First Direct Evidence of Chalcolithic Footwear from the Near Eastern Highlands

In 2008, a well preserved and complete shoe was recovered at the base of a Chalcolithic pit in the cave of Areni-1, Armenia. Here, we discuss the chronology of this find, its archaeological context and its relevance to the study of the evolution of footwear. Two leather samples and one grass sample from the shoe were dated at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). A third leather sample was dated at the University of California-Irvine Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Facility (UCIAMS). The R_Combine function for the three leather samples provides a date range of 3627–3377 Cal BC (95.4% confidence interval) and the calibrated range for the straw is contemporaneous (3627–3377 Cal BC). The shoe was stuffed with loose, unfastened grass (Poaceae) without clear orientation which was more than likely used to maintain the shape of the shoe and/or prepare it for storage. The shoe is 24.5 cm long (European size 37), 7.6 to 10 cm wide, and was made from a single piece of leather that wrapped around the foot. It was worn and shaped to the wearer's right foot, particularly around the heel and hallux where the highest pressure is exerted in normal gait. The Chalcolithic shoe provides solid evidence for the use of footwear among Old World populations at least since the Chalcolithic. Other 4th millennium discoveries of shoes (Italian and Swiss Alps), and sandals (Southern Israel) indicate that more than one type of footwear existed during the 4th millennium BC, and that we should expect to discover more regional variations in the manufacturing and style of shoes where preservation conditions permit

Patch‐test results in patients with suspected contact allergy to shoes: Retrospective IVDK

BACKGROUND Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified. OBJECTIVES To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger. METHODS Retrospective analysis of data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2009-2018. RESULTS Six hundred twenty-five patients with presumed shoe dermatitis were identified in a cohort of 119 417 patients. Compared to patients with suspected contact sensitization from other allergen sources (n = 118 792), study group patients were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate (10.8% vs 3.5%), colophony (7.2% vs 3.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT; 4.0% vs 0.6%), mercapto mix (4.6% vs 0.6%), and p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1.6% vs 0.5%). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Moreover, reactions to compounds in the leather or textile dyes test series were scarce. CONCLUSION A distinct sensitization pattern was observed in patients with suspected allergy to shoe materials. Although substances with low sensitization rates should be removed from the leather and shoe patch test series, novel potential allergens should be added