Through the Mists of Time...

[mephit]

Indeed. I wonder what other reasons there could be for the weakening of the toe bones like that? I know the article is hardly conclusive, but what other interpretations can folks come up with?

[marc]

If you back track through the articles, you can get to the original article, which is a fascinating read, by the way, and there the author really details his assumptions and his data pools. One of his principle assumptions is that footwear has a semi-rigid base, and regular wear causes those bones to atrophy. Ok, fair enough (and by the way, I have no problems with the assumption that footwear goes back that far - more over I like the idea). Woven soles might qualify as semi-rigid, but I'm not sure the single piece raw hide shoes will be - of course they might well be.

Other things that might cause that sort of atrophy? I know that I have always spent as much time barefoot as possible, and after about the hundredth time I'd kicked something and broken those little toes, they've never grown really well

Marc

[m.volken]

Will have to back track through those articles, it is certainly an interesting idea. I think you are right in questioning that the early shoes are as rigid as made out- there are many factors that could influence such a developement. a defect in lower blood circulation could also cause slow growth, simple starvation during childhood, hereditary deformation ( certainly something to think about if all the people come from the same area. One would think that if this theory is correct then modern western populations with many generations of wearing stout shoes would also then have the same problem- if not worse. If neolithic shoes are any indication, then hard soled rigid shoes are out of the question, even when made of rawhide. continual movement of rawhide does make it flexible, and such shoes seem to have been worn with moss or other filling matieral, making a soft cocoon around the foot. The rigid bark shoes ( like the one from the Lake of Neuchatel) seem to be worn more like mules, leaving the foot free to flex when walking, and were also worn with soft filling. The rope type woven shoes are completely soft and pliable. So other than wearing wooden planks bound tightly to the entire foot, I can't see how any of the extant prehistoric footwear indicate the use of 'supportive' footwear. A mystery from the mists of time.

[marc]

The original article is Trinkaus, Erik. Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2004) pp 1515-26.

Marc

[M.Volken]

Thanks a million Marc for the full citation, will look at it when I find time. One thing that is well known from the osteological studies is the change of arthritis due to the change of walking method around the end of the 15th beginning 16th, the damage moves from the hips to the knees- corresponding to the change from turnshoes and few paved roads to the welted shoe and more paved roads. How that fits in with Trinkaus ideas I can't figure.

[marc]

I don't know either - I'm not seeing much here on arthritis.

Curious, I’m wondering about this research. The change from turned shoes wasn't something that occurred immediately was it? I mean they were soon pushed to the margins as footwear for servants and the poor for at least another century or so. That’s not to even mention the rural poor who were probably wearing the more ephemeral single piece style of shoes that hadn’t changed much since the dawn of time, but don’t survive in the ground. So are they just looking at examples from the urban middle and upper classes?

Marc

[mephit]

Hmmm.... I'm not sure I'd discount the semi-rigid sole idea easily. The point of shoes is to protect the feet (at least a bit) from weather and from the ground. Sharp rocks hurt and can still cut when you walk on them wearing just a heavy sock or something of similar rigidity. If we are to assume the above point for developing shoes is correct, we'd have to assume the sole is stiff enough to do some protecting, correct?

I've yet to read the article since they want $30 from me to do it. It said in the Science Daily article that the bones were Eurasian in origin. Does he go into more detail in the original article as to where they were living? Like, were they in the Caucasus, or on the Steppes or in the forests of northern Europe, or in the Mediterranian? That could make a difference as to the types of soles.

As for breaking toes, that leaves pretty distinctive marks on the bones so one would hope he'd be able to tell. :-)

Could it perhaps be the confining nature of the shoe that limits movement rather than the total rigidity of the sole? Even if the shoe is filled with padding, it could still affect the formation and shape of the toes. Also, the toes can no longer grip as effectively, so they wouldn't necessarily need to be as strong as they had been.

