

 

[DWFII]



Where is your evidence for any additional footwear worn by the Arnolfinis?

Giovanni Arnolfini stands there in his sock. Do you really think that was an oversight by the artist?
Particular in a painting, where the whole iconography is worked out in the smallest detail.

Look more closely. Giovanni is not wearing socks. Those "shoes" have a sole on them. Medieval shoes were often little more than leather "socks." At a guess, I'd say they look like typical turnshoes of the time.Look at more of the paintings from that time.

Rather than ask why the couple is standing around inside in their socks, ask why are all those other people running around outdoors in their "socks." If socks they are.

I don't know that we can say definitively that her pattens are higher at the heel. Although it is clear from the illustration sheet that pattens may have had heels that were higher than the ball of the foot. Her pattens however are shaped like medieval lasts--that typical hourglass shape that is so pinched in what we would call the waist.

You're missing an important part of the puzzle however and perhaps it is because you are not a maker. It was not self-evident, in the middle ages, how to support the heel in a leather shoe. Nor was it self-evident how to carve a last to make the foot comfortable at higher heel heights. Just as importantly, it wasn't self-evident how to incorporate a heel into a shoe...especially one made of soft leather with no arch/shank support.

It is one thing to carve a block of wood to fit under the foot it is quite another to make a heel on a shoe.

And after all of that, it's a red herring to talk about pattens or clogs. They aren't shoes. For all (and more ) of the reasons just mentioned.

I didn't invent pattens. Nor did I invent the way they were used. You're ordinarily pretty savvy on this stuff but I suspect you need to brush up on this one.

I would suggest Footwear of the Middle Ages

He talks about pattens too.

 

[luk-cha]

nar the triple is , for me at least one step further than these

these are kind of triple?

dunno - could be i guess, but not in the JM Weston ideal