4 ms·

The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the

The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial story where Europe is the main character and everyone else is treated as secondary.

nflekkhnnn 11mo ago
No it does not imply that.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
pell 11mo ago
Similarly overlooked is the philosophy of the Americas before European colonization. A great read I recommend to anyone who’s interested: “ Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion” by James Maffie It obviously only focuses on the Aztecs so hardly a deep dive on all there is to learn.
- nuggetzs 11mo ago
  Thanks for the rec!
usrnm 11mo ago
The map certainly is not built in a eurocentric way. It does reflect the fact that the political history of Eurasia and the Mediterranean region are much better studied and better understood, but this is hardly the fault of the creator of the map. Do you have a better political map of the Americas two thousand years ago?
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- zamadatix 11mo ago
  There was a free alternative to this which always seemed to try more in this regard https://www.runningreality.org/#11/20/500&22.59154,-2.58791&zoom=4 https://www.runningreality.org/#11/20/500&22.59154,-2.58791&... but I've never actually known enough to say it was actually more accurate or not. At least towards the ~1600s the Americas look a lot more like the history books I saw in school.
- kbrannigan 11mo ago
  The timeline spans "3000 BC" to now, but BC/CE itself is a European framework. The Han Dynasty, Maya, and Kingdom of Kush all had their own calendars and ways of marking significant time. Yet this "world" history uses Europe's reference point as universal. So yes, the map reflects available documentation. But the very framework - organizing all human history around BC/CE - already embeds a European perspective. The bias isn't what the mapmaker included; it's that European systems became the unmarked "standard" for measuring when history happens. That's structural Eurocentrism: not intentional, but built into the tools we inherit.
  - vman81 11mo ago
    I'll allow it.
  - igogq425 11mo ago
    That's an extremely weak argument. Ultimately, it's about the numerical values. Where you set the reference point is secondary as long as you can convert. We could also set your birthday as the zero point. I'm not a Christian and I have to live with BC/CE too. I'm not saying that there is no Eurocentric perspective or that European understanding of history is not shaped by it. But we can reflect on this and correct it. Postcolonial criticism should not go so far as to see the BC/CE system as a structural mechanism of oppression. That's just ridiculous. You'd be better off dealing with concrete economic oppression instead of peddling this Foucault/Spivak/Said nonsense! Sorry for being so blunt, but it upsets me every time. I mean, what's the alternative here? Should we switch to the Mayan calendar now so that it's not so Eurocentric? That's ridiculous. A little Hegelianism (or Laoziism, for that matter) wouldn't hurt you!
santiagobasulto 11mo ago
You're implying this is some sort of "malice". It's not that authors are "Biased towards Europe". The reality is that, sadly, there's VERY LITTLE historical records in antiquity besides the ones in "Europe". For example, I'm from Latin America, and the most important empires in South America (Incas for example) were using writing systems based on threads and knots (called Khipu). Sadly, these records didn't survive. While Mesopotamia and Northern Africa were already using glyphs carved in Stone (and bones, and wood, etc). These had a much better chance of surviving. Then, what happened, is that modern "europeans" (starting in 200BC, roman times) invested a lot of time to research and learn about History. This is something MIND BLOWING. Most civilizations didn't even care about their predecessors (aside from deity or folk tales). And that's why what we know today about Parthia or Greece comes mostly from European sources. Don't get me wrong, multiple civilizations had the concept of "early historians", especially Chinese and arabs. But not everything always survives.
- prmph 11mo ago
  Then don’t present it as an Atlas of world history. It should be called an Atlas of Eurocentric history. Furthermore, we would have had much more records from non-european sources if many European explorers and colonialists had not gone on a rampage destroying whatever indigenous documents and history they could lay their hands on. As a Latin American I’m sure you know about how the conquistadors destroyed written records.
  - JKCalhoun 11mo ago
    I assume people will already understand that any purported compendium of history is necessarily incomplete.
    - psychoslave 11mo ago
      Always assume that information is unevenly distributed, this statement included.
  - santiagobasulto 11mo ago
zulko 11mo ago
This is also very true of the events reported in Wikipedia, see this animated timeline of (a hopefully representative set of) historical events reported in Wikipedia. Is really is "Europe meets the world": https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1l3xl8x/events_from_the_english_wikipedia_300_ce_today/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1l3xl8x/events_fro... I agree with others in this thread that this more probably "information-biased" than "eurocentric" on the part of the Atlas creator. Pretty sure they wish non-european history was easier to find and aggregate as it would make the project much more compelling (I certainly had this problem with https://landnotes.org/ https://landnotes.org/). I am hoping LLMs will do a lot of good at bridging gaps and surfacing world historical information that didn't make it yet to centralized projects like Wikipedia.
krige 11mo ago
This is a view that is way too self-flagellatory and incorrect if you actually use the map. The borders are included based on what sources are available and non-european entitities are documented longer than european ones, as long as they have left behind anything to base these borders on. When no definite borders can be traced, the map still offers names of dominant cultures in the region, in the same way whether they're, say, european Celts or south american Paracas.
mxfh 11mo ago
The most ignorant part of those types of projects is usually the projection of the idea of nation states defined by clearly communicated sphere of influence backwards way before the 1800s. That concept simply does not hold up. The uncertainty of borders was systemic before that and sometimes simply not a thing at all. Uncertainty visualization in geographic contexts never made it into mainstream visualizations and data formats so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(political_model) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(political_model)

nflekkhnnn 11mo ago

No it does not imply that.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

pell 11mo ago

Similarly overlooked is the philosophy of the Americas before European colonization. A great read I recommend to anyone who’s interested: “ Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion” by James Maffie It obviously only focuses on the Aztecs so hardly a deep dive on all there is to learn.

nuggetzs 11mo ago
Thanks for the rec!

usrnm 11mo ago

The map certainly is not built in a eurocentric way. It does reflect the fact that the political history of Eurasia and the Mediterranean region are much better studied and better understood, but this is hardly the fault of the creator of the map. Do you have a better political map of the Americas two thousand years ago?

