Michael Turner
Archaeological record and ethnographic analogy point to multiple independent origins: woven-sack and hide-sling solutions appear in Neolithic textile impressions and preserved organic fragments, while rigid-frame carriers become visible in burial contexts and iconography from Bronze Age Eurasia. Use this synthesis as basis for attribution rather than a single inventor claim.
Notable specimen: Iceman equipment (c. 3300 BCE) at South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology, Bolzano, provides direct data on cordage, leather care and load distribution; Egyptian and Mesopotamian depictions offer complementary evidence for shoulder-carried loads in early complex societies. Museum records and radiocarbon dates provide chronological anchors for reconstruction efforts.
Practical recommendations for accurate replicas and functional studies: employ vegetable-tanned hide 2–3 mm for main panel, bark-fiber or hemp cordage for straps, and ash or hazel for lightweight frame elements when modeling framed variants; target bag dimensions near 50 × 35 cm for adult use, strap length ~90–120 cm adjustable by wearer, stitch spacing 6–8 mm with waxed sinew, and treat seams with beeswax or birch tar for moisture resistance.
Primary research venues and sources: South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology (Bolzano), British Museum (London), Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (Washington), plus journal literature such as Antiquity and Journal of Archaeological Science; search museum catalogs under keywords like “prehistoric textiles”, “Neolithic cordage” and “Bronze Age pack frames” for specimen-level data and radiocarbon citations.
Archaeological candidates: likely makers and cultural contexts for earliest pack systems
Prioritize mobile hunter-gatherer and pastoralist communities in arid, alpine, and Arctic zones as primary candidates for early pack systems.
- Upper Paleolithic foragers (Gravettian, Magdalenian), ca. 30,000–12,000 BP: high residential mobility; curated toolkits; occasional preserved cordage or net fragments in later sites; skeletal indicators include vertebral and pelvic stress markers associated with habitual load carriage.
- Epipaleolithic Levant (Natufian), ca. 12,500–9,500 BP: seasonal resource round; abundant basketry impressions and groundstone caches implying use of carriers for transport of plant and processed food.
- Mesolithic coastal foragers, ca. 12,000–6,000 BP: shell middens and waterlogged peat deposits preserve organic straps and wooden frames; portable art sometimes depicts shoulder-slung loads.
- Early Neolithic pastoralists across Eurasia, ca. 9,000–4,000 BP: mobile herd management demanded portable load systems; rock art and burial assemblages often contain textile fragments resembling harnesses or suspension straps.
- Andean highland populations (preceramic through Formative), ca. 8,000 BP–200 CE: exceptional aridity yielded preservation of woven bags and strap assemblies in caves and tombs (Paracas, Nazca, Chinchorro); colonial-era ethnohistoric accounts describe stiffened frames and tumpline variants that match textile evidence.
- Paleo-Inuit and later Arctic cultures (Dorset, Thule), millennia-scale sequence: composite bone/wood frames and sinew straps survive in permafrost contexts; ethnographic records allow direct archaeological comparison of load systems.
- Tarim Basin and other desert-mummy contexts, 2,000–4,000 BP: well-preserved textiles and leather components provide secure dating for complex strap assemblies and suspension methods.
Diagnostic indicators for identifying ancient carrying systems:
- Preserved organic components: cordage, woven bag fragments, leather straps, wooden battens; direct AMS dating of each component.
- Skeletal markers: reproducible enthesopathies, cortical bone adaptation, asymmetric vertebral degeneration aligned with habitual unilateral or dorsal loading.
- Contextual associations: curated toolkits, food containers, basketry caches, or pack animal remains indicating transport needs consistent with presence of carriers.
- Iconography and material culture: rock art, pottery motifs, textile imagery depicting human figures with shoulder or dorsal loads.
- Artifact wear signatures: polished contact zones, microstriations, residue concentrations detectable via SEM and chemical assays.
Recommended research protocol for future studies:
- Target sampling in contexts with high organic preservation potential: permafrost, alpine ice, arid caves, peat bogs; document stratigraphic relationships precisely.
- Perform direct AMS radiocarbon dating on cordage, leather, wooden frame elements, and associated residues rather than on indirect context samples.
- Apply microscopy, SEM, proteomics, and lipid analysis to identify fiber taxa, adhesive compounds, and use residues; pair results with experimental replication to match wear signatures.
- Integrate paleopathology and biomechanical modeling to quantify load thresholds implied by observed skeletal changes and compare outputs with ethnographic load profiles.
- Use spatial analysis of site distributions and mobility models to correlate presence of pack candidates with seasonal rounds and distances between raw-material sources and habitation loci.
- Publish standardized morphological descriptions, metric protocols, and photographic scales for strap fragments and frame components to enable reliable cross-site comparisons.
Dating and identifying early load-carriers in fieldwork and museum holdings
Field sampling and in-situ identification
Prioritize AMS radiocarbon dating on organic components such as leather, plant-fiber textiles, and associated charcoal; target sample masses of 3–10 mg collagen or 0.5–3 mg carbon for modern AMS systems when available.