[M. Volken]

Note that the change in shoes (from turnshoe to welted) is in combination with a change in european city size, street paving, and increased mobility of the population( a largly pedestrian population at that) and the change in arthritis damage area, so it is difficult to pinpoint an exact date, but the change seems to have happened within less than three generations. The change from damage in the hips to the knees is used by archaeologists who study human bones as a 'marker' for determining if a skeleton is pre or post 16th century in the cases when no date at all is available for the bones. This kind of skeletal damage is the result of a lifetime of walking. The scrawny small toes supposedly caused by rigid paleolithic shoes would have to be related to the individual's growth and development, so the period from birth to about 12 to 13 years old. How this rigid shoe would then affect the individual growth rates of those particular bones among a population spanning thousands of years is beyound my comprehension. Even the most primitive of early humans could not have been so stupid as to wear painful rigid crippling shoes for hundreds of generations. Darwin and survival of the fittest is all and well, but this theory seems to imply that the small toe bones 'de-evolved' due to an introduced constant condition in the form of shoes, so a case of the survival of the least adapted. Just because a bone no longer 'needs' to be strong does not mean that it atrophies in an entire population- humans have not been subject to being hit on heads with axes, swords or pikes for several hundred years yet our skulls have not become eggshell thin due to the lack of being hit.

[marc]

M.,
I'm pretty sure that he's not trying to suggest an evolutionary change. Simply that the wearing of shoes causes bone changes that can be identified in the archaeology (much like being able to identify a professional archer or tailor, or a regular pipe smoker by changes to their skeleton brought on by long term repeated behavior.

Universal bone damage would have to result, if it caused by footwear, by everyone wearing shoes all the time. During an ice age, this is not unreasonable to assume.

I am aware that there were changes in the skeleton pre and post 1500, I'm just not sure I'd ascribe them to the transition from turnshoes, since it wasn't a universal change.

Since I can not legally repost the article, I'm trying to come up with a reasonable abstract of what he's saying.

Marc

[Other Volken]

I wonder if a statistical survey of populations wearing shoes versus population that don't would be more enlightening on the subject. Is there any known?

[marc]

He does that as part of the same study. There is no direct citation I;'m seeing to an earlier study
------------
Trinkaus, Erik. Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2004) pp 1515-26.

Abstract:
“Archeological evidence suggests that footwear was in use by at least the middle Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) in portions of Europe, but the frequency of use and the mechanical protection provided are unclear from these data. A comparative biomechanical analysis of the proximal pedal phalanges of western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic and middle Upper Paleolithic humans, in the context of those of variably shod recent humans, indicates that supportive footwear was rare in the Middle Paleolithic, but that it became frequent by the middle Upper Paleolithic. This interpretation is based principally on the marked reduction in the robusticity of the lesser toes in the context of little or no reduction in overall lower limb locomotor robusticity by the time of the middle Upper Paleolithic.”

Other evidence for antiquity of footwear:
* North American woven sandals (6500-9000 BP):
(Sources: L.S. Cressman, Western prehistory in the light of carbon 14 dating, Southwest J. Anthropol 7 (1951) 289–313., L.S. Cressman, F.C. Baker, P.S. Conger, H.P. Hansen and R.F. Heizer, Archaeological researches in the Northern Great Basin, Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub 538 (1942), pp. 1–158. P.R. Geib, AMS dating of plain-weave sandals from the central Colorado Plateau, Utah Archaeol 9 (1996), pp. 35–54. P.R. Geib, Sandal types and Archaic prehistory on the Colorado Plateau, Am, Antiq 65 (2000), pp. 509–524. J.T. Kuttruff, S.G. DeHart and M.J. O'Brien, 7500 years of prehistoric footwear from Arnold Research Cave, Missouri, Science 281 (1998), pp. 72–75)

* Late Upper Paleolithic of France, from the Grotte de Fontanet, of a footprint in a soft substrate interpreted as having been made by a foot wearing a soft and flexible moccasin-like covering (Sources: J. Clottes, Les Cavernes de Niaux, Seuil, Paris (1995). J. Delteil, P. Durbas and L. Wahl, Présentation de la galerie ornée de Fontanet (Ornolac-Ussat-les-Bains, Ariège), Bull. Soc. Préhist, Ariège 27 (1972), pp. 11–20)

* Sunghir beads that had been sewn around clothing around the feet (only the beads survive) (23,000 BP and 24,000 BP) (Sources: N.O. Bader, Upper Palaeolithic Site Sungir (Graves and Environment) (in Russian), Scientific World, Moscow (1998), P.B. Pettitt and N.O. Bader, Direct AMS radiocarbon dates for the Sungir mid Upper Palaeolithic burials, Antiquity 74 (2000), pp. 269–270.)

