Depictions of Shoeprints in Northwest Portugal

From the end of the 3rd millennium and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, new motifs appear in Northwest Portugal. This corresponds to what one of the authors has called Figurative Art. The engravings of human feet—barefoot or with shoes—fall within this new “style”. This motif is not well known in Northern Portugal, although it has recently been the subject of a synthesis study on the Atlantic façade of this region. Starting from an inventory work, contextualising the several scales of analysis and the theoretical posture that knowledge is simultaneously cumulative and interpretative, this text reveals the shoeprints existing in Northwest Portugal and the interpretations that have been made about them. Currently there are 81 shoeprints in the region, distributed on 18 outcrops, in 17 different sites. This study has made it possible to create two typological subgroups, namely shoeprints with simple soles and with sole and heel. Within each group it was possible to perceive the existence of places with only one or few shoeprints, versus places with many shoeprints and that there are shoeprints of different dimensions and different orientations. The analysis of this data has made it possible to hypothesise that the engraving of these motifs may have arisen at the end of the Chalcolithic, beginning of the Bronze Age, reaching its peak during the latter period and ending at the beginning of the Iron Age. It is also hypothesised that they represent different age groups and that they may relate to pilgrimages or trips that formed part of rites of passage to adulthood, probably of individuals of higher status within a hierarchised society and which occurred at certain times of year, especially during the summer.


Introduction
Although footprints and shoeprints are relatively frequent motifs in outdoor rock art in the western Iberian Peninsula, few monographic or synthesis studies focus on the centre of Portugal and Galicia.
One of the first known works on representations of feet or sandals/shoes in Portugal refers to north-central Portugal, more specifically to the set in Alagoa, in the municipality of Tondela, in the district of Viseu.During the 1970s, Gomes and Monteiro [1] analysed and described, technically and formally, over one hundred of these motifs, identifying several overlaps.This led them to create a typological chart and to make some chronological and symbolic interpretative considerations on this phenomenon.
In 1994, in the westernmost façade of Spain, Benito del Rey and Grande del Brío [2] published an article about an outcrop with engravings of feet.In 1998, Sevillano San José and Bécares Pérez [3] run, sensibly, from northeast to southwest and flow into the Atlantic Ocean.It is a region that is rich in tin and gold resources (Figure 1).This article is based on the latter work and provides some data and considerations about the shoeprints of the westernmost façade of Northern Portugal.
Northwest Portugal, which borders to the north with Galicia, Spain, is a mountainous region, with reliefs in amphitheatre that rise from the coast to the interior.It is crossed by several rivers that run, sensibly, from northeast to southwest and flow into the Atlantic Ocean.It is a region that is rich in tin and gold resources (Figure 1).

Methodology
In theoretical terms this work started from the premise that knowledge is both cumulative and interpretive and that the material findings correspond to expressions of the social and symbolic world of the communities that elaborated and attended them.
In practical terms, the work was organised in three stages: initial desk research, fieldwork and advanced desk research.In the first stage, a review of the existing knowledge and questions about footprints and shoeprints on the westernmost façade of the Iberian Peninsula was carried out; consultation of bibliography, in order to consolidate the theoretical body of work, and bibliography and cartography, for physical and environmental contextualisation of the area under study.Fieldwork implied archaeological prospecting, planned from a preliminary inventory and conducted on the basis of the bibliographical research.The objective was to relocate sites that had already been identified, while making it possible to discover other unpublished sites.Each archaeological site was inventoried, which included its administrative location and its physical and archaeological context, as well as the description of the outcrop and the motifs found therein.Daytime, generic, and detailed photographs and nocturnal photographs were also taken when provided.In two cases (Fraga das Passadas and Penedo de S. Gonçalo), permission was requested from the Direção Regional de Cultura Norte (Northern Regional Directorate for Culture), to carry out cleaning and more detailed study of the recorded motifs, through photogrammetry.For this purpose, the combination of the Agisoft Photoscan 5 and Meshlab6 programmes were used.Legends associated to the inventoried sites were also collected. 5Agisoft LLC 11 Degtyarniy per., St. Petersburg, Russia, 191144. 6Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "A.Faedo", Pisa, Italy, 56124; Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma, Italy, 00185.

