We can look at the history of the landmass of Europe and Asia in two ways. We can lay stress upon the division into two continents with two substantially different traditions, the Occidental and the Oriental. The Occidental derives from the classical tradition of the Mediterranean societies of Greece and Rome, culminating in the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution of western Europe; while the Oriental comes from quite ‘other’ sources. Alternatively, we can place the emphasis on the common heritage of both parts of Eurasia from the urban revolution of the Bronze Age, with its introduction of new means of communication (the written word), of new means of production (of advanced agriculture and crafts, including metallurgy, the plough, the wheel, etc.) and of new forms of knowledge. The account that is embodied in much Western sociological theory, history and humanities stresses the first and the resulting division of the continents into West and East. Without wishing to deny the specificity of cultural traditions, including that of Europe, it is easy to exaggerate these claims, especially when our own society (very successful in these latter centuries) is involved. That is what I maintain has happened in much of Western thought and scholarship. The distinctiveness has been puffed up at the expense of the other, distorting not only the understanding of the Orient but of the Occident too.