It is commonly held that the major functional features of the human foot (e.g. a functional longitudinal medial arch, lateral to medial force transfer and hallucal (big-toe) push-off ) appear only in the last 2 Myr, but functional interpretations of footbones and footprints of early human ancestors (hominins) prior to 2 million years ago (Mya) remain contradictory. Pixel-wise topographical statistical analysis of Laetoli footprint morphology, compared with results from experimental studies of footprint formation; foot-pressure measurements in bipedalism of humans and non-human great apes; and computer simulation techniques, indicate that most of these functional features were already present, albeit less strongly expressed than in ourselves, in the maker of the Laetoli G-1 footprint trail, 3.66 Mya. This finding provides strong support to those previous studies which have interpreted the G-1 prints as generally modern in aspect.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

We report a Holocene human and animal footprint site from the Namib Sand Sea, south of Walvis Bay, Namibia. Using these data, we explore intratrail footprint variability associated with small variations in substrate properties using a "whole foot" analytical technique developed for the studies in human ichnology. We demonstrate high levels of intratrail variability as a result of variations in grain size, depositional moisture content, and the degree of sediment disturbance, all of which determine the bearing capacity of the substrate. The two principal trails were examined, which had consistent stride and step lengths, and as such variations in print typology were primarily controlled by substrate rather than locomotor mechanics. Footprint typology varies with bearing capacity such that firm substrates show limited impressions associated with areas of peak plantar pressure, whereas softer substrates are associated with deep prints with narrow heels and reduced medial longitudinal arches. Substrates of medium bearing capacity give displacement rims and proximal movement of sediment, which obscures the true form of the medial longitudinal arch. A simple conceptual model is offered which summarizes these conclusions and is presented as a basis for further investigation into the control of substrate on footprint typology. The method, model, and results presented here are essential in the interpretation of any sites of greater paleoanthropological significance, such as recently reported from Ileret (1.5 Ma, Kenya; Bennett et al.: Science 323 (2009) 1197-1201).

Footprints are the most direct source of evidence about locomotor biomechanics in extinct vertebrates. One of the principal suppositions underpinning biomechanical inferences is that footprint geometry correlates with dynamic foot pressure, which, in turn, is linked with overall limb motion of the trackmaker. In this study, we perform the first quantitative test of this longstanding assumption, using topological statistical analysis of plantar pressures and experimental and computer-simulated footprints. In computer-simulated footprints, the relative distribution of depth differed from the distribution of both peak and pressure impulse in all simulations. Analysis of footprint samples with common loading inputs and similar depths reveals that only shallow footprints lack significant topological differences between depth and pressure distributions. Topological comparison of plantar pressures and experimental beach footprints demonstrates that geometry is highly dependent on overall print depth; deeper footprints are characterized by greater relative forefoot, and particularly toe, depth than shallow footprints. The highlighted difference between 'shallow' and 'deep' footprints clearly emphasizes the need to understand variation in foot mechanics across different degrees of substrate compliance. Overall, our results indicate that extreme caution is required when applying the 'depth equals pressure' paradigm to hominin footprints, and by extension, those of other extant and extinct tetrapods.