RockArtBlog has had a number of columns about footprints in rock art over the years (click on footprint in the cloud index at the bottom of the blog). Various sources have speculated that they are meant to symbolize travel, personal identity (like a signature) or even a sort of ‘Kilroy was here’ mark. Now, a new possible meaning has been proposed by Fredrik Fahlander (2026) in a recent publication, the footprints might represent a contract.
Fahlender uses a term for footprints, podomorph, which is somewhat obscure, although I suppose we can consider it accurate. “During the Bronze Age, a particular type of podomorphic petroglyph was produced on the outcrops by the sea in southern Scandinavia, in the Mälaren region of central-eastern Sweden. The study shows that the petroglyphs are organized in relation to water as well as to different minerals visible in the rock. This pattern indicates that they are not simply images or symbols but also physical ‘devices’, produced to do something. One purpose was for the frequent single podomorphs to be paired with another at a later stage. Because podomorphs in a pair generally are of different sizes and form, it is suggested that each one belongs to an individual of different age and/or sex– potentially depicted in stone to show existing or desired future relations, agreements, pacts, friendship, marriages etc.” (Fahlander 2026:1) Fahlander’s paper studies Bronze Age footprints and he points out a very interesting, and diagnostic, fact. In many pairs of footprints the left foot and the right foot are created with differences in style and/or technique, suggesting that they were created by different people and perhaps at different times.
Breaking down footprints in detail Fahlander discusses their styles and the techniques used to create them. “Traditionally, Bronze Age rock art has mainly been discussed from a representational perspective as images or symbols: as is particularly evident in the manner of documentation in which the motifs are rendered as two-dimensional black figures on a white background. This despite the numerous examples reported of how petroglyphs integrate and interact with the microtopography of the rock The representational focus also entails problems of categorization, where different types of motifs of diverse techniques, contexts and potential functions are amalgamated into one single category.” (Fahlander 2026:2) He is looking at the petroglyphs much more closely than just how they relate to the landscape or environment.
There have long been theories of relationships between rock art and features in the rock like cracks. But, Fahlander seems to take it down almost to a microscopic level in significance. “In recent years, however, research has put more emphasis on aspects of production and how petroglyphs relate to waterflows, fissures and mineral veins in the outcrops. This expanded perspective partially bridges the nature-culture divide and stresses the physicality of the Bronze Age petroglyphs as a type of visual and physical ‘device’ rather than being mere images or symbols.” (Fahlander 2026:2) One potential problem with this, however, is that we may not have much, or accurate, knowledge of waterflow, fissures and mineral veins when the rock art was created. So this assumes that the surface of the rock has not changed since the footprint was placed there.
In Scandinavia, Bronze Age podomorphs are produced in various types and can be either fully hollowed out, resembling actual footprints or outlining the shape of a foot sole or a print. Both types can have one or more crossing lines commonly assumed to represent straps to fix the leather sole. Pairs also occur as being merged, sharing a common groove. It is important to note that both types of clad podomorphs are designed to look like real footprints. Several preserved fragments of footwear with and without lacings have been found in Bronze Age oak-coffin burials of both sexes. A real Bronze Age footprint in snow, clay or sand would thus leave either a crossing line like in many of the contour-lined podomorphsor just the plain oval shape of the leather sole.The chronology of the different types is complex. Although the majority of South Scandinavian rock art can be firmly dated to the Bronze Age period, some petroglyphs might be slightly earlier and a few may be of later Iron Age date. The podomorphs stand out from the other motifs since many researchers attribute the majority to the late Bronze Age andpre-Roman Iron Age.” (Fahlander 2026:3) This observation interests me the most in his paper. That the footprints in a pair may not match up. Fahlander’s reasoning here is fascinating.
