Bottoming techniques

[carsten]

Out of curiosity:

Why do we make heels? Is it purely for aesthetic reasons? I read that walking bare foot is supposed to be the most healthy way to treat the foot. So I guess a flat sole without any heel should be the natural choice for a shoe and there are companies which sell these kind of shoes.

My theory is that the heel originally developed because the heel takes more wear than any other part of the shoe so it may have been originally an attempt of pure reinforcement on the back side to extend the lifetime of the shoe. Also of course it can’t hurt to appear somewhat taller in society to demonstrate authority – so maybe this is why it grew over time.

Is this naive or are there bio-mechanic or technical reasons for the heel lifts that I don’t see?

[PhilipB1]

I spent many years walking exclusively in bare-foot shoes with no heal, still do sometimes. It helped the health of my feet, particularly developing a good and flexible arch. Haven't yet got on to making heel-less shoes, but I prefer a low heel on the ones I make. Making a heel-less shoe for outside wear, I've thought about it and it seems to me a sole with a "rocker" finish at the heel end is probably the best option. It's a project I've got in the planning for later this year (so far have started a pattern). I'm normally working with a last built for a 19mm heel. If you don't put the heel on, the upper gets quite a bit of distortion - the last needs some reprofiling of the bottom for such a large change of heel height. Would be interested in hearing ideas from those who have built such shoes.

Before the dress shoe became standardised (around the end of the 19th century?), there was period when shoes were made with very low heels, often only 1 lift, often stitched. Not so good for the horse riding, I expect, and although today's makers of dress shoes expect rather higher heels (3/4" being a minimum) it's interesting to see the shoes in Vass's book having comparatively low heels.

[dw]

If you're looking for some 'first cause' reason, I suspect @das might have some good reliable answers.

But IMO, one of the major factors was the horse. Heels keep your foot in the stirrup and help you control the stirrup and the horse. Then too, only the nobility could afford a horse and by extension, the nobility wore heels--if for no other reason than that horses and heels elevated a man above the common folk. "Well heeled." "down at the heels." "Up on his high horse."

So utility yes, but aesthetics (or envy) too.

IMO...

[carsten]

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. Yes would be interesting to hear what @das thinks about it. Horse makes sense and of course size is important too, especially if you look at women shoes. However if there is no other biomechanical or technical reason, I find it a bit puzzling that we and especially running athlets (who´s soles are also not flat) permanently and willingly give up maybe 1-2cm of sural muscle action range by lifting heel with a heel stack and thereby incline the foot out of its natural position. Surely this should have some effect in sports.

Well anyway - I also prefer the shoes as they are - but who knows, maybe this is only because for me they were always like they are now.

[bcFour]

fwiw:

https://shoegazing.com/2020/03/29/history-heels/

[dw]

Well, ^ this can be very misleading. Since @das has not jumped in, I will pass on some info that he told to me years ago (and hope that i don't get it too wrong):

June Swann, Past Keeper of the Collection at the Northampton Shoe Museum, and who was / is considered the foremost 'shoe historian' in the world, has said that heels "as we know them" do not appear in the Literature, Arts or the Historical Record until the last quarter of the 16th century.

In that context and in the minds of historians... or anyone who regards history as more than fanciful speculation and wishful thinking... if there is no record, we cannot say it happened. "if there are no photos, it never happened."

I had a hard time with this concept myself. And the Persian shoe, at least, seems to offer concrete evidence that flies in the face of Ms. Swann's assertion. However, as has been pointed out to me the phrase "as we know them" is key to understanding this.

The Persian shoes clearly have what, for all the world, appears to be a heel.... until you realize that these shoes were never meant to be walked in. IIRC, these "heels" were often made of horn. They look like a heel...kind of...but they didn't function as a heel. They were for riding only--to keep the foot in the stirrup.

Similarly, Mongolian marauders sweeping into Eastern Europe were reported to have attached blocks of wood to the bottom of their boots to prevent the foot from sliding through the stirrup.

I suspect the point about not "functioning" as a heel is the salient one... and the only consideration that we, as shoemakers, can embrace--if only because it speaks to "why" as well as "how."

IMO.

If the physiology of the foot would allow it, and the horn (or block of wood) had been fastened at the front of the shoe instead of the back (again, to prevent the foot from slipping out of the stirrup) would we still call it a 'heel?'

[das]

Sorry for not "jumping in", but was trying to get some crops planted before the rain set in. To hopefully clarify June's quote, heels as we know them are not in evidence (in art, literature, archaeology) in Western Europe much until the later 1500s. By that date (in Europe) there were several types, forms, and very varied constructions of heels to such an extent that it suggests to me there was no single source (see: ). Keep in mind humans had been successfully riding horses for eons, long before there were stirrups, much less heels.

Much ink has been spilled and trees made into paper on this subject, even a few sacred cows have been slaughtered. The best piece of currant scholarship on heels is: But like most things, there are still scholarly arguments, doubts, and contrary opinions on much of it. At its best, historical scholarship does an adequate job of answering "who?", "where?", and "when?" questions, but not "why?" questions. So, why were heels introduced? We may never know for certain. And, those Persian "hook" heels are a dead end on the family tree of heels, better look to Poland and the "Polony" heels of the early 1600s for a more likely direct influence on Western Europe for male boots and shoes.

[carsten]

Thank you for your answers everyone. Amazing, that there does not seem to be a firm technical reason for having the heel, especially if driving costs down has always been a big motivation in almost every apect of life. Particularly because leather heels are expensive as they consume a considerable amount of leather.

As much as keeping the foot in the stirrups makes sense and appart from the point that people rode horses without heels before, in the past the majority of people proably did not have the luxury to own a horse. But on the other hand it may have been just the affordable thing to give you more resemblence with the higher ups of the world at the time.