Methodology
In theoretical terms this work started from the premise that knowledge is both cumulative and interpretive and that the material findings correspond to expressions of the social and symbolic world of the communities that elaborated and attended them.
In practical terms, the work was organised in three stages: initial desk research, fieldwork and advanced desk research.In the first stage, a review of the existing knowledge and questions about footprints and shoeprints on the westernmost façade of the Iberian Peninsula was carried out; consultation of bibliography, in order to consolidate the theoretical body of work, and bibliography and cartography, for physical and environmental contextualisation of the area under study.Fieldwork implied archaeological prospecting, planned from a preliminary inventory and conducted on the basis of the bibliographical research.The objective was to relocate sites that had already been identified, while making it possible to discover other unpublished sites.Each archaeological site was inventoried, which included its administrative location and its physical and archaeological context, as well as the description of the outcrop and the motifs found therein.Daytime, generic, and detailed photographs and nocturnal photographs were also taken when provided.In two cases (Fraga das Passadas and Penedo de S. Gonçalo), permission was requested from the Direção Regional de Cultura Norte (Northern Regional Directorate for Culture), to carry out cleaning and more detailed study of the recorded motifs, through photogrammetry.For this purpose, the combination of the Agisoft Photoscan 5  and Meshlab 6 programmes were used.Legends associated to the inventoried sites were also collected.
The advanced desk research comprised interrelation of the totality of the obtained data and spatial analysis.This made it possible to discuss the data and draw up interpretations thereof.

The Data
Of the 219 footprints identified in Northwest Portugal [12], it was possible to identify 81 shoeprints, which are distributed on 18 outcrops, located in 17 archaeological sites.These are located mainly in the innermost areas of the northwest, with only one exception, the shoeprint of Salgueiro 1 (no.14), in Carreço, Viana do Castelo (Figure 2) 7 .
The advanced desk research comprised interrelation of the totality of the obtained data and spatial analysis.This made it possible to discuss the data and draw up interpretations thereof.

