footprints??? it's a question

ravenwing5910 · Post by **ravenwing5910** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:58 pm

Hey everybody, How ya'll doing? I have a question. Is it possible for sedimentary rock to settle in an ancient footprint then eventually come loose forming a sort of natural cast of a human foot? If so, how long (minimum) for this process to occur? I ask this question because, I recently found an ordinary rock that I picked up and kept simply because it is the perfect shape of a foot, but when I got home and really looked at it, the rock is more than perfect. I would attach a picture to this post but I haven't yet figured out how to do that yet. I could send a pic in email if anyone is curious enough to take a look.

Any answers?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:59 pm

I'd love to take a look, R/W. Do you still have my e-mail? I'll post it if you want.

Carbonate rich mud can turn into rock rather rapidly, as seen with dinosaur footprints in carbonate based limestone.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:26 pm

Michelle, we should have a Tech Support forum so things like how to post an image could be posted.

ravenwing5910 · Post by **ravenwing5910** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:22 pm

Good idea Min.

Charlie, I just sent some pics to Cognito, he will post them for me, but they are probably not very good because my better camera has dead batteries, I will take better pics tomorrow when I get new batteries.

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:37 am

R/W, here are the pictures you sent. I will leave the comments up to you:

Picture #1:

Picture #2:

Picture #3:

Picture #4:

Picture #5:

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:56 am

Cognito wrote:
R/W, here are the pictures you sent. I will leave the comments up to you

. . . or us:

RW, sorry, but those pix are next to useless. Completely out of focus because of camera shake (far too long shutter speed because of too little light) and because of insufficient lens-subject distance. And false colors because of wrong choice of light source (tungsten) and/or wrong White Balance setting.
You need a camera with macro setting and selftimer, a tripod, and flashlight.

Start simple. Like this:

When you got that one under control you can graduate to pro level. Get an external flashgun and a slave-eye and do this:

Good luck!

ravenwing5910 · Post by **ravenwing5910** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:14 am

wouldn't that be great to have the money to buy a nice camera. Instead, as a struggling stundent I have to rely on what I have a cheap digital camera that has a long shutter delay and crappy auto focus. But if you would like to donate the equipment I would be more than happy to take pics of everything I find......

ravenwing5910 · Post by **ravenwing5910** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:38 am

Thanks for posting the pictures for me Cog, I really appreciate it. I suppose I could use the quote feature to make comments but I will just write a few here.

If you were holding this rock in your hand instead of looking at the (poor quality) pictures you would be able to see that there is an arch in the foot and flexion at the toes, you would also be able to see the ball of what could be the great toe, the fourth and fifth toe area is broken off but the shape of the distal end of the fifth metatarpal is clear.

I have created a mud pit in my back yard and made several attempts to recreate the shape by walking through, running through, and standing then taking a starting step. The last one matches the rock rather well. I had my son, his fiance, and my nephew and grandchild do the same and again it was the starting step that matches the rock the best. I think it is a natural cast, but being a lowly student I could certainly be wrong. This was found near a creek bed, so I am planning another camping trip to the area, to explore upstream in hopes of finding where the rock may have originated (could be a long and fruitless trip, but I have to try).

I am very interested in finding out if I am right, and if so how long would the geologic process take? Longer than the current theory of habitation here in Americas?

Please take a look at the admittedly lousy pictures and let me know if any of you have any ideas or opinions (of the rock, not the picture quality

thanks

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:50 am

This was found near a creek bed, so I am planning another camping trip to the area, to explore upstream in hopes of finding where the rock may have originated

If you can find the mold from which the hypothesized cast popped out, that would add alot of strength to the hypothesis. It's hard to make any kind of call from the images.

As to the length of time for "fossilization", there's the famous (or infamous) fossilized "cowboy leg":

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:16 am

ravenwing5910 wrote:
wouldn't that be great to have the money to buy a nice camera. Instead, as a struggling stundent I have to rely on what I have a cheap digital camera that has a long shutter delay and crappy auto focus.

The best camera in the world is useless if the photographer doesn't know how to work it, RW!
For starters: no pic wil ever be sharp if you do not observe the camera's minimum focusing distance.
And pray, how does a long shutter delay affect macro pix? Afaik the subjects ain't running away . . .

But if you would like to donate the equipment I would be more than happy to take pics of everything I find......

No thanks, that would of course be a wasted donation if the recipient doesn't know what he is supposed to be doing with it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:25 am

My digital camera has an automatic setting....takes all of the thinking out of it which, as far as I am concerned, is best for all parties.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:43 am

Minimalist wrote:
My digital camera has an automatic setting....takes all of the thinking out of it which, as far as I am concerned, is best for all parties.

Automatic or not, if you don't observe the lens' minimum focal distance you'll get crap pix everytime!
Automatically . . . !

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:10 pm

I am very interested in finding out if I am right, and if so how long would the geologic process take? Longer than the current theory of habitation here in Americas?

R/W, you have an interesting find but there isn't enough data to make any conclusions. I agree with Charlie that you should go back to the site and use your woman's intuition to look for any other signs of habitation. I would go upstream first and then downstream, looking along the banks of the river for anomalies (discolouration, unusual shapes, etc.). Keep an eye out for rock outcroppings of material that could be used for flint knapping, such as chert, etc.

ravenwing5910 · Post by **ravenwing5910** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:21 pm

Cognito wrote: R/W, you have an interesting find but there isn't enough data to make any conclusions. I agree with Charlie that you should go back to the site and use your woman's intuition to look for any other signs of habitation. I would go upstream first and then downstream, looking along the banks of the river for anomalies (discolouration, unusual shapes, etc.). Keep an eye out for rock outcroppings of material that could be used for flint knapping, such as chert, etc.

Cog, there are numerous signs of habitation all around the area. I have personally found ancient camps, pottery shards, many blades, points, and even a place where knapping was done often (distant from native obsidian deposits, yet flakes and nodes that measure several inches deep, surrounding a lava bomb that is perfect for sitting on). The area is rich in Native history. As far as outcropping, there is, just about a mile upstream from where I found the rock, there are several rock faces that we often climb, these are an easy climb because there are natural "shelves" that a person could actually walk on to reach the top if you wanted. We have never used the shelves (preferring to climb) but next trip I will certainly be walking these rocks.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:53 pm

Cog, there are numerous signs of habitation all around the area. I have personally found ancient camps, pottery shards, many blades, points, and even a place where knapping was done often (distant from native obsidian deposits, yet flakes and nodes that measure several inches deep, surrounding a lava bomb that is perfect for sitting on). The area is rich in Native history. As far as outcropping, there is, just about a mile upstream from where I found the rock, there are several rock faces that we often climb, these are an easy climb because there are natural "shelves" that a person could actually walk on to reach the top if you wanted. We have never used the shelves (preferring to climb) but next trip I will certainly be walking these rocks.

Cool, R/W.

I certainly think it's plausible, and a case can be made if you can find several different lines of evidence. When you get time, try shooting photos of the cast again.

This is what it's all about!! If it was an easy case it wouldn't be any fun.

Enjoy.

Archaeologica.org

footprints??? it's a question

footprints??? it's a question

Footprints

Re: Footprints

Questions

Re: Questions