Various motivations can be found behind the naming of ‘shoe’ in Iranian languages, such as terms related to ‘foot’, ‘leather’, ‘wood’, ‘to hold’, and ‘covering’. This had led to different shoe names in New Iranian languages (after 900 CE). Old Iranian languages (until 400 BCE), Young Avestan among them, contain shoe terms such as aoθra- ‘shoe’ and derivations of Old Iranian *mauk- ‘to clothe’. Old Iranian contact languages such as Akkadian exhibit words referring to ‘shoe’ which resemble Indo-European terms for the foot, e.g. Akkadian patû ‘shoe’. The name of the shoe in Elamite, one of the main Old Persian contact languages, is still unknown, however, Elamite may refer either to a shoe or an envelope (Walther Hinz & Heidemarie Koch). Middle Iranian languages (300 BCE–700 CE) contain diverse data related to shoes such as derivations of Old Iranian *kap- ‘to take, to hold’, and forms such as the Inscriptional Middle Persian surgar ‘shoemaker’. It is remarkable, however, that during the Middle Iranian period Iranian shoe terms appeared as Wanderworts in all Iranian contact languages—forms of the two Middle Persian words mōg (muk, muz, muc) and kafšag have been documented in almost all non-Iranian languages which were in contact with Middle Iranian languages. What are the reasons for these widespread borrowings? The easiest answer would be trade, yet this story seems to have a more complex justification which archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, and religious studies may shed light on. For example, being barefoot is one of the worst sins according to Zoroastrian Middle Persian texts. It is thus possible that Zoroastrianism, which had become the state religion during the Sasanian period (224–651 CE), had an influence on the shoe industry at that time. This presentation intends to collect and etymologically comment on all shoe terms in Old and Middle Iranian languages. Moreover, it will elaborate on the reasons for the widespread borrowing of Middle Iranian shoe terms in the whole of West Asia