(C) 2005-2006, Glen J. Kuban
| |
|
|
|
| The four photos by F. R. Johnson, appearing in Albert Ingalls 1940 Scientific American article. | |||
Ingalls begins his essay by suggesting that prints "similar to those shown above" have been found in a number of states, "from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains." He implies that all such prints are found in "Carboniferous" rock (which by conventional geology, would predate not only humans, but even the dinosaurs). But again, no specific locality information, geologic data, or photos are provided for any of these sites, except for the photos at the beginning of the article, which apparently are from the Berea, Kentucky area. A number of websites and books discussing natural mysteries also suggest that human tracks in ancient rocks of one or more of these states, but typically lack photos and geologic details that would allow any type of reasonable assessment. Therefore, until better documentation of these other finds are presented, we will forgo further discussion of them, and return to the Kentucky markings. They are not much better documented, but at least we have some photos to help in the evaluation.
Ingalls devotes almost the first half of his one page article musing about the nature of science. He notes that scientists sometimes reverse themselves, and suggests "nothing is impossible." He ends the philosophical introduction with a memorable line, often quoted by human track advocates: "If man, or even his ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving." Of course, the "If" is a big one.
The essence of the matter seems to be summed up in the subtitle to Ingall's article, which reads, "Prints Roughly Resembling Human Footprints, and found in Ancient Rocks, Would Greatly Add to Man's Antiquity--If Only They Were Human." The resemblance to natural human prints is indeed "rough." The outlines are rather cartoonish, and often show many odd shapes differing from each other as well as normal human prints. The toes are often widely splayed and/or too large or long. In some cases, as the photo at the far right above, one cannot even tell if the print is supposed to be a right or a left, and in other cases, as the third photo from the right, they don't even show five toes. In short, the shapes and proportions of these prints are glaringly aberrant and unlike genuine human prints in several respects.
 |
| Acknolwedged Indian carvings in Johnson, County, IL |
Moreover, from the high-contrast photos provided by Ingalls, it is difficult to determine if there are any plausible bottom contours (properly indented heel and ball, and raised arch). Also unfortunate is the lack of photos taken from a distance, which might indicate whether any of the prints are in striding sequences--an important criterion for helping establish authentic footprints.
As it turns out, Ingalls himself does not believe they are real human footprints. Rather he presents two alternatives, which he calls scientific Theory No. 1 and No. 2: either they are carvings, as most scientists believe, or the prints of unknown Carboniferous animals. Ingalls notes that although among the scientists holding to the carving conclusion is ethnologist David I. Bushnell of the Smithsonian Institution, who "examined a number of them." Ingalls continues:
"He [Bushnell] states that every one of them is unquestionably a carving made by the Indians. As they are always found near water, he suggests that the human foot was a symbol which some ancient Indian people associated with a watering place."
|
| Permian footprint from France, attributed to a large amphibian, showing a superficially humanlike shape. Photo courtesy of Michael Schmidt. |
|
| Permian track attributed to a mammal-like reptile, possibly Dimetrodon, near Berea, KY. |
Ingalls ends his article by remarking that unless 2 plus 2 are 7, the markings were not made by Carboniferous humans, but that "what did make them will appear with certainty later. Or maybe not."
I concur with the majority of scientists that the markings in question are carvings, or at least enhanced markings, based largely on their very unnatural shapes. Also, one would not expect real prints to show such distinct outlines, and yet not show mud push-ups or indications of striding sequences--unless they were originally indistinct animal tracks that were enhanced into more distinct and human like shapes, rather than carved from scratch. As far as I know this possibility has not been previously proposed, but should not be ignored, especially in view of claims regarding sediment density.
