Who Wrote History? The Western-Centered Narrative and the Invisibility of the Ottoman Empire

History is often regarded as an impartial account of the past. Yet which information is deemed “scientific” and which narrative is accepted as “universal” is closely tied not only to what happened in the past but also to the mentalities and cultural frameworks through which that past is interpreted. Studies in Türkiye on Western-centric historiography demonstrate that historical narrative does not merely record events; it also shapes knowledge cultural memory and identity. Jack Goody’s concept of “theft of history” provides a powerful starting point for understanding how this directive power becomes consolidated into a single dominant narrative.

Theft of History Representation (Generated with AI Assistance)

What Is the Theft of History?

According to Goody the theft of history is not simply the appropriation of past events. The core issue is the monopolization of the right to interpret history by a specific geography and mindset. Europe transformed its own historical experience into a universal standard defining concepts such as civilization progress and modernity according to its own model and presented these definitions as the natural framework of world history. As a result societies that followed different historical paths were from the outset positioned as “incomplete” or “delayed.” At this point history ceases to be merely a field that recounts what happened and becomes a narrative regime that determines whose experience counts as meaningful.

Who Stole What? History Through Time and Space

The theft of history is not a singular act committed by an abstract “West.” From the early modern period onward European traditions of history and the social sciences constructed a world history narrative centered on Europe’s own transformation. In this narrative Europe was not merely a subject writing its own past but also an authority defining the pasts of other societies.

What was stolen in this process was not individual technological inventions but the authority to write history. Time was organized according to periodizations unique to European history (Antiquity the Middle Ages the Renaissance the modern era) and when this framework was accepted as universal non-European societies were automatically labeled as “not yet” modern. Space was similarly structured through a center-periphery hierarchy in which Europe was portrayed as the source of progress and other regions as its delayed recipients.

Studies in Türkiye on how Ottoman scientific history has been written reveal that this discourse of “delay” is linked not only to historical facts but largely to mindset. History ceases to be a field in which diverse experiences can coexist and becomes a racetrack measured by a single civilizational trajectory.

Conceptual Framework: Civilization Progress and Modernity

At the center of Goody’s critique lies the conceptual language of history. The concept of civilization was defined according to European processes of urbanization institutionalization and state formation and then presented as a universal standard. Societies that did not conform to this definition were regarded as outside or behind civilization.

The idea of progress presents history as a linear and inevitable process. In this narrative Europe is the natural pinnacle of human history. The portrayal of the Ottoman Empire as a structure that “did not produce science” or “failed to modernize” is often the result of the uncritical application of this progress paradigm. Studies examining how the paradigms of modern science and progress were applied to the Ottoman context show that the problem lies not in historical facts but in the criteria used.

Modernity also ceases to be a neutral chronological label within this framework. When science rationality and institutions are defined by their European forms they become the benchmarks of modernity and alternative modes of knowledge production and institutional organization are declared non-modern. Thus modernity becomes not an explanatory category but an exclusionary label.

The Invisibility of the Ottoman Empire: Science Institutions and Mindset

The Ottoman example clearly illustrates how Western-centric historical narratives operate. Despite its long-standing state structure institutional continuity and production in various fields of science the Ottoman Empire is often defined in modern historiography by what it lacked. Claims that it had no university did not produce modern science or failed to follow the path of progress transformed the Ottoman Empire from a historical subject into an object of comparison.

This approach rests on a modern mindset that reads the Ottoman Empire not within its own historical context but against an expected model. Ottoman scientific and institutional structures were deemed inadequate because they did not perfectly match their European counterparts and alternative forms of knowledge production became invisible. This is not merely an issue of historiography but also of how Eastern societies are represented. When viewed alongside intellectual traditions that question the Western gaze on the East the invisibility of the Ottoman Empire emerges as part of a broader problem of representation.

Conclusion: Theft or Monopoly of Narrative Power?

Jack Goody’s concept of “theft of history” does not aim to erase the West from history but to question the dominance of a single-centered historical narrative. The problem is not that Europe wrote history but that its version of history was presented as universal and unquestionable truth. In this context the theft of history is less about the appropriation of the past than about the concentration of the power to define and represent the past in specific centers.

The Ottoman example clearly demonstrates how this power operates. The Ottoman Empire was not evaluated according to its own historical reality but according to the expectations of Western-centric concepts. Therefore the central question is not “Why did the Ottoman Empire fall behind?” but “Whose concepts shaped this history?”

Asking this question does not mean reclaiming the past but demanding that history be rethought in plural multipolar and comparative terms.