* However, Footprints in European Upper Paleolithic parietal art caves and karstic systems (going back to 30,000 BP) shoe unshod feet. (Sources: C. Barrière and A. Sahly, Les empreintes humaines de Lascaux. In: E. Ripoll, Editor, Miscelánea en Homenaje al Abate Henri Breuil (1877–1961) 1, Instituto de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Diputación Provincial de Barcelona, Barcelona (1964), pp. 173–180. J. Delteil, P. Durbas and L. Wahl, Présentation de la galerie ornée de Fontanet (Ornolac-Ussat-les-Bains, Ariège), Bull. Soc. Préhist, Ariège 27 (1972), pp. 11–20. M.A. Garcia, Les empreintes et les traces humaines et animales. In: J. Clottes, Editor, La Grotte Chauvet. L'Art des Origines, Seuil, Paris (2001), pp. 34–43. L. Pales, Les empreintes de pieds humains de la “Grotta della Bàsura,” Riv, Studi Liguri 26 (1960), pp. 25–90. L. Pales, Les empreintes de pieds humains dans les cavernes, Arch. Inst. Paléontol. Hum 36 (1976), pp. 1–166. H.V. Vallois, Les empreintes de pieds humains des grottes préhistoriques du midi de la France, Palaeobiologica 4 (1931), pp. 79–98. C. Zervos, L'Art de l'Epoque du Renne en France, Editions “Cahiers d'Art,” Paris, 1959.)

* An isolated footprint in Vârtop Cave (Romania) , probably from a Neandertal given its age; it was made by a barefoot person and probably an habitually unshod one given the degree of medial divergence of the hallux (Source: B.P. Onac, I. Viehmann, J. Lundberg, S.E. Lauritzen, C. Stringer and V. Popiţă, U-Th ages constraining the Neanderthal footprint at Vârtop Cave, Romania, Quatern. Sci. Rev 24 (2005), pp. 1151–1157. C.M. Musiba, R.H. Tuttle, B. Hallgrimsson and D.M. Webb, Swift and sure-footed on the savanna: a study of Hadzabe gaits and feet in northern Tanzania, Am. J. Hum. Biol 9 (1997), pp. 303–321)

* Upper Paleolithic people were using fibers to make cords. (Sources: J.M. Adovasio, D.C. Hyland and O. Soffer, Textiles and cordage: A Preliminary Assessment. In: J. Svoboda, Editor, Pavlov I – Northwest. The Upper Paleolithic Burial and its Settlement Context, Dolní Věstonice Studies 4 (1997), pp. 403–424. J.M. Adovasio, D.C. Hyland, O. Soffer and B. Klíma, Perishable industries and the colonization of the East European plain. In: P.B. Drooker, Editor, Fleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeological Research. Ctr. Archaeol. Invest., South. Ill. Univ. Carbondale Occ. Pap 28 (2001), pp. 285–313. B. Delluc, G. Delluc and L'accès aux parois In: A. Leroi-Gourhan and J. Allain, Editors, Lascaux Inconnu, C.N.R.S., Paris (1979), pp. 175–184.)

* Evidence of Cordage has has been found at Mezhirich (Ukraine) and Kosoutsy (Moldova) after 17,000 B.P (Source: J.M. Adovasio, D.C. Hyland and O. Soffer, Textiles and cordage: A Preliminary Assessment. In: J. Svoboda, Editor, Pavlov I – Northwest. The Upper Paleolithic Burial and its Settlement Context, Dolní Věstonice Studies 4 (1997), pp. 403–424)

* Evidence of Cordage has has been found at Ohalo II (Israel) (19,000 BP) (Source: D. Nadel, A. Danin, E. Werker, T. Schick, M.E. Kislev and K. Stewart, 19,000-year-old twisted fibers from Ohalo II, Curr. Anthropol 35 (1994), pp. 451–458)

* Evidence of Cordage has has been found at the Moravian sites of Pavlov I and Dolní Věstonice I and II (25-27K BP) (Source: J.M. Adovasio, D.C. Hyland and O. Soffer, Textiles and cordage: A Preliminary Assessment. In: J. Svoboda, Editor, Pavlov I – Northwest. The Upper Paleolithic Burial and its Settlement Context, Dolní Věstonice Studies 4 (1997), pp. 403–424). J.M. Adovasio, D.C. Hyland, O. Soffer and B. Klíma, Perishable industries and the colonization of the East European plain. In: P.B. Drooker, Editor, Fleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeological Research. Ctr. Archaeol. Invest., South. Ill. Univ. Carbondale Occ. Pap 28 (2001), pp. 285–313)

