By Gillcraft
From a series of tracks it is possible for a trained tracker to deduce quite
a number of facts regarding the person who made the tracks. In dealing with the
human footprint it was mentioned that it was possible for the trained man to
distinguish a person from his tracks as readily as from his face. In this case
the person was known and his tracks were known, and the recognition consisted in
remembering the characteristics of the track in conjunction with the identity of
the person who made them.
A tracker employed by a police officer in India could, by studying the ground
at his master's gate, tell which of the servants had gone in and out that day;
for in a few days he was familiar with the characteristics of the feet and boots
of each member of the household.
That is a comparatively easy matter, but a further stage is reached when the
tracker on seeing an unknown track can tell from looking at it the sex of the
person who made it, height, build and weight, class, physical condition, and possibly character.
His accuracy will, of course, depend upon his proficiency and practice, but such
deductions are within the bounds of reason and of fact.
The influence that the sex of the person making a track has on the track
itself has already been alluded to in discussing the difference between the size
and shape of the shoes worn by the average man and the average woman: These
differences are also noticeable in the bare footprint. Apart from the size and
shape of the impressions made, it will be found that the length of stride of a
man is ordinarily appreciably greater than that of a woman. The depth of the
impression of a woman's foot is also less than that of a man, on account of the
lighter weight, but women wearing shoes usually leave a fairly deep impression
of the heel on account of its smaller surface area.
The same differences, to a lesser degree, are noticeable in the children of
either sex.
It is with some hesitation that I mention another point of difference between
the track of a man and a woman, because later on this difference will serve as a
clue in the deduction of character! The difference is that apparently women turn
their toes out more when they walk than men do. I have already said that this
may be due to the practice of wearing high heels, but in some places, especially
on the continent, girls are taught to point their toes out when they walk.
Height can be deduced tolerably easy from the length of stride and from the
length of the footmark. A tall person is supposed to take a longer stride than a
short person (not a very reliable point this) and his foot is generally
considerably longer. A properly proportioned man, if there is such a person in
reality, can be built up from the length of his foot somewhat in a similar way
to the method that scientists employ in building up the skeleton and picture of
an extinct animal from a fossilized fragment of it. The length of the foot
should equal the distance between the point of the elbow and the wrist bone.
This portion of the arm bears a certain proportion to the whole length of the
arm; the length of the arm bears a certain proportion to the height of the
individual. Scientifically the argument is, I believe, recognized as fairly
sound; the ordinary professional tracker knows nothing of science, logic or
retrospective prophecy; he merely knows these things happen to be so, and he
makes his deductions accordingly.
You will remember that in Scouting for Boys there is a yarn about the arrest
of a native boy by soldiers hunting for one of their comrades who had got lost,
because in answer to their queries he asked: "Do you mean a very tall
soldier, riding a roan horse that was slightly lame?" They said, "Yes;
that was the man. Where did you see him?" The boy replied, "I have not
seen him, but I know where he is gone." In this case the boy deduced the
height of the soldier from the fact that he had broken a branch from a tree,
which would have been out of reach of a man of ordinary height.
I mention this yarn specifically because it is a good illustration of the
fact that in deducing anything from a track, it is necessary to look at more
than the track on the ground.
Weight can be deduced from the depth of the impression and from the heaviness
of the track left. If a clear impression is left on comparatively hard ground,
the maker of the track was probably a heavy person. A combination of the
characteristics that help in the deduction of height and weight will give an
indication as to build, but further characteristics are seen in the case of
persons who are stout. They are inclined to plant their feet farther apart to
afford them more balance, and, I regret to say, are also inclined to turn their
toes outwards.
As I have already mentioned, deductions in regard to class are becoming
increasingly difficult now that those employed in various professions no longer
adopt styles of footgear peculiar to those professions. Similarly deductions
from footmarks that show signs of patches and old footgear are apt to be
misleading. On the whole, therefore, I should be very dubious of any deductions
in regard to class made even by a trained tracker.
Physical condition has, however, a very considerable effect on a track. It is
possible even to tell whether the man making the track is knock-kneed or whether
he turns his toes in. In the former case the man walks with his heels apart, so
that the right heel will fall a little to the right and the left heel a little
to the left of the central line of the track. The inner side of the back of his heel, and not the outer side, will strike the ground first and
leave a correspondingly marked impression. At the same time the toes will be
turned slightly out as in the average man's walk. In the latter case the turning
in of the toes will be apparent on the ground, and the inner side of the back of
the heel will also touch the ground first. Lameness, blindness and age have
their tale to tell. A wound, injury or malformation of the leg will frequently
entail a difference in the length of step. Usually it will be found that the
marks of the feet come in pairs, that is, two footmarks are found fairly close
together, then there is a space and another two footmarks are found. It is
difficult at first to determine which is the foot that is lame until an analysis
has been made of the way in which the lameness affects the man's walking powers.
