Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 313 other subscribers


One type of ‘anomaly’ that has proved enduringly popular, especially among Creationists, is the supposed human footprint found in geological strata that ought to be older than the origins of Homo sapiens. Many of them are simple misidentifications, but some are outright frauds. Others are a combination of misidentification, ‘enhanced’ to make them appear more human. The sub-section presents a selection of them.

8 Responses to Footprints and the like

  • Pingback: The Bosnian ‘pyramids’ of Semir Osmanagić « Bad Archaeology

  • Smith says:

    Maybe you could comment on this one?


    See “Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts” by Jerry MacDonald, Smithsonian, July 1992, Vol. 23, Issue 4, p. 70-79

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      Jerry MacDonald’s discoveries of Permian footprints were certainly ground breaking. However, the print shown on the page to which you link is one that has been thoroughly debunked and is not one of MacDonald’s discoveries. The site you which you link claims that MacDonald found “large mammal and bird tracks”, whereas the article cited (but, significantly, not quoted) describes them as tracks belonging to large amphibians and mammal-like reptiles, creatures perfectly at home in the Permian.

      It’s particularly telling that the site to which you link concludes that ”evolutionists have not tried to argue their authenticity or debunk them. Nor have they tried to argue that the footprint isn’t human. (Often they claim that it’s a print that just “looks like” a human footprint.) Their very silence is deafening”; you’ve seen the link to an ‘evolutionist’ debunking. Silence, indeed!

  • Pete says:

    I wouldn’t argue that the sun makes day either.

  • tyrssen says:

    While this particular batch (described in the linked article) may indeed be misinterpretations and some outright fraud, I’m of the opinion that there are, indeed, valid human footprints (and shoe-prints) in fossilized mud; and I can’t shake the feeling, conventional wisdom aside, that humans did at least see some “dinosaurs.” I freely admit, this is just a suspicion and my humble opinion.

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      Oh yes, there are genuine human footprints. There are some at Formby in Liverpool Bay, for instance, that show a group of Mesolithic people walking across the mud. There are much older footprints at Laetoli in Tanzania, made by early hominids. We have all seen dinosaurs, according to one interpretation of biological cladistics: we just call them birds!

      • donuan says:

        I love how people use the phrase “thoroughly debunked” without the slightest evidence. I actually worked in the Paluxy River and saw the clear human tracks being uncovered for the first time. Anyone who says these are fake is a wishful thinking fanatic. Science is impartial. I observed the evidence first hand. The Permian tracks are CLEARLY mammal and bird tracks and not even the Smithsonian goes as far as you dishonestly claim to explain them away as ‘amphibian’ which would simply be an ‘excuse’ not a scientific observation. Science is so far from evolutionary philosophers that it’s almost comical. Creationists are not the ones who touted Piltdown Man and Peeking Man and Nebraska Man to the masses as ‘evidence’. Not to mention recapitulation of Phylogeny which was a fraud that is STILL in text books today.

        • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

          Creationists are not the ones who touted Piltdown Man and Peeking Man and Nebraska Man to the masses as ‘evidence’”; nor are they the ones who debunked the Piltdown fraud or exposed the Nebraska Man mistake. And what is wrong with Peking Man (Homo erectus)? Oh, I forgot. You’re a creationist who thinks that Homo erectus is fully human, no, an ape, no fully human, no an ape

Agree or disagree? Please comment!