shoes&pattens0b

Introduction to second edition

Francis Grew

Nearly 15 years have passed sińce this book was first published. During that time, the study of medieval leatherwork has progressed enormously - especially in Continental Europę - and replica-makers on both sides of the Atlantic have translated the drawings into three-dimensional objects, so enriching our under-standing of how the turn-shoe was madę and worn. On the other hand, neither in London nor anywhere else in Britain have archaeologists found groups of 12th- to 15th-century footwear that are in any way comparable in size, diversity or quality of preservation to those presented here. The 400 late I4th-century shoes from ‘Baynards Castle’, in particular, continue to astound by their perfect condition and their ex-uberant poulaine style.

One smali group of footwear has been unearthed and published recently (Thomas, Sloane & Phillpotts 1997, 61-2, 215-7). Found within the precincts of the priory of St Mary Spital and evidently deposited in the late 13th century, it is notable for containing the first certain pair of shoes from London. They are of a high drawstring type similar to Fig 15 here. A matter of particular disappointment has been the failure to find deposits of late 15th-century datę, which would continue this books story and throw light on the critical problem of the origins of welted shoe construction. Was this the culmination of steady evolution, with the ‘turn-welt’ as an intermediate stage? Or was it something morę dramatic: the acceptance of radically new ideas, a new ‘invention? For this period, one of the most important groups from Britain remains that found at Moorfields in London nearly a century ago (Lambert 1921, 98-104).

At the opposite end of the time-scale, however, researchers will find much new data, both published and unpublished. Frances Pritchards survey of London footwear from the lOth to the 12th centuries is fundamental (Pritchard 1991; notę that several shoes first published in this book, including Figs 5, 6 and 10, are republished there). Although many of her groups are smali, they are closely dated and -tantalisingly, in a period of social, political and international upheaval - remarkable for their diversity. Her study provides a context for the earliest shoes described here and demonstrates, for example, that the finał abandonment of the V-back sole was, in 1150, still a recent development. Knowledge of this period is set to improve still further with the recent discovery of substantial parts of well over 500 shoes on four main sites: Upper Thames Street (site codę: UPT90; late lOth century), Poultry (ONE94; lOth to mid llth century), Vintry (VRY89; llth to 12th century) and Guildhall (GYE92; late llth to 12th century). These groups are currently the subject of a doctoral research project.

It was decided early on to restrict Shoes and Pattens to analysis of deposits that were closely dated and contained substantial numbers of near-complete, well-preserved shoes. Otherwise, with so little previously published from well-dated archaeological contexts in Britain, it would have been difficult to screen out leatherwork that was residual. Twenty-three groups were selected (Table 21) — most of which could be dated by coins or dendrochronology, rather than by ceramics in isolation - and these were used to show the types of footwear in circulation at certain fixed times, roughly a third of a century apart. The dating proposed for the various styles has generally been supported by morę recent finds elsewhere, though there are signs that some were introduced rather earlier than the London evidence would suggest. To cite but one example, the front-laced or strap-fastened shoe, rare in London in the early/mid I4th century (Table 5), appears in the Netherlands towards the end of the previous century (Bainwasser & Goubitz 1990, 72, Afb 1, types 4-7).

Related to the ąuestion of chronology is an aspect of shoemaking that receives inadequate attention here - that of‘translation’, the making of a ‘new’ shoe from old parts. This process is seldom revealed by the presence of reworked seams — that is, by duplicate rows of stitch-holes with different spacing - because shoemakers normally trimmed away old seams to make a fresh start. Much clearer evidence survives in the form of inserts, as exemplified by the side-laced shoe shown in Fig 90 or by the buttoned shoe in Fig 95 (possibly an example of enlargement’). It is indeed

VII