I'd like to share my new website with you all:
http://AtlasoftheHumanJourney.com/ (http://atlasofthehumanjourney.com/)
It uses interactive maps to chart the story of hominid evolution and migration over the course of 7 million years. You can click on different dates to see the maps change over time and you can click on the archaeological finds on the maps to see pictures and link to more information.
Please give me any feedback with regards to any errors, site design, functionality, and content. Thanks.
(http://www.atlasofthehumanjourney.com/images/atlasofthehumanjourney.jpg) (http://atlasofthehumanjourney.com/)
Thanks. Be aware that we have rules about videos that might be deemed self promoting; especially since this is your first post. Might want to read the faq. But I certainly applaud your effort and I'd like to see it kept.
Thanks. I am not promoting a product, just a personal website I made about human evolution.
The Museum of Natural History (The Field Museum) in Chicago was one of my favorite haunts until I left Chicago at the age of 17. There was a display called The Dawn of Man which featured a series of dioramas of perhaps 7 or 8 cases of life sized wax figures depicting mostly family groups, showing the evolution of man doing things in life like natural habitats. While it was no doubt inaccurate by todays standards (much of we know about physical anthropology has greatly changed since the early 1960s, as recent readings have surprised me a great deal from what I learned in college), it was fascinating and one of my favorite exhibits.
I revisited the place a couple of years ago, and it cost me a $100 membership to get me and 3 other guests in. It used to be free. It was disappointing that the display was gone and replaced by a comparatively informative display, but quite lackluster in comparison. When I inquired about the old display to an attendant, a younger woman who probably had never seen it, told me it was removed, not because it was inaccurate (according to her), but because it was racist, although I certainly didn't recall anything racist about it. I'm not sure she had her information correct. However, it WAS inaccurate by todays standards. Many of the prehistoric groups which were thought to be direct ancestors, are now considered branches that went extinct, but were not part of our direct evolutionary chain.
Replacing it with an up to date series of finely detailed wax figures is probably too expensive for the best of museums today. I can't imagine what the original display would cost in today's dollars. I'd guess in the millions of dollars.
None the less, thanks for the link to your site. I like this kind of stuff.
SGOS ... probably PC racist ... since most cave man displays showed darker skinned ancestors, and they get more Nordic as you get to the present time. Given our shared African origins, it is likely that Australopithecines were pretty dark. Only those early Europeans that followed the retreating glaciers north after 10,000 BCE ... developed paleness to survive the hardy conditions of the far north ... their ancestors were probably more of the Mediterranean type, since that was where they were living during the height of the last Ice Age.
TonyT ... do they still have something similar ... on the National Geographic website? It was pretty informative 10 years ago. You might want to compare.
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 08:14:21 PM
SGOS ... probably PC racist ...
That was my assumption also.
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 08:14:21 PM
TonyT ... do they still have something similar ... on the National Geographic website? It was pretty informative 10 years ago. You might want to compare.
The National Geographic page you are referring to is about tracing the migrations of modern man using DNA. It is not about earlier hominids like Homo erectus, Australopithecus, etc.
I don't believe there is any other site quite like this one. At least I have not come across it. There are of course some book atlases about human evolution, but nothing interactive on the web like this.
Very nice. Seems that there is a problem with the pages HE and HS, can't seen to get the Sapien map, its shows erectus instead?
Really? The first time period for the map entitled "Age of Homo sapiens" is 130,000 years ago. This first map still shows the range of Homo erectus in Asia because they still existed there. Perhaps that is what you mean?
Wow. I like this!
Gerard
Nicely done.
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 08:14:21 PM
SGOS ... probably PC racist ... since most cave man displays showed darker skinned ancestors, and they get more Nordic as you get to the present time. Given our shared African origins, it is likely that Australopithecines were pretty dark. Only those early Europeans that followed the retreating glaciers north after 10,000 BCE ... developed paleness to survive the hardy conditions of the far north ... their ancestors were probably more of the Mediterranean type, since that was where they were living during the height of the last Ice Age.
TonyT ... do they still have something similar ... on the National Geographic website? It was pretty informative 10 years ago. You might want to compare.
Australopithecines didn't need to be dark. They had fur.
Gerard
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 08:14:21 PM
TonyT ... do they still have something similar ... on the National Geographic website? It was pretty informative 10 years ago. You might want to compare.
Quote from: TonyT on November 11, 2015, 01:21:48 PM
The National Geographic page you are referring to is about tracing the migrations of modern man using DNA. It is not about earlier hominids like Homo erectus, Australopithecus, etc.
I don't believe there is any other site quite like this one. At least I have not come across it. There are of course some book atlases about human evolution, but nothing interactive on the web like this.
To avoid confusion with the existing National Geographic website called “Atlas of the Human Journeyâ€, I decided to rename my site “Atlas of Human Evolution†and move it to the URL AtlasofHumanEvolution.com (http://atlasofhumanevolution.com).
The site is also now available in Spanish, click on the flag in the top-right corner.
Quote from: Gerard on December 13, 2015, 02:16:25 PM
Australopithecines didn't need to be dark. They had fur.
Gerard
I thought it was feathers. Who had feathers? I'm quite lost.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 01, 2016, 02:21:02 PM
I thought it was feathers. Who had feathers? I'm quite lost.
Australian aborigines have vestigial quills? I'm not sure......
Quote from: Gerard on December 13, 2015, 02:16:25 PM
Australopithecines didn't need to be dark. They had fur.
Gerard
The display in question at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, if I remember correctly, did not go back to australopithecines, although it was labeled "the dawn of man." There was one diorama, the first in the series, of a couple of hairy ape looking (supposedly humans) sitting around a fire, but I don't think they were australopithecines, because I remember them as being the size of modern humans. I believe the earlier humans were generally shown as darker skinned. It's possible this was a source of racist accusations, but the display featured cultural evolution as much as it did physical, and each display showed a cultural progression like hunting, domestication of animals, the beginnings of agriculture, the advancement of art, and development of advanced tools.
I questioned the racist accusation, because I would have criticized it more on inaccuracies due to recent additions to our knowledge base. The display was there in the 1940s, so was probably designed way before at a time when anthropologists were just beginning to piece our history together. It probably included species that are now known to be outside our direct lineage. In addition, so much has changed since the 1960s when I took anthropology courses, that my guess is that it simply became outdated.
It's been replaced by a fairly well done display focusing on australopithecines, but avoids the more daunting task of speculating about man's evolution beyond that.