The Data
Of the 219 footprints identified in Northwest Portugal [12], it was possible to identify 81 shoeprints, which are distributed on 18 outcrops, located in 17 archaeological sites.These are located mainly in the innermost areas of the northwest, with only one exception, the shoeprint of Salgueiro 1 (no.14), in Carreço, Viana do Castelo (Figure 2) 7 .They are distributed mainly in low and medium altitude areas (up to 700 m), which corresponds to 78% of the cases.Above 700 m there are only four cases identified, i.e., 22%.The majority are located on slopes (78%, corresponding to 13 cases), with rare exceptions in the bottom of the valleys (17%, or three cases) and in the summit of the mountains (11%, which corresponds to two cases) (Table 1, Figure 3).In any of the situations mentioned, they occur in natural areas of passage and are easily accessible from the valleys.They are distributed mainly in low and medium altitude areas (up to 700 m), which corresponds to 78% of the cases.Above 700 m there are only four cases identified, i.e., 22%.The majority are located on slopes (78%, corresponding to 13 cases), with rare exceptions in the bottom of the valleys (17%, or three cases) and in the summit of the mountains (11%, which corresponds to two cases) (Table 1, Figure 3).In any of the situations mentioned, they occur in natural areas of passage and are easily accessible from the valleys.In relation to geology, all recorded outcrops are granitic, although of different types and colourations.
As for the topography of the engraved outcrops, the shoeprints are mainly found on outcrops that are not very prominent in the soil, and therefore are hardly perceptible from a distance.This is the case of 58.02% of the samples (Figure 4).However, they are also inscribed on high rocks in relation to the soil and of great visual impact, in 37.03% of the cases (Figure 5).There are four outcrops in which it was not possible to determine their characteristics for different reasons.In relation to geology, all recorded outcrops are granitic, although of different types and colourations.
As for the topography of the engraved outcrops, the shoeprints are mainly found on outcrops that are not very prominent in the soil, and therefore are hardly perceptible from a distance.This is the case of 58.02% of the samples (Figure 4).However, they are also inscribed on high rocks in relation to the soil and of great visual impact, in 37.03% of the cases (Figure 5).There are four outcrops in which it was not possible to determine their characteristics for different reasons.The visibility characteristics of the engraved outcrops were determined "based on personal observations, cartographic analysis and bibliographic sources.It was also assumed that the vegetation cover around the engraved outcrops would be more open than at present, which might not occur" 8 [12] (p.275).Taking into account these premises, from the outcrops recorded with shoeprints there would be a broad visibility from the surrounding area, at least for some quadrants, in 83.33% of the cases, corresponding to 15 cases.In the remaining three, there were no conditions to determine this study variable.
Although there are typological tables, both for the footprints of the Ceira and Alva rivers, in the Centre of Portugal [9], as well as those of Alagoa, in the centre-north [1,8], it was chosen to make a 8 "com base em observações pessoais, na análise cartográfica e nas fontes bibliográficas.Parte-se, igualmente, do princípio de que o coberto vegetal, em redor dos afloramentos gravados, seria mais aberto do que atualmente, o que poderia não ocorrer" The visibility characteristics of the engraved outcrops were determined "based on personal observations, cartographic analysis and bibliographic sources.It was also assumed that the vegetation cover around the engraved outcrops would be more open than at present, which might not occur" 8 [12] (p.275).Taking into account these premises, from the outcrops recorded with shoeprints there would be a broad visibility from the surrounding area, at least for some quadrants, in 83.33% of the cases, corresponding to 15 cases.In the remaining three, there were no conditions to determine this study variable.
Although there are typological tables, both for the footprints of the Ceira and Alva rivers, in the Centre of Portugal [9], as well as those of Alagoa, in the centre-north [1,8], it was chosen to make a proper typology to the case studies, given the specificities of Northwest Portugal [12].This work considered shoeprints with a rounded or oval upper end, of width superior or almost equal to the inferior extremity.In this definition we considered the archaeological data or representations of prehistoric soles known in Iberia, in a similar way.Such is the case of the Neolithic soles, of vegetal fibres, of the cave of Murciélagos de Albuñol, in Granada [13]; of the pair of limestone sandals from one of the Alapraia hypogeums in Cascais [8,14] and those represented in the Alentejo stele of Ervidel I in Aljustrel [1,15].
It was based on these characteristics that, in Northwest Portugal, 81 shoeprints were identified, although differences were noted among them that justified the creation of subcategories.Thus, shoeprints were subdivided into shoeprints with representations of simple soles (49%) and shoeprints with sole and heel representation (51%) (Table 2).In each one of categories, specificities were also identified, which in the case of shoeprints with a simple sole, some (rare) visible marks were observed that were interpreted as representations of straps.In contrast, one was identified in which the rim of the sole and heel was defined by perforation (Table 3).

With simple sole
With simple sole and internal grooves TOTAL 81 In each one of categories, specificities were also identified, which in the case of shoeprints with a simple sole, some (rare) visible marks were observed that were interpreted as representations of straps.In contrast, one was identified in which the rim of the sole and heel was defined by perforation (Table 3).With sole and heel With sole and heel rims defined by perforation

TOTAL 81
In each one of categories, specificities were also identified, which in the case of shoeprints with a simple sole, some (rare) visible marks were observed that were interpreted as representations of straps.In contrast, one was identified in which the rim of the sole and heel was defined by perforation (Table 3).With sole and heel With sole and heel rims defined by perforation

TOTAL 81
In each one of categories, specificities were also identified, which in the case of shoeprints with a simple sole, some (rare) visible marks were observed that were interpreted as representations of straps.In contrast, one was identified in which the rim of the sole and heel was defined by perforation (Table 3).With sole and heel With sole and heel rims defined by perforation  In each one of categories, specificities were also identified, which in the case of shoeprints with a simple sole, some (rare) visible marks were observed that were interpreted as representations of straps.In contrast, one was identified in which the rim of the sole and heel was defined by perforation (Table 3).