I am forced to disagree in respect to the track of a lame man with the authority
which I would otherwise implicitly follow. G. W. Gayer says: "The affected
leg takes the shorter step, the sound leg doing the lion's share of the work;
and the shorter step is frequently uneven in length, sometimes being longer than
at other times."
What we have to consider is what is the work that the sound leg is called
upon to do? Surely it has to propel the person forward, and, as it bears the
lion's share, it will throw the unsound leg farther forward, that is to say that
there is no reason to take the weight of the body off the sound leg sooner than
is necessary and in consequence the unsound leg can be carried a full step
forward. There is every reason to take the weight of the body off the unsound
leg as soon as possible and so the sound leg cannot be carried a full pace
forward, but steps short. It is not the leg in the air that matters, but the leg
on the ground.
In each pair of footsteps, therefore, the sound foot will ordinarily be the
leading foot of the pair.
But lameness will leave other signs, according to the cause of it. If the
heel is hurt, its impression will be correspondingly light. If a toe is hurt,
its impression will not be so deep as the sound toe. If the leg is stiff, the
steps may be of equal length, but there may be signs of the foot brushing into
place on the ground, usually from an outward and backward direction.
It is extraordinarily hard to simulate lameness for the purpose of
demonstrating a lame track, and in such case the track made is not a true one.
There is always a certain amount of luck in these deductions, and it is
inadvisable to be too emphatic in one's opinion, but frequently it comes off! I
once hazarded the opinion that a man had something wrong with his knee on seeing
the track he left on sand. He confessed to a hockey injury - two years old! In
that particular case it was the angle of the foot to the line of march as
compared with the other foot that gave a slight clue.
In the track of a blind man the pace is shorter, the line of march is apt to
be uncertain, the feet are planted wider apart - the influence of sight on
balance has already been mentioned - and there may be marks of a stick, or if
the man has not been trained, of some person who is accompanying him or of a
dog. It is worth mentioning that a St. Dunstan's man does not show the
characteristics of a blind man's track to any marked degree. His training has
improved his other senses so that they aid him in his movements. His sense of
touch is such that it does not need contact with a thing to warn him, he can
sense an obstacle, apparently, before he meets it. In himself he is a constant
example of what perseverance and grit can do.
Age influences the walk to a considerable degree. Old people are apt to
become infirm on their legs, their powers of balance are lessened, entailing a
spreading out of the feet, the line of march is not so straight, and the steps
are shorter. It is said that after middle age the older one grows the shorter
one's steps are likely to become. In many cases, too, indications of shuffling
can be noticed, in this case in the direction the foot would ordinarily be
planted.
Physical condition accounts for another peculiar characteristic. In the last
chapter the track made by a man who was exhausted was described; a similar track
will be found in the case of a man who is inebriated, or who is mentally
deficient, or who is merely wool-gathering. The characteristics will be marked
or not according to the state of inebriation, but in all these cases the
symptoms point to the fact that the person has lost complete control of his
legs. It has then to be decided as to why control has been lost, and other signs
have to be found before a true deduction can be made.
In the case of Ram Bux, whose sad story I recounted, the sign was that he had
entered the wine-shop sober and come out a different being. The deduction may
have been false, he might have been knocked on the head inside, but the village
tracker was fairly safe to assume that as he had entered the wine-shop he had
partaken of wine, for otherwise there was no apparent reason for him to go there
unless he hoped to convert the proprietor!
And now in regard to character. I must confess that there is not very much in
it for people to be alarmed about. But both in Egypt and in India, and probably
in other parts of the world, trained trackers assert that a man who turns his
toes out unduly when he walks is apt to depart from the strict truth so that his
word is not to be depended upon. Possibly there is something in it! That
estimable fellow the backwoodsman points his toes straight forward when he walks
and nature tells us to do the same. As a matter of fact very frequently a
criminal's track contains one or two almost indeterminate features which lead
one to suspect the maker of the track. These features cannot be described in any
way, but combined together they leave an impression that there is a kink in the
nature of the person who made the marks. Again, a man whose brain is below
normal is apt to leave a shambling sort of track, a picture that is not clear
cut, a pattern that does not repeat truly right down the line.
It may be argued that all these peculiar characteristics are a matter of
conjecture. I have tried so far as I can to avoid any theories that have not
been actually found to be true in fact. Naturally I have had to treat each
peculiarity in rather a general way, and I cannot frankly say that these
peculiarities will be found in every case, nor that the deductions I have made
will be correct in every particular, but I can say that in the great majority of
cases these things are so.
Training in Tracking
Outdoor Skills
