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.

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.

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?

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_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/).

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.

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.

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.

No it does not imply that.