Rating: 
Summary: More than just maps
Review: The maps in this fine new historical atlas are as good or better than old standbys like The Times (or in the US, the Hammond) editions. There are some nice touches as well, such as breaking out of the standard North=Up orientation when it enables clearer portrayal of the movement of peoples or armies (for example, several pre-1900 U.S. maps are shown as if the reader is hovering over the Atlantic looking West).The DK atlas also differentiates itself from the pack by using more timelines, photos and charts to augment the maps. I found them to be extremely well-chosen, although the mixture of of maps, images and text can make it a bit difficult to navigate through the pages at times. Finally, this new atlas is so up-to-date it includes the new Euro zone and troop movements in the Kosovo conflict. DK's true distinction, however, is its superior treatment of Asia and Africa, both in terms of detail and in terms of a perspective that is broader than the exclusively Western view of most atlases. DK seems to be establishing a fine standard in all of their publications, and I can only hope that their competitors' next editions try to go them one better.
Rating: 
Summary: Political correct coffee-table book
Review: This atlas has kind of a coffee-table book feel. It's very good looking - at times, I think, a little too good looking. There's a lot of pictures where the space could have been used for more maps, and the maps themselves look good, but can be hard to read. A traditional four-color map can seem garish, but has the advantage that it's easy to distinguish different countries. The maps in this atlas seems to be designed to look good, more than being usable, so at times it can be difficult to distinguish between the different shades of green (or whatever color). That said, it's still an impressive work. One really gets a lot of maps for a very reasonable price, and a lot of eras and regions are covered. I may be Euro-centric, but I do think that the selection of maps is a little too political correct - e.g. the Roman Empire doesn't get significally better treatment than central American Indians, despite the indisputably larger impact on the world even as it looks today. Another example is that I haven't managed to find a map of the 10,000's March; something I'd have expected every serious historical atlas to contain - but maybe I just didn't look hard enough... World War II also gets dissapointingly shallow treatment considering the huge impact that historical event had. Still, despite disagreeing with the content selection, I'm very happy with having bought the book. It will still fulfill most of my needs as a casual history interested person, but my main impression is that it's mostly a politically correct coffee-table book.
Rating:
Summary: The most visually appealing of all the historical atlases
Review: This is probably the most beautifully laid out and graphically designed of the big 5 or 6 atlases out there. I had a few miscellaneous comments to make, and then I thought I would compare it with the Hammond Atlas, which is the other "big gun" out there. First, a few minor nitpicks. In the article on prehistoric man, they don't mention the age of Lucy of 3.6 million years. They do mention the species name, Australopithecus afarensis, but then although they mention the first genus homo was H. erectus in the main article, you have to read the other smaller print articles around the page to get the age figure. Also, there is no mention of ardipithecus ramidus, the oldest known pre-Homonid fossil, at 4.5 million years, or that we know of two different Australopithecines, africanus and robustus, representing a gracile versus a more robust species. One characteristic of the DK atlas is it is more topically oriented than some of the others. In the ancient history section, for example (my main interest), it has essays on "Growth of the City," "Trade and the First Cities," and the "Earliest Writing, Counting, and Calendars." But the biggest difference between the DK and the others is that it's divided up into two main sections--Eras of History, and the Regional Histories. The eras section contains essays such as "The World 1250-750 BCE" or "The World in 250-500 CE." The regional history section has the histories of the main geographic areas of the world, such as Europe, West Asia, North Asia, East Asia, Africa, South America, Australasia, North America, and so on. Within those sections you'll find specific articles such as "Europe After the Fall of Rome," or "Early Empires of West Asia, or "North America, 1865-1920." The DK atlas has 470 maps, 420 timelines, over 1000 photos, and a 20,000 entry index/gazetteer which is much more than an index since the entries include capsule biographies and histories of important events--a unique feature of all the atlases, and similarly there is a subject/index glossary that does the same thing. The Hammond atlas is the other major offering in this area. Compared to the DK, the Hammond reads more like a typical history book, with articles that go on for several parallel columns of unequal depth and accompanied by maps and various illustrations. The DK text is much more broken up into smaller paragraphs with different sizes of type, often relating to a photo or smaller map or other graphic. Although visually more striking than the Hammond, its approach is more disjointed as a result and I think harder to use and learn from. The articles also are somewhat more superficial as a result compared to the the competing atlases, especially the Atlas of World History by John Haywood and the Hammond and Oxford historical atlases. The DK has nicer, glossier paper than the others, which makes their maps and photos more attractive. Also the map colors of the DK are aften more pastel-like, whereas the Hammond often uses the traditional four-color map color scheme with bright red, green, blue, and yellow, which, after the DK, is a little garish and hard on eye, although they also have many maps with more subtle color schemes, so it's not a hard-and-fast distinction. One other nice feature of the Hammond is that it has a separate timeline at the beginning of book of 11 pages. Finally, the Hammond atlas is 373 pages and the DK is 352, including indexes, so they're pretty close in terms of length, and their overall dimensions are almost the same, so they're pretty equivalent there. Finally, one major advantage of the DK atlas, however, is that it has the most coverage of all the other areas of the world, besides Europe. The others are all more Eurocentric. The bottom line is I would say the Hammond atlas is the more informative and scholarly of the two, but the DK is more fun just to browse and page through. Depending on what you're looking for and how you like to use them, you might prefer one over the other. One last thing I'd like to mention is that the John Haywood atlas, although not as large and as comprehensive as the Hammond and DK, is also well worth considering. It's also excellent and only a fraction of the price of these two big volumes, and I think it does the best job of integrating the text with the maps and graphics. Hope my little comparison review helps. Happy atlas shopping, buying, and reading!
| 