* A number of the middle Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) figurines provide indications of woven apparel (Source: O. Soffer, J.M. Adovasio and D.C. Hyland, The “Venus” figurines: textiles, basketry, gender, and status in the Upper Paleolithic, Curr, Anthropol 41 (2000), pp. 511–537)

* None of the few human depictions that preserve feet furnish evidence of footwear Source: J.M. Adovasio, D.C. Hyland and O. Soffer, Textiles and cordage: A Preliminary Assessment. In: J. Svoboda, Editor, Pavlov I – Northwest. The Upper Paleolithic Burial and its Settlement Context, Dolní Věstonice Studies 4 (1997), pp. 403–424). H. Delporte, L'Image de la Femme dans l'Art Préhistorique, second ed., Picard, Paris, 1993.) [The debatable cave paintings notwithstanding – marc]

* Probable depictions of boots are present among the ceramics from Pavlov I (Source: O. Soffer, personal communication, 2005.)

From these and the evidence of clothing manufacture “It is likely … that some form of footwear was being routinely, if not universally, employed by the middle Upper Paleolithic.”

“3. A biomechanical scenario for the antiquity of footwear
In the context of these archeological observations, it is appropriate to ask whether there might be human anatomical reflections of the antiquity of footwear. Since the foot provides the contact between the body and the substrate, and since the use of footwear with a semi-rigid sole will alter the distribution of mechanical forces through the foot, it might be possible to perceive differences in the relative hypertrophy of portions of the foot in response to changes in habitual biomechanical loads through the pedal skeleton. It should be noted that all of these Late Pleistocene humans, on the basis of footprints and skeletal remains, had feet which functioned in the same basic manner as those of recent humans” (Sources : R. Mann and V.T. Inman, Phasic activity of intrinsic muscles of the foot, J. Bone Joint Surg 46A (1964), pp. 469–481. E. Trinkaus, Functional aspects of Neandertal pedal remains, Foot Ankle 3 (1983), pp. 377–390. E. Trinkaus, The lower limb remains. In: E. Trinkaus and J.A. Svoboda, Editors, Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe: The People of Dolní Věstonice and Pavlov, Oxford University Press, New York (2005), pp. 380–418. B. Vandermeersch, Les Hommes Fossiles de Qafzeh (Israël), C.N.R.S., Paris, 1981)

“Unfortunately, analyses of frequently unshod extant humans and their footprints provide little data on pedal loading patterns. They have primarily established similar patterns of subtalar weight-distribution across human populations, and they have noted the generally lower levels of hallux valgus and greater anterior pedal breadth in feet without constricting footwear. (Sources: N.A. Barnicot and R.H. Hardy, The position of the hallux in west Africans, J. Anat 89 (1955), pp. 355–361. D.J. Meldrum, Fossilized Hawaiian footprints compared with Laetoli hominid footprints. In: D.J. Meldrum and C.E. Hilton, Editors, From Biped to Strider, Kluwer, New York (2004), pp. 63–83. C.M. Musiba, R.H. Tuttle, B. Hallgrimsson and D.M. Webb, Swift and sure-footed on the savanna: a study of Hadzabe gaits and feet in northern Tanzania, Am. J. Hum. Biol 9 (1997), pp. 303–321. L. Pales, C. Chippaux and H. Pineau, Le pied dans les races humaines, J. Soc. Océanistes 16 (1960), pp. 45–90).

At this point he starts to develop a model of the pedal loading patterns of the habitually shod foot based on clinical data, which I believe may be one of the major risks in this article, although he does seem to be using it to describe what should be happening in the shod foot as a person walks, not as a generic model (although since he does suggest that there is little difference between this process for the shod foot and the unshod foot, citing 5 articles, he may well be trying to demonstrate what he believes is a universal model).

To do this analysis, he used the following six sample sets:

1 Middle Paleolithic Neandertals from La Chapelle-aux-Saints, La Ferrassie, Kiik-Koba, Regourdou, Shanidar, Spy and Tabun.
2. Middle Paleolithic early modern humans from Qafzeh and Skhul. The third sample is of middle Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) humans predating ca. 18,000 14C years B.P. from the sites of Barma Grande, Caviglione, Cro-Magnon, Dolní Ve˘stonice I & II, Ohalo II, Paglicci, Pataud, Předmostí and Veneri (Parabita).
3. Upper Middle Paleolithic samples from Bordul Mare, Livadilţa and Minatogawa and Krapina, Sima de los Huesos and Gran Dolina although he was not clear in his article which ones he actually used, and which ones were too incomplete.