Record context with precision: single-line context codes, depth below datum, quadrant grid coordinates, and relation to datable features (hearths, graves, sealed floors). Collect at least two independent samples from spatially separate contexts for Bayesian modeling when possible.
Document visible manufacture and use indicators on-site with multi-scale photography: overall shot, detail shots at 10–40× (weave counts, stitch patterns), and macro photos at 50–200× (fibre damage, abrasion). Include an X-Rite ColorChecker and scale bar in every image.
For sampling, avoid decorative or structurally critical zones. Remove tiny samples from interior folds, inner seams, or from detached fragments. For leather and bone, verify collagen preservation via % yield and C:N ratio (acceptable range 2.9–3.6; prefer >1% collagen yield by weight). If conservation treatments are present, document treatment type and avoid sampling treated areas.
Assess use-wear patterns in situ: strap attachment scars, abrasion zones on outer faces, compression lines along shoulder contact points, soot or char marks consistent with proximity to fire. Record orientation and distribution of damage for later comparative analysis.
Laboratory analyses and museum protocols
Apply a staged analysis workflow: non-destructive imaging first (high-resolution photography, photogrammetry/structured-light 3D scanning with target resolution ≤0.5 mm, radiography), then targeted destructive tests for chronology and material ID (AMS, ZooMS, SEM, FTIR, HPLC-MS for dyes).
Use ZooMS (peptide mass fingerprinting) to identify collagenous components to genus or species from submilligram samples; expect successful identifications with 0.5–5 mg depending on preservation. For fibre identification, combine polarized light microscopy (200–400×) with SEM (500–5000×) for surface morphology and fibrillation patterns.
For dye and binder identification, use HPLC-PDA or LC-MS-MS; typical sample sizes 0.2–2 mg. For polysaccharide-based textiles, consider FTIR and pyrolysis-GC-MS for polymer fingerprinting. Maintain blanks and lab controls to exclude modern contamination.
Perform isotopic analyses for provenance where appropriate: strontium 87/86 for mineral components or for organic materials embedded with mineral residues; δ13C/δ15N on collagen can indicate dietary or ecological origin of leather source animals. Report isotopic data alongside local baseline maps.
Calibrate radiocarbon results with IntCal20 and integrate stratigraphic priors via Bayesian software (OxCal or BCal). Use sequence and phase models to constrain probabilities when multiple dates exist from same context. Flag outliers using built-in outlier models.
In museum settings, prioritize archival research: accession registers, old field notebooks, collector correspondence, and original object labels often supply crucial context lost from display records. Link accession metadata to digital object records (format: Dublin Core or CIDOC-CRM) and assign persistent identifiers.
For internal structure and hidden attachments, request microCT scanning with voxel size ≤100 µm for small items. X-radiography at 50–150 kV reveals metal fasteners and composite joinery without invasive sampling.
Conservation guidance: avoid solvent-based consolidants before sampling. If consolidation exists, record manufacturer and year of treatment and attempt destructive sampling from untreated adjacent zones. Store samples and sampled objects at stable humidity (40–55% RH) and temperature (15–20 °C) until analysis.
Maintain an integrated catalogue entry per object including: unique ID, context code, GPS coordinates, sample IDs, photographic plates, 3D models, lab reports, isotopic and AMS results, and bibliographic references. Encourage cross-referencing with regional typology databases and ethnographic corpora for comparative morphology and terminology.
Materials and construction techniques: prehistoric packs – leather, woven, framed types
Recommendation: For robust experimental replicas, select brain-tanned hide of 1.5–3.0 mm thickness, sinew or split-hide thongs of 2–4 mm diameter for seams, and a split-wood frame with staves 10–18 mm thick for loads above 20 kg.
Leather carriers: preferred raw material: deer, elk, reindeer hides. Preparation steps: fleshing and soaking 24–48 hours, repeated scraping with an ulu or flensing knife until surface reaches pale, even grain; apply brain solution or oil emulsion, work until supple, then smoke 3–7 days for incremental waterproofing and insect resistance. Stitching: use twisted sinew laid with 5–8 mm stitch spacing, 12–20 mm stitch depth; use a two-needle locking stitch or overcast to prevent seam loosening. Reinforcement: add 30–40 mm leather patches at load points and strap bases, rivet with rawhide thongs or small bone toggles where available. Expected load capacity for well-constructed leather pouch: 10–20 kg without frame; 20–35 kg when mounted on a light frame.
Woven carriers: primary fiber sources: bast fibers (lime/linden, nettle, basswood), flax, hemp, yucca/agave for arid zones. Cordage production: retting 3–7 days (bast), fiber extraction, then 2-ply or 3-ply twisting to target diameters between 2–6 mm; use S-twist for warp, Z-twist for weft when differential stability is required. Weave techniques: twining for flat panels, coiling for bowl bases, plaiting for rigid mats, and knotting/netting for elastic mesh sacks. Mesh parameters: 15–30 mm aperture for general-purpose sacks; reduce to 5–15 mm for small-item retention. Base reinforcement: add a plaited disc or woven double-layer base to spread point loads. Expected tensile behavior: properly plied hemp cordage sustains repeated loads with gradual elongation rather than abrupt failure.
