Archaeoforum.de

Direct evidence for footwear,in the form of sandals
made of plant fibers and/or leather,extends back to the
early millennia of the Holocene and the terminal
millennia of the Pleistocene.Ironically,all of the
preserved and well dated specimens derive from North
America,where largely complete sandals have been
directly dated to between 6500 and 9000 years B.P.
[17,18,28,29,39 ]and may well extend back into the
terminal Pleistocene [3 ].
Comparable evidence for undisputed footwear of
a similar antiquity is currently unknown in the Old
World.There is one case from the late Upper Paleolithic
of France,from the Grotte de Fontanet [16,22 ],of
a footprint in a soft substrate interpreted as having been
made by a foot wearing a soft and flexible moccasin-like
covering.In addition,the arrangements of beads,
apparently sewn onto clothing,around the feet of the
Sunghir 1 adult skeleton (ca.23,000 14C years B.P.)and
the Sunghir 2 and 3 immature remains (ca.24,000 14C
years B.P.)[6,59 ]imply that they were buried with foot
protection.Yet,there is a large variety of footprints in
European Upper Paleolithic parietal art caves and
karstic systems,extending back to ca.30,000 years
B.P.and made by unshod feet [8,22,27,55,56,94,100 ],
indicating that these Paleolithic populations frequently
went barefoot.
These few data points regarding Upper Paleolithic
footwear are supplemented by growing data on the
antiquity of the use of fibers to manufacture cordage,
textiles,and other woven objects.These are reasonably
well documented for the late Upper Paleolithic of
Eurasia [2,3,20 ].In older deposits,evidence of them
has been found at Mezhirich (Ukraine)and Kosoutsy
(Moldova)after ca.17,000 14C years B.P.[2 ],ca.19,000 14
C years B.P.at Ohalo II (Israel)[48 ],and especially at
the Moravian sites of Pavlov I and Dolnı ?Ve ˇstonice I
and II,dated to ca.25,000 to 27,000 14 C years B.P.[2,3 ].
Yet,most of these indications of weaving are either
small fragments or impressions and provide little
evidence of the functional objects of which they formed
part.A number of the middle Upper Paleolithic
(Gravettian)figurines provide indications of woven
apparel [72 ].None of the few human depictions that
preserve feet furnish evidence of footwear [1,21 ],but
probable depictions of boots are present among the
ceramics from Pavlov I [71 ].The evidence for textiles is
joined by the presence of eyed needles by at least the
Solutrean [76 ]and Gravettian faunal pro files at sites
such as Pavlov I [47 ]suggesting the trapping of fur-
bearing animals for skins and hence clothing.
Together these archeological data suggest that foot
protection and insulation were readily available to
people by the second half of the Upper Paleolithic (or
its regional equivalent),sometime after the last glacial
maximum.It is likely,based on the presence of weaving
and fur-bearing animals in the Moravian sites and
especially the pedal distribution of beads on the Sunghir
burials and the Pavlov ceramic boots,that some form of
footwear was being routinely,if not universally,
employed by the middle Upper Paleolithic.
Prior to this time,however,there is no archeological
evidence as to the use of arti ficial foot protection.The
only related evidence comes from an isolated footprint
in Va ?rtop Cave (Romania)[53 ],probably from a Nean-
dertal 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 [46 ].
One can nonetheless reasonably infer that,in order to
survive the thermal rigors of a glacial period winter in
mid-latitude Eurasia,Late Pleistocene humans must
have had some form of insulation over their feet [24 ],
and this is supported by considerations of human
thermal physiology in the context of variation in Late
Pleistocene human body proportions [4 ].Yet,recent
humans exhibit a variety of inherited and acquired
vasoregulatory adjustments which limit the tendency to
develop tissue damage in the hands and feet under cold
stress [25,52 ],and it is likely that similar adjustments
could have protected Pleistocene human feet from all
but the most severe thermal stress.The question
therefore remains archeologically open as to when,
and in what context,human populations developed the
frequent use of footwear.

Nimmt Trinkaus jetzt wirklich die Verkleinerung der äußeren Zehen als Hinweis für das Tragen von Schuhwerk ?

Wenn ja, und nur wenn ja, verstehe ich es nicht. Das würde sich ein wenig nach Lamarkismus anhören.

Rohe glatte Ledersohlen sind eher Schlittschuhe auf festgetretenem Schnee.

Was gilt den derzeit als der "Standardschuh" für Hallstatt C z.B.?

Und durch die dauernde Bewegung der Füße beim Abrollen werden sie auch nicht so kalt, wie in modernen Schuhen.

Thomas Trauner hat geschrieben:Zitat:
"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."

Nimmt Trinkaus jetzt wirklich die Verkleinerung der äußeren Zehen als Hinweis für das Tragen von Schuhwerk ?

Wenn ja, und nur wenn ja, verstehe ich es nicht. Das würde sich ein wenig nach Lamarkismus anhören.
Jean-Baptiste Lamark postulierte vor Darwin, dass z.B. Giraffen so lange Hälse haben, weil diese in ihrem Bemühen, die oberen Blätter der Bäume zu erreichen, immer gestreckter wurden.
Das wäre, wie wenn der Sohn des Schmiedes starke Muskeln bekäme, weil der Vater eben Schmied war.
Das würde bedeuten, dass Chinesinnen/Japanerinnen heute so kleine Füße hätten, weil ihren Urgroßmüttern Ende des 19.Jh.n.Chr. bekanntlich die Füße eingeschnürt wurden.
Oder, dass sich Zehen verkleinern, weil zu enges Schuhwerk getragen wurde. (Es stellt sich außerdem die Frage, warum zu eng ? Besonders "intelligent design" scheint dies nicht zu sein )

Ich bin wirklich verwirrt, ob dieses scheinbar offensichtlichen Denkfehlers.
Seh ich da was falsch ?
Eigentlich wird ja andersrum ein Schuh draus...