When asked, “How Many Continents Are There?”, most people confidently answer seven. It’s a fundamental piece of geographical knowledge ingrained from elementary school. We learn to list them: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America. But delve a little deeper, and you’ll discover that the question of how many continents is surprisingly complex and less about definitive science and more about historical and cultural convention.
According to a 2017 paper published in the Geological Society of America’s journal, GSA Today, the very definition of a continent is somewhat ambiguous. The ‘Glossary of Geology’ defines a continent as “one of the Earth’s major landmasses, including both dry land and continental shelves.” While this seems straightforward, the paper highlights that the attributes of a continent are generally agreed upon to include:
- High elevation relative to oceanic crust regions.
- A diverse range of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.
- Thicker crust and lower seismic velocity compared to oceanic crust.
- Well-defined boundaries around a large area, distinguishing it from microcontinents.
However, the crucial point, as the paper notes, is the subjective nature of “major.” What exactly makes a landmass “major” enough to be classified as a continent? This is where the lines become blurred, and the seemingly simple question of “how many continents are there” becomes more nuanced.
Alt text: World map displaying the seven continents in distinct colors: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Antarctica.
Dan Montello, a geography professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, puts it plainly: “Nothing, really, determines a continent, except historical convention.” He explains that while certain characteristics might make a landmass more likely to be called a continent, there’s no definitive, scientific rule. The concept of a continent is, to a large extent, arbitrary.
Consider the example of Russia, a vast country spanning 6.6 million square miles. Geographically, it stretches across both Europe and Asia. The Ural Mountains are often cited as the dividing line between these two continents. But why? According to Montello, this division is largely due to historical preference. “The Ural Mountains are taken to separate Asia and Europe but only because Russians wanted their great city of Moscow to be European, so the Urals were a convenient marker for that arbitrary decision,” he states. This highlights how cultural and historical factors can influence continental divisions, rather than purely geographical or geological ones.
The idea of continents as “spatially contiguous collections of landmasses” larger than countries but smaller than hemispheres offers another perspective. However, even this definition has limitations. Continents don’t always fit neatly within hemispheres, further complicating attempts at a purely geographical definition.
What about plate tectonics? Shouldn’t the boundaries of these massive, shifting plates define continents? Montello dismisses this idea too. “Plate tectonics has nothing to do with it historically, and it certainly could not provide a principled basis for continents now; nearly every continent includes parts of multiple plates, and continental boundaries are not, and have never been, defined by plate boundaries.” Continents are not synonymous with tectonic plates.
Climate, mountain ranges, continental shelves, and coastlines also fail to provide clear-cut, scientific definitions for continents. Continents encompass diverse climates, and geographical features are not consistently continental boundaries.
Even cultural or political links are not reliable determinants. “Neither ethnicity, race, culture, nor politics has ever defined continents, except by conventional theories that were largely mythical,” Montello clarifies. Political affiliations can further blur the lines. Hawaii, for instance, is part of the U.S. politically but geographically located in Oceania. Greenland, while politically connected to Denmark, is considered part of the North American continent.
So, if science doesn’t provide a definitive answer to “how many continents are there?”, what does? It boils down to convention and historical agreement, which can vary depending on who you ask and when.
While acknowledging the lack of a single “authoritative answer,” Montello concedes that a seven-continent model (Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America) is widely accepted among geographers today. However, he also points out common variations. Some geographers combine Asia and Europe into Eurasia. Others might define Oceania differently or merge North and South America into the Americas.
Alt text: Illustration depicting continental drift over millions of years, showing the breakup of Pangaea and the gradual separation of continents to their present positions.
The reality is, there’s no global authority dictating the “correct” number of continents. The answer to “how many continents are there?” is not a fixed, scientific fact but rather a matter of widely accepted geographical convention. And even these conventions are subject to interpretation and debate.
Adding another layer of complexity, continents are not static entities. The Earth’s continents are constantly moving, drifting at a rate of about an inch (2.5 centimeters) per year due to plate tectonics. This phenomenon of continental drift means that the shape and configuration of continents are continuously changing over geological time scales.
In conclusion, while it’s convenient and common to speak of seven continents, understanding the true answer to “how many continents are there?” requires acknowledging the historical, cultural, and somewhat arbitrary nature of continental definitions. It’s a fascinating reminder that even seemingly basic geographical concepts can be more complex and nuanced than they initially appear. The continents are, in essence, what we agree they are.