Framed carriers: frame types: curved A-frames, flat hoop frames, and vertical stave frames. Materials: ash, hazel, willow for steam-bent parts; oak or beech for straight staves when splitting possible. Steam-bending protocol: soak billets 12–48 hours, steam at near-boiling for 20–60 minutes per 10 mm thickness, bend around form and clamp until cooled. Attachment methods: lash frame to carrier body with thongs or cordage, fix shoulder straps with double-loop bindings and seat straps with continuous loop to transfer load to hips. Optimal frame dimensions: height 40–60 cm, width 30–45 cm for adult use; stave spacing 30–50 mm when supporting woven base. Frame-mounted pack capacities: 25–50 kg depending on material quality and strap ergonomics.
Assembly details and preservation measures: stitch spacing 5–8 mm, seam overlap 15–25 mm, edge burnishing or folding to reduce abrasion. For water resistance, apply animal fat or oil after final shaping, then smoke for 2–7 days; test by loading with wet weight equivalent to expected field load and inspect seams for creep. For straps, use doubled length with 30–40% width-to-length ratio to limit chafing. For field testing of reproductions, instrument with modern scales or comparison gear such as best fitness waist pack and a compact tension reader or best luggage handheld scale to log load cycles and failure points.
Practical tip: when replicating an artifact, document raw material sourcing, cordage ply count, stitch pattern, and smoke duration so experimental results can be correlated with wear patterns found in archaeological specimens.
Timeline of technical innovations: origins of shoulder straps, frames, and closure systems
Recommendation: prioritize direct AMS dating of organic strap fragments, microscopic wear-pattern mapping, and rigorous context recording when assigning chronological placement for strap, frame, and closure features.
Upper Paleolithic (≈50,000–10,000 BP): iconographic traces and rare preserved cordage suggest use of simple soft-band carriers. Residue chemistry on stone tools and hafted implements can indicate fiber processing linked to carrying technology.
Mesolithic–Neolithic (≈10,000–3,000 BCE): wetland and tomb preservation yields sewn leather and woven pouch fragments with single-strap arrangements. Key diagnostics: stitch type taxonomy, hide thinning patterns, and joint wear where straps contact shoulders.
Bronze Age (≈3,300–1,200 BCE): wooden splints, wicker impressions, and surviving metal fittings point to introduction of stiffeners and primitive frame solutions. Look for copper/bronze fastener corrosion halos and associated packboard impressions in peat or anaerobic deposits.
Iron Age–Roman (≈1,200 BCE–400 CE): standardized metal buckles, strap adjusters, and reinforced attachment points appear in military and civilian assemblages. Metallography of buckles plus load-oriented deformation patterns on leather provide secure functional attribution.
Medieval–Early Modern (≈500–1800 CE): wooden packboards, leather panniers, and adjustable double-strap harnesses become common in documentary, iconographic, and museum collections. Micro-CT and X‑ray radiography reconstruct internal frame geometry when organic remains are fragile.
Industrial era to modern (19th–20th centuries): mass-produced hardware, stitched webbing, snap hooks, and early internal-frame designs appear in patent literature and factory archives; these sources allow precise dating when material evidence is ambiguous.
Analytical protocol recommendations: combine AMS radiocarbon for straps and frames; dendrochronology for preserved wooden elements; metallurgical and corrosion analysis for metal fittings; FTIR and SEM for fiber identification; experimental replication to produce comparative wear-pattern libraries.
Conservation and outreach note: when publishing specimen data or creating exhibits, provide clear images of attachment points, stitching diagrams, and material identifications; include accessible external resources such as how to keep dog off my lawn fence for practical perimeter-control analogies in outdoor display planning.
Fieldwork checklist: 1) sample organic strap and closure fragments for immediate cold-chain transfer; 2) photograph stitching and attachment points at macro and micro scales; 3) record spatial orientation relative to associated skeletal or cargo traces; 4) log contextual associations with datable material (charcoal, seeds, timber); 5) consult regional typology databases and patent archives during post-excavation analysis.
FAQ:
Who made the first backpack?
There is no single inventor of the backpack as a whole. People have carried goods on their backs for thousands of years using simple pouches, baskets and slings. The first widely recognized modern backpack with an external frame was patented by Norwegian inventor Ole F. Bergan in 1908; his design influenced later mass-produced packs. So the item evolved gradually from ancient carrying methods to Bergan’s early frame packs and then to later industrial designs.
When did framed backpacks appear, and who created the design with a rigid frame?
Rigid-frame packs that transfer load to the hips began to appear in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as outdoor travel and organized expeditions grew more common. The best-documented early step is Ole F. Bergan’s 1908 design from Norway: he added a curved external frame to keep the load off the wearer’s back and improve ventilation and load distribution. Military and civilian users adopted variations of framed packs through the first half of the 20th century, and after World War II materials such as lightweight metals and new fabrics allowed further refinement.
