Inferences from Footprints: Archaeological Best Practice

Abstract

Animal footprints are preserved in the archaeological record with greater frequency than perhaps previously assumed. This assertion is supported by a rapid increase in the number of discoveries in recent years. The analysis of such trace fossils is now being undertaken with an increasing sophistication, and a methodological revolution is afoot linked to the routine deployment of 3D digital capture. Much of this development has in recent years been driven by palaeontologists, yet archaeologists are just as likely to encounter footprints in excavations. It is therefore timely to review some of the key methodological developments and to focus attention on the inferences that can and, crucially, cannot be justifiably made from fossil footprints with specific reference to human tracks.

Fossil footprints and what they mean for hominin paleobiology

“…Since trace fossils are not consistently described in the paleoanthropological literature, we define here a general set of ichnological terms common in other areas of vertebrate paleontology. 8,9 We apply these terms throughout this review and encourage greater consistency in paleoanthropology…”

An Experimental Use of Ground-Penetrating Radar to Identify Human Footprints

“…The best-known example occurs at Laetoli, where the footprints of several Australopithecus afarensis individuals are telling of foot morphology, bipedal biomechanics, and body size variation within the species (Leakey & Hay, 1979;Masao et al, 2016). Subsequent studies have yielded similar evidence for other hominin species as well as information about group composition, habitat use, and interaction with nonhuman mammalian species (see numerous references in Bennett and Reynolds, 2021).…”