He notes that all the preceding are incomplete skeletons and all but one were done using casts rather than the original bones.

He compares these to samples from

4. Late prehistoric/early historic Native Americans Pecos Pueblo (New Mexico) and may have either been habitually unshod or wore woven sandals.
5. Prehistoric (Ipiutak) and primarily protohistoric (Tigara) Inuits from Point Hope (Alaska) from the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, New York. It’s virtually certain that they would have been regularly shod.
6. Late 20th century Euroamericans (collections of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico), all of whom habitually wore industrially manufactured rigid-soled shoes.

The statistics and figures all seem to suggest that Population 1 (Neandertal) had big boned feet. Population 2 had much smaller bones in their feet. Population 3 even smaller than that – on par with the figures for population 5. Population 4 the numbers jump back up, althought hey do covered the widest range of measurements. Population 6 smallest of all.

Marc

[Other Volken]

Thanks Marc, I'm impressed. You must have spent quite some time looking up all that info and typing it in for us. To me that is just another proof of your already well known dedication.

Obviously as soon as mankind started to wear clothing, there shouldn't be any reason why they wouldn't have had thought about footwear too. So no question there.

The idea about footwear having an influence on the evolution of the foot is plausible indeed, and certainly raises a point. But at this stage it still is at a level of philosophical speculation. Nobody can prove it totally right or wrong but can only agree or disagree to the idea. Well what else could we do with so little evidence? A feasible statistic would require a larger quantity of comparisons, but there isn't that much around to start with.

Comparing of groups from different continents and different populations, even species, evolving in different climatic conditions, that at no time had any contact with each other is interesting. But it still seems a bit far fetched to use this data as an evidence. But what would I know about it, I'm no anthropologist after all. It just bugs me that he uses Neanderthal as a reference for establishing an evolutionary link to Homo-sapiens. That would be like comparing apes and monkeys for we know that we did not evolve from the Neanderthal but that we where cousins that did not seem to get along that fine, since poor Neanderthal got exterminated. Some even speculate that we ate them (yeurk).

But still that paper raises certainly a few very interesting points and I regret, that nobody has had the idea to do a thorough analysis of non-shod populations vs. shod once since the statistical accuracy is increased by a far more numerous potential.

[marc]

Other,
I agree - I wish there were a lot of things that could be studied, or had been studied back when the opportunity existed.

I still think that the problem is with the term "evolution". My take on the article is that he's not talking about evolution. He's simply talking about changes in an individual's life time that can alter the shape of their bones, and whether or not those bones after the person's death can tell us anything about them.

I was thinking initially of using chinese foot binding as an example - but to use one that's a little less extreme - late 20th century women's shoes. I know a good many women who've had permanent bone deformation and shaping through years of wearing women's dress shoes. I think his position is that wearing any semi-rigid shoes will cause that kind of change (not that severe of course).

Lamarkian evolution would suggest that these changes would be biologically passed on to the next generation, as opposed to culturally passing them on. And we know that this is not true. All that is required to not have women who have those deformed feet is to not have them wear those shoe for years at a time.

Darwinian evolution only kicks in if there's some reason that having an easily atrophied little toe is for some reason going to improve your chances for reproduction. And even then these changes take a really long time to get past the individual variation stage.

Clearly more research is required

Marc

[proxy_posting]

Kind of along the same lines of our discussion over in "Rants..." this was sent by Miss June Swann:

LXXIX. On Shooe makers.

Where th' Shooe-maker's assur'd there's ready Pay,
He'll make choice Ware for such, observe their Day;
And for his Stuff, together with his Pains,
For ready Cash he's pleas'd with moderate Gains;
But where he knows your Pay's of longer date,
Then patiently you must his leisure wait:
Then rotten Neat, or Calf and Neat together,
With inner Soles put in of base Horse Leather;
And such deceitful Stuff to you he'll bring,
Yet have the Face to brazen out the thing;
The Ware is firm and good upon his Word;
Tells you none such to others he'll afford;
All which is true, for they must better have,
You grope not out the meaning of the Knave;
And then a Price he sets (for 'tis his Trade)
Higher than on the choicest Ware is made.
Thus they that Money lack, have th'hardest Fate,
They're cheated first, then pay excessive Rate.