With simple sole
With simple sole and internal grooves With sole and heel With sole and heel rims defined by perforation

TOTAL 81
In each one of categories, specificities were also identified, which in the case of shoeprints with a simple sole, some (rare) visible marks were observed that were interpreted as representations of straps.In contrast, one was identified in which the rim of the sole and heel was defined by perforation (Table 3).

With simple sole
With simple sole and internal grooves With sole and heel With sole and heel rims defined by perforation

TOTAL 81
In each one of categories, specificities were also identified, which in the case of shoeprints with a simple sole, some (rare) visible marks were observed that were interpreted as representations of straps.In contrast, one was identified in which the rim of the sole and heel was defined by perforation (Table 3).

With simple sole
With simple sole and internal grooves With sole and heel With sole and heel rims defined by perforation  Although the shoe is always bigger than the foot, the methodology used to establish age groups was based on the size of the feet, taking into account the specialised literature on human feet [16][17][18][19][20][21][22].Three dimensional intervals were created.The first dimensional range comprises engravings less than 23 cm in length; the second comprises engravings between 23 cm and 32 cm in length, and the third those more than 32 cm.
In view of these intervals, it has been found that the dimensions of the shoeprints are very varied, although they are inserted essentially in the first interval, i.e., up to 22 cm, which comprise feet smaller than this dimension.This occurs in 44 cases, which corresponds to 54% of the total sample.Note that among these shoeprints, there are 14 measuring less than 17 cm.The remainder were distributed in the second interval, in 29 cases, i.e., 36% of the sample, and in the third interval, with six cases, which corresponds to only 7% of the total.In this last interval there are 4 cases measuring more than 40 cm in length.There are also two shoeprints of indeterminate size (Table 4, Figures 6 and 7).They are different in relation to typologies.Shoeprints with simple soles correspond mostly to the group of smaller feet, wherein those with a heel have their greatest representativeness in the range from 23 to 32 cm.They are also the only ones greater than 32 cm.
It was also verified that both right-foot and left-foot shoes were shown in more or less similar numbers, either in pairs or individually, wherein the majority of pairs are shoeprints with simple soles, whereas the opposite is found for shoeprints with a sole and heel 5).As for the 40 shoeprints with simple soles, we identified 19 right feet, 20 left feet, and one undetermined foot.These are organised into 15 pairs and 10 individual pairs (Figures 8 and 9).
Percentage of shoeprints with simple sole, distributed in pairs and isolated They are different in relation to typologies.Shoeprints with simple soles correspond mostly to the of smaller feet, wherein those with a heel have their greatest representativeness in the range from 23 to 32 cm.They are also the only ones greater than 32 cm.
It was also verified that both right-foot and left-foot shoes were shown in more or less similar numbers, either in pairs or individually, wherein the majority of pairs are shoeprints with simple soles, whereas the opposite is found for shoeprints with a sole and heel (Table 5).As for the 40 shoeprints with simple soles, we identified 19 right feet, 20 left feet, and one undetermined foot.These are organised into 15 pairs and 10 individual pairs (Figures 8 and 9).As for the 40 shoeprints with simple soles, we identified 19 right feet, 20 left feet, and one undetermined foot.These are organised into 15 pairs and 10 individual pairs (Figures 8 and 9).As for the shoeprints with heel, of the 41 identified, 14 represent right feet and 12 represent left feet.The remaining 15 are not known.Some of these footprints form pairs, 11 in total, others appear isolated, as found on 17 occasions.It was not possible to obtain this type of information for the remaining two footprints (Figures 10 and 11).As for the shoeprints with heel, of the 41 identified, 14 represent right feet and 12 represent left feet.The remaining 15 are not known.Some of these footprints form pairs, 11 in total, others appear isolated, as found on 17 occasions.It was not possible to obtain this type of information for the remaining two footprints (Figures 10 and 11).As for the shoeprints with heel, of the 41 identified, 14 represent right feet and 12 represent left feet.The remaining 15 are not known.Some of these footprints form pairs, 11 in total, others appear isolated, as found on 17 occasions.It was not possible to obtain this type of information for the remaining two footprints (Figures 10 and 11).Regarding the orientations of the shoeprints, these occur in several directions, but there is a clear tendency for them to be oriented towards the northwest (Table 6).Regarding the orientations of the shoeprints, these occur in several directions, but there is a clear tendency for them to be oriented towards the northwest (Table 6).Shoeprints with simple soles, totalling 40, are mostly oriented to the northwest, although some are oriented to the southeast, north, west, southwest, and south (Figure 12).As for the shoeprints with sole and heel, 41 in total, these are also mainly oriented to the northwest.There are still some in the southeast, west, northeast, and southwest directions, with none oriented either north or south (Figure 13).Shoeprints with simple soles, totalling 40, are mostly oriented to the northwest, although some are oriented to the southeast, north, west, southwest, and south (Figure 12).As for the shoeprints with sole and heel, 41 in total, these are also mainly oriented to the northwest.There are still some in the southeast, west, northeast, and southwest directions, with none oriented either north or south (Figure 13).The technical aspects of the shoeprints were also taken into account in the study.It was verified that most of them were produced in low relief (74 cases), which corresponds to 91% of the sample.In turn, only five cases (6%) were drawn in a contour line, always through percussion, followed by abrasion, resulting in wide and U-shaped grooves.It is not known how two cases with soles were produced (Table 7).