“One interesting aspect of the Bronze Age podomorphs is that, in contrast to the animal tracks of the Neolithic rock art tradition of northern Fennoscandia, podomorphs only rarely seem to indicate movement . The Järrestad and the Rickeby sites have four naked and six clad podomorphs in succession, respectively. At first glance, they seem to indicate movement, until you realise that they consist of right feet only. At the Tisselskog site in Dalsland is another example of ten podomorphs with toes that seem to take steps down the outcrop. Judging by the toes and arch of the foot, all of them are also right feet. This could suggest an attempt to illustrate movement by jumping on one foot, but it is more likely to be the result of other considerations. At Rickeby, for example, it is striking that the ‘trail’ is actually a series of podomorphs produced within a natural depression in the rock, which is regularly flooded after rain.” (Fahlander 2026: 5-6) These observations, of course, may only be true for Bronze Age footprints (podomorphs) in northern Fennoscandia. Studies elsewhere should show us where else such conclusions can be applied
“Different interpretations of their meaning and functions. Most common is the idea that they represent actual persons. As such, the imprints are argued to be produced in connection with initiation rites, marking presence or remembrance. Another common theme concerns symbolic representation. Almgren, for example, suggested that podomorphs symbolize the tracks of an elusive deity that cannot be depicted. A third connection is made between podomorphs and death.” (Fahlander 2026: 7)
Bradley (1999) proposes that podomorphssymbolize the transition between aquatic (realm of death) and land (realm of the living) by leading from the burial mounds on the hillocks down to the sea. Later, Goldhahn (2012) explores a similar connection, emphasizing a relation between podomorphs and graves. Among his examples are Törnsfall 107, a cairn that partly covers a series of podomorphs on the rock beneath, and a block with a pair of podomorphs found adjacent to a cairn in Norway (Simonsen and Vogt 2005). Even though all these interpretations have their merits, none is sufficiently supported by the wider bodyofrockart. The idea of an invisible deity does not resonate well with the abundant single and pairs of podomorphs at some sites. The association of movement of either the sun or the dead lacks footing in the rock art itself, as the podomorphs are static and irregularly oriented in different and opposite directions. The idea that footprints represent real people is somewhat contradicted by the sometimes impossible sizes. In general the sizes are quite small. If taken at face value, the great majority would represent children’s footprints with only a small number belonging to adults. (Fahlander 2026: 7)
So the first step is a careful examination of the petroglyphs to decide how closely they might match. “A first question to discuss is whether the visual qualities of the pecked podomorphs refer to shoes, feet or prints. The distinction is important because tracks and feet tend to be considered quite differently in terms of their powers and purposes. The survey of the Mälaren podomorphs shows no indications that any podomorphs are feet viewed from above. On the contrary, the naked feet with toes and the fully hammered-out types both qualify as prints that could have been outlined after a wet footprint on the rock. The contour-lined types are less evident, but the ones with cross-straps are also most likely to represent prints. This attention to detail and the fact that someone took the extra time to peck a crossing groove to make them look like a real print from a shoe with straps must thus be regarded as important. A second significant question is whether podomorphs are general ideograms or prints of particular individuals. The variable sizes of the podomorphs might allow them to be interpreted as particular prints. Taking their lengths at face value would mean that the majority (i.e. 18–25 cm) are imprints of 7–10-year-olds. However, it would not explain the impossible sizes in the lower and uppermost registers (Table 3). Moreover, as many podomorphs are often found on irregular boulders and on rather steep outcrops, where it is difficult for a person to stand, not all (if any) podomorphs are likely to emanate from actual footprints. Thus, we should not expect podomorphs to be exact facsimiles of someone’s print, nor to represent or relate to particular individuals.” (Fahlander 2026:12-13) Now, if we can determine that the individual footprints are not identical this opens up a whole new range of possibilities.
And at this point Fahlander puts it all together with his creative possibility. “Another option that better fits the organization and articulation of the podomorphs relies on the fact that they are produced both as singles and in pairs. That the podomorphs of the majority of pairs - are of different lengths and shapes is probably not a coincidence. This opens up a scenario where the examples of a single podomorph might be the first step in making a pair. A ‘material invitation’ to add another. A case supporting such a notion can be seen in at Boglösa 138, where one of a pair of is only partly hammered out, indicating a process divided into sequential stages transforming one type into another (Fig. 8a). Such a prolonged ritual could potentially involve a quid pro quo scenario where a second podomorph was added after a request or wish has been fulfilled. This would, however, not explain the joined pairs, which most likely were produced in one event. But if each podomorph of a pair ‘belonged’ to different individuals, particularly if of a different age and/or sex, it would make sense of the diverging designs of paired podomorphs (e.g. different sizes and forms, number of straps and contrary orientation, see Fig. 5). Considering the permanence of the petroglyphs, podomorphs might have been employed as a ritualized (or ontological) way of creating a lasting bond between persons: for example, to demonstrate materially friendship, agreements, pacts or marriage etc.” (Fahlender 2026:15) So there we have it. If a footprint represents and individual, then a pair of footprints differing in detail could represent two different individuals, in other words a relationship – a contract. A very intriguing proposition and some very original thinking.
NOTE: In quoting from Fahlander I have removed most of his citations. Readers looking for the original material and his sources should go to his original paper listed below.
REFERENCE:
Fahlander, Fredrik, 2026 , A Step in Stone, Ontologies of Podomorphic Petroglyphs in Southeastern
Scandinavian Bronze Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of University of Oxford.
Posts