(Menton's Paecuniae obediunt omnia: Money masters all things, 1698).

Emmett

[admin]

This is a very old satirical poem of greater length than presented. This portion is aimed at the Shoemaker's Trade. It is presented to illustrate how to survive as a shoemaker.

Those who wish to analyze or comment can do so in "Rants..." in the subtopic "Hmmmm..." where another copy will be posted.

Yr. Hmb. Svt.

[ted_andrews]

I would appreciate knowing where I may find Bally men's shoe catalogs from the 1930s-40s and Bally men's shoe advertisements from this time period.

Thanks for your help with this.

Ted Andrews

[das]

Edward,

Bally Shoe HQ in Schonenwerd, Switzerland had a great museum and company archives when I visited them in the mid-1990s. Since then Bally has been bought-out by a Texas-based group, and is being "reorganized". As far as I know the museum is closed, but the archive is still there at HQ. Perhaps you can find them on-line? I no longer have a contact person there, and I have no idea how "inquirer friendly" they are to archival requests, but it's worth trying. I'm sure they have the catalogues--they had a huge room of sample shoes and pull-overs going all the back to their "first" models, so I'm sure they kept catalogues as well.

[headelf]

On Ebay there is a thriving niche market selling old advertisements from magazines. If you do a standing search for Bally shoe ads you'll find a number of vendors specializing in these nuggets from the past. If you search under Bally catalogs you'll get a lot of pinball and gaming machine manuals, so you'll need the words shoe or shoes in the search.
Regards,
Georgene

[romango]

I read somewhere that shoemaking was once the second largest industry or employer in the US next to agriculture.

Can anyone confirm or deny this statement and/or point me to a reference on the topic?

[das]

U. S. 1850 Census, cited in J. Leander Bishop, 'History of American Manufactures 1608-1860', three vols. (Philadelphia and London, Edward Young & Co., 1868-Third Edition), Vol II, pp.. 470-471.

He states next to agriculture.... but at that time US agriculture still used slaves, so Bishop implies the single largest US wage-paying occupation was shoemaking and its allied trades.

What's important to note as well, this was 7(?) years before Singer's uppers-closing machines were in wide-spead use, and a full 10 years before the Civil War (the MacKay machine) and the huge skewing of the statistics that war-time manufacturing created. Powered pegging machines were the only mechanized line-production machines c.1850 (I'm pretty certain without file-diving), and pegged footwear only represented a porton of the US footwear production. So, the rest was hand-sewn welted, turnshoes, etc.

[romango]

Excellent! That's just what I was looking for. I'm getting some fluffy background for a possible newspaper article on my shoemaking biz.

[das]

Rick,

Good luck with the newspaper interview. Don't forget to tell 'em where you heard it

[hidesmith]

Rick,
My wife's grandfather was the town historian for the town of Epsom, NH. We have census records from the latter part of the 19th century, as well as agricultural census records from the 1850s through the 1890s. Many town residents were listed in earlier census records as shoemakers, but the later records list them as farmers. The insinuation I get from that is, they made shoes as younger men and women, but upon achieving property ownership (or for the women, marriage), recorded themselves as farmers. This may have been a status symbol, I'm not sure. Penny's great grandfather was a shoemaker turned farmer, and I currently have his lasting jack, found buried in the barn. We had several shoe factories in the area during the mid-late 1800s, and census records list almost every third person as being involved in the shoe industry. That may be an exaggeration, but if it is, it's slight. There were a lot of shoe factory workers, but there were also a lot of out-workers as well. There is a half mile stretch of road in Epsom that had five shoemaking farmers living on it at the same time. These families got stock from factories and made shoes either in "ten-footers" (small buildings that were about 10'x12' to 14') on the front lawn, or on the kitchen table. There are still several ten footers in town, though none of them still make shoes.
I hope this helps. I don't know if you guessed, but this is a favorite topic of mine, and one that I've researched a fair bit. Let me know if I can help in any way.
Good luck with the article,

Bruce

[romango]

Most of the shoemaking industry has abandoned the US for the cheaper labor overseas.

Is this a correct statement? When did this exodus begin?

[das]

Rick,

If you can find their current address (if they are still going) The Footwear Industry of America kept all the annual statistics.

Yes, it's correct.