Discussion of Data and Interpretations
The chronological-cultural question will be the first to be discussed.Due to the fact that there are no excavations carried out around these engraved sites, that could contribute with further data for their chronological and cultural insertion, horizontal stratigraphy was used, analysing the way the shoeprints were inserted in outcrops recorded with Classical Atlantic Art, and Early Schematic Art, considered to be older.Parallels with other similar, but contextualised, manifestations on the western façade of the Iberian Peninsula were also taken into account.
In the universe of 18 outcrops, shoeprints occur, as the only motif or with motifs that do not fall into any of the two aforementioned artistic styles, in eight outcrops, corresponding to 44% of the sample.In five cases (28%) they associate with Classical Atlantic Art; in four (22%) with Early and Late Schematic Art and in one case (6%) with the two aforementioned styles.
An attentive observation of each case made it possible to perceive that, when related to Classical Atlantic Art, shoeprints invariably appear in a peripheral position to the compositions that characterise them, as if they were additions.When associated with Early Schematic Art, the same thing happens.In this way, and since these styles have been dated from the Neolithic period until the Chalcolithic, i.e., since the 5th to 3rd millennia BCE [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], the shoeprints should be later, representing, in this case, phenomena of reuse of previous significant spaces.When related to Late Schematic Art, dated by Bettencourt [23] between the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age, i.e., the end of 3rd to the 1st millennia BCE, both are engraved on the periphery of these compositions and The technical aspects of the shoeprints were also taken into account in the study.It was verified that most of them were produced in low relief (74 cases), which corresponds to 91% of the sample.In turn, only five cases (6%) were drawn in a contour line, always through percussion, followed by abrasion, resulting in wide and U-shaped grooves.It is not known how two cases with soles were produced (Table 7).

