Core
Strong
Partial
Expansion
Attempted
Excluded
Settler origin
Taking their land · a chronological atlas of settler colonization
What this maps. Each stop is a documented settlement project, a case where outsiders came to stay, took control of land, and changed who held it. The atlas is comparative, not exhaustive, and it deliberately gives a Qing frontier or a Caucasus expulsion the same screen time as the cases everyone already knows. The point is the shape of the whole history, obscure corners included.
How cases are graded. The colored dots mark how closely a case fits the settler-colonial model, whether core, strong, or partial, with separate shapes for an expansion (a whole society moving into new land with no metropole behind it, from the Neolithic farmers to the Mfecane), an attempted project planned or begun but never completed, and an excluded case that looks like settler colonization but does not hold up, kept as a negative control. The grade rates the shape of the project, not severity, certainty, or moral weight, and it is one axis rather than a verdict. Each panel also names its kind of evidence, whether archives, chronicles, archaeology and ancient DNA, or oral tradition set beside colonial records. The grade can only see what the sources can show. The earliest expansions, known through reconstruction, sit at the edge of historical knowledge, and that is a limit of the evidence, not of the history.
Disputes are named, not smoothed over. Where the settler-colonial reading of a case is genuinely contested, as with Zionism before 1948, Xinjiang, West Papua, Tibet, Northern Cyprus, and the Sri Lankan dry zone, the panel says so and attributes the competing framings to the scholars and states that hold them, rather than splitting the difference into vagueness.
Numbers and sources. Figures are the ones historians actually defend, and where estimates diverge sharply the range is given rather than a false point value. Every case links its sources, weighted toward peer-reviewed scholarship, university presses, and primary institutional documents. Follow them. They are the argument, and the place to go next.
The map itself. The base map draws modern coastlines only, with no political borders of any era. Rivers, lakes, and the named ranges, deserts, and steppes fade in as the view closes, for orientation, and the oceans, seas, gulfs, and straits carry their names in italic over the water. They are today's physical geography from Natural Earth, simplified, and the shaded relief regions are approximate areas rather than surveyed edges. These small gray and blue names are modern conveniences chosen only to help a viewer orient, never period claims, and they are curated. A name appears only where it fits its own feature at the current zoom, and a frame drops names that would mislead or crowd rather than orient. The sepia names that surface with each case are different. Those are the period names the case's own sources use. The markers locate the affected land named in the scholarship, not exact frontiers. Arrows show the direction settlers came from, not migration volume or a real route. Small islands may carry a marker over open water where the base map is too coarse to draw them.
Names, not borders. While the atlas dwells on a case, the region names its own sources use surface on the land around it, Kemet and Kush, Rūm, Comanchería, the Pale, Te Waipounamu. A name spread over land says roughly where, and nothing more. Drawing period borders would invent hard lines the evidence cannot support, so the atlas names the land instead and lets the names change as the years pass.
Pacing and sound. Playback runs the cases in chronological order and slows to dwell on each settlement so there is time to read, while the timeline strip below compresses the deep past so a Bronze Age case and a modern one both get room. A low drone marks the passing years and a short tone marks each new settlement. The sound identifies events on the map and encodes nothing about human cost.
Build bf4bd643