This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. United States: New Mexico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico. Geology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Article: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/oldest-ice-age-human-footprints-new-mexico-not-that-old-2212969

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology/Archive_10#White_Sands_fossil_footprints. – Joe (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Doug Weller talk 21:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot more convincing, but we'll have to see how the critics respond. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The white sands prints are not fossils. All of the references to “fossil” prints in this article should be removed. They are impressions in sediment. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The term fossil includes animal/human traces such as these and are called trace fossils. See the article on fossil. Indyguy (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not trace fossils either. Trace fossils are still mineralized, which these are not. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the dictionary definition of fossil, I would tend to agree with you that the footprints do not correspond to a simple definition of the word. On the other hand, you will see if you do a search of the references, that many of them use the terms fossil or fossilized to describe the footprints. How to reconcile the two? Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in several online dictionaries and most define a fossil as "A remnant, impression, or trace of an animal or plant of a past geologic age that has been preserved in the earth’s crust." The rest include the idea of an imprint made by an organism as it moved (which is what a trace is). There is nothing to reconcile. An animal's foot prints preserved in rock is considered a type of fossil. Indyguy (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trace fossils, like footprints or stomach stones still need to be mineralized to meet the definition of a fossil. A ground squirrel burrow from the Pleistocene is not a fossil just because it is from a different geologic age. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mineralization is the characteristic feature of a "fossil". Also none of the scholarly sources cited in the article call them fossils, only media ones, and we can't rely on the latter to be precise with terminology. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true, Joe. the Bennett et al. academic article in Science refers to fossils in relation to footprints several times ( search the text). likewise, the Editor’s summary in the Pigati et al article in Science refers to ‘fossilized footprints’. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my response in the section below. – Joe (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Sands fossil footprints → White Sands footprints – Per the discussion above; these don't meet the technical definition of a fossil (a mineralized trace) and the scholarly sources cited in the article don't call them one. – Joe (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an archeologist and am agnostic on whether this move is a good idea. I would simply note that it is not true that none of the scholarly articles refer to fossils or fossilized as an adjective for footprints. Two of them do, including the first academic article cited (the one that created the controversy about the age of the footprints. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] talks about fossil footprints in general but doesn't call these specific footprints fossils, if I'm not mistaken. In [3] I believe you're referring the editor's summary, which is not part of the article and not written by a specialist. Fossil human footprints exist, it's just that these are not an example of them. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an archaeologist, but I do remember when these were first discovered, and seem to recall them being called "fossil footprints". The US National Park System calls them "fossilized footprints" [4], [5]; Science calls them "fossilized footprints" (but debates their age): [6]; National Public Radio calls them "fossil footprints": [7]; Archaeology Magazine calls them "fossilized footprints" [8]; the US Geological Survey calls them "fossil human footprints" [9]; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory calls them "fossil human footprints" [10], Smithsonian Magazine calls them "fossilized ancient footprints" [11], etc. It seems quite clear to me that there are enough reliable sources out there to confirm that they are referred to as "fossil footprints" or "fossilized footprints". Based on this I respectfully oppose the move proposal. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, these are all media sources. It is telling that the scholarly sources, written by people who know and are careful about the terminology, do not call them fossils. We don't have to follow the exact wording that RSes use when that wording is demonstrably incorrect and other, more reliable sources do not use that wording. – Joe (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bennett article contains the following, exact word sequences (do a search!): ‘fossil human footprints’, ‘fossil footprints’, ‘fossil tracks’. You are right that the editor’s summary in the second source I mention is not part of the article but I suppose that the editor asked for the authors’ Clearance before publishing. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they're not talking about these footprints. They're comparing them to other, fossilised footprints. – Joe (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No so, Joe (do a search!). Here is a direct quote from the Bennett et al article: "Many tracks appear to be those of teenagers and children.... Children accompany the teenagers, and collectively they leave a higher number of footprints that are preferentially recorded in the fossil record." Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am capable of searching (and indeed, reading) papers, thank you. The word fossil is used by Bennett et al. four times:

Fossil human footprints provide an alternative source of evidence for human presence when excavated from an in situ sedimentary sequence with good chronological control [e.g., (12–14)].

The authors state that fossil human footprints, in general, can be evidence of human presence. They do not say that the White Sands footprints are fossil footprints. The three papers they cite each describe much older footprints which are fossilised and which are explicitly described as such.

A geomorphometric comparison of a sample of WHSA tracks with a set of modern footprints (n = 356) and fossil footprints from Namibia (n = 78; supplementary text) reveals broad similarity (fig. S3). The WHSA tracks, similar to the fossil tracks from Namibia, are flatter-footed than the modern samples, similar to what is commonly reported for habitually unshod individuals [e.g., (21)].

The authors are making an explicit comparison to other footprints from Namibia, which again are older and meet the strict definition of a fossil. Note in particular this part, "the WHSA tracks, similar to the fossil tracks from Namibia [...]" – the WHSA footprints are just "tracks", the Namibia footprints are "fossil tracks".

Many tracks appear to be those of teenagers and children; large adult footprints are less frequent. One hypothesis for this is the division of labor, in which adults are involved in skilled tasks whereas “fetching and carrying” are delegated to teenagers. Children accompany the teenagers, and collectively they leave a higher number of footprints that are preferentially recorded in the fossil record.

The authors hypothesise that there is a general bias towards juvenile footprints in the fossil record (because the majority of other preserved footprints are fossils) and that this might explain the pattern they see at White Sands. They do not say that the White Sands footprints are part of the "fossil record" themselves. – Joe (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too can read and I disagree with your interpretation with respect to the final quote (about children and teenagers). Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, have read the above and agree with Joe's interpretation. Toadspike [Talk] 12:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe For the uninitiated, what is the difference between these prints and other prints that makes them not fossils? Is it that they're in dirt instead of rock? I couldn't find a clear explanation at fossil. Toadspike [Talk] 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A fossil is something that has turned into a rock with the passage of time, by one of various processes. Archaeologists don't usually deal with fossils, because most of these processes take too long, but remains preserved by other means. In this case, the footprints were preserved in sediment that is still sediment and not rock (which is lucky, because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to date them with radiocarbon). – Joe (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this is one of those cases where a sizeable chunk of the sources are just wrong and we have to ignore them. I support this move to a technically correct title. The CRITERIA support it too: The proposed title is more concise, and therefore more natural and recognizable, and it is still precise enough to identify the subject. Toadspike [Talk] 21:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the misconception that archaeologists typically deal with fossils is extremely common and that's probably why we're trained to be precise about the distinction. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at other trackway sites similar to this one (Wallys beach in Canada) which is 13k years old. Academics do not refer to this sort of sediment impression trackway as a fossil, because it isnt one. The only people calling these fossils are journalists and people who dont know the difference. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]