Discussion of Data and Interpretations
The chronological-cultural question will be the first to be discussed.Due to the fact that there are no excavations carried out around these engraved sites, that could contribute with further data for their chronological and cultural insertion, horizontal stratigraphy was used, analysing the way the shoeprints were inserted in outcrops recorded with Classical Atlantic Art, and Early Schematic Art, considered to be older.Parallels with other similar, but contextualised, manifestations on the western façade of the Iberian Peninsula were also taken into account.
In the universe of 18 outcrops, shoeprints occur, as the only motif or with motifs that do not fall into any of the two aforementioned artistic styles, in eight outcrops, corresponding to 44% of the sample.In five cases (28%) they associate with Classical Atlantic Art; in four (22%) with Early and Late Schematic Art and in one case (6%) with the two aforementioned styles.
An attentive observation of each case made it possible to perceive that, when related to Classical Atlantic Art, shoeprints invariably appear in a peripheral position to the compositions that characterise them, as if they were additions.When associated with Early Schematic Art, the same thing happens.In this way, and since these styles have been dated from the Neolithic period until the Chalcolithic, i.e., since the 5th to 3rd millennia BCE [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], the shoeprints should be later, representing, in this case, phenomena of reuse of previous significant spaces.When related to Late Schematic Art, dated by Bettencourt [23] between the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age, i.e., the end of 3rd to the 1st millennia BCE, both are engraved on the periphery of these compositions and blended with them, so that they Heritage 2019, 2 50 may be later or of the same generic period.In relation to the overlaps, there is only one shoeprint partially superimposed by a Latin cross, of historical origin.
Thus, the shoeprints of Northwest Portugal probably arose at the end of the Chalcolithic, beginning of the Bronze Age, i.e., at the transition from the 3rd to the 2nd millennia BCE, having remained at least until the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age.
This proposal coincides with the chronology given to objects of this form or to other representations of existing shoeprints for the Centre and South of Portugal, as is the case of the pair of sandals, in limestone, engraved in one of the hypogeums of Alapraia [8,14] (p.238), dated from the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze; of the pair of sandals depicted in the Alentejo stele of the Ervidel I (Aljustrel), dating to the Middle Bronze [1,15] and the sandals associated with arms of the SW stele of Gomes Aires, inserted in the Late Bronze [34][35][36].
The engraving of shoeprints began to disappear at the beginning of the Iron Age, if we consider that steles with these motifs were reused in the necropolis of Pardieiro II and III, and these were considered prior to the sidereal epigraphy by Jiménez Ávila [37].
As to the origin of the shoeprints in Northern Portugal, considering that they are found in greater abundance in the Centre and the interior of Northern Portugal (Figures 14 and 15), the hypothesis is that in the most western façade they correspond to a manifestation which would have spread from south to north and east to west, by land and river, perhaps related to the movement of people, goods, and ideologies, within the framework of supra-regional exchange networks, having been assimilated locally at different rates.blended with them, so that they may be later or of the same generic period.In relation to the overlaps, there is only one shoeprint partially superimposed by a Latin cross, of historical origin.Thus, the shoeprints of Northwest Portugal probably arose at the end of the Chalcolithic, beginning of the Bronze Age, i.e., at the transition from the 3rd to the 2nd millennia BCE, having remained at least until the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age.
This proposal coincides with the chronology given to objects of this form or to other representations of existing shoeprints for the Centre and South of Portugal, as is the case of the pair of sandals, in limestone, engraved in one of the hypogeums of Alapraia [8,14] (p.238), dated from the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze; of the pair of sandals depicted in the Alentejo stele of the Ervidel I (Aljustrel), dating to the Middle Bronze [1,15] and the sandals associated with arms of the SW stele of Gomes Aires, inserted in the Late Bronze [34][35][36].
The engraving of shoeprints began to disappear at the beginning of the Iron Age, if we consider that steles with these motifs were reused in the necropolis of Pardieiro II and III, and these were considered prior to the sidereal epigraphy by Jiménez Ávila [37].