Before exploring this further, it might be mentioned that the Berea, KY area in particular--the same general area where the "humanoid" prints were evidently photographed, has produced some good examples of Permian footprints made by a variety of prehistoric amphibians, reptiles, and mammal-like reptiles. Although none show particularly close resemblances to genuine human tracks, many do show five toes and a heel, and can described as roughly human-like. If indistinctly preserved, or subdued by erosion, some of them might appear even more humanlike. It is unlikely they would ever turn into the forms shown in the photos accompanying Ingall's article. However, such fossil animal tracks might have been mistaken by native Americans for real human footprints. This in turn could have inspired them to carve human prints in nearby areas, or to enhance the existing fossil animal tracks--perhaps sharpening print boundaries into more humanlike shapes, and making the toe impressions more clear or human-like.
If this occurred, it would be an interesting parallel to the Glen Rose situation. There, local residents mistook imperfectly preserved or infilled metatarsal dinosaur tracks for human tracks, evidently inspiring some to carve what they thought were simply better forms of such "man tracks" on loose blocks of rock. As with these KY tracks, the resultant carvings had distinct toes and outlines, but lacked the shapes and key features of natural human prints.
Although the possibility of native Americans altering or enhancing indistinct fossil animal prints is speculative, but important to consider in view of some latter claims that studies of sediment density support the authenticity of the prints. Even if the density comparison is accurate, and it should be repeated by others for confirmation, if the prints were enhanced versions of indistinct real animal prints, the density results would not be unexpected.
Furthermore, apparently the sediment density study was not even performed on the prints shown in Ingall's article (the same photos shown at the top of this article), but other tracks in the area, which may have been Paleozoic animal tracks. Brad Steiger writes that Dr. Burroughs of Berea College in KY "announced that he had discovered 10 humanoid footprints in carboniferous sandstone on a farm belonging to Mr. O. Finnell in the hills in the southern part of Rockcastle County. The prints were 9 1/2 inches long and 6 inches wide. The length between footprints was 18 inches. No marks of forefeet or a tail were found. Photomicrographs and infrared photography revealed that there were no signs of carving or artificial markings in or around the prints. A microscopic count of sand grains indicated that the material within the prints had been impacted, and created as the result of a force pressing down on the firmament while it was soft... In recent years, the prints have been destroyed by vandals."[2]
The author's use of the term "humanoid" may be telling here, considering the ability of certain Paleozoic animals to make elongate prints with five toes. Although I have not been able to find any photos relating to Burrough's study, the dimensions given for the prints also suggest they are either carvings or animal prints, since "9 1/2 inches long by 6 inches wide" is a width-to-length ratio far outside any normal human range, but compatible with a number of Paleozoic animal tracks (or ill proportioned human print carvings).
Thus, there seems to be little reason to consider the study as supportive of human tracks in ancient rock, especially without good photos of the markings involved, and clear documentation of their geologic context.
Another possibility, even if such a study were conducted on the prints in question, is that fine grained sediment might have accumulated and hardened into the depressions and led to the mistaken notion that the grains counted inside the depressions were part of the original sediment. This might occur regardless of the origin of the depressions. According to Eric von Fange,[3] these prints were found when logging operations removed the overburden about 1930, but the grain density study was evidently not done until many years later--during which time modern fine grain sediment could have settled and hardened into the depressions. Moreover, without photos of the tracks taken when they were first exposed, its difficult to know what alterations, either natural or man-made, they may have suffered between their first exposure and the later observations.
 |
| Photo von Fange with surprisingly overstated caption. Photo by Wilbert Rusch. |
Despite the unrealistic appearance of the prints and Ingalls' conclusion that they were either carvings or ancient animal tracks, a number of strict creationists subsequently seized on Ingalls article as anti-evolutionary fodder, claiming or at least insinuating that the markings were real human footprints. Although to my knowledge no major creationist group still promotes them as such, minority of strict creationists continue to do so, especially on the internet, where one can find numerous lay creationists and mystery buffs encouraging this interpretation.
