Comments on: Redating Mexico’s Toloquilla Footprints with optically stimulated luminescence

By: Hank Basse

Hank Basse — Mon, 10 May 2010 17:54:58 +0000

Assuming they are indeed hominid footprints, is it possible humans were in the Americas much longer ago than previously thought? Perhaps in much smaller numbers and populations than the generally accepted populations of 15K years ago or so. Maybe for some reason these hominids in the new world became extinct only to be replaced by the newer cultures of 15K years ago.

By: A Refined Ar/Ar Date For The ‘Devil’s Footprints’ From The Roccamonfina Volcano In Italy « Anthropology.net

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:34:59 +0000

[...] set from the same era from Willandra Lakes, Australia. There’s also the highly curious 40,000 year old Toloquilla footprints in Mexico. Photos of the Devil's Footprints from Roccamonfina Volcano (Source: [...]

By: Gary Tunnell

Gary Tunnell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:16:04 +0000

A few years back I observed moose footprints in a snowbank that appeared to be huge human footprints. The moose put each foot into the snow leaving a large entry hole. It then moved forward leaving a “waist,” or narrowing where its lower leg had moved forward through the snow. As the foot was removed from the snow for the next step, a larger hole was left at the other end of the “waist.” After fine snow almost filled the deep tracks, the resulting “footprints” appeared to have been left by a bipedal hominine. Many supposed “footprints” may, indeed, be left by other animals. This can only be determined in the same way that I determined a moose rather than a hominine made the footprints in the snow, by digging deep to find the real prints well below the surface!

By: On Mexican Toloquilla Footprints and the “Peopling of the Americas” « Anthropology.net

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:06 +0000

[...] Links Redating Mexico’s Toloquilla Footprints with optically stimulated luminescence [...]

By: Luis

Luis — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:16:09 +0000

There are reasons to be very critical. You don’t normally date human presence on controversial footprints and all the rest is against. I have read on other isolated odd datations being discarded almost rutinarily by prehistorians: 12,000 BP Acheulean in NW Spain, a Bell Beaker from Soria apparently from almost 1,000 years before Bell Beaker existed… Things like that happen, you need something more solid to build a theory.

Btw, I have not even clear they are human-made. Your pic shows an apparent trail but they looked bear like to me. The image at National Geographic is not much better but guess I can discard the bear. What about Bigfoot? ;)

It could be anything: specially if the eruption happened underwater. Why would any human (or any other animal) step on fresh (I mean: hot) volcanic ash anyhow.