As to the origin of the shoeprints in Northern Portugal, considering that they are found in greater abundance in the Centre and the interior of Northern Portugal (Figures 14 and 15), the hypothesis is that in the most western façade they correspond to a manifestation which would have spread from south to north and east to west, by land and river, perhaps related to the movement of people, goods, and ideologies, within the framework of supra-regional exchange networks, having been assimilated locally at different rates.passage into adulthood would have taken place at an older age; another is that they belonged to a restricted social group, different from persons associated to shoeprints with simple soles, and who could, in some cases, officiate the rites performed by those who walked barefoot.A third hypothesis can also be put forward: that the rites of passage themselves implied a change of social status which, for some of the members, would imply the possibility of going from barefoot to wearing shoes.
In this category, there are still four shoeprints, i.e., 10% of the sample, whose extraordinary dimensions (greater than or equal to 40 cm), seem to indicate the importance, real or mythical, of the persons who recorded them or a reference to imaginary beings or persons who would participate in these ceremonies.
As for the orientations, the shoeprints of both types are oriented essentially to the northwest (60% in cases with simple soles and 76% in other cases), which correspond to sunset at the summer solstice.Some of these engravings are also directed to the southeast (10% in both cases), i.e., to sunrise at the winter solstice, and west (8% and 7%), which corresponds to sunset at the spring and autumn equinoxes.Some shoeprints are also oriented towards the southwest (3% and 2%), which corresponds to sunset at the winter solstice.To the northeast, i.e., to sunrise at the summer solstice, there have been only cases associated with characters with shoeprints provided with soles and heels.To the north and south, there are only a few cases associated with shoeprints with simple soles.Analysis of this data provides evidence for the hypothesis that the ceremonies performed in these places, although they may be related to trips associated with rites of passage or pilgrimages to places of great symbolic significance, took place preferably during the summer solstice, although, also at other important times in the solar cycle.This relates the possible rites of passage with the importance of the solar calendar and possibly to solar cults.It should also be noted that the sunset seems to have greater significance than the sunrise in the ceremonies underlying these recorded motifs.
It is concluded that, in the popular imagery of Northwest Portugal, outcrops with footprints and shoeprints are often associated with place-names and legends of Christian origin, almost always related to the journey or the pilgrimage of a saint prior to reaching a sacred place, which may reflect remnants of its original interpretation [12].This also demonstrates the great heritage potential of these places that "obstinately" persist in the memories of rural populations.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Identification of the study area in Portugal and in the context of the Iberian Peninsula.

LegendRiversFigure 1 .
Figure 1.Identification of the study area in Portugal and in the context of the Iberian Peninsula.
heel With sole and heel rims defined by perforation TOTAL 81

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.Percentage of, right and left, shoeprints with heel.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. Percentage of simple shoeprints, in pairs and isolated.

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.Percentage of, right and left, shoeprints with heel.

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.Percentage of shoeprints with heel, in pairs and isolated.

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.Percentage of shoeprints with heel, in pairs and isolated.

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Orientations of the shoeprints with sole and heel.

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Orientations of the shoeprints with sole and heel.

Table 1 .
Topographic location of outcrops with shoeprints.

Table 4 .
Number of shoeprints belonging to each typology, distributed across the different dimensional ranges.

Table 5 .
Shoeprints of right feet and left feet; pairs and individually.

Table 5 .
Shoeprints of right feet and left feet; pairs and individually.

Table 5 .
Shoeprints of right feet and left feet; pairs and individually.

Table 6 .
Orientations for the different types of shoeprints.

Table 6 .
Orientations for the different types of shoeprints.

Table 7 .
Technical aspects of shoeprints, related to their different typologies.

Table 7 .
Technical aspects of shoeprints, related to their different typologies.