I am not firm in orthopaedics. Therefore, aside from aethetics, for our present time I only see three technical reasons where heels might have an advantage: Walking down hill, where the heel can act as some kind of hook, for bike riding (same purpose) and extended lifetime since more material can be worn off - all of which however require a real heel. The elevated heel sections of flat sole sneakers on the other hand maybe only makes sense for dampening the impact on the heel/spine when jogging - question however remains if this is needed at all - apparently nefore the 1500s the human was running just fine without it.

[das]

Or, they walked differently than we do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EszwYNvvCjQ

[PhilipB1]

It's an excellent video. As a long time wearer of "barefoot shoes" (no heel, thin flat sole) I do walk exactly like this and it promotes a heathy foot (and leg, core muscles, posture, etc). And the modern barefoot shoes are fine for city and country alike.

From what I understand the forward ball part of the foot is for agility and movement whilst the back heel part of the foot is for resting on when stationary. It's interesting that when walking barefoot you are using mostly the ball and the heel just grazes the ground; when you stop walking momentarily your muscles are still "toned" and your heel stays ever-so-slightly raised; it's not until the muscles relax when stationary that the heel drops to the ground. The "toned" stationary foot position is roughly the equivalent of a relaxed foot in a shoe with a low heel (maybe 6mm or so of heel lift), which I believe is roughly the amount of heel lift in typical trainers, as worn by the majority of people most of the time these days.

It also means when walking in a barefoot way, you are not going to wear out the heel of a shoe.

@das do you know where I can find instructions or guidance on how to make a medieval boot as worn in the video you posted?

[das]

@PhilipB1 No how-to DIY Medieval shoemaking manual per se,but Goubitz's 'Stepping Through Time' is as close as one might get (see above).

[carsten]

Or, they walked differently than we do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EszwYNvvCjQ

Very interesting concept. If that is true, I think one should be able to notice an evolutionary change in the density/ structure of the heelbone if we compare old skeletons with new ones.


------------------
Apparently "the bangles" also studied the subject of human walking and even made a song about it....

[carsten]

@PhilipB1 , there is one book in German:
Title "Kleidung des Mittelalters selbst anfertigen - Schuhe des Hoch- und Spätmittelalters"
Author: Stefan von der Heide
ISBN: 978-3-938922-24-8

[carsten]

@das : I just noticed that there are some disclaimers for the video:

"Dr Volken's paper (and a 2019 article in a French magazine named "Moyen Âge") fails to present convincing evidence for this gait to have been used by each and everyone, leave alone having been predominant, as stated on p. 27 at the end of the first paragraph."

See:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/13655286

[PhilipB1]

Thank you both for the references.

@carsten we can't know for certain how ancient people walked and ran, but the communities that still walk and run barefoot today do so from the ball, not the heel of the foot. The thesis being presented in the video is not revolutionary and there are other videos and articles about the different ways of walking and running. How you move is largely governed by your foot ware, or lack of it.

[carsten]

@PhilipB1 ,
I think you are right - it all depends. When walking barefoot on stony ground or in difficult terrain it makes a lot of sense to use the ball first. Carrying heavy loads on good soft ground is another story.
- We are not robots.

[das]

Coming at this more from the experimental-archaeology end of things, never having worn "Medieval" shoes, but plenty of heelless moccasins BITD they alter your gait a bit away from heavy heel-strike.

[dw]

It would be interesting to look at this from an archeological perspective--what do the artifacts say? Are recovered medieval shoes worn down at the ball more than the heel or vice-versa.

FWIW, contemporary ballroom and Latin dancers... at least serious dancers... dance on the balls of there feet. Probably always have. And HEMA practiitoners seem to favour that approach, as well.

[PhilipB1]

Boxers also, I believe, dance on the balls.

I've got some basic test shoes which I made up, 4mm insole, cemented upper, nothing else (no outsole, midsole, filler, heel, etc). I would guess this must be pretty close to one of those medieval boots? Just tried walking on grass and on concrete slabs outside the house; there is no way you can put the heels down first, you have to walk on the balls.

@das with those old medieval boots, are we talking turn shoe construction? Unlined? One layer of leather for the sole (combined in and out)? Any idea what sort of thickness of sole leather?

[das]

Have a gander at Olaf's book. Pretty balanced wear IIRC, not severe heel abrasion. Mid-late 1500s some with a single heel lift pegged-on above the outer sole in advance of/anticipating wear there. A "proto" heel?

[dw]

FWIW-- I can't vouch for the authenticity although the guy seems to know what he's doing for Eastern European stuff, but it looks good to my admittedly 'uneducated' eye:

https://www.instagram.com/finecraftsstudio/

[das]

@PhilipB1 Correct turnshoe construction only, no insole at all. Outer soles in the 2.2 to 2.4 +/- range.

[das]

@dw Not on Instagram, so can't see. HCC member Marquita Volken's Gentle Craft Shoe Museum in CH does about the most accurate repros (not generally for commercial sale) IMO, plus Medieval shoe archaeology and conservation: https://www.facebook.com/Gentle-Craft-S ... 434368584/

[dw]

@das

Not on Facebook so can't see.

The guy in Eastern Europe (Fine Crafts Studio) does sell commercially, AFAIK. Several times on Instagram, IIRC, he has referred to an original medieval shoe he was replicating.

That said, anyone should be able to click on the link and at least see his IG page.

[carsten]

Well, I would have never imagined that my question would spark such a lively discussion.
I find it very interesting and really appreciate it. Thanks for taking the time to think about it and for sharing your ideas.