Fossilized Arizona Human Footprint (?)

[Heteromorph]

Let me start this off with two disclaimers:

 

1- I am sorry if this post would be more appropriate on an archeology forum. I would think that it would be fine here, however, because the "footprint" impression does appear to be fossilized. And because I have yet to join any archeology forums. I anyone has a recommendation for a good archeology forum let me know.

 

2- Being almost entirely engulfed in learning about just the Cretaceous of my local area, paleoanthropology is a bit out of my purview. So bear with me if I sound like I don't know what I am talking about. Because I don't. I feel more comfortable with ammonites and Ptychodus. 

 

On Wednesday night my mother brought to my attention a post by a Facebook friend of her's, Kevin, who was recently out leading a group of 4-wheeler enthusiasts along some extremely remote Arizona desert trails when he happened upon what appears to be a fossilized human footprint. He really enjoys the rugged beauty of the deserts of the southwest and has been leading groups on such 4-wheeler outings for many years. Because he doesn't have a TFF account and because his Facebook page is private, I am posting this for him. I don't know if this is a real print or, even if it is, that it would be a significant find. I just thought that it wold be appropriate to check with TFF now before it eventually erodes away, just incase it is important. 

 

My mother has been friends with Kevin on Facebook for years, and his association with our family goes back to him knowing my great-grandparents at their church in Parryton, Texas decades ago. From that long association, he seems to be the type of person that has neither the inclination or time to be faking tracks. His interest is in exploring the desert, not perpetrating weird hoaxes. My concern is not that he faked it, but that perhaps some other unscrupulous person, apparently with a lot of talent, came along the trail and did it.

 

When this fossil piqued my interest I asked him if I could post this to a fossil forum that I belong to and he gladly allowed me to, saying that he hopes to learn as much about it as he can himself. During our conversation, he also said that he found it, "out in the middle of nowhere near Quartzite, AZ." Along with the pictures of the impression he wrote, "While I've seen several dinosaur footprints this is the first human one I've seen preserved in sedimentary rock. I'm always amazed when I think of all of the circumstances that had to come together for this to occur. Of course, I have no idea how old it is. I have been under the impression that Native American tribesman that might have roamed these area were small people, partially based on the size of the doorways in dwelling I've been to in Utah. This print is an adult and looked to be about a size 10 [about 25 to 28 cm long]. Perhaps this is older or more recent. No telling. But still impressive."

 

To my untrained eye I don't see any obvious signs that this is faked, but I would like to know what you think about it. His didn't indicate the presence of any other tracks in the area, so either he missed them, the others are already weathered away, or more are still buried. Again, my knowledge of paleoanthropology is still wanting, but from reading theses articles (here, here, here, and here), I gather that human tracks in North America are rare but, as I see from the first article, they are not unheard of in Arizona. The first article is on a multi-track site just north of Tucson. And from the pictures in the articles, Kevin's would seem to be a very well preserved specimen if it is real.

 

Interestingly, Mancos shows that the geology around Quartzite is very similar to that just north of Tucson, even though Quartzite is about 200 miles to the northwest of Tucson. The geology around Quartzite and Tucson is mapped as Quaternary surficial, with the age range listed as from the Gelasian (1.8 Ma) to modern holocene. 

 

Here are the only two pictures of the impression that he posted, along with his pictures of the surrounding scenery of the area. I am also including pictures of the Mancos map of the areas around Quartzite and Tucson. Hopefully the pictures are enough to at least say whether or not it is worth further investigation or an obvious fake.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Fig. 1

 

Fig. 2

[ynot]

I do not see a human footprint.

I see some coincidental and suggestively shaped erosional features.

Besides it has six toes.

[Heteromorph]

9 minutes ago, ynot said:

I do not see a human footprint.

I see some coincidental and suggestively shaped erosional features.

Besides it has six toes.

Thanks! Forgot to think about erosion as a possibility. 

 

Fig. 3

 

Fig. 4

 

Fig. 5

 

Fig. 6

[Heteromorph]

Few more images...

 

[Heteromorph]

Fig. 7

 

Fig. 8

[Heteromorph]

Fig. 9

 

Fig. 10

[Heteromorph]

Fig. 11

 

Fig. 12

 

Done!

[westcoast]

43 minutes ago, ynot said:

I do not see a human footprint.

I see some coincidental and suggestively shaped erosional features.

Besides it has six toes.

Agree. There may be even seven 'toes'. But it is a very good look alike and would have stopped me in my tracks

[DPS Ammonite]

The rock looks rather old and brittle to be only 20k years old or less. It is an erosional artifact. Note how each toeprint and other depressed areas seem to be bounded by cracks that extend far from the depressions. It appears that the rock near each crack was a little harder and resisted weathering better than areas further away from the cracks. Perhaps silica came in from the cracks. I would not expect to see the same pattern of cracks if a print were made in a soft sediment such as clay. 