In the past, even some major creationist groups supported these "Carboniferous" human prints. Among them was the prominent creationist group Institute for Creation Research in California. In his widely read book The Genesis Flood, ICR president at the time, Henry M. Morris wrote that human footprints have been "frequently found in supposedly very ancient strata..." and begins by citing Ingalls article.[4] However, rather than showing photos of the prints or accurately describing their problematic features, Morris surprisingly claims, "These prints give every indication of having been made by human feet, at a time when the rocks were soft mud." Ironically, while again ignoring the serious problems with the KY prints, he smears properly skeptical workers by writing: "...it is obvious that it is only the philosophy, and not the objective evidence that would prevent one from accepting these prints as true human origin." Morris continues this section of his book by promoting alleged human prints from the Paluxy Riverbed of Texas, which have since been rejected even by most creationists, as covered in other writings.[5,6,7,8]
During the 1970's and early 1980's a number of other prominent creationist groups supported the KY "man tracks" as well. For example, in 1984 the Australian-based Creation Science Foundation Ltd., featured an article by Ken Ham in their Ex Nihilo journal featured that supported these Kentucky tracks as human, along with the Paluxy "man track" claims.[9] Ham stated that such claims were recently under heavy criticism by "evolutionists," but failed to mention that the claims were also being criticized by a number of fellow creationists. He also stated that evolutionists had long been aware of human footprints in 'wrong' age rocks, and that Robert Ingalls "commented on the presence of such human prints" in a 1940 Scientific American article. The phrase "commented on" in the same context with "human prints" seems a bit misleading, since Ingalls rejected the notion that they were real human prints.
Since the mid-1980's, when most creationist groups backpedaled from their former Paluxy "man track" claims in the wake of contrary published evidence, most major creationist groups have ceased promoting the Kentucky markings as well. Part of their reasoning might have been that the Paluxy prints were generally considered the more convincing, and if they are no longer valid, defending the Kentucky prints would be unwise. One exception includes Vance Farrell, whose 2001 book Evolution Cruncher[10] strongly promotes both the Kentucky and Texas markings as genuine human prints, while ignoring contrary views and evidence. However, most strict creationist authors seem to have largely abandoned these cases as evidence for their position; those still endorsing them are mostly laymen and small organizations whose websites and literature are generally lacking in academic rigor.
Claims that human footprints occur in Paleozoic rocks of Kentucky are without foundation. The relatively few such prints documented with photos show very unnatural shapes and lack the usual features of authentic human prints. They were probably made by native Americas--not with their feet in soft mud, but with their hands and sharp tools.
1. Ingals, Robert G. 1940. The Carboniferous Mystery.
2. Brad Steiger, Mysteries of Time and Space, pp.6-7
3. von Fange, Eric. 1981. Time Upside Down. Self-published. Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 33.
4. Morris, Henry, and Whitcomb, John. The Genesis Flood. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, MI. pp. 172-173.
5. Kuban, G. J. 1986. The Taylor Site "Man Tracks," and "A Review of ICR Impact article 151." Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
6. Kuban, G. J. 1986. A summary of the Taylor Site evidence. Creation/Evolution, Issue 17, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 10-18.
7. Kuban, G. J. 1986. Color distinctions and other curious features of dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. In: Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, David Gillette and M. Lockley, 1989, Cambridge University Press, pp. 427-440.
8. Kuban, G.J., 1986, Elongate dinosaur tracks. In: Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, David Gillette and M. Lockley, 1989, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-72.
9. Ham, Ken, 1984 (October), "What Happened to the Dinosaurs?," Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 6-11. Curiously, Ham's Ex Nihilo claimed that "human footprints have also been found in dinosaur footprint strata in Russia," even though the source quoted merely described the finding of human-like prints. Moreover, a previous Ex Nihilo article (August 1984, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 4.) had acknowledged that the Russian "man track" report was "without factual foundation.").
10. Farrell, Vance, 2001, Evolution Cruncher. Evolution Facts, Inc.
Wagner, Mark J., The Living Museum, Summer/Fall 2003, Illinois State Museum, Volume 65, Nos. 2 and 3: 3-11.