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
zamadatix 11mo ago
There was a free alternative to this which always seemed to try more in this regard https://www.runningreality.org/#11/20/500&22.59154,-2.58791&zoom=4 https://www.runningreality.org/#11/20/500&22.59154,-2.58791&... but I've never actually known enough to say it was actually more accurate or not. At least towards the ~1600s the Americas look a lot more like the history books I saw in school.
kbrannigan 11mo ago
The timeline spans "3000 BC" to now, but BC/CE itself is a European framework. The Han Dynasty, Maya, and Kingdom of Kush all had their own calendars and ways of marking significant time. Yet this "world" history uses Europe's reference point as universal. So yes, the map reflects available documentation. But the very framework - organizing all human history around BC/CE - already embeds a European perspective. The bias isn't what the mapmaker included; it's that European systems became the unmarked "standard" for measuring when history happens. That's structural Eurocentrism: not intentional, but built into the tools we inherit.
- vman81 11mo ago
  I'll allow it.
- igogq425 11mo ago
  That's an extremely weak argument. Ultimately, it's about the numerical values. Where you set the reference point is secondary as long as you can convert. We could also set your birthday as the zero point. I'm not a Christian and I have to live with BC/CE too. I'm not saying that there is no Eurocentric perspective or that European understanding of history is not shaped by it. But we can reflect on this and correct it. Postcolonial criticism should not go so far as to see the BC/CE system as a structural mechanism of oppression. That's just ridiculous. You'd be better off dealing with concrete economic oppression instead of peddling this Foucault/Spivak/Said nonsense! Sorry for being so blunt, but it upsets me every time. I mean, what's the alternative here? Should we switch to the Mayan calendar now so that it's not so Eurocentric? That's ridiculous. A little Hegelianism (or Laoziism, for that matter) wouldn't hurt you!

santiagobasulto 11mo ago

You're implying this is some sort of "malice". It's not that authors are "Biased towards Europe". The reality is that, sadly, there's VERY LITTLE historical records in antiquity besides the ones in "Europe". For example, I'm from Latin America, and the most important empires in South America (Incas for example) were using writing systems based on threads and knots (called Khipu). Sadly, these records didn't survive. While Mesopotamia and Northern Africa were already using glyphs carved in Stone (and bones, and wood, etc). These had a much better chance of surviving. Then, what happened, is that modern "europeans" (starting in 200BC, roman times) invested a lot of time to research and learn about History. This is something MIND BLOWING. Most civilizations didn't even care about their predecessors (aside from deity or folk tales). And that's why what we know today about Parthia or Greece comes mostly from European sources. Don't get me wrong, multiple civilizations had the concept of "early historians", especially Chinese and arabs. But not everything always survives.

prmph 11mo ago
Then don’t present it as an Atlas of world history. It should be called an Atlas of Eurocentric history. Furthermore, we would have had much more records from non-european sources if many European explorers and colonialists had not gone on a rampage destroying whatever indigenous documents and history they could lay their hands on. As a Latin American I’m sure you know about how the conquistadors destroyed written records.
- JKCalhoun 11mo ago
  I assume people will already understand that any purported compendium of history is necessarily incomplete.
  - psychoslave 11mo ago
    Always assume that information is unevenly distributed, this statement included.
- santiagobasulto 11mo ago

zulko 11mo ago

This is also very true of the events reported in Wikipedia, see this animated timeline of (a hopefully representative set of) historical events reported in Wikipedia. Is really is "Europe meets the world": https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1l3xl8x/events_from_the_english_wikipedia_300_ce_today/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1l3xl8x/events_fro... I agree with others in this thread that this more probably "information-biased" than "eurocentric" on the part of the Atlas creator. Pretty sure they wish non-european history was easier to find and aggregate as it would make the project much more compelling (I certainly had this problem with https://landnotes.org/ https://landnotes.org/). I am hoping LLMs will do a lot of good at bridging gaps and surfacing world historical information that didn't make it yet to centralized projects like Wikipedia.

krige 11mo ago

This is a view that is way too self-flagellatory and incorrect if you actually use the map. The borders are included based on what sources are available and non-european entitities are documented longer than european ones, as long as they have left behind anything to base these borders on. When no definite borders can be traced, the map still offers names of dominant cultures in the region, in the same way whether they're, say, european Celts or south american Paracas.

mxfh 11mo ago

The most ignorant part of those types of projects is usually the projection of the idea of nation states defined by clearly communicated sphere of influence backwards way before the 1800s. That concept simply does not hold up. The uncertainty of borders was systemic before that and sometimes simply not a thing at all. Uncertainty visualization in geographic contexts never made it into mainstream visualizations and data formats so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(political_model) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(political_model)