The Supercontinent of Eurasia

[longly]

The Greeks are often credited with inventing geography, but in the very beginning of their geographic thinking they made a major mistake—one that, surprisingly, has never been fully corrected. Even though we’ve known for at least the last 500 years that their view was wrong, we still teach it today.

The Greeks believed the world was made up of three continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (their name for Africa). They saw Africa as connected to Asia but had almost no understanding of its interior. Despite all the exploration and mapping since then, we’ve continued using their basic framework for thousands of years.

But for at least the last five centuries, there has been no doubt that Europe and Asia are not isolated landmasses. A person could literally walk from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean—international borders and hostile governments aside—without ever leaving connected land.

So why haven’t we changed this? Why do we still teach that Europe and Asia are separate continents when they clearly are not? Europe and Asia form one continuous landmass, and we should call it what it actually is: Eurasia. India, too, is part of this larger super‑region, even though it sits on its own tectonic plate.

Some people—especially in fields like archaeology, anthropology, and geology—do refer to Europe and Asia collectively as Eurasia. But the general public, and most school systems, still cling to the old Greek model. Which is more important: staying with tradition or teaching what actually is?

 

[GLASNOST]

Why do you say North America and South America? If not for the man-made Panama canal you coule walk from the Northwest passage to Tierra del Fuego. And why Europe, Africa, and Asia. If not for the man-made Suez Canal you can walk from Cape Town to to Europe and all the way to Vladivostok. So, there should be only two continents.

 

[BackAgain]

On a large enough scale, all land masses are connected. At least at the bottom.

 

[longly]

Why do you say North America and South America? If not for the man-made Panama canal you coule walk from the Northwest passage to Tierra del Fuego. And why Europe, Africa, and Asia. If not for the man-made Suez Canal you can walk from Cape Town to to Europe and all the way to Vladivostok. So, there should be only two continents.

Isolated doesn’t mean an island. The ancient Greeks understood that Europe and Asia were connected across what we now call the Caucasus Mountains, but they still considered them separate continents. If you traveled in an easterly direction from the Atlantic Ocean, you would eventually reach the Pacific. But if you headed generally eastward from Egypt, you wouldn’t reach either ocean—you would encounter the Red Sea. The only way to move from Africa into Asia by land is across the Isthmus of Suez, a very narrow land bridge that you could easily overlook if you didn’t know it existed.

 

[braalian]

The Greeks are often credited with inventing geography, but in the very beginning of their geographic thinking they made a major mistake—one that, surprisingly, has never been fully corrected. Even though we’ve known for at least the last 500 years that their view was wrong, we still teach it today.

The Greeks believed the world was made up of three continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (their name for Africa). They saw Africa as connected to Asia but had almost no understanding of its interior. Despite all the exploration and mapping since then, we’ve continued using their basic framework for thousands of years.

But for at least the last five centuries, there has been no doubt that Europe and Asia are not isolated landmasses. A person could literally walk from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean—international borders and hostile governments aside—without ever leaving connected land.

So why haven’t we changed this? Why do we still teach that Europe and Asia are separate continents when they clearly are not? Europe and Asia form one continuous landmass, and we should call it what it actually is: Eurasia. India, too, is part of this larger super‑region, even though it sits on its own tectonic plate.

Some people—especially in fields like archaeology, anthropology, and geology—do refer to Europe and Asia collectively as Eurasia. But the general public, and most school systems, still cling to the old Greek model. Which is more important: staying with tradition or teaching what actually is?

Because there’s the cultural aspect, not just the physical geography aspect

 

[GLASNOST]

Isolated doesn’t mean an island. The ancient Greeks understood that Europe and Asia were connected across what we now call the Caucasus Mountains, but they still considered them separate continents. If you traveled in an easterly direction from the Atlantic Ocean, you would eventually reach the Pacific. But if you headed generally eastward from Egypt, you wouldn’t reach either ocean—you would encounter the Red Sea. The only way to move from Africa into Asia by land is across the Isthmus of Suez, a very narrow land bridge that you could easily overlook if you didn’t know it existed.

I have travelled the globe overland so I am familiar with geography. I went from Europe to Asia by way of the Bosphorus bridge because it is convenient and the shortest route but I could have travelled around the Black Sea instead. I also went from Lebanon to Egypt by boat because Israel doesn't allow overland passage plus there is the Suez canal. As far as the Americas go it is obvious. That leaves Australia and whether or not you consider it a continent. In the end "continent" is only a made-up word. It is not a geographic entity