 

It is possible that the faux print could have had help being made by a modern human. Nevertheless, it is a cool rock.

[Fossildude19]

I agree with all the others. Not a footprint. 

 

I reversed colors, and outlined what look like depressions. 

 

 

 

Definitely NOT a footprint.

[Tidgy's Dad]

Very convincing (except for the number of toes) and the photographs of the area are well worth a look at anyway.

Beautiful. 

[minnbuckeye]

Just for thought, not really serious:

The Story of Ernest Hemingway and His Six-Toed Cats - Wide Open Pets

 

https://www.wideopenpets.com/story-ernest-hemingway-six-toed-cats/

So why not humans?? Actually, being a vet, I have declawed many cats and have seen about a 5% incidence of polydactyl cats. The most toes on one paw was 8!!!!!

Mike

[Kato]

As it turns out being polydactyl was a big deal in terms of petroglyph recordings and burials of those who lived in the southwest before us

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3508009/

 

 

 

[Kato]

I stumbled across this very worn and remote panel. It is extremely difficult to photograph so one has to take my word for it, that there are several 6 toed and one 7-toed feet 

 

 

 

[Kato]

From my viewpoint, even if one discounts the outlying big toe, and gets down to 7-toes,  the arch seems improbably high. In one of my wilderness hikes, I also snapped a pic of what appeared to be a footprint in a canyon called Hell's Hole. My foot fit perfectly into this anomaly.  Actually there are two 'footprints' in this one. One going each way and of similar size. One a 'right' foot, the other a 'left' foot. 

 

Those are beautiful photographs and remind me that I need to explore more next winter and actually put my 4wd vehicle to more use.

 

 

 

[Kato]

Now an anecdotal story. About 5 miles into the mountains here I have a found a crumbly sandstone formation that is alternately wet and dry in a very narrow canyon bottom. One day I happened to step into it and left an imprint of my boot in the soggy sandstone gruel. About a month later I stumbled through, it was a dry period, and my boot print had remained as 'evidence of my passing through, in the now hardened formation.

 

Unfortunately, I did not take a pic of that (grrr). The next time through it had rained heavily for a couple of days, the formation had become 'soggy' and my boot print had disappeared. I will try to repeat this experiment if provided the circumstances again.

 

Regardless, this has taught me that almost anything is possible (but maybe not probable).

[SailingAlongToo]

We all know Sasquatches have more than 5 toes.............

 

On a serious note, I have a coworker who has 6 toes on one foot and I also have another co worker whose real name is Sixto.

[Auspex]

The 'impression' in question is an amazing doppelganger! I salute you for seeing and photographing it.
It would be pretty cool to take an impression to display with the image.

[Walt]

38 minutes ago, SailingAlongToo said:

We all know Sasquatches have more than 5 toes.............

 

On a serious note, I have a coworker who has 6 toes on one foot and I also have another co worker whose real name is Sixto.

But on the other hand........I have four fingers and a thumb

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, Kato said:

one has to take my word for it,

The picture is worth thousands of words to me. I don't doubt you for a minute.

[Heteromorph]

Thanks everyone! Very fascinating. Had no idea that such a doppelgänger could just be erosion, but it makes sense now. I also though the arch was a bit too high as well.

[Auspex]

Actually, the 'high arch' is consistent with some modern barefoot prints I've seen, usually in the wet sand at the beach. In stride, the heel strike and the toe push-off can pile cohesive material up between them. The 'hall of mirrors' of toes, however...

[Desertboy]

On 2/14/2019 at 10:33 PM, ynot said:

I do not see a human footprint.

I see some coincidental and suggestively shaped erosional features.

Besides it has six toes.

Whether this is a geologic anomaly is not something I am qualified to discuss, but I can state unequivocally that having six toes does not automatically disqualify it from being a human footprint. Polydactyly, the condition of having more than five fingers or toes, has been well-documented in several Native American populations and was actually viewed as indicating genetic superiority among some groups. See the July 25, 2016, National Geographic article titled, "Extra Fingers and Toes were Revered in Ancient Culture," for more details of the phenomenon. 

 

Also, as the recent discovery of fossilized human footprints at White Sands, New Mexico, has shown, ichnites are not unknown in the Southwest.

 

While some of the geological observations posted here may rule this out as a fossil footprint, the fact that it has six or even seven toes absolutely does not. 

 

If it walks like a footprint, talks like a footprint and leaves a lasting impression like a footprint, it just might be a footprint.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Desertboy

[Fossildude19]

19 minutes ago, Desertboy said:

If it walks like a footprint, talks like a footprint and leaves a lasting impression like a footprint, it just might be a footprint.

 

Unless it isn't. Which, is the case, here. 

This is not a footprint in any way, shape or form. The rock is the wrong type for having had footprints. Looks more metamorphic than sedimentary to me.

And while polydactyly is definitely a morphologic trait, this is NOT an example of it.

[Desertboy]

Why do you say that? This has only been analyzed on the basis of photographic evidence.